Template talk:Tourism in County Clare

Somewhat arbitrary selection....

Purists might argue with having a tourism navbox that includes a hodgepodge of stuff like commercial enterprises, historic sites/buildings and villages. Kilfenora, for example, is a regular entry for the town - not for the cathedral. So if that qualifies why not include other places like Ballyvaughan or Fanore in this navbox?? Drow69 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put Kilfenora in the list because Kilfenora Cathedral redirects to Kilfenora. The same with Carrigaholt Castle.But you are free to write and article about the cathedral or castle and then I will change the link. On the other hand: this was the first start: tweaking and polishing has to be done yet. The Banner talk 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At your request I have changed the links "Carrigaholt" into Carrigaholt Castle (redirect) and "Kilfenora" into Kilfenora Cathedral (redirect) and Burren Display Centre (redlink). The Banner talk 18:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was more a suggestion than a request. The cathedral does deserve a page...unfortunately, all my local interest books including those very detailed Cunningham publications from the 1980s and 1990s are on the bookshelf in our house in Ireland. :-( I'll see if I can scrape sth together with my meager sources here. Another question is whether a topic "tourism in Co Clare" that is encyclopedic and not guide-booky :-) would benefit from a link to Mullaghmore, County Clare, illustrating a way things went wrong in the past.Drow69 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purist original author of this template is rather concerned about the way this template is developing. My idea was to have an overview of the touristical sites that tourist could visit or participate in. These are still in the list. But it seems that now also "photo opportunities" are listed (like Doonagore Castle, a private house). I am not happy with that. The Banner talk 11:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Feel free to remove anything you don't think appropriate or sufficiently "touristy". However, the selection will be somewhat arbitrary anyway - ruins like Dough or Shanmuckinish are basically also just photo ops for most people. If you think about it for a moment that even applies to Poulnabrone - people get out of the car, walk over, take a picture, walk back. Leamaneh is (IIRC) on private property and (strictly speaking) off limits for visitors. Since we do not have visitor numbers we can't use a threshold of, say, XXX visits per year or more means it gets included in the box. There is also the question·what the purpose of such a tourism navbox is on WP as opposed to Wikivoyage. Since I never use the latter I do like having this box on WP - but in a consistent encyclopedia there should also be boxes like this for the other counties...Drow69 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poulnabrone has some visitor amenities and information boards. Doonagore, Dough and Leamanah not. (own research, I know)

Strange enough, we do not have a separate article about National Park The Burren (only about the entire region). And I am deeply worried about the aggressive advertising by the "Clare Heritage and Genealogical Research Centre", claiming that they are now the Burren Infomation Centre, often displacing the much older Kilfenora centre. The Banner talk 13:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well. Unfortunately, this is supported by the National Park website. It is some sort of private-public cooperation, I guess. I personally like the Kilfenora place better, too. It was really quaint back in the 1980s. :-) Drow69 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location of "The Burren" link

I moved the link for the Burren to that row's header back in March, but that was reverted rather quickly. (I just saw it today, hence the long delay.) Per WP:BRD, I'm posting this here. Maybe it is hard to see in the header, but I can't find it where it is now, buried in the middle of the list. I certainly don't expect the link to the main subject in the row to be that many entries deep in the list, even if it is alphabetically sorted. Certainly we can find some more prominent spot for it, perhaps the first list entry? -happy 5214 04:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it bold, that should be enough. The Banner talk 09:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]