text:
Talk:North Sea

Archived VfD

 * Redirect (but where?). The current article is spam and I was going to speedy delete it per Project:Bodies of water, but there are five articles that link to it, so I suspect a redirect would be more useful since some editors seem to think it is a valid article.  I'm stuck on where to redirect to, however - Europe?  Scandinavia?  British Isles? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:09, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * My personal opinion is that bodies of water should be disambiguation pages listing major destinations surrounding them. In some cases, such as Great Lakes, we can almost treat it like a region.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:49, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * The current disambiguation page seems like a good compromise. I wouldn't recommend that all bodies of water get disambiguation pages, but the fact that this one is frequently wiki-linked seems to indicate that some sort of page is called for. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 08:29, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Strong Delete. Keeping bodies of water is a slippery slope.  There is no consensus on how to redirect them.  No clear way to disambiguate them.  Do we redirect to places that offer cruises, or to islands in them, We should only consider keeping this after a serious rework of our bodies of water policy, so we know where we are going and what we want these articles for.  Great Lakes is not an exception to the existing rule, as it is a name of the region surrouding the bodies of water already. Redirecting the North Sea to the a high level or region doesn't help the traveler. --(WT-en) Inas 18:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's not really a region in our hierarchy; it overlaps the actual regions Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Ontario. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. What (WT-en) Inas said. Current policy doesn't allow anything else. (WT-en) Texugo 21:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * Project:Deletion policy: "The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:15, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think the point here is "where would you even redirect it?" The North Sea borders four top-level European regions. Is it really even useful to redirect this to Europe as whole? (WT-en) Texugo 21:52, 1 February 2009 (EST)

 * Redirect to Europe. Perhaps that will one day help some confused person. And perhaps it might dissuade that confused person from creating the article again. It's a geographical location, so redirecting should be fine. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Keep as a disambiguation page. It should state that our policy is to not write articles about bodies of water but about the land instead and they could be looking for any of the countries in Europe that border onto the North Sea. This should discourage people writing about the North Sea itself. If people do then the page could be protected. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * OK - I have added a disamiguation style page - rough first cut just see how it might fly - I think it has potential, even if it is just lots of links. It could tell someone if you can get into a country via a North Sea port, for example. This is something you would not know unless you knew which article to read. The North Sea article now tells you what are the likely candidates for information. Perhaps this is a standard to adopt for all major bodies of water (Oceans and Seas) that do not currently exist. - (WT-en) Huttite 09:13, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * IMO. It is of no value to the traveller. It hinders them. They can go to each of those countries, and find nothing about the North Sea.  They would be much better off with the normal wiki search function, which would at least find articles that reference the north sea, rather than this disambig which points them multiple high level articles which don't.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:53, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * Keep per Huttite. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * I think this is a good solution, and would work for other oceans for which a redirect simply would not work. I would, however, recommend disambiguating by continental section, rather than country (e.g., Scandinavia, Beneluxe, British & Irish Isles, etc.), because someone searching for a region as broad as the North Sea is looking for something broader than an individual country. Moreover, if we were to use this as a precedent for other oceans, it would be silly to have a Pacific Ocean disambiguation for every nation and territory that touches it. To Ian's point about the search function—travelers can still use the search function, rather than the "go" function if they choose to, so I think that shouldn't be too much of a concern. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * My point was if a disambig adds more value than the standard search, then lets do it. Lets point people at what they are looking for.  But if the disambig detracts value from the search, and points them away from any reference to what they are looking for, we have to wonder why we are doing it.   We are just wasting the travelers time.  Lets face it, a person doing a search for the north sea, isn't going to be very far advanced once redirected to Europe or similar are they?  They still have to search for what they are looking for. Unless all they were looking for was a geography lesson, and that isn't really what we are here for. --(WT-en) Inas 18:39, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * I suggest we put this on hold and hold a discussion about creating new policy at Project:Bodies of water. If we were to start allowing disambiguation pages for bodies of water, I would really want to work out a system first-- criteria for when to disambiguate a body of water (versus when to redirect it, etc), criteria for what types of articles should be pointed to, how to deal with each type: rivers, bays, etc. I also think that if we were to start doing this, it would have some potential implications for other region-spanning features such as mountain ranges, deserts, and forests. That said, maybe even Project:Bodies of water is not an adequate place for this discussion, but the point is: This is a precedent-setting matter, and the Votes for deletion page is not really the place to pave new policies. (WT-en) Texugo 19:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)

 * Can we close this now that we have a sort of consensus? —(WT-en) Ravikiran 23:14, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd say so. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:16, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

 * As soon as someone who actually understands that new consensus fixes it up? It would be nice to close this month. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:12, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I have no idea if the new consensus is a firm one, but I do believe that the page is compliance with the policies on bodies of water and disambiguation pages as it is written now. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 04:35, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep, at least for now. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:57, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Redirect to Europe
Why don't we just redirect this to Europe? I don't see how something like this became such a heated discussion. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:39, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Per the VFD discussion above I think the current approach of having a disambiguation page makes the most sense - it was pointed out that a redirect to Europe is sub-optimal since the North Sea isn't a part of Europe and doesn't have anything to do with a significant portion of the continent. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:North Sea


text:
Talk:North Sentinel Island

VFD Discussion
You certainly cannot sleep there. Indeed it is illegal to even visit there. Not really appropriate for a travel guide. A short para at Andaman Islands maybe?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:45, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
 * It's a real place. Needs to at least be a redirect, but I don't see a problem with a brief article that says (essentially) "This is not a place you can visit."  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:02, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * A redirect I think. It does not pass the test of can you sleep there? and additionally it is illegal to visit there. What possible use could this article be to a traveller?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:54, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect (sadly since it sounds like a very cool place to be in) to Andaman and Nicobar. Perhaps we can have a short, generic mention at Andaman and Nicobar, for those who happen to be nearby somehow, to avoid contact (landing or otherwise) at all costs due to both it being outlawed by the de jure government and also it is extremely dangerous because of the hostility of locals towards outlanders. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:06, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Whoops, the "stay safe" issue has already been addressed in the article. I thought I had checked that, but it seems I was looking at the "stay healthy" section of the same article instead. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:10, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect. There are tour companies of questionable morality that specialize in "contacting" uncontacted peoples. But even they won't get past the hailstorms of spears and arrows with which the Sentinelese greet Indian helicopters. Can't sleep here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:58, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Keep Abstain. The can't sleep there rule isn't meant to exclude places you can't visit, but rather discount articles on the type of places that you couldn't normally sleep.  I fully support (WT-en) LtPowers idea of just a short article saying it is not a place you can visit.  --(WT-en) inas 20:11, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Why put that information about this island into an empty article instead of consolidating it where it is currently (at Andoman & Nicobar)? Should we create stubs for each tiny island in the chain? This seems poor organization. We rule out places at which you cannot sleep in order to prevent the proliferation of useless articles that disperse content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:22, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Even leaving aside "can't sleep there", common sense surely says that a travel guide should not have articles about places which are impossible to visit?  We already specifically exclude uninhabited islands and I can see no value at all in a stubby article about a place nobody can visit.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:27, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * @(WT-en) Burmesedays We have uninhabited islands, some even reach the top level of the Australia, for example Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands, I don't think they are specifically excluded by any policy I am aware of, and I'm sure I could dig up a few other examples too. Wake Island, of course, is our famous example where people have been proud to document an island you can't go to.  Sometimes, in a travel guide, information on where and why you can't go is important too, and there seems agreement on that.  The only question is whether that info can go elsewhere with a redirect, or whether it justifies its own article.
 * @(WT-en) Peter I could frame the same question in the reverse. Why clutter a proper travel article with information on an island no-one will likely consider visiting or getting information on.  If someone is thinking of visiting, they can search for the island and get the (brief) information they need.  There is little value in the article, I agree, but there is very little overhead in keeping these articles - probably less than putting the information elsewhere and redirecting to it. --(WT-en) inas 22:47, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I really don't understand what the argument is for treating this accommodation-less island different from any other. Should we have articles for every island in the Andaman and Nicobar chains? Wake Island is a place one can visit, and has basic travel amenities that we do require for a travel article. Heard & McDonald is a reasonable exception, I would say, since they are so far from anything else and could not be covered usefully in the Australia article. Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article—subdividing the Andaman & Nicobar article into 600 blank island articles sounds less fun.   --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:17, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * To clarify: Wikivoyage policy specifically states that uninhabited islands should not have their own articles. Read Project:What is an article?. That policy seems to be ignored in a handful of cases, but remains none the less. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:53, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Good spotting there - right at the bottom of the list. Although this island isn't really uninhabited - though.  It's not a rock in the ocean.
 * Given that others seem to have a vision for the area which makes sense, and I'm not volunteering to piece together the region, I'm happy to concede the point. --(WT-en) inas 02:28, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Yep. The uninhabited island point was a side issue, but I wanted to make that clear for potential future cases. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:36, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect - Lethally unvisitable. (WT-en) Texugo 23:13, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I'd like to own up... I was the one who wrote the article. North Sentinel Island is a very intriguing place, and I wanted to make other travellers aware of it, for its own sake as well as for the safety of the traveller. However, I did not know that there was already a mention of it on the Andaman Islands page. I've read your objections, and agree that having its own page is unnecessary. I do, however, agree with Peter when he says, "Sentinel, on the other hand, would make for a very fun infobox in the Andaman article". But a redirect is necessary. --User:(WT-en) Squishysquashy Talk 13:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm okay with a redirect as long as the target article clearly mentions the island and that it's not visitable. But I do want to explicitly agree with Inas about the "can you sleep there" rule -- my reading of it is that it was meant only to allow us to (help) distinguish between an attraction and a destination, and any other use of the rule is questionable. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Regardless of anyone's reading of the article, we have been using the "can you sleep there" rule on this page since before my time to rule out articles on tiny towns, uninhabited islands, and the like (which could be seen as destinations and not just attractions). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * According to (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill the intended interpretation of this was agreed on IRC back in 2007. This discussion came up over Dorothy.  Regardless, whichever way you may choose to look at it, we have definitely moved on from the simplistic interpretation that would have us delete a destination for merely lacking a hotel or campsite.  --(WT-en) inas 19:06, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
 * (Actually he said "IIRC" not "on IRC". =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
 * I try to avoid wearing my glasses - its a vanity thing. --(WT-en) inas 19:55, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Andaman and Nicobar. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about making a mention in the target article lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:North Sentinel Island


text:
Talk:North Shore (British Columbia)

