Talk:Natural attractions

Science tourism

Do we really have to link Science tourism from this one? Sure, science is all about trying to understand the (greater) nature, but I don't think any of the museums and such listed at that article relates to the "natural attractions". Vidimian (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do think there are museums showing the works of famous biologists, botanists etc. Not sure if they are (yet) listed in the science tourism article, though. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. And on a closer look, I now see that Darwin's house is already listed over there. Vidimian (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner?

Could we use a more spectacular banner? /Yvwv (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative banner 1

I like this better, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the new one, but please say where it is on the caption. AlasdairW (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization within titles

This seems to be such a common issue in the linked articles that maybe it's best discussed here. As a general case, I would consider phrases like "national park", "state park", "national monument" and the like to be non-proper adjective+nouns, except in the context of specific examples (e.g., Yellowstone National Park). So I would, for example, change United States National Parks to United States national parks. Can we please come to a consensus on how to deal with these kinds of titles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Tropical climates

How is that a natural attraction? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. Argue here if you want to reinstate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason I added it is that it is categorized under "Natural attractions". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh. The reason I categorized it under "Natural attractions" is because Biomes and ecosystems is categorized under "Natural attractions", and "Tropical rainforests" is a biome. If you think of a better place to categorize, please say so. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This may show the fallacy of putting every topic in a category. We didn't use to do that. Why can't "Biomes and ecosystems" be its own category, if a category is really needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Done I've created a category for the biomes and ecosystems article, which is in turn categorized under "natural attractions". Underneath "Biomes and ecosystems" are the two articles, Subtropical rainforests and Tropical rainforests. There will probably be more in the future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, but why is it under "natural attractions" at all? The forests are natural attractions but weather/geographic categories are not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Perhaps it should just be its own category; perhaps it should be added as a new box to travel topics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope

Sorry to be cynical about this, but why is the Indian_zoos_and_botanical_gardens considered a natural attraction? Zoos and botanic gardens are great examples of artifice, albeit trying to catch some element of nature. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new Wildlife category for this and Biomes and ecosystems, etc. It would have to be listed at travel topics if it was a high-level category, of course. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ramsar sites

Swept in from the pub

Do all the Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance have any importance in tourism? Would it be worth writing a travel topic on Ramsar sites? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that this would be of importance to environmentalists more than tourists. Might also be counterproductive because the Ramsar wetlands are places that need to be protected ̈FROM̈ tourists, not promoted for tourism. Just a thought... Mrkstvns (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume they are of interest also for birdwatchers and other people interested in biology, including such tourists. However, there may be better spots that aren't in need of protection, unless you are looking for some specific species or habitat not easily found elsewhere. If you are, you probably already know where to look, or have the means to find out from better sources.

If somebody is interested, and ready to invest some serious work, they could try to expand Birdwatching and write similar articles focused on specific areas of interest, such as old-growth forests. Such content could also be incorporated also in the articles in Category:Biomes and ecosystems (and split out only when there is enough of it). The Ramsar Sites are one starting point, but as Mrkstvns points out, national parks and other less vulnerable sites should be included and mostly preferred.

–LPfi (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there's already an article about UNESCO Biosphere Reserves (which also don't benefit from being advertised to travelers), then I suppose it would be appropriate to have a similar article for Ramsar sites. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

We cover at least one Ramsar site, Olango_Island#See. Pashley (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)