|This article was the Collaboration of the week between 29 August 2006 and 04 September 2006.|
Today's picture of the day on Commons is from Macau. I'd like to see it used in one of our articles, but I'm not sure where it might go so I'm putting it here instead. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't seen that before. I'm sure to check it out next time in Macau! Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Today's picture-of-the-day is also from Macau. It looks as though there are many new Macau photos on Commons, some excellent. Pashley (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Next to the current banner, the new proposal looks like just another dry and boring skyline shot. Texugo (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the current banner is much more striking and interesting to look at. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Much prefer the existing banner. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Current banner Matroc (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Statistics of revenue
I deleted this text because I really could see no value in it. Perhaps this kind of thing is good for Wikipedia but not WV. Also the WV list linked to is completely irrelevant to these rankings, since that is about population size, not tourist revenue. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"A UN World Tourism Organisation list of the top ten destinations in the world by tourism industry revenue treats Macau, Hong Kong and China as separate destinations. Macau ranks ninth on the list while Hong Kong is tenth and China itself is not among the top ten. For the full list, see Wikivoyage:World cities/Large."
- I added it originally, so obviously I do see some value, but I'm not passionately attached to the idea of keeping it. The WV list linked to gives population, top ten tourist destinations by number of visitors (Macau not in that list) and by revenue (Macau 9th).
- Anyone else want to comment? Pashley (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to promote this to guide — possible now that all districts are at least usable — and nominate it for DotM, so I've been doing some copy edits. I'd encourage others to have a look as well.
An issue I notice, but am not sure how to fix, is that currency symbols are not consistent. We have things like $12 and 120MOP, maybe others. Can we agree on one & apply it consistently? I feel rather strongly that $ is wrong (does it mean pataca, HK $, or even US $?), but I might be wrong. Pashley (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- MOP ( w:Macanese_pataca ) should be the standard currency. Slightly complicated because Hong Kong dollars are near universally accepted in Macau.
- MOP 1 is very nearly equivalent with HKD $1, so there isn't any reason to list HKD prices.
- $ should never refer to United States dollars. If it does then we need 'USD' beforehand to make it clear. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why not? Macau should be featured on the Main Page between Oct and Feb, the driest period of the year. As of now we have candidates until October, so now it's probably the time to fix stuff, upgrade the status to guide and nominate the article.
- Concerning the currency notations, it's best to write "MOP", "HKD" or "USD" to make sure readers don't get wrong information. The article could also use a couple more lively photos, but otherwise I see no major problems with it. The districts look decent, but could definitely benefit from coordinates and a couple more listings (especially Eat listings). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- There still seems to be an inconsistency in currency symbols. Macau#Currency includes the text "Prices are shown as $10, for example (10 patacas)." and the $ sign is indeed used in places, but MOP is used elsewhere.
- This should be fixed before the article is featured, and it is scheduled for November. Pashley (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Star ratings are easily abused by marketers, and this article uses them a lot which raises a red flag for skeptical me. The main page has:
- Hotel listings are in the individual district pages. Budget accommodation is one that carries a 2-star rating or below, a mid-range place has a 3-star rating, and a splurge place has a 4-star rating or above.
Several of the district articles have "n-star" labels as subheadings and Coloane describes one place as "Family 4-star hotel that actually feels more like a 3-star hotel." The Cotai article describes both the Hyatt and Four Seasons as 5-star; I think of both as 4-star chains.
- The Mobil Travel Guide (now the Forbes Guide) awarded five stars in 2006 to 32 hotels in all of North America (US, Canada & Mexico); more recent editions award "five stars" to just a handful of US hotels (10 in CA, 7 in NY, 2 each in HI and IL, 1 each in TX and DC, many states zero).
Yes, Macau has a lot of high-end hotels, but does one district really have more 5-star places than New York State?
At the very least, we need a precise statement of what definition we are using for these ratings. Is there an official definition, perhaps the local tourism department? Absent that, all references to them should be removed. Pashley (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Either clearly define what precisely is meant by star ratings or get rid of them. If there is a clear progression by price, we should use that instead imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has been some months since the above discussion & nobody has pointed to a definition. The article is due to be DotM in November, so I'm removing references to stars now. Pashley (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hong Kong workers?
- Non-residents who wish to take up employment in Macau, including those from Portugal or mainland China, ...
I just had a look at where this page ranks compared to its inferior copy, and I am saddened to say that it's Search Engine Ranking could be better. Searching for just the word "Macau" using startpage.com that other site is the first hit below Lonely Planet and Wikipedia, whereas our guide (soon to be featured) does not even show up on all the pages casual observers are likely to look at. This might be due to the fact that copyscape says our article has "11,729 words, 37% matched" and overall "4,341 matching words were found", which to me is both substantial and too much. It may not preclude featuring, but surely those things are - in addition to dead weblinks and the like - the first thing to be targeted when polishing the page. Or am I mistaken there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)