# Talk:Driving in Madagascar

What will be our redlink example now??? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk changed it to Catholic Church in Sint Maarten! We just have to wait another 9 years for someone to write that article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Going forward, I've written Wikipedia:Red link/History of the example red link. :D  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever: I'm not following why you see it as necessary to remove in-text attribution to the government of Madagascar's role in the World Bank study. Maybe it makes the study more reliable, maybe it makes it less, maybe neither; the whole point of that kind of attribution is to be transparent with the reader and let them draw their own conclusion. The WB report is in this regard a primary source by a party with a financial stake in the matter, and should be handled with care. It's not like this is a long, bloated article where we can't afford to have eight words clarifying Madagascar's role in the study. Could you please self-revert? Thanks.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. That superfluous bit about the government of Madagascar isn't in-text attribution. In-text attribution serves to attribute that a statement is an opinion of a certain source; this goal is already completed by the "2018 World Bank report" bit. The government of Madagascar was not an author of the source, and adding that they helped fund it is just an extra detail to the source.
Yes, the fact that they help fund it helps a reader draw a conclusion about the reliability and credibility of the source, but so do a million other things (e.g. where an article was published, how much it was cited, if other people in the field disagree with it). We don't give all that information in the prose: It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal (WP:INTEXT). This is an issue in other parts of this article's prose.
I will not self-revert, but revert me if you wish. I will not edit war. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Very well, I've restored the previous wording, for reasons explained in the edit summary.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason? Driving in Madagascar is the sort of title I would expect in a travel guide, like Wikivoyage. Road transport in Madagascar looks more like an encyclopedia article. I see that we have several articles titled "Driving in (country)", and several titled "Road transport in (other country)" I have not noticed any overlap where there is both a "Driving in (X)" and a "Road transport in (X)". Am I missing something? Is there any difference in scope based on the titles? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The title was based on Driving in the United States. I don't really know that the "driving/road transport in (X)" articles really have a consistent scope between them; this topic area lacks the sort of consistency that we see in the articles about railroad systems in a particular country. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, if there's some effort to standardize titling/scoping in this topic area, I wouldn't have an issue with a move if that's how things shook out, but as things stand I don't see one as inherently superior to the other and thus favor the status quo.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that "Road transport in (X)" has a clearer scope and looks less like a Wikivoyage travel topic, so would support a general shift to that style for road transport titles, but am not going to push the point at this stage. As there are a lot of both it should be a broader discussion to justify standardisation. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
(It seems that in at least some cases there is a difference in scope, see below. I have not checked whether this is generally applied consistently.) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I looked at Driving in the United States. The scope of that article is more clearly about the activity of driving a road vehicle. This article includes more general information on road transportation. Road transport in the Unites States is also covered more generally by a large section in Transportation in the United States#Road transportation, which may at some time be split out into Road transportation in the United States as has already been done for others like Air transportation in the United States. Madagascar also has a higher level transport article Transport in Madagascar which appears to use excerpts from Driving in Madagascar for the road transport section, so does not really cover road transportation any more than does Driving in Madagascar. Both these points suggest that the scope of this article would more appropriately be Road transportation in Madagascar, and therefore that would be a more appropriate title.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Is driving in Madagascar restricted to driving passenger transport vehicles? What is the actual intended scope of the article? Please ping with reply. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Hmm. Good point. I'm not sure how much there is in reliable sources on this, but there's at least a bit. I'll take a look.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright, found a bit on crop and water transport.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It all helps. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"Place, Person and Ancestry among the Temanambondro of Southeast Madagascar"
1996 doctoral thesis, some stuff about the cultural impact of roads  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Muddling Through in Madagascar
Per Ridiculopathy. 1985 book.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't get it. What are "Stray sources"? Ridiculopathy (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, just my way of saying sources that are not currently in the article but could be.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see. Its a great book btw, I could try dig it out and add some stuff to the article from it? Ridiculopathy (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be awesome. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this title is more in line with the article's scope. Thoughts? Zanahary (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, this article seems to be about cars, vans and trucks (i.e. driving) specifically. For instance, cycling is possible on roads, as is walking (there are very few sidewalks in Madagascar). This is consistent with other page titles, like Driving in Singapore, whereas Road transport in Australia indeed has a section on bicycles. At least this is how I see it. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The article discusses oxen and pousse-pousses in its descriptions and history of Madagascar's roads, neither of which are automobiles. Adding a section on bicycles would definitely not be out of scope for the article. Zanahary (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
If you were to add a section on bicycles then I would probably not be opposed to a page move. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)