From Wikitravel

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For questions, comments, or personal stories about this destination or topic, visit Wikitravel Extra. For more about using talk pages check out Wikitravel:Using talk pages.

Talk is all well and good. But it's no substitute for fixing this article, which is bloated and rambling. Let's just do it. We can always undo mistakes.

Archived discussions on this page can be found at:

• Talk:United States of America/Archive 2003-2005
• Talk:United States of America/Archive 2006
• Talk:United States of America/Archive 2007

[edit] Everyone's a little bit racist

"Most Americans abhor racism": true enough. No one sane is advocating a return to slavery or to any of the serious ill-treatment that occurred 50-200 years ago. Simultaneously, low-grade racial prejudice is pretty common. Is it any wonder we're always pretty self-contradictory about it? (In case you're wondering, though I'm currently in China, I grew up in the Greater LA area.) I noticed the recent vandalism -- probably born of frustration -- and the rv, and so I added a clarification for the sake of greater neutrality. I also fixed some spelling in the section. If you have qualms with my clarification, we can sort it out, but don't put the bad spelling back in. Tatterdemalion 05:04, 9 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Respect Changes

At 04:19, 14 February 2008 151.197.206.234 (Talk) (127,461 bytes) (→Respect), changes were made. I think the changes are well written and should remain, without edit or reversion. 2old 12:13, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Honestly, to think that Americans are much more concerned about their personal space than Europeans is a rather typical American thing to think. The whole mention implies that here in Europe we all dryhump each other at every opportunity, whereas we actually appreciate personal space as much as Americans do if not more, and I've found Americans to be far more outgoing to strangers in general than most European peoples. Towards the south of Europe there is a greater degree of physical closeness but almost all the rest of Europe is about the same as the US in terms of personal space to be maintained. - S

[edit] Get In

I would like to see information for Americans who want to re-enter the country after a trip abroad. For example, the article could explain (or at least mention) that Americans who are returning to the US will have to complete form 6059b, which asks what items they have to declare as well as what countries they visited while away. The article should also mention the documents that are required for citizens to reenter the country, and when these document requirements will change in the future, and what the specific changes will be. I would add this information myself, but the article is blocked. —The preceding comment was added by Bknight009 (talk • contribs) .

I believe the blocking is only for unregistered users (if I did that right) -- sorry, but we're having problems with automated vandalism this week. So if you're logged in, that should allow you to edit. --Jonboy 00:26, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] By Plane

I can't edit either, and I'm a long time registered user. This sentence needs to be qualified:

Foreign airlines are not allowed to transport passengers to/from Hawaii or Alaska and the other 48 states.

This is true for passengers who have visited Alaska & Hawaii and are going to the 48 states (or vice versa). It does not mean a foreign airline can't include a stop there to let passengers off and then fly to the mainland. For example, a Japanese airline could fly Tokyo/Honolulu/San Francisco. They would be forbidden from selling Honolulu to San Francisco tickets, though Canadian stops are allowed to be ticketed e.g. Tokyo/Vancouver/Chicago. MMKK 00:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

You're right, the wording is not clear. I'm considering justing taking the whole sentence out rather than changing it. I don't want to get to "down in the weeds" about US civil aviation policy, and when someone books reservations it becomes rather obvious which airline flies where.SONORAMA 05:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I filed a bug at [1] about the potential problem with the protection not working properly. Unfortunately, that page does not display correctly at shared:Tech:Protection_blocking_registered_users?, so I filed another bug about that. Sigh. --Jonboy 10:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Has happened to me before too, the ? in the page title I think is what is causing the problems – cacahuate ^talk 21:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] 7+-2 subregions?

Isn't the rule to have a region, such as the United States, divided into 5-9 immediate subregions? Currently there are 13, four too many. Also, the current regions are incomplete, they leave out Puerto Rico and Guam.

Some suggestions:

• Make a new region, 'Island States and Territories' for Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
• Make 'Great Plains' part of 'Midwest'. I grew up in the Midwest, and I've always considered Nebraska and the Dakotas to be very midwestern. I mean, Nebraska's sports mascot is the 'Cornhuskers', how midwestern is that?
• Combine Mid-Atlantic and New England into Northeast.
• Merge Texas into Southwest. "Heavily influenced by Spanish and Mexican culture, the arid Southwest is home to some of the nation's most spectacular natural attractions, and flourishing artistic communities. Although mostly empty, the region's deserts have some of the nation's largest cities." Doesn't sound too unlike Texas, no?
• Merge Florida into South. People have said 'its different'. But its not like any regions are homogeneous.
• Merge California and Pacific Northwest into Pacific Coast.
• Perhaps merge Alaska into Pacific Coast too.
• Completely different idea: Make a gulf region with Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida.

Any four of the above suggestions, not including the first, would be sufficient to bring the total down to nine.

