text:
Talk:Limburg (Netherlands)

Regions
Which would be good regions for Limburg? I divided it into North, Middle and South, but now I see Parkstad Limburg. I think that we do not have enough well-developed articles for this subdivision to be very useful yet. Maybe when more articles are developed, we could subdivide South-Limburg into three more regions: Parkstad Limburg, Heuvelland and Western Mine Region. But we're not ready yet. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:56, 11 January 2010 (EST)

This is a very good question ..... what should we do with limburg.... I will pounder over this tonight and add my comments this week. But generally we divide it by North Mid and South. But those have subdivisions again. I'm not quite sure if I know all of these. --(WT-en) Velorian 20:46, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Well having done my thinking if this. The best way is to divide Limburg in 3 parts, North/Mid/South. We can also do the region map of limburg this way. I removed Parkstad Limburg and Heuvelland from the list and added all the municipalities. Dividing the map in municipalities I would find unneeded. --(WT-en) Velorian 15:51, 14 January 2010 (EST)

 * I would suggest renaming the Municipalities section to Cities (the standard WT term for a city, town or village).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:18, 14 January 2010 (EST)

 * Generally we don't use municipalities on Wikivoyage. But the municipalities can be a good way of dividing the cities in the Netherlands. But there are exceptions.. for example, Sittard-Geleen doesn't make a nice travel city, I'd rather keep Sittard and Geleen separate. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Ah, I was trying to figure out that municipality policy, and still don't get it. I'm working on South Limburg, my favorite region in the Netherlands. I wonder how the list of cities on top is determined. Are these the largest ones?

Over the past decades, many administrative regions have been changed to comprise two or more small, medium sized and even large towns. As a result, official names now refer to several places at once, e.g.Sittard-Geleen, Gulpen-Wittem or Parkstad. Gulpen-Wittem is now 1 article (Wittem being a large village), Sittard and Geleen are separate and Parkstad is no more than a redirect to the province Limburg. In the South Limburg cities listing (which has 10 instead of 9), Sittard and Geleen are listed separately (even though Geleen is not of great touristic interest) but Gulpen-Wittem is one listing. Is this how it should be, should I change it? And if so, which rules do I follow? Thanks, (WT-en) Justme 08:43, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * You can read here what the current rules are about the scope of articles: Project:What_is_an_article. It basically consists of the "Can you sleep there?"-test. If there is a hotel in a city, then it's usually a destination. The problem is what to do with the surrounding villages around a city that do not have a hotel. They could either be merged together into one region (so you could make an article Heuvelland) for example) or the listings could be placed in a larger city nearby. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Okay, thanks, that would basically mean that as good as every village in South Limburg gets its own article (eventually), since places with no single hotel are rare. It definitely means I should split up Gulpen-Wittem then, as both have several places to stay. And then what do I do with the "cities"-list in South Limburg? With Gulpen and Wittem being split, that list is even 11 places. Can I just cut out the ones that are of least interest to travelers? (WT-en) Justme 09:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * There is some opinion here that in lowest level region articles, the 9 rule can be relaxed. Otherwise we end up with lots of orphaned city articles. See what I did at Central Java and East Java for example. This is alluded to at Project:Geographical_hierarchy: ...this doesn't need to be applied stringently to the lowest level of the hierarchy; if a region has more than 9 cities in it, and there's no helpful way to divide it into subregions then don't split it.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but division is still possible. We could make the Western Mine Region, Parkstad Limburg and Heuvelland. Although I'm not sure if we'd want to make so many subdivisions of such a relatively small region as South Limburg. I think it'd be better if we'd merge some of the Heuvelland villages together in a Heuvelland article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * You could yes but I am not sure that is desirable in a small country. It just creates yet more region articles which in all likelihood will be bare-bones.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:10, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Besides, those 3 terms are quite confusing as the term Western Mine Region is normally used together with Eastern Mine Region, which comprises large parts of Parkstad. The Heuvelland is not clearly defined and definitions tend to vary but generally cover a large part of South Limburg. Parkstad is mainly an administrative invention, taking up parts of what was always called Heuvelland (e.g. Simpelveld) too. Places like Beek and Schinnen are considered part of the Heuvelland but also fall in the Western Mine Region. Tourist information services sometimes use another imaginary division: Valkenburg, Heuvelland Upland Region, Cities of Parkstad Limburg Limburg, Grensmaasvallei, Maastricht. Quite frankly however, that only seems to add to the confusion.

 * So basically, I think South Limburg is a pretty straight forward region but any subdivisions seem difficult. I don't really see how creating a Heuvelland article would help, as it overlaps strongly with South Limburg. Can't we put really small villages in the nearby larger villages or cities that they usually belong to administratively anyway? (WT-en) Justme 11:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * To your last question, I would answer yes, providing it makes sense for the traveller. If it doesn't then I do not think there is anything wrong with listing more than 9 "cities" in what would be a lowest level region article.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:36, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Okay =) (WT-en) Justme 11:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

New WV-style region map
I have created and am about to add a map fitting the Region maps Expedition's rules for region maps, but I am not sure which one of the two versions to use. If we're being formal, then the  should be used. I personally find that its amount of secondary roads is high to where it is annoying to view, which is why I rendered an  without these secondary roads. At this point, I am not sure which version to use, so please, some feedback would be appreciated. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The regular version has many roads, indeed, making it slightly harder to read - but that's because this is a densely populated and well connected region. Several of the listed cities are not on the main highways and the alternative version (without secondary roads) shows no connecting roads for those, which seems to make the map less useful. The article and map don't even have other destinations yet, which will likely also be on secondary roads. I'm tempted to say that the main problem visually is the high number of roads in the surrounding areas, which are also visible in this image. I don't think we can change that though, at least not within existing standards. Perhaps some of our experienced map makers can weigh in? User:Texugo, or User:LtPowers perhaps? JuliasTravels (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I do not know how I did not notice this earlier, but the map I used as source material, does differentiate between important secondary roads within the Netherlands, but does not do so for secondary roads outside of the Netherlands. This is obviously the cause of the projected problem. Until any of the users tagged above drop in, I will experiment with removing non-important secondary roads and see if that improves the situation any. The destinations simply are not connected to the highways because of the lack of important domestic secondary roads. I simply disabled their layer for that render and did not bother to differentiate between the Dutch and non-Dutch secondary roads.
 * As for the "other destinations" on the map; Vaals is listed as I know that it is a destination often visited by the Dutch when visiting Southern Limburg. It is indeed not listed (yet), but probably should be.
 * Either way, I will experiment with removing non-Dutch secondary roads until the more experienced mappers start coming in. Hopefully that will result in something good. -- Wauteurz (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Actually, "other destinations" are not supposed to be lists of smaller towns that didn't make the nine cities list, but rather of different kinds of attractions like national parks, theme parks or important historic attractions. Your choice to put Vaals on the map seems a bit random and based on your personal perception. The whole of South Limburg is firmly on the tourist track, much more so than the north of this province. Vaals is one of the well-known places, but Epen or Gulpen are equally (if not even more) popular. The "Drielandenpunt" (or three countries border point) in Vaals is a fairly important attraction (and the main one in Vaals), so that could be considered one of the other destinations perhaps and allow Vaals to be on the map. Venray however puzzles me. It's not a popular destination, there are no major attractions... are you just including it for geographic balance on the map? Is that policy? Just for your information, by the way... there's ongoing construction of a major new secondary road in the south of this province. It's not open yet, but the map might have to be adjusted when it is, as this is supposed to be a major improvement in infrastructure. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Less is more when it comes to roads, especially on maps that show a regional breakdown (as opposed to bottom-level regions). I would absolutely hide secondary roads outside Limburg, and consider reducing the number that show inside the region. Also, remember to add a scale to the map. Powers (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, Vaals is listed because of the Drielandenpunt, which I remember being one of the bigger attractions in Zuid Limburg. Venray's been added mostly to balance a large gap on the map, which, in hindsight probably wasn't necessary. As for the Buitenring, I wasn't aware of its construction yet, thanks for pointing that out. I'll add it to the next render :).
 * Thank you for the tips, Powers. I am, however, affraid that not all Belgian and German secondary roads can be scrapped as some of the German Autobahns would terminate in the middle of no-where. Looking at maps such as the Michigan map, I think that I'll have to reduce the roads outside of Limburg to a bare minimum. Also, looking at such maps brings up the question whether I should or should not add the highway shields/markers. -- Wauteurz (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Cities
I deleted Geleen as on of the cities as it's part of the same municipality as Sittard. And to stay in line with the 7+2 rule I added Vaals, as it's a better spread to the Limburg article, and such an important tourist location. --Velorian (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dank je wel! Merging Geleen and Sittard into Sittard-Geleen is something I've had planned for a long time already, so this is much appreciated. 7+2 is in general a bit of an issue for the Dutch articles, specifically for the Randstad once you look into it. I understand you're from Heerlen, but I have no idea how well-known you are with (South) Limburg, but if you ever run out of things to do on Wikivoyage and are looking for a bit of a project to undertake, then you might want to have a look at the 7+2-compatible mock-up of the entirety of the Netherlands, which you're more than welcome to tweak and use. -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I did already, I posted it on the discussion page for the netherlands check under: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Netherlands#Cities_list I made large proposal there on how to tackle it. I have suggested 8 cities in that regard. As for the mockup page that might be a bit of work to look at. -- Velorian (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Limburger cheese?
If that indeed from the region? It's famous for its smell. So if it's from Limburg, I think it should be mentioned in the "Eat" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Well, it's not this Limburg, I can tell you that much. It used to be made as far north as Maastricht, but the Dutch variants (like Rommedoe) are 'extinct' if you can call it that. For nearly a hundred years no-one's been making them, as legislation within the Netherlands has since become a barrier-to-entry in the process.
 * As for locality, in Dutch and French, it's called "Hervekaas" / "Fromage de Herve", after the Pays de Herve, a region between the Dutch border and Verviers. That latter name is its protected name, meaning that any cheese branded as "Limburger" here, isn't necessarily what you call Limburger. Fromage de Herve is what you would call Limburger.
 * As for our hierarchy, that means Limburger ought to be mentioned on Tongeren (the Flemish exclave of Belgian Limburg) with its Dutch name and Liège (province) with its French name. I don't know anything about availability though. Apparently it's now more popular in the German third of Limburg than the Belgian or Dutch thirds? That's what NL-Wiki tells me at least... I'll have a little poke around and see if I can find something with cheese shops in Tongeren and surroundings. ― Wauteurz (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had a little look-around, and I can report that the three main producers of the cheese have unified. I can't speak from experience, but it seems that as a result, the cheese seems to be decently available in your everyday supermarkets within the French-speaking part of the region, and speciality fromageries outside of it. The town itself seems like a decent OtBP destination like Eupen, so I guess starting Herve could be a good next move? ― Wauteurz (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for doing some on-the-ground research! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. I don't know if I can work on the article much during this week, but we'll see how it progresses :) ― Wauteurz (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Limburg (Netherlands)


