text:
Talk:South Africa

9 cities revisited
I removed the following two cities from the list because the '9 city' rule had been broken. If anyone feels the following are more deserving to ge back on the list, then go ahead:

 * East London – Coastal city in the Eastern Cape situated close to the Wild Coast

 * Newcastle – 3rd largest city in KwaZulu-Natal, 10th largest in South Africa and Capital of Northern KZN. Famous for Steel Production, Coal Mining, Heavy Industry and is South Africa's Textile Industry Capital.

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the cities referred to above, need not be forgotten, there's plenty of other highlighting opportunities in other sections of the article to include them.

Country Guide Status
I'm a bit new to this, but from what I've read, surely this article deserves more than 'Outline' status? Ajof (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome! And have a look at Country guide status. Are all the "Cities" and "Other destinations" at Usable status or better? If not, it can't be Usable. There are other criteria, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Laundry list of flights
Currently "By plane" has a bulleted list of about 50 flights (I didn't count them), with a description of how frequent these flights are. The information may or (more likely) may not be up to date, but IMO this long list looks sort of ugly. Should we remove it? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * remove, but first check on the city articles that there is some mention of flights. And maybe ensure at least a mention of the internal airports on this page. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Driving in South Africa article?
The get around by car section has been greatly expanded as of lately, which is wonderful (thanks to User:CharlieCares). Should we dedicate a separate Driving in South Africa article for the details, like we've done for many countries already? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. Being someone with a vast driving experience in the Southern African region, I can say from first hand experience, such a focused article would be a good idea. Despite some regions having deteriorated through maintenance and improvement neglect for some years, the situation is currently being addressed. Notwithstanding, South Africa still boasts an excellent road network and related infractures, a largely pleasant and helpful population, unique cultural and scenic experiences and affordable costs, more so if taking major currencies exchange rates into account. Some may bring out the crime levels as a deterrent, however, the prevalence of the worst criminal activity, is concentrated around a few areas outside tourist interest. Car highjacking is by enlarge a well planed hit, where sindicates place orders for wanted models and teams study a target. Smash and grag at traffic lights is a crime of opportunity, where basic precautions such as keeping cell phones, hand bags or valuables out of sight go a long way to prevent it. Pickpocketing or mugging is very rare in tourist popular spots but the same keep valuables out of sight principle applies. Credit card cloning can be bad in certain areas, therefore, well advertised precautions also apply, including not handing your card to anyone by demanding you handle the payment devices yourself only. Do not accept any unsolicited help from anyone in busy places. If in need of help, look for uniformed police or private security agents. All in all, personal safety requirements in SA or neighbouring countries is not that much different than in Europe, America's or Southeast Asia. The locals from quiet areas may be more curious about outsiders, but mean no harm. Keeping a few packets of sweets and candy bars to give away in the eventuality of requiring assistance or just because you want to, goes a long way as a thank you or to establish good will. In certain rural areas, people maybe poor and show humbleness out of respect but are not stupid or undeserving of equal consideration. In a nutshell, driving through Southern Africa can be a very rewarding experience if you approach it with the correct attitude. —The preceding comment was added by CharlieCares (talk • contribs)

 * As nobody else has commented in almost a week, I'll plunge forward and create Driving in South Africa and move most of the information there.
 * Ps. please feel free to add the above information to the new article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map
Below is the map with all Wikidata items for the districts of South Africa. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes.--Renek78 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay who broke the listings this time?
South_Africa No information, just a large red error message. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Digging through the article's history, this edit in early August introduced the first errors. -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. ARR8 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I fixed/reverted all of these... sorry :-/ -- andree.sk (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

12-hour clock or 24-hour clock?
Which is used more commonly in SA? Ground Zero (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus Travel Restrictions
Regarding Covid-19 controls, I think they opened up the country to international flights once again as of today. Do you think we should update the alert? Lazarus1255 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Isn't the omicron wave well and truly over in South Africa? Should we remove the COVID-19 warning? At the very least, it has to be copy edited. I'll do some quick edits, so that we're not laughingstocks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How new is the South African variant
The first line of the covid box says the following:

"A new variant of COVID-19 is spreading in South Africa, which is more transmissible than the original virus. While South Africa's borders are open, travel to South Africa is strongly discouraged. Some countries have even banned travellers coming from South Africa."

Hasn't it been about 10 months since the variant emerged? Is that variant still an issue with South Africa today, or are they, just like the rest of the world, challenged by Delta. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * South African-Money01.jpg
 * Evidently, money is subject to a restricted copyright in South Africa, so if we want to use this photo as fair use, we'll have to upload it locally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

On verge of civil war?
Take this for whatever it's worth: food and water’: South Africa faces ‘civil war’ conditions if power grid collapses":

South Africa is on the verge of “collapse” amid rolling blackouts and warnings a total power grid failure could lead to mass rioting on the scale of a “civil war”.

Western embassies including the United States and Australia have advised their citizens in the country to stock up on “several days worth” of food and water and be on high alert during extended blackouts sweeping the country.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a national “state of disaster” on February 9 in response to the record electricity shortage, which has seen state-owned power company Eskom institute rolling blackouts – dubbed “load shedding” – lasting up to 12 hours in some cases.[...]

''“Eskom estimates, in the best case scenario, it would take six to 14 days to restart the power grid,” the official said. “There are a few feeder lines from other countries, but not enough to help with a black start situation.”''

The official warned of mass looting and civil unrest if the grid collapsed, quoting an unnamed individual as saying, “What’s left after a blackout would be what was left after a civil war.”[...]

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I wouldn't take the news.com.au article at face value. While there is always the possibility of a civil war, this isn't the first time that media outlet has jumped the gun. I also am not too sure where they source their content from, as they have copied content from unsourced Reddit posts various times before (that link isn't the only case this happened, but it goes to show that their credibility isn't the most reliable compared to other Australian media outlets). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * That's good to know. The article is very alarmist, to say the least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * About 19 days later, here's another article where news.com.au overexaggerated the point. To quote the first paragraph:

"France is “burning” after a government move sparked the biggest nationwide protest in history, complete with fuel shortages, mass arrests and wild claims the crisis now resembles “civil war”."
 * While the protests in France are violent, they are nowhere near a "civil war". -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in SA right now, admittedly as a coddled tourist in that family members and drivers are taking us around. They talk frankly about the risks of crime, but no-one has mentioned collapse, civil war, or mass rioting. The EFF staged a "national strike" on Monday, which involved some violence in a few places, but otherwise fizzled. South Africans are learning how to deal with load-shedding. A collapse of the grid would be a different kettle of fish, but that article seems ridiculously alarmist. I bet it got a lot of clicks. Wikivoyage is not playing the game of getting clicks. Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Loadshedding
One of the most prevalent issues for tourists entering South Africa are the rolling blackouts and in some places power can be out for up to 12 hours a day. Many tourists I have hosted in rental are completely oblivious of the constant power outages that have been present daily since 2016 often resulting in complaints. I suggest someone should add a section or a warning that power is unlikely to be accessible for most periods of the day, since there is not one mention of this in the article which is quite shocking. 197.94.65.160 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a very useful addition to the article. As you are South African, you would be the best person here to make the edit. Wikivoyage is the travel guide you can edit. Ground Zero (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:197, Thanks for your contribution. I hope you will make other edits to SA articles to help improve our coverage of your country. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Race
There was a 2½-page Race subsection of Respect, explaining terminology that was official in the Apartheid era and still is in use by some, but disapproved by others. The section gave no guidance on in what contexts the terminology might be appropriate. I assume the classification shouldn't be used by visitors to the country (unless they are involved in history or research where it is relevant, and then should have better guides to it).

