The Travellers' pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'. Also, if you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, try using talk pages to keep the discussion specific to that article.
Please add new questions at the bottom of the page, but otherwise plunge forward!
Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see a conversation that could or should be moved to a talk page, please do so, and note the move here.
So, the TP has been getting kinda crowded and messy. I'd really appreciate if we could all make an effort to clean up a bit by moving discussions to places more appropriate or deleting discussions that have reached their conclusions. It's a tedious job, but like most, it's easier if we do it together. --Evan 16:44, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)
I was about to nuke the New User Deluge section when I realized there's no logbook entry. Do you want want before it gets deleted?
Also, New User Deluge seemed more like conversation about events than a discussion about policy. Am I right to think that policy questions should be preserved, but discussions and chatter can be deleted outright once they are done? -- Colin 02:22, 5 May 2004 (EDT)
Alright, I've done a bit of sweeping here. I'm not exactly sure if I'm doing it right, so I'll stop for now and wait to see if anyone has any comments. I just blew away some discussion that haven't had contributions in over a month. For some of them, where it seemed the discussion may be important in the future, I archived them. There are others which still seem relevant or as if they could fit into the FAQ, but I'm not sure where to put them, so I've left them in the pub (even though they're quite old). --Dawnview 17:57, 6 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Hungarian Wikitravel Expedition
I've just started an expedition trying to create a Hungarian language version of Wikitravel. I think that it is time for us to have finally a free, easy to use and detailed travel guide.
Hello, we are starting a another wiki web site. It will be called Wiki Sex Site and should be both an encyclopedia about sex and related topics, and a place to keep wikified sex stories. We would like to use the same CC licence you are ussing here. It would make it much simple for our users. Unfortumately it is not that easy to set up. We are running mediawiki 1.2.4 Does anybody have any idea whichh pages should be changed? How? Also a list of the relevant source code in wikitravel would be really helpful. Many thanks W.s.s. sysop
Separate wiki for Seattle, WA; request for comments
I've been wanting for a while to start a wiki site about Seattle, WA -- a kind of "guide" aimed mostly for Seattle locals. I recently found WikiTravel and at first thought this would do it, but it seems WikiTravel is aimed more to travelers planning trips. Whereas here there is one page only on Seattle, the seattle wiki would be a whole site devoted to it, so I think it's worth pursuing.
That said, I was hoping to be able to "steal" a lot of ideas from WikiTravel, including pages on how the site works, user help, etc. I don't want to replicate effort, but there's a lot of good stuff here that I could use. And the Seattle page could be useful for stub articles to get things started.
I know I can probably do all this because of the CC license, but I wanted to see if Wikitravellers had any input, ideas, or gripes about this idea.
Hi, Matias! Yes, Wikitravel is more for travellers than for residents. Where a Wikitravel article might have 20 restaurants for Seattle, a real city guide would have all the restaurants.
One good group that's doing city guides is http://openguides.org/. They've got good software and are probably more what you're looking for. See Cooperating with OpenGuides for Wikitravel's relationship with OG. Good luck -- sounds like a good project! --Evan 01:01, 4 May 2004 (EDT)
Matias - Hi, Earle here, one of the OpenGuides team. Evan's right, that does sound exactly like what we're aiming for! Drop us a line at email@example.com and we can talk. --Earle 09:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies Evan and Earle. Earle, I'll take a look at OpenGuides and email you guys about it soon. -- Matiasp 00:54, 8 May 2004 (EDT)
Prix Ars Electronica
My congratulations to Evan and all of the Wikitravel team for winning an honorary mention in this year's Prix Ars Electronica. --Earle 09:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Earle. Just to set the record straight, it was Maj who did most of the hard work applying for the Prix. And, of course, it's the hundreds of Wikitravellers who make this digital community a success. --Evan 09:34, 4 May 2004 (EDT)
Illegal activities policy?
