Talk:Hoi An

Train vs bus

Has the road ceased to be awful, or why was this deleted? "Note the road to Nha Trang is awful and the trip takes all day; it is much better to take a train." (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:50, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I assume the road has been fixed, because I didn't notice any disrepair. It's in the same condition as the roads between all the other major cities in Vietnam. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:46, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

One-man gas stations

I've deleted the lecture about supporting roadside pumps instead of Shell and Exxon. That's all well and good, but you have absolutely no idea where the gas is coming from, and I gather it's not uncommon for them to get it from eg. rusting car hulks in wrecking yards or garages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:32, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Hoi An's motorbike edit wars

These have been going on for years, and I am sure I am not the only one who is fed up with it all. Anymore messing with these and I think blanket blacklisting of every single mischief-maker is in order. It is hard to figure who is doing most of the screwing, but motorbiketours hoian dot com has already been blacklisted, and none of the phone numbers being edit warred over now correspond to their website. http://www.hoianeasyriderstour.com seems to be the genuine listing and Nam is contact as per their website. Sadly there is no phone number given on their website for cross checking. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:23, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Suit Guide Prices

I think we are seeing more than $80 USD for a suit with silk lining, I'm going to edit some dates next to these prices when I've a moment.

I was thinking I might have a go at editing the 'buy' section a bit so that its easier to use, and put in some guide prices, I'll try and put some guide prices based on what my native friends tell me one should pay --(WT-en) TheAnimus 20:03, 11 Feb 2012

Bicycle tour listings

Hi, everyone. I'm guessing people feel bicycle tours are sufficient added value to be listed under the Wikivoyage tour agency policy? But even if so, what tone is acceptable? I'm tempted to delete listings for touting, but perhaps it will work better to edit them, and I may have the chance to come back later and give it a shot, but I'd be delighted if any of you would like to try first. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 19:47, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Prices change

Like most countries, prices change in Vietnam.

Is it helpful from the traveller's stance to remove date information from prices?

(I use this diff. only to give a concrete example of what I am talking about - it's clear that, almost in every other way, that edit series improved our article and corrected spelling, grammar, style and MoS errors.)

The arguments for removal are, presumably:

1) the prose looks better

2) the prose is then shorter

3) our guide looks more authoritative when readers can't see just how out of date some of the prices are

Arguments against removal include:

1) the prose looks more authoritative and reliable

2) in the on-line version, we have almost unlimited space (the print version matters and, when printing out a hard copy, readers may not want this date information - could a template with a print dates/don't print dates toggle solve this dichotomy and also, if it included hidden categories, help with highlighting out-dated guides?)

3) when readers can see just how out of date some of the prices are, it encourages casual edits (these casual editors may then become "hooked" regular contributors - that's how I started on Wiki's)

4) helping travellers avoid making fruitless journeys to accommodation /restaurants /ferries /etc that closed years ago

--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Date information should not be removed for the reasons you state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, if it is the will of the people I will stop removing date info. Speaking for myself and others I have spoken with, as a traveler I need ballpark pricing info: "is it bigger than a breadbox?". Most know that prices change, always upwards. If we are going to include price/date info, is there a preferred format? Seligne (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are only two of us who have commented so far, Seligne, so I wouldn't say "it is the will of the people" yet. I'd welcome your comments, because we all know that you do more productive work on South East Asian articles than anyone else.

Have I summarised the three "pro-removal" reasons fairly? Are there some I've missed?

I don't know that there's any "preferred format" except that it should obviously meet the guidelines of tdf.

What do you think of the template idea? --W. Frank^email_talk 01:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Preferred format would be just to put the date in parentheses. I wouldn't suggest that it has to be put everywhere; for example, you may not want to check every single hotel rate listing. I just wouldn't delete any dates that have been inserted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that not all prices are of equal importance. Knowing the price of a litre of gas/petrol is of some value, but knowing the price of a hotel can be a real time and money saver. Thus, I think that adding a date to the sleep template, especially if there is no URL for the venue, might be of real value. All other things being equal, I am a diehard ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD) guy. Seligne (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My Son

Hi, everyone. User:Neotarf seems to be arguing that because My Son is a day trip from Hoi An, it should be a "See" listing in this article as well as a "Go next" destination. My argument is that it can't be both, and that if he thinks it shouldn't have its own article, he should argue for the My Son article to be merged here. My guess is that, since the My Son article is pretty well developed and not short, such a merger proposal would be likely to fail. But perhaps it's the right thing to do. As I haven't been to Vietnam, I don't have my own opinion about the wisdom of a merger, except to wonder about the length of the content that would be merged. Your views, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of these articles are bloated and almost totally useless to the traveler. There are three things to do in Hoi An: take a one-hour bus ride to My Son, walk around the old town by the river, and go to the beach outside of town. Okay, four things, the town has some 400 tailor shops that will make very cheap clothing with a one-day turnaround time.

I don't understand why WV should keep My Son secret from the travelers who look at the Hoi An article.

Now, I was going to add a few more things about Hoi An, but my wiki time has now been used up by all of this arguing and reverting, and I have better things to do. Good night. --Neotarf (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that an analogous example might be Siem Riep and Angkor Wat in Cambodia, altho they are not as far apart as Hoi An and My Son. Both SR and Angkor have their own entries. Angkor is referenced in SR's See section, but not in its Go Next. If My Son is a day trip from Hoi An, I would say it belongs in See, not in Go Next. Seligne (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Montréal is a day trip from Ottawa (at least a two-hour bus ride) but we gave it an article for some fool reason. It depends how much is there and whether it's far enough to be a separate place - suburbs of a small city are listed as part of the city, but "an hour bus ride" on open highway usually infers something is 50-60 miles (80-100km) away and therefore not a suburb of the city. Merging these likely only makes sense if the area is very sparse (something Anticosti-sized with a hundred miles of parkland, for instance). K7L (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It appears to me that My Son is not in Hoi An. So it is not something to do in Hoi An, it is something to do from Hoi An.
2. Neotarf thinks the articles are bloated, but hasn't said what info should be removed?
3. As to why the Hoi An article should keep My Son secret – I don't understand that question at all. It is not keeping it secret – there is a link in the "Go next" section. Nurg (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. I'd say 99.9% of people who visit My Son do so as a short trip from Hoi An. They sleep in Hoi An. My Son isn't a developed destination in its own right, and I'd say it almost rates as an attraction. I'd say there is less to see there than many other historical sites. And there would never be enough to justify spending the night there. It certainly isn't analogous to Montreal from Ottawa, which are each developed destinations. It is more analogous to Cu Chi tunnels from Saigon. And that article reads like an attraction guide too. We put that in Go Next. Personally, I'd put attractions that overwhelmingly seen from one destination, and have no real facilities of their own in the destination guide. I'd ask the question, when we have so many junky subheadings, why we can't afford a Daytrip section within See, where this kind of destination would naturally fit. --Inas (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Ikan Kekek.

Seligne and Inas have both nailed this, but Neotarf does have a valid point about reverting too quickly - from the travellers' point of view (as opposed to a curator of the sacred wiki POV) it does no harm to have the same sight mentioned both as a Hoi An "See" (especially if there's a "Day trips" sub-heading) and in "Go next". (If we were talking about a commercial site I'd be dead against duplicate listing a resort's restaurant under Eat, its cabanas under Sleep, its beach bars under Drink, its golf course under Do and the whole island resort article as a Go Next destination - unless the listings would be very empty otherwise - but fortunately My Son can be allowed to be one of those exceptions that proves our rule since there are no lodgings or other facilities in My Son.) --118.93nzp (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I accept that it's questionable whether I should have reverted the second time, rather than just starting the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's always a difficult judgement call Ikan Kekek but, hopefully after this exchange, Neotarf feels like a valued member of the community whose arguments are weighed and analysed and taken seriously - even though we've all used up valuable article editing time... --118.93nzp (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The wooden bridge is outside the city. Also the beach. And the craft village on the other side of the walking bridge. Some of these have accommodations and restaurants. New articles, anyone? FYI, the My Son ruins are 26 miles from Hoi An.

I don't get the purpose of having a "Go next" section. It seems to be a hodgepodge list of random cities in the same country.

Okay, I'm going to check Lonely Planet now, so I know how to prioritize my time. --Neotarf (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of "Go next": From Wikivoyage:Big city article template:

Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good "next stop." Provide a brief description of other nearby destination suggestions, neighboring cities or day-trip ideas. Don't duplicate information that's up in "Get in."

Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Neotarf is right that trips to My Son are part and parcel with visiting Hoi An, and deserve more prominent exposure here. I don't see that a choice has to be made between 'See' and 'Go next', but if absolutely necessary, it should be under 'See', as it's not an onward destination - pretty much all visitors return to Hoi An after they're done at My Son. As to bloat, that tends to happen to all Vietnam articles over time, thanks to touts. Edit as necessary. Gorilla Jones (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gorilla, yes, if My Son can only be listed once, it would surely be best in the "to do" section, since My Son and the Old Town are the two major reasons to come here. Think of Salisbury and Stonehenge, or Cairo and the Gaza pyramids. My Son can be reached from DaNang, but no one stays in Da Nang anymore, since Hoi An is now the major tourist stop in the area. I'm not sure why the "big city" template was used--Hoi An seems rather small, but no matter. --Neotarf (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now done a lot of clean-up, mostly organizing things into sections and subsections, so that someone who is looking for one particular piece of information doesn't have to wade through a lot of unrelated material. Some internal links would be helpful, but I'm not sure of how to format them. --Neotarf (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Condition of Hoi An

I was just curious, it seems like a great description of Hoi An in the Understanding section, but it almost seems like it contradicts itself a little in saying the city is 'largely preserved' and mercifully absent of karaoke bars, etc at first and then in the next paragraph it says that the culture and heritage UNESCO was trying to preserve is long gone. Is it supposed to be like that? Lazarus1255 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)