Talk:List of car-free islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Places in Brazil?[edit]

Many islands, that are in brazil deep in the amazonian might be inhabited, yet, car free. --Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps street view can be used to verify if a place is car-free or not[edit]

I add this as it is a way to verify, thought it is not a source in itself.

Why has been the article been destroyed?[edit]

The article was initially car-free places. Why was it renamed in car-free islands? Most islands in the world are car-free actually...one should include so many inhabited islands, islands.

Why is there so much will to reduce the number of places mentionned here? As for the user that has removed one island in Ouagadougou which has been recently made car-free. Local press at least felt it was worth writing about it, even if it's a low-motorisation countr? Kamil_Hasenfeller (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2023

Yelapa, Jalisco, Mexico should also be included, as it has a noteworthy population and supports tourism. It is not technically an Island surrounded by water, but it is definitely a town that matches the Island definition 2. "a thing resembling an island, especially in being isolated, detached, or surrounded in some way." It does appear that someone changed the title from Car-free places without discussion. There is very little information on Autoluw places in the world... the wiki article hasn't even been translated! Oldarney2 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of a car-free place?[edit]

Much of the debate on this page has centered on what is or is not a car-free place. Could someone please look up how the car-free movement defines such a place and add it to this and the main page? Then, we should let the wikipedians who know best decide which places conform to the definition, and debate it right here!

Some possible questions such a definition should answer: How car-free is car-free? (Are buses allowed? Is there peripheral parking?) How must they be populated/used by humans? (Certainly the north pole is free of cars, but I don't think it would be considered a car-free place because it's also civilization-free!) How big must they be? (My house is car-free, except the garage!) Must they be public? Do large indoor shopping malls count? How about farms, where tractors and other equipment drive around? You get the picture. Az7997 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One year later: some guidelines really should be placed in a preface. The U.S. section says "single car free streets... [are] not sufficient to merit inclusion under the current standard" but then proceeds to list not just NINETEEN "single car free streets" but also several other systems of dubious merit (basically single promenades or walkway systems). Such lack of standardization makes the list nearly useless.
Places in developing nations that are car-free by default (i.e., residents cannot afford cars) should not be included; this list should be restricted to places which have made a conscious decision to exclude cars.
I do not believe that grade-separated, enclosed walkway systems, like those in downtown Montreal, Minneapolis, or Charlotte, belong here -- they are not strictly public places, do not connect buildings which are in any way car-free, and often serve to leave grade-level streets connecting the same buildings even more car-dominated than before, thwarting the goal of car-freedom. Paytonc (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will give a general ad-hoc definition for the article's preface:

  • Mostly pedestrianised.
  • Urban
  • Villages
  • With places with car free

It is evident we should not include forests, at least those that are not close to urban centres. (There was the urban forest of east of Paris, which is passed through by busses, cars, and is cut by cars in 2 places).

There are several levels of car-free"ness".

Complete bans, partial bans, periodical bans (Paris very very centre is closed every other sunday). Some bans are in whole neighbourhoods, some are city wide.


Paris[edit]

Hi, I can't find any evidence that the mall from Odéon to Place Monge is car-free. Did you mean Odéon to Port-Royal which would mean jardin du Luxembourg + avenue de l'observatoire which is car free? I hope I am wrong and there is a car free lane from Odéon to Place Monge! REgards Phil of Bristol 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

In spite of it I have been there, and it is.

--2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:95B7:DCA0:134B:8DE7 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete as well as add[edit]

Not all the entries currently meet the criteria listed at the top of the page. Please delete entries which are too common to be listed, and add new ones. --Erauch 05:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional guidelines[edit]

Help is available on editing a page.

If you have a web link for the place, add it like this: |[http://www.hahnenklee.de/deutsch/willkommen.htm Hahnenklee-Bockswiese] || Entire town || 2,500 || Town in the Harz mountain area

If the place stands out, its name should have a beige background: add |bgcolor="#dddd88" at the beginning of the line:

|bgcolor="#dddd88"|[[Freiburg]] im Breisgau || Large carfree center || City 200,000; Carfree areas perhaps 10,000? || Medieval university town; a very small amount of car traffic is permitted on some streets; trams provide access

In the few cases where the place is almost completely carfree (green background), add |bgcolor="#88dd88":

|bgcolor="#88dd88"|[[Zermatt]] || Entire town || Probably 20,000 or so || Carfree Alpine resort with prototype "Utility Area" at the entrance; slow electric taxis and freight vehicles used, although these are sometimes driven at higher speeds --Erauch 17:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Freiburg[edit]

I think Freiburg's role as a car-free town is a little bit exaggerated. I live in Freiburg, even in the mentioned Vauban area.

