text:
Talk:Asia

Guide status?
Has this, or any other continent article, reached guide status yet? Selfie City (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. And it won't ever, because the requirements for that are basically unmeetable, what with the requirement for subdivisions to have a certain status.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The main difficulty is that all of the immediate subregions and the listed cities and other destinations have to be usable status or better. That means that to get Asia to guide status, we'd need to get Central Asia, Middle East, Russia, Caucasus, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Lake Baikal to usable status, which in turn depends on getting the most important of their listed cities and other destinations to usable status. I think that's hard but maybe not impossible. It might be a little easier for Europe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the requirements for the linked cities/regions, I think a lot of the sections within this article are still not at guide level. We don't have a model continental article, but many don't yet even have a basic overview. A lot of the above mentioned "See" section additions were never added, the "Do" section remains a bulleted list, "Eat" and "Sleep" are really bare, The "History" section has not been expanded since the discussion about its shortcomings as well, etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Switch this banner with the one at Tibet
I think the one at Tibet is a better example of Asia than the current banner here, and I think a swap would be a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I disagree, because that banner is specifically and pointedly a picture of the Potala, whereas this one is just mountains and could be in various places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I would agree with Ikan. Asia is too large and diverse to represent with one just easily identifiable location. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan as well.
 * We might consider a better banner for Asia, but it is hard to find something that can represent such a large & diverse continent well. I think the Potala banner is excellent for Tibet. Pashley (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I wonder if it would be at all possible to have a carousel-like banner for continents, like the main page. I'm sure it's a terrible thought for many reasons, but it would at least make it easier to give a somewhat more balanced representation. As nice as the mountain banner is, it hardly screams "Asia" to most travellers, I think... Chinese lanterns, a colourful bowl of bibimbap or Thai curry, a temple or an overcrowded Indonesian or Indian street, plus some mountains or steppe would do the trick so much better. Sigh... I miss Asia ;-)) JuliasTravels (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I would be open to create an exception for having montage banners for Continent level articles only. Just because no single image will ever work for Asia or any other continent. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How's this? I just did it in my sandbox:

#|‹ #|›

Of course, based on the Main page. We couldn't use two of these banners at the moment, of course, but you get the idea. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 01:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm going to say no to such a dynamic banner, mainly because any dynamic element is going to be confusing (Dynamics maps are not confusing because they need user interaction to change). What I was hoping was for a static banner made up of different images (montage). Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think one image is enough. I don't think we should be so concerned about representing everything that we represent nothing. I'd like the Potala Palace picture to stay in Tibet, but I don't like the current banner. It doesn't say "Asia" to me. Personally, I think something recognizably Buddhist (or something culturally Chinese) would represent Asia best. Chinese lanterns mentioned above, a statue (or rock carving) of Buddha (possibly a Hindu one), A temple complex (also mentioned above)... I think something from East or Southeast Asia are what feel most like "Asia" and "Asian travel" to most people. I don't really Wikipedia's montages. There is plenty of space within the article to showcase parts of Asia or cultural elements not referenced in the banner and indeed the pictures within the article right now feature a wide range of countries/sites. Just to add, a Chinese/Buddhist banner would enhance the "Asian" feel with the Taj Mahal there as the lede picture. These are two of the most influential cultures in the region. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 * There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in Asia, and while China is the most populous country, India is almost as populous and more Asians live outside of both countries. I think a rice farm might be best to represent Asia in a way that could be in any of numerous countries. I think it's not a great idea to have a religious element to a representation of such a vast and varied continent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Rice terraces could possibly work. "Chinese" doesn't have to be Buddhist (or even a picture FROM China. The Chinese sphere of influence is more what I am thinking, although obviously China itself has the most of that as well), but there is no doubt that Buddhism has impacted Asia in pretty much every part EXCEPT the Middle East and has also produced a lot of what appeals to travelers considering "Asia" as a destination. I don't think people planning trips to Islamic Asia (predominantly the Middle East) actually think or say "I'm going to ASIA". That region tends to be more specified if it is the target destination. I don't see the number of Muslims being meaningful anyway. As I said, we HAVE to forego the idea that every country/culture can be represented in one picture. Rice terraces don't represent the Middle East any better than Buddhist temples, after all. If the concern is about "offending Muslims", I think that's a fabricated issue. I don't think most Muslims would see a sprawling temple or an ancient Buddhist carving/statue as "false" representations of the continent when that is a large draw (and Muslim travelers don't seem to have issues with visiting Buddhist temples themselves when traveling in East/Southeast Asia. Indeed they tend to have the same or similar images as anyone else), and I don't think we should be concerned with trying to appeal to any radicals who would demand Buddhist erasure. But again, I don't think Buddhist imagery or temples are the ONLY options. I do think they are AMONG the best options to represent the continent AND the sort of thing that is most appealing/intriguing to travelers fantasizing about "Asia" as a destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I lived in Malaysia and took a couple of 2-week trips to Indonesia. As of 2010, Indonesia was the most populous Muslim country in the world. India was second (just the Muslim population of it), Pakistan third, Bangladesh fourth. You seem to conflate "Muslim" with "Middle Eastern". Stop. And in no way was I associating Chinese with Buddhist; I have also been to China twice and know very well that many religions and non-belief are represented there. You made that association - "I think something recognizably Buddhist (or something culturally Chinese) would represent Asia best" - and I pushed back, because what's best, as I said, is to represent Asia with a picture that is not identifiably from a single country, nor a single religion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 * For the record, the banner was changed in 2017. Se Talk:Asia/Archive_2012-2017. /Yvwv (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 * If we are thinking about using a rice patty, here's a potential candidate based on a brief search. Personally, I'd prefer it to the current banner since I think it's more visually interesting (but that's just my subjective opinion). [[Image:Pana Banaue Rice Terraces.jpg|thumb|1000px]] Sdkb (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The current banner is dull and uninspired, but the lighting in the proposed banner here kind of washes out the picture a bit. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The dimensions of the new banner appear to be wrong - too wide from high to low. Fix it by eliminating the overexposed parts on top and then we'll have more to talk about and a possible winner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rice terraces
How's this? I like the concept a lot better. I think the rice terraces say "Asia" much more than the mountains, which, unless you're familiar with the shape of Mount Everest, just say "mountains". —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about which subject matter is most appropriate, but with only these two choices, I do like the 2nd banner better, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just realized no one ever did anything about this. Does anyone disagree with the proposed banner? If not, I'll try to implement it in the next few days. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

