I'll add something in the Pub. I agree that your solution looks much better than the current version, but there is a long history and much heated discussion about the TOC, so this is one issue that's probably worth discussing before too many changes are made. -- Ryan(talk) 20:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Be patient, Upamanyu, I think things will go the way you want if you can give folks a bit more time - I think you now know who particularly you need to win over...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 08:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
One of the things I've learned editing Wikitravel is that comments about countries (or cities) must be made with a certain amount of tact -- unlike with paper guides, you have to answer to the inhabitants. Not Wikipedia-style neutrality (blech), but tact. Wikitravel is not a forum to complain about a country's perceived deficiencies; it's here to provide information to the traveler. Your comments about Africa may be appropriate in an article about Africa, but here they're either insulting to Americans or Africans -- I can't decide which.
BTW, the Pop vs. Soda link may be "useful, informative and non-commercial" but it is still not in conformity with our external links policy. --Jonboy 13:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I've travelled all over the States (and parts of Africa) and simply fail to see how the truth could be considered insulting to folks from either country. However, at the end of the day it's a question of judgement and, since you're an admin, I bow to yours.
Please be aware, though, that my comment was NOT written as a complaint about a "perceived deficiency" but rather as a warning of what might NOT have been obvious to visitors on first arrival.
As for the link, I've scoured the policy and I'm afraid I just can't identify how the very informative link was in breach. Please would you be kind enough to specify what I've missed, please?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 13:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
The key sentence in the policy is "External links should point to primary sources.". The policy goes on to explain what primary means. We're interested in linking to official sites (with slight exceptions for other sites, such as Wikipedia, in the left column). One reason is to provide incentive to put enough information for the traveler in Wikitravel itself. Another is a desire to print out guides that don't have an excess of URLs in them. Perhaps the most compelling reason is to avoid arguments over which links to include. A lot of people edit Wikitravel to try to promote their own sites. "We don't link to that sort of site" is an easier argument to win than "We don't think your site is useful/informative enough." --Jonboy 14:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
IS a primary source of information about the linguistic distribution of "pop" or "soda" across the 'States.
I doubt that this is either a case of self-promotion or one where there can be any argument about a competing link. Equally, I don't think Wikitravel is an appropriate venue for getting into the nitty-gritty of dialect variations. Please reconsider....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 15:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
That site is definitely not a primary source for anything. There is no primary source for linguistic information in English. -- Colin 15:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Have a look at the discussions on Wikitravel talk:External links. The problem we have is preventing spam while still allowing some useful links, and as a result a fairly hard-line has been taken on external links. If a link isn't to the official site of a hotel, town, attraction, etc then it generally gets removed. For the most part this helps to avoid arguments over whether a link to (for example) a newspaper article about a place is relevant, or whether a link to someone's travel blog about their experiences in a place is relevant. In the case of the soda pop link, it isn't the official site for a particular company or place (a "primary link"), and thus would be subject to removal per policy. No one is arguing that such links aren't valuable, but instead that we need a policy that provides a clear guideline that makes it easy to deal with spam and self-promotion. Thus far no one has found a way to achieve that goal without losing some links that may have value.
Also, the discussion about the edits to the US article should probably occur on the talk page for that article, but I agree there is sometimes a fine line between writing that is interesting and insulting. In this case of the edit in question, the information seems fine, but I tend to agree that whether it's Jonboy or any one of a thousand other contributors, someone will remove it unless it is re-worded. Prose doesn't have to be dry, but since the edit in question could be read as confrontational/insulting it probably won't last very long. -- Ryan(talk) 15:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your contributions, Jonboy, Colin and Ryan. I know more now. I would suggest amending Wikitravel:External links to make clearer that you do not wish external links to non sleep, eat, tourist board or attraction sites however useful or pertinent they may seem...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I reverted (most) of your change to NZ, Todd just removed the list of regions because on the main NZ article we should just list the top-level regions...in this case, North Island and South Island. Then the articles for those 2 regions are subdived and included the others within. And as true as the tit showing might be, I agree, we'll leave that line out ;) – cacahuatetalk 20:00, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
New Zealand's still a ways down my travel list, so at the rate I'm going these days, I'll be taking you up on that offer sometime around 2040. - Todd VerBeek 09:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to jump in here, but I just read your comments regarding the NZ edits. Please don't take it personally. Cacahaute and Todd were just trying to restore the front page of the New Zealand article to conform with the Manual of style, which states that the 'Region' section is only for listing the names of major regions, plus a brief explanation about their characteristics. The larger cities are listed under the 'Cities' section, where there is a max limit of nine places, and the smaller towns and districts are listed on the regional articles themselves. Confused? For an example, take a look at the India article, or maybe Japan as this has similar geographical features to New Zealand. As you will see, the 'Region' sections consists only of major regions. There are no towns or districts listed there. The reason for this is to avoid a long dangling list on the front page. The New Zealand article should be structured in the same way. Anyway, you are the NZ expert, so any ideas how accomplish this? Which towns do you think should be moved to the regional articles and which should be listed under 'Cities,' and which smaller geographical areas (districts) are sufficiently prominent to add to the front page 'Other destinations' section and which should be absorbed into the larger regional articles. If you need some more (confusing) info on this policy, you might like to check out this page: Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy. Anyway, please give it some thought and see what solutions you come up with. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the regular contributors. Cheers. WindHorse 12:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Good constructive suggestions. I've whittled the "Cities" down to 10. In Commonwealth useage a city must be the seat of a Bishop and have a cathedral so you might want to get rid of two or three more but I'd prefer not to wield the hatchet. The [[Wikitravel| Manual of style]] doesn't seem to link to what I would expect. Different countries are different and not necessarily amenable to a one size fits all approach - there are many countries with no cities at all! I'll cogitate on it for 10 days and then make necessary changes. ...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 13:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
For what it's worth, "cities" is a heading that, in the interest of consistency across articles, is used fairly loosely. We generally use "Cities" to refer to any place that a traveler might visit where there are hotels and restaurants, even if the population is pretty small. On occasions where the term would be absolutely silly (see the Falkland Islands for one example) we'll occasionally swap it for something like "Towns". See Wikitravel:Region article template#Cities for more. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:30, 28 May 2007 (EDT)