text:
Talk:One week in Sydney

Haymarket?
It could be included in the afternoon bit of day two but it's such an interesting area. I've often told people to have a look around at the markets early on a saturday morning or to have a poke around the shops in market city. There's also the food court up the top, which is great for a really cheap meal (and serves alcohol!) after you've been walking around the city for a few hours. In terms of atmosphere, it ranks up there as one of Sydney's more interesting experiences.

Day 1 - Historical Sydney
Morning and early afternoon - walking tour of the eastern side of the CBD, generally following Macquarie Street: take train to Museum Station ($3.20): go to Hyde Park, examine Anzac Memorial: then across to Australian Museum, St Mary's Cathedral, St James Church, Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney Mint, Sydney Hospital, Parliament House, Reserve Bank, State Library and Mitchell Library, Botanic Gardens, Art Gallery, Government House, seeing sights on the way (and visiting if you want); down to Bennelong Point and to Sydney Opera House (possible tour), then round to Circular Quay. Afternoon - ferry to Manly ($12.80 return),, seeing the sights of the eastern side of the Harbour. Walk along the Corso, relax at the beach; return to Manly Wharf- Oceanworld is there too.

Day 2
Morning - train to Central; light rail to Lilyfield ($5.70 return) then walk or 445 bus to Leichhardt (get off at Leichhardt Town Hall) ($1.90). Look at the Italian area of Sydney, have lunch at an Italian restaraunt. Return by bus to Central or return light rail. Afternoon - walking tour of the western side of the CBD - starting at Town Hall (or Convention light rail stop if coming by bus). Explore Darling Harbour, Town Hall, Cathedral, Martin Place, GPO, etc. Walk to the Rocks and cross the Harbour Bridge in the late afternoon. Dinner in Kirribilli or North Sydney. Evening - head down to Bradfield Park, look at city skyline at night across to Circular Quay. Walk along the foreshore past Luna Park (enter if you want), round to Lavender Bay to see north and south Sydney CBD at night and the harbour. Return by ferry from McMahons Point to Darling Harbour/Circular Quay ($5.20), or by train from Milsons Point ($3.20)

Day 3
Morning and afternoon - head to Blue Mountains; either drive or take the train (purchasing ticket - $24.20 return; $17.00 o/p) - alight at Katoomba. Bus 686 to Echo Point ($4.20 max); either walk down Giant Staircase, bushwalk to Echo Point - take Scenic Railway up - or take bus to Echo Point ($1.90 max); or walk or take bus to Scenic World - have a ride on one of the attractions. Bus 686 to Katoomba ($4.20 max) then Bus 685/95 to Leura ($3.20 max). Look at shops. Return to Leura Station - train back to Sydney.

Day 4
Morning - take train to Wynyard station ($3.20) - walk up George Street. Look at The Rocks; shopping and sightseeing. Include any museums or historic buildings. Do a loop, ending up at the upper regions of The Rocks - come back down to Wynyard station. Shop if you want. Afternoon - 431 bus to Glebe ($1.90) - get off in Glebe Point Road. Explore Glebe shops; walk to Parramatta Road; then to Victoria Park, up to Sydney University - explore museums and look at historic buildings. Continue through to Newtown, explore shopping area. Evening - dinner in Newtown -lots to choose from.

Day 5
Morning - train to Olympic Park station ($11.40). Bicycle Hire at OP bike centre (check price + $100 deposit). Cycle the Olympic Park area and Bicentennial Park throughout the morning and early afternoon; three rides available. Afternoon - return by train to CBD. Shopping in CBD area. Evening - sample another multicultural food area?

Day 6
Bondi to Coogee walk? Parramatta?

Multi-mode tickets
Until this itinerary actually recommends going somewhere you can't go to with a MyMulti-1, it shouldn't recommend buying a MyMulti-3 to do it. --(WT-en) inas 23:42, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Merge tag
As noted in the merge tag: "Please do not remove this merge notice without first gaining consensus for the removal on the article's talk page". I understand that the author in question has put a lot of effort into this article, and as such I'd suggest making a case for keeping this article rather than simply removing the merge tag. It's clear that under the current Project:Itineraries criteria that this should not be a separate article (and the article title is in fact specifically called out as an example of a "personal" itinerary), but as with anything on Wikivoyage exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis. If this article simply lists destinations that should also be included in the existing Sydney articles then it would seem to be an obvious merge candidate, but if it's going to provide info about a particular route, or if it will be presenting content that shouldn't be covered in the Sydney articles, then a case should be made for a separate article. As it is, the article seems to be developing into somewhat of a walking tour, similar to Along the Magnificent Mile, although it would be good to define the route being covered and why it's a notable route for tourists. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:01, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

 * I'd say the current policy is not entirely adequate and this article is a test case pointing out some difficullties. I have started a discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Itineraries. (WT-en) Pashley 01:28, 8 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I've spent hours on this article (which was created before the policy came into place, by the way, and until today I was not even aware that such a policy existed - there is little communication to users about things such as this). I'm happy for it to be edited and changed to improve content, but I will really be annoyed if some person who has had no input in the article and just wants to cite policy decides that the article should be gotten rid of just because they think it can. The fact is that there are very few people contributing to Sydney articles and I was trying to add a usable itinerary that Wikivoyage readers could follow. I've now added it to the Sydney page so people can at least link to and read it. The problem is that Sydney is so big and there is so much to see, it's hard for people to understand what a week or so would look like in this sort of city, you simply can't get that from reading either the main Sydney page or any of its subpages (which still haven't been sorted out despite years of discussion). I'm not trying to write a personal article at all but simply something that can give readers a few ideas on some things put together. It states what could be combined for a good day out in different parts of Sydney. That's all I want to do - nothing more, nothing less. Discussion welcome. (WT-en) JRG 02:12, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Day 7?
Given that this is mostly done, where do we send travelers on day 7? I see to major options; Sydney East, or Parramatta? Thoughts? --Joshlama1 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Joshlama1, I stumbled on your itinerary (good work btw) and thought I would add my two cents for day 7. I recommend Sydney East. While Parramatta is certainly a good destination, I think you can't go to Sydney without doing the Bondi Beach/Coogee walk (good in all seasons), having a coffee in Paddington or Darlinghurst and easting fish and chips at Watsons Bay (what a great way to spend your last evening in Sydney?). The East is also probably more convenient for travellers that have to go to the airport that night or the next day. --Justvagabonding (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge tag 2018
Can we remove the merge tag from this article? It gives the impression that there is an ongoing discussion about merging the article, and make the maintenance category "Articles to be merged" more crowded than necessary. MartinJacobson (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense. Discussion took place here and above and it doesn't look like anyone supported a merger. But probably, best to get agreement all in one section first. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:One week in Sydney


text:
Talk:Onjuku

Yesterday went on a trip to white sand beach of Onjuku... its in neighboring Chiba prefecture only but it took us almost 2 and half hour to reach there... The beauty of the trip was it wasn't organized or planned perfectly... There is special kind of enjoyment in such trip when I just take some print outs from internet and go out to explore... and great to have two never-complaining good friends who have similar taste in going out on such trips... I can't go with persons who start cribbing over in middle of the journey about anything coming across... one should expect some twists in such journeys and should know how to enjoy them... :) We didn't think this place would be so remote as Chiba is just next to Tokyo... Saturday evening had dinner at Arpan's place and spent night in Nishi-kasai only, we were on Nishi-kasai station at 8am had breakfast there and took Tozai line to Nishi-funabashi... from Nishi-funabashi took train to Chiba... From Chiba we had to change train from Metro to JR Sotobo line... the first one on Sotobo line took us to Kazusaichinomiya where we again had to change to next train to reach Onjuku... during this journey real rural Japan starts... farm-fields on track-sides... and very small stations with few people boarding or alighting... a bit of suspicion could have crop up among us on whether we are on right track as we didn't see many tourists on train but fortunately while changing train at Kazusaichinomiya we met one elderly guy Takashima-san who said he is working in a government office and also a volunteer tourist guide in the area (showed his card for that)... he just explained briefly about the scenic places in the area and we were assured... it was also good to see some surfers alighting from train at Onjuku with their surfing boards...

Onjuku is a nice place to be if you love beaches... its a of 2km stretch only but nice white sand and with very clean water... (Kamakura is black-sand beach).. other difference between the two is that Kamakura beach is more of young hippie kind crowd while Onjuku is more of beach for families or surfers... saw more relaxed persons in Onjuku... Kamakura is too crowded to enjoy a good swim, Onjuku better on that front... Kamakura good for beach parties with dance-floors nearby while Onjuku good for a relaxed day out... Don't get disheartened by looks of a small station and not many people around as we noticed most people reach Onjuku beach by car... with their surfers boards and camping equipments...

