Talk:In the footsteps of explorers

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on In the footsteps of explorers. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

Pagebanner

I was thinking that the painting of Christopher Columbus' having set foot in the Americas would make a great banner, but due to the obvious contradiction between a banner of Columbus and the text to follow, I thought it would be best to bring that up on the talk page instead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting to think about this, especially as banners are outside of my skillset. I will probably request comment and consideration tomorrow, leaving it in my userspace for now as there was some resistance to having this article. I am hoping that seeing a mock-up of it will help people to think about this idea. Ground Zero (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @SelfieCity: I like the footsteps in the banner! Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good one and unique! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Austronesians

Some suggest the Austronesians originally came from the Chinese mainland & Taiwan was part of the expansion. See Liangzhu Culture. I think there are other theories & some scholarly controversies. Pashley (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

True. I learned that the ancestors of the Malays came from Southern China a long time ago and went overland through Indochina and Thailand, which I understand were populated by Malays (including Champa) before the Malay Peninsula. My mother had a scholarly book that had a map showing the approximate years of arrival of Malays at different places in Southeast Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

John Rae

John Rae was a remarkable person and a helluva bona fide explorer, and I suggest he be included, even though I don't remember any monuments and places associated to him. John Frankin's wife sought his damnatio memoriae for personal reasons and that might explain. Ibaman (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is that we should focus on being a travel guide, rather than Wikipedia-without-sources, I would say if there is nowhere for a traveller to visit, we leave the hundreds of worthy explorers we could talk about out of the travel article. Including them would make the article long, and obscure the travel information. By that's just my view. What do others think? Ground Zero (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there are no relevant destinations for a specific explorer we should not include that person's name. Otherwise the article will become too long; the number of explorers, especially around that time, is too long for every single one to be included here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

by the way, I feel almost sorry for bringing this up, after the wonderful woodchopping and landscaping you have already accomplished in this experiment. I wouldn't dare to touch this layout without permission. It's a beautiful and unsung tale to tell, which I think would fit nicely here, nothing but that. Ibaman (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think he could be mentioned, as long as there is a museum exhibit, even, somewhere about him. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"or visit the places they explored"

I don't agree that we should expand the article in this way. Saying "Captain Cook explored Newfoundland, the Pacific Ocean, Australia and the Hawaiian Islands" doesn't tell the traveller anything they can't read about in history books. We'd end up with biographies of hundreds of explorers with country names hyperlinked. That's what Wikipedia does, but Wikipedia has better research and reliable sources. The way Wikivoyage can add value is by listing museums and sites where travellers can go to learn about the history. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• well, not strictly on the topic, from the building of Roman Empire and Aviation history, I learned to exercise a lot of extreme ponderation and sifting when it comes to selecting content (and listings) to add. I agree that "hundreds of explorers" would be a bad addition; John Rae is not. I'm satisfied to be able to briefly mention him. He should deserve more, but brevity applies in this case. James Cook deserves his own Wikivoyage article; here, he deserves a good fat paragraph and two or three beautiful images of monuments, I guess. I would like to mention French captain Louis Antoine de Bouganville (after whom a worldwide-spread ornamental plant of Amazonic origin is named) and Spanish Álvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca who explored the Mississippi on foot as well, but won't until I ever get to hear about some precise marker or memorial along the length of their journeys. Ibaman (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we can remove that text, but I think itineraries following the routes of explorers are definitely part of the focus of this topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I agree that I'd we have an itinerary article, that should be the "see" link we use. I don't think we want to build itineraries into this article, though.

@Ibaman: John Rae has a great Wikipedia article. I don't think we should have a poor one. Wikivoyage will attract more readers by being a good travel guide, not by being an assortment of things a few dozen writers find interesting. Right now, the article is focussed on travel, with the necessary background. I would have to see it diluted with a lot of text that is not connected to travel. I found most of the sites I've listed just by googling "name of the explorer" + "museum". It worked in most cases. Regards. Ground Zero (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the information about John Rae it's very interesting, but I'm not sure it's travel relevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• about John Rae, that tiny bit is included per be fair and be fair only. Per the same rationale I added Shackleton and will add no other name. James Cook, yes, James Cook deserves his own Star-status itinerary on Wikivoyage, on par with Magellan and Columbus, but that's another article altogether. Ibaman (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibaman, I'd encourage you to start itinerary articles about Cabeza de Vaca (my favorite explorer name) and any other explorer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of User:Ground Zero/In the footsteps of explorers#The Age of Discovery

