Talk:Travel topics index

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Talk:Travel topics)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Travel topics broken on mobile[edit]

Swept in from the pub

We must think "mobile first", because most Internet users (and certainly most travelers) are on mobile.

Unfortunately, Travel topics is broken on mobile, each line is a bit longer than the "card" it is in, so for instance if you want to read the first paragraph you have to scroll left/right/left/right every 10 words.

The "sub-cards" also look weird because they do not start at the same height (when you are on mobile you can not see that it is the result of vertically aligning pairs of sub-cards).

Communication looks a bit better, but it is not responsive design or anything close. The paragraphs are so narrow that each line only contains 1 to 3 words.

I know wikicode does not make responsive design easy to implement, but I want to bring this positive criticism here in order to make Wikivoyage's experience for mobile users. Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this comment. The pages are attractively formatted on desktop, but on mobile they don't look great. I think a good solution would be to make it so that on mobile, the pages are displayed as just one column rather than two. I have no idea how to implement this, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have brought up the topic here before about mobile functionality. Totally agree should be thinking mobile first. Also have no idea how this is defined and who knows anything about the subject. Who do we ask about this subject? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing might be able to help, or if not maybe she knows someone at the WMF who can help with optimizing for mobile devices. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Syced, Granger, Traveler100:

It looks like Travel topics is built from Template:Topicbox, which means that each item is a small table, and all the small tables are placed inside a big table.

It would look better on mobile if at least the main table were converted to div tags. Maybe something like the responsive system that's used in some of the English Wikipedia's column templates would work. (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admit I had not tested this on mobile. Will take a look but will be a few days before I will have the time. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Traveler100, just a reminder in case you've forgotten about this. Travel topics and other pages with two-column formatting like Boat travel still look bad on mobile. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A single topic area looks better on mobile (Travel topics/sandbox) but not so good on desktop. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be ideal to come up with something that looks good on both desktop and mobile. Going off of User:WhatamIdoing's suggestion, maybe we could copy some code from the English Wikipedia. Would it work to just copy and use w:Template:Column-width? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've created Template:Column-width and used it to implement mobile-friendly formatting in Travel topics, Boat travel, General transportation subjects, and Communication. I couldn't find other articles with the same problem, but if there are others, their formatting should be adjusted too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop the breadcrumbs?[edit]

As I see it, breadcrumbs for travel topics were introduced without consensus, ignoring some completely sensible objections. The most recent discussion in archives is Wikivoyage_talk:Travel_topics_index/Archive_2004-2013#Follow_up; see above that for some of the earlier stuff. There are now many uses of the PartOfTopic template & people are still adding them. The one that brought this to my attention was a change by User:Traveler100 at D-Day beaches.

Since there was no consensus, I would feel justified in reverting all such additions, but I thought I'd ask for comment here first. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The PartOfTopic template guarantees that the article is on the index page and provides a good method of bot clean up processes as well as providing some structure for readers to move to other articles if come to a topic page first. I think it is way past time we did the same for Itineraries. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I agree on adding breadcrumbs to itineraries. I'm surprised they weren't already used. There's enough of them now that breadcrumbs will help improve navigating among them. Gizza (roam) 23:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection to breadcrumbs wherever there is an actual hierarchical relation between articles, for example having crumbs that link dive sites in South Africa to Diving in South Africa. If we have itineraries A->B, B->C->D and D->E trips, then giving them crumbs to an overall; A->E itinerary is natural.
However, as I see it, using breadcrumbs elsewhere causes more problems than it solves; if the relationships are not naturally hierarchical then imposing a hierarchy is just a rather stupid mistake. As I see it, adding crumbs in all topics or all itineraries is exactly that. Pashley (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fine to have breadcrumbs in travel topics. They're part of the Travel topic template, and they're now so widespread that it would be hard to remove all of them or even a large portion of them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject area topics...[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Currently we have travel topics, itenaries and destinations... A few of the ideas I've suggested or started tend to be interest area articles, like Botnaical Tourism, Aviation history, Castles (thanks for starting it BTW), and so on that don't necessarily sit clearly on the boundary between destinations and travel topics, (or don't fit into the destination structure like British Coast.)