text:
Talk:Lincoln (Nebraska)

I notice that I didn't format the page properly. I like my style, but I understand the need for consistency.... I'll try to move my entry into a more standard format at some point.

Universities
''Ive moved this content here for discussion / data mining as it's not all relavent to travellers. Please see Project:Goals and non-goals for more information. Thanks! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:58, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

Institution Type:	Public, 4-year or above Federal Aid:	Institution has a Program Participation Agreement with the US Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g., Direct Loans). Degrees Offered:	First-professional, Doctor's, Master's, Bachelor's, Associate's Certificates Offered:	Post-Master's Carnegie Classified:	Doctoral/Research Universities--Extensive - These institutions typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 d... Undergrad Application Fee:	$25.00 Year Prices:	In-state:$3,830; Out-of-state:$9,432; Books and supplies:$720 Total Enrollment:	22268 Student Counts:	Full-time, first-time undergraduate students:3,599, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate:23.0, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate receiving financial aid:75.0
 * University of Nebraska at Lincoln
 * Southeast Community College

Institution Type:	Public, 2-year Federal Aid:	Institution has a Program Participation Agreement with the US Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g., Direct Loans). Degrees Offered:	Associate's Certificates Offered:	less-than-2-years, less-than-1-year Carnegie Classified:	Associate's Colleges: - These institutions offer associate's degree and certificate programs but, with few exceptions, award no baccalaureate degrees.... Year Prices:	In-state:$1,386; Out-of-state:$1,611; Books and supplies:$750 Total Enrollment:	7396 Gender:	Men - 48.9%, Women - 51.1% Race / Ethnicity:	Non-resident alien - 0.2%, Black non-Hispanic - 1.8%, American Indian or Alaskan Native - 0.3%, Asian or Pacific Islander - 2.7%, Hispanic - 1.7%, White non-Hispanic - 91.8%, Race-ethnicity unknown - 1.4% Student Counts:	Full-time, first-time undergraduate students:1,815, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate:25.0, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate receiving financial aid:52.0
 * Nebraska Wesleyan University

Institution Type:	Private not-for-profit, 4-year or above Federal Aid:	Institution has a Program Participation Agreement with the US Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g., Direct Loans). Degrees Offered:	Master's, Bachelor's Certificates Offered:	less-than-1-year Carnegie Classified:	Baccalaureate Colleges--Liberal Arts - These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. They award at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.... Undergrad Application Fee:	$20.00 Year Prices:	In-state:$14,641; Out-of-state:$14,641; Books and supplies:$600 Total Enrollment:	1699 Student Counts:	Full-time, first-time undergraduate students:359, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate:21.0, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate receiving financial aid:98.0
 * Union College

Institution Type:	Private not-for-profit, 4-year or above Federal Aid:	Institution has a Program Participation Agreement with the US Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g., Direct Loans). Degrees Offered:	Bachelor's, Associate's. Only college or university in the country to offer and International Rescue and Relief major. Carnegie Classified:	Baccalaureate Colleges--General - These institutions are primarily undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. They award less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.... Year Prices:	In-state:$14,790; Out-of-state:$14,790; Books and supplies:$980 Total Enrollment:	931 Gender:	Men - 46.4%, Women - 53.6% Race / Ethnicity:	Non-resident alien - 15.1%, Black non-Hispanic - 2.7%, American Indian or Alaskan Native - 1.4%, Asian or Pacific Islander - 2.3%, Hispanic - 3.9%, White non-Hispanic - 67.9%, Race-ethnicity unknown - 6.7% Student Counts:	Full-time, first-time undergraduate students:174, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate:24.0, Percent full-time, first-time undergraduate receiving financial aid:86.0
 * Lincoln School of Commerece

Private for-profit, 2-year institution. Has a Program Participation Agreement with the US Department of Education for eligible students to receive Pell Grants and other federal aid (e.g., Direct Loans). Offers Associate's degreesand certificate programs but, with few exceptions, award no baccalaureate degrees.... Year Prices:	In-state:$15,000; Out-of-state:$15,000 Total Enrollment:	445 Gender:	Men - 47.2%, Women - 52.8% Race / Ethnicity:	Black non-Hispanic - 4.0%, American Indian or Alaskan Native - 0.7%, Asian or Pacific Islander - 0.9%, Hispanic - 1.8%, White non-Hispanic - 92.6%

Eat
There don't appear to be any "splurge" category restaurants, so I'm thinking it'd be better to break up Lincoln by food type, as things seem to be mainly in the budget to mid-range category. I'm seeing quite a few Tex-Mex/Mexican and sandwich shops. User:(WT-en) Zepppep:Drew Talk 11:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Lincoln (Nebraska)


text:
Talk:Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial

Excellent start! (WT-en) Maj 01:05, 22 December 2006 (EST)
 * Thanks again! :) (WT-en) Missvain 23:58, 22 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial


text:
Talk:Lincoln Highway

For anyone ready to tackle The Lincoln Highway article, you will find some photos at Wikishared. The files I have submitted all start with Lincoln. Have fun! (WT-en) 2old 13:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lincoln Highway


text:
Talk:Lincolnshire

regions
I have moved the regions section into Understand as although there are no sub-regions for this area I think the map and descriptions are of use. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mapshape
The mapshape currently only shows the area under the jurisdiction of Lincolnshire County Council, rather than the whole Ceremonial county of Lincolnshire which is the subject of this article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lincolnshire


text:
Talk:Lindisfarne

WV:VFD 2004
''Copied from Votes for deletion by (WT-en) Evan. The page was kept.''

 * Lindisfarne. I'm not convinced it's big enough to warrant an article on its own - but then I've never been there. Any comments? I had originally mentioned it as a destination in the Northumbria article, along with a link to its official website. Should it be merged with Northumbria and the individual article deleted? - (WT-en) sjc196 14:07, 13 Apr 2004 (GMT)
 * The question is not so much "is it big", but rather "is it a big tourist attraction". Anyway, many small articles exist, even for places that do not really need them. I would vote to merge them to the regional pages; but you'd probably end up having someone else recreate it. (Local patriotism and all.) Toss a coin? :) -- (WT-en) Nils 09:22, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
 * Don't delete. Please read Project:What is an article? again, folks. If you don't agree with the policy, bring it up there. Lindisfarne is a town in its own right. You can sleep there, there's lots to do. It definitely deserves its own article. --(WT-en) Evan 11:12, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep Lindisfarne, it is a well known/used name in New Zealand for schools, etc. Knowing where the original is is a good thing. -- (WT-en) Huttite 11:41, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep. (WT-en) Akubra 12:06, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Colbackp (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) It is such a piece of current spiritual food for so many as well as being a haven for nature. Seals ar eplentiful on the North Coast. UK history is welded to Lindisfarne. Aidan of Lindisfarne, Cuthbert, Christianity, Celtic Prayer, Scriptorium and the wonderful copying of the Bible before the printing press; such prized and beautiful books with stunning and helpful images and symbolism

Links from Learn More
I deleted this non-standard section with two linked web sites as only content:
 * The Holy Island of Lindisfarne Website - Accommodation, local produce, visitor information, tides, local history.
 * Visit Lindisfarne - Holy Island's tourism website with full accommodation, food and activities listings.

