From Wikitravel

Some stuff that's been moved:

Commonwealth vs. American spelling → Wikitravel talk:Spelling

Contents 1 Area codes and phone numbers 2 Sub-articlization 3 Style help? 4 Referring to highways 5 Units of measure 6 Rollback 7 "Buy" listings 8 Time and date 9 Listings format 10 Thumbs up on infoboxes 11 Wikipedia link 12 Price ranges instead of actual prices? 13 Listings 14 One-liner listings

Area codes and phone numbers

Is there a standard format for telephone numbers? (203) 555-1212? 203-555-1212? 203.555.1212? Hanzo 11:08, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

I think the international format is +1 203 555-1212. The '+' stands for the international access code ( which will be 00 for most countries, but not all). The 1 stands for the country code, the 203 for the area. (In countries where the area code starts with a 0 it is not normally dialed from a location outside that country. It can be indicated like '(0)203'). A European (Belgian) example would be: +32 (0)15/12.34.56 (BTW, this is not my number :-) D.D. 12:15, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

HOLY CARP, that's long and complicated. Americans are going to hate that. But, I guess, it's pretty fair. -- Evan 12:23, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Do we agree that this international format should be used for all telephone listings on the site? If so, then maybe it should be added to the manual of style. Or maybe it's not that important to standardize this? Hanzo 12:20, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

I prefer standardizing everything -- I think it stops silly arguments real fast. That international format seems funky to me, but maybe we should use it. In most of the listings it says to leave off the area code if it's not different from the "main" area code for the city, so I think this might be a change. I dunno. DD? -- Evan 12:23, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

If I'm trying to call a place in NYC, I have no idea what the main area code is or how to find out. I definitely prefer to have all of the information there in my printed-out copy of my Wikitravel page. Hanzo 12:29, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

We should definitely always list the full, international telephone number. ie: +11 222 3333-4444. Where: 11: Country code; 222 area code; 333 phone number; -4444 extension. There is really no alternative to this. -- Nils 08:57, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I agree with Hanzo. If I have to make a phone call in a foreign country , I'd like to have all the information I need at hand. And it's not even that complicated once you get used to it. How do you think we manage in all those little countries in Europe with all those different country/area/city codes ;-) D.D. 12:50, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Coming to think of it, a compromise could be to include the international access code and country code in the country article. D.D. 12:54, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

But then again the problem is that this is not a traditional travel guide. People can choose not to take a printout of the country article with them on their travels... D.D. 12:58, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Well, does everyone already know that US phone numbers are +1? If so, we could institute a UScentric double-standard of 203 555-1212 for US numbers, and +32 (0)15/12.34.56 for everywhere else. Or, we could just get used to the international standard. Hanzo 13:06, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Personally, I hate US- or "whatever other country-centricity". I say let's go for international-centric. D.D. 13:10, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

I agree. Let's standardize. Evan? Hanzo 13:19, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

I'm down with it. Why don't you write it up on the Man of Sty page, Hanzo? -- Evan 13:25, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

So the "usual" way travel guides deal with this is to list the country code in the intro/general information about a country (ie our "Communicate") and then list the numbers in listings how you would dial them from the area. There are some places where you cant dial the full number from that area and what you should dial isn't always clear e.g. in Geneva you always have to dial the area code, even if it's the same as the phone you are calling from, but you drop the initial 0 if you are calling from outside the country. So we list "+33" as the country code for France (and also mention it on the city pages in France), and the area code in the article about an area, and just the local number in the actual listing. Otherwise I'd have to say go with the full international number everywhere (not everyone knows that the US and Canada have the same country code for example).

just my +41 (0)79/555.0002 cents. Majnoona

Hey, so, did your browser put in all those escaped quotes, or did you do it? -- Evan 13:46, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Well, now I'm confused. It seems to me that most of the time, a person calling one of places in this guidebook would be calling from the general area of the place. If you're calling a restaurant in Boston, you are probably in or near Boston. So, the most useful listing would be the one that works from that area. Hanzo 06:34, 31 Oct 2003 (PST)