--JohnKarp 22:08, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a toughie. First, although 7+/-2 is just a guideline, it's a useful one. The question is whether it's useful to exceed the rule in this case. As with all things on Wikitravel, the traveler comes first -- is it better for the number of regions to be a little on the unwieldy side, or better to combine disparate regions that the average traveler would recognize as distinct destinations?

If we were to combine things, I would suggest combining down to four regions, possibly with Alaska and/or Hawaii/territories separate (which would make five or six): "North" (Great Plains, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, New England); "South" (Texas, The South, Florida); Northwest (upper Rockies and Pacific Northwest); Southwest (California, The Southwest, plus Colorado). Then break each of those down further into the current regions. That adds another level, but it's the only practical way I can see to do it.

I note that the South region as it stands is already way too large (as far as states-as-subregions go); adding Texas and/or Florida to it would simply exacerbate that.

-- LtPowers 16:38, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Addendum: I note that the biggest problem with using the 7+/-2 rule for the United States is that (apparently) we want to have states be subregions somewhere in the hierarchy. With fifty states (plus a few non-state territories), the only way to get from 50 down to 5-9 in just two steps is to have about seven regions of about seven states each, making the region boundaries even more arbitrary than they already are. Mathematics may get in the way of an elegant solution if we hew too closely to 7+/-2. =) LtPowers 16:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, that is a nice guideline a lot of the time, but when it comes down to creating awkward guides to satisfy a rule or bending the rule, the latter it is :) I think the current top level breakdown is working well, personally – cacahuate ^talk 17:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Off the top of my head, mid-atlantic seems weird. I mean, would you put New York state in the mid-Atlantic? Almost nothing, other than the city, even touches the atlantic and few non-Americans (and many Americans) even know or care that New York is not in New England. I'd say go with the North East grouping, push Texas into SW and Florida into the South all make sense to me. From the traveler's perspective, having a limited number (7+2) of regions is a nice way to plan a trip to a country. --Wandering 18:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I think the current region split is fine, and I don't see any massive gains to be had from reworking it. But if you insist, then in my view Texas into SW and merging Cali/Pacific NW into "West Coast" (surely a more common name than "Pacific Coast"?) would be the least bad options. I don't much like the name "Mid-Atlantic", but there is (IMHO) too big a qualitative difference between (say) Maryland and Maine to make merging it into New England sensible, and I'm against merging Florida though, as with 11 states the South is already big enough. (The Gulf region is an interesting idea though.) Hawaii and Alaska should also stay as outliers, because, well, they are. And yes, there should be a list of non-state US territories somewhere for completeness, but it's not a geographical region, only a political one. Jpatokal 01:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

While there may be a qualitative difference between Maine and Maryland (there is also a bigger qualitative difference between Vermont and everybody else!), the reality is that most tourists think of the DC - Boston corridor as one unit when visiting the country. Getting around (shuttle, amtrak's ne corridor trains, various chinatown buses) tends to work better as a single NE unit. So does Getting In, since either the NY area airports or Logan or Philly or DC airports are often reasonable alternative arrival points. If the traveler comes first, I'd say club Maine and Maryland together. --Wandering 05:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Jani that the current split is fine as is. I could stomach moving Texas into the Southwest, and a "West Coast" consolidation, though I think neither is worth it. New England and Mid-Atlantic are names that are in common usage and should remain as sub-regions of Northeast if you go that way. To me this is all really worthless tweaking, the result of which doesn't really serve the traveler or the efficiency of our wiki. My $.02. OldPine 07:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

It would be a shame to miss out on an opportunity to organize the northeast in the way that it is organized for travel. But, I'm no expert on what the travelers are really looking for, so, ...--Wandering 09:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

"New England" is a very well known region of the United States; it's not worth losing that designation in order to create an eleven-member super region with less well-known borders. LtPowers 08:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Push for Guide status

This article is the closest our site has to a guide-level country article—it would even be the first guide level region! Only three region pages need to be worked on, to get them to usable status, then this article's a guide:

• Great Plains
• Rocky Mountains
• Pacific Northwest

That's not much work if we work together on it. I think I know enough about the Rockies to get them to usable status, but I'm clueless on the other two. Lets plunge forward on this! --Peter ^Talk 23:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Down to two—shouldn't be too hard! --Peter ^Talk 01:42, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] what to buy

I wonder whether we can have some answer to the following question in the article's Buy section:

What to buy in US--like what can't be easily found outside of US, or what is dramatically cheaper in the US compared to the rest of the world?

--DenisYurkin 04:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Colorado

The image is wrong. Colorado is placed as Southwest in the image, while in the explanation it's listed as "Rocky Mountains". Could someone change the picture? Globe-trotter 09:43, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Nice catch. LtPowers 13:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Entry Requirements

I found current Entry Requirements section very unstructured and wordy. I've made a first step in adding it some structure, but much more work is needed. Could someone with better than my (absence of) knowledge of entry specifics group related pieces together, so we could fix duplication and even make the section more concise?

