Thanks for all the good stuff you've added on Albuquerque. That's rapidly turning into a really high-class article, and you've filled in some gaps in my own knowledge of the city. One thing: you might think about down-selecting to one or two museum photos, as our Wikitravel:Image policy generally calls for minimal use of images -- remember that many readers and potential travelers don't have high-speed access to Wikitravel, and images really eat up bandwidth. Anyway, keep up the good work! -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:28, 12 November 2006 (EST)
- Thanks Bill! I'm still getting the hang of the Wiki, so thanks for letting me know about the images. I took down one of the museum images. Ironically, I uploaded a couple more pictures to the page before I read your post, but I think the new images add a lot to the Albuquerque article, so I think they're okay. If they're not, I'll take them down. Either way, I'll slow down on the image uploading in the future. PerryPlanet 20:50, 11 December 2006 (EST)
Hi Perry. I like the Albuquerque site too. You are a talented 16 year old!FrankEM 17:15, 29 December 2006 (EST) I was only there once and would be no help, but I was just read the comment by Bill about using few images. I read, I think on the main page, that the images make or break a page. Now I am confused. I was adding images like a man man! I guess I should be asking Bill since he made the comment.
- My e-ears are tingling. :-) Again, I refer you (and User:FrankEM, who's also been doing some fantastic stuff) to the Wikitravel:Image policy. The goal is to have "enough" images to illustrate the text, without "too many" that cause problems for people downloading the page over dial-up or other low-speed lines. Images require a lot of bandwidth to download, and many of the people we'd like to reach via Wikitravel don't have that bandwidth. Hence the minimal-use-of-images policy. How many is "enough"? Dunno, and the community has carefully avoided naming an explicit number/limit. For a page like Albuquerque, I'd think there should be no problem with half a dozen photos plus a couple of maps (which I'm working on, BTW), but getting too deep into double digits might be a bit much. Just MHO ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:24, 29 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks, Bill. I'm glad you let me know, or I probably would have added a picture of the BioPark and another one of Old Town by now. ;) You're working on maps? Great! I was just thinking about that the other day.
We're having a lovely snowfall in ABQ right now... PerryPlanet 18:21, 29 December 2006 (EST)
 Puuhonua O Honaunau National Historic Park
Just FYI, I've reverted (and expanded upon) your edit of the Big Island (Hawaii) pertaining to this place. The reason is that it's not really a "destination" since you can't sleep there, spend more than a few hours without seeing it all, and so on. It's sorta in the same class as Petroglyphs National Monument in Albuquerque -- one of those things you do while you're close by as a result of going to the actual "destination" (Kailua-Kona in this case). The Wikitravel posture toward "just-passing-through" national monuments is inconsistent, to put it mildly; we have articles on some, but not all. In this particular case I think it is very unlikely that a useful article could result for it, but maybe I'm mistaken. Anyway, it's good that you're looking beyond New Mexico for things to help on. (P.S. A good foot of snow on the ground up here, and more coming tonight -- went XC skiing directly out of our house today, for the first time in several years.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:36, 29 December 2006 (EST)
- Ah, I'm sorry. I was about to make the article, but I forgot the general "if you can't sleep there it's not an article" thing. Thanks for reminding me. I'm planning to go into the Big Island section and add more stuff, since all that's on Wikitravel now is the page on the whole island, Hilo, and Kona. We definetely need an article for the Volcanoes National Park, there is so much to see there. PerryPlanet 20:58, 29 December 2006 (EST)