Yeah, I'm with Hanzo. We shouldn't try and write all phone numbers as they are dialed internationally, because that doesn't work locally, and so becomes confusing. I believe that the manual of style should direct people to write all phone numbers as they should be dialed locally, and specify somewhere else ("Know" or other section?) how to dial the numbers from further afield (Country code, and area code if not part of local dialing.) CL 00:26, 2 Nov 2003 (PST)

This sounds right. Whether the area code needs to be dialed varies with location. In my part of North Carolina you used to be able to dial 588-2353, but they added an area code, so now you have to dial 704-588-2353. Numbers in 980 and some numbers in 803 can be dialed without the 1 prefix, but other numbers have to be dialed 1-214-748-3648. The area code should be specified in Contact. -phma 19:00, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)

It seems to me that for the US, +1 (789) 234-5678 is better, in that if you dial all these digits locally, it should work fine. Plus, you don't have to cross-reference a different part of the article or a different article altogether, either of which you might not have if you've printed something out. Or if you're looking at an extract that has lost the context of the listing (and thus lost the area code information). Also, almost all Americans will realize that the +1 (789) part is optional, if you are in the same area code. Personally, I would be very grumpy if I tried calling a number "locally" from my 415-area-code cell phone, and it didn't work, and I had to dig through a pile of information to find the proper area code. I would also be unhappy (though less so) if I were calling in from out of state or internationally. Also, people who write reviews don't necessarily know whether or not to include the area code (since they may not be from the area), and it's much worse when it's missing than when it's there but unnecessary. Most places where the local phone system is not well-standardized seem to indicate which digits are significant to whom with a combination of ()s and []s and things. To me, it seems better to say "the system is complex, but here is all the information you need to use it; refer to a footnote if you are confused" than "the system is complex, so here is only part of the information you need; refer to a footnote if you want the rest". You only need to learn "() means optional for local calls" once, and it's easy to remember, but memorize a list of area codes for the cities you are going to be visiting this week is much more annoying. -- Beland 22:18, 23 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Sub-articlization

Why are there so many small sub-articles? I might be better to have them all on one page. Guaka 18:32, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)

It used to be all on one page, and it was really long, hard to edit, and hard to read. Also, it's a lot easier to reference a rule or idea if it has its own page. --Evan 19:52, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)

Style help?

Is there a standard place to ask questions about Style? If yes, maybe it should be added to Wikitravel:Help? : Colin 17:42, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)

Referring to highways

In the Death Valley web page, some references to roads say stuff like "the 395." I thought putting "the" in front of road numbers is strictly a Southern California idiom. Should this idiom be avoided? I think it makes some sense for LA and San Diego since travellers to those regions will encounter the idiom frequently. I think it doesn't make sense for Death Valley since visitors from afar may not be familiar with the "the" idiom, and may enter the region through, for example, Reno where the idiom is not used.

So my questions are

1. Are there other regions which use the "the road-number" idiom?
2. Will the idiom confuse anyone? It doesn't confuse me, but what non-proficient users of English?
3. Is this too pedantic to care about?
4. Should Colin switch to decaf?

Colin 17:42, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)

"The 395" - I'm expecting a noun after that, such as "the 395 reindeer left". Normally we say "Route 40" or "I-77". -phma 19:00, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)

I think maybe "highway 395" is clearer, you're correct. 395 is a really great drive, by the way. It'd make a good itinerary page. --Evan 01:47, 7 Mar 2004 (EST)

Units of measure

Do we have a standard for measurements? My suggestion is to use metric always, since 99% of the world uses this. As a compromise -most americans are as ignorant about the metric system as everybody else is about the Imperial system- we could use metric first, then imperial in brackets. -- Nils 08:57, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

If you're in the U.S., your going to have to deal with miles on signs and weather forecasts in Farenheit anyway, so U.S. distances should be in miles. For the same reason, I think metric countries should use metric measurements. I must say that metric temperatures give me a headache though. -- Colin 13:12, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I did propose the compromise to deal with that. But really, all the world uses metric instead of the US, so I think it should be quite clear what the primary system should be. -- Nils 13:17, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I don't think it's actually a good idea. It's too much effort to maintain two sets of each measurement. In an ideal world, there would be a special markup [ [distance:24 km] ] which would auto-convert to the format you want (where you could select use metric, use english, or use country's own style in your preferences) on demand. And [ [phone:us:408 555-1212] ] too!