So do we need a category for 'thematic interest' articles?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The examples you give sound like perfect Travel Topics, not sure why another classification is needed. In fact I would like to propose scrapping Itineraries and just make all travel topics but index by region as well as topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all well and good, and I am always happy to see more content being created, but I'll point out that as a travel guide we still have so very many destination articles that lack content. People looking for ways to contribute might consider helping us fill out or update or clean up our destination articles. Ground Zero (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New travel topics[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have some ideas for some new travel topics.

  • Star Trek tourism
  • Spanish-American War historical travel
  • Mission Trip survival guide
  • Druze religion travel

Libertarianmoderate (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose at least some of those could be written, but I very much prefer one good travel topic article to a dozen outlines. If you are going to write those yourself, plunge forward, but start with the one you are best at and try to make it reasonably complete before starting the next one. I do not understand what the survival guide is about. If it is about how to survive as a missionary, I suppose it is hard to write sensibly, and easy to fill with prejudices. And I know nothing about Druze religion travel. --LPfi (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think limiting yourself to a few things at a time rather than getting bogged down in myriads of outlines is the better course of action. At any rate, you can also try out ideas that may or may not be fit for mainspace in your user space. Just take the URL of your userpage and add /whateveritisyouwantthearticletobe and then click on "create page". So for example Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject interest travel topics...[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Prompted by the scoping concerns in relation to a user draft, I felt it wise to open a discussion to settle the wider concern about travel topics that focus on a particular interest area, as opposed to travel practicalites. I'm not sure if given the drafting problems some of them are easy to scope, or if they would be better implemented in an itinerary form. I am not expecting there to be any consensus, and so would welcome as many views as possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think as long as the author of a travel topic can prove that the travel topic is related to travel, we should allow it. The problem I see with your user draft, as a start, is how it overlaps with History of justice. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel topics[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Recently some issues have come up over various travel topics and their relevance to this wiki. It's to do with a broad sweep of travel topics that were mostly created around 2015 that have been expanded but, apparently, are not considered anymore to be very travel relevant.

A lot of them are historical, but not all of them. See Wildlife photography, Ancient Egypt, Music, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, etc. They have grown at various amounts, depending on whether editors tried to turn them into quality articles, just salvage them from being stubs, or left them alone completely.

I'd rather see most of these be kept and allowed, but I think the most important thing is that we make an ultimate decision on whether or not we keep these; otherwise, there's a lot of work going into these articles that gets wasted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The four articles you've listed are very different from each other; I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all decision for what to do with them. Better to evaluate each on its own merits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But they're all travel topics, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. If the question here is, "Should Wikivoyage continue to have travel topic articles?", my answer is a firm "yes". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) I don't recall discussion about any of these. The discussion was about one individual article, created today, not in 2015, over at Talk:Ancient Israel.
Although I see there was also some discussion about Ancient Egypt, over at User talk:Mx. Granger.
Either way, it's not relevant here. None of these topics have anything in common. What I see here is a disingenous attempt to drown out legitimate complaints about bad, travel-irrelevant articles by associating them with actually-good articles, rather than arguing an article's merits to find the best solution for the site. No one suggested a global travel topic policy, and no one mentioned those articles.
This was not done in good faith and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth, frankly. I hope I'm badly mistaken. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are. Further explanation coming shortly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't support merging Ancient Egypt with Egypt. The borders don't correspond, like many historical regions, civilisations and empires. I imagine it's the same with Israel. Gizza (roam) 03:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the same with Israel. Some Jewish tribes had land on the East Bank (at least, that is the tradition - I don't know how much history or archeology is behind it), and there certainly are important Jewish sites in the West Bank, for instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I created the mentioned articles (except Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) I feel obliged to reply. Wikivoyage is (and The Other Site was) overall an experimental project without precedent. It is difficult to know which projects will be useful. Some travel topics (such as historical travel and music) might be useful as portals for more elaborate travel topics. /Yvwv (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, many of the travel topics in categories such as historical travel and fiction tourism are well-developed; some have been featured. The four examples above are not representative. /Yvwv (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barabar Caves[edit]

hi guys,
i am new to wiki voyage we are doing project on Barabar Caves - Wikipedia so anybody please guide me how to create travel guide on the we less time as project group i need someone assistance.
Thank You,
Abhishek Singh Abhisal2408 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abhishek: I have posted some information on your talk page. Ground Zero (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question about Bus Route[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have a question about Bus Route, can whether create an bus route of topic guide? Because of the site or place name of the bus, there will be local tourist attractions, and some governments will have sightseeing buses, so I want to ask this question.

