I was moving some questions out of the travellers' pub, and a lot of them were along the lines of, "Where do I put information X?" Some had been covered in the article templates, some hadn't. I realized that people more often are going to know some bit of info, and wonder where to put it, than have an empty article and wonder what should go in it. So I started this page.
The title is purposefully bad, because I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions more than welcome (or just plunge forward and move the article). --Evan 15:21, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
Hi. sorry for my poor English, but I wanted to know if you already debated on the interest of listing embassies or consulates that can be found in towns like Paris or Strasbourg for example. I think it would be an interressant information for travellers that have problems with justice or so. [Was it clear ? ] --Pontauxchats 04:53, 30 Jan 2004 (EST)
I wonder if this would go under, say, Cope. --Evan 15:27, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)
Wine samples: Drink or Do? I'd suggest drink. Opinions? -- Nils 05:55, 27 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Drink is really for nightlife, I think. I'd put wine tasting tours under Do, and the wineries themselves under Buy. Spiv 10:59, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
What about Wineries? In Santorini we have them mentioned in See, Buy and Drink. And I don't really like an idea to have introduction and background in one part of article, and the list of wineries in another. --DenisYurkin 05:33, 10 November 2006 (EST)
This may be a bit late to fix but I notice that Theatres and Stadiums are suggested to go under the Do section.
What is the reason for that?
My initial reaction is that Live Perfomance Acts should go under the See section since these activities generally involve observing the performance and audience participation is generally limited to applause. Are you suggesting that applause implies you are Doing the show rather than Seeing it? -- Huttite 02:50, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)
Some companies organise tours of a country, arranging things like hotels, transport, itineries, food and even entertainment. They also provide guides/chaperones and/or translators to assist the traveler. Sometimes they have a theme; like a chef taking a tour party to experience the authentic cusine; famous sports people taking a party to a series of sports events. I think these could best go in the Get around section, but does anyone have a better idea? -- Huttite 03:36, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Recommended / further reading / destination travel books and publications
OK, so I'm not sure whether this has been suggested / discussed previously, BUT, what about adding an additional section to destination articles (towards the end, near External links) in which contributors could list books and publications relevant to understanding / appreciating a destination, with the intention of making a traveller's experience of a city all the richer? Note: not travel guides, but rather quality titles that explore the history, culture and atmosphere of a country or city, or are representative of its literary heritage (Naguib Mahfouz in Cairo, for example....) This could even be extended to music typical of a destination.... What do others think? Pjamescowie 14:31, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)
I like the idea, but I might be the wrong person to ask, as I can't even seem to muster the abhorance for "other guides" which my collegues here mostly seem to share. As for my own writing I've sometimes used references to the CD collection behind a given bar to try to impart something to the reader about the atmosphere there. It feels very right to me to give travellers a musical context for the places we tell them about. As my art-history professor liked to say, history, art-history, and anthropology all provide contexts for understanding the other. So I think by all means yes. -- Mark 14:45, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)
I love the idea. What about Read? Or a sub-section of Understand? --Evan 23:33, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)
Glad you both like the idea.... Read would be good, but wouldn't allow for the musical side of things.... Maybe we could have Listen as well? (though this might be getting slightly too sectionalised...!) A sub-section(s) of Understand could work, for sure, though I had visualised a section at the end of an article, alonsgide the External links.... This could be just my preconception, however, and is probably influenced by Wikipedia practice.... We can afford to be different! Any more thoughts? Pjamescowie 03:28, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)
I'd be inclined to not make it a entire section up there with Understand, Sleep, Do, etc. Somehow, those just seem more fundamental to what I want to use wikitravel for than finding out about cultural research I could do. (It's useful yes, but not as useful as finding somewhere to sleep...)
My suggestion is to either make it a subsection of Understand or possibly rename External links to Other resources (or similar), and have External links, Read, Listen as part of that. -- Hypatia 08:06, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)
Yeah, I agree with Hypatia, surely the best thing is to to generalise "External Links". -- Lionfish 0:07 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)
I was assuming that we should have "Read" (or "Recommended reading") as a subsection of Understand... does anyone have a better idea? If we do make Moviesources then perhaps we'd need a more generic term for the subheading, unless we also add "Recommended viewing" as yet another subheader.
Music was also mentioned in the old conversation up above, but for some reason I'm more skeptical about that... – cacahuatetalk 01:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think this needs its own subsection. That implies it's something each article should have, and could encourage people to add items for the sake of having them, rather than because seeing Ishtar really helped them grok Morocco. Just let people mention educational books or films in Understand. - Todd VerBeek 09:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Keep in mind that Extra is going to be a better place for people to put together long lists of resources like books, movies and websites (the web directory part is rolling out this week...). Probably better to keep things high level in the guides and then link to more detailed lists on extra. Maj 14:35, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Cool, that works for me. I'm all for keeping it really simple in the guides... I think 3 books/3 movies is more than adequate, if necessary at all. I don't think at all that we should aim to have them in articles though, only when it's really obvious. Some examples I keep coming back to are Dark Star Safari for East Africa and The Sheltering Sky for Morocco, and some of William Dalrymple's books for India (and overlanders to India). One's that are super wellknown and somewhat iconic for travelers to those areas. – cacahuatetalk 20:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
What was the outcome of the above discussion? A year ago, I added the following comment nearby, but since then there's no clarity in our policies on this subject (or is it?). I mean, just having "book suggestion - a 'Read' sub-section of the 'Understand' section" in this article doesn't answer:
what kind of books is appropriate or not?
what about movies and music?
do we encourage having references like this in a Star article, or it doesn't matter?
For the vast majority of city destinations, having a dedicated subsection in "Understand" does not make sense IMHO (as was agreed in the below discussion); important literature can simply be mentioned in the text of "Understand." Occasionally I do think a subsection is warranted, and a good example is found in the Chicago#Literature and Chicago#Movies sections.
What kinds of books/movies are fair game? I'd say only those that are to a good extent about the city (rather than books written or movies filmed simply in the city). I think we should ruthlessly trim excessively long lists, though (imagine a comprehensive "movies" list for NYC).
Music suggestions should be highly restricted to only the most iconic examples of local music. Otherwise, treatment of music should be limited to a description of the styles of music associated with the destination (e.g., Gogo is a style of music indigenous to DC, notable for it's blend of funk-inspired rhythms with rap vocals and elements of hip hop. It finds its home in the clubs of DC's black neighborhoods in the southeast of the city). In this example, mentioning James Brown would be fair game, but we should IMHO stamp out attempts to add everyone's favorite local band to Wikitravel guides.
I don't think we should mention this in our star criteria, simply because small destinations might not have any literature/film/music worth mentioning, while this type of information is valuable for larger and more famous (and more culturally vibrant?) destinations.
I would support the Moscow edit you cited simply because the reference was given without even trying to write about Moscow history here. References should always supplement, rather than replace work on the travel guides—I think it's fair to remove such references when the sections they are designed to supplement have not been written. --PeterTalk 03:46, 8 January 2008 (EST)
A 'Read' section makes sense more for smaller off the beaten track destinations than for large places like Moscow or New York. It's not as if it is hard to find books about the history of these sorts of places - just walk into any bookstore and you'll see many examples - and its not for us to pick and choose which ones to feature. However, for off the beaten path destinations (like Myanmar) a good read section is important because books are hard to find and because people don't know a whole lot about the place to start with. A good book on history, quintessential examples of literature that feature the destination (not necessarily in-grown which may not be in English anyway), and travel writing are all important in a good guide. In this I disagree with the unnamed person above who says that small destinations might not have literature worth mentioning. If a place is worth visiting, someone would definitely have written about it and not including that book would make it unworthy of star status. For example, how can an English language guidebook write about Katha and not mention Burmese Days? Trying to find iconic books about Moscow or New York is far less important than finding and listing iconic books about the lesser known destinations. The same applies to film. But, music, as a non-narrative form of art, is probably best avoided unless it is peculiar to the region (Baul music, for example).--Wandering 11:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Oh. And I think the bump of that particular history was justified. How do we know that it is any good, or even an accepted history of Moscow? --Wandering 11:26, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Peter, thanks for reference to the previous discussion, I've just moved it under the original section heading just above our this discussion. --DenisYurkin 14:47, 8 January 2008 (EST)
My point above was that smaller, lesser known destinations should not have a separate section for these categories, because they would have a much smaller list of relevant literature/film and that could therefore be expressed succinctly within the general understand section. And I assure you that there are destinations with no literature available—Silver Spring is certainly a valid travel destination, but there's nothing I'd recommend someone read about it beyond a travel guide itself (or perhaps a wikipedia article, which we already link).
A destination like New York needs the subsection because literature (fiction) about the city is an entire topic in and of itself. Any guide to NY worth its salt includes a list of the most iconic works about the city, and I think we should be no more shy about picking recommendations in this category than we are about picking recommendations for restaurants/bars/hotels (we are a travel guide, after all). While they may be relatively easy to find, I wouldn't know what to read beyond some of the Harlem Renaissance lit.
All got me thinking — we should be really careful about recommending non-fiction (history books, etc.). It's more important IMHO to include the culturally relevant materials — things that help make the destination a destination. --PeterTalk 16:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Are we ready yet to organize the above thinking as a policy which everyone agrees with and can refer to in the future? --DenisYurkin 10:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Hi there! I'm a visitor from 'Pedia. Of course we have our usual arguments over what should and should not be included there. Now it happens that one of the areas of discussion, is articles about roads and turnpikes and the like. For instance, see  - WP has extensive documentation on the USA and Australian road networks, among others. According to some, this isn't particularly encyclopedic. According to others, it is verifiable and useful, thus should be listed somewhere.
I realize that this might be highly impractical and unfeasible, but... wouldn't that information be more at home in WikiTravel? The different licenses may be an issue, but this concerns a relatively large amount of articles written by a relatively low amount of users. Plus there's the fact that some of this material consists of lists of stubs, which I reckon would stand a greater chance of being expanded when included here rather than on 'pedia.
Radiant: we have a lot of highway info already in Wikitravel (like Gunbarrel Highway and Route 66). We treat highways like itineraries, usually. I think we might have different ways of thinking about highways, though: an encyclopedic view of a highway (date of construction, legal act that enabled its creation, name of contractor who laid the blacktop, notorious crimes that occurred on the road) might be different from the travel-guide view (best cities or campgrounds to stay in along the way, roadside attractions, places to stop to eat, etc.). --Evan 17:42, 23 Feb 2005 (EST)
Also, we probably wouldn't want to list all possible highways. Just the ones worth being an itenerary.
And as a side note, I love the Wikipedia encylopedic approach to highways. I can't beleive people complain about this, but every freaking album has an article, places and characters from pop fiction frequently get articles, and minor sports figures get articles. (I've being hitting the 'random page' button on wikipedia a lot lately. There's a lot of pollution in the encylopedia, and it's not caused by a few hundred well-organized road articles). -- Colin 18:17, 23 Feb 2005 (EST)
Would it be alright if I made a Greyhound, Amtrak, etc... article. I think anyone not knowing what Greyhound or Amtrak is would like an article about these companies so they can understand better. Sometimes I link to WikiPedia, but WikiPedia is more along the lines of straight history i.e. Established date, board members, CEO. I think there should be something like: routes, stations, programs, specials, type of trains.
How about we review airlines as we do restaurant and hotels: Food, Service, Drinks, Entertainment, Internet, Delays, etc.
We could make a "in the air" destination and have all airlines on that destination. Budget, medium, splurge would be economy, medium, and business class. Price is too complex, but I would like to know what airlines serve food on shorter (eg. European) flights, have individual TV's, serve snacks and chocolate, serve alcohol, icecream, etc -- elgaard 10:43, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Mm-mm. I'll have to agree with Evan on this one for a change, as this is a bit of a slippery slope -- there are a lot of travel companies out there and countless websites/fora devoted solely to, say, air travel; I frequent one myself. One page is clearly unworkable, and do we really want thousands? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it'd be a pretty big expansion of Wikitravel's mandate. Jpatokal 11:06, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Flyertalk seem to be more a forum discussing a lot of things: Restaurants, travel stories, bonus miles etc. Wikipedia can fit airlines on one page: . We would need a few lines for each airline, but would not need to cover them all. Just like we do not cover every restaurant in Paris. I Think buses and trains should be covered in "get around" on country pages, although we could have a page with international trains. But it is not very meaningfull to cover airlines in country articles, Eg. I have traveled Denmark-Canada on SAS, Lufthansa, Air Canada, British Airways, LOT, Delta, and Czeck Air. Air France, Air Italia, and more is also an option. If we want to say that AirFoo serve awful food so you should bring a sandwich, it would a waste to put it in every "Get In" section on destinations that AirFoo is operating. -- elgaard 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
This has been discussed before and goes a little beyond Wikitravel's current scope. There are currently some discussions on hooking up with a well-known air travel specialist site who are also setting up a wiki, so please hold off for now. Jpatokal 22:36, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I'd like to share experience with a ferry going from Athens\Pireaus to Santorini. The issue is that the ferry goes ultimately to Paros island, and people will unlikely find it there when they read looking for ways to Santorini (and vice versa; same applies to 10 more islands on the way). What is the best place? --DenisYurkin 15:15, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
All of them. Every single island the ferry goes to should have a short note about it. Jpatokal 22:40, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)
It doesn't look smart to duplicate detailed info on the same ship on page of every island. Of course I will link from all islands to the place it is detailed -- but what's that place? I will hardly print out page for Paros if I plan to go to Santorini -- but maybe will print Pireaus, and will think about printing Ships operating from Pireaus to Paros, if Santorini article suggest me to. Is it OK to create such a separate article? --DenisYurkin 05:45, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I'm lost. What exactly is wrong with mentioning under the "By ship" heading of "Get in" on each article that a ferry starts in X (Pireaus?) place and goes to Y (Paros?) place, stopping in THIS (Santorini) place? Maybe even add a statement after that one saying that it had stopped at B place before THIS place and goes to C place afterwards.