There are nice restaurants on the way from Onjuku station to the beach and we had really good lunch on our way back from beach... next we went to Ubara (just 2 stop away from Onjuku) to see Katsuura underwater park... enjoyed the journey till there with nice bakar on anything under the sun... but the underwater park is not worth the money and time you spend... it would have been better to go next stops where you can do boating or go to an island visit but we were short of time...

- Raj Khichi

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

title: Talk:Onjuku


text:
Talk:Ontario

Disambiguation
So, there's a city in Southern California also named Ontario. But I figure that the we've got an exceptional case here, so Ontario (California) should possibly be disambiguated, and this one left without a disambiguator. -- (WT-en) Evan 09:01, 5 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Why is it exceptional? I always think of the SoCal one when I see Ontario...(WT-en) Majnoona

 * So, the whole point of not having disambiguators is that for example everyone will expect Paris to be Paris, France. If there are going to be some people who think Ontario (California) when they see Ontario, then we should probably disambig now rather than wait. You're the existence proof that Ontario = Ontario (province) is not instantly obvious to everyone. So, I'm moving the article. -- (WT-en) Evan 13:04, 5 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Ontario, California, is to Ontario, Canada, as Paris, Ontario, is to Paris, France. Really, does ANY tourist EVER go to Ontario, California?

 * I'll have to chime in on this. Ontario is Canada's most populous province by far, whereas before I read this talk page, I'd never even heard about the one in SoCal (and it doesn't have an article here either). (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:24, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I'd also be in favor of moving "Ontario (province)" to just "Ontario". Same for "Delaware (state)". -- (WT-en) Wrh2 22:04, 8 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * OK, so, at least Maj seems to have some problems with the difference. Ontario (California) is mostly notable for its airport. --(WT-en) Evan 16:01, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * I live less than 30 miles from Ontario California and would have absolutely no problem with giving the province the Ontario page -- aside from the airport, Ontario California just isn't any big deal. It could be argued that someone will always have a problem with saying one city is a bigger deal than another -- if you live near Paris, Texas, the French city isn't such a big deal.  A cop once told me I was going the wrong way when I told him I was heading north to Cleveland, despite having my Ohio license in his hand (we were 100 miles from Cleveland, Texas).  If you go to Ohio State, you might first think of the Ohio city when you think of Delaware.  My understanding is that the "most famous" rule applies when the vast majority of travelers would think of the major destination - Paris (France), Cleveland (Ohio), Delaware (state), or in this case Ontario (province). -- (WT-en) Wrh2 18:01, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * I'm adding my voice to the consensus that this article should be titled "Ontario" and given an "otheruses" tag. You know, I think of "Holland" as a city on Lake Michigan with a tourism niche, but billions of people think of it as a country in Europe and don't even know that my former home city exists, so I defer to that.  Ontario is no Georgia or Washington or Birmingham, with significant general mindshare for both places; Ontario, California is a Paris, Texas or a London, Ontario or a Holland, Michigan (which also has an airport and a mall). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:12, 24 March 2006 (EST)

 * (WT-en) Evan and (WT-en) Maj, would you guys be opposed to moving Ontario (province) back to just Ontario? Aside from Maj the consensus seems to be that it meets the "most famous" rule. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:13, 24 March 2006 (EST)

 * Yes, I just talked to Maj about it and she's fine with it. --(WT-en) Evan 14:13, 24 March 2006 (EST)

 * Done. I think this makes sense, thanks Evan. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:29, 24 March 2006 (EST)

 * I'm happy to see that the breadcrumb data seems to have been kind of easy to adjust. Nice job! --(WT-en) Evan 12:29, 26 March 2006 (EST)

 * Doh! I've updated isIn for the top-level regions for Ontario, so hopefully the next time pages are re-generated the children of those regions will have their breadcrumb updated properly. Sorry for the oversight. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:51, 26 March 2006 (EST)

Regions

 * Update: April 30, 2010. Ontario's Travel regions have been divided into 13 (this will be a mess to clean up).  The regions are found on the Ontario Tourism website.  Any takers?

So, we need a more systematic breakdown of Ontario's regions. And the city list is getting quite long. Any takers? -- (WT-en) Evan 07:04, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Yeah, Ontario's usually broken down into somewhere between five and seven `unofficial' regions. With any luck, I'll pick it up over the next few weeks. (WT-en) RickScott 01:29, May 18, 2004 (EDT)

 * I'm going to take a poke at it. --(WT-en) Evan 12:38, 26 February 2006 (EST)

 * Thes are the old regions, for comparison/fixing up:

 * Niagara Region
 * Golden Horseshoe
 * GTA -- the Greater Toronto Area
 * Bruce Peninsula
 * Ottawa Valley
 * Muskoka
 * Northern Ontario
 * North of Superior
 * Algonquin Provincial Park
 * Haliburton Highlands

Round 2
Unfortunately, things in the Ontario hierarchy have only gotten more muddled. Our Ontario guide should be cleaner—from a travel perspective it is basically the majority of Canada. Here is my proposal for an Ontario hierarchy:

 * North Ontario
 * Northwest Ontario
 * Northeast Ontario
 * East Ontario
 * Central Ontario
 * Golden Horseshoe
 * Greater Toronto Area
 * Niagara Area
 * West Ontario

I have not finished working out subregions, I'll add as I explore this more. Also, I will clean up this map into a real wikivoyage regions map, but I thought it useful to leave in the municipality borders for the purpose of working out the regions. Any thoughts, objections, advice? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:42, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Hi, Peter. I don't know a huge amount about Ontario regions & counties but from the sources I looked at (Wikipedia's entries on Ontario regions, Tourism Ontario and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs) these regions and the counties assigned to each seem reasonable. The only thing I'd note is the convention here in Ontario (on gov't websites, weather forecasts, etc.) is to refer to the regions as Northern Ontario as opposed to North Ontario, Eastern Ontario instead of East Ontario, etc. "Western Ontario" also seems to be more commonly called "Southwestern Ontario." Otherwise, it looks good to me so far. (WT-en) Titania 22:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Great, I'll change the names according to the conventions you listed, and will get working on a regions map! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Where would Hamilton (Ontario) fit under this grouping? It doesn't seem to be any mention of it in any of the articles on Greater Toronto Area, Niagara Region, or Southwestern Ontario. (WT-en) JYolkowski 16:27, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

 * Hamilton would definitely fall under the Golden Horseshoe region. The problem is, though, that we haven't actually implemented the new scheme yet ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

 * Actually, I'd put it in the Greater Toronto Area, and call Hamilton the border with Niagara Region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:03, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Scratch that, I put it in the Niagara Region. I think it could go either way, but the GTA article already leaves it out, so I did the same. But anyway, the regions overhaul is done! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Cool, thanks. I think it makes more sense putting Hamilton in Niagara than in the GTA too.  I wonder though whether it would make sense to rename Niagara Region to something more inclusive as Hamilton isn't part of Niagara Region.  I've started a discussion at Talk:Niagara Region.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 23:18, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Round 3
I live in Ontario and fell this map is very incorrect. Northern and Easrern Ontario are pretty good, but generally everything south of kingston is reffered to as southern ontario. living here I rarely hear the terms "the golden horseshoe" or "southwestern ontario". its all southern ontario.--(WT-en) Kanata Kid 17:02, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As someone that lives in "Southern Ontario", I find that the terms "Southwestern Ontario" and "GTA" and the like are used quite a lot, so from my perspective they seem to be reasonable divisions. (WT-en) JYolkowski 17:50, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Also, regardless of whether they are all Southern Ontario, that area needs to be broken up into smaller regions to keep us from having one heck of a crowded region article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:54, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Kitchener/Waterloo
Should Kitchener/Waterloo really be two seperate articles? Even for locals, they're usually referenced as the same city, and the Waterloo article is already making reference to Kitchener --(WT-en) Enki42 13:37, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * Possibly. Have you read Project:What is an article? If they are 2 cities that have merged or distinct parts (districts) of a larger Kitchener-Waterloo metropolitan area then they may deserve 2 separate articles. If the Waterloo article also sufficiently covers Kitchener as well then make Kitchener a redirect to Waterloo. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:52, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * They're more or less the same city, the distinction only exists because they used to be seperate cities. From a travel perspective, it seems bizarre to say that someone would visit Kitchener and not visit Waterloo, therefore I don't think there's any case for distinctness. Kitchener is empty anyway, so I'm going to change the links and update the page later today if no one has any objections. No data will be lost, so I can revert back if someone changes their mind here. --(WT-en) Enki42 07:26, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * I'd rather we left them as two different cities. Can we maybe make a region article for Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge, and have each city have its own article? --(WT-en) Evan 22:21, 10 March 2006 (EST)

