Great! Just great! I have never visited this incredible site. But one day I hope to do just that. And when I do, I hope to get the most valuable information from this Wikitravel article. DhDh 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)
The naming of this page is wrong! Angkor is not Angkor Wat. Angkor is the name of the town while Angkor Wat is the name of one particular temple. Most of the information contained in this section is not specific to Angkor Wat, but general information applicable to almost all ruins in Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Bayon, etc. Can someone suggest some ways to resolve this naming issue? We do need it to contain general and specific information?
Srijith 02:20, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)
You're right, there are some naming issues here. I'd even go so far to say that, according to Wikitravel:What is an article? this should all be under Siem Reap, which is where people actually travel to (ie buses, airport, ect) and stay/sleep. I think there is an exception in there for really big parks/historical sites/etc, but it's not a great precedent to set. That said, I'd go along with moving this page to Angkor, I don't know if we'd even need a redirect since anyone searching for Angkor Wat would also find Angkor. Any other thoughs? Thanks for bringing this up.Majnoona
I think the offical name of this area is Angkor Archaeological Park--- how's that for an article name? (like Yosemite National Park)It would really help define what is covered, since there are Angkor-related ruins all over northern Cambodia. Plus, we are talking about buying a ticket and what you are actually buying a ticket for is the park. Unless anyone has a big problem with this, I'll go ahead and move the page.Majnoona
Angkor or Siem Reap or Angkor Archaeological Park looks ok. Angkor Wat does not :) I just spent couple of days in these regions, so once this issue gets sorted out I can arrange my thoughts and pen them down. Srijith 20:17, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)
Great! I haven't been there in over a year, and I wasn't taking notes, so please add/update/correct! I'm going to go ahead and move the page. Thanks again for bringing this up...Majnoona
Hmm.. the redirect may create problems. The way I see it, Angkor Wat should have a seperate page of its own, where details pertaining to Angkor Wat alone should be mentioned. Links to Angkor Archaeological Park will help users find details of the other places.
If we do not have seperate place of Angkor Wat, Bayon, Ta Prohm etc, the page on Angkor Archaeological Park will run long!
So in short, my suggestion is to
remove redirect of Angkor Wat to Angkor Archaeological Park
Angkor Wat page for specific details on Angkor Wat alone
Angkor Archaeological Park page for general discussion (like tickets, transport etc.) and links to specific pages (eg. Angkor Wat)
That's not going to work. As it is, Angkor really shouldn't have it's own page as it is-- see Wikitravel:What is an article. I really can't see Angkor having a larger travel article then, say New York (city), but if it really runs that big then we'll have "district" pages like Angkor/Angkot Wat, but I'd really rather wait until we see what we have before doing that. It would be best if we had an Angkor article that people could reasonably print out and take a long-- we don't need a book-- what are you thinking of including? We should certainly have a link to the Wikipedia article for the full history details, but this should really be a traveller's overview and not an archelogical analysis.Majnoona
Ok. Understood. One single page for all the sites, it is then. Srijith 01:23, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)