Talk:Travel topics index/Archive 2014-2017

Alternative guide?

Swept in from the pub

Hello, I wanted to write an "alternative guide to Prague" to show everyone some of the less obvious points of interest in Prague. Is there a tradition of pages such as Prague/Alternative guide? Or what would you recommend me? Thanks, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would start by just adding the points of interest to the existing Prague page. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vojtěch, your suggestion sounds interesting. I don't think we use "alternative guides" here, but do you think format of an Itinerary or a Travel topic might be suitable for what you have in mind? Danapit (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I will definitely improve the Prague page with a section "Alternative", but what I have in mind is something bigger than just a section. A travel topic or an initerary might be what I am looking for but I don't want to change the Wikivoyage routines. How would YOU name a page if you wanted to write about alternative spots to visit in Prague? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Literary London comes to mind as a comparable project. You can always create this article in your user space to start with ( for example User:Andrewssi2/Pyeongchang ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no single formula, and we are always looking for new and interesting types of itineraries and travel topics, so feel free to experiment. However, I think the best and most successful itineraries and travel topics have some sort of theme that binds them together. Is there a theme to what you are hoping to introduce in your 'alternative guide' or is it an itinerary for seeing lesser known sites that are not necessarily related to one another? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The theme is being alternative, so going to places which are not often visited by mainstream tourists. Maybe Andrewssi2 is right with the userpage sandbox, I'll just write something and then see what comes out of it.. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Off the beaten track in Japan is another example you might look at. Perhaps also LGBT Stockholm. Note, though, that both of those are tagged as not sufficiently developed to stand alone, with a suggestion of merging. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern would be scope. What kinds of attractions are we talking about here? If they're good but obscure, they should be in the main Prague article or its district articles. If they're only kinda 'meh', and thus not good enough to list on the main articles, why list them at all? Powers ^(talk) 18:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think this would be an excellent, excellent travel topic. When I was in Quebec City the summer before last, I found myself disgusted by how much the Haute-Ville and Quartier Petit-Champlain had devolved into tacky tourist traps. Of course, they had always been touristy, but it was much worse than it had been the last time I visited five years previously. It was very hard to appreciate the real history in the place when I had to shove my way through throngs of dead-eyed, human-cattle bus tour groups, and practicing my French was nearly impossible because as soon as they heard my Anglo accent they addressed me only in English, the better to speed things along with a long line behind me at the counter. I found myself craving a true representative Québécois experience, and I did find it, but in the outer boroughs where tourists are rarely seen. Prague is a place where a lot of tourists go, and I imagine it might be the same way there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks all! --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you create such a page, you probably will have to maintain it (add spots, improve phrasing, update pictures, update opening hours, etc), because most people will concentrate on the main articles. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Travel topic hierarchy

The current Travel activities hierarchy is messy: easy to miss content you are searching for, often ending up reading inferior duplicate versions or believing there is no article about the topic. Trying to sort it out I notice there are problems also elsewhere in the topics hierarchy.

I think we should stick to one hierarchy, separating See also links from hierarchical links and always using the page name (except in running text and captions). Any index page in the hierarchy should reflect the breadcrumb structure (if we have one, otherwise they should define the hierarchy).

This page is nice visually, but it does not keep to the hierarchy. The effect is it invites to reading when in "surfing mode", but it is suboptimal for somebody searching for something specific. I suggest separating parts that keep to the hierarchy (as explain above) and parts that do not. E.g. Travelling with children is a "concern" and should not be in a section for main topic categories. Likewise Work should be under Reasons to travel, Driving, Boat travel and Air travel under Transportation and Sport under Travel activities.

There are some additional problems, such as some mediawiki categories being exposed, but those should be easy to fix.

Unless there are objections, I think I'll try to do something about it. Suggestions (or action) welcome.

