Skip Navigation

The wiki thingy

Travel Forums System Talk The wiki thingy

Page

Last Post

41. Posted by mim (Travel Guru 1276 posts) 9y

Does anyone know, I can do a photo search for example "Iguacu" but in the wiki when i do its not found...Do these links only work with country titles and is there any was round this?

also can we not put in external picks with links? like small maps or whatever...?

its awesome btw, been writing Brazil all afternoon!!
m

42. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 9y

Hi mim,

That took some research :) It appears the second part can refer to either:

a. a collection of tags
b. a country name
or c. a photoid

In this case, the reason no photos are being returned is there are simply no featured photos (note-only featured photos show I believe) that are tagged as Iguazu/Iguacu. Naturally it's not a country name so that option doesn't apply here. So, the 'safest' if you want to be sure you are displaying a photo of the Iguazu falls is to enter a photo id (I assume only one can be entered). You'll see I've now included one in the sights of Brazil area. If you hit edit on that piece you can see the code, but it's basically . The tricky thing with this way of doing it is actually finding the photoid - it appears when you hover over a photo in the gallery right after /photoID/ in the url or in the url box at the top of your browser, ex http://www.travellerspoint.com/photos/stream/size/M/photoID/22227/features/countries/Brazil/.

You can add links to external sites, but not embed their maps or images at this stage. Embedding itself will probably never be available unless the source can be trusted (so we might allow youtube videos to be embedded for example) as it poses security risks otherwise. The source would also have to be okay with their content being published under a 'copyleft' license, which could be tough! I would imagine external images shouldn't be a problem aside from copyright issues so that would take further looking into (ie. the user would have to be sure the copyright allows that kind of usage).

Hope that helps and I haven't just confused you even more :)

43. Posted by mim (Travel Guru 1276 posts) 9y

not at all Sam in fact two seconds befor I read this I realised how you'd put in the Iguacu pic and saw that you can find the code in the url, thats cool...

I guess cos I've been on a few sites (far less quality than tp!) that allow embedding of pics in posts that I thought it wouldn't be a problem but obviously security etc is important, totally understand!

having a lot of fun with this! hope someone doesnt come along and totally re-write it all!

44. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 9y

Ok, I have not made any contributions so far, simply because I didn't feel like doing it, as everything is available somewhere in guidebooks or wikipedia thing. Probably won't use the tpguide, sorry.

But something I really have to say, because I made a few changes. There still are no agreements whatsoever about some parts of the world, let's say Middle East, Georgia, Armenia, Azer, Greenland, Mexico and a few others.
By saying it's based on the CIA Fact Book I would say:
1. Why bother to make your own factbook if you are just copying things which are not correct anyway?
2. To be honest, I am not really a fan of them as well.

I know I can be stuborn, but I refuse to be stupid, so I will change it over and over again. For example...geographically Greenland is North America, not Europe. By thinking it's Europe, you probably do because it's 'part' of Denmark. Well, so is French Polynesia part of France, but not listed under Europe, now is it?

Ok, and another question/thing: who is going to decide what it will be? The overlords again?

One suggestion: maybe fit in central america and carribbean into North America, that way not having to discuss whether Mexico is central or north america. Yucatan is central america, but is Chihuahua?

45. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 9y

How about adding countries which are not independent? So, why Aland in Europe, Jan Mayen not? Just an example

46. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 9y

Quoting Utrecht

Ok, I have not made any contributions so far, simply because I didn't feel like doing it, as everything is available somewhere in guidebooks or wikipedia thing. Probably won't use the tpguide, sorry.

No worries, that's your perogative. From my personal experience I wouldn't say that wikipedia is a very good travelling guide, but it makes for a good reference indeed. One reason it's been added is because it was the most requested feature last year in our poll. Plus, it now means that articles can be created dealing with commonly asked questions on the forum for example, meaning we can cut back somewhat on repeat questions by pointing members to information in the guide. Anyway, to each their own. There's many members that use parts of the site but not others.

Quoting Utrecht

But something I really have to say, because I made a few changes. There still are no agreements whatsoever about some parts of the world, let's say Middle East, Georgia, Armenia, Azer, Greenland, Mexico and a few others.
By saying it's based on the CIA Fact Book I would say:
1. Why bother to make your own factbook if you are just copying things which are not correct anyway?
2. To be honest, I am not really a fan of them as well.

I've started a discussion on this in the wiki as this is exactly the kind of thing that deserves discussing there instead of here in the forum. I can say it's not based on the CIA fact book in this case. Personally I am hesitant to say one reference is correct or not correct. It just depends on how you look at it and what you want to count as constituting a country/border etc. Gelli can give you some great insight on this which basically comes down to "everyone is wrong and everyone is right".

Quoting Utrecht

I know I can be stuborn, but I refuse to be stupid, so I will change it over and over again.

Okay, now that would be very childish behaviour. Feel free to have a read through http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/About:Keeping_it_nice/ on how to deal with this.

Quoting Utrecht

For example...geographically Greenland is North America, not Europe. By thinking it's Europe, you probably do because it's 'part' of Denmark. Well, so is French Polynesia part of France, but not listed under Europe, now is it?

Ok, and another question/thing: who is going to decide what it will be? The overlords again?

One suggestion: maybe fit in central america and carribbean into North America, that way not having to discuss whether Mexico is central or north america. Yucatan is central america, but is Chihuahua?