North Shore "Region" and Boundaries
I'm working on maps for the North Shore (British Columbia) and Sea to Sky regions and it's got me thinking about the boundaries and structure of the North Shore region. A couple of thoughts are:

 * The current article combines North Vancouver and West Vancouver, but I wonder if they should be split.  On one hand it makes it convenient to put them in the same article and it's difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends (although this is true of many suburban cities in a metropolitan area).  On the other hand, there is enough content for separate articles (attractions, sleep, eat, etc.) and they are separate entities.  The "North Shore" name is common, but the individual city names probably have more name recognition (particularly to a traveller). This issue was discussed a bit when the Lower Mainland regions were restructured.
 * The northern boundary of the region has never been defined (I just drew a line sufficiently north on existing maps). I think it makes sense to include all of Cypress Provincial Park and the Capilano and Seymour watersheds (the latter two are restricted access so you can't travel there anyway).  The Stawamus Indian Forest Service Road (and associated valley) would be part of the Sea to Sky region since it can only be accessed from just south of Squamish.
 * That just leaves Lions Bay and whether it should be included in the North Shore or Sea to Sky. On one hand, it's on the Sea to Sky Highway, but it's also something of a commuter community and it is part of Metro Vancouver.  You can argue that the holiday/outdoor adventure stuff, which is what the Sea to Sky region is noted for, doesn't really begin until Porteau Cove Provincial Park, further up the highway.

 * Bowen Island. Right now it's included in the Sea to Sky region, but it's not really part of that region and can only be accessed from the North Shore (West Vancouver).

Sooo, based on all that, I'm thinking of restructuring the North Shore as follows:
 * split the current North Shore article into two: North Vancouver and West Vancouver,
 * include Bowen Island in the North Shore, and
 * have the region's boundary with the Sea to Sky region follow the northern limit of Lions Bay, Cypress Provincial Park, the Capilano and Seymour Watershed Restricted Areas and Indian Arm Provincial Park. Lions Bay would fall within the North Shore and Porteau Cove would mark the start of the Sea to Sky region.

This would create a region with three cities (North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Lions Bay) and one other destination (Bowen Island) that covers off the northern part of Metro Vancouver.

Thoughts? - (WT-en) Shaund 12:54, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Thank you for your thoughtfulness. I support your reasoning and your changes. One clarification: it sounds like you won't so much "split the current North Shore article into two:  North Vancouver and West Vancouver", as you will convert the North Shore (British Columbia) article into a region article like Vancouver southern suburbs, and extract the North Vancouver and West Vancouver content into separate city articles (they are now redirects). I think you are absolutely right that Bowen Island is better located in the North Shore region than the Sea to Sky region.  I think using adventure stuff as a marker for Sea to Sky, and Vancouver bedroom as a marker for North Shore, is a good way to draw a dividing line. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 14:24, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Agreed, your clarification describes what I'm proposing much more precisely! :) Thanks. - (WT-en) Shaund 23:14, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Region restructure now implemented. - (WT-en) Shaund 01:49, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Lions Bay
It looks like Lions Bay doesn't meet our criteria for an article as there is nowhere to sleep. There are a few things that could be listed -- the art gallery, some hiking trailheads and a coffee shop/cafe -- but not enough that I think it should have its own article. West Vancouver is the nearest municipality, but its very suburban and integrated with the rest of Greater Vancouver. Lions Bay, while politically part of Metro Vancouver, is also on the Sea to Sky Highway and the primary reason most travellers pass through it is because they're on their way to Squamish or Whistler in the Sea to Sky country. Accordingly, I think Lions Bay content would be better placed in the Britannia Beach guide, which already covers all the content between Lions Bay and Squamish. Any thoughts or objections if I go ahead and implement this? -Shaundd (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Shore (British Columbia)


text:
Talk:North Shore (Massachusetts)

Cities
There is some potential for overlap here without any clear boundary, especially between Greater Boston and North Shore. Here is one view on what might constitute the North Shore: http://bostonworks.boston.com/northshore/

New banner
New banner isn't amazing, but I think it's better than what we got. ButteBag (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ ButteBag (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . At least the new banner isn't so drab and dull. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Shore (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:Auckland/North Shore (New Zealand)

Districts?
Does this place really need districts? Seems like overkill for a suburb of 200k people. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I question the need for North Shore having districts too. With Auckland Super City about to be created, which will swallow up all Auckland and reorganise local government, it seems to me that North Shore will become merely a smallish district of the new Auckland, which will be a city of about 1.2 million people that sprawls across about a 100 km x 50 km swathe (all?) of the Auckland Region. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:53, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

This article is something of a mess
It is classed as a "district" yet contains a list of cities... WHat's up with that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Auckland/North Shore (New Zealand)


text:
Talk:North Slope Borough

Rename from North Slope Borough?
I don't think this rename is correct. Should we contact the Borough and tell them we don't like their name? I have shifted my thought on using boroughs, counties and parishes. I don't believe all of them should be created as stubs, but they do make good place holders for smaller communities keeping the main region article from getting cluttered and it seems that a lot of Wikivoyageers like them as well. And, I don't think we should rename them. I think the question here is, Does North Slope cover the same area as North Slope Borough? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:47, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

 * You know what? I don't care whether it covers exactly the same area as the borough, because Alaska's borough system does not offer a useful model for a travel guide.  Any agency that produces a "borough" that looks like this:    obviously doesn't care about whether it makes any sense to the traveler; they're just trying to give the US Census Bureau some buckets to dump people into.  And as for telling them we don't like their name, I would be more than happy to place that phone call to the person who named "Unorganized Borough", one of the state's biggest.  But I didn't rename the North Slope Borough; I just removed a designation that is not normally used in reference to this area; "North Slope" is the common name for this region, and "North Slope Borough" is not; this is no different from taking "The People's Republic of" off China.
 * Yes, you're right in observing that some Wikivoyageers like using counties... often because it's easier than actually understanding the region they're carving up from afar; they can just use Wikipedia as their travel guide and create a soulless bureacratic hierarchy rather than one that puts the traveler first. I know that counties don't work very well for dividing up the regions around where I live (one fairly important city has a county line running through the middle of it, and a few counties around here don't have anything larger than a small town in them).  So I'm not one of the people who likes that particular crutch. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:36, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Sorry Todd, I guess I was misunderstood. I was not talking about Alaska's Unorganized Borough, which has no government or organization. I agree that all the area left over in Alaska and collected together for census does not make a good region. I was talking about North Slope Borough. It does make a pretty good region. I am just not sure the name should be changed. The official link on the region goes to North Slope Borough, but the page is named North Slope. I also think we should be concerned about the area a region covers. My point is for this region using the Borough boundary is good for this region. I guess we could leave the name as is and indicate in the article the area covers the same area as the Borough. Is there anyone closely familiar with Alaska that can comment on this? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 00:14, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Not wanting to be a bureacrat, but Project:Article naming conventions suggest that North Slope is probably a better name than North Slope Borough as it is shorter. If local people call the place North Slope then that should be the name. The word city is generally dropped from the name of most cities wothout causing confusion. However, I think the word county is often kept, especially when refering to an artificial region created for bureacratic or administrative purposes. If a place is commonly known by two or more names then we probably should have (at least) redirects fromn all of those names to the base article. It might be worth having separate article if the names are very different or do not quite cover the same areas. -- (WT-en) Huttite 01:08, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

 * My main point was that "North Slope" is the more common name; they named the borough after the region. My point in referring to the Unorganized Borough was to point out that the line-drawers aren't necessarily right.  And I was coming off a slew of pages where someone had created lists of counties with links for them all to be created as articles, so I was rather cranky about the subject; apologies for my strident tone. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:02, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Is this article needed?
There are currently only two destinations with actual pages in this region, one of them an outline and this area is extremely sparsely populated. What exactly is the point of this imho excessive subdivison? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