The latter seems to be the one we link from the lead, the former is probably neither something for a Learn section. I did not check them, somebody could take a look and perhaps find something for Sleep or whatever. It seems also the former tries to look like a canonical site for the island, but I doubt it is.

–LPfi (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lindisfarne


text:
Talk:Lindos

I just reverted this page after it was spammed, but the original content was pretty spammy too, so is also replaced. Actual Lindos talk would be appreciated here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:37, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

I took out all the description of places to go around the island because it really belongs on the Rhodes page and in fact is mostly there already. If anyone wants to add it back, I suggest incorporating it into that section. I've also deleted the line about renting a car because it didn't even indicate if car rental was available in Lindos. And I've deleted the statement that gasoline in Greece "costs next to nothing" for reasons I hardly need to explain. (WT-en) Sailsetter 19:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Removed a few "go next" destinations

 * Kalathos

 * Stegna

 * Malona

I've removed these because (as far I could tell from a recent trip) there's no particular reason to go there next... Feel free to add back in if there are good reasons for them to be mentioned, but please give a reason for why you're recommending them! --Tsandell (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2013 (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) 06:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * StPauls Bay Lindos.jpg

title: Talk:Lindos


text:
Talk:Line Islands

Region?
Surely the best "Region" for Kiritimati / Tabuaeran / Teraina to come under is Kiribati?

And the three U.S. dependencies effectively have stand-alone articles already, not sure what additional info is going to go here? ~ 203.144.143.3 13:44, 25 December 2006 (EST)

 * There's no such thing as an "un-region" on Wikivoyage, either it's a fully-fleshed out article or this list should just be shunted into Kiribati (which seems more sensible) with a redirect. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:37, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * It's already in the Kiribati article. I suggest this page be left as it now is, as a disambiguation page. ~ 203.144.143.3 08:41, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * This just feels wrong. There is stuff that links here, it has been used as a region for some articles, and disambiguation for others.  I'm going to have a go at it.  Feel free to change, revert, discuss, if you have any different or better ideas. --(WT-en) Inas 03:44, 19 November 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Line Islands


text:
Talk:Lingen

I reverted the edit that called Lingen a small town as the pop. is 50k+. (WT-en) Titania 02:25, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lingen


text:
Talk:Linköping

Spam removed from here. Please fill with actual discussions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:38, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

IT-ceum
IT-ceum is no longer located in Mjärdevi it merged with Länsmuseum. The source cited already shows this.

title: Talk:Linköping


text:
Talk:Linz

wts:Category:Linz
i don't know what this is but it was red. --Dortmund (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * It's a link to our shared site. It has not been migrated to Wikimedia, so many articles will have red links to wts. --Globe-trotter (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Linz


text:
Talk:Lisbon

ToDo
Please help us complete the article if you know any of the following:
 * Via Verde: how can a traveler become a subcriber? Is it practically feasible for a foreign tourist--either for a rented car or for a personal car brought from abroad? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:24, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
 * The Gulbenkian Museum: is the museum gardens ("worth a visit in and of themselves") open for everyone, without a museum admission fee? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:48, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
 * If you mean the largish park all around it, then yes, it's a popular picnic spot, and known for having little hidden corners where young people make out ;)

--Jorge.manuel (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * GetAround:7 Colinas: is it possible to return a used card, and get back a 0.50EUR "deposit"? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:17, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
 * No, sorry. It's not a deposit, it pays for the actual card materials. You can try selling it to someone, but honestly, if 50 cents is a lot to you...

--Jorge.manuel (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * GetAround:Finding your way with Carris map ("...try to locate the nearest Carris bus or tram stop. Most of these stops (not all) have a very good map of the city...") : a photo of such a map would definitely help to understand what kind of map is meant here, how does it look and where exactly on a transit stop to look for it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:24, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about, the map is very schematic and not at all informative for anything other than taking a bus. Get your maps here: http://www.carris.pt/en/network-map/

--Jorge.manuel (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Why Lisbon can't be featured as Destination of the month (per (WT-en) Burmesedays 19:55, 14 December 2009 (EST)):
 * Understand section is thin. Certainly needs a history sub-section and generally to tell us much more about the city.
 * Do section is tiny - there must be more - theatres, cinemas, sport?
 * Drink only has 3 listings.
 * Get out is full of red links.

Gambling Centre
"Europe's gambling centre" - says who? yes, there are two big casinos, but since when does that make any city a "gambling centre" - where's the source of that?

OK, let's be honest: a list of related readings containing 30 books with synopses is a bit too long for a humble travel guide, isn't it? (WT-en) Rmx 18:19, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * On a second look, I've noticed that most of it is copyrighted stuff from publishers, online stores and Wikipedia. Worse yet: it's already been copied by other sites on account of WikiTravel's Creative Commons license! I'm deleting the whole list right away. (WT-en) Rmx 18:28, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Get Around
Corrected the info regarding the 7 Colinas bus/subway ticket. It might need some english/pricing corrections. (WT-en) cael 15:24, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed external links
Some useful links were placed on the article but we don't use this section any more. Please feel free to re-insert them in the article's text where relevant or keep them on this page.

Photography

 * Lisbon Photos a collection of Photos, showing Lisbon as it is to visitors.
 * Travel to Lisbon Picture Gallery of Lisbon and surrounding area.
 * A few pictures of Lisbon available under Creative Commons
 * Lisbon Photo Gallery 78 pictures of the main sights in Lisbon
 * Photos from Lisbon Hundreds of Lisbon's photos

Travel guides

 * Interactive map of Lisbon
 * Lisbon Tourist Guide and Information
 * Lisbon Pages
 * Lisbon
 * Photoblog from Portugal Lisbon by eyes of foreigner

-- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 08:20, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

Article status
Today an anonymous user changed the article status from outline to guide. The Lisbon article is far from being considered a complete guide. I thought about rating it as usable instead, but even the sleep and eat sections are still far from complete, so I guess we will have to stick to outline status for a while. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:21, 20 November 2006 (EST)

 * Reply: It just seemed odd to me that such a lengthy, detailed article would retain "outline" status. Granted, the "Eat" and "Sleep" sections need work; but they do contain enough information to get a traveler headed in the right direction. The rest of the article is really quite detailed, and more than enough for a competent traveler to make do with.  Perhaps "Guide" was a bit much, but this is definitely a usable article. 20 Nov. 16:31.

Do a little Geography homework?
Changed the parenthetical under "Stay Safe" that decided Algarve was the far northern coast of Portugal and the hub for Moroccan hash importing. Algarve is to the south. I don't personally know about the hash import/export business, so I won't say anything else about where pot comes or goes out of the country.

Subtropical climate
Come on, stop with that crazy idea of subtropical climate. Lisbon is a bit northwards than Athens, San Francisco, or Toquio. It's on a higher latitude (farther away from the tropics) than Melbourne, Santiago del Chile or Buenos Aires. It is indeed warm in the summer. True that it only falls snow on extreme rare occasions - it never snows in San Francisco either -but it's not warm all year round. The summer can be hot, but it's often cooler than in central Europe due to the Atlantic winds.
 * Allow me to quantify "rare" as in, the last two snowfalls were 50 years apart.

--Jorge.manuel (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's not the Gulf Stream that heats Lisbon. The Golf Stream runs from South to North along the North American coast, on the other side of the Atlantic (loool). Lisbon, being on the east side of the Atlantic gets a cold stream, which after leaving Europe and entering Africa is called the Canary Current. This cold stream is normal on west coast of continents and it passes through the ocean coast of Mediterranean climate regions.

Do you want Gulf Stream? Go to Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia.

—The preceding comment was added by 62.28.51.244 (talk • contribs)

It's not hard to get your facts straight: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Golfstream.jpg --Jorge.manuel (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Your words imply that this is an ongoing concern rather than a one-time error that someone made in the past. This is a wiki; make the changes you think are necessary.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Driving Lisbon
Should probably have some warning on driving here. The city is the absolute worst I've been through in Iberia. The roads are much wider though than Sevilla, and the drivers not nearly as aggresive, but lane markings are missing, traffic lights are non-exising in for instance Belem, trams drive on the regular road, signs with directions are often wrong and usually missing, parking is ridicolous expensive, and it is pracically impossible to get to Lisbon without using a toll-road. Stay away from Lisbon if you are driving through Portugal or Iberia in general. 85.235.250.110 05:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

 * As a local, I second that. I always mention that to tourists: don't do it. That's for insiders only.

Why not putting things the other way around? Come to Lisbon but leave the car away! —The preceding comment was added by 62.28.51.244 (talk • contribs)

Stay Safe
As you can see in the work from Gergely Hideg & Robert Manchin (EUICS Consortium) Environment and Safety in European Capitals, Lisbon is one of the capitals in Europe which has less crime. I find the terms used in this section exaggerated. Although I am not editing the article on account of not being registered on the site, I would advise someone to do it. —The preceding comment was added by 213.22.39.30 (talk • contribs).