--LPfi (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking Travel topics

Swept in from the pub

I may well have missed something somewhere, but we do not have anything about (a) how to deal with hard to verify information (could lead to a possible extra line of 'misinformation and how to deal with it or check it' (b) hoax/satire/deliberate misinformation - it may not be in scope of the project as to how to deal with information sources about places/routes/issues, but thought I'd raise - if its been discussed before, my apology to who ever chooses to point to the earlier discussion of the subject/topic. sats (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I wouldn't know how to start such an article, but if it's a good one, it could be a real service. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will start a sub page so that an idea can be explored first for anyone interested User:SatuSuro/misinformation sats (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly that'd be a useful topic. We already, however, have an article about Common scams. Would these topics overlap? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think so, more be companion topics (ie see also between both) - it is trying to walk readers through various methods of checking or investigating information - relative to helping people develop ways of thinking about and checking things in guide books/websites/ - which might not be so much scams per se - but as much where misinformation can creep in unintentionally or intentionally, and where fact and fiction occur in tourist info... I am open to any feedback, and have no problem if someone want to point out any aspect of the draft that i will work on on my sub-page... sats (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places

Swept in from the pub

Would it be appropriate for there to be an article here on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)? Or would linking to the Wikipedia article be better? Sites on the NRHP are definitely of interest to travellers, imho. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think an article that describes what constitutes a national historic place, and provides an overview of some highlights, would make for an interesting travel topic (see also WV:Other ways of seeing travel#Travel topics), although a full list of every place on the registry is probably better suited for Wikipedia. Plunge forward and start an article, and even if it doesn't work out then the content can always be merged to another place. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, loads of countries each have their own similar organizations and lists. It's doubtful we'd want to have scads of articles to cover each one individually. Texugo (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

w:National Register of Historic Places says there's "...more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually". o.O

The NRHP could make an interesting travel topic, but it needs to be realized in some other way than as a list. For a comparison, UNESCO World Heritage List consists of about 1,000 sites... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be more useful to have travel topics dealing with specific historic interests (e.g. Civil War battlefields, Ancestral Puebloan archaeological sites, WWII historic sites, etc.) than one for the NRHP as a whole. The NRHP is just an official designation to incentivize the preservation of historic places, it's incredibly broad (both in terms of historic interest and the fact that there's literally thousands of places on the list) and has little bearing on traveller experience (my impression is that most NRHP sites are private buildings with a plaque stuck on the front), unlike, say, the National Parks, where you have rangers and visitor centers and special brochures and so forth across the whole system. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Texugo, Ypsi and Perry. The NRHP has 85,000 individual listings - the one-million figure Ypsi cited includes "contributing buildings" located within registered historic districts, whether or not they're historically significant in and of themselves - but that's still far too many listings, and makes for far too broad a field for any such article to cover, to be of much use to travellers at all, as a travel topic or in any other format. About the only way it could be addressed is as a list, which places it far more squarely in Wikipedia territory than in ours.