There are lots of interesting differences in the world. That the majority does things one way is not much of an argument for doing something in a universal manner. I'm probably showing my own cultural bias towards doing things ad-hoc though :-) -- Colin 15:44, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Rollback

So, I rolled a couple of things back. First of all, I rolled back the hierarchicalization of the list. I don't think that the listings formats (say) are somehow "part of" the article templates. In addition, hierarchical lists have always been deprecated on Wikitravel -- instead, we express hierarchy through separate page sections or separate pages. (I'm realizing that that tradition should probably be codified into Wikitravel:express hierarchies with separate pages). So, I'd hate to see this list hierarchicalized!

With all due respect, now you're pulling policies out of your ass. Where is this tradition written, who's this "we", and why should such an inane policy apply to a table of contents, of all things? In small doses hierarchies are good: they help the reader because a) they break down a lengthy list into digestible chunks (ever heard of seven plus or minus two?), and b) it makes it faster to scan the list, because you can skip subsections that are obviously not of interest. Jpatokal 09:41, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

The tradition isn't written, but see for example the history of British Isles for a change from hierarchical lists to organization by separate pages (I think this version is where it got the worst). The value of having it apply to the ToC of the MoS is that we avoid giving people bad ideas on the page that's supposed to be giving them good ideas. --Evan 17:11, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Cry me a river. "Avoid giving people bad ideas"? I thought we were supposed to be a user-friendly travel site, so please tell me why hierarchies in a ToC are a bad thing. Yeah, the British Isles thing looks pretty ugly, but I see very little relevance here. (Incidentally, this very discussion is hierarchical; isn't it much easier to follow with indenting?) Jpatokal 23:17, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Second, Wiki markup is not a style issue. It's a technical issue. The MoS is a list of things we could do lots of different ways, but we chose to do this way (viz. restaurant listings). Wiki markup isn't a choice; it's just the way our software works. --Evan 08:24, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

Actually, it is a choice, because you can also write <B>bold</B> etc in raw HTML (for which we of course have the Avoid HTML policy, but that's another kettle of fish).

More importantly though, I think you're looking at this from a terribly formal point of view. Is there something wrong with pointing to the same document from several places? I've been here for over a year and I often have problems finding some specific policy document, because the division doesn't make sense and the indexes are pathetic. There are way too many policy/guideline/help/hint/whatever pages and way too few links to and between them.

Case in point: [http://wikitravel.org/en/article/Wikitravel:Travellers%27_pub#What_do_these_mean.2C_pleas

this question] in the Pub.  I dare you, pretend that you're Richard and find your way to the answer starting from the Main Page.  Jpatokal 09:41, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

There are three major sections of the Wikitravel namespace: Wikitravel:Help, which gives mostly technical help. Wikitravel:policies and guidelines, which gives our important collaboration policies, and Wikitravel:manual of style, which links to style guidelines. Site organization is important; if we link all the items on Wikitravel:Help on Wikitravel:Manual of style, and vice versa, they each become diluted and less useful.

So why is "Avoid negative reviews" a style issue, and "Article naming conventions" a policy issue? "Avoid HTML" is style, how to use images is policy, "Internal links" is style, but "External links" is style and policy? What's the logic?

Avoid negative reviews is about what kinds of listings to put into destination guides. It's a writing style issue. Avoid HTML is about how best to do formatting. It's a formatting style issue. I've taken ext links and article naming conventions off the policy page; good catch.

