Talk:Activities Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

This article is a first pass at creating a catch-all article for travel topics that correspond to the "Do" article heading (as discussed on Talk:Travel topics#General travel topic articles). The idea is that activities should be listed on this article first, and only when the information becomes "large and complex" (per the Project:What is an article? standard) should a separate article be considered. I've copied information from some of the stub articles such as Snowmobiling and ATV Riding back to this article and made the existing articles into redirects to emphasize the point that only when we have enough information to warrant a separate article should one be created.

The headings used in this article aren't great and could be improved ("Winter activities", "Sports", etc), and it would be nice to have a bit more of a general overview for some of the existing topic articles, but otherwise I think this is a good way to provide people with a forum to include information about their favorite travel activity without the need to create a new article for each one. In the future I would envision a further breakdown as more travel topic activities are added, but for now this level of granularity seems like enough.

Unless people object I'd like to plunge forward and create more of the general articles described in Talk:Travel topics#General travel topic articles, but I'll let this one simmer for a bit so that everyone has an opportunity to speak up they see any problem or is opposed to this idea. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:50, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

It seems basically a good idea, but shouldn't there be a link to it in Travel topics? Currently there's a section in that article that largely duplicates this. This is more detailed and better written, worth keeping, but how does it fit into the overall structure? articles now have a {{traveltopic}} tag pointng to that article. Should there be one that points here instead? (WT-en) Pashley 21:57, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

There actually already is a link from Travel topics - it's heading 1.11 in my browser. I'm not really sure how best to avoid duplication between the two indexes and was kind of hoping that others might have ideas and implement them; thus far I've just listed complete articles on the Travel topics page, and included a brief overview for some of those topics in this page. As to the hierarchy for travel topics, the {{traveltopic}} should still be used I suppose, and I've been using {{isIn|topic}} as a way to set up a hierarchy.

I wonder whether it's a specific example of Quad bikes?

I enjoyed Quad Bikes in winter in Estonia, and my experience fits into the current description of Snowmobiling.

Should we cross-link them, or even make one a subsection in another? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:26, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Posted in User talk:Yvwv.

I see that you have made some structural changes, moving material from Travel activities to Sports and Winter sports. I copied and added a little more, but your intention is not very clear (are some of these just intended as indexes or disambiguation pages, how much summaries, suggestions for missing topics should there be, are biking and horseback riding sports etc.). If you are going to continue the work I should perhaps wait for a while to see the result, but a note at a suitable talk page would be nice. --LPfi (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The hierarchy of travel topics is rather new, so there are no policies. However, as winter sports is more detailed than sport, which is much more detailed than travel activities, winter sports could contain a short description of snowmobiling, snowboarding etc, and sports could contain a very short description of each. In travel activities there would not be room for much more than a list of sports. /Yvwv (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Set out to become "a catch-all article for travel topics that correspond to the "Do" article heading", which sound like a good idea, I do think this article should have at least short lists, possibly with a one-liner explanation, even for topics that are further discussed in "sub-articles". Just skipping sports all together feels like cutting this general article short. Also, I don't think Geocaching should be taken out and put in sports. Especially if you're not exactly familiar with geocaching, you might not look for it there, and it's arguably a game rather than a sport to many people (including me). JuliasTravels (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am still quite confused about the intended hierarchy. Hiking in the Nordic countries is PartOf Hiking. Hiking is PartOf Travel activities, but not mentioned here. Wilderness backpacking is directly PartOf Travel activities and listed as See also under Camping: Backpacking, together with Cross country skiing, which is PartOf Winter sports, which is PartOf Sport. Under Sports on this page, there are links to Sports and Winter sports.

I am unfamiliar with the breadcrumb system used here, so sorting things out is a bit difficult. I think e.g. cross country skiing should be seen as both a way of backpacking/hiking and a winter sport. If we want a true tree, See also sections will of course do, but they should be there.

Anyway, we should have one hierarchy, for this page, for breadcrumbs and for listings in the summary articles, so that people can learn it, see what branches they have studied and easily know if they find orphan articles. For the same reasons, we should use the real article titles in breadcrumbs and in listings.

Is somebody working on this? I do not want to disturb somebody's mental map by reorganising these things, but somebody has to tidy up. Does anybody have a mental map of the present or an intended structure.