 * Hi! Just so you know, you don't have to be registered; we'd love it if you went ahead and edited the article.  We'd also love it if you registered an account, but it's not necessary.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I have edited the Stay Safe page and added some more info. I also registered in wikivoyage... let's see where this site can go :) (WT-en) Diogo Bruno 17:07, 19 September 2008 (GMT)

 * That is true, but it is also true that there has recently been a rise in violent crime by armed gangs too. It doesn't show in statistics yet, and most possibly it won't affect Lisbon's status, but nevertheless it's ongoing -- let's just see where it ends up.

A little cleaning and plunging.
I am working on getting something written the hotels that only have addresses. I am pulling for customer reviews from many hostel booking websites - not copy/paste but using them for real information about the place. I am really interested in Lisbon it has been on my wish list of places to go for a while so I though this would be a fun way to encourage myself to get there.

Also I am doing a bit of cleaning - making all the phone numbers uniform I am trying to use the +351 (21) xxx-xxx formate, because it is the one I see the most often on website. (WT-en) Trew 18:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Good Morning, At it again. I noticed that Lisbon Calling Hostel is listed under two different neighborhoods, I am going to try to figure out which it is really in and delete the duplicate(WT-en) Trew 14:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT).

Again cleaning. Was looking for information about Coimbra e Madrid and found a few reviews saying it has bed -bugs and is not clean. I am going to delete it because that doesn't sound like a place I want to send wikivoyageers.(WT-en) Trew 14:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Fundação Arpad Szenes / Vieira da Silva
There is a listing for this in the see or do section. I am trying to find more information on it but am coming up short mostly because I can't read Portages. I think it is a festival or a museum but can't get farther than that. Can someone help fill in this. Thanks (WT-en) Trew 13:32, 16 October 2008 (EDT)Trew
 * Done! (WT-en) Texugo 02:24, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Restauradores Hotel?
I have search high and low for information about Restauradores, Praça dos Restauradores, 13, and have come up dry. I have found some things that at the location but nothing much about a hotel in that area. Does anyone know about this place or is it a phantom? Can it be deleted?(WT-en) Trew 14:19, 20 November 2008 (EST)
 * You mean this one? http://www.hotelavenidapalace.pt/hotel-overview.html

--Jorge.manuel (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

views from Santa Justa's Elevator
I removed this piece from description for "Santa Justa's Elevator", as it looks like an overstatement from my experience:

It offers some of the best views of the city.

Clearly any viewpoint can easily compete with it. Well, views are good but not any close to best. Maybe we can be more descriptive here to get a better understanding of what to expect? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:56, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

shopping: streets and districts to recommend?
Currently we have a very small piece of advice on "where to go for shopping" :

''From Praça do Comércio (aka Terreiro do Paço) to the Restauradores, the Baixa is the old shopping district in the city. It includes pedestrian Rua Augusta which has the most boring and mass-visitor tourist stores, and several European chain clothing stores like Zara, H&M, Campers.''

I clearly won't recommend for those seeking anything special beyond ubiquitos mass-market chain stores to go to Baixa. But after a single several-days visit I can only recommend a Chiado for some independent shops and informal brands like Crumpler.

Can someone come up with more recommendations per shopping category? Independent fashion designers (mainstream and alternative)? More places for informal brands like Crumpler? Good selection of designer eyewear? Recommended shops for buying fado or other local music? Best places to shop for porcelain? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:11, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

intro for Eat
I removed the following piece from #Eat:

Eating out is deliciously bewildering in Lisbon and with some of the best-value cafes and restaurants in Europe, it's a great way to sample a smorgasboard of Portugese treats.

What did this mean to say? My English is not perfect, however:
 * deliciously bewildering -- what does it mean in this context? Surprisingly good? Surprising but still leaves a mix feeling? Somethig else? What does it mean practically for an average traveler?
 * a great way to sample a smorgasboard of Portugese treats: is smorgasboard used literally here? If so, it's misleading; if it's metaphorical--could we state the same idea with simpler words?

Overall, what is the main idea we want to give with this piece? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:20, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

removed listings
Just for information: on a separate page (Lisbon/Wikivoyage:Removed listings) I saved listings that are legitimate an in line with policy, but removed for subjective reasons:
 * Pap'Açorda removed for "negative reviews"
 * A Confraria for "don't list non-outstanding restaurants that are part of hotels which are already listed"

I saved them in that page for the case if I was wrong with my subjective conclusions, and they should be restored instead. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:35, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Top 10 places to shop in the world
Is that serious?
 * ... makes Chiado, together with Avenida da Liberdade, one of the Top 10 places to shop in the world.

Is there any (un)official rating of top 10 places to shop? I mean, does it seriously compete even in world brands like listed in that paragraph? (and I can't say it's very competitive in breadth of local brands and designers--which is another point of view on what's one of the top places to shop should boast) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:49, 17 November 2009 (EST)

Vacation Rental Agencies?
A few days ago, the Vacation Rental section (under the name "Apartments") was available, but now it was removed. I have tried to create it, but says the info I want to add was blocked by the filter spam. I suppose this section would improve Lisbon article. It is not possible to add the section again? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ttl (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Raul! As already explained on (WT-en) user page our Apartment listing doesn't allow your listing and your touty entries have been reverted. As you didn't followed our guidelines your business has been blacklisted due to your edit warring and don't tout policy. The section will stay permanently deleted as i is not in line with our policies. (WT-en) jan 05:53, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello! Thank you for the answer! Please let me insist a little bit more, based on the guidelines of Apartment listing. Regarding the several points: 1. I am trying to get the consensus to allow the page. 2. The separate sub-section is not a problem at all. 3. We do have a local address with a phone number that specifies the physical address at the destination for picking up the keys, managing the property and/or resolving rental issues. We also have a 24 hour phone, so the guests can contact the agency at anytime. Our address is shown in our website (contact area). 4. Our apartments are available for a week rental or even less. At the moment, in Lisbon, there are several agencies of this site. I really think this is an additional value to the page. It is cheaper than a hotel for the travelers and allows travelers to live in typical neighborhoods. I think my arguments meet the points referenced. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ttl (talk • contribs)

 * Hi Raul, i'm opposing the rental apartment agencies and other regular users as well. The main reason is that Lisbon offers an excellent range of hotels on all price levels and there is no added value of rental apartments the agents promise(except from revenues for the agencies). Most agencies actually are dubious and entered from their owners and not the travellers. Users of Wikivoyage trust us because Project:The traveller comes first and not the business owner. (WT-en) jan 07:07, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello! I understand that the traveller comes first and that is why he should have the chance to choose. All over the web you can find several good reviews about these kind of companies. Some agencies might be dubious, but of course some others don't! Probably I cannot say the company I work for (you know this), but if you look you will find a lot of good information about us. We provide not only apartments, but many other services. I do not understand why should the traveller be deprived from a good service. Of course the agencies get revenues, but the hotels don’t?

Hello again, I would like to leave here some comments that show how good vacation rentals can be to the travellers. Please find them here: Bottom Line My Little Travel Bug TripAdvisor If you go inside TripAdvisor you can use the application "Compare and Save" and see how much travellers can save if they choose an apartment instead an Hotel.

 * Per the apartment guidelines I'd like to see some information that apartment listings are a common form of lodging for visitors to Lisbon. In places like Lake Tahoe I'd suspect that 10-20% of travelers use cabin rentals for lodging, but in a city like Lisbon I'd suspect that only a tiny percent use apartment rentals.  If that's wrong then listing such accommodation might make sense, but otherwise I think we're just opening our guide to tout-ish advertising for a niche lodging option. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:32, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello Ryan, Absolutely. I have been looking around and in our National Statistics Institute is possible to find a report about accommodation types that are more often used. Report It is in Portuguese, but on the 2nd page (bottom right) you can see a table that I am sure you will understand. You can see here that Touristic Apartments (Apartamentos Turísticos) are an imporant type of accommodation.
 * Raul, the report is about the whole of Portugal and not Lisbon specific. I only have a very limited understanding of Portugese but i'm pretty sure that Lisbon is not the Portugese average. I know that rented aparments are a standard form at the Algarve but that can't be true for the capital. I have visited Lisbon (and friends of mine are more often their) and the regular accomodation are hotels. Statistics are always depending on interpretation but in this case it means nothing for the concrete case of Lisbon. (WT-en) jan 05:51, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello again, Now I have something just about Lisbon: Turismo de Portugal. I would say that the first 2 pages are the most important. In page 1 you can see the number of nights and on the second page you can find the comparison (in percentage) between 2008 and 2009. On the other you will find share markets and 2008 values.
 * Hi Raul, just 1.1% market share for apartments while hotels have a whopping 82.5% share. I think this terrific statistic states that apartments are totally irrelavant in Lisbon. Thank you very much for clarifing that! (WT-en) jan 07:52, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Hi jan, that is your way to see things. Based on the info provided by Turismo de Portugal, I can also see that between 2008 and 2009 there was a growth of 76% in the Apartments category! It is also important to mention that all the others categories (Hotels included, of course) had negative results. I am just trying to show that the importance of self-catering apartments is increasing fast! In 2009 we received around 10.000 guests. Of course this is low compared to hotels, but 10.000 is not a relevant number?

