Beautiful banners are coming to every article and you can help!
Check out our guidelines and learn how to create your own!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Should this be an article? or is it an attraction? -- Huttite 17:47, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)

Looks like an attraction to me. The only question in my mind is what destination shall we put it under? -- Mark 18:52, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)
Hi guys - I had a look at the Wiki article guidelines and yes it is definitely an attraction rather than a destination under the definition stated there. As you raise the point though Mark, where shall we put it? To put the place in context, the Hill Of Crosses is pretty much in the middle of nowhere; a friend and I visited a few months ago, taking a 100km detour from the main highway to reach it! The nearest town is Siauliai, so I suppose the Hill could be put under that under the 'See' or 'Get Out' sections, but the town itself is not particularly one that is a draw for tourists so moving the page would seem to me to 'mask' the main attraction in the area that is the Hill. Have considered this dilemma for a number of destinations of late - i.e. smaller attraction that is distant enough from a 'city' to be ditinct from it, but not be classed as a city or large park in its own right. Perhaps we could be more flexible on the style rules, or introduce a template for Smaller, standalone attractions? StuartEdwards 03:42, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
It might make sense in this case to create a Siauliai destination and have Hill Of Crosses redirect there. This is what we've done in the past for points of interest like say Auschwitz which are not Wikitravel destinations (ie. no place to Sleep). Another option would be to use a town which is not quite as near but has more in the way of places to Sleep, Eat, Drink etc. -- Mark 13:04, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
This is possibly the sort of attraction that fits in a region article's See section. It is between towns, so you could be listing this in at least two places. It could possibly also appear in an itinerary article. Unless you are going to have a hugely detailed travel article about a particular place, I fail to see why each sight, or site, needs its own article. I agree you may want to have a bit more explanation in this case, but do we want a separate article about each and every memorial, statue, public artwork, notable construction or big thing along the roadside? We do need to draw a line somewhere. If it doesn't fit into an existing article template, there needs to be a very strong reason for justifying it as an article. Simple remoteness is not enough, it should also be something worth writing about. There needs to be clear potential for, say, a good 5,000+ word travel article that explains why one should visit this place. I do not see that here. -- Huttite 16:48, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

Should have clarified that the Hill is more than just a monument / statue - it does have a big draw on the tourist cicuit (as clear by the fact that there were a dozen coaches there at time of visit), so I believe warrants some sort of distinct entry, but is probably not big enough to warrant 5000+ words (as with Auschwitz as mentioned by Mark). On a similar theme, where do important museums fit in - e.g. British Museum, Louvre, Hermitage, Met in New York? Looking at the current entry for these, there is not a great deal of information other than location / opening times etc, although there is in most cases a link to the relevant website. Traditional guide books usually incorporate a couple of pages on the highlights of such museums, including maps, as most visitors will visit but not neccessarily wish to purchase a distinct guide book; does the Wikitravel MoS support that level of detail if a site warrents it? StuartEdwards 06:17, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

They are attractions in the See section of the appropriate destination. I actually think we have pretty good coverage of the Louvre in Paris/1st arrondissement. -- Mark 06:47, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
I have come up with a resolution for this issue - I will create a Siauliai page and move the contents of the Hill Of Crosses into the Get Out section for now; I will keep a watch on the page and when a suitable region page is set up move it to the See section in the region. I have a similar task to do with the Southern Little Poland page that I set up and is subject to a similar issue. Will sort it in the next few days (am off to sleep now as it is late Down Under ;-) ).
As for my comment on the coverage of the Louvre; yes it is sufficient to get you there and tell you how much it costs / when it is open etc, but it does not provide an in depth article level guide to what to find in each gallery. My question is, do such major attractions warrant that level of detail within the Wikitravel guide, or is it beyond the scope of the project's goals? StuartEdwards 07:42, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)
So far the consensus is that a gallery by gallery guide to the Louvre is in fact beyond the scope of the project. I would sooner think that that sort of information would be encyclopedic. Meanwhile I think that your plan for Hill of Crosses sounds good, except in that I would almost certainly put it under See. There's some difference of opinion about the use of the Get Out section, but local attractions is not one of the things it's currently used for. -- Mark 08:29, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Real article of Siauliai[edit]

The real article of Siauliai isŠiauliai

I am not sure how to redirect this page there, because search of "siauliai" directs to this page and it is quite useless. How to change it all.



Destination Docents

In other languages