Wikivoyage talk:About

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search


Shouldn't this page list the other pages in the wikivoyage: namespace? I'm trying to find some general discussion pages and/or links to a mailing list, but navigating the wikivoyage: namespace is hard (I've done it mostly using recent changes now, which is sort of ugly).

Uh... I tried to do something like that out of Project:Welcome, newcomers and Project:Help. Any suggestions for how to structure this? -- (WT-en) Evan 22:06, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)
A meta-frontpage in Project:About with lots of links would be a good place to start, I think. Although for discussions, I'm going to be a wiki blasphemer and say that a mailing list might be a better place to discuss general, non-page-specific issues about Wikivoyage. My mailer is so much easier to use than a web form... --(WT-en) JZ

As a first entry page, I don't think it's all that important to discuss the wikitext standard. Consequently, I removed the link. --(WT-en) Evan 11:12, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this inquiry but here goes--- I am currently building a web presence for a backpacker's eco-hostel near Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil. The web site will address every major tourist attraction in Brazil and I plan on using a wiki to do it with. I know I and my wiki users will be able to do a very good job of showing the attractions Brazil has to offer. There must be people in other countries with projects similar to mine and yours. My proposition is this: instead of just trading links maybe,just maybe we might consider sending pages to each other to add to the pages on our home web sites. This would be easy to do using either the edit button and even easier if each wiki had a file upload mechanism like tikiwiki. This would add value( and content) to everyones' web site and help fill in the blank spots in our coverage also. I will be ready to implement this in about a month. At that time I will upload my base pages to your wiki. If you are interested in reciprocating please contact me. Thanks! GringoJack


Unfortuneately your page on Monterrico only covers half of the hotels. You might know that on the left side of the calle principal (the side of the Animal Desconocido) There are 4 Hotels which you do not mention. El Delfin, La Sirena, El Hotel Cafè del Sol and the Eco Beach Place.

For Hotel Cafe del Sol please visit . you will notice that there is a new style of Hotels being created that will give Monterrico a more upscale imgage than it had 5 - 10 years ago.

Thanks very much for updating your page. For all information I am ready to help Thomas and Flor de Maria Stutzer-Rodrìguez Hotel Café del Sol, Monterrico

double 160Q weekend 140 weekdays triple 250 with view of ocean cuadruple 250 Q 4-6 persons 300Q

Hey, I love that snazzy footer you guys are using. It doesn't appear to come stock in the MediaWiki installation.. how'd you do it? -- Sy

The credits block? It's standard in 1.3.x versions. Look in DefaultSettings.php for $wgMaxCredits. The default is zero, since Wikipedia didn't want to use this feature. --(WT-en) Evan 11:24, 2 Dec 2004 (EST)


I've added a link back to to the About page, so that people can still find the original if they stumble on a clueless/careless mirror. (Example of the day: [1]). (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:12, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

Logbook - Empty pages[edit]

Someone suggested the Logbook is [a bunch of empty pages?].

I removed the comment because the Logbook has just not been updated recently. I have now updated the page to the end of the year. Hey, Thats tomorrow! -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:41, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

about Wikivoyage[edit]

Swept in from the Travellers' pub:


I got impatient waiting for T-shirts. So I make a CafePress shop. Everyone can order a Wikivoyage T-shirt. The markup is 0. I hope someone can make a better design. But I will order my first Wikivoyage T-shirt in a week. I had hoped to come up with a more eye-catching back, maybe using some of the more spectacular photos on wikivoyage, but that is hard and a lot of work. --(WT-en) elgaard 20:39, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Good start, but the logo font on the back is not the right one, and is all that explanation text really necessary? I'd go more for a bare-bones just-the-logo-ma'am model, and would be happy if a few bucks of markup went to Evan's (currently non-existent) donation box. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:50, 29 Sep 2005 (EDT)
FWIW: If the font is wrong then that's not really the logo. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:02, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I'm sorry that you got tired of waiting, but I can't say I'm happy about the situation. Elgaard, is there at least a way for you to make a note that that's not an "official" T-shirt, and that the money paid doesn't support the Wikivoyage project? --(WT-en) Evan 08:08, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Of course. Don't be sorry, I just wanted to get a T-shirt project going. I will order a T-shirt next week because I will be going to north America so shipping will be less. I hope we can come up with a much better, official Wikivoyage design. Then I will order another T-shirt and close my Cafepress test-shop or hand it over. I added some text, hope you are more happy about that. --(WT-en) elgaard 11:56, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Could we start a T-Shirt design contest page, like the logo contest page? --(WT-en) elgaard 12:04, 30 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I don't really see the point of a t-shirt competition; a logo somewhere on the shirt should suffice. Probably the thing that was bothering Evan wasn't the design so much as the possibility that people might think they were buying official Wikivoyage merch'.
That said you should probably switch the logo on your shirt to the actual logo Image:Wikivoyage logo bigtext.svg. This has the text converted to outlines so that you don't have to have the right font. The shape of the letters by the way is considered part of a logo. It's not the same without it. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:11, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Mayby I put too much text on it. But a logo is not enough. I want people to see it, get interested, start using Wikivoyage and contributing. This means that there should at least be a URL. The URL can be guessed or googled but if we do not print it on the T-shirt, many will not be looking on the internet for wikivoyage. I would also like somthing on the back, simple like WikiPedia. Maybe "Edit this destination"?. And should we have Official Wikivoyage merch? --(WT-en) elgaard 10:06, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Fine, but please at least fix the logo. -- (WT-en) Mark 10:09, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I fixed the logo, and made a simpler design with only the logo on the front. --(WT-en) elgaard 19:42, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I got my T-shirt. I am very pleased with it, the new logo looks great on cotton. But I was hoping we could get an official Wikivoyage T-shirt. Is there any plans for that? --(WT-en) elgaard 11:08, 27 Oct 2005 (EDT)

6500 articles?[edit]

The statistics page says that we have more than 6500 articles. Considering that it was hovering around 5500 on saturday, it looks like a bug to me, unless someone really dedicated added over a thousand while the spam attack was going on. I would of course be happy to learn that the earlier numbers were wrong and we really do have that many articles. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 04:00, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

You're right, Project:Multilingual statistics says it was still 55xx on Friday. On the Japanese version, we noticed that it now counts redirects as articles for some reason, has the same happened in English for some odd reason? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:30, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)
That must be the problem. I'll look into it and see if I can come up with a fix. --(WT-en) Evan 11:42, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Any progress? Otherwise we'll soon be in the embarrassing situation of having the 'official' total multilingual article count top 10,000 while the actual number is still only around 8,500. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:30, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
And Project:Multilingual statistics the count says 10,087. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:40, 27 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Bump. Any progress? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:17, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)
I ran a "recount" script on all of the language versions; it seems to have re-settled the counts to pre-upgrade ranges. So, I think this should be OK now. --(WT-en) Evan 09:22, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)

On de:, redirects seem to be counted as articles, too. I have anounced the 1500th de: article in the logbook, but actualy, I don't believe it. We have had a couter jump of about 120 articles at 9 October without any editing. -- (WT-en) Hansm 07:52, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

Well, the same recount that worked for en: was done for de: and all the other language versions. The count you have is as accurate as I can give. --(WT-en) Evan 09:10, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)
Well, then we have 1500 articles. Anyways, just a number. -- (WT-en) Hansm 09:34, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

No really, who are you?[edit]

Looked through the FAQ and couldn't find an answer to this question. There's all sorts of fluffy talk about it being "your" wiki, and you make it what it is. But who pays for the server and network resource? What's the business model? I need to know that there's a sound business model to know that the site will have continuity that means it's worth contributing to. (WT-en) Duckbill 12:33, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)

There is no "business model". It's not a business. Right now User:(WT-en) Evan and User:(WT-en) Maj pay for the hosting out-of-pocket. If for some reason they can't do that any more at some point in the future somebody else could very easily take it over. You could for instance, since you have all of the data, and a license to use it. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:40, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)
I would have thought (WT-en) Evan and (WT-en) Maj pay for the hosting and the rest of the Wikivoyage contributor community volunteer to maintain the website by mutual agreement was a business model. If (WT-en) Duckbill is concerned about the continuity of the project then he only need ask if (WT-en) Evan and (WT-en) Maj are prepared to continue to pay the bills and hope that the community will be prepared to continue to support Wikivoyage. Judging by the community activity and enthusiasm at present, I feel the risk of failure is probably less than some major companies in the stock market. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:07, 13 Dec 2005 (EST)
I agree with User:(WT-en) Duckbill. It would be good to have an article that says who Wikivoyage is organisationally, who pays the bills, the relationship with Wikimedia Foundation projects, etc. It's not that I lack confidence or don't like the way it's done now, I just want to be sure there's no dark corner there with surprises lurking in it. I'd support creating an article and starting it with (WT-en) Mark's posting of 12:40, 12 Dec 2005 (EST) above. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 13:34, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia's sister project[edit]

If you insist your goals in creating WikiTravel cannot be met using Wikipedia, why not register WikiTravel as a sister project to Wikipedia? It would increase your visibility and help people looking for travel info.

