Talk:Mitzpe Ramon

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I made the article status "outline" since we probably need an address, phone, or other locator for the Eat and Sleep entries for it to be usable. --(WT-en) Evan 19:17, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

The "Crater"[edit]

Makhtesh Ramon is *not* a crater. This is a unique geological phenomenon, and it's scientific name is actually "Makhtesh", as it is unique to the Negev desert and northern Sinai. There are probably only 6 known "Makhteshim" is the world, including the 3 larger ones (Ramon, Hagadol and Hakatan) and two tiny ones in mount Arif, and another one (who's name I don't know) in northern Sinai, close to the border with Israel.

It is not a crater because it is not man-made or created by an impact - but through slow erosion in unique conditions. I found this article in Wikipedia, and this in the Hebrew Wikipedia. None are very informative.

If there are no objections, I will try to fix the article later. --(WT-en) Shahar 06:15, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Well, unless you're a geologist crater just means "a big hole in the ground", which is what Makhtesh Ramon certainly is. But I think the term "erosion crater" is the easiest way to get the point across. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:24, 24 December 2006 (EST)
I'm not saying we should insist on scientific geological terms - my point was that Makhtesh Ramon as well as the other Makhteshim in the negev are a unique phenomenon, which doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and as such it is not comparable to other "craters". (WT-en) Shahar 16:22, 24 December 2006 (EST)
No, it's comparable, because it's a big hole in the ground. But please explain the makhtesh thing in an infobox. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:38, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Black Hebrews[edit]

Aren't they in Dimona, and not Mitzpe Ramon? (WT-en) Shahar 16:22, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Remaining tasks[edit]

Tamuz has done a wonderful job adding content to this article, and I'd like to nominate it for an Off the Beaten Path feature on the front page. I don't think it's quite ready yet, however. The article has to be completely wiki-listified, and if there are any more good photos to come by, it would be wonderful to have a couple more. Anything else you can think of? I love the very clear map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Another issue I see is the placement of the map. Initially I center-aligned it so it doesn't interfere with text flowing. Later it was right-aligned, which might be problematic for screen resolutions under 1280 pixels in width; however, I do agree that the center-aligning doesn't look so attractive. Is there any way to make the text behavior (either wrap around or skip the image) be determined by the window width? If not, I think the best solution would be to put the map in a hide-able box. At any rate, these are the issues I think need handling, and I'll try to finish up anything I can:
  • Fill up missing data on lists Yes Done
  • Add photos from commons:Category:Mitzpe Ramon and commons:Category:Makhtesh Ramon Yes Done
  • Placement of the map I see that's what they do with maps in all other articles, so it's OK
  • Proof-reading and article organization by experienced users, since I wasn't sure whether some items should be put in the See, Do or even sometimes Eat&Drink sections I think it's all OK now Tamuz (talk)
  • The Mitzpe Ramon#Field Travelling section may also need to be reorganized, maybe place some of it under See. Yes Done Split the Do section into Town and Wild and organized them
  • Finding price ranges for all listings
So, good luck to us all. Tamuz (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOC in banner?[edit]

Should this article have the short table-of-contents in the banner, or the full one? My opinion is that it should have the full one, since it has a lot of subsections, mainly under the Do and Sleep sections. Readers might not know where to find what they're looking for unless the headings are shown in the TOC. Tamuz (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All articles get the TOC in the banner. Some subsections can't be directly accessed, but that's true for all articles. Maybe a solution should be found for this issue. Globe-trotter (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding a sub-TOC for the Do section, but it's not really a conveniently-sustainable solution. Any ideas how to make one? Tamuz (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition would probably be the best place to discuss changes to the banner TOC since the problem is not specific to this article. I know the issue has come up before, so there is probably an existing discussion on that talk page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Nomination (Slushed)[edit]