Charter buses
I'm not sure we should be listing Toronto local charter bus companies at province level. Certainly they can go to (random list of other cities) if a group pays them to do so, but they have no permanent local or scheduled presence in any city other than their home base? K7L (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Split up Golden Horseshoe?
The Golden Horseshoe consists of two regions: Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula. Both are highly populated, and contain many attractions for visitors. The category tree goes very deep here; Toronto's districts are at level 7. One simple measure would be to eliminate the Golden Horseshoe article (which mainly consists of lists and trivial information anyway), and have Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula as regions of Ontario. /Yvwv (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to lose the Horseshoe, and I worry if the Peninsula is big enough for a top-level region within Ontario, but overall I think your logic is probably correct. If we do this I would suggest keeping Golden Horseshoe as an extra-hierarchical region. Also, this discussion should be linked from Talk:Golden Horseshoe.  Powers (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Peninsula has a million inhabitants. /Yvwv (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Population is hardly the only, or even the most important, metric for regional divisions. Powers (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A slightly amended quote from myself at Talk:Niagara Peninsula in 2014 on changing the Golden Horseshoe's regions breakdown:

 * "On second look, it appears we treat Hamilton as part of the Niagara Peninsula, which is only partially accurate in a strict geographic sense and completely inaccurate from a travellers' perspective. On top of restructuring Niagara Peninsula, what also should happen is that Golden Horseshoe's subdistricting scheme should be redone: there should be a Greater Toronto Area extending as far west as Oakville, a Niagara Peninsula that's coterminous with the Niagara Regional Municipality, and a third district centered on Hamilton and suburbs, including Burlington (Hamilton-Wentworth is a possible name, though it's been out of official use since 2001).

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The historic Wentworth County didn't include Burlington (Ontario) (which IIRC is in Halton County). Invoking the former Regional Municipality of Hamilton–Wentworth just gets us Hamilton (Ontario) and a few points (like Stoney Creek) which are now within Hamilton's town line. K7L (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Okay, but that only addresses the name. I think otherwise the proposal is ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with splitting out the GTA as its own region, and then renaming the rest of the Golden Horseshoe "Hamilton and the Niagara Peninsula". I don't think that Hamilton and its hinterland is enough of a draw for travellers to warrant being a top-level region. As many travellers will he starting out from Toronto, the Hamilton area would be something they might explore en route to Niagara. I find "Golden Horseshoe" to be somewhat archaic, by the way. I heard it much more often in my childhood ("hey, let's hitch up the horses and wagons and tour the Golden Horseshoe") than I do now. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yvwv just renamed Niagara Peninsula to Hamilton and the Niagara Peninsula, I undid the page move as premature. If we must have two regions rather than three, I think Hamilton has more in common with the GTA - an urbanized area to which it's well-connected via GO Transit and other transportation links - than the largely rural and fairly more isolated Niagara Peninsula. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think GTA is big enough to stand on its own. It is the prime destination for travellers in Ontario. Niagara and Hamilton are the GTA's hinterland to a large degree, so grouping them makes sense. Ground Zero (talk) 11:35, 13 August

2018 (UTC)

2023 revisit
Either the Niagara Peninsula should be re-joined to the GTA as "Golden Horseshoe" or someone has to explain to me why it's a big and important enough region to be on it's own when it doesn't have any sub-regions and all the of the other regions of Ontario have multiple sub-regions. 67kevlar (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 * We do have the Golden Horseshoe as an extra-region which is exactly Niagara and the GTA. Ontario isn't overloaded with regions (based on WV:7±2), and the GTA and Niagara are both heavily traveled. Niagara's hierarchy is flatter than other regions in Ontario, but it is quite rural despite one of having one of Canada's most famous destinations in a small city, and a few notable provincial destinations elsewhere, so it seems to work so far.
 * Are you proposing moving the Golden Horseshoe into the regional hierarchy? What would the new regions in the next level down be? Gregsmi11 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Map on Ontario page doesn't match up with regional maps
On the main page, Quinte-Northumberland is with Central Ontario, but it's one of the listed and mapped subregions on the Eastern Ontario page. —The preceding comment was added by Docere1 (talk • contribs)
 * You're right; someone redefined the regions a bit. I see that Central Ontario doesn't even touch Lake Ontario anymore. Powers (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Beer in Ontario
The Beer section is getting pretty long; is it time to think about an "Ontario Beer" article? Unlike Ontario's wine regions which have some distinct local properties, every corner of Ontario now seems to have a local beer scene proportionate to its population, so I assume such an article would end up looking less like Wine regions of Ontario, and more like Breweries in Franconia (though Ontario might have far fewer listings). Gregsmi11 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but then the Beer in Ontario article should really have some paragraphs of text. As of now the section is just a list of breweries. Ypsilon (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be created along the lines of German beer and wine., given you created that article, any thoughts on this? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm from Ontario, fond of beer, & definitely do not like the long list here. However I am not certain a separate article is the solution. Just mention here that both local craft breweries & brew pubs are common, & leave the listings to city or rural region articles.
 * I also think some things should be added to Ontario, at least an explanation of "beer stores" and a warning for Americans that Canadian beer is significantly stronger than what they are used to. Pashley (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if we keep this section or create a separate article, the actual listings belong in city or region articles with links to them from the higher level. Pashley (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I put a warning at Canada. Pashley (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to create the German beer and wine article because there was a lot of descriptive/explanatory text in the German cuisine article. I think a Beer in Ontario article would be a good thing to have, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about beer to write one. Although I do think that "Canadian beer is stronger than American beer is a myth we should not propagate.   Ground Zero (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm in my 70s & grew up thinking Canadian beer was both better & stronger. Monty Python
 * There was a radar base near me with both USAF & RCAF staff & I was told both groups delighted in getting newly posted Americans ridiculously hammered by giving them Canadian beer. In about 2001 I was the only Canuck at a table at a dinner & was asked which beer from a limited selection was good. I suggested one & warned them it was 9%, but most of the group got quite drunk.
 * Today I'm still inclined to think there's some truth to what you call a myth. On the other hand, I've had some really excellent beer in American brew pubs. Pashley (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Myth" isn't my word: it's widely used to describe the phenomenon. I provide two sources; here are some more: 3, 4, 5 Ground Zero (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall that a Canadian pint is larger than an American pint (20 vs 16oz?), so even if you convert the ABW to ABV, a draught beer up here gives a few extra sips per glass. That said, the few Americans I spoke to ages ago in Toronto or Montreal were happy enough to be in a bar at 18-20 spending Canadian money, and I'm sure they weren't thinking about the numbers.
 * About the question at hand, I agree with the points above; the listings need to be moved (either way), but also that a beer article could be a good thing. I'm just not a beer expert, so I can't imagine yet what it would look like. I'm hoping an Ontario beer enthusiast will drop by...
 * I'll leave this link here for reference. It's out of date and a bit corporate, but there are a few points which might be helpful later: Beer_in_Canada Gregsmi11 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created a Beer in Ontario article. I'd welcome additions and copy edits. Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Looks great so far! I've been tied up offline recently, but I'll think about what I can add over the next little while. Gregsmi11 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ontario


text:
Talk:On the trail of Marco Polo

Where to put Marco Polo
(discussion moved from travellers pub)

I'm living in China and reading Marco Polo. Methinks it is obvious his route should go in some itinerary and I'm willing to do it, but where? My first thought was a separate Marco Polo's route. But would that need some other title because the single quote will cause parsing problems? Thinking about it, I suspect I should just make it a section of Silk Road. Other opinions? (WT-en) Pashley 06:51, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