Some of the content could be moved to People or the history sections in Understand (where you can find different groups, what languages they speak, how they arrived), but it and probably the context need to be reworked for it to fit. I am now simply replacing the explanations with a summary and short discussion. I'm leaving most of the general discussion alone

–LPfi (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Do we need to say coloured in contexts not about history? According to Race and apartheid:
 * "Coloured: a mixed-race cultural group with white and African ancestors from the early colonial period, but also the indigenous Khoisan peoples, descendants of the Cape Malay slaves and the ethnic Chinese community"
 * and
 * "Although you probably will hear those terms, it might be better to avoid using them yourself altogether. For the indigenous, think of Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, etc. instead."

 * I would hope we could use that latter advice (it is is my wording, but hopefully retaining the spirit of what was there before).

 * Now we use "Coloured" e.g. in the sentence
 * "[Cape Town is] the heart of South Africa's Coloured and Cape Malay communities."
 * and
 * "Afrikaans is the mother tongue of the majority of the white and Coloured population."

 * Is Afrikaans the mother tongue of most Khoisan people and ethnic Chinese? Is Cape Town the heart of the Khoisan communities? Why do we explicitly mention the Cape Malay people when they are already included?

 * Perhaps English is the mother tongue of most of the group "with white and African ancestors from the early colonial period", perhaps it's the heartland for their communities? Now, repeating that definition is awkward, but using a word that includes the Khoisan and Chinese seems rather misleading.

 * –LPfi (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The Coloured people of mixed white and black ancestry to my understanding are traditionally primarily Afrikaans-speakers. I don't think the advice for visitors to avoid using those terms in speech means it's offensive for us to use this term in writing as a convenient short-hand that's well understood in South Africa and referred to by South Africans. And on the basis that when speaking of the Cape, it's understood that the Khoisan and Chinese people are not the default meaning of "Coloured", the remarks you've quoted seem clear enough to me. If you think that's a real issue, do you also think that talking about white South Africans could be considered to refer to Japanese people by default, simply because they were (from what I recall) considered "honorary whites" under Apartheid? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is and isn't offensive for South Africans, that I do not know, but I am afraid that we are lumping people together in an unfortunate way (which is often the case with generalisations by "race").
 * I don't know why I should understand that Khoisan and Chinese should be excluded when talking about "Coloured" in the Cape. If the words have an other meaning in common speech in South Africa than the obsolete legal one we present in Respect, then that should be told in an obvious place before using the word.
 * I used quotes for coloured when I supposed the legal sense was meant, GZ changed to Coloured, which also seems to refer to a formal definition. White is used uncapitalised without quotes, which seems to refer to an everyday meaning, which I assume usually doesn't include East Asians, but whether it does include the Japanese in South Africa, I have no idea (but talking about mother tongues, they are hardly a big enough group to matter).
 * –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I replaced "Coloured" by "Cape Coloured", the term used in Cape Town, in the description of the city. I assume that handles the problem for the bullet. For Talk, it might be that the coloured in the sense used by GZ and IK dominate the coloured in the obsolete legal sense, which would make the statements on language and political leanings correct whether or not the Khoisan and Chinese are included in the figures. I am still not very happy about using the word, but I can accept it, as I don't see it now causing misunderstandings. Actually, as the San and Khoikhoi traditionally lived by the cape, I assume you can get to see some of their culture by visiting Cape Town. –LPfi (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the application of the term to Khoisan and Chinese South Africans, only with reference to mixed race and Cape Malay. During my brief experience in SA last year (mostly in Cape Town), I had to get used to the using the term because it is what is used. Perhaps could help here. Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here responding to a ping, but not sure what the question is. What I can say though, is that there are not many people in Cape Town who would identify as Khoisan except maybe a few for political reasons. Plenty who would probably have some Khoisan or KhoiKhoi somewhere in their ancestry, but unless trying to make some political point I would not expect them to make a big deal of it. On the other hand, I just live here, to me they are just local people. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least based on Wikipedia, under Apartheid, the South African Chinese and Cape Malays were classified under "coloured" as well. Is that accurate? And I recall people telling me that Japanese people were classified as "white" under Apartheid. The dog2 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember reading that Japanese businessmen were treated as "honorary whites" so that they weren't repelled and prompted to stop investing by facing racial discrimination. The Nazis had a similar policy toward their Japanese allies (though I believe that would have been ended immediately if the Axis powers had won, and then the Nazis would have fought against Japan; no way to know that for sure). Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify my point, to my knowledge, the South African Chinese and Malays don't identify as "coloured". They were just classified as such by the Apartheid government to determine what facilities they were allowed to use. But if you ask them what their ethnic background is, they will say "Chinese" or "Malay" respectively. The dog2 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably true. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please check the "Respect" section again. To my knowledge, using the term "Kalahari Bushmen" to refer to the Khoisan peoples is today considered racist, and that's something that foreigners might not know because it's been so widely used. The dog2 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * w:San people#Names has some discussion, which shows that the issue is complicated. The usage has developed significantly in a process that probably started after apartheid, and the sources for that discussion are a bit old, so it probable cannot be trusted for the current situation. –LPfi (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The dog2, I don't think I have ever met a person who realistically claimed identity in the ethnic group under discussion, I am not up to date on the genuine academic position, if there is one, and do not trust what politicians and journalists claim, so I will not give a personal opinion other than I would refer to them as people, and try not to label them unnecessarily. I prefer not to be labeled with my ethnic group, and resent it any time I am required to fill in a space on an official form, as the main reason it is used is to treat people unequally. We are 30 years out of apartheid, it is way past time to drop the stick. Also, what LPfi says. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Africa


text:
Talk:South America

This page has content translated from its Portuguese version based on work by Evan Prodromou, and Wikivoyage users Episteme, Rmx and Pmichelazzo as well as anonymous users. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:38, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Groupings
Isn't it way too much countries? I think it's better if we'd come up with some logical regions in South America. Like: - Andean states (Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia) - Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay) - The Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana) - Brazil (WT-en) Globe-trotter 15:30, 21 December 2008 (EST)

 * I think this is a pretty good exception to our 9 rule, I don't see a need to do regions for South America, it's manageable as-is, and while it would be possible to do regions similar to what you suggest, they aren't really well known and I think would feel forced... unlike Asia where the regions really make sense and are known regions outside of our hierarchy – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)

