Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it/Archive 2004-2012

Purpose of this page
I was moving some questions out of the travellers' pub, and a lot of them were along the lines of, "Where do I put information X?" Some had been covered in the article templates, some hadn't. I realized that people more often are going to know some bit of info, and wonder where to put it, than have an empty article and wonder what should go in it. So I started this page.

The title is purposefully bad, because I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions more than welcome (or just plunge forward and move the article). --(WT-en) Evan 15:21, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)

Time Zones
Moved from Project:travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

We should add a location's timezone into the "Quick Facts" table; also if someone feels so inclined a timezone world map might be a good addition (if none exists already). --(WT-en) Nils 12:16 Jan 29th, 2004


 * It isn't a map, but there is a time zones page. -(WT-en) phma 07:04, 29 Jan 2004 (EST)

Embassy and consulate
Moved from Project:travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

Hi. sorry for my poor English, but I wanted to know if you already debated on the interest of listing embassies or consulates that can be found in towns like Paris or Strasbourg for example. I think it would be an interressant information for travellers that have problems with justice or so. ''[Was it clear ? ]'' --(WT-en) Pontauxchats 04:53, 30 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I wonder if this would go under, say, Cope. --(WT-en) Evan 15:27, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)

Internet Cafes and Wireless Access?
Do we put this under the "contact" information? Or perhaps under "do"? --(WT-en) Anca


 * Yep, that's "Contact". I'm glad this page is becoming useful! --(WT-en) Evan 22:56, 23 Feb 2004 (EST)

Guides?
Very useful page! What about: (WT-en) Nurg 17:36, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * entertainment guides (i.e. what you find in newspapers, street papers)
 * gig guides
 * visitor information centers


 * The first two are terrible examples, in that we don't have a good place to put them. I think they should go in the "Understand" section. As for visitor info centers, that'd be Understand, too.


 * It may be good to break the first ones out. Maybe a "Read" section of the guides? --(WT-en) Evan 18:12, 10 Mar 2004 (EST)

Wine samples and wineries
Wine samples: Drink or Do? I'd suggest drink. Opinions? -- (WT-en) Nils 05:55, 27 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Drink is really for nightlife, I think. I'd put wine tasting tours under Do, and the wineries themselves under Buy. (WT-en) Spiv 10:59, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

What about Wineries? In Santorini we have them mentioned in See, Buy and Drink. And I don't really like an idea to have introduction and background in one part of article, and the list of wineries in another. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:33, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * So what is recommended to do in the Santorini case? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:40, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Theatres and Performance Acts
This may be a bit late to fix but I notice that Theatres and Stadiums are suggested to go under the Do section.

What is the reason for that?

My initial reaction is that Live Perfomance Acts should go under the See section since these activities generally involve observing the performance and audience participation is generally limited to applause. Are you suggesting that applause implies you are Doing the show rather than Seeing it? -- (WT-en) Huttite 02:50, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)

Tour companies and Tour parties
Some companies organise tours of a country, arranging things like hotels, transport, itineries, food and even entertainment. They also provide guides/chaperones and/or translators to assist the traveler. Sometimes they have a theme; like a chef taking a tour party to experience the authentic cusine; famous sports people taking a party to a series of sports events. I think these could best go in the Get around section, but does anyone have a better idea? -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:36, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Recommended / further reading / destination travel books and publications
OK, so I'm not sure whether this has been suggested / discussed previously, BUT, what about adding an additional section to destination articles (towards the end, near External links) in which contributors could list books and publications relevant to understanding / appreciating a destination, with the intention of making a traveller's experience of a city all the richer? Note: not travel guides, but rather quality titles that explore the history, culture and atmosphere of a country or city, or are representative of its literary heritage (Naguib Mahfouz in Cairo, for example....) This could even be extended to music typical of a destination.... What do others think? (WT-en) Pjamescowie 14:31, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)


 * I like the idea, but I might be the wrong person to ask, as I can't even seem to muster the abhorance for "other guides" which my collegues here mostly seem to share. As for my own writing I've sometimes used references to the CD collection behind a given bar to try to impart something to the reader about the atmosphere there.  It feels very right to me to give travellers a musical context for the places we tell them about.  As my art-history professor liked to say, history, art-history, and anthropology all provide contexts for understanding the other.  So I think by all means yes. -- (WT-en) Mark 14:45, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)


 * I love the idea. What about Read? Or a sub-section of Understand? --(WT-en) Evan 23:33, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)

Glad you both like the idea.... Read would be good, but wouldn't allow for the musical side of things.... Maybe we could have Listen as well? (though this might be getting slightly too sectionalised...!) A sub-section(s) of Understand could work, for sure, though I had visualised a section at the end of an article, alonsgide the External links.... This could be just my preconception, however, and is probably influenced by Wikipedia practice.... We can afford to be different! Any more thoughts? (WT-en) Pjamescowie 03:28, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * I'd be inclined to not make it a entire section up there with Understand, Sleep, Do, etc. Somehow, those just seem more fundamental to what I want to use wikivoyage for than finding out about cultural research I could do. (It's useful yes, but not as useful as finding somewhere to sleep...)
 * My suggestion is to either make it a subsection of Understand or possibly rename External links to Other resources (or similar), and have External links, Read, Listen as part of that. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 08:06, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)


 * Yeah, I agree with Hypatia, surely the best thing is to to generalise "External Links". -- (WT-en) Lionfish 0:07 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Recommended reading/viewing - round 2
So this was discussed a few years back, up above... but what do people (now) think about where to stick recommended reading / movies?

We've got Special:Booksources (and a small conversation about books at Talk:Books, and I've proposed Special:Moviesources in the pub. Where exactly should these be listed in the articles?

I was assuming that we should have "Read" (or "Recommended reading") as a subsection of Understand... does anyone have a better idea? If we do make Moviesources then perhaps we'd need a more generic term for the subheading, unless we also add "Recommended viewing" as yet another subheader.

Music was also mentioned in the old conversation up above, but for some reason I'm more skeptical about that... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think this needs its own subsection. That implies it's something, lesser known destinations should not have a separate section for these categories, because they would have a much smaller list of relevant literature/film and that could therefore be expressed succinctly within the general understand section. And I assure you that there are destinations with no literature available&mdash;Silver Spring is certainly a valid travel destination, but there's nothing I'd recommend someone read about it beyond a travel guide itself (or perhaps a wikipedia article, which we already link).


 * A destination like New York needs the subsection because literature (fiction) about the city is an entire topic in and of itself. Any guide to NY worth its salt includes a list of the most iconic works about the city, and I think we should be no more shy about picking recommendations in this category than we are about picking recommendations for restaurants/bars/hotels (we are a travel guide, after all). While they may be relatively easy to find, I wouldn't know what to read beyond some of the Harlem Renaissance lit.


 * All got me thinking &mdash; we should be really careful about recommending non-fiction (history books, etc.). It's more important IMHO to include the culturally relevant materials &mdash; things that help make the destination a destination. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * Are we ready yet to organize the above thinking as a policy which everyone agrees with and can refer to in the future? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Highway routes
Hi there! I'm a visitor from 'Pedia. Of course we have our usual arguments over what should and should not be included there. Now it happens that one of the areas of discussion, is articles about roads and turnpikes and the like. For instance, see - WP has extensive documentation on the USA and Australian road networks, among others. According to some, this isn't particularly encyclopedic. According to others, it is verifiable and useful, thus should be listed somewhere.

I realize that this might be highly impractical and unfeasible, but... wouldn't that information be more at home in WikiTravel? The different licenses may be an issue, but this concerns a relatively large amount of articles written by a relatively low amount of users. Plus there's the fact that some of this material consists of lists of stubs, which I reckon would stand a greater chance of being expanded when included here rather than on 'pedia.

Just a thought for discussion. Wikipedia:User:Radiant, 23 Feb 2005


 * Radiant: we have a lot of highway info already in Wikivoyage (like Gunbarrel Highway and Route 66). We treat highways like itineraries, usually. I think we might have different ways of thinking about highways, though: an encyclopedic view of a highway (date of construction, legal act that enabled its creation, name of contractor who laid the blacktop, notorious crimes that occurred on the road) might be different from the travel-guide view (best cities or campgrounds to stay in along the way, roadside attractions, places to stop to eat, etc.). --(WT-en) Evan 17:42, 23 Feb 2005 (EST)


 * Also, we probably wouldn't want to list all possible highways. Just the ones worth being an itenerary.


 * And as a side note, I love the Wikipedia encylopedic approach to highways. I can't beleive people complain about this, but every freaking album has an article, places and characters from pop fiction frequently get articles, and minor sports figures get articles.  (I've being hitting the 'random page' button on wikipedia a lot lately.  There's a lot of pollution in the encylopedia, and it's not caused by a few hundred well-organized road articles). -- (WT-en) Colin 18:17, 23 Feb 2005 (EST)

Travel companies
Would it be alright if I made a Greyhound, Amtrak, etc... article. I think anyone not knowing what Greyhound or Amtrak is would like an article about these companies so they can understand better. Sometimes I link to WikiPedia, but WikiPedia is more along the lines of straight history i.e. Established date, board members, CEO. I think there should be something like: routes, stations, programs, specials, type of trains.

-(WV-en) Andrew


 * So far, we've made a page each for kinds of industries, like Discount airlines in Europe. Maybe Bus travel in North America? --(WT-en) Evan 00:29, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * How about we review airlines as we do restaurant and hotels: Food, Service, Drinks, Entertainment, Internet, Delays, etc.

We could make a "in the air" destination and have all airlines on that destination. Budget, medium, splurge would be economy, medium, and business class. Price is too complex, but I would like to know what airlines serve food on shorter (eg. European) flights, have individual TV's, serve snacks and chocolate, serve alcohol, icecream, etc -- (WT-en) elgaard 10:43, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * Mm-mm. I'll have to agree with Evan on this one for a change, as this is a bit of a slippery slope -- there are a lot of travel companies out there and countless websites/fora devoted solely to, say, air travel; I frequent one myself.  One page is clearly unworkable, and do we really want thousands?  I'm not saying it's impossible, but it'd be a pretty big expansion of Wikivoyage's mandate. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:06, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * Flyertalk seem to be more a forum discussing a lot of things: Restaurants, travel stories, bonus miles etc. Wikipedia can fit airlines on one page: . We would need a few lines for each airline, but would not need to cover them all. Just like we do not cover every restaurant in Paris. I Think buses and trains should be covered in "get around" on country pages, although we could have a page with international trains. But it is not very meaningfull to cover airlines in country articles, Eg. I have traveled Denmark-Canada on SAS, Lufthansa, Air Canada, British Airways, LOT, Delta, and Czeck Air. Air France, Air Italia, and more is also an option. If we want to say that AirFoo serve awful food so you should bring a sandwich, it would a waste to put it in every "Get In" section on destinations that AirFoo is operating. -- (WT-en) elgaard 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

all islands to the place it is detailed -- but what's that place? I will hardly print out page for Paros if I plan to go to Santorini -- but maybe will print Pireaus, and will think about printing Ships operating from Pireaus to Paros, if Santorini article suggest me to. Is it OK to create such a separate article? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:45, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * I'm lost. What exactly is wrong with mentioning under the "By ship" heading of "Get in" on each article that a ferry starts in X (Pireaus?) place and goes to Y (Paros?) place, stopping in THIS (Santorini) place?  Maybe even add a statement after that one saying that it had stopped at B place before THIS place and goes to C place afterwards.
 * I understand you might feel strange about repeating the initial statement each time, but if someone were interested in a specific island, its better to have the information right there. I've heard of instances where people more-or-less blindly printed an article, not realizing there was a link to another article and as such, did not have all of the information.  --  (WT-en) Ilkirk 09:19, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * What level of detailed information are we talking about? I think a note in the "By boat" section of "Get in" saying that ferry company X gets you from Pireaus to island Y every N days, look for the Paros ferry, etc. Although I think it'd be a mistake to go into intimate detail of the boat ("bathrooms are here and here, best place to sleep is on the port aft deck, the food is OK if you eat the spanakopita but not the meat etc. etc. etc."), but a one- or two-sentence gloss is probably reasonable ("A clean, modern boat with lots of space that makes most of its stops on schedule"). --(WT-en) Evan 10:58, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * I've done it this way: common info placed in Cyclades (which seems to contain all the islands involved), while some specifics added in Santorini, with a link to Cyclades for a full story. Does it look reasonable? Any corrections suggested? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:40, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Events
Swept in from the Project:Travellers' pub:

I was working on an entry that involved annual events for a particular city. I wasn't sure if they should go under See or Do since events often fall under both.

