Wikivoyage talk:Goals and non-goals/Archive 2014

See Wikivoyage talk:Goals and non-goals

Traffic law project: here or Wikibooks?

Swept in from the pub

English Wikipedia has a persuasive user who thinks that "A state-by-state guide of helmet laws, lane splitting laws, etc doesn't belong on Wikiepdia; there is a draft article for this on WikiTravel where this kind of how-to advice is appropriate." As I am very glad to see this place continuing many contents from Wikitravel, I would like to ask about starting a traffic law project to collect information on topics like the safety belts, right turn on red, overtaking, etc. However, when considering Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first and Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals, legal guides to fight traffic violations seem to fit Wikibooks much better while not normally relevant to travelers. Please advise so cross-wiki coordination and cooperation will be much better. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that, while this topic is clearly travel-related, it is really encyclopedic in scope and unlikely to be accepted as a travel topic here if it's so detailed. What I do think is that there could be a topic that consists of a general overview of helmet laws — and the lack of them — worldwide, which gives examples but doesn't go into anything like exhaustive detail, and includes a link to the Wikibooks article in the sidebar as a sister site article. (Parenthetically, I find the idea that citing a legal database is unencyclopedic a little strange, but it's not for us on this board to pass judgment about Wikipedia policies.) I'll be curious to see what others say.

In the meantime, I'd like to thank you for coming by and ask you whether there are any other ways we could cooperate and coordinate helpfully. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for your quick answer. Then I will try Wikipedia stand-alone lists, but Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia may require improvement to be better understandable.--Jusjih (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I echo Ikan's comments, with the caveat that I'm less sure than he is that a "general worldwide overview of helmet laws" would pass muster here as a travel topic. If he would like, in the spirit of cooperation I might encourage Jusjih to add information about helmet laws to individual destination articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Jusjih, what portions of Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia could use clarification? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind on linking to Wikipedia for now. Now I wonder how to cite external references, like laws (traffic or other) affecting travelers, as some (unreferenced) opinion may become outdated. Write out the article number without excessive external links? Thanks again.--Jusjih (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some articles here that are partly about laws that affect travellers — smoking, visas, Traveling with a criminal history, LGBT travel, retiring abroad — and some like Driving in China that cover traffic laws. Maybe a look at those would help? Pashley (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. These will help, but may I propose using United Nations geoscheme as our standard to divide macro-geographical regions and subregions when listing so many countries? I just divided Traveling with a criminal history into macro-geographical regions after discussion, and I see Tipping divided into macro-geographical regions and subregions inconsistently with too many blanks.--Jusjih (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and helpful to me for the top level continental divisions (we've had a lot of argy-bargy about trans-continental countries), although there will, as always be exceptions and, in many cases we'll just need 5 major divisions, Antarctica being irrelevant in many topics. However, there are substantial differences at lower levels and I think you'll find that our own divisions don't correspond much at all after the continental level. -- Alice^✉ 06:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Project scope

Swept in from the pub

I see that an IP has been busy expanding our article on Binghamton. Most of the changes look good, but I'm uncertain about listing local employers and media outlets. Is Binghamton#Work outside our WV:Project scope given that we're a travel guide and targeting primarily short-term travellers visiting for a week, a day or at most a fraction of a month? The list of goals and non-goals is vague on this point (claiming, among other things, to not be a yellow page directory) and the only place we explicitly say anything "must be available for a stay of one week or less" is Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental listings. There was a previous discussion of marriage in China which claimed it (like going to the dentist in Burundi) was somehow out-of-scope, but I don't see anywhere where the outcome of this (or a discussion on whether multi-year BA or BSc students at out-of-town schools are travellers or in residence) is reflected in actual policy. K7L (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, that's not what the Work section is for, but I've chosen to let the IP user continue with his or her edits and see what results, rather than interrupt with criticism. There's nothing egregiously bad there, so there's nothing that can't wait until the article is in a more stable state, IMO. Powers ^(talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new section on extended stays

