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]

Add it if you think it is lacking. 122.104.167.139 (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (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]

I agree with your proposal. In the end, the material that will be left here should be just a summary. Mariordo (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does grey nomads redirect here when there is no mention of the concept in the entire article?

Grey nomads article has now been deleted. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one editor pointed out last year, this article is not a vacation photo album. So please refrain from posting your favorites pictures, as all the time the article's layout is messed up with pictures of places not even mentioned in the article, or not so notable in the international tourism industry, or claiming to be the "the largest..", "the most...", etc. without a WP:RS. I just did some preliminary cleaning to improve the layout, but I proposed we open a discussion to establish here some criteria among contributing editors to define which pictures. A first criteria could be:

• To keep only those pictures of notable places, attractions or destinations that are mentioned in the article regarding international tourism, with preference with related with any of the top 10 or top 50 countries, cities or attractions, and properly sourced (RS) in the text or caption.

Please post any other criteria or make suggestions to improve the above. --Mariordo (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "most visited cities" section is entirely relevant for this article because: 1) the statistics came from 2006; at the very least we should've been using 2007 data by now given there is already a year in-between. 2) the study is done by an organization called Euromonitor, and unless the statistics came directly from UNWTO, I don't think it should've been given that much significance. The "most visited attractions" section falls under the same category.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, because: 1) UNWTO published the 2007 data just 3 weeks ago in the June Barometer (the ref provided), that is why I did update all UNWTO statistics until this weekend. Therefore, 2006 is not as old as it looks. 2) Most UNWTO data is not available for free in the public domain, you have to buy the reports with detailed and more disaggregate info, and these reports are expensive (check UNWTO web site). 3) As it happens in many industries where large databases are not freely available in the public domain, there are specialized firms doing data mining and analysis to provide intelligence info and forecasts, Euromonitor is one of those firms providing intelligence services (check their website to confirm). So we are lucky they provided the info on most visited cities for free, available in public domain. Besides, such lists are not as old as you assumed, given that it was published in October 2007 and the 2007 data from UNWTO was published just a few weeks ago. Any of such intelligence analysis regarding international tourists without a doubt is totally or partially based on UNWTO data, since all goverments participating send their data to WTO, it is the primary source in the industry. 4) The case of the Forbes ranking is different, because they are considering domestic tourists too, which WTO does not report, and the website clearly states it is they own research and estimates. 5) However I think Forbes is a WP:RS, as well as Euromonitor, and if you skim through the article you will notice that most of the info is not sourced at all, and by the rigorous criteria you are suggesting to apply most of the article will have to go. The statistics section is properly reference from RS, so I do not see enough justification to delete this tables from the article. Let's wait for other opinions.--Mariordo (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the Euromonitor's chart for the most visited cities in the year 2007. Although I think official UNWTO statistics are preferred. This Euromonitor chart is in my opinion kind of speculative and it seems it isn't widely reported in mainstream media, unlike UNWTO's World Tourism rankings.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way of setting a photo criteria is to consider the major historical sites that are registered to UNESCO. Pictures of newly constructed building with commercial functions have to be excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourosh ziabari (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, my deletion of the pics was not vandalism, nor I do not have any biased against Persian culture. The edit clearly explained the reasons for such action. Second, as I explain to you in my user talk page, if you check the history of this Talk Page you will see this page has had a problem of excess of pictures. As another editor put it, lots of people publish their vacation pictures there. After that, the criteria has been to included pictures (or at least to try) directly related with the content (check the info in the captions, some even have a reference to back up the claim in the text). Also, probably you notice that those two pictures opened a huge blank hole in the text, this is due to the fact that there are already too many pictures. Please note that the article already has a pic illustrating an Iranian site. So far, most of the pictures surviving are related to info presented on the summary tables regarding most visited countries, attractions or sites. None of those two pics are listed in any of such rankings.

• Now, regarding criteria I disagree that UNESCO heritage sites is a good criteria for selecting the pictures. Those pics can be posted in the heritage article. I think pics in this article should reflect actual demand by tourism, so I proposed again the following criteria:
• To keep only those pictures of notable places, attractions or destinations that are mentioned in the article regarding international tourism, with preference with related with any of the top 10 or top 50 countries, cities or attractions, and properly sourced (RS) in the text or caption when claiming being the first, the most... of anything.