I would like to propose adding Event section to the templates, especially for cities.

Comments? (WT-en) Epolk 17:22, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)


 * Project:Where you can stick it decrees that festivals go under Do. I'm not too sure why, but it's the de facto standard already... I would not be averse to adding a "Events" subsection under Do though, and you can do this on an ad hoc basis already. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:33, 5 Sep 2005 (EDT)


 * I recently added a bunch of events to the Basel page (subheading under Do), and I was thinking that it would be nice if there were some guidelines on how to list events, in terms of formatting. Dates, locations, a descriptive blurb, etc. --(WT-en) kenliu

See vs Other destinations

 * On the regional template, we have both 'see' and 'other destinations' sections. What is the difference regarding entries? For example, other destinations implies somewhere outside the listed cities, but if there is a major site of interest in that region that it is not in a city nor big enough to require its own page, should it be placed under 'see' or 'other destinations'? The article on Tibet offers an example this problem. I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks. (WT-en) WindHorse 20 Jan 06


 * No need for a reply. I've seen how it is done on another page: Listings under 'Other destinations' should actually be large enough for their own pages.

Non-tourist churches
This article says that churches should go in the See section -- what about for churches that are not tourist sites, but places the traveler might want to worship...someone put effort into listed places of worship for Rochester_(New_York)...I assume this is of some interest to the observant (since this sort of thing is always in the hotel information books). If this were a big city, I might think Cope...suggestions? Move, or just delete? (WT-en) Jonboy 16:04, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Hitchhiking
Swept in from the Pub:

I think we should add a category for city exits and places were you can get out of a city easily under "get out" for citys (at least large citys). Also we should add hitchhiking to the "get around" in contry templates. Any other opinions on that?


 * I've been adding "By thumb" sections under "Get around" for countries and "Get in" for some cities. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:37, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Selected trains
Swept in from the Pub:

So there's a new user (User:172.183.51.234) adding a bunch of scheduling info for trains in Europe (see Western Europe and talk page). I know there's been some talk in the past about how much detail in boat, plane, train schedules is useful to readers (and reasonable to maintain), but it's come up again. I think it has some place in actual city articles (ie "trains run every 2 hours" "last train leaves a midnight") but not so much on region or country pages and not so much the actual schedule in scheduling format. A general idea is going to be more accurate more often (think about sundays, holidays, etc etc) and travellers should always double check with the transportation company-- heck, I do even when I have schedules published by the company! Anyway, other opinions? Suggestions on what to do with the extensive contributions by User:172.183.51.234 ? (WT-en) Majnoona 08:58, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Agree this is an eye-sore and not very helpful. I'd vote delete.


 * The contributions should be deleted, in my opinion. While they may have some use now, unless there is sufficient effort they will fall quickly out of data and then be worse than useless.  I pointer to primary sources where one can obtain up-to-date schedules and routes would be more useful. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:49, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I only partly removed the selected trains sections. Does anyone think perhaps that it is useful for smaller towns which only have one or two trains that pass through?  I'd like some input on that before I delete the sections from smaller cities. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:42, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I moved a lot of these contributions to the talk pages - did they get moved back onto the main article? I just logged in and haven't dug throught the recent changes.  Obviously I don't believe they need to last in their current form for exactly the reasons you've pointed out Maj, but it would be nice if someone could translate them into paragraphs.  I, for one, had a bit of time reading them to begin with - those are all city names, right?  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 23:42, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)

about it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:40, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * It doesn't look smart to duplicate detailed info on the same ship on page of every island. Of course I will link from

Where do these go?
1. Bus tour 2. Hiking tour 3. Boat tour 4. Rafting tour 5. If a tour provides a pickup from an airport, does it go into "get in"?


 * OK, I'll bite: I think tours that are mostly adventure sports should go in "do", and those that are mostly transportational should go in "get around". And, yes, I think that if a tour gives you rides to/from the airport, it should be noted in "get in".


 * What do I win? B-) --(WT-en) Evan 20:58, 27 April 2006 (EDT)


 * A Grand Canyon. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:05, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Smoking
It's of interest both to many smokers and many non-smokers to know about both local and regional smoking laws and customs. Where can I smoke? Where can I go to get away from smoke? I'm thinking of adding relevant info to Australia and to its states, which have varying smoking laws (some are starting to ban smoking in licenced venues and restaurants altogether). Where can I stick it? (WT-en) Hypatia 01:54, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Agreed. Some cities in the United States ban smoking in restaurants, bars, and public buildings... so where does this belong? --(WT-en) BigPeteB 13:05, 30 March 2011 (EDT)


 * There is a "Smoking" sub-section under "Eat" for the USA article, which seems like as good of an example to follow as any. Since in general this warning probably won't merit more than a sentence or two, "Eat" and "Drink" would probably make sense for most destinations, although this type of info is usually mentioned only at the highest level for which it is notable - for example, the California article might merit a few lines, but it wouldn't be necessary to add this info to every single city article for California unless that city was noticeably different from the rest of the state. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 13:15, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Drink/Local Beer
Swept in from the Pub:

I'm a self-admitted beer nerd (and seeking help through ethanol therapy, thank you!) and like to try out local offerings. I recently wrote most of what's currently in San Marcos and added a "local beer" section under drink. I should probably get around to this for Houston and the like. Does anyone see a problem for me adding this to other pages (or have ideas for a better way to work the information in)? I'm not a wine person, though I know that Texas and California have some pretty decent local wines that the traveller might want to know about too, so I guess there could be a more general name for this section, but I can't think of a good one. (WT-en) Jordanmills 21:25, 23 April 2006 (EDT)


 * This seems to me like perfectly appropriate information to include under "Drink". I've including info about local beers and wines in this section on a few pages.  One simple way to do that would be to include a bar-type listing for the brewery's pub or the vineyard's tasting room, if they have one. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:41, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

See vs Do
Swept in from the Pub:

Hey folks, is there any guideline to help figure out what is "See" and what is "Do"? Would a museum count as see or do? 70.51.81.178 20:40, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Where you can stick it should help. (WT-en) SHC 20:47, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Rule of thumb: If the main activity there consists of sitting in a vehicle/walking around and looking at things, it's a "See". (This includes all but the most fun museums.)  If it includes more involvement than that and/or getting your heart rate up, it's a "Do". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:00, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Thanks! (WT-en) Adina 22:18, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
 * The explanatory paragraphs of the article templates could be helpful too. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:51, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

City Centres(sic) and Districts
Swept in from the Pub:

I am interested in people's opinions on cities where the districts are really inner suburbs, with most of the sights concentrated in the centre and it doesn't seems productive to go all the way in creating districts. In this case, an anonymous user created Headingley and Chapel Allerton, which are part of Leeds. I moved these to discrict pages, but I don't feel we should move all the city centre info to a Leeds/City Centre page, as it seems happy enough where it is. Is this acceptable?, and could it be used in a few more cases where the main article could become the de-facto city centre article. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:50, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Hi Daniel, I think I responed to this in some of the Leeds 'burbs, but for the record: we only really want districts for huge cities such as Mexico City and New York (city). The other options are

However, it's recently been argued that non-native English speakers use en: for information and for that reason we should accommodate them where ever, including with regards to disambiguation pages, but do we accommodate them by listing every single embassy/consulate for a given place?

Also, I'm very much perplexed by the current direction that states the embassies should be listed under the "Cope" section of cities. Now, I can understand why consulates should be listed in city guides, rather than country guides, but I think embassies should also be listed in country guides since they are very important to travelers. Let's say a Brit is going to Louisville and gets into a bit of trouble. Now, since the UK doesn't have a consulate in Louisville (or so I assumed) we wouldn't have any information for that traveler and he might (sensibly) refer to the U.S. guide for contact info for his embassy.

Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 08:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Also, which embassies do we list? Off the top of my head I'd say the countries with large English speaking communities; Canada, UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. Of course I've left out quite a few countries, but I don't want to do too much plunging forward until there's a consensus. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I would vote for also allowing whatever country which language doesn't have its own version of wikivoyage. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I think we should list all embassies... they aren't just there to help the citizens of that particular nationality, but also for visas and inquiries for people wishing to visit those countries, and who are we to guess at which embassies are relevant and which aren't? As for where to stick them, obviously they need to be in the city pages where they are located... but I do see the value as Sapphire points out of having them on the country page as well... for instance, in Pakistan almost all of the embassies are in Islamabad... but there's an Afghan consulate in Peshawar, which is a much better option than getting the visa in Islamabad... and unless you already know that, the country page would be the likely place you'd check to find out where in Pak you can get an Afghan visa. So I think maybe this is a rare case where something needs to be in more than one place on WT. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


 * "All embassies" is a frightfully long list, and including consulates would make it even longer. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Not necessarily... maybe in a huge capital city there will be a longer list, but in a city where there's a lot of embassies that's because they're warranted there. If a country is going through the effort to maintain an embassy or consulate, to me that shows a demand for it, and I don't see why we should overlook that or leave some out just for the sake of keeping our list tiny. Even if we've got 15 or 20 listed in a city (and we do in a few articles) it doesn't really look out of control... we rarely need descriptions or anything, just the name and contact details, and it usually looks pretty orderly and compact, I think. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Also, those "huge capital cities" should be broken down into districts anyway, which should spread out the embassies into smaller lists. I think that embassy lists are very important to independent overland travellers in Africa and Asia in particular, because of the reasons that Cacahuate listed. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Eek! Embassies should not be broken up into districts, because unlike restaurants and sights you don't have a choice of where to go, and the only way to find the one embassy you're looking for is to run your finger down the full list. IMHO Singapore does this the right way.  It's quite compact, and has no descriptions unless necessary (eg. that the Indian HC doesn't issue visas to non-residents). (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:12, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Nail salons
The following was copied from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2 in regards to the reverting of a nail salon from the Mountain View (California) article:

There are a lot of female travelers that would welcome information on nail salons etc. I know a number of professional woman that seldom gets time to pamper themselves while doing the 9 to 5 thing, so they always incorporate this into their holidays. Maybe information like that can go under the Cope section? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 05:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


 * My thought is that if we add things like nail salons we might as well add barbershops, convenience stores, dry cleaners etc. It's a bit of a Project:Slippery slope in that we're then listing anything a traveler could possibly ever look for, even when those things can just as easily be found in the local yellow pages.  That's probably fine in really small towns that don't have anything else, but in a city with hundreds of business I think we should focus on those establishments that are of interest to the majority of travelers - ie restaurants, hotels, bars, and a few highlights in terms of unique stores, major shopping areas, etc, otherwise it will be difficult to draw a line as to what is appropriate and what isn't. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 11:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I've added barbers/laundromats/etc into articles. As long as I've been around, the Project:Big city article template has had this under Cope:
 * This section is for all those little items that people need to know when they're in a city. Where can you do laundry? Go to a gym? Get computers repaired? Anything that has to do with the practicalities of daily life should go here.
 * I agree with having this kind of information in articles. I've thought of reasons why people travel, besides tourism.  Business trips, weddings, parties, or even funerals.  I think some people would like to know where to get their hair or nails done or where they can get their suit dry-cleaned or tailored.  Sure, that stuff can be found in the yellow pages, but so can most of the restaurants, hotels and museums.  I'm not going to start adding this information to every article, but if someone adds it, I think it's fine to leave it.
 * I do agree that we need to set up some guidelines - I don't think we should start adding every convenience store, florist or dog kennel just because someone might find it useful. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Based largely on personal experience barber shops/hair salons/nail salons (Alright, I didn't go to a nail salon, but...) are very important when you're traveling, especially on extended trips.
 * I'm in favor of allowing several services under the the "Cope" section: Hair/Nail salons, laundromats, gyms, and embassies, and consulates. Everything else I'm weary of, though, for international travelers I see the benefit of allowing listings for florists, since it is good practice to present a gift to someone, if they welcome you into their house while you're abroad.
 * Also, will people please comment on ? (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


