Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it

Archived discussions Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it/Archive 2004-2012 Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it/Archive 2013-2018

Tap water should be in "drink"

Because after all, you drink it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• We don't need to be that literal. "Drink" is better reserved for the social meaning of drinking, i.e., alcohol, tea, coffee. Water, on the other hand is essential-for-life drinking, and is better placed in Stay safe. In many places, you must Buy water before you drink it. People can Sleep on buses and trains. But there is no need to start moving things around to be literal. Ground Zero (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think "Stay healthy" (the current policy) makes more sense, but I don't feel strongly about it. For the sake of consistency, though, please don't change the policy without also doing the legwork to move the information around in the 200+ articles that have it.

By the way, Ground Zero, I recall you went to Transnistria recently. Do you know if tap water is drinkable there? I've been trying to make sure that all country articles have information about tap water, and that's one of the few where it's still missing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall buying water there. I'm pretty sure that the tap water was okay to drink (it did not give us stomach problems), but that was just in Tiraspol. I can't speak for other places. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks—I've added a sentence to Transnistria#Stay healthy (of course, feel free to rephrase as you see fit). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure here. I'd say that if information about tap water is included for health-related reasons, it should go in stay healthy, but if it makes sense to put the information in drink, it would belong there. But since tap water is tap water, I would think that mostly on Wikivoyage, tap water is mentioned for healthy and safety reasons (not, tap water tastes the best at place X), so the status quo is probably appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What to do with listings that span articles

Swept in from the pub

Specifically, I'm cleaning up and adding content to Huaraz, Caraz and Huascarán National Park. What I'm running into is certain listings (like Laguna Parón, Laguna 69... etc) are located in the park, but it's common to visit them via tours from Huaraz or Caraz.

More generally, what's the best way to organize listings that could be included in multiple articles while minimizing duplication (descriptions, pricing) while still having visibility. My thought is to have more general information in the Park article (this is what it is / why you should care / specific things you should know once you are there) and then the specific details for getting there in the city articles (this is how much a tour costs out of this town). However, this is bad for people who only have an offline city article because it may be missing details that they care about. It's also a bit of a challenge to write the city listing descriptions with the proper level of description and without copy-pasting the content between city articles.

Are there any articles that have examples of how to address this?

Muddyhikers (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and unfortunately for you, it's a situation where policy doesn't speak unequivocally. I've long been of the opinion that our policy against duplicating listings across multiple articles should be loosened in certain cases (see Talk:Buffalo#Delaware Park / Buffalo Zoo and Talk:Clarence (New York)#Amherst for two cases where I've run across this problem in my own work). The best answer I can give you is, in the spirit of "the traveller comes first", to do whatever makes the most sense and have a rationale at the ready if anyone questions why you're doing what you're doing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: I think the reason duplicate listings are not recommended is because people would use duplicate listings to advertise their business. In the case above, as I see it and according to the information provided in the above two comments, it's OK to add information to multiple articles at once because there's no touting involved. I'd say, place phone number, address, etc. in all the articles. Place information about getting in primarily in the city articles. Include a very short summary of the destination itself in each of the city articles, just saying basically what it is (perhaps accompanied by a picture); in the park article, include plenty, if possible, of specific information about the POI. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the policy should be that duplicating listings is generally not done, but allowable where it's the approach that makes the most sense for the traveller. Certainly duplicate listings can be a form of touting, but we already have a "don't tout" policy that could be used to justify reverting such edits. Nor do I think loosening this policy would open the floodgates to a deluge of duplicate listings; touts generally aren't the type of folks who concern themselves too much with policy in the first place.

I also think that we should loosen the policy against listing the same establishment in multiple sections for cases in which it makes sense from the traveller's perspective to do so. Take a case like the recently-closed Vera in Buffalo's Elmwood Village, which was notable both for really creative craft cocktails made with locally-distilled spirits and as the first place in Buffalo to really jump on the artisanal pizza bandwagon. There's no reason why someone who's looking for a good pizza should have to go to the "Drink" section to find that listing, nor is there any reason why someone who wants a craft cocktail should have to go to the "Eat" section to find the listing. So I listed the place in both categories under the principle that ttcf supersedes all other policies. And that's just one case out of a couple dozen that you could point to in the Buffalo district articles alone. If "ttcf supersedes all other policies" is invokable that frequently, that's a good sign that the policy ttcf is repeatedly superseding maybe ought to be rethought.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

One of my biggest concerns with the multiple listings is they begin to diverge over time (prices/details updated in one place and not the other). On one hand, duplication is a good thing for the traveler because it makes things easier to find, but it's also a very bad thing if the two listings have conflicting info as it's difficult/impossible to know what the authoritative source is. Ideas on how to reconcile this with ttcf?