Should we have a policy about listing/promoting Illegal activities? Recently I have noticed a number of article contributions describing illegal or dangerous activities and related inappropriate subjects. Some of these contributions have been removed or changed by others, but we do not have a general policy on this area other than a Sex tourism policy. What is our standard? Where do we draw the line? -- Huttite 20:42, 7 May 2004 (EDT)
I did one of the edits Huttite is talking about -- I removed a reference to marijuana quality from Vancouver. Speaking as a law-abiding non-drug user, I think we should have a policy against mentioning drugs (and other activities) in places where they are illegal. But that is not why I removed the marijuana reference. I felt that saying Vancouver had good pot was a lot like saying it had blue skies -- it's subjective and irrelevant for most travellers.
Are there any illegal activities we do need to mention? When the speed limit was in the US was 55 mph, driving just 55 was unsafe in some areas, and would have been a good thing to mention. Are there any more serious examples of illegal activities that we need to mention? -- Colin 14:10, 8 May 2004 (EDT)
I'm wondering whether pointing out an illegal activity (by the way, isn't pot smoking decriminalized in Canada) is advocating or promoting it. I think there's a fine line to walk. Of course, putting travellers in jeopardy by telling them that it's just fine to do illegal things is wrong. --Evan 12:51, 22 May 2004 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that just simply pointing out an illegal activity is wrong, unless you don't mention that it's illegal (e.g. "Lots of people jaywalk in Taipei."). I agree with your statement: it's irresponsible to suggest that an illegal activity is OK, regardless of how 'accepted' it may be by the locals. If anything the articles should point out (and suggest not engaging in) illegal activities that carry penalties that are heavier than the 'typical' penalty, such as chewing gum in Singapore, smuggling drugs into Thailand, etc.. -- Sohcahtoa 08:43, 2004 May 23 (EDT)
I think there are a number of circumstances where there is a definite need to mention illegal activities. Case in point is hash / dope / opium smoking in Morocco's Rif Mountains and the hill tribes of Laos. Most backpackers in these regions aren't solely drug tourists, but it would be naive to suggest that they don't sample the local 'produce' ... which often plays a large part in regional culture and pratices. A straw poll I took of travellers in Morocco suggests that the majority try some hash at least once on their trip. When you consider that in the Rif mountains dope is the main cash crop and most locals smoke it, this isn't surprising. Given these realities, I think it's important that a travel guide stress that drug possession is illegal, recommend against consumption, but having said that also describe the drug's role in the region and give tips for staying safe. -- Allyak 08:17, Jul 30, 2004 (EDT)
Imagine encoding Wikitravel URLs with this... That'd be a rather nifty way to spread wikitravel information. -- Nils 09:21, 11 May 2004 (EDT)
Shotgun Approach To Sleep
Filling in sections like sleep is a hassle, takes time to research, and is also very helpful. We need more sleep entries. Lots more sleep entries. In the Bay Area where I live, few cities are even begun, and fewer have sleep entries.
So I have an idea: I could go through a selection of Well Known Motel and Hotel chains, find all the ones in my region (San Francisco Bay Area) and then add them to any cities in my area needing extra Sleep entries (creating the city article as needed). This would get a boatload of cities started, and each of them would have sleep entries. And it would be fast and efficient to do.
The bad news of this that I have no basis for judging any of them, and non-chain hotels and motels get the shaft, and that sucks.
So is it worth doing? Or a bad idea? -- Colin 02:59, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
It's a fantastic idea! I've long been an advocate of using on-line research to fill in the sleep listings to the extent possible. In my opinion, as discussed here It's absolutely valid to summarise (but not copy) reviews found on the web and elsewhere. eg:
Seaside Hotel, 123 charming lane. +01 555 555 5555. This cheapie gets mostly positive reviews for cleanlyness etc., although it's fair to point out that more than one review found online mentions that although the place is about 4 blocks from the sea there are a lot of buildings in between, and thus no view. starting at 39 Eur. singles
Key ideas to consider for a summary approach:
Clearly express that you are writing from a collection of reviews, not first-hand experience.
Use more than one source.
DO NOT COPY people's words; ideas however, are fair game.