Even in the Vauban area there are cars. Lots of cars, actually. Inside Vauban, there is only one section (called "Genova" [1]) which is actually car-free. This section consists of 73 apartments. That's it.

The rest of the houses is directly reachable by cars. Of course there is reduced traffic, but this is nothing special for German residential areas.

Best regards, --zeno 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated?[edit]

Should we spell it as car-free? Some people, like me, misread carfree as “Carefree”.

Absolutely! I have made this change in the page, such that it now conforms to the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms recommendation. "Carfree" is certainly a neologism, whereas car-free is simply hyphinated words describing the movement. Az7997 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan under US section?[edit]

First, I deleted Peachtree Center in Atlanta, simply because it doesn't meet the criteria in any way, shape or form (nobody lives there, car intrusion still exists, etc). Additionally, its entry seemed biased, as though a tourism ad.

My main question is this: shouldn't Manhattan, or at least NYC at large, be listed? I always hear that 2 million residents live in the urban area without cars. Even though car intrusion exists in New York, the city certainly fosters a car-free lifestyle for many people. It seems the U.S. standard is only that it is an exceptional example of car-independent life, since we do not have truly car-free cities. Surely New York is exceptional in the United States for its centralized-design and subway system. I don't know; I don't use wikipedia that much. What do you think?

71.56.70.127 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Car-free doesn't mean convenient to live without a car and inconvenient to live with one. It means no cars.

Then why are any of these entries in any way car-free? Other than a few exceptional European ones, or developer schemes (which usually still have cars)?

[Posted on 2006.12.9] -- I think this is an interesting point that illuminates the fact that most of these places (in the US section, at least) have little if nothing to do with the car free movement, which is a movement dedicated to reducing dependence on cars. They are, for the most part, tiny shopping malls that are almost exclusively accessed by automobile. Whereas Manhattan, a large island inhabited by 1.6 million people and built in a way that enables 80% of them to live without even owning a car, is not included.

Missing streets in Rio de Janeiro[edit]

IIRC, the Sahara area of Rio de Janeiro has several narrow pedestrian streets with small stores. And there are a few other carfree streets in the old centro. Does anyone know the street names to add Rio to the list? 71.146.35.69 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ABOUT THE LIST

It is very hard to compile an accurate list of car-free/ car restricted areas, and even harder to find out the area size, number of buildings, people living in that area etc. To my knowledge Cities who have car-free areas do not give statistics in their own tourist information internet site. Being originally born in France and going there often, I noticed that the list of car-free areas in France is very limited (delivery vehicles, cars of people living in a car-free area are allowed limited access usually before/after business hours). in fact there isn't a town, big or small in France--or in the rest of Europe-- that doesn't have a pedestrian area, often a sizeable one. for example: Toulouse, Clermont Ferrand, Beziers, Montpellier, Carcassonne, Marseille, Lille, Rennes, Rouen, Perigueux, Biarritz, Bayonne, Nice, and so on. in Germany Berlin and Frankfurt aren't listed yet they have several streets and squares. The Hague in the Netherlands should also be included. There are also car-free areas in every Eastern European countries, in Japan etc. In London there is also the Soho / Covent Garden area etc. etc. I think it would be fair to say that, compared to North America, there is an astonishing number of towns around the world that have from a couple of streets to sizeable districts that are car-free or where only local cars are allowed, with restrictions. It would be easier to compile a list of towns that don't have car-free/ car restricted areas!.

