Talk:Itineraries Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

I moved this page into the Wikivoyage: namespace, by analogy with Project:list of phrasebooks. --(WT-en) Evan 13:19, 27 Jul 2004 (EDT)

I think that was a mistake. A better analogy is Travel topics. These should be readily available for browsing; they are a good way to plan a trip. Can we move the page back? Should we have an intinerary template that inserts boilerplate text and a link to the list, like the one for traveltopics? I'd say so. (WT-en) Pashley 07:04, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Would it be OK to add Silk Road under Asia? It is not formally an itinerary. Should it be? (WT-en) Pashley

Created a new "Intercontinental" section and added it in. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:02, 9 April 2006 (EDT)

In line with the issue I've raised here, I think that new itineraries should normally be first created as a link on their corresponding article in the hierarchical geography and then listed here. This would help preventing the existence of itineraries that are detached from their location. Exceptions to this, of course, would be intercontinental itineraries and a hypothetical itinerary through a place that still doesn't have an article. I'm adding a note on this to the list, please feel free to revert if you think this is not the case. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:02, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

What do people think of starting day trip type itineraries? This may not be good for some travelers, but for some that may live in the area or airline employees that can just fly for the day. I am going to create a San Francisco day trip that is popular with a lot of US Airways employees in Las Vegas. --(WT-en) Texas Web Scout 19:26, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

This might be useful. Especially for people who are only stopping in a city for a day to catch another flight the next day. I could've used this type of itinerary for Tampa, London, and Brussels. I'd suggest limiting one day itineraries to huge cities or regions. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 19:46, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

So, the IsIn template includes RDF code that says, in part, "This article is about a place with the same name." Typically only destination guides can make that claim; itineraries are about a way or a route, but not a place.

About one out of six, maybe one out of five itineraries were using "IsIn" to closely related the itinerary with a destination. It wouldn't be that big a deal, but I've written other code that depends on only places being called places. So, I've removed the "IsIn" templates from itineraries, and replaced them with a "related" template, which is probably more appropriate.

If for some reason we want to have breadcrumb menus on itineraries, that's fine, but we have to do it a different way than using "IsIn". --(WT-en) Evan 22:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

What about using tools such as bluewalks.com to draw the itinerary in a map and then link it from here? It might be much easier to understand them seeing them in a map rather than just text. Another option would be embedding the map image. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 213.100.26.219 (talk • contribs)

Linking to google maps is a violation of Project:External links. Specifically, Wikivoyage articles are created with offline use in mind—if the information is offsite, offline users will not be able to use the article. Maps for itineraries are always very useful, and are a requirement for star status. For an example, see Loop_Art_Tour. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:23, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I can't believe the "Camino de Santiago", the pilgrimage route crossing northern Spain / southern France to the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral, is not in this list!!

I will create the title but ain't got time to do the article now... sorry. I just hope than someone has the time to write this article, since it is one of the world's most important pilgrimage routes. --116.231.36.50 00:45, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Having hiked the first 15 or so km of Lycian Way [1] (which is a 509-km waymarked hiking trail in southern Turkey), I now have very detailed notes for the aforementioned section of the trail. How can I put them down on Wikivoyage? Start a Lycian Way outline and describe the first 15-km at there and let someone else to complete it? Or start a Lycian Way stub and make it a sub-article of it (such as Lycian Way/Ovacık to Faralya)? Or just start an article about the actual route I hiked (like Hiking Ovacık to Faralya or Hiking Ovacık to Faralya on Lycian Way or Hiking Ovacık to Faralya via Lycian Way)? I also have a detailed description of the trail between Fethiye and Kayaköy (8 km) which is not "officially" a part of Lycian Way, but with the addition of a further approximately 5-km trail, can be hiked almost without a gap until the "official" start of Lycian Way (except a 2-km section on which you should walk on the side of a road). Should it go to the 'get in' section of a future Kayaköy article or as a stand-alone article (i.e. Hiking Fethiye to Kayaköy) or as a subsection of Lycian Way (i.e. Lycian Way/Fethiye to Kayaköy) provided that there is no objection or guideline against creating sub-articles for itineraries? ~ (WT-en) Vidimian 20:23, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I would think a Lycian Way itinerary is the way to start. Include the Fethiye/Karakoy material. Link to it from Karkoye "get in". If this eventually, gets too big for one article, then consider splitting it up. As for cities, which we do not district until there is a lot of material. (WT-en) Pashley 23:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate the new layout; it certainly looks more professional. But it's impossible to edit just one section of the page. Can that be adjusted? LtPowers (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have added edit sections now to every subsection. Unfortunately, I can't get the continent tables to show edit links... Globe-trotter (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that might be a bit of a problem. Using HTML tags like <h2> is usually deprecated on wikis because of the way wikicode is translated to HTML. If you need the headers to look a certain way, it would be better to use CSS, I think, to redefine the standard header appearance. LtPowers (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be an itinerary, but is not listed here. I do not know how to add it without messing up formatting. Pashley (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Added. K7L (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some itineraries have breadcrumbs by use of the {{isPartOf}} template, while other use the the {{related}} template to link to the region the article is associated to, while other have no navigation. What are peoples views on getting this consistent?--Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see a number of options:

