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

Talk:Mammoth Lakes

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

This discussion moved here from the Travellers' pub:

I created Mammoth which covers both Mammoth Mountain (a ski area) and Mammoth Lakes (city at the base of the ski area). Is it a good idea for me to make a redirect pages from Mammoth Mountain to Mammoth? And if so, how do I get into the editor to do it? Do I just make a fake link Mammoth Mountain and then follow it, or is there a way to do it without linking to the redirect page? -- Colin 11:57, 6 May 2004 (EDT)

You would have to make the link before the page can exist, or use WWW::Mediawiki::Client to make the page. Making the link is the easier way to do it, especially considering you've already done it in the preceeding paragraph. The question of the naming of the Mammoth and Mammoth Mountain pages is right is an editorial question about which I have no opinion whatever. Maybe somebody else out there does? -- Mark 05:17, 7 May 2004 (EDT)
Question: If you visit Mammoth Mountain where do you go to catch the plane, eat, drink, or sleep afterwards? - If it is generally somewhere else close by then Mammoth Mountain is most likely an attraction rather than a destination. As I interpret the general policy about articles; individual attractions, (such as a skifield) should only have a separate article if they are a long way from a city or town and are a separate destination in their own right. The city of Mammoth Lakes could be an article because it is (presumably) a population centre with things to do, see and places to stay, eat and drink at. It currently sounds like Mammoth Mountain is an attraction, not a destination. In that case Mammoth Mountain should be listed under the Do section in the regional Mammoth article (and Mammoth Lakes city article, if created). If an article about Mammoth Mountain can fill up all the different sections in the small city template and not become trivial, that could justify it as being a separate article. I suggest putting everything in the Mammoth article first, then if it gets too full and detailed it can then be split up. Having a lot of information about a bigger region on one page is better for the traveller than having little isolated bits spread over several pages. -- Huttite 20:34, 7 May 2004 (EDT)

Should this article be called Mammoth Lakes?

Should this article be called Mammoth Lakes rather than simply Mammoth. Is it is about a city called Mammoth Lakes or does the Mammoth region exist as a separate county or larger district? It is linked from the Mammoth Lakes link in the Eastern Sierra#Cities section. Thus I would expect to find Mammoth Lakes as the article title. Mammoth should appear in the Eastern Sierra#Regions section of the Eastern Sierra page. Just something else to consider. - Huttite 20:34, 7 May 2004 (EDT)

Okay, after considering this a bit, I've decided I was wrong about this all, and we should rename this page to Mammoth Lakes. For the sake of completeness, here's what I was thinking originally, and why I was wrong:
Originally I was worried that Travellers to Mammoth Lakes might type just "Mammoth", as it is popularly known, or might type "Mammoth Mountain" since their main goal was skiing. I wanted all three to point to the same place.
This is wrong first because under the general rule, this should be called Mammoth Lakes after the name of the city. Second, if we follow the general rule, although typing Mammoth Mountain into Wikitravel search won't immediatly pop up the right article, it will at least bring up search results which will lead the user to the right place. So good enough. -- Colin 13:38, 8 May 2004 (EDT)
Since MAJ, the usually keeper of the sleep rule is on the road, I'll say it. The rule of thumb for what is or isn't a destination is "Do you sleep there?". I think that's pretty much the result we've gotten here right? Putting my own hat back on I'll toss in my regular complaint that hardly anybody puts in any acutally information about where you'd sleep once you get there. ;) -- Mark 04:28, 9 May 2004 (EDT)