I understand you might feel strange about repeating the initial statement each time, but if someone were interested in a specific island, its better to have the information right there. I've heard of instances where people more-or-less blindly printed an article, not realizing there was a link to another article and as such, did not have all of the information. -- Ilkirk 09:19, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)
What level of detailed information are we talking about? I think a note in the "By boat" section of "Get in" saying that ferry company X gets you from Pireaus to island Y every N days, look for the Paros ferry, etc. Although I think it'd be a mistake to go into intimate detail of the boat ("bathrooms are here and here, best place to sleep is on the port aft deck, the food is OK if you eat the spanakopita but not the meat etc. etc. etc."), but a one- or two-sentence gloss is probably reasonable ("A clean, modern boat with lots of space that makes most of its stops on schedule"). --Evan 10:58, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I've done it this way: common info placed in Cyclades (which seems to contain all the islands involved), while some specifics added in Santorini, with a link to Cyclades for a full story. Does it look reasonable? Any corrections suggested? --DenisYurkin 14:40, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Wikitravel:Where you can stick it decrees that festivals go under Do. I'm not too sure why, but it's the de facto standard already... I would not be averse to adding a "Events" subsection under Do though, and you can do this on an ad hoc basis already. Jpatokal 09:33, 5 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I recently added a bunch of events to the Basel page (subheading under Do), and I was thinking that it would be nice if there were some guidelines on how to list events, in terms of formatting. Dates, locations, a descriptive blurb, etc. --kenliu
On the regional template, we have both 'see' and 'other destinations' sections. What is the difference regarding entries? For example, other destinations implies somewhere outside the listed cities, but if there is a major site of interest in that region that it is not in a city nor big enough to require its own page, should it be placed under 'see' or 'other destinations'? The article on Tibet offers an example this problem. I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks. WindHorse 20 Jan 06
No need for a reply. I've seen how it is done on another page: Listings under 'Other destinations' should actually be large enough for their own pages.
This article says that churches should go in the See section -- what about for churches that are not tourist sites, but places the traveler might want to worship...someone put effort into listed places of worship for Rochester_(New_York)...I assume this is of some interest to the observant (since this sort of thing is always in the hotel information books). If this were a big city, I might think Cope...suggestions? Move, or just delete? Jonboy 16:04, 6 March 2006 (EST)
I think we should add a category for city exits and places were you can get out of a city easily under "get out" for citys (at least large citys). Also we should add hitchhiking to the "get around" in contry templates. Any other opinions on that?
I've been adding "By thumb" sections under "Get around" for countries and "Get in" for some cities. Jpatokal 02:37, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
So there's a new user (User:188.8.131.52) adding a bunch of scheduling info for trains in Europe (see Western Europe and talk page). I know there's been some talk in the past about how much detail in boat, plane, train schedules is useful to readers (and reasonable to maintain), but it's come up again. I think it has some place in actual city articles (ie "trains run every 2 hours" "last train leaves a midnight") but not so much on region or country pages and not so much the actual schedule in scheduling format. A general idea is going to be more accurate more often (think about sundays, holidays, etc etc) and travellers should always double check with the transportation company-- heck, I do even when I have schedules published by the company! Anyway, other opinions? Suggestions on what to do with the extensive contributions by User:184.108.40.206 ? Majnoona 08:58, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)
Agree this is an eye-sore and not very helpful. I'd vote delete.
The contributions should be deleted, in my opinion. While they may have some use now, unless there is sufficient effort they will fall quickly out of data and then be worse than useless. I pointer to primary sources where one can obtain up-to-date schedules and routes would be more useful. -- Colin 13:49, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)
I only partly removed the selected trains sections. Does anyone think perhaps that it is useful for smaller towns which only have one or two trains that pass through? I'd like some input on that before I delete the sections from smaller cities. -- Colin 15:42, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)
I moved a lot of these contributions to the talk pages - did they get moved back onto the main article? I just logged in and haven't dug throught the recent changes. Obviously I don't believe they need to last in their current form for exactly the reasons you've pointed out Maj, but it would be nice if someone could translate them into paragraphs. I, for one, had a bit of time reading them to begin with - those are all city names, right? -- Ilkirk 23:42, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)
1. Bus tour
2. Hiking tour
3. Boat tour
4. Rafting tour
5. If a tour provides a pickup from an airport, does it go into "get in"?
OK, I'll bite: I think tours that are mostly adventure sports should go in "do", and those that are mostly transportational should go in "get around". And, yes, I think that if a tour gives you rides to/from the airport, it should be noted in "get in".
What do I win? B-) --Evan 20:58, 27 April 2006 (EDT)
It's of interest both to many smokers and many non-smokers to know about both local and regional smoking laws and customs. Where can I smoke? Where can I go to get away from smoke? I'm thinking of adding relevant info to Australia and to its states, which have varying smoking laws (some are starting to ban smoking in licenced venues and restaurants altogether). Where can I stick it? Hypatia 01:54, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
Agreed. Some cities in the United States ban smoking in restaurants, bars, and public buildings... so where does this belong? --BigPeteB 13:05, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
There is a "Smoking" sub-section under "Eat" for the USA article, which seems like as good of an example to follow as any. Since in general this warning probably won't merit more than a sentence or two, "Eat" and "Drink" would probably make sense for most destinations, although this type of info is usually mentioned only at the highest level for which it is notable - for example, the California article might merit a few lines, but it wouldn't be necessary to add this info to every single city article for California unless that city was noticeably different from the rest of the state. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:15, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
I'm a self-admitted beer nerd (and seeking help through ethanol therapy, thank you!) and like to try out local offerings. I recently wrote most of what's currently in San Marcos and added a "local beer" section under drink. I should probably get around to this for Houston and the like. Does anyone see a problem for me adding this to other pages (or have ideas for a better way to work the information in)? I'm not a wine person, though I know that Texas and California have some pretty decent local wines that the traveller might want to know about too, so I guess there could be a more general name for this section, but I can't think of a good one. Jordanmills 21:25, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
This seems to me like perfectly appropriate information to include under "Drink". I've including info about local beers and wines in this section on a few pages. One simple way to do that would be to include a bar-type listing for the brewery's pub or the vineyard's tasting room, if they have one. - Todd VerBeek 21:41, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
Rule of thumb: If the main activity there consists of sitting in a vehicle/walking around and looking at things, it's a "See". (This includes all but the most fun museums.) If it includes more involvement than that and/or getting your heart rate up, it's a "Do". - Todd VerBeek 21:00, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
I am interested in people's opinions on cities where the districts are really inner suburbs, with most of the sights concentrated in the centre and it doesn't seems productive to go all the way in creating districts. In this case, an anonymous user created Headingley and Chapel Allerton, which are part of Leeds. I moved these to discrict pages, but I don't feel we should move all the city centre info to a Leeds/City Centre page, as it seems happy enough where it is. Is this acceptable?, and could it be used in a few more cases where the main article could become the de-facto city centre article. -- DanielC 16:50, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
Hi Daniel, I think I responed to this in some of the Leeds 'burbs, but for the record: we only really want districts for huge cities such as Mexico City and New York (city). The other options are "neighborhoods" or stand-alone destinations for actual suburbs. I don't know Leeds well enough to say, but I'm pretty sure it's not Huge, and that folks think of Headingley et al as 'seperate' (ie the Get in sections all say "take a bus from Leeds" whereas I would not say "Take a bus from New York to get to Queens"). Hope this helps! Majnoona 10:47, 5 May 2006 (EDT)
Sites of interest as opposed to the city/region/etc. focus Wikitravel has so far
A lot of the most interesting places to visit in China — for the "adventure tourist" at any rate — are, for historical reasons obvious to anybody who knows China's history, in way-the-Hell-out-of-the-way places nowhere near a city or town. Examples would include Longhu Mountain, home of one of the most important Taoist temples in China and White Deer Academy, the world's oldest university. (Other standalones which could at least plausibly be associated with nearby cities would include Shaolin Temple, Donglin Temple, Tiefo Temple, etc. but I think they'd still be better served as separate destinations rather than as simple entries in a city page.) I'm really not sure how I'd go about adding information on these kinds of places given the editorial policies in place and the templates provided. And yet I really want to actually document these out-of-the-way places which I've grown to love in my stay in China. Could anybody with some suggestions on how to do this drop a line on my user talk page? --Michael 06:49, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Wikitravel:Plunge forward and write them up as small cities, which is the 'default' template for oddballs (cf. Panmunjeom, North Pole). Alternatively, if they're national parks (as eg. Longhushan seems to be), then the park template is also a good option. Jpatokal 02:15, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
I've been sticking Casinos under "Drink," but is that where they should go or is there a better section for casinos? -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:09, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
I've been using "Do" even though gambling is not exactly active. OldPine 13:12, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
I was debating if Drink or Do would be better because for the most part Casinos seem to be more nightlife activities, which would indicate "Drink", but it's also completely feasible that they should be under "Do." I'll wait for other comments before adding casinos to the page. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:17, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
I see your point, but my feel is that the preponderance of folks go to gamble with a small percentage going for nightlife. I do list the nightclubs under drink and the restaurants under eat. Agree on hearing more views. Always a good thing. OldPine 13:20, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
I'd cast my vote for "Do" — gambling most definitely is something you do by yourself, as opposed to just sitting around watching. Jpatokal 19:08, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
The current guideline says that "holiday (national)" belongs in "the Do section of the Country page", but nearly every country article (or at least those I've touched!) puts them under a "Holidays" subsection in "Understand" instead. To me this makes perfect sense, because then it's next to "Climate" and they're both important things to consider when planning a trip. Should the guideline be changed? Jpatokal 18:22, 7 September 2006 (EDT)
Wow. Four years ago. This question just came up again over on pt:, and I notice here that there was some support for this change but it never got changed. Still most countries have this info in the Understand section, so can we go ahead and make the change on the policy page as well? Texugo 22:21, 16 September 2010 (EDT)
Sure, why not! LtPowers 10:26, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
Since there has never seemed to be any opposition to including holiday information in Understand and it seems more logical than including it in Do, I shall now make the relevant change on our policies page. --singaporeAlice 19:45, 6 November 2012 (EST)
User:220.127.116.11 has added large tables of airline connections to a bunch of articles (for example Abbotsford). I think they are too much detail, and should be deleted. But I'd like a second opinion first -- Colin 16:18, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
Seconded. It appears to be User:18.104.22.168 popping up again. Evan and I tried to talk to him/her about it to no avail. Let the reverts begin. -- Jonboy 18:21, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
Oh good, it's already been discussed. -- Colin 18:25, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
I've been reverting this for a couple days and started a discussion for him to see on the article he repeatedly added the tables to - Alesund. - Sapphire
The IP address for this user changes spontaneously so we have to vigilant. Today (June 29) his IP is - 22.214.171.124. (This has since changed multiple times.) -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 04:47, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
TMI? WTF is that? C'mon, it's not even in the jargon. OldPine 06:57, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
TMI = Too much information. Have you seen these tables? He even lists what kind of aircraft someone flies on if they go with a specific airline. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 07:09, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
Ah, I see. If I were NewPine I might have got that. No, I haven't peeked. I haven't moved into cop phase yet, but I truly appreciate how the admins are on top of things like that. OldPine 10:06, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
I agree that the info here is excessive; I wonder if there's a way we can make space for this information. I think there is a case for saying that it's another way of seeing travel, and maybe we could make a new article category for precise bus, train, and air schedules. but I could also buy the idea that they're pretty hard to keep up to date. --Evan 09:53, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
Some of this is useful (e.g. savvy travelers like to avoid certain aircraft for safety/comfort reasons), but with the possible exception of a certain Israeli bus line, most carriers do a pretty good job of keeping this information accessible and up to date on their own sites/publications. Let the primary sources handle that. - Todd VerBeek 10:13, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
I refuse to fly on Boeing jets and do research the aircraft I will be flying on, but for Wikitravel I just don't think the information is relevant, because so many airlines are changing their routes selling off older jets for newer ones that are cheaper to maintain and use less fuel to prevent bankruptcy. I like listing the airport that serves a city then provide information about the airlines have big operations at the airport. I.e. If someone wants to use the Philadelphia airport I'd mention that U.S. Air has its hub there, but I wouldn't bother listing that U.S. Air or KLM have a single gate that they use at the CVG airport in Cincinnati. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 12:34, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
Swept in from the pub — Hypatia 19:08, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
I noticed today that 126.96.36.199 added 7 car rental agencies to at least Dallas, Ft. Worth, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and Atlanta, giving phone and URL for only one of them. As I recall, the list was given twice on each page, once under Get in and also maybe under get around. Probably useful info for the traveller (in one iteration), but I wonder if we really want this info in every city or airport city. Would it be better (or is it already covered) in a travel topic article or in some other way? If not, I'm inclined to want to get the other toll free numbers and URLs and paste the info over the listing given. OldPine 20:29, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
All seven of those are nationwide companies and are probably availble in all the major American airports. Maybe it would be better to just put them on the United States page. Texugo188.8.131.52 05:47, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
To complicate it, the company for which info was given is not national. They operate in five states in the southern US and Washington (state). OldPine 08:59, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
Swept in from the pub — Hypatia 01:10, 13 October 2006 (EDT)
Is it possible to trim this discussion page? (obsolete topics, resolved problems etc).