Taking this approach it's possible to list places which aren't chains as well! -- Mark 03:47, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Maybe I need to clarify, maybe not. My suggestion is to go to a Major Chain's website, and crib a bunch of places in the Bay Area for that one chain. Then go to Major Chain #2's website, rinse and repeat. But your idea is nice in that it also picks up on the non-chains too. Hmm. Maybe one pass through the big chains, then once pass through search sites to pick up some extras and then multi-source the reviews? -- Colin 03:53, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Yes, exactly. The chains are easy, and from there we find small places that people seem to like to write about. While you're doing chain hotels in the U.S. I would recommend checking out [this chain of midrange boutique hotels.] -- Mark 04:04, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Okay, I'll start on it. Thanks for the hotel pointer, I'll be sure to include them. I'd like to generate a range of hotels.... I'm thinking Motel6 (cheapest), Best Western (medium), Marriot (more expensive). Anyone have any I need to add to the list, or better lists? -- Colin 04:08, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
I'd be careful with the price ranking. While it's true that in some smaller places like maybe Minot that Marriot, if they have a presence will be the top of the line, in other places like San Francisco or Chicago Mariott will probably have entries in the low mid range as well as low-splurge range, so it's worth checking out. Another cheapie chain is Day's Inn. for mid-range and splurge hotels there´s Hilton, and of course there's also a chain for the very top of the line. -- Mark 04:26, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
I noticed that an entry was needed for Jaipur. I visited it for a few days during an India trip in fall 2002, so i decided to drop some notes on it. I decided the best way to relay my advice on a particular topic i knew about in that city, safety, was to write up a story. Its not short, but i think it conveys an important aspect of Jaipur quite nicely. Is there, or should there be a travel story section, so that maybe i wouldn't need to stuff this in the Jaipur entry (if so please feel free to move the story)? Check it out at http://wikitravel.org/en/article/Jaipur - NB 5-28-04
Ok Apparently somebody didn't like the story idea; I admit it was a bit long. I filled in some more traditional travel book info, and am working on getting a couple pictures i took uploaded. Is there a section where a travel story would be appropriate?
She only moved the story to Talk:Jaipur, rather than deleting it. We mostly try to stick to a Wikitravel:Manual of style for our guides, and one of the guidelines is to avoid writing in the first person. Sometimes I find this kindof difficult, since it makes it hard to express some ideas. That said it makes sense when you think of each article as a stand-alone guide to the place which somebody can use to find their way around. Meanwhile the talk pages obviously are full of first-person opinions, etc. -- Mark 05:23, 29 May 2004 (EDT)
There's an article on Slashdot about Open Maps. Considering this is one of our big problems on Wikitravel, I think it makes interesting reading. --Evan 18:59, 29 May 2004 (EDT)
Can anybody explain what's the story behind "The Wikitravel Mirror" with the ambingously similar address http://www.wikitravel.net ? It seems to access the original wikitravel.org database and makes deep links onto some wikitravel.org pages. The ugly difference between the "mirror" and the original is an additional link collection and an advertising banner on each page. --Hansm 15:17, 2004 Jun 5 (EDT)
I don't know what it is, but comparing its content with some of my contributions it is certainly a good month out of date. Obviously we cannot complain about this site's use of wikitravel content, but I'm personally a bit miffed about the way it is masquarading as a mirror, when clearly it is a very poor mirror, if at all. Chris j wood 19:14, 5 Jun 2004 (EDT)
It looks as if the site's owner tries to make money with confused people that misstype the URL. Follwing the link "My Sites", you are lead to a list of so called "mirrors" that all work the same way: They are a partly outdated copy of free licensed sites, often with some advertising banners added. I think there is at least one point about that we could complain. The "mirror" pretents to be the original and deep links the real wikitravel when you click on the "edit" item. This is a very dirty way of "mirroring". Of course, in the footer there is a short remark that the pages base on wikitravel.org, but that does not seem to be enough. For me, it were all right if it would just mirror the content and make obvious that the "edit", "discussion" etc. faetures are done on the original wikitravel site. -- Hansm 05:52, 2004 Jun 6 (EDT)
But unlike the other "mirrors" we dealt with before, this one gives proper credit. There's no "thou shalt not make money off the content" clause in the license. Nor is there a clause "you must be up to date". I really don't see any angle from which you could stop this guy. Hell, they even redirect the "Edit" links to wikitravel.org, which is the way it should be. Of course I agree what he's doing is immoral - linking to "directories" as "yahoos.info" is as scummy as they come. -- Nils
May be useful to incorporate this information into the various country pages. -- Nils
