I'm now contributing to the community site called voyage instead of 'travel' as Pratyeka as it is run by a non-profit entity, which seems a better idea for a community-contributed site. No offense to the apparent owner of wikitravel, internet brands, but third-party profits have no place being made from my volunteer contributions. Pratyeka 21:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Understood. Your contributions here will remain as will our appreciation.
As an aside, I would note your disdain for advertising-supported wikis. But I would point out a few things:
This site has been ad-supported for over four years, and has grown many-fold since then. Clearly most contributors have no real problem with the dynamic.
As should be clear from the license, CC websites' content may be used and re-used by any party who wishes to, provided they adhere to the CC license; this mean that "your" volunteer contributions are effectively owned by nobody, and can (and will, and have) be used to generate profit for any CC-licensed site. It happens with Wikitravel. It happens with Wikipedia. It will happen everywhere. There is no such thing as profit-free contributions to a CC-licensed site. The concept is a myth. Wherever you choose to contribute, many entities will profit from your efforts. If that's your primary concern, you ought to consider whether contributing to a Wiki is really for you.
Wikitravel has always provided an easy means for users to toggle advertising off, permanently. Check your user preferences.
Thanks again, Pratyeka, and happy Travels!--IBobitalkemail 04:37, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
That's all fine, and I will indeed go continue elsewhere as mentioned, but not letting me even write the name of that site here amounts to censorship and that is most certainly not something I agree with. I am, you will note, a Wikipedia admin for 9+ years and very familiar with shared content. Pratyeka 04:40, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Again, I understand and believe me, respect your point of view. But, tomato/tomahto on the "censorship" issue; we have community policies here, just as you do at Wikipedia. One policy is that we do not allow external links to, or promotion of, travel websites that are not primary sources (I.e. you can link to the official Las Vegas chamber of commerce site, but not to aggregator sites that are trying to sell you tickets to a show). The site to which you're referring is such a site. It's not censorship, any more than removing profanity is; it's policy. I do hope you'll continue to check in here from time to time, and I hope you'll be happy with what you see. Best,--IBobitalkemail 04:46, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
A talk page is for talking. Censored talking is not agreeable. Policy all you like - that is all. Pratyeka 04:47, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Although your style here is somewhat snarky, you raise a salient point I think. What do you propose when it is the Talk pages that are being used not to foster discussion, but to actively promote a competing travel site, and drive users away from being productive in this community? Surely standing by and doing nothing is not the best option, when there are 7 million travelers a month coming here for their information. 250,000 people every day should be able to have access to the best travel info, and when users actively try to subvert them, our primary mission, "The Traveler Comes First" is not served. I'm open to ways to amend this policy to include this.--IBobitalkemail 14:32, 5 November 2012 (EST)
I didn't come to have a discussion. Quite frankly it should be clear to the controlling entity that, being a profit-oriented entity, they are fundamentally different to non-profit entities, and that the user community is going to see this. Trying to justify censorship as being the will of the community is farcical. Pratyeka 03:14, 6 November 2012 (EST)
PS: There are also other earlier sections of that page that are directly relevant to any name change--singaporeAlice 19:09, 2 November 2012 (EDT).
The section in question was removed because the Ha Long Bay article is a region and not a specific place. Get out info is far too specific to be here and is only relevant to place articles. Pratyeka 20:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
An interesting point of view. I believe that, after visiting the Ha Long Bay region (or even while there) it would be useful for travellers to be guided to what other locations they might like to visit (or even make day trips to. Do you have no views, generally, on what our "Get out"/Go next sections should be called (to make clear that the information that is intended to go there is not the opposite in direction of our Get in sections) ? --singaporeAlice 21:13, 2 November 2012 (EDT)