See also: Wikitravel talk:Country article template/Archives
What?! There's no heading for what the people of the country are like.. possibly one of the most important things about visiting a country!
- I believe that would go under Understand. Also, check out using talk pages. -- Evan 12:21, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)
So, after a big overhaul of the country article template -- based a lot on comments on the CIA factbook imports, and common practice for pages -- I've tested it out with a big rewrite of United States of America. Any comments on the template? On the implementation in the USA page? -- Evan 09:30, 14 Nov 2003 (PST)
Template for a very small country
What template do I use for a country like Singapore which is a small as a city? A mix of city and country template? Srijith
- Hmmm. I have two thoughts on this. Singapore, as far as I know, actually has a couple of other much smaller cities, right? So one way to handle it is to do Singapore (country), with the country template, and then do Singapore (city) as well as... hmmm... I think it's Victoria (Singapore)?... and whatever other villages there are. Another possibility is just using the huge city article template and making the other cities districts of Singapore. Then you could add in the sections from the country template that aren't in the city template -- Talk, etc. I think it boils down to how independent the other cities in Singapore-the-country are -- are they really destinations of their own, or just neighborhoods of Singapore that happen to have a mayor? It's your call, in other words. -- Evan 05:39, 13 Nov 2003 (PST)
- Singapore is divided into smaller parts only for election constituencies. There are no seperate official cities/towns in Singapore. No mayor etc. So the intutive thing to do would be to use the huge city article template and modify where required.Srijith 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (PST)
- Cool! That sounds excellent. -- Evan 06:53, 17 Nov 2003 (PST)
Moved from travellers' pub by Evan
How about including comments (or a table) within Country articles discussing Visa Requements? --Caffeine 05:19, 2 Jan 2004 (PST)
- It's supposed to be in the Get in section, I believe. --Evan 07:09, 2 Jan 2004 (PST)
Discussion swept in from Pub
Should we add information about VISA requirments for every country? I know it's wanted information Bong 12:38, 30 Dec 2004 (EST)
- Have a look at Wikitravel:Country_article_template#Get_in concerning Visa Requirements. -- Huttite 16:38, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)
- Besides listing this info on every country it would be cool to have a more general article about acquiring VISAs, explaining the procedure, and giving an indication of the cost... Guaka 10:00, 9 Jan 2005 (EST)
- Since the requirements for VISAs are dependent on the issuing country (where you want to travel), how about a two-pronged approach: have a page about getting them, with sections (subpages?) for the different countries, and a section on the country page on where to get it.
- So, if you want to go from A to B, you check the VISA page on B whether you need one and how to get it, and then A (your current location) for where to get it (where's an embassy/consulate). --Jae 13:48, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)
I certainly think the best way to do this is include a Customs and Immigration subsection of the Get In section. It should be in the template to encourage it being added. Most of the time entry information is simple enough to not need a whole seperate page as suggested, including it within the article is easy. An example:
Visitors from the USA, Canada and EU member nations do not require a visa, those from all other nations should obtain a visa prior to arrival.
"prior to arrival" could be linked to a general article about how to apply for visas. Russeasby 20:09, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
- I am suprised no one has commented on this. VISA requirements are a very important part of travel and the vast majority of articles on wikitravel lack any information at all about them. I would be more then glad to go nuts adding this info to country articles in wikitravel, but not unless there is some standard for it and its including in the template. Russeasby 19:54, 13 September 2006 (EDT)
- The 'standard' right now is to place the visa info right at the top of the Get in section. This makes a lot of sense to me: you need to know whether you can go before deciding how to get there. Jpatokal 04:51, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
- I realize that, I am just suggesting an actual header added to the template within Get In section for Customs and Immigration, having it in the template would encourage more people to actually fill in this very important information. Why is this not a good idea? Russeasby 08:32, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
- Because I don't see why we need an additional header for it. If customs and immigration goes in its own section, what goes in the empty space between "Get in" and "C&I"? Jpatokal 09:18, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
- Why does something have to go in it? There is nothing wrong with Get In being nothing more then a header for the following subsections, and I am sure people will come up with things to go in there. If your only reason for not wanting to include a subsection for Customs and Immigration is because you dont like the way it might look, then perhaps the entire template is flawed and needs to be revisited, there is something wrong if this extreamly important traveler information is not able to have a specific section when far more minor things do. When editors visit these pages and see an empty C&I section they are more likely to fill it in. Russeasby 09:27, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
Hey, I was just looking at the external links sections of some countries and realized that it might be more print-friendly to have the actual url as well as the site name. For example:
- [http:/www.majink.org Great site]
Isn't as useful printed out as
Sure, some of the urls will be ugly, but I can imagine how annoying it would be to have printed out a page that you know had the tourist site on it and then not be able to see it offline. OTOH, are urls usefull offline? Maybe to give to someone else? Majnoona 15:37, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)
I notice that several times this and other template articles have been copied onto a country page. The latest was Ireland. I have been thinking that there should be some boilerplate text at the top of the page that could be quickly copied rather than having to edit the whole template. It could be something like this:
- ==Other destinations==
- ==Get in==
- ===By plane===
- ===By train===
- ===By car===
- ===By bus===
- ===By boat===
- ==Get around==
- ==Stay safe==
- ==Stay healthy==
- ==External links==
We should make it easy for people. -- Huttite 08:08, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
- Indeed! --Evan 11:10, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
Do people think we need something about public holidays? Obviously the dates change from year to year but most of them follow rules ie second monday in March or whatever. Caroline 16:51, 31 Jul 2004 (EDT)
- I think it's a good idea. Catholic countries have holidays that the uninitiated Protestant has never heard of, and many countries have a national day. Israel and Muslim and Hindu countries make things difficult by having different calendars - e.g. Yom Kippur is always waxing gibbous in the early fall, but the date varies on the Gregorian calendar. -phma 21:21, 1 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Where do we write the time zone? I think that's pretty relevant to travelers.