Specifically:

• visa waiver program info is scattered all across the section
• I-94(W) card is mentioned twice, and I am still not sure where it should belong to, and whom does it really applies to
• I am not sure current order of sections is most logical--I believe it can be improved (ideas?))

--DenisYurkin 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Nine Cities

Twice in the last day I've reverted a change to the nine cities. (Once to add Philadelphia, once to change New Orleans to Las Vegas.) In my opinion, this article is too high-profile, and the choice of nine cities too much a matter of opinion, to allow undiscussed changes to stand. The nine cities we currently have are not obviously inadequate, and thus any proposed change should be discussed here first. LtPowers 09:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

OK Here's the discussion. Let's replace New Orleans with Las Vegas. Vegas is more than 5 times larger than New Orleans and receives more than 50 times as many visitors per year. If travelers vote with their feet, they've clearly already voted for Vegas. Vegas rocks! It's great place to visit, lots of things to do, and is surrounded by the vast and great outdoors that is the American west. And remember, "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". New Orleans? Had its heyday about 200 years ago, been in a slow decline ever since. VIVA LAS VEGAS! —The preceding comment was added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) .

I agree that non-discussed changes to the cities list here can simply be reverted on sight. And although I once argued that we should add Vegas, I think replacing New Orleans with it would not fit our goal of representing each geographic region in these lists. We already have 2 other destinations for the Southwest, and New Orleans is the only destination we list in the South. --Peter ^Talk 13:28, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, what do you suggest Las Vegas replace? Also, Los Angeles is the only other city in the Southwest currently on the list, and Miami, you may have heard, is in the South. In any event, I don't think we have to maintain a specific balance of regions in the list. —The preceding comment was added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) .

Los Angeles and Miami are in the respective regions of California and Florida (since we're being snarky: you may have read the regions sections of this article). The South is a huge region and should be represented somewhere in the destinations list. In past discussions, we have considered geographical representation, by the regions we use, to be even more important than prominence as a travel destination. And I can't think of a better destination to list for the important South region. --Peter ^Talk 14:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that the South as a whole is not characterized by its huge destination cities. And if the goal is to represent the South, New Orleans is probably the least "Southern" city you could pick, due to its French Cajun-influenced culture. Atlanta would probably be the major alternative candidate; I personally think that would be somewhat more representative of the South. That's not to say NO is a poor choice overall, though. LtPowers 18:47, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Please sign your posts, SONORAMA. I would agree we don't need every region represented (let's face it; there just isn't that much in the Great Plains); the nine cities should be a representative sample. I think New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington are absolutely inviolable. Boston, Miami, and San Francisco are in the next tier, almost as important. That leaves Seattle and New Orleans as the only two real options for replacement. Both have been questioned in the past. Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, Orlando, Honolulu, and Houston seem to be the major candidates to replace them.

Philadelphia is a problem because that would give us four out of nine cities all in the BosWash corridor. We're already pushing it with three, but NYC and Washington have to be there. Orlando is a problem because we already have Miami (I suppose we might consider switching them). Any other thoughts? LtPowers 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I just like to add my support to the idea that we should have geographic balance. As for Vegas, it's such a unique city that it represents nothing other than itself so I'd prefer to leave it off. If we were to eliminate a city, I'd note that there are three West Coast cities (Seattle, SF, LA) and three East Coast (Boston, NYC, DC) that seem overrepresentative. If we were to eliminate one, I'd suggest SF or LA with my preference being LA because it is seethingly bland. -- Colin 19:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm fine with the list as is, but if we were to substitute, I'd say ditch Boston rather than LA... Hollywood is one of the main stops for visitors. Or ditch Seattle. SF is way too popular as well – cacahuate ^talk 22:14, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Of the list, Boston is probably the easiest to ditch (two east coast cities already in the list and Boston, while a nice place, is not that remarkable). I sort of think that Vegas should probably kick Boston off anyway since it is more visited (I think, no hard stats here). Regardless of other decisions, I wouldn't dump LA! --Wandering 23:10, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

How about ditching New Orleans? It is by far the smallest city in population there. Other than Mardi Gras it doesn't have much going for it -- nothing compared to Vegas. SONORAMA 06:18, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I think New Orleans should stay. If anything I believe Seattle could go - but mostly i think it should just be left as is Sertmann 06:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

All right, I'm going to propose we scrap the whole list and go with Buffalo, Charleston, Fargo, Portland, Biloxi, Tucson, Boise, Galveston, and Gary. How's that? =) LtPowers 13:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

That's crazy talk: everyone knows Cour de'Alene has far more visitors than Fargo! -- Colin 19:45, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I support any and all lists that include Gary. Support. --Peter ^Talk 19:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