--LPfi (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems nobody is working on the hierarchy, with still is very messy, with a complicated deep subheading/breadcrumb structure and duplicated content without cross-links to more complete versions. Unless somebody makes this work I think we must more or less revert to the pre 2013 structure. --LPfi (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hm. The earlier versions are not very good either. I think the biggest problem is sorting out things like Hiking, which could be Get around, Sleep, See or Do. Even here as a Do, few hikers regard the activity a sport. Other topics, such as horseback riding, biking or orienteering, have the same problem. They can be about travelling to be a spectator, to do the sport or just to get around. With a five-level heading structure, users are certain to go afoul at some level, and having only the first level in the TOC makes that even worse.

As of now, the main headings are more or less Sleep, Drink and eat, Do (sports), See and do (other). This more or less works for Dining and Drinking (except for agritourism), but not for the other groups (whaling a sport, come on!).

What about

• Ways of getting around: biking, cross-country skiing, Sea kayaking, cruising etc. I'd include horseback riding & al, as going somewhere to watch horse sports or to take riding lessons is not much different from going somewhere for other reasons (and to watch or get lessons is probably not that much different from at home). Some of these may include special accommodation (such as while cruising), but accommodation is not the point. They should be linked from Transportation, although I think they are odd enough ways of transport to be regarded activities.
• Nuclear tourism, Science tourism, Military tourism etc., which seem to be about visiting sites and museums around a certain theme. These articles seem to have quite much content (although they may have a bias). Are these all See topics? Should they be under Cultural attractions (some are already)?
• Wildlife watching (whaling, birding & al) is typically in the Do section, as there is seldom wildlife by your hotel. I think these articles belong in a section of their own here.
• Urban backpacking and Car camping should probably be under Sleep: they are about accommodation options that are available more or less regardless of destination and reason for the travel.
• Dining and drinking is quite a clear subgroup, but are they activities? Even Water! Having culinary topics under Eat and drink and the rest under Stay healthy would be logical.
• I think we should not make a difference between sports and e.g. beachcombing. Separating water, winter and other activities is tempting, but I am not sure we should, or can we do it if the separation is only in this "Other" group?

--LPfi (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm wary of the 'destinations' category in most articles here. At best it might be well developed but really inconsistent such as the scuba diving section which is missing huge areas. Or even golf which has a gross over abundance of info on some areas and nothing in others. I don't really have any solutions for this other than I think most articles would be better off without it. --Lumpytrout (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I doubt these belong in an "activities" page, with the possible exception of touring a vineyard or similar establishment. Food belongs in eat as fast food is "eat" and not "do", for instance. K7L (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Food topics have been under activities, concerns and cultural attractions. As there are more of them now than when the structure was first set up I suggest that it becomes a top level. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

If any attempt is being made to match these to the stock top-level article sections (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep...) "travel activities" aligns with "do", attractions with "see" and the food and beverage topics with eat and drink. Not sure why attractions redirects to a project or policy page? K7L (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree! Let's put food and beverages into the eat and drink categories, where they imho belong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Usage of the word "travel(l)er" the words travel and travellers are overused, especially in article names. We could consider moving the name of some topics and concepts to names without words derived from travel. /Yvwv (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. That, and "tips for..." are superfluous, much like "It should be noted that..." K7L (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

And how would this help someone searching the internet for web sites on activities while travelling as opposed to activities at home or work? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the left third or more of the new banner weren't in dark shadow, it would be a better composition and I would support a change. As it is, I'm undecided and will be interested in what others think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess the question is why the change? The first banner shows a good travel activity and the proposed banner also shows a perfectly good travel activity. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there currently an article on either of the depicted activities? If yes, we can use the corresponding banner for that and the other one here. If not, we should "reserve" it for that use ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well hiking and canoeing are both articles referenced but the original I think is better for a title on the left hand side being a good light blue rather than the large black area of the proposal. (I know you create a lot of new banners for pages that do not have any, please keep up that good work rather than distracting everyone with proposals to change something that is already OK.) --Traveler100 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Current banner is almost perfect for the reason mentioned by Traveler100. No need to replace it. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nothing wrong with the current on. No need to change. Danapit (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Proposed Syced (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Current banner is great, no need to replace. There's clearly no consensus to change here, so I guess we'll stick with status quo. Hopefully we can find another article to use the canoeing one, as that is nice too. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know this is primarily a "catch-all" article, but am I the only one to think it is badly written? I think getting this to usable would mostly require some copy editing, do you agree? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd agree. I'm also inclined to say some of the destination lists are a bit too arbitrary. I can see the benefit of listing a number of popular destinations for a specific activity, by means of examples. It makes the list less dry. However, having 4 Indian destinations listed for birding and none in Africa is very unbalanced. Also the structure of the headers is messy; that same wildlife watching section links to itself twice, for example. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many topic titles include the word "travel". It is superfluous, and seems to be an artifact from The Other Site. Should this page be renamed to Activities or Do? /Yvwv (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Only superfluous if you are already on this site, not if you are looking for information on a search engine page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