West Asia
An uncommon term for "Middle East", in my experience. Should we keep it in the article in parentheses or revert to the status quo ante of not including "West Asia"? Also a note to the new user who added it: We discuss things on this Wiki on talk pages, as I already stated. We don't edit war here, and people who edit war get their posting privileges blocked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * That's understandable. But not every single edit ever made has to be talked about, just in case you didn't know. And also, your experience is not the same as others. Just because you haven't or have rarely heard of the term doesn't mean others haven't. What's key is that the term exists and it is being used by geographers to this day. Don't play the new user card. Once upon a time you were one. Also, information is integral, regardless of whether the user is new or not, as long as the manuals haven't been erred, this situation is up to an admin to decide. Please clear this up administrators. Let's leave it at that until they reply. --TerrierChicken (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (ec) Strangely, the Middle East as described on this page does not include Egypt, while Middle East does. My opinion on this is largely based on whether Egypt is included, since it is part of Africa, not Asia. Either way, this should probably be resolved so that the two match. Additionally, I wouldn't support a parenthetical note of West Asia, which doesn't really match the style of the region list, and would prefer it written in the text. ARR8 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (ec) You are not displaying behavior conducive to wiki editing. You have had the way this site works explained to you, and you are dictating that it should work another way. You have been given leeway and you are abusing it. You are seeking appeals to authority while insulting the most senior admin of this site.
 * No one here is against the idea that the articles should have accurate information, but the systems we have work and they are in place for a reason. For one think, I happen not to think your information is all that accurate. For another, we are a travel guide, not an encyclopedia - we can miss some minor trivia. ARR8 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't know why you're worried about it. In my opinion, it doesn't matter much what the article says exactly, as long as the clearest word about the region is "Middle East". I mean, really, it's two words, "west" and "Asia". Could those two words really be important enough for an argument? In my opinion, I'm fine with one of three options:

 * Middle East (West Asia) — a region of Asia ...

 * Middle East — also known as West Asia, ...

 * Middle East — a region of Asia...

 * --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Terri, my advice would be to not worry about what exactly the text says. I've semi-protected the page until 7:00 UTC (it's around 2:30 UTC right now) to prevent further edit warring, and hopefully we can quickly come to a decision here and move on. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Terri, admins don't resolve things here. We have some powers, including the ability to block vandals, spambots and other problem users when necessary, but we do not determine consensus. I'd be fine with the prose description of Middle East including the text "also known as West Asia". So that would produce:

 * Also known as West Asia, this region was home of the first civilizations in the world's history, and the land where the three Abrahamic religions were revealed. It is now one of the fastest growing regions of the world with increasing development and a rich heritage.

 * Does that satisfy you? Everyone else OK with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (Parenthetically, there are more senior admins on this site. A number of folks who were already admins years before I was given a mop are still here.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I am fine with that phrasing, also I'm finding it contentious now whether the region actually is known much as West Asia.
 * And, regarding admins - the user group logs on WV start at 2013. In retrospect, I should have realized some users would have gotten their admin bit on the old site, and would all show up as 2013. ARR8 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I support using prose in the way that is suggested. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Calm down, those conversations have ended quite the while ago. Why are you bringing them up again? You have already made a mention in the Asia talk page, where you even talked about "let the admin decide" at that point. You guys have basically fanned this further, when you know that there was no need. Well, that's a dumb thing to say as a justification. That's like saying, it's only two words "east" and "Asia" but this applies the same ruling as FE which has the country and border inclusion too. Also, even though it's a talk page, ARR8 simply did not need to get involved and I disagree with what ARR8 had to say; but he was not a part of our original talk. What I find rude of you is that you have contradicted yourself SelfieCity, by first saying that you would not be open to adding it back again and now here you are. We could say that for a lot of information on the page before I added anything, but that is a separate topic. So just stop here. Drop everything, take a chill pill and let this talk thread go. Let it simply go and there won't be any problems because I was long gone by your first message on the other talk thread. (P.S. I wrote this after SelfieCity wrote after ARR8) --TerrierChicken (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to have any idea what discussions or consensus are on a Wiki. You don't have sole control of the discussion of any topic, but your attitude sure looks likely to get yourself banned pretty quickly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (ec) Pal, I don't think you understand how consensus works. If only people "involved" in the "original" conversation commented, you'd never have enough support to make this change.
 * I'm not really sure why I'm explaining this, and I'm going to change my inclination. I oppose any change to the current phrasing. I believe this user is a troll and only here to cause arguments, and, if not, certainly has an ax to grind. ARR8 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) Terri, you're making this more complicated than it has to be by being annoyed at such a minor thing. ARR8 absolutely has a right to enter this discussion and express an opinion. If you continue to be unreasonable, we will have to take further action. If you want to pull back on what you've said, I'm absolutely fine with you doing that, and I'm willing to forgive you. But the farther you go with this, the less likely forgiveness becomes. (all three of us wrote basically the same idea at the same time) --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm changing to opposing. See Western Asia:

 * Western Asia, West Asia, Southwestern Asia or Southwest Asia is the westernmost subregion of Asia. The concept is in limited use, as it significantly overlaps with the Middle East (or the Near East), the main difference usually being the exclusion of the majority of Egypt (which would be counted as part of North Africa) and the inclusion of the Caucasus. The term is sometimes used for the purposes of grouping countries in statistics. The total population of Western Asia is an estimated 300 million as of 2015. Although the term "Western Asia" is mostly used as a convenient division of contemporary sovereign states into a manageable number of world regions for statistical purposes, it is sometimes used instead of the more geopolitical term "Middle East".

 * Wikivoyage's Middle East doesn't include the Caucasus and is properly a geopolitical term. And "Southwest Asia" is a more accurate term, and the one I've heard before, but really, who cares? We see where the region is on the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Changing to oppose. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 05:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a extra-hierarchical region article for Western Asia, FWIW. Some parts of the Middle East are not part of Western Asia, and vice versa, so they're not exactly the same thing. -- ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 10:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

North Asia
There has been a suggestion to include North Asia as a region of Asia, including the Urals, Siberia and the Russian Far East, which would still be described as parts of Russia. /Yvwv (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I think Asian Russia is more recognisable & definitely should be the article name. A redirect from North Asia strikes me as silly but tolerable. Pashley (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Asian Russia pseudo-region
I created the Asian Russia pseudo-region to sort Urals, Siberia and Russian Far East with Asia. User:Traveler100 just rolled it back. More opinions on the matter are requested. /Yvwv (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say "pseudo-region", do you mean extra-hierarchical region? I see no problem with creating that as a soft redirect (like Mediterranean Sea), but it would be nice to know what Traveler100's objection was.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Yvwv categorized the eastern part of Russia under Asian Russia (a redirect to Russia), rather than under Russia where these regions used to be categorized, and that was rolled back. Normally articles can't be categorized under redirects or extraregions, but I think Russian regions could be an exception. It does look silly when Vladivostok or Chukotka is "part of Europe". Ypsilon (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree a little silly that such locations are under Europe, but placing them under a redirect will cause a number of file management issues, they are not visible from top level categories. I think the best solution is a new top level, giving Eurasia the same status as Europe and Asia and adding Russia, Turkey and possibly Caucasus under this new continent article. This way sub-regions of a country are not split between two different breadcrumb threads. Thoughts? --Traveler100 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could work. Ypsilon (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The term Eurasia is usually understood as the whole of Europe and Asia. I have yet to see it defined as consisting of Russia and Turkey, with or without the Caucasus. /Yvwv (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Yvwv, and using Eurasia to mean something other than it normally means is confusing. Why can't we just have an extraregion ("Asian Russia" or what have you) that sits under Asia, that links to the existing hierarchical regions which are under Russia, and therefore Europe? Or alternatively, treat all of Russia as part of Asia, since the vast majority of the land at least is Asian, moving it over as part of the regional reorganisation taking place at Talk:Europe. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is important that Russia is handled as part of Europe. Too many people over here talk sloppily about Europe when what they mean is the EU. I do not want to be part of that. Showing a breadcrumb trail directly from Russia (etc.) to Eurasia while the other regions would go via Europe or Asia could be possible (or have the extraregion, although I do not quite get how it would work). I do not know how that would interfere with our region descriptions in those articles. --LPfi (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There never will be a perfect solution, personally would keep as is; one clear breadcrumb path for each region and country and a few redirects, extraregions and double listings in articles. Alternative would be a "Eurasia border countries" top region, but I think we will just be wasting contributors time discussing the topic.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Traveler; we could all live with the status quo, couldn't we? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we decide not to have an article for "Asian Russia," I don't think Asian Russia should redirect to Russia. I think Siberia would be a better redirect target. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I looked at that article, I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't have a problem with an article for Asian Russia, but I think we should keep our current region structure and make Asian Russia a extra region. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (multiple edit conflicts) Russia in its entirety directly under Asia doesn't really sound logical to me either. On the other hand most of Russia isn't in Europe and indeed far away from Europe (the country reaches past the antimeridian), so even if the status quo is OK, it would be "nice" to find a way to divide it up some way (for instance the Asian Russia solution Yvwv implemented). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Excluded Russia as part of Caucasus
While the map shows that Russia is part of Caucasus (purple), it is not mentioned in article. Therefore, I have plunged forward and altered its colour to light grey to show that it is not part of Caucasus (purple), yet it is part of Asia. Feel free to revert it if you think it is inappropiate. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-altered the colour since the Asian Russia is mentioned in the article. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Seems like a good idea to me; at any rate, the map looks better now. I assume (but can't be bothered to check) that Russia and the Caucasus used to be one region under Asia.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible solutions of the Siberia problem
I see that Siberia is ultimately breadcrumbed with Europe instead of Asia, while we say that Siberia is part of Asia. In order to fix this problem, I propose two solutions: Although the second one will be more convinient for travellers, the first one will have fewer hassles to deal. Besides, the seven-continent model is more widespread than the six-continent model. What do you think? --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Alter the image of the continents of the Destinations page to render the entire Russia as part of Europe.
 * 2) Make Eurasia an in-hierarchy region and group Asia, Europe and Russia separately under Eurasia.

