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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/20/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)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.