• Use {{related}} on all articles, swapping from {{isPartOf}} where appropriate.
• Use {{isPartOf}} on all articles, swapping from {{related}} where appropriate.
• Extend the {{Itinerary}} template to have a parameter for the region, swapping from {{isPartOf}} and {{related}} where appropriate.
• Create a new breadcrumb template like the {{PartOfTopic}} used for Travel Topics, swapping from {{isPartOf}} and {{related}} where appropriate.

Hard to say, the documentation for {{related}} is very vague, and I have never used it myself. I dont think {{IsPartOf}} is ideal, as an itinerary may pass through several regions. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Related is the template that should be used for itineraries. --Peter ^Talk 16:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

But why? Since itineraries are locatable on a map, putting them in the breadcrumb trail would seem to make sense... at least more sense than using breadcrumb trails for travel topics does. LtPowers (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be reasonable to use IsPartOf in cases where one long itinerary includes several shorter ones, for example Overland Kunming to Hong Kong and Yunnan tourist trail could be tagged as part of Overland to Tibet, though currently they are not. Otherwise, I'd just use the Related template to point to the relevant country or region. Pashley (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would we then use breadcrumbs to put an itinerary below a city district? Also, related is very useful for itineraries that are related to discrete places (like, say, an Underground Railroad itinerary). --Peter ^Talk 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't really considering a hierarchy of itineraries, but I believe our itineraries do (at least sort-of) fit into our geographical hierarchy. LtPowers (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

See also old discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Itineraries#New_Itineraries. Pashley (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking at previous discussions I am inclined to use the related template to add a link on the left of pages and keep the isPartOf for locations only. If no one sees an issue I will update pages over the next week or so. Traveler100 (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't sure if I should put it here or in the Dynamic Maps Expedition, but I just thought that the dynamic maps with geocoded listings is something that can be used in itinerary articles to show the destinations - See listings for the points of interest themselves and Do listings for bus interchanges and other places that aren't of interest but you nevertheless need to pass through. With a dynamic map in the article the traveler can easily get a comprehensive idea about the route. Me and Saqib are trying it out on World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka - check it out! Do you think it's something to implement on other itineraries as well or just a bad idea that we shouldn't proceed with? ϒpsilon (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

See this itinerary Bertha Benz Memorial Route. --Saqib (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've probably seen it a couple of weeks back, but I didn't remember it. As I said, I know just a little about the dynamic maps, mostly from Helsinki's district articles where I've added coordinates to listings. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does day trip itineraries apply for this list? If not so, those two I added from Slovakia should be deleted.

And one more question, why countries are not sorted by alphabetical order? It would be much more easy to follow list. Unless there is some other order?

Hrbackpacker (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware, any itinerary, regardless of its expected timeframe or the distance covered, should be listed on this page. So if you find any itinerary articles that aren't listed here, please add them.

I think all the continents and the countries/regions within those continents are listed alphabetically, only except Romania and your recent addition of Slovakia. I'll alphabetize their order. Any ones that I miss? Vidimian (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

And Russia, too. Vidimian (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because of Russia I added Slovakia to wrong place. :)

Ok, now seems to be in order. Thanks.

Hrbackpacker (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nobody read the bilble? if not there are many anotations that will ease the pain of searching for an Itinerary there.--Neurorebel (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The bible is not a book on geography nor one on travel. There is even a fringe theory that tries to explain "weird" biblical geography by putting the whole story in Yemen instead... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

In light of this, why indeed? They don't make sense everywhere, of course, but in some cases they do. And we do have them for Travel Topics, after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would like to propose that they do have breadcrumbs. I do not think they should be in the main location breadcrumb and be mixed in with cities and regions but there are two other methods. First is set up a breadcrumb hierarchy for Itineraries, i.e. Itineraries in France etc. Second is to add them to the existing Travel Topics hierarchy, go under Hiking or Rail travel. With travel topics methods they would also be added to the geographical categories on the Topics index page. Both methods have the advantage would not have to manually maintain the index page, they would be added when the PartOfTopic template is filled in. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where do the intercontinental itineraries, like RMS Titanic or Around the World in Eighty Days, fit into this proposed breadcrumb structure? K7L (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some of them can be put into a thematic breadcrumb hierarchy, but I think said breadcrumbs should be optional not mandatory. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