The US cities list is probably at least as frequently debated as the Wikitravel:External links policy, and in both cases no one has yet come up with an alternative to the current version that addresses all concerns. As a result, in both cases my vote goes for keeping the status status quo. I'd agree that it would be nice to see Vegas on this list (as well as any number of other cities), but until someone comes up with a better alternative than the "pick five to nine representative cities" guideline I'd say let's just stick with the current nine. As an aside, have you guys actually been to Gary? Nothing against the fine folks in Indiana, but clearly Wall, South Dakota would be a vastly better choice. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:36, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

My vote goes to the village of Pepacton, NY. The view itself is worth the visit. (Bring an oxygen tank.)--Wandering 22:06, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding, Wandring? Edmontonenthusiast 22:10, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Moi? Never! Pepacton is a lovely village at the edge of the Catskills. (Sadly, it is under water these days - a part of a reservoir built in the 1950s!)

[edit] Midwestern Cities?

I was thinking for the nine cities-you include a nice midwest city (not Chicago-is that there?) because you bscially have eastern and western cities. Why not Houston, St. Louis, Twin Cities, or Dallas-all very large cities...so? Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 17:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT) What about Atlanta or Dallas ? ee ^talk 10:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)

bump...no thoughts. keep smiling, ee ^talk 12:40, 4 November 2008 (EST).

[edit] Interstates / Highways

I just reverted an edit that added links to several articles on highways from this article before realizing that people have begun creating articles about interstates. Route 66 was our first article about a road (I believe) and it turned out well, and since then Interstate 10, U.S. Highway 49, U.S. Highway 1 and U.S. Highway 40 (and possibly others) have been created. Should these articles be linked from the US article? I would rather not encourage creation of articles about roads since the article should be about an itinerary and not about the actual road per Wikitravel:What is an article, but if we're going to keep these articles then we should also link to them from region articles. Thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Probably a question for the Travellers' Pub. LtPowers 16:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

We have in the past VFDed unserious Highway itineraries. So first, a highway should only be linked if the itinerary article already exists. Second, I think we should VFD any content-free highways itineraries which have not been worked on recently because they don't get their own articles automatically. The Highway 49 article needs either to be worked on or VFDed. -- Colin 20:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough - I've added the articles with content to the Itineraries section of the US article and have left the Highway 49 article alone for now since it was only created in the past couple of days. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] American "Friendliness"

I think it's safe to say that America is renown for it's cavalier attitude towards each other--and I mean that in the best way. For any person visiting from conservative, traditional counties like Asian or Middle Eastern it's rather shocking. Even for Western countries like France Americans are considered disrespectful. It only makes sense to mention under the Respect section that America is, in the best way to put it, very friendly. I've been to countries where people pass off my straightforward demeanor as "being American" (of course they're right). I know some Americans are very conservative themselves, but it's fair to mention that many will treat you like a well-known friend upon meeting. 74.70.204.125 20:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I think I agree, but it should be said nicely. Even as a Canadian, Americans are sometimes portrayed as mean here. edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:00, 18 December 2008 (EST).

We should be a little careful. Americans are friendly people. However, unfortunately, in a major US city if someone is trying to assertively befriend you they are usually trying to scam you, sell something to you, or convert you. Any mention of friendliness, should at least mention these contexts, to avoid misleading the naive traveler. --Inas 22:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Other destinations

