Talk:Rhine

Is this an article?
See Project:Bodies of water. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:04, 6 Aug 2005 (EDT)

There is also some discussion on Project:Votes for deletion.

Article Topics
It's been a long time since I was there (1990) but I would think Along The Rhine makes sense. There are boat tours (as I recall ours was from Mainz to Koblenz; you can get off and stay in quaint villages and hostels in castles (Schloss something-or-other) and drink sweet white wine (Gewurtztrauminer). These are some really small places so I'm not sure if there would be articles for them.  I see no article for Weisbaden, maybe I'm missing it.  There is Rhine Valley - which also doesn't exist - perhaps a redirect to there?--(WT-en) justfred 14:04, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

Is this an itinerary?
Does (or could) this article qualify as an itinerary? ~ 61.91.191.8 09:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I've made it into a kinda-sorta disambig now. My gut feeling is that this is one of those exceptions that prove the rule, as there's a lot of Rhine-themed tourism etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

VFD discussion
There seem to have been inconclusive debates about this article a decade ago. I say delete it as a violation of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I we should consider the policy based on the fact we now have ExtraRegions. The Rhine is a major focal point for tourists visiting Europe. Would to me be a big gap in a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an extraregion, and a pretty clearly defined one. It could be expanded into an itinerary or left as an extraregion, with more information added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the violation of policy? It is tagged as an extraregion, so there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - If we keep this article, we have to seriously ask ourselves the question: Do we want an article about every river in existence? And if not, how and where are we going to draw the line? I see nothing that makes the Rhine "so special" that could not similarly be said about dozens of other rivers, including the Mississippi River, the Huangho or even the Volga Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say that any long, important river that is itself an attraction, currently has plenty of river traffic, and is lined with appealing places to visit probably would merit an article, either an itinerary with links or some kind of region or extra-region article. That definitely includes Mississippi River and Yangtze River; I'm not sure about Yellow River (Huang He) or Volga. By the way, do you notice that there are Along the Yangtze River and Along the Yellow River itinerary articles, though the Yangtze one is better developed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Judging by that, we need to have a serious debate on whether to update our current bodies of water policy. While I fully agree that some of those articles can be worthwhile if done right (after all, Ruta del Tránsito is basically "along the Rio San Juan" with a bit of Lake Nicaragua and Pacific Nicaragua thrown in), there does exist the potential for half empty articles on every. river. in. existence. If we say yes to Rhine and Danube, what about the Oder? It runs along a major international border, after all. What about the Neiße? Görlitz lies along it. And what about canals? Rhein and Donau are linked, after all. I mean yes, itineraries could cover the more well known of those, but just having articles on rivers because rivers exist strikes me as... silly, in absence of a better term. It's not like we have (more than) enough outline articles of certain types already. And I think we should have a debate on our bodies of water policy, which has become rather diluted, so to speak. Sorry for the pun. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * China also has Along the Grand Canal, quite undeveloped. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the test for bodies of water, as for any other subject, should be whether there is enough content, or at least potential content, for there to be useful articles about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Bodies of water needs updating. The key point is "We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water" [emphasis added] with the following caveat: "Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy." Itineraries and travel topics about traveling on or near bodies of water are also mentioned. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, though, feel free to start a new discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am certain, that reading Australian media with clusters of travel adverts for river cruising, there are only so many rivers in the world where the conditions are ok for travel (that is length, type of boat, and adequate conditions for travel by tourist craft) with enough material to justify an article (thus perhaps allaying Hobbitschuster's anxiety about do we want an article about every river, the answer is a very definite no) I think that criterion should be where adequate information is available (same as Ikan's comment about adequate or poential content), and where genuine tourist travel occurs. There are not that many.JarrahTree (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes are approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep".  Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still in favor of deletion as there is no good target for redirection and the article in its current form does not provide much value for anybody. Furthermore it creates a slippery slop towards similar "extraregions" for each and every river which would violate if not the words than the spirit of our bodies of water policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is going to argue for the creation or retention of articles about every river and creek. JarrahTree and I gave you a standard above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to another admin to resolve this nomination since I am biased towards resolving as "keep" per my earlier comments. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ikan Kekek, how do you know? What does the Rhine have that other rivers don't have? If we keep this and articles like Lake Constance we can just as well change our bodies of water policy to "We have articles on bodies of water whenever it tickles our fancy". Most people would probably have never heard of the Rio Coco or the Rio San Juan, but to the Miskito people the former is next to sacred and at least as important as the Rhine was to many Germans in the past and the Rio San Juan plays a similar role in disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica as did the Rhine in thankfully long gone days. We have a region named after an official term based on the river (Rio San Juan region) but unlike the Bodensee disaster we don't have another article on the body of water itself. If we keep this river and Danube as well, how can we convincingly argue for the deletion of any other river article? If someone creates an article on the Nile, surely we can't delete an article on the longest (or second longest) river in the world that gave rise to one of the most important civilizations in world history, if we have an article on the Rhine. And once that article exists, how do we argue against one on the river Congo? We could of course do that and expand the scope of WV in that way. But quite frankly, there should be a consensus to change policy. I cannot see anything at Bodies of water that would allow the retention of this article and neither can I find anything in favor of keeping Danube. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you're reading Bodies of water, but please read Bodies of water, Bodies of water, Bodies of water and the third sentence of Bodies of water. I'm sorry, but I don't see your slippery slope argument as having any real substance or relevance. If there's ever an article about the Kill Van Kull or Newtown Creek that people want to keep, maybe you'll have a point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)