 * I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs solving, but if it is, then your first solution seems a lot simpler than messing with the hierarchy. Russia breadcrumbs under Europe because most of the population lives in the west of the country.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * It is a problem, but we haven't found any good solution, as you can see from earlier discussions on this page. Changes similar to what you suggest have been proposed before and deemed unsatisfactory.
 * Your first proposed solution does not address the stated problem: we should still say that Siberia is in Asia, because it is. Changing the image in Destinations would give the impression that we are totally confused about geography, which is not a good thing for a travel guide. But if you click Siberia on the current map, you will still have Asian Russia listed as one of the regions and get to the right country article.
 * Your second solution would mean that Russia is found neither in Europe nor Asia, except in the way it is now handled in Asia. I think that does not fix the real problem. And, as I said in an earlier discussion: It is important that Russia is not treated as not being in Europe; the Europe=EU thinking is too widespread to be ignored.
 * –LPfi (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Lede
User:ThunderingTyphoons! Asked in an edit summary, "People will keep adding their favourite cities, so how about we (a) match the nine cities list, or (b) remove this list from the lede?)" We already have a list of the nine most important cities for travellers, so I think we don't need to repeat it (or introduce a different list) in the lede paragraphs.  Ground Zero (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * That's fine by me. The main argument I can see for listing any cities by name in the lede is that we also mention specific countries and continental regions. But rather than just reeling them off all at once, we do actually say one or two things about each of the countries and regions mentioned, so it feels like a more natural part of the introduction.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd say keep it. It is worth mentioning in the lede that some of the world's most visited cities are in Asia.
 * Maybe be more specific?
 * In
 * The specific version might attract fewer additions. Pashley (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the list in the lede. We already have a separate city list section after all. The dog2 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Central Asia vs East Asia
Maybe it's worth discussing again on where we draw the boundary between Central Asia and East Asia. At the moment, we classify Mongolia as part of East Asia, but most Mongolians bear a sense of animosity towards China, and consider themselves to be Central Asians rather than East Asians. And for that matter, Mongolian culture is more Central Asian than East Asian. I know it's a little complicated since Mongolia is not contiguous with the other Central Asian countries, but the part of China that separates Mongolia from Kazakhstan is culturally Central Asian. The dog2 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we writing this guide for Mongolians who don't like China, or for travllers who will expect to find Mongolia in East Asia and be confused if we put it somewhere else? We don't need to waste time on this discussion. Let's focus on creating travel content. Ground Zero (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. Maybe some Israelis or Lebanese would like to pretend Israel or Lebanon is in Europe, too, but they're not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More than a decade ago, there was a discussion about this at Talk:East Asia/Archive 2003-2010 and the thread immediately below it, and they decided to keep Mongolia in East Asia mainly for practical purposes. Vidimian (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Culturally they're more Central Asia, and it's also reflected in their geography of flat, dry and mountainous places. However, geographically they're in East Asia so I'd say for practical purposes keep it in E Asia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think the key point is to note that observation in the corresponding article(s).廣九直通車 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Long list in "Do"
Asia is the largest continent in the world, but that doesn't make a long list user-friendly. Indonesia is mentioned 6 times, which is crazy at this level. I am going to summarily delete some of them. For the record, this is the list at the moment:

 * Cruise between the dramatic limestone Karsts, islets and islands, in the emerald blue sea of Ha Long Bay.
 * Sleep on board a houseboat in the backwaters of Kerala in India.
 * Experience the architecture of the Taj Mahal Agra in India.
 * Dive in a crystal blue sea in Bunaken, Indonesia to see a colorful coral reef and it's wide variety of tropical fish.
 * Climb Mount Everest, the highest point of land on earth (Nepal) or K2, second highest, in Gilgit-Baltistan.
 * Explore Borneo, an island divided between Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei that contains one of the oldest rainforests in the world.
 * Climb Mount Bromo, Indonesia, an active volcanic mountain that has an amazing scenery during sunrise.
 * Take a Tour to Yogyakarta, Indonesia's Cultural hub, and gateway to see the magnificent Buddhist temple Borobudur and Hindu temple of Prambanan.
 * Explore Lake Toba, The largest volcanic lake in Indonesia and the world.
 * Visit Lombok, a popular island east of Bali, with its beautiful white beaches and famous Gili Trawangan island and Mighty Mount Rinjani located in Indonesia.
 * Climb Mount Fuji, an icon of Japan
 * Asia has a huge number of dive sites from snorkeling to scuba, with much interesting undersea life and quite a few wrecks. For details, see Scuba diving.
 * Visit Cox's Bazar, the longest sea beach in the world, and the Sundarbans, the largest mangrove forest of the world, in Bangladesh and India.
 * Watch anime and manga in Japan.
 * Go shopping for Persian rugs in the Central Asian bazaars.
 * For the experienced traveller, visit the world's two Stalinist countries, Turkmenistan or North Korea on a guided tour.
 * Gamble in some of the world's largest casinos in Macau.
 * Experience the old Silk Road caravanserais like Samarkand in Uzbekistan.
 * Relax on a beach in the Maldives.
 * Visit the Holy Land in Israel and Palestine.
 * Ride the Trans-Siberian Railway from Moscow to Vladivostok and experience Siberia from the comfort of a traincar.
 * Travel through the Asian cradles of humanity, in the Indus River Valley, Yellow River Valley, and Mesopotamia.
 * Visit the national parks and protected areas of India