Wikitravellers in Hospitality Club
Where can I object the deletion of Wikitravel:Wikitravellers in Hospitality Club? I don't really understand why it was necessary to do so... It was a very good way to know more about fellow Wikitravellers, and also to have more cooperation between the HC and the Wikitravel project... I really wonder why the things that happened happened... Guaka 12:50, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I have no idea how to restart a discussion about a deleted page. You can find the discussion surrounding the issue in the Page History of Wikitravel:Votes for deletion. That said, I have mixed feelings about bringing up the issue again. On the one hand, you seem to have missed the discussion and it would have been nice to have your participation. On the other hand, in general, re-opening contraversial issues is a worrisome concept. -- Colin 13:37, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
The second question I'm hearing is how to object to a deletion after it's happened. I'm guessing you didn't get a chance to do that before, or that you didn't notice it. If you wanted to just post a general objection, I'd guess that here in the pub is a good place, or maybe on Wikitravel talk:votes for deletion.
I think the final implied question is, how do you go about getting that page back? We haven't done that before, and we don't have a process for it. If you wanted to start a discussion about that, Wikitravel talk:deletion policy would be a good place to put it.
As a personal note, I'd ask that you help with Wikitravel:Cooperating with Hospitality Club. You have been a longtime Wikitraveller, and it seems to me that you've got some experience with the Club, so you'd probably be a really good person to give input on that page. I'd like to see some creative ways to make that relationship work -- especially ways that HC can help Wikitravel achieve our goal of making a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide with a neutral point of view. --Evan 14:36, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Ok. I left some text here and there. I think the deletion policy needs some work. Guaka 08:22, 22 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Where are database dumps avaliable ? This is specially important as SQL queries are disabled. With a dump, SQL queries can done at home on my own computer. Yann 09:05, 26 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I've created wik2dict and like to have Wikitravel in the dict format now :) It would be nice if the dump uses the same format as the Wikipedia SQL dump. Otherwise I need to hack some more. Guaka 13:56, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Bugs and requests
There are still bugs with thumbnails (at least on fr:). However this was mentioned long ago, and is corrected in Mediawiki since a long time too. Also I did request some changes / features which have not met any answer (the possibility to change the RC page head among others). Thanks, Yann 09:47, 26 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Hi. So, I'm planning on doing an upgrade of MediaWiki in about a week. Watch this space! --Evan 12:15, 26 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Are thumbnails available now? What is the syntax? Jpatokal 01:49, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I'm planning on writing a page on food in Malaysia and Singapore, covering the cuisines in the region and typical dishes in detail. Questions that I'd like some feedback on:
How should this article in particular be named? There is (AFAIK) no single word that accurately describes it; "Nonya"/"Peranakan" are a specific subtype (Malay-Chinese fusion); while "Malayan", while geographically accurate, is bound to be confused with "Malay".
In general, should articles dedicated to food in region X be called eg. "X food", "X cuisine", or something else?
In general there probably shouldn't be pages about the food of a region, but rather than information should be imbedded into the Eat section of the destination page for the region. Check out Wikitravel:What_is_an_article.
I disagree with this (and so does eg. Lonely Planet, which sells entire guides devoted to food). There is no region for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, and if I start writing even a brief overview of every significant cuisine in every ASEAN country under South-East Asia#Eat, it'll soon be the longest page in Wikitravel! Jpatokal 02:45, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Generally the rule of thumb is "do you sleep there?". There have been discussions about creating itinerary articles about types of cooking though, so perhaps if you really want to write about food you should create an Itinerary.
As for the article about chinese food in S.F., I'm wondering why it's still around. -- Mark 02:14, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Ugh. Umm, I think Chinese cuisine in the San Francisco Bay Area, as a fairly controversial article, would be a bad model to follow. I'd question whether a full article on this or that cuisine belongs in a travel guide, too. I'm ambiguous on the matter. Would Italian cuisine, say, cover all the food variations that go under that name -- in Asia, North America, Europe, and of course Italy? Or would it simply concentrate on food in Italy -- which I think is what Italy#Eat is for? What do we need to tell a traveller about Italian cuisine?