There are a lot of bus routes articles on the Chinese Wikipedia that are moved to the Resource page of the Chinese Wikivoyage, I want to know how can formally become the Wikivoyage as an articles.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. A bus route can be a travel topic if it's interesting enough and would have enough content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bus route can also be an Itinerary. There aren't many examples, but look at: Western Isles Overland Route, which a bus and ferry route and Alexandria to Cape Town by train and bus. We have several train itineraries including The Canadian 4466 km long, West Highland Line 264 km. An important point is that the article should be about the bus route from a traveller's viewpoint describing what you see on the way; there should only be basic information on route history, bus types, passenger numbers etc. AlasdairW (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant an itinerary, not a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, AlasdairW: Thanks, I will tried it.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few years ago, there were some discussions about bus route articles that might have been moved from WP in Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?/Archive_2014-2015#Lists_of_Bus_Routes, which concluded that those particular articles didn't belong here. AlasdairW (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passport stamp collecting[edit]

Hey everyone. A considerable part of the travel community are interested in collecting passport stamps. They don't travel just to get a passport stamp but they would go out of their way to get one, and there's a whole facebook group dedicated to that. In the same way that there is a postage stamp travel topic, I think it would be interesting to have one that provides hints to travelers on how to get a stamp (since not all countries offer stamps and some countries only provide that at some and not all borders of entry). For example, in Kulusuk, Greenland there is no immigration to stamp your passport-- even though I arrived via Iceland. However, talking to the souvenir shop employee, there is a legit stamp at that same shop that one could use (this is a legit EU-looking stamp). Anyhow, thoughts? For some insight check out Wikipedia's Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory. Marathonian (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this consideration is within our scope. I'm not sure that a travel topic article makes sense, but it might work. In general we include this information in individual destination articles—see San Marino#Do and Machu Picchu#Fees and permits for examples. It would be great if you could add advice about this to the Kulusuk article. Relatedly, we also have advice about avoiding getting a passport stamp; see Visa trouble. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, ideally it would be best to include that in the relevant destination article but many of them only talk about entry requirements. I guess from now on I can just add that information to the specific destination's page.

Planned cities[edit]