 * Hi Raul, i quote our policy: The only exception to this rule is for locations where rental properties are a common form of travel accommodation As you proved that apartments are not a common form it can't be part of the article. That is very clear. Second, 10.000 compared to several millions at hotel means that they are totally irrelevant. A high growth rate only shows that it is an immature market. I dare to say, here my involvement ends because facts are obvious. (WT-en) jan 06:10, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello jan, Absolutely obvious..you can interpret the info as you want and you prefer the non-positive side. Anyway, you position is more than clear regarding the Vacation Rental agencies. Maybe in the future we will be able to appear. 10.000 is the number of our company. There are more than 30 companies of this type here in Lisbon, but not enough it seems. Thanks anyway jan. I believe that you try to do a good work here.

Additional info regarding Lisbon: Taxi drivers charge a fixed rate of 1.60€ if you have luggage with you. They do not charge 1.20€ per piece. Hope this helps.

 * Hey Raul, we are constantly trying to keep a balance between being useful and relevant to all sorts of travellers, while at the same time striving to avoid turning into a giant advertising brochure. Its a fine like to walk, and surely its not always perfect.

 * While calling apartment rentals around the European capitals irrelevant might be pushing it a bit, I do agree its a need that better catered to elsewhere on sites set up specifically for the trade - since, as it has turned out, if we leave the sleep section untendered they end up looking like this which is not really useful to anyone, including the business owners. Took us months to clean up that mess --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 18:32, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Hello Stefan, thank your sincere reply. I understand the explanation and I agree it makes no sense to transform wikivoyage in a huge advertising brochure, but wouldn't be possible to list only agencies that follow certain criteria?

Our company, per example have a 24h emergency number mobile, an office in the city centre if somebody wants to talk with us and many other services. I honestly think that apartments are an excellent alternative to hotels. They are less expensive, you have more privacy and you can live like a local. Sure I do have interest saying this, but this is true! Thank you Stefan!

To Do: add
Students of the Portuguese language should visit the Bibliotech Nationale, short form URL: bn.pt (the Portuguese equivalent to the British Museum or Library of Congress). The BN is the largest collection of Portuguese literature in the world (a special note in particular for Brazilians). 143.232.210.38 13:30, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
 * The national library is for researchers, what are you talking about? You can absolutely not just go there and read. They screen you, and you need to pay membership fees. The stuff they have there are, like, 1st editions from 400 years ago, etc. You might want to go here instead (that's where they pointed me to):

http://blx.cm-lisboa.pt/gca/index.php?id=404 --Jorge.manuel (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Next Challenge - Huge City?
Hey there, I believe we should start planning a "Huge City" article for Lisbon and it's suburbs, as there are a lot of locations and specifics that could be covered but fall short of a single-page article. Lisbon has 4 or 5 very distinc areas, and compared to some of the Huge City articles it certainly has the scope for such an endeavour. What do you think about this idea? FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm planning to be in Lisbon towards Christmas, so if you could get it all finished by then please. --Inas (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

From usable to guide?
After the latest additions, the article is a good candidate for upgrading from usable to guide-level? There are too many bars and restaurants in Lisbon to make comprehensive listing in the main article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I am so happy to see I am not the only one interested in this article! Looking forward to collaborating on that!
 * We may want to trim down the list by checking if the establishments are still open and the descriptions make the listings useful and prove their recommendability, but overall I don't think this is a major problem. I do, however see a number of other issues we could rectify together:
 * Biking - this section is too long and a bit of a mess, and more importantly - not very practical
 * Getting in by boat - on the contrary, there is precious little information there. Lisbon has at least three marinas - what are the costs and conditions to moor there, how can one sail into Lisbon etc.? How about "big boats"? Do cruise ships moor in Lisbon regularly, if so where?
 * See/Do - far too few compared to how much there actually is to see/do, and they contain little information. They need updating as well I guess
 * Public transportation - would be good to review info if up to date, copyedit and make more useful
 * Understand - we need a history section to explain all the references to the Earthquake and Marques de Pombal, as well as make sure readers know there is more to Lisbon that that. Other sections could also use brushing up and expansion with useful info, not repeating the same stuff many times
 * Map of districts - even if we don't districtify, we should help users locate them, this is of utmost importance
 * The Lisbon Region - IMHO necessary to make our guide actually useful, and currently still a stub and a bit of a mess as well
 * I believe we are on a good course to turn this article around from a quite woeful, neglected one to one that is actually a useful guide, but I guess we still have work to do, regardless of the article's status. Your thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 * We're looking at a future Dotm right here, I guess! Portugal is one of the blank spots on my European map, so sadly I cannot help out that much. Biking - if is it something popular in Lisbon, then it could stay, otherwise it could be trimmed down, Get in by boat - ?, See and Do could be expanded, I guess, and are all those sub-headings necessary?, public transportation looks good at a first glance but I cannot vouch for accuracy, Understand - yes I fully agree, map of districts - could be useful if the city is very spread out like Paris, Lisbon Region - hmm... there is no reason not to improve articles, but is there much information to add? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Just to make sure:
 * My impression is that Lisbon is one of the least bike-friendly European capitals and biking is a bit of a challenge there due to natural circumstances, so it is more of somebody actually pursuing a biking trip and then dropping their impressions than trying to capture the biking culture of Lisbon, which I did not experience at all (i.e. I would say there is none).
 * The headings are there to help organize POIs. For now, there aren't many, but once we start adding them, this could become unmanageable
 * Lisbon is NOT spread out, it is quite compact for a European capital (less than 100 sqm), but attractions are to be found in many parts of the city and navigating isn't easy. I believe we could provide a good service to our fellow travellers by providing a map to help them get their bearing and an idea where stuff actually is.
 * Lisbon Region - there are loads and loads of information to add. Only around 600,000 people live in Lisbon proper out of the 3 million that live in the region, all of which is pretty much an interconnected agglomeration. There are so many destinations of tourist interest that nobody visiting Lisbon should stay only in the city proper. We do need information on how to get around, a good map and such that would be too much for the article on Lisbon. On the other hand, we need to rein in the proliferation of empty and unnecessary articles on locations and artificially created subregions.
 * PrinceGloria (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Re Biking: Agree. Because of terrain and street layout biking is difficult. Re Map/navigation: My impression is that sights are somehow clustered in districts, for instance many sights in "central Lisboa" (incl Bairro Alto and Alfama), key sights in Belem as well as new area at Oriental, etc. So perhaps sights should be presented according to area. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we have a list of points to improve, that makes further work much more focused. A comment above suggested to make this into a "Huge City" article, in my opinion (at least at present) it should not be broken up into smaller articles, at least all highlights (major sights) should be in the main article, while it is of course possible to create sub-articles with street-by-street details (bars, restaurants, sights etc) for Bairro Alto, Alfama and Baixa. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Erik, this is not how we do districtifying - if we do go for it, ALL the listings, especially See, Do, Eat, Drink and Sleep, go to district articles. The main article keeps info on how to Get In, Get Around, some general info in Understand and general guidance which district to go to for a particular type of attraction, food, entertainment or accommodation. I am actually thinking that such districtification could serve Lisbon well eventually - once we put all the POIs in, we will end up with an article which will probably need splitting. Let's first put the POIs though and see - I am trying to add as much as possible from memory and sources and it would be great if we could expand on each of them - give a description and location, verify details (price, hours etc.) and make their entries useful. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if that is the guideline, I am not comfortable moving all the listings under "See" to each district as that would somehow hide the highlights. Personally I recommend the National Pantheon, the Castle, the Tile Museum, Gulbenkian, the Aquaduct and Jeronimo - if these are only listed within their respective districts it is less clear to the reader that they are highlights. This is perhaps a general policy discussion for WikiV, rather than a discussion specific to Lisboa. Information overload is one of the challenges for a visitor to town like Lisboa. Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There you have it - I would personally recommend something else, but this is irrelevant. This is not a personal recommendation website, this is an attempt to build a comprehensive guide together. To combat information overload, we split listings into smaller lists by means of subheadings, and if there still is too much thereof, we start districtifying.
 * In some cities or districts where there are so many sights that they may be overwhelming for a visitor, I add a "Key sights" section when splitting the long list into several ones. But overall, we should avoid discussions as to what one finds the most interesting - let the traveller read the comprehensive descriptions of the sights and make their own choices, as I do and I guess so do you. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should not be a page for personal recommendation, but as you point out there are some "key sights" that are widely agreed upon. In Paris for instance that would include the Eiffel tower and the Louvre. So what I am trying to say is that, if the article is broken up in districts, the main article should help the reader navigate by giving brief descriptions of each district indicating for instance that Belem is home to Jeronimo (not necessairly a detailed listing). For instance on the Norway page mentions key characteristics of each region. In any case, you are doing a great job improving the article! --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your kind words! I am looking forward to more of your edits, as this should not be a personal guide by myself! At any rate, ultra-prominent points such as the Louvre are handled as you suggested - by giving them a mention in the main article with reference to the district where to find them. No need to give them a full listing and then repeat it in the district's article. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Guide by ESC 2018?
As of today it is exactly 6 months until the European Championship for us who don't understand sports; Eurovision Song Contest 2018 in Lisbon. While the event itself is not visited by a myriad of travelers, it will be televised to ~200 million people, some of which will get curious about Lisbon and end up reading this article. I believe that we should aim to get this article to guide status by then.