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I deleted a few, but we need somewhat better geographic distribution, don't we? Arabia is not mentioned. How about mentioning something to do in Oman? Turkey? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't personally know Oman well enough, but if you know of something in Oman (or Arabia) that is worthy of mention at the continental level, please add it. I'm going to change "watch anime" to "watch sumo", because watching anime in Japan is no different from watching anime anywhere else, but sumo is a unique Japanese sport that might actually enhance a trip to Japan. "Go Shopping for Persian rugs" is more of a "Buy" thing I'd say. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * People do "dune bashing" in Arabia. It's a common tourist thing. Joining an excursion to the desert in a 4WD where they will drive you on the sand dunes. The dog2 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Watching sumo is a good call. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asia


text:
Talk:Asklipio

Deletion or Redirect
No consensus reached on what to do with this one. Discussion so far needs more input. -

 * This article just has one attraction listed.
 * In the little church there are fascinating displays, honoring the continuity of the cult of healing from ancient times to a modern midwife and nurse. In Greek mythology, Asklepios was the son of the god Apollo who created the art of medicine. I have moved the content to the Rhodes article.

 * I have redirected several other similar Rhodes articles in an attempt to get some sort of sense into the article group. This one is an orphan as it is not immediately geographically nearby to an active article. Hence I think it should be deleted. It has only ever had an establishing edit and one edit of style by User:(WT-en) Texugo. No further activity since march 2010, no significant reason for article, single entry describes a church attraction) recommend a Delete (WT-en) felix 09:45, 23 January 2011 (EST)

 * Redirect ti Rhodes. It is a real place, and redirects are cheap.  The island does look over-divided for the content there now. --(WT-en) inas 14:48, 23 January 2011 (EST)

 * Keep - Though the article hasn't been developed yet, there are at least 19 places to sleep in Asklipio and its nearest beach at Kiotari, 14 bars and restaurants, and in addition to the church, there are a Folklore Museum, a castle, nature trails, and 3 festivals to mention, plus the beach itself at Kiotari, including another church . That sounds to me like enough to warrant its own article. Another option would be to create an article for South Rhodes, which is the actual municipality in question which includes Gennadi (a red link on the Rhodes page) and several other villages, although with 379 sq km, I'm not sure how good of an idea that would be. (WT-en) Texugo 21:42, 23 January 2011 (EST)
 * After looking at the link provided by (WT-en) Texugo I am more inclined to the Southern Rhodes idea. When I looked for some info on Asklipio I only turned up that it was un-developed, had few tourism related developments and "a couple of tavernas". After seeing the places to sleep list I feel a little more encouraged. The coastal area is developing including Gennadi and nearby Prasonisi, these areas might have a combined weight of sufficient potential content to justify a broader article on the southern end of Rhodes. That south eastern coastal strip is possibly of interest but there is no current article to cover it. I don't think any one region in the south can currently support an article and perhaps at this time a more inclusive single article on the south would assist in both covering that end of the island and developing content. If the content goes into the Rhodes main article then I think we will end up with the article again bearing content that should be going into the sub-articles. With some trepidation I suggest a southern region article may be appropriate. However this island seems to have too many articles and if we do a southern region then maybe we need to regionalise the whole thing and lose some of the other undeveloped articles as well. Lots of work...if we did that. (WT-en) felix 03:31, 24 January 2011 (EST)
 * We should probably briskly sweep this discussion over to the appropriate talk page and solicit comments there. --(WT-en) inas 06:12, 24 January 2011 (EST)
 * This discussion could use further comment. It has been opened far longer than six weeks, so barring objection I'd suggest following (WT-en) inas' solution and moving the discussion to the article's talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep, at least for now; sounds like a valid destination. Maybe merge to a surrounding region if Rhodes is overdivided.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Ten years later:
 * Merge and redirect to Gennadi, which is nearby and has a hotel. Asklipio could be a daytime from Gennadi, so it would be more useful to put the information there. Ground Zero (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Nowhere near enough content for this to remain an article as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Done. Ground Zero (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Asklipio


text:
Talk:Asmara

I tried to improve the quality of English on the Asmara page, since the previous author seemed to have been in a big hurry while writing the article. Many passages were confusing and/or misleading. If someone currently in Asmara could review the information on the page now, I would be very grateful.

Specifically, the flight information available on the page did not reflect the collapse of Eritrean Airlines and correctly catalog the rise of Nasair. Unfortunately, the Nasair website and the Nasair Wikipedia page have not been update since last summer, and it would be nice to have a proper schedule available for planning a trip to Eritrea.

