Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

[edit] Purpose

Huh? This strikes me as being silly. Who's rule is this? Which language? -- Mark 21:49, 15 March 2006 (EST)

[edit] Periods

Suggesting U.S. (not US), but UK (not U.K.) seems counter-intuitive to me. I don't particularly prefer with/without periods, but if we're going to have a style guide for abbreviations, it'd make more sense – and be easier to remember – if it were consistent. - Todd VerBeek 09:02, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Its essentially failed policy, with over 2000 articles (according to google) referencing USA on wikitravel. (Somewhat ironically, we also currently have redirects to the United States of America for USA, U.S.A., and US, but not U.S.) --Inas 21:12, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] vfd discussion

• Not sure if we need this new policy, so putting it up here for discussion. -- Ryan 22:26, 17 March 2006 (EST)
• Keep. It hasn't committed any of the "crimes" punished with death penalty. Maybe we should discuss its utility on its own discussion page first. Ricardo (Rmx) 12:56, 21 March 2006 (EST)
  • There was a comment posted on the article's discussion page to the effect of "why do we need this" immediately after the article was created, with no responses given. Policy articles aren't really covered by the deletion policy, and are normally created in response to some need for clarification. I'm not aware that anyone has ever decreed that "USA" never be written as "U.S.A.", so this strikes me as a policy without a purpose. -- Ryan 15:00, 21 March 2006 (EST)
    • On a second thought, I think you're right. Policy pages shouldn't be created out of the blue and maybe we should mention that on Wikitravel:How to start a new page (I'm raising that issue there next). I'm changing my vote here to delete then. Ricardo (Rmx) 09:48, 23 March 2006 (EST)
      • Actually, I'd like to promote an atmosphere where policy pages can be created out of the blue, and that even inexperienced users can influence our policy. There may be some good ideas that experienced Wikitravellers don't think of just because we're used to the "standard" way of doing things. I think that policies that don't meet with general approval will be removed, blanked, revised, or deleted, but I think it's a good idea to let people know that they can propose them. --Evan 10:40, 23 March 2006 (EST)
• Keep. We probably do need a page like this to guide our friends who enjoy copy-editing. This said, I'm not into the content of the page as it stands, which seems to me to be totally arbitrary (I'm the one who left the original comment). I say we blank it, and make some kind of note to "watch this space". -- Mark 03:36, 24 March 2006 (EST)
• Keep. I made a couple of changes and some adds. (feel free to change, if you disagree) --Tom Holland (xltel) 08:19, 30 March 2006 (EST)

[edit] Wi-Fi vs Wireless internet

In general whenever I see the expression "wireless internet" used, which actually means Wi-Fi, I change it. Wi-Fi is a specific technology, and it is widely understood. Wireless internet comes in many forms, most particularly as 3G wireless internet, these days. Within the Contact section of an article, wireless internet may be a heading, but beneath that heading would be 3G wireless, Wi-Fi, and some other less well known (iburst, etc) forms if necessary. --inas 19:14, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Are these distinctions travel-relevant? If not, shouldn't we use the more general term: "wireless?" (Rather than the wordy "wireless internet.) --Peter ^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I think they are travel relevant. I think travellers are pretty interested in the two main forms of wireless Internet available, namely UMTS/HSDPA (commonly called 3G wireless internet) and Wi-Fi, commonly called (Wi-Fi). Often you can tell which one is being referred to by context. If you have a hotel or coffee shop offering wireless internet, then it means Wi-Fi. If you are talking about city wide wireless internet coverage, then you would need to be specific about which one you are talking about. The question is, do we always want consistency within an article, or are we happy with the context dependent nature of the name.

I'd like to see us use 3G Internet, and Wi-Fi. These are both commonly understood terms, and adding consistency in terminology and abbreviations brings other advantages. You can search for one term in an article, like Wi-Fi, and find all places that offer/list it. At the moment, you would have to search for 17+ combinations to find what you were looking for. --inas 22:03, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

There must be a limit to how commonly understood they are—I use wireless around the city all the time, and I have no idea what the practical difference between these two terms is. Moreover, I wouldn't even recognize that 3G Internet signifies wireless. So, why exactly is this distinction travel-relevant? --Peter ^Talk 22:12, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

The difference is, that UMTS/HSDPA (aka 3G Wireless Internet) uses the mobile phone network. Internet anywhere there is a cellphone signal. Wi-Fi uses hotspots, and sometime municipal centre networks, and localised transmitters. I can tell you that there is high speed 3G Wireless Internet coverage in all the capital cities of Australia#Contact. You can use it if you have a 3G capable mobile or PDA, a 3G capable modem built into your netbook, or a 3G card or dongle for your laptop. If you bring your Wi-Fi enabled laptop, bad luck. You can use it in a coffee shop here or there, or in Maccas, or in a hotel if you pay way overpriced access fees.

The distinction is important, and many travellers use one or both. A few years ago it looked like many city centers were going to be covered by Wi-Fi. It is now not looking as popular. Over the next few years as 3G networks get rolled out and availability becomes widespread we may see Wi-Fi diminish as a requirement for travellers. I think when you say wireless, you probably mean Wi-Fi, but perhaps you have a 3G phone or card, and you are using that. It is hard to say.

It could be a bit of a regional thing. Free Wi-Fi is very common in the USA. When you have to start paying for it everywhere, a 3G service can look more attractive.

If you want to stay in the Westin in Sydney, expect to pay $30 per day for hotel Wi-Fi. Go downstairs to the phone store, get a 3G SIM for your iPhone or netbook for $39 a month (if you don't get a special) that you can use across the country, and even make free VOIP calls back home, and probably get better performance too. --inas 23:13, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Scope

This policy is not particularly clear about where abbreviations should be used ("where" as in "which parts of articles", not "where" as in "which words"). Obviously, in listings, there is strong precedent to abbreviate as much as possible, particularly for addresses and operating hours. But in prose, I don't think abbreviations are always necessary. If you're reciting a long list of streets, then it's probably a good idea, but in isolation I think it often works better to spell things out. As such, I think we should clarify the scope of this policy, both in terms of how necessary it is to abbreviate, and in terms of where in the article abbreviations should be required. LtPowers 08:32, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree — abbreviations should be mandated for listings, but there is no need to enforce them in text, where the full word may work better. Gorilla Jones 08:50, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

The discussion behind street abbreviations policy is well buried: Wikitravel_talk:Manual_of_style_for_the_US#Addresses. My thinking is that if it's an option to abbreviate, might as well to save space. But I don't think we need to make this mandatory, at least outside listings. --Peter ^Talk 12:09, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

I think the current text works well. Use of abbreviations is encouraged, and when used they should be standard. The situations where abbreviations should not be used is best left to the writer, rather than being prescriptive. --inas 22:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)