By that logic, "travel" should be in the title of every article on this site. I'm finding your argument a little dubious. Please explain further. And by the way, I'd favor Activities over Do for an article. "Do" is fine as a section of an article but weird as the title of an entire article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think if someone types in the name of a city then they are looking for the type of information provided on this site. However entering activities could be for a number of reasons home, work, political, ... It is easy for us who work on this site to start looking at the world from a wiki travel point of view. We however need to look at things from the point of view of how an outsider would see the page from search engine results. To get this site discoverable it is important to have key words not just in the article content but also in the title of the page.

This is a travel guide. If they're looking to get into politics, they've stumbled on the wrong site. However, once they're here, they might enjoy it and hang around, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if you are already on this site that I totally see that the title looks superfluous, but I am talking about looking at the name of the page for people who are not aware of Wilivoyage and are searching for information from Google or Yahoo or other search machine. Why would anyone or a search indexing spider think an article titled activity or do has anything to do with travel? Think looking from the outside in. I do not think it will ever be anywhere near the top of search results if I type in political activity in a search engine. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think Traveler100 might be right. Personally, I also think "travel activities" just sounds better than "activities", even when you're on the site already. For me, good titles are not about deleting every word that's not strictly needed for understanding. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

And it feels like a cumbersome, awkward phrase to me, so that undoubtedly affects my feelings about using it for an article title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely it should be changed, preferably to Do to match Sleep, Respect, etc. (Weird is good; embrace weird!) But Activities would be at least be an improvement. The page title already includes the word "Travel", as every mainspace page does. Powers ^(talk) 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I feel like if we're going to use "Do" as the name of an article, we should next use "Be" (and possibly follow it up with "Do-Be-Do"). "Do" is a mystical title, not one that denotes or imparts any information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen any complaints by people confused by its use as a section heading in our articles. Powers ^(talk) 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Using "Do" as a heading in articles isn't as clear as it could be, but in context it isn't hard to figure out. Using "Do" as an article title seems a step too far to me - unique branding is good, but first and foremost we should ensure that our article titles are sensible for the site's users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Activities, which at least isn't worse than Travel activities. /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Really do not think this was a good move, but if you think there is consensus guess I can live with it. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yvwv I have cleaned up the categories after your move, again. There are however a few other articles that need to have their breadcrumbs updated. Haciendas of Ecuador ,Salsa dancing in Latin America, Science tourism, Spas, UFOs, Urban sketching, Winter in the Nordic countries. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Without prejudice to this move, I agree with Ryan entirely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you all think should be there? Everything conceivable? Here's what's there now:

• Cultural attractions; experiencing mankind's heritage
• Hitchhiking
• Itineraries
• Natural attractions
• Navigation
• Next-to-impossible destinations
• Preparation
• Concerns
• Stay safe
• Sleep
• Around the world overland

"Concerns" are general, not specifically related to activities, or only some of them are.

"Natural attractions" are not an activity.

"Preparation" is general, but I could see the argument to include it.

"Stay safe" is only partly about activities.

"Sleep" is rather more an inactive state than an activity, except for sleepwalkers.

So what do you think? Every time anyone deletes some of these, someone else comes around to re-add things, with the likely result that we'll eventually get a totally indiscriminate, disorganized list of everything. Don't we instead need a curated list with some criteria? Which criteria would you propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Things that are activities should not be in this section, they should be listed higher up on this page. Cultural and Natural attractions could maybe stay as they're other big reason for travel. Hitchhiking and Navigation should be removed, Itineraries probably too. Next-to-impossible destinations I'm not so sure about (getting to and staying at such places certainly involves a lot of activity...). Activities almost always require some Preparation so that one could be included. Concerns has very little to do with activities, so it can be deleted. Stay safe is a good idea to keep, most activities listed here includes some risk. Sleep should be removed as should Around the world overland. This would leave: Cultural attractions, Natural attractions, Preparation and Stay safe. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd be fine with that, but I still think we should try to come up with some kind of test for what should be in this section and why, because my experience is that anything that can be (re-)added will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would include only items that someone might be looking for under "Activities", or that they are likely to want to read next. Powers ^(talk) 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes to most of the above. The main things not to add are those that obviously are found elsewhere in our hierarchy: How to get in or around, where and how to sleep and eat, where to go (next). Things in those that are activities in their own right, such as horse back riding or wine tasting, should be linked higher up. There are border line things treated as sights, that is why cultural and natural attractions are included now, but I think we should link Attractions instead.