Swept in from the pub

Possible change to guide format Does anyone think it might be a good idea to include sections on extended stays and what kind of resources travelers might use in those instances? Someone traveling through a city for a day or week will have different needs than someone staying for an internship or a study abroad semester. It seems like we could mention the extra services that someone staying one to six months might use (grocery delivery services? Extended stay hotels? P.O. boxes?) I think this could be valuable because for large cities especially, there will be travelers who will be there for a long time and aren't just sight-seeing. They will need to know some basics about how to get health care or where certain government offices are that are irrelevant to someone backpacking through the region. Additionally, having unique content on travel guides would be a big boost to search engine optimization results contra Wikitravel. Right now, a number of our returns are buried below Wikitravel because it looks like we're a mirror of them (and that's not entirely untrue, of course). The greater the unique content here and the more hits we can get for it, the better this site will perform in reaching users looking for good and reliable information while traveling. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We've had similar discussions before. I've always been on your side of this argument, and I remain there. I don't think that travellers are solely people staying for a day to a couple of weeks in one place before moving on. A semester abroad or a year's business, diplomatic or NGO posting somewhere can be considered forms of travel. But I think you'll get pushback from those who find it neater to restrict this site primarily to short-term visitors (with the exception of articles like Retiring abroad, which somehow gets a totally free pass, with ready explanations from those who believe it should remain an exception). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Do you want to draft up some extended stay info on a guide? I can help make some for my city as a kind of proof of concept. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd propose for you to start such a topic in your userspace. I'd be happy to copy edit as appropriate, but I'm hardly an expert. I think that if this is made into a travel topic, it might pass muster, but I doubt we'll be able to get agreement to allow such information into guides to localities ("cities," in WV parlance). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: That's what I would have done: a username draft. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be as clear as possible: I think that what would be most likely to pass muster would be a worldwide topic, perhaps with examples of regional variations in countries or multi-country areas. I don't think a travel topic for "Long-term stays in New York City" or the like would be likely to pass muster with a consensus here, though I'd support anything that's not promotional. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Including a bit more relevant info for prolonged stays seems like a good idea for large destinations. I'm not thinking of real expat info, but rather information useful for a language course visitor etc. I've been living in abroad destinations for 6 to 20 weeks a few times and yes, it requires just a bit more info. Looking at your first post, it seems that a change in policy or template would only really be needed for long stay accommodation options though. Adding unique content is of course valuable, whatever the exact topic. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as my experience with prolonged stays abroad goes, what you need is mostly stuff that is already allowed under the Cope section (see (Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it), just not always included. Things like medical care, fitness studio's and laundromats. Most of the other things are strongly location determined, I suppose. Grocery delivery is uncommon in most parts of the world, as are P.O. boxes. That said, I'm not sure they'd be a huge push back for those topics for destinations where those are very common. That's something quite different from Ikan's proposal for a general, world-wide oriented article though... so maybe I'm misunderstanding. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything that's based on staying for a year or more is out of scope. Governments do consider someone living in a country for at least six months out of any year to be resident for various purposes (ranging from removing the person from public health insurance back home to causing them immigration issues in whichever country they're staying or adding them to the local tax base there). That said, there is the snowbird phenomenon where travellers are away for the entire winter (only) and that *might* be in scope. We just need to cut this off before our so-called "traveller" arrives at the local lumberyard to buy materials to build a house, or we are just another yellow page directory for residents instead of a travel guide. K7L (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@JuliasTravels: I was thinking of a section explicitly about long-term stay. Do you think it would be better to include this information within the existing sections? It seems like if you're staying for three months, you might want to see that information separately. I don't know. What do you think? @K7L:: I was explicit before about saying that this is intended for someone staying a semester or a season rather than several years. Wikivoyage isn't intended to be an all-purpose city guide or yellow pages, indeed. Although I was thinking of a section on long-term stay, there's no reason why it can't be a topic article as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I rather emphatically disagree with "Anything that's based on staying for a year or more is out of scope." Things like Teaching English, Retiring abroad, Volunteer travel or Studying abroad are mainly oriented to longer term stays and I'd say they are certainly in scope. As I see it, these appeal to a limited set of travellers and writers but that no more makes them out of scope that articles on Scuba diving, Travelling with children or LGBT travel. Almost nothing will appeal to all travellers, but I'd say almost any topic that does affect some and for which we have a writer is in scope.

That said, there is a slippery slope here and at some point we may need to shout "Whoa!". In at least one case we already have; see the vfd discussion for Marriage in China. However, I do not think either any current articles I know of or the proposal in this section take us anywhere near the point where it becomes a problem.