Muddyhikers (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that duplicate listings are okay when that's what's best for the traveler. The issue of keeping the content up-to-date in both places is a real one, though. In some cases I try to centralize the information in one article and add pointers from all the other articles where it's relevant. For example, Bandar Seri Begawan#By boat has fairly detailed information about ferries, and other articles such as Brunei and Labuan have a basic summary and a link to the article with more information. A disadvantage to this strategy is that a reader who prints out a few articles might neglect to print the one that has the information, but I try to be careful in choosing where to centralize the information to make that problem less likely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplication leads to a quick bit rot indeed - some guy started reorganization of a major city, left it halfway done - and it was quite a mess half a year later. I wouldn't say you cannot duplicate listings - but just put detailed info in one, and make the others a short "teaser" + link to the main one (e.g. Laguna Churup). The good question is, whether the visitors of WV usually download the offline page, or rather use some app, like OsmAnd or Maps.me - where you have the whole guide offline. -- andree.sk(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this precisely why we added the lastedit= feature to the listing template? In the case of discrepancies between two duplicate listings, it should be a simple matter to determine which information is more recent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a nice idea in theory, but in practice people often update listings piecemeal, rather than bringing all the information up to date at once, and sometimes don't click the button to mark them up to date even when they should. Moreover, some kinds of information like transport options aren't usually presented in listings. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing "city" on this page

This seems to me to violate Wikivoyage:Capitalization, but it also seems to be a consistent feature. So why don't we make that word lowercase? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not just "City", it's also "Park", "Region", "Country", "District" etc... I don't feel strongly about this, but note the capitalisation makes the type of article stand out alongside the relevant section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is fine, or at least not worth fussing over. Wikivoyage:Capitalization doesn't really apply, as that's for main articles, not project pages (which are meta-content about Wikivoyage, meant for editors and not travellers). The capitalization helps it stand out, as the two things you need to know are what section to put something in, and what type of article it belongs in. If anything, I'd rather fix it to be more consistent so that we always capitalize "District", "Country", etc. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Where to put board game cafes?

Swept in from the pub

I was thinking about adding a listing for a board game cafe, but then realized that WV:STICK didn't have advice to stick such a thing. For the unfamiliar, board game cafes are places you can go to play games for a couple hours after paying a small entry fee. Usually offer some food and drink. They often also sell copies of games as well. There's some more background at these articles:

I'm torn between the 'buy' section (like book stores, because it's a similar atmosphere) and the 'do' section (which is advised for video games). Would love to hear other thoughts.  –Nucleosynth (t c) 05:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cafes belong in "Drink", and it sounds like the fee to play a board game is optional, like the fee to play pool at a bar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not always optional; I think some establishments charge the fee on entry whether you get a coffee or not. Others don't let you play unless you pay, but getting food/drink is fine. However I worry we'd be doing a disservice sending hungry/thirsty travelers there unless they were looking for such a place specifically: the coffee isn't the point of such a place, and there's a lot more space and attention devoted to tables for gaming.  –Nucleosynth (t c) 06:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. In that case, I'd post it in "Do", because the point of the place is to play a board game. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks!  –Nucleosynth (t c) 16:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Under which section does one list gas stations?

Swept in from the pub

Would it be under 'Buy'? Andrepoiy (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on why you're listing it. Most of the time it's only relevant to Get Around: By Car; travellers don't really shop for gas. Powers ^(talk) 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In most cases, don't list them at all; they are common enough that we need not give a list.

There are exceptions. Some stations are of historic interest or serve as landmarks for navigation, & in a remote or desolate area travellers may need to know where stations are to avoid running out of gas & being stranded. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above answers, but note they are not mentioned in Wycsi - will do that now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Trash and recycling?