If you really want to build a travel topic around a subject like this, though, a better bet might be National Historic Landmarks. A nomination as a National Historic Landmark is widely viewed as being a step above a listing on the NRHP on the scale of historic distinction; in fact, it's the highest level of honor the U.S. government can give to a historic building or place. So, as opposed to 85,000 NRHP listings, there are only 2,500 NHLs, of which about half are publicly accessible. A curated overview of NHLs, including perhaps a few dozen of the most important ones - or perhaps categorized by the reason for their importance, i.e. as archaeological sites, for their history, for their architecture, etc. - might make for a workable Travel Topic.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a demanding task, but I suggest you go through each item, locate the nearest article (This map of all Wikivoyage articles can help), and add it as a listing in the "See" section if that section does not already contain enough listings. Of course, don't add the item if it is inaccessible or looks boring :-) Be sure to mention in the description what it is and how interesting it is for a traveller. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt we want the whole NRHP. Many things are on there just because they're old (usually 50+ years) and some local group bothered to do the historical research to get them listed. That old house, whatever its historical value, might not be worth including in WV if it isn't open to the public (or, in some cases, no longer there). The list is also ridiculously huge and broad-ranging. Wikipedia has an active NRHP WikiProject which has created a huge number of articles (being on the historic register usually infers enough reliable sources exist to establish notability for an encyclopaedia page) but one article usually equals one building or a list of sites in one county. The NRHP (national parks department) website does take a few specific themes (such as the Underground Railroad or Route 66) and create itineraries with about a hundred sites (or fewer) from each - that might be manageable - but the entire database list? Uh, no. K7L (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There are similar lists for other countries, aren't there? How do we deal with them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly there's the w:Canadian Register of Historic Places (directory of 17000 sites from multiple lists), and most places would have a national list and/or provincial and local lists - often running in parallel. For instance, Melborne would maintain a w:Victorian Heritage Register (2200 sites) for that Australian state. The US state lists often overlap NRHP as it's state historical agencies which submit the nominations which go into NRHP,; sometimes a local designation gives a limited protection against demolition which the national listing does not provide. These lists can be a source of information, if the historical sites are open to the public and someone would travel to see them, but I can't imagine listing every old house that happened to get a spot on one of the historic registers in the same way we seem to list every national park. The "let's visit all 2200 sites on Victoria, Australia's register" itinerary would be too large to be useful or manageable. Even the w:National Historic Sites of Canada (965 sites) would have to either be reduced by narrow criteria for inclusion or broken into small, regional trips - although it might be a good checklist to see if anything notable and publicly-accessible has a "see" or "do" listing in its home village. K7L (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The equivalent in the United Kingdom would be Listed Building. However I see this designation as being primarily a planning issue - if my house is a listed building I might need to apply for permission before fitting double glazing or other small alterations that would not normally need planning permission. There are far too many for a list to be useful - there are 4800 in Edinburgh alone. However it might be useful having a paragraph at the country / state level (or in a travel topic) explaining the local system, as the listing can be useful for finding out about specific buildings - the register for Scotland provides information on the history of each building. This is a useful resource for travellers that are curious about an old building that they see. AlasdairW (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Marina / Sailing guide: as a seperate wiki, or on Wikivoyage?

Swept in from the pub

Dear all,

I'm starting a discussion on metawiki to create a new wiki orientated towards sailing related information, like marina guide and sailing area guide. I'm unsure if this should be in a new wiki, or if would be better as a section of wikivoyage. This post is to ask contributors of wikivoyage about their opinion.

please find the page of the proposal here and comment: Proposal for a new WikiSailing —The preceding comment was added by Nounours77 (talk • contribs)

Given the name, Wikivoyage, it would seem natural for this site to host a sailing guide. I'd certainly welcome it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It does seem natural, although the amount of object in the proposal (e.g. 40,000 marinas. 100,000 - 300,000 POI's and natural harbors) makes me wonder how it could be accommodated inside WV if realized in full? What would be the impact on existing articles? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that there be a separate sub-site reserved for sailing and linked directly to the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re: Andrewssi2 - I think there would be strenuous objection if sailing content started out by creating articles for a vast number of individual marinas and POIs, but I could definitely envision something similar to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, where a general sailing guide to an area is slowly sub-divided as the content warrants additional articles. As with anything here, I think the key is to start out broadly, rather than creating dozens or hundreds of mostly-empty skeleton articles in the hope that they'll be fleshed out later. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the Diving articles would be the closest in terms of this. It should be noted that Diving doesn't actually exist in a 'sub site' but rather a series of 'ad-hoc' additions (and no offence intended by that categorization).

My limited knowledge of the subject would suggest that the number of Marinas in Australia alone would probably be too much for one article, so how that could be split and structured for a global view would be interesting to understand. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We have an article at Cruising on small craft. There was an expedition aimed at building more, Wikivoyage:Cruising Expedition, but it seems to have gone inactive. Pashley (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! Please start with like 1 or 5 articles so that we can work out together what is the best way to structure information. Also, don't forget to sign your posts ;-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to such "example" articles, I think it would be good to start out with a few good sailing destination areas, where we have interested contributors. Cruising on small craft seems to suggest the area around Long Island, Thousand Islands, the Erie and Rideau Canals, parts of the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and (parts of) the coasts of Ireland and Scotland could be such regions (choose those where we have expertise). Our "sailing guide" could then quite soon be usable for going to one such area, chartering a yacht and cruising around. Also the usability and how to integrate with our article hierarchy would be easier to think about when covering (more or less) complete destination areas. --LPfi (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a good idea to create some example of what you mean. I would love to see Wikivoyage expand into other forms of travel more. More walking/biking trails. Mountain biking trails. Caving maps. Paddling trip etc.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Caves