 * I totally agree, let's leave it as-is. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 13:08, 24 December 2009 (EST)
 * Most of other WV have now grouped the countries into 4 sub-regions as suggested by Globe-trotter a few years back. Should we still stick to the current region-list and leave it as it is? --Saqib (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've implemented it time ago on it:voy and also nl:voy use it. Considering the similarities of the countries within each reagion it make sense to create this layer between the continent and the countries. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Leave well enough alone. 14 countries is not unmanageable and I shudder to think of the arguments as to where to stick the Falklands; what does it have in common with Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay? or is it going to be in a "region" by itself, like Brazil? --118.93nzp (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Falklands has a lot in common with Argentina... try to ask it to mr. Galtieri ;-) -- Andyrom75 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cities
This one is a little trickier than the other destinations list, but nonetheless I only have two suggestions: I understand the rationale behind listing Cuzco and Cartagena, since they are both more alluring tourist destinations than my suggestions, but travel is much broader than tourism, and at the continental level I think we really need to just hit the biggest destinations (be it for business, study, backpacking, shopping, sightseeing, or whatever else). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)
 * 1) Drop Cuzco for La Paz, since we'll otherwise have three Peruvian destinations on top of each other (and because La Paz is both important and incredibly unique)
 * 2) Drop Cartagena for Bogota, because the latter is both an interesting cosmopolitan city, and the third largest metropolis on the continent
 * Certainly at the continental level there's a good argument for just picking the top nine destinations by pure numbers, as long as they aren't all clustered in one continental section. I was just noticing yesterday that North America could use some work; it doesn't list any cities at all.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * I added a list here, to North America, and Central America, just to get the ball rolling on the talks. Switching those cities looks good. It seems much easier to represent more areas in South America, as opposed to some of the other regions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:27, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Other destinations
Nice list! I'd only make one change, and that would be to add Iguaçu Falls. It's hard to say which should go to make room, but I'm tempted to suggest the Pantanal. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * I'd remove Amazonia; it's just too large to be useful. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:10, 17 December 2009 (EST)

 * I agree with LtPowers. I think the same applies to the Andes, also way too large to really be considered a "destination". --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 16:39, 13 November 2011 (EST)

South America / North America
The first page of Wikivoyage should reflect this definition.
 * Delete South America or North America is not a valid definition of continent. There are only five continents in the world. Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Some may consider Antartica another continent. However its mainly in the United States that this separation exists because of the co-mingling of the word America (referring to the United States itself) and the American continent. The United Nations, the Olympic Committee and other international organizations only recognize five continents.
 * I think they are useful travel regions. It's not relevant to travel whether they count as separate continents. --Peter Talk 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep Wikivoyage uses the common definition of regions, even if the official one differs. Plus, North and South America are extremely different both geographically and culturally. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Please pardon me for saying so, but the reasoning behind the argument to delete seems absurd to me. In no sense - neither geographic, political, historical, traditional, nor cultural - is there a single continent of "America." If anything, one could make a strong argument for a third continent of Central America, based on tectonic plates. But Central America is grouped more with North than South America. Nor, by the way, do I know of any geographer who questions Antarctica as a continent. You could make a much stronger argument for Eurasia being a continent, but we're not going to delete Europe, either. Tourists visit Europe, South America, Australia, etc. - all continents. And we would serve the traveler in what way be eliminating the articles about these continents?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Do you also plan to delete Southern Africa and Northern Africa? In many cases, it is useful to have an article about a group of countries even if the group of countries might not officially count as a "continent". --Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. They are logical groupings that travelers will recognize. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not the travellers' concern whether they constitute actual continents or not. They are useful and often used distinctions. Texugo (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: If Northern and Southern California have articles, so to should North and South America. Regardless of whether they are continents are not, they are well-known geographic distinctions.  This isn't the proper place to discuss the merits of this being designated Pur ple back pack  89    04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "keep" while some country's schools teach a world model where there is only one American continent, most of the world sees N and S America as very different. Frankly, Central America is not seen as being in North America by most Canadians. JadeDragon (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedy keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do in Uraguay
I actually don't know much about Uraquay. Someone listed the following under 'do' but I'd rather not list them without any explanation what they are. Otherwise it is just a list of Spanish names. Even if I translate (East point, Point of the Devil, etc) it doesn't help.

Visit:
 * Punta del Este
 * Colonia del Sacramento
 * La Pedrera
 * Punta del Diablo
 * Cabo Polonio
 * Quebrada de los Cuervos

Can anyone elaborate? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't know anything about "Uraquay", Uruguay on the other hand... :)
 * Most of these are beach resorts (or rather plain villages with beaches), Quebrada de los Cuervos is a canyon landcape and Colonia is stepping right into the 17th century. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and overall the Do section is an eyesore and has to be turned into prose. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just nuked most of it, or rather, I weeded out all the things that do not actually qualify as Do activities anyway, and placed them below for possible re-incorporation into a more appropriate section (most of them are just See, Cities, or Other destinations items in disguise). At any rate, this section shouldn't be breaking things down by country; that just duplicates the Do section of each country here in a list. It should be giving the reader a best-of look at the continent as a whole, and it should probably be broken into broad topics like Adventure / Extreme sports / Festivals and the like, with a well-chosen 7±2 items in each subsection. Texugo (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Texugo. I think the way Europe looks might be a pointer as to where want this article to be going. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Europe is indeed our best (least worst) continent article even with the See section cut short and could be used as an example/model both for this and other continent articles. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Argentina

 * See the end of the world in Patagonia
 * Witness the Devils Throat at Iguazu Falls

Bolivia

 * See one of the supposed birthplace of the Incas at Lake Titicaca, South Americas Largest Lake

Brazil

 * Sail up the Amazon to Três Fronteiras on an old cargo boat near the tripoint where the borders of Brazil, Peru, and Colombia meet.
 * Visit the Rio Carnival and its Favelas

Chile

 * Take a break from civilization visiting the Chilean Patagonia
 * Look at the universe through the world's clearest sky in the Atacama Desert

Colombia

 * Visit the lost city of Tayrona
 * Visit the old city of Cartagena
 * Visit El Cocuy National Park
 * Visit Gorgona Island

Ecuador

 * Visit the Galapagos Islands
 * Ride the roof of the Devils Nose Train from Riobamba (no longer possible)
 * Visit the cloud forests in the valley of youth in Vilcabamba

French Guiana

 * See a rocket launch at the European Space Agency's launch site in Kourou
 * Visit the former French penal colony islands, Îles du Salut.

Guyana

 * Buy gold jewelry and other locally made beautiful crafts.
 * Travel along the rivers by speedboat.

Paraguay

 * Enjoy the diverse cuisine with Native American influences
 * Buy electronics and whatnot in Ciudad del Este
 * Experience Mennonite culture in the town of Filadelfia.

Peru

 * See the Incan ruins of Machu Picchu at sunrise
 * Witness the glory of the Andes Mountains
 * See the mysterious Nazca lines from air

Venezuela

 * Visit Cumaná, the oldest city in America
 * Visit Canaima, a natural UNESCO heritage park, with beautiful scenarios and the Angel falls, the longest waterfall in the world
 * Go to Los Roques archipelago
 * Visit Mérida, and hop on in the longest and highest cable car in the world; the Mérida's cable car

1-liner listings?
Should each country have a 1-liner listing? I guess my personal view is that each listing should be whatever length is most useful to the traveler; however, Continent article template suggests that 1-liner listings should be used:

==Regions==

''This section is for listing any specific regions of a continent. For instance, Asia is divided into 6 areas (East Asia, Southeast Asia, etc) to make it easier to digest. List regions that make up the continent, with a brief one line description:''

 * Region A - A mountainous wonderland that will change your life
 * Region B - warm beaches and slow lifestyle
 * Region C - ancient castles and inspiring museums

If a continent is not divided into regions and only lists countries, rename this section "countries" and list only the countries.