During long travel, it's better to buy bread, cakes from local pastry (delays, stranded etc). There are excellent ice cream shops in certain cities. The pastry and ice cream shops are not restaurant nor bars.
Is it possible to add a new category "Pastry & Ice Cream" under "Eat", beside "budget, mid-range, splurge"?
I don't think it makes sense to add an entire heading to every guide we have. I've usually put dedicated snack shops under "Eat#Budget", and places that offer coffee etc under "Drink". Jpatokal 12:53, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
It was really hard for me to find this article. I added a link from Wikitravel:Project>Tools, but I feel that's not enough. Can we further improve its chances of being found by a newcomer? --DenisYurkin 06:03, 10 November 2006 (EST)
A quick count gave me 14 links in the current Welcome message, I think a better spot would be on the Wikitravel:Help and/or Wikitravel:Welcome, newcomers pages. We can't have everything in the welcome message! Maj 23:34, 7 December 2006 (EST)
I've seen people adding listings for banks and ATMs in the "Buy" section and got to thinking where does this information belong? Personally, I feel "Cope" is a better section since you cope with monetary issues rather than "buy" it. Thoughts? -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Which section should recurring events and public holidays in a destination go? I think travellers might be interested in knowing about annual events, such as the Cannes Film Festival or Mardi Gras, if they want to visit the destination during that time (or alternatively stay away to avoid crowds). Should there be a separate section for this ("Events"), or could this be part of another section (a more general "When to go" perhaps, which could also include information about the climate and such)? --Jopo 05:12, 5 September 2006 (EDT)
So I've been adding a listings for embassies and consulates on de: and it's fairly black-and-white on de:, meaning that essentially only people fluent enough to read German will be using the guide, and that will largely be German, Austrians, and Swiss.
However, it's recently been argued that non-native English speakers use en: for information and for that reason we should accommodate them where ever, including with regards to disambiguation pages, but do we accommodate them by listing every single embassy/consulate for a given place?
Also, I'm very much perplexed by the current direction that states the embassies should be listed under the "Cope" section of cities. Now, I can understand why consulates should be listed in city guides, rather than country guides, but I think embassies should also be listed in country guides since they are very important to travelers. Let's say a Brit is going to Louisville and gets into a bit of trouble. Now, since the UK doesn't have a consulate in Louisville (or so I assumed) we wouldn't have any information for that traveler and he might (sensibly) refer to the U.S. guide for contact info for his embassy.
Also, which embassies do we list? Off the top of my head I'd say the countries with large English speaking communities; Canada, UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. Of course I've left out quite a few countries, but I don't want to do too much plunging forward until there's a consensus. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I would vote for also allowing whatever country which language doesn't have its own version of wikitravel. --DenisYurkin 16:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I think we should list all embassies... they aren't just there to help the citizens of that particular nationality, but also for visas and inquiries for people wishing to visit those countries, and who are we to guess at which embassies are relevant and which aren't? As for where to stick them, obviously they need to be in the city pages where they are located... but I do see the value as Sapphire points out of having them on the country page as well... for instance, in Pakistan almost all of the embassies are in Islamabad... but there's an Afghan consulate in Peshawar, which is a much better option than getting the visa in Islamabad... and unless you already know that, the country page would be the likely place you'd check to find out where in Pak you can get an Afghan visa. So I think maybe this is a rare case where something needs to be in more than one place on WT. – cacahuatetalk 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
"All embassies" is a frightfully long list, and including consulates would make it even longer. - Todd VerBeek 09:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Not necessarily... maybe in a huge capital city there will be a longer list, but in a city where there's a lot of embassies that's because they're warranted there. If a country is going through the effort to maintain an embassy or consulate, to me that shows a demand for it, and I don't see why we should overlook that or leave some out just for the sake of keeping our list tiny. Even if we've got 15 or 20 listed in a city (and we do in a few articles) it doesn't really look out of control... we rarely need descriptions or anything, just the name and contact details, and it usually looks pretty orderly and compact, I think. – cacahuatetalk 15:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Also, those "huge capital cities" should be broken down into districts anyway, which should spread out the embassies into smaller lists. I think that embassy lists are very important to independent overland travellers in Africa and Asia in particular, because of the reasons that Cacahuate listed. --PeterTalk 04:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Eek! Embassies should not be broken up into districts, because unlike restaurants and sights you don't have a choice of where to go, and the only way to find the one embassy you're looking for is to run your finger down the full list. IMHO Singapore does this the right way. It's quite compact, and has no descriptions unless necessary (eg. that the Indian HC doesn't issue visas to non-residents). Jpatokal 06:12, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
There are a lot of female travelers that would welcome information on nail salons etc. I know a number of professional woman that seldom gets time to pamper themselves while doing the 9 to 5 thing, so they always incorporate this into their holidays. Maybe information like that can go under the Cope section? --NJR_ZA 05:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
My thought is that if we add things like nail salons we might as well add barbershops, convenience stores, dry cleaners etc. It's a bit of a Wikitravel:Slippery slope in that we're then listing anything a traveler could possibly ever look for, even when those things can just as easily be found in the local yellow pages. That's probably fine in really small towns that don't have anything else, but in a city with hundreds of business I think we should focus on those establishments that are of interest to the majority of travelers - ie restaurants, hotels, bars, and a few highlights in terms of unique stores, major shopping areas, etc, otherwise it will be difficult to draw a line as to what is appropriate and what isn't. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
This section is for all those little items that people need to know when they're in a city. Where can you do laundry? Go to a gym? Get computers repaired? Anything that has to do with the practicalities of daily life should go here.
I agree with having this kind of information in articles. I've thought of reasons why people travel, besides tourism. Business trips, weddings, parties, or even funerals. I think some people would like to know where to get their hair or nails done or where they can get their suit dry-cleaned or tailored. Sure, that stuff can be found in the yellow pages, but so can most of the restaurants, hotels and museums. I'm not going to start adding this information to every article, but if someone adds it, I think it's fine to leave it.
I do agree that we need to set up some guidelines - I don't think we should start adding every convenience store, florist or dog kennel just because someone might find it useful. -- Fastestdogever 13:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Based largely on personal experience barber shops/hair salons/nail salons (Alright, I didn't go to a nail salon, but...) are very important when you're traveling, especially on extended trips.
I'm in favor of allowing several services under the the "Cope" section: Hair/Nail salons, laundromats, gyms, and embassies, and consulates. Everything else I'm weary of, though, for international travelers I see the benefit of allowing listings for florists, since it is good practice to present a gift to someone, if they welcome you into their house while you're abroad.
One could make an argument for almost any kind of walk-in business: I might want to rent a DVD, buy this week's new comics, have my tarot read, pierce a body part, get my glasses repaired, etc. Limiting articles to things that are clearly travel-related or popular with tourists (doesn't everyone who goes to Tijuana come back with a tattoo they don't remember getting?) seems like a good idea to me. - Todd VerBeek 09:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
A few things that say they should be in "Understand" I kinda am not so sure about:
Newspapers ( I think should be in Cope)
Sports teams ( I think should be in See/Do)
Province (suggests putting it in "its own region page", but that's not the case necessarily... I think we should remove this one altogether) – cacahuatetalk 03:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. I'd put sports teams in "See". - Todd VerBeek 09:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Whether we decide to have sports teams in "See" or "Do", I agree that they shouldn't be in the "Understand" section. I think that Cleveland#Do is the right idea of how sports teams should be handled. Newspapers in the "Cope" section sounds good to me. Also agreed that Province should be removed. That's already covered in Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy -- Fastestdogever 15:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I can agree with the first suggestion, but sports teams should go under "Do", mainly because audience participation is much more active than that of the theatre or opera, but policy directs people to put information about the theatre and opera under "Do". Regarding the last suggestion, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 15:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Province - a territorial unit. It's confusing because it doesn't belong on this page. Kind of like listing "State" or "County", neither of which belong here. At least, I think that's what it's getting at - it took me a minute to figure it out myself. -- Fastestdogever 16:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Ha, I understand what a province is, but thanks for the explanation. :) What I don't understand is why a province or a state (since its also listed) wouldn't "necessarily" get its own page. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Because we don't always break up a country or state according to its governmental provinces... I don't think we should encourage people to always create articles for provinces when all that's often warranted is West XXX, North XXX, etc... and I agree, sports could go in "Do" – cacahuatetalk 18:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I have a few questions/comments/idea. Is there a place with all the pages listed? Are the pages supposed to include history about the places? Because I've seen very few that have it. And my idea is... some kind of rating system for places. Maybe on the discussion page for each place, we could have the people that have been there give a 1-5 star rating of the locale and give reasons why. That way people know what others think about the place and see if it would be a good place to visit. Andrew 00:00, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
There are lists of Itineraries and Travel topics and Wikitravel:Namespace index. I don't know of a list for destination guides, but they are linked by a hierarchy of geographical tags. If you start from a high level of that hierarchy, say a continent article, it should have links to things below.
I think history is a bit of a slippery slope. There often should be some, to orient the traveller, help him or her appreciate what he or she sees and perhaps avoid offending people. On the other hand, there's no need to give detail that would just clutter s travel guide; leave that to Wikipedia. Also, discussing history often invokes controversies we should avoid getting tangled in. We may need to warn travellers of these, but need not analyse them or take sides. "Just the facts, ma'm".
I like the idea of pointing out good places to go, but doubt that star ratings are the way to do it. The country, region or state/province articles should have links to the best places, with a bit of comment. Itineraries like A week near Hong Kong or One month in Southeast Asia can point out good places within an area and routes between them. Pashley 02:34, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
See Special:Allpages for a list of all Wiki pages. Some' history about a place is probably fine (it goes under the "Understand" heading), so long as the principle of Wikitravel:The traveller comes first is followed - as Pashley noted, we're writing travel guides, not an encyclopedia, and an article that goes into too much detail is sure to be trimmed, but many of the best articles do provide some background about a place. As to rating destinations based on their "travel worthiness", I have a feeling that may be a tough sell - it's very difficult to come to a consensus on such things, and I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the idea of having to say (for example) that Philadelphia is a "4" while Cleveland is merely a "3". -- Ryan 02:56, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
True. I did mean only a bit of history. I have seen a few places, though, that simply don't have any. I'll try to find them and fix them. Your opinions on ratings? True, I accept that. Not the best thought on my part. So naming some more interesting places under itineraries would be the best way to go about saying which places are good to visit? Thanks for feedback! Andrew 22:16, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
Nice discussion, and it's come up a couple of times. I think the history of a destination should be the bare minimum to help you understand the cultural and linguistic state of the place. Especially if historical events play a part in the museums, attractions, or things to see or do in a place, it makes sense to outline those historical events briefly. Digging overly deeply into branches of history that travellers won't have first-hand (or second-hand) encounters with is probably too much information. --Evan 23:54, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
I absolutely concur with Evan on brevity in History sections; Wikipedia ("WP") and other sources will usually provide more exhaustive and authoritative information for those folks that like to research before they go. We should be short and pithy with the encyclopaedic type content and concentrate on those areas that WP can't (and won't, due to WP policy constraints) cover. The History type sections can usually have just a Wikified link and we should concentrate on the up-to-date practical stuff.
Star ratings in a formalised way are offensive for locales and inevitably will lead to edit wars and arguments. (They may be useful in warning of a "Five Star mugging risk" or a "Three Star toilet" in an unformalised figure-of-speech way.)
Star ratings in a formalised way may be something to consider for our articles themselves, though.
