text:
Talk:Cannes

Commercial images
Hi, everyone. Let's discuss the images of the Gaultier store, the table setting at La Palme d'Or, and the Hotel Martinez. Are they sufficiently iconic or interesting to withstand the test for commercial images?

My feeling is that the photo of the Hotel Martinez is pretty and evocative, but its listing is a bit touty ("well-appointed rooms"), and will get a little edit from me in a second. However, if the hotel truly is a grande dame like the Hotel Negresco in Nice (and maybe even if it isn't), I think the photo should stay.

The Gaultier shop window is probably fine, too, because it captures some of the character of the city.

However, I think that the place setting at La Palme d'Or - Michelin stars aside - is nothing special as an image, and that the Hotel Martinez, where the restaurant is, has already received enough publicity in this article, so I would suggest deleting it.

I look forward to hearing your views. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 17:11, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

What needs to be done before a dotm nomination?
I've been looking through Category:Guide articles, and this one popped out to me as a Guide article for a town that has a seasonal importance, both for the Film Festival and the summer season, and which hasn't been featured. Right now, I'm too tired to look through the article with a fine-toothed comb. Is it lacking in any respect, or should we nominate it now? Do any listings need updating? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Price categories, POIs, preferably more places to eat and some Buy listings. There are some zip codes in addresses and several external links that are in the old format.
 * Cannes should definitely be featured in May, when the film festival takes place. That'd be May (or perhaps April) 2016, and personally I try to only nominate articles that have some chance of being featured within one year. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cannes


text:
Talk:Canoeing the San Marcos River

Manual of Style
The Project:manual of style doesn't say a lot about how itineraries should be written, but Project:First person pronouns should still apply. Even if this is currently a personal itinerary, if it's worth putting on Wikivoyage it will eventually be modified by other travelers, and "I" simply won't make sense. (Note the use of quotations marks in that last clause. {smile}.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:58, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I know, but like I said, I'm still writing the primary form. I should get to making them editorial excerpts so they're easily removed/edited, but I'm still trying to think out how I want my submission.  (WT-en) Jordanmills 10:11, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Canoeing the San Marcos River


text:
Talk:Canterbury (England)

Cant. Disc.
Canterbury Discuss.

Discuss. I expect a five page essay here, by monday morning. Now, go!

Page Tidy Up
I have had a bit of a tidy up of this page on Sept 12. I've corrected some grammar and also removed some parts that didn't make sense:
 * I removed the reference to CT as, having lived in Canterbury for four years I have never heard it referred to as that. I believe it only makes things more confusing for tourists.
 * I removed the line about only being able to see things in Canterbury during daylight hours. It doesn't get pitch black there at 5pm ;-).
 * I removed the 'is this for real' comment about The Port Hill - that doesn't exist in Canterbury (England)!

If anyone disagrees with removing the CT reference + the daylight hours then please shout!

(WT-en) Rwatkins 16:20, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Canterbury (England)


text:
Talk:Can Tho

Changed mention of 'beautiful ladies'; this is not cited, vague, and excessive (according to the guiding rules). Also objectifies women. Added mention of the student population and welcoming atmosphere for which it is known.

title: Talk:Can Tho


text:
Talk:Canton

Actually, Canton refers to the city of Guangzhou, not the province of Guangdong.

Revert
I just reverted an edit changing this from a redirect to a disambiguation page. We already have Canton (disambiguation) & it seems to me "Canton" historically referred to the city not the province.

Other opinions? User:The dog2? Pashley (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * "Canton" can refer to either the city or the province, and I have seen it used to refer to both. My hunch is that "Canton" is an English mispronunciation of "Guangdong". The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Either way, the phrase "Guangzhou [...] is the capital of Guangdong Province" comes early in the article (first sentence of the real lead), so clicking on the province there is nearly as easy as clicking it from the disambiguation page – and those trying to reach the city don't have to bother. No need for such disambiguation. –LPfi (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Pashley, we've had so many issues with redirects with this user. Just revert him and there's nothing more you can do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 14:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I've only ever seen Canton referring to the city. There are cities named Canton, such as one in Ohio, but I agree with the redirect to Guangzhou, as that's overwhelmingly the most common meaning for Canton in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I've seen Canton used to refer both to the province ("Canton Province") and the city ("Canton City"). It's an old-fashioned term for both, though – "Guangdong" and "Guangzhou" are much more common nowadays. I'm inclined to think a disambiguation page (including the Cantons in the US) makes the most sense in this case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Canton


text:
Talk:Cantonese phrasebook

The phrase list here is terrible! Cantonese has 6 or 7 tones to go with the sounds. If you don't get the tones, you will not be understood. Why is this section so poor compared to the Chinese phrasebook? There they use standard pinyin and explanations of the tones.

There are standard systems for Cantonese as well. It's harder than Putonghua for sure, but worth doing right.

 * Please plunge forward and make it better then! (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:06, 10 Nov 2005 (EST)

Tones
I belive the tones from 1-6 would be very simple and effective, the Yale ones are screwed and ineficent (WT-en) Enlil Ninlil 23:44, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

nobody really says 你好to say hello. they usually say 吃了反没. if u say 你好, u will sound like a foreigner.

(WT-en) CantonesePod 23:44, 21 Feb 2008 (EST)

This is not true. We Cantonese say 你好 nei5 hou2 a lot. It is quite useful when you do not know or are not sure how to address the other person. We used to use 吃了反没 to greet each other when many people did not have enough to eat. Now all has changed and Cantonese eat way too much and may need to be on diet now.

Romanization
I think you should use Jyutping to write this article. Also, much of the romanization is incorrect. Several of the phrases have incorrect characters, also.

 * What's wrong with you Cantonese-speaking people? Plunge forward and fix it instead of whining here on this Talk page! (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It tends to be extremely useful. 70.190.49.222 15:11, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I've gone through and fixed it all. I have a question though. Should all syllables really be separated? I find that horribly annoying, as many can be put together, such as the language's own name, Gwong2dong1 Wa2 (as opposed to Gwong2 Dong1). Anyway, I ask that this source be referenced: http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/index.html#Contents

 * I would like to wonder whether the Hong Kong chief executive/president of executive council, Donald Tsang, has his Chinese name, Zeng Yinquan, written in Cantonese Yale as "Jang Yam-Kyun"? The Mandarin zeng1 is written in Jyutping, in this case, as "zang1" and in Cantonese Yale as "jang1" (Donald Jang, anyone?). Confusingly, Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanization would romanize this surname as Chang (so that some texts may refer to the man as Donald Chang). Hong Kong GCR could be considered "Wade-Giles for Cantonese" for it lacks some distinctions between consonants, when compared with Jyutping and Cantonese Yale. (WT-en) WikiPro1981X 18:54, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Romanization discussion moved
Yes, Jyutping is more popular and better to use (WT-en) CantonesePod 12:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Google Yale and Jyutping and you'll know Jyuting is more popular. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Yale+Cantonese+Pronunciation http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jyutping+Cantonese+Pronunciation shows big difference.

So we need to change the pronunciation for the phrases here to Jyutping.

The initial j represents /j/ in Jyutping while y is used instead in Yale. The initial z represents /ts/ in Jyutping while j is used instead in Yale. The initial c represents /tsʰ/ in Jyutping while ch is used instead in Yale.

I know that Yale is old and has long history, but the popularity of the New Jyutping is overpassing the Yale system and we believe that Jyutping is good for us promote Cantonese.

"It is multifunctional, systematic, user-friendly, compatible with all possible modern Cantonese sounds, and solely based on alphanumeric characters without any diacritics and strange symbols. Jyutping can also be used as a Chinese computer input method. Its basic principles are simple, easy to learn, and professional. " ( http://lshk.ctl.cityu.edu.hk/cantonese.php ). Let's support the hard work of The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (LSHK) and be united under Jyutping.

I moved this from the article page here — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:05, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Choose the best Romanization system in Cantonese!! Yale Cantonese is out of date and not compatible with Cantonese software. The best phonetic system is the LSHK developed in Hong Kong by the experts from the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, not by some scholars in the West who are away from the majority of Cantonese people. Just watch out for the Yale system supporters such as the one below who probably knows only the old system of Cantonese Romanization.

Choose the best Romanisation system for Cantonese!! Yale Cantonese is current and used in the vast majority of existing texts. (Try finding LSHK material outside of Hong Kong.) The best phonetic system is Yale Cantonese, developed by experts in linguistics, and intended for native English speakers trying to learn Cantonese, not by some scholars in the East who are away from the majority of English speaking people. Just watch out for LSHK supporters such as the one above who probably is a native Cantonese speaker (just like the creators of LSHK) and therefore wouldn't have a clue what it's like trying to learn Cantonese without a native speaking background.

Yale Cantonese.

Just as the most predominant form of Mandarin romanisation is called Pinyin, the most modern, most accepted, and more importantly the most correct form of Cantonese romanisation is Yale Cantonese.

Special note to the person who previously edited this document. You must familiarise yourself with Yale Cantonese! Some of your notions such as the use of "J" for a "y" sound, the use of "c" to indicate "ch" sound, and in particular the use of "Z" (something from pinyin) are just horrifically unintuitive and least indicative of the closest english sounds for speaking Cantonese. To make matters worse, you were also incredibly inconsistent with your romanisation, and a number of your tones were just plain wrong. You are going to cause nothing but total confusion to the beginner. Please learn how to speak cantonese properly, and then learn how to romanise properly. Remember: Yale Cantonese.

Apologies if this is not the appropriate place for this notice, but I could see no other way of making this important point.

For the beginner interested in learning Cantonese, I'd strongly advise finding a text that utilises Yale Cantonese. Fortunately the majority do anyway, but there are a number of other systems out there. Some simply use English to approximate sounds, and then rely on audio to teach the exact sounds. One example is http://www.learnchineseez.com/lessons/cantonese/ which might be a good choice for complete newbies, or those wishing to only learn enough Cantonese for traveling.

I'm a new learner of Cantonese and I find that Yale romanisation to be easier to pick-up to learn to pronunciation of words. I still rely on a native speaker to correct me, but during self-learning it's definitely easier and more intuitive than Jyutping. I thought as user, it would be helpful to have my vote. Thanks for putting your time into this. It's much appreciated.

Use of numbers in jyutping tones:
To my way of thinking, the use of numbered tones is the greatest weakness of the jyutping system.

Cantonese has too many tones ; if you want people to learn it you have to simplify the learning not emphasize its difficulty. Numbers are keynoard-friendly, not speach-friendly. I have no idea how anyone would develop a speaking fluency trying to read around the flood of numbers in

"Cheng2 man6 jau5 mou5 jan4 sik1 gong2 jing1 man2 aa3?" .

In self-study times, the numbers defeat the purpose of romanisation, which is to enable one to READ aloud the written word. They also encourage the common mistake of reading individual words rather than combining them into terms and phrases. Example : in the Yale version " gwong2  jau1   wa2 "   doesn't read like  the spoken  " gwóngjàuwá ".

The accents (diacritics) show the direction of the  tone-pitch intuitively and can be read without thinking 'back into English"  when trying to remember whether jau-"one" is the high-falling jau or the high-level-tone jau .  Even with 4-tone Mandarin pinyyin I find the / and \ and ^  symbols far better for speach, and use the numbers only for keyboarding. Incidentally, the yale "h" marker for a low-tone was an invention of genius. It allows the reader to deal with 3 diacritics ( -, / and \) and clearly signals a low starting-pitch.

The learner quickly tires of hearing "how difficult Cantonese is because it has 6 or 9 tones". Stop making Chinese learners out to be geniuses, and help them to speak. I learned to speak a few understandable sentences in 3-6 months using {Yale} romanisation and a few cassette tapes. The computer age should make things easier, not harder !

74.14.49.168 03:23, 28 November 2008 (EST)John

A job well done
I have looked at the Cantonese phrase book and I think it is very good.

My opinion is that the Yale system is the best Romanization system, if only because it is the most widely used. I have copies of almost every Cantonese language course and the Yale system is the most popular system, by far. It is the preferred system used by Routledge in their very popular course, "Colloquial Cantonese: a complete language course - by Keith ST Tong, Gregory James". It is also used by the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Given that many (most?) travellers will encounter the Yale system, I would argue that we stick with Yale and also edit the Hong Kong pages of Wikivoyage to use the Yale system.

If there are no objections, I will re-edit the Hong Kong pages, using the Yale system sometime in August. (WT-en) Herngong 11:09, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

廿
Why doesn't the list of numbers use 廿? I don't speak much Cantonese so correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been led to believe the usual way to say, for instance, 21, is 廿一 rather than 二十一. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm not a native Cantonese speaker myself, though I can speak enough Cantonese to survive in Cantonese-speaking areas. From listening to people speaking the language, it would seem that both forms are common and understood.
 * Perhaps you guys can comment on this as native Cantonese speakers. The dog2 (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both are acceptable and commonly used. Since 31, 41, 51 (etc.) also use the same format of "three/four/five tens plus 1", I would argue to keep it simple and let twenty be "two tens plus 1" instead of "twenty one". OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Listing both forms may be overkill, but I think that it is useful to have a sentence saying that 二十 is often said as 廿. This is so non-native speakers using this phrasebook can understand the locals when they say 廿. The dog2 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cantonese phrasebook


text:
Talk:Canyon de Chelly National Monument

Canyon de chelly

 * Delete. Solely consists of a redirect to a non-existant page. Other than a campsite, it doesn't appear that there is any accommodation. -- (WT-en) DanielC 14:49, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. It's a fairly popular US National Monument with a lodge and a campground that has some interesting logistics for visitors due to its location on the Navajo reservation.  See  -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:45, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Note that the Canyon de Chelly National Monument article exists now. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:06, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Canyon de Chelly National Monument, which is surely a keeper. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:14, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 19:57, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Canyon de Chelly National Monument


text:
Talk:Canyoning

Canyons

 * http://www.barrancos.tk/ -- mainly in Spain

Literature
Some books are listed here, some of them should be listed in the article: --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:45, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
 * http://www.descente-canyon.com/canyon.php/400/page.html
 * http://www.descente-canyon.com/canyon.php/401/page.html

Glossary
Some online glossaries to sync with: --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:45, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
 * http://www.descente-canyon.com/canyon.php/407/page.html

title: Talk:Canyoning


text:
Talk:Canyonlands National Park

Backpacker Magazine Reference
I added the Backpacker Magazine reference to the Maze district as one of the most dangerous trails in the United States. After reviewing the policy, I see that this is a secondary source. Is the Backpacker reference important enough to merit exception to this? (WT-en) Ezratrumpet 11:24, 11 January 2011 (EST)

 * I've removed the URL since Wikivoyage doesn't require citations, but otherwise this information seems relevant and interesting. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:30, 11 January 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Canyonlands National Park


text:
Talk:Cape Agulhas

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

Comments
We should merge Cape Agulhas and L'Agulhas into Agulhas, I see 2 halve (or less) articles which barely can make one. The cape and the village are less than 1km apart, so why not simplify life a little bit.(WT-en) Babbelas 11:21, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Merging some articles
Looking at the old version of the dynamic map which shows geocoded destinations, I see that this article (Cape Agulhas) and Agulhas National Park are directly overlapping each other and the small town of Struisbaai is almost next to the park. I think it would be more traveller-friendly to merge these three articles into one. --ϒpsilon (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Go ahead and merge. Ground Zero (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a merge but would moving this article Agulhas National Park be better as this is the larger area? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Agulhas


text:
Talk:Cape Breton Island

Hmm. I'd kinda think Cape Breton Island National Park would be a destination per Project:What is an article?. Any reason why not? --(WT-en) Evan 17:05, 15 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * How about cities on Cape Breton? I.e., Baddeck may be big enough for its own destination. --(WT-en) elgaard 12:45, 26 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Static map
I spent the last two days trying to make this the best map I've possibly ever made, and this one's come close to it (I think my SEQ map is slightly better). I've tried to emphasize the difference in highways and road quality, which the dynamic map failed to do (apart from differntiating freeways to non-freeways). Other things I've included are the two ferry routes to Newfoundland. Any other improvements that could be made? All feedback is more than appreciated. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 * And should I nominate this for QI on Commons? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The image is now a QI on Commons. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One more note: all spellings used are the spellings used on OpenStreetMap (this is primarily in regard to Port-aux-Basques). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Banner
Although representative of the island's hilly terrain (and the highlands in the northwest), I'm not too pleased with the look of the banner. Here are three alternatives I've cropped. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 * IDK how typical it is, but I'm a fan of the look of the Cabot Trail winding through the hills. On the other hand, who doesn't like a nice harbour? So, for me: 3 and 1 are about equal; 0 and 2 are both too grainy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I really like 2; the fog adds a sense of scale as the Cabot Trail disappears into the distance, and the shimmering ocean waves make the water a bit more lively. Banner 3 very nicely frames the scenic highway, but I miss the views of the Ocean (it's probably Canada's finest ocean drive, after all). Gregsmi11 (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I like #2 as well. I didn't see much of the Cabot Trail because of the fog. #1 would be my second choice. Ground Zero (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Breton Island


text:
Talk:Cape Canaveral

Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center apparently will not have its own article on WikiTravel, so include any attraction information on this page for Cape Canaveral. (WT-en) Gamweb 14:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
 * To all potential contributors, a new Kennedy Space Center article has been created, so information about the space center should go in that article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured destination?
Could this article make Dotm? Or is anything missing? /Yvwv (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is missing recent information. Many of the mistings were added five years ago or more. Ground Zero (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Canaveral


text:
Talk:Cape Cod

Regional Listings vs Town Listings
There's a lot of information on this page, but I think the vast majority of the lisitings need to move to the specific city pages. As a regional page, Cape Cod should just have a high-level overview of what the region has to offer in terms of restaurants, hotels, etc.

I'm also not sure what to do about the multiple listings of "Bistro At Crowne Pointe" -- I guess it belongs in more than one section, but it starts to look spamy. Should it just be listed once? (WT-en) Majnoona 16:58, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * Yes, any sleep listing should be listed in the town I think. We can't possibly accomodate all the lodging operators here on the regional page. (WT-en) OldPine 09:21, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Grasping for a guideline to use here.
 * Cape Cod Baseball League is obviously regional... they play in 10 different Cape towns.
 * Attractions or businesses using "Cape Cod" in their name?? The art museum displays only Cape art, so that is probably "regional". The Natural History museum is about Cape ecosystems, so fine. Cape Cod Potato Chips? Cape Cod Winery? Not sure. They do rather become part of the Cape Cod experience.
 * Should it just be a highlights page? I think that degenerates as there is no clear place to draw the line. (WT-en) OldPine 09:21, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Use the Cape Cod article for listings that are regional only, however, also highlight various must see sights and must do activities and then provide a link to the article/city that the listing is listed in. For example in Clermont County (Ohio) I list the birthplace of Ulysees S. Grant, but I don't provide a link to the city the house is located in, because there are just over 130 people in that town and there is no point in starting an article for that town. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:29, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Towns & Villages
I have a concern here that this region is listing every village on Cape Cod. For instance, in Bourne, a town that has nine villages, many of them, if not all, are listed on the Cape Cod page. Although many have their own flavor and could stand alone, some do not. Many times I'm not sure whether to build the town with content or the village. How does that resolve? (WT-en) OldPine 12:33, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

 * The guidelines to follow would be Project:What is an article? and Project:The traveller comes first. The usefulness of the guides diminishes if they become too fine-grained, so if the villages are better addressed within the context of the containing town article, my opinion would be to put information in the town article and then create redirects back to the town article for each village.  If in the future village articles are needed then things can always be further sub-divided.  The situation sounds similar to districts within large cities - just because there is a "Little Italy" in Cleveland doesn't mean it gets its own article.

 * That's just my opinion though, I'll leave it to those who know more about the area to make a more educated judgment. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:37, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I removed references in the regional town listing for a bunch of small places and villages that can be covered in their town page. I'm not sure what a redirect involves, but most that I deleted from the Cape Cod listing didn't have outlines or anything. Requesting deletion of Bass River. A question remains with how to handle the town of Barnstable, which is a large area and whose villages are diverse and treated as if they were separate towns in many ways.

 * I am also thinking that Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, should be articled as Islands, not towns, and their towns listed in the article (maybe even as outline sections?). A week on either island and you can do it all.(WT-en) OldPine 14:40, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Regions and towns
I have changed this back to the standard template and put back Regions and Cities. But the list of cities is too large and some of the smaller ones need to be moved to region articles leaving only 6 to 8 larger or more important on the main page. This article is coming along real good. We just need to keep to our manual of style and templates for articles. Thanks for all the good work. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:41, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Makes sense. (WT-en) OldPine 21:43, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I liked the old breakdown as it existed in this revision, with the region followed by cities in that region. Would it be possible to keep the region heading with a list of regions, but then under "cities" use the format from that revision?  That still seems to be in the spirit of the Project:Manual of style. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:13, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * It seems that the description given for each of the regions could have one or two of the more important cities, towns or villages mentioned, but it seems to me it would be redundant to show them both in the region description and again in cities and would divert from the MoS if different cities were mentioned in the Region section then those in the Cities section. See Project:Region_article_template -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:27, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
 * After working through the changes, I think I agree with Ryan. Unlike some regions, the towns here all have a pretty similar importance as they all get flooded with tourists. If there were to be a reversion, I'd delete the description that references the "most popular" towns, eliminating the redundancy. I'm new to the program, so I'm reluctant to say much, but dividing this down finely in a hierarchy seems to me to make it harder for the traveller. He now has to go into every region within the region to see every town. Plus the Uppper, Mid, Lower, Outer are pretty useless as far as article production goes. Just MHO. (WT-en) OldPine 23:04, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I took a stab at breaking up the cities list by region, without repeating the region description. Does that seem OK?  To me it's easier to read, and provides some context about where these cities are without turning things into one long list.  Feel free to revert if it still seems non-MOS. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:20, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Yeah, I like that! It works on a number of levels. Looking at the towns gives you a path to look at a group of them by giving everyone a path to the region. Good job! Much better then what I did! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:52, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I concur - Way to go, Ryan. Do the towns need to have isIn to the Upper/Lower/Mid etc.? I don't hate it the way it is now with them in Cape Cod. (WT-en) OldPine 13:47, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Usually isIn is made as specific as possible, so it would be better if they were set to the sub-region of Cape Cod. Theoretically in the future there will be a capability to view all travel guides for a region, so if someone wanted to print a guide for the Upper Cape then isIn would be the tag that shows what articles are included. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:28, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Trails Resource - How to use?
I found this site: http://www.cctrails.org/ that has extensive itineraries for hikes, walks, biking etc., and thought it might be a good regional link. They do list other travel guides, but not us. Is a Cape Cod regional listing a good idea, or should I just "absorb" their information and try to refine where possible? Do we ever request listings of Wikivoyage? (WT-en) OldPine 12:56, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Not quite sure I'm understanding - are you asking if they should list Wikivoyage as a resource, or if we should list them? In general it's best not to link to other travel guides from Wikivoyage (Project:External links).  Including descriptions of trails and such within Wikivoyage articles is generally a good thing, however. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:37, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Cape Cod Travel Directories - Can they be used?
I know that this has been discussed, is there a place that travel directories can be listed for example http://www.cape-cod.org on the travel page for Cape Cod?

 * Our policy does not allow links to external travel guides. You can see the policy at external links. We prefer to have the information in our guide and not link to outside guides. Our external links are kept to a minimum overall. The only link to external travel guides that are allowed is to the "Official" travel webpage for the site and side links that we do to World66, Dmoz and Wikipedia. Hope this helps to clear the policy. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:27, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Eat Revisions
Hello OldPine. I was doing a group project for a writing class at the beginning of March. For our project we edited this page. One group member was responsible for "Stay," one for "Drink," and I had "Eat." You changed any edits we made within minutes of us making them. Now that it is portfolio time for this class, I was just wondering why you changed our (my) stuff back? What did I do wrong in the Eat section? 24.250.40.66 04:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

 * As I explained in the change summary, Eat and Drink sections in the region article provide an overview of the subject. Listings belong in the city/town articles. Mention of a clearly reknowned place and its town (such as "French Laundry" in Yountville being mentioned in the Napa Valley article is likely permissable, but not listings with addresses and phones. "Stay" or as is our standard "Sleep" sections are not part of the region template at all, and with a few exceptions is not used, or if it is, it is for an overview. - (WT-en) OldPine 11:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Sub regions
With the exception of Martha's Vineyard do the sub regions Upper/Mid/Lower/Outer bring any advantage or should they be merged up into this article? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 * They're geographically useful. It's a pretty long peninsula: For example, a drive from Woods Hole to Provincetown is 82 miles. Even if a decision is made to merge the articles, the subdivision of places into different areas of the cape would still be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 * If you're asking a question, wouldn't it be better to at least respond to the initial reply before taking quick action in redirecting Cape Cod islands and repointing the "IsIn" of each Cape Cod island article directly to the parent Cape Cod article in seeming total disregard of it or tidy breadcrumb hierarchy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Cape Consolidation?
I'm starting to go through the content in the bottom level pages here, and was wondering if the community had any appetite for consolidation? After years of automated edits, hierarchy renovations, and general entropy; these pages have become kind of hard for anyone to parse. They just don't contain much actionable content anymore. I've been chopping away at the dead stuff, and I think they're starting to look better!

Here's what I was thinking to do, very open to suggestions. I think the amount of "stuff" we have right now would really improve these articles if they were consolidated like this, but whatever everyone thinks. I don't have tons of time to throw at this, so I wouldn't start any merging without updating the bottom level articles first. Thanks all! --ButteBag (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Cape Cod -> rename The Cape and The Islands, adjust content and taxonomy to better include: MV, ACK & Gosnold

Upper Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination
 * Bourne -> redirect to Upper Cape
 * Sagamore -> redirect to Upper Cape
 * Sandwich (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Upper Cape
 * Falmouth (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Upper Cape
 * Woods Hole -> redirect to Upper Cape
 * Mashpee -> redirect to Upper Cape

Mid Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination
 * Hyannis -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Barnstable Village -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Barnstable -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * West Barnstable -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Centerville (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Osterville -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Marstons Mills -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Cotuit -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Yarmouth (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Mid Cape
 * Dennis -> redirect to Mid Cape

Lower Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination
 * Harwich (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape
 * Brewster (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape
 * Chatham (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape
 * Orleans (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape

Outer Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination
 * Eastham -> redirect to Outer Cape
 * Wellfleet -> redirect to Outer Cape
 * Truro (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Outer Cape

Provincetown -> no change

Cape Cod National Seashore -> no change, but clearer delineation between the park and the towns

Martha's Vineyard -> refactor as a bottom level destination (kind of is already)
 * Aquinnah -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard
 * Chilmark -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard
 * Edgartown -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard
 * Oak Bluffs -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard
 * Tisbury -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard
 * West Tisbury -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Nantucket -> no change

Gosnold -> no change

 * I think status quo is the way to go here. The amount of content in an article - "see" and "do" listings above all, although "buy", "eat", "drink", and "sleep" are also important - is the deciding factor that governs whether an article can exist on its own or should be merged. And I think these articles each have about the right amount of content. They're not as long and detailed as the Boston district articles, but that's natural enough given that these are small towns, not dense urban neighborhoods. And this is also a different situation than the Long Island consolidation of some time ago, given that these are bona fide communities with their own individual (albeit somewhat interconnected) identities, rather than an endless, faceless tract of suburbia divided seemingly at random into more-or-less interchangeable municipal entities.

 * On the other hand, I would indeed support expanding Cape Cod's scope into a The Cape and The Islands article (perhaps with the Cape itself, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Gosnold as another layer of subregions).

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think some of it seems like a good idea, but some of the articles you want to turn into redirects are actually decent articles. These articles are nothing to write home about, but at least some of them are better than the [13,000 outline articles] on Wikivoyage. I would reorganize Martha's Vineyard but I think the rest looks okay. Selfie City (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, looking at Martha's Vineyard again I think it's best off as a bottom-level destination, but the Cape itself I'd leave alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Woods Hole, for example, is a Usable article, and I don't think it would make sense to merge it into an "Upper Cape" article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles are of a good size and those that are not could probably be made usable status. Maybe a few could be merged into one city article. I think the problem is with the sub-regions. 29 articles in a region is maybe a little large but still handleable, in fact the Cape Cod article lists most of them anyway. I propose up-merging the whole upper,outer, lower, mid Cod regions. Also need to sort out the content of Martha's Vineyard into the appropriate city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback! Seems like: "One man's too much content is another man's not enough".

Are there any policy guidelines relating to how much content an article should have? Seems like folks would be comfortable merging all the MV articles into one bottom level destination. It also seems like folks would be uncomfortable merging (for example) the four towns under Lower Cape. However, each of these two hypothetical articles would hold roughly similar amounts of content. So where should the line be drawn? Based on the different responses here, I'm assuming there aren't any guidelines.

OK, how about this scaled back idea:
 * consolodate the MV articles to a single page
 * redirect upper/mid/lower/outer to The Cape and The Islands, but keep the narrative framing on that region page.
 * consolidate the confusing Barnstable articles: (Hyannis, Barnstable Village, West Barnstable, Centerville (Massachusetts), Osterville, Marstons Mills, Cotuit) This would at least get us down to a 1:1 article to town ratio.
 * merge Woods Hole into Falmouth (in keeping with the 1:1 town:article ratio)

--ButteBag (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Organising by the administrative town boundaries makes it easier for editors that do not know the area physically to organise listings but sometimes municipality boundaries do not match the on-the-ground reality. Agree some of the redirects around Barnstaple need to be sorted out but to me Barnstable Village and Hyannis are distinct enough locations to have their own article. If towns/villages have expanded so you cannot tell where one starts and the other stops then merge the article, locations in the same administrative area but physically separated consider two article. Generally if the content would never be enough to get at least to usable status if not guide then look at merging with the neighbouring article. Another tip, if you are staying in a hotel in one location and would consider going for a meal and drink without major transport/travel effort to a restaurant in the next location article, these could be considered for merge. Martha's Vineyard is a difficult one. Permanent population of 16,000 is usually a good size for one location article but 20 miles long and visitor population of 100,000 would usually be more that one location article. Looking at the number of listings I would say there is more that one article here. If you were staying in a hotel in Oak Bluffs would you pop out for an evening drink in Chilmark? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "if you are staying in a hotel in one location and would consider going for a meal and drink without major transport/travel effort to a restaurant in the next location article, these could be considered for merge" - no, that's the kind of situation "Go next" was designed to handle. As a recent and multiple-time visitor to Cape Cod, I would again strongly caution against monkeying around too much with the geographical hierarchy, including Barnstable (for instance, no way should Hyannis be merged). Yes, the towns on the Cape are geographically small and close together, but they are very much distinct communities and subtly different from each other, and I think those differences are worth reflecting in the individual articles rather than diluting them by merging articles together. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Martha's Vineyard, I think the choice is between the status quo and one big article. I just find it hard to picture how, other than the current way, the island could be subdivided in a way that's meaningful to travellers and not completely arbitrary-seeming. Not to mention the fact that the island's largest population centers - Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, and Vineyard Haven - are concentrated into a relatively small geographical area, so the MV sub-article that includes those places would be much longer and more detailed than the others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's too bad there is no policy in place to address these questions. If two seasoned and experienced editors have conflicting viewpoints, what hope do the rest of us have? FWIW, my viewpoint is closer to Traveler100's. I was thinking if most of the get in/get around/go next sections would be duplicated content, those articles could be considered for merge. Or to ask it another way, why not address the "subtle differences" with a few lines of copy on a single page, instead of splitting them out onto separate pages? --ButteBag (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After viewing Martha's Vineyard on a map, I think a reasonable proposition would be to divide the island into three sections: Edgartown, Northern Martha's Vineyard, and Western Martha's vineyard, and the rest of southern Martha's Vineyard be either categorized as western Martha's Vineyard or as part of Edgartown: I suggest that we make anything west of part of Western Martha's Vineyard and anything east of it part of the Edgartown article. The rest: I haven't researched yet. Selfie City (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's what I meant by "meaningful to travellers and not arbitrary-seeming". "Western Martha's Vineyard" and "Northern Martha's Vineyard" are not concepts that exist anywhere outside this discussion: locals don't use those terms among themselves, tourist literature and infrastructure don't use them either, they're not likely search terms, and other than geography, there's nothing that either distinguishes those regions from each other or makes the towns within each individual region more similar to each other than to towns in other regions. These are the things you have to consider when designing a region scheme, not just tracing a line any old place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with Andre. At least people think about the Cape in terms of upper/mid/lower/outer. --ButteBag (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I had time to take another look at this, and I've implemented some of the most conservative ideas:
 * Rename to "Cape Cod and The Islands". (...but I'm not sure how to do this for real)
 * Copy most of Mid Cape to Barnstable, replacing a redirect. (this was just factually wrong)
 * Update Cape Cod to reflect current state of WV articles. (I didn't merge anything!)

I would still strongly recommend redirecting Upper Cape, Mid Cape, Lower Cape, and Outer Cape to: Cape Cod and The Islands. Those sub-region pages are so content-free, I was easily able to incorporate it into the Cape Cod section.

Also: Barnstable is remains a mess. I would still recommend merging all the village articles there, but if folks feel strongly about special casing Hyannis, that's fine too.

Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Regions on map?
The map doesn't show any of the regions. That's a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Cities list
Right now, that section violates wv:7+2. Which should stay and which should go? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Cod


text:
Talk:Cape Elizabeth

golf should be moved to do?? --72.87.63.114 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

 * Yeah, golf usually goes in the do section, so go right ahead and Plunge forward

"You can swim picnic tables and a trail around the cove"
From the See section: "Kettle Cove. You can swim picnic tables and a trail around the cove. one end is private."

Apparently that was added by a native English speaker, but to me it does make about as much sense as something from a misheard lyrics video.

Is there maybe a trail in the water you should swim along, while dragging a picnic table with you? :D --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Elizabeth


text:
Talk:Cape Maclear

I took this off the page, but added a note about this guy Simon. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 08:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

''I (a British male) went alone and found most of the beach boys to be fake. After 3hrs, I seemed to have made very many "friends" who were offering me "friend prices" for this and that. However, I met a really genuine beach boy called Simon (soon to be village chief) and their genuine family. He was a real needle in a haystack. He was very warm hearted and wasn't after money in the same way as the other guys, offering me a true Cape Maclear experience. Ask for him if you come here, and everyone will know him.''

title: Talk:Cape Maclear


text:
Talk:Cape May

LGBT facilities
Cape May is listed as a gay village but I don't see any mention of that in this travel guide. -- (WT-en) Beland 21:19, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Cape May


text:
Talk:Cape May County

Does this article need moving to Cape May County ?

 * Yep. Go for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:10, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Cape May County


text:
Talk:Cape Panwa

TAT listings
Some TAT listings that cluttered the sleep page:

 * Sri panwa Estate is home to private hotel pool villas, all with island and sea views. Some boast sunset, some sunrise. Sitting on about 35 acres of land and home to around 60 villas from 1bdrm to 5 bdrm, this is the luxury hotel is the area and arguably on the entire Island of Phuket. 076-371-000 www.sripanwa.com
 * By the Sea Khao-Khard Beach Phuket (บาย เดอะ ซี เขาขาด บีช ภูเก็ต) 7/6 Mu 6, Soi Bor Rae Sakdidet Road, Amphoe Mueang (Tel: 0 7620 0282 www.bytheseaphuket.com), 36 rooms: 2,100-9,000 baht
 * Belair Panwa (เบลล์ แอร์ พันวา) 89/9 Mu 7, Sakdidet Road,  Tambon Wichit (Tel: 0 7620 0773, 0 7639 3620 www.homduang.com), 77 rooms: 7,300-12,000 baht
 * Cape Panwa Hotel (เคปพันวา) 27 Mu 8, Sakdidet Road (Tel: 0 7639 1123-5 Fax: 0 7639 1177, Bangkok Tel: 0 2233 9560, 0 2233 3433 www.capepanwa.com), 246 rooms: 6,000 baht
 * Conrad Phuket Resort & Spa (คอนราด ภูเก็ต รีสอร์ท แอนด์ สปา) 84 Mu 8 Sakdidet Rd, (Tel:            0 76200800 Fax: 0 76200819), 107 rooms: 8,250 – 9,750 baht
 * Novotel Panwa Beach Resort (โนโวเทล พันวา บีช รีสอร์ท) 5/3 Mu 8 Ao Yon, Tambon wichit (Tel: 0 76393330 Fax: 0 76393311) 77 rooms : 2,500 – 7,500 baht

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:56, 15 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Cape Panwa


text:
Talk:Cape Peninsula

Where do you draw the line
Swept in from pub:

While adding internal links to some dive sites, I found that a number of links which I had not expected to work, did. A bit of investigation shows that the whole Cape Peninsula appears to be excessively subdivided. The problem appears to be with what constitutes a city. Officially Cape Town is the only city on the Cape Peninsula, but there are destinations splitting it up as small as Boulders, which is a beach (attraction?) in Seaforth, a suburb of Simon's Town, which though it was historically a town with it's own municipality, has been a suburb of Cape Town for decades. Cape Town is certainly large enough and spread out enough to justify districtification, but it seems to have been broken up too much. Many of the current suburbs would be big enough to stand alone except for them being parts of the mother city. I dont have the experience, the time, or the interest to deal with this, as I am already extremely busy with my core interest of dive guides, but I can have a go at tagging articles for merging once I know how best to deal with them. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 01:25, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Atlantic Seaboard is either a district of Cape Town or a sub region of the Cape Peninsula, but either way, all the "cities" in it are suburbs of Cape Town.
 * Somerset West, Strand and Gordon's Bay are also officially part of Cape Town, as the same bureaucracy administrates them all (Cape Town City Council). Should they be considered districts of Cape Town?
 * The issue is complicated by the Table Mountain National Park, which is also on the Cape Peninsula, and can reasonably be a destination as you can sleep there. Parts of Cape Town are separated from each other by bits of park.Its a can of worms, but will have to be dealt with some time.

 * Hmmm, I'm at loss here, many of these towns (especially in False Bay) are quite extensive, and merging them would require a fair bit of sorting as well as deleting unattractive hotels and restaurants of little or no interest to travellers (else there would be way to many). If anything it should me merged into either a False Bay or a Cape Peninsular and False Bay guide, with the amount of content, merging it in with Cape Town is infeasible. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

The point I was trying to make is that Cape Town is a large city, made up of a large group of contiguous suburbs, and a scattering of disconnected suburbs. The disconnected suburbs are sometimes in small connected groups, and as the city grows, more and more of these disconnects are becoming connected. There are several possible ways of dealing with this connectivity or lack thereof, and the manual of style and definitions for regions do not provide much useful guidance. To complicate matters a bit, Simon's Town, as an example, would be in the False Bay region, and also in the Cape Peninsula region, while Hout Bay is in Atlantic Seaboard and Cape Peninsula, while Strand and Gordon's Bay are both in False Bay and Helderberg, and all of them are in Cape Town. Its a can of worms. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 13:25, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * 1) All suburbs of a city which is officially under one management are considered to be sub-article districts of the city. In this case Simon's Town, Hout Bay, Fish Hoek, Noordhoek, Scarborough, Somerset West, Gordon's Bay etc would be districts, not independant cities, as would City bowl, Waterfront, Observatory, Tamboerskloof, Bellville, Parow etc
 * 2) All contiguous suburbs would be considered parts of the city, grouped into convenient districts, such as Northern suburbs, Southern suburbs, Helderberg, Tygerberg etc as commonly used by the locals, and the disconnects would be separate cities.
 * 3) The status quo, in which there is no apparent pattern, and neighbourhoods within suburbs have their own independant articles, such as Boulders, which is a small area in Simon's Town, which is part of a group with Glencairn and Dido Valley, which is administratively part of the Southern Suburbs district of Cape Town

Cape Town Adventure Sports
Discover the adventurer in you.Try these adventure sports in Cape Town.

Skydiving is spine chilling- when you are falling freely from a height of 14000feet,dont forget to soothe your eyes with stunning views of Cape Town.And the instructor takes care of the prachute and landing,so you are completely safe!

Get close and personal with sharks while shark cage diving.

Get the best views of this paradise while abseiling from the Table mountain with just a rope.

Feel the dead calm of the oceans and mesmerize yourself with the wonderful underwater world while scuba diving in Cape Town.

There are so many adventure sports to go for in this paradise! (WT-en) Reply2suchi 01:18, 13 June 2011 (EDT)*

 * If anywhere, this listing should be at Cape Town. There should be no specific listings in a region article. And then its inclusion would be subject to normal WT guidelines on touting etc. In its current tacky advertisement format, and being loaded as it is with words designed purely for SEO purposes (waste of time as all WT links are marked as "rel no follow"), it would simply be deleted wherever it was placed. See also welcome business owners. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:29, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Banner image
There is a nice new banner image uploaded during Wiki Loves Monuments. I would propose to use it in this article or in the Capetown one. I know that surfing is a major activity in this region, but it is also popular elsewhere, so the present banner may not be very specific. Moreover, it is also used in Blaauwberg_Coast.

What do you think? --Alexander (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 * It seems simplest to substitute the 2nd banner on this page and leave the Cape Town banner as is. The currently-used banner here might be an improvement in the Surfing article, although that isn't much of an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, a difficult one. #3 is a better example of the city itself, but #2 is dramatic and I slightly prefer it. I think the article with the most views should get #2, because we should show our best banners on the highest-profile articles, if possible. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 04:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Somehow, I glossed over the banner here already being used in Blaauwberg Coast, so strike my suggestion about the Surfing article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I see, so #1 is already in use. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Added #2 to this article for now. --Alexander (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Peninsula


text:
Talk:Cape to Cape Track

VFD Discussion

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2008, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is another established, official, and marked hiking trail à la Royal Road and The Jesus Trail nominations above and below (Wikipedia article about the trail here—it might look like there are copyvio issues at first sight, but the articles on both Wikivoyage and Wikipedia were substantially edited by the same person). – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:06, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a popular trek with quite a bit on the web about it already. It would make a very good and useful article if someone took an interest in building it up. I'll put a bit of what I know into it and redo the existing copy to remove any copyvio doubts if that will keep it from deletion. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:44, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I made some edits to get it into shape for contributions. It's not too useful at present but has potential. If no one has any objections, I will take off the vfd so it can live a little longer. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 10:16, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:41, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

"External links" section
External links expressly forbids any article from having an "External links" section, so I've moved these links here in case anyone would like to use them as sources of information for the Wikivoyage article (with appropriate credit in an edit summary, and summarized and/or paraphrased well into your own words):

title: Talk:Cape to Cape Track


text:
Talk:Cape Town

Observations on History
The bit on the history of Cape Town is very short and factually misleading. For example "the Khoi" are described the only group at the Cape before the Europeans arrived, when there were a number of tribes sometimes given the common label "Khoi-San". Another example: the Voortrekkers are described as "pioneers" who "explored" the interior from Cape Town. This ignores the historical and political forces behind the Great Trek: the British occupying the Cape and outlawing slavery. The "Boers" who objected to this left the Cape Colony and travelled over 1000 km North to conquer and occupy land. I appreciate that this is a travel site, but many of us who travel are interested in the history of the places we go to. Why don't you do more a accurate and non-biased summary of the history and link to specialist history sites for those of us who like more.

Planet Hollywood NOT Hardrock
The reference to the Hard Rock Cafe in Cape Town is incorrect. After a bombing by extremists years ago it never re-opened.
 * oh, sorry. Will remove it. (WV-en) Felix

Planet Hollywood did open up after the explosion, but closed it´s doors in 1999. Hard Rock Cafe did not survive either and closed also.

Planet Hollywood NOT Hardrock
It was the Planet Hollywood in Cape Town and not the Hardrock Cafe that was bombed.

Personal experiences (hence NOT NPOV, and unverifiable)
I've travelled to ZA every year for the last decade (sometimes twice a year)

 * I always fly into Cape Town first, and almost always leave from there
 * I've always flown BA (all four classes), and never had any problems except with the heat in the plane on return journeys - the crew have always been superb, yes they are sometimes late, but show me an airline that isn't!
 * I only tip parking attendants on return to the car - and make sure they know that. Tipping is small change for most Europeans & Americans - R10 per hour seems to be generous
 * ALWAYS claim back the VAT. Flying out of Cape Town it is simple & efficient - so what if you don't get all the VAT back, it still pays for your meal while you're waiting
 * Leave plenty of time - possibly as much as 2 hours for 1st & Club class, 3 for economy and economy plus - when checking in for international flights at Cape Town, security staff are slow.....
 * For domestic flights, however, 30 mins is fine (unless you have reams of luggage)
 * Best internal flights are from Nationwide (Nationwide is now defunct. I recommend using Kulula.com or 1time.co.za)
 * Like every city in the world, Cape Town has its rough bits, but there is lots to do in the safe areas - which is most of it
 * DEFINITELY drive along the [Garden Route] if you have time
 * Do not miss Boulders Beach near Simonstown, the penguins are very friendly. If you go to the south beach, there is no walkway, and you can paddle & swim with them
 * Robben island is fascinating, and you do NOT have to be a diehard BP fanatic to enjoy the tour
 * Car hire is very very very cheap compared with most of Europe - it's only expensive if you book in advance with foreign currency

So Go to ZA and especially Cape Town soon 8-) (WT-en) Chrisboote 08:12, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Cleanup of Cape_Town
I'm going to do some cleanup and expansion on Cape_Town, but it might look messy for a short time while I am busy on it. Just bare with me, I'll make sure I don't leave it in a mess.

I think we need at least the following sub-sections in there, Wildlife (Nature reserves, Parks etc), Whale watching (by boat, best places to do it from shore etc), Sunset cruises (there are many operators that offer these), Hiking trails and Townships.

Some of the information currently in there (wineroutes for example) needs to go to Cape_Town

(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:01, 21 January 2007 (EST)

 * ((WT-en) NJR_ZA completed this clean up on Jan 22 2007 - I reverted his removal of this info, because I think it could be useful in future to have this info here. -- (WT-en) Tim 13:24, 22 January 2007 (EST))

Lost festival
The Talk:Cape Town/City Harvest Festival article contains some information that was accidentally added to the Project:Itinerary article template. I'm not sure how it should fit in, but it might make a good "do" entry. --(WT-en) Evan 08:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Seems like the user that added this to Project:Itinerary article template has already added it to Cape Town. It looks like a first time even so I have no idea if it will be any good. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) Pashley 21:58, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Confusion about Climate
The article mentions that summer is "very hot", but the highest high temperature is listed at 24deg C. Is one of these in error? Or is it just that I have a different definition of "very hot" (I wouldn't use "hot" to describe anything under 30deg C, and "very hot" starts at 36 or 37. Maybe, in any case, it should be rewritten a bit more neutrally?

 * I think that can do with a bit of a rewording. Climate data however are averages and the person that wrote it might have been there during a very hot week or two. Cape Town is located between the cold Atlantic and the hot Karoo interior; depending on direction of the prevailing wind it can be 30+ one day and barely reach 20 the next. Extreamly hot days can be almost double the average, see 30 year stats at --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:44, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

The going out section is horrifyingly out of date, Fez has been closed for two or three years.

Dead Seals
Just looking over the article, I noticed the photo of the seals at the Waterfront, and they look a bit like they were poached. Would it be a problem to get rid of the photo? It gives the (presumably) false impression that the animals are mistreated and certainly doesn't make the Waterfront look like a fun place to visit. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:49, 29 December 2009 (EST)

 * It's a dreadful picture and should go.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:20, 4 January 2010 (EST)
 * I agree its not a nice photo, but sleeping seals do tend to lie around like that, and if the photo was taken at the waterfront that is almost certainly what they are. I dont recognise the location, though, and I agree the photo does not improve the article and could be removed without loss. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 13:41, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Tour agency listings
The number of tour listings in his article really lessen its value in my mind. Are they really all necessary and in line with WT policy? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:20, 4 January 2010 (EST)
 * I agree. Here's a comment I made on a deletion: "I don't think that safari tours need to be in an article about a city. If they belong anywhere, it's not here." I will check for more tour listings that clearly don't belong. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:40, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Cape Town Dive Festival 2012
SWEPT IN FROM PUB

Cape Town is hosting a dive festival in August. It is not on the same scale as the football world cup or summer Olympics, but we are hoping for visitors from all over South Africa, and possibly a few internationals. The festival is a co-operative event to be organised, subsidised, and run by most if not all of the local dive shops, charter boats and clubs. If successful, they plan to make it a bi-annual event. I would like to put up a temporary article giving basic details and contact details for booking and a small temporary banner on the following relevant articles: The proposed banner is:
 * The actual dive sites selected for the festival (about 12)
 * The launch site and base for the festival (one of the local slipways and already a sub-article of the regional dive guide
 * The regional dive guide,
 * The national dive guide
 * Scuba Diving travel topic in the section for South Africa
 * The local regional travel guide (Western Cape)
 * The host city (Cape Town)

Is this acceptable, and are there any suggestions or existing policy to cover this? Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 11:07, 31 January 2012 (EST)

 * I'm reluctant to approve a banner for a national event like this. This is not a major international event, so it is not going to be driving tourism; instead, it sounds like you want to advertise it via Wikivoyage.  There's a big difference between "Looking for information on the 2012 Olympics?  Here's where it's held," and "Looking for something to do in South Africa?  Here's an event."  I don't think the latter is an appropriate use, especially for an event that will only draw minimal participation from outside the host country.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:47, 31 January 2012 (EST)

 * A standard event listing in the appropriate city/country article would definitely be OK, but too much promotion would be a concern. That said, given all the great work that (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) has done on dive articles I'd trust his judgement as to whether Wikivoyage is a proper platform for promoting an event like this one, but I've got some concerns that it could be a bit of a slippery slope, and the proposed banner definitely looks a bit like an advertisement.

 * Wikivoyage tends to be very conservative, which isn't always a good thing, so this might be a time where some experimentation would be warranted to see how it goes. In that spirit, I would be OK with adding temporary notices to the relevant dive articles provided they are a bit closer to standard Wikivoyage style (for example, something more like Template:Infobox).  As to a separate page promoting the event, I've also got some concerns about the precedent that would set, but in the interest of encouraging experimentation what about creating an initial page for discussion purposes and seeing how it goes, although the talk page should make it clear that this is just an experiment and not something should be followed as precedent by other events? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:14, 1 February 2012 (EST)

 * LtPowers, I take your point. It would be a foot in the door for possible spamming, so I will scrap the idea and just link to the pages from the event website.
 * Ryan, Thanks for the support, but it is a bit of a slippery slope. I have been editing a lot on Wikipedia recently and tend to get policies mixed up between WT and WP. No problem, it just seemed like a good idea at the time. Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:06, 8 February 2012 (EST)

 * I don't think a banner such as the one for Olympic host cities would be inappropriate on the main page of the South African Diving Sites article though. If someone is looking for Diving in South Africa then it would likely be of interest but not from the South Africa country page. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 10:03, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Car hire listings
The guidelines on the external links page are as follows:

What not to link to: Rental car operators in cities where they are common (10 or more operating in the city).

Before I deleted Drive South Africa for spamming every article they could find about South Africa, there were 10 listings, if you want to call a mere name and telephone number a listing, and I would state very strongly that without a local street address, it is most certainly not a real or at least appropriately complete listing.

I think we should dispense with this section, but I put it below in case any of you disagree.

Car hire

Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest to be moved, from "Get around/By car":

This at least is a rather complete listing, but that doesn't address the question of whether there should be any car hire listings in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarify items under "Get in - By plane"
Request that someone (who knows far better than I) please indicate what's intended for the term "direct" for many of the several airlines and airports listed. Two questions come to mind:
 * Does "direct" actually mean "non-stop"? Precise use of "direct" among travel agents, et al, in North America means you'll stay on the same aircraft for the full flight, but that it stops at one or more places enroute.  In important contrast, non-stop means exactly that.
 * When service from/to another airport is designated as direct, are all flights direct? If not, readers might assume they must forgo searches for other flight types (e.g., involving connections/layovers) that may cost less.

Appreciate your troubles,  Hennejohn (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Work section
Basically only says "There are various volunteering opportunities in Cape Town." It would appear no one contributing has any specific knowledge on the subject. I have removed the section, hopefully at some point someone can add something useful. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Water crisis?
Is this worth mentioning in the lede or a caution box? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 * http://coct.co/water-dashboard/ for more details... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.capetown.gov.za/Family%20and%20home/residential-utility-services/residential-water-and-sanitation-services/make-water-saving-a-way-of-life

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Holy s***! If they expect to entirely run out of water in a little over two months, then I agree we need to put a caution box on the top of the Cape town article. And as it's the second largest city and one of the most popular attractions in South Africa it probably merits a mention somewhere in the country article too. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 * BTW Peter might have something to add about the water crisis. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Crime section
Other sites indicate a pretty grimer picture. --151.41.241.116 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I've never been to Cape Town. The lead paragraph doesn't really tell me very much about why I'd want to go aside from what is out of the cit. Could someone who has been there try to write something livelier and more colourful? Ground Zero (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hotel Nelson
Belmond Mount Nelson Hotel (Q18378411; website), linked from Grand old hotels, seems to be missing. I assume it should be added, but I don't know the city. –LPfi (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Mount Nelson Hotel
Belmond Mount Nelson Hotel is mentioned at Grand_old_hotels, but I do not see it here.

Looks like it should be added to this article & linked from Grand old hotels. Pashley (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Town


text:
Talk:Cape Town International Airport

Removing the v.f.d. notification won't keep this page from being deleted. Please see Project:votes for deletion for why this page is listed for deletion, and if there's a case to make against deleting it, please make it there. --(WT-en) Evan 15:43, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Cape Town International Airport


text:
Talk:Cape Verde

For future information the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Cape Verde/CIA World Factbook 2002 import -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:50, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

"Precipitation is meager and very erratic."
This means that it rains rarely and unpredictably / irregularly, right? Can this be changed to a bit simpler form?
 * It is very clear standard English. Simplifying it would be the kind of thing to do for a Simple English version, but I don't see the need here. (WT-en) Texugo 21:27, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Name change
The government has declared that the country's official name will no longer be translated into foreign languages. This means the country's name is now officially the Republic of Cabo Verde (or simply Cabo Verde) in English. However, since the change hasn't been widely published (even their embassies still use "Cape Verde" on their websites) and the traveller comes first, there shouldn't be mass editing of Cape Verde --> Cabo Verde for several years (until this change starts to be reflected in English-language sources). AHeneen (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the situation changed in any substantive way? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've seen "Cabo Verde" in any English-language sources. We should not move on the government's say-so. Ground Zero (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cabo Verde government country namimg wishes and decision, are by and large dependent on the good will of non Portuguese speakers to adhere to. However, as a matter of respect and consideration since it was democratically decided, I believe one should stick to the country naming decision without trying to find excuses not to do so. Otherwise, if we all follow Ground Zero suggestion, we could all start calling anything and everything whatever we feel like is the right name. Imagine the chaos... CharlieCares (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Chittagong readily comes to mind as an example and a precedent. "Not so fast", I say. Ibaman (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I think it'll take some time. We do use the French-language name, Cote d'Ivoire, but I think it took a couple of decades before that largely (never completely) supplanted Ivory Coast in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I made no such suggestion. Distorting and misrepresenting someone's position in order to score cheap debating points is a pretty lousy way to conduct yourself here on Wikivoyage. At no time did I suggest that we "all start calling anything and everything whatever we feel like is the right name". I only suggested following existing Wikivoyage policy, which says "articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. This means that official names are often not appropriate for use as article names." This policy has not lead to "chaos". Your hysterics do not advance the discussion. If you can demonstrate that "Cabo Verde" has been commonly adopted in English-language sources, then you can make a case for changing the article name. Ground Zero (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Our policy is to use the most commonly used name and that is what serves the traveller best. I might have sympathy for respecting a country's choice of name, but that is for cases like Zimbabwe, where the former name was chosen with no respect for the people, and in cases where the name is otherwise unsuitable. If Great Britain would ask Swedes to stop talking about Storbritannien, I'd have no sympathy for the request. On the surface this request sounds a lot like the latter, but I could be mistaken as I know nothing about the background. --LPfi (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've encountered both names in English-language sources. I think "Cape Verde" is still more common, though I'm not sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason we use Zimbabwe and not Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia is not because the latter names are white supremacist but because Zimbabwe is the absolutely standard name for the country, with the latter two names relegated to historical discussions of the rump white supremacist government that preceded modern Zimbabwe and the British colony which preceded that. Wikivoyage is not ideological, and I have no doubt that if white supremacist Rhodesia still existed, we'd use that name to describe the actual situation as it was between 1965 and 1979. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Safety
mad a radical change to the Stay safe section in Special:Diff/4843464/4877852, and although I'd normally trust such an edit, the text now says the exact opposite of what Stay safe said before now. What should we do? -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think IP is telling the truth. Lionel Cristiano (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so too, as their version is far more elaborate than the previous. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 13:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cape Verde


text:
Talk:Cap-Haïtien

Merge
I started this article because the link from the Haiti page was a redlink. I see now that there is a page called Cap-Haitien. The two should be merged (and a redirect created), but presumably there should be some consensus as to the correct name. --(WT-en) Jbmurray 18:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)

 * I think the best name is Cap-Haitien as most English readers would not be able to tell the difference from Cap-Haïtien. Just write one article and in that article explain the spelling of Cap-Haïtien and Cap-Haitien. Then we can argue the toss about the English spelling and the right name of the article. - (WT-en) Huttite 18:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)

 * I have moved this back, per policy clarifications last year. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:41, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Le Paradis S. Hotel Cap Haitien.jpg

title: Talk:Cap-Haïtien


text:
Talk:Capital Region (Maryland)

I swapped Laurel for Kensington, since I bothered to write up its main attractions, and because I think the Mormon Temple is a much bigger draw than anything in the former city. Kensington's also a lot easier to get to from D.C. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:59, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Sections
Do we need stay safe and get out sections for this article? I'm tempted to just delete them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:20, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

 * As a matter of fact, I'll just plunge with this. We can always add them back if it's thought useful. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:18, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

By Car
I just made a change to the Get In/By Car section because the highways it listed were completely incorrect. In addition to that, I feel like the entire second paragraph ("From D.C., the main roads leading north into the Maryland Capital Region are...") should either be deleted or modified to contain a complete list of the major roads heading into the region, ie: River Road, US 29, New Hampshire Ave, Rhode Island Ave/US1, MD 295, etc. As you can see this is a big list, and I haven't even included all the major roads leading into PG county. Perhaps a deletion would be the best thing to do.

Guide status
This article is remarkably near to guide status. All that is needed is to bring the Frederick County and Prince George's County region articles up to usable status (not that this is an easy task). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:21, 9 January 2011 (EST)

 * Several years later, the county articles are up to usable status and I've added some photos and more information to this article. Do other editors think it's up to guide status now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Are all the "Cities" and "Other destinations" articles at Usable status or better? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Yep! —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Then by my reading of Region guide status, it's not only Usable but close to Guide status. For that, "Go next" needs to be turned into 1-liner listings (I'm not sure that's actually better than what's there now, though). Then the question would whether "all the standard sections have well-developed prose", or something should be added to them. I wouldn't be able to answer that question, though it would be worth discussing before advancing the article to Guide. I would say, though, that the map leaves something to be desired: D.C. is excluded from it, no cities or other destinations are shown, and we don't see the Potomac. Ideally, we should also see Metro lines and perhaps MARC and Amtrak as well. At the very least, I'd like to see some clear labeling in color of the counties that are part of the region, with greyed out or white counties outside the region, including a bit of a view of Virginia across the Potomac. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Great! I've rewritten the "Go next" section with 1-liner listings, but please revert if you think the previous version was better.
 * As for the map, I agree it could use some improvement, though I'm not sure I have the technical skills to make the changes you suggested. Is that needed for guide status? Region guide status only seems to mention maps for star status. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * You're right, but I think a clear map should be needed for Guide status, and anyway, the current map sucks. I'll check your changes later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, it occurred to me that I do have the technical skills to make a dynamic map, so I've done that. It still doesn't include C&O Canal Park or public transport lines, but I think it's a significant improvement over the previous map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Big improvement, and "Go next" is more easily readable this way. I'm not sure whether the article is a Guide yet. I'd like the views of people who know the area better. I've been to DC a few times and stayed in Silver Spring one of the times and have also been to Bethesda, but I don't really know the Maryland suburbs nearly well enough to have a clear opinion about the degree of usefulness of the overviews in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Capital Region (Maryland)


text:
Talk:Capitol Reef National Park

What we need
I'm going to try and get this article up to usable status. It's crazy that there are 5 national parks in Utah, and article-wise there is 1 star, 2 guides, 1 usable, and then poor Cap Reef, a lowly outline.

I know a lot about the park, but here's the stuff I won't be able to provide any firsthand info about: Backpacking (overnight hikes), Rock climbing info (legality, routes,etc.), nearby lodging (I tent camp), and Cedar Mesa campground (where I've never stayed). Anybody know anything about these things? -- (WT-en) Merbert 15:55, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Upgrade to Usable?
I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page but I think the guide qualifies as usable. I'm a little new and don't know the exact procedures. Can I upgrade it myself? Does anyone have any thoughts? (WT-en) McMurphy 14:45, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Go ahead and update the status - thanks for your additions! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:10, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

 * It's nice to see this article develop! I bumped it up to usable status, and added a bit re: Burr Trail Rd. It would be nice to add some information on exploring the backcountry—I didn't get a chance to hike any of the long trails, so I'm not sure to which we should give priority. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:07, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I noticed that the national parks in Utah now have one star, three guides, and now one usable. Let's get this bad boy up to guide!! Also, would it be OK to scan the official map given at the visitor center and put it in, ala Bryce Canyon National Park? I guess Arches National Park needs one, too. (WT-en) McMurphy 01:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Content from nps.gov is licensed in the public domain, and thus free to use here, unless otherwise stated on the NPS site - that's where the Bryce map came from. That said, Wikivoyage maps are generally preferred over maps from other sites, and freely-licensed maps from other sites would generally be preferred to scans due to quality issues. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:32, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm working on converting the NPS CRNP map to WT style. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:09, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

 * And it's now in the article. It's not fully converted to WT style, and thus is a good ways off from being a "star quality" map, but it should be serviceable until someone with a bit more time can spruce it up! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:30, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Capitol Reef National Park


text:
Talk:Cappadocia

foo
There is no city or town called Cappadocia in Turkey. It is the name of a region at the size of Central Anatolia. So you can't actually say it takes 3 hours to get to Cappadocia from Ankara or 1 hour from Kayseri. etc.

Spamming
The same text touting hot-air ballooning appears in the text for Cappadocia, Göreme, and Nevşehir. The Cappadocia and Nevşehir blurbs both linked to the same commercial outfit. Unless anyone objects, I'm inclined to remove or at least compact these. (WT-en) Eric 19:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)

 * External links policy is to only have external liks to service providers ad then only one listing per business at the destination closest to their address. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:24, 13 November 2009 (EST)

External links have been removed from the article from the following websites as they do not comply with policy, or are possible spam.

I see them as potential research resources rather than directly related to the article: - (WT-en) Huttite 05:24, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * I have commented out the extlinks list, as it was attracting SEO spam. The links are still accessible if you edit this page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:01, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Busses

the story.

Do not under any circumstances use the Turkish bus company Metro to try to travel to Goreme. They are duplicitous, dishonest, and could very likely leave you by the side of the road, in the middle of nowhere, 10 kilometers outside of Goreme after dark at 9:00 PM with your baggage by the side of the highway.

We read the warnings and Lonely Planet and heeded them diligently took every measure to avoid this problem, but it did not work and it still happed to us.

TRAVELER WARNING FOR GOREME. NEVER USE THE METRO BUS COMPANY TO GET THERE.

THE TRUE STORY 0F WHAT HAPPENED TO TWO MIDDLE AGED WOMEN ON JULY 14, 2011.

Our hotel in Istanbul helped us purchase day bus tickets from Antalya to Goreme on line (website is in Turkish only). They picked the tickets up for us before we left Istanbul. We got pre-assigned seats and paid 90 Turkish Lira for two seats-not a bad price we thought. We did exactly as Lonely Planet advised and bought tickets from Anatalya to Goreme specifically to ensure we were delivered all the way to Goreme. It was supposed to be a 9-hour bus ride.

On July 14th we arrived early at the Antalya Ottogar for our 11:00 AM Metro bus departure. We verified with the employee at the Metro office that our tickets were for Goreme and that the bus would depart from lane 17. A half hour before boarding we took our tickets and reservation paperwork to the Metro bus steward in lane 17 and showed him they were for Goreme. He spoke no English, but looked at the tickets and nodded that we had the right bus and loaded our bags on the bus. We left at 11:00 AM on schedule. The bus was nice, the scenery beautiful, the stewards served tea, water and coffee and we thought all was well for the first 8 hours of the trip.

During the course of the trip we did stop at other city otogars for bathroom breaks and to take on and drop off passengers. No one spoke English and our Turkish was minimal. We wanted to makes sure we were still going to Gormeme and did not need to change busses, and we repeatedly asked the two stewards “Goreme?” with tickets in hand, during the course of the day and they nodded yes repeatedly. At one point, possibly Konya, our driver was changed. I went to the driver during the trip bathroom break, pointed to my watch and asked “Goreme?” to yet again reconfirm the arrival time and that we were on the right bus. He pointed to my watch for 8:00PM. We still thought we were fine and everything was on track.

Around 8 PM we arrived at the Nevsehir Otogar. This is where the Lonely Planet says you will have the most difficulty with the bus company trying to dump you off at the Otogar and not take you to you to Goreme -or not directing you to the free minibus transfer to complete your trip to Goreme. We were alert for this, but reassured when an English speaking man came on to the bus, specifically asked for passengers traveling to Goreme, and this man specifically told us, in English, to stay on the bus we were on to go to Goreme.

Okay, we thought, they will take us to Goreme,  as they had repeatedly assured us they would during the trip. I might add, that in attempting to avoid transport problems, we asked at least 4 Metro workers, during and before the start of this trip, up to 10 times that our bus goes to Goreme.

We started to get worried when we saw a sign to Goreme, but the bus made a turn left in a direction that where there was no sign indicating they were going to Goreme. The bus then stopped for fuel for about 20 minutes, so we weren’t too worried, yet.

It was getting darker and darker and it was now approaching 9:30 PM, and so I again asked the steward “Goreme?”. Mind you these are the same stewards I had been asking throughout the 9 hour trip who had previously verified Goreme. The steward now had a puzzled look on his face, and the driver stopped the bus in a few minutes at the side of the highway and motioned for us to get off the bus. They put our baggage at the side of the road. We are in the middle of nowhere, no services, no businesses, limited lighting, no bus stop. I got back on the bus and told the driver and stewards, we paid for Goreme Otogar, I showed them tickets repeatedly,  I insisted Goreme Otogar, I argued, I tried German, they spoke no English, however they, NOW,  repeatedly kept saying “no Goreme Otogar”, after they had confirmed our destination repeatedly during the trip. One woman on the bus spoke some English and I told them, you can not leave us on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere after dark, with our baggage and no way to get to town. I got out my Goreme hotel reservation form with the hotel phone number and showed them number asking them to call our hotel. The driver refused, though he clearly had cell phone with him. The stewards next lured us off the bus and pointed us toward the opposite direction of Goreme and indicated we should walk 1 kilometer away from the direction of Goreme. I asked the steward with the phone to call our hotel with the cell phone he clearly had and he refused.

We were tired after our 9-hour ride, felt completely freaked out, did not know where we were and what to do-there were no signs for anything. We were in the middle of nowhere by the side of the highway with no businesses or services anywhere in sight-and it was getting really dark. The stewards hopped on the bus and left us stranded.

We started walking the direction they had pointed, and at the corner of the highway, a middle-aged man in a rattletrap truck was parked at the corner of the highway intersection. At this point we were pretty desperate and since he was clearly looking at us, I opened his passenger door, and he said Taxi? He clearly was not a cab, but we were desperate by now. I held up 10 fingers to indicate 10 Turkish Lira and said Goreme, he nodded. We got in his truck and he drove about a kilometer to a gas station bought us two bottles of cold water and I got out the hotel phone number, which he and the gas station attendant called. We talked to our hotel and explained how we had been dumped off. Next the man in the truck took us the remaining 10 kilometers, to the Goreme Otogar. The truck driver now insisted on 20 Turkish lira where I had thought we agreed on 10 TL-but what ever- we paid, we were exhausted and freaked out. The Metro bus office attendant contacted our hotel for us, as the hotel said they would. Our hotel, Local Cave House (fabulous, by the way) did come and pick us up. I complained to the Metro bus office worker that night about our treatment and he told me to return the next day to talk to the manager.

The next day, on Friday July 15th, at 2:00 PM I went back to the bus station to talk to the manager. The manager was alone in the office, portly, with graying dark hair- about 50 years old. He spoke some English. I explained the refusal of the company to take us to where our ticket stipulated, the appalling treatment we had received, and that it had cost up 20 TL extra which the bus company should refund. He made excuses, offered zero apology or refund, blamed people in Konya, and took no responsibility for anything his company had done. I was polite but firm and never raised my voice. Two English-speaking tourists from Amsterdam walked in during this exchange and watched. I asked the Metro man to call his manager. He refused. Eventually the Metro man became loud and abusive and started yelling. Next he stood up, reached over his desk and grabbed my shoulder and tried to shove me out of his office. I was appalled. He next yelled “Fuck You” to me. I was shocked at his behavior and left the office. To be violently grabbed and screamed profanities by an employee of Metro for simply coming in to the office to file a complaint completely shocked me. The Dutch tourists left the office when I did and other English speaking tourists outside the office came up to me and said, they saw what happened. I told the entire story to the tourists outside the metro office and recommended they not use Metro-EVER. They assured me they had no intention of ever doing so after witnessing the behavior of their staff.

Our hotel employee told us they had heard similar and even more frightening stories that happened to women travelers traveling by bus. The bus companies don’t care and there is nothing you can do but post on trip advisor and complain to the bus company directly.

The weird thing is that Metro could have told us they had no intention to honor our ticket and take us to Goreme in the first place or when we were at Nevsehir. We could have taken a mini bus at Nevsehir. Instead they told us to stay on the bus specifically only to drop us off by the side of the road. Was this behavior meant to inflict the maximum amount of stress and harm possible- it certainly seems so in retrospect. What about the guy in the ramshackle truck who magically appeared on the highway and volunteer to take us into Goreme for another 20 TL? Good Samaritan? Mercenary? Friend of the bus driver or stewards who knows this happens every night around 9:30 PM and he can make a quick 20 TL? We will never know? It is all highly suspicious, duplicitous and according to our hotel employee, would not likely be happen to young cute blonds or if we had been traveling with a guy.

While I loved Turkey, this episode left a very bad taste in my mouth about this company. I do not recommend that anyone traveling to Goreme use their services, EVER. Metro lied from the outset and never intended to honor their ticket. Leaving two middle aged women at the side of a highway in the middle of nowhere after dark and refusing to call their hotel, to at least let them know where they had been dumped,  is the height of cruelty and mendacity.

I must say that most of the rest of our interaction with Turks had been fine and they had been generally pleasant and helpful.

Infobox on "Touring Turkey"
I made it, but I'm unsure it's good to have there or not. It seems a little random, yet the bus distances seem so far, it may make someone researching immediately decide that a roundtrip flight is the only way, when others are very common and generally more efficient. Thoughts? (WT-en) Bbb0777 00:54, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

 * I'll have to admit that it looks a little random, at least without any background information. I guess the intention and the desired meaning would be clearer if you add something along the lines of "...don't be put off by seemingly long distances which seperate Cappadocia from major tourism centres in the west of the country ... buses are an as good choice as planes...". I'm sure you can come up with a better explanation than mine. :-) – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:08, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, I wasn't clear in conveying what I meant to, and your comment helped a lot. Edited now, though still open to criticism (or deletion even) of course. (WT-en) Bbb0777 21:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

 * It reads a lot better and much clearer now! It is certainly a useful addition to the article, IMO. – (WT-en) Vidimian 21:04, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click artizans->partizans? (omit) context: kilims, hand made local pottery by artizans artizans and very local wines —The preceding comment was added by SHB2000 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 August 2021

 * I'm pretty sure it must be artisan, and edited accordingly. Vidimian (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cappadocia


text:
Talk:Capri

Capri Map
Can I added Capri Satellite map?
 * Prolly not, unless you took the photo yourself ;-). Take a look at Project:Mapmaking Expedition for more about maps! (WT-en) Majnoona 16:33, 22 April 2006 (EDT)

Grotto Azzurra
And so, how does one go about finding a boat that will take them into the Grotto Azzurra? As a travel guide, something like that should be included... instead of boasted about without details, dai!

Plastics?
On another guide's site: Capri will fine tourists $560 for bringing single-use plastics on the island Pashley (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Capri