So how do you all think we should proceed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think we need an additional layer between the South America article and individual articles. The list of countries could be divided into subsections, though. --ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's essential for the continent to be divided into regions. What I'm wondering about is more whether to use 1-liner listings, or at least perhaps shorten some of them. One is 3 sentences long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I can try to shorten some of them. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 * We traditionally allow longer descriptions in one-liner listings, the higher up in the hierarchy an item is. In part this is because the regionlist template often looks better with longer descriptions. That said, I'm confused because all of these seem very short. I would suggest lengthening them, not shortening.  Powers (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I wasn't aware of that. It would help if this were clarified at Continent article template and Region article template. Would you like to try your hand at clearer explanations there? Also the reason you're confused about the length is that ϒpsi already shortened the descriptions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Well I may have overstated the case a bit. I can say that many existing articles use somewhat longer descriptions in the higher levels of the hierarchy; I don't know if there's a consensus that that's allowable or not. And in fact, just now, checking a few examples, they're actually shorter than I thought they were. Three sentences is probably too much, but two should be fine, especially if they can be spliced with a semicolon. =)  Powers (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Semicolons are good. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I also like semicolons; there are naysayers who say they look pretentious, however. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Beisbol
I am no expert on "America's pastime", but I do know that a lot of MLB's greatest are either Latin Americans themselves or have Latin heritage. Now a lot of those are not from South America but from places like Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba, Mainland Central America or some minor islands. But isn't Beisbol also the most popular sport or at least a close second in some South American places? And if so shouldn't we say so here? And maybe create an article along the lines of Baseball in Latin America? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Venezuela is a huge hotbed of baseball. It absolutely should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 * May be the case in Northern South America. In the southern half fútbol is certainly the biggest sport. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Sure, Soccer is big in many parts of Latin America (and sadly sometimes displacing all other sports), but I am quite sure the "Soccer is the only thing" perception is simplistic. As evidenced by the Venezuelan or Nicaraguan or Cuban or Panamanian enthusiasm for Baseball... Is there another country in South America besides Venezuela that goes crazy for Baseball? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Subdividing South America
Some other language versions subdivide South America into four parts; see nl:Zuid-Amerika, de:Südamerika, es:Sudamérica, it:America_del_Sud. What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the Dutch and the Italian have sub-regions, which are relatively empty pages. Do not see reason for adding an extra level unless there is common information that can be created on those pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I like Vikryansaah (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I am not in favor of such a change due to the following reasons:
 * Such a split up would be arbitrary, IMO.
 * The German and Spanish article are barley an example, because there is no further level underneath. They just separated the countries on this SA article. Or is this what you are proposing?
 * Such regions would not exhibit overly specific regional properties worth putting into a separate article.
 * WV already suffers from too many regions dimensions with many region article barely filled with any information or on the other hand a lot of duplicate information. No traveller will ever bother about reading all those numerous often generic region levels when travelling to a country, sadly.
 * Taking a look at the SA region article for NL and IT, I barely see any information there. What is the point of having such stumps lying around instead of a proper and readable single page?
 * Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I thought about the issue again. I would support a separation of the countries at the top of the SA article according to the split up in the DE and SE article. However, let's keep the rest of the chapters compact and comprehensive instead of creating sub region stubs. Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Andes Transit site
Hi, everyone. A new user, User:Deebeltran, is adding the https://andestransit.com/ link to numerous articles about places in the Andes. This looks to be a listing service, not a primary link, in violation of External links, and it also has ads on it. I think we should remove it from any article about a city, but is there a ttfc justification for making an exception for it in articles about entire countries, such as Ecuador? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 * This looks like a bus aggregator. I tried a few destinations in South America that I've been to and it looks probably useful but not that reliable. I agree that it should not be linked in any city articles. I'd say add a link to it from Aggregators and probably nowhere else. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your appraisal of the site. I've removed all mentions of it, so unless someone would like to argue in favor of listing it, this matter is probably now closed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:South America


text:
Talk:Southampton

Removed from Work

"Southampton has suffered with the high number of foren migrents moving to the city (the highest resently being polish imigrants with 20,000 living in Southampton and counting), this has made unemployment rise in Southampton by 20% last year. This means that "easy" low-paid jobs can be hard to find. Nevertheless, Jobs in Southampton are still availiable, offering a lot of variety in Jobs."

Not sure if this is really relevant to a travel website, and as a student in the city have not really felt an affect on employment. Can be reinstated if it is felt really relvant to visitors but perhaps with a less negative tone! 83.71.171.121 08:19, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

College status
Solent College is only an institute, I don't think they give out degrees
 * I think they've gone up in the world, and definitely have university status. Please check their website. (WT-en) Jnich99 09:43, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Solent College? Degrees? - They're handing them out to anyone these days!

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * A bit better, as it shows Southampton as a tourist destination more than just a port. I am quite sure there are nicer shots possible of the city - both are quite dull. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes slightly better and a little more up to date. A picture of around the Bargate or part of the old wall would be better, maybe maybe a view from Bitterne but I know from experience getting a good picture of Southampton is a challenge. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The new banner is a bit more interesting than the current one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The new banner has better colours. Support. Danapit (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I created the present banner - I only visited Southampton a long time ago to use the port. I think that the new one is a batter picture. AlasdairW (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Neutral Syced (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southampton


text:
Talk:South Australia

City list
Should the list of cities be shortened or left like this? (WT-en) Jamboo 09:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Banner change?
The current banner basically shows the sea with some low hills in the distance. Would anyone mind if I replace with something more interesting such as the Flinders ranges or the Barrossa valley? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Better late than never :)

 * Any preferences? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I do agree a new banner would be nice! I prefer Proposal 1 the most I think. James A ▪ talk 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * With the caveat that I don't know the state, Proposal 1 is by far the most striking of the banners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I would say the Flinders Ranges are more representative of the state as a whole, however I agree that the 1st is a more striking image. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Therein lies the rub, I can relate to long car journeys crossing the state, and the Flinders kmage relates to driving through endless rolling low hills, so 2... JarrahTree (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm stuck.. The more striking banner or the more representative banner.... maybe more opinions? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Banners don't always have to be representative. Sometimes highlighting a lesser-known part of the region is a good thing. James A ▪ talk 11:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Exactly we do not need to get stuck on this, there is always the option of alternating in time as well JarrahTree (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, I think consensus has been reached. Absolutely it can be changed later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I prefer the one of the Flinders Ranges. After all, excluding Kangaroo Island, the Flinders Ranges are by far what the state is known for when it comes to natural attractions. With that being said, I think an image of a winery is the most representative but @The dog2 who's lived in SA before might have a different opinion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my mind: Proposal 1 (the current banner now) is by far the most striking of these 3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 * How about this one on the right? It's representative of the state's wine regions, and I'd really like something that's not of natural scenery since all our state articles for Australia feature something natural. (there used to be Tasmania but we switched because Tas is well known for its natural scenery) -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but how distinctive is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Australian context, South Australia is mostly known for its wines. If you ever visit Adelaide, it is noticeably less cosmopolitan and more laid back than Sydney, Melbourne or Perth (I'm not comparing it with Brisbane because I was 7 years old when I last visited Brisbane). When people visit Adelaide, the main attraction is the vineyards in the nearby wine regions. And there is still one winery within the Adelaide metropolitan area, and a very nice but expensive fine dining restaurant overlooking the vineyard. The dog2 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but can the viewer really tell we're looking at South Australia? That's what I mean by "distinctive." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I don't think the above three fall into that criterion as well. The banner currently used in National parks in Australia could work, but as the state is mostly known for its wineries, I'm not sure whether we should use that one – it's got some wineries, but the Flinders Ranges take the spotlight. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Map for South Australia
The regions for South Australia are quite a mess. I created a potential map for this article.

