The Biological corridor is a government protected area (similar to a forest reserve) which is within the Aguacate Mountains. Although the are named after the mountains, this Area is Unique and not synonymous with the mountains. An Example from North America that is similar would be Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve - which is a management designation by the government - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains_Forest_Reserve. Or Rocky Mountains National Park - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_National_Park. both of with are named after the much broader region - the Rocky Mountains. BrunoBosque (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of examples of parks, forest reserves and conservation areas in the Rocky Mountains that bear the name "Rocky Moutains" that are not the same as the Rocky Mountains. I live in Palmares and know the locals would not consider this biological corridor (conservation area) the same as the mountain range as a whole. Bruno is doing a good thing for our region in trying to get our information on the wiki sites. It would be really nice for a lot of businesses in our area if you would support him in this and help him. Rather than taking down his work. MarisolMata7 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

No-one is suggesting deleting information. The only question is where the information is best placed. Not everyplace gets its own article on this site, per Wikivoyage:What is an article. But you might want to link the talk page where the idea of merging and redirecting this page was suggested, because no-one has suggested that on this talk page, making it seem like you two are arguing with a suggestion that does not exist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well my original plan was based on seeing how it's done on the German or North American sites. If you look at the Alps or the Rockies, often individual mountains, parks or areas have their own pages under the Alps or the Rockies. My thinking was that I'd take a few places at a time, get a page up and then reach out to the local businesses and parks to get their information added as they send it to me. That way we could get Costa Rica (or at least the central valley) properly documented on the site. I hadn't added too many listings yet because I was waiting to see if the page was OK from the perspective of you folks who review this stuff. But now everyone locally is nervous to send me stuff because they think this is all just wasted effort. So I'm uncertain if I should keep working on this page until some kind of ruling has been made. BrunoBosque (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nothing will go to waste. It will either stay here or be moved to Aguacate Mountains. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This region would be similar to a "Forest Reserve" where there can be towns within the reserve. But it is not a "Park" per se. So I'm not sure which template to use? BrunoBosque (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

We use a Wikivoyage:Region article template for Adirondacks, which includes a number of small towns. Which article template to use is a bit of an art, though. You can see a list of article templates at Wikivoyage:Article templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Assuming they don't delete this page, I will use your advice. The help is mucho appreciated. BrunoBosque (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Who told you this page might be deleted? There is a merge template on the page, questioning whether the information on it should be merged and redirected to another article. No-one is suggesting deleting the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The stub on the first page suggests that one of the two pages has to go. So it doesn't seem to make sense to continue working on this article until I know what is happening. I'll confess this is discouraging. I can understand why there is so little information on Wikivoyage.org about Costa Rica. If it what they want is a 70 page article on everything in the moutain range or the biological corridor squeezed into one article I will try to figure that out once I have a ruling. BrunoBosque (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why were the stub tags, the merge tags and IsPartOf removed from the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some comments: I've mentioned this several times: Wikivoyage articles do not have ref tags or "Reference" sections"! Please stop adding those. In addition, it's vital to remember that if this article is on Wikivoyage, it has to be a travel guide, not a scholarly article about geology or geography. For example, if "biological corridor" needs a detailed encyclopedic description, we are using the wrong name, and indeed, "biological corridor" is not a common English expression, thereby failing Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. I'm going to suggest changing the article title to "Aguacate Mountains Nature Preserve", with the Spanish title in parentheses in the first sentence of the article (not the article title).

But what about a template? I deleted the "Cities" section because it was really about cantons, and we don't have any articles about Costa Rican cantons. I think this should have a park template, and instead of incorrectly deleting the "stub" tab on a stub article, I suggest adding the rest of the required sections of the park article, especially IsPartOf, which, when correctly filled out, will de-orphan this article and make it part of the Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation structure of this website. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will wait till tomorrow, and if my remarks are ignored, I will simply do these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

No disagreements here – and thanks for giving this article some well-needed love. :) //shb (t | c | m) 07:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because of disagreements about the title in the Pub, I will hold off on changing it, but "biological corridor" is a problematic expression. "Green corridor" or "wildlife corridor" have been suggested as options. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Either Corredor Biológico Montes del Aguacate, one of those or a title avoiding the term. The English term should be used (and explained in short – explicitly or implicitly) in the article itself. The connection between corredor biológico and "green corridor"/"wildlife corridor" should be obvious, so doesn't need to be explained. –LPfi (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I think the current description in the lead does a good job at describing what the "corridor" is about. No further explanation, not even mentioning the term, is necessary. –LPfi (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC))Reply

