Talk:Tourist trap

Please do not remove references

Stuff that looks like this is reference to research please do not remove it when editing

    <ref>{{cite book
     | last = Gaines
     | first = Barbara K. 
     | authorlink = Barbara K. Gaines
     | coauthors = 
     | title = Idiomatic American English: A Step-By-Step Workbook for Learning Everyday American Expressions
     | publisher = Kodansha International
     | date = May 31, 1986
     | location = 
     | pages = 85
     | url = http://www.amazon.com/Idiomatic-American-English-Everyday-Expressions/dp/0870117564
     | doi = 
     | id =  0870117564}}</ref>

removed "Financial Impact"

I removed the section and the following text:

Tourists go places and spend money both at their destination and on the journey in between. There are destinations and there are stops along the way. The impact of the tourism dollar can be significant. International tourism is estimated to have added 7.4 billion dollars to New Zealand foreign exchange in 2003 [1]. Just the tax revenues of travel and tourism in the USA are estimated at 58 billion dollars annually [2]. Tourism spending in 1989 represented 18% of the State of Virginias retail business sales [3].

Such references relate to Tourism more generally, not specifically to the topic of this page. If anyone has references regarding the financial impact of tourist traps themselves, they'd certainly help this article. --ScottMainwaring 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

clean up

Removed some old comments on this page. Would the editor who placed the clean up sign on the article indicate what they think needs to be cleaned up? Jeepday 05:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinions: In terms of formatting, there are too many small sections, the referencing style is non-standard, and boldface text is overused. In terms of style, the article reads more as an essay than an encyclopedic description, and verges in places on being original research. Beyond cleanup, the article could benefit from an illustration or two, and from a more explicit positioning within both the larger topics of "retail establishment" and "tourism industry". --ScottMainwaring 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed clean up begun Jeepday 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Major update in place I could not find good references for "Yankee Trap" so I removed the reference, if it can be supported put it back with references. This is my first major edit in Wikipedia and my fist time writing an encyclopedia entery so There is lots of room for improvement on this page. I own pictures (i.e. I took them) of several of these tourist traps but I don't have the knowledge to put them on the page at this time. Single Tree tourist traps - there are a number of them in the redwood forests of California (drive through tree, one log house, Tree house gift shop) but I had trouble finding references for any of them, if you find a reference link please included it. Disambiguation - I would suggest that some one who knows something about building pages and such might like to build a Disambiguation page and redirect to the three different sujects; Movie, Book, Business. Jeepday 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we got some pictures on there and everything looks pretty good. I do agree with Scott that more discussion based on referenced facts would make this a more appropriate Wikipedia entry. I would look towards expanding the sections that are there as a begining. All things considered I think it is time for the clean up tag to go away and replace it with an {{expand}} tag. I guess I will change it and if anyone disagrees they can change it back. Jeepday 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeepday, I appreciate your considerable efforts, but I think the article still needs a lot of work. It still reads too much like original research, based on personal encounters with "tourist traps" (in the positive, campy sense), rather than an objective summary of independently published facts and research about them, from the standpoint of tourism studies. I think the other main problem is that tourist trap has two contradictory meanings: a fun campy place (which is mostly what the article is about, and certainly started as), and a place of un-funny exploitation (about which people might justifiably express anger). And as the article does point out, the same place may be a tourist trap in either or both senses, depending on who is judging it. I think this makes the idea of a master list of tourist traps, as has been started on that page, rather tricky to maintain in any sort of objective way. Just my opinion, as someone marginally interested in tourist traps (from the camp perspective, I guess — I'm responsible for starting the Jake the Alligator Man page :-)); I wonder if there's someway to attract the interest of someone with expertise in tourism studies? --ScottMainwaring 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:ScottMainwaring, thanks for your review and once again I can't find fault with your thoughts. As much fun as I have had with this the original research issue is probably not one that I can overcome on this topic. I think I will stop trying to expand it, and work on wiki linking into it to try and bring in editors with different perspectives. Jeepday 02:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the 'mule-ride' section even be there? It seems more like a subset of activities and, if really necessary, should probably get its own entry rather than stay here. --Flidget Jerome 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO the section on mule rides speaks to the tourist exploitation that Scott mentions above. You are probably right that it might work better if it was not a sub of goods and activities. Feel free to move it or edit it, that is the wikipedia way :) Jeepday 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Research

this site [4] looks like a good place to start verification and documentation of some of the "facts" in the Tourist trap article.

Atomium

Is the Atomium in Brussels a tourist trap? --84.61.87.175 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question, and begs the bigger question - are all surviving tourist attractions from bygone World's Fairs tourist traps? Now I am going to have to go do more research. Jeepday 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is "tourist trap" is kind of a vague term. It's hard to define, but you know one when you see it. Tackiness is only one factor, and maybe not necessarily a required element. Wahkeenah 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The book I just referenced (Idiomatic American English) has a pretty broad definition “any place that is overpriced and attracts tourist” P.S. on review it looks like Atomium is a tourist trap, it seems the restaurants in the area are more noted for the honor though. Jeepday 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Atomium from the list. The article describes a tourist trap as: "Because the tourist is on her or his way to a particular attraction, the tourist trap ....." . The Atomium is an attraction, maybe there are some tourist traps around the Atomium, but that doesn't make the Atomium itself one. If you don't agree, please add the Eiffel Tower, Mount Rushmore, The White House, Buckingham Palace and any place with overpriced restaurants around to the lists. But that will make this article pretty useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.42.213 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

external links in list

The external links in the list are simply spam. The notable tourist traps have articles linked - the external links supporting those sites belong in the articles, not on this list. An existing Wiki article about a site is evidence of their existence - no need for promotional external links here. Vsmith 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone follows up with a "fact" tag, the so-called "spam" will have to go back in. Wahkeenah 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that a fact tag would be calling for a reference for calling a site a tourist trap - not for its existance - the associated Wiki article demonstrates that it is there. If someone wants a ref for the nature of the place, then a presumably independent source would be required and should be added as a proper citation rather than an inline link to some promotional site. I hope the distinction is clear. Vsmith 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (copied from my talk. Vsmith 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

I think Vsmith and Wahkeenah both have some good points here. This page has potential to be attractive to spammers for related business functions, as we know the goal of a tourist trap is to attract attention and dollars. Any trap listed here that has it's own article does not need link to the site location, there should be a blue link to the article which presumable has a link to the site as well as other supporting references. When reviewing the changes I noticed that "The Tourist Trap at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland" had a blue link to an external web page pretending to be a wiki link (and I probably made when I was a newbie) this is clearly not appropriate at most it should have been a red link with a ref The Tourist Trap at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland [5] [[The Tourist Trap]] at [[Deep Creek Lake, Maryland]] [http://www.shoptouristtrap.com/]. It would probably be appropriate for us to insist that on the Tourist trap article that any outside links be in the "cite Web" format from Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Clearly there is reason to question that any place of business would refer to themselves as "tourist trap" so using a link to validate that would be appropriate Attribution. I will go do the trap in Maryland as it should have been now and do some work on the other "references" later today or tomorrow. Signed 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am done for a while. I put a {{unref}} on Natural features and Popular culture references. The section(s) Goods and Activities does not have any footnote type references, but to me it looks to be well covered by the other references. If someone complains we can easily add references there. Jeepday 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a hallarious article. Don't change a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.239.31 (talk • contribs)

Images

As user:Mindys12345 just pointed out in their edits the image "Fremont Street 1986" and the image "Da Yoopers Tourist Trap" are not doing well on the same page so close together. I don't think either works any place in the article except where they are so one should go. I am abstaining from offering an opinion on either image. Please offer thoughts on which should go or stay. Jeepday (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeepday.

I actually meant, if you do not like my format then change it back to the way it was, I did fix it a bit to improve the spacing between the images. Maybe my edit summary didn't make sense. Thanks. 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks better now. Still I am not sure if both pictures should be there. It wasn't your comments it just that when you started moving them around I realized they just don't look tight no mater where they are. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been suggested (History) that this article be merged with Roadside attraction. I would say the merge is not appropriate, the two terms might be similar but they are different. Example: Salem Sue is a roadside attraction but not a tourist trap. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No further discussion occurred on the suggested merge so I removed the tags. Jeepday (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Natural features

When a significant natural curiosity is present, such as a geyser or a waterfall, the tourist trap will seek to highlight an allied or similar curiosity. Therefore, in an area near Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, Old Faithful, etc., tourist traps might be organized around "Little Falls" or "Painted Rock" or "Hot Springs." These traps do not strive to compete with the tourism attraction as much as draw surplus commerce on the way to and from the attraction. These tourist traps, which are parasitic to natural features, are in contrast to those which take advantage of the monotony and lack of attractions between conventional destination points.

The section "Natural features" was tagged as unreferenced and original research for some time. I moved it here to the talk page. Jeepday (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Bias

This article is okay, but there is a strong U.S. bias. For example, a "tourist trap" in Europe means something subtly different to what is described here and the U.S. type described (and pictured) doesn't really exist here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.249.67 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The single sentence currently given under the Europe section is unsatisfactory to say the least. Not quite as bad as the absurd "Examples of tourist traps" section, which could easily swell to literally thousands of entries and as such needs to be tightly controlled, but bad nevertheless. For example, see this BBC article from a few years ago. Alton Towers, not remotely a historical site but a theme park, is listed as second on a list of UK tourist traps. 86.132.136.235 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas

The entire city of Las Vegas is a tourist trap? The Strip certainly could be considered a tourist trap but the entire city seems a little excessive. Either way, a citation seems like it's needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.133 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think a statement like that is appropriate here. Far from being a Tourist Trap, Las Vegas is a destination in its own right. Svavar79 (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as the world's most famous tourist trap.Carewolf (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)