A related problem. I would like to quote Polo's book extensively, perhaps beyond the limits allowed by "fair use". The version I have is from Project Gutenberg. Labelling says copyright is expired in the US, but they don't know about other countries. Their license info is here. Is that OK in relation to Wikivoyage licensing? Of course I would give attribution. (WT-en) Pashley 07:02, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I think Silk Road is a good choice, he's certainly the most famous European to trod that road. As a rule of thumb, if it's public domain in the US, it's almost certainly public domain in the rest of world — for Wikivoyage, the most important thing is legal status in Canada, where the rule is that copyright is valid for 50 years after the author's death. ref  (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:21, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Does Canadian law even matter with IB being the owner? Evan, where is IB based? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:07, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
 * That rule of thumb is incorrect. US copyrights on new material last just short of forever, but because they used to be based on the date of creation, anything created before 1923 is irretrievably PD here.  The EU now sets expiration at 70 years after the creator's death, which means anything created by someone who was still alive in 1936 is still protected there.  That can easily reach back into the late 1800s. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:57, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * About copyright - I think the original book was written more than 500 years ago. No country has copyright protection that long. However, you will be quoting from a translation I guess. In that case what is relevant is when the translated version was written. If the translated version was published in the US, then you only need to worry about copyright protection in the US. That said, I am hard put to think of any way in which one can quote so extensively from a book in a Wikivoyage guide that it will end up infringing copyright. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:23, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Pashley: I really like the idea of making a separate itinerary for Marco Polo's route. There's a definite sub-culture of travellers who love following historical routes; it would make a good itinerary. I'd say In the footsteps of Marco Polo would be a nice title, and would be a good model for other such articles: In the footsteps of Lewis and Clark, In the footsteps of Napoleon, In the footsteps of Alexander. However, I think there's a PBS series called In the footsteps of Alexander, and a Google search shows a couple of other TV shows with similar names, so it might be better to think of another title pattern. "On the trail of X"? "Following X's route"?

 * I think the copyright issue should be more or less moot if the book is in Gutenberg; as Ravikiran points out, the main issue is the translation, and if it's in PG it's probably quite old. (However, I think there are a few countries that have "perpetual" copyright on some works -- most notably the King James Bible in Great Britain, which is under crown copyright with no expiration.)

 * I think it's important to concentrate on practical instructions for modern-day travellers following the route rather than describe the historical travels. My feeling is that a full copy of Marco Polo's book would be unwarranted; excerpts of more than a few sentences would probably be overkill, too. --(WT-en) Evan 08:47, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

The Gutenberg file says "Including the unabridged third edition (1903) of Henry Yule's annotated translation, as revised by Henri Cordier; together with Cordier's later volume of notes and addenda (1920)". So US copyright has expired, as Gutenberg claim. Does that make it public domain by Wikivoyage rules?

 * That's good enough, especially since you'll be excerpting rather than copying the whole thing. --(WT-en) Evan 10:16, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

It wouldn't even have occurred to me to put "practical instructions for modern-day travellers" in here; those would be covered in country articles or Silk Road. I'm thinking of a historic itinerary mainly for help in considering a route. My thought was to lay out his route with some quotes about various places and links to the cities he visited — either the modern city entry if there is one, as for Hangzhou and Quanzhou, or the nearest current city if the one he visited is long since gone as many are. (WT-en) Pashley 10:04, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Yes, that's how any good itinerary should work; with links to the destination guides for listed destinations. When I said "practical instructions for modern-day travellers following the route", I meant that we should list modern-day cities and approximations to the route. --(WT-en) Evan 10:16, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

OK, I'll start it as On the trail of Marco Polo. We can rename later if need be. (WT-en) Pashley 10:21, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Copyright
Henry Yule died in 1880 or 1889 (depending on whom you ask), and Henri Cordier died in 1925, placing their translations and annotations and updates in the Public Domain in the EU and wherever else the life+70 rule is in effect. And since the revision you're using was published in 1920 (i.e. before 1923), it's also PD in the USA. Go for it, dude. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:22, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Marco Polo
Swept in from the Pub:

As discussed here earlier, I've done On the trail of Marco Polo. So far, I'm the only editor. I think it is finished. Others please look, comment, perhaps improve. (WT-en) Pashley 05:15, 18 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Wow! Very nice! I enjoyed this very much. A map would be great (but they are so hard to do in my estimation). Nice work! (WT-en) OldPine 08:57, 18 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Great job! It will take some time to read it. A map would be good to follow the route. But take some rest before. (WT-en) Jan 09:54, 18 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Just to add some more praise—this is a really cool article. I hadn't seen it before! Just a suggestion: some photos would help break up all that text and make the article easier on the eyes. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:06, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * Great itinerary!! I just finished the book and it makes your mind dream of older worlds and amazing travels!! The article is very complete, but it is lacking pictures, and most of all maps! Sorry to state the obvious and don't fix it myself, I just hope that someone has the time to do it because this route is worth it :) --116.231.36.50 00:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Quotation format
I've just wasted some time undoing edits that had changed things in quotations from Yule and Cordier. We cannot do that. Either quote it the way the original author wrote it, or make changes indicated with square brackets or "...", but don't change the original text! I know those quotes were right; I used cut-and-paste from the book to put them in.

I also feel fairly strongly that setting off quotations with a different typeface like this:

''In Asia and Eastern Europe scarcely a dog might bark without Mongol leave, from the borders of Poland... to... the Yellow Sea. The vast empire which Chinghiz* had conquered .. was splitting up into several great monarchies... and wars on a vast scale were already brewing.

Is much better than merely using quotation marks like this:

"In Asia and Eastern Europe scarcely a dog might bark without Mongol leave, from the borders of Poland... to... the Yellow Sea. The vast empire which Chinghiz* had conquered .. was splitting up into several great monarchies... and wars on a vast scale were already brewing."

Other opinions on that? (WT-en) Pashley 12:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * I'm in full agreement. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:25, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * Changed them back. (WT-en) Pashley 20:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Rating?
This is tagged as usable. I think it is at least guide, but as the main author I am biased. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Map translation?
This is reasonable map, but it is in Russian. Would anyone care to translate it? Or do another in English? Pashley (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I nominated that map for deletion as it's lacking any sort of information that could tell us whether it was in the public domain or not. Would File:Polo's journey.svg work for you?  LtPowers (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks. Searching Commons for "Marco Polo" did not turn that up. Pashley (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I find using categories works better. There are several other maps in commons:Category:Maps of Marco Polo's travels that might work even better.  LtPowers (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured travel topic?
January 2024 is the 700th anniversary of Marco Polo's death. The same year is the 750th anniversary of young Marco Polo's first arrival to China. Can we make the article featured by then? /Yvwv (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:On the trail of Marco Polo


text:
Talk:Ooty

Hey, this is a really great start but you might want to take a look at some of the other articles and Project:Article templates to get a sense of how we organize content. I look forward to reading more! (WT-en) Majnoona 17:47, 14 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Thanks! I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted control over the look and feel. I edit a bit on Wikipedia, so I came in thinking I knew everything :-) I'll be happy to add more. (WT-en) Cheeni 22:47 PM 3/14/2004 EST

 * It's not so much that we "want control". The idea is that by having destination pages consistently formatted, readers can find the information they want ("Where's a good hotel in Ooty?" "What's the telephone number for that vegetarian restaurant we want to go to in Vancouver?") quickly, and contributors can find where to put their contributions on a page easily, too. Some Wikipedia articles have set formats, too: I think country pages and biographies are supposed to follow a template. Ours are just more pervasive.

 * And, of course, you can ignore them. The templates are a guideline or a goal, not an end in themselves. If you feel more comfortable just doing free-form additions, go ahead! We want your information; we can always re-format it later. But if you do it the first time around, it saves someone else the trouble. --(WT-en) Evan 23:22, 14 Mar 2004 (EST)

Ooty Resorts/Hotels Directory.

Rollback
I rolled back a major edit that changed all the headers and sections; there seems to have been some original information included in the edit, but I haven't get extracted it. See. --(WT-en) Evan 12:03, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Fare
If any one knows about the fares of the Oooty toy train, could they please let me know. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 02:14, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Spelling of METUPALAIYAM/Mettupalayam
Indian Rail uses METUPALAIYAM which makes it very difficult to find trains if you're using the spelling from this page. I only found out by looking at a train that went through this town and then seeing the Indian Rail spelling. Otherwise I would have thought there was no train from this town to my destination. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 59.96.141.238 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for this info. I've had a go at addressing it here: Ooty & here: Mettupalayam & here: Coonoor ~ 203.144.143.4 10:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Photo of "Glenmorgan place"
What is Glenmorgan place? The photo looked like a bunch of pipes, so I deleted it. I'm guessing that photo was a mistake? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ooty


text:
Talk:Opiki

p.s. some of the Info placed in this page is inherantly biased as the original writer is an ex girlfriend of someone who worked there.

title: Talk:Opiki


text:
Talk:Opotiki

Apart from starting this page I have no experience editing or contributing information on wikivoyage. Im having trouble contributing new information on this page. For example when i click 'edit' underneith the details i get the message: "Listing was not found. Please reload the page and add. dismiss". Also when I try to add information through the main edit button it does not show up (Look at the Opotiki Information Centre edit page).

