YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this an article?[edit]

So, I don't think this needs to be its own article. Why wouldn't this be under San Francisco#See? -- Evan 15:15, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

It's not completely in SF. It's too long to be part of a major article.

I dont think it's too long at all. And it's all in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd rather not make people have to click around so much to find the sites for a destination. Maybe a good rule-of-thumb is that a destination should have at least two of the three "see, eat, sleep" to stand alone. Majnoona

Have to agree with Maj and Evan. Although many cities right now have just a bulleted list with little explanation under "See", I think it makes sense to have short descriptions, especially of major sites. Furthermore, the information about Golden Gate Park can be split out in a separate "bullet". Besides, the San Francisco article is not unweildy right now. Even something like Alcatraz I would leave under San Francisco. An example of what I think goes under the "see" site is my description of Stanley Park in Vancouver. And there, a couple of extra sentences still wouldn't make it too long. We can always split major sites out later if any particular city article gets too unweildy. That's probably easier than deleting articles. -- CL 22:13, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

I have to agree with Ctylemay's agreement ;-). I dont think anyone should worry about things getting too long before their written. There's quite a few long articles out there now, and they all look really great and read well. So maybe, when in doubt leave it in? Should we add something to the style guide, or is this covered somewhere? Majnoona

I think this is probably something we need to deal with in the Wikitravel:Large city article template, eh? Maybe with sub articles, like San Francisco/Golden Gate Bridge? Or San Francisco/See? -- Evan 07:23, 9 Oct 2003 (PDT)

The question is, are you trying to write a book-style article with EVERYTHING on one massively long page... or are you trying to create a website with interlinks where you simply click from one page to the next as you go along. I made it seperate mainly as a place to put the photos I took, and I figured that 'destinations' and 'tourist atractions' were going to get their own pages. I think that the 'demonstration' city articles are far too big and unwieldy already... it's not so bad when you're reading them, but they're a real pain to edit, because I can't find the bits I want in the mass of data. But if you want to put the kitchen sink into one article then go ahead. I've been too busy to do any work on the travel wiki lately, and it's probably going to continue... KJ 04:16, 14 Oct 2003 (PDT)

Two things: yes, we definitely have a problem organizing large cities. One of our goals, and one of my visions for Wikitravel, is being able to have pages that print out really easily, so you can just put a guide for a city or a travel destination in your backpack, or pocket, or some kind of binder, and carry it around with you. I'd like to keep all the info on a destination together, so that we can use them together. But the unwieldiness is also an issue.
Second, if you turn on the option to Show links for editing individual sections in your user preferences, it's a lot easier to edit larger pages. Not that that helps all the organizational problems with big destinations, but it's a start. -- Evan 07:05, 14 Oct 2003 (PDT)

(Second) vfd discussion[edit]