You may want to look at Wikitravel:Article status. As far as history, I think we agree although I don't think of Wikitravel as the travel adjunct to Wikipedia, but as an independent project to create travel guides (see Wikitravel:goals and non-goals). Long historical treatises that don't enhance the travel experience are dead weight in a travel guide. --Evan 12:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Gaimhreadhan, we have an article status as Evan points out, but those are for the quality of the articles, not for the destinations they cover. As for Wikitravel rating places or hotels or restaurant, we do not have a system yet, but there will soon be a sister site launched where travellers can review and rate places. I will leave Evan to reveal more details, because I have no idea how much I should at this stage. — Ravikiran 12:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
So one of the non-goals of wikitravel is to be a personal travel log (or, one of the goals is to not be a log, or . . . well you get what I mean). Where does a more in-depth personal experience with something mentioned on an article belong? Say, I went to a brewpub listed in an article and felt like describing the local beers I tried, discussing the pub, etc. Does that belong here? I would guess that it does, in reasonable amount, and that it should be placed in the relevant article's discussion page. Is there consensus on this subject? Jordanmills 21:47, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
We really don't have a place for the information you are talking about. If you want to add a few comments about items that are good (or bad) on the menu, that would be okay, but we don't want first person references and it should be brief. The "discussion" page is for discussing how the article should be composed and not information about the location. What I mean by that is we would use that page to discuss the content, but not include content. Some like this page... general discussion and talk. Hope that helps. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 22:38, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
I think that this is an important question and I'd like to see more discussion on this. My thoughts follow:
Yes it is true that currently we do not have place for such information. Of course you're allowed to use the first person there, and you are allowed to mention your personal experience at particular restaurants, but only as a way to discuss the guide. For example, if an article gives a restaurant high praise and you just had a crappy experience there, it is perfectly okay to mention this in the talk page, but it is even more preferred to go change the article yourself. The theory then is that those who preferred the earlier version may object on the talk pages and then you are supposed to discuss the change.
However, I think that both from a traveller's point of view and from the point of view of making a travel guide, there is something unsatisfactory about this. For one thing, the two edits might be months apart and the original editor might not even be watching the page. Instead of a consensus or a debate about exactly which areas a restaurant scores and where it sucks, it will end up reflecting the views of whoever edited it last. Essentially, we end up losing valuable information.
From a traveller's point of view, personal reviews and experiences are a valuable service that Wikitravel is not providing right now. I see the value of a travel-guide style "name, address, phone number, 2-3 lines about the place", but I also see the value of reading about other travellers' personal experiences. Also, many people who may not be comfortable plunging forward and editing a travel guide would be comfortable writing about their own experience in the first person.
The same goes for a personal travelogue too. Some people have used their user spaces to plan out journeys and record their experiences, but our policies frown on such use. We are supposed to convert travelogues into rather impersonal "itineraries".
The point I am getting at is that both for retaining users and for enriching the guide we need a space for the personal experiences of users. Users who are not comfortable writing travel guides can hang out at places where they can review and discuss restaurants, and write travelogues, and those who are interested in the guide can mine those experiences to build the guide.
The good news is that this will probably happen. One of the goals of the merger with World66 was exactly that. Unfortunately, in all the hullabulloo about being "sold" to Internet Brands, we ended up not discussing this at all. Evan and Maj haven't yet discussed what is going to happen on that front, but I hope they do so soon. — Ravikiran 03:09, 2 October 2006 (EDT) (P.S. Also see this )
Crappy - good experience. For a tourist from Italy, perhaps the spaghetti from local branch of pizza hut is horrible. But for a local reviewer, the same spaghetti is the best Italian food in town.
Just a follow up on this discussion-- feel free to email User:Maj directly if you'd like more information on the "personal travel" site we're developing. Ravikiran pretty much nailed every reason for creating this type of space and we're really excited about seeing things move forward! Maj 11:49, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
There's a request for comments and a link to the (now public!) beta site on shared here. Just in case some folks haven't seen it. Maj 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask about this. I'm from Wikibooks, and we have a module there about how to get a certified copy of a Philippeans passport. The Wikibooks community has determined that the artical should be deleted, but some people have suggested that perhaps the material would find a suitable home here. The original author of the page cannot be contacted.
The page will probably be deleted from our servers within a week. If people here would like to save a copy of it, you can do so within that time. If not, that's alright too. Thanks. -- Whiteknight (Wikibooks) 09:35, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
That's not really very relevant for us either, and what's more, we can't use the content here without the original author's permission as the licenses differ. Jpatokal 09:49, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
Thanks for the reply. I hate to delete content if there might be another home out there. But I guess this isn't the right place either. --Whiteknight (Wikibooks) 19:42, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
Due to my edit war over linking to a travel agency on the Uzbekistan article I need to ask the community: is there a place for listing and linking to travel agencies on Wikitravel? If so, where do these listings belong?
I could argue for either side, but I feel that it's something we shouldn't pander to because we're not Yellow Pages. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:50, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Hi Sapphire, If you want to be fair then why did you allow to put links to www.advantour.com (Travel agency) and www.uzbekistanair.com (another travel agency)? They are in direct competition to www.visituzbekistan.eu Let's treat everyone fairly! If you allowed one then you have to do the same for others or not at all! I think you have to respond to my comment! Waiting for the response! Furkat Ayrum Internasional Limited (www.visituzbekistan.eu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furkat (talk • contribs)
I've removed Advantour's website too because that link was in violation of our policy. If I were you, I'd make a case as to why we should include travel agency information on Wikitravel, rather debate about fairness. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:17, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Post scriptum: There is not a link to uzbekistanair.com on the Uzbekistan article. There is a link to www.uzairways.com, but per policy this looks like a legit link because it is the primary (official) link for Uzbekistan Airways. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (EST)
I confess to putting the Advantour site there some time ago! I did it after I heard a case of someone in the UAE being conned $500 for visa support by an Uzbek 'travel' company. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I understand it should not be there now.Davidbstanley 18:28, 13 December 2006 (EST)
Regarding tour links... I've think a company that provides tours is a primary source if they give the tours themselves. If they just sell tickets to someone else' tour, then they are just a travel agency and should be deleted as any non-primary source. Because it's so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in this area, I have a profound hate for all tour listings. -- Colin 13:57, 9 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks for your response! It was uzbekair.com not uzbekistanair.com I think we sort the case out. I think it is a waste of time why we should or should not list travel agents. The main thing is keep it nice, clear and neutral!
Have a nice morning!
P.S. I would not mind if you could refer to my company(www.visituzbekistan.eu) as a reputable one. It has recently opened a new office in London. We are expanding to China and Russia soon. I would be very greatful for that!
It has been our policy to only link to "Official" travel sites (see: What to link to). I am sure your company is very reputable and provides an excellent service to your clients. That is not being questioned. I might also mention that decisions are made here by the community and not my an individual. (see: Consensus) We all do our best to cooperate in seeing that our policies are followed and I know that Andrew is doing that in this case. So, what you are dealing with here is a policy that is set by the community of "all" users on Wikitravel, not just one person and if policy is changed, it will be a decision for all users of Wikitravel. (see: Wiki information) This said, we may on occasion miss removing a external link for a non-official site. When those are found they are removed. We do our best to be fair and if there is a conflict we do our best to get a consensus from the community. I hope you understand we do not favor any travel agency over any other. You are welcomed to add some information about your agency on your talk page and we encourage you to add valuable content to our guide. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 06:30, 9 December 2006 (EST)
What about creating Special:Moviesources, doing the same thing as Special:Booksources? I tried typing a movie ASIN in the booksource page, but it didn't work... not that we want to advocate flooding articles with book and movie suggestions, but sometimes there are some really relevant ones... Cacahuate 10:03, 15 January 2007 (EST)
I would vote for having a max of 3 books (literature, not guidebooks) plus a max of 3 movies on a region somewhere in the end of article. It would really help to understand local culture and to fall in love with the region even before you're there. I would love to have such suggestions, for example, for regions like Alaska, Tashkent, Kyrgizia, Morocco, Istanbul, Athens, Vietnam, Algeria. I've seen in Slippery Slopes that we don't like to do anything with books or music or movies, but I'm not sure we should be that radically conservative. --DenisYurkin 04:29, 11 February 2007 (EST)
I'd support a Wikipedia-esque "References In Pop Culture" section in which to note a location's use in a movie or book. For instance the New Zealand article would mention Lord of the Rings and Boston's article would have mention of say The Departed and so forth. Using advice from movies on the other hand seems like it could end in peril and arguments.
I wouldn't support ones that just reference a place in Pop Culture. I think it would likely just be a mention in the "Understand" or "Cope" section, and only in really useful obvious cases... we don't want to reference things just for the sake of having a list, but there's times when something is really relevant, like a hugely popular travelogue for a certain place, etc. See Afghanistan#Read. "Dark Star Safari" by Paul Theroux should probably be listed in East Africa since it's a popular route and most that are doing it are reading or have read it. Or "The Sheltering Sky" for Morocco. Just really classic, obvious choices... - Cacahuate 02:21, 22 February 2007 (EST)
I do believe you've converted me. After some thinking and reading I realized that if it has no relevance to traveling then it has no place here
Hey there, anonymous editor! Interesting idea that you have, but I for one will dissent... mostly because I think it will only serve to duplicate the info, and trying to keep both sections updated will be an unnecessary headache. I think the way the page is organized now, alphabetically, is the single fastest way to figure out where to put something that you don't know where to put. On the other hand, if someone is just curious about what goes in a specific section then they should look at the various article templates, where there are short descriptions of what to use each section for. – cacahuatetalk 01:08, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I actually kind of liked the by-section listing. I'm not a big fan of long lists, and that gave a nice way of breaking down what has become a list of over a hundred items. Your point about having to update two places anytime something changes is valid, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing... anyhow, hopefully others can add their thoughts so we can come to a final decision. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:30, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
If the point is to break down the long list, then I'd vote for creating a subsection per letter of the alphabet, which will leave us with a TOC for easier navigation as the list gets longer. If the point is to tell people what kind of info goes in the "Buy" section, we've already got that described in the article templates. My understanding of this page is that it's to help when you've got something in mind for an article and don't know where to put it... say a barbershop... when I get to this page, I would find it much easier to find "barbershop" in an alphabetical listing than scouring each section of the "by section" area to find it. Anyway, I'll revert my revert so people can see what we're talking about while discussing – cacahuatetalk 01:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
The thing I liked about the section listings is that for someone who is trying to figure out where (for example) "mosque" goes they won't currently find "mosque" in the alphabetical listing, so it gives them a way to browse the sections and see if the examples listed for that section are similar to "mosque". The article templates could be used for that, too, but to me this page was always kind of a quick-reference card sort of thing. I don't feel that strongly about this issue, so whatever people decide is best is fine with me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
"I would find it much easier to find 'barbershop' in an alphabetical listing than scouring each section of the 'by section' area to find it." Of course, the alphabetical listing is still there - and precedes the "by section" area. Does adding an area that others might find helpful detract from the utility of the area that you find most useful? 184.108.40.206 09:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
No, we just aren't in the habit of duplicating information. If we do keep the "by section" section, I think it should be a sentence or two, similar to the Article Templates, describing what kind of info goes there, as opposed to actually listing a lot of things there. I suppose we can just see how it develops, but to me I think it's going to make a mess of things. But if I'm alone on that, I'll shut up :) – cacahuatetalk 19:44, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
As long as Drinks section refers for guidelines to Bars listing, I think we can decide that coffehouses, teahouses and cafes (which focus on tea, coffee and pastry rather than alco) belong to Eat section, not Drink. Currently, it's frequent problem: "where to stick some details on coffee in the region? on local alternative to starbucks? etc".
Objections? --DenisYurkin 17:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
I personally would rather see our policies on the "drink" section expand a bit away from just drinking alchohol. That section should be, in my view, for any nightlife activity. I would include coffee shops and tea houses that stay open late, as they are good places to hang out and chat in many countries (especially countries where alcohol is forbidden). Coffee shops that are just open in the morning and serve sandwiches for lunch, however, should probably go in "eat." --PeterTalk 04:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Art galleries are currently listed as "see," but since their Raison d'être is to sell you works of art, shouldn't they go in the "buy" section? I definitely see them as more of a shopping (if only browsing in my impoverished case) than a sightseeing activity. --PeterTalk 04:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Someone recently added a link to AA meeting info to the "Drink" section of an article, and while there's an obvious logic behind that, I'm wondering if this is information we want to include. I can see AA info becoming hard to maintain, and perhaps better handled by Alcoholics Anonymous itself. But on the other hand, it's obviously useful to many travelers. If we do include info about AA meetings, is this the best place for it or would the "Cope" section be better? - Todd VerBeek 17:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
if we do, i say put it in the drink section... then maybe they won't drink in the first place and won't have to "cope" with themselves in an AA meeting the next day... – cacahuatetalk 00:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it's really relevant to travel, and not a slope we want to take on. IMO it's better to leave it out. Jordanmills 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd leave it out altogether. It may be useful for a few travellers but it's possibly too fine grained for Wikitravel. Otherwise, maybe use the Stay healthy section. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 08:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't put it on the city page, because that it just too much to keep up (in the small the town I live in there are at least three churches that have weekly meetings). If anything, I think I'd put it on the "stay healthy" section country page. -- Fastestdogever
...goes where? (if it's not a part of a bus/train station/airport)? And if it is? --DenisYurkin 04:53, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
I would probably mention it in Get in if it's part of a transport station... add a line in like (LAX will also store bags on the first floor for $5/day each) or something. If it's a hotel, mention it in the description of the hotel. I can't think of a scenario where it wouldn't be part of a hotel or a transport station, but if you find an example, it would help figure out where to put it :) – cacahuatetalk 13:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
See Pamplona#Cope. I think it's a good place, and I would even vote for having all of them in one place in the article, not attach it to specific transport. --DenisYurkin 16:19, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Where should we include an orientation section? Should it be a subsection of "Understand", "Get around", "Get in"? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Depends on the destination/article - sometimes "Understand" is best, other times "Get around", and in exceptional cases it needs a "==" level heading. Don't think I've seen a good case for putting it in "Get in" though. Maybe "Get around" should be the default? ~ 220.127.116.11 06:33, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, I suggest the "Understand" section, because, as in the Cincinnati guide, the section can tell people about the characteristics and history of neighborhoods, while also giving them an understanding of how to get around the city. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 06:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Perhaps "Understand" makes more sense as the default for huge cities and anywhere with sub-districts, and "Get around" makes more sense as the default for smaller places.