 * One could make an argument for almost any kind of walk-in business: I might want to rent a DVD, buy this week's new comics, have my tarot read, pierce a body part, get my glasses repaired, etc. Limiting articles to things that are clearly travel-related or popular with tourists (doesn't everyone who goes to Tijuana come back with a tattoo they don't remember getting?) seems like a good idea to me. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Airlines and flights
Is there any decision yet on WHERE to describe airlines and their most known lines? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:03, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * I'd like to publish the following info on a couple of airlines and routes -- where can I stick it?
 * type of plane for specific flight of specific airline
 * comparison of planes condition within single airline for different destinations
 * whether or not meals are served at specific flights of specific airline
 * quality of on-board meals and service for different flights for specific airline
 * number of seats in a row for specific plane type
 * recommendations on which places to choose for specific plane type
 * Suggestions?
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:45, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * This has been discussed before and goes a little beyond Wikivoyage's current scope. There are currently some discussions on hooking up with a well-known air travel specialist site who are also setting up a wiki, so please hold off for now. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:36, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)

ferries going through several islands?
I'd like to share experience with a ferry going from Athens\Pireaus to Santorini. The issue is that the ferry goes ultimately to Paros island, and people will unlikely find it there when they read looking for ways to Santorini (and vice versa; same applies to 10 more islands on the way). What is the best place? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:15, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * All of them. Every single island the ferry goes to should have a short note

bloated Understand-ing
A few things that say they should be in "Understand" I kinda am not so sure about:


 * Newspapers ( I think should be in Cope)


 * Sports teams ( I think should be in See/Do)


 * Province (suggests putting it in "its own region page", but that's not the case necessarily... I think we should remove this one altogether) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed. I'd put sports teams in "See". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Whether we decide to have sports teams in "See" or "Do", I agree that they shouldn't be in the "Understand" section. I think that Cleveland is the right idea of how sports teams should be handled.  Newspapers in the "Cope" section sounds good to me.  Also agreed that Province should be removed.  That's already covered in Project:Geographical hierarchy -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 15:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I can agree with the first suggestion, but sports teams should go under "Do", mainly because audience participation is much more active than that of the theatre or opera, but policy directs people to put information about the theatre and opera under "Do". Regarding the last suggestion, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 15:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Province - a territorial unit. It's confusing because it doesn't belong on this page.  Kind of like listing "State" or "County", neither of which belong here.  At least, I think that's what it's getting at - it took me a minute to figure it out myself. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 16:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Ha, I understand what a province is, but thanks for the explanation. :) What I don't understand is why a province or a state (since its also listed) wouldn't "necessarily" get its own page. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Because we don't always break up a country or state according to its governmental provinces... I don't think we should encourage people to always create articles for provinces when all that's often warranted is West XXX, North XXX, etc... and I agree, sports could go in "Do" – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * That makes sense. Yeah, I'd say remove it or redirect people to Project:Geographic hierarchy. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Deleted province, changed sports to Do and newspapers to Cope – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Numerous things...
Archived from the Pub:

I have a few questions/comments/idea. Is there a place with all the pages listed? Are the pages supposed to include history about the places? Because I've seen very few that have it. And my idea is... some kind of rating system for places. Maybe on the discussion page for each place, we could have the people that have been there give a 1-5 star rating of the locale and give reasons why. That way people know what others think about the place and see if it would be a good place to visit. (WT-en) Andrew 00:00, 17 September 2006 (EDT)


 * There are lists of Itineraries and Travel topics and Project:Namespace index. I don't know of a list for destination guides, but they are linked by a hierarchy of geographical tags. If you start from a high level of that hierarchy, say a continent article, it should have links to things below.


 * I think history is a bit of a slippery slope. There often should be some, to orient the traveller, help him or her appreciate what he or she sees and perhaps avoid offending people. On the other hand, there's no need to give detail that would just clutter s travel guide; leave that to Wikipedia. Also, discussing history often invokes controversies we should avoid getting tangled in. We may need to warn travellers of these, but need not analyse them or take sides. "Just the facts, ma'm".


 * I like the idea of pointing out good places to go, but doubt that star ratings are the way to do it. The country, region or state/province articles should have links to the best places, with a bit of comment. Itineraries like A week near Hong Kong or One month in Southeast Asia can point out good places within an area and routes between them. (WT-en) Pashley 02:34, 17 September 2006 (EDT)


 * See Special:Allpages for a list of all Wiki pages. Some' history about a place is probably fine (it goes under the "Understand" heading), so long as the principle of Project:The traveller comes first is followed - as Pashley noted, we're writing travel guides, not an encyclopedia, and an article that goes into too much detail is sure to be trimmed, but many of the best articles do provide some background about a place.  As to rating destinations based on their "travel worthiness", I have a feeling that may be a tough sell - it's very difficult to come to a consensus on such things, and I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the idea of having to say (for example) that Philadelphia is a "4" while Cleveland is merely a "3". -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:56, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

True. I did mean only a bit of history. I have seen a few places, though, that simply don't have any. I'll try to find them and fix them. Your opinions on ratings? True, I accept that. Not the best thought on my part. So naming some more interesting places under itineraries would be the best way to go about saying which places are good to visit? Thanks for feedback! (WT-en) Andrew 22:16, 20 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Nice discussion, and it's come up a couple of times. I think the history of a destination should be the bare minimum to help you understand the cultural and linguistic state of the place. Especially if historical events play a part in the museums, attractions, or things to see or do in a place, it makes sense to outline those historical events briefly. Digging overly deeply into branches of history that travellers won't have first-hand (or second-hand) encounters with is probably too much information. --(WT-en) Evan 23:54, 20 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I absolutely concur with Evan on brevity in History sections; Wikipedia ("WP") and other sources will usually provide more exhaustive and authoritative information for those folks that like to research before they go. We should be short and pithy with the encyclopaedic type content and concentrate on those areas that WP can't (and won't, due to WP policy constraints) cover. The History type sections can usually have just a Wikified link and we should concentrate on the up-to-date practical stuff.
 * Star ratings in a formalised way are offensive for locales and inevitably will lead to edit wars and arguments. (They may be useful in warning of a "Five Star mugging risk" or a "Three Star toilet" in an unformalised figure-of-speech way.)
 * Star ratings in a formalised way may be something to consider for our articles themselves, though.
 * ...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


 * You may want to look at Project:Article status. As far as history, I think we agree although I don't think of Wikivoyage as the travel adjunct to Wikipedia, but as an independent project to create travel guides (see Project:goals and non-goals). Long historical treatises that don't enhance the travel experience are dead weight in a travel guide. --(WT-en) Evan 12:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Gaimhreadhan, we have an article status as Evan points out, but those are for the quality of the articles, not for the destinations they cover. As for Wikivoyage rating places or hotels or restaurant, we do not have a system yet, but there will soon be a sister site launched where travellers can review and rate places. I will leave Evan to reveal more details, because I have no idea how much I should at this stage. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a Travelogue
Archived from the Pub:

So one of the non-goals of wikivoyage is to be a personal travel log (or, one of the goals is to not be a log, or . . . well you get what I mean). Where does a more in-depth personal experience with something mentioned on an article belong? Say, I went to a brewpub listed in an article and felt like describing the local beers I tried, discussing the pub, etc. Does that belong here? I would guess that it does, in reasonable amount, and that it should be placed in the relevant article's discussion page. Is there consensus on this subject? (WT-en) Jordanmills 21:47, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
 * We really don't have a place for the information you are talking about. If you want to add a few comments about items that are good (or bad) on the menu, that would be okay, but we don't want first person references and it should be brief. The "discussion" page is for discussing how the article should be composed and not information about the location. What I mean by that is we would use that page to discuss the content, but not include content. Some like this page... general discussion and talk. Hope that helps. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:38, 30 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I think that this is an important question and I'd like to see more discussion on this. My thoughts follow:
 * Yes it is true that currently we do not have place for such information. Of course you're allowed to use the first person there, and you are allowed to mention your personal experience at particular restaurants, but only as a way to discuss the guide. For example, if an article gives a restaurant high praise and you just had a crappy experience there, it is perfectly okay to mention this in the talk page, but it is even more preferred to go change the article yourself. The theory then is that those who preferred the earlier version may object on the talk pages and then you are supposed to discuss the change.
 * However, I think that both from a traveller's point of view and from the point of view of making a travel guide, there is something unsatisfactory about this. For one thing, the two edits might be months apart and the original editor might not even be watching the page. Instead of a consensus or a debate about exactly which areas a restaurant scores and where it sucks, it will end up reflecting the views of whoever edited it last. Essentially, we end up losing valuable information.
 * From a traveller's point of view, personal reviews and experiences are a valuable service that Wikivoyage is not providing right now. I see the value of a travel-guide style "name, address, phone number, 2-3 lines about the place", but I also see the value of reading about other travellers' personal experiences. Also, many people who may not be comfortable plunging forward and editing a travel guide would be comfortable writing about their own experience in the first person.
 * The same goes for a personal travelogue too. Some people have used their user spaces to plan out journeys and record their experiences, but our policies frown on such use. We are supposed to convert travelogues into rather impersonal "itineraries".
 * The point I am getting at is that both for retaining users and for enriching the guide we need a space for the personal experiences of users. Users who are not comfortable writing travel guides can hang out at places where they can review and discuss restaurants, and write travelogues, and those who are interested in the guide can mine those experiences to build the guide.
 * The good news is that this will probably happen. One of the goals of the merger with World66 was exactly that. Unfortunately, in all the hullabulloo about being "sold" to Internet Brands, we ended up not discussing this at all. Evan and Maj haven't yet discussed what is going to happen on that front, but I hope they do so soon. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:09, 2 October 2006 (EDT) (P.S. Also see this )
 * Crappy - good experience. For a tourist from Italy, perhaps the spaghetti from local branch of pizza hut is horrible. But for a local reviewer, the same spaghetti is the best Italian food in town.


 * Just a follow up on this discussion-- feel free to email User:(WT-en) Maj directly if you'd like more information on the "personal travel" site we're developing. Ravikiran pretty much nailed every reason for creating this type of space and we're really excited about seeing things move forward! (WT-en) Maj 11:49, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
 * There's a request for comments and a link to the (now public!) beta site on shared here. Just in case some folks haven't seen it. (WT-en) Maj 18:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Phillipine Passport Certification Transwiki
Archived from the Pub:

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask about this. I'm from Wikibooks, and we have a module there about how to get a certified copy of a Philippeans passport. The Wikibooks community has determined that the artical should be deleted, but some people have suggested that perhaps the material would find a suitable home here. The original author of the page cannot be contacted.

The page will probably be deleted from our servers within a week. If people here would like to save a copy of it, you can do so within that time. If not, that's alright too. Thanks. -- Whiteknight (Wikibooks) 09:35, 19 October 2006 (EDT)


 * That's not really very relevant for us either, and what's more, we can't use the content here without the original author's permission as the licenses differ. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:49, 19 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Thanks for the reply. I hate to delete content if there might be another home out there. But I guess this isn't the right place either. --Whiteknight (Wikibooks) 19:42, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

Travel agencies
Archived from the Pub:

Due to my edit war over linking to a travel agency on the Uzbekistan article I need to ask the community: is there a place for listing and linking to travel agencies on Wikivoyage? If so, where do these listings belong?

I could argue for either side, but I feel that it's something we shouldn't pander to because we're not Yellow Pages. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 20:50, 8 December 2006 (EST)


 * Hi Sapphire, If you want to be fair then why did you allow to put links to www.advantour.com (Travel  agency) and www.uzbekistanair.com (another travel agency)? They are in direct competition to www.visituzbekistan.eu Let's treat everyone fairly! If you allowed one then you have to do the same for others or not  at all! I think you have to respond to my comment! Waiting for the response! Furkat Ayrum Internasional Limited (www.visituzbekistan.eu) —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Furkat (talk • contribs)


 * I've removed Advantour's website too because that link was in violation of our policy. If I were you, I'd make a case as to why we should include travel agency information on Wikivoyage, rather debate about fairness. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:17, 8 December 2006 (EST)


 * Post scriptum: There is not a link to uzbekistanair.com on the Uzbekistan article.  There is a link to www.uzairways.com, but per policy this looks like a legit link because it is the primary (official) link for Uzbekistan Airways. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * I confess to putting the Advantour site there some time ago! I did it after I heard a case of someone in the UAE being conned $500 for visa support by an Uzbek 'travel' company.  It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I understand it should not be there now.(WT-en) Davidbstanley 18:28, 13 December 2006 (EST)


 * Regarding tour links... I've think a company that provides tours is a primary source if they give the tours themselves. If they just sell tickets to someone else' tour, then they are just a travel agency and should be deleted as any non-primary source.  Because it's so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in this area, I have a profound hate for all tour listings. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:57, 9 December 2006 (EST)

RESPONSE!