Thanks for your help, Looking foward to contributing more.

 * Hi - Welcome. Its more than likely a caching issue. Down the botom of the edit page (scroll right down) you will see a purge cache for this page.  Click on that, and your priblem should go away.  Forcing a browser refresh usually works too.  --(WT-en) inas 01:44, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Opotiki


text:
Talk:Oracle

This site looks like it has some useful info on Oracle. (WT-en) Fastestdogever 15:43, 11 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Oracle


text:
Talk:Oradea

Have done most sections - still have to do some more. Until then, bear with the 'unfinished' look of the article ;-) User:(WT-en) Ronline, Nov 07 2003

title: Talk:Oradea


text:
Talk:Orange (New Hampshire)

Orange (New Hampshire)

 * Delete. May be a valid destination, but more than likely not .  User:(WT-en) Xltel has added enough content to convert vandalism to a real article, so I'm OK with keeping it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. It's a town and they have a state park, but doesn't appear to have any where to sleep... This ones getting closer to what we're looking for... (WT-en) Majnoona 21:26, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Redirect to Grafton County (New Hampshire) or to New Hampshire. ~ 125.24.4.216 02:19, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Just voting on principal here. I've read the deletion policy twice and don't see how this fits. It's a valid town. Policy doesn't seem to require that one can sleep there. One could sleep in a nearby town and visit the place anyways. Yeah, it's a little pissant place of little interest, but is there policy that covers it? What if someone's RVing or hiking around and wants to know about this place that's coming up? (WT-en) OldPine 13:09, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I'm switching to Keep on this one. You're right Old Pine, there's room for all towns! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:14, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
 * If this were Wikiatlas with a goal of documenting every settlement on the planet, or Wikiyellowpages with a goal of providing every community with a directory of restaurants in their local dialing area, I might find that scenario compelling, but it's not. Not every individual town is a travel destination.  Delete.  - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, strongly felt. Far smaller towns than this one (i.e., about half of North Dakota) have been written up and kept without demur.  Would we even be considering deleting this if it hadn't been created originally by you-know-who?  A page's origins don't count against it; even a blind hog can find an acorn, as the saying goes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:34, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Yes, this article is listed here because of he-who-shall-not-be-named. The North Dakota articles were created by someone whose goal was to create a good travel guide about North Dakota, and that user at least went to some trouble to provide a minimum of information about each place.  In this case, unless a transformation similar to what was done for White Mountain occurs I think we might as well delete this one as vandalism, and if someone with better intentions wants to re-create the article in the future there would be nothing stopping them from doing so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:22, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
 * We're at our 14 days, and to the extent that there's consensus, I think the consensus is to keep it. Move to the obvious pages coming, unless someone makes an argument that tips the consensus again. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:25, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Orange (New Hampshire)


text:
Talk:Orange (France)

This page was moved here from Orange due to the existence of Orange (New South Wales) which is a similarly sized town in Australia. I think these aren't the only two small/medium sized cities called Orange in the world either -- (WT-en) Hypatia 07:25, 15 Sep 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Orange (France)


text:
Talk:Orange County (California)

Hey there is an orange county in Florida also. How do we deal with beaches in identically named locations?(WT-en) Ron 11:20, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * You need to read the article naming conventions. -- (WT-en) Evan 11:23, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Ok but in this case as per the naming conventions it would end up as beaches(Southern California). It seems like this would be too large. Should I place all beaches in Southern California under this structure instead of breaking it up to Ventura County ,Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego? (WT-en) Ron 11:30, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * You've got a good point. That is a sticky wicket! So, I'll try to end-run it. Is Orange County big enough that we need to split it into regions? What about just listing the beach cities by name, like Huntington Beach and so on?

 * Also, you gotta check your spaces in article names. It should be "Something (Something Else)", not "Something(Something Else)". It's not a function call! B-) -- (WT-en) Evan 11:34, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * I think what Evan was talking about was making it Oragne County(California). And I think we can just list all the beach cities in Oragne County or maybe list groups of them? I can't remember if there is anything between county and individual beach. (a la state->county->?->beach)(WT-en) Majnoona

Err... I know for a fact that Santa Catalina Island is in Los Angeles County. Also this would explain the Avalon Branch of the LA County Library. (WT-en) Gjetost 16:54, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Heh! Well, that makes me look stupid. I was looking at some maps of Orange County that had Catalina highlighted. Just shows to go ya. --(WT-en) Evan 18:12, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

Cities
I added back in the cities; see the region article template for details. --(WT-en) Evan 21:32, 7 Jul 2004 (EDT)

9 Cities
Anyone familiar enough to choose the nine most important cities? This is quite a list... (WT-en) Texugo 20:44, 23 January 2009 (EST)

 * When Suburbs Attack! Weighting by density of tourist activities, I'd go for Anaheim, Buena Park, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Fullerton, Newport Beach, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana.  Orange and SJC are probably the easiest ones to cut if the list needs to shrink again.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 22:28, 23 January 2009 (EST)

 * I know this was months ago, but allow me to add a second opinion. My ref? Orange County born and raised.

 * 1. Anacrime, ahem, Anaheim
 * 2. Santa Ana (the capital)
 * 3. Huntington Beach
 * 4. Newport Beach
 * 5. Fullerton (the most boring place in the world, but they do have a university so it is kind of important)
 * 6. Buena Park
 * 7. Seal Beach

 * There really aren't 9 important cities. 7 was pushing it. Orange County is pretty boring. Orange County consists of three things, and three things only: Housing tracts, corner strip malls, Republicans.

 * Bo-ring!

--(WT-en) GnarlyLikeWhoa 15:26, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Works for me, and actually trimming the list got lost in the shuffle earlier, so I've done it now. Nine's a maximum, but anywhere from five to nine is perfectly fine.  I left it at eight, though - would also recommend keeping Irvine for its size and its UC campus.  Presumably it'll attract a number of prospective students and parents and whatnot, though it's telling that the nicest thing the current article calls it is "perfectly planned suburbia".   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 02:28, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Rad. I'm happy to be of service. (WT-en) GnarlyLikeWhoa 18:48, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm new to this project, so this may be a newbie caliber question. Why not just provide a link to the Wikipedia section on Orange County cities [example] to satisfy those who seek that kind of authoritative material.  That lets WikiTravel focus on what it does best, namely providing travel–related intel?166.250.65.184 01:16, 29 November 2011 (EST)
 * We're not trying to provide authoritative information. The idea is to provide links to our destination guides on those cities, which we can't do with a Wikipedia link.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:43, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Proposed move
I'd like to move this article to Orange County (California) and move the disambiguation page to Orange County. The counties in Florida and New York are just as well known as the one in California. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:28, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Agreed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:23, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * There's an Orange County in New York? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:41, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Sounds good, we just need to make sure all of the isPartOf tags get updated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:54, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Wait, really? Orange County in California is instantly recognizable to anyone in the U.S. (and likely a good amount of people abroad after watching that TV show), both in terms of its location and its culture. The other counties are just administrative divisions that no one would know unless they live in the area. Orange County, NY is an article that may even be turned into a redirect if we change the regional division for the Catskills. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:25, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I'd disagree with the statement that "the counties in Florida and New York are just as well known as the one in California", but while I suspect most people associate "Orange County" with California, I don't think it meets the "if there are multiple names for a destination, is one so much more commonly used in English-speaking countries that not using it as the article name would cause confusion" exception as required by Project:Article naming conventions. As one example, I bet if you asked most visitors to Disneyland where Orange County was they wouldn't know that they were already in it, and they wouldn't be any worse off due to that lack of knowledge.  Also, for what it's worth, Wikipedia's Orange County page is a disambiguation page and shows eight different "Orange County" locations for the US. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Orange County, New York has a TV show, too, you know. Sort of.  (See wikipedia:Orange County Choppers.)  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:18, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Look at it this way, folks. Our "so much more famous" rule is more strict than Wikipedia's criteria for primary topic, and even they have Orange County as a disambiguation page. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:46, 14 November 2011 (EST)

 * I have executed the move and I'm working on disambiguating links. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:32, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Orange County (California)


text:
Talk:Orange County (New York)

Blatant advertizing
Please refrain from copy/pasting your classified ad and/or corporate profile into wikivoyage templates. This is a place for people to be made aware of landmarks and locales, not for you to advertize your private medical practice in the stay safe section... A little decency here... 214.13.141.100 08:51, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I think both of those listings would be acceptable if the touting is toned down. We do in fact list both tour providers and medical facilities. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:30, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Orange County (New York)


text:
Talk:Orangeville (Ontario)

Not sure how this should be organized.