My general feeling: I'd hate to see [[Foobian cuisine]] take the place of Foo#Eat, since they are two different topics. But I guess I could see some room for experimentation. I'm reminded of the Wikitravel:Cultural Expedition here for some reason... Anyways, excellent questions! --Evan 02:27, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Agree with Evan here. I think Foo#Eat should cover types of eating places, expected costs, etiquette notes and such, while Foobian cuisine should cover the menu of a typical restaurant in Foo (or a Foobian restaurant in Bar). Jpatokal 02:45, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Look at Singapore as an example. Singapore#Eat now tells you about the amenity and price differences between a hawker centre, a coffeeshop and a food court, and these should stay there, while the "Local delicacies" part is what I want to expand on and move into its own page. Jpatokal 02:45, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Well you mentioned an interesting word there-- "local." How do you talk about food with out talking about a place? If you have Malaysian food for example, it's fairly different in say Amsterdam then in Malaysia, so you'll end up with an article by-location anyway, why not just put that in the Eat section for that location? I know LP does Food Guides too, but those are travel-related guides, with itiniraries maps and whatnot, but not the same thing as their travel guides (otherwise they wouldnt be seperate books).
And this is exactly why I want to use separate pages! Look into pretty much any guidebook on (say) Thailand or Japan; they'll almost always have a dedicated set of color pages covering the food on a general level. Jpatokal 22:08, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
If I want Malaysian food I generally look for it where I am, not plan a trip to Amsterdam to try what they have... It's easier to think about a Singaporian cuisine page than, say, a Chinese or Mexican food page-- things that have versions in just about evevery country (dont get me started about "tacos" in Nepal!)... I think there is room for lots of food info (I'm a big foodie myself) without loosing the destination-centric style we have now... just my 2 pieces of tapas. Majnoona 12:19, 30 Jun 2004 (EDT)
But "cuisine" is a larger concept than "destination". Eg. you can find good bak kut teh restaurants in Singapore's West Coast, central Singapore and Kuala Lumpur (just to mention existing articles); does it make any sense to repeat the (fairly extensive...) description of what this is and how to eat it in every article? If there's a good khao soi joint in Bangkok, do I have to link to some restaurant under Chiang Mai#Eat for the description, and have the link break when the restaurant disappears?
Here's another idea. Hope it isn't heretical (I believe Evan prefers Wikitravel to be self-standing): Put the cuisine stuff in Wikipedia (there's an article already started that sounds just like what you want to do) and then it can be referenced in Wikitravel whenever and wherever it is appropriate.
When I get some more time (I have a PhD to write.... oh the guilt that I'm even on here....!) I'd like to add quite a bit to the Egypt, Israel and Jordan parts of Wikitravel - parts of the world I'm particularly familar with and fond of. To my mind, part of providing a good travel guide might involve putting up some moderately detailed guides to the various sites within a location. For example, rather than just listing the Temple of Luxor as a site to See in Luxor, it would be great to add some explanation as to history, excavation, a guide to the various components of the temple, what to look out for, etc etc. as a separate article to which users could link. Others might want to do the same for, say, Angkor Wat, Macchu Picchu, the British Museum, etc etc. Problem is, providing additional detail will almost certainly blow out the desirable size of an article. My basic question is: What is the scope for providing concise but detailed guides to various sites within Wikitravel? Any ideas / suggestions / discussion? Pjamescowie 13:21, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)
So, in general, I think we need to have Wikitravel:attraction listings in the page for the city they're in. But I do believe there are rare exceptions where we need to have a full article on an attraction. There's some info on this on Wikitravel:What is an article?, but we might want to be more specific. I think we already have an Angkor Wat article (although it has a more precise name, IIRC).