Dear Andrew!

Thanks for your response! It was uzbekair.com not uzbekistanair.com I think we sort the case out. I think it is a waste of time why we should or should not list travel agents. The main thing is keep it nice, clear and neutral!

Have a nice morning!

P.S. I would not mind if you could refer to my company(www.visituzbekistan.eu) as a reputable one. It has recently opened a new office in London. We are expanding to China and Russia soon. I would be very greatful for that!


 * It has been our policy to only link to "Official" travel sites (see: What to link to). I am sure your company is very reputable and provides an excellent service to your clients. That is not being questioned. I might also mention that decisions are made here by the community and not my an individual. (see: Consensus) We all do our best to cooperate in seeing that our policies are followed and I know that (WT-en) Andrew is doing that in this case. So, what you are dealing with here is a policy that is set by the community of "all" users on Wikivoyage, not just one person and if policy is changed, it will be a decision for all users of Wikivoyage. (see: Wiki information) This said, we may on occasion miss removing a external link for a non-official site. When those are found they are removed. We do our best to be fair and if there is a conflict we do our best to get a consensus from the community. I hope you understand we do not favor any travel agency over any other. You are welcomed to add some information about your agency on your (WT-en) talk page and we encourage you to add valuable content to our guide. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:30, 9 December 2006 (EST)

HAVE YOU READ THE ABOVE?

Movie source?
Archived from the Pub:

What about creating Special:Moviesources, doing the same thing as Special:Booksources? I tried typing a movie ASIN in the booksource page, but it didn't work... not that we want to advocate flooding articles with book and movie suggestions, but sometimes there are some really relevant ones... (WT-en) Cacahuate 10:03, 15 January 2007 (EST)


 * I would vote for having a max of 3 books (literature, not guidebooks) plus a max of 3 movies on a region somewhere in the end of article. It would really help to understand local culture and to fall in love with the region even before you're there. I would love to have such suggestions, for example, for regions like Alaska, Tashkent, Kyrgizia, Morocco, Istanbul, Athens, Vietnam, Algeria. I've seen in Slippery Slopes that we don't like to do anything with books or music or movies, but I'm not sure we should be that radically conservative. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:29, 11 February 2007 (EST)


 * Related discussion: --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * I'd support a Wikipedia-esque "References In Pop Culture" section in which to note a location's use in a movie or book. For instance the New Zealand article would mention Lord of the Rings and Boston's article would have mention of say The Departed and so forth. Using advice from movies on the other hand seems like it could end in peril and arguments.
 * --(WT-en) Euphemism 01:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * I wouldn't support ones that just reference a place in Pop Culture. I think it would likely just be a mention in the "Understand" or "Cope" section, and only in really useful obvious cases... we don't want to reference things just for the sake of having a list, but there's times when something is really relevant, like a hugely popular travelogue for a certain place, etc. See Afghanistan. "Dark Star Safari" by Paul Theroux should probably be listed in East Africa since it's a popular route and most that are doing it are reading or have read it. Or "The Sheltering Sky" for Morocco. Just really classic, obvious choices... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 02:21, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * I do believe you've converted me. After some thinking and reading I realized that if it has no relevance to traveling then it has no place here
 * (WT-en) Euphemism 22:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

listing by section
Hey there, anonymous editor! Interesting idea that you have, but I for one will dissent... mostly because I think it will only serve to duplicate the info, and trying to keep both sections updated will be an unnecessary headache. I think the way the page is organized now, alphabetically, is the single fastest way to figure out where to put something that you don't know where to put. On the other hand, if someone is just curious about what goes in a specific section then they should look at the various article templates, where there are short descriptions of what to use each section for. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:08, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I actually kind of liked the by-section listing. I'm not a big fan of long lists, and that gave a nice way of breaking down what has become a list of over a hundred items. Your point about having to update two places anytime something changes is valid, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing... anyhow, hopefully others can add their thoughts so we can come to a final decision. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:30, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * If the point is to break down the long list, then I'd vote for creating a subsection per letter of the alphabet, which will leave us with a TOC for easier navigation as the list gets longer. If the point is to tell people what kind of info goes in the "Buy" section, we've already got that described in the article templates. My understanding of this page is that it's to help when you've got something in mind for an article and don't know where to put it... say a barbershop... when I get to this page, I would find it much easier to find "barbershop" in an alphabetical listing than scouring each section of the "by section" area to find it. Anyway, I'll revert my revert so people can see what we're talking about while discussing – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * The thing I liked about the section listings is that for someone who is trying to figure out where (for example) "mosque" goes they won't currently find "mosque" in the alphabetical listing, so it gives them a way to browse the sections and see if the examples listed for that section are similar to "mosque". The article templates could be used for that, too, but to me this page was always kind of a quick-reference card sort of thing.  I don't feel that strongly about this issue, so whatever people decide is best is fine with me. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * "I would find it much easier to find 'barbershop' in an alphabetical listing than scouring each section of the 'by section' area to find it." Of course, the alphabetical listing is still there - and precedes the "by section" area. Does adding an area that others might find helpful detract from the utility of the area that you find most useful? 68.254.158.22 09:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * No, we just aren't in the habit of duplicating information. If we do keep the "by section" section, I think it should be a sentence or two, similar to the Article Templates, describing what kind of info goes there, as opposed to actually listing a lot of things there. I suppose we can just see how it develops, but to me I think it's going to make a mess of things. But if I'm alone on that, I'll shut up :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 19:44, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

cafes, tea- and coffeehouses
As long as Drinks section refers for guidelines to Bars listing, I think we can decide that coffehouses, teahouses and cafes (which focus on tea, coffee and pastry rather than alco) belong to Eat section, not Drink. Currently, it's frequent problem: "where to stick some details on coffee in the region? on local alternative to starbucks? etc". Objections? --[[User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin|

Where the sun don't shine
Am I the only one who thinks of this phrase every time I see the title of this article? (WT-en) Texugo 01:47, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * No. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:57, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * Don't you think Where the sun don't shine qualifies as a destination and should have its own article? (WT-en) Texugo 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * Can you sleep there? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)


 * Well, I understand that it is possible to get your head lodged up there. Sounds like lodging to me.


 * Also, for clarification purposes, I propose that we move this article to Project:Where you can shove it. (WT-en) Texugo 20:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

duty-free shops for a huge city
I left a question in Talk:New York (city) on where to stick info on airport shopping for NYC, as a huge (and districtified) city which still has not a [legit] article for its major airport. I would appreciate your comments there. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Farmer's Markets
In a recent edit (WT-en) EE moved the Culver City farmer's market listing from "Do" to "Buy". I reverted it without much thought based on the idea that a farmer's market is an event like a fair... however, since this is a gray area it's probably worth discussing and then adding an entry to the "Where you can stick it" listings. I would tend to think of these markets as "Do" items since they aren't permanent and are as likely to offer music and other entertainment as shopping, but others may feel differently. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * Markets should be in Buy. Just because they are in "Buy" doesn't mean they aren't any event or a destination.  There can be music and entertainment in shopping malls, city shopping centers as well.--(WT-en) Inas 22:15, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Hair
Archived from the Pub:

Feel free to disagree with it but I was thinking, would it be beneficial to have hair and nail and spa places integrated into the guides? It would call for a new template, but for citys it would be great. A lot of people want to go to hair salons and spas when on holidays. What do you think? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:04, 11 December 2008 (EST).


 * They would go under "cope." For most Western cities, where there are tons of English speaking hair salons around, I don't think it's terribly useful to list them. But upmarket spas might be a nice thing to include. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Good point. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 17:57, 11 December 2008 (EST).


 * Please don't list these. A spa, such as one would find in a place like Palm Springs or Santa Barbara is valuable as people drive hundreds of miles to visit it, but a simple nail salon or barber shop can be found in the yellow pages and doesn't belong in a travel guide.  Listing businesses like nail salons, barber shops, gas stations, or grocery stores for cities that have more than a handful of businesses is inappropriate as it becomes a Project:Slippery slope towards creating a yellow pages guide, which we definitely don't want to do. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * So, only spas? Note - I will only list hair places if it is a salon spa kind of thing, is that okay?  Groceries can be useful and I have seen them in a few articles.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 18:53, 11 December 2008 (EST).


 * Please re-read what Peter and I wrote. Peter indicated "upmarket spas might be OK" while I indicated that listing a spa is really only appropriate when it's a place that people would travel to visit.  To make this simpler, before listing something like a nail salon, gas station, or grocery store make sure it meets one of the following two criteria: 1) the establishment is rare for the area.  Example: a visitor to a remote town will want to know if there are gas and groceries in that town, but a visitor to Los Angeles can assume that it will be easy to find both. 2) the establishment is so noteworthy that anyone with any familiarity with the location would recommend it.  Example: drug stores aren't notable, but Wall Drug is known internationally. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * I understand. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:04, 11 December 2008 (EST).

Post offices
Is there a reason why post offices are not listed here? If included on a page, they obviously belong in the "Contact" section. Also, in the Washington, D.C./East End page, I have added FedEx Kinko's locations. Especially when on business travel, shipping/fax/copy/internet places are incredibly useful and I have needed them on many business trips (and leisure trips). For a place like D.C., there certainly are a lot of business travelers, in addition to tourists. (WT-en) Aude 00:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)


 * No reason, and Contact is the place for 'em. Plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:36, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Audio Commentary for Walking Tours (Spam?)
An anonymous user, or two, has been sticking URL's for Geogad walking tours into the Do sections of several London, San Francisco and New Orleans district articles, as well as a few other places - 11 articles in total, so far. This is being done on the basis that Walking Tours is listed under Do. However, I do not see these as Walking tours, rather they are like an audio guide book, so could go under a new section called Listen as a subsection of Understand. But I also think this has the potential for spam, as the same website deals with a whole lot of places. So I think it should be listed, at most, just once - but I have no idea where to put it. Any thoughts? - (WT-en) Huttite 02:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * &rarr; Project:External links: In particular, avoid links to other travel guides, including audio guides and audio tours. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * Perhaps we should say here that we do not list these sorts of travel guides, just to be clear. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * Actually it might be very helpful to have some pointers to "what not to list" which could contain a short list of things to avoid and would also point to relevant policy pages such as Project:External links, Project:Bodies of water, Project:Avoid negative reviews, Project:Don't tout, etc. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 10:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * My apologies, I represent Geogad, and I have been refining and adding our walking tours to the wikis. The listings have recently been pulled even though they have been in some locations for awhile.  These are not audio guides, but actually tours that we have put together.  There are custom directions printable and a mobile platform for travelers to walk the route.  I would like to know the proper location to place these, I will also remove links to the mobile site and the android applicaiton if that helps.  Thanks and I look forward to a response 98.210.115.180 15:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * If you wouldn't mind, could you read Project:Welcome, business owners and create a user account? It makes communication easier.  In addition, once you've got a user page you can add information about your business on your user page.  If your company actually conducts physical tours with tour guides then I don't think there's a problem with the listings, but if it's simply a service that sells/offers tapes or MP3 downloads then I think current consensus is to avoid listing those sorts of services in Wikivoyage.  Consensus can always be changed, so if you feel that such services should be listed here please contribute to the discussion on Project:External links/Audio guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * I'm not sure I agree, I've tried a few tour podcasts, mostly downloaded from torrents cause I suspect the quality varies greatly, and I don't want to shell out good money, on poor quality, when I can have multiple beers for the same price. Anyway, several of the ones I've tried were surprisingly good and provided in-depth information about the attractions, something which is more or less a non-goal for us - unlike say Lonely Planet - which more or less strives to be the exact same thing as we do. I've actually inadvertently broken this policy myself with a link to Audiowalks in the Copenhagen do section, since I know for a fact that they are good quality for the price. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * Could any discussion on whether or not to list audio tours be moved to Project:External links/Audio guides? This subject has been heavily debated, leading to the current external links policy on the matter. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 11:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)


 * Ah my appologies --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Airport guidance
Swept in from pub:

Following a series of edits by User:(WT-en) DavidG, who edited several Get in by plane sections to list all the cities that can be accessed non-stop from that airport, I think we need some guidance on how to handle such cases. I'm suspicious of its usefulness, but someone else did the same thing to Albuquerque a while back and I decided to let it stay, so I'm really on the fence about this. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 11:58, 2 April 2009 (EDT)


