Talk:Hot springs

long list of hot springs?
Does it really make sense to have this long list of places with hot springs? The topic article is useful, but it seems to me the long list makes the article too bulky. Wouldn't a category hot springs with a link on this page serve this purpose better? I realize this isn't perfect either as the category wouldn't categorize by country, which would be rather annoying as well, I must say. Any thoughts? (WT-en) Charles 20:02, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * I think there will come a time when it makes sense to split the listings into sub-pages by continent or country or whatever, with pointers and overview material in this article. However, I don't think we're there yet.  There are far larger articles out there than this one.  In my opinion it's useful to have the country information somewhere, as a "Hmmm ... never thought of that..." thought-provoker; this seems like as good a place as any, until the list really does get too unwieldy.  As for the idea of a category, Wikivoyage has generally not used categories as extensively as Wikipedia, etc., although that may be starting to change.  Once WT-wide category use is more accepted, this might be a good solution, but let's let the tide shift first.  (Incidentally, we should do lunch some time, seeing we're both from the same place.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 5 November 2006 (EST)

vfd discussion
This article is presently the subject of a vote-for-deletion discussion. In my opinion the idea of presenting information on hot springs is a valid travel topic and could benefit travelers, but serious work is going to be needed to make the article useful. Please help; lacking some development, it's gonna go away soon. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:26, 6 March 2006 (EST)


 * Hot springs
 * rename or redirect to Hot Springs, Arkansas -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:00, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. This seems like a valid Travel topic, which is what it is currently set up as. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:04, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I agree with Ryan.  It could use some work, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:10, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Excuse me for replying to myself, but it occurs to me that the existence of named places called "Hot Springs" (or some close variant) should cause this page to be renamed, albeit not deleted. There are at least four places in the United States called "Hot Springs" plus who knows how many more in other English-speaking countries.  Maybe rename it "Hot springs (travel topic)" and set up a disambiguation page?  One of those US places is Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, which still goes by its original name of Hot Springs on some maps, and which I plan to start on soon. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:41, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * See Talk:Travel topics for a discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:49, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * I suspect that one reason why Tom recommended a deletion was that the article as written when he nominated it was, to be blunt, terrible. I have started a rewrite to bring it more into conformity with our standards (not to mention make it more useful) as a travel topic.  Before a yea-or-nay decision is made, I suggest dropping by there and seeing whether the framework could develop into something worth keeping (and of course, helping write it if it is). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:21, 6 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. It looks like a valid travel topic. (It was not Tom who recommended deletion. It was some anonymous user who concluded, plausibly, that it might not fit our goals.) Disambiguate in some way to take care of all those places named "Hot Springs" --(WT-en) Ravikiran 09:27, 6 March 2006 (EST)
 * Thanks for clearing Tom's name. :-) I think by now it is clear that there is a consensus for leaving this one, or at most, redirecting/disambiguating it.  I've taken the liberty of removing the VFD header from the article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 7 March 2006 (EST)

Disambig

 * Why could we not move this back to Thermal Park or move to Hot Spring Thermal Parks, we could then use Hot Springs or Hot springs as a disambig page for the various "Hot Springs" and have a pointer there back to this page.
 * Hot Spring Thermal Parks
 * Hot Springs (Arkansas)
 * Hot Springs (Montana)
 * Hot Springs (North Carolina)
 * Hot Springs (South Dakota)
 * Hot Springs (Virginia)
 * Hot Springs National Park
 * Lava Hot Springs -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:44, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * What about moving this page to Hot Springs (topic)? Hot springs seems a more obvious title for this article than "Thermal park" or "Hot spring thermal parks". -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:07, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * "Thermal park" would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would fail to cover a lot of hot-spring territory that's particularly interesting to the Wikivoyageer, because it's not well covered in conventional travel guides: "wild" hot springs that haven't been developed into a "park" and are sometimes really out in the boonies, hence give a sense of local color that no commercial "thermal park" can match. (Note that in my straw-man outline, I call this one out specifically.)  If there is to be a move/rename, Hot springs (topic) looks right. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:53, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * Hi Bill, are we going to move this to Hot springs (topic)? Do you want me to do it or are you going to do it? Do you prefer this to be the "Most famous" with a Hot Springs (disambiguation)? We just have a lot of Hot springs. :) Thanks! --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:08, 31 March 2006 (EST)


 * I don't see a consensus for moving it, nor do I see a zillion places named Hot Springs suddenly sprouting pages. Remember, furthermore, that the capitalization quirks of MediaWiki are such that the software draws a distinction between "Hot Springs" (as is usual for place names) and "Hot springs".  What I would therefore suggest, as in your first idea above, is to set up a disambiguation page "Hot Springs" -- capital "S" -- that routes people either here or to the appropriate town/park, and then some language at the top of this article aiming people to that one if they're looking for a town rather than a topic.  Let me take a crack at that. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:56, 31 March 2006 (EST)


 * Update: the disambiguation page is set up. Have a look and see if it addresses your concern.  Incidentally, I will be in Hot Springs, SD a bit later in the year and will add content for it, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 31 March 2006 (EST)


 * That's okay Bill, I was just thinking that a "actual destination" would be better for hot springs in lieu of a topic as this is a travel guide that focuses on destinations, but we will go with this, provided you are comfortable with it. Thanks! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:33, 31 March 2006 (EST)


 * Fine by me; subject closed and matter resolved, as far as I'm concerned. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:17, 31 March 2006 (EST)

Don't expand this section
A few parts of the article If you know the standards and regulations in other countries, please expand this section. I think this stuff should be shunted off into the country article in question instead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:40, 6 November 2006 (EST)
 * I disagree. On of the primary points of this topic is to provide cross-cutting information on hot springs that allows a concise comparison of the way things are world-wide, so that travelers become aware, as a matter of principle, that things abroad may not be as they are at home.  This is exactly the right place for standards and regulations in view of that.  Furthermore, hot-spring rules and regulations are awfully trivial stuff to put into most destination articles. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Naturism: Yea or Nay?
The following sentence was added on May 24, 2006: "Local etiquette varies from spring to spring and country to country, but a general rule is that naturists are less tolerant of clothed bathers than the other way around." I have spent a lot of time at a lot of hot springs and I don't think this is an accurate statement. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I have never heard of a naturist demanding that someone take off their clothes, cause a scene about it, or call the police to harass the clothed bathers (indeed, they cannot); on the other hand, clothed bathers can and do call the police in to harass naturists and will cause a stink about someone not wearing clothes. The very terms indicate this, 'clothing optional' vs. 'clothing required'. I'm not sure the statement belongs in the article at all, seeming somewhat subjective, but if it is retained I think it should be changed to reflect the reality that clothed bathers are less tolerant of naturists than the other way around. If clothed bathers were indeed more tolerant of naturists then there would be no such thing as "clothing required" designations. --(WT-en) Drayke 04:19, 15 November 2006 (EST)
 * Please plunge forward and edit the article. There's nothing wrong with being 'subjective' but it's important to be fair. I think that the statement would be more fair to say that it's important to recognize the local etiquette as clothed bathers may be upset be nude bathing or nude bathers upset by clothing (which some think can disturb the natural balance of minerals in the water because of detergents, etc). It really doesn't have to be one or the other, or a matter of intolerance, just local preference. When in Rome... is always good advice! (Or, as I once heard a traveller say "if no one else is jay walking in a miniskirt, don't!"). (WT-en) Maj 21:17, 15 November 2006 (EST)