Talk:Concerns

Why?

I am tempted to propose this for deletion. We already have a travel topics index page, better organised than this. New topics turn up from time to time, so this will require maintenance which I suspect is both unlikely and unnecessary.

What have I missed? Is there actually some reason to have this? Pashley (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think maintaining such lower level index pages is not too difficult, if the hierarchy is clear. Adding a page would be a natural thing to do when creating the topic page. The travel topics index is quite a dinosaur, here it would be possible to have a little more descriptive text and perhaps some other bonuses. That said, the current page offers no functionality other than what is provided in the main index. --LPfi (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Any chance this sort of index page exists solely so that all of the standard headings (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep) can be redirected to a list of topics? K7L (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems for tourists

Swept in from the pub

To what extent & where should we add warning or info boxes about various sorts of hazard?

• government travel advisories. WT have some of these on their main page. Should we emulate that?
• natural disasters
• problems like road construction
• tourist industry problems like the w:2018 Boracay closure and redevelopment or Talk:Thailand#Tourism_falling_off?

These are all currently dealt with using warning or info boxes on the relevant pages, & that seems mostly a good solution but I wonder what improvements might be possible. Certainly there are some difficulties.

These things change often so maintenance is a problem. We may not be up-to-date & I've deleted several thoroughly obsolete warnings.

When a high level article has a serious warning, what should be in lower-level articles under it? Their own warnings? Links to the high-level warning? Nothing, assuming readers will look at the higher-level article as well? In general, I prefer the second choice but might use either of the others in particular cases. Pashley (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a "lastedit=" field on {{warningbox}} which can be used to add warnings to a maintenance category after half a year, but nothing similar for {{cautionbox}}. That is odd as warnings are often de-escalated to cautions as a first step before they are removed (DEADLY HURRICANE INCOMING → community is rebuilding after destructive hurricane → never mind, we're back...).

Which article gets the warning depends on the nature of the threat. A national government doing something evil and malicious (such as separating families at the border) should merit an urgent warning at the country level; conversely a tropical storm or active volcano is usually local or regional (unless the entire country is Montserrat-sized and fits on a page or two).

Road construction usually only rates a cautionbox if a road or single-point-of-failure bridge is out (such as the rail line to Churchill, which should be back in service this month). Routine traffic jams don't get warning boxes. K7L (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)