I'd like to nominate this article, of which I'm probably the main contributor, for a star status. Note it's also an OtBP candidate. The only thing I can think of that is currently missing in the article are price ranges for most of the listings, which I do intend to add in coming weeks. I believe the English is just fine, but it'd also help if anyone thinks they can add some flourish. I'd be happy to get feedback about it. Tamuz (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost. Attractive article that makes me want to visit (despite the terrible things I see and read in the news) with an easy tone.
It'll be very nearly there when you've added those prices (don't forget to put the shekel symbol (₪) before the amount, contrary to usual Israeli practice but according to our current $ style guide). One thing that did jump out was the very heavy use of emboldening in the Makhtesh Ramon section.
The other thing I'd like you to consider is that, if people view your article on-line (rather than printing it out,) there is less ability for you and other editors to micro-manage the appearance of articles with exact image placement and widths or how text appears because of the different computer systems and screens (and for registered users, what skins and other user preferences they may have chosen). Many of our most experienced editors have not yet taken on board some features and facts about our operating software and platform. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and duly noted. I'll work to improve the points you've outlined. One question, if anyone has any idea, about the static map there: users with a screen resolution of up to 1280 pixels in width will see the page a little messed up around the map image. Is there anyway to make the text wrap around the map when in higher resolutions, while skipping it for the lower resolutions? Maybe align=center for small and align=right for large resolutions? Tamuz (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are HTML tricks you can use to stop text wrapping around images at all (and MediaWiki image display syntax to achieve very similar effects - the big drawback is that you lose the ability to click on the thumbnail image blow-up icon in the bottom right of your lovely static map). However, I don't think they're worth employing here to remove an artefact that only occurs at certain screen size and zoom combinations. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost. A few non-standard formatting issues, such as the table at the top of the Do section, which is not something we've ever done before to my knowledge (and on my browser, the bottom outline of the table is partially missing). The bullets under "See" are not organized properly, resulting in the double bullet on "The Albert Promenade". I can't view the in-article dynamic map at the moment due to a bug, but it seems superfluous with the good-quality static map already in the article. There are an unusual number of internal (and even intra-article) wikilinks in this article; that's not necessarily bad, but it is different, and we should evaluate whether it's excessive or not. LtPowers (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know that you can't view any in-article dynamic maps at the moment due to the way certain browsers refuse to display any non-secure content when you are using a secure (https) connection. However, if you click the (currently) horribly placed and entirely un-intuitive icon placed above the top right of the "banner" you'll be able to see it in a new (insecure) window or tab: . This, of course, is no reason to delay this article's promotion. Using Firefox 23.0.1 under Windoze XP SP3, I also don't see the bottom right-hand outline of the helpful table. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the shape of the table, the central column is intentionally longer than the other two, since it has more bullets. If you think this unaesthetic, it can easily be changed. Generally, I'd be happy to find a better solution than this table, but as LtPowers pointed out, there's nothing of the sort in any other article right now, so I just improvised something. I do believe that something of the sort is necessary, since the Do section over there is pretty complex and needs some internal TOC. By the way, about the map, the static one is mainly for the wilderness attractions while the dynamic is for the stuff inside the town. And, LtPowers, I'll look over those things about the See section and the links and re-edit them. Thanks for your comments. Tamuz (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the table problem is obvious from the code: You have a rowspan=2 on the middle column. That doesn't make the column any longer; all it does is cause the browser to expect an additional row underneath it that doesn't exist. Since it's expecting the cell to extend down into a non-existent row, it leaves off the bottom border. As for the necessity of the table, I don't think that Do section is particularly long or complex, and since it's not obvious that the table is an index or ToC, I think it causes more confusion than it resolves.
W. Frank, I'm well aware that I can view a dynamic map by clicking on the link, but that tells me nothing about how it appears in the article, which is of paramount importance. If it does indeed show a different view than the static map, then I would also need to see it to determine if it meets our map requirements for star status. LtPowers (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LtPowers: you may make your assessment by logging out and then choosing a non-secure connection to display the entire article. Alternatively, you might accept that since currently, both the {{Mapframe}} and {{Geo}} templates have been given the same parameters of latitude, longitude (for the map centre), zoom level and layers that are shown, looking at a full screen map gives you sufficient idea of what the embedded map would look like if you don't want to go through that rigamarole while we are (hopefully) waiting for that bug to be fixed. --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "missing line" thing in the table was known and intentional, but it was just an aesthetic decision so nevermind it. However, I still believe in the necessity of that sub-TOC, because different people would want different things: parents with children would probably want the Town attractions and the lookout points, hikers take more interest in the Wild section, and some of the tourists would stick to the Guided Tours. If the entire section fit into one screen-size there was no problem navigating it, but even with my 1080-pixel-high resolution it takes about 2½ screens (and there're a lot of people with smaller screen resolutions) of sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, making navigation a little hard. By the way, I do believe the same goes for San_Francisco/Golden_Gate#See, Yosemite_National_Park#Do and probably other articles; the fact it hasn't been done till now doesn't mean we shouldn't start; and since I probably haven't found the ideal way to do it, we can check and see if some other designs work better. (All that said, of course I won't object if there's consensus that it should still be removed) Tamuz (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points; I think your solution works and effective innovation that is not directly contrary to established policy should not be a bar to star status. More thought definitely needs to be devoted to how different travellers will see and use our articles. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm seeing the dynamic maps (both the internal and external ones) with only Hebrew captions. Is it just me because of my IP location in Israel? Do you see them in English (or your local language)? Tamuz (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm in Glasgow, Scotland (and almost invariably use a Scots IP) and I'm sorry to say that I also only see Hebrew captions. Bit of a bummer, eh? Are the local street signs bilingual? --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with your location. The map material comes from from OpenStreetMap, whose maps in many cases are only available in the local script. However I've understood that OSM is a kind of a wiki, so the Latin transcription of the captions will probably be added by someone in the future. I just went and looked at Beijing and now some streets there do have their names romanized, while absolutely everything was written only in Chinese characters about a year ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No biggy, I just wanted to know. As it is, I'll gradually get around to translate the street names in OSM, which indeed is a wiki. Anyway, roadsigns in Israel are always in Hebrew, Arabic and English, as are the street signs in almost all cities, Mitzpe Ramon included I think. Tamuz (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, I'm thinking of undoing some of your changes to See to make it look more or less like this version, for two reasons: (a) The crater itself (#4 on the list) isn't exactly a See item per se (being a large area, not an exact one-point attraction), however numbers 5 & 6 (the viewpoints) are definitely See items, directly related to #4, and therefore should be its sub-items on the list; and (b) The current phrasing makes it appear as though the Desert Sculpture Park and the Observatory are also viewpoints for the crater (they are in fact not far from the ridge, but aren't particularly good viewpoints, and I hadn't intended these items to appear as such). Any objections, anyone? Tamuz (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you're the local expert and it's "your baby". I only changed the formatting because I assumed (wrongly?) that there was a distinction between "Prominent viewpoints from Mitzpe Ramon" and "Additional viewpoints outside of Mitzpe Ramon" (my italics added). It's looking good, eh? --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a distinction, only that the previous wording made it look like the Sculpture Park & Observatory were also considered "viewpoints", while in fact they are unrelated attractions. Anyway, I looked it over again and realized that this confusing wording actually came from my earlier edits, so now I changed it. And yup, I really think we're putting the final touches needed for Star status. Tamuz (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd like to ask your opinion on several subjects regarding that page, some of which were pointed-out in the above discussion. If you have any opinion, please write it here, even if your opinion is that things should stay the way they are now. Tamuz (talk)

