I'm really lost as to the point of this page. It doesn't seem to have much to do with travel planning at all. Is the point to list all the reasons someone could want to travel, along with places that would satisfy that requirement? --Evan 00:46, 6 Aug 2004 (EDT)
- I admit that 'Travel Planning' is a poor name. It probably should be changed to something better. Maybe "Sights of the World", although it is not all "sights". Hmmm...
- It is really intended as an interesting way to browse through Wikitravel and could give people ideas to check out destinations that they might not otherwise have thought about. To browse the Geographical hierarchy you really need to have a specific destination in mind. If you just want to see a specific type of destination you have to know where in the world that occurs. Whereas if you just want to browse through Wikitravel without a specific destination in mind it is much more interesting to have some pointers that tell you about destinations based on what makes them worth visiting. It is of course impossible to list all of the reasons travellers could want to travel, or all of the locations that would satisfy any requirement (Obviously there are a lot of spectacular waterfalls that are not included on the list). However I think most of the lists are of at least of passing interest or curiosity to most travellers. I think most would agree that those items on the list are amongst the most spectacular or interesting in the world for those catagories. (Volcanoes was probably a bad example to start with, as it probably is not really of general enough interest -- personally I am interested in volcanoes, but maybe that isn't really general enough interest that it should be included on this page)
- I think that the nature of hypertext makes it perfect for allowing alternate ways of browsing the content. By limiting the browsing to a geographical hierarchy we are really limiting the browsability of it. This was intended just as a start for another way of seeing travel destinations. Similar to the Fields of pursuit idea mentioned on Wikitravel:Other ways of seeing travel, but of things that are of more general interest. -- Webgeer 03:08, Aug 6, 2004 (EDT)
- So, I understand your point, and it's a laudable goal. Here's what I suggest: first, we merge this page's contents under Travel topics. Second, we make individual articles about each of the sections on this page. For example, a Volcanoes page could discuss types of volcanoes, volcano visiting safety, as well as listing some places to visit volcanoes.
- I think having individual articles for each group will make this easier to work with. --Evan 10:29, 6 Aug 2004 (EDT)
- So I've pretty much followed this suggestion, because I'd love to see each of these expanded into a full practical article. (Volcanoes for vicarious travel!) I'm not sure what to do with the article itself now. -- Hypatia 07:09, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
- My suggestion would be to change it into an article about "Travel Planning" or to delete it. I don't think that it is really a very good name for what my original intention was, and I'm not opposed to the idea of making my original sections as pages in the Travel topics -- I still think it should be arranged in a nice heirarchichal way, but that is probably something to worry about when we start getting a lot of these kind of articles. -- Webgeer 16:43, Nov 3, 2004 (EST)
- Thanks. There probably is a need for a good article on general travel planning, I'll see if I can draft something. If I can't, I'll put it up for deletion. -- Hypatia 20:02, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
Hmmm, I'm going to have to second Evan's earlier concerns. I'm just not sure if this is headed in the right direction. I think some of the content deserves it's own Travel topics (ie Travel Insurance), but the rest of it seems a little unfocused. I'm open to any suggestions about what to do with it (ie an index of articles re planning?) otherwise it's going to get my vfd. Majnoona 19:58, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
- It appears to me that the article was entirely rewritten by Huttite after the above discussion. (See here for the mess it was before). I'm not fond of this article, but the current article bears no resemblance to the one discussed above. -- Colin 20:41, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)