Swept in from the pub

No article on caving?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Plunge forward and create one and add whatever you (and Google :)) knows. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

With the usual caveats about safety (i.e. we wouldn't want anyone stuck in a cave based on the advice given in WV) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WV is no cave safety advisory board. Or something like that. ;-) Sure create away. Caves are interesting travel destinations as well a reasons to travel. I'd like to read what you wrote once you're done. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great idea, and lava tubes and probably grottoes should be subsets of caves that are discussed in the article. When the article has been started, I'll make sure the spectacular Frasassi Caves are mentioned or at least a photo of them is included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few articles which refer to cave diving that can be linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Sabang (Palawan) for an underground river on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Mabinay and Yangshuo also have many caves. Pashley (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a passion in caves, go ahead and make a start! It is always worth keeping in mind that most travel topics on Wikivoyage have not been created yet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Impossible destinations?

I just noticed that we have an article for the uninhabited and hard-to-reach Navassa Island and we also have other articles of places that you simply don't go visiting with just a passport, €10 and a spare afternoon. Would it be appropriate to create a travel topic listing destinations that are particularly hard to reach (or extremely expensive by tour) or even practically impossible plus the challenges that such expeditionary trips pose? The article could be named impossible destinations, extreme travel, expeditions or something like that.

Disclaimer: I don't have personal experience with such travel, and I think few, if any, Wikivoyagers have. Nevertheless I think we (and Google) possess the knowledge to bring up the article to usable status (at least :)), and while very few of our readers would ever visit places mentioned there, it would sure be an interesting article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The most inaccessible corners of the Earth? Area 51 just redirects to the nearest town, Rachel NV. Diego Garcia is hard to reach as it's under the exclusive control of one military base. Antarctica is possible, but remote. We also have articles for the Moon and for Space, although it will take until 2020 or later to rebuild what was lost at the end of the cold war Apollo programme. There are likely a few other examples of awkward places to reach, even if one ignores war zones which are simply too dangerous or where the cultural heritage has been outright destroyed, Hatra-style. Occasionally, a point like Heard Island will belong to a beaten-path country (Australia in this example) but still be uninhabited, distant and/or require require special permission for anything other than a recognised scientific expedition. A few of these points are known for DXpeditions, where ham radio nuts will jump through endless administrative hoops to manage to get a transmitter to one of these obscure points for a day or two, logging thousands of shortwave radio contacts as every other radio amateur tries to get the rare "entity" into the log book. K7L (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting travel topic to me, but I'd suggest "Next-to-impossible destinations" or some other name - if a place really is impossible to get to then I think our policy has been that it doesn't get its own article. Wake Island was one early destination that spawned a discussion about difficult-to-reach destinations - it's really, really hard to get to, but a determined individual could do so, so it got its own article. Space is really, really tough to get to, but Russia did sell some seats on the ISS to tourists, and companies are now taking reservations for future trips out of the atmosphere. Mars, however, is currently impossible to reach, so it's out of scope. Area 51 is impossible for anyone without extreme military clearance, and those folks are forbidden from sharing information about it, so that's another place that is essentially impossible to reach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If something used to be accessible to someone in the past and is still standing, typically it's still listed even if some force majeure places it temporarily beyond reach. Most war zones would fall into this category, as would the Moon after the end of Apollo in the 1970s but before other countries launch manned missions in the 2020s. If an archaeological site or a ghost town is still there, it's usually valid, unless a destination in ruins is close enough to a modern settlement (Nineveh to Mosul, for instance) to be listed there. If there's nothing left, then it's gone. Pompeii is a valid destination, Hatra was destroyed by Da'esh. Current and historic military bases are usually listed in their home city or geographic area (so "CFS Alert" is Ellesmere Island, Nunavut) unless the base is a Diego Garcia-like island unto itself which must function as a self-contained city as there is no associated nearby town to support the base. Not sure what happens to the folks who reserved trips to Mars on PanAm in its heyday? K7L (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you recommend doing with Travel topic articles about one-time events after the events are over?

Swept in from the pub

I noticed that through the years various articles have been developed in the English Wikivoyage (as well as the English Wikitravel prior to the fork) about the most prominent sporting events in the world (for example, the article about the upcoming summer Olympics).