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia up to date!

title: Talk:Asmara


text:
Talk:Asni

All the unknown IP edits were mine ;P (WT-en) Lionfish

title: Talk:Asni


text:
Talk:Aspen

More examples of vacation rentals

 * Official Central Reservations in Aspen, . Owned by 100% of the hotels, Condos, property management companies, bed and breakfasts in the area. Full online package booking service and last minute deals.
 * Vacation Rentals in Aspen, . Condos and homes offered direct by owner.
 * Five Star Destinations, 453 East Hopkins Ave, Phone: 970-925 6638, . Luxurious vacation rentals in Aspen.
 *  Country Village Rentals, 1-888-621-2877, [mailto:aspen@cvrandr.com] . Search for and view Aspen rental homes online.

(WT-en) Maj, I assume you put these here to pose the question as to whether they are appropriate. In my opinion, they are -- narrowly. Aspen, like several other ski towns in Colorado, has a lot of lodging that consists of "vacation rentals" not directly accessible to the public, for which these rental services are basically the only way of getting access. Some of these are great places to stay. (I haven't stayed in the ones in Aspen, but have experience with their equivalents in other towns, and speak from that experience.) As distasteful as keeping submissions from touts may be, the Project:The traveller comes first policy seems to trump this concern, IMO. There's room for discussion, and if someone can come up with a way of accessing these rentals without going through the shills, I'd reconsider. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:36, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Lake Tahoe is another example of a place where rental services are the only way to rent cabins, and I agree that they are useful for travelers. It would be nice if Project:External links included specific language that rental services are generally not OK unless they offer lodging that cannot be rented directly from the owner, AND if the location is one where travelers frequently rent cabins/apartments, AND only if the lodging can be rented for a a week or less.  That would eliminate apartment finder services while not eliminating useful sites for weekend getaway destinations.  It might also be helpful to include these listings under their own sub-section of Sleep. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:56, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Oh, yeah, I totally think that there is a place for vacation rentals here-- I'm a big fan of them myself. I'm just trying to figure out a way to seperate the useful links from the spam. Unfortunately it seems to be one of those "I know it when I see it" type things. I've been waiting for some free time in which to try and frame an argument for allowing some and excluding others, but all I can come up with is a)there should be vacation rentals include where appropriate and b)we shouldn't open things up to each and every apartment finder/booking site. I guess Ryan's list is a good start. (WT-en) Maj 16:06, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

How are vacation rentals any different than hotels, lodges, and resorts? They should be given the same opportunities as other lodging options to be listed in the "Sleep" section. Omitting these legally recognized rental properties is against everything that Wiki stands for, and is creating an unfair advantage for hotels and resorts (which already have an advantage in staff and budget). We often get requests for parties of 8 or 10 people that want to stay together and that is not possible unless it's in a vacation rental type property. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County benefit directly from every vacation rental and these should be allowed to be listed in the same section of this page. —The preceding comment was added by Payntar (talk • contribs)

 * Since the discussion above started in 2006 Wikivoyage has adopted fairly strict guidelines for rental listings that can be found at Apt. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood and thank you Ryan. As vacation rentals are a common form of renting in Aspen I propose that a separate subsection of lodging options (for rentals available for less than one week) are added to the Sleep section of the Aspen page immediately. This has been a major discussion locally over the last year and the City fully supports these types of rentals, as many guests to Aspen cannot afford the extremely high prices of hotels in this very exclusive destination resort. —The preceding comment was added by 24.9.202.177 (talk • contribs)

 * I would support having rental listings in this article, but they must adhere to the Apt guidelines - most specifically, the business in question must have a physical office in Aspen that renters can go to in order to resolve any issues, and the office address must be prominently displayed on the web site of any business listing added to this article. The current guidelines were created with the intention of helping travelers find rental options in places like Aspen, but we tried to draft them in such a way that avoids opening the door to every web site that aggregates listings. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would stipulate that websites must only list exclusive listings (the property's shown on one company website cannot be listed with any other company). Also, having a 24 hour on-call phone line with a 5 minute on-site response time should suffice in lieu of a physical location. In this digital age with electronic door locks and online payments, there becomes less of a need for an office location.

John Denver
Is it a park or sanctuary?

title: Talk:Aspen


text:
Talk:Assateague Island

Page move
I'd like to move this to a more simple Assateague. Or perhaps Assateague Island (to make it clear what type of destination to expect when linking). As of right now, the article covers only the "National Seashore," but a good chunk of the island (including probably the best place for a swim on a quick day-trip) is an administratively separate state park. We could have an article for each, but I would think that unnecessary. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:12, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

 * I've always been a fan of having separate National Park articles since many people plan vacations with parks as their destination, with the obvious exception being parks like Independence Hall where the park in question is just a single attraction. In the case of Assateague, if the park is just a beach, or if there is a lot of ambiguity between the park and the island, then having separate articles may not make sense, but if the park is large it might be clearer to do separate articles for the town(s) and park.  An additional note - Redwood National Park might be a similar case, in that it is a national park with a couple of state parks managed under the same unit, and the single "national park" article is about all of them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:03, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