- I'd say that fits in "Understand" for countries and/or regionsMajnoona 20:41, 24 Oct 2004 (EDT)
For discussion - Include a UNESCO World Heritage list section?
I've plunged forward and added a section on Tunisia positioned between Cities and Other destinations. I have considered the UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) but would regard this as an index. I believe these sites are of such fundamental interest to travellers they deserve a separate section on the Country page. I also agree with the WHL style that the title should be exactly that as inscribed on UNESCO's list to avoid ambiguity, and in adoption date order as on UNESCO's site, which is an easy resource when contributing.
It seems the linking discussed in WHL talk has met with concensus, apart from my opinion that WHL sites should go on the Country page. My argument is much the same as that for significant cities - to prevent users having to drop in and out of Region/City pages to find them. This is particularly true of isolated sites which will be redirected to the nearest City likely to have Sleep data, which is a sensible, but arbitrary choice.
I also think the description should be a one or two line summary of nothing but the reasons for UNESCO adoption/inscription because that describes the specific interest of the place. I don't see a problem with a duplicate entry in cities, e.g. 'Islamic Cairo' in WHL section and Cairo in Cities, because there are so few cities which meet the criteria for inclusion in both. I rejected my idea of putting the descriptions on the WHL page because I think this is best left as an indexing tool.
One thing to consider in your deliberations is that tourist destinations often become WH listed, and we don't want to have huge edits forced upon us. It would be good to adopt a structure where the WHL page could be automatically propagated to the Country pages periodically. UNESCO have two selection meetings a year.
Oh, and am I correct to link any references to World Heritage site back to WHL? --Richard
2005 Jan 17
- I think that places on the UNESCO World Heritage List should be listed in the country article under the sections where they naturally fall. I do not think a separate template section is necessary, although a subsection under one of the template sections could be appropriate. Some of these places are regions, cities or destinations in their own right and deserve articles, while others are just a building or area of land. The variety means these places do not always fit into a single template category. For example, some UNESCO World Heritage list places in New Zealand, like Fiordland, are considered whole regions of the country.
- Also, definitely link back to the UNESCO World Heritage list If you linked to using a section link like so [[UNESCO World Heritage List#Country|UNESCO World Heritage places in the Country]] then you link immediately to the section in the list that shows all the WHL places in the country. -- Huttite 03:51, 18 Jan 2005 (EST)
One thing which doesn't fit comfortably anywhere in the current template is the country's electrical system (110/220V, what kind of plug, etc). Any ideas? One possibility would be to add a line to the quickbox... Jpatokal 01:59, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
- How about it being a subsection under the ==Cope== section. -- Huttite 02:28, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
- The Cope section is not a part of the standard templates. Should it be added? Jpatokal 03:36, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
- It's in the Wikitravel:Big city article template, but not on this one. --Evan 07:53, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
- It's also missing from the Huge city template. But as written, the description doesn't really make sense for entire countries:
- 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.
- One more thing missing from the templates: where to put embassies/consulates for other countries. Jpatokal 08:46, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
- I suggest to make a special Plug type page with an overview of all the different socket/plug types worldwide, including photographs and a small icon. This icon can now be put in the country quickfacts together with voltage and frequency and a link to the plug type page. This is handier then a teadious description for every country. Ronald 15:42, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)
Quick bar standardization
|Electricity||230V/50Hz (British plug)|
I suggest the following lines be added to all the World Factbook quick bars:
- Electricity volts/hertz (plug type)
- Calling code +NN
- Internet TLD .xx
- Time zone UTC±N (UTC±M in summer)
Comments? See example box from Singapore. Jpatokal 02:05, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)
Teaser pic atop infobox
I've always found infoboxes a rather dull way to start a country article, so I tried adding a picture atop the Singapore infobox. Comments? 12:11, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)
- Me too. I'd love to move the infoboxes to a template and then figure out how to stick them at the end of the article. Anyways, yes, that looks good. --Evan 12:29, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)