Wikivoyage talk:Slippery slopes

I'd agree with this. There is relevant information, and then there's information just for the sake of it. eg. in my partial list of 'tips for aeroplane travel' I said something like 'the aeroplane will most likely have piped music available through your headset, but this does not always work. If you don't like silence or prefer your own choice of soundtrack, take a walkman CD player, a small but carefully chosen selection of cds (ones that you feel you can listen to over and over again without getting bored), and spare batteries.' I wouldn't bother to go into a list of what I consider 'good cds' because that's entirely a matter of personal preference!

I'd think that a list of venues to go and hear live music in an area is relevant with a brief explanation of the sort of thing that you'll hear there... but if somebody wants an indepth article on Somalian folk music this isn't really the place for it. It's really a matter of commonsense :) (WT-en) KJ 22:14, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)


 * Just have to throw my $0.02 in that commonsense is far from common ;-) (WT-en) Majnoona

Moved from travellers' pub

Do you plan to include something about the psychological aspects of (especially long-term) travel? I'm thinking of things like homesickness, loneliness, feeling alienated, sensing that you may be running away from things, getting to know yourself in ways you wouldn't expect, and how to deal with them. I realize these can be quite personal, but I also think it might be an idea to include them. When I started in 1990 I couldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams who I was going to be after 3 years of travelling. (Don't misunderstand me: I have no regrets that I did it!) Any opinions? (WT-en) D.D. 13:27, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)


 * I really don't see any reason not to include psychological aspects, it gives the wiki a touch that won't be found on many other websiter or in travel guides. (WT-en) Andreas Holstenson 14:46, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)


 * Two things: first, Wikivoyage is not a travel essay anthology; it's a travel guide. See Project:goals and non-goals for details. That said, there are other ways of seeing travel, and I figure psychological issues fit in there somewhere. It's a fine line and will probably be figured out from experience. -- (WT-en) Evan 15:28, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)


 * Yah, I'm not sure how far down the Travel Tips path we want to go. There are a lot of sites, books, magazines that cover 'Arriving in a new city', 'How to survive a long trip', 'Safety for women', 'How to travel with children', ect etc. I think all of us have had amazing travel experiences and learned a lot from them, but it's not the same thing as destination guides. Certainly tips specific to a place or country belong in the guides, but maybe not too much general or emotional advice.


 * Well, my plan for the day is to write some general 'tips' articles. I think that they belong in here because they are directly related to travel and travel planning. Before I planned my 3-month odyssey I had no idea how to go about it, and it doesn't hurt to share the wisdom I gained. I think there's room in here for anything that can be brought into the heading of 'travel information'. It's not like we're about to run out of space or headers... (WT-en) KJ 15:53, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)


 * OK, I can see a place for practical tips. Maybe I'm just burned out on them (writing travel tips is a hobby), but I'm also worried that things can easily turn into a personal conversation with people exchanging experiences. If it's possible to relate the tips to a destination or itinerary-- like packing for a month odyssey to X place-- then that sounds great. I have a bunch of old articles I could add if we're going to create a space for this.


 * Maj and I were chatting on LRC* about the problem of generalized 'tip' articles, and I think we both felt that there were valuable kinds of "travel tips" and ones that didn't make a lot of sense for a travel guide. So I wrote up an article called Project:Slippery slopes about how things that may seem Wikivoyageworthy can slip into nonworthiness. Please take a look and comment there. -- (WT-en) Evan 17:52, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT) * "Living room couch"

So I'd like to add a general "Slippery slope" that seems to come up a lot: lists for lists sake. This has been discussed in a couple of places, and the Slippery slopes page address some specific instances (lists of books, lists of music) but I'd kinda like to get in there the whole "pineapple shrimp, coconut shrimp, fried shrimp, garlic shrimp" principle... any thoughts on this? (WT-en) Majnoona


 * Well, my main thought is that it's kind of not parallel. Everything else on this page deals with subject matter, not format. I know what you're getting at, but... I also think that lists, although not in our preferred format, are often a good way for people to initially input data. Maybe it would better as part of the Project:Manual of style... say, Project:Avoid lists? --(WT-en) Evan 16:55, 15 Jan 2004 (EST)

Bookshelved
There's probably a better place on Wikivoyage to put this http://bookshelved.org/ link. Maybe on Project:list of related projects? --(WT-en) Evan 11:12, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)

Thanks for pointing me at Project:list of related projects -- I found it useful. You're right, there is a better place to put links to other wiki. Project:WikiNode. -- (WT-en) DavidCary

This should redirect to Wikipedia
Proposal: Let's make this a soft redirect to wikipedia:Slippery slope.

Rationale: This policy page has been cited hundreds, or possibly thousands of times, most often in policy discussions. However, those citations are about the "slippery slope" argument in general, while the actual text of this policy is not about slippery slopes as they relate to decision making, but is instead a list of potential slippery slope topics in article text. Since the extlink policy, obvious, What is an article? and Where you can stick it cover everything from this policy and do a better job of it, and since having policy pages that contradict one another or duplicate information needlessly is a usability problem, there doesn't seem to be a need for this separate article. The fact that this article hasn't received any non-formatting edits since its creation in 2005 is another good indication that it may not be needed.

As an unrelated aside, wikipedia:Slippery slope is worth considering when citing this page:


 * The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

-- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 17:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We should never ever redirect any policy page to Wikipedia. Why would Wikipedia policy be applicable here? Globe-trotter (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, the redirect to Wikipedia isn't to a policy page, it's to an article about the "slippery slope" argument, which is what this page seems to be exclusively cited for. Second, I can't think of any time that this "policy" page has ever been cited for the policies that its text states it is to be used for - instead, it is cited when something is believed to be an example of a "slippery slope".  We could outright delete it, but that would entail cleaning up hundreds of inbound links, so a redirect to Wikipedia seems like a way of not breaking inbound links while at the same time pointing to what people actually think they are linking to when they cite something as a "slippery slope". -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We're an independent project, a soft redirect to Wikipedia suggests Wikipedia policy is in effect here. I do agree that the information on this page seems a bit useless or unfocused, but it can just go through the regular vfd process. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any other opinions? I'm concerned about vfd'ing a page with so many inbound links, but per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikivoyage:Slippery slopes the number isn't nearly as high as I originally thought, so a VFD might be reasonable. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * &rarr; Votes for deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)