Talk:Delta Works

VFD Discussion
This article is not about a destination nor a region but rather about 17 individual attractions, which to me makes it a non-article, plus those attraction are spread out over a 90km-diameter area that crosses parts of both Southern and Western Netherlands. I suggest that we should tell about the individual attractions in the articles of whatever cities they are likely to be visited from, and put a blurb or infobox in the country article to give the general info, and then redirect this article there.


 * Merge and redirect - (WT-en) texugo 08:30, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Geez, that's a truely bold and unfriendly step, when a new but regular user is working on something :S A note on the talk page or some normal discussion first would have been a lot less discouraging. I was expanding this existing article after a discussion Globe-trotter and I had on Talk:Netherlands. Although the full Delta works contain dikes and sluices across a larger area, it's not at all 17 individual attractions. Neeltje Jans park is the main informations centre, and Haringvlietdam, Maeslantkering, Westerscheldetunnel and Oosterscheldekering are the only ones that have any kind of visitor's facilities, the others are just dams. Individually, they are simply uninteresting. Splitting up the Delta works into individual mentions in village-articles would show an absolute lack of understanding of what this is and what makes it interesting. It would be of very limited use for travellers. However, I'm quite done so do whatever fits the rules. (WT-en) Justme 09:13, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Agree with Justme, a pretty harsh way to deal with this as we were trying to get the article in a better shape. A discussion on the Talk page would have been a better. Anyway, it's not 17 individual attractions, you can't visit most of them. For visitors, the Delta Works are centered around the Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier and the Neeltje Jans park that comes along with it. There is also a visitor's centre at the Haringvliet. These have significance for travelers interested in technological achievements, and separately are just dams. Only taken together it could be an interesting story to read and have relevance to the traveler. I think something in the line of this article could at least be written somehow, if it's not in this form, then as a travel topic. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:40, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Wait and see. As the joint architects of this article are a WT veteran with many thousands of excellent edits to his name, and a relative newcomer who has already done lots of very good work, I would like to see where they are going with this idea.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:19, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Oh come on guys, VfD isn't about feelings-- I don't doubt that the information itself is useful and will definitely fit in somewhere; I'm just suggesting that this isn't the way to do it, and I'm putting it here because this is where everyone else will see it. On the talk page there, only those working on the article are likely to see it and I'd like to see a broader take on this. It definitely shouldn't be a destination/region page of its own, as it's never going to have significant Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep/Contact/Get out sections. If it is, or parts of it are, indeed an actual park, maybe it should be treated that way, or perhaps if there is actually enough to say about it to make a sort of travel topic or even an itinerary (are people actually likely to make a point to visit more than a couple of these things?), that could potentially be ok too. What I am suggesting is that, as poorly as it fits our hierarchy and as little info as it has, it could probably be covered in country, region, or destination articles that already exist. I do think it could "be an interesting story to read"-- in an infobox in the main country article. What we have so far would totally fit there, so don't take this as some mean-spirited jab. (WT-en) texugo 11:59, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * It would be way too much content for the country article. The Netherlands See section already has information about the Dutch' fight against the sea. Adding all this info there would overcrowd that article big time, and would be unhelpful, as its not general information about the Netherlands. Pretty much every guidebook to the Netherlands writes about it this way, I wouldn't know why it has to be different on Wikivoyage. If you have suggestions on how to deal with this, I'm open for it, but adding each dam to some random nearby village would not make any sense as its the overall project that's interesting, not each individual dam. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:38, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Again, I said what we have so far would fit there. I wouldn't expect a travel guide to go into nearly as much detail as Wikipedia regarding the engineering, chronology, operational details, commissioning, and conceptual framework, and the Wikipedia article isn't even that long. I'm also supposing it's not necessary to give much info on anything that can't be visited anyway. If, however, there actually is so much more to say about it, I'd urge you to retool this as a travel topic, since there isn't really going to be much to fill Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep/Contact/Get out that won't fit into actual destination articles, and since it is geographically spotty. (WT-en) texugo 22:09, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Keep It seems like a legitimate itinerary article or travel topic to me. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 11:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Keep. Interesting article. It may be better worked as a travel topic, owing to its complex geography, but that is an issue properly worked out on the article talk page, not here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 13 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 21:38, 13 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Keep. Changing it to an itinerary article of travel topic seems a good idea. (WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 08:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) wrh2 16:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)