Image policy is a tough one; it was started mostly to make sure we kept all our images redistributable under CC-by-sa, but it's grown to include various non-legal things like file naming, etc., as well as help information. It may make sense to break it up into several pages. --Evan 09:55, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia, a far larger project than us, has a single-page Manual of Style. I think this would be much better here too: Layout' on Manual of Style, Content in the policy pages. Jpatokal 23:17, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

It was smart of you to add the interwiki info to the markup page, by the way. --Evan 17:11, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Thanks Dad. I can also put on my underwear the right way around, all by myself. :rolleyes: Jpatokal 23:17, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

"Buy" listings

We need a format for "Buy" listings. How do we say that Persian rugs in Teheran can be bought from Shop 1 [1], Shop 2 [2] or ordered online [3]? --Ravikiran 07:44, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Each of the shops should get it's own complete listing, follow roughly the same pattern as for restaurants. The online shop does not get a listing at all, since it's not about travel but about buying something at home over the internet. -- Mark 08:27, 25 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Time and date

I linked Wikitravel:Time and date formats since the "proposed" standard appears to merely document the time formats as already established in Wikitravel:Attraction listings and elsewhere, so technically this is not a change to the MoS. -- Colin 15:53, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Listings format

Hey all, I've noticed that in listings a lot of people seem to like to leave any leading word "the" out of the bold part of the name of an attraction, like this:

• The World Famous Giant Ball of Twine, 2555 State road 5. +1 etc.

Rather than bolding it along with everything else like this:

• The World Famous Giant Ball of Twine, 2555 State road 5. +1 etc.

From a graphic design point of view the version with the "the" stranded between the bullet point and the bold looks like crap. At least my fairly well trained eye sees it that way.

This is just a heads-up. Some point in the near future unless I hear any reasonable objections I intend to Wikitravel:Plunge forward and add some language to the listing format pages which strongly discourages stranded "the"s. -- Mark 02:03, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I have no opinion on this. I looked over Penticton and there's a few similar items you might want to address while you're at it to make sure all the bases are covered...

• The Penticton Roundabout
• Penticton Museum & Archives

-- Colin 04:46, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Thumbs up on infoboxes

Thanks for adding that one, Ryan; if used properly, it's a nice feature, and by now there seems to be adequate precedent for using it properly. This is a keep. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:47, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia link

Do we really want the Wikipedia link to Wikipedia's Manual of Style? I'm not sure I support having it, because we have a lot of Wikipedians that come to Wikitravel and get upset about POV/NPOV, I'm weary that this may support experienced Wikipedians, but new Wikitravellers, to use Wikipedia's MoS instead of Wikitravel's MoS. Thoughts? - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 17:12, 29 May 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, I roughly agree. I don't think we have a link to Wikipedia:About on Wikitravel:About, and I'm not sure we need one here. Is the idea of a "manual of style" better elaborated by having this link? I don't think so. --Evan 17:37, 29 May 2006 (EDT)

Price ranges instead of actual prices?

Wikitravel currently gives actual prices for all restaurants, hotels etc, but many guidebooks use price bands like "$, $$, $$$" or "A, B, C" to rank comparative prices instead. Given the raging inflation in many countries and that even stable prices like Singapore have seen hotel prices shoot up by 20% in the last two years thanks to supply and demand, would it make sense to adopt this in Wikitravel too? Jpatokal 13:14, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

No, I really hate those ranges. The ranges are too big. And they only make the prices even less precise. Even if the prices are up 20%, I would like to know which hotel was $75 and which was $90 two years ago --elgaard 19:24, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

But how do you distinguish the hotel that was $75 two years ago and the hotel that is $90 now? Jpatokal 23:19, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

I really prefer having actual prices on listings, too. I think that ranges are too imprecise; what seems "budget" to you might seem astronomically high to me. We've got a suggestion of putting listings into "bands" (budget, mid-range, splurge), which does about what price ranges do. --Evan 10:47, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Listings