The small Hebvoy community has recently discussed the possibility of creating many Hebrew editions of such prominent travel topic one-time event articles. Nevertheless, one fundamental question which was brought up on a Hebvoy discussion about this topic, was what in practice should ideally be done with these types of articles after these event end? would their content still be relevant to future readers long after the event ends. (I assume that the Engvoy community has decided long ago that such articles would indefinitely be relevant because I found many of these articles in the Engvoy main space which are about events that took place a long time ago - World Cup 2006 and Beijing 2008 for example).

I myself tend to believe that such articles about very prominent sporting events might still be valuable in a far distant future for travelers that would be going to the city/region in which the Olympics (or other prominent one-time sporting events) took place many years or decades ago, in a similar way that a comprehensive article about the main filming locations of the "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy would probably be very valuable to traveling LOTR fans going to New Zealand many decades after the premiere of the films took place (I can for example also imagine how in many decades from now, travelers whom would go to Sochi would be particularly interested in the Engvoy article about the Sochi Olympics that was significantly expanded by many people during the time of the event, even though the event took place a long time ago, and many of the Olympics facilities might be in poor condition or not exist any more.)

This brings me to another fundamental question about this type of articles - is it customary in the Engvoy community to keep on updating the information about the current state of the facilities in these events (for example, removing info about facilities that were taken down, and making sure that the information always reflects the current state of the facilities), or are these articles intended to become a sort of a "time capsule" that would forever present only the information which was relevant when the actual events took place? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

'Time Capsule' is probably the best way to describe how its done. No harm in keeping Beijing 2008 because it provides a template and ideas for future Olympic event articles. The intention is not to update an article once the event has ended. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Main-subject travel topics should match our article section headings

Swept in from the pub

We currently have a dichotomy in place in the naming of our main-subject travel topics.

On the one hand, we have:

• Respect
• Talk
• Stay healthy
• Stay safe
• Sleep

On the other hand, we have:

• Transportation instead of Get in or Get around
• Attractions instead of See
• Travel activities instead of Do
• Shopping instead of Buy
• Food instead of Eat
• Alcoholic beverages and Coffee instead of Drink

This is inconsistent. The short, imperative format section headers were selected to make our guides distinctive in a crowded marketplace. There's no reason our travel topics can't match.

We've discussed this before; see Talk:Sleep#Move back?. Objections include search engine optimization (which should be obviated by the redirects) and the unintuitiveness of the titles (again, obviated by redirects, as well as by our established use of the short terms in our guides).

So my proposal is to make all of those main-subject articles' titles match our section headers (at least where possible; it may not be desirable to have a single Drink article, for instance).

-- Powers ^(talk) 14:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I truly don't see the point. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Transportation (presumably, to Get in and Get around) makes little sense as many of the same modes of transport exist in both sections. Crawford (Texas)#By Bush plane is probably "Get in", but Nunavut#By plane might be needed both to get in and to get around between individual remote Arctic villages with no intercity road network. K7L (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should rename where possible. As to the transportation issue: All transport is getting around. The only time you ever "get in" to any destination covered here from a point we don't (and shouldn't) cover (as per our sex tourism policy ;-) ) is birth. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth tourism, while controversial, is an entirely different issue from sex tourism. It basically involves visiting w:jus soli countries to give birth, allowing the baby to claim that country's citizenship. The "get in" section usually infers arriving from a point outside the scope of the current article, so the Toronto Transit Commission might be "get in" to get to Toronto/Etobicoke from some other district of the same city, but "get around" in an article about Ontario. K7L (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it appears to me that you don't understand what I was trying to say. As this here wiki covers or intends to cover every destination on earth and even the moon and space, the only time you "get in" the area this wiki covers from a place this wiki doesn't cover (that being a woman's womb and vagina, unless artificial birth has been developed without my knowledge) is birth. Therefore all transportation on a global scale is getting around. Be that a transpacific flight or a one stop right on a local bus. And sorry for the bad joke ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So we have Get in#By stork and Get in#By UFO? This might be a couple weeks too late for April 1? K7L (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Get out#Of my dreams, Get in#to my car... Texugo (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