Maybe there should be a Peel or Caledon region instead of small cities like Orangeville. -- 1 Apr 2005 (WT-en) Elgaard

 * One way to look at the geographic hierachy is to look at how local government is organised. Is there a county, council or community leadership/electorate/ward that people vote for? What region/area does it cover? Often these areas cover communities of interest. It may not work every time, but I see this as a starting point. Orangeville is worth an article as there are 3 places to sleep. The region(s) containing Orangeville are therefore also worth an article. At present, all an uninformed reader (like me) knows is that Orangeville is in Ontario, Canada. If you can define and associate Peel and Caledon as regions containing Orangeville and how they fit into the existing Ontario regions, the traveler would be much better informed. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:25, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

 * I was disambiguating links to Whatlinkshere/Caledon_(disambiguation) and found "Caledon" listed as both a region and a city on the Peel (Ontario) page. I deleted it from the Region section - maybe I should not have done?

Region?
This city is included in Wellington and Dufferin Counties, but its IsPartOf considers it part of Peel (Ontario). Which one is correct? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've corrected IsPartOf. It's in Dufferin County. Thanks for catching that. Ground Zero (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orangeville (Ontario)


text:
Talk:Oregon

Regions
Ugh. I don't really know Oregon well enough to divide it into regions. Anyone willing to give it a shot? -- (WT-en) Evan 14:26, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * We now (three years later) seem to have aquired some regions in a scattershot manner. I want to migrate some more cities out of the main state page, so rather than propose a comprehensive solution, I'd like to add two more regions:
 * A "Portland Metro" region that will be at the north of the Willamette Valley near the Columbia.
 * We need something for the South of Oregon. I'm not sure what to call the region that contains tons of cities along Interstate 5 in the mountains south of the Willamette Valley.  And I'm uncertain "High Desert" is the right designation for the non-desert of Klamath Falls which is just south of the region usually called High Desert.
 * I also really don't like the vagueness of the "Cascade Mountains". But we'll fight that battle if it becomes a problem. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:46, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

 * I added Eastern Oregon and Southern Oregon. I am thinking that we should do away with Cascade Mountains. Also, I agree with adding a Portland Metro. This seems to be how some of the official sites split it up and it does make some sense from my travels there. Comments? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:31, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'm fuzzy on where the Coast meets Southern meets the Willamette. The Willamette region is pretty easy to divide from the coast based on how water flows (if it flows into the Willamette before it goes to the sea, then it's in the Willamette region.  If it's west of there, it's on the coast).  But the topography in the South isn't so convenient.  For example, going downriver on the Umpqua River, there are little towns every couple of miles along the river.  So which ones do we cut into Coastal vs. Southern?  Wrh2 found useful maps on the California Tourism website and we just followed those as our definitions when carving up California.  In Washington state, Evan arbitrarily assigned the counties into regions.  Any way works (and can be improved later by other contributors) as long as there are concrete divisions. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:51, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * There is a good county map in Wikimedia Commons that is PD, we could use that to slice up the counties into regions. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:45, 22 December 2006 (EST)
 * That would work if you think the shapes can be stuffed into regions. Nevada lacks regions because its counties suck as regions worse than anything I've ever seen.  -- (WT-en) Colin 21:51, 22 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, I agree... We would have to split some of the counties to make it work. You have any thoughts on a way to go? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:54, 22 December 2006 (EST)
 * Take a look at http://www.traveloregon.com/Explore-Oregon.aspx could we slice up like that? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:00, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Here is what I am thinking. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 23:06, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * I like it a lot. There's a PDF on the traveloregon.com website that also locates the cities within the regions. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:17, 23 December 2006 (EST)

 * Okay, good! I got the color a little too close to the adjacent region on Mt. Hood/The Gorge, also I don't think I have it quite right. I think they may have run the line down highway 26 picking up everything along that highway into Mt. Hood/The Gorge. So, I would like to tweak that a little to make sure it is right. Also, I always hate my work on maps, I wish I could do it better. Maybe we can talk someone into doing our region map.
 * Lastly, what about names of the regions. (We can deal with the cities on the main page after regions) Do you think what we have is good? We might want to include Mt. Hood in the Gorge name and do you want to use "Portland Metro"? And for "High Desert" is that okay, or maybe "Central High Desert". I like using the "High Desert" as part of the name. Thanks Colin for helping on this. Does anyone else have input? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:04, 23 December 2006 (EST)

 * For what it's worth... California has a map drawn by Ryan that's very loosely correct. But we use the state-provided maps for precisely slotting cities into the regions.  So if your map is only approximate, but we have an Oregon one to lean on for the precise details then I think we'll be alright.  That said, I've been meaning to make a Google Maps overlay for the California Region definitions so that we can have a permanent, shareable, and modifiable precise definition hosted at Wikivoyage.

 * Wikipedia says that the High Desert is Central+East Oregon, though it doesn't define those terms. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:04, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Rogue Coast
Rogue Coast? I've never heard that particular region called that. - (WT-en) Pingveno 00:27, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * Google hasn't heard of it either. Most of the hits for the exact phrase are Wikivoyage and mirrors.  I'm going to rename it.  I wonder if the original author perhaps meant Southern Oregon Coast, since they describe it as undeveloped and I thought the northern section is developed. -(WT-en) Colin 01:19, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Oregon Country Fair
How are we going to deal with the OCF? I'm inclined to make it its own article, like Black Rock City. --(WT-en) Evan 23:03, 4 Jan 2004 (EST)

Aquarium, Museum
Aquaria and museums don't normally get their own articles; see Project:What is an article? for more info. I moved the OMSI listing to Portland (Oregon), and the Oregon Coast Aquarium listing to the new Newport (Oregon) page. Elaborations welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 19:31, 3 Feb 2004 (EST)

External link
Link removed in accordance with Project:External links, but looks like an interesting site that might have some useful info: http://www.therealoregon.com/. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:58, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Oregon Contributor Activity
Swept in from the Pub:

There seems to be quite a number of newbie contributors in Oregon for some reason. If you see anyone contributing there, check it out because they often seem to need some guidance. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:30, 10 March 2006 (EST)

 * One of them wrote me and said

As an assignment for a business class at Oregon State my classmates and I are required to update a public wiki with "valuable contributions."
 * so that explains that. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:15, 10 March 2006 (EST)

 * There has been a huge rush of contributions this afternoon (16 March) that appear to be from this group. Maple Canyon, Waldo Lake, Great glen way, and a ton of images.  A lot of the images appear to be copyvios, but I've run out of time to keep tracking them down so anyone who has a chance to look into them it would be much appreciated.

 * To the contributors: your contributions are much appreciated and very valuable additions. The concerns are that they are not copyright violations (see Project:Image policy), that they are valid article topics (see Project:What is an article?), and to a lesser extent that they are formatted correctly (see Project:Manual of style). -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:57, 16 March 2006 (EST)

 * Also to the contributors: It would also be a good idea to pay attention to the Project:Article templates applicable to what you're writing, so that your contributions are indeed "valuable." (I'd bet that that Oregon State instructor is aware of the templates -- or soon will be.)  Using the templates to begin with will save some rewriting later that may simply wipe your contribution out, with a possibly similar wipeout on your grade... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:30, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Did anyone attempt to find out the professor(')s(') name? I'd be more than happy to send him/her a letter explain that we welcome the help from his/her students and how exactly he/she should instruct the students to contribute i.e. MoS, templates, and the copyleft. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 05:29, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

OBBG
I rolled back the addition of a link to the Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild (80+ B&B's). We'd love to have those B&B's listed in Wikivoyage in their correct towns and cities, but we don't want a big link at the state level. See external links for more details. --(WT-en) Evan 22:31, 13 December 2006 (EST)

 * Here's the listing, by the way: *Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild,, Email: info@obbg.org, Phone:1-800-944-6196, Association representing 80+ inspected and approved B&B's. The link is probably useful for data mining. --(WT-en) Evan 22:35, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Too many cities
There are too many cities on this page. I'd appreciate it if someone who knew Oregon better than me (for example, someone who had been there) could move all but 9 to the appropriate region pages. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:21, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * Done! List is now nine. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * Now we need to nail down the definitions of the regions so that we can de-orphan the removed cities. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:14, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Regions - East vs High Desert
Is anyone still working on this page? I noticed we have a "High Desert" region and an "Eastern Oregon" region, which seem to cover the same region. I think "High Desert" has a better ring to it, but we should really decide on one and delete the other. If no one chimes in for a while, I'll submit for deletion myself.(WT-en) Army of me 22:21, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * If they're the same, lets drop the boring directional name in favor of High Desert. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:34, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * That's one vote! Actually, although both of those regions overlap (as defined in their articles), I can see how perhaps someone might have intended that they be two separate regions.
 * The "High Desert" referring to the tall but narrow strip of land generally on the eastern slopes of the Cascades -- a sort of mountain-desert transition zone -- which is actually growing in population and tourism (for Oregon, that is); while Eastern Oregon could refer to the rest of the desert which generally makes up the rest of the state. Besides perhaps Pendleton and Joseph (and the immediate environs of those communities), however, this region is very far off the beaten path and just doesn't offer a great deal of interest to tourists, despite it's huge size.
 * On the other side of the argument, technically all of the Oregon desert can be called "high desert" (as is mentioned in the last post under the seemingly unresolved "Regions" topic on this page); more importantly, there may not be enough to merit separating them into two regions. Eventually I can do some research to try and resolve it, unless someone else who knows more can help out. (WT-en) Army of me 02:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Problems in General
In fact, the more I look at things, the more I see how much work really needs to be done. For example, the map on the front page is a great and helpful addition, but it does not seem to fit the regions specified (such as the Eastern v High Desert region problem I mention above, plus there is a light-green colored region on the northwest section of the map that doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the article). I think keying each region description with the color of the map would greatly assist readers (see Texas for a good example).

Also, besides the regions, there seems to be a great deal of articles that split Oregon out by counties (I'm guessing this happened before the Regions were created). I think that's a bad idea for many reasons - they duplicate information that should be in the Regions, they are inconsistent and confusing (Clackamas County appears in two different regions), and they seem to contain overwhelming lists of information, which imho are not useful to readers - seeming to list every town in a county, even ones which would not be considered of interest to travelers and mostly just link to empty templates (if they link to anything at all), for starters. I think they should be phased out.

And I don't mean to sound like a complainer or Debbie Downer; I realize Oregon is not quite a mainstream tourist destination (although it's awesome enough that it could be!) and a lot of hard work and good intentions have gone into what's already here. That being said, I fully plan on expediting these changes myself ("plunge in", and all) unless someone disagrees (or takes it upon themself to make some changes of their own). *pauses to take a breath* (WT-en) Army of me 02:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

 * The light-green region should have been Portland Metro, which is also sometimes lumped as a subregion of Willamette to be maximally confusing.

 * Counties are used because the evil policy of 7+-2 means that you are required to subdivide major regions which have too many cities. Short of intensive local knowledge, you end up just making pseudo-divisions that make little sense... so at least counties provide a pseudo-region that makes a tiny bit of sense.  It is indeed evil that some counties are split; but at least there are few of them so they are mostly harmless.   Since the county articles contain little content other than pointers to the cities, it ought not to be hard to reorganize incrementally as better divisions are found.

 * To me, the Most Important Rule of regions is that they be clearly delineated. For example, my hometown's article had pissing matches about whether it is in the South Bay, East Bay, or Silicon Valley because all of those terms used by locals are fuzzy around the edges, and my hometown is a corner case for all of them.  This nonsense was only terminated when I placed the city in its county which avoids personal opinion on the subject.  Clear delineation also avoids nonsense like touts putting their Willamette Valley hotels in the "coastal region" because that is a more touristy region and they are more likely to be noticed there.  And hey, it's only a two hour drive...

 * You're right that Counties can have duplicate info from their region. But that's an editing error; no subregion is really supposed to duplicate info from its enclosing region without darn good reason.

 * The main point of the original regionification was to create a hierarchy for sticking lots of stub articles into. When dealing with small towns, often a small stub is enough to attract contributions that would otherwise never have happened without the framework.  So feel free to plunge forward on a reorg, and don't feel like you need to address every error all at once unless you are so motivated. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:38, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Uh, that was long-winded so let me be clearer: I support any reorg you want to do. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:58, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I see, so the counties were intentionally meant to function as sub-regions. I certainly understand the need for sub-dividing (when needed), but after looking at all the regions, counties, and cities as a whole, I'm convinced we can get rid of the counties, if we want.
 * Hear me out. I am also a fan of clear delineation, but counties seem to be the enemy of it. The regions and counties clash, as we've both noted. I think our goal should be clearly delineated regions and, if needed, sub-regions within those (like is already done with the Oregon Coast). For many regions, I believe sub-regions are not even yet necessary, but if they are, I'm sure we can all agree on something reasonable.
 * I hear what your saying about "pseudo-divisions that make little sense", but I think part of the original problem was trying to divide up Oregon into regions based on county lines in the first place. I submit that for areas influenced so much by geography, like Oregon, they should be divided up by natural features (like *gulp* California). However, much of that work is already done here - we have regions for the Coast, Willamette Valley, the Gorge, the Cascades, the desert... these seem logical to me; let's work with those. If touts put their hotels in the wrong region, other users are there to set them straight; that's what we're here for.
 * Even if everything I've said may sound unreasonable, allow me to submit these proposals (and hopefully they're reasonable enough) -
 * Eliminate the Portland Metropolitan Area as a region (from the map) and leave it as a sub-region of Willamette Valley.
 * The eastern edge of Southern Oregon ends at the Cascades.
 * Extend the Cascade Mountains all the way down, as they do geographically (this means it would also cover places like Crater Lake and Klamath Falls, under this scheme).
 * Either leave Eastern Oregon (or "High Desert") as a crazy super-region (sub-divided, of course) or divide it into two regions as I've described under "Regions - East vs High Desert". Perhaps one region would consist of the strip of land south of the Columbia Gorge and just east of the Cascades (but extending eastward only up to the western edge of the desert) - basically consisting of the towns on US-97, from 84 to the north down to the junction with 58 to the south. This could be called the "High Desert" (which is kind of misleading) or perhaps something as simple as "Central Oregon". The remaining region to the east could remain "Eastern Oregon".
 * If I knew how to do maps, I'd easily dive in myself instead of just making all these proposals. But if these do sound okay (and I have been meaning to teach myself to make maps), I wouldn't mind making these changes myself - both to the map and by restructuring the other articles as necessary (moving information out of counties (if any) and creating sub-regions where needed, etc. etc.).
 * (Now that's what I call long-winded) (WT-en) Army of me 01:31, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's been a few years, and I think the map and the division of regions is impractical. I'm all for dividing Oregon by county line, with a couple of minor exceptions. Here's my idea:

1. Portland Metro-- Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas. This is where the urban tourist, arriving for pleasure or tourism, will be first, in most cases. They will choose other regions to explore (or not), but this is the unique population center.

2. High Desert/Cascades/Columbia Gorge-- Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook. A place for outdoor adventures, whitewater, mountain biking, etc.

3. Willamette Valley-- Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Linn, Benton, Eastern Lane. Agricultural Breadbasket and center of population.

4. Coast and Coast Ranges-- Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Western Lane, Western Douglas, Coos, Curry. The beautiful coast and the great Douglas Fir Forests that helped define the state.

5. Southern Oregon-- Eastern Douglas, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath. Would include the Rogue Valley and Crater Lake.

6. Eastern Oregon and the Frontier Counties-- Gilliam, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Lake, Harney, and Malheur. Also could be called the "Empty Quarter," would have rugged scenery and expansive vistas.

I prefer this arrangement because it keeps the areas as compact as possible and I believe has a respect for the different cultural and economic regions. The prior arrangement relied more on purely geographic features. It would remove the "Cascades" region; however, there is very little population there, and unless the emphasis is on the Pacific Crest Trail, I don't see this as a problem. The tourist is going to approach the Cascades from one of the neighboring populated areas anyway.PhilD86 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Major clean up in 5... 4... 3...
Well, I'm just about ready again to start working on this. Since it sounds like no one objects, I will go ahead with the changes I've outlined above, with one exception. To handle the High Desert/Eastern Oregon dilemma, I've resolved to use two regions: Central Oregon (covering the rapidly growing regions of Bend, Sunriver, Sisters, etc.) and I will leave Eastern Oregon for everything else. Although neither name is as evocative as "High Desert", technically both regions fit that description, as mentioned (and I think we should avoid being misleading). Also, I think they are separate enough in character (and popularity) to warrant having separate regions.

