Talk:Mount Everest

So this article is looking great, but it's more like a travel topic-- ie the Everest Base Camp Trek-- and not a desintation/region page. I started on Annapurna which is the same sort of place,a region mostly visited by trekkers, but I focused on it as a place first and then plan to have a day-by-day Jomsom Trek and Annapurna Circuit Trek pages... Is there any reason not to move this to Everest Base Camp Trek and create an Everest region page? (WT-en) Majnoona 16:26, 1 Nov 2004 (EST)

When people visit the Everest Region, they trek. There are no major towns to visit, and Everest Base Camp, while being a point to head towards, is often not the final destination. The walk itself is the goal of the journey. Certainly, this page could include additional information about Sherpa culture, the wildlife of the area and even some historical anecdotes about places like Namche and Tengboche Monastery, but it has to be realized that the so called Everest Base Camp Trek is more than just a run through the mountains to reach a destination. The walk there takes the trekker past all the major sites in the Khumbu area, and therefore is an introduction to the Khumbu region itself. Personally, I believe that rather than move the article to the Everest Base Camp Trek page, it should be have supplementary information added. If, however, the article if moved to Everest Base Camp Trek page, then certainly there should be links from the Everest article. Otherwise, many who do not plan to walk as far as Everest Base Camp, but just visit Khumbu may miss the information they need to get around - just my opinion. Steve

I guess I support Majnoona on this one, mainly because doing the article the way you have leaves out a lot of the usual information about each town/village/tiny stopover in the area. Of course, it's unlikely that information can go there right now, unless you're all very familiar with the area, but over time it's nice to have a layout that lets each section grow a list of accommodation, eating options etc etc. This format is a great supplement to that, but it's constrained. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 14:27, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)

Of course, it is good to set up a page following the standard format. However, because this is region, not a city or town, each section, such as 'sleep,' 'eat,' 'do,' etc will need to be sub-divided under the name of every village and mountain pass. In fact, the only sections that will cover the whole subject, and then only partially, are 'understand' and 'see'. However, that is not to say that it cannot be done, but links between the 'Everest Region' and 'Everset Base Camp Trek' pages should be clearly identified. Otherwise, listings will need to be repeated and vititors who are not going all the way to base camp may miss the information they need for traveling in the Khumbu region. Still, as you rightly say, a page established according to the regular format opens it up, making it more inviting for travellers to add information. The current page does not have this quality. Just a few points to think about - Steve

Clean-up time

OK, this article is just a mess. My proposal:

• Make this into a standard region template and redirect Sagarmatha National Park here
• Shift the villages into their own small city articles
• Spawn off the itinerary into an itinerary

Comments before I plunge forward? (I'm not the best person to do this though, since it's been 20 years since I last saw Everest even from the window of a plane.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:36, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)

It's a great idea, but I wonder whether a new format should be designed for regions like Everest, possibly based on the 'small city' format. Although the centers of population along the trek are listed as 'cities', in reality they are generally no more than a few houses - the biggest village being about 50 houses, but with many consisting of no more than two or three dwellings. If each or these villages are designated their own page, as in say the listings for cities in a country, I wonder what information could be used to complete the pages. At a stretch, all the lodges could be listed under the 'sleep' section, though as they are all of similar design and charge a similar nightly rate and there are no street names or telephones, this would only be a list of names. Possibly the 'see' section could have information about which mountains are visible from a particular village. Otherwise, every village is pretty much the same. Also, I wonder of the benefit to the traveler of having this information spread out over 10 or 12 pages. In the 'small city' format, all information is convenietly included on the one page, irrespective of its location within the city - for example, the western part of town may have beaches, while to the north there might be a castle. However, as neither of these districts have enough attractions to constitute being individual pages within themselves, they are included under the general heading of the city in which they are located. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas here. If you decide to plunge forward using the standard region template, I'll try to help where I can as I'm very familar with the region. Good luck!

Let's take it slowly and split off just the biggest places first. Based on absolutely no information of the region, Lukla, Namche and Tengboche would seem to be the biggies?

And the itinerary article should be just that, an itinerary. Detailed info on sights, accommodations, etc should be kept on the article pages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:50, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Ok, man. I'll follow your lead. Let the monster crumble! Ps. In addition to the three places mentioned above, add Khumjung to the list. This village is also reasonbly big. Also, be aware that Tengboche is not a village, but a large monastery with four privately run guesthouses.

I have organized this article according to the wikivoyage Regional Article Template. I am very familar with the region and fully agree with the anonomous contributor above who rejects the idea of having a seperate page for each village. As he/she correctly stated, most villages are no more than a few houses, and following the Wikivoyage policy of 'Traveler First', I see no any advantage to spreading this article out of twelve or more pages. In its current state, it is still open and easy for future contributors to add information. Anyway, this is just my humble opinion. I'm happy to follow the majority ruling on this. (WT-en) WindHorse 8 Jan 06

Nepal vs China

Everest can be visited from both China and Nepal, yet it doesn't make a very sensible region because the only thing the two sides have in common is the big pointy thing between them. I've thus made the rather awkward call to make "Everest" a disambiguator and leave all actual info in Khumbu and Qomolangma National Nature Reserve. Whaddayathink? Should there be some kind of climbing from Nepal vs China info here too, and if yes, what format should the article use? Travel topic...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:48, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

If you can't "get around" from one part of a region to the other, it's not really a single region, is it? If there's common information about scaling the Big Pointy Thing from whatever region, I'd call that article a "travel topic". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:26, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, for the moment, I think the way (WT-en) Jpatokal has set it up is fine. However, if info is added later about actually climbing the mountain, then the Everest disambiguator page can be expanded accordingly. At the moment the information we have only concerns the foothills, and the mountain is just a scenic backdrop. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:35, 4 June 2007 (EDT)