There is related discussion at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Scope. Pashley (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for extended stay (2 months) options in my next city, although I wouldn't expect WV to list all those options for me in the city article.

A purpose of the wiki is to allow everyone to pool their knowledge but I would strongly urge keeping each main article clean and concise as suggested earlier in this thread. If every single aspect of life is crammed into a main article then is becomes harder for the traveler to quickly find the core travel information they are after and many won't bother with WV. Less is certainly more.

We do have travel topics for subjects that affect a minority of travellers and that allows the writer more freedom in terms of scope. Studying_abroad is another example. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess we should first have a better idea of the sort of content we're talking about. I for one have no idea how to write a practical travel topic about "prolonged stays" that works for New York, Bangkok, Berlin and Cape Town at once. And when talking about a "section" in an article, I'm not sure what kind of info that would need. Looking at some of our star articles (like Bali or the US destinations at star status) I'm wondering how much more you'd exactly need to stay 3 months instead of 3 weeks. Bali even has a small section for Long term rentals in the sleep section. Once people stay somewhere for over a year, I'd say they should probably invest in a yellow paper. No-one is arguing we should become that. During my trimesters or 6 month stays abroad however, I had to find long-term accommodation, sometimes a doctor or dentist, or a public transport season ticket. Otherwise however, I find it hard to think of what else an average traveller would really need, and is not allowed in our articles? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Listings for accommodations that can't be rented for 2 weeks or less are excluded from our listings policy, I recall from repeated discussions. Edit: Actually, I'm wrong:

Apartments or cabins must be available for rentals of one week or less - remember, Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not an apartment-finder service. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Most serviced apartments should be available to rent for at least 1 week, so I'm good with that rule.

I agree JuliasTravels that a travel topic of 'prolonged stays' is not particularly natural, although I'm aware of travellers staying multiple years in resort locations such as in Thailand with a semi-official status. I'm also not sure how useful that would be since in that situation I would probably get information for my long term options after I arrived there. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing whatsoever "unnatural" about the topic, at least in principle. What do you think would be strange about it in practice? Or maybe it's best not to answer that question yet and wait and see what Justin comes up with in his userspace before we come to any firm conclusions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(indent) If a listed hotel offers long-term options/deals, I think it's fine to mention in the description, but are you proposing adding new sections specifically for long-term stays (residents)? I'd say we should define a traveler as someone spending 90 days or less in a country, since that's the max for most tourist visas. After that, they probably have some sort of resident or semi-resident status. To me, adding grocery stores, delivery services, hair salons, how to get a P.O. Box, etc sounds like a lot of clutter that will make our articles more cumbersome to navigate and likely bother more people than it will help. I'd call all of that out of scope. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: Scope is defined by us. If the traveler comes first and a significant portion of travelers are long-termers then why would we deliberately exclude their needs? As pointed out above, even someone staying more than a week will have certain interests—90 days is a lot more than that. In fact, having a section just for extended stay would *de*-clutter articles because it would allow those who are interested in this particular information to look at it for their needs. Just like "Go Next" is irrelevant for many travelers who are going only to a particular location: it's at the bottom, so just skip it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the time to read the entire discussion, but I want to say I am against a section in our destination articles regarding extended stays, i.e. more than a month. This will require an entirely different approach to accommodation and including many practical issues like work permits, then we need to cover the long-term labour market, then suddenly car registration, getting a bank account etc. may become of interest. This is a travel guide, like any other travel guide. It is for tourists, not nomads or expats. An expatpedia could be just as useful for the latter, but this is not it.

We also generally do not feature individual apartments and agencies providing those and those are pretty much no. 1 accommodation options for long-term stays. I would not want to change our consensus not to feature those. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This site is for travellers, not just tourists. And it isn't and needn't be "like any other travel guide." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal

I do think expats are travellers, so info for them is obviously in scope. Expat communities in some places are rather large; for example Shanghai has 200,000, more than many "cities" we cover. I also think some expats, especially ones living in out-of-the-way places that might not otherwise get written up, have much to contribute here so we should encourage their participation. If they create some articles of interest only to other expats, that is fine.

