text:
Talk:United States of America/Archive 2009

Nine Cities
Twice in the last day I've reverted a change to the nine cities. (Once to add Philadelphia, once to change New Orleans to Las Vegas.) In my opinion, this article is too high-profile, and the choice of nine cities too much a matter of opinion, to allow undiscussed changes to stand. The nine cities we currently have are not obviously inadequate, and thus any proposed change should be discussed here first. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

 * OK Here's the discussion. Let's replace New Orleans with Las Vegas.  Vegas is more than 5 times larger than New Orleans and receives more than 50 times as many visitors per year.  If travelers vote with their feet, they've clearly already voted for Vegas.  Vegas rocks!  It's great place to visit, lots of things to do, and is surrounded by the vast and great outdoors that is the American west.  And remember, "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".  New Orleans? Had its heyday about 200 years ago, been in a slow decline ever since. VIVA LAS VEGAS! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) SONORAMA (talk • contribs)

 * I agree that non-discussed changes to the cities list here can simply be reverted on sight. And although I once argued that we should add Vegas, I think replacing New Orleans with it would not fit our goal of representing each geographic region in these lists. We already have 2 other destinations for the Southwest, and New Orleans is the only destination we list in the South. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:28, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, what do you suggest Las Vegas replace? Also, Los Angeles is the only other city in the Southwest currently on the list, and Miami, you may have heard, is in the South.  In any event, I don't think we have to maintain a specific balance of regions in the list. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) SONORAMA (talk • contribs)

 * Los Angeles and Miami are in the respective regions of California and Florida (since we're being snarky: you may have read the regions sections of this article). The South is a huge region and should be represented somewhere in the destinations list. In past discussions, we have considered geographical representation, by the regions we use, to be even more important than prominence as a travel destination. And I can't think of a better destination to list for the important South region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * The problem is that the South as a whole is not characterized by its huge destination cities. And if the goal is to represent the South, New Orleans is probably the least "Southern" city you could pick, due to its French Cajun-influenced culture.  Atlanta would probably be the major alternative candidate; I personally think that would be somewhat more representative of the South.  That's not to say NO is a poor choice overall, though.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:47, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Please sign your posts, SONORAMA. I would agree we don't need every region represented (let's face it; there just isn't that much in the Great Plains); the nine cities should be a representative sample.  I think New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington are absolutely inviolable.  Boston, Miami, and San Francisco are in the next tier, almost as important.  That leaves Seattle and New Orleans as the only two real options for replacement.  Both have been questioned in the past.  Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, Orlando, Honolulu, and Houston seem to be the major candidates to replace them.
 * Philadelphia is a problem because that would give us four out of nine cities all in the BosWash corridor. We're already pushing it with three, but NYC and Washington have to be there.  Orlando is a problem because we already have Miami (I suppose we might consider switching them).  Any other thoughts?  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I just like to add my support to the idea that we should have geographic balance. As for Vegas, it's such a unique city that it represents nothing other than itself so I'd prefer to leave it off. If we were to eliminate a city, I'd note that there are three West Coast cities (Seattle, SF, LA) and three East Coast (Boston, NYC, DC) that seem overrepresentative. If we were to eliminate one, I'd suggest SF or LA with my preference being LA because it is seethingly bland. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with the list as is, but if we were to substitute, I'd say ditch Boston rather than LA... Hollywood is one of the main stops for visitors. Or ditch Seattle. SF is way too popular as well – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:14, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I agree. Of the list, Boston is probably the easiest to ditch (two east coast cities already in the list and Boston, while a nice place, is not that remarkable). I sort of think that Vegas should probably kick Boston off anyway since it is more visited (I think, no hard stats here). Regardless of other decisions, I wouldn't dump LA! --(WT-en) Wandering 23:10, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * How about ditching New Orleans? It is by far the smallest city in population there.  Other than Mardi Gras it doesn't have much going for it -- nothing compared to Vegas. (WT-en) SONORAMA 06:18, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I think New Orleans should stay. If anything I believe Seattle could go - but mostly i think it should just be left as is (WT-en) Sertmann 06:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

All right, I'm going to propose we scrap the whole list and go with Buffalo, Charleston, Fargo, Portland, Biloxi, Tucson, Boise, Galveston, and Gary. How's that? =) (WT-en) LtPowers 13:43, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
 * That's crazy talk: everyone knows Cour de'Alene has far more visitors than Fargo! -- (WT-en) Colin 19:45, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I support any and all lists that include Gary. Support. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

 * The US cities list is probably at least as frequently debated as the Project:External links policy, and in both cases no one has yet come up with an alternative to the current version that addresses all concerns. As a result, in both cases my vote goes for keeping the status status quo.  I'd agree that it would be nice to see Vegas on this list (as well as any number of other cities), but until someone comes up with a better alternative than the "pick five to nine representative cities" guideline I'd say let's just stick with the current nine.  As an aside, have you guys actually been to Gary?  Nothing against the fine folks in Indiana, but clearly Wall, South Dakota would be a vastly better choice. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:36, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

 * My vote goes to the village of Pepacton, NY. The view itself is worth the visit. (Bring an oxygen tank.)--(WT-en) Wandering 22:06, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Are you kidding, Wandring? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:10, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Moi? Never! Pepacton is a lovely village at the edge of the Catskills. (Sadly, it is under water these days - a part of a reservoir built in the 1950s!)

Revisited
This is somewhat of a curiosity, but has New Orleans bounced back much from Hurricane Katrina? I know people probably don't want to deal with another comment about the 9 cities, but New Orleans does look odd to me (Miami does, too, but that's probably more of a personal opinion). I know even now people are still going to do relief work. If that's the case, don't you think another city would be better for the "top 9"? I've read the discussions, and I think Atlanta or Las Vegas really should replace New Orleans. Las Vegas seems to have mixed support, but there are actually zero cities on the list in that region as Wikivoyage has divided the country. If however, there is a need to have a Southern city (which perhaps should be represented), then why not Atlanta? Someone had mentioned it, but it kind of got swept under the rug with the Vegas talk. Someone mentioned that it better represents the South, and I think the fact that it's not still recovering from a disaster makes it more appealing, as well. What do you think? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:27, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I really really prefer the big easy over Atlanta, tourism wise very few other American cities has such a rich a cultural heritage, and despite regional differences, I still consider North American culture pretty monolithical. I'd never pay a dime to set my foot in Atlanta - unless chance took me there, just another generic metropolis, but I'd pay an arm and a leg to see the mardi gras or a funeral possession in N.O. (And I'm going to one fine day). As far as I'm aware, it's business as usual in the French Quarter, which is what people come to see in the first place right? And besides if New Orleans was deemed worthy before Katrina, It would leave a bad taste in my mouth to remove it afterwards, when the city needs tourism more than ever. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:45, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * That's true; NO has things that no other city in the world has. Atlanta may be a more popular destination right now (in part due to the airport) but that's not the only criterion we use.  I'd rather look at replacing Miami, I think, but it represents the southern beach tradition.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:24, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Or Boston; the more I think about it, the less important it seems to have it here. We already have two northeast cities, and although Boston is certainly not the same as NYC or Washington, I think the geographic issues might be enough to justify removing it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:34, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Okay, that's a good point. New Orleans does have quite a unique culture, and as long as the places people visit have not been destroyed, I think I can support it. I would support replacing Miami and maybe Boston. I like Philadelphia as a top 9 city, because it some of the country's best historical sites, but it's a shame that it is so close to NYC and D.C. For geographic reasons, I understand why it's not on the list... If Las Vegas is too close to California, then would St. Louis be a good choice to replace Miami? Florida is represented with Disneyworld in the "Other Destinations" section (and the Everglades could just as easily be there), so Miami is not a must. (as a sidenote: I just noticed that Las Vegas doesn't have a pinpoint on the map) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:52, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Whoa nelly! We're talking about switching Miami out for St Louis? Not sure why a city full of sunshine, white suits, endless models, and Cuban sandwiches is getting so much hate here, so I'll just give a reminder: 4th largest urban area in the US; international center for television, music, fashion, film, performing arts; world's #1 destination for cruise ships; beautiful skyline; white beaches; trendy upscale dining; some of the most stylish nightlife in the world; beautiful people; Cuban culture; 3rd wealthiest city in the country; bordered by two national parks; pretender to the "Capital of Latin America"; etc. The US is a big country; it's unavoidable that we won't include every major city destination in this list, and the potential complaints are boundless—Philadelphia, Denver, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Houston, etc. I do, however, remain committed to support any revised city proposal that includes Gary. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:15, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I must agree. Culturally, St. Louis isn't that interesting compared to the existing entries on the list, and geographically, there's no need to scrounge up another city to represent the Midwest when Chicago's already there.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 18:27, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I suppose the debate is closed again (unless Peter wants to trade Chicago for Gary. An interesting debate). By the way, what exactly are "strivers" (see the description for Miami)? Is that a clever way of alluding to illegals and refugees? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:15, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I wouldn't be so quick. Has anyone actually defended Boston's inclusion on the list?  It's a great city, but it makes for a third city in the BosWash corridor when we could be including Vegas, Denver, or Atlanta.  I doubt we'd get half as many people coming in trying to add Boston as currently try to add Vegas.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:08, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * On Boston, I could go either way. If it does get switched, my vote would have to go in favor of Las Vegas. Denver and Atlanta are below Boston, in my opinion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:47, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Boston's cultural significance dwarfs Vegas, Denver, and Atlanta combined. Vegas should be among the Other Destinations. It's a theme park for gambling much more than a city. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:52, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * But cultural significance is not the only criterion we should be looking at. We need to consider what's most useful for the traveler, and that can include things like geographic representation and having a variety of different types of places.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:25, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * What's most useful for the traveler is listing the places they are extremely likely to visit. That's why Boston is listed. Geographic representation is all fine and good, but we're being myopic if we let that miss a difference as enormous as the quality of Denver and Atlanta's attractions relative to Boston's. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:35, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I would think it rather obvious that Boston is there in no small part because of the desire for geographical spread—it's the sole listed city/od for the important travel region of New England. Peter--23:46, 25 July 2009 (EDT)
 * True, but New York City is really close. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:46, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