Map source:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Australia_South_Australia_location_map.svg

Map reference:

https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/9442/SA_Government_regions_State_map.pdf

Please comment if you can. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I appreciate this is a better division that was here previously, but the Clare Valley really doesn't belong on the Yorke Peninsula. That's a very geographical region.  Could I suggest that rather than rework the regions wholesale, that we link the Clare with the Barossa.  They're are both linked, and have a similar geography and tourist aspect? Inas (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 * We could link Clare Valley to Barossa Valley. My concern is mostly that Clare Valley would be overshadowed by Barossa... Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Just like real life then :-) Inas (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually, how about we split York into Yorke Peninsula and Mid_North. The latter should cover Clare Valley? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Equally happy with that. So mid north is the Yorke that's not on the peninsula?? Inas (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, see the map here. I'm really impressed about South Australia having so many regions with practically no-one living there :) I spent a year in Adelaide and can say that there is are a lot of great things in this state. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Hmm.. Thinking now (after reading that).  The official tourism regions of South Australia Adelaide, Adelaide Hills, Clare Valley, Barossa Valley, Eyre Pen, Yorke Pen, Riverland, Limestone Coast, Murray, Flinders & Outback, Fleurieu Pen, Kangaroo, That's twelve.  All our regions map one-to-one on to those regions, but we seem to have merged Clare into Yorke, and Hills into Adelaide, and omitted Riverland.  Hills into Adelaide kind of makes sense - it's a subregion.  I'm not sure we get much from creating another region of mid-north that's not very descriptive, and stealing part of the surround regions to make it.  Seeing we're so close to the official regions anyway, I'd say we just bite the bullet and add the missing two.  Inas (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * So create Clare and Hills? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Which 9 "Cities"?
Per this site's 7+2 guidelines, there should be no more than 9 cities in the "Cities" section (and no more can be included in "Other destinations", either, because other destinations are not cities, nor towns, villages, etc.), but there are now 10. So which one should be removed? Here's the current list:

 * — the state capital
 * — opal mining and underground houses
 * — in the south-east of the state, home to the famous Blue Lake
 * — centre of South Australia's farming area
 * — at the top of Spencer Gulf at the very east of the Eyre Peninsula, gateway to the Flinders Ranges
 * — at the bottom of the Eyre Peninsula and a good base for seeing this part of the state
 * — city centred on the mining economy, but centrally located to most attractions in the state
 * - desert frontier town, the old Ghan railway use to pass through here
 * — coastal playground to the south of Adelaide
 * — mining town halfway down the Eyre Peninsula

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 * oops. didn't read this thread. I've started a new proposal below. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh no! There's 10 cities
Since there are 10 cities here, and this is a non-bottom level region here:
 * — the state capital
 * — opal mining and underground houses
 * — in the south-east of the state, home to the famous Blue Lake
 * — centre of South Australia's farming area
 * — at the top of Spencer Gulf at the very east of the Eyre Peninsula, gateway to the Flinders Ranges
 * — at the bottom of the Eyre Peninsula and a good base for seeing this part of the state
 * — city centred on the mining economy, but centrally located to most attractions in the state
 * — desert frontier town, the old Ghan railway use to pass through here
 * — coastal playground to the south of Adelaide
 * — mining town halfway down the Eyre Peninsula

We need to cut one of them. The few that can't be cut is Adelaide, Pt. Lincoln, Mt. Gambier, Coober Pedy and Victor Harbor. Pt. Augusta is a may but either Murray Bridge, Pt. Pirie or Whyalla need to be cut out. Given that I don't have too much experience with South Australia as the rest of the east coast, but if I had to pick one to cut, it would be Whyalla, but maybe who'd have a better knowledge and better experience comment? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be inclined to cut Whyalla -- it's pretty big and regionally significant. Maybe Port Pirie. Neither it nor Port Augusta is a particularly tourist-attracting place. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pt. Augusta is at least one of our better developed SA articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Could Coober Pedy be listed in “other destinations”? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that it's the biggest tourist spot outside the South East and the only really decently sized town in the outback, I'd say not. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But I believe Oodnadatta might qualify, but I'd like it to stay in the main destinations section given the hard to pronounce name (too me a couple of months) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

✅. Removed Port Pirie since that was one universal one that no one agreed to keep. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Major structural changes to national parks
The SA government has just announced four new national parks in South Australia, including what would be Australia's new largest which is twice the size of Wales. Thankfully, we have no articles affected as noone has chosen to start them yet, but if there's any page saying Kakadu National Park is the largest park in Australia, then it would need to be fixed to second largest park. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Static map
I replaced the existing static map, File:Australia South Australia map.png, with File:South Australia regions map.png, which took me a good day to trace, but is higher in quality, more detailed and more user-friendly. Anyone objects to this? Any feedback would also be appreciated, too! -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 13:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Australia


text:
Talk:South Bali

Developing the first Bali sub-region article
I have started to develop this article which is the first of the Bali region articles to take any sort of shape. The sections to concentrate on are Understand, Get in and See. This applies to this region and others in Bali. There is a discussion of this here. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:38, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Denpasar Metropolitan Area
Technically, the current Wikivoyage's South Bali area is roughly 90% accurate with the actual Denpasar Metropolitan Area. Great job at predicting it 👍. Veracious (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Bali


text:
Talk:South Bass Island

South Bass Island is the name of the island, and Put-in-bay is the name of the village. The hotels restored are all on South Bass Island, Put-in-Bay Ohio. Please see map for referance. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs)

 * That may be, but if you want to put your hotels in another article, you need to delete them in all other ones. Listings are only allowed in one destination guide, your current reversions amount to little more than spamming. I don't know the area, but if your hotel is located in the village, which is looks like on maps, that's where it belongs, not in the island article, and certainly not on an entirely different island. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 11:15, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Merge
South Bass Island and Put-in-Bay should not have separate articles, as the town has a population of only 120 people, and covers most of the island—all information will necessarily be duplicated across the two articles. My impression is that "Put-in-Bay" is the more common name, so lets merge to there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:13, 14 February 2010 (EST)

 * Done. I skipped the restaurant section as the South Bass article provided little or no useful details beyond restaurant name. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:21, 14 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:South Bass Island


text:
Talk:South Carolina

Regions
I'm inserting regions from. Some of these seem to be cheesy names and should probably be renamed, but it's a start. Comments (and changes!) welcome and invited. (WT-en) Jonboy 10:49, 10 March 2006 (EST)

 * Fixed up the regions, to clean up that awful cities list --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:21, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Bravo, sir! I'll get to work on a regions map. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:22, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * "Upcountry" is very outdated, residents refer to this area as the Upstate. John844 (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Does anyone object to changing the name? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cities
Have been chosen by moi, completely arbitrary by geography and how developed the articles were, if anyone has greater insight, please feel free to switch them around, as I don't know the first darn thing about South Carolina. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 22:21, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Actually, I looked over these more carefully, and I couldn't have chosen better myself ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Old(e) 96 District?
In the text it is spelled without the e, on the map there is an e. Which is right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Cities" section
Per Avoid long lists, "Cities" sections in non-bottom-level region articles, including state articles, should have no more than 9 listings. Currently, there are 10, and whereas they are supposed to be alphabetized after the capital, they are not. So which one should be removed from this list?