If a new breadcrumbs trail for Itineraries is created then directly under the main level of Itineraries at same level as continents, if using the existing Travel Topic breadcrumbs then would be under a subject area and would not have a second region category. The second option I would suggest keeping the article type so would have travel topics and itineraries under the same hierarchy, similar to the fact we have airports and parks articles in same structure as cities. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the German Wikivoyage edition we are using two roots for breadcrumbs trail navigation, world and travel topics -- both in the main and the categories namespaces. Of course, this was also for historical reasons, because we used two namespaces for these trails. The cause was simple: our own Wikidata database, named Location database, could not handle non-geographic objects in its initial state. Most of our itineraries are now part of the topics trail like this: Travel topics > [Going ahead/traveling] > Hiking > Hiking in Europe > Hiking in England > Coast to Coast Walk. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some of us objected quite strongly to breadcrumbs for travel topics. I still think adding them was a mistake & somewhat resent the fact that people went ahead & made massive changes without, as I saw it, even trying to answer valid objections. Perhaps that is just me being a curmudgeon & in any case it is probably too late to reverse that decision.

The same objection applies to itineraries. Unlike geographical areas, they do not naturally form a hierarchy so it is arguably a mistake to try to force them into one. I have no objection at all where there is a natural hierarchic relation, for example Along the Yangtze River is in China and Scuba diving in Australia might have a link to either Australia or Scuba diving.

Where I would object is when there is no natural hierarchy to use, or many might be considered. It is clear for example that a "cycling in Europe" article could be link to "cycling" (or Europe), but where should cycling link? It is a travel activity & a competitive sport, so link to Sports or Activities? But it is also a mode of transportation, so group it with Driving, Rail, Hiking, etc.? Bike travellers have specific needs & interests, like LGBT folk or travellers with kids, so group it with those? Like scuba or photography, it involves making complex choices about equipment that ranges in price from cheap to stratospheric & can be bought or rented; group it with those articles?

I'd say the only reasonable solution is to put breadcrumb tags into TT articles only when it is completely clear that there is a natural hierarchy in play. Tagging "Literary London" as in London makes sense. Scuba diving in Australia might have a link to either Australia or Scuba diving; I'd say tagging it as part of "Scuba diving" is more sensible. I do not think "cycling" should be tagged at all. Pashley (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

In case the above is not clear, that implies that I would object strongly to setting up "a breadcrumb hierarchy for Itineraries, i.e. Itineraries in France etc." As I see it, any such hierarchy would be inherently bogus because there is not a single natural hierarchy in play here; it would make just as much sense to group some of them under "cycling routes", others under "rail travel in Europe", etc.

Of course we already have breadcrumbs for the natural geographic hierarchy e,g. Europe > France > Southeastern France > Provence. To me it would be fine to make an itinerary link to Provence or France, but duplicating that hierarchy with Itineraries in Provence, Itineraries in France, etc. would be obviously idiotic. Pashley (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

We deleted several "Topics in ..." articles some time back; see Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/August_2013#Topics_in_South_America and a few after that. As I see it, all "Intineraries in ..." could be deleted for similar reasons. They could even be speedy deleted; this should not require discussion on the VFD page.

On the other hand, no-one should be either creating such articles or deleting them if some already exist until discussion here finishes. Pashley (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "itineraries in" articles should not be created for the time being, as itineraries are to be listed on the region/country page that contains them, but what if there are more than nine itineraries in a given geographic unit? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

To me, that would be a sign that certain itineraries should be merged, or the scope of the geographic unit's divisions needs to be adjusted. Powers ^(talk) 19:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I suppose there can be more than nine useful itineraries in some, perhaps any, geographic unit (I count nine official thematic walks in Turku off the top of my head). But for that to be a "problem" we first need somebody really writing all of them, and if such a contributor turns up we can have subheadings for itineraries of different length or style, and if need be, a subarticle listing the itineraries. If the itineraries are good there is no problem, and I have a hard time imaging a user creating lots of itineraries not worth listing (other than if most of them are stubs or really bad, but that is a user issue, not a policy issue). --LPfi (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There could easily be more than nine itineraries in Germany tat cross state lines or more than nine in the US that cross region lines. And imho they should be linked in cities they pass through (if said passing through is important or notable) and in the smallest geographical unit in our breadcrumb hierarchy that wholly contains them and isn't an extraregion. So an itinerary that goes from Baden Württemberg to Bavaria would be linked from Germany and one that goes from Baja to Alta California in North America and so on wherever practicable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems like Wikivoyage doesn't have much of the "3 Days in Antwerp" or "One Week in Korea" sort of articles. Is that just because no one has wanted to make them, or is there a policy against it? It seems like some travelers like those things, and I'd be willing to make a few if they're kosher. Wyote (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