+Vegas -Seattle?
As I see it, the only one on the current list that might reasonably be deleted is Seattle. Yes, it is an important city, interesting to visit, and the center of its region, but it is not clear to me it belongs among the nine we list here. On the other hand, there's a pretty good case for adding Las Vegas; it is one of America's top tourist destinations.

Basically, I think the current list is about right. Replacing Seattle with Las Vegas is the only change I'd support. Other opinions? (WT-en) Pashley 12:46, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I can't argue against it except on grounds of geographic representation, but that line doesn't seem to get very far around here. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:52, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I know this is a little old now, but just to give another opinion, I'd rather Seattle stay on the list, and I appreciate geographic representation. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)

-Seattle or -New Orleans, +Houston
To me, Houston is more than worthy to be included in this list of nine (why not ten?) than Seattle or New Orleans. Not only is it the fourth largest city in the nation, and home to NASA's mission-control, but it's the most international, multi-cultural, and financially important city in the south. Worth consideration at the very least. MrLewis (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)MrLewis

 * You're posting to an archive. Please make your argument against New Orleans and Seattle, if relevant, at Talk:United States of America. And post it at the bottom of that page in a new section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Ok, sorry for that. An editor directed me here. MrLewis (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)MrLewis

Other destinations
So we've discussed the 9 cities, now it's time to discuss the 9 "Other destinations". For one, there are two destinations listed for California & none in the plains/midwest. Should we go for simply the most notable, or for geographic diversity. I suggest adding Niagra Falls, Denali NP, Badlands NP (Mt. Rushmore, right?), or the Everglades (but not sure that that should replace DW). Not really sure which destinations to therefore eliminate aside from one of the CA destinations, but leaning towards Acadia NP & Glacier NP. These are just some quick suggestions I've come up with, this is certainly something which merits much input. (WT-en) AHeneen 20:02, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * The ten most visited national parks, from greatest to least, are: Great Smoky Mountains NP, Grand Canyon NP, Yosemite NP, Yellowstone NP, Olympic NP, Rocky Mountain NP, Zion NP, Cuyahoga Valley NP, Grand Teton NP and Acadia NP. I think popularity is as much a factor in this as geography. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

 * Niagara should be included, Mt Rushmore also seems like a good idea, since it's probably one of the greatest icons of the States, along with the Capitol and good old lady in NY. On the other hand Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone, Yosemite and WDW (another thing which America is very famous for abroad, and it has a good article) should stay, at least that is my take on it. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I like those suggestions, although I must point out that Niagara Falls (New York) is not listed as one of Mid-Atlantic's nine cities. Though perhaps we could list it under "Other destinations" in that article.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:56, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, and I was worried someone would object to my addition of WDW, given that all the others were national parks. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:58, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Vegas, baby! I find it weird that it's missing from the top cities, so it should definitely go into the Other Destinations then. I'd suggest dropping Carlsbad Caverns, which is just a cave (albeit a pretty darn big one), and not the kind of place that people go to spend entire holidays in. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:45, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * I believe the "Other destinations" are not cities and should stay that way. Vegas is a city and shouldn't be on this list. (WT-en) AHeneen 11:57, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * Where do cities such as Niagara Falls factor in, then? (I agree that Vegas doesn't count as an Other Destination, though.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:23, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * Niagara Falls just happens to share the name of the small city nearby. The waterfall is the draw, and if it weren't for that, the city would not be a draw at all, so I think that's OK for an other destination. Las Vegas is out of the question though. (WT-en) Texugo 19:42, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * (WT-en) Jpatokal is absolutely right about Vegas. It is quintessentially American in all its glorious tackiness, and should be included somewhere. Since the consensus seems to be leaning away from its inclusion in "Other Destinations," how about "Drink"? Currently, there is nothing about gambling in the nightlife part of "Drink," and Reno, Vegas, Atlantic City and the various Native American reservation casinos could all be mentioned. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:39, 24 January 2009 (EST)

 * Las Vegas is very much a city, and I think only merits inclusion in the cities section, otherwise we're defeating the purpose of keeping it to nine cities... see the vegas conversation a few sections up... feel free to bring new opinions to that conversation :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:44, 24 January 2009 (EST)

 * I agree, (WT-en) cacahuate . Vegas needs a home other than Cities and Other Destinations. I think this can be resolved rather neatly by a brief write up of gambling in the U.S., with internal links/mentions of the casino towns in the nightlife part of the "Drink" section. That way --Blackjack! Everybody wins! :) (WT-en) WineCountryInn 22:35, 24 January 2009 (EST)

 * It's a bit too facile to dismiss Vegas just as a gambling destination. One friend of mine flew there from Singapore to celebrate his honeymoon, another goes there regularly from Finland for Star Trek and strippers.  Neither gambles.

 * If one of the cities had to go, I'd lean towards to dropping Seattle — it's just not a top tourist draw in the way that Vegas, San Fran, Hollywood, NYC etc are. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:56, 27 January 2009 (EST)

 * Couldn't we just list it as The Strip under Other Destinations, that way we're listing a place, not a city :-p --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 05:54, 27 January 2009 (EST)

 * No! ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:59, 29 January 2009 (EST)

 * Dammit! :) anyway, back on topic - I really think Mesa Verde or Chaco should be included on the list, to give it a bit more variety, than just (completely awesome) nature - leaning towards Mesa Verde myself. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

A suggestion: Gives us a - not perfect - but pretty descent geographical spread, and included sights that are not just (awesome) wilderness, and they all have fairly good guides. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:41, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * Walt Disney World
 * Mount Rushmore
 * Grand Canyon
 * Yellowstone
 * Mesa Verde
 * Niagara Falls
 * Carlsbad Caverns
 * Denali (or Yosemite)
 * Everglades (or Smoky Mountains)
 * I like it, although I'd go with Denali and Smoky Mountains over the alternatives. (Only because the Smoky Mountains are the most visited national park, according to WineCountryInn above.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:22, 29 January 2009 (EST)

 * I have taken a preliminary stab at getting Vegas in the article somewhere in the Drink section. It is currently getting short shrift. If you'd like to see more about gambling and other forms of nightlife in this article, please let us know! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 19:03, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * Also, I vote for dropping Carlsbad Caverns for the reasons mentioned above, as well as the Everglades (WDW is plenty for the Florida region). Pick up Denali, Yosemite and Smoky Mountains, and you have spread the regional destinations around again, to Alaska, California and the South. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 23:28, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * I think the list is fine, using Denali (gives variety and Alaska is a great destination) and the Smoky Mountains (because WDW & the Everglades would be too close). (WT-en) AHeneen 23:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Low-quality photos
Some of the photos in this article are subpar in quality, in my opinion, including the Mt. Rushmore one in the infobox. Here is a higher-resolution, replacement option (with better color) for the infobox:  The Statue of Liberty image is also low quality, as are some of the others. I don't want to make unilateral replacements (though I did one), but would rather see what others think about the images. (WT-en) Aude 00:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

 * I'm indifferent about the Mt Rushmore one, I think they're both fine.... but agree that a nicer one of the sol and gg bridge would be nice – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Is my photo at right ok? It's a little grainy, but also 5MP. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:42, 30 January 2009 (EST)