Also, "Other destinations" should be alphabetized, and Edisto Island should be linked in some way, whether to an article about the island that's created or a section of another article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The answer is Rock Hill, which was added in this edit, which also ruined the previous alphabetical order except for the capital. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Question
Is fair use allowed as I did at https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=4806362 ? I had sourced a reference from a copyrighted site, Arkansas Secretary of State. Solaris5296 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 * We don't use references, and the fact is easily rephrased to remove any copyright issue. On the question itself, see our EDP: "allowed … Brief textual excerpts …" (i.e. quotes according to best practices). –LPfi (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Carolina


text:
Talk:South Caucasus

Region article?
Shouldn't South Caucasus be a regional article? - (WT-en) Huttite 07:49, 10 February 2009 (EST)

 * The South Caucasus (Transcaucasia) comprises the large majority of the Caucasus, so I think a separate region article would be redundant. That said, since the South Caucasus is clearly a region, this article should redirect to Caucasus. This itinerary might be better named, "Through Transcaucasia," "Across the South Caucasus," "Touring the Caucasus," or some combination thereof. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:07, 10 February 2009 (EST)

VFD Discussion
Outline itinerary that hasn't been edited in 14 months. The sections on Armenia and Azerbaijan might be salvageable, but they look pretty bare-boned to me. I would prefer to see it at a different title, too. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 19:50, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Caucasus. I know the area well, so I'll have a go at creating a simple, but usable itinerary for the region before the vfd is up, and save what is useful from this one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:03, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Redirect per Peter --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:42, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Result: Merge tag added for Caucasus. Although the outcome was clearly "redirect", comments about "saving what is useful" lead me to believe that this is actually a "merge & redirect", hence the action taken. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:36, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:South Caucasus


text:
Talk:South Central Arizona

Removed Regions
I removed the following sub-region links so that people don't create them too soon and confuse the geographical hierarchy thats set up here. When they're warranted, lob them back into the guide! -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 09:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Regions== Counties: * Pima County * Pinal County * Santa Cruz County

Listings in a rural region
Given the recent addition of 'move to city' tags to this article, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to finally resolve the longstanding issue of how to handle sparsely-populated regions, some of which may also have a town or two.

This has been discussed at length several times, most recently here and here. I'm not going to repeat my previous arguments, but would like to point out that all the listings on this page are a either a long distance from a town of any size, or the nearest town in my opinion does not merit its own article (with the possible exception of Sonoita-Elgin). I still believe that adding these listings to unrelated and far-removed city articles is unhelpful and confusing to travelers. –StellarD (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * If that's the case, I think the two solutions that would better comport with Wikivoyage policy and guidelines would be either: (1) Create an article for "Rural South Central Arizona" and move the listing there, or (2) leave the listings here, but with an introduction mentioning in prose notable sights or businesses as relevant, including those that are in the cities, so that the rural listings don't get disproportionate attention, and then state something like "The listings below are in rural areas far outside the cities listed in the #Cities section above. For full listings in each of those cities, see the article for each city." Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit was suggested for biosphere2 as it is one of the most prominent visitor areas for the region and state. The area north of Tucson having little information in the regional guide. It apparently was already listed under Oracle. It is however not actually in Oracle. Closer to the Saddlebrooke area, which does not have a listing. Due to rural nature the mailing address may have “Oracle” in it for Biosphere but only for mailing purposes. That is a common practice for the area. By comparison there is a distinct listing for the “water park” in Marana. Marana is a connected suburb of Tucson, like Oro Valley. Not a rural destination. Why would Biosphere2 (a huge science museum destination) go into Oracle, which it is not actually in, when a listing for a water park (not even a regional desitination) is on the first page of regional guide? Biosphere2 might be more appropriately be either on first page of rural guide or under Tucson for section containing major attractions outside of town. But not under Oracle. A listing could be made for Saddlebrooke(missing to date)to contain many of the restaurants, festivals,concert venues and some of the other facilities in the area of north of Tucson. It could take care of area Saddlebrooke and Saddlebrooke Ranch. There are some fairly famous spas and climbing areas, nature preserves in the northern area also. The suggested edits to add some rural restaurants north of Tucson were removed with instructions to move to city. But did not enter them into city, as it would be confusing and not make sense to visitors to the area. Since am new to this, will leave it all to the experts. Was attempting to fill in some informations to guide. Lots of information for south of Tucson, not much for area north. Just providing some perceptions of the guides. Sbariz (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi Sbariz, thank you for your edits! Yes, the matter of how to handle rural listings is not straightforward, but Ikan Kekek above has suggested a very good solution which should work not only for this article but also for Southeast Arizona and Eastern Arizona.
 * The Biosphere2 was probably added to Oracle because it's the nearest town, and we try to avoid duplicate listings on this site.
 * I personally added the coffee shop but didn't create an article for the town of Arivaca because I don't believe there's enough content to warrant one. Regarding Saddlebrooke, if after reading this guideline you believe it should have its own article, please go ahead and create one, or if you can't figure out how to do that, please let me know and I'll create a skeleton for you to fill in.
 * –StellarD (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I did understand the coffee entry as not being near a city. That was same logic I initially applied in suggested restaurant entries started. There were no cities close enough for the restaurants to be logical. There are a few cafes, attractions in the northern part of region and they are the same as the coffeehouse logic. So perception of it and consistency. When visitors look at that page, no logic in having one coffeehouse listed without similar entries. Just as the water park from marana makes no sense. Would the regional listings make more sense to just have a clickable link for drinks or eats? With the individual listings there? To have one listing for drinks and nothing else seems non-logical. Like if there are others, but they need to be moved to cities or towns they are not associated with closely. In regards to Biosphere2, regardless if it is in Oracle or not. 99% of the visitors to it come from Tucson/ Oro Valley/ Saddlebrooke/Catalina short term stays and hotels. Not Oracle. It is of similar, if not greater significance to those attractions listed on Tucson page section as “outside of city”. It is considered to be one of the major visits for activities on Tucson regional visits. Would it make more sense to a visitor to have it on Tucson page and just have a link under Oracle. I see that Santa Catalina mountains are duplicated under Oracle and other locations. Oracle is not primary access point for Catalinas but it is significant to Oracle. It is also significant to Oro Valley, Tucson, Saddlebrooke area, Mt Lemmon, etc.Sbariz (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I understand the confusion with the apparent illogic of listing a coffee shop but no restaurants in this article. This is an unfortunate consequence of the site's hierarchical structure and the resulting ad hoc approach to dealing with rural regions. The first restaurant you added was removed because it should be listed in Tucson; the second I removed because it appeared to be a dining facility for a retirement community and likely of little interest to independent travelers. If you feel strongly that the second restaurant would indeed be useful for travelers, please re-add it, or add it to a new Saddlebrooke article. As Ikan Kekek outlined above, each section of this regional article should include a statement that the following listings are far from any related city.
 * If you believe that the water park should be moved to the Tucson article, please go ahead and move it there. I don't feel strongly either way regarding the Biosphere 2; it could be moved as you prefer to South Central Arizona or to the Tucson article, to the section outside of town.
 * Per policy, individual listings for the Santa Catalina Mountains should indeed be removed from the Tucson and Oracle articles, and replaced with a brief description and link to the article in the 'Go next' sections. This also applies to Sabino Canyon and Saguaro National Park, and to the Peppersauce Campground listing in Oracle which is also listed in the Santa Catalina Mountains article.
 * –StellarD (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The request was to move the eats to Tucson, which is about 20 miles away. You would have to drive thru two other towns before even getting to Tucson. Although most of the area uses Tucson or Saddlebrooke as legal addresses. That was probably some marketing ploy by developers many years ago. It is actually in different county. So mailing addresses make no sense to many, including me. Became familiar with all that, since coming to area just south of there.Been putting some blogging notes for outdoor activity articles. The one restaurant The Preserve is a popular spot for views of Catalinas, run by adjacent community but public. Another I was in process of adding is a hwy steakhouse, when questions came up. Both are open to the public and used by visitors, Miraval spa guests, hikers, cycling groups and travelers enroute between Tucson and Phoenix via hwy 77. None of the retirement restricted restaurants would be listed, as that would not be appropriate. For now I will just add the two for the rural area. And maybe one other which would be in/ under Oracle's section. When I finish up the research for the rest of the area,(approximately 2 wks, I may contact you or attempt to put together some highlights for the area. as there are some noted climbing, and nature preserves in the area that may be of interest. Will leave to you or others to move the Biosphere2 to Tucson or not. To me that seemed the best spot for any visitors and travelers to area. Sbariz (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you Sbariz for the clarifications – please add whatever restaurants you see fit. Because adding Tucson or Saddlebrooke to the address may be confusing to other readers (as it was to me), it would be helpful to include directions, e.g. '20 miles N of Tucson', or 'near Eloy', etc. in the appropriate field of the listing template, as well as any GPS coordinates.
 * Any other highlights you may wish to add, especially outdoor activities, will be most welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions! –StellarD (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't know this area, so I'll just say that I'm content with you two, who do, working out where things should be listed, with the policy-/guideline-based caveats I posted above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have created some new articles and moved some listings to existing articles in order to make navigation easier for readers, but I welcome any changes that other contributors might think are appropriate. Ground Zero (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Central Arizona


