Talk:Southern Namibia

Organising topics of a region
Hi all, I'm somewhat new here and need some help. Southern Namibia has three National parks which cover about half of its area, and almost all of its tourist destinations.
 * 1) What do I do with campsites or one-house hamlets on the road from one location to another, where you can sleep and eat but nothing else will realistically ever be added: Own page, or add to the region, or add to one or more national parks?
 * 2) What do I do with locations that are very close to towns but technically belong to a National Park (e.g. Kolmanskop close to Lüderitz, but is part of the Sperrgebiet, one of the three National Parks and still without an own page)?
 * 3) Fish River Canyon Park has been incorporated into Ai-Ais Richtersveld Transfrontier Park some years back. Do I merge the two, or should I leave them as-is?

And a technical question: Many destinations in Namibia are managed by Namibia Wildlife Resorts, a state-owned enterprise. Their pricing is the same, or at least very similar, throughout. Is there a possibility to tag it as 'belongs to NWR' and update prices somewhere in a template instead of in the dozens of places they manage?

Thanks in advance, Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, more than a day without answer... I interpret that as 'Go ahead the way you please.' --Pgallert (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pgallert. Sorry you've had to wait a bit, but please appreciate that waiting one day for an answer is not very long on Wikivoyage, especially on topics about lesser-known places. We're nowhere near the size of Wikipedia in terms of editorship. I'll try to answer as best I can in line with my understanding of policy, but bear in mind I know nothing at all about Namibia.
 * Add it as a sleep listing to the bottom-level region they fit best in, or if they're in a national park, to that park's article. We shouldn't have destination articles with no other content than a solitary sleep listing.
 * If Kolmanskop has enough potential see / do / eat and sleep listings to form its own article, then go ahead and create a dedicated city article. Or, if you decide it would fit better into a Sperrgebiet park article, do that instead. See WV:What is an article? to help you with this and the previous answer.
 * Since the Fish River Canyon Park article has a lot more content than the Transfrontier park article, and it is just in one country, my gut says that it would be better as its own article. But you should mention in the 'Understand' section that it is part of the larger park.


 * Does all this make sense? Please let me know if not.


 * As for your technical question, I am not aware of a template like that, but agree that it might be a useful one to create. What do any other Wikivoyagers think of this idea? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hamlets with only one sight, restaurant or similar is a problem we discuss every now and then, and I think you should do whatever makes sense. Adding them to the region works in some cases but is not ideal. Adding them to the park works if they are visited just by park visitors. I think the former solution is good in that they are easily found there by whoever comes up with a better solution. I'd avoid having them in several places, as whoever updates them at one place doesn't necessarily do it at the other. Instead mention them in and link the page from the other articles.
 * The formal divisions are used here only when they make sense or nobody has found any better idea. It seems (reading Lüderitz) that Kolmanskop is best described as part of Lüderitz, unless somebody writes a proper article about it (no need to separate it as outline). Being in the park it should probably be mentioned in the park article when that gets written, but unless it fits with the theme of the park (or is commonly visited by park visitors) the details could stay in the city article.
 * For the Fish river, I think the important thing is whether they are regarded as one destination (or should be, for other than administrative reasons). Regardless, we should not put too much time in keeping in sync with administrative changes; as ThunderingTyphoons writes, the state of the articles suggests status quo is better than an uneven merge.


 * The template seems tempting (technically it would be easy to write and use), but on Wikivoyage we have tried to minimize use of templates, to make the wikicode as easy as possible to understand and edit. Perhaps the best solution would be to write an (outline or otherwise) article about Namibian wildlife resorts (or Namibian national parks or whatever makes sense), include information on the service and prices of NWR there and link it where relevant.


 * --LPfi (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi ThunderingTyphoons! and LPfi, and thanks for the feedback. I'm still trying to understand the way things work here. I want to make available the things we learned on our last few tours, particularly as Namibia is not well covered currently and I'm a resident. I'll take a few Wikipedians down to Cape Town in winter for the Wikimania and then I'll surely learn more.
 * What puzzles me for now is the organisation of articles here, coming from en.wp. A tourist coming to Namibia would organise their tour according to topic, not region: Wildlife, or colonial artefacts, geological highlights, or an ethnologic tour. I started Off-roading in Namibia, certainly one of the reasons to visit the country, but I am not sure if I have done the right thing, considering that the only other comparable article is about California. Such topics would be pursued according to the visitors' means, as fly-in safaris or hunting tours, well over 1,000 US$ a day, down to backpacking and hitchhiking. Nobody would set a theme "Central Namibia" and visit posh lodges as well as youth hostels, as the pages are currently organised.
 * Back to the concrete example, people come to see the Fish River Canyon. That's the attraction. The canyon happens to be in the Ai-Ais Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, that's why one has to pay an entrance fee. It also happens to be in Southern Namibia. I don't want to duplicate entries, but some reasonable accommodation would be inside the National Park, and some would not. Some would be very close to the canyon, some other just comfortably on the way. Should I list them all at the attraction, or sort them where they geographically belong? --Pgallert (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We do it this way because people going to a city will use (more or less the same restaurants, cafés, nightclubs and hotels regardless of why the person is there. Especially big cities will draw people with very different interests and there is very much overlap of interest regardless of how you try to divide the audience.


 * For the countryside the situation is sometimes different, as you describe. You won't be in a wilderness reserve by chance. We handle this by having a geographic hierarchy on one hand and the topic hierarchy on the other (the off-roading article is perfectly fine, it is just that few others have happened to write similar ones). A person who comes to see the Fish River Canyon will still fly in via Windhoek and possibly use restaurants and hotels there before continuing their voyage. And if I ever travel there I hope I will be able also to see wildlife, understand the colonial history and get on the ethnologic tour. An article on how to best experience the wildlife would be very welcome, but if I decide to visit a park in Central Namibia I still need to know how to get around and where I can get lodging. I'd gladly use hostels and hike part of the trip, but I could go to a posh lodge if needed, or if that experience feels right. Unless we describe the options in the geographic hierarchy article we would need a thousand of different topical articles to cover all possible combinations (or a dozen, of which I'd read all – still easier to find an individual lodging by location than by standard).


 * Where a national park is close to cities, or minor settlements worth visiting for other reasons, one often have to choose where to describe a lodging quite arbitrary. In these cases one can mention the options in the park article ("those coming from X might want to stay the night in Y-town, there are a few hotels and also the Z hostel, which specially caters to visitors to the park"), while still putting the listings themselves in the city article. And you could describe a few towns and villages in the park article, if they are visited mainly because of the park.


 * --LPfi (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)