Please post any other criteria or make suggestions to define such criteria.--Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the National Mall or Times Square could be considered "attractions"? They are just crowded places. Attractions should be measurable, i.e. a place with tikets, access restriction and such. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP:RS to support your claim? Then the Monumental Axis in Brasilia, Brazil, is not an attraction because they decided not to charge to contemplate at Oscar Niemayer's buildings? --Mariordo (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the poster of the October 5th. Not only it's meaningless to consider a street or a square as the equivalent of any kind of building or natural sites, but more importantly the list only consider a selected amount of visited squares or streets, and not necessarily the most visited worldwide. Just a few examples : there are 12 million people visiting Notre-Dame in Paris, I'm very sceptic about the idea that the Champs-Elysées are less visited than this cathedral. We could say the same about Saint Peter's Square in Rome or La Rambla in Barcelona. Metropolitan (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling Tourism redirects here, but the article speaks nothing of it. Drakon09 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this webpage should be updated because I've found many links that confirm that Canada gets 35 million annual tourists every year. Thank you

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Canada-Guide/Travel-Leisure/Getting-there

http://www.kanetix.ca/insurance-travel-visitors-to-canada

http://www.gapyear.com/visas/1166387

http://www.visabureau.com/canada/canadian-visa.aspx

Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these referring to international tourism or just domestic ones. The UNWTO publishes the official World Tourism rankings regarding tourist statistics.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to International Tourism. I think it would be more accurate for all tourism data to be obtained by national governments rather than the United Nations. It would also be more accurate to just give 2008 or the latest year in which statistics have been obtained rather than the last two years. More professional that way. But that's me. It will also pave way to show tourism numbers from other countries. Thanks! Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the cities ranking, Euromonitor doesn’t seem very reliable. A lot of informations are curious. E.g.:

• Hong Kong which had 8,1 M tourists in 2006, received 12M in 2007, ie an augmentation of 33% in one year... In addition, why Euromonitor indicates an augmentation of only 8.8 % ?
• Some cities like Kiev doesn’t appear in the complete list (that is, less than 150,000 visitors). Curious, considering that Ukraine is the eighth country the most visited according to UNWTO (23M).
• Strangely, among the 50 first cities, only Paris shows a huge fall, -10 % in one year! How such a fall could be credible as itself, and how could it be credible knowing that the Paris tourism office announced for that year a record of international frequenting?
• Within a year, some cities make unexplained breakthroughs like Istanbul (3.99M to 6.45M) or Toronto (4.16M to 6.63M: -3.6% according to Euromonitor (!)) or even NYC (+23% !)

Euromonitor is a private institute, doesn’t explain its methodology, doesn’t say who ordered the study, shows spectacular and unexplained differences from a year to another and seems to show figures mathematically wrong in the growing column... I think this list needs clarifications, at least for the methodology. Otherwise I think it doesn’t have its place on this article.

(And the sentence referring to the 30M international visitors of Paris seems disproportionate: the city of Paris itself (intra-muros) declares receiving only 17M foreign visitors by year.)

About the attraction rankings, Forbes set up a list which is completely biased. How can they consider nodes of circulation ? How can they compare Time Square with the Taj Mahal ? They say that the National Mall is the second most visited place in the world (25M people / year). That seems strange in a city visited by "only" 1.2M foreign visitors each year (according to the precedent ranking). How to explain that Time Square or Trafalgar Square are represented but not Shibuya in Tokyo, Puerta del Sol in Madrid or the Wenceslas Square in Prague ? Forbes can’t pretend that the 35M people "visiting" Time Square each year are tourists. According to Le Figaro, The Champs-Elysées are crossed by 100M people each year, they are certainly not all tourists ! Even as a rough guide, I don’t think this list is reliable in that state. It gives some interpretations like the sentence we can read: « It is noticeable that 4 out of the top 5 are in the North America continent. » I’m not for the total removal of the list, but at least, we can agree on some places that can’t figure on it (and state this removal in the article).

What's your opinion about that ? En-bateau (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Euromonitor's list of the most visited cities is kind of speculative. Unfortunately, the UNWTO World Tourism rankings doesn't have most visited cities. I removed the Euromonitor's list before, but an editor informed that it is reliable source, and I agree that it seems to be a reasonably well-published source, and I have updated the 2007 statistics. But I agree that the list doesn't do well in terms of explaining its methodology.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! I'd like Mariordo anwers to my argumentation. These lists are very suspicious (Euromonitor) or clearly biased (Forbes ranking). In that case, we can’t pretend they are reliable sources. It would be hypocritical. En-bateau (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]