text:
Talk:South-Central Asia

South-Central Asia is a unique region which locates Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran. At the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia and the Near East of the ancient Silk route.

title: Talk:South-Central Asia


text:
Talk:South Central Asia

Utility of this new article
What's the rationale for this article? Pakistan is part of the Indian Subcontinent, ergo South Asia. Iran is covered as part of the Middle East. Is this a common search term? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 10:44, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 * This user has been creating dozens of new region articles each day without discussion. Since the user is not discussing these changes, and since they generally don't fit into the existing region structures or follow the Project:Article naming conventions, I'm not sure what else to do but propose them for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:46, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:South Central Asia


text:
Talk:South Central Colorado

Cities List
To match the main map on the Colorado page, the cities of Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Redstone and Snowmass Village will be moving from South Central Colorado to Northwestern Colorado. This means that there needs to be an open discussion on what cities to include in Southwestern Colorado. Please share your ideas and opinions. Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:21, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * Taking those out will leave us with 8, so we can get one more in there. I might suggest Salida. (WT-en) Texugo 20:47, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * Either that, or Pagosa Springs. I have no strong opinion, either way. The tougher one to decide will be consolidating the cities in Northwestern Colorado. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 20:53, 26 January 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:South Central Colorado


text:
Talk:SouthCoast

IsThere AReason ForThe FunnySpacing? (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:41, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I'm not sure, but it is a common usage around here, including use by newspapers and chambers of commerce (Though both usages are pretty common). Note that MetroWest is also a Massachusetts Region with the same situation. I suppose I was being lazy in trying to AvoidDisambiguation. Ultimately it should probably be redirected to or from South Coast (Massachusetts). (WT-en) OldPine 12:55, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:SouthCoast


text:
Talk:Eurobodalla

City vs Town
See the Wikipdia Article. City and Town are not that well defined in the English speaking world. And we need a good short name for this section, and City is the best.

Response
City is not the best. Have you been to the south coast of New South Wales? Do you have any idea at all about the geography and population disbursement of that part of the world? Batehaven has a petrol station, motel, post office and is smaller than most European villages. Batemans Bay is a town. Have you read the city article. As a native speaker of English I can assure you that these town in the South coast would never ever be described as having an urban core, described as substantial, ... whatever - fishing hamlet might be a useful comparison, they are tourist villages. Town versus city is quite adequately distinguished in English to the extent that there would be no way an English speaker would ever get confused that most of these places were cities. The city of Shoalhaven is not a city but a municipal local government area with its centre Nowra and is mainly rural - the urban core is Nowra. It's population density is 19 people per square kilometer. Nowra New South Wales has been classified as a city, it has a population of 29,000. To my knowledge it is the only city in the region.

Perhaps to gain a common understanding we can use population density. The density of the city of Shoalhaven is 19 people per square kilometer. The shire of Eurobadalla's population density is about 10 people per square kilometer. (Eurobodalla is to the south of Shoalhaven and includes Batemans Bay and Moruya). The density of the country of Denmark is 126 people per square kilometer. [List of countries by population density] While the population of Ausatralia averages 2 people per square kilometer, the south coast is by definition near the coast, has a good rainfall, ... the majority of Australia is dry and does not support large population numbers.

To go on about the subject, the city article you refer to is quite clear that "There is no one standard international definition of a city: the term may be used either for a town possessing city status; for an urban locality exceeding an arbitrary population size; for a town dominating other towns with particular regional economic or administrative significance. Although city can refer to an agglomeration including suburban and satellite areas, the term is not appropriate for a conurbation (cluster) of distinct urban places, nor for a wider metropolitan area including more than one city, each acting as a focus for parts of the area." The towns on the south coast have limited administrative functions, are small in population size, do not fit the definition of city contained in the article you nominated as reference point.

I note that the article states it is an "interesting phenomenon in American English is the generalisation of the term city to all settlements." While spelling in Wikivoyage may be consistently American English, that does not mean that variations in word usage should be made consistent. The very great majority of travellers to the south coast of Australia will be Australians and this article may well be their introduction to Wikivoyage - the articles and the classification of places within them need to make sense for that place. All English speakers will know what a town is, many will not understand the generic use of city to any settlement.

As a compromise, I propose to have two sections, the city section will include Nowra, and the towns section will include the rest - not including Shoalhaven since it is only the Local Government area.
 * (WT-en) AYArktos 19:37, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Yes, I was at the south cost of NSW in 1994.
 * Section names are not supposed to be precise descriptions. That you can put inside the sections. ==Get Out== is not places you necessarily go out to, you can come from them too. Some places in ==Drink== is really places for dancing, not drinking. Concert venues are under ==Do==, not ==Listen==, etc. As for both Cities and Towns, we should not go around inventing sections, and it should not be just you and me deciding it. Try to change the manual of style first. --(WT-en) elgaard 20:16, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I mentioned this issue on the travellers pub. --(WT-en) elgaard 20:27, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Manual of style
Project:Region_article_template talks about "a few prominent cities in the region" being covered by the Cities section within a region article. It does not at any stage hint at describing towns or other settlements as cities. Note this page also refers to the comments below each heading as "editorial comment, with suggestions for what should go in each section" - not prescriptions. --(WT-en) AYArktos 20:33, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * The prescription to use "a few prominent cities" only applies if the region has subregions. "Regions without sub-regions, though, just have cities in them."  In other words, all cities in a region should be included in the Cities section if there are no subregions.  And as an aside, in USEnglish, all towns are cities. There is a vague inference of size from the particular chosen word, but it's pretty darn vague.  (Yes, I know UKEnglish has a more specific definition derived from the fact that "city" has a specific legal meaning in UK).  -- (WT-en) Colin 20:58, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * As per the discussion above we are talking a petrol station and post office, ie hamlet. The style page claims to "suggest" which imples not being prescriptive.  Moreover under the regions section the page says "If the sub-regions have specific names ("county", "state", "province", etc.) feel free to change the name of this header to "Counties", "States", etc."  In other words in some countries they have provinces, in others they have states. No one is suggesting New South Wales in Australia is described as a province or British Columbia in Canada as a state even though the governmental concepts are probably similar.  Just as we do not live in a province, we live in a state; we don't have cities on the south coast of New South Wales, we have towns.  City also has a legal meaning in Australia and a place has to be gazetted as a city to be so-called.
 * In the UK I note that the sub heading in the UK Lake District National Park article is "Cities, towns and villages" (in fact none of the places under that heading are cities but at least Kendal has 30,000 inhabitants). --(WT-en) AYArktos 21:23, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I'm normally as zealous as they come when the issue is conforming the headers, but in this case I agree with AYArktos (see Falkland Islands, where a "city" is usually just two houses and a few thousand sheep). That said, this discussion should really be moved to Project:Region article template. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 21:27, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Region_article_template seems to agree that there should be only one section, that it is OK to use towns or villages where appropriate but that it is the exception. Several other editors concur that the exception does apply in areas not just the south coast of NSW but also the Lake District, the Falkland Islands, and Svalbard.--(WT-en) AYArktos 18:02, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Removed a lot of towns
A lot of towns were incorrectly placed here, probably because somebody thought Shoalhaven was the South Coast. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rename July 2022
I propose to move this page to Eurobodalla, in line with Shoalhaven and the Illawarra. As I mentioned on Talk:New South Wales, "South Coast" is ambiguous and this article only covers the Eurobodalla Shire so it's a bit misleading.