There was nothing obvious about the term "biological corridor" to this native English-speaker who had a graduate education through a doctorate, so I really don't think you're right that it's obvious, and you're being unintentionally insulting, considering that I started a thread in the pub about the title and hadn't thought of the alternative expressions you brought up. "Green corridor" and "wildlife corridor" are hardly common expressions like "wildlife preserve" or "natural monument," at least in the U.S., which in the case of English-language terms is inevitably the reference point for a U.S. citizen residing in the U.S. (no cultural imperialism intended). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I seem to have been careless in expressing myself. I don't mean that you should have understood the term – I myself have been interested in the topic, so I am biased regarding what terms might be familiar – only that the terminology in Spanish and English are similar.

Anyway, anybody tweaking the lead (or Understand) makes decisions on what needs to be said explicitly, which depends on the exact wordings.

The current lead explains what a green corridor is about and uses the word "corridor", which I thought is easy to connect with the corredor biológico in the native name.

–LPfi (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, the term corridor/corredor is understandable.

What do you think about IsPartOf? Is this park an extra-region (in which case, breadcrumbing it to the mountain range is good) or is it all or mostly in one of the regions shown on Costa Rica#Regions? And I guess the other question that we haven't resolved is whether to merge these contents into Aguacate Mountains, which as I wrote on that article's talk page I would favor, mainly because that article is mostly just a more or less long list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

A corridor isn't really a park, and in fact, typically connects two parks (or wildlife refuges). In Costa Rica there are more than 40 of these, most are fairly small and not really important to travelers. I also have misgivings about promoting a biological corridor as a travel destination because doing so can negate its value as a conservation tool (if people start tromping through the area, the wildlife will stop using it and may well became more endangered). But then I also have ethical misgivings about promoting Biosphere Reserves and Ramsar sites since those are also environmentally sensitive and most (deliberately) have no tourist infrastructure.

In the case of the Aguacate Mountains, I would advocate merging Aguacate Mountains and El_Camino_del_Cielo_y_Colibríes into Aguacate Mountains Biological Corridor. Certainly 3 topics about a marginally useful travel topic is more than excessive.

Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why would it be best to merge and redirect the article about the larger Aguacate mountain range to the article about this part of it? I'm persuadable, but that idea is a bit counterintuitive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am sympathetic to the concern. Depending on the recommendations of the authority maintaining the site and other informed parties, we might want not to have the article. SINAC does link to a site on sustainable tourism in the area. I assume there are worthwhile places to see some of the habitats without causing too much interference, such as perhaps the linked itinerary more or less along the north-eastern edge of the area.

If we keep it, I think having an article that fits into our geographic hierarchy is better than having extraregions for the same purpose. I assume that the current corridor article can be breadcrumbed to Central Valley (Costa Rica), while the mountains span three of our regions, and their article cannot be but an extraregion.

Aguacate Mountains can still be useful, if we add some prose and link the suggested destinations and other mentioned places to our articles about them (or articles that cover them).

"El Camino del Cielo y Colibríes" is an itinerary, and little can be left if we merge it in somewhere.

–LPfi (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

There are various problems with this article that I address in the Talk:Aguacate Mountains Biological Corridor#What to do with this article, but one I'd like some opinions about is the article title itself. I deleted a paragraph-long ref-tagged definition of the term "biological corridor" in this edit, and my position is that the phrase is not used in vernacular English and therefore violates Wikivoyage:Naming conventions, and also that if English-speakers require a long definition to understand what it means, it's the wrong phrase.

Would any of you disagree with renaming the article "Aguacate Mountains Nature Preserve"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that we should use a translation of our own for the page name – the name most commonly used in English may indeed be the native one. If we make up our own name, it should probably be a descriptive one, not pretending to be a proper name. There may even be some legal difference between nature preserves and corredores biológicos in Costa Rica.

We should indeed not have definitions like the one you removed in our articles. Nonetheless, we should mention the English term (perhaps green corridor is the handiest) and explain it in short.