In Japan these are listed under Respect. It makes a bit of sense when you read that section, but there's probably a better section for this kind of info. I would guess either Cope or Stay healthy? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Cope makes the most sense.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Making something perhaps obvious official policy

Swept in from the pub

So I have been adding a lot of listings from WD recently and I noticed that quite a few towns in Germany follow the lead of Berlin with its "Museum Island" and have "museum mountains", "museum districts" or even "museum islands". Sometimes they have an umbrella scheme even for museums which are not geographically clustered so you can get one ticket for either one of them or a slightly more expensive one (but cheaper than individual tickets for all of them) for all all of them. I think we should make it explicit policy that such schemes where they exist and do not cross WV district boundaries (though in that case there may be a case to be made for different district boundaries) get a four = heading, which looks like this: ====museum quarter special ticket scheme==== or whatever the appropriate term may be. Other museums can be grouped under ====other museums==== or may be further subdivided as the case may be. This may sound obvious and is probably consensus already, but we could add it at "Where you can stick it" and to other relevant policy and help pages... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, and indeed have already been doing the same thing in some articles. I wouldn't necessarily just specify museums, though; there must be other types of attraction that belong to mutual admission schemes. And such tickets, where they do cross district boundaries, should be mentioned in the appropriate section of the parent city article. E.g. if museums belonging to an all-in-one admission scheme are spread across different boroughs of Berlin, then the scheme and museums should be mentioned (but not listed) in Berlin#See.

Expanding further, sometimes whole cities get in on the action, for instance the York pass covers about 40 attractions around York, so I dedicated a part of the 'Understand' section to presenting and explaining the pros and cons of that pass.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can handle this by policy, as the schemes differ. In Finland there is a "museum card", valid in most significant museums all over the country. I suppose there are schemes with spotty coverage over laŕge areas (e.g. all museums on a specific theme or owned by a specific agency). For Finland I mentioned the museum card in Finland#See, but I have not been adding mentions to all involved museums. A non-intrusive uniform link could work if coverage is stable. --LPfi (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not a blanket policy then. Most major museums in the UK are subsidised by the government and so free to visit, so it certainly varies around the world. But I see no harm in mentioning these schemes in relevant Wikivoyage:Article templates and WYCSI.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I don't remember that being the case when I visited, but that's a long time ago. In Sweden they did so, but the decision was reverted by a right-wing government. Here most museums are subsidised, of course, but they still need also the ticket money.

I think we should develop best practices for different scenarios before giving definite advice in the templates and guideline pages. Often some other grouping is more relevant.

--LPfi (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly depends on the scale again. If it's like Hobbitschuster originally envisaged, across museums in a single city, all the ones covered by a pass being grouped together makes sense to me. But if it's across a larger area, then geographical location, theme etc would be more relevant.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Watching wildlife

Visiting somewhere for the purposes of seeing wildlife, is this a 'See' or a 'Do'? The main component of this activity is just using your eyes and looking, but usually you'll need to hike or bike to a particular spot or else drive off-road; there are also common accompanying elements which are more obviously 'Do': photography for one, or painting/sketching. So, what do you think? WCWSI? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've wondered about this too. I usually put it under "Do", as wildlife watching tends to be pretty active and requires focus. A wildlife watcher usually needs to control their movements, avoid making noise, and actively search with their eyes to spot the animals. It's an activity rather than a sight to see. (And as you say, it's usually combined with other activities like hiking or photography.) But I'm interested to know what others think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You've persuaded me to drop any doubts I had that it could be 'See'. "Watching" is more active than simply "Seeing".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe we've traditionally put birdwatching in "Do" so it would make sense to have other wildlife watching in Do. Another difference between the "See" listings and watching animals is that animals aren't stationary objects. Gizza ^(roam) 23:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps traditionally, and informally, but birdwatching isn't on our list here. As long as no 'See' partisans put in an appearance in the next 24 hours, I'll add them to 'Do'. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lacking further comments, I've gone and added these to 'Do'. Thanks for the opinions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Repair services

Hello. I see that both Wikivoyage:Huge_city_article_template#Cope and Wikivoyage:Big_city_article_template#Cope (possibly others, but these should suffice) mention "Get computers repaired?" under "Cope". However, this is not mentioned here at "Where you can stick it", causing a minor dispute . What are everyone's thoughts on this? (@AndreCarrotflower:) --Nricardo (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

