Talk:Pittsburgh/South Side
Add topicI think this needs to be disambiguated-- or is it really the only "South Side"? I can't think of others offhand, but it's sounds like it. Thoughts? (WT-en) Majnoona 13:23, 21 Mar 2004 (EST)
- It is the only Southside in Pittsburgh and the name is well understood and not ambiguous to any local. It is comparable (namewise) to the "oldtown", or "downtown" that you find in many cities. There is also a "Northside", which is where the sports stadiums are and people use these "neighborhood" terms.
- I think you're right that it would be better placed under "Districts", or maybe "Neighborhoods". Your distinction isn't clear to me. Anyway, I'll take a pass at clearing this up but I'm a newbie so you might want to keep an eye on me.
- (WT-en) William M Goetsch 11:57, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)
- Hi Mr. Goetsch! I think MAJ mentioned disambiguation because all of the Wikivoyage pages are at more or less the same level. There are a couple of different ways to do it, but my understanding is that in the case of a neighborhood within a city it would be something like Pittsburgh/Southside, as so not to confuse it with, say, Chicago/Southside. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:03, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)
Tours
[edit]Wikivoyage is really designed with the independent traveler in mind, so as explained in the tour policy, tours are listed only if they are a "value-added activity" that a traveler could not fulfill, in substance, on his/her own. That clearly excludes those ubiquitous tourist buses, and I think it only slightly less clearly excludes Segway tours, which if they are special, are special only because they use Segways (which really doesn't seem sufficient). The boat charters don't fulfill guidelines, in my opinion, for another reason:
"If the tour operator is providing a booking service or general travel planning then it should not be listed."
Boat charters are a general travel planning service (or else the listing is so devoid of information that they seem to be nothing but that). If they are going to be listed anywhere with such a contentless listing, perhaps it could be under "buy," though with prices inserted, but let's discuss that. I'd be OK with it, but I'd like for a consensus one way or the other to develop.
The tours I left up use WWII amphibious vehicles - a truly unusual way to get around - or paddle wheel boats, which are perhaps somewhat less unusual, but I think clearly less common than double-decker buses or Segways. And the one using the less unusual vehicle includes Polish food and polka dancing on some of its tours - again, not a common tour activity. Also, it's easy for individual travelers to fulfill the substance of tour bus tours, but tours on water are not as easy for an individual traveler to organize for themselves.
Do you think I made a mistake and removed too many tours, or not enough of them? Please discuss it here, even if I may not be able to respond in a timely fashion after today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just how common do you think Segway tours are? =) I think they're less common than those seemingly ubiquitous amphibious vehicle tours. A lot depends, I guess, on what you consider the value-add of the activity. In the case of the Segways, I think the Segways themselves are the main attraction, moreso than the actual tour content. LtPowers (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the boat charters listing entailed, since it had no description (so it's fine to take out), but I think riverboat cruises would constitute a value-added activity. So do the segway tours, so I would put that one back in. Though they are becoming kind of ubiquitous... and not just a little goofy ;) --Peter Talk 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you guys want to put the Segway tour listing back in, go ahead - and in that case, I'll refrain from removing such listings in other articles, too. We agree on the river boat cruises. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- They may look goofy, but they're really really fun. LtPowers (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- So one question: Why is Segway polo the example of what activities not to list in the tour section of the activity listings page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's not. The picture is in the "Listing subdivisions and order" section, but I don't think it's meant to illustrate any particular point. It's just illustrative of an Activity. LtPowers (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- So one question: Why is Segway polo the example of what activities not to list in the tour section of the activity listings page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- They may look goofy, but they're really really fun. LtPowers (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you guys want to put the Segway tour listing back in, go ahead - and in that case, I'll refrain from removing such listings in other articles, too. We agree on the river boat cruises. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the boat charters listing entailed, since it had no description (so it's fine to take out), but I think riverboat cruises would constitute a value-added activity. So do the segway tours, so I would put that one back in. Though they are becoming kind of ubiquitous... and not just a little goofy ;) --Peter Talk 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
[unindent] It's meant to be dismissive of an activity, as witness the caption: "Seriously, San Francisco, segway polo?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I definitely put that picture in as an example of an activity, while still poking fun at SF. --Peter Talk 07:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've been interpreting it all the while as an example of what not to list. It should be made clear that such an activity actually should be listed, since that's what you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this discussion belongs elsewhere, but I would make the argument that segway tours should not be allowed. Like Peter said, they're rather ubiquitous. When it comes down to it, a segway is just a mode of transportation used to navigate publicly accessible roads and sidewalks that anyone can get to on their own, so I'm not sure what is fundamentally different about a segway tour from a bus or a walking tour. What's different about a helicopter tour or a river cruise is that generally these things offer a totally unique perspective on a place, one that would otherwise be very difficult for tourists to view on their own. Now, I think you could argue for a provision being made for segway rental companies that cater to tourists, in the same way that we sometimes do for bicycle rental companies. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I said above, with a Segway tour, the operation of the Segway is the main attraction, not the sightseeing. Or, if not that, they're at least equal. The tour company provides the Segways, helmets, and mandatory instruction in the operation of the vehicles as part of the price. It's very different from a walking tour or a bus tour. LtPowers (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps this discussion belongs elsewhere, but I would make the argument that segway tours should not be allowed. Like Peter said, they're rather ubiquitous. When it comes down to it, a segway is just a mode of transportation used to navigate publicly accessible roads and sidewalks that anyone can get to on their own, so I'm not sure what is fundamentally different about a segway tour from a bus or a walking tour. What's different about a helicopter tour or a river cruise is that generally these things offer a totally unique perspective on a place, one that would otherwise be very difficult for tourists to view on their own. Now, I think you could argue for a provision being made for segway rental companies that cater to tourists, in the same way that we sometimes do for bicycle rental companies. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've been interpreting it all the while as an example of what not to list. It should be made clear that such an activity actually should be listed, since that's what you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)