Swept in from the pub

These might make a decent travel topic. There are quite a few around the world & a variety of types: medieval ones like Palmanova and Fatehpur Sikri, planned capitals like Brasilia or Chandigarh, suburban ones like Milton Keynes or Kanata, ... Pashley (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it seems like an excellent travel topic. I'm sure there are many people interested in urban planning. I suggest including other capitals such as Abuja, Canberra, and Washington, D.C. Speaking of suburbs, the various Levittowns may be of interest, but I don't think any of them have articles. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur this would be a great topic. Might collab on it -- it's of a bit of interest to me. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paris is also planned, since the 19th century, and how does the Manhattan grid fit into this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a short section at Architecture#Urban_planning. Initially, perhaps just expand that? Pashley (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's a good idea to start there. If it grows enough, then we can spin it off into a separate article. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perth is also a planned city too, mostly world notable for not having proper public transport. I think we could include the ups and downs of all the major world's planned cities (e.g Brasilia, Canberra, Paris, Perth, Palmanova), as well as general information about them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a great idea.--Vulphere 10:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All cities are planned and all cities have to contend with local geography to some extent. The term "planned city" is thus either tautological or a misnomer. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not true. Some cities exist merely as the accumulation of buildings – one farmer builds a house next to another, and a third farmer builds next to the first two, and eventually you accumulate enough people and buildings that it's called a "city" instead of a collection of people and buildings. A planned city is akin to a planned economy. Imagine the word centrally attached before each of those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. To quote from our sister site, "A planned community, planned city, or planned town is any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land. This contrasts with settlements that evolve in a more ad hoc and organic fashion." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A city, by definition, is not a collection of agricultural houses. A first order definition of "city" could be "place of high population density where most inhabitants are at least one step removed from agriculture". Which means that cities needed agricultural surplus and a society complex enough to administrate and deliver it. And such a society by necessity also has rules and contingencies on who can build what where - at least in cities. For example, tanners had to be outside city walls and downwind from the cities. Roman cities (except, ironically, Rome itself) always had a Cardo and Decumanus intersecting at right angles, and so on. It is also often observable that "planned cities" sensu stricto sooner or later deviate from the "grand master plan" as inhabitants and the next generation of rulers find the plan not fitting their interests. So while "planned city" implicitly claims to sit at one extreme of a spectrum and by implication claims all other cities to sit at the absolute opposite end, the truth of the matter is that all cities are somewhere along the line. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another planned city I can think of would be Ottawa I think. Much like Canberra in Australia, which was built from scratch as a compromise between Sydney and Melbourne, I think Ottawa was a compromise picked by Queen Victoria to end the dispute between Toronto and Montreal. The dog2 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster, Americans (and perhaps others) use the word city to mean a wide variety of things. There are human settlements in the US that are legally considered cities, whose economies are dominated by agriculture, and whose population is less than a hundred people. I remember passing through one-street towns on driving trips when I was a kid, where the official road signs that said "Welcome to City X" and "Now Leaving City X" were merely a short walk apart.
Even if that weren't true, there is nothing in my original comment ("eventually you accumulate enough people and buildings") that says "eventually" the place will accumulate only farmers and agricultural buildings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawa was not a planned city. Bytown, a scruffy lumbertown, was chosen to be the capital (and renamed) as it was on the border of Ontario and Quebec and wouldn't alienate business elites in Montreal and Toronto. But as a capital, it grew organically, and doesn't show very much planning.
Of interest to language fans, the commonly used English term "planned city" is similar to the Spanish "ciudad planificada" and the German "Planstadt", while the French generally use "nouvelle ville" and the Italians use "città di fondazione". Ground Zero (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any way to distinguish a "planned city" from whatever the counterpart is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily in any sensible absolute way. But a city that was first built according to a plan, which can still be recognised in some way, can work as an interesting example. Saint Petersburg and Helsinki were built to be capitals of/in the Russian Empire, although the geography probably hindered a regular layout. Turku was built as a mostly regular grid after the Great Fire. Kostomuksha was built from scratch as a mining town. Hamina was built more or less as a fortress. The original plan can easily be recognised in some features of these towns, and how the town has deteriorated from the original plan can be as interesting as the plan itself. Towns where the original planning cannot be seen any more, and where new plans have been adapted to the existing structure to a degree that there aren't any visible grand ideas are not planned towns in any sense of that designation. –LPfi (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess this term is somewhat vague, but Adelaide was certainly planned out, or at least the CBD, North Adelaide and the surrounding parks were planned by Colonel William Light, and the CBD is laid out in a very orderly grid, much like Melbourne's CBD.