While I do agree these services are potentially useful to travellers and not just residents, one could say the same about hairdressers, dentists, tobacconists, hardware stores, newsagents, florists etc etc. But there has to be a limit on what we host here and what we leave for travellers to find by themselves. If I want a nearby computer repair shop, it doesn't even occur to me to look at a travel guide; I google it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

While computer repair services could be required by travellers, they are not commonly required by travellers. I had an optician repair my glasses in Luxor, Egypt; I bought a cane in Quito, Peru; I had my watch repaired in Oradea, Romania; but I don't think these are common enough needs of travellers that we should list opticians, medical supply shops and watch repair shops in every city. Ground Zero (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wholly agree. We're writing a travel guide, not a directory.

(Maybe in Akihabara or a similar destination known for a huge range of electronics-related shopping, it could make sense to list some, if there are lots of repair shops to choose from. But even that is grasping at straws.)

That text is 16 years old and dates back to the first few months of the site, and hasn't changed since. I'd say this is an oversight, and we should update those template pages to give better hints of things we actually put in the Cope section. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, or if you prefer, suggest a form of words. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted them somewhat – hopefully an improvement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin-only protection

Protecting this page against vandalism is great, but "admins only" seems too extreme. This page doesn't have much of a history of vandalism, and there are plenty of non-admins like myself who would like to clarify information or add topics that haven't been described. (For example, I just noticed we mention almost none of the things that are typically found in Respect sections.) Can we downgrade this to a more common protection like "confirmed users"? --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the previous edit summary said:

(Protected "Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it": Excessive vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))

This article is (or was) edit-protected such that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Only admins can move it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: You're looking at the protection of the talk page (which shouldn't be protected at all!) not the main page. I agree with Bigpeteb and will reduce the protection level. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, I agree too. Sorry for being confused. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See or do a mountain?

Swept in from the pub

On Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it I added mountain/hill/canyon as a kind of venue. Should a natural landmark consistently be see or do, or should it depend on the effort needed to get there? /Yvwv (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say on the effort to get there. If viewing it's a see, if hiking or rock climbing to the top it's a "do," but some cases can surely be put in either (but not both) and work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I usually do:

1. Mountain itself - see
2. Hiking trails on the mountain - do
3. Lookouts - see
4. skiing (if it has one) - do

I think you get the point now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And if there is a cable car to the lookout at the top, but it is common to hike there, you probably need to use your good judgement on where to list it or whether to split it among the two sections. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Many country and region articles describe natural attractions under see and outdoor activities under do; which creates some repetition. The see section tends to include architecture, museums and other venues that tend to be in cities, or other places easy to reach for a short-time visitor with few outdoor skills. I think that natural attractions outside the main thoroughfares (mountain hiking trails, safaris, roadless islands only reachable by small boats etc) should more generally be described aas do. /Yvwv (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

visitor centres – do they belong in the "see" or the "understand" section?

Swept in from the pub

This is a bit of a tricky question. WV:ABC says that visitor centres should go in the #Understand, but a large number of our park articles list them in the #See section, mostly the park articles breadcrumbed underneath the U.S.

I'm getting the feeling that whether it's a see listing or a listing that goes in the understand section is dependent on the location. Using Furnace Creek Visitor Center in Death Valley as an example, it has a museum exhibit, and museum exhibits are more of a see, which is why it was probably listed under #See while the visitor centre in Yarrangobilly Caves is no more than a gift shop and suits more in the understand section.

Going forward, making all the articles in line with policy is far too big of a change to do, so this is just a proposal to allow visitor centres to be listed in either the understand section or the see section. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see "There is a lot of deviation from site guidelines" as a reason to muddy those guidelines. I do agree that there can be logical exceptions to guidelines; you cite one. But I disagree with your proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Visitor centers are almost places you go to learn things and maybe buy trinkets, but they aren't the reason you are at the location, so they are mostly a "see" "understand" thing. If you feel like the policy as such is too rigid, I don't think it would hurt to put in a caveat like "generally" or "almost always". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean they mostly aren't a "See" thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I do, thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

In the southwest [U.S.], they're very much a thing to see itself as often most visitor centres have some sort of exhibit in them. In [Eastern] Australia, most parks don't have visitor centres, but some have five but I'd say about 4 in every 5 visitor centres have some sort of exhibit in them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So change the language at where you can stick it to "the Understand section of the City or Park page, unless it is primary a sight to see in itself, in which case, the See section". Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with IK directly above (though it should read "primarily" in the published version).