If/when it's going to be a sub-section of "Understand" then I think it should be the final sub-section, so that it sits directly above the "Get around" section. ~ 18.104.22.168 07:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry, my mistake - moving it to the bottom of "Understand" puts it immediately above "Get in", not "Get around" - but still I think it's probably the best place if/when it's going to be an "Understand" sub-section. ~ 22.214.171.124 07:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)
I left a question in Talk:New York (city)#duty free shops at JFK on where to stick info on airport shopping for NYC, as a huge (and districtified) city which still has not a [legit] article for its major airport. I would appreciate your comments there. --DenisYurkin 11:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
In a recent edit EE moved the Culver City farmer's market listing from "Do" to "Buy". I reverted it without much thought based on the idea that a farmer's market is an event like a fair... however, since this is a gray area it's probably worth discussing and then adding an entry to the "Where you can stick it" listings. I would tend to think of these markets as "Do" items since they aren't permanent and are as likely to offer music and other entertainment as shopping, but others may feel differently. Thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Markets should be in Buy. Just because they are in "Buy" doesn't mean they aren't any event or a destination. There can be music and entertainment in shopping malls, city shopping centers as well.--Inas 22:15, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Feel free to disagree with it but I was thinking, would it be beneficial to have hair and nail and spa places integrated into the guides? It would call for a new template, but for citys it would be great. A lot of people want to go to hair salons and spas when on holidays. What do you think? edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 17:04, 11 December 2008 (EST).
They would go under "cope." For most Western cities, where there are tons of English speaking hair salons around, I don't think it's terribly useful to list them. But upmarket spas might be a nice thing to include. --PeterTalk 17:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Please don't list these. A spa, such as one would find in a place like Palm Springs or Santa Barbara is valuable as people drive hundreds of miles to visit it, but a simple nail salon or barber shop can be found in the yellow pages and doesn't belong in a travel guide. Listing businesses like nail salons, barber shops, gas stations, or grocery stores for cities that have more than a handful of businesses is inappropriate as it becomes a Wikitravel:Slippery slope towards creating a yellow pages guide, which we definitely don't want to do. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)
So, only spas? Note - I will only list hair places if it is a salon spa kind of thing, is that okay? Groceries can be useful and I have seen them in a few articles. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:53, 11 December 2008 (EST).
Please re-read what Peter and I wrote. Peter indicated "upmarket spas might be OK" while I indicated that listing a spa is really only appropriate when it's a place that people would travel to visit. To make this simpler, before listing something like a nail salon, gas station, or grocery store make sure it meets one of the following two criteria: 1) the establishment is rare for the area. Example: a visitor to a remote town will want to know if there are gas and groceries in that town, but a visitor to Los Angeles can assume that it will be easy to find both. 2) the establishment is so noteworthy that anyone with any familiarity with the location would recommend it. Example: drug stores aren't notable, but Wall Drug is known internationally. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Is there a reason why post offices are not listed here? If included on a page, they obviously belong in the "Contact" section. Also, in the Washington, D.C./East End page, I have added FedEx Kinko's locations. Especially when on business travel, shipping/fax/copy/internet places are incredibly useful and I have needed them on many business trips (and leisure trips). For a place like D.C., there certainly are a lot of business travelers, in addition to tourists. Aude 00:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)
No reason, and Contact is the place for 'em. Plunge forward! Jpatokal 01:36, 9 January 2009 (EST)
An anonymous user, or two, has been sticking URL's for Geogad walking tours into the Do sections of several London, San Francisco and New Orleans district articles, as well as a few other places - 11 articles in total, so far. This is being done on the basis that Walking Tours is listed under Do. However, I do not see these as Walking tours, rather they are like an audio guide book, so could go under a new section called Listen as a subsection of Understand. But I also think this has the potential for spam, as the same website deals with a whole lot of places. So I think it should be listed, at most, just once - but I have no idea where to put it. Any thoughts? - Huttite 02:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)
My apologies, I represent Geogad, and I have been refining and adding our walking tours to the wikis. The listings have recently been pulled even though they have been in some locations for awhile. These are not audio guides, but actually tours that we have put together. There are custom directions printable and a mobile platform for travelers to walk the route. I would like to know the proper location to place these, I will also remove links to the mobile site and the android applicaiton if that helps. Thanks and I look forward to a response 126.96.36.199 15:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)
If you wouldn't mind, could you read Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners and create a user account? It makes communication easier. In addition, once you've got a user page you can add information about your business on your user page. If your company actually conducts physical tours with tour guides then I don't think there's a problem with the listings, but if it's simply a service that sells/offers tapes or MP3 downloads then I think current consensus is to avoid listing those sorts of services in Wikitravel. Consensus can always be changed, so if you feel that such services should be listed here please contribute to the discussion on Wikitravel talk:External links/Audio guides. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure I agree, I've tried a few tour podcasts, mostly downloaded from torrents cause I suspect the quality varies greatly, and I don't want to shell out good money, on poor quality, when I can have multiple beers for the same price. Anyway, several of the ones I've tried were surprisingly good and provided in-depth information about the attractions, something which is more or less a non-goal for us - unlike say Lonely Planet - which more or less strives to be the exact same thing as we do. I've actually inadvertently broken this policy myself with a link to Audiowalks in the Copenhagen do section, since I know for a fact that they are good quality for the price. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 11:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Could any discussion on whether or not to list audio tours be moved to Wikitravel talk:External links/Audio guides? This subject has been heavily debated, leading to the current external links policy on the matter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Following a series of edits by User:DavidG, who edited several Get in by plane sections to list all the cities that can be accessed non-stop from that airport, I think we need some guidance on how to handle such cases. I'm suspicious of its usefulness, but someone else did the same thing to Albuquerque a while back and I decided to let it stay, so I'm really on the fence about this. PerryPlanetTalk 11:58, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
My rule of thumb is that it's useful for those airports where the destinations can be counted on the palm of one hand, but beyond that it's kinda pointless. Just name the busiest routes/airlines and let the user work out the rest. Jpatokal 12:29, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
This information is not very usfull either. There are no information about witch airlines that operates this routes. There is also the problem that routes changes often, so this information quicly get outdated. ViMy 09:39, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
Hi, AHeneen. =) I saw the new section you added to Florida listing various foreign consulates throughout the state. I'm not sure I see the usefulness of such a list. Any individual traveler is only going to have a use for the consulates for his own home nation, and maybe one or two others. The rest of the list is useless to him, and it takes up a lot of space in the article. Would you consider alternative ways of presenting this information? LtPowers 09:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
The "any individual traveler" you refer to could come from any of the countries whose consulates are listed. I think it would be beneficial to many people, as the state is one of the most visited places in the US. I have come across many cities which list consulates (although not all in a given city) and thought that FL could use such a list. The goal of the Florida Expedition is to turn FL into a guide article and I think this information falls into the scope of a guide article. As for taking up space, the FL article needs more content and once it's lengthened a bit, this section won't seem so large. I don't know how to make the text smaller or make the space between listings smaller; otherwise, I'd make the listings smaller to save space. It took quite a while to complete the list and get a website for each consul. If you disagree or are still unsure, feel free to get another opinion. AHeneen 20:31, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
As a second opinion, I also don't think this information is useful enough to be included on a state page. I think most travelers would have the resources to find the consulate for their country if its important to them. With that said, one way to minimize the size this information takes up on the Florida page would be to create a Florida/Foreign Consulates page and make a note: "There are many Consulates in the State of Florida which can be useful to foreign travelers, see this page for a complete listing."--Jtesla16 20:46, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
(edit conflict) What I meant by "any individual traveler" is this: Imagine a visitor to Florida from, say, Canada. Our Canadian visitor is in Pensacola and need of the services of a consulate. Which is more useful to her: a list of all the consulates in Florida, which indicates that there is a Canadian consulate in Miami, along with dozens of others she doesn't care about; or a list of all Canadian consulates in the U.S., which tells her she could go to Atlanta instead, which is much closer? I don't in any way mean to dismiss the time and effort you put into this list, but I just think this information is better presented elsewhere and elseways. It's nothing personal, I swear. LtPowers 22:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
I see your point. To further complicate things, I should note that some countries' consulates have explicit jurisdictions which may not correspond to the closest consulate. Brazil's Miami consulate has jurisdiction over all of Florida, so you can't apply for a Brazilian visa in Atlanta. I think maybe we could create a page listing all embassies & consulates in the US by country then city. That way a Canadian in trouble could go to that page, click "Canada" in the navigation box, then see a list of consulates for Canada and determine the closest one. AHeneen 22:16, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Continued from above:
We have a few very long consulate/embassy lists floating around (like this and this). They strike me as being pretty clearly useful, but use up a ton of space with information that is useless for the vast majority of readers (since any reader interested in consular information would only want it regarding one consulate). Might it be worthwhile to use sub-articles for consular information, like Chicago/Consulates, or Florida/Consulates—both of these have already been proposed, but I figure we should coordinate this, as it would be precedent setting. --PeterTalk 21:51, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Seems like a good idea to me. To add to the list, I copied the format for the list in Florida from the Washington, D.C. article. AHeneen 22:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
I strongly support this idea. These YellowPage-esque listings are not appealing to the eye, and are of dubious value to most travelers. I think this info should be available, but not forced viewing for most. The only other solution which comes to mind, that would avoid making sub-articles, would be Collapsible listings. This would work like the Content boxes on each page, where one could click a "+" to expand the list of consulates, which is otherwise hidden. I don't know how to code this at the moment though. --Jtesla16 22:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
I tried out collapsible listings previously (see Template:CollapsibleTest), but the MediaWiki extensions needed for them don't seem to be enabled. Jpatokal 22:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
For some reason collapsible listings are functional on the Metadata tables for Images, but when I place the code into a typical edit window, it does not work. Any ideas why? --Jtesla16 11:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm a big wikitravel fan, but I was wondering if a section could be added for special health condition or handicap tips. Or should those just be integrated into normal discussion more? For example, my friend has a bum knee, and it's really helpful to him to know about cable cars he can take, or say, tall buildings with elevators he can take for the view rather than climbing churches. Or for my sister, who suffers from IBS (like having traveler's tummy all the time) and always wants to know if she's going to be trapped on a bus without a bathroom for hours, things like that.
188.8.131.52 01:11, 3 May 2009 (EDT)Heidi
Its a great ideal to have this information on Wikitravel. Typically, however, we don't make separate sections for particularly classes of travellers. All the information just goes into the appropriate part of the guide. Please plunge forward and add it. The where to stick it guide references some disabled information. However, if there is some precedent for itineraries and travel topics for classes of travellers, and I think a Seeing New York (city) by wheelchair would be a perfectly reasonable travel topic (or itinerary) --Inas 01:17, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
Cool, will do. -- Heidi
An access="" tag as part of listing would also be very useful, it could contain access difficulties, possibilities and tips. --inas 07:34, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
One of the hardest things to figure out about where to stick something is whether it goes under "See" or "Do". This article, I'm afraid, might only heighten that confusion, as it places sedentary activities like going to the theater under "Do", while active attractions like zoos (which can require a fair bit of walking) are under "See". "Famous buildings/structures" are under "See" but walking tours of those very buildings are under "Do".
I realize this has been raised before but I think it's time to definitively address this. I think longtime contributors have an instinctive understanding of what goes where, but that understanding may not be correctly described on this page.