 * The Redwood National Park model would work fine, so I guess it's just a question of how to name this article. There is no town—just an uninhabited island managed into three chunks by an alphabet soup of the MD DNR, NPS, and US F&WS. (The Virginia fish & wildlife reserve section is better covered in the Chincoteague article.) Do you think it best to keep the same official NPS name for the article, and just declare at the top that it will cover the state park as well?  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:46, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Maybe Grand Canyon is a better example - that article is mostly about the national park, but because it also includes info on the neighboring Indian reservations it is named "Grand Canyon" rather than "Grand Canyon National Park", and the latter is a redirect to the former. In this case you could move the article to "Assateague Island", and the article can then be primarily about the national seashore with additional info on the other parks.  Would that work?  I'm unfortunately not at all familiar with this particular park, so apologies for jumping into a discussion on a topic I'm only 50% familiar with. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:17, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Bredcrumb trail
About this revert: I'll agree that extra-hierarchical regions aren't normally part of hierarchy. However: I thought that when an place straddled the border of two normal regions, but was completely within an extra-hierarchical region, then it could be listed under the EHR in the bredcrumb trail. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Assateague Island


text:
Talk:Astana

General
Changes made - Astana airport code hasn't been updated, (TSE) and still refers to one of the older names for this city. The taxi cost to/from the airport is more like $15 from my experience (1750-2500 tenge) Last time I visited, the Baiterek Tower was supposed to be 97 metres tall, deliberately chosen as 1997 was an important year re. Almaty losing out to Astana in being Kazakhstan's capital. Also of note within the tower is the collection of signatures from leaders of most major world religions, in line with the Pres.'s wishes to be an enabler of cross-religion discussions. Atameken Map of Kazakhstan - during the summer months at least, there are normally English speaking guides available (optional obviously), should you wish to learn a little about the models, and there is a covered section which focuses on the city of Astana itself. Taking photos sometimes requires an extra payment to be made - you may want to keep cameras in your bag until you pass out of sight of the front ticket office. Also added info in the Buy, Eat and Drink sections.

Changes NOT made - Think the tag for the photo ( http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Image:Astana.jpg ) may need double checking. I live over here, and don't know the Russian/Kazakh name for that area, but unless it directly translates as 'main square', it is a little misleading. There are probably a couple of contenders for the the title of main square in Astana, such as the one opposite Congress Hall.

Chris Merriman ( personal@chrismerriman.com ) 07/02/08

 * Thanks for the notes, but please plunge forward and amend them directly -- it's not "someone else's info", it's your and everybody else's page as well! (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:28, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I've amended the page directly now, thanks. Left notes above to show what was changed. Have NOT amended the photo's tag, as I don't know for certain what that area is actually called. Feel use any other interesting info found in the Kazakhstan 101 section of my blog (see domain name of my e-mail address, not adding a proper hyperlink as I don't want to be seen as advertising/directly soliciting visits). Chris Merriman ( personal@chrismerriman.com ) 07/02/08

I did change the photo caption. I agree that main square would make most people think of Congress Hall. That's the Left Bank in the photo, Ministry of Transport. (WT-en) KZBlog 00:46, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Expo 2017 here
. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New name
This page must be renamed to Nursultan --Omondi (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say let's at least wait until Wikipedia has moved their page. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 17:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Also, the rule for naming on this site is which name is most used in English. That said, this is a pretty new city in the first place, so whatever the heck they want to call it will probably be adopted in English in short order. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 * We definitely don't move articles because of an "official" change. We're not here to promote any government's agenda. But it is hard to know when the common use changes. In this case, I think we would do well by following Wikipedia's lead. They have a larger community watching these things, and that would be a good indicator of when to change. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * They have not changed the name of their article, at least not yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I remember reading somewhere (probably on Wikipedia) that they're naming it after the former president — you know, the one who stayed in office for 27 years or something... --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, go to Nursultan Nazarbayev#Capital renaming for information. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * By the way, if you go to Astana and you look at the side bar, notice how many times the city's been renamed. That's amazing. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I wonder if someone somewhere has made a list of the cities in the world that have been renamed the most times. Is there a Guinness World Record for "Most renamed city"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Astana even explains it... doesn't sound too obscure, tbh :) -- andree.sk (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * As I wrote on the main text, in the Kazakh language, "astana" means "capital city", and renaming it to Nursultan has always been the plan. The only possible question was, when would it happen. Some people speculated it would happen only after his death. It didn't take too long after all. Ibaman (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's do it...
The wikipedia article is now renamed too, also mentions on openstreetmap, google maps etc. ... I'd say it's time .-) -- andree.sk (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the most used name for the city in English now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, wikipedians agreed that it is... On the quick look, airlines, news, maps etc. mention Nur-Sultan. The historical name (and as said above, it literally means "capital city") should be left in the articles and regions somewhere (still - it's 160M (Astan) vs 48M (Nur-Sultan) hits on google), but I reckon the new name is here to stay and there's no point keeping WV out of date. Our friends at WT are ahead already in this regard :-) -- andree.sk (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I have no objection. But let's get some more discussion before we act. Would you like to add this discussion to requests for comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should go ahead now. And I think it's time we reconsider our policy on naming. In a case like this where is is reasonable to expect that common use is just a matter of time, waiting doesn't seem to make sense. (I'm not endorsing following official diktat, but we seem to spend more time than necessary resisting the inevitable.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support renaming, and agree the policy could be amended to account for many places' not having a common English name. I think the policy is good in stopping somebody renaming Moscow to Moskva, but for cities like this one which are mostly ignored by ordinary English speakers, we could more-or-less follow the official name. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 00:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We haven't waited a long time, probably very few readers would care greatly, and I don't think the policy should be changed. Meanwhile, it looks to me like we have a sufficient consensus to rename, though we could wait another 24 hours to see if anyone has an objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't make sense to put this to rfc (it's not a too crucial topic), we can simply wait (even a week) and then rename... -- andree.sk (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there's no disagreement, I think we can make the change tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I also changed what seemed essential to change, but I'll bet more of the place names within the city have changed, so please check the text for more places to fill in the new name of the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to use the offical name "Nur-Sultan", and only use Nursultan as redirect? -- andree.sk (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you just volunteered to move the article again, fix the double-redirect, and respell the name in the article. Next time, instead of posting a subthread of "Let's do it" in a thread that starts with "This page must be renamed to Nursultan", start a new thread and make it very clear you are proposing a different spelling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry :) I already did it that way - before it got reverted - so somehow I overlooked that here the discussion started with Nursultan... I'll fix it, no problem. -- andree.sk (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - unfortunately I cannot, the page already exists etc. Please move it, I'll handle the fallout. -- andree.sk (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe not
I just had an edit changing all references of Astana in the "Understand" section to Nur-Sultan, believing this name should have been fairly established in daily usage by now. Then I decided to check the Wikipedia article for the stories behind the historical names, and saw that the Kazakhs decided to rename the city back to Astana just yesterday! What are we going to do? Vidimian (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Probably change it back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:10, 14 September 2022 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Astana 2010.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Нұр Астана Мешіті - panoramio.jpg

