Talk:Blue Mountains

Add topic
Active discussions


This: you'll only find two fast food restaurants between Sydney and Lithgow just not true... What did the writer mean? Between Katoomba and Lithgow maybe? There are hundreds if not THOUSANDS of Fast Food places between Sydn and Lith.

ALSO: It's JAMISON Valley not JAMIESON or other variations.

(WT-en) khrystene 15:49 4 jan 06 CET

link deletionEdit

I put in a link to an extraordinary (non commercial) web site which has aerial video of the Blue Mountains. It was deleted. I feel that it comes under the external links guidelines as "exceptional" Seems odd to me that a site like this is excluded but a link to a business like a hire car company link is OK. I would be interested in everybody's opinion.

You have mis-read the policy on External Links. The reference to exceptional there is in regard to travel rating sites. Wikivoyage specifically disallows links to non-primary sources, and for very obvious reasons. Videos of this nature are in no way primary, and if we did allow such links, the site would soon degenerate into little more than a travel industry link farm. The deletion was quite correct and in line with Wikivoyage policy. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:10, 6 March 2010 (EST)

I accept your point regarding exceptional sites being for rating sites. The external links guide says to "avoid" (not prohibit) ... "Personal image galleries and photo/video sharing websites (Flickr, Webshots, YouTube, etc)" The site I linked to is nothing like Flickr, Webshots, YouTube. It is not a video sharing web site and not a personal gallery. It is not a commercial site and doesn't even have google ads like wikivoyage does. I don't see how it could possibly have anything to do with the travel industry. Normally I wouldn't really care much at all about this but it really rocks my view of Wikivoyage and I think it is an important fundimental issue. To delete such an extraordinarily valuable resource on a technicality is bureaucracy gone mad and I think it limits the growth and usefulness of wikivoyage. I would be interested in the views of people who are actually using the Blue Mountains page for information rather than the people who are trying to police technicalities.

The policy really is extremely clear and cannot be debated in the context of one link to one video. I am absolutely sure there are hundreds of thousands of videos of attractions around the world that are just as good. The policy of not linking to non-primary sites has served Wiktiravel extremely well for many years, and will continue to do so. Also can you please make an effort to sign your name on talk pages so we know who we is saying what. Just hit the 2nd button from the right on the tool bar which appears on every edit screen. Thanks --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:32, 7 March 2010 (EST)
[Edit conflict] If you are interested in why Wikivoyage has the strict external links policy it has, you might care to read through the (lengthy) discussions at Project:External links. The short answer, though, is that our site was once quickly devolving into a link directory of little use to people on the road.
The main reasons for the policy: 1) we want information added here, not off-site; 2) our guides are geared not to being a web-project, but rather to practical real-world use; and 3) it's a slippery slope to try and pick and choose which links are worthwhile and which are not. #3 explains the "primary source" rule—it's fair as it is categorical and objective. #2 explains why Wikivoyage isn't terribly interested in video content. And #1 might encourage you to instead upload some good images of the Blue Mountains, or add better descriptions/information? I might be being overly hopeful, though, as it sounds that you are peeved about the link bit ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:35, 7 March 2010 (EST)
As an aside, I know the Blue Mountains a bit, and there are lots of things this article needs (a video is not one of them). Your enthusiasm for the destination would be better spent improving what is a not very complete article.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:39, 7 March 2010 (EST)
I'd re-iterate Peter's suggestion of reading through Project:External links for an understanding of the current policy before stating that it is "misguided". As soon as someone comes up with a reliable way of allowing additional links that also allows us to easily keep articles from becoming spammy we'll adopt it, but in five years no one has come up with a suggestion that is better than the current status quo. I'd also agree with Burmesedays that effort would probably be better spent adding other content to the article such as information about the destination, what to do there, etc. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:08, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I live in the Blue Mountains and decided I'd like to start contributing information I have on my local area. This was the first contribution of many planned because of the "wow, wouldn't that be a great resource on Wikivoyage." factor. This amazing link site was in fact what inspired me to start contributing. It's telling that there were been no adverse responses from real users - just the the technicality police who prowl Wikivoyage with rulebooks set in stone... Yes, you need a rulebook but you also need a brain to go with it. You guys should be deleting items that users don't want to see or are not useful. Not good stuff on some technicality. Perhaps you guys should use your rulebooks to flag something as inappropriate and let real users decide. You are not allowing Wikivoyage to be an evolving dynamic resource. And that is why the Blue Mountains page is going to stay mediocre and people like me are not going to bother contributing.

See ya...I'm moving on.--(WT-en) Arwtee 16:15, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I agree entirely with Artie above. I just put some great stuff up and it got deleted by some idiot. waste of time bothering here. Peter B.

For any future contributors who might be reading this discussion, it's worth pointing out that referring to other editors as "idiots" is probably not the best way to work on a collaborative travel guide. This site is the result of thousands of people volunteering time to work collaboratively, and while it's not a perfect system it's undeniable that it has produced a fairly impressive body of work. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
There are lots of great sites on the Blue Mountains, and great info out there. The two sites being linked to are great examples of that. However, our goal at wikivoyage is to make a self-contained guide. Other sites have other objectives. Everybody is more that welcome to add info to wikivoyage, but we incorporate it here, and don't just link to it. --(WT-en) inas 20:24, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

You guys just don't get it.... Artie above summed it up - You people don't even use the pages, you just enforce stupid rules. It's telling that the only 2 contributors to the Blue Mountains site in quite a few months now don't want be involved any more..I'm with Artie you can have your silly little fiefdom - there are much better places for real contributors to spend time on. Peter B

They aren't the only two contributions in the past two months. The rule is just one the community has decided on - for many reasons. If you want to join the community and the discussion on how we best incorporate links, you are welcome to. Discuss it at Project:External links. Of course there are many sites to choose from and contribute to. However, you will probably find that most quality sites will have their own set of rules to abide by. If you wish, here at WT you can be part of the community that develops the rules as well. --(WT-en) inas 00:52, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
I re-iterate my point, rather than worrying about one half-decent video and whinging on a talk page, if you really care about the Blue Moutnains, spend your energy on improving the article.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:55, 30 May 2010 (EDT)
What an amazing coincidence that two anonymous users would want to post links to the exact same video hosted on websites hosted by the same ISP, and have the exact same complaints when it's removed in accordance with clearly documented policy! Why, if I was a more suspicious sort, I'd think there was some deceptive, bad-faith sock-puppetry going on. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 03:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

The stuff I put in was as a result of an article in the Blue Mountains Gazette about the local Aboriginal people and their new web site a couple of months ago. You think because two Blue Mountains locals (who probably saw the same article) contribute similar stuff that there is some sort of conspiracy? This is too weird and definately my last word on this site

Region structureEdit

The article is a bit of a mess, with a lot of listings at 'Blue Mountains' level, but then a lot of sub-articles such as Wollemi_National_Park. Any suggestions how to fix? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Existing banner

I was up in the Blue Mountains yesterday and I believe the current banner doesn't do the area justice. It may be impressive to look far down on the trees n the valley below, but I would prefer a mountain vista as more enticing.

Thoughts? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the proposed banner is better. It has more of the mountain stuff Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the new banner is more majestic and also a better composition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, updating --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


The Blue Mountains can never get more beautiful. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Banner 0
Banner 1
Banner 2
Return to "Blue Mountains" page.