 * My rule of thumb is that it's useful for those airports where the destinations can be counted on the palm of one hand, but beyond that it's kinda pointless. Just name the busiest routes/airlines and let the user work out the rest. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:29, 2 April 2009 (EDT)


 * One big problem with what DavidG is doing is that he's not using disambiguated links. He's linking to New York and Buffalo instead of New York (city) and Buffalo (New York) (just for two examples).  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)


 * This information is not very usfull either. There are no information about witch airlines that operates this routes. There is also the problem that routes changes often, so this information quicly get outdated. (WT-en) ViMy 09:39, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Consulate/Embassy lists
Copied from User talk:(WT-en) AHeneen:

''Hi, AHeneen. =) I saw the new section you added to Florida listing various foreign consulates throughout the state.  I'm not sure I see the usefulness of such a list.  Any individual traveler is only going to have a use for the consulates for his own home nation, and maybe one or two others.  The rest of the list is useless to him, and it takes up a lot of space in the article.  Would you consider alternative ways of presenting this information?  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)''
 * The "any individual traveler" you refer to could come from any of the countries whose consulates are listed. I think it would be beneficial to many people, as the state is one of the most visited places in the US. I have come across many cities which list consulates (although not all in a given city) and thought that FL could use such a list. The goal of the Florida Expedition is to turn FL into a guide article and I think this information falls into the scope of a guide article. As for taking up space, the FL article needs more content and once it's lengthened a bit, this section won't seem so large. I don't know how to make the text smaller or make the space between listings smaller; otherwise, I'd make the listings smaller to save space. It took quite a while to complete the list and get a website for each consul. If you disagree or are still unsure, feel free to get another opinion. (WT-en) AHeneen 20:31, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * As a second opinion, I also don't think this information is useful enough to be included on a state page. I think most travelers would have the resources to find the consulate for their country if its important to them. With that said, one way to minimize the size this information takes up on the Florida page would be to create a Florida/Foreign Consulates page and make a note: "There are many Consulates in the State of Florida which can be useful to foreign travelers, see this page for a complete listing."--(WT-en) Jtesla16 20:46, 5 April 2009 (EDT)


 * ''Care to comment here? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:58, 5 April 2009 (EDT)'


 * (edit conflict) What I meant by "any individual traveler" is this: Imagine a visitor to Florida from, say, Canada.  Our Canadian visitor is in Pensacola and need of the services of a consulate.  Which is more useful to her: a list of all the consulates in Florida, which indicates that there is a Canadian consulate in Miami, along with dozens of others she doesn't care about; or a list of all Canadian consulates in the U.S., which tells her she could go to Atlanta instead, which is much closer?  I don't in any way mean to dismiss the time and effort you put into this list, but I just think this information is better presented elsewhere and elseways.  It's nothing personal, I swear.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I see your point. To further complicate things, I should note that some countries' consulates have explicit jurisdictions which may not correspond to the closest consulate. Brazil's Miami consulate has jurisdiction over all of Florida, so you can't apply for a Brazilian visa in Atlanta. I think maybe we could create a page listing all embassies & consulates in the US by country then city. That way a Canadian in trouble could go to that page, click "Canada" in the navigation box, then see a list of consulates for Canada and determine the closest one. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:16, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Continued from above:

We have a few very long consulate/embassy lists floating around (like this and this). They strike me as being pretty clearly useful, but use up a ton of space with information that is useless for the vast majority of readers (since any reader interested in consular information would only want it regarding one consulate). Might it be worthwhile to use sub-articles for consular information, like Chicago/Consulates, or Florida/Consulates&mdash;both of these have already been proposed, but I figure we should coordinate this, as it would be precedent setting. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:51, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. To add to the list, I copied the format for the list in Florida from the Washington, D.C. article. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I strongly support this idea. These YellowPage-esque listings are not appealing to the eye, and are of dubious value to most travelers. I think this info should be available, but not forced viewing for most. The only other solution which comes to mind, that would avoid making sub-articles, would be Collapsible listings. This would work like the Content boxes on each page, where one could click a "+" to expand the list of consulates, which is otherwise hidden. I don't know how to code this at the moment though. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 22:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I tried out collapsible listings previously (see Template:CollapsibleTest), but the MediaWiki extensions needed for them don't seem to be enabled. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * For some reason collapsible listings are functional on the Metadata tables for Images, but when I place the code into a typical edit window, it does not work. Any ideas why? --(WT-en) Jtesla16 11:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Health/handicap section?
Swept in from pub:

I'm a big wikivoyage fan, but I was wondering if a section could be added for special health condition or handicap tips. Or should those just be integrated into normal discussion more? For example, my friend has a bum knee, and it's really helpful to him to know about cable cars he can take, or say, tall buildings with elevators he can take for the view rather than climbing churches. Or for my sister, who suffers from IBS (like having traveler's tummy all the time) and always wants to know if she's going to be trapped on a bus without a bathroom for hours, things like that. 99.141.66.187 01:11, 3 May 2009 (EDT)Heidi


 * Its a great ideal to have this information on Wikivoyage. Typically, however, we don't make separate sections for particularly classes of travellers.  All the information just goes into the appropriate part of the guide.  Please plunge forward and add it.  The where to stick it guide references some disabled information.  However, if there is some precedent for itineraries and travel topics for classes of travellers, and I think a Seeing New York (city) by wheelchair would be a perfectly reasonable travel topic (or itinerary) --(WT-en) Inas 01:17, 3 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Cool, will do. --  Heidi


 * An access="" tag as part of listing would also be very useful, it could contain access difficulties, possibilities and tips. --(WT-en) inas 07:34, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

See vs. Do, again
One of the hardest things to figure out about where to stick something is whether it goes under "See" or "Do". This article, I'm afraid, might only heighten that confusion, as it places sedentary activities like going to the theater under "Do", while active attractions like zoos (which can require a fair bit of walking) are under "See". "Famous buildings/structures" are under "See" but walking tours of those very buildings are under "Do".

I realize this has been raised before but I think it's time to definitively address this. I think longtime contributors have an instinctive understanding of what goes where, but that understanding may not be correctly described on this page.

Thoughts? -- (WT-en) LtPowers 10:48, 23 May 2009 (EDT)


 * Not sure. With regards to a zoo being a "Do" for the amount of walking, is it really more about interacting with something or just looking at things (animals)? Some zoos or pseudo-zoos (like Bush Gardens or Sea World in the US) are very interactive, with rides, shows, etc. and would be fine under "Do" and then there are zoos where you simply look at animals and are very appropriate for "see". I think zoos should be split because walking shouldn't be a factor. Many attractions require lots of walking, but are really about seeing things. Take Versailles for example, it is a huge complex and requires lots of walking...but isn't it about "seeing" something? There are lots of large museums which require walking, but aren't they about seeing what's in them? As far as building go, listing them under "see" is very appropriate, while a tour is appropriate under do. For instance, it is one thing to "see" (from the outside) Toronto's CN Tower, or Paris' Eiffel Tower, or Rio's Christ the Redemer...it is another to eat at the top of the CN Tower; climb the Eiffel Tower; or climb up to the CtR statue. See my point. If walking tours are offered of just one sight, then they can be listed under the attraction or mentioned as part of it:
 * vs.
 * vs.
 * vs.


 * Otherwise, if a walking tour is available for multiple sights or a district, then I think it would be very appropriate to place in the "Do" section while the individual attractions remain in the "See" section. Just my thoughts.(WT-en) AHeneen 14:24, 23 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I think the confusion comes from our stylish, but occasionally opaque header names. Replace "see" with sights and "do" with activities, and it becomes clearer where things go. Theater is an activity, if not a particularly active one. Tours are clearly activities. Zoos are somewhere in between, but I'm happy for them to stay in "see." Parks are often very tricky&mdash;in some cases the point of going there is just to marvel at its beauty, whereas they are often more relevant for sports, picnics, etc. Sherman Park in Chicago is one of the former, since a picnic there could too easily be disrupted by gunfire, but then again we put it in the "do" section just because it parallels Marquette Park well. I don't think we need to be too rigid with borderline cases. But theater still seems straightforward enough of an "activity" that I think we should keep it firmly in "do." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:33, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
 * But why is viewing a play "do" while viewing an exhibit "see"? That's what I don't quite get.  Is it because one is scheduled?  The example listing on Project:Activity listings is Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, which seems the epitome of an attraction to me, not an activity.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:52, 23 May 2009 (EDT)


 * It seems to be like this:
 * "See" is for a physical attraction (a physical thing or place), even if it involves a lot of walking around to see it.
 * "Do" is for:
 * Things that are not physical attractions (rather, an activity, an event or a performance), even if the travellers themselves are not physically active.
 * Places you go primarily to do activities, eg, an amusement park.
 * So the difference between viewing (looking at) an exhibit and viewing (watching) a play is that an exhibit is a physical attraction, while a play is an activity (albeit one performed by other than the traveller).
 * I presume a garden-like city park is "See", but a sports field kind of city park would be "Do", and there will be a gray area of city parks in-between. Beaches were long regarded as places primarily for doing things, akin to an amusement park; since Sep 2011 they have been regarded primarily as attractions to look at. For places with a well-developed beach culture, "Do" is probably still the better section, while for places without (due to climate or general culture), "See" may indeed be better. Nurg (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, the distinction is between "sights" as in sightseeing, and other activities.
 * Some people think of beaches more for looking at, others like myself consider them playgrounds—this might be a cultural thing. --Peter Talk 09:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods section?
Swept in from pub:

Often times in cities, a neighbourhood doesn't have anything specific, whether that be a retail strip, a museum, or a tourist trap, but it's still a neat area to look around. Portland has descriptions for many neighbourhoods. I made it a seperate section. What do you guys think? Is it useful to have on it's own? Calgary would be another good example. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:27, 5 June 2009 (EDT).


 * Or should it be an "orientation" subsection of understand? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:58, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Or of "Get around"? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:43, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Much of it really is saying what there is to do or see there, even if it is just a bunch of old houses. If people aren't interested in old houses, then they probably won't to go there.  The info there could easily be placed under the relevant sections.  However, I take the point that it reads well as an introduction to the city as well.  If you want to keep it reading like that I agree with (WT-en) Cacahuate --(WT-en) inas 21:52, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I've seen them both in Get around and Understand. I'm guessing I should just put it into their desired sections.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT).
 * I think the important thing to ask is why it is a neat area to look around. Is it because it's pretty?  Then put it in "See".  Is it because there are a lot of neat little shops that aren't worth full listings individually?  Then put it in "Buy".  That sort of thing.  If you want to describe all of the neighborhoods and how they're related to each other, then it should go in "Understand" or "Get around".  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Question about article placement
Swept in from pub:

Hello all...I'm interested in contributing some articles about car parking options that are available at various UK airports, with details on security features, types of vehicles allowed, distances from the airport terminal, etc, which I think would be helpful to air travellers.

I submitted a couple on Wikipedia, but was advised that they might be more welcome here. So, to make sure I'm going about this correctly (since it takes me a while to get these articles together...ha!), I wanted to ask for advice on "where to stick them". Should there be a general category of "Airport car parks" or should my articles be listed under an existing airport's page (if one exists)?

Any advice is most welcome...thanks!