As part of this little project, I will necessarily be doing a lot of redirecting of now-unnecessary articles. Don't worry, I'll be moving any pertinent, existing information to an appropriate new location. For example, the current counties will redirect to regions (if they straddle multiple regions, it will redirect to the one where most of its area lies). I don't think many users, if any, search by county anyway. If this results in a region becoming overstuffed with info, I will create sub-regions (although from what I've seen so far, this will likely be unnecessary).

As part of the clean-up, articles for cities that are stubbed out may be redirected to a region or to the nearest city. Also, many cities are not written in the wikivoyage style, so I may edit those too (if anyone has seen those... some articles are so full of WTF my face nearly melted). From my brief investigating, pretty much all of these towns I'm referring to are not on any tourist itineraries and don't have anything that can really be added to them (rest assured if they do, I will not "get rid of them").

As always, my primary goal is to make things as useful as possible to travelers. Thanks for listening. (WT-en) Army of me 01:11, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

I am not fond of the map. I think it is correct, just not quite useful or pleasing to view. I would rather go with a map with the counties colored in (with perhaps an exception for Lane County's coastal region).PhilD86 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Salem and the nine cities
This edit (which was self-reverted) made me do a double-take -- the capital of Oregon is not among the nine cities? I can't think of any state in which the capital is not in the top 5 important cities, let alone top nine. I'd re-add Salem myself but I don't know which of the existing nine to remove. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:21, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Glad I'm not the only one. Medford also comes to mind as a large omission (instead we have Ashland), since it is the major population center in Southern Oregon. It seems that the list was written with the idea of tourist destinations as opposed to real top cities (thus Hood River vs The Dalles). I hate to do it, but I think Cannon Beach, though lovely and a great tourist destination, might be a little small for the list. Corvallis could go as well. I'll regretfully take out Cannon Beach though, and add Salem.PhilD86 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oregon pronunciation
I consider myself a Texan, having spent the vast majority of my life there, but I have lived in Oregon for a bit as well. This hardly makes me an expert such as the likes of Merrium-Webster's fancy talking Audio Pronunciator, but I'm pretty certain I never heard any locals ever say ore"gin". I heard 'em say ore"gone" lots, usually in bars, but only to correct tourist. I also heard a lot of "it's Will-am-IT, Dt", also usually in bars and every so often directed at me... So, I must stress again I am no expert, however, the only pronunciation I ever heard from locals, the ones who should know the correct pronunciation, was OR-AH-GUN. (WT-en) CampFool 03:52, 24 December 2011 (EST)

I spent a little time in Texas myself, but consider myself a Northwest native, and currently live in the Willamette Valley. The second syllable seems to me to be an unaccented "ee" or more rarely, a schwa. We residents are aware there is a different way of pronouncing the final syllable common in the Eastern States (that's east of Colorado to us). But I find it hilarious when a visitor politely compliments our beautiful state, and all the natives can do is correct they way he says the name of our state. It's surprising how grating it is to the nerves. Perhaps you've never heard a room of eighty people shouting with one voice at the poor speaker, "It's Orygun!" Fascinating. We are normally a rather polite culture.PhilD86 (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Nice to see some active discussion here. I'm normally a Wikipedia WikiProject Oregon type, but am venturing over to WikiVoyage to see what it's all about. And yeah, Phil, I agree with your pronunciation interpretation :) -Peteforsyth (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RegionMap
Please, someone redraw the map that is unbareable to watch. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What about it is "unbearable"? -Shaundd (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my earlier comment, I agree it's not WV standard but it does the job of pointing out the current region structure. A bigger problem for me is the region breakdown doesn't make sense in a couple of spots (the Cascades should generally be merged with Central Oregon and I don't understand why Metro Portland is a subregion of the Willamette Valley when the valley has no other subregions). -Shaundd (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shaundd, I do not have experience to speak about the division, I'm only stating that is much more better do not have a map instead of having that one. Is not only out of voy standard, is really ugly! -- Andyrom75 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the map can be improved upon aesthetically, I disagree that it is worse than nothing. Furthermore I guess we should have the "redraw region boundaries" discussion before we create a new map... --Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is needed to change the boundaries, but not to improve (or remove) a useless map where is impossible to understand where the current boundaries are, where the major cities are, the main roads, maybe the rivers, etc... just like any other usefull map used in voy. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth the effort to try to fix that particular map without coming up with better definitions of the regions. I'll try to kickstart a discussion in the next couple of days. -Shaundd (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shaundd, as said I'm not an Oregon expert, so feel free to start the new discussion. I agree that improving the map before the new discussion is ended could result in a waste of time, so evaluate if it worth to keep on showing the current map. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Regions (again)
I’ve been taking a look at the Oregon regions and, like User:PhilD86 above, I think there are a couple of things that don't make sense. One is Portland Metropolitan Area, which is treated as a subregion of the Willamette Valley even though there are no other subregions. The second is the Cascade Mountains (Oregon) region, which is a geographic region, but seems like a poor travel region since you can’t travel between most of the listed destinations without going through Central Oregon or the Willamette Valley. To address this, I’m proposing:

 * 1) Treat the Portland Metro Area as a top level region. From my visits, Portland and area is different from the Willamette Valley and I think every guide to Oregon I’ve read has treated it as a separate region.
 * 2) Merge the Cascade Mountains region into neighbouring regions. Crater Lake would go to Southern Oregon (where it’s already listed); Mt. Angel, Opal Creek, Willamette National Forest and Detroit Lake State Recreation Area would go to the Willamette Valley; Mount Hood would go to Columbia Gorge (see #3 below).
 * 3) Move Mount Hood and Government Camp to Columbia Gorge to create a Mount Hood-Columbia Gorge guide. They’re both recreation areas and fit in the space that’s not Portland Metro, not the Willamette Valley and not quite Central Oregon.

To define the regions, I’d mostly use the county lines proposed by User:PhilD86 above with a few exceptions around Mt Hood and the Columbia Gorge.

 * Portland Metropolitan Area (orange) - Washington County, and the western parts of Multnomah and Clackamas that are outside Mt Hood National Forest.
 * Oregon Coast (purple) - Columbia, Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, western Lane, western Douglas, Coos, Curry
 * Willamette Valley (light green) - Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Linn, Benton, eastern Lane
 * Mt. Hood and Columbia Gorge (blue) - Hood River, the parts of Multnomah, Clackamus and Wasco that are part of Mt Hood National Forest, northern Sherman
 * Central Oregon (red) - southern Wasco, southern Sherman, Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook
 * Southern Oregon (dark green) - eastern Douglas, Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Lake
 * Eastern Oregon (yellow) - Gilliam, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Harney, and Malheur

Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 * My knowledge of Oregon is limited, but the proposal seems well thought-out. The only thing that seems odd is a top level region for two destinations - Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge.  It sounds like that page would essentially just be a glorified list of two links to the child destination articles?  If so, isn't there any possibility of incorporating them into the other regions?  Barring that minor objection, I support implementing the change. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan. My intention with Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge is to just have one page with the five or so destinations listed on it -- no separate sub-pages for Mt Hood and the Gorge. -Shaundd (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, and it seems to make a lot more sense that the current layout. It'd be nice to have a catchier name than "Mt Hood-Columbia Gorge", but that's a minor critique. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented this. Thanks everyone for your comments. -Shaundd (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oregon


text:
Talk:Orinda

I am assuming that "2/08/04" is 2002-08-04 since 2004-08-02 hasn't happened yet - but do we really need the price of houses? The price of hotels and dinners would be more appropriate for travelers. -(WT-en) phma 11:41, 27 Feb 2004 (EST)

I'd just like to say that teeters on plunging into the 1950's at any moment is the most brilliant description I've seen on Wikivoyage so far! =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:16, 30 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Er... I'll only go so far as to say Maj did a great job rescuing that line from the depths from whence it came. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:59, 30 Nov 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Orinda


text:
Talk:Orkney Islands

see also Talk:Orkney Islands/Archive

What to do?
The Orkney Islands are - for all I know - rather sparsely populated and most destinations within them currently redlink. What are we to do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Orkney Islands have a population of 21000, of which about half live in the two main towns. Most of the red links are to islands, including Hoy, the second biggest. I think that these should generally be left as redlinks, unless somebody has the time to create an article - this article hints that there is something to see on most of the islands. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 * My solution would be to create redirects from the names of hamlets or individual islands to Orkney Islands. In the Orkney article, leave those names in & bold them, so someone who searches for a village & lands here can see why. This gets rid of the red links, avoids creating silly articles, and handles the case of someone who searches for some obscure place because grandad immigrated from there. Pashley (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orkney Islands