Open main menu

Wikitravel β


Revision as of 12:03, 15 September 2009 by WT111 (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I am sure there will be questions of whether this follows the What is an article? requirement. I think Besakih ranks the same as Uluwatu and Tanah Lot, and maybe Machu Picchu as an example outside Bali, all of which are isolated landmarks with a growing number of facilities surrounding them. Their names are more known than the region or district they are located in. Slleong 01:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Sure, but is there a reason not to cover Besakih as a part of Mt Agung, the way it is now? Jpatokal 04:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)
1. I believe the bulk of visitors see Besakih independent of and not linked to Gunung Agung as a destination, thus you will probably get more besakih searches and hence a redirect to Gunung Agung, a bit roundabout way of getting to your desired page; 2. If Besakih was subsumed into the Gunung Agung page, details on Besakih may end up taking up most of its space 3. The gunung agung page should be thought of as purely a "how to climb gunung agung" page? :) Slleong 12:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Most of our mountain articles (eg. Mount Fuji) cover both climbing and not-climbing activities. We only have one paragraph's worth of content on Besakih, so I see no need to split them at this time. Jpatokal 23:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I agree with Jani—Besakih doesn't really meet the criteria for a separate article, and Mt Agung barely does as well. Together they would make a better developed travel article than they would apart. I say merge this content into Mount Agung. --Peter Talk 13:45, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
I sympathise with view of Slleong above and it is quite correct that visitors to Bali would not necessarily see Besakih as part of Mount Agung as far as destinations are concerned. However, it is hard to imagine how there could ever be enough content for Besakih to make a fully developed article (absolutely nobody stays there for example). I agree with the proposal to merge the article into the far more developed Mount Agung article and having a section covering Besakih there. Now that the Mount Agung article has been fully developed with climbing routes, advice and an account of the 1963 eruption, it will certainly not be swamped by details of Besakih. And I suggest that article should be renamed "Mount Agung and Besakih" with a redirect from each of Mount Agung and Besakih. Any objections? --Burmesedays 22:20, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
I could definitely live with that. Jpatokal 07:59, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
Return to "Besakih" page.