It's not quite as simple as "registering". Wikipedia and its sister projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and Evan & Wikivoyage's admins (currently?) don't need its support. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:12, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

Search Plugin[edit]

Why is there an external link to a Firefox search plugin on this page? It was added by a user who has made no other contributions [2] and seems somewhat questionable for such a visible Wikivoyage page. It's already listed under Project:Software tools, so is there any objection to removing it from this page? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:04, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

Given the lack of objection I've removed the link. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:02, 15 March 2010 (EDT) <=>[edit]

What is the connection between and It seams to me they have a lot of articles in common but not the same. Why are there two and which is more up do date? I can't do double effort and put my stuff in two wikis...

Please take a look at Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Plenty of interesting/lurid reading ;) --Peter Talk 04:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


I have merged all content from Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers to its own section here, per Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyagers#Purpose. --Peter Talk 05:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyagers and Wikivoyageers[edit]

This page, Wikivoyage:About, explains what a Wikivoyager is. But what is a Wikivoyageer, which is a word used on a number of pages in the "Wikivoyage:" namespace. Is a different meaning intended, or is it a spelling mistake? I haven't looked at all the instances, but in the ones I looked at, the spelling was made by ImportBot. In this edit, ImportBot changed "wikitravellers" to "wikivoyagers" and "wikitravelers" to ""wikivoyageers". Seems weird to me. Is it a mistake? Nurg (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Look like a spelling mistake. This is something needs to be fixed asap. --Saqib (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A Wikivoyageer is of course a privateer working at WV. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi, who is Wikivoyageer (privateer working at WV) here? --Saqib (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know of anyone. But it sure sounds funny and would fit into the WikiFauna. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why WV[edit]

Do we need a page on "Why WV?" --Saqib (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BUMP! --Saqib (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I had moved stuff from "Why WV" page to here a long ago. Would somebody cares to copyedit it please. Perhaps Ryan might be interested? --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Travel guide showdown[edit]

