Country surgeon Expedition
Swept in from the pub:
Our "See sections" on country articles tend to be empty, despite being potentially the most useful section for giving people an idea of how to spend their time in the country. I think Iraq#See is a decent example of how useful this can be (and I wrote that with just a couple hours of research and nearly no prior knowledge). I've organized a list of countries that need see sections, or at least better developed see sections, which could serve as a checklist, in the same manner as we do at the Wikitravel:Regions map Expedition. We have been discussing this issue at Wikitravel:Collaboration of the month#Update Country See and Do Sections.
So in short, I'd like to start the Wikitravel:Country surgeon Expedition! --Peter Talk 18:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
- Full support from me. Critical to the success of this venture will be clearly defined guidelines as to the presentation of the country See and Do sections. The Iraq see section is beautifully written, and as the attractions are all in similar theme (bar in the final short paragraph), it works as several blocks of prose with no headings. For countries with a larger variation of themes, I think sub sections make sense. I have started along that route at Indonesia for example (unfinished).--Burmesedays 00:24, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
- Good project. Large countries like Indonesia will always require subsections in the See section as there is so much to see. --globe-trotter 15:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
- I took a stab at re-writing New Zealand's See section. I wouldn't mind some feedback on length/content/etc. I find this kind of writing hard so I wanted to practice on a place I'm very familiar with before trying others. There's probably more scenery stuff to add, but I'm not sure if it will make it too long. -Shaund 01:33, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
- Good idea, I did the Netherlands before and Suriname now. Perhaps I'll do a few others later. Why are some countries bold? Are they considered more important?
- Also, did you talk about those guidelines for see and do yet? The Suriname article has a bunch of natural reserves under "do", but I included the main natural sights also in see. Frankly, I'm wondering if those descriptions under "do" aren't copies from elsewhere, considering the limited content of the rest of the Suriname article and the fact that highly similar text can be found on other websites. I guess there's no way to find out if they got if from us or if someone copied it here, right? Justme 07:12, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
See and Do
One of the challenges is dealing with the crossover between See and Do, and to a lesser extent Understand. For example, it is difficult not to repeat information from a Natural Attractions sub-section of See, in a Trekking sub-section of Do. The Culture sub-section of Understand likewise has crossover with Cultural Performances in Do. It's tricky. --burmesedays 09:35, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, when trying to write See in Europe, I quickly got to a kind of history section, so it's definitely not easy. The same goes with trekkings in Thailand, describing cultures in See, while those cultures would often be visited as part of a trekking (which would need to be in Do). I guess we just have to try and be creative for each country and get more experience in how to write these sections over time. --globe-trotter 11:25, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
I have started on a See section for Brazil, but it is not complete yet. Brazil is way bigger than the Netherlands, and I'm not sure how it would be possible to write a single succinct paragraph for each subsection, so I am doing bulleted points in each subsection for now. Let me know how you think it looks.
- I added a Natural wonders section, which I definitely think should be one of the sub-sections. Possible other bulleted points (i.e. Peaks:Pão de Açucar, etc.)?
- I know that beach listings usually go in the Do section, but I'm wondering, in the case of a country (where we are giving a more general overview), whether it might not be better to put them either in their own See section or under Natural wonders, leaving the Do section to give an overview of the activities themselves.
- I think the "colonial architecture" blurb I recently added should be expanded to a Colonial heritage subsection to include some things not directly related to architecture, get into a little more detail about what things to look for and answer some common questions (e.g. "What is a pelourinho?).
- The Oscar Niemeyer blurb I recently added can likely be expanded into a third section of Modern architecture or Modern cities, to talk about not only his works but give examples of other important structures/buildings as well.
- Any other suggestions?
Looking forward to your comments. texugo 03:42, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
- I don't think we have to keep it to a single paragraph per subsection. I noticed Burmesedays has two or three paragraphs in each subsection for Indonesia. I'm proposing to do it the same way in New Zealand. I think each of the bullet points (waterfalls, Pantanal, Atlantic Forest, etc.) could be turned into a paragraph and that would be fine.
- That's a good question about the beaches and I was wondering the same thing. I'm leaning towards keeping them in Do, just for consistency with city articles (but very amenable to reasons to put them in See).
- I'm struggling quite a bit with how much detail to include. My initial thought is details and answers to common questions would be good material for infoboxes or the Understand section, but I'm not sure. It's a good question. -Shaund 15:24, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
- There is a discussion on beaches here. I think WT has got this one wrong and needs to make that distinction. That may be because the guideline was formulated by urban-leaning folks who are used to beaches being a playground rather than a natural attraction in their own right.--burmesedays 21:03, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
- On bullet points, I think we should try to avoid them altogether. Rather, well organised, succinct prose should be the aim.--burmesedays 21:05, 10 September 2011 (EDT)