Singapore does not have an orderly grid system, and initially grew organically, but on Raffles' second visit to Singapore, he drew up a town plan, with Kampong Glam for the Malays, Chinatown for the Chinese, Kampong Chulia for the Indians, European Town for the Europeans, and Commerical Square (today's Raffles Place) as the main square for trading. However, modern Singapore no longer adheres closely to Raffles' town plan; Kampong Chulia no longer exists, so if you want to experience Indian culture in Singapore, you go to Little India, which is in a different location from the former Kampong Chulia. Kampong Glam still exists but is largely a tourist area with some historical sities, and if you want a more authentic experience of day-to-day Malay life, you go to Geylang Serai. And European Town also no longer exists, and the white community in Singapore is very small as most of them left after Singapore became independent. So this is another ambiguous case. The dog2 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the CBD is planned, the southern, eastern and south eastern weren't planned. They naturally grew. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way to distinguish a planned town from the normal kind is that for planned towns, you can point to a specific founding date and the specific plan, created by a specific person/group.
I imagine that for most people, the main points of interest will be related to the 20th-century w:New towns movement, with the occasional well-preserved older example (e.g., a "planned town" that was really a palace). Something like tiny German villages and railroad towns in the 19th-century American West (both of which tend to have their two oldest streets meet in a T-shape), isn't going to be as interesting as a w:Levittown. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • as for my home ground Brasília, it was built from scratch literally, from 1956, according to Lúcio Costa's master urban plan of two intersecting axises, like an airplane, I'd say it would be the perfect textbook example of a Planned City, but that would be, you know, too bairristic. Chandigarh (substitute Le Corbusier for Lúcio Costa) and Washington DC (Pierre Charles L'Enfant) are better leads, I guess. Ibaman (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've edited Architecture#Urban_planning moderately extensively. The main thing I know is missing is a list of planned capitals; some are given by Ibaman above. No doubt other things could be added as well & some of my text improved. Pashley (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Erlangen does not have a founding date (the anniversary is celebrated per German convention based on the first mention of the place in an official document). However, parts of the historical downtown are very much laid out on a grid and built in a short period of time with a defined goal and purpose (namely to house newly arriving Huguenots). The old town burned down some years later and was consequently rebuilt in the Huguenot town style. The "Housing Area" was built for the American barracks and also follows a (separate) master plan. Is Erlangen a "planned city"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • another valued debate on this matter is whether Oklahoma City, which started to exist on 22 April 1889, would qualify. I'm not familiar with its urban plan and cannot have an opinion.Ibaman (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not an expert in urban planning, so I would defer to other sources, like Wikipedia, which says "A planned community, planned city, or planned town is any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land." Like a lot of terminology, the definition is not precise and is open to interpretation. That article includes lists of cities that meet the definition, though. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We are dealing with an accepted term used in several languages. Erlangen and Oklahoma City are not on Wikipedia's list. If you think they should be, you can make your case on that article's talk page.
A starting point for this article, or an alternative to it, would be to focus on purpose-built national capitals, which is a more focused topic, and might be easier to start with. Ground Zero (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erlangen likely meets the usual definitions (because there were detailed plans for the 'new' city, and then similar detailed plans to replace the 'old' city when it burned down) and Oklahoma City likely does not (because merely laying out a street grid or drawing property lines isn't usually enough to be a 'planned city').
However, trying to find the One True™ Classification is not our task. Our task is to decide whether a person interested in this subject would be interested in visiting this or that place. It doesn't actually matter if it "is" a planned city; it only matters whether it's an interesting place to visit if you wanted to explore this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listings in travel topic articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I noted that some listings in Public transportation#Museums covering urban rail include phone numbers, opening hours or other details that are prone to change, and none of them link to the listing in the relevant destination article. All instead link to the venue's web site. This means that readers might miss the description in the primary listing and that any updates have to be done in two places or one will be outdated, probably this one.