Swept in from the pub

See here It's Fodor's versus Lonely Planet. May be of interest to some of us. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for linking this. Yes, it's very interesting. I'll quote a portion that because of the length of the article should easily fall within fair use:
Neither of these will do you wrong when you travel, but each is better suited for a certain type of traveler. Lonely Planet throws more information at you than you’ll ever need, which is a good thing because you’re getting a ton of bang for your buck. Even though Lonely Planet guides can be more expensive than Fodor’s guides, they’re still worth every penny. But that massive amount of information also means you have to comb through it all yourself to plan your trip. It tells you places you should go to, but it doesn’t always show you. So think of it more as a list of suggestions and not an essay exploring the wonders of various corners of the world. If you’re okay with that, Lonely Planet is the best pick, period.
Fodor’s guides, on the other hand, are a more curated experience and better suited for the “show me the way” type traveler. And they’re a lot more fun to actually read. Their books have less information overall when compared to the exhaustive amount found in the Lonely Planet guides, but it’s information you can live without (or could find somewhere online).
So which kind of traveler do we try to appeal to on Wikivoyage, and what kind of writing are we cultivating? It would seem that we are more commonly addressing ourselves to somewhat adventurous independent travelers and leaving people who want to know more details about attractions and places to do more research on Wikipedia and other sites, but there are some very clear exceptions, especially among Star articles and the very best and most complete of the Guide-level articles (I'm thinking, for example, of the Buffalo guides, the Chicago guides, the Singapore guide, some of the guides to hiking and hiking spots in Israel). As for writing, I think that Wikivoyage:Tone is suggesting writing that's less dry and more fun to read, but again, most of our articles aren't there, at least not yet.
What do the rest of you think? What kind(s) of traveler should we have in mind while writing and editing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I personally try to write for the traveller who wants a deeper level of information and a more holistic understanding of the destination than you'll find in either LP or Fodor's - not just what there is to see and do, but what its significance is in the grand scheme of the place. But I think it would be unrealistic to expect every author to come up with something as expansive as the Buffalo articles. I think the definitive answer to your question is that the nature of the wiki format is such that trying to corral all editors into writing in the same tone or with the same type of reader in mind would be a fool's errand. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right about it being a fool's errand, but it's still good to talk about what our orientation and purpose(s) are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I don't contribute here as much as I would like but in my mind, I think of our guides being very exhaustive and complete ideally since the difference between a fairly brisk guide to (e.g.) Indianapolis versus a thorough and complete one is honestly not that great: the difference between a 30-minute and a three-hour read, maybe? If our guides were truly exhaustive and someone were just going to a specific locale then it wouldn't be a problem. Someone who wants to visit the United States will, of course have a lot to pour through but that's inevitable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I gave some thought about what style I've used in the articles I've contributed most to, and then decided to write an "Understand" section for the article about the East Village, where I live. I think it will need subtitles and also should have more names of relevant buildings, which should be bolded. I fear someone may find it too detailed for a travel guide, though, and it's possible that it may have a bit too much of a resident's view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you mean this current revision, that is not too detailed: for most readers that would only take a few minutes—a lot could be gained but altogether very little lost. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean. I added a few subtitles and some bolding, but I expect it to be edited some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. I try to aim for somewhere in between LP and Fodors, probably closer to LP as I like to have a pretty complete list of listings if I know the place well. That said, the travel guides I buy have changed as my life has. As I've moved from backpacking on my own to travelling with kids, there are fewer LPs and more Fodors/Rick Steves -- I just don't have the time now to read something something as in-depth as LP (plus young children change the focus of attractions). I agree with Andre that the wiki format will make it difficult to corral editors, but I also think the wiki format and our policies combine to make our guides more about listings and figuring out what appeals to you. I think curation implies leaving some things out and/or ranking attractions, etc. and it would be difficult to come to achieve consensus on that. -Shaundd (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
"I think curation implies leaving some things out and/or ranking attractions, etc. and it would be difficult to come to achieve consensus on that."
It would be difficult and, more importantly, IMO an extremely bad precedent to set. It's very important to me as a Wikivoyage editor that writers not be straitjacketed into working within an overbearing formal structure - forced to choose between a range of preselected attractions or types of attractions, counseled to stay away from anything "unimportant" at the expense of omitting worthwhile but off-the-beaten-path gems that are precisely the kind of things we could use to differentiate ourselves from other travel guides. I think our policies provide just the right amount of structure to keep the whole project from descending into anarchy while preserving editorial freedom as much as possible, and I think the current approach to places with an abundance of coverage - geographical subdivision rather than curation - is pretty close to ideal. I would be extremely dismayed if we started taking a tack like you described above.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, a propos ranking sights, look at how I structured Siena#See. I think that structure for Siena is completely obvious and unassailable, and that we shouldn't be afraid to use it in such situations, though they're somewhat unusual. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating we take a Fodor's approach and curate our content more. I like completeness in a guide -- so we don't omit worthwhile off-the-beaten-path gems -- but it makes it important to write and structure the guide so large amounts of info can be easily digested. Our best guides do this but many don't (yet). I'm not so against ranking. I often find the Top xx lists useful. Even if not everything on the list suits what I want to see or do, if I only have 2-3 days in a large city I find they're a good way of breaking through large lists of attractions. What Ikan pointed to in Siena works, too IMO. Anyway, I'm not pushing for a change. I think the structure of WV favours completeness (LP-style guides) and we should play to our strengths. -Shaundd (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like we are in agreement. If I were in Siena, I would add more points of interest to the "See/Secondary sights" section, but from New York and 18 years removed from my last trip there, I don't have an easy time adding much more (maybe a loggia here or there). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I would say we should be rather exhaustive, having most points that are of interest to travellers, like LP. On the other hand, our Itineraries should guide the traveller like Fodors. See for instance Three days in Singapore which has your schedule decided for you and tells you exactly where to go, how, what to look at, and what to eat. Syced (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Shaundd's comment about changing interests or needs over time interests me. This isn't exactly a vote for a particular style, but I think it might be interesting to make a list of (strictly optional!) suggestions for article content that target different types of travelers. I'm sure that we could come up with a better list, but here are some ideas I had offhand:
  • young children (a playground with public toilets?)
  • teenagers (cool gaming shop?)
  • backpackers (showers? hiking trail?)
  • wheelchair users (accessible restaurant?)
  • non-drivers (a group of hotels/restaurants/attractions within walking distance of each other? location of bike lockers?)
  • long-term visitors (laundry facilities near a recommended hotel?)
  • larger families/groups (hotel with large suites?)
  • people with restricted diets (Kosher restaurant? Vegetarian restaurant?)
I think if we had a list like this, then I might use it to come up with some ideas about what to include in articles. I probably couldn't think of something for every type of traveler, but I would probably think, "Oh, right, I should mention that this attraction has good wheelchair access (or doesn't have, which can be even more important information), and it'd be easy to add in that playground, and the directions for that restaurant should say that it's next door to that hotel..."
I think that including some content that is specifically useful for different types of travelers would be feasible for most articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
In some cities no sane person would consider the proposition of driving a fun activity and we usually say so in our "get around" section. However despite a good start at United States without a car some of our articles are indeed written with too much of a "car is the default" point of view, so we should keep that in mind. As for playgrounds... I don't really think they should be mentioned in a travel guide. Most people with children in the playground age group will want to do something else with them when on holidays. We should absolutely mention attractions that cater to them (e.g. does the theme park only have "grownup" rides or ar there some things targeted at the very young crowd?). For accessibility we might wish to include a symbol or a parameter to check in our listings. (e.g. "disabledaccess" or "wheelchairaccess" with a simple yes no question) this might not be the be all end all solution to this, but it is a quick and easy fix and does not require many words once the software is in place (please don't ask me whether the code is easy to write). In some cases it would probably make more sense to break down certain listings by category instead of / in addition to price (e.g. "Mexican" "kosher" "sausages" etc.), but I think we already do that for some cities. As for tone, I have always found LP in English a refreshing read that does not translate well into German. I fear that German WV also has a tendency to a more bureaucratic tone than English WV. And no, I don't know an easy fix... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to list special or particularly good playgrounds. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. I think the main reason not to mention playgrounds is that it is unclear which ones are relevant (the one that would fit between that giant museum and the hunt for somewhere to eat with children, but if you have a different itinerary, it would be another).
I think it is a very big mistake to forget those small things "you could do at home", when going abroad with small children. The small things you are used to do at home give the children comfort and a chance to relax. A 10m×10m playground can indeed save your day. I would include some such if writing an itinerary for families, but they would clutter guides on any but the smallest towns.
--LPfi (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that playgrounds are best for articles specific to family/travel with children. I think they would clutter and annoy people if we put them in the main city travel guide article. We have a general start-up article for Travel as a vegetarian. Vegan redirects there but is admittedly not actually addressed in the article.
I feel like handicap accessibility was brought up a long time ago and people were against it. I could be wrong but the reason might have been because it would make it difficult to make articles star articles if handicap accessibility were part of the listing templates (which would make it necessary to fill them out). I personally think it's worthwhile and would definitely be a way to set ourselves apart from other guides in a meaningful way. I would suggest though having three categories: "accessible", "not accessible", and "partially accessible" with space to explain if "partially accessible" is chosen. An article for the travel with the blind could also be useful. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
First, on playgrounds: Just as listings for amusement parks don't "clutter up" articles for people who want to skip them, if playgrounds are particularly special, listing only those playgrounds won't "clutter up" articles if they're set off in a clearly titled subsection. But that said, the most usual way to mention a playground or a few would be just to state that they exist, in a listing for a park.
Second, on accessibility: I strongly support mentioning this. It's hard to be thorough in including it in every listing, but that's no excuse to oppose its inclusion as a goal, in my opinion. I don't remember people opposing the mention of accessibility in previous discussions, and I'd find such opposition shocking. Perhaps what they were opposing was a specific template field for it, but I'd actually support that. I don't know how helpful I could be in contributing information, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A non-compulsory field in the listing templates could be a good start. I do hesitate myself to put in that information without guidelines from somebody who knows the issues. There might be a ramp that is too narrow or steep or has too tight turns – if I say "yes, accessible" somebody might come in a wheelchair and get stuck (I do include such information occasionally, when I find official statements). Do we have wheelchair users among us? If not, writing guidelines for accessibility information is a quite big project, where we should involve handicap organizations (perhaps starting with some specific countries). --LPfi (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine, but "wheelchair accessible" is a small subset of "accessible". An amusement park can be wheelchair accessible without providing the least bit of thought for access by people who are Deaf, blind, or autistic, to name just three examples. I've even seen wheelchair accessibility that makes physical access harder for people with other problems. When a long, gently sloping ramp replaces (rather than supplements) a short flight of stairs, it can be a nightmare for someone who has difficulty walking. If we want a "yes, accessible" checkbox, then it should be labeled specifically for wheelchair access.
Wheelchair access tends to be very uniform in the U.S. Pretty much, if you see a ramp with handrails in the US, you can safely assume that it's sized to accommodate standard-size wheelchairs. I was really thinking of something that goes beyond the minimum (although in some countries, even the minimum is worth noting). For example, most wheelchair-accessible toilets are required to have one grab bar, but having one on each side is better (what if you're using a wheelchair due to a stroke, and the only grab bar is on the side with your weak arm?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I chose wheelchairs exactly because I think it is a well understood issue :-) If it is safe to do such assumptions in the USA, very good. But I even do not know what can be assumed in Finland or Sweden (although we tend to be good at standards). The point is that you need to have some understanding of the issue to make useful assumptions or assessments. We need guidelines for that. --LPfi (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On playgrounds:

  • I don't see how you could usefully limit this to a travel topic for families. It's all very well if Traveling with families says "go to a playground", but that doesn't help you figure out which parks in any particular city have a playground, much less which ones could be recommended.
  • Searching for "playground" shows that the word appears in about 5% of articles right now. So I think people are already adding this (e.g., in a listing for a park, as Ikan says) when it occurs to them and it seems appropriate.
  • There is quite a bit of diversity in playgrounds around the world, and those cultural differences may be interesting to some travelers. They're almost non-existent in Chinese cities. American playgrounds tend to be part of a larger park, and there is frequently a certain sense of sameness to them. German playgrounds are small (but every neighborhood has at least one) and have equipment that would have injury lawyers lining up in the US (because "developmentally appropriate" means "sometimes, a kid is going to fall off this and break an arm"). Some UK playgrounds have paid staff ("playworker" is a real job there). I think that adding half a sentence about these differences in a listing would be lively and interesting, and thus fit with the general goal.
  • I notice that several people seem to worry about providing information for parents of young children (which need not be playgrounds; it could also be something like mentioning the (non)existence of diaper-changing areas), but nobody objected to including teen-focused entries, even though I thought my example for that was much weaker and much less universal (most teens won't care about gaming shops, but almost all young children will care about playgrounds). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
To me, teens don't need much specifics because they usually have interests that are still compatible with regular travel. Lots of traveling teens can get excited about museums, castles, cathedrals, beaches, etc. all things we already list, as well as shopping centers and that kind of entertainment which we also list. I would think it odd and maybe even feel that the author was desperate to add content if they added a playground and talked about the slides and swings.
In my mind, a wheelchair accessibility icon would certainly have a wheelchair in it (maybe crossed out to symbolize "not accessible") and I'm not sure for partial accessibility. Certainly it would be specific to wheelchairs. Wheelchair accessible never implies that the place is hospitable towards the blind or people with any other issues. Writing about bathrooms in the city articles seems like too much information to me. I mean, if we write about the bars in the handicap stalls, we could also write about overall cleanliness, number of stalls, diaper-changing stations, nursing rooms, if they have Western and/or squat toilets, what floors the bathrooms are located on, if they have soap/towels/toilet paper... That's too much potty talk to add to each listing. You could literally write an entire new city article with only toilet information about each listing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I totally get your point on bathrooms, but I'm still not really seeing eye to eye with you on playgrounds, inasmuch as it does make sense to me to list or at least mention a particularly great or unique playground. Otherwise, for the most part, it just makes sense to mention in a park's listing that there are (x-number of) playgrounds in the park. And maybe I should start adding that for New York City parks, except that in my experience, every single one has at least one playground, so maybe that's something to mention in a single sentence in the overall New York City guide, but only if it can be confirmed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to have a lot of "potty talk" to include information that's useful to this group of travelers. For example: there's a small chain of expensive steakhouses in the US discourages people from bringing young children. They don't actually have a sign on the door that says "no children" (AFAIK; I've never been there), but they have reportedly banned highchairs. One of them is listed at Boca Raton#Splurge. We could easily say "Not a good choice for dining with young children", without going into a long list of details like whether there's a diaper-changing station in the men's room, or if they still believe that only women change diapers, or if they don't believe that diapers need changing.
Similarly, if you happen to know that an attraction has particularly good wheelchair access (or a menu in Braille, or whatever), then you can mention that in equally few words: "Menu available in Braille" or "Good access for wheelchair users". However, access doesn't always need to be explicitly stated as having any relationship to disabilities: "Climb up the slippery stone staircase, built in the 12th century, to see the view from the belfry" applies to everyone, but it still tells people with mobility impairments that it's not accessible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)