There are a few things to fix. Some things are quite straight forward, such as copy editing and expanding listings. While labourus, they are not very hard (could perhaps be done as part of a cotm?) The main issue with the article is however that it is in dire need of consistent and clear districtification. At the time of my writing there are some districts (Principe Real/Norte) which are listed in the orientation section, but then not mentioned again. Others (Estrela/Western suburbs) exists as subsections of "see" and "eat" sections, but are not mentioned in the orientation section. Further, while the current "orientation" section give an idea of where the heartland of each district is, it gives little advice on where the boundaries are drawn. There seem to be some overlap. I therefore hope that we can get some districification which is mutually exclusive, mutually exhaustive and consistent throughout the article.

A working suggestion is that we use the 5 "zonas" as the starting point. While administrative boundaries are not of prime interest of the traveler, I don't have any other better suggestion. Two problems surfaces. Most points of interests are concentrated in "Centro historico" while almost none can be found in "Norte". I therefore suggest that "Norte" is merged into "Centro", while "Centro historico" is divided into Bairro Alto/Chiado (Western hill), Baixa/Rossio (Mid valley), and Alfama (Eastern hill). (I am actually currently traveling in Lisbon and I realize that this is how I've been orienting myself. If you are walking downhill with the river on your right side you are on the Western hill, walking towards Baixa, if you are walking downhill with the river on your left you are in Alfama walking towards Baixa, and if the street is flat you are in Baixa.) This gives us 6 districts which seems reasonable. The Baixa district would cover a very small geographical surface, but perhaps that is okay. However, not being an expert on the city I would be glad to hear other suggestions. Finally, I don't know the first thing about creating maps. Is someone able to to create a static map, or a dynamic map with district-shades on it? MartinJacobson (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Your suggestion of districtification sounds reasonable to me, although I don't feel I can really offer a more informed opinion regarding boundaries as I've personally only spent a week total in the city.

 * I don't know how to make a static map and can make only very simple dynamic district maps, but Renek78 has done some great work creating dynamic district maps for a number of cities – perhaps s/he may be available to help? –StellarD (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

24 Freguesias
Below is the list with all Wikidata items for the "freguesias" of Lisbon. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes.

Subdistricts of Santa Maria Maior (city centre)
It might be necessary to split up the city centre even finer. Here are the 12 subdistricts of Santa Maria Maior (city centre).

Districts talk (2017)
Hi all, I have created the Wikidata items in OpenStreetMap. Now we should be able to easily set up a dynamic district map of the city. Below is a first shot. Have been to Lisbon only once, thus don't know much. Feel free to change it. The districts are not yet as proposed by MartinJacobson - not sure, if it is even possible with those 24 official districts. But we can further subdivide them. For example Santa Maria Maior (part of Centro Histórico) has 12 subdistricts, which could be used, if necessary. But let's start simple as baseline for discussion.--Renek78 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Your proposed districtification makes sense to me, and because it generally follows the zonas boundaries it would be simpler to create. However I will defer to MartinJacobson who clearly knows the city much better than I do. –StellarD (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * First of all a disclaimer: I have spent less than one week in Lisbon and is in no way an authority or expert on the city. Secondly; I created this map (right) with print screen and paint (...) giving a more specific district suggestion.

 * I included "see" and "do" markers, and as you can see these create three distinct clusters: Belém, Parque das Nações, and the city centre. I divided the central cluster into Eastern (~Alfama), Western (~Bairro Alto), Central (~Baixa) and Northern (~Centro). The other two clusters where sorted as Ocidental (~Belém) and Oriental (~Parque das Nações).

 * When drawing boundaries I primarily used the current praxis in our article, as I assume that it is written by someone who knows the city better than I do (the main deviation is that I categorized "Museu do Azulejo"/"See marker 46" in Alfama since it is closer to the central cluster than the Parque das Nações cluster). Secondly I drew boundaries along major roads (particularly ring roads), as these where more visible on the map, and often make a more understandable boundary when perceived on the ground. It turns out that I have deviated somewhat from the original zone-suggestion.

 * Note however that the only boundaries I personally have walked across are the ones separating "Western Centro" from "Central Centro" and "Central Centro" from "Eastern Centro". While I feel rather confident about using "R. do Crucifixo" and "R. da Madalena" as boundaries (they make the utmost parts of the "Baixa-box", and the while area between these is very flat, the area beyond them grows very steep) I cannot guarantee that the other lines make sense to a local or from the ground. MartinJacobson (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi MartinJacobson, if we want to perfectly follow your boundaries we'd need to create them in a tool like JOSM. I have done similar boundaries (e.g. in Kuala Lumpur). Currently I don't have enough time to do so, but I can try to get as close as possible with official boundaries out of Wikidata items. Thanks for the work by the way! --Renek78 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * That would be great! Thank you! If we aim to get this to guide by May there is no rush in districtifying. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Districts talk (2018)
Hi MartinJacobson and everyone else, who is interested. Would this district setup be acceptable? It is as close as possible approximated to your proposal. This map is purely based on Wikidata boundaries. The big advantage is, that the districts can be easily changed in the future. But we are also limited to the official boundaries. Still I think that this is the best way forward. Thanks for your feedback. If nobody opposes I would start to districtify in the next couple of weeks.--Renek78 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering. How "historic" are East and West Centro Histórico? To my knowledge, the 1755 earthquake levelled the whole city; only Alfama and Bairro Alto can claim a shadow of "historicity"; I may be wrong but this districtification scheme got me thinking. Ibaman (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about Centro Historico, Eastern Centre and Western Centre. Not sure whether I like this English and Portuguese language mix though.--Renek78 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Looks great! Thank you for all your work Renek78! As I understand it, Centro Historico is considered the historical centre of the city, as compared to the modern business centre/geographical centre located further north (which is in the area we, perhaps a bit misleadingly, call outskirts above.) And while Baixa's 18th century architecture isn't medieval or ancient, I think that it could still be considered historical compared to the more modernist architecture found further north.

 * Nevertheless, we might want to consider other names. Thinking out loud: I don't think we should call the middle piece alone Centro Historico, since, as Ibaman pointed out, the most historically preserved areas can be found in the eastern piece. A more accurate name would probably simply be Baixa. The eastern chunk could perhaps be called Alfama. While Alfama strictly speaking is only part of the eastern chunk, it is the part of the eastern chunk which is of most interest to tourists. The northern part could perhaps be called Norte, or Centro y Norte, matching the Portuguese names of Oriental and Occidental. That leaves the western chunk, consisting of a bunch of different areas such as Bairro Alto, Chiado, Principe Real and Estrela. I'm not sure what to call them collectively. Western Centro Historico or some variety of it is the best I can think of, but that wouldn't match very well with the other proposed names. MartinJacobson (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Districts talk (2019)
Any progress? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say we are done. Just the naming of the districts has to be improved. And the articles have to be written of course. The main work. --Renek78 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 * To me it is a little awkward to find districts with generic and bureaucratic-sounding names rather than the historic districts like Bairro Alto, Alfama, Chiado or Baixa that are used for districtification in almost every conventional travel guide and seem to be household names among locals and visitors alike. I do not believe that many visitors are aware of or interested in the official administrative divisions. They are rather looking for historic quarters with their characteristic "flavour". Therefore I would propose to replace "Central Centro Historico" with Lisbon/Baixa, "Western Centro Historico" with Lisbon/Bairro Alto-Chiado and "Eastern Centro Historico" with Lisbon/Alfama. Perhaps also change "Ocidental" to Lisbon/Belém or Lisbon/Ocidental-Belém as Belém has many famous landmarks and points of interest to visitors. Likewise "Oriental" could include Parque das Nações in its title as it is the most interesting and recognisable area in the east of the city. --RJFF (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Metro on dynamic map
It appears that the yellow metro line is showing possible future extensions (Rato to Cais de Sodré) that I don't think are even under construction yet. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 * bumping this. it seems that it was fixed for the Yellow line, which is in construction and (relatively) near finishing, but now the Red Line is showing up with future extensions from São Sebastião to Alcântara, and that hasn't started construction. JnpoJuwan (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Guide status?
Back in February, after making various improvements to the Lisbon article, I unilaterally upgraded it to Guide status. I'm now worried that I may have been hasty. I would appreciate review and feedback. Thank you. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like you're being hasty to me at all. I'm not all that familiar with Lisbon, but the article is very helpful and seems to meet the requirements outlined for guide status. There's a lot of great work here and I think it definitely could be used as a standalone guide for most travellers. -- Lively Ratification  (talk)  02:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the district discussion has ended, and we can remove the template? Ground Zero (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks stalled since 2019, and I have no ideas for this. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Districts talk (2021)
Building upon and, I like @User:Renek78's map, but I prefer @User:RJFF's district names. I will combine both concepts and overlay the mapshapes. Knowing where our boundaries are in relation to listings will help once we start splitting out the district articles. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 * District boundaries have been set, and bare-bones district articles have been created. These new articles need to be built out and the listings moved. If no one objects to my actions, we will consider Lisbon districts discussion resolved. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Great work, Nelson Ricardo! If I find some time I'll help you with moving the listings. But the weather is so nice here at the moment... --Renek78 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lisbon


text:
Talk:Greater Lisbon

Is there another name for this area? You'd think I'd know, having lived there, but I can't recall... (WT-en) Majnoona 12:12, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