(WT-en) Stefanchou 07:54, 23 June 2009 (EDT)


 * Articles on Wikivoyage are structured pretty differently from Wikipedia; see Project:What is an article?. Basically, information about airport car parks belongs wherever the airport belongs: a few huge ones have standalone articles (Heathrow Airport), most don't and are just in the main town article (Glasgow). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Limo listings
Swept in from pub:

Recently I've been noticing a lot of listings for limo rental companies being added to Wikivoyage articles. I'm unsure what our policy on these are. I suppose one could argue they are essentially car rental companies, and thus should be allowed here, but I'm leaning on the side of removing them, since renting a limo is something only a certain set of people can do and limo renting strikes me as something you're more likely to do when you're, say, getting married, not while traveling. Then again, I'm too poor to ever hope to see the inside of a limo, so perhaps I'm just being bigoted. Is there a policy on this someone can point me to? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:06, 18 July 2009 (EDT)


 * We get some worrisome spam in this category, and it's very difficult to check whether a "limo service" is at all legitimate or desirable here. There was a guy adding himself to articles throughout the Amalfi Coast for a while, and I've seen that in other places too. (Maybe I should offer my own limo services from Midway into downtown...) The few discussions I'm finding on this topic (Talk:New_York_City & at Talk:Rome) decided in favor of removing limo sections altogether. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:11, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
 * There are occasions in which it may be cheaper to hire (say) a town car for a particular trip than a taxi. Even if a limousine is overkill, those companies sometimes have town cars and the like available for a fee not far removed from a cab.  But I also don't think we should get in the habit of listing every limo company in an area.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:16, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Spas
Should day spas go under "Cope" (with the hair salons, makeup parlors, and manicurists) or "Do" (with the swimming pools and other exercise-related activities)? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:11, 27 July 2009 (EDT)


 * Do. They are an attraction at the destination, and a popular activity when travelling.  Not a basic service just to get by, which is what is implied by Cope.  --(WT-en) inas 23:52, 27 July 2009 (EDT)


 * I might suggest we add "massage" as a keyword to the "Where you can stick it" page. (WT-en) Zepppep 17:57, 6 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Plunge forward! (WT-en) LtPowers 21:30, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Car rental agencies
Discussion moved to Project:External links

Dive sites
Moved in from the main article so this can be hammered into a more succinct form. Below written by User:(WT-en) Pbsouthwood. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:20, 28 August 2009 (EDT)


 * dive site - This is a case which does not fit in well with the general guidelines for articles. If the destination only has a small number of recognised dive sites it may be possible to fit them into the Do section of the main article, but in the case of destinations which have a large number of sites which are described in detail, it may be more appropriate for each site to be a short article. This arrangement is being explored in the topic Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, in which the main aticle is linked from the Do section of the relevant City (Cape Town) and provides regional dive guide information, which is then linked to the individual dive sites, each of which provides detailed information to allow a visitor to plan and execute a dive at the site with or without use of local guides (people)


 * I think it's sufficient to just say that diving goes in Do. If a specific article has so many sites that they need to be split out, well that's no different than any other activity.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:06, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Fire and Police
What section does the fire department or police department go under, where can I stick it? (WT-en) OHWiki 20:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on what kind of information you wish to impart. If it involves emergency numbers, it goes in Stay safe (though you should probably only list them if 911 or some other generic emergency number isn't available).  If they're historic locations or otherwise worth visiting, they go in See.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

taxi scams and safety for airport
I have found a verbose advice on safety and scams on getting in from airport by taxi in Lison: Lisbon. Should it stay in GetIn:ByPlane:Taxi, or move to GetAround:ByTaxi, or move to StaySafe section of the city article? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:38, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
 * It appears to present concerns about leaving or getting to the airport, therefore it belongs in Get In#By plane. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Pronunciation
So if I wanted to emphasize somewhere it's pronounced CopenHAYgen and not all too common (and German like) CopenHAHgen, where would I do that? it doesn't really fit well with the introduction. and what would be the correct pseudo pronunciation be by the way? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:47, 4 November 2009 (EST)


 * I always though the correct Danish pronunciation was to insert a hot potato in your mouth and then grunt out "k'bn-AH-vn" =P


 * Slightly more seriously, either the first sentence of the article or the beginning of the Understand section should work. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:12, 4 November 2009 (EST)


 * Based solely on our Project:Pseudo-phoneticization guide, I would render it as "KOH-pehn-HAH-gehn". But I'm not an expert at our pronunciation conventions.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:30, 4 November 2009 (EST)


 * I'd either place it after the Danish spelling, like Wikipedia :
 * Copenhagen (Danish: København, pronounced: KOP-en-HAY-gn),, ...
 * or place a "Pronunciation" section (with a couple of sentences) as the first thing under "understand". This second option (or using both) may be better, as Copenhagen is a city where the English pronunciation differs from the local language's pronunciation (like Paris, Montreal, Pyongyang, and more).(WT-en) AHeneen 01:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 * I've always pronounced it "KOH-pehn-HAY-gehn". Is that wrong?  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:53, 10 December 2009 (EST)


 * The trick is whether we're explaining how to pronounce it in English or Danish. In Danish, I think Jani's version is disturbingly accurate... Wikipedia gives us this little IPA treat: kʰøb̥ənˈhaʊ̯ˀn. I think the best we could do using the Project:Pseudo-phoneticization guide would be koe-buhn-AHVN or more closely koe-bn-AHVN? In English, it's KOH-pehn-hay-gehn, as per Stefan's infobox.


 * According to Project:Foreign_words, we should format the intro like so:
 * Copenhagen (Danish: København koe-bn-AHVN) is the capital...
 * If we're properly adhering to our standard format, the English pronunciation should be dealt with elsewhere, and I think it's fine to do it in that infobox. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:29, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Cooking School and Thai Boxing School
Where to put them, in Learn or Do? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 21:45, 9 December 2009 (EST)


 * Learn. Cooking schools have long gone there, Thai boxing school, to the extent they are teaching, should be Learn also. --(WT-en) inas 21:47, 9 December 2009 (EST)

kindergarden / babysitter service
Where do we stick it, for example for a alpine skiing destination? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:50, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * Not really sure, but I'd think Cope? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:07, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * That's exactly what I started with for Mayrhofen, but Cope is not in a template for a small city. Is that an obstacle? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:40, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * Not an obstacle, just add the Cope header if its necessary for that destination :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:55, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * Definitely Cope. The small city template has limited headings only for convenience.  It's expandable when needed.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:59, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * Thanks, updated the list accordingly. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:22, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * LtPowers, following your edit : I am not very happy with my English--could you suggest a better name if kindergarten doesn't fit the type of service we mean here? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:05, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * Babysitting, daycare, childcare. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:12, 2 February 2010 (EST)

discount cards
Where should they go, if they cover both attractions, shops and transport? See Lisbon, Vienna and Innsbruck as examples. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:31, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * I would look for these in the Buy section, regardless of what they cover. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:12, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * For me, that's the least expected place. Isn't Buy on shopping only?
 * Personally, I would find a subsection in Understand (as of one the few general sections) as most logical. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:43, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * Yes, Understand (perhaps under Visitor Information) or maybe Get In. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:48, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * A discount card is normally something you buy that makes things you buy later, cheaper. In that case it should go in the buy section I think. The buy section is not just for shopping but for cost information, banks, atms, changing money etc., right? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:10, 7 February 2010 (EST)


 * I would look for these cards in the sections they primarily relate to. If a transport discount card also gives you a discount to a few attractions and shops, I would still put it in Get around; if a museum discount card also gives you some discount for transport, I would still put in in See (if needed with a reference from Get around).  If it cannot be decided what the card primarily relates to, I would reluctantly put it in a subsection in Understand.  So, the Vienna card being put in Get around seems ok as it is a card for free transport for three days which also gives a few € of discount to some shops and museums; the Innsbruck card is a bit more difficult as it gives both free sightseeing and transport, but as it does not make sense to buy the card for transport only, I would still keep it in See where it is now; for the same reasons I would move the Lisboa card to See


 * The disadvantage of the above suggestion is that it is not very clear and that the contributor to the article has to make a subjective assessment of where best to put the information on the card. The advantage is that the information will be in its natural place, which I think is not with the other more overall information given in Understand.  I think it would be a mistake to make a general rule that the cards should be in Understand whenever they relate to more than one section, that would move a lot of detailed information to Understand where it does not belong,  (WT-en) ClausHansen 03:48, 7 February 2010 (EST)


 * I think that's the best and most logical option. What if I summarize it as "stick to the section where the card gives the most radical advantage / saving; in doubt put to Understand, and someone else will follow up"? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:41, 7 February 2010 (EST)

sightseeing bus: See or Get Around?
See Sightseer in Innsbruck for example. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:38, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * It can be in a Tours subsection of See. But I think Wikivoyage doesn't list tours, unless its something you cannot do on your own. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:42, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * Providing the tour passes the guideline (most do not), then definitely in See. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:14, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * Should we nuke Sightseer mention for Innsbruck? And if it's heavily advertised, shouldn't we warn it's not worth the money? (there's a separate issue how we judge whether it's heavily advertised or not). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:43, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * Actually, tours should only ever be listed as activities, under Do. This is purposeful, as the tour criteria allow only tours that constitute a value-added activity. I'm pretty sure we have been ruling out tour buses altogether, as a tourist could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own via public transport/car + one of our travel guides. If we were going to start listing them, I think the only appropriate place would actually be in the "Get around" section. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:37, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * Not if the bus doesn't let you off during the tour; then you're hardly getting around. Regardless, I agree "Do" is the place for tours that meet our guidelines, like the "Duck" tours in Pittsburgh or Boston.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:47, 6 February 2010 (EST)


 * Specifically, Sightseer for Innsbruck doesn't offer added value, allow letting off and coming back--but is sold only(?) as a part of Innsbruck Card. So if we still list the card, is it OK to also give few details on the bus that comes as a obligatory supplement to it? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:28, 7 February 2010 (EST)


 * See and do classifcations not only confuse new users, but also fairly experienced editors like globe-trotter and myself :). But let's not open up that discussion which must have been beaten to death in the past.  Just on the criteria for tours, "could fulfil the substance of the tour on their own" is not always imposed. London is a good example of tours that a visitor could  manage on their own but nonetheless add value to the article. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:34, 7 February 2010 (EST)


 * Then, how would you suggest to decide on Innsbruck? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:43, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Correct category for luggage storage
I often spend a few hours in a town on my way to my final destination, and for this purpose, luggage lockers or luggage offices are rather useful to lock away the greater part of my travelling gear. I'd like to add a line regarding these things to a couple of towns, however I'm wandering where this best fits in the existing structure of most articles. Ok, the luggage storage at Cork's "Parnell Place" bus station is easy enough -- I assume that wants to be in "Get in / by bus". However, what about the internet café in Dublin's centre, that just happens to have a "left luggage service" in addition the usual row of computer terminals? As far as I can tell, it doesn't fit in any of the pre-existing categories. Where does this sort of thing want to go? --(WT-en) Dave b 19:10, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
 * See Project:Where you can stick it. Best to put the info into Get in, for consistency, although I can see arguments for a few different sections.  --(WT-en) inas 19:14, 10 August 2009 (EDT)


 * In Bangkok/Khao San Road, luggage storage is placed at Cope. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:24, 15 February 2010 (EST)


 * In 99% of cases the luggage storage is going to be at one of the places we are already talking about in the Get in section, and that is because most people want to store their luggage while getting in or out. --(WT-en) inas 21:01, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Beaches
This article tells us that beaches should go into the Do section. I am wondering why, as the See section seems more appropriate. This has just come up here: Talk:Bukit_Peninsula. I have written about beaches a lot in the various Bali articles, and used the rule of thumb that general beach info ("it's a lovely beach, go have a look") goes into the See section, and activities which may be related to the beach (snorkeling, diving, motorised watersports etc), go into the Do section. Bali went to star guide with beaches under Landscape in the See section. I am not grasping the activity element involved in looking at a beach. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * I think the idea behind it is that not many people look at a beach, but travellers are usually involved in activities there, such as sunbathing, surfing, swimming, etc. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 05:00, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * I guess that is the idea, but those activities can be dealt with sensibly in the Do section. I go to look at beaches all the time to take in the seascape etc. And just going to the beach to sunbathe/laze around/read a book (probably the commonest reason for going there) is surely not an activity?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:06, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * Yeah, it is. If the beach is scenic and doesn't involve a lot of people hanging around sunbathing, See is fine, but most beach-goers are doing an activity, not seeing an attraction.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * OK. In that case I have been doing it right — See section for "have a look, take it in, watch the sunset, have a chill etc" and then the specific activities in Do. That should probably be clarified in this article. See and Do distinctions still confuse me. You Do watching an opera, but See walking around a botanical gardens. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * I know; see . I'm still not sure I understand it as well as the originators of the distinction, but I think I'm getting the hang of it.  "See" seems to be almost exclusively for things that would be classified as "sightseeing", while "Do" is for everything else.  If you go to Radio City Music Hall for a tour, that's "See", but if you go there for a show, that's "Do".  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:18, 16 February 2010 (EST)


 * I'm starting to find this odd though. A beach is not an activity, it's a natural attraction. Surfing is an activity. In Thailand many beaches are even national parks. I think beaches are better dealt with in the See section. We've been having this problem especially with countries, where it'd be odd to split natural attractions between See and Do. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:38, 10 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Some beaches may be attractions in their own right, but most city public beaches are just a place for activities like sunbathing and swimming. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:31, 10 September 2011 (EDT)


