text:
Talk:Northern Ireland

Stay Safe
This section is in need of monitoring. I have rewritten the first part of the section. What I replaced was poorly written nonsense that wilfully glossed over the problems that unfortunately still blight our little corner of the world. The statement that the likelihood of Islamic terror attacks in England might outweigh that of dissident attacks in NI is statistically ludicrous and simply not true by any standard.

Visitors to NI are still anxious about the security situation, and this is a shame. However, we do them no service at all to claim that news accounts about the province are 'sensationalised'. I would argue, in fact, that NI issues are given very little air time on UK news programmes. Also, the notion that security alerts do not affect tourists is a lie - look at recent targeting of Santander branches by bombers and car bombs in Derry/Londonderry that force the evacuation of tourist hotels.

It is the unfortunate truth that NI is still at a high risk of terror attacks. Tourists need to be aware of this and deserve to know the facts prior to visiting. (WT-en) Jamezcd 12:53, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Social Issues question
Where did you find information about the violence against people of East Asian heritage? I can't find any articles supporting this claim or mentioning this incident.

is comprised of
"comprise" means "include". "is comprised of" is an error caused by confusion of "is composed of" and "comprises", which mean about the same thing. The OED has "comprise of" (obsolete), "is comprised in", and even "is comprised upon", but not "is comprised of". It's common, but wrong. See,. You can also say "consists of". -(WT-en) phma 12:53, 18 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * From the latest online edition of the OED.
 * "    c. pass. To be composed of, to consist of.  1874 Art of Paper-Making ii. 10 Thirds, or Mixed, are comprised of either or both of the above. 1928 Daily Tel. 17 July 10/7 The voluntary boards of management, comprised..of very zealous and able laymen. 1964 E. PALMER tr. Martinet's Elem. Gen. Ling. i. 28 Many of these words are comprised of monemes. 1970 Nature 27 June 1206/2 Internally, the chloroplast is comprised of a system of flattened membrane sacs."
 * They seem to be under the impression that it is fine for use, and sincedefinitive source of correct English I'm willing to go with that. '(WT-en) Ben W Bell 07:04, 19 Aug 2004 (EDT)'

I think that you should put a red hand of Ulster flag rather than the Union Jack as the flag of Northern Ireland, and maybe a smaller image of the Union Jack beside it??

Flag issue
The Red Hand flag is not an official banner for Northern Ireland. Perhaps a Union Jack would be better?

 * The 'Ulster Banner' (St George's cross with red hand in six pointed star) stopped being the official flag in Northern Ireland in 1973, therefore the only flag of Northern Ireland is that of the UK - the Union Jack. If the Ulster Banner is shown then so should the Irish tricolour as neither represent it, but represent the two main communities.
 * I agree with the above. The Ulster Banner has absolutely no official status in Northern Ireland, and should not be represented as the flag of that territory. I am unsure why Sertmann has chosen to revert my edit removing the Ulster Banner, and I wish he would discuss it here.163.1.234.109 22:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Quickbars add very little in a country article, and add even less to these provincal articles.  Just about everyhing on the quickbar is the same as that for the UK, and the couple of items that vary are at best sloppy, and at worst wrong.  The flag is wrong, the government is unenlightening, and the language is unhelpful (Although I am keen to brush up my Ulster Scot).  I'm in favour of ditching the whole quickbar.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Now that you mention it, I'd also be in favor of this--at least for sub-state units. I know the analogy with the UK home nations isn't a very good one, but I think it's instructive that neither Canadian provinces nor U.S. states have the sidebar. It's hard to see how this particular collection of miscellaneous facts really helps the traveller; the whole thing seems more suited to Wikipedia than Wikivoyage.163.1.234.109 14:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

 * I fully support the proposal to strip this article of its quickbar, and suggest bringing up this topic for the other home nations at Talk:United Kingdom.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

 * While I don't object to the removal of the quickboxes for the home nations, let me just say on the account of the Ulster banner, that my reason for reverting is we don't need to take the precautions on this matter that, say, Wikipedia does - I don't want to speak against someone obviously more knowledgeable on the matter than I am - But in Denmark, it is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland when we compete against Northern Irish sporting teams etc. and even FIFA uses it too, hence my reversions - but I do tend to do those a bit blindfolded for anonymous edits on guides like Northern Ireland, Catalonia and Israel. Anyway, now that I got an explanation, please feel free to revert it back. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:47, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

 * After making sure all the info was elsewhere in the article, I removed the quickbar.  Lets see if the move gets acceptance before moving onto the relatively bigger targets of the other UK provinces.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:36, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Naming
I notice we are gathering a Naming section again here. I'll make the point that no visitor to Northern Ireland is going to go there and call it the six counties - that is a phrasing reserved for those who are knowledgeable enough to know the story. Neither is anyone likely to refer to Britain as the mainland unless they are deliberately making a point. Last time this complex series of instructions was whittled down to the fact that visitors should just refer to the place as Northern Ireland - nice and simple. --(WT-en) Inas 17:27, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Citizenship
Frank, nobody argued that there is an NI citizenship, instead they have two (Irish and UK). I think that is relevant for travellers because due to an historic agreement people don't have to decide which country they intend/want belong to. That is part of the culture. You try to make something totally different from it. jan (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Good Friday Agreement says that every NI can be Irish or British or both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity If you don't like the wording, this can be argued but it is true and interesting to see that people can be both and don't have to decide (if they wish so). Such role models could be a good solution for other conflicts. jan (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Frank, when we agree that there is no NI citizenship why you intervene so hard? It is an interesting point and especially travellers from outside of the European context might be interested in the conflict resolution in Northern Ireland. As stated again, i'm open to discuss the wording but it is relevant for travellers to understand on what base this solution is built. jan (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"all citizens of Northern Ireland are automatically granted dual British and Irish citizenship" ! ? !
There is no such thing as NI citizenship, of course. Many folks that are foreign to the North East Atlantic Archipelago/British Isles, do not realise that all citizens of Ireland and the UK have always been able to vote in all elections and stand for the legislatures of both countries and the "Good Friday agreement" did not change that.

There has never been any citizenship bar or test to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, equally, there has never been any citizenship bar or test to a citizen of the United Kingdom becoming the Taoiseach of Ireland.

It was, therefore a complete non sequitur to write in an edit summary: "I think it is relevant because people can political participate in two countries and share that with travellers" there was no obstacle to full political participation before the "Good Friday agreement" and no direct improvement afterwards. The "Good Friday agreement" had (and has) absolutely no effect on political participation - so the question of whether "citizens" can share that untrue perspective "with travellers" simply does not arise.

Citizens of Ireland and the UK have never been treated as "aliens" in either Ireland or the UK and the "Good Friday agreement" did not change that. Notwithstanding the complexities of the agreement, very little of it is relevant to visitors, apart from the greater feelings of safety and peace it has produced. I'm not going to revert this silly nonsense inaccurate and irrelevant edit, but perhaps someone else can research the position and correct this double reversion so we don't appear less authoritative and irrelevant than we need to. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm German and, if I'm a visitor to Northern Ireland, I couldn't give two hoots whether the person who serves me in a Belfast bar has an Irish, British or Lithuanian passport. The citizenship of the locals is simply not relevant to most travellers.

I'm German and if I, leave my abode in Glasgow and, become resident in (or a citizen of, in another meaning of the word) Belfast, the "Good Friday agreement" changed nothing for me too. Just by living in Northern Ireland for any length of time, I don't suddenly and "automatically" get "granted dual British and Irish citizenship"! I remain a bloody German ! The "Good Friday agreement" did not materially change the naturalisation laws of either country.

The only important thing that the "Good Friday agreement" changed regarding citizenship was the right of either the Irish or UK governments to withdraw citizenship in the future as a result of changes in the status of Northern Ireland. Nobody either gained or lost citizenship as the direct or indirect result of the "Good Friday agreement" whether they were born there or were just long time residents.

That's why I reverted this irrelevant and factually WRONG addition and why someone else should now remove its re-addition and then, if they think it vital to a travel article on NI propose alternative wording below so that wording can be checked for both factual accuracy and relevance. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Would a good compromise be perhaps to say residents rather than citizens? --Nick talk 22:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Blessed are the peacemakers, Nick, but unfortunately "all residents of Northern Ireland are automatically granted dual British and Irish citizenship" is just as wrong and just as irrelevant to most travellers. If you follow both my edits and sermons, you know that I rarely revert anything that is not a copyvio or vandalism. This phrase was neither, but I can see no way to rescue either its accuracy or relevancy - or I would have done so already. That's not to say it's impossible - just that I don't know how to do it. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 * First of all, I understand this edit was added by the user TheDog2, who actually seems to go around all the countries in the world adding 'quick facts'. I often have to fix the ones he/she does in South Korea. Secondly, the statement is in fact false. People in Northern Ireland are not automatically Irish citizens, however they are free choose to be British, Irish or both as they so choose: (from the Wikipedia page on the Good Friday Agreement)

 * "...it is the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly [the two governments] confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."

 * I would just change the text to say that "People born in Northern Ireland are free to choose British Citizenship, Irish Citizenship, or both". Any objections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * (Edit conflict) That's certainly much closer to the truth and if that was what had been originally added I wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

 * (Edit conflict) However, if your parents are (for example) both Iraqui asylum seekers without permanent residence rights in either Ireland or the UK and you are born in Belfast, that would still be an incorrect statement (ie you could not choose British Citizenship nor Irish Citizenship) since the Irish nationality laws were changed from a pure jus soli (the right to citizenship of the country of birth) basis on 1 Jan 2005 and the British nationality laws have been subject to a whole series of successive changes since 1 Jan 1983.
 * (Edit conflict) Nationality law is a really complex subject (British nationality and right of residence laws are now probably the most complex in the world) and I really think we do more of a dis-service by mentioning them at all. I'd hold that view (ie we need several pages to explain the topic adequately) if we were an encyclopaedia; since we're a travel guide, I still think the whole topic of the nationality of the locals doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I really don't think that a more accurate passage such as: "People born in Northern Ireland were free to choose British, Irish or any other nationality according to the relevant nationality law; the "Good Friday Agreement" did not change that. Ireland and the UK, in common with many Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries, raise no problems with its citizens also holding other nationalities." is either needed or relevant and the offending passage should simply be removed as factually wrong and irrelevant. --W. Frankemailtalk 10:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I just went ahead and changed to: "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland may choose British, Irish or duel citizenship." I hope this is now accurate and will allow us to focus on the travel guide aspect of this? :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andresssi2: Thank you for your effort! jan (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no huge urgency to add these kind of passages. Let's try and agree a passage that is both accurate and relevant here on the discussion page before adding (or not adding) it to the article.

You asked for objections a couple of hours ago, Andrewssi2, and while I was writing my objection you went ahead and added another wrong passage. Please actually read the agreement (http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf) and then tell me the part that actually changed the nationality régime NOW (rather than in some hypothetical future)? --W. Frankemailtalk 10:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Sorry that I was too hasty in the edit, although rather than read through the whole 'Good Friday Agreement' I simply referred to the wikipedia entry on the same subject. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity ) and I don't agree that my change was wrong.
 * Now, the statement I wrote was actually slightly incorrect. It should be: "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland with at least one British or Irish parent may choose British, Irish or duel citizenship.". This is still simplified, since the UK holds that all people born with a British parent are automatically UK citizens (who may however renounce this citizenship) and the Republic of Ireland extends Irish nationality to those born in Northern Ireland who wish to take on Irish citizenship. Still have objections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * BTW, the 'Good Friday Agreement' (as you say) is not a law in itself. The constitution was subsequently changed in the Republic of Ireland to adapt to it in 2004. (The British law did not require a change). Does this meet your criterion for a change in the law? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't know why this is so difficult. I suspect it is because people are just taking a few moments to read Wikipedia's (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) summaries rather than putting in the hours of study needed for this complex subject. When I was running a company, back in the nineties and noughties our HR department and myself put in weeks of study finding loopholes to gain Irish and or British nationality for Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan programmers that we wanted to import - that's why my own knowledge of this complex topic is not insignificant.
 * There are at least two reasons why your suggested phrase should not be added.
 * Relevancy We have (previously) managed to have a relatively small and condensed "History" section. The part about the Good Friday agreement already occupies about 20% of this whole History of Northern Ireland section:
 * "In 1998, after years of sporadic negotiations between the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the paramilitary groups and local political parties, The Agreement was signed, signalling the end of violence in the province. This is often referred to as the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement after the place or day on which it was signed. Although there was an almost immediate drop in the level of terrorist acts and rioting, it took several years for stability to settle on the region and for agreement to be reached concerning the devolved government."
 * I simply fail to see how adding a section on nationality law is either relevant or proportionate.
 * Accuracy Please see above where, many times, I point out that the Agreement changed NOTHING as far as nationality law or passports. It may have an effect in some hypothetical future where NI became an integral part of the Republic since the agreement would forbid either government changing their nationality laws to withdraw UK citizenship from those folks who were already entitled to it by virtue of birth in NI before the border change. I'm sorry to labour the point, but please find and quote me the part in the Agreement which means "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland with at least one British or Irish parent may choose British, Irish or duel (sic) citizenship." I really don't think you even begin to appreciate the nuances of the nationality laws here (which were not changed by the Agreement). Let's take my Iraqi asylum seekers without permanent residence rights in either Ireland or the UK as an example and change their nationality to Rohingya Muslims, who are not recognised as Burmese citizens and can not acquire Myanmar passports. If their sprog is born in Belfast, he would not have "at least one British or Irish parent" but the sprog would still be entitled to both British and Irish Citizenship not because of anything in or not in the Agreement but because when the Irish nationality laws were changed from a pure jus soli (the right to citizenship of the country of birth) basis on 1 Jan 2005 (and the British nationality laws since 1 Jan 1983), both legislatures inserted "lifeboat" clauses to ensure that any child born that would otherwise be without a valid citizenship, would still acquire jus soli rights.

 * Now, turning to Wikipedia. If you read it carefully (and bear in mind that it is a fallible summary and not the original agreement - which was, perhaps, deliberately ambiguous) it says "Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland, the right of people in Northern Ireland "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold either or both British and Irish citizenship) was recognised." Note that word "recognised". Something that already existed was "recognised" - not established or re-established or changed. I repeat (probably ad nauseam by now) THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CHANGE, OR PURPORT TO CHANGE, OR ENCOURAGE CHANGE OF, NATIONALITY OR PASSPORT LAWS.

 * The changes to the Irish Constitution actually weakened the rights of people born in Northern Ireland to an Irish passport if they did anything at all directly regarding nationality. The old wording of Article 2 was
 * "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."
 * The new wording, adopted as a direct result of the provision in the Belfast Agreements, was to allow the people of Northern Ireland, if they wish, to feel included in the 'nation' without making what might be perceived as an extraterritorial claim:
 * "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage."
 * It is at least arguable whether the 2005 law change was unconstitutional, since if you're deprived of the right to an Irish passport because at least one of your parents isn't British or Irish, I don't see how that squares with your constitutional right "to be part of the Irish Nation"!

 * --W. Frankemailtalk 11:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, you make a big fuzz about a small thing. I think the phrase Andrewssi wrote is valid for more than 90% of the people born in NI. There are always loopholes when people gain or lose citizenship. If people don't have legal resident rights, common sense tells every sane people, that there will be trouble with the citizenship for the kids. See Hong Kong and pregnant Chinese mums for just one example. I think we need to see the realities, there are asylum seekers in NI but there are a tiny community in relation to the entire community. Based on Project:No_advice_from_Captain_Obvious everyone knows that generalisations always apply to the majority of cases but not each and every individual case. jan (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * That wouldn't be obvious at all to an American, because in the US, it doesn't matter at all who your parents are or how they got to the country: If you are born in the US, you are an American citizen, period (unless you renounce your citizenship). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * And the other point is that if what Frank is saying is accurate, the agreement didn't change these laws, anyway. I know we're not trying to give people immigration advice, but I don't agree with intentionally posting incorrect things, if that is what you propose to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Frank, I think you are taking a very simple situation and making it extremely complicated. The intention of my statement was to reflect accurately what does indeed happen today, that generally people born in NI can (legally) choose their nationality or nationalities. I would suggest working towards a simple alternative to my statement rather than throw around arguments about Rohingya muslims. In any case I don't see how this discussion can be steered back onto a constructive path and therefore I respectfully withdraw from it.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (same time edit as Andrewssi2) Ikan, as stated above, i'm happy about any change in wording. I think the Good Friday Agreement and the whole NI issue is a good case for peaceful conflict resolution. I think it is noteworthy to say that people do have dual citizenship because inclusive societies has not been the standard in Europe for decades (see conflicts with the Basques etc.). I liked Andrewssi2 formulation because it is simple but made others can phrase it better. jan (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the dual citizenship thing is interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I don't know is how to make a reasonably simple, interesting statement that is still accurate. That's really above my depth, as I have no knowledge about British and Irish citizenship laws. Is there any relatively simple explanation on Wikipedia that we could quote or paraphrase with a citation? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One of Alice's family members is entitled, as a matter of law, to passports from 7 different countries simultaneously - it's an interesting topic but not really appropriate in a travel article about Northern Ireland. It might make an interesting travel topic - leaving aside the topic of Jewish mums, did you know that if you go and learn terrific Turkish, even if you have no other connection to Turkey, there is a procedure for claiming a Turkish passport? --W. Frankemailtalk 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but that would be an interesting thing to briefly mention in the Turkey article. Why do you think the choice of dual citizenship for such a large percentage of the Northern Irish population isn't an appropriate thing to mention? Not everything in the articles on this site is of obvious practical use to travellers; some of it (notably, a lot of the content in "Understand" sections) is merely interesting information that helps give readers some context to understand a bit about the place they may visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ability to claim an Irish passport is not limited to (probably) 98% of Northern Irelanders. Most people in Great Britain can also claim an Irish Passport if they want because they have a parent or grandparent with an Irish connection and the same "loophole" is taken advantage of by many Australians, Canadians, Kiwis and Sotuh Africans on their big "Overseas Experience" (OE) each year. Yanks are buggered, of course, because of their Zimbawean-like citizenship laws which means their conscious act of free will in applying for an Irish passport means they may lose their US citizenship. --W. Frankemailtalk 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have two reactions to this: (1) I think you just came up with a good formulation for the article: 98% of Northern Irelanders can choose British, Irish, or dual citizenship. (2) There's no harm in stating that everyone (or most people, however it works out) who can show they have a parent or grandparent who came from Ireland can claim Irish citizenship, but that should be mentioned in the Ireland article, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the thing about US citizens risking a loss of their US citizenship when applying for a foreign one is just simply not true. In fact it's really really hard to get rid of US citizenship. Once they have you they really don't want to let go. -- Mark (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I think that's broadly correct, Mark. The Philippines changed their dual allegiance laws in a similarly weasel worded, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too way, relatively recently too. This is good news! The number of Paddies can increase exponentially! However, I still don't see the relevancy of any of this for our NI article - even if we could write something that was both short and accurate. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Restore the "History" article text to the position it was in before this discussion began: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&oldid=2395410#History

Start a new travel topic article entitled Multiple citizenship and legitimate foreign passport acquisition and then link to the Irish and British subsections from the "Get in" section of this NI article.

Any objections (hopefully that do not just reiterate the arguments in the main section) ? --W. Frankemailtalk 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Just to make sure I'm reading this right, is the only change you're proposing to make in the Northern Ireland article the deletion of the following sentence? "As part of the agreement, all people born in Northern Ireland may choose British, Irish or dual citizenship."
 * Yes. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I will say that I do think your proposed new travel topic is a travel-related topic because having multiple passports can make travel to certain countries easier, safer - even possible instead of impossible. But I tend to take a broad view of the scope of allowable topics, and therefore, I would say that this proposed topic should be discussed before any writing about it is begun. I can't think of anyplace more appropriate than Requested articles, but maybe someone else will have a better idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Frank, maybe i don't get the point: Where do you compromised concerning the article? jan (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I can't read for you, Jan, you'll have to do your own research on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the current (protected) text that you reverted to.
 * I don't think I wish to interact any further with you, but it's nice to see that you're taking an interest in Turkish currency now, too.
 * What are your concrete proposals, please? (If you don't reply, I will assume you favour letting the current inaccurate statement stand). --W. Frankemailtalk 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually we have a status quo bias and since User:The dog2 has not written here in support of her original edit and even you now concede it was inaccurate, I do think that's the sensible way to proceed. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank, so many false accusations on one day? I didn't say the sentence is inaccurate but that i'm open to rephrase the sentence. I believe in the content and i don't depend on own formulations. Please mind your words, in my opinion you are almost asking for a block. jan (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, there's no polite and euphemistic way to say this, Jan: you don't seem to understand what is being written here. If you still think "the sentence" is - in any sense or substantial degree - factually accurate, then you've either not bothered to check the facts or read or understood what you read and that is written in the sections above. Email me in German and perhaps I can explain better in our own language the intricacies and complexities of UK and Irish nationality laws and whether or not they were changed to any material degree by any part of the "agreement"(s) signed by two state actors and eight non-state actors in Belfast in 1998. Good night.
 * Whoops, I forgot: What are your concrete proposals, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 21:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * You seem to be having trouble discussing this topic in a dispassionate way, but I would nevertheless ask whether there's a factual problem in simply asserting the following, making sure it is not ordered in such a way that the reader would associate it with the Good Friday Agreement: "It is interesting to note that about 98% of Northern Irish can choose to be either British, Irish, or dual citizens." This could be followed up by a link, eventually: "For more information on how to legally acquire multiple citizenship in different countries around the world, see the Multiple citizenship and legitimate foreign passport acquisition topic." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem as to fact and if you really think it's appropriate (but surely not in the "History" section), I'd suggest this slightly shorter, punchier and historically accurate tweak:
 * It's interesting to note that most Northern Irish have, for nearly 90 years, been able to choose to have either or both British or Irish passports.
 * Good night. --W. Frankemailtalk 21:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Would the end of the "People" subsection be the best place to put it? It seems to follow from the rest of the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. --W. Frankemailtalk 21:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and insert that language, but I'll leave out the content about the proposed new travel topic for later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the acceptable wording and positioning. I think the travel topic is an interesting one, but Alice is the more knowledgeable person to start it rather than me - especially given Alice's practical airline industry perspective and experience (where most check-in staff now have to do the practical work of immigration officers or their airline is fined megabucks for flying passengers without the relevant visa/entry requirements) and multinational family background. I think someone will need to apologise for the nonsensical sock puppet allegations before Alice ever edits here again, though. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of administrators privileges
Although I actually agree with part of the sentiments expressed in the protection summary, I do not feel it appropriate that User:Jmh649 (Jan) - a "participant" in the discussion above - unilaterally and, without warning or request from others, protects our Northern Ireland article four minutes after making this revert. If Jan felt, after prior discussion on this talk page, that protection were necessary, then he should have recused himself (as an active participant in edit warring) and asked another admin to make the protection.

For the record, Jan's previous reverts to this article included:
 * http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=2420582&oldid=2419991 and
 * http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=next&oldid=2420589 and
 * http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=next&oldid=2421180

--W. Frankemailtalk 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frank, you are completely wrong! User:Jmh649 is James from Canada and was not involved at all in the above discussion. I'm User:jc8136 and commonly called Jan. I think before you claim abuse of rights you get the facts clear. Think a second and say sorry. jan (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys must develop consensus on the talk page. I do not know which one of you is right. This is not about being right this is about procedure. I am Jmh649. Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jan: You're right, I'm wrong and I apologise for my sloppy mistake. So that this unjustified slur does not remain on this talk page, I assume I have everyone's permission to remove this entire section from the page? --W. Frankemailtalk 14:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frank, lets keep it on the page as the solution was easy and i'm rather more amused than offended. As James said discuss a consensual solution with others and not try to find dividing points. If the result is that we converge towards a solution we all learned a valuable lesson. jan (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Region map
I understand why it is various shades of green but it really does not help the reader. Could someone create a new version with more distinguishable colours. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * For equal treatment, dare we use orange for some regions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do you mean politically-speaking? I'm not sure it would be appropriate, considering all the baggage that comes with the colours. Is there anything stopping us using a different colour for each region, like we would in a country article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the colours wouldn't matter if the region names were incorporated into the map. It's not like there's an excess of detail they'd be covering up! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, I was making an ironic comment about Northern Irish politics. It's probably best for us to avoid both green and orange and use only other colors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Using either or both is fine, as long as they're used alongside other neutral colours. Sorry, I missed the humour in your comment --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Very easy to miss, as my humor was wry and without emoticons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Almost 4 years later, this still hasn't been taken care of. Would anyone like to use colors other than green and orange on the map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Scallions and craic
I have reverted two edits made by anonymous User:45.116.182.57, concerning the words "scallions" / "spring onion" and "craic". I have also invited him or her to come and chat, rather than engaging in an edit war across different IP addresses.

Regarding the recipe for champ, I have found recipes (here, here and here) that use both terms interchangeably. Since scallions and spring onions are essentially the same thing, but the word use varies all over the world, I feel it is entirely justifiable to include a note in the article like this: "scallions ". If people would prefer, it could look like this instead: " spring onions ". The combination doesn't matter, but both words should be included so as to best serve the traveller.

Now, regarding "craic", and whether or not it should be noted that it doesn't refer to drugs (i.e. crack). The words 'crack' and 'craic' sound identical, and if a traveller is unfamiliar with the Irish term, there is potential for misunderstanding, as other pages directed at people unfamiliar with Irish culture note. Once again, I believe noting ""craic" (a good time/fun/a laugh, with no connotations of any controlled substances whatsoever.)" is the best way to serve the traveller.

Hopefully, we can come to an agreement. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Craic is used in Ireland for good chat. Scallions is the local word for spring onions. Scallions are integral to champ Crann20 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
I do not understand this sentence:
 * In the 2016 vote on leaving the European Union ("Brexit") that resulted in an overall majority of just under 52% of those voting in favour of leaving the United Kingdom Northern Ireland as a whole voted in favour of staying inside the EU.

Was there a vote to leave the United Kingdom or should that be the EU? Is what is meant simply that a majority in Northern Ireland voted "stay", while a slight majority overall voted "leave"?

--LPfi (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * The vote was on whether to leave the EU. It won in the UK, overall, but was heavily opposed in Northern Ireland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is my understanding also, but I find no way to read the sentence in that way. --LPfi (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I have a busted 3rd finger. Why don't you edit it for accuracy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I thought there might be some point that I had missed, so was not confident enough to do it myself. Thanks to Ground Zero, who fixed it. --LPfi (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MPs
From what I've heard, Sinn Fenn MPs are usually forbidden from taking their seats in Westminster because they refuse to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen. How true is that, and is it worth a mention? The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.irishpost.com/news/gerry-adams-confirms-sinn-fein-will-not-swear-allegiance-queen-take-westminster-seats-125111 It's true, but I have no opinion regarding inclusion in the article. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the Loyalist/Nationalist questionnaire covered well here. This is just one more element, of very many, that could be added, but why this one and not others. This is hardly the most important of the issues in this conflict. Let's focus on adding only the most important stuff, not everything that we happen to stumble across. Ground Zero (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid Box needs updating...
Have the restrictions here been eased slightly? The linked portal seemed to give a 24th May date for a further easing?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Londonderry / Derry
I think the county and city should have dual naming this would respect both cultures. Crann20 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Strongly Oppose That'll just make it confusing. And remember the traveller comes first SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Then Bombay would still be the name of mumbai. We need to be respectful and not be ignorant. Crann20 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Also you dont understand the problems in Ireland then Crann20 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Please don't assume that I don't. And for the respect, yes, I've had the temptation to move Hobart to nipaluna because that's what it was originally called by the Aboriginal people but can't because the traveller comes first. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage follows the compromise adopted at Wikipedia (after a long debate).
 * "a compromise solution was proposed and agreed in 2004 regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, and has been generally accepted as a convention for both article titles and in-article references since then. Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles."

See Talk:Derry. No changes should be made to the name of the city or county without discussion and consensus. Unilateral changes will just lead to edit wars. I will revert any changes made without consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I'll do the same. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into this, but would just point out that (1) both the Derry and County Londonderry articles prominently feature the other name and discuss the naming dispute, and that (2) Northern Ireland uncontroversially lists "Derry, or Londonderry".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThunderingTyphoons! The articles address the dispute well. This compromise has been in place at Wikipedia since 2004, and Wikipedia is a place where people are more likely to take offence. We're just a travel guide. If we are offending anyone, at least we are offending both sides equally. Ground Zero (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I expanded both the city and county "Understand" as the name dispute goes to the heart of their history and configuration. Grahamsands (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New history section
A new history section was written by Crann20, partitioning off the old one under the People subheading (the first part is indeed on the people, but that paragraph is just an introduction to the paragraphs on history that follow). The two paragraphs on older history might be worth including in some way, but they cannot just be thrown in. I copy edited them before realising they don't fit the rest of the sections, saved and reverted all of it. Check whether something should be salvaged. –LPfi (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 * The current People section is odd, as much of the description is in History and, especially, in Respect. Something needs to be done. –LPfi (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lpfi, yes people needs reworking as there is duplication, as both contain history Crann20 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The people section should be about the two cultures British and Irish. The history section should be more about history. I have written three episodes as they are the three events that help a traveller understand this region Crann20 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Work concluding
All cities and county pages in NI and RoI are now high-grade Usable. I therefore intend closing up the NI Expedition and Ireland Expedition pages, see Ireland: Talk. Grahamsands (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work. I don't know if any other country expedition pages have completely closed, and it may be useful to leave the expedition page so that the links can be used for maintenance purposes. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I'd definitely leave the pages up, as they could be used to motivate work to make the articles guide-level at a future point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Archived" seems like the compromise here. Outdated and irrelevent material should be cleared from substantive pages, and I suspect I am not destined to understand why that doesn't apply to expeditions. Nothing in this precludes expeditions with different aims (eg better pix) but it will be a remarkable wikivoyager who is motivated by a pile of obsolete metrics. Grahamsands (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Orange walk in the "Do" section
If there's still a need to include a sentence like "it's still a gutsy Catholic who would join one", is it really wise to be casually recommending joining orange order marches as if it were a fun and interesting thing for tourists to do? It's still widely seen as a sectarian provocation parade. I for one don't think that's really something visitors should be encouraged to get involved in. 2A00:23C2:F002:D301:50E8:2CE:590:2DCD 14:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * As a non-resident, that's what media coverage has suggested to me, but a local would know better. But should we rephrase "so catch one if you can" to something that warns of the danger of violence closer to the beginning of the listing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the "so catch one if you can" should be removed. These days the UK wide media doesn't report much on them which suggests they generally pass by safely. I have seen Orange Parades in Glasgow, but have avoided visiting Northern Ireland during the marching season. I say that it would be OK to watch a parade go past, but plan your exit in case things change. I wouldn't join the parade and march along. The "it's still a gutsy Catholic who would join one", refers to locals joining the band but could be reworded. There are also some Catholic parades. AlasdairW (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "so catch one if you can" and "though it's still a gutsy Catholic who would join one". The section is long enough as it is, and not all readers may want to see an Orange Parade. The violence is covered in a later sentence, which may be sufficient these days, but would have been an understatement 25 years ago. You can add replacement words if you wish, but I don't see the need. AlasdairW (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Respect section
This is too long, somewhat repetitive and could be merged with the Stay safe section. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Respect is too long. You should go ahead and edit it down, but I would keep the sections separate, and refer from one to the other to avoid overlap (e.g., "see also the advice in...."). Ground Zero (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers I've had a go at rationalising it. Crookesmoor (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Ireland


text:
Talk:Northern Isaan

VFD Discussion
I think the breaking down of Isaan into sub-regions is unnecessary. I put the following to the Thailand discussion page a few days ago but no one commented, so this may get the ball rolling: ''Isaan, being an "overlooked part of the country" still has very little content in its sub-region articles. Would it be worth considering removing these subregions? At least until the Isaan article is so brimming with content that it needs to be burst into sub-regions (which is unlikely).''

I'm using Northern Isaan as a test case. If it is approved for oblivion, I'll also nominate Central Isaan and Southern Isaan.(WT-en) Travelpleb 05:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Isaan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Renewed discussion
The breaking up in regions is definitely necessary, as Isaan has a total of 24 cities. With a limit of 9 at the Isaan page, many cities were left out of the hierarchy, so I have restated the regions. Not having enough content is not a reason to delete/merge pages, we have many outline articles waiting for content to be added. I also think the VFD process shouldn't be used for region discussions—if you'd like to see changes to the regions, please discuss at Talk:Isaan. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (CET)

 * There was a discussion, a consensus and the page was removed. Isaan does not need sub-regions not because the articles lack content but because Isaan itself lacks content. You say 24 cities as if 24 of Paris or Rome were being lost. These 'cities' are dusty nowhere towns that do not need listing in sub-region articles.Travelpleb (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * We'd get a list of 24 cities under the "Cities" page of Isaan. This is unacceptable following established policy that we sub-divide such regions in regions that can hold 7±2 cities. Isaan is larger than England and Wales combined, so regions are definitely necessary. You're right that Isaan lacks content, but so do many other region articles. It's not a reason for removing subregions. I also don't see where the discussion took place or where consensus was reached.--Globe-trotter (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Noting says that all the non-descript towns in an area have to be listed.134.0.106.94 11:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Most of these are actually provincial capitals, far from "non-descript". And yes, it is policy that all cities are listed somewhere in the hierarchy. For good reason, as else no one could find them.--Globe-trotter (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware that provincial capital doesn't mean interesting or useful. I can't find a policy says that everything must be listed somewhere. Surely just searching is the best way to find something? I can find this though: Geographical unit articles need to meet the criteria for articles too. There should be enough scope in the article to have at least 4 or 5 good quality destinations or attractions, especially for regions. Given the dearth of good quality destinations or attractions in Isaan, I really can't see why you want to split the region up.Travelpleb (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found this about the 7±2 in the Geographical_hierarchy page: This doesn't need to be applied stringently to the lowest level of the hierarchy; if a region has more than 9 cities in it, and there's no helpful way to divide it into subregions then don't split it. When dividing regions, use a breakdown that is most practical from the traveler's viewpoint, which may not necessarily make use of official government divisions.
 * And I think this is a perfect example of not having sub-regions for the sake of complying with that guideline. Isaan, despite my harshness, does have a few things worth seeing. I'm lucky to have seen some of them! However, for the most part it is a big empty nowhere-land that few people visit. A traveler would be best served by a high-quality, comprehensive, single article, guide to Isaan and not three useless, empty, sub-region articles and a neglected Isaan article.
 * Overall, concentrating only on the Isaan article makes the most sense in this case.Travelpleb (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the problem is this: you think there's too much here for one region article. I think there not enough for one region article and three sub-region articles.
 * What if Isaan were not split into sub-regions but into two first level regions? These could be approximately central and northern Isaan combined and southern Isaan separate. Two such areas would be distinct in terms of:
 * Travel logistics - particularly rail
 * Geography - Dangrek Mountains and Khorat Basin in the south vs. Chi River in the north
 * what to see - Angkorian temples are in the south
 * Culture - there's a Khmer influence in the south
 * Any thoughts on that? Travelpleb (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Northern Isaan


text:
Talk:Northern Laos

how can i get to the ancient ruins of the souvannakhomkham in nth west laos from houay xai?

Regions
I've added the provinces in Northern Laos but I don't know much about them so please add/rewrite the descriptions if you know more. Also, if anyone is able to create a map of the northern provinces, please do. (WT-en) Rej8 00:38, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * And now they have been deleted without any discussion which I think is wrong. I have reinstated the provinces as a list. We do not need articles for these provinces but it is certainly helpful to list them.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Northern Laos


text:
Talk:Northern Lights

Travel article?
Do we need a separate article for this? It doesn't really fit into Project:What is an article? - you could write about places to go to see the northern lights, but that's pretty much anywhere above a certain latitude. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:41, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

 * I don't think this is necessary either. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:55, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I'm very much in favor of keeping it. Seeing them is most definitely not as simple as getting "anywhere above a certain latitude."  (I'll be glad to expand on this, but be ready for some science-speak -- this gets close to what I do for a living.)  There's quite a good topical article in here waiting to be written; the fact that the existing text isn't that article is a reason to improve it, not delete it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:15, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

vfd discussion

 * Delete. This one doesn't quite fit the criteria of Project:What is an article?.  An argument could be made for an article about places to see the northern lights, but that's pretty much anywhere above a certain latitude.  Comments from others are appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:03, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Before keeping this one, just to be clear, Volcanoes is about safety when visiting volcanoes and includes a list of volcanoes around the world. Waterfalls includes a list of notable waterfalls.  If we're going to keep an article about the Northern Lights it needs to be a travel article, and not just an encyclopedia article about the phenomena.  I'm happy to keep this article, but I think we need to be clear about how this could become a travel article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:50, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * It looks like there may be a consensus to keep, and this article is being turned into a travel article so I'll rescind my earlier vote. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:58, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
 * I have some specific ideas for that; will work on an outline this evening. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. In fact it is not the case that "anywhere above a certain latitude" is good for the northern lights (due to the offset of the magnetic North Pole from the geographical one, if you want to get technical), and this counterintuitive statement is exactly the kind of thing that one can build a topical article around.  It's every bit as valid as Volcanoes, Waterfalls, Hot springs, which have been developed into Travel topics that we're proud to have here; no reason why this one can't be too. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:49, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. We have a "Soccer in Europe" travel topic, why not "Aurora Borealis in the Northern Hemisphere" (so to speak)? Likewise Volcanoes, Waterfalls, etc. In any case, appropriate topic/content, and the intention of the "exceptions" guidelines appears to be to permit articles on distant, large, complex events (again, so to speak) which cannot be incorporated into any single you-can-sleep-here guide. ~ 203.144.143.7 15:23, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. (WT-en) Pashley 20:10, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
 * To be honest i saw articles about Formula One and various articles about Scuba diving, and decided to try to make a rough outline for an article about the Northern Lights, feel free to delete it if it doesn't fit in. I was well aware that the article would be something less than a travel guide when first created and agree it needs more input into places that organise "northern lights tours" etc. However: if someone is interested in traveling to see the northern lights it seems impractical to mention it in individual country articles. Like i said, feel free to delete if it doesn't fit in. If you decide to keep it it would be nice to have at least one picture of the lights and a map showing the northern lights oval (as mentioned above) in relation to the northern hemisphere.

Map?
The article talks about "The Northern Lights oval", the area of most activity. Could we have a map showing both the geographic and the magnetic pole, the oval, and some latitudes? Also, perhaps another for the Southern Lights? I think this would make the whole thing much clearer. Pashley (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, absolutely. I'll work on that. --Peter Talk 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade to guide?
What does this article still need before upgrade to guide? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Guide criteria state:
 * 1) Effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions.
 * 2) If practical, it should contain a listing of relevant destinations.
 * 3) The format should closely match the manual of style.

It looks pretty good on all counts to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * A map would really improve it. Otherwise, I agree it is ready. Pashley (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Just some ideas:

--Danapit (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding a couple of more destination wouldn't harm.
 * The forecast section could grow by adding more region specific alert links or web services (for example by local meteorological institutes, also in combination with cloudiness). But I still don't have a clear idea about the structure of such section, so I didn't start with that.
 * What is the "Into the wilds" section for?
 * I would find a map showing possible geographical observation limits at certain Kp's rather useful, something along these lines (but more global or several of them) - is this what you mean by "a map"?

 * I think the Geophysical Institute's maps of the usual viewing range are the most helpful, but I don't know what their copyright status is. I'll give them a call today once Alaska wakes up.  --Peter Talk 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Plural?
The article currently uses both the Latin plural aurorae and the form following the usual English rules, auroras. This is not a major issue, but ideally it would briefly discuss the fact that there are two plurals, choose one, and use that consistently in the rest of the article. Personally, I'd choose aurorae, but there are arguments both ways. Pashley (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * There may be other minor consistency issues as well; words like "Lights", "northern" and "south" are usually but not always capitalised. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I would be inclined to use -ae for plurals. I am not a native speaker and don't feel qualified to decide whether to use capitals or not, but again, I support strongly their consistent use. Danapit (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I added an infobox on auroras/aurorae and changed all "auroras" outside the box to "aurorae". Pashley (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Very good idea with the infobox. I added some text and bullet points to "Into the wilds" (it was empty so far) and "Photography". Anyone feel free to edit the text. Regarding the pictures in the article, #4 is nice, but I can imagine finding something more spectacular. Danapit (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced the figure #4 for another one. Danapit (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Subheadings
Is there an important reason why almost every subheading is irregular and kind of long? Couldn't "Understanding the lights better" be "Understand"? Couldn't "Planning to see the Northern Lights" be dispensed with, while keeping the 2nd-order subheadings ("Time of year," "Time of day," etc. - so I'd shorten those, too) under "Prepare"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, though I'd just shorten "Planning to see the Northern Lights" to "Planning". Pashley (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Photography questions
Current text is good, but it leaves some questions open: If anyone knows enough about this specific photo problem to answer those, it would be a good addition to the article. Pashley (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What length of lens? Wide angle to get most of the sky? Telephoto to focus in on a small area? Standard or short tele as a compromise?
 * Zoom so you can adjust quickly for different aurora sizes? Or a prime (one focal length) lens because they are generally faster, lighter and sharper for any given length.

 * Churchill has most everything I know about it (not all that much), and might be better in part offloaded to this article. Churchill has most everything I know about not freezing to death while doing the photography, and that I can actually speak to with some expertise. The only thing I didn't mention there is that you can't rely on your car (which you should keep running the whole time) to keep you warm without really good winter clothing/gear, since extreme cold is too much for a standard heating unit to cope with in warming a metal vehicle. --Peter Talk 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * How about adding Churchill to destinations? Danapit (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit of web searching gave reasonable answers to my questions, so I've added them to the article. Pashley (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From a balcony?
I'm lazy and, like any Canadian, I know cold weather can be quite dangerous & very uncomfortable, though it can be dealt with. Unlike some, I am inclined to avoid it whenever possible; I wrote retiring abroad partly because of that.

My idea of the best place to view the Lights would be a countryside hotel room with a North-facing balcony big enough for a tripod or two. Preferably sheltered on the East, West and above, to reduce both wind & light pollution. I would not go as far as trying to photograph through a picture window, but I might do most of my watching from inside and I'd be wondering about remote control of the camera.

Does anywhere set up like that exist? Pashley (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Remote control for the camera is a pretty popular method for photographing the lights in really cold weather. The problem with watching the lights from (most) hotels is that there are interfering light sources at or around the hotel. I know of a couple places that have a set up away from civilization, like these glass domed igloos . The coolest stuff I've seen is in Iceland, where you can hang out in hot springs at night and watch the lights . Although that presumably is a really bad set up for photography, and probably will entail light interference too. But man, that has got to be awesome! --Peter Talk 16:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

More destinations and improve destinations
I like the way the destinations are listed now, always with a short description. However, wouldn't adding some more destinations be a good idea? Covering more countries where aurora is usually observed? We have Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Alaska, Greenland, but some are still missing: Canada (Yellowknife?), Russia (Murmansk?).

Also we should make sure that destination referred to contain some relevant northern lights related information. By specific information I mean more than "northern lights can be observed here"). For example:
 * Yellowknife - contains useful aurora info, but needs some work on listings (some info double: in See and Do categories)
 * Kangerlussuaq article contains still broken links to pictures.
 * Tromsø - many broken links!
 * Skibotn - outline, no northern lights related information
 * Jukkasjärvi - outline, no northern lights related information
 * Kilpisjärvi - no northern lights specific information (is northern lights "see" or "do"?)
 * Inari - no northern light related information
 * Utsjoki - outline, no northern light specific information, (is northern lights "see" or "do"?)
 * Saariselkä - add the glass igloo hotel info
 * Murmansk Oblast - no northern lights specific information

Can we improve on that? Danapit (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I added Churchill, but it does need more. Pashley (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * There are other places that link here. For example, the Isle Royale National Park article says:

 * "Depending on solar activity and magnetic field fluctuations, the aurora borealis ("Northern Lights") is frequently visible. On clear nights, the lack of light pollution offers outstanding star-gazing opportunities at lakeshores where the tree cover breaks."

 * Should it or any of the additional places that link to this article be added, or do we have enough already? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we could add Isle Royale National Park... sorry for the late answer ;) --Danapit (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made this summary of aurora destinations (N Hemisphere for the time being). It would be nice if we had ticks in all fields before we feature NL (end of September). Also less red? Danapit (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Finnish destinations are somewhat over-represented, maybe we can skip one or two. Danapit (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article status
I just bumped it from Usable to Guide, which I think is justified. What would it take to get it to Star? I think only dealing with Danapit's question about destinations in the section above. Pashley (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree it is a Guide now. Danapit (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * It's pretty close to star status now! I'll try bothering the GI Alaska folks again for their maps, since it would be very good to add a nice Southern Lights map. Wikivoyagifying the maps would be nice, and that's something I can certainly help with.

 * I agree that we need information about more destinations for the Northern Lights, per the conversation above. We'll probably want to pare down the number of photos too, as it looks very crammed right now on a wide screen, and some relevant destinations will not offer high speed internet access. We should probably remove the infobox about spelling too, as it's custom to avoid self-references in our guides, unless it's for comic effect. If someone comes along to "correct" the spelling, we can just revert and point to the talk page discussion. And that also will help reduce the cramming. --Peter Talk 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure we need a Southern Lights map, given that we have a map of the Northern oval and a photo from space of the Southern one. Pashley (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I think maps for N and S hemisphere in VW style would be great contributions! Agree with reducing number of aurora pictures (although ít's sometimes easier adding stuff than dumping). I like the infobox idea, but it does mess up the page a little. We could look for a nice picture for the new page banner, too. Danapit (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Searching Commons, I found only one photo the right shape for a page banner. I've put it in.
 * Photos I'd definitely keep:
 * The lead photo; I think it is the best we have.
 * Map and space photo in the Understand section. The magnetic field diagram could go.
 * Both photos in the photography section, since they are both used to illustrate points in the text.
 * The one in the Southern Lights section; it is lovely.
 * I'm not much inclined to delete any and there are several others I quite like, but everything else is negotiable. Pashley (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * That banner is really pretty, but somewhat shockingly (given that it's on Commons) it's not compatible with our Copyleft. The CC license is non-commercial only, and commercial re-use is only permissable under the terms of GFDL v1.2. I'll find something else, or perhaps re-use one of the images already in the article (so we can remove it without losing it). --Peter Talk 19:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * So here are the best two banners I could come up with: and . I think I like the second one best.  --Peter Talk 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd be delighted with either one. Sorry about not helping choose between them. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I like both, mildly prefer the first. Pashley (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Peter, I prefer the first one, but the other is pretty, too. Danapit (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Backup and further edits
I have put a copy of the current page at User:Pashley/Lights as a backup. I know everything will be in history, but for photos I think being able to see them is critical.

Next I'm going to edit a bunch, reducing the photos wherever possible. Then we can talk about what comes next; possibilities include overwriting my changed version with the backup or importing some photos back from the backup. Pashley (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Have a look now. I deleted every photo I thought we might be OK without, plus the spelling infobox and the magnetic field diagram. Since two of the three surviving photos (the lead one and one in photography) were at 400px I then made the third (in Southern Lights) the same size. Pashley (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I feel like you actually deleted too many photos. Auroras are beautiful, and having a few more photos of great auroras is good, although it doesn't have to be as many as were there before. Why do we want so few photos? Is it a file size issue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Reasons are discussed in the section just above, . I agree I took out too many, but it seemed a good idea to pare it right down and then judiciously add to it. First one I'd put back is the one from Quebec in the Alerts section of the backup, mostly because I like the colours. Pashley (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I also would like the 2nd photo taken near Tromso to be reinserted. That's the 2nd one I'd put back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Ikan Kekan, do you mean the one in Photography session? I would like to have that near Tromso picture back. And perhaps the one with the tower (Alaska)? It does not have any unusual spectacular colors, but I like the composition. Danapit (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The file name for the one I'm talking about is "Aurora over Haja-3,2.jpg". It shows a mostly greenish aurora in a roughly semi-circular shape and its reflection over a lake. The one with the tower is also beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I have inserted Aurora over Haja-3,2.jpg and Quebec pictures back. Anything else? Danapit (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I quite like the one from Banff in the "observing sites" section of the backup and I'm tempted to move the Haja one out of the photography section in order to insert the one at the right. A bit of comic relief? Pashley (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Excellent idea with the old photo =) Danapit (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I love it, too! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently there are two sections without photos, Planning and Observing sites. I suggest adding one photo each, and then adding no more; if we later find or take a great shot it might replace something but we want to avoid clutter.

I'd put the Banff shot in Planning, since a tall photo and a long section work well together, and the one with the tower in Observing sites. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree. You're doing a real good progress with the article. What about trying the other page banner? Danapit (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I changed the banner and added the two photos.
 * I'd say this is now ready for a star nomination. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree. Just one question I can think of: Are travel topics supposed to have a notice saying "This is a travel topic" somewhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I put in a tag and User:Traveler100 promptly took it out with edit comment "traveltopic template has been replaced by PartOfTopic". It seems to me he or she is right (though I have not read the discussion); the breadcrumb line shows it is a travel topic so the tag is redundant. Pashley (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Alta, in the far North of Norway, is described in its text as "the Aurora Borealis city" but other than that the article does not mention the aurora or tours. Should it be added here? Does anyone have info that might be added to its article? Pashley (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested above that we stop adding photos once we were at one per section "if we later find or take a great shot it might replace something but we want to avoid clutter." We did find a great shot, the image from space that is now at Northern_Lights (thanks, Danapit!) but now we have two pictures at Northern_Lights. Should we get rid of one photo?

There are only two I'd be willing to lose. I like both, but think they are the worst of a good lot. One is the one with the tower in Northern_Lights. Others have said they really like this, but it does not particularly move me. Just delete it and get the section back to one photo? Alternately, remove the one from Banff in Northern_Lights and move either tower or the Quebec one to that section? I think Banff is an interesting photo, but it is a bit blurry and it is in portrait orientation which does not fit in as well as others.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and removed the Banff shot. If anyone disagrees strongly, that can be reverted. Pashley (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From an aircraft
Another aspect that came on my mind: do we have any pilot here or a frequent flyer to report about observing auroras from the air ? I've never been lucky myself... Danapit (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * My uncle has seen them 4-5 times from planes. What sort of info were you thinking of? --Peter Talk 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, on transatlantic flights the routes seem to be directed a lot toward the North, flying over Iceland or S Greenland. Also from the height one can see further toward the northern horizon. Also you often have low clouds and after taking off you travel above them, which improves the chance of spotting Aurorae (in higher latitudes that is). On the other hand, the windows in planes are tinted and at night people usually tend to cover them. I wonder how frequent it is to actually see Aurorae from planes. Danapit (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I guess it must depend heavily on the route, maybe northerly dusky routes that aren't overnight? I'll check with my uncle where he was seeing them so often—he was actually surprised during a recent family get-together when this came up that no one else had seen them while flying. --Peter Talk 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * He says he thinks he saw them (more than once) while flying over the Great Lakes. The method was simply that the pilot announced that anyone on the correct side of the plane should really open their window shade and take a look! We might mention this possibility, but I'm not sure whether it's something one could reasonably plan. --Peter Talk 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for asking! I will see if we can include something about aurora & flying in the article. Danapit (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I presume that, since they are at quite high altitude, the lights are of zero danger to aircraft. Correct? But could they, or the solar storms they are sometimes associated with, interfere with radio or navigation? Pashley (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * A really powerful geomagnetic storm could disrupt radio communications and possibly turn off the lights in control towers, with more details at Geomagnetic storm. The lights are a byproduct and harmless, though. --Peter Talk 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if it would be worthwhile mentioning the possibility of seeing the lights from Space? I bet they look pretty cool from the ISS! A slightly more difficult and expensive trip, though. --Peter Talk 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 * We do have one photo that shows them from space, in Northern_Lights. There was another (see User:Pashley/Lights), pretty but low resolution. Pashley (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Web search for "aurora space" turns up a number of good images including a higher-res version of that one. Most are from NASA, so license should be OK. Do we have a volunteer to import a good one to Commons then add it here? Pashley (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Will do! Danapit (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * What about this one: ? Danapit (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Wow! I think it should go in the Alerts section, next to the discussion of satellites used for that. Pashley (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I put it in. I'm not sure we have the perfect choice & arrangement of photos yet, but it is really good now. Pashley (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Maybe there are too many, but this is a visual topic! Danapit (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Starnom
In my opinion, there are a few points left. This is from Last minute checklist in Star nominations, so these would be obvious topics for the discussion:

 * A Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked.
 * This is a minor issue: "Listings should be in alphabetical order — geographical order is also acceptable if it is deemed better." We don't have real listings here, but a list of destinations, which we should order geographically. What about N America first, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and S hemisphere last?

And furthermore:
 * Might issues discussed in this section play a role in the decision process? Danapit (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I do not think we need a map specifically showing destinations, given the map of the oval, but that does seem debatable.
 * I've put the destination list in West-to-East order. It would be good to add a Russian destination and perhaps to change the format of the list in the Southern Lights section.
 * The last issue you raise is important and unsolved. Pashley (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * You just anticipated my question. Yes, I do think it would be interesting to include Russian viewing areas. In particular, I'm thinking of Kamchatka, which like Iceland has many thermal baths. I don't know how good their weather is for viewing, however. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Kamchatka is a fair ways away from the oval. The Murmansk area is more accessible, more likely to have lights, and nearer to population centers. Checking, I see Kola as a red link and no mention of the lights in Murmansk, though they are mentioned in Murmansk Oblast. Pashley (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you're right about Kamchatka in relation to the oval. I hadn't been looking at that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I moved the mention of the Murmansk region from an earlier section into the destination list. Pashley (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Re: Russian viewing, I've never heard of anyone going anywhere other than Murmansk. Arkhangelsk might work, as would some other very, very remote and impractical places (like Norilsk), but Murmansk is definitely the destination. The viewing is not going to be as good an experience as in northern Scandinavia, for several reasons, but it's very cheap to go there if you are already in Russia.  --Peter Talk 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Looking at "what links here" for Northern Lights turns up Berneray and Alta. Should they be added?
 * We now have nine lines, but twelve cities since some lines mention more than one. Is it time to start trimming? Pashley (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, they should be added. I don't think the list of cities should be trimmed; instead, geographic subtitles can be added as needed (I'd propose "North America," "North Atlantic islands" [which would encompass Greenland, Iceland, and the Outer Hebrides], "Eurasia" - or perhaps just "Europe," as we have no entries for extremely remote parts of Asiatic Russia). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, Berneray and Alta should be in, too. Danapit (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I am not sure, does Berneray belong to North Atlantic islands or Europe? I decided for the former. Feel free to correct me. Danapit (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the article itself is now entirely ready for a star nomination. I'm not certain if fixes in things it links to are required first, though. Checking Travel topic status I find mostly criteria that I think this article obviously meets: There is only one where I see any possible doubt: To me, the current map seems adequate, but this might be debatable. Pashley (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Covers the topic fully.
 * Layout and listings either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule.
 * Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable.
 * At least one good-quality photo or illustration accompanies the article.
 * If practical (such as for a niche activity), it has a map identifying relevant destinations.

 * The Northern Lights map is OK, but the space image for the Southern Lights is not adequate because it's just a snapshot, which does not show the range. In any rate, I can definitely do better. I keep meaning to call the Geophysical Institute to see if they'll license their maps under CC-by-SA, but never remember to do so during Alaska business hours (I usually edit on weekdays in the morning and late at night EST, when they're closed). They didn't respond to my email. --Peter Talk 19:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Pashley did really great work on the article over the last weeks! I do think it is ready for nomination, let's just wait for Peter's map/maps. Although I would find a set of maps based on those from NOAA webpage most suitable, as they show where to expect aurora at different Kp's, while those from GI show auroral ovals for single Kp s. The NOAA's maps should be free domain, although not necessarily in WV style. Danapit (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I definitely could use the NOAA maps, but they only show the lowest latitude at which they can be seen—they don't show where the aurora will actually appear. If I could get the GI to allow us to use their maps, presumably I could use all of them (for each Kp level) to create a more sophisticated map (or maybe even a dynamic infographic?) for our purposes. --Peter Talk 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reindeer?
In the discussion of hiring a guide at Northern_Lights I just added the sentence "Some offer unusual transport options such as dog sled or snowmobile, and most tourists could not safely drive those." What about reindeer; do Finnish tours offer those? If so, they might be mentioned. Does anyone, perhaps in Russia, use horse and sleigh? Pashley (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Seems anything is possible in Kiruna, Sweden. I bet there would be a tour operator for reindeer aurora safari in Rovaniemi, too. Danapit (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern Lights viewing locations
How close are Patagonia and the Falkland Islands to the oval? I assume South Africa is not close. Any more remote islands to talk about? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Good questions, especially Patagonia. Pashley (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The Southern Lights skew towards the Eastern Hemisphere, so neither Patagonia nor the Falklands are good for seeing them (Kp=9 is super high geomagnetic activity, and only covers the Antarctic Peninsula). Compare with Tasmania and the south of New Zealand, which are still pretty far out. To put things in perspective, look at these maps  & . Kp9 means things are visible at latitudes like Washington, D.C. and London (good luck seeing them from there).  --Peter Talk 18:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Canadarm?
In the caption of the lights from space photo, I said the thing in the foreground was "Canadarm". I'm Canadian and to me, that is obviously the right name; the device is our main contribution to ISS and often mentioned in media here. I was actually surprised that not everyone recognised it. One contributor, however, "corrected" it to "Canada" and then another made it "a robotic arm", which is the current text.

Leave as is? Make it "the Canadarm robotic arm"? Or is that too long? Delete all mention of what's in the foreground since the lights are the point of the photo? Revert to "Canadarm" since everyone "ought to" know that term? Pashley (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The Canadarm robotic arm. I follow Canada much more than most Americans, and I didn't know what the Canadarm was, so whether people "ought to" know that term or not, I daresay most non-Canadians won't know it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I must admit I was also ignorant about the Canadarm existence until I was uploading the picture to commons and I would not say it is obvious to most travelers, so "the Canadarm robotic arm" would be better understandable.

 * I put "ought to" in quotes to indicate that I did not believe it; I probably should have used single 'scare quotes'. I concur with the consensus for "the Canadarm robotic arm". Pashley (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I was a bit sad about the change of name of the section Into the wild, I grew to like it, let's consider keeping it, as it is more poetic than Clothing. Danapit (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I moved the part of that section that dealt with choosing a site into "Observing sites", and what is left deals only with clothing. Pashley (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Consolidate clothing advice?
There is currently advice on arctic wear at Northern_Lights, Churchill, Cold_weather and quite possibly in other places too. The three mentioned have overlapping but not identical advice.

I suggest we move as much as possible into the Cold weather article and reduce the others to minimum text and a link.

A similar question might arise for the photography section. Currently, this article has detailed advice for photographing the lights and both the Churchill article and Travel_photography link to it. I'd say that is as it should be, but a case could be made for moving that text into the photography article leaving just a link here since wide angle lenses are also used for architecture & landscapes. Pashley (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I think it would be best for auroral photography to be covered here, with an inbound link from Travel photography. --Peter Talk 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree on the photography.

 * For clothing, I have merged most of the material from here into the Cold weather article, but have not made any change at Churchill. I think that would be a fine idea, but it needs other opinions. Pashley (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rocket through the lights
Rocket flown through northern lights to help unlock space weather mysteries Interesting, but I am not sure if it should be mentioned in the article. Pashley (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely exciting, but I don't see much use for travelers or aurora photographers. --Danapit (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aurora Train
This Alaskan northern lights train journey is the real-life Polar Express Pashley (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Magnetic pole movement
Our article says the pole is "now near Ellesmere Island in the nearly uninhabited far north of Canada". This article Earth’s magnetic field is acting up and geologists don’t know why shows it quite a ways from there. Do we need an update? Pashley (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Magnetic north just changed. Pashley (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 * One should say something about this, but I do not really know what to say. --LPfi (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Earth's Magnetic North Pole Has Officially Moved Pashley (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I updated the text. I think the "northern lights oval" graphic probably needs change too, since it uses as outdated pole location, & I don't do graphics.
 * Is there a volunteer? Pashley (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Light pillars?
Not Aurora, but apparently also mostly a northern phenomenon. Light Pillars In Northern Ontario. Quite a few photos on Commons. Are these common enough to go in the article? Pashley (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are sure worth adding to some article, but I don't know if this is the right one. The northern lights are caused by electrons hitting the Earth's magnetic field, whereas different halos are caused by light diffracted by ice crystals. Ypsilon (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sidney?
LPfi just moved a link for flights to see the Southern Lights. Even if one is really bad at geography, one would expect flights to see the Southern Lights to depart from Sydney, Australia's largest city rather than from Sidney, Western Canada. Interestingly the listing is in the Do section of the Canadian article, though if you click the link to the flights they will tell you that the flights are from Australia. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Sorry! I just moved the listing according to disambig, without checking what the disambiguation suffix or the city article was about. Perhaps SHB2000 wants to check where the disambig and listing should go. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: Sydney is waaaay to far north to see the southern lights. After all, it's on a similar degree as Florida or Southern California and imagine trying to see the northern lights from there. In saying that though, User:JTdale might know where it's visible from Tassie though, since this article barely talks about the lights in Tasmania. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The listing was about flights to see the Southern Lights, where you step on the plane at SYD, fly south for a few hours, see the lights hopefully and then fly back... --Ypsilon (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know they had them at Hobart but not Sydney. That's interesting. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

At 10 PM or midnight?
Is the circadian rhythm consistent around the globe? Kattimattinen stated that probability (in Finland) is highest at midnight, while they might be seen from 6 PM to the small hours. Here we say the most intense period is 6PM to 1AM with the peak between 10 and 11PM. Is there some time zone confusion? In a global article like this we should use solar time, not local time, while for Finland, in the relevant areas wall clock time is just 0–30 min before solar time. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Lights


text:
Talk:Northern Mariana Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Northern Mariana Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

title: Talk:Northern Mariana Islands


text:
Talk:Northern Mexico

Giant list
Someone added this giant list of border crossings:

There are currently 42 U.S.-Mexico border crossings. From west to east, below is a list of the border city twinnings.

 * San Diego, California (San Ysidro) – Tijuana, Baja California (San Diego-Tijuana Metro.)
 * Tecate, California – Tecate, Baja California
 * Calexico, California – Mexicali, Baja California
 * Andrade, California – Los Algodones, Baja California
 * San Luis, Arizona – San Luis Río Colorado, Sonora
 * Lukeville, Arizona – Sonoyta, Sonora
 * Sasabe, Arizona – Altar, Sonora
 * Nogales, Arizona – Nogales, Sonora
 * Naco, Arizona – Naco, Sonora
 * Douglas, Arizona – Agua Prieta, Sonora
 * Antelope Wells, New Mexico – El Berrendo, Chihuahua
 * Columbus, New Mexico – Puerto Palomas, Chihuahua
 * El Paso, Texas – Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua
 * Fabens, Texas – Práxedis G. Guerrero, Chihuahua
 * Fort Hancock, Texas – El Porvenir, Chihuahua
 * Presidio, Texas – Ojinaga, Chihuahua
 * Del Rio, Texas – Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila
 * Eagle Pass, Texas – Piedras Negras, Coahuila
 * Laredo, Texas – Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
 * Falcon Heights, Texas – Presa Falcón, Tamaulipas
 * Roma, Texas – Ciudad Miguel Alemán, Tamaulipas
 * Rio Grande City, Texas – Ciudad Camargo, Tamaulipas
 * Hidalgo, Texas – Reynosa, Tamaulipas
 * Progreso, Texas – Nuevo Progreso, Tamaulipas
 * Los Indios, Texas – Lucio Blanco, Tamaulipas
 * Brownsville, Texas – Matamoros, Tamaulipas.

(WT-en) Texugo 01:02, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Monterrey montage.jpg

City List
I cut the following text in order to get the city list down to 9 (7+/-2). This area is generally the Torreon area, which is not very touristic, compared to other cities in the region. Also, as written, it's excessively wordy and sneaks in 3 more cities to an already overcrowded list.

"*Laguna metropolis - consisting of three cities with a desert climate, La Laguna is the industrial engine of the states of Coahuila and Durango., in the state of Coahuila, is the largest and most modern of the three, with a vibrant night life. and  belong to the state of Durango: Gómez Palacio is a midsize city, the economic engine of the state, while Lerdo is the smallest of the three. With a colonial charm, Lerdo is famous amongst the people of La Laguna for its abundant vegetation." Mrkstvns (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Mexico


text:
Talk:Northern Michigan

Sleep listings deleted from this region article
All need placing in the correct city article.

 * Cedar Lake Lodge, Traverse City.  4 bedroom home on Cedar Lake.  Includes use of pontoon boat.  Open year round.
 * The Barn Cottage, Arcadia. 5 bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake.  Open year round.
 * School House Cottage, Availability June 16- 23, 2007, Arcadia. 4 bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake.  Includes water trampoline.  Open year round.
 * Farm House Cottage, Arcadia. 4 bedroom home made to resemble a farm.  Open year round.
 * Long Lake Landing, Honor.  4 bedroom home on Long Lake.  Open year round.
 * The Beach House,Frankfort. 4 bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake with sandy beach.  Open year round.
 * Cedar Run River Home, Traverse City. 6 Bedroom, 3 bath home on Cedar Run River.  Sleeps 18. $2,500/week.
 * Waterfront studio log cabin on peaceful bluff so. of SB, minutes to TC. Exquisite GTBay view. Stairs to natural private beach. Simplicity, comfort, charm. May to October: $950/wk on average, some weekends.

Bee Well Meadery
Located in Bellaire. Sucessully funded. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Michigan


text:
Talk:Northern Mozambique

There should be no specific listings in a region article. These have been parked here in the hope somebody will know where to put them.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:24, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Responsible Tourim at its best. The Manda Wilderness Project (www.mandawilderness.org) incorporates essential community development, conservation and world class eco tourism.

 * Remote lodge with several projects to support the local community. www.mbunabay.ch

title: Talk:Northern Mozambique


text:
Talk:Northern Norway

I would like to make some contacts and new friends that could assist/help me in my quest to make a Trip to the most Northern Place in Norway !!

I think this is Norkapp ? However I have been told that there is not a lot to see there ? and also the road is closed in March so I would not be able to drive there !!! (Could and One Help !! Heard you could take a boat and come back on to the Island that way and then drive to Norkapp ? is this possible?)

I am a Disabled guy that uses a wheelchair !! I am very strong minded and strong willed and determined to make my Dream life time trip come true ! as long as it will be safe and possible to achieve in March 2009

I will be driving a Large 4x4 and wish to include a # Dog/sleigh Trip in the North, a Visit to the Polar Zoo and do some Sit Skiing with my bob/chair.

Any Help, contacts and advice anyone has would be very welcome thank you in advance for this.

Kind Regards

Anthony Cardiff Wales UK

E175
Shouldn't it be marked as E75 on the map, or am I tripping? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Okay, it seems every map I've checked uses E75 – I'll fix this when I get my computer back soon. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Norway