Also, if SHB feels that moving the visitor centres that aren't attractions in their own right from 'See' to 'Understand' is too big of a job for him alone, I'd be happy to help out; just give us an indication of which articles are affected.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of articles, but Big Bend National Park is one in particular. It's a star article and I'm reluctant to move it. (Did also start a discussion about that on Talk:Big Bend National Park#Visitor centers) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There's also the cases like this one on Mammoth Cave National Park. While it now fits policy, it makes it look like there's nothing to see. (there are the caves, but they're mentioned under #Do) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also refraining from doing it on Isle Royale National Park because that's a star article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I think I have been putting them under Get in, as they are common entry points to many parks, but Understand makes sense. If you think not having them in See makes that section deficient, I'd suggest pointing from there to the listing in Understand. They should often be mentioned also in Buy (and Get in, as I've been doing). I suppose the visitor centres should be mentioned in Park article template – they are usually important but could be forgotten. I think a park article shouldn't be guide without mentioning it, at least not parks where you'd like to get info on snow conditions, water levels etc. –LPfi (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Why does it make a difference if they're star articles? If anything, they should be following our policies more closely, unless there's a specific reason not to.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

They should, but changes should be done with care. With an outline or week usable you can do just about anything without anybody noticing. If you break a star article, people taking them as models will get confused, and just having prose that doesn't fit well in the new context will degrade it. So yes: fix it, but fix it when you have time to think carefully, and if your skills (on language or whatever) are deficient, leave it to somebody else. –LPfi (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Then of course: fixing them is much more important than fixing outlines, as stars are taken as models. They do not need to be fixed on the minute, but should be fixed in days or weeks. –LPfi (talk)

LPfi has very much explained why I refrained from touching them... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I never hesitate to improve star articles and would recommend for any experienced user not to hesitate, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved Big Bend, but haven't done Isle Royale because that article is a mess. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek and ThunderingTyphoons!: How should it be done for Timpanogos Cave National Monument? It's currently a guide article, with the only see section being the visitor centre. However, if that is moved up to the understand, it will become a usable article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd discount that concern, as the cave is a big sight or series of sights, so "Do" could quite reasonably turned into "See and Do", but do you consider the Visitor Center more of a sight or more of a place to get information and arrange to get tours from rangers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My experience of "visitor centres" have been very different depending on region. Over here, I'd consider it a place to get topographic maps and route information before doing long hikes or treks, and usually a place to meet a tour guide. They often have an exhibit in them, but they are not the main purposes of the visitor centre while in the U.S., my experience has mostly been that it's a questionable mix of having an exhibit and what I would usually expect to find in a visitor centre here.

I haven't been to Timpanogos Cave before, but my feeling is that if it's more an exhibit, then it should remain a see while if it's more about information, then it should be a do while if it's a case like Naracoorte Caves National Park where its in the same building but one side is a visitor centre and the other side is a museum, listed in both. I can see the purpose of merging the two together, as sightseeing caves are more a #See (just like museums), but can also be considered a #Do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Are scenic flights a see or a do?

Swept in from the pub

Title. Reason I'm asking is regarding this edit. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that sdenicvgligyts, like boats tours, belong in "Do". Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Was just wondering as you see the views up from a flight so was confused. I'll add it in WV:ABC. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

