Of course there's gonna be overlap.
"The first problem with this simplistic view is that there is a huge amount of overlap. For example: "Lyon is a city in France with 1 million inhabitants" - WikiTravel, Wikipedia, or both?" That is geographical information perfectly acceptable for both an encyclopedic article and a travel guide.
"Its main visitor attractions are its churches, renowned gastronomic restaurants and art galleries - Wiki travel, Wikipedia or both?" Neither. Those are the visitor attractions of any city that has them. It provides no helpfulm information. If they're all named with address and details: WikiTravel. Famous landmarks and buildings can also be mentioned in Wikipedia.
"It is served by two airports and is a major stop on the Paris-Marseille TGV line - same question." Both
On 2/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
setup. My ideal for the Lyon article would be to say only "Lyon has 30 3-star restaurants, including the historic [[Lying Lion]]" :-), while the Wikitravel version lists all 30, their addresses, specialties, etc, just like a travel book does.
Yeah, nicely put. Actually I think it only has one or two 3-stars. And I do seem to recall a restaurant with a pun on the word lion/Lyon, but its name escapes me now.
Steve
Precisely my point. There's some things that simply don't belong on Wikipedia under any circumstances. I just believe that channeling such energy to other projects is more productive than simply removing it without any comment on alternative placement.