On the other hand I agree with the Prince in opposing "a section in our destination articles regarding extended stays". Such info does not belong there. Moreover, some info for expats does not belong on this site at all. In most countries with a large expat population there are one or more web forums for them. For example, I'm a sort of lapsed regular at Raoul's China Expat Saloon. Also, there are often local newspapers, sometimes even radio stations or TV channels, in English or other foreign languages. We no more want to duplicate things those sites or media do better than we want to duplicate Wikipedia. On the other hand, as for WP, having an overview here is sometimes necessary even if we do not want all the detail.

We have articles like Diving in South Australia or Winter sports in Austria. These contain info that would be excessive in the main destination articles but is fine in a separate article, and they are reasonably easy to organise as a hierarchy under Scuba diving or Winter sports. I suggest we allow articles with names like "Expartriates in ..." or "Living in ..." (which?). We'd need some work on policies for those — what to include & especially what not to include (e,g. I agree with the comment above that we should not start doing long-term housing listings; leave those to the local sources.) — but it looks doable.

Some articles already appear to need this. For example, China#Work is quite a long section and almost nothing in it would be useful to a tourist, but most of it might be of interest to an expat. I'd say moving it out of the main China article would be a definite improvement. Pashley (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that information for long-term travelers belongs in travel topics, not in our main travel guides. Powers ^(talk) 00:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree, too, though we could argue around the edges. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never really felt that the "Work" or "Learn" subheadings were particularly useful anyway.

I find the very term "expat" to be silly and pretentious. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: 'Expats' are only travelers when they're traveling. Otherwise, they're just living their lives (working, paying bills, cooking, bed-wetting, etc.). A guide about daily living in China is not a travel-related article regardless of where one was birthed. The general guides for long-term stay abroad and Study abroad were not kept as exceptions at all. Those who believe that they were should consult the discussions. It was made very clear in the discussions that those articles were preserved just to provide basic information and things to consider before committing to moving abroad. It was decided that once they go beyond that point to find housing, buy a car, etc., they are no longer a traveler and they should consult more direct sources (their employer/coworkers/government/whoever) for further information. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: But why, though? Surely, you'll grant that someone studying abroad for a semester is a traveler. This isn't a print travel guide (although it can be printed) so it's not like space is a concern. If a guide to any particular place or topic gets too long, break it up into parts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Justin (koavf), there is a hard requirement to print the guide , it isn't a secondary consideration. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Maybe I'm splitting hairs but it's not required that anyone print these, just that they be accessible to printing. We could always restart Wikitravel Press... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: The requirement is that the user is able to print the article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: That is what I wrote above. I don't see how my proposal is germane to this point, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: You wrote above: "This isn't a print travel guide". It was not evident that you were aware of the print policy. Just trying to help. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Oh, granted. Thanks. I do understand that printing/offline access is a part of the mission. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of travel topics covering longer stays at a country level - but we should target these at those staying months rather than years. They should cover general advice - what the process is for renting an apartment in a country, but exclude detailed rental listings. Travelling for a year or so, and supplementing this with some work is increasingly common, and several countries offer visas specifically for this - "working holiday" or "youth mobility". Most of the advice would also be useful to those moving permanently, but we should exclude topics only of interest to long term residents like pensions or buying a house. In some cases we could also use this to trim country and destination articles so that most travellers don't have to print half a page on work when they are only in the country for a week. I would suggest a title like "countryname for a longer stay" - put the country name at the start of the title so that it shows up when people start to search for a country. AlasdairW (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Such advice could also be provided at regional or huge city levels, if it is dramatically different from what one would advise a traveler to the rest of the country. But your main point of general advice, rather than specific listings, is where I stand, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I can easily imagine someone saving up money for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to spend a few months in a country, and telling them things like "if you rent an apartment in Germany, then you have to pay the television tax yourself" or "if you rent a place in the US, you need to ask whether garbage, water, sewer [often billed separately], hot water [separate in some old buildings], telephone, internet, gas, heat, and air conditioning are included in the rent, because it's totally up to the landlord" might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps we should do as I suggested above and define "traveler" as a stay for 90 days or less as per general visa limits. Providing the most general information at the country-level would be consistent with our general articles of Study abroad and Work Abroad, as well. Any further information is better explored by the individual directly with their company/coworkers/unversity/etc. Justin, a Study Abroad student can use our guides as they are for their TRAVEL needs. It is outside of our scope to give program information and evaluations, requirements, campus maps, etc. None of that is travel-related. Study Abroad options are also often dictated by their home university, so it's much better for study abroad students to get study abroad information directly from the programs and to talk to their Study Abroad Office advisors. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: I'm not suggesting something as fine-grained as a campus map. I think we could all agree that's out of scope as it only applies to a very small subset of travelers, all of whom would have easy access to that information anyway. Virtually anything that would apply to a three-month stay would be the same for a six-month stay except possibly residency requirements and tax collection. These could probably be mentioned briefly and cover all kinds of travelers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that longer stay guides should cover visits of between one month and one (or maybe two) years. Working holiday visas are often for a year and the UK offers one of 2 years. Anybody staying less than a month is covered by our regular pages and is unlikely to be working, buying a car etc. The need / opportunity to do things differently only comes when staying several months, but the threshold will vary with location - eg. the minimum time that you can usually rent a house for in the UK is 6 months. Once the stay approaches a year, a local driving licence or car licence plates may be needed, and insurances will probably need to be arranged locally rather than from home. I am only suggesting that we have pages at the country (or maybe state) level - we might list the cities with universities, but not go into the details of courses. In many cases a traveller will be staying in the one country for a year, but only staying a few weeks in most cities. AlasdairW (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A policy regarding history sections?