I'm new-ish and this may have been done before, but wouldn't it make sense to list listings of shops, bars, restaurants and hotels on separate subpages, particularly for very large cities? It's just that some of the page sizes are monstrous, the current situation involves lots of links, etc. It should at least make it easier for people to actually find what they're looking for... No more bongos 22:08, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

The main reason we don't do this is to keep everything together for someone who (for example) wants to print the article for whatever city they're visiting, and get it all in one go, rather than having to print each section individually. When city articles get truly monstrous, we break the city up into districts, but keep all the various kinds of info for each district together, figuring that someone might be going to just the Bloomsbury district of London, and wants to know what to see and do, and where to eat, drink, and sleep there. - Todd VerBeek 22:17, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

(weird, I have no idea how I moved this up and somehow killed Todd's reply... I'm some sort of walking wiki bug this evening... anyway what I said was (eta agreement with Todd):) Welcome! While Todd's right on all accounts, if you're interested, heck out the discussion at Wikitravel_talk:Article_templates#The_best_Wikitravel_articles_are_too_damn_long. You are not alone in your thinking... tho the "click vs scroll" argument is as old as the web. Majnoona 22:22, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

One-liner listings

For example most ==Cities== sections, etc. (as opposed to See/Do/Eat/Drink/Sleep etc)

Is there already a guideline somewhere for how simple all-one-liner listings should usually be formatted? If so, where is it? - and if not, how about adopting the Wikitravel:Manual of style page format, which I think is by far the most common (and which until I just tidied it up was a good example of some of the variations that can creep in [4])?

Thus:

• Alphabetic - preferred, if appropriate and there's no reason not to
• Bold for the caption - optional if it's a link; if mixed, consistency preferred
• But not bold [5] - for footnote-style links
• Capitalise - first word of caption, but not description (except proper nouns, etc)
• Dash - just one simple one, not -- or — or &mdash;
• Description - short and sweet, no full stop

(Obvious exception to alphabetic being ==Cities== sections, where capital cities/towns go at the top)

Any objections? ~ 203.144.143.4 17:01, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

One, and only one: Alphabetic. I do the listings by price with the cheapest whatever first. -- Mark 18:16, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

Not sure, could you please provide me with an example? -- Sapphire 18:20, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

Example by price - cheapest way to get from Abc to Def:

• $5 - Boneshaker Bus Co., takes 14 hours, departs at noon
• $8 - share taxi from the marketplace, takes 9 hours
• $32 - Acme Air, two flights daily each way

(NB: I'm not suggesting the price would actually have to be the caption!)

For the order, all I'm trying to propose is that "logical" is preferable to "random"; if (and only if) there's no more appropriate "logical" order (ie price, distance, north-south, day of the week, whatever) then "alphabetical" as the default, rather than "random". ~ 203.144.143.3 21:56, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm not getting what you want to do. Would you please edit User:Sapphire/Sandbox/Places/Cincinnati or User:Sapphire/Sandbox/Places/Ohio to show me what exactly you want to do. Feel free to go nuts editing either page because I do want to know/see what you're talking about -- Sapphire 06:44, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

User:Sapphire/Sandbox/Places/Ohio#Cities is a good example of what I'm proposing, except two lines ended with full stops and one did not - all I did was delete the two full stops. ~ 203.144.143.5 06:55, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

And User:Sapphire/Sandbox/Places/Ohio#By_plane as an example of a one-liner list that doesn't begin with links. ~ 203.144.143.5 06:59, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

That makes sense to me, but what's with the above example with prices? -- Sapphire 07:01, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Maybe it's just a really atrocious example. ~ 203.144.143.5 07:05, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Ok, if the edits you made on Ohio page is what you were suggesting I have no problem with the proposed changes. Ok, now I understand where the confusion over prices came in. I have no objections. -- Sapphire 07:09, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Both those Ohio edits are now preserved for posterity here ~ 203.144.143.5 07:20, 27 September 2006 (EDT)