Thus the "unusual for their country or region" requirement. It might be useful to have a car-restricted classification, for areas that allow emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, busses, taxis, or vehicles only at certain times of day (or night). But it would be hard to draw the line. jax 07:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia? The Antipodes?[edit]

It seems hard to believe that there are no car-free places in all of Australasia. Yeesh. I know Melbourne had a few - Swanston St and the Bourke St Mall - although I haven't lived there for 4 years, and things change. Maw 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Bay in Hong Kong[edit]

Inserted by Rauterkus 18:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Touch up is welcomed.[reply]

"Kids can play in most streets"?

Isla Vista is not car-free, add Madison[edit]

I lived in Santa Barbara, CA for 7 years and I can report that Isla Vista (the college town area next to UCSB) does not have a single car-free street. In fact the overwhelming impression you get walking down the street is that the driveways are literally bursting with cars, every inch of curb space is taken and most streets have no sidewalks. However given the laidback nature of Isla Vista it is perfectly acceptable to walk at a leisurely pace in the middle of the street.

Madison, WI has a nice street called State St which is car-free for six blocks - only buses and bicyclists allowed.

Some photos?[edit]

Some photographs perhaps please?

Turkey[edit]

Please add Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul to the list . Thank you .

Formatting of Asia section[edit]

Can someone who understands how ro do it please clean up the faulty formatting which has ledt one place orphaned at the end of the Asia section? Thanks. Rodparkes 09:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Values[edit]

Small area in the city center, ........ probably 6 to 10 streets .......... Unknown, probably a few thousand Probably some delivery trucks permitted during limited hours....... etc.

Most of this article is pretty inaccurate, I'm sure that doesn't meet the guidelines. If you don't know ... N/A... or leave blank? But no guessing. This is an encyclopaedia after all :)

Good idea though.

81.105.23.0 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polperro, Cornwall[edit]

I've been to Polperro in Cornwall, and we had to park our car in a car park just outside the main village, and could only access it by horse and cart or electric tram. As far as I can see, this would count as a "car-free" place (and the wikipedia page for Polperro seems to back me up), although I would like someone else's opinion on this. 82.19.71.120 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Ouagadougou be removed from the list[edit]

I can find no evidence that Ouagadougou is any more car-free than any other cities in the region, furthermore referring to the city's inhabitants as 'villagers' and assuming they are too poor to afford cars sounds unnecessarily patronizing for a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.147.176 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's the capital city of the country. There are many cars. And there were, hence a ban happened. Not everyone has a car, but there are still thousands of thousands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil Hasenfeller (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic and Balkans[edit]

This category under Europe needs some work doing, when someone has some time.

Ideally each country within this category would be listed separately, in alphabetical order under "Europe"; it would be a step forward if the countries therein were even in within the Baltic or Balkans territories. Neither the Czeck Republic nor Romania qualify. Also, Serbia is already listed separately, so it's a bit of a tussle to decide whether to take out Belgrade and put it under Serbia or whether to put the whole of Serbia into the "Baltic and Balkans" category, which would seem to be a retrograde step but might be expected by readers to appear there.

Rainlightly (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

park islands[edit]

Since the chart includes the park island in Wisconsin (accessible by ferry but no vehicles allowed), I can think of several similar islands that would qualify, including Matagorda Island in Texas and Horn Island in Mississippi. I would add them myself if I had the patience to figure out these tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.204.131 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koh Tral and Cambodia[edit]

Hi! Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) is a Vietnamese Island - i know about the history and the related dispute - still it lies inside Vietnamese territory, has been for quite some time and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Anyhow, the great majority of Cambodia's Islands doesn't have any roads and is car-free. Exceptions: Koh Sdach (1 road), Koh Puah (Snake island) and Koh Ta Kiev. The Islands of Koh Kong's mangrove marshes do have dirt tracks frequented by all sorts of vehicles.

All the best!!! Wikirictor (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see travel guides suggesting taxi and car travel around Phu Quoc. Is it still car-free? --103.47.246.111 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Car-free islands and car-free countries[edit]

The following islands are mentioned as car-free:

  • Innis Meain
  • Hydra
  • Sark
  • Porquerolles
  • Little corn island
  • Rottnest island
  • Kadavu
  • Lamu
  • Caye Caulker
  • Perhentian Islands
  • La Digue
  • Gili Islands
  • Ko Phi Phi
  • Zlarin
  • Krapanj

http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=22384 http://www.touropia.com/laid-back-islands-without-cars/ Some are probably not yet mentioned. What hasn't been described neither are Car-free countries. I'm assuming these also exist as some small island states (ie in the Pacific) probably don't have cars neither, and are countries on their own (I'm thinking of Niue, ...) KVDP (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of car-free places. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of car-free places. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map requested[edit]