 * It may depend on when you lived there. This is what the Portuguese Tourism Board calls the region (though of course they tend to spell it "Lisboa Região").  According to Wikipedia, the Portuguese NUTS (which stands for Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics; I kid you not) has been revised recently to recognize these regions (deprecating the district system which the CIA Factbook still reports), with the possible goal of giving them more political autonomy. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:32, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Shouldn't Ericeira, Mafra and Peniche go to Central Portugal given our quite narrow definition of the Lisbon Region following NUTS 2? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. The [www.visitportugal.com Portuguese Tourist Board], which uses the same division into NUTS as we do, has pretty much answered my question with their webpage - Ericeira and Mafra should stay in the Lisbon Region, Peniche should go to Centro.

amL / Navegante ticket/pricing/usage information
I would like to create a writeup/guide about this topic, because I see that many people get really confused about this and it's a niche to be filled, however the transport area this is applicable to is bigger than Greater Lisbon, instead applying to its 18 member municipalities. In fact, in Portugal for transport a division is not made by either NUTS areas or districts, but by CIMs: collaboration on municipality level that arrange public transport in the region together and are assigned money for this from the top level per these regions. How best to approach this correctly? LaPingvino (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Correction, the CIMs mostly match the NUTS-3 regions, except for the AML and the AMP, the Lisbon and Porto Metropolitan Areas, where Greater Lisbon is the result of splitting the AML up in two CIMs for funding purposes. That said, it doesn't really make sense transport and tourism wise to follow this split. See also the map on this LPP article: https://lisboaparapessoas.pt/2022/11/11/grande-lisboa-peninsula-de-setubal-aml-cim-nuts/ (map by LPP themselves, they might be willing to release it properly for Wikimedia usage). --LaPingvino (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Lisbon


text:
Talk:List of airline baggage limits

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide - List Of Airline Baggage Limits. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Article Title
I wonder if List Of Airline Baggage Limits is a bit too wordy and potentially restricts what could be an excellent article about Airline Baggage. Would a shorter title make for a better article? As it stands the article is probably misnamed, as it is essentially about free baggage limits. In reality, this is not a limit but merely the point at which airlines start charging to carry your accompanying baggage as paying cargo, rather than including it in your ticket price. The real limit is the aircraft's carrying capacity which is based on the all-up weight of the aircraft, including passengers, cargo and fuel needed to get to the destination safely, not exceeding the airframe design limits. On some aircraft and routes there is tons of extra capacity for air-cargo, on others even the passenger's weight is critical. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:19, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Agreed—As soon as I saw your edit on recent changes, Airline baggage came to mind. The baggage should not be capitalized, though, but that's an extremely minor point! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:34, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Airline baggage is a wider subject than I envisaged, but yes there's no reason not to expand it and have this table as a section of that article. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 18:08, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Article content
"Fundamentals of flying" and realities about content are rendering this article quite marginal, e.g.,:
 * "Fundamentals" covers the topic quite well except for lacking references to specific, useful web sites offered here.
 * Much data for this topic is becoming extremely dynamic by...
 * Airlines frequently changing baggage allowances and fees.
 * Exceptions/variables generated by smaller aircraft and certain regional or city destinations.
 * Question marks and missing entries in the table indicate the great challenge to ensuring it accurately states current information.

That challenge has generated more than one commercial web-site (two already listed) that have active staffs dedicated only to that end. Even with that effort, their bottom line often suggests travelers go to each airline's web site for final data. They often give links to that end.

Meanwhile, I've made edits to add caveats about careful use of the table and a link to another luggage limits web site. (WT-en) hennejohn 3:20 PM EST 4Feb2011

 * Must continue my rants that this page has considerable mis-information, e.g.,:
 * The column title "Hold Baggage" is inaccurate; should be entitled "Hold Baggage at No Charge" or similar. As titled, placing a "0" in any entry (as for Ryanair/others) logically means no hold baggage is allowed...hardly true.
 * Accurate data for hold baggage often depends on whether flights are domestic or international. The table offers no such option; must be fat-fingered in entry for recognition by eye scan.
 * Most allowances are under such flux that the table becomes inaccurate almost as soon as published.
 * Many small airlines are mentioned (good, likely at the knowledge of the few contributors to the article), but very many often larger carriers are not shown. (Regrets, I have no personal experience with them.)
 * As noted in the "Outline" banner at the end, all necessary information and links to useful, professionally-maintained sites should/could be easily inserted into another, broader article, e.g., "Fundamentals of flying". (Again regrets, am unqualified to delete this page and find/change or delete references to it after pasting its essence in "Fundamentals...", so must hesitate to start the process.)
 * Suggestions?  Hennejohn (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Is this really needed / within scope?
First of all we discourage articles on individual companies. Second of all it is impossible to keep this up to date. Third of all, this information can simply be googled and is usually found better and more accurate online... In short, what's the rationale for having this article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of airline baggage limits


text:
Talk:List of American states

Purpose
Karen: I'm not sure why we need a big list of US states. Did you take a look at the geographical hierarchy page? -- (WT-en) Evan 16:21, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

We need a list because people will be looking for it in the most obvious place, and it's too long to put on the 'north america' page directly. A little redundancy never hurt anyone... the Australian states and territories are listed directly under Australia but there are only 9 of them so it's not a long list. (WT-en) KJ 16:27, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Now I have seen the article in question and I STRONGLY DISAGREE that that is the only way to do it. I think that there is definitely a place for 'state' articles as well as 'regions' because people do not always know what they are looking for when it comes to a foreign country, or even their own. We need both. I wouldn't put a vast amount of information under the 'state' articles - more of an index like I started doing with Australia yesterday. It's not a complete article and I wouldn't try to make it one, but it gave me a starting point to work from. eg. For 'California' I'd note that it's largely desert and I'd list the major cities and the major tourist-attracting areas (eg.Yosemite, Disneyland, Hollywood etc) and people could then go to the articles to find the information. (WT-en) KJ 16:34, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * I disagree with your disagreeal. B-) Redundant information is hard to keep up-to-date. Legal divisions of land aren't necessarily worth travel articles. For example, American states are broken up into counties, but most are administrative divisions without much real cohesion. I don't know if there's a lot of information you could write about North Dakota that wouldn't be equally applicable for South Dakota or Wyoming. That said, there are other ways of seeing travel, and this may be another way of getting people to the destinations they want. In other words, you convinced me -- keep up the good work. -- (WT-en) Evan 16:48, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * There ARE limits... lol I could sit here and write an article on my own suburb if I wanted but I wouldn't because I don't see anyone wanting to come and holiday in South Croydon! lol Anyway, I do see your point but I still think that there's no such thing as too much redundancy in a project like this. Anyway, I've got to go now... back later! (WT-en) KJ 17:03, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

So, I moved this page so it would fit in with our article naming conventions. Really, it was just a matter of capitalization. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:43, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

List of ...
I'm really not into these "List of ..." articles in that it seems like a lot more of a Wikipedia kind of thing than a Wikivoyage kind of thing. Let's consider deleting it again. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:39, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)

vfd discussion

 * List of American states is another List of ... article in the spirit of Wikipedia's gillions of "Lists of". I really seriously don't want to see us going down this road, because it represents redundant navigation which will have to be maintained, and it goofs up isIn. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:55, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. These "list of" articles, although they're outside our normal hierarchy, provide a valuable release valve for pressure to list every canton (say) on the country page itself. They also are useful for making sure no canton, state, or country gets lost accidentally by shifts in the "container" articles. For example, I used List of Mexican states to help re-organize the hierarchy in Mexico. They also have low overhead, since they're just lists. --(WT-en) Evan 08:51, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. They're very useful to keep isIn tidy. (WT-en) Simone 04:46, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I use this on occasion. It's is also #27 on Most Popular Pages.
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:54, 20 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:List of American states


text:
Talk:List of Brazilian states

General discussion
Nice. -- (WT-en) Evan 23:19, 7 Oct 2003 (PDT)

The articles about states and cities in Brazil should be reachable with or without accents. IMHO the links should have the accents. The articles should be at the most common name in English. To me they look wrong without accents, even in English, but see Talk:Sao Paulo (city). It's not a case of Lisboa vs. Lisbon or London vs. Londres. -(WT-en) phma 20:54, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

 * I think it would be helpful to have the alternative Brazillian (Portuguese) spellings also listed here, so the traveller can work out how signs etc. are spelled in Brazil. The Brazillian spellings should redirect to the English articles (and show the Brazillian spelling after the english.) Like English Place Spelling (Portuguese: Brazillian Place Spelling). The Talk:Sao Paulo (city) page explains the specific accent problems for Brazil place names but also see Project:Article_naming_conventions for the basic principles.  -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:14, 4 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Yeah, but how should I add the original spellings? Doing two extra columns for the original state and city name seems extremly redundant since the "english" version of the name is exactly the same in all cases, only without any accents. It would look pretty stupid.

