Talk:Chiayi County

Listings war
I dont know, I don't really see the point of countless listings without further information.

People can get these listings out of Wikidata/Wikipedia (see OSMand), Openstreetmap or Google Maps. What is the point having all of them on WV without further information? Is it really necessary to have a dozen temples listed? What for, if there is no additional information in them?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ceever, Hi there. I added what I could find (that I thought would be interesting to travelers) for now and planned to come back and add some extra stuff to it later (or in the hope that someone else might, given that this is a collaborative platform). I agree that people could get this information from other sources as well; the purpose for having it here is (by my reckoning) twofold: 1) it's collected in one place, and 2) it's curated. If you feel that something I've added doesn't belong here, or isn't noteworthy (or whatever else), then feel free to delete, amend, expand, etc. (Also, what's with the "war" in the title? Who am I antagonising? Asking because I'm genuinely curious) Kdm852 (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, but there are hundreds of listings on WD/OSM (e.g. restaurants, etc.) ... where do you draw the line? I believe, the line should be drawn there where a listing is actually helpful to the traveller and in addition extra content is added for a listing (specific travellers experience and comment) on WV which is missing on other platforms. Duplicating stuff on WV which is available elsewhere and in a more comprehensive way is not meaningful IMHO. If I want a complete listings of temples, I will certainly not refer to WV, I will just pop up my OSM or Google Maps and search there ... it will also give me a more up to date version. WV is far from up-to-date, adding additional stuff which seldomly gets updates is likewise far from meaningful.
 * Travellers want information that they would expect on WV, not stuff they can find elsewhere. Ceever (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree on both counts. First, I didn't add a full list of temples (obviously I wasn't clear enough above), I added a list of temples that (in my opinion) would be of interest to travelers (although I haven't added the descriptions yet). Second, I think this site is meant to be a guide and should contain information travelers would be looking for, not only that information that isn't available elsewhere. Otherwise, trying to find information on sights and facilities would require a traveler to scour dozens of sources and consolidate the information themselves (without the advantage of context or experience). Interested to hear if/why you disagree. Cheers. Kdm852 (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think, travellers are interested in restaurants, cafes, doctors, travel shops, viewpoints, locations of each bus stop, supermarkets, boot repair shops, sim card shops, and a hundred other topics ... let's copy it all over from GM, OSM and WD ... and never again bother about have it up-to-date. 👍 I looked through your other edits of counties, half or less of the temples have relevant information included. Ceever (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, they would, and if they're relevant, they usually are included (SIM card shops located in tourist sites, borders, airports, etc). I'm not sure why you implied that I don't think information should be up-to-date. It is starting to seem to me like you're creating a strawman of my points to attack them, which is quite poor. As I said previously, I am looking through the information I have to hand, trying to identify what I think would be interesting to travellers, and adding that to the relevant articles. I am not trying to write the entire articles (in complete form) on my own. I am, however, adding what I can and trusting that the community can add in what they know (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the point of this site). I also mentioned earlier that I update these pages intermittently and that I have added what I found in one go, and plan to come back and fill in more of the details later (unless someone beats me to it). You correctly noticed that some of the other pages I've edited are missing information; just as some of the other pages I've edited have had the missing information filled in by other WV users. Again, as I've said before, I don't really understand what your objection here is. If you think anything I've added is not relevant to travellers, then you're quite able to remove it with justification, and if you think relevant information is missing, you're more than welcome to add it in. Kdm852 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may: I really appreciate all the information you've added to our coverage of Taiwan, but I hope that we don't have long lists of mere names without even any location information for very long; those aren't useful and if basic information isn't added soon, they should be moved to this talk page until there is sufficient information for them to be of any use to a reader without doing a web search outside this site. It makes articles look bad when we provide a lot of useless names without any other information. So my question to you is: In about what time frame do you plan to add at least location information for those temples? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhat of a strange question given that all the temples I have added had the location information already when I added them. It doesn't really help tourists much to add attractions to the list if you don't say where they are. As for the rest of the information, I don't have a schedule for when I plan to add it, it's whenever I get time to do it (I've done so for a couple already). Kdm852 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OSMand temples taiwan.jpg
 * Here are all the temples. Took me 20 sec ... not dozens of sources.
 * My point is, this inflation of (non-informative) listings is neither good for travellers, future editors nor the up-to-dateness of WV, which already is terrible. It is trying to solve a problem which does not exist and which if ever existent is already covered by GM, OSM and WD/WP.
 * It is good if you add additional facts on listings that really help travellers, but all non-informative listings really to not add value but the contrary IMHO. Ceever (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, you have written a reply that doesn't really relate to what I actually said in the first place. Here's what I said above: "trying to find information on sights and facilities would require a traveler to scour dozens of sources and consolidate the information themselves (without the advantage of context or experience)" I didn't say that it would require dozens of sources to find all the temples in Taiwan. What I said was that finding all the information on a WV page would require a traveller to check dozens of sources: transport, hotels, sights, necessary information, langugage tips, etc. If you recall, I also mentioned (more than once) that the list of temples I added is not an exhaustive list of those in the area (like the one you provided), but a curated list of those which I felt would be interesting to travellers.
 * I disagree that the list is not good for travellers for the reason I have just stated; that it is not good for editors since it is a framework upon which more information can be added later (like everything else on this site); not good for keeping WV up-to-date particularly as many of these temples have been there for decades (or centuries) and the information is VERY unlikely to change much (unlike hotels, restaurants, etc).
 * It also seems that you fully expect travellers to use other sites to complement this one to get further information (as you've said users can get info on some things from Google, WP, etc). If that's the case, then what is the real problem with having a curated list of the interesting temples in the area which travellers can use as a reference to find further information (at least until such time as editors such as ourselves have included all the relevant information here)? Kdm852 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you likewise do not want to see my point. You have a very specific view onto the situation, and I believe it can be questioned, as I tried to explain. I am telling you the overall situation and what seems to be common sense with the other editors here. But since this is an isolated matter for Taiwan, I reckon it does not really matter and someone will hopefully clean out the load of unnecessary duplication in a few years ... or a script will do so. Or you could be lucky and people actually picked up where you left and filled these numerous skeletons with something useful - let's see. Just don't be not frustrated when the cleanup occurs and all your work for nothing. 🤷 Ceever (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. Kdm852 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "expect travellers to use other sites to complement this one to get further information (as you've said users can get info on some things from Google, WP, etc)" No, that's exactly wrong. The entire point of this travel guide is that you shouldn't have to refer to other sites. Leaving mere names without other information is exactly the wrong thing to do. Since you don't plan on adding any information, I am likely to move all the mere names here quite soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point I was making. I was trying to argue that users shouldn't have to refer to other sites. That's why I was trying to add information even if it was also available elsewhere (I just haven't finished yet).
 * "Since you don't plan on adding any information, I am likely to move all the mere names here quite soon." I said the exact opposite earlier (just that I don't have a clear schedule on when I will get around to it), so I'm wondering why you are accusing me of having no intention of adding more information? The fact that I've already started to do so should make it pretty clear that this is a false accusation. Kdm852 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for misunderstanding what you posted above. I'm glad to see your clarification. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll get to adding the info as soon as I get a chance. Kdm852 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)