Talk:Lake Titicaca

Body of Water
Does this Body of Water article fit with the Project:What is an article? ? -- (WT-en) Mark 07:51, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * There are several islands to visit and interresting places on the shores, so I think it deserves an article.


 * Can you sleep there? That's the usual rule of thumb.  Or is there a destination nearby for which this is the main attraction.  If so we usually redirect there. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:25, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * There are several islands where it is indeed possible to sleep. (WT-en) Ronald 13:55, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * Because it is being pointed to as a precedent to start similar articles on es:, I'd like to re-open discussion on this one. I'd argue that it should be redirected to Copacabana because it is, as Mark said, a nearby destination for which the lake is the main attraction, and it is the main gateway through which tourists explore the lake area. The places to sleep are already contained in the respective island articles, and any interesting place on the shore is going to have its own article as well. Unlike Lake Baikal, in this case I don't know that it's all that logical to use it as a region article. Plus I can't imagine much of anything else that could be added to the article as it is; all it can really contain are a few scientific facts about the lake, and a short list of links to the three islands you can visit, which makes for a very un-wikivoyage-like article, in my opinion. Thoughts? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Texugo (talk • contribs)

VFD Discussion

 * Redirect. Is this an attraction or a region?  I think it is essentially an attraction, and should redirected.  However, it may be a region of islands, in which case we should probably rename it to Lake Titicaca Islands to avoid possible confusion.  I understand this is a bit of an unorthodox vfd, but I know there are views on what to do with these sorts of articles, so I think this makes a better place than the article talk page.  --(WT-en) inas 21:35, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

IMO, it's a valid region article, although the article needs the rest of the section headers. Since there is no clear deletion rationale here, I don't think a vfd is appropriate. The vfd page is a magnet for controversy & barn burners, as it is the only page where we do not follow Project:Consensus strictly. Accordingly, I think this discussion would be better suited to the article's talk page. If we can't figure out what to do with bodies of water as regions, that's something that will need to be resolved via policy discussion and consensus before we can safely use the vfd process. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:21, 11 June 2010 (EDT)


 * There seems to be enough islands in the Lake to make it a reasonable region article. I prefer the current title over Lake Titicaca Islands, but if it needs to be moved, it's not a big deal. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:02, 11 June 2010 (EDT)


 * We have a clear policy on bodies of water. The first line of our policy states We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water.  This is a destination guide about a body of water.   I understand this issue is contentions, but it really is down to anyone who thinks we should have destination guides about bodies of water, to build the consensus to change it.  There is a clear deletion rationale for an article about a body of water, like this one is.  However, in line with our deletion policy, articles about major attractions should be redirected.
 * I accept that a valid region guide may one day be created for this region, and I wouldn't object to that. Right now we are dealing with an article that is not a region, but rather about an attraction, and the attraction information should be moved, and the article redirected.  --(WT-en) inas 19:35, 11 June 2010 (EDT)


 * And following that line is Some land regions are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about those bodies of water, and this style guideline does not apply to them. For example, the Lake Tahoe region in California is named after the lake there, but it is about the towns, national parks, and ski resorts that ring the lake. We should have a guide to Lake Titicaca, and it should of course focus on the towns and relevant islands, rather than the water itself. The fact that the article is currently a stub is not a deletion rationale, and how to fix it up is a question for the talk page. A merge & redirect doesn't make sense—would you copy the information about the "attraction" to each and every town on the lake?


 * There is contention about the bodies of water policy, what it means, and how to apply it, and the vfd page is a bad place to hash it out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:34, 11 June 2010 (EDT)


 * I've no intention of arguing the ins and outs of the bodies of water policy here.
 * This article is about an attraction, and like any other attraction it should be merged and redirected. We do this for every other attraction - even ones which can be reached from several places. The author of the text surely had no intention of creating an article about a region.  If you want to make this article about something else, a region, or whatever - then by all means go ahead, however in general I would argue for a more methodological approach to regioning, rather than taking attraction articles and applying a region template to them. --(WT-en) inas 23:50, 11 June 2010 (EDT)


 * There are also a number of towns such as Puno and Copacabana in the lake region. The lake spans the border of Bolivia and Peru, half in each. This seems to be analogous to the Great Lakes region, which has a regional article, though the Great Lakes has been expanded beyond a stub. The Lake Titicaca region seems to have three natural subregions: Islands, Bolivian Coast, and Peruvian Coast. Each of those subregions breaks down into multiple towns or islands, and has things to see and do. (WT-en) Bill in STL 18:19, 22 July 2010 (EDT)


 * Keep, but turn it into a region article. (WT-en) Pashley 08:32, 29 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Current consensus seems to be to keep this article as a region. Any further comment? -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 14:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Converted to a region article. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:37, 15 September 2010 (EDT)