So we've discussed the 9 cities, now it's time to discuss the 9 "Other destinations". For one, there are two destinations listed for California & none in the plains/midwest. Should we go for simply the most notable, or for geographic diversity. I suggest adding Niagra Falls, Denali NP, Badlands NP (Mt. Rushmore, right?), or the Everglades (but not sure that that should replace DW). Not really sure which destinations to therefore eliminate aside from one of the CA destinations, but leaning towards Acadia NP & Glacier NP. These are just some quick suggestions I've come up with, this is certainly something which merits much input. AHeneen 20:02, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The ten most visited national parks, from greatest to least, are: Great Smoky Mountains NP, Grand Canyon NP, Yosemite NP, Yellowstone NP, Olympic NP, Rocky Mountain NP, Zion NP, Cuyahoga Valley NP, Grand Teton NP and Acadia NP. I think popularity is as much a factor in this as geography. WineCountryInn 20:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Niagara should be included, Mt Rushmore also seems like a good idea, since it's probably one of the greatest icons of the States, along with the Capitol and good old lady in NY. On the other hand Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone, Yosemite and WDW (another thing which America is very famous for abroad, and it has a good article) should stay, at least that is my take on it. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 21:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I like those suggestions, although I must point out that Niagara Falls (New York) is not listed as one of Mid-Atlantic's nine cities. Though perhaps we could list it under "Other destinations" in that article. LtPowers 22:56, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, and I was worried someone would object to my addition of WDW, given that all the others were national parks. LtPowers 22:58, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Vegas, baby! I find it weird that it's missing from the top cities, so it should definitely go into the Other Destinations then. I'd suggest dropping Carlsbad Caverns, which is just a cave (albeit a pretty darn big one), and not the kind of place that people go to spend entire holidays in. Jpatokal 11:45, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I believe the "Other destinations" are not cities and should stay that way. Vegas is a city and shouldn't be on this list. AHeneen 11:57, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Where do cities such as Niagara Falls factor in, then? (I agree that Vegas doesn't count as an Other Destination, though.) LtPowers 16:23, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Niagara Falls just happens to share the name of the small city nearby. The waterfall is the draw, and if it weren't for that, the city would not be a draw at all, so I think that's OK for an other destination. Las Vegas is out of the question though. Texugo 19:42, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Jpatokal is absolutely right about Vegas. It is quintessentially American in all its glorious tackiness, and should be included somewhere. Since the consensus seems to be leaning away from its inclusion in "Other Destinations," how about "Drink"? Currently, there is nothing about gambling in the nightlife part of "Drink," and Reno, Vegas, Atlantic City and the various Native American reservation casinos could all be mentioned. WineCountryInn 20:39, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Las Vegas is very much a city, and I think only merits inclusion in the cities section, otherwise we're defeating the purpose of keeping it to nine cities... see the vegas conversation a few sections up... feel free to bring new opinions to that conversation :) – cacahuate ^talk 21:44, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, cacahuate. Vegas needs a home other than Cities and Other Destinations. I think this can be resolved rather neatly by a brief write up of gambling in the U.S., with internal links/mentions of the casino towns in the nightlife part of the "Drink" section. That way --Blackjack! Everybody wins! :) WineCountryInn 22:35, 24 January 2009 (EST)

It's a bit too facile to dismiss Vegas just as a gambling destination. One friend of mine flew there from Singapore to celebrate his honeymoon, another goes there regularly from Finland for Star Trek and strippers. Neither gambles.

If one of the cities had to go, I'd lean towards to dropping Seattle — it's just not a top tourist draw in the way that Vegas, San Fran, Hollywood, NYC etc are. Jpatokal 03:56, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Couldn't we just list it as The Strip under Other Destinations, that way we're listing a place, not a city :-p --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 05:54, 27 January 2009 (EST)

No! ;) – cacahuate ^talk 01:59, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Dammit! :) anyway, back on topic - I really think Mesa Verde or Chaco should be included on the list, to give it a bit more variety, than just (completely awesome) nature - leaning towards Mesa Verde myself. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 02:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

A suggestion:

• Walt Disney World
• Mount Rushmore
• Grand Canyon
• Yellowstone
• Mesa Verde
• Niagara Falls
• Carlsbad Caverns
• Denali (or Yosemite)
• Everglades (or Smoky Mountains)

Gives us a - not perfect - but pretty descent geographical spread, and included sights that are not just (awesome) wilderness, and they all have fairly good guides. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 02:41, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I like it, although I'd go with Denali and Smoky Mountains over the alternatives. (Only because the Smoky Mountains are the most visited national park, according to WineCountryInn above.) LtPowers 09:22, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I have taken a preliminary stab at getting Vegas in the article somewhere in the Drink section. It is currently getting short shrift. If you'd like to see more about gambling and other forms of nightlife in this article, please let us know! WineCountryInn 19:03, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Also, I vote for dropping Carlsbad Caverns for the reasons mentioned above, as well as the Everglades (WDW is plenty for the Florida region). Pick up Denali, Yosemite and Smoky Mountains, and you have spread the regional destinations around again, to Alaska, California and the South. WineCountryInn 23:28, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I think the list is fine, using Denali (gives variety and Alaska is a great destination) and the Smoky Mountains (because WDW & the Everglades would be too close). AHeneen 23:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Low-quality photos

Some of the photos in this article are subpar in quality, in my opinion, including the Mt. Rushmore one in the infobox. Here is a higher-resolution, replacement option (with better color) for the infobox: [2] The Statue of Liberty image is also low quality, as are some of the others. I don't want to make unilateral replacements (though I did one), but would rather see what others think about the images. Aude 00:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I'm indifferent about the Mt Rushmore one, I think they're both fine.... but agree that a nicer one of the sol and gg bridge would be nice – cacahuate ^talk 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Is my photo at right ok? It's a little grainy, but also 5MP. AHeneen 03:42, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I'm all for more pics, there are IMHO way too few at the moment. Re: statue of liberty, there's too much blue now, it looks like it's underwater. Jpatokal 05:45, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The current Mr. Rushmore pic is a bit heavy on the shadow. I'd be fine replacing it with a cropped version of the one Aude linked. LtPowers 08:17, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Coming from Wikipedia, ideally I like to see images that could pass as Featured pictures there or close to that quality. That said, a featured picture (or one close to that quality) of the Statue of Liberty is elusive. An average snapshot on a clear day would be better than what's in the article. Aude 12:23, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Any time, any photo, in any article can be improved, it should be. The gallery feature is one of the most underused features we have. 2old 13:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I've uploaded a better version of the SoL pic which gets rid of some of the graininess, but it's still quite blue. Compare it, however, to the very small pic we currently have (which is posted below). AHeneen 18:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I think the Statue of Liberty is a difficult subject to photograph really well, compared to the quality I think is needed, especially in a country article. Looking around on Flickr, I'm finding mainly artistic, sunset type pictures which don't work here. On Wikimedia Commons, the quality of the SOL pictures is far short of expectations, as do photos from my own collection. Maybe at some point I'll put up a bounty for a featured picture of the Statue of Liberty, New York Stock Exchange and maybe a couple other key places.

