Talk:LGBTQ tourism/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about LGBTQ tourism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Belgrade????
I'm gay, as is my former Serbian boyfriend, and we were mighty scared anywhere we went in Belgrade! So how come it's on the list? I fact only things which are gay destinations with an argument should be included. Otherwise forget relevancy! FreshBreeze 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am in total agreement with you that there needs to be some further quality control in both the list of gay destinations and the external links. But I am a little stymied as to how to go about it. I requested some comments and especially suggestions as to this problem in the section entitled "Linkspam", but received no response. So I will go ahead and begin some action. In the first case I planned on posting a comment prominently at the top of the list of gay destinations (and perhaps at the top of each continental section, so there is no overlooking it) stating that (a) each listing must include a short qualification or explantion "in gay travel terms" as to how it qualifies to be on this list, and (b) any listing without an explanation or qualification would be removed. I also planned to state this intention on the talk page (as I am doing now in a casual way). I intended on giving others a chance to qualify the many listings without explanations. And after a reasonable amount of time I would start removing them. Does this sound like a reasonable approach? Do you have any suggestions as to how to attack the problem? --SFDan 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What you're saying sounds perfectly fine to me, in fact, what I'd propose is to go about Googling the web for a reasonable gay travel guide to each of the destinations listed; if these are any good, they oculd eevn be linked to, if none exist (and there's no reasonable niformation to least the destination as a gay one, then I'd drop it from the list altogether. The idea of having a list of travel destinations where gays are not welcome also sounds good, although this could turn out more complicated to go about (in terms of being complete, that is). The general part could also be taken to some length though, there's a lot around on this as well. Let's see how far we get along! Best, FreshBreeze 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. What I'll do, sometime in the near future (ahem, whatever that means), is formally do the several things I mentioned above: (a) post appropriate guideline comment(s) in the list itself, (b) state the strategy on the talk page, and (c) make an effort to get interested people (including people like you and me) to write the necessary qualifications for the listings before (d) they are removed after given sufficient time to make amends. In addition I will also create a place on the talk page so editors of this article have a chance to comment on what are acceptable guidelines for inclusion on the list as (a) gay travel destinations, (b) appropriate external travel links for the external links section, and (c) appropriate local travel links which I'd like to see moved up along with qualified listings. Personally I would like to not have to police or monitor other's arguments for a gay travel destination, or links, beyond seeing that they are valid and truthful (i.e. they meet criteria) statements or links. I would also personally like to avoid a list of where gays are not welcome, as this could be quite extensive ;-) and not very objective. (Tempting as it might appear to be) --SFDan 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Belgrade jumped out to me on the list too, and I came here and noticed this commentary. I have removed it from the list. If someone wants to add it back, I have no problem as long as they are able to substantiate it as being a popular gay travel destination (not simply a city that has a small gay community or a place where LGBT people meet regularly). Until then, I've seen enough video footage and read enough reports of LGBT people being physically assaulted in Belgrade for me to conclude that it does not belong on this list. --DavidGC 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. What I'll do, sometime in the near future (ahem, whatever that means), is formally do the several things I mentioned above: (a) post appropriate guideline comment(s) in the list itself, (b) state the strategy on the talk page, and (c) make an effort to get interested people (including people like you and me) to write the necessary qualifications for the listings before (d) they are removed after given sufficient time to make amends. In addition I will also create a place on the talk page so editors of this article have a chance to comment on what are acceptable guidelines for inclusion on the list as (a) gay travel destinations, (b) appropriate external travel links for the external links section, and (c) appropriate local travel links which I'd like to see moved up along with qualified listings. Personally I would like to not have to police or monitor other's arguments for a gay travel destination, or links, beyond seeing that they are valid and truthful (i.e. they meet criteria) statements or links. I would also personally like to avoid a list of where gays are not welcome, as this could be quite extensive ;-) and not very objective. (Tempting as it might appear to be) --SFDan 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What you're saying sounds perfectly fine to me, in fact, what I'd propose is to go about Googling the web for a reasonable gay travel guide to each of the destinations listed; if these are any good, they oculd eevn be linked to, if none exist (and there's no reasonable niformation to least the destination as a gay one, then I'd drop it from the list altogether. The idea of having a list of travel destinations where gays are not welcome also sounds good, although this could turn out more complicated to go about (in terms of being complete, that is). The general part could also be taken to some length though, there's a lot around on this as well. Let's see how far we get along! Best, FreshBreeze 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines to acceptable links
There has been some discussion above as to how to improve the quality of the article, reduce link spam, qualify listings and links, and reduce the risk of inaccurate information. In the spirit of these discussions I am creating a place for three guidelines on this talk page:
- Guidelines to listings in the "List of gay travel destinations" section
- Guidelines to external links
- Guidelines to links for gay travel destinations
I expect that these guidelines will evolve over time, but I hope that they are acceptable as a basis on which to grow, and to improve the article.
Please propose changes to the guidelines in another section of this talk page, so discussion can be monitored, and so that the guidelines listed here are clear and easy to read for those who need to refer to them.
Listings and links not conforming to these guidelines risk being removed immediately. Listings and links not confirming to these guidelines at the time of their creation will be give a reasonable amount of time to meet these standards. Best regards. --SFDan 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines to listings in the "List of gay travel destinations" section
- All cities or areas listed in this section of the article must include some text explanation as to what makes that city or area a noteworthy gay travel destination. Please cite references to back up your statements whenever possible, and include links to other articles.
Guidelines to external links
- External links must be of a general nature regarding gay tourism
- External links must otherwise meet general Wikipedia standards for external links
- Links to information about specific gay tourism destinations must not be in this section. They must be included after the qualified listing for the specific area in the "List of gay travel destinations" section.
Guidelines to links for specific gay travel destinations
- Links to information about specific gay tourism destinations may be included in this section after the qualified listing for the specific area, or after the section heading name.
- Links to be included should use the following form Travel links: [IP address of link (with no additional text)]
- External links must otherwise meet general Wikipedia standards for external links
Silchar?
Silchar, India is DEFINITELY NOT a gay destination. There's pretty much nothing to do there for anyone, forget homosexuals. Its also a very conservative little Indian town with a few tea gardens.
Not all tourism by LGBT people is LGBT tourism.
Not all tourism by LGBT people is LGBT tourism. Some non-heterosexuals are able to keep their pants up even while traveling, believe it or not. This article fails to note this. - ∅ (∅), 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh well
As much as I hate to touch this article, I'm going to start trimming it as per WP:NOT#TRAVEL, WP:NOT#DIR §3, and WP:NOT#BLOG §4 (which should apply to every page and not just user pages; "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue your desire for relationships or sex"), as well as WP:EL. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a section in the Gay Yellow Pages. - ∅ (∅), 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cleanup done, more or less. Added totallydisputed as article fails to note that not all tourism by LGBT individuals is "LGBT tourism"; can't think of an encyclopedic way to say this in the article. - ∅ (∅), 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot to note in my edit summary that I changed "LGBT/gay tourists" to "practitioners of * tourism". Just "LGBT tourists" gives the impression that all tourists who happen to be "LGBT" practice "LGBT tourism" (I certainly don't; I've never seen the inside of a gay bar and I'm not planning to). - ∅ (∅), 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Homosexual families reverted back to gays who have an openly gay lifestyle
Gay tourism is not marketed only to homosexual families, it is also marketed to individuals and groups. Therefore, as I see it, the original text ("gays who have an openly gay lifestyle ") is more inclusive and more correct. --SFDan 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)