This paragraph, which comes from Age of Discovery, largely restates what is said at the beginning of the article and therefore I think it should be abbreviated or removed. I've supported the terminology "European Age of Discovery" but I don't think discussion over the terminology itself is topical in this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I reshuffled it for tone. I hope it's a smart edit. Ibaman (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm referring, however, to the second paragraph. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"See also" templates

These often are included at the beginning of each section. Should we move them to the beginning of each section in this article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed a different format as an experiment. We list individual sites below the synopsis everywhere, so I think it makes to list the follow-on articles below the synopsis also. What do you think? Ground Zero (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea. At the time I wasn't sure you realized the difference from the typical format. We could consider whether the new format could be applied to other articles as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing my move mistake. Ground Zero (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, just a minor thing. I can understand as it's definitely confusing that the space "Wikivoyage" doesn't refer to the website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

George Vancouver

I added George Vancouver because he's an important explorer, but there are a lot of other important explorers not mentioned. I don't think this should be an "article about explorers", but rather a "travel article about explorers". Until I or someone else can find a museum with an exhibit about his or a historical site (his former house, e.g), I propose to comment out that section. Statues aren't really destinations that people plan their visits around. Sure, you'd go blocks out of your way to see it, but I don't think anyone will plan a trip to King's Lynn to see Vancouver's statue. Ground Zero (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross-listing sites from other topic/itinerary articles

Where we direct readers to other travel topic or itinerary articles, should we also list sites from those articles, as is now the case with the North Atlantic section? I think this could lead to the sort of overloading of the article that some people are concerned about. Ground Zero (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to include duplicate information in two articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed them. Ground Zero (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Amundsen

Just for the record, I forgot to mention in the summary, the bit about Amundsen's 1903-06 trip was copied/adapted from the corresponding article in English Wikipedia. Ibaman (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Split it up?

I think the section "Later explorers" is a bit of a hodge-podge, hard to read because it covers several unrelated topics. I'd move Cook, Vancouver etc. into the "Age of Discovery" section since I see them as the last of that era. I'd also create separate sections for "Overland exploration" (Lewis & Clark, Fur traders, etc.) and "Polar exploration". I'm not sure what to do with Hillary & Tenzing.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Age of Discovery section is there just to direct readers to the article that covers that era. Starting to populate it with information about explorers would lead to duplication. Let's not do that. Ground Zero (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillary and Tenzing weren't polar explorers. Ground Zero (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should move Cook and Vancouver into the Age of Discovery article. We can just make a note in the section here that the Age of Discovery ends with Flinders. The dog2 (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a firm ending date? Also, isn't this article supposed to summarize all other articles about major explorations? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd move the whole In_the_footsteps_of_explorers#Later_maritime_explorers section into Age of Discovery. Pashley (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Age of Discovery" is widely used in English and other languages to mean a defined period of time ending in the 17th or 18th century. I continue to oppose Wikivoyage striking out on its own to redefine it to mean something other than what readers will expect it to mean. Do we have to keep having the same debate? I was hoping that by creating this article, we could move on from that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• oh well, there it goes again...I would (and did) move John Franklin next to George Vancouver and Bellingshausen; he never went further north than 77 degrees, his voyages were exclusively maritime, and IMHO they should be grouped together. If this group gets moved to the Age of Discovery article, I'll think it deserving, righteous, and why not, funny as coitus, considering all the fine-point-arguments recorded on Talk:Age of Discovery. Ibaman (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) John Franklin, IHMO, could be in either section, so I don't mind either way. I personally like the current format of this article and think we should keep it this way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to redifine anything here. Vancouver's expedition was 1791-1795, in the 18th century, so he falls within the Age of Discovery. Cook was also in the 18th century too, so he also falls under the Age of Discovery. Franklin, on the other hand, does not. The dog2 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to Pashley's comment "There's a firm ending date?" But I see I overlooked his earlier comment "I'd move Cook, Vancouver etc. into the "Age of Discovery" section since I see them as the last of that era." My apologies. I will point out though they would should not move anything into the "Age of Discovery section". If anyone is part of that era, they should be moved to the Age of Discovery article to avoid duplication. Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

SEO

In the footsteps of explorers#Roald Amundsen was copied from Wikipedia (credit was later given) as an earlier post on this talk page reveals. Has his biography been copyedited, and if not, should the Rewriting Expedition do the work for SEO purposes? Otherwise this article seems an excellent candidate for SEO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Statues and places named after people

I raised this issue above in regard to George Vancouver, but want to raise it more generally. Do we want to start listing statues of explorers and places named after them in this article? I don't think that travellers looking to understand the history will search these places out. They aren't really "high value" additions to the article. They add bulk to it, but it think they dilute its usefulness as a travel guide. In articles about individual explorers, I think this level of detail would be fine, but here we could end up with a vast accumulation of information that won't be of interest to most travellers. Let's not forgo qualtity for quantity — we'll lose readers by doing so. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. While statues are definitely excellent points of interest, there are probably too many to be included in this article. If someone wants to start an article Statues of famous explorers then that would be appropriate as a separate travel topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• IMHO, per ttcf the main beef here is THE IMMORTAL TRAVELLERS themselves, and one or two mentions or pics of statues won't hurt. As for myself, if you happen to be talking about John Franklin, it's not just the statue but a whole oak-lined public square on the spot of a demolished Government House, that was named after him after he died. No pic was added. I intend to insert as many MAP pics as I can, as their "didactic value" is greater for historic travel content. As for George Vancouver, if you think he deserves a paragraph as fat as I think Cook deserves his (this paragraph might get fatter, by the way), follow me and plunge forward. Ibaman (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand that that's your opinion of what travellers want. I have a different opinion about what travellers want. How about waiting to see what other contributors think travellers want before loading up the article?
  • Another approach is to create branch articles, e.g. create the article for John Franklin and add lots of details and pictures for those who are especially interested in his voyages. I think that would be a good way forward. Ground Zero (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That definitely could be done, but I think articles for individual people violates WV:WIAA and that much detail is unnecessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the Voyages of John Franklin would violate WV:WIIA anymore than On the trail of Marco Polo, or Voyages of Columbus. We already need a Voyages of James Cook article. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess. If there is enough content for Franklin; I’m sure there is for James Cook. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of James Cook, and James Cook only, I reckon I'm happy to have reached a point of mathematical clearness about how he merits his own big fat itinerary in Wikivoyage, which is maybe true of Vancouver, less so of Franklin and Rae and all the others "unworthy of mention" - Vitus Bering is taken care of in Age of Discovery where he belongs. I'm very satisfied with the accurate and tonally correct prose about Amundsen and Shackleton (forgive me for being a real-life homonym of his, and proud of that) that shall only need pics and maps to achieve Star status. I love this topic, I love to plunge forward, I love Wikivoyage, I love you all. Ibaman (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cook sailed around a lot and his travels could for sure have their own article. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta

I have a book about explorers throughout history that has a couple pages dedicated to the travels of Ibn Battuta, a Muslim who completed the Hajj also explored many other parts of the Old World. I don't know much about him, but I think he should be included in this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. The dog2 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, I don't know much about Ibn Battuta. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I actually have a pretty good complete book on Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Battuta, which I read about ten years ago, but unfortunately a forgetful bloke borrowed it from me, so I can't consult it and be of much help here. Ibaman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This place sounds interesting and relevant, but I'm not sure what to make of it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

James Cook and George Vancouver

@The dog2: I'm not sure there's consensus to move those biographies to Age of Discovery. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I plunged forward to do it since we have already defined the "Age of Discovery" to end with them in that article itself. That said, if there are significant objections, I will go with what the consensus says. The dog2 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman, Ground Zero: What do you guys think? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm having a ball on James Cook, he deserves his own page, I told you so. Ibaman (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman: The concern is whether James Cook should receive a brief summary here or Age of Discovery. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that Ibaman has been having fun with Captain Cook, especially after all the grief I have him in the Age of Discovery discussion. He deserves some fun after that. We can go either way on this. Wikipedia addresses Cook in w:Major explorations after the Age of Discovery, so I would prefer to include him in this article. On the other hand, someone rewrote Age of Discovery to say: "For this article, we focus on seaborne exploration and consider the Age of Exploration to end with the navigators Cook, Vancouver, Tasman and Flinders exploring the Pacific in the late 18th century. " I don't agree with that change, but was too tired to fight it. If that part of the introduction isn't changed, then Cook and Vancouver belong in Age of Discovery. Part of the problem is that that article doesn't take the explorer-by-explorer approach this one does, so just dumping their entries in that article doesn't work. Better integration is needed. This could be avoided if someone opens the discussion about when the A o D ended, but that won't be me. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support this timeframe up to Cook, Vancouver, Tasman and Flinders on Age of Discovery, per be fair and collaborative spirit. I'm too a tired of argument. By the way, Vancouver's and Flinders's descriptions could use a little beefing up, I wish I could treat them as familiarly as Cook and Amundsen. Tasman's description from Dutch Empire#Asia and Oceania#Oceania should come handy. Ibaman (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans

w:Indo-European migrations describes a historically important set of events, a huge expansion of one group into new (to them) territory. We do have articles on some of the civilisations these people set up, like Ancient Greece and Persian Empire. Also stuff on some they assimilated or conquered like Indus Valley Civilisation and the Minoans (Heraklion#See). Should we give the Indo-Europeans a section in this article?

I'm inclined to say yes, though not to do the work. However, there are arguments against it. First off, they were more invaders & conquerors than explorers. Second, I am not sure what museums etc. could be linked to. Third, there would be some danger of getting tangled up in some nastiness that we definitely do not need. Hitler's Aryan myth was based on distortions of this history & I believe some of the crazier tendencies in current Indian politics use a different distorted version.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I say no, because first, there are non-cranks who disagree with the w:Kurgan hypothesis and propose for example the w:Anatolian hypothesis and as can be seen with the w:Lachsargument "who were the Indo-Europeans" has been an incredibly contested subject - on all sides. Some wish that "they" are the Indo-Europeans, others wish to claim that the Indo-Europeans were "evil" and destroyed "Old Europe" which fit some imaginary ideal (often matriarchy and pacifism, despite evidence to the contrary). And don't even get me started on Hindu nationalists and their... "interesting"... claims regarding the Rigvedas and Sanskrit, which... let's just say disagree with what Linguists think they know... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• yeah, Indo-Euro sounds to me like a slippery slope, not very suitable for a topic on a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we include names of explorers in bold?

I noticed that Zheng He was the only explorer who's name was in bold, so I removed the formatting. But perhaps we should instead include all explorers' names in bold? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Guide status?

Although this article doesn't use standard formatting procedure, I think it could be considered a valid exception and otherwise is better developed than most other articles on the website. I suggest moving this article to guide status for these reasons. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not yet. IMHO the benchmark Guide status article of historical travel as of May 2020 is Roman Empire. Do, Eat, Drink and Go Next are adequately elaborated there. I wish this part could be taken of before we consider marking it Guide. Ibaman (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Eat and Drink would be appropriate sections for this article. They make sense for destinations, but let's not write a bunch of filler just to complete the sections. Ground Zero (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I don't disagree, I invite you to check out Voyages of George Vancouver which I think readier for such status. Ibaman (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there’s little doubt that article has reached guide status. Thanks for writing it! I’ve upgraded it to guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Long name

We currently have a section Fabian Gottlieb Thaddeus von Bellingshausen. Giving the full name strikes me as unnecessary. Can we shorten it? Pashley (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Done. I'm kind of the nitpicker type, you know. :D Ibaman (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Black explorers?

Anything we should add? Black explorers we should celebrate instead of Columbus. There was also at least one Filipino slave on Magellan's expedition. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the king of Timbuktu who journeyed to Mecca? I forget his name but perhaps he could get a mention. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

w:Mansa Musa? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Hobbitschuster. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Just going on Hajj hardly qualifies someone as an explorer; there have been well-established routes for well over 1000 years. Several prominent explorers like Zheng He & #Ibn_Battuta did do the Hajj, though, & from w:Mansa Musa it looks as though his predecessor did some serious exploration. Pashley (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Polynesian DNA

A new paper using DNA samples to trace settlement routes is creating a stir.

• DNA offers a new look at how Polynesia was settled
• ‘No one could have predicted.’ DNA offers surprises on how Polynesia was settled

Pashley (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of Africa

Homo erectus migrated out of Africa long before the Neanderthals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Great Phoenicia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)