Preparation and Stay safe are in the main Travel topics. The risks in the individual activities are usually (and should) be handled in the individual articles. Preparation is less obvious, especially as it is not a standard section. I'd say Stay safe could be kept, just as a reminder of an important issue, and Preparation (have we got consensus on changing from imperative to substantives?) because it is obscure. But both are on the slippery slope. Perhaps Attractions should be the only link in this section.

--LPfi (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Prepare", "Understand" and "Go" are standard sections... for itinerary. K7L (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

By definition, anything in "See also" is found elsewhere in our hierarchy. Powers ^(talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that a topic has been considered, or where it is to be found, is not necessarily obvious. --LPfi (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

If that is what you meant, I think you have a misplaced modifier (specifically, "obviously") in your previous comment. Powers ^(talk) 14:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Posted this a while back - https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub&oldid=2888733#.27Fantasy.27_activities_for_the_traveller

And never got any feedback :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think these "unusual activities" should be added case-by-case in the relevant geographical article. Make sure the activity is always available, for instance getting in a movie production as an extra is interesting if the opportunity is available most of the time and not too difficult to get into. Cheers! :-) Syced (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Already added a comment about the British "shoot" in recreational shooting for example, but some of the other things might need the assistance of other contributors, Like for example

• how much Silverstone costs to do a lap on and so on?
• Do classy US hotels do the full Afternoon tea , at a price?
• Do you need an insurance waiver for a rodeo weekend?

(and so on)... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

It may be time to get an actual policy position on escape rooms as one was added to and removed from the Portland (Oregon) article recently. I really have no made up opinion either way, but it would be nice to have clarity to avoid this discussion popping up every couple of months. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm misunderstanding, Escape Rooms aren't any different from other attractions and thus shouldn't need a special policy. In the case of the edit you cited, I reverted that addition to the Portland article because it wasn't for a specific Escape Room business, but was instead a generic description of Escape Rooms with a link to an Escape Room directory website, and it was cut & pasted to a dozen articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

When looking at the Next-to-impossible destinations article, I started thinking of one thing. Many travel topics, such as itineraries, culinary and cultural topics, phrasebooks, transport systems etc do not require any prior experience with the topic, and pretty much everything a complete newbie needs to get started can (and should) be covered in Understand (just as with any destination article).

Not so when it comes to some dangerous activities. For articles like surfing or rock climbing, I think the point is to to show readers already familiar with the activities where you can perform them, and newbies where they can watch or learn said activities. On the other hand, providing newbies with enough information to get into trouble would be out of the scope of WV and IMHO pretty damn irresponsible. I was wondering if there are any guidelines for how much/how detailed information you are allowed to add about performing potentially dangerous activities? --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think the present guidelines say we should have complete guides, which, as you say, is nonsensical for activities requiring advanced skill and training.

On the other hand, many activities can require more or less skill depending on your ambitions. I think the dangers of snorkelling or hiking can be kept on a reasonable level with some advice and common sense, while diving into submerged caves or backpacking across Greenland is dangerous even for well-prepared experts. Any advice given to help newbies tackle difficulties can be used to get into greater danger. I think we should give any advice we think is useful for those for which Wikivoyage still can be seen as a meaningful resource for such advice. For the latter activities there is no reason for us to go into specifics, we should rather keep to giving general descriptions, telling about getting in and pointing out some non-obvious dangers.

In activities like hiking some advice helps people get out on the trail, and to manage problems that could be dangerous, which is fine – but it is easy to exceed your limits. Just a pointer can get people to do reckless things. An example is the Trolltunga cliff, where many people do walk in T-shirts, but some get in serious trouble when caught in darkness, rain and mud on the return, often having underestimated the sheer toughness of the climb. Basic outdoor skills and common sense would help many return on their own, or at least avoid going late or in bad weather. Providing advice and pointers for acquiring the "common" sense is well in scope, as is educating more seasoned hikers on specifics of some region. The line before providing newbies the means to get into trouble is drawn in the water, or indeed non-existent – any advice will help some people risk their lives.

--LPfi (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could this be updated to usable? Selfie City (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do not think so, without much work. There is no good overview or even a thought-out structure. I think one should start by thinking about the hierarchy, as discussed in many of the sections sections above. --LPfi (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I'll consider getting to work on it in the near future. Selfie City (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply