Travel and Tourism B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

Archive 1

Here is a link with the CORRECT rankings: http://www.euromonitor.com/Top_150_City_Destinations_London_Leads_the_Way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.176.40 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being a picture of tourists at the Trevi Fountain, as the caption claims, this is a rather racy picture of a wall painting of the Mexican actrice Gloria Trevi advertising the scandal apparently associated with her - in spanish. Does anyone have a picture of the Fountain with tourists that they can put up to fix this problem? NadiaLala 09:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace the picture of the Mexican actrice Gloria Trevi with the old image that was there before. For some reason I had to reupload the image. The image of the lady was a reupload of the original fountain image that I have restored. Have another look at the article. --Ad@m.J.W.C. 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two images on Peru, and one each on Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica. Seems like the South Americans have taken over this article. Can't believe the article has no image on China and India! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.210.59.31 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

prout !

I would like to suggest that this section of Winter Tourism be removed, as it has nothing to do with Tourism or winter sports in general:

Organized sport was well established in Britain before it reached other countries. The vocabulary of sport bears witness to this: rugby, football, and boxing all originated in Britain, and even tennis, originally a French sport, was formalized and codified by the British, who hosted the first national championship in the nineteenth century, at Wimbledon.

Mcdanimr 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)mcdanimr[reply]

Yes, it certainly seemed to give off "POV vibes" and was somewhat irrelevant, too, as you said, so I went ahead and removed the paragraph. There has been sufficient time (4 months at the time of this writing) to present rationale and alternative formulations but evidently nobody came to defend this section, so off it went. --jibun_{≈παντα ρει≈} (keskustele!) 03:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having a long see also list should there be a navagation box instead, it could include tourism links for all the major citys and whatever is in the see also list of this article as well. you could add it to all the other articles about tourism and have the whole subject networked.

similar to this

and this

Mindys12345 09:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the see also list be removed or reduced now that there is template with all of those links and more, any thing thats not in the template could be added. Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!

I don't mean to be a typical, complaining American, but it seems like most of this article relates to Britain, and nowhere is there a reference to any American tourism. It'd be stupid to say there's no international tourism to America, so shouldn't there be some mention? --164.113.31.209 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I hadn't noticed the two pics, but still. The only text mention is a small, two sentences.--164.113.31.209 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has coined a new term: Tourism of Doom ie. Doom tourism. Touring natural sites that are under threat from global warming etc.. -- 71.191.131.7 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graph near the bottom of the page is inconsistent with the list near the top. On the list France is receiving the most international tourist per year, in the graph it's the US. Obviously only one is correct, I don't care which one, but i think one or the other should be corrected. Unfortunately I don't have a clue which one is correct. Knijert (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the list is talking about amount of tourist per year and the graph about tourism receipt per year. Still strikes me as odd that tourist spend so much more in the US than in France or Spain...Knijert (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That probably has something to do with the euro/dollar parity. Basar Kizildere (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many tourists, and not only from the Third World, do lots of shopping in the U.S., which is not necessarily the case in Europe, where prices are higher for electronics, clothes, etc. With a weak dollar against many currencies, there is an additional incentive to do shopping in the U.S.. Another factor is that tourism in Europe include many tourists from EU countries, who do not do as much shopping in their neighboring countries. Mariordo (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two tables use the convention of a '.' holding a decimal place, but the third uses the ',' . Would it not look better to be consistent? I would favor the period, as it is more commonly used in the wiki. BobertWABC (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why large parts of the article, largely relating to the historical development of the industry, have been removed? If there is no adequate eplanation forthcoming, I will take steps to revert to the original text, though without eliminating subsequent contributions.

--Train guard (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because they contained no citation whatsoever, appeared to be a copy and paste, and represented a totally Britishcentric view of tourism. violated WP:CITE , WP:COPY and WP:UNDUE Michellecrisp (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete other people's work like this! It is rather bad manners to delete material without giving notice beforehand. There are many sections of wikipedia that do not contain citations. If it bothers you, you should really flag it up and then see what response you get. That's what others do. Why do you think that they were 'copy and paste'? Can you prove this? I rather think that you cannot, since I placed some of the deleted material there myself, and I certainly obey the wikipedia rules. If you think that the article is too 'Britishcentric', the answer is to add other material, or appeal to others to add material. You really ought not to delete existing material for this reason alone. --Train guard (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely support Train guard position, it was not only rude but against Wiki policy to do such unconsulted delete, especially in a page with so many contributing editors. In favor of undoing right away and just put the ^{[citation needed]} tag where necessary. Then, Michellecrisp can open a discussion here to propose and justify if something has to go. Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I had tagged some of these items a while back and there had been no change from other editors. Quite simply, whilst other editors can find references the main onus is on the person adding new information to provide citation. In addition, if there was an article on History of British Tourism, it would be a far more appropriate place to put that text than here. there is WP:BOLD and I quote Jimbo Wales below Michellecrisp (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales wrote: In general, I find the fact tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes fact is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone. I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

Firstly, the section from which you deleted most of the content is still untagged! Other (tagged) sections have not had (as far as I can ascertain) major content deletes! Consequently, I find your action rather bizarre. Secondly, I have no idea why you should think that it is appropriate to delete content because you think that it belongs in another (non-existent) article. If you think this is the case, why don't you propose its removal to a new, hived off, article, linked to this? As to the other editor that you quote, I can only say that it is not ethical to 'nuke' anything without ascertaining the reaction (if any) of the other editors. I would never dream of making a text alteration(as opposed to a simple addition or typo) without either proposing a draft (if it is major) or an explanation (if it is minor) in the discussion/talk page. --Train guard (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor is indeed the creator of Wikipedia! Jimbo Wales. Ethical? this is not a moral decision. Whilst you might not have not agreed with my edits it is not unethical and in fact consistent with WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE. I'll happy create a new article with some of the deleted text, History of British tourism . it will require a lot of citation that was considerably lacking or non existent. But for the moment, the Tourism article should concentrate on global trends not individual countries, this is my point on WP:UNDUE. there is no way this article could contain history of tourism of many different countries. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the "onlie begettor" methinks! I suggest that the ethics of the matter are quite clear...or perhaps 'etiquette' might be more acceptable. You do not unilaterally delete anything without due notice or explanation, and certainly not a large portion of an article on which a number of people have worked on with good faith. I would indeed question whether your action is in keeping with the guidlines that you cite. Where, for example, is your evidence that any of this was 'cut and paste'? You now say that you would have been willing to create a new article on British Tourism. Why not canvass this view before you went ahead with your deletions? You may have a strong case for arguing that it should be a general article about tourism, but how you can talk about global trends without reference to some historical developments in Britain and elsewhere is a mystery. I would be perfectly happy to go along with a 'streamlined article' with references to more detailed sections as separate national or topical articles, but it would be nice if this was 'flagged up' first.

Can I propose to everyone that we do this? That we have (in the first instance) two separate articles linked to this main one, one called 'History of Tourism' and the other 'British Tourism'? And that we restore the original material, tagged if necessary, and thus encourage people to add to it? What do other people think? --Train guard (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]