This should all really be discussed in the guide discussions area. I think if a page becomes too controversial, it will be locked for a while/indefinitely to cool things down. Same as commonly done in wiki's. Interesting fact; did you know that the most heated wiki in terms of discussions/locking etc. is actually the Dutch language wikipedia? Always amazed me considering it's a much smaller wiki than the English one

47. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 9y

Quoting Sam I Am

Quoting Utrecht

Ok, I have not made any contributions so far, simply because I didn't feel like doing it, as everything is available somewhere in guidebooks or wikipedia thing. Probably won't use the tpguide, sorry.

No worries, that's your perogative. From my personal experience I wouldn't say that wikipedia is a very good travelling guide, but it makes for a good reference indeed. One reason it's been added is because it was the most requested feature last year in our poll. Plus, it now means that articles can be created dealing with commonly asked questions on the forum for example, meaning we can cut back somewhat on repeat questions by pointing members to information in the guide. Anyway, to each their own. There's many members that use parts of the site but not others.

Quoting Utrecht

But something I really have to say, because I made a few changes. There still are no agreements whatsoever about some parts of the world, let's say Middle East, Georgia, Armenia, Azer, Greenland, Mexico and a few others.
By saying it's based on the CIA Fact Book I would say:
1. Why bother to make your own factbook if you are just copying things which are not correct anyway?
2. To be honest, I am not really a fan of them as well.

I've started a discussion on this in the wiki as this is exactly the kind of thing that deserves discussing there instead of here in the forum. I can say it's not based on the CIA fact book in this case. Personally I am hesitant to say one reference is correct or not correct. It just depends on how you look at it and what you want to count as constituting a country/border etc. Gelli can give you some great insight on this which basically comes down to "everyone is wrong and everyone is right".

Quoting Utrecht

I know I can be stuborn, but I refuse to be stupid, so I will change it over and over again.

Okay, now that would be very childish behaviour. Feel free to have a read through http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/About:Keeping_it_nice/ on how to deal with this.

Quoting Utrecht

For example...geographically Greenland is North America, not Europe. By thinking it's Europe, you probably do because it's 'part' of Denmark. Well, so is French Polynesia part of France, but not listed under Europe, now is it?

Ok, and another question/thing: who is going to decide what it will be? The overlords again?

One suggestion: maybe fit in central america and carribbean into North America, that way not having to discuss whether Mexico is central or north america. Yucatan is central america, but is Chihuahua?

This should all really be discussed in the guide discussions area. I think if a page becomes too controversial, it will be locked for a while/indefinitely to cool things down. Same as commonly done in wiki's. Interesting fact; did you know that the most heated wiki in terms of discussions/locking etc. is actually the Dutch language wikipedia? Always amazed me considering it's a much smaller wiki than the English one

Thanks Sam! Haven't notice a discussion area in Wiki...probably because of the same reason...I didn't use it at all, but today got curious and looked at the main pages.
Ok, that would be childish indeed, so I will stop with that....but that does not apply to me only, does it? Bit of chicken and egg;)
But in total: fair enough, although it's very hard to live with

48. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4808 posts) 9y

I wonder if wikipedia has an article describing all the problems its encountered over its history, like edit-wars etc, and the policies and solutions they've created as a result of this.
If that exists, I think it would be a very good thing to link to from some prominent place on the wiki here, to make people understand the various issues and help us prevent having to go through all the same.

49. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 9y

Wanted to pipe in my two cents' worth, as it was something I had to sit and think about before writing TP Wiki bits for Montreal. After looking through Wiki and a few travel sites, I realized that all I would be doing is rehashing the same-old, same-old that can be found all over the net. So I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly?) that a TP Wiki had to be a reflection of TP itself. That is, a collection of travel-related facts, thoughts, opinions, recommendations, etc. on the places we live and have visited.

Now, in some ways, this makes TP Wiki a little biased (recommending a particular restaurant, attraction, airline, etc.) - but that's what TP is all about. People here ask one another's opinions on travel-related stuff - they don't want a travel-guide response, else they'd just buy a book and be done with it.

I carried that idea through and wrote about my favourite eating spots here, and why I like them so much. It's what I would recommend to people if they'd ask in the forums - so now it's all in one convenient place and all I have to do is link people to that Wiki section if they want to know more.

Anyone feel the same, or differently?

50. Posted by Isadora (Travel Guru 13926 posts) 9y

Quoting tway

Now, in some ways, this makes TP Wiki a little biased (recommending a particular restaurant, attraction, airline, etc.) - but that's what TP is all about. People here ask one another's opinions on travel-related stuff - they don't want a travel-guide response, else they'd just buy a book and be done with it.

I carried that idea through and wrote about my favourite eating spots here, and why I like them so much. It's what I would recommend to people if they'd ask in the forums - so now it's all in one convenient place and all I have to do is link people to that Wiki section if they want to know more.

Anyone feel the same, or differently?

I agree with you, T. Granted, my only contributions (so far) have been for the Travel Health section but I have written the text in the same manner I would write a thread response. I have tried to keep the information concise, and without personal opinion, because of the subject matter. But, instead of sending someone to multiple sites, I have boiled the information down to the basics and can link it to threads easily. From there, people can follow the references for additional information.

At some point I'll add to the Chicago section and have been thinking along the same lines. We have our favorite restaurants and "sights" that we recommend when the requests arise so that's what I had planned to write about (when I get there).