 * If the beach is a natural attraction in its own right, then I always put it into See. The activities belong in Do, not the sight itself. I think WT has been murky on this issue and the distinction should be defined correctly.--(WT-en) burmesedays 20:51, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm going to come down firmly on the side of See here. Even the "most city public beaches" LtPowers refers to above are still nice looking places or people wouldn't go there, basically no different than a park, which goes in the see section. Parks are just places where people sit around on the grass or bench and let their kids play, or play tennis or whatever. It's not that different from sitting around in a beach chair. I don't think parks or beaches are activities -- you do things there because it's a nice-looking place, and besides, there are lots of beaches or other seaside landscapes in colder climes that are not used for traditional beach activities but are nevertheless very lovely sights. It doesn't make any sense at all to me to have parks in See and beaches in Do. I think beaches should go in See, and obvious activities like sunbathing and surfing can be mentioned there. If there are non-obvious activities, like hang-glider rental or whatever, they can be listed in Do, with the beach name in the address field. (WT-en) texugo 23:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Interesting that beaches have been "Do" and parks have been "See" since Evan's very earliest revisions of the page. Who knows why he made the distinction.  Maybe it was to keep beaches with swimming pools and other aquatic activities?  Nonetheless, I am persuaded that parks and beaches should be in the same section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:14, 11 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Strong support from me for that also. Beaches into See, specific activities like snorkeling, surfing etc stay in Do.--(WT-en) burmesedays 13:28, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Revisit
Well here we are almost two years later, and I'm having second thoughts. I don't know anyone who goes to a beach just to look around. A beach is a location for activities like swimming. If someone says they're "going to the beach", I assume they're going to go swimming. Some beaches might be attractions, but most beaches are just a place for activities. LtPowers (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will stick with what I said above. As with parks, activities at beaches are merely secondary and are conducted there specifically because the beach is a nice place to see. Available activities may be slightly different, but I do not see any essential difference between a city park that happens to be next to the sea and one three blocks away with a swimming pool, tennis court, and running track. Yes, both parks and beaches may (or may not) have activities, but the greater point is that they are nice settings, and since we need to choose one section or the other, I think See makes the most sense, especially in light of the fact that some parks and beaches may not actually have any activities, or may only be good for sunbathing, which is not really an activity at all, only inactivity in a bathing suit. The only other solution would be to allow putting some beaches and parks in See and some in Do (even within the same article), but I think this is a very bad idea in terms of consistency and intuitive placement of information. Texugo (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the placement of beaches has very little to do with the available scenery and everything to do with where there is sand and easy access to water. For swimming.  There may be a few beaches that don't "have any activities", but I believe those are usually called coastlines.  Beaches are for swimming.  LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just because despite living in a country full of great beaches, I practically never swim when I go to the beach, but even ignoring beaches in cold climates/winter, I fail to see how the activities available at a typical beach (swimming, walking, sunbathing, reading a book, having a picnic, playing catch) would put beaches in Do while the activities available at a typical park (walking, bicycling, reading a book, playing catch, having a picnic, playing a sport) would put parks in See. You agreed with me above. Are you now convinced that beaches should be treated differently from parks just because they have water? Texugo (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm no longer convinced that parks should be in See, either. On the other hand, parks seem somewhat more likely to be purely scenic than a beach, but maybe that's just me.  LtPowers (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LtPowers, I hope you have the chance some day to visit Pfeiffer Beach in Big Sur. If you do, you'll find the scene breathtaking, but unless you have a wet suit or a very high tolerance for cold, you aren't likely to swim. Is it exceptional? Yeah, it's exceptional as a beach in a similar way that the Louvre is exceptional as a museum, perhaps. Don't get me wrong; I do get your point, but I find it too fine a point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, some beaches are purely scenic, but the fact that they're a beach is coincidental -- they could be any scenic area. City beaches, on the other hand, are rarely scenic, and are designed for swimming and other beach activities.  LtPowers (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, wha—parks go in See? I've always included in them in Do. I have trouble thinking of an environment as a sight, and think of parks and beaches as environs in which you "do" various things like swim, canoodle, lather, picnic, play sports, attend a concert, grill food, smoke cigars, walk the dog, etc. How often do you go to a beach or park to just stare at it? --Peter Talk 07:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been saying. LtPowers (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem might be the question of at what level we are discussing beaches or parks. If we're figuring out where to put them at a higher level in the hierarchy, then I could see considering national/state/provincial parks as "attractions." But at the bottom level (cities/districts)—it would seem really weird to include municipal beaches and parks in see. --Peter Talk 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it wouldn't be the first thing that can vary like that. We have separate listings for caves (caving) and caves (sightseeing), and for church (religious services) and church (sightseeing).  We could say beach (scenic)' and beach (swimming), for instance.  LtPowers (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Visa run
Here we have visa run under "do". I'm pretty sure that is wrong, but where else should we put it? Placing it under "get in" is a bit weird, because it is about getting out. But placing it under get out also strikes me as a bit stange— as it is not a destination, but mere paperwork. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:39, 20 February 2010 (EST)


 * I would generally keep all the visa information in Get in, and I do not find it weird to have the visa run information there as well as it is about how to get in again, (WT-en) ClausHansen 11:53, 20 February 2010 (EST)


 * I would say Get in, perhaps with its own sub-heading. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:54, 20 February 2010 (EST)


 * Get in for sure. Visas are used for both entering and exiting, not just exiting. Furthermore, the Get out section is used to visit nearby (or at times, far away places but almost always in the same country) places--thus, visas would largely be unnecessary to list info about again. Any helpful info. for getting back to the airport/train station, etc. would also be listed in Get in, even though the WTer is leaving. (WT-en) Zepppep 17:52, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Tribes
I've watched travel guide shows and read some travel magazines, their travel info includes like "See the tribes of...", so like if we add that here where would it be listed? Would it be in the do or see section? Adding this might also help the travelers know the country more by experiencing the cultures and traditions of indigenous tribes that haven't much affected.(WT-en) SnappyHip
 * It would probably be in "Do", as in most cases it would require an expedition of some sort. Although I admit to some unease over treating people as tourist attractions.  Unless the tribes specifically welcome travelers, it may be better to put information under "Culture" in the "Understand" section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:22, 4 February 2010 (EST)
 * If it is really specific (eg "go to village Z to see tribe X"), you could add to the see section of the relevant article. Could be a country, region or city article, but I find this sort of information often sits well in the region article. If it is not specific, but rather a general statement about the ethnicity of the area, then it will probably sit best in the understand section, perhaps with a culture sub-heading. I agree with LTPowers that where possible it is better to treat as a cultural topic, rather than a specific attraction. I guess you are talking about tribes in the Philippines? Here is an example of how I dealt with the Tenggerese in Java in an understand section: Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park. Alternatively, it can be sensitively addressed in a see section, as with the Bali Aga here. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:26, 4 February 2010 (EST)
 * Thanks LtPowers and Burmesedays :). Cheers - (WT-en) SnappyHip

how to rate size of duty-free shops
swept in from pub:

I frequently include info on airport dutyfree shops, but it's still unclear for me how to compare/measure different airports in terms of number/size of dutyfree stores.

Number of shops looks good, but is not always applicable: e.g. Dubai has a single area for everything. Square meters looks much more objective and universal, but: (a) to understand the size, you can only compare it to other airports you been to (and typically you won't have Wikivoyage guides for them when traveling), (b) looks like it's not widely available and published at airport sites. Ideal measurement is total number of items available, but that's absolutely theorethical metrics.

Anyone else interested in the topic, any suggestions? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:57, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * I don't really understand the goal for this? Is it for a travel topic about duty free shopping? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:42, 1 February 2010 (EST)


 * No, for now only on "duty-free shop" sections for large city articles. See Vienna and Budapest for example.
 * Creating a travel topic is also on my list of someday-maybes, but I'm not sure there's enough content in the topic to become a separate article (while a section in nonexistent "Buy" article may be a good candidate). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 20:03, 1 February 2010 (EST)

Hi! There is a debate ongoing on the Talk:Vienna site about if we really need to have duty free shops in the Get in section of articles. I really doubt that as due to the carry-on restrictions of liquids (by the administration) and size (by airlines) it is not really a value for travellers. E.g. Frankfurt Airport currently seizes three tons (3'000 kilogrammm / 6'600 lbs.) of goods from travellers per day (and other airports are known to have even bigger volumes) and most duty free can't be transited any more. Also today on the curbside of airports there are shops were travellers can buy to local prices. Denis started to insert at some airports duty free section and it would be good to discuss what are the guidelines for it. I can't see the profit of listings for shops at airports as the main goal for the Get in section is to inform travellers on how to reach the city/region etc. and not on how to shop in between. I can only imagine a general travel topic about it that features the top10 duty free shopping areas in the world. (WT-en) jan 04:16, 31 March 2010 (EDT)


 * To start with, "duty free shop in airport" is in WTSI for more than 3 years, and it never faced any challenge before (I even believe that I added it as a result of someone's suggestion, but can't find that discussion right now). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:06, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
 * It's hardly used so far and i suggest we keep it that way. (WT-en) jan 17:05, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Duty-free shops should be in "Buy", as far as I'm concerned. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:19, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Originally my question was on how to write on duty-free shops, not where to stick it. I wonder how we technically split discussion in such cases (copy a relevant piece to a ontopic talk page?). And I wonder where best to stick the original question; clearly it doesn't belong here. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:30, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Jan's question probably should have been a separate thread, especially since it came almost two months after yours. I don't see a problem with splitting the thread there.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:33, 17 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Thank you. So where to move the original thread? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:41, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Pets
Where should information on pets go? Pet safety, kennels, pet-friendly accommodations, etc. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:09, 17 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Cope I think. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:45, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

Exhibition and convention centers
Anyone knows where these go? See or Do? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:26, 22 August 2010 (EDT)


 * I'm not sure what one is. Can you give an example?  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:22, 22 August 2010 (EDT)


 * I mean large buildings that host large events, like the Kölnmesse in Cologne, the RAI  in Amsterdam and the QSNCC  in Bangkok. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:33, 24 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Most events held in such places would be under "Do". I don't know if the buildings themselves need a listing; would anyone visit them without going to a specific event?  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:32, 24 August 2010 (EDT)


 * I generally put these on the map, and mention them in the understand section when they are big and relevant enough, but I'm not sure we need actual listings for them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:41, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Hospitals and police
Hospitals here are listed under "cope", and I just added police stations under there as well. But wouldn't these be more logical under Stay healthy and Stay safe? And what about dentistries? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:41, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
 * I tend to agree. Note, though, that "Stay healthy" is usually only used in country and large region articles; most destination articles will have only a "Stay safe" section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:33, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
 * I'd go with Stay safe for police stations, but that's not where they go according to Project:Where you can stick it. Police stations are much more likely to be frequented by a traveler than, say, a health club (that's not inside a hotel), and furthermore, questions of safety seem to be asked more than "where is the nearest Bally's?". Dentist offices under Cope. They seem to be listed less frequently than religious services, which also go under Cope, but if folks are creating the section for religion, then I 'spose they can do the same for a dentistry. (WT-en) Zepppep 17:47, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Animal abuse
In Bangkok, I placed a section on animal abuse in the Bangkok section, as I didn't know any better place for itt. Where would it best fit? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:48, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
 * I'd say "Stay safe" works. "Buy" might seem appropriate for the elephant warning on the surface (since it's something you're being pressured to purchase), but I think we can all agree it would seem out of place there.  Sometimes you have to just group similar information together, even if the header doesn't perfectly fit; "Stay safe" is really kind of a "watch out for" section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:05, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

Coffee
Coffee seems to me to be quintessentially a "Drink" topic, but Inas disagrees. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:08, 15 December 2010 (EST)


 * My argument is that our Eat section is about restaurants, food, and the drinks which accompany them. Our Drink section is what would be a Nightlife section in other guides, includes bars, nightclubs.  This makes it easy to see what goes in what section.
 * This is set out quite clearly in our template, where it says the Drink section is For bars, clubs, and other nightlife. Yes, many people go out to clubs and don't drink; the name of the section is still Drink.
 * If in the locale, Coffee is a drink which is largely taken at breakfast with a bagel or muffin, then Drink is clearly the wrong place for it in my opinion. If a Coffee Shop constitutes what the locals would do to go out and pass the evening away, then that is a different story. --(WT-en) inas 17:23, 15 December 2010 (EST)