Currency
Prices for most hotels are given in USD. Do they take dollars? Don't they take tenge? Nothing is said about the usefulness of dollars in Kazakhstan. If international chains prefer dollars and have a good or even sensible exchange rate, I think one should write about it there. Or are the prices added by somebody who just converted the price to dollars (or looked at their credit card balance)? –LPfi (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Astana


text:
Talk:Astrakhan

Moscow Times article on Astrakhan, in English: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/beyond_moscow/astrakhan.html

title: Talk:Astrakhan


text:
Talk:A Stroll on Sisowath Quay

I brought this itinerary with me and had a nice time with it - even saw Sam Bo on his way home down Sisowath Quay after a hard day's work. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:A Stroll on Sisowath Quay


text:
Talk:Asturias

The list of regions here is entirely too long. Can we break them down into some smaller groups? --(WT-en) Evan 13:53, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * For starters Cangas de Narcea, or is it Cangas del Narcea? is in South West (Asturias) according to the Gedrez article. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:02, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Asturias


text:
Talk:Asunción

 * This article is currently marked for style fixes, but without explanations of what needs fixing. I'll go ahead and try to improve it (I was in Asuncion less than 3 month ago), comments welcome! Citizen428 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 * It seems that some progress has been done. Still, a lot of info here refers to the whole country and not to Asuncion itself. That info could be reworked into the country article, but unfortunately I won't have the means to do it myself, so I'm marking it as needing attention. (WT-en) Rmx 16:39, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * More care should be taken to avoid superlatives when discussing Asuncion. This should not be a travelogue but rather a factual article about the capital city. The use of exclamation points and parochial language should be minimized. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.5.108.40 (talk • contribs)

Car rental listings
Wikivoyage's policy is that car rental agencies shouldn't be listed if there are a lot of them in a given place, or if it is easy to find a rental car (see External links). It would appear that that is the case in Asunción, so I have cut the list of car rental agency listings from the article, and I put it below in case there is a good reason to put them back into the article:

Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sleep" listings
There are a lot of listings now. If they're all needed, I think we should consider subdividing the existing sections of "Sleep". What would be the best way to subdivide within sections? By neighborhood, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Let's subdivide them by neighbourhood then. I've added a Hostels section because of the great number of hostels that openned in the last years. —The preceding comment was added by Cmasi (talk • contribs)

 * Go ahead, as long as it's made clear to readers where the neighborhoods are, and thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Embassies phone numbers
Can someone confirm or contradict the assumption that the dash / in the phone numbers show alternative numbers and not that a / has to be entered when dialling or is a method of separating a long single number? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Destination of the Month?
We have had few major South American cities featured lately. Would any improvements be needed to make this article the Destination of the Month? /Yvwv (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asunción


text:
Talk:Aswan

Does Aswan now qualify to be free of the "outline" tag?

 * Great work! ...but the one missing thing is contact information (phone, web or mail) for the hotels. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:09, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Bold textaswan is very beatufl saty i hope all pepol coming to aswan to see defrent   aswan  had some magek in the rever  or estret  or and thing  thank  you for all

title: Talk:Aswan


text:
Talk:Aswan High Dam

Article name
How about moving this to Aswan? I don't think we need separate articles for the city and the dam. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:18, 5 May 2005 (EDT)

 * I reckon we do need separate articles, hence the article.... The High Dam is quite distinct from the city itself, being located some 13km south of town. The settlement at the dam also has its own train station and a point of departure for ferries across Lake Nasser to Sudan. It's also an attraction and a destination in its own right - or so I believe.... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 12:11, 5 May 2005 (EDT)

Aswan High Dam
Archived from the Project:Votes for deletion page:

 * Delete. An attraction located near Aswan.  A listing should be made on the Aswan guide. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 02:26, 18 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Aswan. Talk:Aswan High Dam makes a case for keeping the article, but without any content a redirect seems to make more sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:11, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect, unless someone can provide evidence that you can sleep there (in a lodging). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:06, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Aswan High Dam


text:
Talk:A Taste of Coastal Texas

=Guide= I think this might actually be worth calling a guide if I can get some pictures and specific reviews for the things.(WT-en) Jordanmills 00:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:A Taste of Coastal Texas