All these kinds of things are "Do"s: boat tours, ballooning, scenic flights, bike tours, Segway tours, walking tours, etc. They're activities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The key thing is that somebody is doing something. In this case the pilot is doing something, like the actors in a theatre or the football team in a stadium are doing something. (Obviously this ignores the "doing" of walking round a museum, as we usually walk without thinking about it.) AlasdairW (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that definition cuts it. Staying overnight in a lookout to spot wildlife is a clear Do (I'd say), although you are doing little but watching (See). Watching birds might be See, but walking to a good spot and probably staying there for quite some time (to get rewarded for the effort) would be Do. Having birdwatching split between sections is suboptimal, so I'd put all of the listings in Do if most good places are a bit off, while I might tell about exotic birds in town in See, pointing to Do for those serious (where a few of the listings might be on places easily reached). What counts as Doing also depends on how you are supposed to get around. A sight 3 km uphill would be a See on a trail, but a Do in the city. Often See listings are those where you spend as much time as you like, while for Do listings you must commit. –LPfi (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi I'm not sure on the lookout thing. I generally say all lookouts are generally a see, not a do while I consider bird watching a do because you're searching for the birds. There doesn't seem to be consistency within our park articles as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd still say a lookout that requires a hike is a Do, as the hike is, and it is consistent with the need to commit criterion. Lookouts on the hike are See, as they don't require any special commitment, unless you need to climb up there (such as if listing Kebnekaise as a lookout). I'd say looking for birds from a birdwatching platform is See, if the platform is at the seaside walk by the centre, but usually you have to go there (going to a museum does not count, as we don't know where you are when you want to visit). –LPfi (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Just my view, but I'd take it as the hike to the lookout to be a do and the lookout itself to be a see, which is what I've been adding in the articles I've written.

And just wondering, but would you consider a lookout that is easily accessible via car, but requires you to climb 30 metres via stairs a see or a do? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

'See'. 30 metres is not a hike, and travellers will either be able to do it or they won't.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Check the articles I linked for a "climb" and a "lookout" for what I meant by a climb on a hike (no, that one is not accessible by car). –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd put the 30-meter staircase (that's like climbing up to the 10th floor in a house) in the same category as visiting a church or castle where the main thing to do is to climb the stairs and look over the city or landscape. Munich/Altstadt#See lists one such church, but I don't know what's typical. I suspect, though, that readers will not be upset if we use our best guess for any given page. There might not be a single best answer that applies to every situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Bikesharing, food apps, and other multinational services

Swept in from the pub

I added Donkey Republic to Urban cycling. Now there is discussion about the To Good To Go budget food app. Earlier there has been discussion on the Finnish taxi call centres and electric kick scooters. With apps and web services getting ubiquitous and multinational, like the associated physical services, we face a new situation. According to policy, a business should be mentioned in just one place, but these chains are useful and often the only option, and there is no obvious place where travellers would find them. The net result might be that travellers just use what Google Maps and similar link to, making independent chains invisible.

I think it is clear that we have to mention these "chains" in a way that travellers to a city where they are a main option can find them. I don't know how to do that sensibly, without spamming a lot of pages, or getting long lists on the global pages, such as Urban cycling or Smartphone apps for travellers. Donkey Republic has a presence in the USA as well as in Europe, probably in a few dozen cities, so it doesn't fit the regional break-down. I assume many chains have the same problem.

So: what should be do?

–LPfi (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Long lists on global pages, if they are necessary, may be the least bad solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Where to stick digital nomading information

Swept in from the pub

Where can I stick information about the ease/difficulty/etc. of digital nomadry in an article? Work? Connect? Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the information. Advice about internet access should go in "Connect", whereas work-specific aspects (visas, coworking spaces, tax implications, etc.) should go in "Work". General summaries along the lines of "Lilliput is a great/difficult/popular place for digital nomads" should probably go in "Work", IMO. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That'll work. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See vs do

Swept in from the pub

Can I get some tips on what attractions go under see, and what under do? Ex. is park a see or do? What about a theater? Museum? Etc. Piotrus (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You can check out Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it for some tips. --Ypsilon (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

To put it simply, anything that requires just your eyes is a see (museums, mountains, monuments, historic sites, etc.), and if something requires movement (excluding walking inside a museum) is a do. WV:ABC has some better advice, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Mountain-climbing is a "Do," though. Also, anything that's a sporting event you're watching or a performance is a "Do," even if you're just sitting in the audience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For the mountain: advice on lookouts where you can see it are See, even if they are a bit off. If you need a proper hike, then it is a Do. An urban park is a See even if you would want to take a long walk through it, while directions for a walk would be a Do. There are many borderline cases, where you have to use common sense, including cases where you want to keep sees and dos for the same attraction together. It is easy, though, for any more experienced user to move the listing if your common sense contradicts practice (such as perhaps for spectator sports). –LPfi (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Planetariums

Where we should list planetariums? See or do? I think it should be do. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See. Planetariums are usually part of museums or are their own museums. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Bridges that connect two cities