Not sure. With regards to a zoo being a "Do" for the amount of walking, is it really more about interacting with something or just looking at things (animals)? Some zoos or pseudo-zoos (like Bush Gardens or Sea World in the US) are very interactive, with rides, shows, etc. and would be fine under "Do" and then there are zoos where you simply look at animals and are very appropriate for "see". I think zoos should be split because walking shouldn't be a factor. Many attractions require lots of walking, but are really about seeing things. Take Versailles for example, it is a huge complex and requires lots of walking...but isn't it about "seeing" something? There are lots of large museums which require walking, but aren't they about seeing what's in them? As far as building go, listing them under "see" is very appropriate, while a tour is appropriate under do. For instance, it is one thing to "see" (from the outside) Toronto's CN Tower, or Paris' Eiffel Tower, or Rio's Christ the Redemer...it is another to eat at the top of the CN Tower; climb the Eiffel Tower; or climb up to the CtR statue. See my point. If walking tours are offered of just one sight, then they can be listed under the attraction or mentioned as part of it:
Building X, 12 X St. (Corner of X & Y Sts.). A historic building in the heart of the ZZ National Historic District.edit
Bob's Building X Tours. Take a 2 hour guided walking tour of historic Building X. All our guides are locals with at least 5 years of experience leading tours!edit
Building X, 12 X St. (Corner of X & Y Sts.). A historic building in the heart of the ZZ National Historic District. Many guided walking tours are available from neighboring tourist shops as well official National Park Service staff.edit
Otherwise, if a walking tour is available for multiple sights or a district, then I think it would be very appropriate to place in the "Do" section while the individual attractions remain in the "See" section. Just my thoughts.AHeneen 14:24, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
I think the confusion comes from our stylish, but occasionally opaque header names. Replace "see" with sights and "do" with activities, and it becomes clearer where things go. Theater is an activity, if not a particularly active one. Tours are clearly activities. Zoos are somewhere in between, but I'm happy for them to stay in "see." Parks are often very tricky—in some cases the point of going there is just to marvel at its beauty, whereas they are often more relevant for sports, picnics, etc. Sherman Park in Chicago is one of the former, since a picnic there could too easily be disrupted by gunfire, but then again we put it in the "do" section just because it parallels Marquette Park well. I don't think we need to be too rigid with borderline cases. But theater still seems straightforward enough of an "activity" that I think we should keep it firmly in "do." --PeterTalk 14:33, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
But why is viewing a play "do" while viewing an exhibit "see"? That's what I don't quite get. Is it because one is scheduled? The example listing on Wikitravel:Activity listings is Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, which seems the epitome of an attraction to me, not an activity. LtPowers 14:52, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
Often times in cities, a neighbourhood doesn't have anything specific, whether that be a retail strip, a museum, or a tourist trap, but it's still a neat area to look around. Portland has descriptions for many neighbourhoods. I made it a seperate section. What do you guys think? Is it useful to have on it's own? Calgary would be another good example. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:27, 5 June 2009 (EDT).
Or should it be an "orientation" subsection of understand? – cacahuatetalk 21:58, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Or of "Get around"? LtPowers 10:43, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Much of it really is saying what there is to do or see there, even if it is just a bunch of old houses. If people aren't interested in old houses, then they probably won't to go there. The info there could easily be placed under the relevant sections. However, I take the point that it reads well as an introduction to the city as well. If you want to keep it reading like that I agree with Cacahuate --inas 21:52, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
I've seen them both in Get around and Understand. I'm guessing I should just put it into their desired sections. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT).
I think the important thing to ask is why it is a neat area to look around. Is it because it's pretty? Then put it in "See". Is it because there are a lot of neat little shops that aren't worth full listings individually? Then put it in "Buy". That sort of thing. If you want to describe all of the neighborhoods and how they're related to each other, then it should go in "Understand" or "Get around". LtPowers 08:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
Hello all...I'm interested in contributing some articles about car parking options that are available at various UK airports, with details on security features, types of vehicles allowed, distances from the airport terminal, etc, which I think would be helpful to air travellers.
I submitted a couple on Wikipedia, but was advised that they might be more welcome here. So, to make sure I'm going about this correctly (since it takes me a while to get these articles together...ha!), I wanted to ask for advice on "where to stick them". Should there be a general category of "Airport car parks" or should my articles be listed under an existing airport's page (if one exists)?
Articles on Wikitravel are structured pretty differently from Wikipedia; see Wikitravel:What is an article?. Basically, information about airport car parks belongs wherever the airport belongs: a few huge ones have standalone articles (Heathrow Airport), most don't and are just in the main town article (Glasgow#By plane). Jpatokal 09:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
Recently I've been noticing a lot of listings for limo rental companies being added to Wikitravel articles. I'm unsure what our policy on these are. I suppose one could argue they are essentially car rental companies, and thus should be allowed here, but I'm leaning on the side of removing them, since renting a limo is something only a certain set of people can do and limo renting strikes me as something you're more likely to do when you're, say, getting married, not while traveling. Then again, I'm too poor to ever hope to see the inside of a limo, so perhaps I'm just being bigoted. Is there a policy on this someone can point me to? PerryPlanetTalk 12:06, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
We get some worrisome spam in this category, and it's very difficult to check whether a "limo service" is at all legitimate or desirable here. There was a guy adding himself to articles throughout the Amalfi Coast for a while, and I've seen that in other places too. (Maybe I should offer my own limo services from Midway into downtown...) The few discussions I'm finding on this topic (Talk:New_York_City#Limo_rentals & at Talk:Rome) decided in favor of removing limo sections altogether. --PeterTalk 15:11, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
There are occasions in which it may be cheaper to hire (say) a town car for a particular trip than a taxi. Even if a limousine is overkill, those companies sometimes have town cars and the like available for a fee not far removed from a cab. But I also don't think we should get in the habit of listing every limo company in an area. LtPowers 22:16, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
Should day spas go under "Cope" (with the hair salons, makeup parlors, and manicurists) or "Do" (with the swimming pools and other exercise-related activities)? LtPowers 19:11, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Do. They are an attraction at the destination, and a popular activity when travelling. Not a basic service just to get by, which is what is implied by Cope. --inas 23:52, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
I might suggest we add "massage" as a keyword to the "Where you can stick it" page. Zepppep 17:57, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Plunge forward! LtPowers 21:30, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Completely disagree with where spas and massage parlours should be placed -- they are not an attraction. The argument for what meets the definition of Cope is perplexing, because note current examples incl. "restrooms/toilets, laundromats, and police stations." I know plenty of travellers who go without needing a massage but I don't know any who go without using the restroom. I know quite a few who do a load or two of laundry/dry cleaning, and for some locations, registering at the police station is a must. (The group activity argument doesn't fly, because fitness and religious services are often done when in a group. This is why I would allow spas to remain in Do.) Zepppep (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2014 (EST)
Moved in from the main article so this can be hammered into a more succinct form. Below written by User:Pbsouthwood. Gorilla Jones 17:20, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
dive site - This is a case which does not fit in well with the general guidelines for articles. If the destination only has a small number of recognised dive sites it may be possible to fit them into the Do section of the main article, but in the case of destinations which have a large number of sites which are described in detail, it may be more appropriate for each site to be a short article. This arrangement is being explored in the topic Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, in which the main aticle is linked from the Do section of the relevant City (Cape Town) and provides regional dive guide information, which is then linked to the individual dive sites, each of which provides detailed information to allow a visitor to plan and execute a dive at the site with or without use of local guides (people)
I think it's sufficient to just say that diving goes in Do. If a specific article has so many sites that they need to be split out, well that's no different than any other activity. LtPowers 20:06, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
What section does the fire department or police department go under, where can I stick it? OHWiki 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That depends on what kind of information you wish to impart. If it involves emergency numbers, it goes in Stay safe (though you should probably only list them if 911 or some other generic emergency number isn't available). If they're historic locations or otherwise worth visiting, they go in See. LtPowers 21:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
I have found a verbose advice on safety and scams on getting in from airport by taxi in Lison: Lisbon#Getting from/to the airport. Should it stay in GetIn:ByPlane:Taxi, or move to GetAround:ByTaxi, or move to StaySafe section of the city article? --DenisYurkin 13:38, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
It appears to present concerns about leaving or getting to the airport, therefore it belongs in Get In#By plane. LtPowers 16:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
So if I wanted to emphasize somewhere it's pronounced CopenHAYgen and not all too common (and German like) CopenHAHgen, where would I do that? it doesn't really fit well with the introduction. and what would be the correct pseudo pronunciation be by the way? --Stefan (sertmann)talk 09:47, 4 November 2009 (EST)
I always though the correct Danish pronunciation was to insert a hot potato in your mouth and then grunt out "k'bn-AH-vn" =P
Slightly more seriously, either the first sentence of the article or the beginning of the Understand section should work. Jpatokal 11:12, 4 November 2009 (EST)
or place a "Pronunciation" section (with a couple of sentences) as the first thing under "understand". This second option (or using both) may be better, as Copenhagen is a city where the English pronunciation differs from the local language's pronunciation (like Paris, Montreal, Pyongyang, and more).AHeneen 01:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I've always pronounced it "KOH-pehn-HAY-gehn". Is that wrong? LtPowers 13:53, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The trick is whether we're explaining how to pronounce it in English or Danish. In Danish, I think Jani's version is disturbingly accurate... Wikipedia gives us this little IPA treat: kʰøb̥ənˈhaʊ̯ˀn. I think the best we could do using the Wikitravel:Pseudo-phoneticization guide would be koe-buhn-AHVN or more closely koe-bn-AHVN? In English, it's KOH-pehn-hay-gehn, as per Stefan's infobox.
Where do we stick it, for example for a alpine skiing destination? --DenisYurkin 16:50, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Not really sure, but I'd think Cope? --globe-trotter 17:07, 1 February 2010 (EST)
That's exactly what I started with for Mayrhofen, but Cope is not in a template for a small city. Is that an obstacle? --DenisYurkin 18:40, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Not an obstacle, just add the Cope header if its necessary for that destination :) --globe-trotter 18:55, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Definitely Cope. The small city template has limited headings only for convenience. It's expandable when needed. LtPowers 18:59, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Thanks, updated the list accordingly. --DenisYurkin 19:22, 1 February 2010 (EST)
LtPowers, following your edit : I am not very happy with my English--could you suggest a better name if kindergarten doesn't fit the type of service we mean here? --DenisYurkin 05:05, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Babysitting, daycare, childcare. LtPowers 09:12, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Where should they go, if they cover both attractions, shops and transport? See Lisbon, Vienna and Innsbruck as examples. --DenisYurkin 10:31, 6 February 2010 (EST)
I would look for these in the Buy section, regardless of what they cover. --Burmesedays 11:12, 6 February 2010 (EST)
For me, that's the least expected place. Isn't Buy on shopping only?
Personally, I would find a subsection in Understand (as of one the few general sections) as most logical. --DenisYurkin 11:43, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Yes, Understand (perhaps under Visitor Information) or maybe Get In. LtPowers 20:48, 6 February 2010 (EST)
A discount card is normally something you buy that makes things you buy later, cheaper. In that case it should go in the buy section I think. The buy section is not just for shopping but for cost information, banks, atms, changing money etc., right? --Burmesedays 03:10, 7 February 2010 (EST)
I would look for these cards in the sections they primarily relate to. If a transport discount card also gives you a discount to a few attractions and shops, I would still put it in Get around; if a museum discount card also gives you some discount for transport, I would still put in in See (if needed with a reference from Get around). If it cannot be decided what the card primarily relates to, I would reluctantly put it in a subsection in Understand. So, the Vienna card being put in Get around seems ok as it is a card for free transport for three days which also gives a few € of discount to some shops and museums; the Innsbruck card is a bit more difficult as it gives both free sightseeing and transport, but as it does not make sense to buy the card for transport only, I would still keep it in See where it is now; for the same reasons I would move the Lisboa card to See
The disadvantage of the above suggestion is that it is not very clear and that the contributor to the article has to make a subjective assessment of where best to put the information on the card. The advantage is that the information will be in its natural place, which I think is not with the other more overall information given in Understand. I think it would be a mistake to make a general rule that the cards should be in Understand whenever they relate to more than one section, that would move a lot of detailed information to Understand where it does not belong, ClausHansen 03:48, 7 February 2010 (EST)
I think that's the best and most logical option. What if I summarize it as "stick to the section where the card gives the most radical advantage / saving; in doubt put to Understand, and someone else will follow up"? --DenisYurkin 07:41, 7 February 2010 (EST)
It can be in a Tours subsection of See. But I think Wikitravel doesn't list tours, unless its something you cannot do on your own. --globe-trotter 10:42, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Providing the tour passes the guideline (most do not), then definitely in See. --Burmesedays 11:14, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Should we nuke Sightseer mention for Innsbruck? And if it's heavily advertised, shouldn't we warn it's not worth the money? (there's a separate issue how we judge whether it's heavily advertised or not). --DenisYurkin 11:43, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Actually, tours should only ever be listed as activities, under Do. This is purposeful, as the tour criteria allow only tours that constitute a value-added activity. I'm pretty sure we have been ruling out tour buses altogether, as a tourist could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own via public transport/car + one of our travel guides. If we were going to start listing them, I think the only appropriate place would actually be in the "Get around" section. --PeterTalk 14:37, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Not if the bus doesn't let you off during the tour; then you're hardly getting around. Regardless, I agree "Do" is the place for tours that meet our guidelines, like the "Duck" tours in Pittsburgh or Boston. LtPowers 20:47, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Specifically, Sightseer for Innsbruck doesn't offer added value, allow letting off and coming back--but is sold only(?) as a part of Innsbruck Card. So if we still list the card, is it OK to also give few details on the bus that comes as a obligatory supplement to it? --DenisYurkin 02:28, 7 February 2010 (EST)
See and do classifcations not only confuse new users, but also fairly experienced editors like globe-trotter and myself :). But let's not open up that discussion which must have been beaten to death in the past. Just on the criteria for tours, "could fulfil the substance of the tour on their own" is not always imposed. London#Tours is a good example of tours that a visitor could manage on their own but nonetheless add value to the article. --Burmesedays 03:34, 7 February 2010 (EST)
Then, how would you suggest to decide on Innsbruck? --DenisYurkin 07:43, 7 February 2010 (EST)
I often spend a few hours in a town on my way to my final destination, and for this purpose, luggage lockers or luggage offices are rather useful to lock away the greater part of my travelling gear.