What is the meaning of this list?[edit]

Most of places listed have only a few pedestrian streets in the entire city. In most of these places you can not even avoid seeing cars while being in the "carfree" area. What is the limit to consider a place car-free? Unless this is well defined, this list does not make sense and does not belong in Wikipedia. Also this article is almost completely unreferenced. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan/Maghreb Medinas[edit]

Having visited Essaouira I was able to add it with substantial information, however there are many similar walled medinas in other cities which have not been added and which I do not know enough about myself to add. Some of these were even on the original list, with little info. (See 'Africa' in carfree.com). It would be useful to add more of these. I will attempt to do so with info from other wikipedia pages, but I won't be able to do them all. - Gave2haze (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether the Moroccan entries (except for those in Fez) should be green (#88dd88) or sickly green (#dddd88) in colour, owing to the fact that only walled parts of those cities
are car-free. Similarly, only the medinas in Fez are car-free but as they are listed invidiually this should not be an issue. Also, the source which I linked above, can be attributed to all the Moroccan entries. I would do it but I'm not sure how. Thanks. -
Gave2haze (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove all the non-green entries[edit]

This list as it is now is a mess. Most of the places listed are not car-free. Moreover, the list is almost completely unreferenced. "nearly car free" and "A limited number of vehicles intrude" are not useful definition for inclusions. In the next days I will proceed to remove all entries that are not green (car free) or are unreferenced. The list was copied from [2], so it would be still accessible in this form for those who are interested. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Jerusalem[edit]

Old Jerusalem is not in Israel, so it can not be categorized as "Israel" in the country list. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: What do you think about "Palestinian territory"? --Ita140188 (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian territory" or "Occupied Palestinian territory" are correct names that should be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and the UK[edit]

Why does Scotland have its own section? It is a constituent part of the United Kingdom.

Split proposal[edit]

This proposal is copypasted from the recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of car-free places. Pinging participants @Archives908: @Ita140188: @Garuda3: @MrsSnoozyTurtle: @ResonantDistortion:; if you'd like to comment on this proposal to solve the various issues we agreed need to be addressed, that would be most appreciated.

As nom I'm glad everyone acknowledged various issues I have pointed out with this list, but in turn, I also acknowledged that so far everyone thought these are fixable in some way. Perhaps WP:SPLITTING is a good alternative? Most of my objections seem to ultimately stem from the fact that too many different things are lumped together under the headings of "car-free" and "places" in ways that are inappropriate and in violation of various policies and guidelines, so unweaving them might just be the solution. I was thinking about the following:

  1. ( Done) List of populated car-free islands List of car-free islands as the English equivalent to fr:Liste d'îles sans voiture. Each entry must have a reliable source stating that said populated island is de jure car-free by deliberate choice/design/political decision, so we won't go around listing all islands that are de facto car-free because nobody lives there in the first place, or it's just one guy and his kayak or something living there. There is no need to list the area or population; that can all be checked in the main article of the island in question.
  2. ( Done) List of pedestrian zones (currently a redirect to List of car-free places). This must be strictly based on a local law/ordinance (by the city council/govt/mayor etc.) de jure designating a certain area of a city as a "pedestrian zone" or equivalent (pedestrian precincts, pedestrian malls, pedestrianised area etc.), not just "car-free zone" or "auto-free zone" (which we agree are usually poorly defined concepts, and it seems to me that they are rarely defined as such in law; it's mostly what you see news media articles talking about). There seems to be broad consensus that there can be some exceptions to this rule that pedestrian zones are only for the use of pedestrians, such as cycling (very often allowed, but not always), emergency services or transport for disabled people (frequently cited), but not personal/private cars/vans, delivery vehicles, trucks/lorries and the like. These exceptions should be stated in the Notes section of each entry. When relevant, this could include an indication of how much (area) of the given city has been pedestrianised to avoid the impression that the entire city is "car-free" (see the Venice example above, where area size turned out to be useful for understanding what we're talking about). Cases of de facto pedestrian zones will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of pedestrian zones can be moved from the current List of car-free places, articles such as Pedestrian zone#Examples, Pedestrian zone#By region and country, Carfree city#Examples, Pedestrian village.
  3. ( Checking...) Ban on on-street parking. I think this should be a separate standalone article on this concept, because now it is subsumed in other articles about other things. It's really a separate phenomenon. Just because you can't park your car in some streets doesn't mean the entire city is suddenly "car-free", that is such an unwarranted stretch (as Melia et al. 2010 said about Vauban, Freiburg). I don't think it makes much sense to start an entire list of places where on-street parking is banned, though mentioning a few examples is certainly quite helpful. But the theoretical concept really deserves its own page.
  4. ( Checking...) something like limited-access zone / low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN): I'm not sure what material remains once we have split off these three lists/articles, but I would suspect that these kinds of zones are what were are left with: urban areas which are not islands, nor pedestrian zones, nor no-parking areas, where cars are allowed but only within well-defined legal limits. Again, cases of de facto sort-of-car-free-zones-but-not-really will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of these zones can be moved from current articles and lists such as those mentioned above.
"Not Just Bikes" (2019) explains autoluw as "nearly car-free"
[Addition 23-12-22:] There is potential overlap with the existing article traffic calming and especially its Dutch equivalent nl:Autoluw; it might be helpful to determine first whether everything that doesn't fit in #1, #2 and #3 cannot be simply moved here before we decide that we need a new separate article.
[Addition 23-12-22:] Another closely related concept is low-emission zone (LEZ, and zero-emission zone (ZEZ)), which is a specific type of limited-access zone for certain vehicles based on how pollutive they are, not on how dangerous they are to other road users due to their speed, or to how noisy they are, or to how much space they take up and contribute to congestion (other reasons for establishing limited-access zones / LTNs that do not directly address environmental issues except noise).
Would this be a viable alternative to keeping the current list (full of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations)? I'd love to hear your perspectives. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To be clear about the semantics: I think we should not say e.g. Venice is a car-free city/zone, or Venice is a (populated) car-free island, but rather Venice has a pedestrian zone covering 517 ha out of 646.8 ha (c. 80%) of its historic city centre. It may seem pedantic, but it is more accurate. This way we can avoid misleading and untrue generalisations that lead to confusion and misinformation (which scholars warn us about in literature, and which causes issues many of you agreed needed to be addressed). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nederlandse Leeuw. Thank you for all your efforts trying to fix this situation.
I hope that my recent culling of the entries to just those with sources is helpful in finding a focus for this article; but feel free to revert it if it is not helpful at the moment.