An article on Billy Ocean would violate our Wikivoyage:Bodies of water policy. K7L (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, Transportation is something we might want to leave as it is. "Move", maybe would be a good alternative? ;)

As for the others, I don't think it's a fantastic idea but as half of those travel topics already are named in the imperative form like the article headings I guess we rename the rest too for the sake of consistency. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice originally that the first links are to top-level travel topics. I'd retract those changes or rename if they have been so all along - "Sleep" should be "Accommodation" etc. We don't name the guide to Paris the guide to the "City of Lights", as this is more "out of the box". The name of the guide must say what is in the box clearly, and be easily searchable. How we structure the articles and put headings on them is another thing, we do it in a playful way that makes the guide easy to digest. But for article names such "playfulness" does travellers no favours. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about the names themselves, but I think naming the travel topics like the sections (Get in and around, See, Sleep, Buy etc.) would make keeping some consistency more automatic (as we know where to stick it).

Now the page names and headings, the breadcrumb tree, links to the pages etc. all use different names, at least in many cases. The travel topics are very hard to navigate because of this inconsistency – which also extends to the hierarchy itself and the substance of topic articles. I think both readers and editors would be able to navigate them much more easily if the hierarchy would match headings and possible subheadings of a long star article.

--LPfi (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Gloria, I don't understand why these headings are fine for section headings but not for article titles. Can you elaborate? Powers ^(talk) 15:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I will try to rephrase what I said above - section headings are a great way to make our guides different, a bit playful and, most importantly, easy to digest. When you are already reading a guide about Paris, "get in", "get around", "sleep", "eat" etc. are quite unambigious ("Drink" is a bit ambigious, but that's not the point here). But when you are searching for information about transportation, accommodation etc. you are searching for just that. Our articles should unambigiously say what's inside, not via a series of redirects and an unnecessary explanation. I absolutely do not see any benefit in making the name of some (but not all - see "transportation") names same as headings, as not many people would even notice or understand when faced with it. This is only our internal view of Wikivoyage that makes it somehow logical to have it named the same way - for people coming from outside, "accommodation" is "accommodation", not "sleep" (and accommodation is about more than just sleeping). We should focus on great content, not constant discussing about formalities. It's fine as it is. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the distinction. When you're reading a guide about Paris, "sleep" is unambiguous; I agree. But when you're on a travel guide web site, "Sleep" should be equally unambiguous, shouldn't it? It seems that the context of "travel guide" is sufficient in both cases.

My problem with "Accommodations" is the same as it would be within our articles: It's stuffy, boring, and undistinctive.