For now, I suggest replacing the SOL picture with something else. Actually, I see the SOL pictures is in the "Cities" section, so I think a cityscape type picture would be more suitable. Something of either NYC (e.g. [3]) or Chicago would be good, or something more symbolic such as The White House would work. Aude 19:57, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I hate to lose the Statue of Liberty from the article entirely, because of her symbolism of greeting visitors to the USA (which is a nice fit for a Wikitravel article). There are some decent SoL images at Wikimedia Commons [4]. As for the History section of Understand, how about a nice photo of the Liberty Bell, with Independence Hall in the background [5]? WineCountryInn 19:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Which SOL photo do you like? If we use one from Wikimedia Commons, it has to be licensed under "Creative Commons". Some photos are instead licensed under GFDL, which is no good here. My opinion of the photos of the SOL on Wikimedia Commons is that none really stand out. For this page, I suppose we could choose something of "acceptable" quality from Commons, until time that we get something better. The Liberty Bell is okay too. I'm setting up a "bounty" [6] as a sort of contest to encourage people to fulfill my request for featured pictures [7], so hope at some point we get photos of exceptional quality of the SOL and other key places. I'm not sure when my contest will start. Aude 19:44, 1 February 2009 (EST)

For history, another possibility is a photo of Gettysburg [8]. Aude 19:50, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Here's an older SoL pix from the National Parks Service. [9]. It's obviously been scanned in, but the contrast and composition are decent. It just needs a little cropping. More are here [10]. WineCountryInn 21:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I have uploaded the NPS photo with contrast adjustments - Image:Statueofliberty.jpg. I think this will work. Aude 22:17, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I put the image in, but feel free to rearrange the pictures or do whatever you think is best. Aude 22:21, 1 February 2009 (EST)

White House pictures for Aude, any of these you find worthy?

http://flickr.com/photos/schindlerproject/2766039520/

http://flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3144539401/

http://flickr.com/photos/andrijbulba/411163312/

http://flickr.com/photos/laurapadgett/3075294371

And I like this one :) - http://flickr.com/photos/zieak/2335883022/

[edit] Spread Photos by Region

To add more variety to the article, we should discuss spreading the photographs around by region, similar to the lively discussions surrounding the Cities and Other destinations sections. What would you put on this list? And what should be the max number of images in this article? That way, we can take everyone's input and winnow it down to the best images. The hotel sign in Sleep, for instance, could be replaced by something more iconic. WineCountryInn 22:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I'm thinking of replacing the White House picture (or moving it), and putting a NYC skyline picture (e.g. Image:Brooklyn Bridge by Dr G Schmitz.jpg) in its place, since it's the "Cities" section. Other than that, I don't have any great preferences, but agree on including images of many different regions. Aude 22:46, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think that the images are already spread out. Maybe add something in the Midwest or Alaska and something better for FL. But as it stands the images look fine to me. AHeneen 23:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I have no problem with the White House, because it's in a different city but in the same Mid-Atlantic region. I think it's an exception, however, since it's the capitol. Here's the breakdown of the photos, so far:

• Great Plains - Mount Rushmore.
• Southwest - Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Burning Man.
• Mid-Atlantic - Statue of Liberty and White House.
• California - Golden Gate Bridge
• Florida - baseball in Daytona Beach
• South - Grand Ole Opry, Nashville
• Miscellaneous signs - Welcome, highway, and motel signs.

Not represented

• New England
• Midwest
• Texas
• Rocky Mountains
• Pacific Northwest
• Alaska
• Hawaii

And some of the images we are using are generic or not particularly strong images (muddy, poor composition, etc.) We should put our best foot forward on this. I recommend dumping the Burning Man and keeping the Vegas pix, etc. Maybe stronger images for Florida and the South, as well. There's got to be more iconic and emblematic images we can use. WineCountryInn 23:08, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I found and added a strong image of the Grand Tetons between "Geography" and "Climate" in the Understand section. That takes care of the Rocky Mountains. One down, six more regions to go! (Maybe). WineCountryInn 01:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Added the Gateway Arch to the By thumb section of "Get around." That includes the Midwest region in the mix. WineCountryInn 17:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Placed a lighthouse in Maine in the Itineraries section of "See" to take care of the New England region. Like this, because with GG bridge, makes for "sea to shining sea" concept. Before I go any further, here are a couple of ideas for photos:

• South - Replace Grand Old Opry with a photo of Graceland [11]. Place in the Culture section of "Understand." Strong composition on this pix.
• Texas - Picture of the Alamo [12]. Like the idea, but think we need either a better photo or some fixing of the contrast. Place in History section of "Understand."
• Pacific Northwest - Maybe Space Needle in Seattle, but I can't find a strong enough image. Any suggestions?
• Alaska - An Inuit totem pole, perhaps [13]? Or a bald eagle on Kodiak Island [14]? The second idea has appeal because it works in some wildlife, a national symbol and region all in one shot.
• Hawaii - Maybe a really strong photo of Waikiki Beach, palm trees, hotels and Diamond Head, and replace image in Sleep?
• Florida - No strong ideas for Fla, maybe an image of a space shuttle launch along the Space Coast [15]?

What do you think? Please keep the ideas coming, not the least of which is, how many photos is "too many photos?" Thanks! WineCountryInn 18:26, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Added a photo of the Alamo to history section, so that the region is now represented. That leaves three regions, Alaska, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest, not represented. Please read the dialogue above and share your ideas/commentaries/criticisms. Thanks! WineCountryInn 19:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Moved Burning Man down to Respect section, where it is mentioned in article. Plus, bottom half of article is devoid of images. WineCountryInn 20:08, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Your suggestions seem good. Though, I don't have any spare time to help here until Sunday or early next week. I'll check back then, but please go ahead and make changes. Aude 23:17, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Replaced Grand Ole Opry with image of Bourbon Street. Moved image from Do section up to Culture sub-section of "Understand." I think this is a stronger photo for the South. Any thoughts? WineCountryInn 00:11, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Sharpened the color of the Daytona Beach picture in the Do section. Had to load it into Wikitravel main, as it was originally was uploaded, because it kept overriding my upload to Wikitravel shared. WineCountryInn 00:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Added Bald eagles, taking care of Alaska, a national symbol and some wildlife all in one pix. Added it into Costs subsection of "Buy" simply for no other reason than it was a vast sea of text. WineCountryInn 01:43, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Placed an image of Seattle skyline, Space Needle, Mount Rainier, etc. in By plane subsection of "Get In." That only leaves Hawaii for regions not represented. Any feedback is appreciated. WineCountryInn 14:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Added one last image, this time Hawaii in the By mail subsection of "Contact." This takes care of full regional spread of images. All regions are now represented. Hopefully, this will spark some consensus building and debate. What pictures do we keep? What do we jettison? What could be adjusted? Obviously, some of the images are stronger than others. If you think you can find a stronger image, remember Aude has a bounty to come up with the best pictures possible. I'd challenge you one further and say, if you replace an image, you try to do it with another photo from the same region. Perfect geographical representation isn't necessarily the goal, but we do want as much regional diversity as possible. Let the debates begin. ;) WineCountryInn 17:16, 6 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] New map

I updated the USA map for higher contrast between region colors and greater visibility (and a few small corrections). It should now be fully legible in-article, which makes printing the guide much simpler. Is this an improvement? Thoughts? --Peter ^Talk 20:15, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I think so. LtPowers 18:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Travel advisories - swine flu

The Australian government is currently warning travellers to the United States to practice Respiratory Etiquette. It seems they have been reading the Wikitravel respect sections for ideas.. --Inas 20:26, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

More seriously, some kind of warning is probably appropriate. I suggest something like:

Anybody see any issues with that? --Inas 02:11, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree, some kind of precaution needs to be posted on the main page about those who are planning on traveling to the United States.

Meh. It's a situation to keep an eye on at this point, but with zero deaths for people who have not gone to Mexico, we're not there yet. The concern is that, based on the Mexican cases, this could be the type of flu which leads to pandemic. Mysteriously, the US cases do not show the troubling signs that would make one worry about pandemic. So let's wait until an EU government actually says something, rather than just one EU health minister proffering her own opinion without bothering to use the normal science-based decision making process of her own department. -- Colin 02:46, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Not trying to be sensationalist, or overplay the situation, but this thing is headlines all over the world today, in large font, on front pages of newspapers globally. Warnings about swine flu rate a mention on most countries travel advisories for the United States, although they are not saying to not travel there. It is an issue primarily concerned with travel, and it may well all be a fizzer, but we can't just say nothing can we? I personally would at least think twice before travelling to an affected area.--Inas 02:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm kinda okay with your version of the warning on the page. But switch "take appropriate precautions" to something like "wash hands frequently." Now I'm off to bed with my flu-like symptoms one week after meeting several groups of people from Mexico City. -- Colin 03:04, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Which gets us to where we came in, following the advice of the Australian travel website, advising visitors to the United States to follow Respiratory Etiquette. I guess we could add to that Hygiene.

