Hi, interesting info! I just wanted to make sure that this falls under Project:What is an article. Is this destination a place where people stay the night, eat, etc or more of a day trip? If it's mroe of a day trip we might want to make in an activity page like Hiking Carrauntoohil Mountain or something. And I notice you put N/A for "Get In," but not everyone knows how to get to Carrauntoohil or what the nearest major town is. thanks (WT-en) Majnoona

I think you mean Project:What is an article? (note question mark). I agree that unless this is more of an overnighter than a day trip, it should be listed in the article for the closest city. -- (WT-en) Evan 08:38, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

OK, well, there is a more than enough room for a multi-day-trip there, but in most cases it will be a single-day hike (in fact, you can run it in a couple of hours). So, yes, it is definately more suited for a activity page than and article. OK, I've taken to plunge forward, not read too much... :-)

However, I don't think it is wise to connect things to cities. I mean, Ireland is relatively urban, but if you take Norway there are no cities to speak of where there are many of the best sights... Also, judging from the experience I had with the tourist office in Killarney, which is the nearest city to Carrauntoohil, well, none of them had the faintest idea what climbing the mountain involved, and I doubt they had even been there, so the city is largely irrelevant to the climb... (You bet the locals up there looked at me when I ask how severe it was, "well, we've got our sheep up there"... :-) ). So, classifying Carrauntoohil under Killarney would be a diservice to the readers and to the mountain. In Norway, there are many hotels outside of the cities, just drive along and suddenly there's a hotel... So, there are places to sleep even though there are no cities, even for non-campers...

Also, for this kind of activities, the complexity of getting there and get out usually wastly exceeds the complexity of getting to a city, so it warrants an explanation that goes far beyond that of getting to a city. So, the N/A was mostly "I'll return" :-)

However, I recognize the need for a sensible organization of stuff, whether they are articles or short stories, or whatever. Rather than organizing things by cities, there has to be several organizational methods, weblike if you wish, so that you can get to an article by thinking "city" or "what do I want to see". If you know a city, you follow links to a city, if, rather you'd like to see "large waterfall", you follow links to "waterfalls", and then, "nearest hotell" or indeed "nearest city", if you're interested in getting some roof above your head at night.(WT-en) Kjetil

Actually, that's not the tack we're taking with Wikivoyage at all. We're really trying to get single, well-organized city guides for cities and for destinations outside of cities (national parks, etc.) I think that if Carrauntoohil is a day-trip from a nearby city, it should be an activity listed in that city. Someone searching on the wikivoyage.org Web site for Carrauntoohil will still find it. -- (WT-en) Evan 05:59, 13 Nov 2003 (PST)

OK. Do you have any examples of entries that have a similar scope as what I'm trying to do? The example listed there is not adequate.

Does this article qualify as an itinerary? ~ 61.91.191.11 03:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It could be made into an itinerary, but at the moment it looks more like something that should be in the nearest town's do section. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 08:38, 13 August 2007 (EDT)