North Slope Borough
swept in from vfd

An excessive subdivision with all of two non-redlinks contained in it, "child region" of a parent region that has no other region articles below it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article isn't a deletion candidate per WV:Deletion policy. Instead, if it really doesn't merit a standalone article it should be redirected to an appropriate parent region. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - again, and as Ryan says, this is simply not a candidate for vfd. Discussions about region divisions belong on talk pages, not here. If no-one responds, either attract some attention in the Pub or wv:rfc, or even simply plunge forward and make the situation better. It does seem, however, that the Arctic Alaska article itself has a rather long list of cities, so before simply redirecting the regions, you should probably check if some kind of (different) subdivision or a complete overhaul of the structure makes sense. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Make it a redirect to the parent region. --Zerabat (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

'''RESULT: Kept. Copied to Talk:North Slope Borough for reference when changing the region structure and/or redirecting.'''

title: Talk:North Slope Borough


text:
Talk:North Wales

Unless we're going to characterize Northeast Wales and Northwest Wales, I'd prefer to leave the headers out entirely. --(WT-en) Evan 16:27, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I think the changed page is considerably better. It links to the counties, it has the new MoS style, and it leaves out the pseudo-regions in NE and NW. So, unless you have a good reason, please don't roll back. --(WT-en) Evan 02:25, 13 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Hi sir, I had just written an explanation for my roll back, but I guess you were on line at the same time, and my reply got pushed out. That's life! Anyway, my point was this: While it is true that the main cultural divide in Wales is along the north - south axis, there is also a strong east-west division. The BBC web-side divides its local news along these lines: However, if you feel that the region listing is not helpful, then I will leave it to your discretion how to proceed. Furthermore, the original listings had 'counties and boroughs'. This is because in the British system, certain urban areas are classed as both a borough/city and county. Wrexham is one such place. I guess that it had not be listed under 'cities', because there is nothing of interest for tourists. In South Wales, Cardiff, Swansea and Newport are all classed a 'city and county', and because there are sites of interest to tourist and business people in these places, they appear under both the 'cities' and 'counties' lists. If you want to choose only one for Wrexham, then put it under 'cities' as it is an urban area. That's it. Sorry for rolling back before first explaining/discussing my reasons. 13 Dec 05

Regions
Suggest, due to low number of articles and little information on the sub-region pages merging Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham (county) into Clwyd. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Map image request
Can someone who is familiar with creating region maps create a new one for North Wales with Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham (county) merged. Maybe also new colours that are not so close to each other. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 * North Wales Wikivoyage map.png @Traveler100 I may not be as familiar with creating region maps, but I gave it a shot either way. How's this? -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Wauteurz, great thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic Map Test
-- Matroc (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That is 100% better than the old map. Hopefully other editors will agree. Diolch yn fawr, Matroc. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cities and towns"
Per 7+2, no more than 9 should be listed. Which 9? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Of the current list, I would definitely keep the following 7: Bangor (major city by N Wales standards, lively student/seaside town, access to Anglesey), Blaenau (UNESCO WHS, major attractions, in the middle of Snowdonia), Caernarfon (UNESCO WHS, very touristy, culturally important), Conwy (UNESCO WHS, seaside resort), Llandudno (major seaside resort), Tywyn (previous OtBP, lots to see, represents the south), and Wrexham (largest city by far in N. Wales, increasingly famous football club).

 * We could also keep Denbigh or Dolgellau, but I would argue for including the previously omitted Llangollen. However, that would make 10, so one of out of these three would have to be eliminated:

 * Denbigh - pros: lots of POIs and events, adds geographical balance away from north west (which most of the above 7 are in). Con: doesn't have any 'must see/do if in North Wales' POIs. The events are of regional, rather than [inter]national importance.
 * Dolgellau - pros: very pretty, good access to southern Snowdonia and culturally significant. Cons: barely a town, only two 'See' listings. Most of the POIs are in the surrounding area.
 * Llangollen - pros: UNESCO WHS, varied attractions, annual international music and dance competition, not in the north west. Cons: quite near Wrexham, most of the attractions are in the surrounding area.

 * My rationale for removing the remaining ones on the current list: Colwyn Bay is very near Llandudno but more rundown, and there are lots of seaside resorts listed already. St Asaph and Llanfairfechan are in no way big or interesting enough to be listed at this level.

 * and others: what do you think of the three bulleted towns? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * ThunderingTyphoons!, thanks very much for your thoughts. I haven't been to Wales at all, but I think it would make sense for Dolgellau to be the odd man out because of the cons you state and also because Snowdonia National Park is already in Other destinations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * That's a good solution. And you're missing out on a good time :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Maybe someday. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I made the edit. Please edit further in any way you see fit, and thanks again! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Wales


text:
Talk:Northwest Airlines

Northwest Airlines
swept from en:pub:

As of January 31, 2010, this airline no longer exists. The travel topic could be moved to Delta Air Lines, but it would require quite a bit of tweaking. (WT-en) Eco84 00:55, 16 February 2010 (EST)
 * I would vfd it because none of the information is accurate in the new structure. (WT-en) jan 13:46, 17 February 2010 (EST)
 * It a simple redirect, without moving content. --(WT-en) inas 14:48, 17 February 2010 (EST)

 * Why do we even have travel topics of airlines? Couldn't that have a more neutral scope, such as "plane travel in the United States" or something like that? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:26, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * As I recall there was some concern about creating pages for airlines, but a small group made the case that it might have value so it was implemented as a trial to see how it went - Talk:American Airlines makes a reference to such a discussion. For Northwest Airlines, as long as we're going to have pages about airlines then it might make sense to move this article to Delta Airlines and update as necessary. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:21, 22 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Northwest Airlines


text:
Talk:Northwest China

what are the tropical forests?

title: Talk:Northwest China


text:
Talk:Northwestern Colorado

Cities List
To match the main map on the Colorado page, the cities of Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Redstone and Snowmass Village will be moving from South Central Colorado to Northwestern Colorado. This means that there needs to be an open discussion on what cities to include in Northwestern Colorado. Please share your ideas and opinions. Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:21, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * I vote that we replace Craig with Breckenridge in the Cities List.
 * Done. I replaced Craig with Breckenridge in the Cities List. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 12:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Get around
The list of individual city bus systems doesn't really belong here. We need to have those in each individual city article instead-- this section is for how to get around the region as a whole. (WT-en) Texugo 23:20, 31 January 2009 (EST)

 * Not a problem, How exactly do I build a sandbox page to park these for later distribution? And suggestions? Thanks!

 * Just make a new page at WineCountryInn/Sandbox --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:30, 1 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Northwestern Colorado


text:
Talk:Northwestern Georgia

Religion
Abkhazia is not predominantly Muslim, it is only abouy 10%, mostly Orthodox Christians like Georgia —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 86.14.138.114 (talk • contribs)

 * I've tried to fix that—possibly with too much detail. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Reorganizing this article
As a region article in Wilkivoyage, this article should list cities, towns and parks, not individual sites as this one does. The See and Do sections should have an overview, in prose, of the points of interest in the region. Having a consistent presentation across articles makes it easier for readers to find information. To bring this article in line with Wikivoyage formatting, I will move the detailed See and Do listings to the articles for the nearest towns. I think the long section on hiking, which has really good information in it, deserves to be in its own article, Hiking in Northwestern Georgia. Any comments? Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 * – I moved the hiking information, and because the hiking info on this article is a similar mess that I've tried cleaning up on Hiking in Réunion (which is a work in progress) and I'll do one for this one later this month once I finish the Réunion one. Go ahead with the see and do listings because they're not supposed to be in this article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Ground Zero (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By analysing these, it looks like these could arguably be forked off into their own itinerary articles like the ones in Réunion, but I am not sure how to do that without leaving the topic article somewhat like this or this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northwestern Georgia


text:
Talk:Northwestern Montana

Move back to Glacier Country?
I see this article was moved here from Glacier Country. As a general rule, names with some connection to local culture, geography, history, etc. are preferred to uninteresting, purely directional names. Is there a compelling reason for the original move to here? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:50, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

 * See Talk:Montana. The names were invented by the state tourism office, they're not otherwise commonly used (although Russell Country has picked up a little traction).  Also note that the move was done by me immediately after I created the article as a lazy way of setting a redirect, nothing more.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 21:00, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Browning - Montana.jpg

title: Talk:Northwestern Montana


text:
Talk:Northwest Territories

The NW Territories looks very beautiful and most of this area has not been explored by people except from this region. --72.73.87.76 09:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Northwest Territories


text:
Talk:North Zealand

Regions in Nordsjælland
I am planning to do some work on Nordsjælland, but noticed that the regional hierarchy is not really in place yet: Holte is covered by both Rudersdal Article and Northern Suburbs Article, whereas Hørsholm, Ølstykke, Stenløse, Allerød, Frederiksværk and possibly also some more are not covered by anything. This is what I suggest to do - create an Øresund Coast article covering everyting between Copenhagen and Helsingør (merging in Nivå) - create a Northern Coast article (merging in Gilleleje, Tisvildeleje and Hornbæk) - delete Rudersdal Article - expand the articles for Fredensborg, Hillerød and Frederikssund to cover all of their respective municipalities Any comments on this?