 * I'm all for more pics, there are IMHO way too few at the moment. Re: statue of liberty, there's too much blue now, it looks like it's underwater. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:45, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * The current Mr. Rushmore pic is a bit heavy on the shadow. I'd be fine replacing it with a cropped version of the one Aude linked.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:17, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Coming from Wikipedia, ideally I like to see images that could pass as Featured pictures there or close to that quality. That said, a featured picture (or one close to that quality) of the Statue of Liberty is elusive.  An average snapshot on a clear day would be better than what's in the article. (WT-en) Aude 12:23, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Any time, any photo, in any article can be improved, it should be. The gallery feature is one of the most underused features we have. (WT-en) 2old 13:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I've uploaded a better version of the SoL pic which gets rid of some of the graininess, but it's still quite blue. Compare it, however, to the very small pic we currently have (which is posted below). (WT-en) AHeneen 18:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

 * I think the Statue of Liberty is a difficult subject to photograph really well, compared to the quality I think is needed, especially in a country article. Looking around on Flickr, I'm finding mainly artistic, sunset type pictures which don't work here.  On Wikimedia Commons, the quality of the SOL pictures is far short of expectations, as do photos from my own collection.  Maybe at some point I'll put up a bounty for a featured picture of the Statue of Liberty, New York Stock Exchange and maybe a couple other key places.
 * For now, I suggest replacing the SOL picture with something else. Actually, I see the SOL pictures is in the "Cities" section, so I think a cityscape type picture would be more suitable.  Something of either NYC (e.g. ) or Chicago would be good, or something more symbolic such as The White House would work. (WT-en) Aude 19:57, 30 January 2009 (EST)

 * I hate to lose the Statue of Liberty from the article entirely, because of her symbolism of greeting visitors to the USA (which is a nice fit for a Wikivoyage article). There are some decent SoL images at Wikimedia Commons . As for the History section of Understand, how about a nice photo of the Liberty Bell, with Independence Hall in the background ? (WT-en) WineCountryInn 19:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * Which SOL photo do you like? If we use one from Wikimedia Commons, it has to be licensed under "Creative Commons".  Some photos are instead licensed under GFDL, which is no good here.  My opinion of the photos of the SOL on Wikimedia Commons is that none really stand out.  For this page, I suppose we could choose something of "acceptable" quality from Commons, until time that we get something better.  The Liberty Bell is okay too. I'm setting up a "bounty"  as a sort of contest to encourage people to fulfill my request for featured pictures, so hope at some point we get photos of exceptional quality of the SOL and other key places. I'm not sure when my contest will start. (WT-en) Aude 19:44, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * For history, another possibility is a photo of Gettysburg . (WT-en) Aude 19:50, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * Here's an older SoL pix from the National Parks Service. . It's obviously been scanned in, but the contrast and composition are decent. It just needs a little cropping. More are here . (WT-en) WineCountryInn 21:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * I have uploaded the NPS photo with contrast adjustments - Image:Statueofliberty.jpg. I think this will work. (WT-en) Aude 22:17, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * I put the image in, but feel free to rearrange the pictures or do whatever you think is best. (WT-en) Aude 22:21, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * White House pictures for Aude, any of these you find worthy?
 * http://flickr.com/photos/schindlerproject/2766039520/
 * http://flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3144539401/
 * http://flickr.com/photos/andrijbulba/411163312/
 * http://flickr.com/photos/laurapadgett/3075294371
 * And I like this one :) - http://flickr.com/photos/zieak/2335883022/

Spread Photos by Region
To add more variety to the article, we should discuss spreading the photographs around by region, similar to the lively discussions surrounding the Cities and Other destinations sections. What would you put on this list? And what should be the max number of images in this article? That way, we can take everyone's input and winnow it down to the best images. The hotel sign in Sleep, for instance, could be replaced by something more iconic. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 22:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm thinking of replacing the White House picture (or moving it), and putting a NYC skyline picture (e.g. Image:Brooklyn Bridge by Dr G Schmitz.jpg) in its place, since it's the "Cities" section. Other than that, I don't have any great preferences, but agree on including images of many different regions. (WT-en) Aude 22:46, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think that the images are already spread out. Maybe add something in the Midwest or Alaska and something better for FL. But as it stands the images look fine to me. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have no problem with the White House, because it's in a different city but in the same Mid-Atlantic region. I think it's an exception, however, since it's the capitol. Here's the breakdown of the photos, so far:

 * Great Plains - Mount Rushmore.
 * Southwest - Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Burning Man.
 * Mid-Atlantic - Statue of Liberty and White House.
 * California - Golden Gate Bridge
 * Florida - baseball in Daytona Beach
 * South - Grand Ole Opry, Nashville
 * Miscellaneous signs - Welcome, highway, and motel signs.

Not represented
 * New England
 * Midwest
 * Texas
 * Rocky Mountains
 * Pacific Northwest
 * Alaska
 * Hawaii

And some of the images we are using are generic or not particularly strong images (muddy, poor composition, etc.) We should put our best foot forward on this. I recommend dumping the Burning Man and keeping the Vegas pix, etc. Maybe stronger images for Florida and the South, as well. There's got to be more iconic and emblematic images we can use. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 23:08, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I found and added a strong image of the Grand Tetons between "Geography" and "Climate" in the Understand section. That takes care of the Rocky Mountains. One down, six more regions to go! (Maybe). (WT-en) WineCountryInn 01:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Added the Gateway Arch to the By thumb section of "Get around." That includes the Midwest region in the mix. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 17:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Placed a lighthouse in Maine in the Itineraries section of "See" to take care of the New England region. Like this, because with GG bridge, makes for "sea to shining sea" concept. Before I go any further, here are a couple of ideas for photos:

 * South - Replace Grand Old Opry with a photo of Graceland . Place in the Culture section of "Understand." Strong composition on this pix.
 * Texas - Picture of the Alamo . Like the idea, but think we need either a better photo or some fixing of the contrast. Place in History section of "Understand."
 * Pacific Northwest - Maybe Space Needle in Seattle, but I can't find a strong enough image. Any suggestions?
 * Alaska - An Inuit totem pole, perhaps ? Or a bald eagle on Kodiak Island ? The second idea has appeal because it works in some wildlife, a national symbol and region all in one shot.
 * Hawaii - Maybe a really strong photo of Waikiki Beach, palm trees, hotels and Diamond Head, and replace image in Sleep?
 * Florida - No strong ideas for Fla, maybe an image of a space shuttle launch along the Space Coast ?

What do you think? Please keep the ideas coming, not the least of which is, how many photos is "too many photos?" Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 18:26, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * Added a photo of the Alamo to history section, so that the region is now represented. That leaves three regions, Alaska, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest, not represented. Please read the dialogue above and share your ideas/commentaries/criticisms. Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 19:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)
 * Moved Burning Man down to Respect section, where it is mentioned in article. Plus, bottom half of article is devoid of images. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:08, 5 February 2009 (EST)

 * Your suggestions seem good. Though, I don't have any spare time to help here until Sunday or early next week.  I'll check back then, but please go ahead and make changes. (WT-en) Aude 23:17, 5 February 2009 (EST)
 * Replaced Grand Ole Opry with image of Bourbon Street. Moved image from Do section up to Culture sub-section of "Understand." I think this is a stronger photo for the South. Any thoughts? (WT-en) WineCountryInn 00:11, 6 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sharpened the color of the Daytona Beach picture in the Do section. Had to load it into Wikivoyage main, as it was originally was uploaded, because it kept overriding my upload to Wikivoyage shared. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 00:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)
 * Added Bald eagles, taking care of Alaska, a national symbol and some wildlife all in one pix. Added it into Costs subsection of "Buy" simply for no other reason than it was a vast sea of text. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 01:43, 6 February 2009 (EST)
 * Placed an image of Seattle skyline, Space Needle, Mount Rainier, etc. in By plane subsection of "Get In." That only leaves Hawaii for regions not represented. Any feedback is appreciated. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 14:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)
 * Added one last image, this time Hawaii in the By mail subsection of "Contact." This takes care of full regional spread of images. All regions are now represented. Hopefully, this will spark some consensus building and debate. What pictures do we keep? What do we jettison? What could be adjusted? Obviously, some of the images are stronger than others. If you think you can find a stronger image, remember (WT-en) Aude has a bounty to come up with the best pictures possible. I'd challenge you one further and say, if you replace an image, you try to do it with another photo from the same region. Perfect geographical representation isn't necessarily the goal, but we do want as much regional diversity as possible. Let the debates begin. ;) (WT-en) WineCountryInn 17:16, 6 February 2009 (EST)

New map
I updated the USA map for higher contrast between region colors and greater visibility (and a few small corrections). It should now be fully legible in-article, which makes printing the guide much simpler. Is this an improvement? Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:15, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think so. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Travel advisories - swine flu
The Australian government is currently warning travellers to the United States to practice Respiratory Etiquette. It seems they have been reading the Wikivoyage respect sections for ideas.. --(WT-en) Inas 20:26, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

 * More seriously, some kind of warning is probably appropriate. I suggest something like:

Anybody see any issues with that? --(WT-en) Inas 02:11, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree, some kind of precaution needs to be posted on the main page about those who are planning on traveling to the United States.

 * Meh. It's a situation to keep an eye on at this point, but with zero deaths for people who have not gone to Mexico, we're not there yet.  The concern is that, based on the Mexican cases, this could be the type of flu which leads to pandemic.  Mysteriously, the US cases do not show the troubling signs that would make one worry about pandemic.  So let's wait until an EU government actually says something, rather than just one EU health minister proffering her own opinion without bothering to use the normal science-based decision making process of her own department. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:46, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Not trying to be sensationalist, or overplay the situation, but this thing is headlines all over the world today, in large font, on front pages of newspapers globally. Warnings about swine flu rate a mention on most countries travel advisories for the United States, although they are not saying to not travel there.  It is an issue primarily concerned with travel, and it may well all be a fizzer, but we can't just say nothing can we?  I personally would at least think twice before travelling to an affected area.--(WT-en) Inas 02:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I'm kinda okay with your version of the warning on the page. But switch "take appropriate precautions" to something like "wash hands frequently."   Now I'm off to bed with my flu-like symptoms one week after meeting several groups of people from Mexico City.  -- (WT-en) Colin 03:04, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Which gets us to where we came in, following the advice of the Australian travel website, advising visitors to the United States to follow Respiratory Etiquette. I guess we could add to that Hygiene.

--(WT-en) Inas 05:25, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the warningbox is a bit ridiculous...there has only been one death (a Mexican infant who had just gotten back from Mex.) and 91 people infected nationwide. That's 91 people in a country of >300million!!! I think this swine flu thing is overblown. Let's put that 1 death & 91 infections into perspective: It would be more appropriate to put a warningbox at the top warning not to get in a car...you might get killed! I'm not going to remove the box, but if anyone else agrees with me that this is far overhyped, please do so. (WT-en) AHeneen 11:08, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
 * 47,000 flu deaths annually USA Today;
 * 37, 313 fatalities from traffic accidents nationwide in 2008 NHTSA;
 * 5020 deaths annually from "food-bourne illnesses" CDC

 * Agree with AHeneen, it's almost comical how quickly our media likes to latch on to things like this – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 11:32, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Agreed. I've removed the warningbox. Also, IMHO Wikivoyage doesn't really need to worry about things that are already "headlines all over the world today, in large font, on front pages of newspapers globally"... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:16, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Some kind of advisory needs to be posted then. It doesn't need to necessarily go at the top of the page in a warning box, but there should be some mention of it in the "Stay Healthy" section.

Hahaha, I like how once the cases of swine flu in the United States surpassed those in Mexico the warning box was taken off of the Mexican page instead of a warning box on the United States page. You guys are hilarious, but you are more unfair. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs)

 * I removed it once I noticed that it was there, given the precedent on this page. I find it odd that you claim to care so much about this, and wonder why you are only involved in pushing controversial points of view, rather than contributing travel content to this wiki. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:31, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

It's just easy to pick apart your unjust American nationalism. If you can't handle having a warning box on your own page, don't put it on Mexico's page. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs)

 * I was the one who removed it from the Mexico page. Bah, sometimes I just can't resist getting roped into this silly trolling game... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:06, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Photos
Why is there a Burning Man photo in the Respect section, and a Waikiki Beach photo in Contact>By Mail?--(WT-en) Jtesla16 00:38, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Heh, I think putting Burning Man in the respect section might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, since most of these rules are turned on their head at the event. But the bigger reason is that the principle purpose of photo placement is to break up long chunks of black and white text, which can be rough on the reader's eyes. Of course, it's ideal to also have the pictures match up somewhat with the text to the left, so if you have some good ideas... ;)  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:21, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
 * WineCountryInn was trying to get a photo from each region somewhere in this article. He/she did invite discussion on the photo selection and placement above, but no one ever commented.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:07, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Latino vs Hispanic
Maybe I'm just a few laps behind on the euphemism treadmill, but isn't "Hispanic" a more common term than "Latino"? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:12, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
 * a) They're not euphemisms. b) "Hispanic" is more common on the East Coast; "Latino" on the West. Wikipedia sez:
 * The term "Latino" was officially adopted in 1997 by the United States Government in the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino", which replaced the single term "Hispanic": "Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion."
 * The quote is from OMB. --(WT-en) Jonboy 07:47, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Mmkay, looks like my sample size is biased by living in Nu Yoik for too long... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:52, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

"Melting Pot" claim
Remove the part in the introduction where it claims the United States is a "melting pot" country. The United States resembles more of a country of assimilation then a "melting pot." —The preceding comment was added by 70.71.43.61 (talk • contribs).

 * Yeah, that's what "melting pot" means. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Expedia, priceline, etc.. in Get Around..
Some reasons to delete this airline consolidator para.. Does anybody see any offsetting benefit? --(WT-en) inas 21:27, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * 1) These sites don't offer all flights, exclude some airlines, and often don't have the best prices.. We mention that southwest is the most famous discounter, and then list consolidator sites that don't have southwest fares on them.  It is bordering on misleading..
 * 2) There are hundreds (thousands, millions?) of online agencies that will offer the same service.  After all these sites just hook into the booking engines like every other site does..  We can't list them all - this is the inherent problem with listing consolidators..
 * 3) Our Project:External links policy discourages links to consolidators and agencies.  The philosophy being that people can always easily find an agent if they want an agent, online or otherwise, and Wikivoyage exists to put people in direct contact..
 * 4) The discount flying article, offers the strategies for people wanting to get the best price..
 * 5) If we want to list airline consolidators as a method of booking, is could just about mentioned it in just about every wikivoyage article.
 * 6) It is hard to maintain a stance against consolidators listing elsewhere, if they are featured in one of our primary articles..

 * Sound reasoning on all counts. It should be deleted. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:46, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:33, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

American culture: soccer
Soccer is American culture? Really? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:21, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Not by most standards, no. Nuked (but left in the Major League Soccer bit). (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:38, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Professional soccer, perhaps not, but youth soccer is extremely popular. I'd say it's reasonable to include it among the other sports, and possibly hockey as well.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:37, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Any country that calls the sport soccer, doesn't have a proper football culture :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:25, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * That means nothing-- the word soccer was invented in England as an abbreviation for "association football", used to distinguish the sport from rugby. In the US, it is used to distinguish the sport from American football, big deal. They call it soccer here in Japan too, where it is second only to baseball in popularity.
 * Anyway, I agree with (WT-en) LtPowers. It is an almost defining part of American youth, so much that the term "soccer mom" has come to represent middle-class motherhood. I'd support throwing hockey in there too. (WT-en) Texugo 23:36, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * This is a travel guide. How much do travelers really need to know about American youth sports? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:53, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

 * It was meant as a light joke, hence the smiley, but coincidentally MLS and the J-League are the only two artificial football leagues I can think of. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:37, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * GJ, they don't need to know a lot about youth sports -- but we're not discussing it in any detail, merely saying that soccer is part of the U.S. culture -- which it is. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:53, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * So's knitting. Let's not turn this into a Wikipedia article. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:48, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Are you advocating removing that whole sentence, then? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:52, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd be fine with that if it would end this interminable trifling over Jani's commonsense edit. I always feared the day when Wikivoyage would be overrun with Wikipedia-style endless debating of every single word, every single change. I certainly didn't think it would come so soon... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:02, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I've removed the whole thing. Travelers who are ambushed by the fact that popular music is a common element of American culture may address their angry post-trip complaints to me. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:13, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

So "edits I agree with" are "commonsense" while "edits I disagree with" are "endless debating of every single word"? At least that's how it seems lately. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:44, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Seriously, Jani removed one word. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:53, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * And I disagreed with it so I contributed to the discussion that was already occurring. Should I have just reverted Jani instead?  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:32, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

The MLS-bit is fine, sure. But yeah, I agree with what happened here. I think travellers would mostly come to the US to see basketball, baseball, ice hockey, American football, but not soccer.. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 23:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Agreed. It's not a question of what Americans actually do, it's a question of what's widely considered uniquely American, and the cliche is Mom, baseball and apple pie, not soccer. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:06, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Anti-Los Angeles Bias
So New York offers "world-class cuisine and culture" plus diversity and Los Angeles offers smog, palmtrees and freeways? Los Angeles also has a world-class cuisine, culture and diversity. This website should list individual tourist attractions offered by each city rather than reinforcing demeaning stereotypes.

 * Not coming from the US, I guess I could fairly venture that the entry is pretty fair and balanced. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:37, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Add a tenth pretty pretty pretty please?
Hi,

I know all agreed on 9 cities, but there is a tenth one that I think should be on the list because of its history. Fact of the matter is, Philadelphia deserves a mention because it is actually where the Declaration of Independence was signed and written (by extension it is where the US was born.) It is also important for cultural reasons as it does have quite large collections of art, one Ivy League University, a premier science education and development center that is open to the public (Franklin Institute,)  the very first hospital in the US, the first zoo (and first conservation societies) and has appeared in dozens of films (Rocky, Philadelphia, 1776, The Sixth Sense, etc.)It was the nation's first headquarters long before DC was ever built and during colonial times rivaled Dublin in size, something like third largest in the whole Empire. Otherwise it also has something very rare: Philadelphia has preserved more of its colonial era architecture than many other cities, including Boston (which it is slightly bigger than.) Parts of the city have changed little since Ben Franklin walked the streets (there are still parts with cobblestone} and Ben's grave and home are located here. If people are going to get persnickety on me about the location, I would actually argue that it is in the subregion mid-Atlantic (which DC is already in) more than the northeast (it is slightly south of New York City, which I would set up as the border.)

PS-Atlanta I would still put on the list. Miami is a poor representative of the South because it does not have a Southern flavor like Atlanta does: Miami has a decidedly Caribbean taste to it given all of the immigrants from the Caribbean that live there (you won't find a neighborhood marked Little Havana in Atlanta, but you will Miami; and knowing Spanish in Atlanta is useless but in Miami it will get you all sorts of things. The reason why I would put Atlanta on the list is that it is a city in progress of becoming great. Atlanta was the home base of Dr. Martin Luther King and his old church, Ebenezer Baptist, is still there (visitors as always are welcome.) Atlanta was a focal point of the Civil Rights Movement 40 years ago and today it is a city where blacks are doing swimmingly: Atlanta hasn't had a white mayor in eons and blacks make up about half the city's population (if you want to eat soul food, come to Atlanta.) Atlanta is also the birthplace for one of the world's most famous drinks, Coca Cola: the factory for it still stands and they allow tours. (Coca Cola's headquarters are also here.) Atlanta is home to the most prominent colleges for blacks (they were among the first as well,) Morehouse and Spellman (these universities are also well known for their African studies departments.)

—The preceding comment was added by 24.62.193.36 (talk • contribs).

 * We already have D.C., New York, and Boston; we really can't justify a fourth BosWash city. Philly gets left out in the cold, I'm afraid.  As for Atlanta, it's certainly arguable, but it's not clear that Atlanta is yet a major tourist destination.  Everything you mention is good history and business background, but being at the center of the civil rights movement and being the hometown of Coca-Cola just aren't major enough draws to justify removing Miami or New Orleans.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:59, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

General Revisons
I wanted to make a comment on general revisions being made to this page. When looking at the United States article and articles for other countries, for example Canada, I am puzzled as to how this page is being edited and what information is allowed. How is information that is ok for one country deemed too simplistic or vague for another country? For example, I noticed that someone posted information on Time Zones for the United States, but it was removed as being too simplistic or as a "visitors are idiots" revision. How is that not allowed for the United States article, but is ok for the Canada article where the same information exists? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but come on. If the article gets too vague it will be useless to people trying to visit the US. I know this article is long, but it seems the more detailed information that can be provided the better the article will be. If people come here and make revisions and they are automatically deleted or deemed pointless, then it will turn them away from using this article and the site in general. Just a thought guys. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Asu83 (talk • contribs)

 * This article gets WAY more edits than most, and at this point the vast majority of those edits are of questionable value - see the archived talk pages above for discussions about edits that added such useful advice as "don't swear around children" or "don't make fun of 9/11". In the interest of keeping this article useful for travelers to the US, edits that add information that is either blatantly obvious or that applies elsewhere tend to get quickly reverted.  At this point, most editors will ask "does that edit clearly make the article better", and if the answer is no it will generally either be re-written or removed.  For less popular articles this isn't a big issue, but when an article is as mature as this one it actually becomes a lot of work to keep it readable and useful.

 * I would agree that the time zone info you cited from the previous edits might be valuable, but most of the other recent edits fell into the "blatantly obvious" category which is most likely why they were reverted en masse. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 10 October 2009 (EDT)


text:
Talk:United States of America/Archive 2010

languages etc.
More American people speak Chinese than Hawaiian so I added it. Also, Mormonism does not classify as a Christian religion regardless of what the fed. govt. says, what you read or people say. —The preceding comment was added by 218.65.213.31 (talk • contribs)

 * I don't want to get into a religious battle, so since the source of that data is the CIA World Factbook, I've updated it to stay in sync with their data. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:26, 22 February 2010 (EST)

geography is wrong
All top ten peaks lie in Alaska. There are more than 3 major mtn. ranges. The great lakes do not form most of the border between the USA and Canada AND the Rocky mts. start in Canada... I changed these incorrect blunders only to find them changed back. —The preceding comment was added by 125.84.85.182 (talk • contribs)
 * What, pray tell, would be the fourth major mountain range in North America? And the article doesn't say "most of the border", it says "much of the border", which is indisputably true.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:24, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
 * There's the Appalachian, Rocky, & Pacific Coastal (Sierra Nevada & Cascade) mountain ranges. The only other mountain ranges in the country are the Adirondacks (considered by some to be part of the Appalachians), Ozarks (considered to be a "Highlands" region, not mountain range), & Brooks Range (northern Alaska). The Rocky Mountains start in ALASKA...which includes Mount McKinley; however, the Alaskan section is often referred to as the Alaska Range. Most consider the Sierra Nevada & Cascades to form a single range. That leaves just the Brooks range...since it's in the middle of nowhere and not particularly tall, I don't think it would be considered a "major" mountain range. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:49, 16 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Well, the Adirondacks are a different geological formation than the Appalachians, but even I, a native New Yorker, wouldn't call them "major". =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 07:19, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

So you are telling me the Alaskan-Canadian border and the entire intl. border running from Washington state to Minnesota is formed by the Great Lakes? okay there. There are mtn. ranges in the middle of the country (AR, MO, OK) too considered separate from the other 3. This page seems to be taken over and dominated by a net "keeper" who can't seem to understand proper input. Check wikipedia yourself on where the Rocky Mts. start (in Canada). I'll take my edits elsewhere where they are put to good use as this is a losing battle until the site is democratized.. annoying. The Brooks range is higher than the Applachians and just because its remote does not make non important. Hawaii the big island is the largest free standing mtn. in the world.

—The preceding comment was added by 65.49.2.172 (talk • contribs)

American Indian title
the vast majority of the indigenous community has no problem with being called or calling themselves American Indians! However Native Americans can encompass more than American Indians- remove this p.c. bias comment that means nothing to the traveler. This article should not show bias. —The preceding comment was added by 125.84.85.182 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you be more specific about what you want removed? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:24, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

"America was once populated by people who are believed to have migrated from northeast Asia. In the United States their descendants are known by uncomfortable appellations such as Native Americans, or American Indians. While the Indians are often portrayed living a singular, usually primitive lifestyle, in fact, prior to European arrival, the continent was densely populated with sophisticated societies..."

Okay first of all, the American Indians are still here, the culture alive and well, they may form a small min. of the majority pop. of the USA but they are still here! so why does it start off this way as if they were all wiped out and only live in the past? The manner in which the paragraph is written is so P.C. it ends up insulting the very people it wishes to respect! "Uncomfortable apellations"? Again this is the current name of the ethnic group and what Native American tribes call themselves! The American Indian Nations call themselves this so how can it be uncomfortable? That is there name! As a matter of fact American Indians are proud of the fact that they name starts with American first. Most Am. Indians were portrayed by stereotype in media but I don't thnk this is entirely the case today in people's minds today... Lastly we know for a fact that Native America has its roots in Central and East Asia. There is full proof DNA evidence now and tons of cultural evidence as well. They came to the Americas in 3 waves.

—The preceding comment was added by 65.49.2.172 (talk • contribs)

Culture
While the current Culture section:
 * "Because of its size and because its citizens are descended from diverse immigrants, there is no single universal American culture. Visitors to the South will find a far different culture from those traveling to California or New York City."

is less than ideal (not all that informative and overstates the case somewhat), I'm not sure that this is necessary either. I neither want to revert it to the old inadequacy nor let this behemoth of an essay remain. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 18:48, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Long-winded edits tend to get reverted from this article - in the past we were fairly lenient about people who wanted to editorialize about America, but in the end it became a huge task to edit the article back down to something usable for travel. In this case I'd say pare this edit down to a paragraph if possible, otherwise remove it with a note that this a travel guide and not a treatise on American idealism. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:02, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I do not understand why my "behemoth of an essay" keeps getting deleted. First of all, it's not that long compared to the History section (they are about equivalent), and, second of all, why it could be improved it is relatively thorough and informative. If I were visiting the United States, I would find this essay interesting as it dips into a lot of the major facets of American culture that one will inevitably encounter when entering the states. Why are we pressed for space?-- Morgog

 * I trimmed it down as it was 1) relatively political and thus bound to be a magnet for edit wars, and 2) of little relevance to travel. Culture in the US is of interest to travelers (obviously) but attempts to generalize it at the country level invariably turn into long-winded messes - everyone in the world knows that the US is a bastion of capitalism, so how much really needs to be said?  Similarly, we all share national pride, but that is true of most countries.  Effort on this subject is likely better spent in the articles for smaller regions; for example, New Orleans or San Francisco clearly have unique cultures that visitors may not be familiar with, but at the country level this tends to be a subject that doesn't need a lot of explanation. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:34, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * What is left says nothing but the culture is diverse, and I just said that it three words. The current para is a waste of words in this article.  --(WT-en) inas 19:51, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I disagree; culture in the U.S. may be diverse compared to that within smaller nations like, say, Holland, but the differences between (say) San Francisco and Wichita are very small compared to that between the U.S. and Holland. Just saying "The U.S. is diverse" (or "Visitors to the South will find a far different culture from those traveling to California or New York City.") doesn't get that across.   (WT-en) LtPowers 20:27, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * So are you disagreeing with me, or with the text, or with the original author? I think the current cultural observations reaches no useful conclusions for the traveler, and I certainly don't think the cultural rant is needed here.  For what its worth, I don't even agree with the premise that there is significant cultural variation to the traveller  This stuff (if required at all) is best left to the regional articles.  And, as you point out, travelling around Europe the traveler will encounter significant cultural differences over small distances.  After travelling around U.S. cities for a while, I find I quickly lose track of what part of the country I am in, especially in the areas popular with visitors.   --(WT-en) inas 01:28, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Much of the original edit is back now, and I still see it as something that adds little to a travel guide and that will be a magnet for political edits. Statements such as "Americans are generally distrustful of government" or "The country has a strong warrior culture" are likely to draw politically-minded edits, and while they may be true in the abstract they are highly debatable in actual practice.  Given that in the many years it has been present the "Culture" section of this article has been little more than a point of contention, at this point I'd support removing it from this article rather than continuing to leave what is at best obvious ("The US is diverse culturally") and what is at worst editorializing on American values with little attention paid to the interests and needs of a traveler. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:38, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't think the topic is inherently unwriteable, but we're agreed that Morgog's attempt goes too far. I'm removing it again.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Morgog's version reads a bit like one of the competing narratives in the domestic battle to determine just what the U.S. is about, and will thus be a never-ending magnet for politicized edits. A culture section focusing on the tensions between the two major narratives could be interesting and have a very cohesive structure. E.g., a country with a "warrior culture" (need a better name than that), but also father of the international peace movement (Wilson, hippies, etc.);

 * What I don't agree with is that the understand section should be strictly limited to travel-relevance. I think it's the only section where we should have a little of something else. The tentativeness and dryness of the current version is the main reason why I think this article is borderline garbage—the history section is about the most simplistic and boring textbook-style recap I've ever seen... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:43, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * If it sounds like I'm saying that "Understand" should be "strictly limited to travel-relevance" then that wasn't my intention. It should however, be written with travelers in mind, and in the past we've had problems with the US article turning into editorials on domestic issues - see for example this discussion where the focus turned completely on how to present the current "red-blue" breakdown of Americans, delved into details of polling, ideological preference, etc, and it wasn't until User:(WT-en) Mark brought up an analogy with Swiss politics that everyone realized we were no longer writing with travelers in mind.  Understand is one of my favorite sections in most articles, but the US article has strayed into encyclopedia territory and is (sadly) not one of our finer examples. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Morgog here. I would like to make a more comprehensive argument for renewing selective parts of my culture section. Few of my assertions are particularly subjective. Let me go through them one by one.

1. The Personal responsibility paragraph. It is an objective fact that US has been far more resistant to expanding social programs and the wellfare state than virtually all the other industrialized nations (especially those in Eastern and Western Europe and Canada). Obama did not even suggest a single-payer system as an option for healthcare reform, something that virtually every other industrialized country has already done. What does that tell you about our culture objectively? This makes America different from many parts of the world and it is something that is worth knowing for a traveler.

2. Capitalism. It sort of goes without saying that Americans strongly support a capitalist system. Not a single major politician, Democrat or Republican, can touch a "socialist" label, and both political parties generally extol the virtues of market forces (these are objective facts). Even though it may seem obvious, some travelers might think the US is similar to Western Europe or Canada ideologically, although, as a whole, it is fairly different.

3. Distrustful of government. While this seems more subjective, skepticism of government is a major part of American culture, as has been pointed at by many politicians, Barack Obama and Senator McKlaskill included. Recently 4/5 Americans, in a Pew Poll, said they distrusted government. Not to say that it has always been an extreme distrust, but it is always been there. Look at the forces that drove Andrew Jackson to power in 1830. As a country, the US has objectively maintained its democracy for a remarkable length of time, and skepticism of government power has been a part of it. This does not mean that Americans do not believe in government programs or centralized authority, it just means that culturally they tend to be skeptical.

4. The strong warrior culture assertion is easy to validate. Yes, there has been a peace movement, but if you look at US history, 99% of the time the war side has won out. The country has almost always been at war, if you include Indian Wars (1st and 2nd seminole wars, etc.), frontier skirmishes, quiet but violent occupations of countries (the occupation of Haiti by the marines for nearly 15 years between World War 1 and World War 2), the Cold War, etc. When it hasn't been fighting with others the US has frequently been fighting with itself, look at the objective facts of the slave system, vigilante violence in the South up to the 1960s, the Civil War, etc.). Read about the prevalence of dueling in the South and West throughout the 1800s. And look at popular culture even recently. While violence has recently been fading out of popular culture, hip-hop from the 1980s through the early 2000s were saturated with violence and a nearly code duelo ethic not dissimilar from that found among the white cavaliers of the Old South. Listen to Toby Keith’s music. Listen to Obama's speech discussing the necessity of war. While not all Americans are pro-Iraq or pro-Afghanistan war, I think that, objectively, there exists a strong martial spirit in America that has continually expressed itself throughout our history. And, of course, look at the gun facts I posted. The amount of guns we voluntarily own is absolutely unbelievable (41% of total civilian-owned guns of world!). The country with the second highest civilian guns per capita amount is YEMEN!

5. The religious nature of the US is objective. One of my friends from France said that before she moved here she never mentioned she was a Jew, nor thought of herself as Jewish, because nobody discussed religion. When she came to the states, she found that virtually everyone she met was religious and, as a result, she started identifying herself as a Jew. This is objectively a significant part of our national life and culture that a traveler or immigrant, such as my friend from France, might find significant.

Okay, I agree the last two comments about the constitution being considered sacred and American exceptionalism are more subjective and difficult to prove, and thus I will not re-add those sections. Neverthleless, I think they can still pretty objectively be found to be true. Just listen to US political rhetoric, from both sides of the aisle. Obama has toned down the exceptionalist rhetoric of Bush, which may very well be a good thing, but it's still a part of the culture.

Okay, so that's my argument. The only want to repost my personal responsiblity, warrior culture, and religion paragraphs, adding up to 246 words, far shorter than both my last posts (I agree that the distrust of government, sacred constitution, and capitalism stuff is less necessary or relevant). I am fine with this post being tweaked or expanded to afterwards, but I would really appreciate it if it would not be deleted outright.

Thanks.

Morgog

 * My criticisms of the changes still remain: I don't think they are being written in a way that appropriate for a travel guide, and I think they are targets for political edits. I won't rebut each one, but just looking at the first example, with protesters on one side currently screaming "keep government out of my Medicare" and the other side screaming about single payer and public options it's a tough argument that the US as a whole is resistant to government programs.  I think that argument is irrelevant, however - to address this topic in a way that wouldn't invite political edits requires a level of detail that is inappropriate for a travel guide.

 * There is a potential for a great culture section to be written, but generalities about "warrior culture", "personal responsibility", etc doesn't seem to be it - we've gone down that road before, and ended up trimming it all out of the article after it became clear that it was too messy and added little to the article. A far stronger approach (IMHO) would be to write a few paragraphs about how the US culture has been shaped - immigration, westward expansion, slavery, etc, and even then I'm not sure how that could best be done without turning into a dumping ground for everyone's opinion on why the US is currently the way it is. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:29, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

From Morgog again. Okay, I simply do not see how the information I put up there is not relevant to a traveler. My friend’s former girlfriend is from Quebec, and she saw 300 and thought it was utterly barbaric. Foreigners need to be given a context for understanding advertisements for TV shows like Spartacus: Blood and Sand. They want to know why growing up they watched Westerns and cop films imported from America. They need to know why there is an endless stream of actions films that come out of Hollywood, many of which glorify vigilantism and vilify the government (look Die Hard, Rambo, The Bourne Identity, Avatar, The Dark Knight). When they see protesters and politicians, both Republican and Democratic, in person and on the television, they need a context for understanding the references to “inalienable rights” and the “framers” etc. And, it’s simply not true that single-payer advocates have been a large part of the political discussion. They were completely excluded, and public option supporters are not the same. The public option is in line with Ameicans’ support for capitalism in that the goal is to create competition with private insurers to bring down costs through, essentially, market forces. And the majority of Americans are against the recent health care bill and, as a mentioned in my culture section, distrustful of government. If somebody comes to the US right now, they will, generally experience these things. I live in Massachusetts, and my family members include disenfranchised Democrats who have considered joining Tea Party protests, and Scott Brown was just elected as an anti-government establishment candidate in arguably the most liberal state in the nation. I really ask you to consider allowing my shortened culture section to stand, and, if need be, be a victim of an edit war. I would be interested to see how it is changed, but perhaps it won’t be. I’ve studied American political rhetoric and history, popular culture, etc. and while my culture section does not cover everything it covers many of the major points. Please consider letting the shortened version of my article stand.

 * I appreciate you have an interest in American culture. It is not uncommon. But I really think your commons would fit better in a blog post than a travel guide.  --(WT-en) inas 19:34, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Morgog, it's too long and gets too far into specifics. It needs to be more concise and more entertaining to read.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:29, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

 * And if we're talking here about health care reform and any tea parties other than the original Boston one, we've gone off the topic of travel writing in a bad way. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:38, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Article is "too short"
I reverted an edit that has been removed several times now (note to anon: please read Project:Edit war). The editor in question made the comment that "this article is way too short", so I'd like to direct him/her to Talk:United States of America/Archive 2007, which is one of many discussions that have led to the current policy of trimming this article's culture & respect sections whenever appropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:24, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Push for guide status
Almost there! I'm too burnt out now after a day of pushing, but according to my admittedly subjective audit, the following articles need to be pushed to usable to bring the USA to guide status (which would make it the first ever guide-level country, excluding city states):

Hawaii: Kahului, Lihue, NaPali Coast, Waimea Canyon

Alaska: Gates of the Arctic National Park

Pacific Northwest: Mount Hood

Florida: Florida Keys

Hawaii, Alaska, and PN are just waiting for those sub-destinations to reach usable status before promotion, so that means we actually just need to push 6 articles to usable status in order to promote the USA article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:42, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I worked a bit on the Gates of the Arctic NP article. I don't think it's quite up to usable, but almost. Since I'm quite busy and may not have time to work on it soon, I've left an outline in the remaining sections (Get Aroud-Eat/Drink plus Stay Safe). If anyone's interested in finishing, it shouldn't take but 15-30 min to complete. Out of the NPS's website for the park, this page and this page will be most useful in completing the rest. (WT-en) AHeneen 01:32, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Can I ask what are the requirements for a country (ie. the US) to reach guide status? If Hawaii, Alaska, & the Pacific NW all need their sub-destinations to be at "usable" status, then I think you overlooked Florida. One city (Panama City) and several of Florida's "other destinations" are only at "outline" status: Amelia Island, the Florida Keys, Gulf Islands National Seashore (which may be at usable), & Ocala National Forest. And then, what level must a region's (or state's) regions be at? All four of Florida's regions are only at outline. (WT-en) AHeneen 04:16, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I also notice that our "See" section currently reads that there is absolutely nothing in this large mass of land to see. Itineraries are all that is there! Also, why are there only 7 cities in the Pacific Northwest? In order for the United States article to be at guide status, wouldn't every region have to be at usable status, which would mean that the states would have to be at usable status, which would mean that the state subregions would have to be at usable status? We're nowhere near that. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:50, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * That's what I thought. But since Peter brought this up, perhaps he can do the explaining. (WT-en) AHeneen 05:51, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * The relevant guides are at Project:Country guide status and Project:Region guide status. To make this simpler, here are the relevant requirements for guide status at the country level: Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and well developed prose in all the standard sections. All immediate subregions must be usable status or better.

 * 1) Good catch re: "see" section—I missed that, and we'll need to fill that section out before promoting this article to guide.

 * 2) Regions, as opposed to countries, have a slightly lower bar for usable status. The criteria is: Has links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better), and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. The most prominent attractions are identified with directions. So not all sub-destinations need to be at usable status—only the most important ones—and subregions do not have to be at usable status. For a region to be at guide status, that would indeed require that all sub-destinations and subregions are at least usable.

 * So yes, there is an extra element of subjectivity involved. I didn't actually check over Florida, as I thought it was all set for usable status, but it looks to me like at least the Keys article should be brought up to usable, so I've added that above to the checklist. I'm not sure the others you listed sound very important.

 * Lastly, only immediate subregions need to be at usable status for a country to reach guide status. Oklahoma is at outline status, but Great Plains is the immediate subregion, and it is usable.

 * Hope that clarifies things! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:06, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Ah, and seven listed cities is more than acceptable—our policy is actually 5–9. In the PN case, it looks like an informed decision was made to limit the list to those seven cities. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:06, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I started writing a "See" section, but ran out of gas -- I welcome anyone who wants to pick up where I left off. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:26, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

 * But if Oklahoma is only an outline, then the Great Plains region must be an outline, because Oklahoma is an immediate subregion of the Great Plains. And if the Great Plains is an outline, then the United States can't be a guide. The same is true for Vermont, and perhaps many states. It's a bottom-to-top structure, so I imagine the real issues with this as a guide lie with a lot of lower-level articles in the hierarchy throughout the country that perhaps haven't even been evaluated (or properly evaluated). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:13, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
 * There is nothing in Project:Region guide status that says Great Plains can't be "usable" just because Oklahoma is an outline. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:29, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

 * This sentence strikes me as odd: "So not all sub-destinations need to be at usable status—only the most important ones—and subregions do not have to be at usable status." Who decides which are the most important ones? In Florida we have the Panama City as an outline. One could argue that it is not "important", but if it isn't important, why is it listed in the 9 Cities list? This way we could argue that only Miami is "important" and ditch all the others. I'd say all the 9 Cities are important, as the sole reason they are listed there is because they are important. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:03, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

 * There is indisputably a measure of subjectivity involved in deciding which listed cities & ODs are the most important ones (and deciding requires either a bit of background knowledge or research). But the rule nonetheless strikes me as useful, especially towards the bottom of the hierarchy. For Montgomery County (Maryland), for example, is usable despite not having an article for Damascus (Maryland), and that seems fair, as the town is small, obscure, and not terribly important. If we are to take the term "usable" literally, it seems clear that the county guide is indeed usable—"An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources"—despite lacking a usable guide to a minor destination that very few would visit. (Also note that requiring the main sub-destinations for usable status in a region article is actually fairly new, and is more strict than the prior requirements.)

 * Btw, this discussion should probably be moved to Project:Region guide status. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:57, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I think we need higher standards for countries to be considered "guides". If we can have entire states as only outline articles, how can we say that the United States is really a "guide". We have good coverage of some major cities, but the U.S. is huge, and I think there are way too many gaps. All 50 states are directly linked to from this page beside their regions in parenthesis, and I like that, but they should all be up to a certain standard, in my opinion. Saying we have an entire "guide" to the United States of America is quite a bold statement that I don't think our actual coverage really justifies. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:57, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
 * A fair point. Perhaps we ought to get every state up to usable?  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:09, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

 * We already have higher standards for countries to be at the guide level—all linked destinations need to be usable or better, rather than just the most important ones. I don't like the idea of requiring two levels of subregions to be at usable status—it seems ad hoc for the U.S. And is it really so crucial to have a well-developed guide to Oklahoma for visitors to the U.S., when hardly any international visitors ever go there? Most published USA guides would hardly mention the state, while we actually have well-developed guides to its principal destinations: Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Keep in mind the defining element of guide status: Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here. There really is no reason to consult another guide—of the articles that I listed above, the ones that really do seem lacking are the Florida Keys and the Kauai destinations, while the others seem more of a formality per our existing requirements.

 * We already hold country and region guides accountable for their subregions, but extending that to regions further down the hierarchy doesn't make a lot of sense to me when we're just shooting for guide status (usable articles two levels down would be required for star status, as all immediate subregions would need to be at guide status). While I can see the appeal for the U.S., an administrative-division–centric policy to be applied sitewide doesn't seem right to me.

 * Keep in mind what guide status means: The article would be helpful for the average traveler, such as offering alternatives for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. and provide enough information for at least a few days there. Our requirements for country/region guide status are already really difficult to meet, and have already evolved to go beyond our most basic metric of guide status.

 * And also remember why we have it—to motivate people to improve the articles! I've been motivated to tie up the remaining loose ends for guide status because it is a nice milepost within reach. After that, we'll start thinking about shooting for the stars. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:52, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't know that anyone's suggesting a sitewide policy change. But considering how American tourism is handled almost exclusively at the state level, it does seem a bit odd to leave those states at "outline" and still say we have an excellent guide to the U.S.  Of course, that depends on what we mean by "guide to the U.S."...  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:04, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

 * On the English version of Wikivoyage, I think it is even more important for states to be covered than it might be on other language versions (although even that would be cheating those users). Yes, they are technically "subregions", but most American states are larger than many countries, and as an English-speaking country full of potential travelers, gaps are a lot more noticeable than they would be for many other nations. Domestic tourism in the U.S. is huge! The "average traveler" is likely to be someone taking a short trip to a nearby state, which may very well be Oklahoma or Vermont. To assume that there are states that are not worth covering because "nobody goes there" just doesn't seem right, and if "all linked destinations" on the page need to be usable or better, then all the states would need to be brought up to standard.

 * The incentive to improve articles does not diminish if this is at "usable" status. Even a much smaller nation like Kenya would take a lot of work to get to guide status, and I still think it's important to remember that you've chosen one of the world's largest nations to try and make a "guide" (If you don't count Russia, the entire continent of Europe would fit within the U.S.), and taking up such a task is supposed to be difficult compared to making a region or city a guide. The U.S. is at the top of our world hierarchy next to North America; that's huge! It may be the case that making the U.S. a guide right now is too ambitious.

 * It isn't part of the country guide requirements, but I think size matters (as in hierarchical size, although in this case, the nation is also literally large). Most people plan trips within regions or states in the U.S., because it's expensive to visit New York, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Honolulu, and San Francisco in one trip. For nearly every state, I don't think it would be unreasonable to require guide status or all cities in the top 9 at the state level to be at least usable (if not guides) before the nation can even be considered to be called a "guide". The definition of "usable" is much more relative and forgivable if the article fails in some ways than the definition of a "guide", and to say that our coverage of the U.S. would be the only guide someone would need if planning a trip to this country is a statement I don't think we can truly endorse at the moment, despite some of our impressive American guides and stars. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:35, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm starting to lose track of this discussion, for which I certainly bear responsibility from my last wordy post, and hope to bring it back down to earth a bit: By my reckoning, the above articles need to be brought to usable status and the see section needs filling out in order to satisfy the requirements of Project:Country guide status. If you disagree re: which linked destinations from the immediate region pages should be deemed most important, (e.g., an argument that we must have a usable article to Kenai Fjords National Park in order for Alaska to be considered a usable guide), then feel free to make that case. Otherwise I'm not too sure where we're going. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:54, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
 * 1) Our guide to the U.S. has far deeper and broader coverage than any commercial guide.
 * 2) Our guide status requirements do not require that all states be at usable status.
 * 3) Our guide to the U.S. is stronger than that for any other country, save Singapore.
 * 4) The article status pertains only to the article in question (yes, domestic tourists would be very interested in neighboring states, and thus would want a guide-level article to that state, or perhaps to their region, but would not need to read an overview USA article).

 * Well, what exactly do we want "guide status" to mean at the country level? The structure of the site suggests, to me, that having a guide country means that we have enough information for you to be able to travel to every area: Major sites, as well as many great minor sites/sidetrips. That's kind of how the city articles with subpages work. I picture a guide country giving me a variety of options no matter what state I may visit.

 * The guidelines however, seem to suggest that the goal of having a "guide" country is not related to our actual coverage of the country but rather how well it is covered on the country page alone. Comparing our guide at the country level to guidebooks at the country level for a country like the United States seems like a very low standard for a guide. Guidebooks at the country-level for the U.S. are too small to actually cover the nation. Our guide is different; we don't have to worry about condensing our entire US coverage into one hand-held book, so we are able to have higher standards. What are we trying to tell users when we have a "guide status" country? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:11, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

 * We are trying to tell users that The article would be helpful for the average traveler, such as offering alternatives for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. and provide enough information for at least a few days there. Our USA guide is far beyond that, and our guide region status requirements have grown to be already a good deal more rigorous than that basic, abstract guideline would suggest.

 * Star article status, on the other hand, means that our guide is of comparable quality to or better than published guides on the same region. Because of the nature of our site, which allows near-limitless coverage in terms of depth and breadth, the USA guide is already more useful in its online form than any published guidebook. But if it were printed in a reduced and more standard format, it would be competitive already, which is beyond what our guide status means in theory. I disagree rather emphatically that our standard for a guide region/country is low—it's incredibly hard to meet. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:21, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

 * If our country guide only needs to give someone enough options to fill 3 days with activities, food, and places to stay, our Chicago guide alone would make the United States guide status-worthy without any other U.S. articles. The U.S. is way too big for that to be a reasonable indicator of status. Even a much smaller country, like Portugal, would be sold short by such a standard. In comparing with a written guide at the country level, I agree that our coverage is definitately at a competitive level with most other guides however, our pyramid-scheme of working from the bottom-up to heighten the status of articles seems as though it should naturally lead us to having a higher standard than those written guides that often only provide travel options in half of the states. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:11, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

To update this list a bit, the Alaska guide is finally up to snuff, but Hawaii still lags, as do some of the overseas territories: --Peter Talk 01:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawaii: Kahului, Lihue, NaPali Coast, Waimea Canyon
 * Guam: cleanup/remove subdivisions!
 * American Samoa: Tutuila and Ofu-Olosega need to be created and brought to usable status
 * Puerto Rico: La Parguera, San Germán, Mayagüez, Carolina (Puerto Rico), Caguas, Arecibo

Holidays
Okay, what the heck is wrong with listing all of the holidays together? The distinction between federal and non-federal holidays is largely meaningless to the traveler; what is important is what occurs on that day -- what closures and events the traveler must be aware of. That was adequately communicated before, and in a convenient chronological list. Now the traveler has to peruse two lists, with no important distinction between them. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Agreed. From a traveler's perspective, banks and government offices being closed rank far below cultural significance. (St. Paddy's Day vs. President's Day? Come on.) The descriptions that were stripped out in that edit should also be restored. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:19, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I'd also tend to agree - if I'm going overseas it doesn't make any difference to me what holidays are official or not, I simply want to know what to expect on days with major events. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

State capitals on the map
To bring back a topic from one lonely comment in 2007, I'm inclined to remove a bunch of state capitals from the regions map. Presumably, travelers are going to be a lot less interested in domestic political geography, and a lot more interested in just finding the big tourist cities easily. A good example of the changes I would like to make would be removing Columbus, SC and adding Charleston, SC. I would be inclined to include cities listed in the next regions down, and remove some of the less-important capitals that don't make those lists. Hopefully this would make the map both easier to read and more focused on our goals. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:49, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

 * I think that sounds good, and obviously once you post a map, people can make suggestions if need be. In cases where the capitals are not in the way and there aren't any destinations that are wanted in that space, I think it would be fine to leave the capital, like Dover. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:54, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

 * Several state capitals were already replaced with other cities in the state, including Harrisburg, Albany, Salem, Springfield, Carson City, St. Paul, and Tallahassee. See that discussion here.  I think Columbia was just overlooked in that discussion.  On Dover, I do note that if we remove it we might be able to get Baltimore in there.  I'd also like to see the Niagara Falls dot changed to a blue box since it appears on the Other Destinations list.  Sadly, however, I don't think there's any way we can get all of the nine-cities lists on the map, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic and New England.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:38, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Dealing with children
Re: this reversion, I feel there may be some merit to this particular admonition. The U.S. has grown extremely protective of its children of late, to a degree not seen in many other countries. Visitors from those countries may be used to striking up conversation with other people, including children, and may not realize that doing so could get you some odd looks in the U.S. Not universally, of course, but you never know. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 25 November 2010 (EST)

 * I don't have strong opinions about it, but if there are many places where people do often approach children they don't know for coversation (and are likely to do so when abroad), then it could possibly be useful. What was written is generally good advice. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:53, 25 November 2010 (EST)

 * Does this issue go beyond "parents are likely to be wary of strangers interacting with their children"? Is that not universal?  And even if it is not, do we need to mention it in this article where it's likely to receive numerous well-meaning contributions clarifying that this is more true in cities than in small towns, in the north than in the south, etc?  I don't think it's an issue that's important enough or non-obvious enough to bother with. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:25, 26 November 2010 (EST)

 * My sense is that in many community-centered cultures, the raising of children is considered a communal task (to varying degrees). This is very much not the case in the U.S., to the point where even smiling at a child may cause a parent to freak out.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:04, 26 November 2010 (EST)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/