–LPfi (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

But does "green corridor" really have the same meaning? Also, a simple way to avoid the issue of whether a translation is official or not is to simply use lowercase: "Aguacate Mountains wildlife preserve" (or whatever). But being concerned about legal names is highly un-Wikivoyage. We have no articles about the Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Korea, the Arab Republic of Egypt or most of the other official country names, and we expressly avoid debates on whether or where there are de jure borders. Instead, we have Wikivoyage:Naming conventions and Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes. So I suggest banishing legal definitions from this discussion. Having said that, isn't the park we're discussing quite big and not just a little green corridor like the one depicted in the Wikipedia article you linked? Is there anyplace in an English-speaking country called "X Green Corridor" or "Y Wildlife Corridor" that passes Wikivoyage:What is an article? I doubt it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I intended to suggest using the lower case. We don't need to think to hard about legalese, but using a misleading term isn't good.

The article I linked and w:es:Corredor ecológico linked from there suggest that corredor biológico indeed is synonymous to green corridor. For large such corridors, see Barakee National Park, which is described as such, citing an authoritative English source (I think I rescued the article because of a discussion here, but cannot recall details). That park is smaller, but not by magnitudes.

Depending on species, corridors like those shown in the Wikipedia articles may suffice, but some cautious ones might need corridors of significant width, like these parks. If the distance is long (in relation to the species), the species need to be able not only to move along the corridor, but to live and thrive there, to allow the next generation to spread further along it. Of course, the parks may also have other functions, even when founded mainly as green corridors. I assume the images were chosen partly to show the corridor aspect clearly.

–LPfi (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would object to any translation or invented term. The article as-is has the official name. The term "biological corridor" is what is used in Costa Rica, and if you search on the name, you'll find references to the official SINAC page describing biological corridors here: https://www.sinac.go.cr/EN-US/CORREBIOLO/Pages/default.aspx

As you can see in that article's map, there are more than 40 biological corridors in Costa Rica. Whether '''ANY''' of them deserve an article is a worthwhile question since these aren't destinations intended to be tourist attractions. In fact, the ethical traveler will stay FAR from the biologial corridors, which were established for wildlife to move between protected areas. When humans invade those corridors they scare away the animals, some of which may well end up in a far worse conservation status than if the travelers had stuck to the national parks and areas that provide good tourist infrastructure. (I have the same complaint about including Biosphere Reserves or Ramsar sites, and we do indeed have articles on those).

As another matter, I suggest merging Aguacate Mountains and El Camino del Cielo y Colibríes into this article since they are all of fairly low traveler value and all 3 articles describe the same area with slightly different spins and details.

Comments? Mrkstvns (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is now forked. I think I mistakenly answered your question in Talk:Aguacate Mountains Biological Corridor#What to do with this article. Anyway, I am not sure that we should avoid articles on such corridors, Ramsar sites and nature reserves in general, in the cases where there is sustainable tourism and visitor infrastructure sanctioned by the responsible organisations (and informed parties seem not to criticise these too heavily).

Often income from visitors is key in keeping the locals positive to the preservation efforts, and thus to their success, and harm can be kept to a minimum by directing visitors toward less sensible parts of the area (such as having a birdwatching tower at respectful distance). In this case, there are roads through the area, and some more traffic, by visitors, may not significantly increase their impact. The SINAC does refer to a programme of sustainable tourism.

Tourism to sites of ecological value has a positive educational effect, as long as it is arranged in sustainable way. What sites to recommend differs between regions, and some of them may happen to be in a nature reserve or at a Ramsar site – or in a large green corridor as in this case. Lists of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and Ramsar sites are available on the net, and also us having them probably isn't bad, at least if we add information on whether visits should be avoided. We might want to link to destination articles for some of the sites, while adding a note on "no tourist infrastructure – visits not recommended" on the rest.

–LPfi (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"No visits recommended because of lack of tourism infrastructure" is very different from "Responsible tourists should consider steering clear of this area to avoid causing environmental damage," but the latter sounds preachy and would be very likely to be deleted as not in an appropriate tone for Wikivoyage, so a wider discussion may be needed on Wikivoyage talk:Tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I tried not to preach, but there might be better wordings conveying the intended meaning more clearly without preaching. Linking "visits not recommended" (or whatever we come up with) to Sustainable travel could perhaps make our view clear (we should add a mention of this issue somewhere near the top of the article). –LPfi (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

See also Wikivoyage:Africa_Expedition. Pashley (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply