I think this belief is out of date. I live in Glasgow. Last year I worked in Leeds for three months. The shopping in Leeds is much better these days, since they had a few new big stores open and design type places updated. And anyway 'best shopping' is a very subjective opinion.... 126.96.36.199 20:23, 27 February 2008 (EST)
External links should point to first sources (tourist offices, official Web sites, etc.); avoid linking to secondary sources like on-line travel guides, restaurant or nightlife guides, or other "secondary" sources. We should have that kind of information in Wikitravel, not linked to from Wikitravel.
The web site in question is actually owned by the 'Glasgow Museums', the agency of Glasgow City Council which actually runs the city's museums. It therefore falls into the category of 'first sources' and not of 'other guides' and IMHO should be retained.
Yeah, it's a good link to have, but it's in the wrong place. It should really be in the see section alongside the museums it describes (and if you have to stick the link in once per museum, that's fine).
So in Nils' defense here.... our problem is that we have "city guide" kinds of sites that just love to spam us with links to them. And when you click on that particular link, it looks exactly like a city guide spam kind of site (i.e. a directory of things to see for Glasgow). That coupled with the fact that it's in the extlink section makes it appear to be a bad link. -- Colin 00:24, 13 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Good points. I've acted on your suggestions, and moved the link into 'See'; both as deep-links for the museums specifically covered, plus a generic entry for those not. At the same time I added address/phone details to the museum entries, and added a couple of museums. Because all that made 'See' rather bigger, I've sub-sectioned it by type of attraction.
Least ways I hope I've done all that; with our db corruption I've no idea if the changes will stick. -- Chris j wood 07:56, 14 Jul 2004 (EDT)
In tidying up the external links I've removed the Glasgow Museums link since I think it is a secondary source, in that we are aiming to provide a listing of the museums here, not direct people off to find a list elsewhere. If there are other museums not listed, surely the thing to do is add entries for them. Andyfarrell 09:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Can I ask why it is necessary for a travel document to include information on how to get laid? Rather than saying "casual sex" why not say something like "great place to meet people". The location info could still be there, but in a more civilized manner. Trapper 13:00, 30 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Go right ahead and civilize it, it's far preferable to deleting it outright. Jpatokal 14:05, 30 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I've removed the sex section since it really doesn't fit in the way it's written:
It mentions "homophobia and related problems," but doesn't say anything to help a traveller stay safe. If someone has something useful to say, it should be in the Stay Safe section.
It says Gay Bars exist. Well good, but we actually want names, address, and phone numbers so we can add them as entries in the drink section.
It says look on the web for helpful info about wilder sex. There are a lot of topics that would be tedious to cover (not just sexual topics); we don't need to mention each one and point out you can google for it. You can search the web for more information about the Edinburgh llama breeding community.
There's a lot of gratuitous commentary about sex without any actual content that I can see.
The above was copyied by an anon user from Talk:Edinburgh where I wrote the above paragraphs after removing virtually the exact same paragraph from Edinburgh. I agree that the same argument applied here too. -- Colin 16:44, 13 May 2005 (EDT)
Is there anyway to add this feature? I would really like to know how it compares to the states and to other cities in the UK. This is pertinent to many people and would make this listing more valuable.
I was reverted for changing this to read that it is "largely" illegal in the UK. Whilst I don't wish to condone it, it has never been made illegal under either Scottish or English law unless it is in public or involves exploitation. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom If this site is to take an "anti-" approach, it would be more appropriate not to say anything (there isn't anything about it in the London entry)
Should there be mention of cabs? - I assume the place is crawling with them. There could be discussion of normal fares. ??
I noticed someone recently added some information on taxis, which looks good. I noticed that the text contained the following:
Never be tempted to use unlicenced private taxis - who can sometimes be seen touting for business outside nightclubs near closing time and near legitimate taxi ranks.
I'm curious to know why this is so. Will they rip you off? Are they not sufficiently insured? What is the problem with them? (adding an explanation to the article is fine, no need to necessarily respond here). Thanks, JYolkowski 21:48, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
is that considered advertising or is this okay? just wanted to double check thanks. --Norvak 20:24, 20 December 2008 (EST)
I think that it should be removed as it is not relevant to travellers. A visitor is looking for parking for a few hours, or at most a few days, not to buy a months parking.AlasdairW 18:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Browsing through the Glasgow page I can't help wondering whether there is an argument for upgrading the template from Big city article template to Huge city article template. Not because Glasgow is necessarily a huuuuuuuuge city, but because the variety of depth of its districts (West End, City Centre, South Side, East End) etc may be being well enough represented by this current format. Any thoughts? Jamesbrownontheroad 02:58, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
Aye. I think districtifying would be a good idea. I don't know Glasgow all that well, but I'm happy to help out. I districtified Edinburgh last year and I think it has helped. First thing I did was to draw a map . Tarr3n 11:52, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
That's a great suggestion, however like you I'm not too familiar with the city (new-ish resident). Wikipedia helpfully lists districts as City Centre, West End, East End, South Side and North Glasgow, but although I can just about determine their boundaries in the city centre, I have no idea quite how far out they go. And my repeated attempts to master drawing Google Maps on a 12" laptop have been fairly useless. Could a Google-savvy Glaswegian perhaps help us out mapping these five districts? They seem a useful starting point for any sub-division. Thanks. Jamesbrownontheroad 08:56, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
I'd be happy to help out with a quick map like this one. But I don't have any knowledge of the city, so I won't be of help in determining the street boundaries! --PeterTalk 14:45, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
Ok, with the sun shining in on this beautiful Sunday morning, and with a strong cup of coffee, I've shown my four year old PowerBook who's in charge. Here's my first attempt at a map that shows Glasgow's five informal districts... . The inner city boundaries of the districts follow the suggestion of the description on Wikitravel, but the outer boundaries are very rough. Does the South Side, for instance, include every suburb south of the river? And when does the West End tail out into named suburbs? Drop me a message with your email if you'd like to edit the map and I'll add you as a collaborator. Jamesbrownontheroad 03:52, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
I "vectorified" the regions and overlayed them on OSM  map images (which we can use here, since they're licensed CC-by-SA 2.0). Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the city to help out with the remaining questions, but I did notice an odd looking gap between the East End and South Side districts. It looks as though there probably isn't anything in that gap of interest for travellers, but the basic principle of districts organization is "no gap, no overlap." Perhaps we could lower the southern boundary of the smaller East End to meet the northern boundary of the South Side? --PeterTalk 13:55, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
Good work lads. Those boundaries look pretty good for the central areas and I would agree with Peter's suggestion of moving the southern boundary of East End down to fill in the gap between that and South Side. Just though about that some more and I reckon it makes more sense to follow the river with that boundary. Incidentally there's not much of interest for travellers just now but funnily enough a lot of the new facilities under construction for the 2014 Commonwealth games are actually in that "gap"!
Jamesbrownontheroad has a valid point about the West End tailing out into named suburbs, however for the purposes of Wikitravel I don't think we're ever going to want or need separate district articles for places like Anniesland, Yoker or Hillington so I would include everything west of Maryhill Road and north of the river in that district. I'd be inclined to extend that boundary further westwards to include Yoker, but not as far as Clydebank, which I would view as a town in it's own right.
Over the river I'd also extend the South Side boundary westwards to include the Braehead complex (definitely a visitor destination). Maybe that boundary should follow Hillington Road / Crookston Road / Nitshill Road?