We used to have a bunch of those, and somewhere along the line, a decision was made to delete all of them that weren't at Guide level, on the basis that they were "personal" itineraries that didn't follow an otherwise standard route and thus difficult for other people to edit. I thought some babies were thrown out with the bathwater (I remember in particular a Usable Hong Kong itinerary that I argued against deleting), and in practice, things on this score have loosened some over the last couple of years or so. It's kind of surprising there's no preexisting discussion of this topic on this page. User:AndreCarrotflower, would you like to add a remark on this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

For reference the Hong Kong itinerary is now at: User:AlasdairW/One day in Hong Kong. AlasdairW (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A week near Hong Kong was expanded into a region article, to which it now redirects. Pashley (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd say that it's a good practice to avoid those kinds of article titles. While we're a travel guide, we're not a tour agency: the "X days in place" titles sound too commercial for us (remember, we're a part of the Wikimedia Foundation). At the same time, though, I completely understand Ikan Kekek's point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't really agree that such titles are inherently commercial-sounding. I can easily see a printed guidebook having "If you have only one day"; "If you have three days", etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's all very subjective and personal, though, as to what I, you, or someone else thinks are the must-dos. I like to suggest the absolute musts in the main article (York#See, for example, but a more guide-bookish way might be to deploy an infobox, presumably in 'Understand').

However, building a whole article just from my personal preference, especially for a much larger city like HK, would be mostly duplicative from the main article, reasonably arbitrary as to what does and does not make the cut, and somewhat egotistical (my perfect three days in Paris probably does not look like yours). On the whole, it's A Good Thing™ we don't have personal itinerary articles, in my view.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The main problem with such articles, as stated in Wikivoyage:Itineraries#"Personal"_itineraries is that there are basically an indefinite amount of possible variants. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's true to a point, and maybe more so in a place like Hong Kong, but somehow, printed guidebooks do this kind of thing often, and I think in some places like Siena, it's pretty much of a consensus what the "must sees" are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the lists of itineraries has grown unwieldy for some countries, especially USA, but also perhaps Australia, "Britain and Ireland" and the Nordic countries. Some of these might be split up by country, but I suppose many US itineraries cross state borders. Not all the interstate itineraries are listed in USA#Itineraries. Is it enough to try just to link the itineraries from the relevant destination article sections, or should be split up the list by topic in some way or start a continental list, as suggested in the lead? --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy with splitting the list either by continent or topic, though with a slight preference for the former, as people are more likely to be looking for itineraries that match their interests in e.g. southwestern Europe, rather than looking through the whole world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I don't see any problem with USA#Itineraries. IMHO, we should follow 7+2, and keep only the best/most informative itineraries on the lists of itineraries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be better to have a complete list of itineraries, even if they're split into several pages?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a very handy list of all the itineraries, and we should keep it that way. The US could be subdivided by our 12 regions, Australia by states (on the other hand, some of the itineraries form part of Highway 1 (Australia) and could maybe be merged there), the British Isles by the constituent nations and Ireland, the Nordic countries should get their own country headings, and on the other hand, Croatia's and Romania's few itineraries could be combined under one Balkan heading. Ypsilon (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!: The problem with splitting them is that there are lists of itineraries all over the place, rather than having the useful ones in one place. As we often say, I think changing the situation here is a solution looking for a problem. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think having subheadings for the USA would help greatly, but I do not think splitting by our regions is a good solution: all itineraries now in USA#Itineraries cross region borders. Some more should be moved there. Most of the rest of the itineraries are, I think, contained in individual states. --LPfi (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that this should be a complete list of all itineraries, until we have so many that we have separate pages for each continent. I would like there to be a little information about each itinerary - what transport is used and roughly how long it is (miles or hours). If I am looking for a week long walk or canoe journey, I might consider anything on the continent, but I would only be interested in a half day drive if I was visiting the area anyway. AlasdairW (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it time to create a page for each of these section and have a breadcrumb navigation for Itineraries? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Having a list for each continental section could definitely also be a solution. Ypsilon (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Each itinerary could have a brief factfile: a tweet-length blurb, a list of the countries involved, the distance and time, recommended mode(s) of transport. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although I am not normally keen on tables, and they can get too complicated on WP, a table might work here - allowing the reader to sort by country, mode of transport, distance etc. AlasdairW (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also not a fan of tables. How about trying creating a page to see what it could look like: United States of America itineraries. Also improve articles to have geo map (also add coords to wikidata) and breadcrumbs (removing need for This article is an itinerary template): A Taste of Coastal Texas --Traveler100 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I like T100's idea and think it should become common on Wikivoyage. I would support removing the experimental tag in the long term. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can also start to look at a new title page Itineraries/sandbox, which when used with {{PartOfItinerary}} would add articles to the drop-down list automatically. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

