Moving the discussion around because I still want those lower links in a handy place...
I dropped Susan a quick text and she said you'd mentioned WT a few times. I wasn't sure if she had been lamenting my new addiction, but she told me she hadn't posted in a few years.
I hadn't realized how long it's been but, yep, I just looked at her user account and it's been just under a year since she's stuffed something on Flutterby.
She may not post, but she reads pretty religiously.
If you don't mind - will you run through the Petersburg article and bring them in line with the Manual of Style. The Point of View statements as well as the links back to Flutterby will have to go, including the one on Ocoee, since they don't comply with the Wikitravel:External links policy.
Done, or at least in process, I think, but... One of the things I'm noticing as I'm changing things to try to fit in with that format is that I feel like the lack of narrative and external links makes WikiTravel feel more like every other guidebook out there, and less useful and interesting to me. I freely admit that I'm not a market sample, but the web makes it really easy for me to discover, for instance, what restaurants are available in a given area. Heck, for many places Google maps will give me that list graphically. When I'm trying to plan a trip somewhere I'm much more interested in ways to figure out what's going to mesh with my interests than in a list of restaurants or bars in a given locale.
I found the content at http://www.virtualtourist.com/ very helpful when planning this last summer's trip, especially the "things to do" sections, and my personal preference is for something with that sort of content but with a better page layout.
Don't know what this means long term, and maybe it just means I'm not the target demographic, but hopefully you can use that as input to help guide the community the way you'd like it.
I can understand... Take a look at the Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals. Start (or continue) a conversation on its Discussion page or in the Wikitravel:travellers' pub. Bring up your points to the population as a whole and see how they are received. Look through the Article templates and check their discussion pages as well. The point isn't to make it as bland as possible, but a little less bloggy, or opininated. There is a very large audience and lots of perspectives... and lots of spam... to contend with. Evan is one of the co-founders and his talk page is an open door. This is a very friendly and eager community!
Re: the disambiguation of Fairfax: I'm not sure what you mean by "a region in Los Angeles," so I didn't add that to the page.
I see. It hadn't been added as a District on the LA page, so I wasn't sure. If you know much about the district, feel free to add it in. You'll notice that District pages are like sub-directories, so they don't fall into the DisAmb world very often. -- Ilkirk 16:56, 15 Nov 2005 (EST)
Thanks for the pointers, there are a bunch of things that I need to track down additional information on and put in list form. By the way, how should I handle geographic clarification. For instance, I've been updating Fairfax as the town in northern California, but there's also a town in Virginia and a region of Los Angeles by that name.
The images you uploaded could use a slightly more descriptive copyright instead of a link back to Flutterby. Only by looking through the recent changes did I notice your comment. You can look at Wikitravel:Image policy for more details.
Done, with clarifications on descriptions which go with the larger source images back on my server as well.
And on a different note, do you know Susan? She browses Flutterby rather often...
Yep! It's amazing how many Chattanoogans I run into, given that I've lived in Marin County for a decade.
Thanks for your contriubtions and again, welcome! -- Ilkirk 14:27, 15 Nov 2005 (EST)
Check out Wikitravel:Disambiguation pages to get a grasp on what happens when places like Fairfax pop up. Now that you've pointed it out, I'll knock out a quick DisAmb page.
Thanks for the quick response to the copyright stuff... I figured they were yours when I saw them, but its important to make something like that clear.