 * I must have been doing it wrong all this time. I've always listed cafes in Drink, under in its own Coffee heading. There is a spectrum of cafes, from ones who specialise in good coffee but also sell muffins - to cafes that have a full menu but also keep a coffee machine. The decision to put it in Eat or Drink depends entirely on why the traveller would go there - to just drink coffee or to eat, with a coffee on the side. Nonetheless, where ever they are listed, it would be helpful to caffeine lovers to separate specialist coffee places out from the rest of the listings to highlight cafes with good coffee from the rest. I think I just said the same thing as Inas. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 23:36, 15 December 2010 (EST)


 * I would answer it the same way we do pubs/bars that also sell food. Put the listing in the section for which a patron would most likely venture to that establishment--if they are a bar that also serves (marginal) food, they would go under Drink. People go out for any number of reasons to various drinking establishments--to dance, to mingle, to tap their toe to sax solos, to sip fine ales--the fact that the drink might be coffee shouldn't matter. As the above states, if a restaurant happens to serve coffee but their food is killer, then we'd put them under Eat; if locals are trekking it to the local java joint specifically because their known for wonderful beans, then Drink seems to be where I'd put the listing. There are also lots of places which specialize in coffee but also sell alcohol, especially if they have live events (music, poetry readings, etc.) and therefore it makes even more sense to put them in Drink. In the end, if a java joint is clearly labeled under a subsection (such as "Coffee", no matter in Drink or Eat), it should prove helpful to WTers. (WT-en) Zepppep 17:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

electricity outlets and voltage; toilets
I wonder where pieces of [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=France&oldid=1618858#Electricity.2C_water.2C_etc. this section] should go: electricity outlets and voltage; toilets. I definitely believe they shouldn't be in Contact anyway. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:30, 27 January 2011 (EST)
 * No, certainly not "Contact". When in doubt, go with "Understand".  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:19, 27 January 2011 (EST)
 * I put toilets in Cope. Electricity in Understand.  Whether water is potable or not in Stay Healthy.  --(WT-en) inas 20:44, 27 January 2011 (EST)
 * So OK to create Cope section for country article merely for toilets, as it's the case for France?
 * Updated the page with everything else. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:42, 28 January 2011 (EST)

Some Learn section questions

 * Cooking classes are listed here as going into the Learn section. I have always put them in Do, including in a couple of Star articles. Which is correct?
 * Art classes - identical question. Absent here.
 * Yoga, meditation, healing classes (etc). These are absent from the policy article. Learn or Do? Again, I have always put them into Do, but that is arguable.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Discussion hasn't been really going, but I believe they should go in Learn. See . If they wouldn't go in Learn, then that section would become useless. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * It is hard to distinguish between Yoga courses (for example) which I could see belonging in Learn, from drop-in Yoga sessions which seem to belong in Do. Same goes with diving for example. As Learn is not a section on the Small City or District templates (where these sort of listings most often belong), I have always stuck such things in Do. It is not an easy one.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:50, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Nothing is, but the fact remains that these sorts of classes are what the Learn section is for. Obviously "taking a class" is an activity, but we split instructional activities out into "Learn".  Small City and District articles most certainly can have a Learn section; we just don't include it in the basic template for space reasons.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * So that's two opinions that instructional classes go into Learn. I guess instructional classes of any description? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:48, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Pretty much, though as with everything else, specific cases may require more creative or unusual solutions. When it comes to travel guides, every one is different.  If it would improve the travel guide significantly to "break" the rule, then do it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:26, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Ski resorts
Swept in from the pub

What do you all think about Big White and Silver Star? Do they meet our what is an article criteria? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:25, 8 March 2011 (EST)
 * I think enormous ski resorts qualify as articles (in the same way that Disneyland or, perhaps more germanely, Whistler do.) However I question whether the latter, in particular, is sprawling enough to warrant its own article, just as I wouldn't think that every Six Flags would qualify. It seems to me that it would make sense to combine both into one article. I also think that there's a tout-y tone to both at the moment, but that's a separate issue. (WT-en) Rezendi 01:03, 9 March 2011 (EST)
 * Well, they certainly don't need to follow a region template, so I removed the giant list of cities and the regional info from Big White. If all those eat listings are actually at the resort and there are sleep listings actually there and not in a nearby town, perhaps it should get an article, but there isn't enough info for me to decide. (WT-en) texugo 01:48, 9 March 2011 (EST)

Tourist office information
Swept in from the pub:

Should not there be a standard section with information about Tourist offices (e.g. web addresses, physical addresses, opening times, phone numbers) ?
 * Indeed, I had the same question. Sometime it is at the end of the "Understand" section. Should this become a standard? It could be put in "Cope" too but this section is optional and rather at the end of the page; and Tourist office info is something people probably want to know pretty early. (WT-en) Joelf 16:04, 13 March 2011 (EDT)


 * I've always seen (and placed) this at the end of "Understand" under the heading "Tourist Information". (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:18, 13 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Huh; I could have sworn we had a standard written down somewhere for that. Anyway, I've added "Visitor information" to Project:Article templates/Sections.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:22, 13 March 2011 (EDT)


 * We do-- Where you can stick it indicates the Understand section.(WT-en) texugo 23:56, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

See or do museums
(Swept in form the pub)

Are museums listed under "See" or "Do"? The London article has a list of museums under "See", but then another one (repeated) under "Do"? I can't find any guidance. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 14:38, 15 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Looking at Project:Article_templates/Sections and Project:Where you can stick it, I think the definition is intentionally vague, because it's not always clear cut. It says "attractions [See] are passive by nature" and "activities [Do] are usually active", but sitting in a stadium watching a sports game is a strange definition of "active".


 * As a rule of thumb I would normally put museums under "See" unless the museum is exceptionally hands-on. For instance, in Atlanta there's the World of Coca-Cola museum where you can sample dozens of international Coke products, and the Georgia Aquarium where you can touch several sea creatures and kids can play in a massive playpen... to me these could go either way, and I would probably put them in whichever section had less content. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:02, 15 July 2011 (EDT)


 * (Edit conflict) "See" per Project:Where you can stick it. There might be exceptions, but I can't think of any at the moment. The museum listing at the London article (Natural History Museum, right?) should definitely be moved to "See" in my opinion, if not one of the district articles. – (WT-en) Vidimian 15:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Thanks guys - that makes sense. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 16:42, 15 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Most museums could go either way, but we chose "See" for lack of a better idea. Even interactive museums go there just for the sake of keeping museums together.  Zoos are the same.  Sporting events are in "Do" because going to the ballpark conceptually involves more than just sitting and watching; it's more about the experience than the sights.  They're all arguable, but we had to pick one or the other.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

page like a traveller wish list ?
As a traveller, I found some guesthouses or other services, sometimes lacking complete understanding of what a traveller coud ask: for example, for guesthouse, be cleaned / no bedbugs, have some informations on transport from/to, ... is there such a page on wikivoyage ?

183.182.122.40 09:04, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Where to stick money/credit card info?
In this edit a user quite rightly pointed out that credit card use in the Netherlands increasingly requires a PIN code. I removed it from there, for it was in the wrong place, but now am unsure on where to stick it instead. I'm guessing more travelers are unpleasantly surprised by that PIN-code fact, and I think it should be in the article on The Netherlands. But where? Money exchange info should go in the Buy-section, but it seems way too far down to put general info on currency, credit card use and all that there, since it's relevant from the first minute you arrive. Now that I look at it, we also don't seem to have one of those "costs & money" sections (I think that's how LP calls it, or some other guide) with info on what to expect in terms of daily costs. Is that on purpose? For many years that was one of the first sections I would read in search of travel destinations that would more or less fit my budget. (WT-en) Justme 09:35, 15 August 2011 (EDT)


 * All banking, money, currency etc information should go into the buy section. If you want to post daily cost/budget info, make a costs sub-section of the buy section. See for example United Kingdom and United States of America (and I am sure lots of other articles). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:47, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

More information on how to dress
SWEPT IN FROM THE PUB

I'd be interested in seeing more information on how to dress for a destination. Not in a lot of detail, but enough to know what to expect. There's bits here and there, but I think it should be more widely used, certainly at the country level.

For example, at a country level: a sentence each on dressing for business, for everyday wear, and for "dressing up" to go to nice restaurants or plays. At a state/city level, there could be room for this, too... in the Southern U.S., dress is very casual during the summer because of the heat, while in Washington D.C. people tend to dress nicely even for everyday dress.

Thoughts? --(WT-en) BigPeteB 11:49, 18 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Definitely agreed. Useful information. I suggest in the Understand section. I think that the only guideline on dress so far, is for warnings about modesty etc which are to be placed in the Respect section. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:24, 18 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree strongly that this would be useful. It's one of the hardest bits of information to come by prior to travel—I often find myself crawling through flickr searches for street views—but is quite useful for anyone who doesn't want to stand out as a tourist (presumably everyone?). I guess Cope would be the appropriate section?  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:37, 18 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I'll be happy to take a stab at this in a few articles. I notice that several countries don't have a Cope section yet; is it worth adding one just for this? Maybe it should go in another section? --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:36, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Cope is usually for services. Understand or Respect would be better, depending on the nature of the advice.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:44, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I took a first attempt at this at United_States_of_America. It turned out a little longer than I expected (and it's biased towards men's dress because that's what I know), but I think it covers 98% of all the scenarios travelers would encounter. Let me know what you think! --(WT-en) BigPeteB 18:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I do think it is a bit long; the entire United States article is already too long and contains far too little travel information and too much basic how-to-act information. I think what needs to be said about dress in the U.S. could fit into one or two paragraphs, and belongs properly in the Understand or Respect sections.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:32, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Alright, I pared it down a lot. I think I like it better shorter, anyway, as part of the adventure of traveling is discovering for yourself what local culture is like, rather than reading about it on a website. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 13:20, 21 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I don't think understand or respect would be appropriate sections. The point of going over how people dress is about making your trip more comfortable via blending in. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:19, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * But we've never used Cope for such things in the past. Ever.  It's always been for services.  It especially doesn't make sense in locations where we also cover appropriate dress under "Respect" -- then we'd be putting clothing information in two different sections.  (WT-en) LtPowers 23:26, 19 August 2011 (EDT)


 * The respect material has been about not offending local sensibilities, but that's not what BigPeteB is suggesting. Having a dress subsection would allow us to move the information up there.


 * I don't know where you are getting the "services" bit from. Project:Huge_city_article_template advises that Cope is for Anything that has to do with the practicalities of daily life should go here. Intuitively, the name of the section would also suggest that this is an appropriate place. Choosing what to wear is pretty clearly one of the practicalities of daily life, and trying to blend in is one of the most basic coping mechanisms for travel in a different place (lest you be hassled endlessly, draw funny looks, or feel silly). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:04, 20 August 2011 (EDT)


 * But likewise it says "Don't put something here when it could fit in one of the other sections." "How Americans dress" is quintessential "Understand" information.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:36, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it's a good idea to start enforcing this idea by reversion. After the section was removed, the best thing to do would be to discuss on the talk page whether it should be re-added or not, especially since this is a new proposal that has yet to gain any significant traction. I, for one, continue to be unconvinced that this needs a whole section of its own under "Cope" in a city guide; a single sentence or two under "Understand" should be plenty. In country articles, we might be able to get more verbose, but things just don't vary enough city-to-city to be worth three paragraphs. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:26, 31 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm fine with removing the section in the future, if the general feeling is that it is not helpful. But it is for the time being our test case, so I'm happy to see it draw critiques in the meantime. I will reiterate, though, via rambling, that while many might not care about this sort of information (in the same way I don't care about where I can find shopping malls), for some tourists, blending in while traveling is a priority and a difficult art. All the more difficult owing to the general paucity of destination-specific information online. For most destinations, though, this can certainly be left off. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:58, 31 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree that most city articles don't need a Dress section, and those that do probably only need a couple of sentences. (I couldn't care less where it's placed, either.) I just want to convince people that it is important... maybe not for you, but for others. Business travelers, I think, have an obvious need to show up appropriately dressed. European visitors to the U.S. could be quite embarrassed to realize that speedos are uncommon at beaches and pools. As for everyday dress, other than a general desire to not look like an out-of-place tourist begging to get mugged, I can only offer a personal anecdote. I've taken several college choirs on tours where they did "homestays" with local families for lodging, and they were consistently praised for their maturity and responsibility, and it led to many further displays of kindness and hospitality. (And this is from families who regularly host college choirs throughout the year.) I think that dressing to fit in, rather than just lazily putting on shorts and sandals like we wear at home, contributed to this, and I think all travelers ought to have that information available, whether or not they choose to use it. (WT-en) BigPeteB 09:43, 6 September 2011 (EDT)