I'd like to add a line regarding these things to a couple of towns, however I'm wandering where this best fits in the existing structure of most articles. Ok, the luggage storage at Cork's "Parnell Place" bus station is easy enough -- I assume that wants to be in "Get in / by bus".
However, what about the internet café in Dublin's centre, that just happens to have a "left luggage service" in addition the usual row of computer terminals? As far as I can tell, it doesn't fit in any of the pre-existing categories. Where does this sort of thing want to go? --Dave b 19:10, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
In 99% of cases the luggage storage is going to be at one of the places we are already talking about in the Get in section, and that is because most people want to store their luggage while getting in or out. --inas 21:01, 15 February 2010 (EST)
This article tells us that beaches should go into the Do section. I am wondering why, as the See section seems more appropriate. This has just come up here: Talk:Bukit_Peninsula#Beaches. I have written about beaches a lot in the various Bali articles, and used the rule of thumb that general beach info ("it's a lovely beach, go have a look") goes into the See section, and activities which may be related to the beach (snorkeling, diving, motorised watersports etc), go into the Do section. Bali went to star guide with beaches under Landscape in the See section. I am not grasping the activity element involved in looking at a beach. --Burmesedays 04:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)
I think the idea behind it is that not many people look at a beach, but travellers are usually involved in activities there, such as sunbathing, surfing, swimming, etc. --globe-trotter 05:00, 16 February 2010 (EST)
I guess that is the idea, but those activities can be dealt with sensibly in the Do section. I go to look at beaches all the time to take in the seascape etc. And just going to the beach to sunbathe/laze around/read a book (probably the commonest reason for going there) is surely not an activity?--Burmesedays 05:06, 16 February 2010 (EST)
Yeah, it is. If the beach is scenic and doesn't involve a lot of people hanging around sunbathing, See is fine, but most beach-goers are doing an activity, not seeing an attraction. LtPowers 08:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)
OK. In that case I have been doing it right — See section for "have a look, take it in, watch the sunset, have a chill etc" and then the specific activities in Do. That should probably be clarified in this article. See and Do distinctions still confuse me. You Do watching an opera, but See walking around a botanical gardens. --Burmesedays 08:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)
I know; see #See vs. Do, again. I'm still not sure I understand it as well as the originators of the distinction, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. "See" seems to be almost exclusively for things that would be classified as "sightseeing", while "Do" is for everything else. If you go to Radio City Music Hall for a tour, that's "See", but if you go there for a show, that's "Do". =) LtPowers 10:18, 16 February 2010 (EST)
I'm starting to find this odd though. A beach is not an activity, it's a natural attraction. Surfing is an activity. In Thailand many beaches are even national parks. I think beaches are better dealt with in the See section. We've been having this problem especially with countries, where it'd be odd to split natural attractions between See and Do. --globe-trotter 12:38, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
Some beaches may be attractions in their own right, but most city public beaches are just a place for activities like sunbathing and swimming. LtPowers 18:31, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
If the beach is a natural attraction in its own right, then I always put it into See. The activities belong in Do, not the sight itself. I think WT has been murky on this issue and the distinction should be defined correctly.--burmesedays 20:51, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm going to come down firmly on the side of See here. Even the "most city public beaches" LtPowers refers to above are still nice looking places or people wouldn't go there, basically no different than a park, which goes in the see section. Parks are just places where people sit around on the grass or bench and let their kids play, or play tennis or whatever. It's not that different from sitting around in a beach chair. I don't think parks or beaches are activities -- you do things there because it's a nice-looking place, and besides, there are lots of beaches or other seaside landscapes in colder climes that are not used for traditional beach activities but are nevertheless very lovely sights. It doesn't make any sense at all to me to have parks in See and beaches in Do. I think beaches should go in See, and obvious activities like sunbathing and surfing can be mentioned there. If there are non-obvious activities, like hang-glider rental or whatever, they can be listed in Do, with the beach name in the address field. texugo 23:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
Interesting that beaches have been "Do" and parks have been "See" since Evan's very earliest revisions of the page. Who knows why he made the distinction. Maybe it was to keep beaches with swimming pools and other aquatic activities? Nonetheless, I am persuaded that parks and beaches should be in the same section. LtPowers 13:14, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
Strong support from me for that also. Beaches into See, specific activities like snorkeling, surfing etc stay in Do.--burmesedays 13:28, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
Here  we have visa run under "do". I'm pretty sure that is wrong, but where else should we put it? Placing it under "get in" is a bit weird, because it is about getting out. But placing it under get out also strikes me as a bit stange— as it is not a destination, but mere paperwork. --globe-trotter 11:39, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I would generally keep all the visa information in Get in, and I do not find it weird to have the visa run information there as well as it is about how to get in again, ClausHansen 11:53, 20 February 2010 (EST)
I would say Get in, perhaps with its own sub-heading. --Burmesedays 11:54, 20 February 2010 (EST)
Get in for sure. Visas are used for both entering and exiting, not just exiting. Furthermore, the Get out section is used to visit nearby (or at times, far away places but almost always in the same country) places--thus, visas would largely be unnecessary to list info about again. Any helpful info. for getting back to the airport/train station, etc. would also be listed in Get in, even though the WTer is leaving. Zepppep 17:52, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
I've watched travel guide shows and read some travel magazines, their travel info includes like "See the tribes of...", so like if we add that here where would it be listed? Would it be in the do or see section? Adding this might also help the travelers know the country more by experiencing the cultures and traditions of indigenous tribes that haven't much affected.SnappyHip
It would probably be in "Do", as in most cases it would require an expedition of some sort. Although I admit to some unease over treating people as tourist attractions. Unless the tribes specifically welcome travelers, it may be better to put information under "Culture" in the "Understand" section. LtPowers 10:22, 4 February 2010 (EST)
If it is really specific (eg "go to village Z to see tribe X"), you could add to the see section of the relevant article. Could be a country, region or city article, but I find this sort of information often sits well in the region article. If it is not specific, but rather a general statement about the ethnicity of the area, then it will probably sit best in the understand section, perhaps with a culture sub-heading. I agree with LTPowers that where possible it is better to treat as a cultural topic, rather than a specific attraction. I guess you are talking about tribes in the Philippines? Here is an example of how I dealt with the Tenggerese in Java in an understand section: Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park. Alternatively, it can be sensitively addressed in a see section, as with the Bali Aga here. --Burmesedays 10:26, 4 February 2010 (EST)
Thanks LtPowers and Burmesedays :). Cheers - SnappyHip
I frequently include info on airport dutyfree shops, but it's still unclear for me how to compare/measure different airports in terms of number/size of dutyfree stores.
Number of shops looks good, but is not always applicable: e.g. Dubai has a single area for everything. Square meters looks much more objective and universal, but: (a) to understand the size, you can only compare it to other airports you been to (and typically you won't have Wikitravel guides for them when traveling), (b) looks like it's not widely available and published at airport sites. Ideal measurement is total number of items available, but that's absolutely theorethical metrics.
Anyone else interested in the topic, any suggestions? --DenisYurkin 17:57, 1 February 2010 (EST)
I don't really understand the goal for this? Is it for a travel topic about duty free shopping? --globe-trotter 19:42, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Creating a travel topic is also on my list of someday-maybes, but I'm not sure there's enough content in the topic to become a separate article (while a section in nonexistent "Buy" article may be a good candidate). --DenisYurkin 20:03, 1 February 2010 (EST)
Hi! There is a debate ongoing on the Talk:Vienna#Duty_free site about if we really need to have duty free shops in the Get in section of articles. I really doubt that as due to the carry-on restrictions of liquids (by the administration) and size (by airlines) it is not really a value for travellers. E.g. Frankfurt Airport currently seizes three tons (3'000 kilogrammm / 6'600 lbs.) of goods from travellers per day (and other airports are known to have even bigger volumes) and most duty free can't be transited any more. Also today on the curbside of airports there are shops were travellers can buy to local prices. Denis started to insert at some airports duty free section and it would be good to discuss what are the guidelines for it. I can't see the profit of listings for shops at airports as the main goal for the Get in section is to inform travellers on how to reach the city/region etc. and not on how to shop in between. I can only imagine a general travel topic about it that features the top10 duty free shopping areas in the world. jan 04:16, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
To start with, "duty free shop in airport" is in WTSI for more than 3 years , and it never faced any challenge before (I even believe that I added it as a result of someone's suggestion, but can't find that discussion right now). --DenisYurkin 16:06, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
It's hardly used so far and i suggest we keep it that way. jan 17:05, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
Duty-free shops should be in "Buy", as far as I'm concerned. LtPowers 10:19, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Originally my question was on how to write on duty-free shops, not where to stick it. I wonder how we technically split discussion in such cases (copy a relevant piece to a ontopic talk page?). And I wonder where best to stick the original question; clearly it doesn't belong here. --DenisYurkin 16:30, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Jan's question probably should have been a separate thread, especially since it came almost two months after yours. I don't see a problem with splitting the thread there. LtPowers 21:33, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Thank you. So where to move the original thread? --DenisYurkin 03:41, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Most events held in such places would be under "Do". I don't know if the buildings themselves need a listing; would anyone visit them without going to a specific event? LtPowers 14:32, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
I generally put these on the map, and mention them in the understand section when they are big and relevant enough, but I'm not sure we need actual listings for them. --PeterTalk 16:41, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
Hospitals here are listed under "cope", and I just added police stations under there as well. But wouldn't these be more logical under Stay healthy and Stay safe? And what about dentistries? --globe-trotter 11:41, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
I tend to agree. Note, though, that "Stay healthy" is usually only used in country and large region articles; most destination articles will have only a "Stay safe" section. LtPowers 16:33, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
I'd go with Stay safe for police stations, but that's not where they go according to Wikitravel:Where you can stick it. Police stations are much more likely to be frequented by a traveler than, say, a health club (that's not inside a hotel), and furthermore, questions of safety seem to be asked more than "where is the nearest Bally's?". Dentist offices under Cope. They seem to be listed less frequently than religious services, which also go under Cope, but if folks are creating the section for religion, then I 'spose they can do the same for a dentistry. Zepppep 17:47, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
In Bangkok, I placed a section on animal abuse in the Bangkok#Stay safe section, as I didn't know any better place for itt. Where would it best fit? --globe-trotter 13:48, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
I'd say "Stay safe" works. "Buy" might seem appropriate for the elephant warning on the surface (since it's something you're being pressured to purchase), but I think we can all agree it would seem out of place there. Sometimes you have to just group similar information together, even if the header doesn't perfectly fit; "Stay safe" is really kind of a "watch out for" section. LtPowers 22:05, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
Coffee seems to me to be quintessentially a "Drink" topic, but Inas disagrees. Thoughts? LtPowers 17:08, 15 December 2010 (EST)
My argument is that our Eat section is about restaurants, food, and the drinks which accompany them. Our Drink section is what would be a Nightlife section in other guides, includes bars, nightclubs. This makes it easy to see what goes in what section.
This is set out quite clearly in our template, where it says the Drink section is For bars, clubs, and other nightlife. Yes, many people go out to clubs and don't drink; the name of the section is still Drink.
If in the locale, Coffee is a drink which is largely taken at breakfast with a bagel or muffin, then Drink is clearly the wrong place for it in my opinion. If a Coffee Shop constitutes what the locals would do to go out and pass the evening away, then that is a different story. --inas 17:23, 15 December 2010 (EST)
I must have been doing it wrong all this time. I've always listed cafes in Drink, under in its own Coffee heading. There is a spectrum of cafes, from ones who specialise in good coffee but also sell muffins - to cafes that have a full menu but also keep a coffee machine. The decision to put it in Eat or Drink depends entirely on why the traveller would go there - to just drink coffee or to eat, with a coffee on the side. Nonetheless, where ever they are listed, it would be helpful to caffeine lovers to separate specialist coffee places out from the rest of the listings to highlight cafes with good coffee from the rest. I think I just said the same thing as Inas. - Cardboardbird 23:36, 15 December 2010 (EST)
I would answer it the same way we do pubs/bars that also sell food. Put the listing in the section for which a patron would most likely venture to that establishment--if they are a bar that also serves (marginal) food, they would go under Drink. People go out for any number of reasons to various drinking establishments--to dance, to mingle, to tap their toe to sax solos, to sip fine ales--the fact that the drink might be coffee shouldn't matter. As the above states, if a restaurant happens to serve coffee but their food is killer, then we'd put them under Eat; if locals are trekking it to the local java joint specifically because their known for wonderful beans, then Drink seems to be where I'd put the listing. There are also lots of places which specialize in coffee but also sell alcohol, especially if they have live events (music, poetry readings, etc.) and therefore it makes even more sense to put them in Drink. In the end, if a java joint is clearly labeled under a subsection (such as "Coffee", no matter in Drink or Eat), it should prove helpful to WTers. Zepppep 17:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Cooking classes are listed here as going into the Learn section. I have always put them in Do, including in a couple of Star articles. Which is correct?
Art classes - identical question. Absent here.