To the north of the city I would extend the boundaries to include Bearsden (Roman remains) and Bishopbriggs (not much there but it's half included already!). I know they are both outside the Glasgow City Council boundary nowadays but they are traditionally seen very much as part of the city. I was going to suggest going as far as Milngavie but I've checked and it already has an article! Tarr3n 10:25, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
So we should include Bearsden in North Glasgow, rather than the West End? If so, I assume the boundary between the two would follow the southern boundary of Bearsden—but what precisely is the southern boundary of Bearsden? And to the west, where should the line be drawn between Clydebank and the city? --PeterTalk 14:19, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Great work with the map, although I'm afraid I'm still too much of a newcomer to the city to help with these boundary refinements. Once a consensus is reached, how is the best way to proceed? Jamesbrownontheroad 11:27, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I'll come back to you on that question Peter. Bearsden should be pretty simple but the west side of the city along the north bank of the river pretty much merges into Clydebank. I need to find some time to find a map with the actual city boundaries on it. Tarr3n 05:22, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
I've been editing the 'Stay safe' section on the United Kingdom article. It made a fairly region-specific comment about not discussing religion in Glasgow/West Central Scotland. I've removed this from the UK article since I think it belongs here (or maybe on a Scotland or Scottish region article), if anywhere. I have no idea if it's even true, so as a compromise between just deleting it outright and sticking possibly unsubstantiated claims into this article, I've made this note here so someone with local knowledge can update the article if appropriate. --Zorn 20:12, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
It seems to be covered well enough with the safety tips already in the article around the football derbies and orange marches. I don't think there's any need to overplay the problem. I doubt many visitors are likely to be tempted to wander around Glasgow's rougher estates resplendent in football colours. Tarr3n 05:18, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
Why do people (everyone from Belle & Sebastian to the folk that wrote this article) routinely warn not to go into Kelvingrove Park after dark? If you try to go into Kelvingrove Park after dark you cant see where you're going because it doesnt have lights. You're more in danger of falling into one of the bins than you are of being mugged.
I am born and raised in Glasgow and now at GU, which is in the West End. In the opening paragraphs the author says that Glasgow is divided into two sections, the city centre and the west end. In all my years living here, I have never heard the city spoke of in that light. Locals would say, the city centre, the west end, the south side, the east end and the north. We certainly wouldn't see it as being simply the city centre and west end. There is plenty of tourist locations in these areas: the camspie mountains to the north, the barras, botanic gardens, celtic park to the east, xscape to the west. And there are all within 20 minutes drive distance, why the emphasis on central glasgow--its such a small area, Glasgow is much smaller than London, Paris etc. The structure is plain wrong, Glasgow is a small city--equal weight should be attributed to the other areas, it is the same distance to the west end as it is to the north,south and east from the city centre. Perhaps this article was written by a student from abroad living in Glasgow... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure I fully understand—are you referring to the beginning of the get around section? If so, my reading is that it merely says that this nebulous concept known as "Central Glasgow" is comprised of the City Centre and West End, while the rest of the city is less dense (rather than dismissing the rest of the city as being irrelevant or otherwise not covered by this article). If the statement in question is not accurate, please plunge forward and rewrite it!
Also, as you are familiar with the city, perhaps you might be interested to comment on any of the questions in the rudimentary proposal above to create district articles? --PeterTalk 22:26, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
I disagree with "equal weight should be attributed to the other areas". The traveller comes first, and I'd say drawing attention to two hubs of areas of interest is useful - your typical traveller using this article is going to be without a car and they're going to find it useful to know quickly that Glasgow, unusually, has two hubs, and can think about where to base themselves accordingly. It's basic orientation, and I think if read in that context it doesn't dismiss any of the other great things Glasgow has to offer. Andyfarrell 17:31, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
As a business traveller I use this website a lot in order to find places to stay and eat when on the road. Having experienced a fantastic time in Glasgow I decided to add the company my team stayed at for a week, only for it to be instantly removed. As there are no links to serviced apartment companies on the Glasgow page and with it being a good hub for businesses that would often like to stay in an apartment than in a hotel room I've re-added it and would like feedback as to why I shouldn't be allowed to make this recommendation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
The stay safe section is way too large for this page, the majority of the info is redundant and it makes one of the safest cities in the world seem like an area completely ridden with crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
Feel free to have a go at improving it, without whitewashing it. The Stay Safe section of articles do tend to fill a little with redundancies, and I think I can probably visit the city without specifically being told that if I choose to have sex with a prostitute in a public place I run the risk of attracting the attention of the local law enforcement. --inas 00:11, 7 January 2011 (EST)
Alright, just took off a lot of info, and only had to add 2 sentences to sum things up a bit