Talk:Mississippi River

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should this page redirect to the USA?[edit]

I know, redirects are cheap, but what exactly does this page do other than create the illusion that we have an article on this river (which we shouldn't) when entering it into the search mask, only to redirect to a place where said river is hardly mentioned. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be best to actually have an article on the Mississippi River, discussing its historical and continuing importance as a river that is navigated for commerce, transportation and pleasure, with links to articles about important towns and cities on the river and coverage of riverboats. It could be an itinerary article. But someone would have to volunteer to start such an article. I don't like this redirect, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems that someone started something and it was promptly redirected on account of the bodies of water policy (which seems to have changed if not in wording than in interpretation), resulting in this rather curious redirect, that - and there I agree with you - seems rather pointless in its current form. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

The overall tone of this article appears to be rather flippant. And then there are the allusions to the "peculiar institution" that the US fought a war to get rid off over 150 years ago... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the article needs work - there are dozens of about a hundred existing destination articles which mention the Mississippi River which aren't even linked from this itinerary. Certainly the term "sold down the river" still exists in American common usage (albeit in a figurative sense) and its origins are in antebellum Mississippi River interstate commerce (much like "sent up the river" refers to the Hudson River and a jail historically upriver from NYC), but the background might be a better fit to "Understand" than "Stay safe". Certainly the literary tourism only makes sense if the historic context is there, race and all ("Huckleberry Finn" fled from Hannibal to New Orleans on the Mississippi River in the book for a reason, after all). The piece also needs things to "see" or "do" on the river itself (such as boat tours or casino gambling) as well as a brief description of the towns it's passing through. I've left this at {{outlineitinerary}} for now; it's better than a redirect to a country-level article but it's far from perfect. K7L (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
"Prepare" is flippant. I found it funny, but if it might offend someone, we could change its tone. Agreed that the historical facts about slavery belong in "Understand" - unless there's a risk of an imminent neo-Confederacy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It would make sense to move the historical background behind the "sold down the river" expression to 'Understand' as the rest of the Civil War history (which immediately followed) is already in that section. My only question: once this is done, do we need 'Prepare' and 'Stay safe' (and would they even be of any use, once rewritten and replaced?) as they're basically going to be a rehash of those sections from the country-level page. Any preparation or precaution would be generalised across everything from a Minnesota state park to New Orleans and the Gulf (so almost as wide a range in conditions as if this were the whole lower US48) with not much itinerary-specific or destination-specific to add here. K7L (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Or they may be obvious words of caution that would be applicable to any body of water with a current and the potential to flood. Inessential sections can always be dispensed with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)