After going through the sources, I observed that many of them are brief mentions (often in tourist guides) about an island being car-free. Also, the "car-free island" situation is more straightforward than urban car-free areas, where there are various different implementations which require a more detailed explanation than a simple list can provide. Therefore, similar to suggestion #1 above, I propose that the first step be renaming this article to List of car-free islands. (I agree with your comment that references are needed to show that the island is inhabited, but I think that excluding the word "populated" from the article name makes it an easier for readers to determine the topic of the article. The condition that an island is populated can be explained in the introduction section of the article).
Regarding your suggestion #2, I agree that List of pedestrian zones be split into a separate article. This is because the current grouping of islands, cities and zones into "places" seems to be unsourced WP:OR.
Regarding suggestions #3 & #4, personally I would like to see references supporting that WP:GNG is met for these topics, before articles are created for them. Update: it turns out that there is an existing and well-sourced article for Low Traffic Neighbourhood, so those entries could be moved to that article in order to improve the current WP:FORK situation.
I hope this is helpful. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much MrsSnoozyTurtle, that is very helpful indeed! I agree with all your recent edits and suggestions. The renaming of this article to List of car-free islands (with 'populated/inhabited' in the lead section rather than the title) and turning the redirect List of pedestrian zones into a separate article seem like excellent solutions to the main problems. I hadn't noticed that Low Traffic Neighbourhood existed already, so I've made low-traffic neighbourhood a redirect to it. Whether limited-access zone and/or autoluw are synonymous with it, and whether LEZ/ZEZ are pollution-focused subcategories of it, remains to be seen (sidenote: the Dutch word luw and the English word low may or may not be etymologically related; but low-traffic and autoluw sure look a lot alike). I agree that this concept, as well as ban on on-street parking, should be checked for not existing already under another name, and passing GNG if not. I'm going to look what I can do. Cheers and thanks once again! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've now renamed this article List of car-free islands, changed the lead section (we can polish it up later with proper definition and sourcing), and split off all the city centre/district examples (including Venice) to List of pedestrian zones. The Wikidata item] has also been renamed to 'list of car-free islands' in English, German and French, and the draftified German version unlinked from the mainspaice until it has been fixed (it will probably need to undergo a similar split). We can now proceed with transferring examples the other existing articles to these two lists. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per AfD agreement, the Area and Approximate population columns have been removed as irrelevant. These figures can be checked in the main articles about these islands. I think a lot of verification of claims in the current list still needs to happen. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've split off nl:Lijst van voetgangerszones from nl:voetgangersgebied, the first proper interwiki for List of pedestrian zones. I don't see easy ways for other Wikipedia language versions yet, but their main articles on pedestrian zones usually already feature a list of examples, although it's usually written as prose. We'll see. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My you've been busy with this in the past day or so! Thank you for your great work across multiple articles... and even across multiple Wikis. I have some ideas for minor tweaks in the next few days, but the big issues are much better addressed now, thanks to your work. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, though I couldn't have done it without your wonderful input and initiative! In hindsight I'm actually glad that the result of the AfD was keep, because in that process we figured out a lot of better solutions that you and I were then able to carry out swiftly today. I'm looking forward to the tweaks you might do in the coming days; I've got a number of ideas up my sleeve (especially the ban on on-street parking article), and other things that I'll probably just figure out on the way and implement ad hoc (such as translations of Dutch, French and German examples of pedestrian zones to add to the English list). There is so much we can do to make coverage of these topics better now that we've unwoven them. All the best to you too! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Thanks for your bold cleaning up of the car-free islands and pedestrian zones lists. Merging the Location, Type and Comments columns on the islands list is actually quite spot on. (The columns remain sortable as long as the island name is mentioned first, and there is no point in making the Comments column sortable, so might as well put the comments right after the name). I'm not sure I'm happy with your changes of the description of Venice (I put some of it back), but I guess we should prioritise finding RS for it to make it easier to summarise the situation most accurately. The removal of the Type column was definitely warranted, since the split made it unnecessary. Could you agree with me on formatting the items on the lists with a new row for each field rather than putting all rows in the same field? I find it much easier to edit, because it allows you to count which field belongs to which column much more easily when you want to make changes. Old format: 