That looks excellent. Thank you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity, ThunderingTyphoons!, AlasdairW, Ypsilon: and others. Take a look at United States of America itineraries and Itineraries/sandbox. Still a WIP but would be good to get some feedback and assistance with expansion. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks nice! Ypsilon (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've just arrived in France for two weeks' holiday, so I'm afraid I haven't the time to assist you right now. But a brief bit of feedback: having a hierarchical list like your "Itineraries" page as the main place for readers to land, alongside the existing full list, is a good idea, and I would support moving it into mainspace. That said, the existing list should ideally be an actual category page if the new format gets approved, to save us having to remember to edit two pages when adding, removing, or tinkering with an itinerary.

I favour putting the USA itineraries under the North American sublist, as the main list would look better as just continents. Also, alphabetise the list, rather than the current apparently random order.

Thinking more about my earlier idea of a factfile, perhaps that could be implemented, at least initially, in a quickbar-like box within (selected) articles, as a way to test the concept. That would be a less onerous task than my previous suggestion, as not every article has to be the same content-wise, whereas piecemeal factfiles on the main list, as and when somebody had the time to do them, would just make everything look incomplete. I would be happy to try something out along these lines when I'm back in whatever's left of the UK in mid-September.

Bisous, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good work. At the moments the pages might be better as continents.

I like the map showing a view of the itineraries. It is a pity that there is no easy way of showing longer ones as a line rather than a point. The map will be a great way of finding itineraries near places I am visiting.

I would like a few words about each itinerary, particularly the means of transport and some idea of length. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, creating those entries is definitely the next step. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

General feedback is just have one level, namely continents, so move USA into NA page. I am thinking creating two index pages, the content ones that maps and have a small amount of descriptive text for each itinerary, then another page that generates a full list based on the categories generated by {{PartOfItinerary}}. The idea of a route line showing long itineraries is a good one; there may be a way of doing this with mapshapes, but this can be looked into later. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, let's just get the basics down for now. Is the United States itineraries article merged with the North American article yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at the hierarchy you've created and I think that is the best way to handle it — have United States itineraries breadcrumbed underneath the North American itineraries article. I'm satisfied with that method. Thanks for continuing to work on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The infrastructure is now setup. Just need to highlight a few more articles in text on Itineraries/sandbox before making live and then the big task of adding a little text to the each itinerary mentioned on the continent pages: North America itineraries, Europe itineraries etc. The Itineraries index page will update automatically now with the use of {{PartOfItinerary}} --Traveler100 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Still a lot of work to do on adding a little text and coordinates to each itinerary on the continent pages, but I feel it is already better than the old format, particularly on smartphone, so I have made it live. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nice work; looks good on mobile.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

For a while, I've been wondering if episodes of Top Gear and The Grand Tour would be allowable and suitable as itineraries. This weekend I took a stab at creating User:Bigpeteb/sandbox/Top Gear Vietnam special and User:Bigpeteb/sandbox/Grand Tour Mongolia to see how they might look, and I think they're pretty promising. We do already have Bandit Run and Easy Rider, so I think there's precedent for these kinds of itineraries. Thoughts? --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great idea. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Box-bottom links to categories are confusing and redundant when we have box-top links to geographically classified lists. Isn't it better to delete them and shorten the page a bit?--Hnishy63 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Should we delete the categories as well? Pashley (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The categories themselves? They are hidden and used for maintenance purposes. –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the original suggestion would require a change to Template:Topicbox which is used on 6 other pages. The category list expands to give a list of all the itineraries in alphabetical order, which could be useful if you know the name of a route, but not exactly which country or state it is in. AlasdairW (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In this article, same-looking links lead to different pages. As an alternative solution, is it possible to add '(list by area)' to the top links and '(list by ABC)' to the bottom links? (though I don't know how to at all)--Hnishy63 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply