text:
Talk:Disneyland

I'm looking for a inexpensive package for hotel and tickets to Disneyland. Any ideas?

Name??
copied from User talk:(WT-en) Cacahuate:

I think your renaming of the Disneyland article is way too ambiguous. The name "Disneyland" refers specifically to the single theme park, whereas "Disneyland Resort" refers to the entire complex of two theme parks, a shopping and entertainment district, and three hotels. See the articles for Walt Disney World Resort, Disneyland Resort Paris, and Tokyo Disney Resort - they all use their complete names.

User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784 9/24/08 9:20 AM CDT

 * Hi Jonathan, I moved it because we use most common names, not official ones, but I see what you're saying... I still vote for keeping it at "Disneyland", but would love to hear other opinions and am open to moving it back if that's the consensus. Note that all of these Disney articles originally were at their most common names, but one zealous user moved them all, and seemed to get away with it, back in March. There's a lot of discussion about it at Talk:Walt Disney World Resort, which used to, and IMO should still, reside at "Disney World" – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ultimately, because of redirects, I don't think it matters a whole lot. "Disneyland" is an odd case anyway, because most people use it to mean the whole resort, even though the Walt Disney Company uses it to refer only to the original park; making matters worse, the name of the whole resort is easily abbreviated "Disneyland".  Certainly the article needs to make clear the difference between "Disneyland" and "Disneyland Resort", so I can understand the desire to continue the distinction through to the title.  Walt Disney World doesn't have this problem and thus the choice is somewhat more straightforward.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:33, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

copied from User talk:(WT-en) Cacahuate I just went over your reply and took some time to gather some thoughts; here is what I think:

 * There really ought to be exceptions to the naming convention, when it comes to destinations other than cities or countries. I mean, there's good reason why the article for Zion National Park (which I should also point out is a Star article, for which I've invested a tremendous amount of effort into the Walt Disney World article) is called just that and not just "Zion".

 * I also think that the title of just "Disneyland" could also apply to Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland, or Tokyo Disneyland, creating even more confusion for French, Chinese, and Japanese readers.

 * As for the Walt Disney World Resort article, the name should either stay as it is or have only the "Resort" dropped; the "Walt" must stay put. The reason for this is clearly addressed in the infobox titled "An ode to Walt" in the Understand section. I have also been at a loss as to how to incorporate this quote into the article:

 * "Everyone has heard of the Ford cars. But have they all heard of Henry Ford, who started it all? Walt Disney World is in memory of the man who started it all, so people will know his name as long as Walt Disney World is here." -- Roy O. Disney

(WT-en) Jonathan 784 16:42, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, I would argue that Zion National Park is the most common name, not just Zion. For Disneyland, the original one is by far the most famous and well-known, which is why it should still occupy the main "Disneyland" spot, the same as we would do for say Memphis, even though the one in Tennessee isn't the only one in existence. @ LtPowers, I agree that redirects make it easy to find an article, but this is no different than any city or other thing that the naming conventions apply to, we always use the most common name, unless there's a really good reason not to, and so far I don't think any good argument has been brought to diverge from the conventions – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:00, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ambiguity seems like sufficient reason in this case, at least arguably so. The ambiguity is with both the other Disneylands around the world as well as the original Disneyland Park.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:57, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

This ought to be discussed again now that it is in the context of WikiVoyage. With the greater visibility of WikiVoyage through its promotion through Wikipedia, it seems there is great potential for expanding this article.

The Disneyland resort is expansive enough to justify separate articles for at least Disneyland, Disney California Adventure, Downtown Disney, and the resort hotels. I could envision separate articles for each individual land in each park and each individual resort hotel. The article describing The Disneyland Resort should be named as such. The name "Disneyland" should be reserved for an article specific to the individual Disneyland park and not the entire resort. Gilly3 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Disneyland/Disneyland Park would be the name of the park article, were one to be created; I think that's sufficiently clear, don't you? You can look to Walt Disney World (a star article) as a model for what large vacation resorts might look like.  LtPowers (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Images
What's with the images? They aren't showing up! (WT-en) Jonathan 784 12:39, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Fixed now. See . (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:06, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The images have disappeared again. And I don't understand the discussion one bit. Please copy and paste the useful information to my discussion posting. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 00:06, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Disneyland


text:
Talk:Disneyland Paris

Disneyland
Moved from Talk:Paris by (WT-en) Evan

Should Disneyland Europe be grouped in with Paris (I think it should, since it's officially located "in" Paris), and/or should it get its own page (which would make linking possible)? -- (WT-en) Nils 23:22 Jan 10th, 2004 (CET)

 * Isn't there an Ile de France page or something like that? Seems like it should link from there.  Meanwhile a link in the Paris Get Out section would make sense.  But mainly I think since people treat it as a destination in its own right it should probably get its own page. -- (WT-en) Mark 18:57, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * We have a few links for Disneyland on, say, California -- but no article yet. I'd think EuroDisney would be its own page, too. But I dunno. --(WT-en) Evan 19:05, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * Alright, so let's make a Disneyland page. Afterall huge crowds gather there every year. I'll do the EuroDisney page then. Should we call it "EuroDisyney", "Disneyland Europe" or "Disneyland Resort Paris"? -- (WT-en) Nils 2:56 Jan 11th, 2004 CET

 * Just my two eurocents, but EuroDisney is a destination according to my favorite Project:What's an article? rule-of-thumb: people go there, eat there, and sleep there. So I think EuroDisney gets an article, but I'd probably say something like Six Flags Magic Mountain or the Beach Bordwalk wouldn't. Just want to make the point that this gets a page because it is a 'destiantion' and not just cause it's very popular. Also agree with Mark about linking from Paris "get out." (WT-en) Majnoona

 * The page should be called Disneyland Resort Paris not EuroDisney. Disneyland Europe is an unofficial term, and EuroDisney is the corporation that operates Disneyland Paris but not the name of the attraction itself. Disneyland Paris is a right enough name, so it's either than or, the more official, long name, Disneyland Resort Paris. I also think it should have its own page. (WT-en) Ronline 03:31, 15 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * Hm. Rather Disneyland Paris than "Disneyland Resort Paris".. Of course we could always use sub-pages. Paris/Disneyland? Disneyland/Paris? Opinions? (WT-en) Nils Jan 23rd, 2004

 * We pretty much only use sub-pages for districts of a huge city. And for some talk pages. But that's about it. --(WT-en) Evan 12:00, 23 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * Still, all Disneylands share fundamentally the same characteristics, plus it'd solve link issues. Just link to Disneyland and pick whichever you want. It'd also solve the naming issues if we just use Disneyland/ . Ah well, I'll just use Disneyland Paris, we can always move it later. (WT-en) Nils 12:26 Jan 24th 2004 (CET)

Naming: the Google test
The almighty Google says:

"Disneyland Paris": 589,000 "Eurodisney": 341,000 "Disneyland Resort Paris": 181,000

Case closed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:52, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

The official name is Disneyland Resort Paris from 2002 onwards.

ouigo
According to Internet research, the low cost train operated by SNCF seems to have the center of its network in Disneyland Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2016

Again with the corporate shouting?
Why on earth do we have to follow Disney's inane corporate shouting on spelling "Fastpass" in ALL CAPS? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Prices
Oh for the love of Zeus, if we are going to provide prices, why do we provide them for 2013, which is four years past? Either provide them for the current year or leave it be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Disneyland Paris


text:
Talk:Disney Magic

VFD Discussion
A cruise ship and a cruise line respectively.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Obviously valuable information. It needs to be merged somewhere but where would you propose putting it?  We never came to a clear consensus last time we discussed cruise lines.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:39, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * The same user has made edits here inserting names of cruise lines, I guess with the intention of starting an article for each. I would err on the of caution as I can see this becoming a slippery slope. Airline articles likewise - I am not quite sure why we have them. With articles about Cruise lines and Airlines, what next? Hotel groups? Bus companies? Tour agencies? It feels very slippery indeed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:24, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Delete. I am definitely in agreement with Burmesedays here, this is a very slippery slope. And I really see no good information in either of these articles, especially an article about a cruise ship. I think we should take a very hard line here; the Cruise ships article does a good job covering the general topic, and we should leave it at that - leave the specific cruise line/ship info to other sources, as that info is going to be 1) too much, 2) too unmaintainable, and 3) too undefined (as in, where exactly do we draw the line?) for Wikivoyage. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

It's probably best that we revisit Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article before coming to decisions on these. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:16, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I have re-opened that discussion.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:10, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

The issues around cruise ship articles still aren't resolved, leaving these two nominations in a somewhat ambiguous state. The discussion on Project:What is an article seemed to be moving in a direction that would lead to creating broader articles with redirects for smaller topics like these, so would anyone be opposed to treating these two articles as "keep" and then converting them to redirects if/when that discussion reaches some consensus? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:00, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Policy discussions on cruise lines are ongoing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:19, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Disney Magic


text:
Talk:Disney MGM Studios

If Disney MGM Studios is part of Disneayworld, it should not have its own article. -- (WT-en) Nils 06:09, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Disney MGM Studios


text:
Talk:Distrito Federal (Brazil)

Merge
Is there any reason not to merge this into Brasilia? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:18, 9 February 2008 (EST)
 * I agree. This article should be merged to Brasilia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 * It is the same reason why we don't have articles for the Australian Capital Territory or the District of Columbia. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * per nom. More useful as a merged article. Ground Zero (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 23:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Distrito Federal (Brazil)


text:
Talk:Divača

While the caves kick ass, I'm not really sure they're a destination or even a park, it's just an attraction. The nearest town is Divaca, should this be moved there? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

 * There is a regional park there. The caves are the main attraction, although there are a few hiking trails.  No accommodation though (that I could find).  I was trying think of how to present this in Wikivoyage while I was there and thought of using the Divaca page for this as well as the Lipica stud farm.  The only problem I see is the caves are a much bigger attraction than Divaca (I didn't even stop there so I have no idea how big it is or what is there).  I guess I'm still undecided about the whole thing. (WT-en) Shaund 09:35, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

 * We can include information about the caves in the article for Divaca (perhaps as its main attraction) and redirect links to this article to that one. If it turns out that the caves and park take up more of the resulting article than the city does, we can then reverse that arrangement.  It's like 5.9 of one, half a dozen of the other. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

 * OK, moved page to Divača. Will try to dig up some more info over the weekend to fill it out a bit. (WT-en) Shaund 22:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Divača


text:
Talk:Dive sites

Redirect
I'd suggest this article be redirected to Scuba diving as listing every dive site in the world would literally entail a list of thousands of items. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:49, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I've made this change. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:08, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dive sites


text:
Talk:Dive sites of saipan

I think this info should be put in the "Do" section on the Saipan page. Even with large amounts of info like this it's usually possible to create it as a subsection in do... perhaps with a small amount of trimming/editing... There should be a "scuba diving" subsection (===) and then individual headings for the dive sites (====) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dive sites of saipan


text:
Talk:Diving in Saipan

The information comes from my personal blog (http://hafa-adive.blogspot.com/). No problem using the info.

 * Nice blog! If the info is yours then it's cool and I'll bump the copyvio notice off the page. I do however still think this information will be far better off if it is part of Scuba diving. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:52, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I think there is enough information to justify an article and there is potential for growth as an independant article to something good, and it has been linked from Scuba diving and Saipan. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 14:30, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Rename
Propose renaming to Diving in Saipan to conform with standard diving regional article nomenclature. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diving in Saipan


text:
Talk:Divide County (North Dakota)

I'm not sure if I like having the external link after the city names on the county pages-- maybe just keep those on the city destination pages? (WT-en) Majnoona 22:25, 8 May 2005 (EDT)

city links in county pages
Your idea is a good one, Maj. But they are there just as place holders for now, until the city articles are added. Still a lot of work to capture all the county information. (WT-en) Stavp

 * I would suggest putting the placeholders on the talk pages, rather than on the county pages, unless you know that you are going to make stubs for all of the various cities within the coming days. As it is they are well outside of the Project:Manual of style and will probably get deleted eventually by somebody who's going around fixing broken windows.  On the talk pages pretty much anything goes though. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:33, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

OK, will do. (WT-en) Stavp

 * Thanks, by the way for doing all of this work on ND. Let me know if you need street maps of any particular place. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:51, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Hi, Mark. How is everything in beautiful Lausanne. Thank you for your kind comments. I am having a lot of fun putting together the complete ND package. I have seen your maps an they are very well done. You are clearly expert in this area. In regards to your offer for mapmaking for ND, I would very much welcome your help to make a state map with graphical links to the regions and to the counties. I am imagining a color coded map of the counties, which can be seen, for example. at. The color code would correspond to the regions as defined here. However, due to two previously defined regions on the ND state article, two counties (Bottineau and Rolette) are defined as a separate region called Turtle Mountains. Also five western counties, (Billings, Bowman, Golden Valley, McKenzie and Slope) are defined as their own region, Badlands. Is this something that you would be willing to try? (WT-en) Stavp 21:15, 10 May 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Divide County (North Dakota)


text:
Talk:Diving in Durban

Permission to use material fro Durban Undersea Club dive site web page
Hi Peter – I managed to VIEW wikivoyage link….

In terms of safety – SMB is critcal!

Diving in currents and low viz in summer / autum months..

Again I have written a few articles on SMB use so if you want that I can send that to you with pleasure – also have pics etc..

I see you have taken some of the info off the DUC website already eg diving conditions etc – I wrote all that stuff so you are welcome to use it – again just please credit me as has been done on the DUC website.

Yarningdale is not really a dive site – it is a mark off Yardingdale block off flats on No.1– not a common dive spot.

Containers is a exactly that – Containers that are lying on the sand.

The Odd is spelt Odd.

There are two main sections of reef (eg like in Sodwana you have 2 mile with lots of dive spots on it)…

Blood Reef is on the Bluff

No.1 is 5km out to see – Nevs ledge, Raggies , Bat Reef , Daves Cave

Blood Reef – bikini, caves, Big Cave , Birthday Ledges etc

Bryan Hart

From: Peter Southwood Sent: 01 October 2010 10:43 PM To: Hart, B. (Bryan) Subject: Durban dive sites

Hi Bryan,

I got your e-mail address from the DUC website,

I am working on dive sites of South Africa (and for that matter anywhere else if I can get the information) on Wikivoyage. So far I have done fairly extensive work on Cape Town at http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay but I dont have much information on other parts of the country. The website is free and anyone may edit. You are required to release any information on CC-by-sa 3.0, which means anyone can use it, but must acknowledge the source.

I would like to invite you and any other members of your club who have the inclination to contribute to this open source website. It is being used by clubs in Cape Town and a few of the commercial operators. If you dont have the inclination or time to do the editing, just upload the text to http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Diving_in_Durban at the bottom of the page and I will reformat and shuffle it to fit. Photos and maps can also be uploaded and linked to the site, and if you want to do that as well I can help when needed.

It is helpful but not obligatory to create a username at Wikivoyage (free), so you can be contacted about contributions where this may be useful.

I am User:Pbsouthwood on Wikivoyage

Cheers,

Peter Southwood

Southern Underwater Research Group (SURG) and False Bay Underwater Club

The Kate
This source gives the depth as 60 fathoms - about 110m, compared with the 60m we currently have. Rich Farmbrough (talk) Rich Farmbrough (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diving in Durban


text:
Talk:Diving in Thailand

Diving in Thailand
Redundant vs. Scuba diving, Scuba diving in Asia and specific listings for Thailand.

 * Delete -- (WT-en) Colin 23:00, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Well... an article should contain content relating the name of the article which over here is Diving in Thailand so of course the content has specific listings for Thailand. And regarding being redundant, I think if Scuba diving can have a link to Scuba diving in Asia, Scuba diving in Australia (even though some of the contents are similar in each) then why not Scuba diving in Asia having a further link to Diving in Thailand ?

By the way, what about Scuba diving in Australia then? isn't that redundant too but it is still acceptable? What's the difference between Scuba diving in Australia and Diving in Thailand? May i know please in case i can adjust my content to match wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Borndistinction 03:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Yes, how can you have an article on Diving/Australia but not Diving/Thailand?! Double standards? .--(WT-en) Thai-blogs

 * Keep It's one of the better travel topic articles we have.

 * Keep I'd sooner see Diving in Southeast Asia and scrap both the Asia and Thailand articles; that strikes me as the right scope. However, I'm not a diver and not volunteering to do the work, so that opinion can be ignored. (WT-en) Pashley 18:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. The basics on "diving in Thailand" should be covered in Thailand, and then individual destinations should be covered in those respective articles... we don't need to strip this out of the main Thailand article – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
 * How about using the article as a pointer? ie, keep the general info on this page, but the specific info on local articles. In this case, places such as Krabi can be listed as links rather than headings... just throwing out an idea... (WT-en) WindHorse 23:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Keep or merge with Scuba diving in Asia, it seems reasonable that one might take a trip to Thailand just to scuba dive and so it's a reasonable field of pursuit. (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep as list of pointers per Windhorse's suggestion. Diving in Asia seems like a much more suspect & redundant article to me, especially since the Asia article is spare & could use the writing in its "do" section. (These travel topic discussions are fun; each contributor always comes out on the same side of things, since we clearly don't agree on how to work travel topics!) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Seems that we're leaning towards keep on this one, if that's going to happen, someone should jump in and actually turn it into that golden list of pointers and remove all the redundant info that should be in scuba diving instead – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Thailand is a major diving destination and this article could get much larger if detailed site descriptions are written. Much of the unsuitable information can be removed and if not redundant, moved to Scuba Diving or Scuba diving in Asia and the layout Wikivoyageised. If nobody else does it first I will try to get around to cleaning it up in between my other projects. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 05:23, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Cleanup
I have started by editing the destinations. The information looks useful, but the style tends to hyperbole. I am starting to whittle it down. Clearly written by a number of people, judging by the number of sites claimed to be best in the country. Also improving intelligibility. Need some advice on how best to deal with the huge lists of shops, dive schools etc. Should they be cut out and pasted into the city article under buy/learn or whatever? If so, how does this information get labelled so the diver can find it easily? Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 06:51, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, individual dive shops should be placed as listings under Do in the destinations where they are physically based. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:00, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I will do what I can, but some of the destinations are regions not towns and the Thai nomenclature passeth my understanding. I have temporarily bunged the whole lot into a sub-article Diving in Thailand/Contacts while I try to work out which go where. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:23, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I have pretty much sorted out the article as far as I can go at this stage. My ignorance of dive destinations in Thailand is profound, so I can not change the text much except to improve the English. I have removed a few statements that were meaningless to me, toned down the flowery phrases, removed excessive multiple adjectives and Wikivoyageised to the best of my understanding. Please, other Wikivoyagers, take a look, and if you have any suggestions let me know. I fear I must leave the redistribution of contacts to someone who can work out where they should go. I tried and must declare myself baffled. I have also added as I think it will be useful to use breadcrumb navigation in what may become a fairly extensive dive guide component of Wikivoyage. I intend to experimentally apply this to other dive guide articles using Scuba Diving as the top level. If there are any objections in principle, let me know. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 17:03, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Great job! (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:25, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

The discussion below moved from Talk:Diving in Thailand/Contacts

This page was originally created to serve as a temporary repository for the information on diving operators and services originally included in the main article diving in Thailand, because there appeared to be consensus that it was out of place in the main article and should be distributed among the appropriate destinations.

I have recently come to a different conclusion. The information provided is ONLY of interest to divers. Why clutter the main article with this information when a simple link can take anyone who is actually interested in diving to all the information for the region with a click? My idea at this point is that the information and listings of dive shops, operators, schools etc belongs with the lowest level (regional) dive guide article. Where in the article is another question, and I dont have the answer to this one yet. "Services" is the most generic and meaningful heading I can think of, but it does not have the same character as most of the Wikivoyage style headers, which tend to be more active sounding words. However a general heading for all the commercial services is only one option. The existing Wikivoyage generic headings "Learn", "Buy", and "Cope" could cover Dive schools, Dive shops, and Equipment service agents, leaving only charter operators, which could be classed either as "Get around" or "Do". My leaning is towards "Do" at present, as "Get around" is more suited to the ordinary travelling modes needed to get to where the operators take over. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 02:25, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Pbsouthwood, would you agree that all individual listings, such as for dive shops, should be deleted from this article? I'd like to delete all of them as soon as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diving in Thailand


text:
Talk:Diving in the Philippines

This article was started because the information on Diving in the Philippines in Scuba diving was getting too much. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:09, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Diving in the Philippines