-- Powers ^(talk) 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My problem with "Sleep" is that I expect it to contain information (only) about sleeping, such as tips for sleeping on an airplane or what type of bed to request in a Japanese hotel (a mat on the floor isn't going to work for some travelers, especially elderly people). Instead, Sleep doesn't talk about sleeping at all, but instead covers types of buildings you can temporarily stay in/live in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is worth making the titles of articles easy for the casual reader to find. It doesn't matter much what we call the sleep section in a city articles: "Sleep", "Bed for the night", "Accommodation" or something more obscure would all work because readers will always get to the section by reading to the bottom of the page. But readers will get to topics by using the site search facility, so the title should match the mostly likely term. And I think an article about how to sleep in difficult situations - noisy, hot or uncomfortable locations would be useful. AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that would just be confusing, if Sleep (the section in our articles about accommodations) didn't at least redirect to Accommodations. As for ease of searching, redirects make that a moot point. Powers ^(talk) 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alastair raises a very valid point - Sleep and Accommodation ar two differrent things. An article on sleeping during travelling, including sleeping on the plane, train or even when no proper accommodation is available, as well as effects of sleeping on the human body with relation to travelling, would be reasonably worthwhile and very fitting for the title, and just like the playful title suggests, interesting to read just for the sake of it. It absolutely should also contain a prominent link to accommodation at the top for those who look for specific, and infinitely less exciting, info on that. Readers who might be under the impression that one = other could be thus easily directed where they should go, while the fact that sleep is not equivalent to accommodation (e.g. a big part of the accommodation business is catering) would be reflected in both guides being separate. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this approach is too encyclopedic. The staid Accommodations title is completely contrary to our house tone. Powers ^(talk) 23:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that article titles need to verge on the encyclopedic. Otherwise move New York to The Big Apple, Chicago to The Windy City, Edinburgh to Auld Reekie, Perth to The Fair City, and Denver to The Mile-High City. This would fit our tone, but would a traveller find anywhere? AlasdairW (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Using slang or nicknames is hardly the same thing. (And probably all of those redlinks should be redirects or disambiguation pages.) Powers ^(talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that you think that "Accomodations" is too stuffy to be the title of a page that is actually about accomodations. Here's my question for you: What should the title of the page about actually sleeping be? I'd put it at the obvious title Sleep, but we can't do that, because you've insisted that the content at Sleep be something other than information about actually sleeping. So where would you put this important, missing article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we start writing an article on Sleep, so that something productive and constructive results from all that? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It would never occur to me that we would need separate articles on sleeping and on places to sleep. Powers ^(talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jet lag affects sleep, but isn't a place to sleep. K7L (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You get jet lag after long flights, so having it at Flying would be natural (now it is an article of its own, which is also OK). Sleeping in non-accommodation places fits well in Sleep, even if the article is mostly about accommodation. Coping with nightly noise also fits there. Do we have a real problem? --LPfi (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Travel often requires non-standard sleep patterns, not only because of jet lag. Some advice on how sleep patterns my affect your travel experience would be very much in order. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sleep disruptions, Sleeping while travelling, or Getting a good night's sleep. You guys are really grasping at straws here, with the only apparent goal being to elide any sort of continuity between our section headings and our article titles. Powers ^(talk) 13:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what my opinion is on this issue (maybe I just haven't cared enough to formulate one), but I do think we should all assume good faith on both sides of the argument, which means assuming that the goal on all sides is to serve the traveler well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I should have said that there seems to be a lack of understanding about how consistency between our section headings and our article titles helps the traveler. Powers ^(talk) 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Much better. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

'Fantasy' activities for the traveller

Swept in from the pub

Is there an article?

I define fantasy here as being able to undertake some kind of activity outside what you might consider normal for the average traveller.

This was partly inspired by last years joke article.

I did try asking in the tourist office to get some more information, but it got shunted off to the archives.

So does anyone think that there should be an article?

There's plenty of scope:

• Conventional 'Experience' options (no squid):
  • Motorsport track day
  • Sailing
  • Tea at the Ritz
  • The "shoot"
  • Golf tuition

Less conventional ( 1-2 (squid) :

• The makeover , and photoshoot
• The 'Wembly' Experience ( which used include playing the game on the actual pitch!).
• Driver Experience day at a preserved railway, where you can attempt to drive a locomotive..
• Not Unearthing the Ark of the Covenant, (i.e assisting with an archaeological project.)
• Becoming part of independent film production (either in front or behind the camera).

Getting Weirder:(2-3 Squids)

• Joining the Roman, Parlimentary or Confederate army on training manouvers (i.e Renactment groups.)
• Cosplay and conventions.

Mid-range Weird:(3-4 squids)

• Escape Games
• 'Spy' school

'Through the Looking Glass' (some of which might not be appropriate for this wiki):(4-5 squids)

• Advanced 'Spy' School
• BDSM travel
• Live Action Role Playing and 'The Game'.

Before I plunge forward, I'd like some thoughts from other contributors :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Venue info in travel topic articles

Many attraction-themed travel topics such as those found among historical travel and fiction tourism have a list of venues, such as museums. These are also listed in the geographic article hierarchy; for instance both York and Industrial Britain list the National Railway Museum.

The question is: How detailed should the venue info be? Should both the travel topic and the city article have phone number, fees, opening hours, etc? These are subject to change, and inclusion in more than one article would require more effort to keep Wikivoyage up to date. Too many articles have obsolete information.