--Inas 05:25, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the warningbox is a bit ridiculous...there has only been one death (a Mexican infant who had just gotten back from Mex.) and 91 people infected nationwide. That's 91 people in a country of >300million!!! I think this swine flu thing is overblown. Let's put that 1 death & 91 infections into perspective:

• 47,000 flu deaths annually USA Today;
• 37, 313 fatalities from traffic accidents nationwide in 2008 NHTSA;
• 5020 deaths annually from "food-bourne illnesses" CDC

It would be more appropriate to put a warningbox at the top warning not to get in a car...you might get killed! I'm not going to remove the box, but if anyone else agrees with me that this is far overhyped, please do so. AHeneen 11:08, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Agree with AHeneen, it's almost comical how quickly our media likes to latch on to things like this – cacahuate ^talk 11:32, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. I've removed the warningbox. Also, IMHO Wikitravel doesn't really need to worry about things that are already "headlines all over the world today, in large font, on front pages of newspapers globally"... Jpatokal 12:16, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Some kind of advisory needs to be posted then. It doesn't need to necessarily go at the top of the page in a warning box, but there should be some mention of it in the "Stay Healthy" section.

Hahaha, I like how once the cases of swine flu in the United States surpassed those in Mexico the warning box was taken off of the Mexican page instead of a warning box on the United States page. You guys are hilarious, but you are more unfair. —The preceding comment was added by 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs) .

I removed it once I noticed that it was there, given the precedent on this page. I find it odd that you claim to care so much about this, and wonder why you are only involved in pushing controversial points of view, rather than contributing travel content to this wiki. --Peter ^Talk 21:31, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

It's just easy to pick apart your unjust American nationalism. If you can't handle having a warning box on your own page, don't put it on Mexico's page. —The preceding comment was added by 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs) .

I was the one who removed it from the Mexico page. Bah, sometimes I just can't resist getting roped into this silly trolling game... --Peter ^Talk 22:06, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Photos

Why is there a Burning Man photo in the Respect section, and a Waikiki Beach photo in Contact>By Mail?--Jtesla16 00:38, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Heh, I think putting Burning Man in the respect section might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, since most of these rules are turned on their head at the event. But the bigger reason is that the principle purpose of photo placement is to break up long chunks of black and white text, which can be rough on the reader's eyes. Of course, it's ideal to also have the pictures match up somewhat with the text to the left, so if you have some good ideas...  ;) --Peter ^Talk 01:21, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

WineCountryInn was trying to get a photo from each region somewhere in this article. He/she did invite discussion on the photo selection and placement above, but no one ever commented. LtPowers 09:07, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Latino vs Hispanic

Maybe I'm just a few laps behind on the euphemism treadmill, but isn't "Hispanic" a more common term than "Latino"? Jpatokal 00:12, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

a) They're not euphemisms. b) "Hispanic" is more common on the East Coast; "Latino" on the West. Wikipedia sez:

The term "Latino" was officially adopted in 1997 by the United States Government in the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino", which replaced the single term "Hispanic": "Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion."

The quote is from OMB. --Jonboy 07:47, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Mmkay, looks like my sample size is biased by living in Nu Yoik for too long... Jpatokal 11:52, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] "Melting Pot" claim

Remove the part in the introduction where it claims the United States is a "melting pot" country. The United States resembles more of a country of assimilation then a "melting pot." —The preceding comment was added by 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, that's what "melting pot" means. LtPowers 22:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Expedia, priceline, etc.. in Get Around..

Some reasons to delete this airline consolidator para..

1. These sites don't offer all flights, exclude some airlines, and often don't have the best prices.. We mention that southwest is the most famous discounter, and then list consolidator sites that don't have southwest fares on them. It is bordering on misleading..
2. There are hundreds (thousands, millions?) of online agencies that will offer the same service. After all these sites just hook into the booking engines like every other site does.. We can't list them all - this is the inherent problem with listing consolidators..
3. Our Wikitravel:External links policy discourages links to consolidators and agencies. The philosophy being that people can always easily find an agent if they want an agent, online or otherwise, and Wikitravel exists to put people in direct contact..
4. The discount flying article, offers the strategies for people wanting to get the best price..
5. If we want to list airline consolidators as a method of booking, is could just about mentioned it in just about every wikitravel article.
6. It is hard to maintain a stance against consolidators listing elsewhere, if they are featured in one of our primary articles..

Does anybody see any offsetting benefit? --inas 21:27, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Sound reasoning on all counts. It should be deleted. Gorilla Jones 21:46, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Delete – cacahuate ^talk 22:33, 4 June 2009 (EDT)