Swept in from the pub

I think the question might be nonsense, but if certain iconic bridges connect two separate cities, where should we list them? In the case of San Francisco, the Golden Gate connects the city to a rural area, and is thus listed in San Francisco only. However, in the case of Kolkata, there are four bridges that connects the city to Howrah, which is another important urban centre. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I think this depends on location, but I'd say add it in whichever district or destination travellers go to visit the bridge. Consider Sydney/The Rocks#Sydney Harbour Bridge, for example. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be wrong at all to list such a bridge in two articles, or at least to link from one article to the main listing in the other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It would sometimes make sense to have a listing in City A that describes the view of the bridge from City A and a listing in City B that describes the view from City B. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is where we can put some facts about such bridges. In the case of the Howrah Bridge, I've put the facts in both Howrah and Kolkata/North, but I don't think such dual listing can be manageable in the long term. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that for (nearly) every thing we tell about, at least listings (and especially things that have a whole section, such as this), there should be one canonical place, linked from other places where it is relevant. Otherwise updates will sometimes not be done in all places. In cases like this, it would mean a See listing in both cities, but one having the name linked to the listing in the other city. The former should have only the general description (a one-liner, more or less) and details relevant only for that side (such as "directions"). In most cases entry fees, contact details etc. will be the same on both sides and should generally not be repeated. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be making the Kolkata listing the main one and cutting down the Howrah listing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Wiki is not paper, we have room for that. Piotrus (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the bridges can be described in a high-level article; see Metro_Cebu#Cities for one example. In a huge city, consider putting bridge info in the top-level article rather than duplicating it in districts.

I think sometimes bridges may be mentioned too often. e.g. the San Juanico Bridge is listed at Leyte_Island#See, Samar_Island#See and Tacloban#Do and is mentioned in several other articles. I've crossed it & do not consider it at all interesting, but to Filipinos it seems to be. Pashley (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Filipinos, but otherwise I think bridges are an important attraction for some people, interested in engineering or architecture. Some bridges are iconic, like the Tower Bridge of Golden Gate, perhaps for being known as such; if you never heard about them, you might not appreciate the sight as much as other people. The San Juanico Bridge is listed in city articles with 2 and 6 See listings, and 4 Do listings, respectively: I think it does no harm in them. When the articles become better developed, the listing might be reconsidered (is it really worth a 2×12 km day trip from Tacloban, as suggested now? at least some more background would be needed in that case). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The San Juanico Bridge looked nice to me when I just did an image search. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is best resolved using transclusion (Special:Diff/4560865), particualrly in this case by heading: {{#lsth:Kolkata/North|Howrah Bridge}} -- please refer to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion#Transcluding_sections_by_headings . It is better than having a listing for the same thing in two places (while having one more detailed than the other), because it's still two listings that need to be maintained. I agree with LPfi completely, and the right technical solution for this is selective transclusion. Twsabin (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to discuss that option if we want to use it. It is not at all obvious to pass-by editors what "{{#lsth:}}" is about. This is black magic – there isn't even a template:(#)lsth – and contrary in spirit to the reasons why we keep Mediawiki templates to a minimum. It may be handy, but either we should make that the standard for these situations, well documented and well known to established editors, or we shouldn't use it at all. Hacks for individual articles cause more trouble than they are worth. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There are two additional problems in this case – which may be general: the listing may contain information that is specific for one side, such as directions, and the listing may not be in the form of a bullet. If somebody adds a sentence on how to reach the bridge from the centre, this will be very confusing in the other article. Likewise, if somebody wants to add directions for the Howrah side, it is not at all obvious how to do that, even if you know your way around templates. Usually, when there is more than one paragraph of content for a listing, it is moved to a subsection. The formatting will then become different from what is needed in a list of bullets. These issues need to be thoroughly understood before the method is taken into use. –LPfi (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Labeled section transclusion is really difficult. The English Wikipedia used it for some of the Covid content, and it basically resulted in some editors giving up on editing that content, plus others accidentally triggering disputes at article "B" when they made changes that were sensible from the perspective of article "A". I would not recommend this to any community unless you have several editors eager to maintain all the articles it touches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Honorary consulates

Per the discussion in the Pub, I propose to add this to "consulate|the Cope section of the City page":

"in general, do not include honorary consulates, unless the listing defines what services are provided to travellers."

Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Generally I am happy with this, but I would point out that honorary consulates can be useful to business travellers when they are not of use to a tourist. It may be worth keeping consulate listings in small unexpected places - if I am working in a small place for a few months I would be more likely to contact the consul for introductions than I would do in a city. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Market halls and food markets

As Legacy food markets recently was created, there is some confusion whether market halls, fish markets etc should go under Eat or Buy. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they sometimes straddle the line, but I would usually lean towards "Buy", which is where I think most readers will expect to find them. To check, I searched for a few famous markets, and I found that La Boqueria, Findlay Market, and Phnom Penh's Central Market are all listed in the "Buy" sections of their articles. This project page already advises that farmers' markets should go in the "Buy" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally I would agree with "Buy", but it depends on the individual market. If you go to the market and eat there, or buy food that you eat within a few minutes of leaving the market, then "Eat" is better (many stalls sell hot food). If the market generally sells food that you take back and cook (or many clothes stalls) then "Buy". If the market is something that visitors will often just look at (the market selling fish in 10kg boxes) then "See". AlasdairW (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alasdair. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Convention Centers

If a traveller is visiting a city to attend a convention, it might be helpful to know where the convention center is located relative to other attractions, hotels, and restaurants. But I'm not sure where to put such a listing within a City article. Any ideas? Powers ^(talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting it in "Do," as attending a convention is an activity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also put it in "Do". --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't you get the location in the convention info? It may be bit awkward to see how the convention map relates to our OSM map, but you probably need to do that matching anyway. For cities where conventions are common, I suppose there are several such centres, and you also want their hotels etc. I am afraid there may be a lot of venues not interesting for other travellers that would qualify. Meetings for youth often use schools for accommodation, at least over here, would those qualify also? I suppose a dominating convention centre could be listed, but we should be careful not to overdo it. In some cases the convention centres more or less coincide with hotels, universities etc., and the convention centre name could be mentioned in that context, findable with a search. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've found that often convention centres (and the accommodation near it) give a good indication of whether there is good public transit nearby, which is why I generally advocate for including it – it's a good spot to stay at car-free (in most of the Anglosphere) even if you're not actually going there for the convention centre. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Larger convention centres are often used for public events in addition to business events. If these are regular, then they can be mentioned in the Do listing, and makes it more worthwhile giving the venue a listing. AlasdairW (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It just feels like a big gap on the map to me. (Check out Philadelphia/Center_City_East, for instance, and zoom in on the massive empty space that is the Convention Center. It's mentioned prominently in the lede, but nothing in the article proper!) We want folks to look at our maps, but then cross-reference information from the convention organizers? No, that doesn't make sense to me. I've tried looking for examples but I only know a few cities' convention centers. Philly I mentioned above. Toronto barely even mentions theirs, except in a listing for Fan Expo Canada (with no marker, address, or coordinates). New York City mentions Javits a few times but offers no address or location information. Buffalo does include a marker for it in the Downtown article but it's inline in a listing for an event; coordinates but no address or contact info. Powers ^(talk) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Backcountry campgrounds - Do or Sleep?

I'm having fun cleaning up and filling in outdoors destinations in the Pacific Northwest. I was updating the information Mount Rainier National Park, where they issue Wilderness Permits for overnight stays in "backcountry" campgrounds - places that require a substantial (multi-hour) hike to get to, and provide no equipment or services beyond a flat patch of earth to pitch a tent. These are not "frontcountry" campgrounds that you can drive a car to, or otherwise get to easily.

Wilderness Backpacking is the cross of hiking (a clear Do) and camping (a clear Sleep). I put the permit information in Do, because I see the backcountry camping as an integral component of a longer hike, and not as a place to stay in between multiple activities. It's essentially a single Do activity that happens to span multiple days. Is this the best take? Gerode (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking the campgrounds themselves are "Sleep"s, whereas the hiking is a "Do," but if it's treated all as a single activity, it's a "Do." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In park articles, the permits fit nicely in Fees and permits, especially as I suppose they are uniform across (any one type of) campgrounds. I think, in most cases, that the campgrounds themselves belong in Sleep if they are common for many hikes – and descriptions of the types regardless – while if they are for specific hikes only, they should be handled as part of the hikes in Do. If some campgrouds are common, I think it is cleanest to put them all in Sleep. –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)