I have the feeling we're probably trying to cover too much with the term "Itinerary". Take Trekking in Nepal: there are so many treks in that country that it is impossible to discuss them all in one article. Maybe we should have an itinerary article per trek like Trekking around Annapurna and Trekking to Mount Everest Base Camp. Trekking in Nepal could then become a page which groups and gives an overview of all these articles according to length (in km/mi or number of days), visited area (Annapurna, Mustang, ...), type of trek (mountain trek, jungle trek, river trek, ...), and others.
I'd place One month in Southeast Asia and Roadtrip across North America in the same category. I'd actually change the last one to Roadtrips in North America to cover regional trips and circuits (starting point = destination) too.
On the other hand, I'd create another type of article (a "visit article"?) for things like One week in Barcelona, which strictly speaking is not an itinerary but rather a city trip. D.D. 13:00, 8 Sep 2003 (PDT)
I think we have more than one idea happening here-- 1)the sort of list-like itineraries such as One month in Southeast Asia and 2)the more detailed 'how to' and 'what to see' such as Gunbarrel Highway. But I dont see much difference between a "visit article" and plain-old guide (ie do we really want One week in Barcelona, Two days in BarcelonaandBarcelona?). I was thinking itineraries would be more of an index of places, plus some "Prepare" info, and links to related activities/issues pages (aka "Other ways of seeing travel" I thinkwe're calling them). Much like we have a list of North America destinations, the itineraries would be non-geographical (or not necissarily geographical) lists. thoughts?Majnoona
There's room for both of them. But we need to do the generalities first and THEN the specifics. It's more important to have an article on Barcelona as a whole than it is to have 'unmissable highlights for music addicts' or 'Art Museums of Barcelona Central' or 'the Shopaholic's Guide to Barcelona' etc. As for North America - Roadtrips of North America would be a better page than the singular - there IS no singular because it's too darned big! KJ 18:14, 8 Sep 2003 (PDT)
Maj, you're right about the Barcelona stuff. However, we could have (1) a Barcelona article which deals with the city as such and (2) a Visit Barcelona article which lists things to see and do for certain time frames (2 days, 1 week, ...) or for certain interests (art, culture, ...). Alternatively this could also go in the Barcelona article proper, but I'm not sure about this.
Similarly, I'm not too comfortable with articles like One month in Southeast Asia. Why stick to one month? What if I have two weeks? Or two months? We could include different time frames in an article like Southeast Asia itineraries. One part of such an article could be structured around different lengths of time and what to see within those time frames. A second part could be structured around certain interests (temples, adventure, ...).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "non-geographical itinerary". Isn't an itinerary by definition geographical? (You go from A to B, from B to C, etc.) If it is non-geographical then it's probably an "Other way of seeing travel" article. No?
KJ, I more or less agree with you to deal with the relatively general things first. But on the other hand, what if someone is an art lover and went to Barcelona several times? If such a user wanted to create a list of art sites and museums in Barcelona as part of Visit Barcelona, who are we to prevent that (supposing it's a valuable list)? It might even encourage others to write articles about the items in the list. We do have to take care however not to create too many lists without accompanying articles.
I'm actually seeing three kinds of articles:
Visit X which are mainly lists of things to do and see in a certain place (X) for different time frames and different interests;
Yes, very literal people might think: hrm, I can't go to Southeast Asia, because I'm going for 13 days or 17 days instead of two weeks. Most travellers, however, will grok that it's a suggested itinerary, and that they should riff on it and add or remove their own. Itineraries are an important part of travel -- timing is so crucial. Knowing the right itinerary can mean the difference between having a great and fulfilling trip, and getting stuck on some isolated, ugly island waiting for the weekly ferry. It's really really helpful to share good itineraries.
I agree with Karen that the easiest way to work is from the destination-type articles to the itinerary-type articles, but if someone puts good info in an itinerary article, I see no reason to scrap it.
I completely agree. The problem I have with an article like One month in Southeast Asia is with the article as it is (limited to one month), not with the idea behind it, which I like very much. The notion of a collection page is the same as I expressed as Y itineraries or Itineraries in Y (where Y is a region).
What you say in your second paragraph is quite obvious. I never meant to say that we should have an itinerary for every number of days. Depending on the region it could go from a few days to two months or so, with a few intermediate time frames. D.D. 11:51, 10 Sep 2003 (PDT)
"Go" might be a bit too general (which is good enough for some itineraries). What about "Walk", "Drive", etc. for more specific itineraries (see Gunbarrel Highway, Oodnadatta Track for some examples). DhDh 16:11, 11 Jan 2004 (EST)
I've checked several guideline and discussion pages, but I couldn't find an answer to the following question: Is something like a 3 hour walking hike an Initerary or not? Or more generally, does it fit the Wikitravel goals at all?
--- Hansm 2004 Apr 18
My personal view is that it depends on the itinerary itself. If that 3 hour walking hike is close to a city, town, park, or whatever we already have an article for, it probably does not qualify as an itinerary. In that case it should be incorporated in the appropriate article. If the three hour itinerary stands completely on its own, i.e. starting point and destination are not towns or cities, it is not contained in a park, then it probably deserves an article. I guess there must be examples of that, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. Akubra 11:07, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)
A possible exception would be that there's so much to tell about the itinerary, that it would swamp the article it's contained in. In that case, I'd think that it also deserves a separate article. Akubra 11:11, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Thank you, Akubra. My idea was to write an article about a short mountain-hike that would need to describe some details like "leave te road from blabla to somewher at km 13.6", "walk up through a forest on rocky ground", "always stay directly on the ridge", etc. Perhaps with a picture of the scenery. If I understand you right, that should be enough for to become an article by its own. --- Hansm 11:54, 2004 Apr 18 (EDT)
I think that such a walk wouldn't be an "itinerary", per se, but more of an attraction to be visited.
That said, I think we might need to start dealing with these. There have been a few contributions along the lines of "A walking tour of Melbourne". It's a tough call. --Evan 13:07, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)