However, this implies that Ølstykke, Stenløse, Allerød and Birkerød are still not covered by any articles. Any suggestions how to solve that?

(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:47, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

 * That was pretty much exactly what I had in mind, that leaves us with 3 gaps, though we don't have to create them right way,

 * Hornsherred - I vote for creating a guide for this too, it can work as a city of sorts since it's pretty confined.
 * Frederiksværk - Might be worth creating.
 * Everything west of Gilleleje to Hundested.

 * Fredensborg should have it's own guide too, since it has the castle. And I think we should create a Nationalpark Kongernes Nordsjælland National park page, and cover all the sights within the park area, in that article. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:05, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Ok, but this does not solve the problem that Ølstykke, Stenløse, Allerød and Birkerød are not covered by anything except of course by Nordsjælland Article. Those places certainly do not have a lot of interest, but there might be a few things that deserve a listing, which should be put somewhere, and I guess not directly in the Nordsjælland Article? (WT-en) ClausHansen 18:14, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Hmmm Egedal? and then we can just fiddle a bit with the municipal borders to make sure everything fits. I think our guidelines are a little vague about what you can put in a region article, attractions and countryside hotels and restaurants are probably fair game, though hotels and restaurants inside city might not be, but it's certainly better than a bunch of articles that really can't contain anything more than 2 or 3 listings. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:29, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Øresund Coast - from Taarbæk to Nivå
 * Elsinore + Espergærde
 * North Coast Hellebæk to Tisvildeleje, Gribskov municipality but bordered by Kongernes Nordsjælland to the south)
 * Hundested + Liseleje, Melby, Torup (Økologiske Landsby)
 * Frederiksværk
 * Hornsherred + Jægerspris, indtil Skibby.
 * Egedal + Ølstykke, Stenløse etc.
 * Hillerød all municipality (Slangerup, Stenløse) except Kongernes Nordsjælland
 * Fredensborg
 * Navnløs - Allerød, Birkerød, Lynge, Vasingerød, Blovsterød - a bit spread out, but it's not too bad.

That's 10 (ok, at this level) and then National Park Kongernes Nordsjælland, goes under other destinations.

title: Talk:North Zealand


text:
Talk:Norway

State Supported Children Abduction
I removed the following newly added section:

 * There were several incidents when children were taken from parents for no good reason by Norwegian social workers and never returned. This happens even to foreigners visiting the country. One such incident is now being solved diplomatically between Norway and the Czech Republic, with no solution in sight (the Czech mother is allowed to see her sons, also Czech citizens, for 15 minutes every six months). Other such incident was solved by Polish parents by hiring a commando to bring their daughter back (after all legal solutions failed).

I suppose such incidents are rare enough not to be relevant for most visitors – and suspect the cases are about families where there are disputes about the children (and one parent is Norwegian in the typical cases). The "for no good reason" probably depends heavily on the interpretation of "good".

We should probably include such sections only when it is shown on the talk page that incident are common, or at least that outright abuse of the legal system happens (and that this is relevant also for non-residents without close relations to Norway).

--LPfi (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree, although such incidents have been reported, this is almost exclusively relevant to residents, not so much visitors. However sad these individual stories are, I believe it doesn't belong to a travel guide. Danapit (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Agree. Leave such singular and irrelevant incidents out. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fjord fun facts
There is a sizeable section on 'Fun facts' for Fjords which I can't help but categorize as off-topic. Discussing Fjords is probably a relevant subject when discussing the country of Norway, but listing out all the films that were made on them as well as cultural references is not really travel relevant. Should we remove? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they could be put in an infobox? I don't think it does much harm to keep them. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Possible a more concise version in an infobox!
 * WV often falls into the trap that 'more is more', when in fact endless tracts of text actually serve the traveler less because the reader doesn't want to cherry pick the important parts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find it off topic at all (actually, almost always I read or hear the word fjord, I recall this Hitchhikers's guide quote - so please keep this part for me :) ),  but infobox might be good.Danapit (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd call that section "sizable". I think it'd fit perfectly in an infobox, more-or-less as-is. The only problem with that is the excessive run of images along the right margin.  Powers (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am the guilty one. I added all this info (including fun facts and images) because I realize that there is much confusion among travelers about the fjord concept. Fjords are after all Norway's top attraction. Perhaps a separate article to do the topic justice? To me images and maps communicate better than text. I tried to use images to communicate the extent and variety of fjords, a topic that is most difficult to comprehend for first time visitors. Fun facts can of course me removed, not a big deal, but I would appreciate a discussion on the other points. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand: Popular culture reference (such as movies or novels) can also be informative. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fjords of Norway
How about creating a new article Fjords of Norway? Then we can remove some details from the main Norway article. Because fjords are not limited to any specific region, better treat it in a separate article rather than repeating the information for every county or region? --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * That would be fine, or the article could be about Fjords, period, and also cover fjords in Alaska, Greenland and other places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * A Fjords article would be nice. Fjord says that there are fjords in Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Alaska, Kerguelen Islands, British Columbia, Nunavut, Washington and Chile. (there you go, I had no idea Washington state had them) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, as a matter of fact, the so-called Hood Canal inside Puget Sound is, hydrologically and geologically, a textbook example of what a fjord is. Ibaman (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * One version of New York or Hudson Valley claimed that the Hudson River estuary is actually a fjord. I don't know about that. But the Saguenay Fjord in Quebec is famous, so there's another Canadian province. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, Fjords would be fine! There are also some in Denmark, as far as I know, or at least that's what they call them... Danapit (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can consider both. Fjords in general is a topic, but fjords in Norway can be treated as a destination. Travelers ask lots of questions related to fjords in Norway: Where they are, how to get there, how to travel around. These kinds of questions are largely specific to Norway because visiting fjords in Norway is very different from visiting fjords in Greenland or Antarctica. At this point I think it is most relevant to create an article on fjords in Norway, then many details in the main Norway article can be moved to that subarticle. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus? If there are no strong objections to my first idea of creating a separate Fjords of Norway article connected the main Norway article, I will soon break off some details and images from the main articles. A topical Fjords article can also be created. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, Erik. Danapit (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the Norwegian fjords can have their own article. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. A general article would be great, but each country or region with a bunch of beautiful fjords could eventually have its own article, too. There's no harm whatsoever in starting with Fjords of Norway, only benefit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I will then treat Fjords of Norway as a destination. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Not a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't know if makes any difference in the article to treat it as topic or as a destination, but from visitors point of view it is kind of a destination, questions like: Where is it? How to get there? How to get around? What is the weather? Similar to Fiordlands of NZ or the Alps of central Europe. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Only one region of Norway has fjords? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The point is that "destinations" have to suit our geographical hierarchy. The fjords article can be written as a destination guide, whatever that means, but it will be treated as a travel topic in our hierarchy, being linked to from the See section in Norway, not from the Regions section. --LPfi (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Whatever works best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There are fjords all over Norway, except in the very interior. But with regard to fjords many counties (administrative division) are very similar. Counties of Norway are in general not the most informative from a visitor point of view. Also easier to write a concise guide for sub-regions like Valdres, Gudbrandsdal or Lofoten, or for extra-hierarchical region like Jotunheimen or Alps. In Norway there is often greater variety within counties than across counties. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Region names
Perhaps I am being petty, but Eastern Norway, Western Norway etc. struck me as quite dull, descriptive names. I have by now realized those are actually regions generally recognized by Norwegians themselves, but I was wondering if we could use some Norwegian names to give them a more local feel (and acquaint travellers with how Norwegians call them).

Agder and Trøndelag actually have traditional, meaningful names. Østlandet and Veslandet are descriptive, but do not repeat the obvious word "Norway" when referred to in Norwegian. This makes Nord-Norge OK as a standalone case of referring to a region of Norway using the name of the country.

BTW, the division of Agder and Trøndelag into two counties each seems unnecessary to me. PrinceGloria (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Strange that we do not even mention the local names. When we use our own regional division we should of course use descriptive English names, but when the regions are traditional or administrative entities, travellers would be much better served knowing them. English speakers should be able to recognize the Norwegian names of cardinal directions (øst for east etc. and thus remember which region is which). Using the Norwegian names will also help in the confusion of the easternmost part of Norway being far from "Eastern Norway". --LPfi (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Middle Norway is sometimes used informally by Norwegians, but it is not a very precise term. The area covered in the article is in fact called Trøndelag, an ancient and well defined name. From the visitors' perspective there is no point in dividing this area in two articles, in fact a bit confusing as Trondheim airport is in the other county just across the line. Names Trondheim and Trøndelag most likely has the same origin. I suggest we switch to Trøndelag, the proper name for this area, the name all Norwegians use and understand.

 * South Norway is also an ambiguous term as it is used about the Agder area (Sørlandet, the area connected by the Stavanger railway line) but also about all of Norway that is not North (Sør-Norge). Agder would be a better heading for this article.

 * East and West are old names for Østlandet and Vestlandet, even if Finnmark of course is much further east. I think these are difficult to translate. Visitnorway uses Fjord Norway about the West, OK for marketing but not very precise. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I take it we are in agreement so I can proceed with renaming, right? PrinceGloria (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Not fully. The headings South Norway and Middle Norway can be replaced. Østlandet and Vestlandet can redirect, but these words are not intelligible to foreigners so I suggest we keep the heading as is. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I think foreigners not understanding the names is no problem. We can translate them in the beginning of the article, but even if we do not, they can be treated just as names. We do so with Finnmark and probably with most regions in other countries. Additionally, the two mentioned are easy, as "øst", "vest" and "land" are used in English with only slight difference in spelling or meaning. --LPfi (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, perhaps. At least "Trøndelag" should replace "Middle Norway". Note that in Norway the terms "Vest-Norge" (West Norway) and "Vestlandet" (the west country) are used interchangeably. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 * In the meantime, I have renamed South Norway to Agder and also merged the two Agder countries into it as discussed above, because the extra level did not add any value. Therefore, we have two cool banners up for grabs: File:Vest-Agder banner.jpg and Aust-Agder banner.jpg. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Middle Norway - admin help needed
OK, so I merged Sør-Trøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag back into Middle Norway (not that there was much to merge, those were really stubby regions), so now what is needed is deleting Category:Sør-Trøndelag and Category:Nord-Trøndelag and moving Middle Norway to Trøndelag per above discussion. Anybody with admin rights could do that? PrinceGloria (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * What happens to the cities that link to those categories when they're deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think any do, I believe I cleared both categories. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Trondheim is in Category:Sør-Trøndelag. I suppose I can delete it from there, but does it need to be put in another category? Anyway, I'll make the deletions and move. If anything gets messed up in the process, please clean it up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, taken care of, and I also deleted the "Regions" section of Trøndelag. I thought Autopatrollers could delete and move stuff. I guess not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Tusen takk! I might have missed the button to delete categories, but I certainly cannot move to a page that exists, i.e. swap a page with a redirect to it as was the case of Middle Norway and Trøndelag. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, glad to help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Radio in Norwegian only?
The article now says "FM and DAB + broadcasts are in Norwegian only" with the exception of some BBC and Sveriges Radio retransmissions. Is that true? I thought there was radio at least in Sámi too, probably also in Kven. It might not matter for most of our readers, but wrong information is never good. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NRK, SVT, YLE and Swedish Radio has joint sampi (northern sami) broadcoast a couple of hours/week. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Cashless payments in Norway
afaik Norway is very cashless, especially compared to other countries (like Germany). Is it an idea to mention how common cashless payments are and make some suggestions for visitors about how they can use them, too? (I might have missed it but I dídn't see mention of that in the Money section.) Griffindd (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * About 1 % of purchases are now made with cash, 99 % with card. There is a national system for "debet" cards used by virtually every shop, transport etc. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

isn't that something which deserves a mention on the main page? Griffindd (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, w:Vipps is becoming widespread for small purchases. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic map - some regions not colored
Hi. On my mobile phone the dynamic map doesn't have all regions colored - this mostly applies for the south of the country... Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Constitution
Norway's constitution is widely accepted as the second oldest written constitution still in effect. The cases of San Marino and Britain are less clear. The 1814 constitution was deliberatly and carefully crafted (from scratch) as a constitution in a single document, similar to the US. In Britain and to some degree in San Marino and even in Sweden the actual constitution is more like a patchwork. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that a) this is a travel guide and b) certain people dislike the word "arguably" (which would address those caveats without getting lost in the woods) removing this claim is the only "clean" solution I can think of... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "....one of the oldest written democratic constitutions....." - That is not precise but true and at least gives some context. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I can live with that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

National taxi services
There is a new trend of national taxi services appearing in Nordic countries. They have easy to use smartphone apps which make the order process clear, like Uber. They claim to have near-nationwide coverage or coverage of list of specific cities. What we should do regarding them? I think they would give additional advantage for Wikivoyage users compared to having only phone call numbers of local taxi companies, regarding that many Wikivoyage users do not have English as their first language, and may have trouble pronouncing local language street addresses. So should we include them if they say that they cover specific regions? --Vkem (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 * See Travellers' pub#National taxi services. I suggest we keep the discussion there, until it is down to national details. –LPfi (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 100kr-front0001.jpg
 * Femhundrelapper IMG 1771.JPG
 * Unless you want to argue there is no copyright on banknotes in Norway, these seem to be clear cases, sadly. –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Northern Norway
Is it normal that the region of Northern Norway, in blue, is not showing up properly on the map? --96.22.228.193 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

State church
Norway abolished the state church in 2012. The state church of Norway was not merely "endorsed" by the government but in fact a branch of the civil service and integrated in the government apparatus. So the church was literally "state church". Priests were civil servants and bishops were appointed by the king, so the king was the head of the church (and had been since 1536) - this was possible because the Church of Norway is lutheran and not suboridinate to any international authority. The church of Norway is now fully independent but like all religous communities supported by the government. Church buildings are however owned by local congregations, except Nidaros cathedral which is the national cathedral and owned by the government. All this is a bit intricate and does not matter for the visitor. Erik den yngre (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I think there currently is no information in the article that conflicts with that, and I am not sure we need to tell more than we currently do (mostly about old churches as sights and that "Lutheranism used to be the state religion and is still nominally followed by about 80% of Norwegians; however, many Norwegians do not attend church regularly." –LPfi (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

South Norway, Middle Norway
"Middle Norway" is generally not used, although sometimes when referring to Trøndelag and Møre/Romsdal combined.

"South Norway" is an ambiguous term as Norwegians refer to South Norway (Sør-Norge) as the Southern half of the entire country; whereas "Sørlandet" (the southern land or southern coast) is never referred to as "South Norway" by Norwegians. Erik den yngre (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 * TBF, I only added it because the static map used it, though like you, I hadn't heard of either of the two names in question being used. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Norway


text:
Talk:Norwegian phrasebook

This is absolutely incredible! Great job, and a worthwhile addition to the Main Page.

We just need to go through and make those English-like pronunciation things. -- (WT-en) Evan 08:00, 8 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * OK, so, I'm having a hard time doing that. I've been looking at a Norwegian pronunciation guide to make sure we've got this all straight. But I have no clue as to the emphasis on words. --(WT-en) Evan 20:54, 17 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Wouldn't "aw" rather than "å" be clearer to English speakers in the phoneticizations? -- (WT-en) Jmabel 00:46, 7 Jun 2004 (EDT)

- No, because it's not accurate. oa as in board is more like it. usually, å is transliterated aa.

Does anyone say "jeg er lei meg" when apologizing? I would only use "beklager" or "unnskyld", and I think I would finf "jeg er lei meg" a bit confusing, even from a foreigner.

- No, "jeg er lei meg" literally means "I'm sad".

updates and edits
Hello! I have taken the liberty of making a few minor corrections and adding some pronunciation guides. Hope it helps. - T.

Bokmål/Nynorsk
I do speak conversational Norwegian but because everything is in both Nynorsk and Bokmål even I find it difficult to follow some of the long sentences, though I could happily read a whole newspaper in Norwegian! For what my opinion is worth, I say we get rid of the Nynorsk, though I appreciate this might be an emotive issue in Norway, the focus here is to provide a usable phrasebook for a visitor keen to learn a little of this rarely-learnt language. Don't make it more difficult than it needs to be.
 * Long sentences has nothing to do with Nynorsk/Bokmål. Only government documents are issued in both forms. Private newspapers write anyway they want. Regards --80.212.79.8 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Split into two separate phrasebooks leaving a disambig page?
So apparently the number of Norwegian speakers and/or people interested in this is rather limited, but given that there are even two separate wikipedias (One Nynorsk and one Bokmal; I hope I spelled this correctly) we might wish to do something which we have done for Spanish (where it seems to make a bit less sense given that there is only one Spanish language Wikipedia). What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian phrasebook - split or not?
I am not an expert on Norwegian, but there is not a single Norwegian language Wikipedia, but rather two separate ones. Given that we have separate phrasebooks for European and American Spanish, should we do the same for "Norwegian"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * True but you would be traveling to different places if you went to Latin America or Spain (or Equatorial Guinea or the Philippines...) and both of the main variations of Norwegian are only used in Norway. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I am pretty neutral on the issue, mostly because I know no Norwegian, but I think the two differing standards of written Norwegian roughly correspond to regions of Norway. So depending on which place you go you are more likely to encounter one or the other. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Looking at the article in question, Bokmal seems to be by far the most common all over Norway, and the only difference between the two is in writing. There's only one Norwegian language spoken everywhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Hm. You could say there are two ways to write the single language, but I think saying there are two ways to write the hundreds of dialects is more correct. Some dialects correspond more closely with one way of writing, others with the other. I think having both together gives the users some hints on the variations also where not directly associated with one of the two, and thus I think it is useful to have both in the same phrasebook. --LPfi (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Banner?

The existing banner is a little drab and doesn't have much (if any) visible Norwegian language. How about a change? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Is "gærjagåetie" Norwegian? The categories suggest Southern Sámi, which seems more plausible. Fra Steinbergdagene på Stenberg 2014 11.JPG is an alternative, if one wants a sign. --LPfi (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, it looked like two seperate languages! Do you have any other examples? My germanic knowledge suggests the park bench is in remembrance of someone who died? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It is not a park bench, but the wall of a house, and the sign tells the house was moved to the Stenberg outdoor museum from Olterudsætra (sæter=summer farm) in Østre Toten. This was the best I found in Signs in Norway and a few related categories. A bilingual sign would be perfect, but then bilingual in Nynorsk and Bokmål. Some other Norwegian theme could of course also work, but I agree that an image with "ICA" the most visible language is less than optimal. --LPfi (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * (The sign succeeds unusually well to avoid easily recognisable common words. Still there are some. Stor is big, hus is house (i.e. the main building), fra is from, lodd is probably (building) lot, flytta is to move, til is to. So not too difficult, once you know the meaning. --LPfi (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

 * OK, so how does this look for a banner then? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between "tram" and "light rail" in Norwegian / Norway
Is there one? And if so how, how is it obvious to the casual observer? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * en:Light rail, but the term is perhaps not well known. A light rail is basically a tram, and some trams run like light rail on separate tracks. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bybane" in Bergen is called light rail and I think this is the only one in Norway. The light rail in Bergen covers a longer distance than a typical tram. Oslo has a tram and a metro/subway system, and Trondheim has a single tram line. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Help, my hovercraft has been hijacked by angry dwarfs! Can I sleep at your place?
Is there a reason this is included in this phrasebook - and, as far as I can see - only this phrasebook?  Seagull123  Φ  20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Obviously not! Please delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 * How did this ever get in here? WV:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense ? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was obviously intended to be in the Hungarian phrasebook, not here. Explanation. Ground Zero (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Two separate phrasebooks
While this was discussion years ago, I'm bringing this up again. For those unaware, there's two Norsk wikipedias, no.wikipedia (which is proposed to be renamed to nb.wikipedia) and nn.wikipedia, for two separate dialects. For that matter, there is only one Portuguese Wikipedia, but yet we have two separate phrasebooks for those. Even more convincingly, the proposal of a Norwegian Wikivoyage was declined by the language committee for this reason. While I only have a knowledge of tourist Norwegian, I believe we have some editors from Norway here who'd know much more. So why is this not split up? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Because a tourist would not speak Norwegian well enough to notice the difference. Norwegians learn to write both languages, and they speak neither, but their mother tongue. As Swedish speaking, I read Norwegian fairly well, but I have forgotten the differences I learnt in school, and just sometimes I stumble upon something even I see would be said differently in the other language. From the phrasebook (many phrases are even more close or the same):
 * God morgen – God morgon
 * takk, bare bra – takk, bærre brah
 * Hva heter du? – Kva heiter du?

 * You'd probably not even pronounce these well enough for anybody to know which one you tried to say. And the written version would be understood regardless of whom you are communicating with. And keeping track of which phrasebook you need where would be awkward.

 * Erik den yngre might want to comment.

 * –LPfi (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 * In short: Norwegians speak dialect ("mother tongue") and write one of the two standards (bokmål or nynorsk). Around 1900 these two standards were more different (bokmål began as a variant of Danish) but has converged. There is a big difference between the Henrik Ibsen's language and modern bokmål. There is basically no clearly defined standard spoken Norwegian (unlike for instance German or French), although in national broadcasting news programs there is certain standard. In some parts of Norway public info is displayed in bokmål and some other parts in nynorsk. Dialects differ a great deal so for instance "hva" (what as in "hva heter du") is pronounced "waa", whereas "kva" ("kva heiter du") is usually pronounced "qaa". Erik den yngre (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 * As another native Finland Swedish speaker who understands Norwegian to the most part, I'd say there are two main dialects (or dialect groups) of Norwegian, the one spoken in most of the country and the ones spoken in the southwest around Bergen and Stavanger. The former is closer to Swedish, and generally uses bokmål, while discussing with a speaker of the latter will occasionally make me ask them to repeat what they just said and there nynorsk is generally used. Ypsilon (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Eastern Norway (around Oslo) is more influenced by Danish, while the vocabulary of Western Norway and Trøndelag may resemble some Swedish (in Sweden my dialect is often perceived as Dalarna dialect). But the intonation of East Norway is perhaps similar to Swedish and thus makes it easier to understand. Erik den yngre (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the pronunciation is more "clearer" in eastern and northern Norway whereas western Norwegian IMO have a touch of Scanian Swedish or even Danish (with the guttural R) or Icelandic and they sometime add some extra vowels like in the example above. Ypsilon (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agder and Rogaland has a hint of Danish or Scanian pronounciation. The guttural R is used around the coast from Kristiansand to Bergen, while north of Bergen there is a powerful rolling R (as in Spain). Sorry, I got lost in details. I guess printed words are most important to visitors, and where nynorsk and bokmål are notably different worth mentioning both (for instance "melk/mjølk").  Erik den yngre (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think that those notably different words are few enough that it is easier to include them here than to have separate phrasebooks – and especially for travellers to areas where both are used to find them side by side instead of having to search in two phrasebooks. –LPfi (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, no reason to have two phrasebooks. Erik den yngre (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Norwegian phrasebook


text:
Talk:Nottinghamshire

According to the Edwinstowe article, it is a vilage or town. With a population of 5000 it is too small to really be a city, so I made it an Other Destination -- (WT-en) Huttite 01:13, 28 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I put it back into "Cities". I understand that Edwinstowe isn't a "city" in the way Lancaster or Bangkok is, but I think it should still be listed in the same place.

 * "Cities" is for any village, town, township, megalopolis, micropolis, hamlet, etc. that we can think of. I think of "Cities" as "inhabited dots on the map". I realize that that's just one idea of what a city is, but there isn't any other good word for that level of destination. "Polis"?

 * "Other destinations" is more for things that you would actually go visit, and you may stay at, but aren't really incorporated towns. One classic example is a national park.

 * Anyways, I think Edwinstowe is a "city" by this loose definition. I don't think changing the header to "Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, burgs, and other inhabited dots on the map" would be really helpful. B-) --(WT-en) Evan 01:39, 28 Mar 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Nottinghamshire


text:
Talk:Noukendai

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
Yokohama is a city in Noukendai. - must be a mistake because the article is about Noukendai not Yokohama. Perhaps it should read Noukendai is a city in Yokohama (prefecture)? - (WT-en) Huttite 07:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

 * This is a train station in Yokohama city. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:13, 9 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Noukendai


text:
Talk:Nouméa

Would be interessting how to get from La Tontouta International Airport to the city center of Noumea and to the Magenta Airport, wouldn't it? --84.161.176.50 06:45, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nouméa


text:
Talk:Nova Jerusalém

I removed the following info that was taken from here. I inadvertently marked the edit as minor. - (WT-en) Fastestdogever 23:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

In Nova Jerusalém during Holy Week, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and on Easter Saturday evenings at 6 PM, the story of Christ's Passion and Death is presented.

Nova Jerusalém is a theater-city, surrounded by a stone wall, with seven doors and seventy towers, spread in an area of about seventy thousand square meters, which is equivalent to one-third of the encircled area of Jerusalem in Jesus Christ's days. Scattered throughout this area, one find twelve stages, which are actually buildings mode out of granite, which constitute the scenery for the acting and make up the route that the public and the actors must follow.

title: Talk:Nova Jerusalém


text:
Talk:Novara di sicilia

Novara di Sicilia is a comune (municipality) in the Province of Messina in the Italian region Sicily, located about 160 km east of Palermo and about 40 km southwest of Messina. As of 31 December 2004, it had a population of 1,606 and an area of 48.8 km². It has been named "I Borghi piu belli d'Italia", meaning The Most Beautiful Town in all of Italy (reference www.borghitalia.it).

ABOUT THE TOWN The village of Novara of Sicily, nestled in the mountains overlooking ancient Tyndaris and Abacaenum, is the archetype of a typical medieval town, with its friendly and accomodating people who speak a distinctive dialect. The town of Novara di Sicilia was inhabitied by the Noae until it fell under control of the Normans, who populated the town with Lombards. The intricate cobble stone street form a mosaic between the ancient small houses that stand shoulder to shoulder along the mountainsde, with a breathtaking view of the Aeolian Islands. Mythically, the town is guarded by the breast of the Rocca Salvatesta, i.e., hidden from legendary people dating back to the times of the Noeni, who always yearned for the town's treasure and never conquered it. Anyone who visits Novara di Sicilia is charmed by magnificence and perceives the glorious of its past and its fascination endures.

Novara di Sicilia also provides a convenient central location for day trips to Tindiri, Taromina and Giardini.

HISTORY "Noa", a word of Sicani origin, means “maggese” to indicate the agricultural vocation of the area. Under the Romans it changed in Novalia (grain field) and for the Arabs garden was Nouah (garden, flower). Other names used in the Middle Ages include: Nucaria, the Nuara, the Nucharia, Nugaria, Nutaria, Nocerai, Noara until the definitive transformation in Novara. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it remained under Byzantine hands until the Arab conquest of Sicily. The Sicilian emirate lost it in the 11th century, when it fell under control of the Normans, who populated the town people from Lombardy. The population indeed still speaks a distinctive dialect called Gaulish-Sicilian.

THE COAT OF ARMS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Novara_di_Sicilia.GIF

MAIN SIGHTS The village, nestled in the mountains overlooking ancient Tyndaris and Abacaenum and with notable views of the Aeolian Islands, is the archetype of a typical medieval town. There are five churches. The 16th century Cathedral is in the Piazza Duomo. The Churches and palace ruins were constructed by the craftsmen of the town. Other churches include Santa Maria di Noara, S. Nicolò, S. Antonio, S. George and Annunziata. There are also palaces from the 16th-18th centuries.

The Anthropological Museum, which features tools of local farmers and artisans as well as displaying the early culture of the local people, is also of note. The intricate cobbled streets form a mosaic between the ancient small houses that stand shoulder to shoulder along the mountainsde.

FESTIVALS AND ANNUAL EVENTS The Festival of Saint Anthony Abbot is celebrated in January, with a parade of horses and livestock and a “Blessing of the Animals” in the bell tower.

Events during Carnival include the “Gioco of the Maiorchino”, where wheels of maiurchèa (a seasoned pecorino cheese) are rolled along a predetermined route, the Carnival of the Children and a masked ball which takes place in the recently renovated Communal Theatre.

Pastoral rituals with a silent procession of the Confraternite occur during Holy Week.

In July there is a Flower Festival and the “Climbing of the Rocca Salvatesta”, which is seen as a test of character.

The Festa dell'Assunta (the assumption of the Virgin Mary) is the largest annual event in the town, attracting thousands of visitors. The festivities run from July 31 to August 15, when a procession is held with a statue of the Virgin (the patron saint of the town), illuminated with more than 150 candles, is carried through the streets on the shoulders of more than 30 men. The relics of Saint Hugh are also included in the procession and each every five years statues of other saints also join in. The event is followed by a firework display.

In the first few weeks of August an exhibition is held of vestments, church furnishings, handicrafts, paintings, photographs and local handicraft.

A “Living Manger” is displayed during the Christmas period.

TRANSPORTATION Novara di Sicilia is 75 kilometres from Messina, 95 km from Catania and 55 km from Taormina. The town is connected to Messina and Catania by a bus service run by the AST company; the nearest rail station is that of Novara-Montalbano-Furnari (20 km).

RESTAURANTS THE PINETA – Via National n. 145 -  tel. 0941/650522 opened all l’year. FARM HOLIDAYS “THE SUNFLOWER” Greek Contrada tel. 0941/650812 - opened all l’year

CAFES Bar Angelina Via Nazionale, 151, 98058 Novara Di Sicilia (ME), Italy 0941 650100

Scuderi Via Nazionale, 105, 98058 Novara Di Sicilia (ME), Italy 0941 650580

LODGES BED & BREAKFAST: “SGANGA KONDE’ KING” Via National n. 163 - Tel. 0941650526 338/2696111

“NOA” of Munafò Antonino Via National, 410 – Tel. 0941650974

LANDLORD: “L’EDEN Of the DREAMS” of Fulvio Rao Via Lauria Admiral, 3 tel. 0941/650152 – 380.2539231

WEBSITES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_di_sicilia

www.comune.novara-di-sicilia.it

www.geocities.com/imbesid/novaramia.htm

www.web.tiscali.it/novara

title: Talk:Novara di sicilia


text:
Talk:Novara di Sicilia

pic should be moved its huge! --72.73.87.163 15:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)

 * ty --72.73.87.163 16:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

 * I've turned it into a thumbnail. For future reference, the image markup is like this: [[Image:DSC01118-1.jpg|thumb|250px]] . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:29, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ghost town
Just been there, the town looks haunted and scary. Lots of abandoned buildings (even right across the main tower in the center) and a few locals remaining are definitely not friendly. Also, no decent restaurants there, but some nice medieval architecture and sculptures etc are dirty and unattended. The town has a choking, non-pleasant and spooky atmosphere, feel free to explore if you are adventurous but definitely not for comfortable tourism. It's better to get by car from the north, from south there are two roads from Francovilla, the unnamed eastern one is merely abandoned and used only by few local farmers, the western one,  SS185  had some landslides, signs with bullet holes, creepy abandoned villages and no people and traffic at all. The road and the town combined leaves a weird, "inside a David Lynch movie" experience.

title: Talk:Novara di Sicilia


text:
Talk:Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia regions
Nova Scotia regions really should follow the official tourism regions of the province. What currently exists do not. I'm new here and don't really know how to make such a big change. See http://novascotia.com/en/home/planatrip/gettingaround/regions/default.aspx The regions are:
 * Yarmouth & Acadian Shores
 * Fundy Shore & Annapolis Valley
 * South Shore
 * Halifax Metro
 * Northumberland Shore
 * Eastern Shore
 * Cape Breton Island

(WT-en) troutpoint 13:55, 14 March 2009 (EST)

 * Help with Nova Scotia : On my talk page I was asked:

 * Huttite please help. The listings for Nova Scotia are very confused geographically. There is tons of current overlap between counties, regions, and cities. Locally, counties are really not treated as very important, but tourism regions are. See my comment at the Nova Scotia discussion page. For example, Yarmouth is no longer part of the South Shore region and to divide this region by counties doesn't really help anyone. I'm too new at this to really make such a big change without further advice. troutpoint--(WT-en) Troutpoint 08:30, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

My response to both of the above is below:
 * If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read Project:Geographical hierarchy and Project:What is an article?

 * I my opinion, there is no one right way to do the regions and there is no need to be totally exclusive about it. For example, organising destinations by local government organisations at the county and city level follows an administrative organisational strategy. While organising destinations by geography, such as mountains, valleys and shorelines follows a geographic organisational strategy. Then again, one can organise based on communities of interest that cross both geographical and administrative boundaries and follow a social organisational strategy. Similarly, the tourism organisational strategy follows a breakdown suggested by tourist operators and travel agents. You may even want to suggest your own regional breakdown. What is important is that things hang together in a (fairly) logical and understandable way once the articles are written. It is quite possible, and may even be practical, for two or more overlapping region organisational strategies to exist. However, in that cases one does need to be very clear about which organisational strategy is working for which region page.

 * The issue probably comes down to how much detail should be in a region article. Please remember that regions can be subdivided repeatedly. Though there is no hard and fast rule, it is a good idea that a region lists about 7 +/- 2 smaller regions, cities (ie. towns or communities) or other destinations. If you find you need to list more than about 8 or 10 places under the City or Other destinations heading it suggests you need more regions, i.e. another level of breakdown, to put these places within. If you are struggling to get two or three destinations for a region, that would suggest that you have gone too fine with your regions, as the region could then probably be merged with the destination it contains.

 * The top level regions that you are suggesting for Nova Scotia seem to be about the right number, though their names leave something to be desired. The use of and in a name suggests that two regions are being cobbled together. More importantly the ampersand character (&) should not appear in a name as it makes an article unviewable, as & is misinterpreted by webservers as a URL parameter separator, so the article name is cut short. My suggestions for the names of the top level regions you propose are:

 * Acadian Shores - this can include a reference to Yarmouth, which can also be included in South Shore if it is on or near the boundary of the two regions.
 * Fundy Shore and Annapolis Valley should be separate regions, unless the two run together in a way that means they cannot be easily separated. At a lower level they may still need to be separated, so doing it at the top level may not cause too many problems.
 * South Shore
 * Halifax Metro
 * Northumberland Shore
 * Eastern Shore
 * Cape Breton Island
 * Below the top level, counties, etc. could be used to assist with keeping destination lists short. Or, if counties don't work, geographical and social groupings, or all three alternatives depending on what works well in different places.

 * However, I am not saying what you propose is the best way to do things. Frankly, I haven't even looked at how things are organised at the moment. There is probably a fair bit of effort invested in the existing structure, so any change will involve a fair bit of reorganisation. It would be a good idea to work out how the existing regional organisation of Nova Scotia articles would migrate into your proposal.

 * Exactly how all this is done is a bit of a dark art and is worth discussing before doing - as you have done here. The important thing to remember is that every Nova Scotia destination (city, town or other attraction) that is listed in Wikivoyage needs to be listed somewhere and the pages that they are listed on in turn need to be listed somewhere, and so on up a geographical hierarchy tree to Nova Scotia and beyond. That way these destinations can be found and placed in some sort of logical geographic grouping for the traveler.

 * Ultimately, how things hang together for the traveler is the best test of all. If you were to travel to Nova Scotia using Wikivoyage, only, would the way things were organised work for you? - (WT-en) Huttite 06:52, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

 * The official tourism regions mostly look OK. The Northumberland Shore, Eastern Shore, Cape Breton Island, Halifax Metro and South Shore regions look alright, although I'd suggest including some areas near Halifax Metro (such as Peggys Cove) in that region to balance it out.

 * My biggest concern is the Fundy Shore and Annapolis Valley region, which doesn't strike me as a natural fit. I'm oversimplifying a bit, but essentially the region would work as Bay of Fundy stuff in the northeast, the Annapolis Valley in the middle and then more Bay of Fundy stuff on the western end. The two Bay of Fundy pieces are not connected and the Annapolis Valley only has secondary road connections with the NE piece of the region (the major roads run via Halifax). Tourism NS's scenic routes also break the region up, with the NE piece on the Glooscap Trail and the Annapolis Valley and points west on the Evangeline Trail.

 * My suggestion is to break up the Fundy Shore and Annapolis Valley region into three pieces. The NE portion (Amherst, Truro, Parrsboro and Springhill) would remain Fundy Shore. The Annapolis Valley would stand as its own region (this includes Windsor, Annapolis Royal and Kentville). The part along the coast west of the Valley would be merged with an Acadian Shores article that would feature Yarmouth and Digby.

 * Overall, my suggested regions would be:
 * Acadian Shores - Yarmouth and Digby
 * Annapolis Valley - Windsor, Middleton, Annapolis Royal and Kentville
 * Cape Breton Island - Sydney, Baddeck and Louisbourg
 * Eastern Shore - Guysborough
 * Fundy Shore - Amherst, Truro, Parrsboro and Springhill
 * Halifax Region - Halifax, Dartmouth, Peggys Cove and Hubley
 * Northumberland Shore - Antigonish, New Glasgow, Pictou, Stellarton
 * South Shore - Lunenburg, Chester, Shelburne and Bridgewater

 * As for the county articles, I think they should be redirected into the region they lie in. None of these regions exceed nine cities with articles, so it seems unnecessary to further subdivide the regions (at this time, anyway). --(WT-en) Shaund 15:42, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Stay Safe
This is offensive. It gives the impression that if you are black, go somewhere else. I'm not sure what history they are referring to but it no longer exists and has not for many years. I've lived in Nova Scotia for sixty years and have never heard it referred to as 'Mississippi North'. I'm not saying you can't find prejudice (it's in every society) but there is no segregation in Canada and especially Nova Scotia. If you really want people to be safe, warn them about the Black Flies in June.

title: Talk:Nova Scotia


text:
Talk:Novi Sad

Wow! Great article about a really interesting place-- glad to see this area getting coverage as it's getting more and more popular! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:35, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

I find this quite inacurate Serbians often confuse the two words in English because gostionica means both hotel and restaurant.

In Serbian language both words exist Hotel ( Hotel ) and Restaurant ( Restoran ) word "gostionica" is rearly used, altrought it is true that gostionica can be Hotel or Restaurant

Acctualy, "gostionica" is more of a tavern :) and I have never met any Serb mixing it with a word "hotel" ...

"Gostionica" is an archaic word, I'm removing it the article.

Image copyvios?
I just copied in two images from the "Petrovaradin Fortress" article, which is being redirected to this one (per vfd discussion). Other images from that article were found to be copyvios, and while I have been unable to find evidence that these two are, the possibility can't be excluded, particularly in view of the way the "long" photo is formatted. OTOH, they're useful for the article. Can someone do a bit more copyvio checking, and if they're found to be such, take the indicated actions? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:41, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Advertising
Should Wikivoyage be a place for this? I think not. That is just pure advertising, 'cause most of the listed are wildly unknown to Novi Sad inhabitants. I myself live there, and, after seeing your article, I did a poll on pizza in "Dottore per la pizza", and, well, I got only 31/111 people actually liking the pizza there. Later, I also did a poll on Amigos Chicken and Konoba. In Amigos Chicken, I actually saw two foreigners, but the result, anyway, was 26/95 marked it as good. Konoba was, again, with no surprise whatsoever, marked as 8/123, and that, my dear colleagues, completely destroys the sentences: "Delicious fast-food experts (especially this one, which has a quite different meaning in English :D)... Awesome staff, very tasty food."... (if you are wondering, what the hell was I doing, asking people about their meals, don't, I do that for a living) - Stefan (Parolu!) 15:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please plunge forward, feel free to trim down the entries there and list only those listings that is of interest to the travellers. --Saqib (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, see Don't tout for some relevant information about dealing with promotional language or potential advertising in articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I strongly agree with both comments above, but I'll add something.
 * A complication is that a poll of local residents may not tell you much about pizza that travellers might want. e.g. at Zhuhai we have listings for a dozen places then "Pizza can also be found in other local restaurants, including a local chain called Pizza Coffee, but the pizza is not very appealing to Western tastes." For China, the difference in taste is sometimes huge; my guess is that it would be far smaller for Novi Sad, but still perhaps not zero. Pashley (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * You polled 95, 111 or 123 citizens and asked them their opinion of various restaurants and the general feeling among them was that the food wasn't any good. Does that make them right and the original author wrong?

 * In point of fact, there is no such thing as an objectively good or an objectively bad restaurant. In many cases, and particularly in listing blurbs, what our site deals in is opinion. That's why many principles and procedures that are near and dear to the heart of Wikipedia, such as citing sources and original research being off limits, can't apply here at Wikivoyage.

 * I read the reviews in question. Usually it's obvious when the author is a tout, but I saw no evidence of that in those listings. If you, or even many people you know, don't like the restaurant, perhaps you should insert a caveat into the blurb listing some of the place's weaknesses (while maintaining a balance between positive and negative comments, thus avoiding making it a negative review). But my personal policy is to never delete a listing outright unless the place has closed. Because in the end, what do I know? I'm just one guy, and who am I to say that the original author is wrong?

 * The thing to remember is that no one, and no group, is the be-all-and-end-all authority as to whether a restaurant is good or bad. Obviously if an editor who wasn't a tout bothered to come to Wikivoyage and add a positive review of a restaurant, there's someone out there who thinks the restaurant is good. What makes his opinion inferior? Numbers? I don't buy that.

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't object if you'd just tone down those listings a bit, as per your experiences there, and add a few others that you think are great :-) Indeed, listings often reflect a personal experience at a specific moment. Some humble considerations of another's view are good, but listings are subject to change. That's fine. However, the main point is not to criticize current ones, but to focus on finding ever better places. So please, as a Novi Sad guy, point us to the hotspots where all the locals go! ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Stefan, since you and most of the rest of the people you polled in Novi Sad think this place sucks, please delete the listing. Subjectivity of opinion is not the issue here. To be "objective," we'd have to list everything indiscriminately, and one of Wikivoyage's non-goals is to be an undifferentiated listing service (traditionally called "Yellow Pages" in many places). This is an avowedly subjective guide and should not list non-notable restaurants or pizzerias that not only suck, but suck according to a consensus of locals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * @Ikan Kekek - to quote from Avoid negative reviews:

 * "If a destination has only a few reviews (or a few accommodation options), and some are negative, do not delete them — some information is better than none."

 * If we regard the people Stefan questioned as analogous to "reviewers", which I think is fair, the above clause would apply. 32 out of 112 people "reviewed" Dottore per la Pizza positively; 26 out of 96 "reviewed" Amigos Chicken positively (in both cases, including the original author among the totals). Those are not majorities, but they're not unanimous condemnation either.

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Novi Sad has a long list of restaurants. It's not in the interest of travelers for this guide to list any which most locals who were polled dislike. If we listed every business that a few people liked, this guide would become a Yellow Pages. Someone likes every place that's in business, right? Or at least they're OK enough with it to patronize it. I really couldn't more strongly disagree with your reasoning here, on the basis that the interest of the traveler and non-goals guidelines trump the argument that if most locals think a place is mediocre or worse in a large city with lots of listings, it should remain listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

History
Recently I added the history section that was separated into different subsections like Ancient history, Founding of Novi Sad, Bombing in 1999, etc. Each subsection had only a sentence or two but I think these give a good overview of the history and allow people to easily jump to the part they are interested in. Is there a reason why the subsections were removed and merged into one section? Should there be more than a couple of sentences to warrant a subsection? --NinaZizakic (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 * You're talking about this edit, right? I do feel like in that version, there are too many really brief sections, which makes it harder and not easier to read. (For whatever it's worth, I wrote the "Understand" section of Manhattan/East Village, and you can see how long I made the subsections.) The other issue is that another user was concerned that perhaps this text might have been copied from somewhere else. Was it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm talking about that one! Fair enough, I am pretty new to this. I have taken some (parts of) sentences from different sources (mostly Wikipedia page of Novi Sad and Visit Novi Sad page, however I have compressed it to a much shorter text. (I know that I get bored and stop reading a History section on a Wikivoyage page if it's too long.) --NinaZizakic (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 * That's cool. It's always a good practice to mention your sources in an edit summary (type it in the "Summary" box below your edit screen) and say that you compressed content from those pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Novi Sad


text:
Talk:Novosibirsk

We (me (27) and my friend (21)) are going to travel to Novosibirsk in mid 2008 to see a solar eclipse. Gonna travel by train from czech republic to Moscow and then by Trans-siberian railway to Novosibirsk. We are two now, anyone from europe to join us??? Please leave a message here or mail to multimotyl@gmail.com. Thanx!

title: Talk:Novosibirsk


text:
Talk:Nubra Valley

And I was so hoping this would be a well-illustrated troll... (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:01, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nubra Valley


text:
Talk:Nude beaches

vfd discussion

 * Delete. I believe this is a slippery slope article that has been discussed in the past.  It might, however, be appropriate as a Travel Topic.  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:11, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep but redirect to Naturism. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:15, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. Redirect. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. I was thinking we might even want to keep this on its own, Naturism is different in some ways, but after looking at Naturism, I think this could and should be added there and redirected. --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:25, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Naturism. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:15, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to naturism. --(WT-en) Evan 15:08, 31 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Nude beaches