After renaming, I'll fix all the links and then I propose to make South Coast (New South Wales) an extraregion linking the four region articles of the Illawarra, Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla (this article that is) and the Sapphire Coast, finally putting an end to the "South Coast" ambiguity.

Other thoughts? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eurobodalla


text:
Talk:South Pacific Costa Rica

I have spent a month in the Puntarenas area during the past year. Mostly surfing some excellent spots from Jaco to Puntarenas. The city of Puntarenas is an old run down port city. I wouldn't recogmend getting caught there after sundown. The rest of the coast is very freindly, inexpensive and easy to get around.

Merge
This Article should be merged with the South of Costa Rica article because most of this article is acutally in the Puntarenas province. (WT-en) Fabzgy 14:04, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * I've merged in the other direction (per your suggestion here) because Puntarenas is a more common and precise (as well as non-directional and boring) name for the region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:10, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Actually it s not as easy as I suggested. For Example Perez Zeledon is not part of the Puntarenas Province. I suggest to rename it as South of Costa Rica because the province of Puntarenas is missleading / incorrect. (WT-en) Fabzgy 10:50, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * Heh, yeah, we're having this discussion in too many places—I just brought this up here. I agree, lets move it back to South Costa Rica. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:21, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Playas Hermosas
I moved some of the Playa Hermosa information around. There are 3 ( that I know of) Playa Hermosa's in this region alone. The existing article had some mentions of business that were in Hermosa de Jaco, but the article was about the one in osa. I created a new page for the osa information, moved what was placed wrong and created some initial info for the hermosa de jaco page.

--(WT-en) Surfinnhermosa 22:07, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

 * What is this Playa Hermosa (Osa)? I've never heard of it, and can find no information on it. There is a Playa Hermosa just south of Dominical and another one in Guanacaste. Can you point to any resources indicating that there is one on the Osa Peninsula? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:20, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Merge back
This Article should be merged with the Puntarenas article because most of this article is acutally in the Puntarenas province. (WT-en) Fabzgy 14:04, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * I've now merged it back to here. All discussion above this one is merged here from the original Puntarenas talk page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:26, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Banner
As a result of merging two articles in to this one, we have a choice between two banners. The first is the current one:

Banner 1

Banner 2

Comments ?Ground Zero (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I find this choice almost impossible. Is there anywhere else either of the banners could go? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Banner 2 is already used at Corcovado National Park, so I think that makes the choice easy -- let's stick with Banner 1. Ground Zero (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Map
The map for this region is very small and does not agree with the map of regions in the Costa Rica country article. I assume that the map in the country article is correct....no? Mrkstvns (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't pretty, but I think I've filled in the map to correspond you the CR article. Ground Zero (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Pacific Costa Rica


text:
Talk:South County (Rhode Island)

"South Country is a region in Rhode Island and is the same as Washington County" -- does that mean this should be Washington County? or should there at least be a redirect from one to the other? (WT-en) Majnoona 14:17, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

South County!?
I was born and raised in Narragansett, and I still live here. Let me say one thing. All you folks that think South County is the same thing as Washington County are grossly misinformed.

South County is a general region without distinct borders, which vary greatly depending on who you talk to. If anything it is more a state of mind than an actual location. South County is about the summer lifestyle surrounding Rhode Island's beach mainly seasonal coastal communities and villages. It is unanimously agreed upon to encompass Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingston, Narragansett, and North Kingston, as they are coastal places with coastal lifestyles. Also unanimously agreed upon to be part of South County is the village of Wickford, part of East Greenwhich, which is part of Kent County. Often Jamestown fits into the "South County" category as well, a community that is part of Newport County. Hopkington, Richmond, and Exeter are Swamp Yankee (That's Rhode Island speak for hillbilly) terriroty. They are usually left out of the typical sense of South County, but are included in a broad sense, along with West Greenwhich.

Just so you know. See you at the beach. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 131.128.149.52 (talk • contribs)

 * I amended that introduction—sound good? If not, please plunge forward and fix it yourself! Know, though, that the regions here tend to be fairly pragmatic. It's simple to just use the more interesting name (south county), but use the well defined borders of Washington Co. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:16, 26 February 2009 (EST)

 * This page should be moved to Washington County and South County left as a redirect. The use of such an ambiguous name is confusing. --Mu301 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:South County (Rhode Island)


text:
Talk:South Dakota

I borrowed the region hierarchy from the http://www.travelsd.com/ Web site. They had the four regions already broken up, so I didn't see a good reason not to use them. Of course, if someone else has a better set of regions, please substitute them! --(WT-en) Evan 14:43, 13 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * In making the new regions map, I made a couple changes. First, there were some gaps and overlaps in between the three eastern regions. I gave most of the overlap between Southeast & Glacial lakes to the Southeast (basically the the 3-4 counties in its north). And I split the gap between Great Lakes and Southeast pretty much evenly. The only other change was to move Ziebach County from the West to the Great Lakes—I did that to keep the Cheyenne River IR in one region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Crazy Horse Memorial 2010.jpg

title: Talk:South Dakota


text:
Talk:South Downs

anything else it could do with - actually could anyone draw a map?

could you reinstate the links, there is so much accommodation, I feel that a blank section is far less helpful than a link, which would help tourists, I don't mind about the demoting - just pop the links back in --User:(WT-en) Profjack

 * If http://www.southdownsonline.org/ is an official link (sanctioned by the South Downs governmental authority), it can be installed once at the top of the article after South Downs (like that). We don't avoid hard work by just putting up a link. We want the information to appear in Wikivoyage. We want actual listings of good places for travellers to go to. -- (WT-en) OldPine 21:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)

it is an official link, provided by the south downs authority, as is the link I posted, for same strange reason we have multiple authorities, the link is not a booking agent it is just there to help travellers; for that reason, and that reason only I am reinstating it. - Comment by User:(WT-en) Profjack

I edited it again per policy as stated above. I see no reason why policy should be different for this region. If you don't like the overall policy, you can try to get a consensus for your views and get it changed. (WT-en) OldPine 08:16, 8 December 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:South Downs


text:
Talk:South Downs Way

which buses go to firle beacon

title: Talk:South Downs Way