Anyways: yes, I totally think this is a good idea. --Evan 14:07, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Great! So should we start discussing some general guidelines / formatting for these site guides? In the spirit of independent travel that Wikitravel encourages, my idea would be to focus on those sites / attractions which are difficult to interpret without a local guide (of varying quality and price) and / or where on-site documentation is very thin on the ground.... (Egypt nearly everywhere is a prime example of this problem - I'm sure there are others!) Pjamescowie 14:25, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Someone in 80.131 (Deutsche Telekom) has been adding links to Kartenkredit with "minor edit" itp. in the summary. He's done it to three pages so far. T changes everyone's IP address each night, so we can't block him or leave a message on his talk page. How do we deal with this? Should we have a "vandalism in progress" page? -phma 10:38, 9 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Maybe post here so that others can have an eye on it... But every vandal will go away eventually. -- Nils 04:27, 17 Jul 2004 (EDT)
FYI: In the same vein, 126.96.36.199 has repeatedly added Iran (a stub) to Main page, and has just now removed Israel from the Middle East country list. IP is in Iran, so this is obviously some messed up fundamentalist. -- Nils 04:37, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, or has been asked before, but I noticed that another collaborative travel project, world66.com, is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Does this means that all their content can be posted here and vice versa? I would be grateful if someone could clear that up. Ta. Professorbiscuit 11:50, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)
All our content could be posted there. I'm dubious about World66's content, since it was originally a GFDL site, and they switched over to by-sa without getting the consent of their contributors. If we copy any of their content here, and somebody reuses it, and one of their contributors who submitted under the GFDL sues our downstream reuser... well, I feel that we've done that reuser a disservice.
It's also worth noting that most of the images at World66 are downloaded from other Web sites through Google images, and aren't submitted by contributors.
So, in general, I'd be really wary about copying info from World 66 here. --Evan 14:38, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Disambig pages vs links
Can I ask for the rationale behind using disambiguation pages instead of links? Often, eg. St. Petersburg, one of the places being disambiguated is much better known and it feels stupid to have to write St.Petersburg every time I want to link to the bigger of the two. I'd prefer the Wikipedia style, where the main page is usually the Big One and has a link up top with "This page is about X, see also Y for the Z in Q". Jpatokal 04:18, 29 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Which city has more English-speaking tourists, the one in Russia or the beach resort in Florida? ;-) Personally, since this is a travel guide I prefer the disambig to make sure we're displaying the page the user wants when they do a search (cause they might skip the see also clause at the top and skim down). Conversely, in an Encylopedia, Moscow (Idaho) is pretty much never what the user wants when they ask for Moscow. (I'm gonna regret this when the other five Fremonts in the US are added) -- Colin 04:43, 29 Jul 2004 (EDT)
The mos does allow the first approach "if one place is so famous that the disambiguation is a hindrance rather than a help", giving examples of Paris and Los Angeles. I think you could probably make a case for St Petersburg under that exemption; although having three different names in the last 100 years certainly doesn't help that cities case.
But that is almost incidental. The vast majority of ambiguously named places are not like that; there is genuine cause for confusion. I live in Reading in England, but I know there is a Reading in Pennsylvania although I know no more than that about it. I guess most of the english speaking world have only vaguely heard of either, if at all. Which is the more important in a Wikitravel context?. I think the only sensible answer is 'it depends on the readers context', in which case disambiguation is the right approach. -- Chris j wood 07:38, 29 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Other Ways of Seeing Travel Hierarchy
I think it would be nice to add a hierarchy for other ways of seeing travel. See my complete proposal at Wikitravel talk:Other ways of seeing travel. I would like some comments on it before I start working on it. I also wonder if somebody can come up with a better name for the top level of the hierarchy than my Travel Planning name. -- Webgeer 01:37, Jul 30, 2004 (EDT)
So, first off, I'd say that the whole point of Wikitravel:other ways of seeing travel is that whatever system of organization we have, there will be stuff outside that system that we should include in our guide. It's the Godel Theorem of Wikitravel.
