Talk:Science tourism

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This topic is meant to include science museums, so when people have time, we should get to work creating entries for museums like the Air and Space Museum in DC and Cite des Sciences La Villette in Paris. I also think that "natural history" museums like the Field Museum in Chicago belong. Comments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do fully agree. I think some Technical Museums also do qualify as the Technisches Museum Wien. At the moment I just jumped in to get it rolling. --Axisstroke (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can name a museum or ten worth adding to the list. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we split museums and laboratories, as their main activity differs heavily? --Axisstroke (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Sites proper like for example rocket launch sites (BTW is it worth including outstanding constructions such as the English Channel tunnel and Burj Khalifa?) could also be put under a separate heading. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. Thanks for the quick feedback, will do separate headings. Concerning the listed buildings I think they are off-topic for science. You would have to include the Eifel tower and what not. While they are all very impressive indeed, many of them are not scientific "advancements". They might better be grouped in a "Engineering tourism" article. The missile launch sites have a strong overlap with Space, but they do indeed these days launch great scientific missions like the Planck satellite. (: --Axisstroke (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a couple of observatories. Is it worth starting a new category for this? –StellarD (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Yes. One of them should be at Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello StellarD! Why did you remove the map images? The entries listed above miss them. Any other particular reason? Thank you. --Axisstroke (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that some other entries had map images, I wasn't sure if we wanted them. I'll re-add. –StellarD (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
StellarD, add them, if you can visit them, by all means! Danapit (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too broad[edit]

I think this article should be divided up by discipline, e.g.:

Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can question whether some listings are relevant at all. Listings of three arbitrarily selected graves don't contribute very much; one can mention a hundred scientists of the same importance as the three mentioned, with known graves. When it comes to universities and laboratories, we should restrict the listing to those that have some kind of activity for the general public. Some relevant existing categories are paleontology and birdwatching. Volcanoes and similar sites could possibly be grouped within a geology article. /Yvwv (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles aren't divided until they are too big and unwieldy for one article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomy can be another relevant topic, including observatories, solar eclipses, northern lights and some basic astronomic navigation. /Yvwv (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomy is created. /Yvwv (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been kept - the deletion nomination looked like vandalism. AlasdairW (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears only to be used on a Wikidata item Q714439 linked from the article, so there is nothing to do. AlasdairW (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown in the article and not a good photo, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked on the Wikidata item for the Mind Museum (37 on the map). You need to click on the map marker to see the picture, so it doesn't matter to us if it is deleted. AlasdairW (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird listing numbers[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I recently unhid some listings at the bottom of the Science tourism article, and they are all numbered 99. Is there a limit that stops listing numbers from going higher than this? 82.3.185.12 18:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The main solutions are to split the listings into more than one color (which is what we did, for instance, in United States National Monuments) or split the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this phenomenon when I was reading Interstate 5. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The listing template can't handle 3 digit numbers SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the listing type for Universities to "type=maroon". That keeps the numbers below 99 for now, but if more destinations are added, further types will need to be used. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graves and other minor attractions[edit]

This article has a broad theme, with more than 100 listed attractions. We should consider to raise the bar for included venues. Graves of famous physicists might not be interesting enough for a very generalized article on an international level. They might be included with nuclear tourism, or a locally-themed science tourism article. Maybe we should only list destinations which have some kind of organized hospitality, or a recognition as a protected landmark? /Yvwv (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravesite listings are hidden until someone makes a case for their inclusion. /Yvwv (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science_tourism&oldid=4694775"