I think we have kind of consensus that listings should foremost be in the destination article, and a listing elsewhere "would probably just duplicate content that should instead be placed in the main [destination] articles". Should something be written into some guideline, such as (the yet to be created) Wikivoyage:Travel topics?

A listing in an article can be linked using the name of the venue as given in the listing: Brooklyn/Downtown#New York Transit Museum will take you to the listing as long as the name parameter isn't changed. Using the Wikidata ID as in Brooklyn/Downtown#Q6886122 is more reliable as Wikidata IDs don't change, but less obvious (and the listing may still be moved to another page).

Should we start linking the primary listings in secondary listings, such as in travel topic articles: "name=[[Brooklyn/Downtown#Q6886122|New York Transit Museum]]" (or "name=...#New York Transit Museum|...")? I think listings in the travel topic articles should contain just the information needed for the reader to decide whether they are interested in the place listed. If the URL of the place(which often is very relevant to that decision) isn't shown, two clicks would be needed to reach the site, but I think that is less of an issue than that you might have a listing with a dead link, updated in an article you perhaps cannot easily find.

In some articles the link to the main listing is in the directions parameter, leading to the article where the listing is assumed to be. Consistently linking the listing would more or less ensure that editors find the article which really contains the listing, and have them create the listing there if not already present.

(Links in itineraries should probably be discussed separately, as their listings aren't always relevant in other contexts.)

LPfi (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support writing this into the guidelines if it isn't already.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would mostly support this. The only exceptions should be if a travel topic covers a listing that does not have a city or park article, or if it's listed in a topic article but would fail WV:WORSHIP. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I think the guideline should be: only provide the name of the attraction, tell why it would be interesting to the readers of the topic article in question and give an internal link (could be in various forms; I don't have a specific preference and usually copy the style the previous editors of an article overwhelmingly used) to the destination article, the lowest in the geographical hierarchy possible, where it is (or is expected to be, if not already) listed or otherwise mentioned (e.g. the region articles), and leave the further details to that article. As an aside, I've found the topic articles to be very helpful in catching what listings are missing in the linked destination articles. Vidimian (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though before we proceed to rounds of edits removing the extra details discussed here from the topic articles, I'd recommend checking the destination articles to see if they are already provided there, and if not, moving them, so we don't get rid of valuable information once and for all from anywhere at Wikivoyage. Vidimian (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd hesitate to try to require users to use Wikidata links. There's a learning curve and a hassle factor to finding them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we shouldn't. I think we should either just recommend copying the name from the listing (and checking that the link works) or additionally point out the Wikidata option, to be used at editors' discretion when the name might be unstable. –LPfi (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally I support adding this to the guidelines. In most cases I think it is sufficient to just link to the city article without linking to the individual listing - in some cases a topic may have one listing and the city article has two or more (e.g. some cities linked from Art Deco architecture). Many listings don't have Wikidata values and we shouldn't suggest that these need to be created. There are very few cases where a listing belongs in a topic, and so a specialist reader might make an international journey to see it, and yet not in the city article for a general reader who is walking past; an exception might be for very local travel topics.
I prefer to keep the URL in the topic article, as this can point to a topic relevant part of the site for complex attractions and for ease of tracking things as an editor - if I edit the topic, it gets added to my watchlist and then I know if a bot flags the link as dead, but I am probably not watching the city article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The listing template was updated some time ago, and the new version does not show the external link (from the url parameter) if the name is an internal link. Does the dead link bot check URLs that aren't shown? Otherwise either link needs to be outside the template for you to be notified. We should perhaps tweak guidelines or the template. Anyway, I tried to document what consensus we reached in Wikivoyage:Listings (diff) and Wikivoyage:Travel topic article template (diff). –LPfi (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have made a proposal to clarify our advice on this issue at Wikivoyage talk:Travel topic article template. Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization of travel topic destinations?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Travel topics, especially those in historical travel, tend to have destinations in different categories, often Listing and See. In some articles, such as World War II in Europe, there seems to be no system for the category used; in others the Listing is used for cities, provinces and other generalized places which are not specific locations. Stockholm history tour is an attempt to use the Listing category for landmarks visible in the distance, which are not waypoints. Shall we try to use a more generalized system? /Yvwv (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could use a system that lists landmarks, provinces, cities, and other places in a way that is organised and easy to understand. It would also make it easier to compare different destinations and find out more information about them.
How would you go about it? Roovinn (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'd prefer the status quo and treat this on a case-by-case basis. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swept in from the pub

Is there a place for collecting these?

Arlo Barnes (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment, no, but I could see that being a kind of valid travel topic. Something like extreme travel or even just "superlative travel", maybe. I'm open to others' thoughts as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some related pages: Geographical records, Developmental records, Architecture#Record-holding structures, Weather records, Australia's big things. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooh, 'big things' seems like it may be a handy colloquial term. Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a handy but popular term in Australia to describe, well, giant sculptures. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: a few travel tip articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub
Justin (koavf)TCM 14:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf Can we somehow incorporate those article to Wikivoyage? With heavy copyediting, of course. Veracious (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For sure. We already have scams, e.g. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]