A future solution would be compilation of Wikidata objects. But until then? /Yvwv (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be equal standards for detail in both travel topic listings and destination article listings, and I think the argument about the effort required in keeping things up to date is a pretty weak one. (Ideally, a traveller planning to visit different venues listed in a travel topic article would also refer to the respective destination article[s], anyway.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. Which is why details such as opening hours and admission prices can be kept in those destination guides. I see no reason to duplicate that content elsewhere and have been operating on the belief that such specifics should normally be omitted in travel topic and itinerary articles. The "content" line could be the same in both articles, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note if you do not want to put all the detail in the travel topic article when the link is created to the location page add # and the wikidata Qnumber to the end of the city page name. If the listing has the wikidata entered the link will jump to that part of the page. Saves the reading searching a whole page for the information. Created example for the National Railway Museum in Industrial Britain. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that travel topics should only have brief details of the detailed information on visiting a museum. Hours should just deal with a broad sense of the days it is open ("Jun-Sep: Mon-Sat; Oct-May only Tue"). Address can usually just be a link to the city, and directions are only needed only if they would impact advance planning ("allow two days to walk to the castle"). I would omit prices unless they were high (more than an average dinner), but would say if advance purchase was required. The description may be quite different in the travel topic from the city article, as the travel topic should focus on how the museum addresses the particular topic. AlasdairW (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also have a look at last week's discussion about the same topic. As I've said there; a big downside of limiting the information in travel topics is that those articles are then no longer usable nor printable on their own. We would force users to comb through all the destination articles to find the specific attraction and then write that information down somewhere else, to use alongside our itinerary article. That's not very traveller friendly. And why would we do that? Only because it's slightly harder to update the information and because in principle we don't want double listings? Of course, it also completely depends on the topic. Note that some of our best itineraries with attractions rather than cities do include address information. Have a look at El Camino Real, for example, which also includes opening hours, or Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side - which doesn't use listings, but does include addresses. I don't think those articles are crowded by information, and would be strongly against removing it. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important for us to agree on the best policy in this regard and include the specific advice where it's most relevant (presumably, in the articles about itineraries and, well, I'm not sure where would be best in regard to travel topics, because as I recall, the "article" about them is really only a repository of annotated links to existing travel topic articles). Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying now.. are you suggesting that itineraries are only ever supposed to be a repository of annotated links to existing travel topics? Did you mean destination articles? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I'm describing the Travel topics "article", which is just a repository of collated, annotated links to existing travel topic articles, with a 1-sentence description of what a travel topic article is. I'm not sure where we would put an instruction to include or exclude details like hours and admission prices to attractions in travel topics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify I was talking about Travel Topics with a global (or at least country level) scope like Botanical tourism. Topics and itineraries that cover a single city may be different. I would expect somebody reading a global topic to also look at (and maybe print) the relevant city articles, which would be needed for all the other info (Get in, Eat, Sleep etc). It is unlikely that somebody with a print copy is going to visit the museums in both London and Sydney, so reducing the number of pages of printout helps the printout carrying traveller. AlasdairW (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Julias, but I think that Alasdair's point is critical. Botanical tourism, which has information from multiple countries but no places to sleep, isn't going to be printed out and used as-is (which means that we need some duplicate listings between that article and the destinations). But other travel topics (and ideally all itineraries) could be used that way, and in that case, they should be more self-contained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I'd prefer not to see strict rules put in place on this subject, but instead encourage common sense. Something like: "A rule of thumb for Wikivoyage is that a listing for a business or attraction should only appear in a single article, but particularly in the case of travel topics and itineraries editors should not be dogmatic in applying this guideline. In many cases it is preferable to avoid duplication by pointing readers to the appropriate city article for an attraction, but use common sense and remember that the goal is to produce the best travel guide possible; a topic article about Industrial Britain benefits from having details about places that were an important part of Britain's Industrial Revolution, and an itinerary about El Camino Real is a vastly better article if it includes details about each of the Spanish Missions along the route". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that we shouldn't aim for a strict one-size-fits-all policy. For globally focussed articles, it indeed makes sense to not include the small details. For more regional ones, information to make the article stand alone are of real value. We're talking about a relatively small group of articles anyway, so common sense and consensus discussion when needed is perfectly manageable. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ryan's guidance would go in Wikivoyage:Listings and could be cross referenced from Wikivoyage:Itineraries and Wikivoyage:Travel topics (which we probably should create). I would be opposed to placing editor guidance of any sort in the mainspace Itineraries and Travel topics articles. Powers ^(talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)