Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Travel and Tourism C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Wikipedia CD selection

Hi, I'd like to dispute the inclusion of the MasterCard Global Destination Cities Index here. While the headlines state the cities in the list are the "top ten most popular destinations of tourism" that's not quite correct. I mean, how's inland tourism less valuable or anything? It shouldn't matter for such a list where tourists are coming for. It could be linked, but I don't think it needs to be in the article, especially as it looks like some case of heavy MasterCard advertising. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent as the battle for first place between London and Bangkok seems incongruous as Bangkok's figures may only be as a transit point for onward travel and itinerant backpackers rather than as an actual destination. It would be hard to imagine Bangkok have more tourism than Paris, Rome, Venice or New York but, due to sheer numbers in Asia I may be wrong.79.78.88.200 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V, we have to put sources the way they were originally presented. All numbers ultimately are not perfect but the MasterCard publication is well sourced by reliable media, so we can't remove a source because we don't like the numbers. YJAX (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you mean by "well sourced by reliable media". Do you mean that the Mastercard Index is mentioned in some newspapers, for example, that we normally regard as reliable sources? Or that Mastercard have assembled their figures from reliable sources? Or something else? NebY (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced I mean highly respected global media such as the BBC - See this: [1]. Again, the list is going back not only because it is well sourced, but the Wikipedia process of achieving any sort of consensus was ignored to start with. You leave it to the stable version first before making controversial changes. YJAX (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is mainly discussing Thomas Cook who brought package tours to the masses. It begins with a poor piece of politicising about only the wealthy being able to go on holidays abroad. To call them the "economic oligarchy" is not a fair or polite description. Factory owners, merchants, aristocracy, landed gentry and the wealthy in general were the only people who were able to afford the cost and the time off to travel.

To recount the history of affordable tourism with this sentence is not great: "A pioneer of the travel agency, Thomas Cook's idea to offer excursions came to him while waiting for the stagecoach on the London Road at Kibworth."

The Leisure Travel hyperlink below the title is circular and takes one back to the same page.[Special:Contributions/79.78.88.200|79.78.88.200]] (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Heading is in non-matching font) This entry, as it is titled, is the most significant part of the Wiki and all it states is:

"Many leisure-oriented tourists travel to seaside resorts at their nearest coast or further apart. Coastal areas in the tropics are popular both in the summer and winter."

I don't think this is an entry of any validity on it's own, perhaps it is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.88.200 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass tourism is not a thing. The main subject is Tourism and today it has expanded hugely. The section can discuss, as part of the whole Wiki, how the tourist industry has grown thanks to technology and economies of scale lowering costs to allow more people to travel. Increasing affluence, better holiday entitlement, larger aircraft, cheaper flight costs, the Internet - all have contributed to the boom of the industry. To call it mass tourism and say "Mass tourism developed with improvements in technology, which allowed the transport of large numbers of people in a short space of time" sounds like a description of mass transit not tourism. Then in the next paragraph going back to discussing an 18th century seaside resort is not relevant to the heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.88.200 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the worldwide view of Tourism in history?

The mechanics of modern tourism involved the motor car, the train, the aeroplane, the ocean liner, the ferry, the touring car, the touring motorcycle, the touring bicycle (and the means to afford to buy them) all came about in the Western world primarily the UK, Europe and USA. The development of the West was such that Tourism really took off there and so a history of the subject will naturally be skewed towards Europe as these were the great cultures that early tourists wanted to explore. Yes, people in other parts of the world went on travels but these were mostly pilgrims, travellers and explorers. This was discussed in the first 2 sections and seems a fair balance.

The largest tourist nation, 11% of all travel, is China but this can only have begun in fairly recent times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.88.200 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]