Pictures[edit]

Do you think there too many? Too few? Or is it good now? I've also looked in my smartphone and I think it's OK as it is, but I'd like to confirm that.

Personally, I think you're pretty much atthe "Goldilocks point" for a "...small, somewhat remote town..." --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

LtPowers pointed out there's an unusual abundance of links. I've looked it over and removed a few, but not many. Regarding the section-links, I believe they make this article much more easy to use. Anyone thinks I may have overdone it?

Not me. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any notes about wording[edit]

Any notes about formatting[edit]

  • For this one, there seems to be a broad consensus about promoting. Please speak up if anyone has any outstanding objections. If not, I will promote this in the next day or so. — Ravikiran (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but it's still not ready. There's no "Wikivoyage-style map" of the settlement (just the crater) and the second item in the "Go next" section lacks a link to another article. See, Do, Eat and Drink, and Sleep all need introductory paragraphs providing an overview of the offerings, including highlights. There's a "See map below" link in the "Get in" section that's broken. And I'm afraid the language in the article is a bit stilted and doesn't meet our requirements for star. There's no doubt this is a Guide, but Stars have higher requirements. Powers (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slushing this then. Thanks — Ravikiran (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Tour companies[edit]

Some touting by Desert Prime was reverted by Ibaman. Unfortunately, it turned up again immediately and no one really cared about it.

But in general, do we not have that rule that we do not list specific tour companies? So, the whole Mitzpe_Ramon#Guided_tours should actually be remove, shouldn't it?

As a trade-off I would still retain the specific activities, if not already mentioned before.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitzpe_Ramon&oldid=3594083"