|-
| Netherlands || [[Arnhem]] || [details here]
|-

New format: 

|-
| Netherlands
| [[Arnhem]]
| [details here]
|-

I had been partially ad hoc converting the old format to the new, but you have been - perhaps unwittingly, for consistency's sake? - been reverting my (admittedly somewhat haphazard) efforts. Would you be alright with fully switching to the new format? I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear that some of my changes were helpful.
Yes, I'm happy to use the new format for the tables that you proposed. Sorry for the extra work I created for you by changing them to the now-old format.
Thank you for the corrections to the Venice description. I was only going off the existing sources, and am not familiar with the city. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I had been inconsistent with the format myself, so it's a problem I myself created. I'm glad we've got an agreement now going forward. About Venice, it's probably best to continue that conversation at Talk:List of pedestrian zones#Venice (as we've already been doing yesterday). I'd just like to add here that I'm only just starting to familiarise myself with the geography of Venice; it's fascinating, but also annoying, because sources frequently contradict each other. We Wikipedians have ended up with a situation where lots of people (including proud locals, carfree movement activists/enthusiasts, as well as tourism marketeers) are trying to have it both ways by claiming the car-accessible areas aren't really part of "historic" Venice, therefore all Inner Islands are car-free, while other sources are more accurate in saying we should count the entire Santa Croce sestiere, including the car-accessible isles, no matter how much one may dislike their existence, their un-tourist-y unattractivity, their alleged artificiality/unnaturality and unhistoricalicity (I just made those words up). I can understand all the subjective emotional (or tourist marketing) reasons why people might want to make such distinctions, but Wikipedia can't accept them because of our encyclopaedic standards. Rather than trying to go along with efforts to portray "(historic) Venice" as something it is not, namely entirely car-free, our standards require calling a spade a spade. Cheers, and a good Boxing Day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: This large split and rewriting of the article was done within 3 days without any serious discussion and without consensus, contrary to how these processes are generally carried out here. I am personally against this split, and also I am against the way the new table is formatted here. I suggest to revert to the status quo prior to this whole mess and open a proper discussion regarding this. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ita140188. In my opinion, the split and simplified table format are good improvements to the article.
On a separate note, could you please check your ping notifications? We have been trying to contact you at Talk:List of pedestrian zones. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrsSnoozyTurtle I do check my notifications, and as I already mentioned here, I am against this split. This process requires consensus and a period of discussion, which was not followed here. This whole change should be reverted. Since this split was done in a way that is illegitimate, I see no reason to engage in discussion in the other article. Ita140188 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Ita140188. What is the reason you are against the split? What objections have you got about the list format? How would the contents be better off if they were re-merged? As MrsSnoozyTurtle said, there are good improvements, most of which follow from points of agreement already reached during the AfD about the need for WP:V through WP:RS in order to avoid WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, the need to be clear about what we're talking, not mixing things up (WP:SYNTH), etc. We fixed a lot of problems that were widely recognised as needing to be fixed. Per WP:PROSPLIT, users are allowed to WP:BOLDly carry out a split in the way we have done. I even pinged everyone involved in the AfD to ask if they would like to participate, as this would be appreciated (but strictly speaking not required). Then we pinged you multiple times, but we received no response until now. We're still open to your input, however, so please do share your thoughts with us. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low Traffic Neighbourhood[edit]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: One matter I was wondering about, which I hope you might be able to answer: the Low Traffic Neighbourhood article is currently very much focused on the UK, as Ita140188 noted by adding the Template:Globalize tag. But how much of a thing are these, really, elsewhere in the world? I do see some minor sources about the LTNs in the US (spelt as "neighborhood" there, obviously), but outside of Britain (and Ireland) I'm not seeing much. It might be considered OR if we equate the UK LTNs with the Dutch autoluw zones and the (American?) "limited-access zones". Rather than repeating the same mistake of lumping disparate phenomena together under vague misleading headings such as "car-free places", perhaps the LTN article shouldn't be globalised, but stay regionalised? Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom (and Ireland)? It's not unreasonable to limit this by country. After all, we've already got Pedestrian malls in the United States as a separate article, and I see no benefit in merging that one into List of pedestrian zones; the US concept seems sufficiently different to keep things separate. WP:TOOLONG is another reason to keep 'em separated. On the other hand, just because these things have slightly different names or spellings doesn't mean they're necessarily unique and incompatible. What do you think? Cheers, and incidentally, happy holidays! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and happy holidays to you too!
The term "Low Traffic Neighbourhood" does seem to be quite specific to the UK. Unfortunately I'm not sure what term is used in other countries for these residential areas, however google searches for "car-free suburb" did bring up some results, so maybe that's a starting point in the search.
Yes, the question of to-merge-or-not-to-merge is often quite difficult. I'm leaning slightly towards not merging, because the topics seem to be about a series of events in a specific location, rather than the concept of de-carring(?) in general. But that's just my initial impression, which could change as more information comes to light. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina island off the coast of California 72.211.224.47 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Any inhabited island" is way too broad[edit]

Is this a "car-free island"?

I think there should be some kind of inclusion criteria. To simply say that it's any island where people live and cars aren't allowed is very broad. There are almost certainly dozens or hundreds of such islands in the United States alone, so I think that we ought to be a bit more specific. Perhaps it would be necessary to say that islands need to have more than one residence (i.e. Just Room Enough Island would not count). On Loggerhead Key, there used to be a lighthouse there, which had residences for some lighthouse keepers; but since the only rights-of-way on the entire island are footpaths going a total distance of a few hundred feet, it seems extremely unlikely that there were ever cars on the island. But including every little island that has/had a lighthouse on it would be somewhat absurd. Thoughts? jp×g 21:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_car-free_islands&oldid=1208217148"