Yoga, meditation, healing classes (etc). These are absent from the policy article. Learn or Do? Again, I have always put them into Do, but that is arguable.--Burmesedays 05:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Discussion hasn't been really going, but I believe they should go in Learn. See . If they wouldn't go in Learn, then that section would become useless. --globe-trotter 07:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
It is hard to distinguish between Yoga courses (for example) which I could see belonging in Learn, from drop-in Yoga sessions which seem to belong in Do. Same goes with diving for example. As Learn is not a section on the Small City or District templates (where these sort of listings most often belong), I have always stuck such things in Do. It is not an easy one.--Burmesedays 09:50, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Nothing is, but the fact remains that these sorts of classes are what the Learn section is for. Obviously "taking a class" is an activity, but we split instructional activities out into "Learn". Small City and District articles most certainly can have a Learn section; we just don't include it in the basic template for space reasons. LtPowers 15:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
So that's two opinions that instructional classes go into Learn. I guess instructional classes of any description? --Burmesedays 20:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Pretty much, though as with everything else, specific cases may require more creative or unusual solutions. When it comes to travel guides, every one is different. If it would improve the travel guide significantly to "break" the rule, then do it. LtPowers 22:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I think enormous ski resorts qualify as articles (in the same way that Disneyland or, perhaps more germanely, Whistler do.) However I question whether the latter, in particular, is sprawling enough to warrant its own article, just as I wouldn't think that every Six Flags would qualify. It seems to me that it would make sense to combine both into one article. I also think that there's a tout-y tone to both at the moment, but that's a separate issue. Rezendi 01:03, 9 March 2011 (EST)
Well, they certainly don't need to follow a region template, so I removed the giant list of cities and the regional info from Big White. If all those eat listings are actually at the resort and there are sleep listings actually there and not in a nearby town, perhaps it should get an article, but there isn't enough info for me to decide. texugo 01:48, 9 March 2011 (EST)
Should not there be a standard section with information about Tourist offices (e.g. web addresses, physical addresses, opening times, phone numbers) ?
Indeed, I had the same question. Sometime it is at the end of the "Understand" section. Should this become a standard? It could be put in "Cope" too but this section is optional and rather at the end of the page; and Tourist office info is something people probably want to know pretty early. Joelf 16:04, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
I've always seen (and placed) this at the end of "Understand" under the heading "Tourist Information". ChubbyWimbus 17:18, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
Are museums listed under "See" or "Do"? The London article has a list of museums under "See", but then another one (repeated) under "Do"? I can't find any guidance. --SaxonWarrior 14:38, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
As a rule of thumb I would normally put museums under "See" unless the museum is exceptionally hands-on. For instance, in Atlanta there's the World of Coca-Cola museum where you can sample dozens of international Coke products, and the Georgia Aquarium where you can touch several sea creatures and kids can play in a massive playpen... to me these could go either way, and I would probably put them in whichever section had less content. --BigPeteB 15:02, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) "See" per Wikitravel:Where you can stick it#M. There might be exceptions, but I can't think of any at the moment. The museum listing at the London article (Natural History Museum, right?) should definitely be moved to "See" in my opinion, if not one of the district articles. – Vidimian 15:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks guys - that makes sense. --SaxonWarrior 16:42, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
Most museums could go either way, but we chose "See" for lack of a better idea. Even interactive museums go there just for the sake of keeping museums together. Zoos are the same. Sporting events are in "Do" because going to the ballpark conceptually involves more than just sitting and watching; it's more about the experience than the sights. They're all arguable, but we had to pick one or the other. LtPowers 22:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
As a traveller, I found some guesthouses or other services, sometimes lacking complete understanding of what a traveller coud ask: for example, for guesthouse, be cleaned / no bedbugs, have some informations on transport from/to, ...
is there such a page on wikitravel ?
In this edit a user quite rightly pointed out that credit card use in the Netherlands increasingly requires a PIN code. I removed it from there, for it was in the wrong place, but now am unsure on where to stick it instead. I'm guessing more travelers are unpleasantly surprised by that PIN-code fact, and I think it should be in the article on The Netherlands. But where? Money exchange info should go in the Buy-section, but it seems way too far down to put general info on currency, credit card use and all that there, since it's relevant from the first minute you arrive. Now that I look at it, we also don't seem to have one of those "costs & money" sections (I think that's how LP calls it, or some other guide) with info on what to expect in terms of daily costs. Is that on purpose? For many years that was one of the first sections I would read in search of travel destinations that would more or less fit my budget. Justme 09:35, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
All banking, money, currency etc information should go into the buy section. If you want to post daily cost/budget info, make a costs sub-section of the buy section. See for example United Kingdom and United States of America (and I am sure lots of other articles). --Burmesedays 09:47, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd be interested in seeing more information on how to dress for a destination. Not in a lot of detail, but enough to know what to expect. There's bits here and there, but I think it should be more widely used, certainly at the country level.
For example, at a country level: a sentence each on dressing for business, for everyday wear, and for "dressing up" to go to nice restaurants or plays. At a state/city level, there could be room for this, too... in the Southern U.S., dress is very casual during the summer because of the heat, while in Washington D.C. people tend to dress nicely even for everyday dress.
Definitely agreed. Useful information. I suggest in the Understand section. I think that the only guideline on dress so far, is for warnings about modesty etc which are to be placed in the Respect section. --Burmesedays 12:24, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree strongly that this would be useful. It's one of the hardest bits of information to come by prior to travel—I often find myself crawling through flickr searches for street views—but is quite useful for anyone who doesn't want to stand out as a tourist (presumably everyone?). I guess Cope would be the appropriate section? --PeterTalk 16:37, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
I'll be happy to take a stab at this in a few articles. I notice that several countries don't have a Cope section yet; is it worth adding one just for this? Maybe it should go in another section? --BigPeteB 15:36, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Cope is usually for services. Understand or Respect would be better, depending on the nature of the advice. LtPowers 16:44, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
I took a first attempt at this at United_States_of_America#Dress. It turned out a little longer than I expected (and it's biased towards men's dress because that's what I know), but I think it covers 98% of all the scenarios travelers would encounter. Let me know what you think! --BigPeteB 18:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
I do think it is a bit long; the entire United States article is already too long and contains far too little travel information and too much basic how-to-act information. I think what needs to be said about dress in the U.S. could fit into one or two paragraphs, and belongs properly in the Understand or Respect sections. LtPowers 19:32, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Alright, I pared it down a lot. I think I like it better shorter, anyway, as part of the adventure of traveling is discovering for yourself what local culture is like, rather than reading about it on a website. --BigPeteB 13:20, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't think understand or respect would be appropriate sections. The point of going over how people dress is about making your trip more comfortable via blending in. --PeterTalk 23:19, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
But we've never used Cope for such things in the past. Ever. It's always been for services. It especially doesn't make sense in locations where we also cover appropriate dress under "Respect" -- then we'd be putting clothing information in two different sections. LtPowers 23:26, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
The respect material has been about not offending local sensibilities, but that's not what BigPeteB is suggesting. Having a dress subsection would allow us to move the information up there.
I don't know where you are getting the "services" bit from. Wikitravel:Huge_city_article_template#Cope advises that Cope is for Anything that has to do with the practicalities of daily life should go here. Intuitively, the name of the section would also suggest that this is an appropriate place. Choosing what to wear is pretty clearly one of the practicalities of daily life, and trying to blend in is one of the most basic coping mechanisms for travel in a different place (lest you be hassled endlessly, draw funny looks, or feel silly). --PeterTalk 00:04, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
But likewise it says "Don't put something here when it could fit in one of the other sections." "How Americans dress" is quintessential "Understand" information. LtPowers 09:36, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't think it's a good idea to start enforcing this idea by reversion. After the section was removed, the best thing to do would be to discuss on the talk page whether it should be re-added or not, especially since this is a new proposal that has yet to gain any significant traction. I, for one, continue to be unconvinced that this needs a whole section of its own under "Cope" in a city guide; a single sentence or two under "Understand" should be plenty. In country articles, we might be able to get more verbose, but things just don't vary enough city-to-city to be worth three paragraphs. LtPowers 13:26, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm fine with removing the section in the future, if the general feeling is that it is not helpful. But it is for the time being our test case, so I'm happy to see it draw critiques in the meantime. I will reiterate, though, via rambling, that while many might not care about this sort of information (in the same way I don't care about where I can find shopping malls), for some tourists, blending in while traveling is a priority and a difficult art. All the more difficult owing to the general paucity of destination-specific information online. For most destinations, though, this can certainly be left off. --PeterTalk 18:58, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree that most city articles don't need a Dress section, and those that do probably only need a couple of sentences. (I couldn't care less where it's placed, either.) I just want to convince people that it is important... maybe not for you, but for others. Business travelers, I think, have an obvious need to show up appropriately dressed. European visitors to the U.S. could be quite embarrassed to realize that speedos are uncommon at beaches and pools. As for everyday dress, other than a general desire to not look like an out-of-place tourist begging to get mugged, I can only offer a personal anecdote. I've taken several college choirs on tours where they did "homestays" with local families for lodging, and they were consistently praised for their maturity and responsibility, and it led to many further displays of kindness and hospitality. (And this is from families who regularly host college choirs throughout the year.) I think that dressing to fit in, rather than just lazily putting on shorts and sandals like we wear at home, contributed to this, and I think all travelers ought to have that information available, whether or not they choose to use it. BigPeteB 09:43, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Hi! I'm editing a Wikitravel page for my first time and I was hoping someone could answer my question. What is the real difference between "To Do" and "To See", or is it really just up to the writer to decide? Any comments would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Alexabac! That's a very good question, I'm happy you asked it. Section See is used in any destination article and is required in all cases. May be combined with section "Do" if making a distinction between attractions and activities is difficult or unnecessary (as with amusement parks or very small destinations). Section See is for attractions in the area. Attractions are passive by nature, involving things that are more-or-less permanently available for viewing. Galleries and museums, zoos, parks, and landmarks are examples. Scenery and observation towers also fall under "See". Section Do however, is optional and lists activities in the area. Activities are usually active by nature, plus scheduled events. Sports (both participatory and spectator), casinos, theaters, and tours are examples. Recreational activities like hiking, boating, or skiing also fall under "Do". For more information please look at this page. Also, this page can be very useful. I hope it all helps. We are happy to have a new contributor here on Wikitravel! Let me know if you have more questions, I'm happy to help! Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
Hi, I wasn't sure where to bring this up so I guess I figured right here on the main page. I was wondering if it was okay to make pages for individual locations within cities themselves. For example, pages for specific museums, parks, restaurants, hotels, etc. (things that are notable enough to be mentioned on the city's page itself).
The main page does say that this is a project for a "complete travel guide" and I feel that is lacking when there is not detailed information on specific things to do within each city. For example, I was in Tallinn 2 years ago and today I decided to look over the Tallinn page on here to see if there was anything I could add. I got to the "See" section and it's a very uninformative brief description for everything there is to do. The Museum of Occupation simply has an address and a very brief sentence that vaguely explains what is there. I found the museum to be very interesting and I could write a much longer description and include some pictures on a page that was solely about the museum itself.
But I just wanted to see if it was okay to make such pages. I don't want to do all this work to create them and then have them be deleted. Will check back soon. Cheers. ZeekLTK (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
Thank you for your question! For the future, please write all the questions here in the Travellers' Pub and one of the admins will get back to you. : Individual attractions should not have their own articles (in general). Their information should be listed in the city or possibly district that they're in. With a few very rare exceptions there should not be articles about museums, city parks, hotels, restaurants, etc. You can read more here. It's all with the purpose to keep Wikitravel organized and consistent. Please add more information to Tallinn page about the Museum of Occupation- description, pictures, information relevant to the traveler. We will be delighted to see your edits! Let me know if you have more questions. I am here to help! Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
Hi, thanks for moving my question. Sorry, I didn't know where to put it. However, I think this policy should be revised. How can this site be the "most complete" travel guide if there is only limited information on the majority of what traveling is about - the individual locations within the cities? I know that even when I have used this site in the past, I always find that there is hardly any info about the individual things to do at each location, so I end up just looking for more specific information elsewhere. I think you are losing a lot of potential users by not allowing more specific pages to be created. These are not opinion pages either, each page is a specific destination that has facts that cannot be disputed. Museums, for example - this could be a great place to put tons of pictures of things that you will actually see in the museums as well as specifically describe both the overall theme as well as individual exhibits. You just cannot provide anywhere near that in-dept information in a small blurb about the museum on a city's page, and therefore people leave this site and go somewhere else when trying to find that. I really think you should reconsider to keep those people here, and make this a place where you can find EVERYTHING without needing to go elsewhere to supplement it. 184.108.40.206 23:15, 14 June 2013 (EDT::
That was me, Zeek. Apparently I was logged off. ZeekLTK (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2013 (EDT)
Hello Zeek! Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. Please understand that when you add an entry about a museum/ restaurant/ hotel to Wikitravel, you should try to keep the information concise and avoid long listings. Not every WikiTraveler is interested in all the listings we have within the article. When somebody wants to get more information about a particular entry, he/she should click on the official link to the attraction/hotel/restaurant website we provide in the listing. Articles should not be so long that they're impossible to read, print, or use and should not include everything as you mentioned above. I hope that you understand that. That are the policies that we have built together with the community and that are working here already for 10 years.
Nevertheless, please plunge forward and add information to articles and listings you are familiar with. Many of them actually need more content and we would be delighted to see your contributions here. If you need some help with that, please let me know. Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (EDT)