Lastly, I think we need to be really careful about travel topics, as they're a slippery slope. We could easily become a "travel encyclopedia" if we over-concentrate on travel topics. But we're making a travel guide -- a practical reference work. --Evan 09:37, 30 Jul 2004 (EDT)
I don't intead that this system would actually contain much real information. It would just be new pointers to the articles in the geographical hierarcy. For example if I wanted to find out where is a good place to go scuba diving, rather than doing a search and sorting through all of the articles that mention scuba diving, I would instead go to the Travel Plannning hierarchy and go down Travel Planning->Participatory sports->Scuba Diving and this would give a list of the best scuba diving destinations in the world. I do not intend that it contain any information about Scuba Diving (except as required to deving catagories). I never intended to include Travel Topics in this hierarcy at all. That already has a hieararcy.
Another way to look at this is as a well edited index. Travel guides often have these types of things at the back of the travel guide.
I like the idea as I think it would make the guides a lot more browsable. -- Webgeer 12:18, Jul 30, 2004 (EDT)
I'm like this idea in the long run once we have a big enough set of stuff in the travel articles. But I'd rather postpone it (and other slopes) until we have a more complete guide. -- Colin 13:22, 30 Jul 2004 (EDT)
3000 articles !
The 3 languages projects together have more than 3000 articles ! Yann 05:47, 30 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Highest Google Position?
I haven't done any research on this myself - yet - but just wanted to pose the question: What's the highest position a Wikitravel article has yet achieved on Google? Anyone got any insights into this one? Would be an interesting indicator for our progress..... Pjamescowie 13:39, 31 Jul 2004 (EDT)
Search for "Geneva travel guide". -- Mark 16:42, 31 Jul 2004 (EDT)
A lot of travellers are in the position of taking a "gap year" after studies, for a career break, for a life change, etc...... An increasing focus in these gap years seems to be the chance to do volunteer work, try new experiences, visit exotic locales, etc - witness the recent Guardian writeups in their Travel section. Would it be worthwhile, do you think, for Wikitravel to address this phenomenon with a series of articles offering advice, ideas, suggestions, alternatives, etc? Pjamescowie 07:19, 1 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Wikitravel Expedition? Travellers' Tips? - Health
Another thought: I've just been adding some Egypt-specific info regarding Stay Healthy on the Egypt page.... Was suddenly struck by the thought that a lot of general information could be unnecessarily duplicated in many parts of Wikitravel in the future..... Without taking away the need for country / location-specific health information, would people consider it a worthwhile idea providing general advice and relevant links for a number of common travel ailments - things like dehydration, heat / sunstroke, some of the more obvious diseases, etc......? This could be set up as a Wikitravel Expedition, I think... and we could link to the resulting information from within various other articles. It'd be great if we could get some contributors with a medical background to pitch in..... Although I think we might still have to include some warnings and caveats..... What do others think? Pjamescowie 08:17, 1 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Uniting Wikitravel with Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikibooks?
I think that Wikitravel should be eaten by the Wikimedia foundation, which owns the Wiki projects mentioned above. (I couldn't find an earlier discussion about this.) It seems to me that all Wiki projects, and especially Wikitravel, should benefit from such a strong alliance. Personally I would have heard a lot earlier about Wikitravel if it was already listed under the other Wiki projects. I'm not sure if this is possible by the differences between by-sa and GFDL though. What do you guys think? Georg Muntingh, 2 Aug 2004
No - disagree strongly. One of the reason I came here was because it wasn't run by the Wikimedia foundation and hence was more international etc. Also cc-by-sa is superior to the GFDL and the wikimedia foundation loves fair use images which are not useable outside the US. Apologies if this sounds like a rant. Caroline 14:42, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I dunno. Being "eaten" by Wikimedia doesn't really sound like the most positive experience.
I also think that it's good to have lots of different kinds of wikis hosted by lots of different organizations. A monoculture wouldn't necessarily be the healthiest wiki ecosystem. The SwitchWiki shows some tens of thousands of wikis on the Internet right now. I don't think Wikimedia should, or wants to, host and manage all those projects. --Evan 11:46, 3 Aug 2004 (EDT)
What about starting a chinese expedition ? Since it is easier for them to travel outside the "mainland" it would be usefull. I will create the expedition page if some people are also interrested.
--Xavier 4 Aug 2004