Swept in from the pub

I think readers as well as writers might benefit if there were some clear and concise policy regarding "history" sections in country or region articles. On the one hand Wikivoyage isn't and shouldn't be a copy of Wikipedia in that respect, and being too detailed obviously does more harm than good. On the other hand history plays an important role in shaping a country's architecture and geography and people's mentality and many travellers travel to "experience history" in one way or another. I think to start a discussion keeping in mind that the traveller comes first, maybe we should include historical information if it can be "seen" at the destination (e.g. some words about the US civil war as there are well preserved battle-fields and reenactment is both a tourist attraction and a reason for travel by itself) or "noted" with the people (e.g. attitudes towards national symbols and patriotism in Germany as (among others) a result of the Nazi era) of course it could be argued that everything from the beginning of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago might somehow be "visible" - at least in the night sky above the destination - but I think this rule of thumb could be a good way to aid in discussions about whether certain things should be put into the history section or not. If there already is a policy regarding history sections I would ask to put it somewhere more prominent as I was unable to find such a thing. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On the fact of it, your policy makes sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We have Dinosaur National Monument; the Civil War and the Underground Railroad are rather recent by comparison? K7L (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's why I think this policy should apply: obviously this is something that can be "seen firsthand" and it is a reason to travel all by itself, whereas - say - the geologic origin (not that that is unimportant or not interesting, just not to the majority of travellers ;-)) of the Rocky Mountains isn't. I am a new user and of course this was only a first proposal to get a discussion going to get a more "fleshed out" policy as a result of this discussion. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the things I like about Wikivoyage is that editors are given a wide berth to develop their own writing style and establish their own hierarchy of priorities vis-à-vis what it's important for visitors to know about a particular destination. Therefore, it's my contention that the establishment of new policies should happen only where there's a widespread problem that needs solving. In other words, policy should remain silent unless and until there's a pressing need for it to take a stand.

Are wordy, encyclopedic History sections an issue that is endemic to many different articles on this site? If not, let's avoid policy creep and handle problematic instances on a case-by-case basis. If you're writing a History section, use common sense or ask another editor for guidance if you feel the need, but otherwise don't worry about it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the only existing guidance on this subject are brief notes such as Wikivoyage:Country article template#History ("History in a nutshell"). Parroting Andre, I don't know if we need to be too prescriptive beyond our more general advice to keep things brief and travel-relevant. That advice is even more important for countries with long and interesting histories, since we don't want historical information to distract from travel information. Citing the example of the USA, a traveler will encounter Civil War battlefields and Native American sites and thus some relevant history is important, but since the section is likely to grow large we can skip things like past foreign policy positions or economic trends that are unlikely to have any bearing on a person's visit to the country. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

André writes a lot of sense above.

There's a danger in being too pre (or pro)scriptive and then "policy" being abused to justify edit warring rather than working collegiately to improve articles for travellers.

As long as we have a good, working table of contents and appropriate H3, H4 and H5 headings, travellers should be able to easily find their way around and skim over sections that are not of interest even if there is quite a lot of text. In many guides at the regional and continental level we don't have a problem with prolixity - quite the reverse in fact. --Ttcf (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)