 * I would prefer to simply change the entries to have the accents while linking directly to the version without accents. Every browser I have heard of can deal with ISO-8859-1, and none of the accented letters are outside it (Portuguese uses mostly á, é, í, ó, ú, à, ã, â, ê, ô, ç and ü, with ü fading away nowadays and being replaced by a plain u).

 * I think the only reason for english having unaccented versions is that in the past the only reliable charset to use was ASCII. Brazilian people do it too when the keyboard is misconfigured or the program does not work properly with non-ASCII. (The main change when not using accents is to change the word "é" (is) to "eh" to avoid confusion with the preposition "e" (and). Sometimes this is also done at the end of a word (like café -> cafeh), but not that often. The rest of the accents is simply dropped. This is because in Portuguese the accent is just an extra mark on the letter; it is still the same letter. é and e are the same letter. ã and a are the same letter. And so on.)

 * I can understand using romanizations when the original name is unreadable to people from languages using the roman alphabet, or when the romanization is different from the original version of the name, but I don't think it's needed when the only difference is the presence or absence of an accent and the precomposed character is present in ISO-8859-1. Of course, to prevent confusion with browser bugs, the page titles should stay with ASCII only (with the redirect from the original spelling).

 * (WT-en) cesarb 11:59, 4 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Are there any current browsers with this bug? The only one I know of is Konqueror 2, which I still have on my old laptop. I pulled up an old version of Lynx, pointed it at fr:Brésil, and had no problem. Our site is fully Unicode enabled, so we can link to names with Hungarian double accents too. -(WT-en) phma 09:24, 5 Apr 2004 (EDT)

vfd discussion

 * List of Brazilian states is another List of ... article in the spirit of Wikipedia's gillions of "Lists of". I really seriously don't want to see us going down this road, because it represents redundant navigation which will have to be maintained, and it goofs up isIn. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:55, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. These "list of" articles, although they're outside our normal hierarchy, provide a valuable release valve for pressure to list every canton (say) on the country page itself. They also are useful for making sure no canton, state, or country gets lost accidentally by shifts in the "container" articles. For example, I used List of Mexican states to help re-organize the hierarchy in Mexico. They also have low overhead, since they're just lists. --(WT-en) Evan 08:51, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. They're very useful to keep isIn tidy. (WT-en) Simone 04:46, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:54, 20 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:List of Brazilian states


text:
Talk:Chinese provinces and regions

See Talk:China for my reasoning in creating this (WT-en) Pashley 07:10, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Your reasoning is sound. Typically we use these "list of X" articles just to make sure we covered all the bases. --(WT-en) Evan 07:52, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

List of Chinese provinces and regions
Moved from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2

I noticed you removed Taiwan, but since that particular list is of the political geography of China (the official political divisions, which need to represent reality), it should remain on the list. I have no invested interest in the politics of Taiwan's status as independent versus Chinese, but this list is intending to be factual, so it should show that rather than Wikivoyage hierarchy, which is in the actual articles. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 130.49.162.58 (talk • contribs)

 * See Project:Be fair. Adding Taiwan to the list of Chinese provinces will undoubtedly result in someone from Taiwan removing that addition, so the Wikivoyage compromise is to defer to whatever is most appropriate for travelers in situations where there are political disputes.  The same goes for situations such as Israel and the Palestinian Territories, Argentina and the Falkland Islands, etc. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:03, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I added a couple of lines about Taiwan. (WT-en) Pashley 21:25, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Seems like a reasonable compromise, thanks! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:34, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

VFD Discussion

 * Keep. This one was part of the mass Project:Votes for deletion/May_2010 nomination, and as often happens when multiple articles are nominated together there were arguments made for keeping this article separately from the other list articles.  User:(WT-en) Pashley argued in favor of keeping this article, which seems fine to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:05, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:45, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Reason for this article?
I looked at the linked Vfd thread and also Talk:China/Archive 2003-2012, and I still don't understand why this is a Wikivoyage article. It seems a heck of a lot more like a Wikipedia article. Where's the travel-related content in this article that couldn't be very briefly summarized in the China article? I'd propose to put this text back into the China article and remove the rest as superfluous:

Most of the country is broken up into provinces (省), but there are several other geographic units of the same hierarchical rank as provinces:

 * Various ethnic groups have autonomous regions (自治区), although their autonomy is far from complete. For the traveler, these can generally be thought of as provinces, but in political discussions the distinction may be important. In these regions, the language spoken by the relevant minority ethnic group is typically co-official with Mandarin.
 * There are four municipalities (市) which are not part of provinces, but independent entities whose leaders report directly to Beijing. The smallest of these, Tianjin, has a population well over 10 million. The largest, Chongqing, has over 30 million residents.
 * Hong Kong and Macau are special administrative regions (SARs，特别行政区). These are former colonies — Hong Kong British and Macau Portuguese — that rejoined China in the late 90s. Their economies and distinct political systems are allowed to flourish under separate regulatory regimes from the mainland under the slogan "One country, two systems", an arrangement that the Chinese government has promised to maintain until at least 2047. The SARs have their own currencies, issue their own visas, and elect their own representative assemblies through a combination of direct and indirect representation.

There is some ambiguity when one uses place names in China. For example "Chengdu" can mean either the city itself or the entire prefecture which includes significant amounts of countryside, many villages and some "small" towns with population anywhere up to a few hundred thousand. Moreover, when someone says their hometown is Chengdu, it might mean their family and identity papers are from there even if they actually grew up elsewhere.

I'm not sure the information in "Lower-level divisions" is important enough to include anywhere, but if it is, I think it can be very briefly summarized like this:

Provinces and regions are generally broken up into prefectures and prefecture-level cities. Where a given minority or minorities predominate, the prefecture can be an Autonomous Prefecture (自治州) for the various ethnic groups. Within prefectures and cities, autonomous or otherwise, there are also Autonomous Counties (自治县) depending on their ethnic composition. Like the autonomous regions, the relevant minority language is usually co-official with Mandarin in these areas.

If people want to know more about the minutiae of lower-level Chinese political divisions, there has to be some long encyclopedic article in Wikipedia they can read. I mean, nowhere is there a Wikivoyage article about political divisions in the U.S. explaining that most American states are divided into counties, each with a county seat that functions as the capital of the county, that in some states such as in New England, there are townships that are more important than counties and may contain several villages, whereas this is not the case in x, y and z others, or the fact that Alaska doesn't have counties but does have boroughs, though some of them have no separate tertiary governments and not all territory in the state is in an organized borough. I mean, really, as a traveler, who cares? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The administrative structure in China is particularly hard to grasp for a lot of English-speaking travelers. The first two times I was in China, I found the lower-level divisions incredibly confusing. I found myself in a totally rural area that I'd been told was part of the big city of Suzhou, and then I went to Jiangyan, officially part of Taizhou, but when I said we were in "Taizhou" people would correct me. I encountered "counties" and "towns" located inside "cities", and "villages" in completely urban areas. If I had read this article first, I wouldn't have been confused about any of that. On the other hand, I'm not sure the list of provinces or the details about SEZs and treaty ports are so important. I'm okay with merging the important content into China. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I created this years ago because there seemed to be too much material about these divisions in the China article. That still seems valid to me; moving it back would complicate an already large article. There are a large number of links to it, mostly to specific sections when a term like "Special Economic Zone", "Treaty Port" or "Special administrative region" crops up.
 * The ambiguities Granger mentions are pervasive and can be quite confusing. See Talk:Fuzhou for one example & links to others. Pashley (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, so the ambiguities are travel-relevant. But what else is? I don't think the fact that it's linked to matters when considering whether to merge some of the content back to the China guide and deleting the rest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Not only the ambiguities, but the confusingness of, for instance, a bus stop named "X Y Village" in the middle of a bunch of high-rises in a big city. Anyway, if the content about SEZs and treaty ports needs to be kept too, then this becomes a lot of content to merge into the China article, which is already one of the longest articles on the site (significantly longer than the US article). —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * It makes sense for the largest country in population and 3rd-largest in area to have one of the longest articles. But do you really think all of this information is necessary in a travel guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * No, I agree that it can be cut down. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Which paragraphs do you consider essential? Maybe we can agree on that, first, before again taking up whether to merge the content back into the China article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say the paragraphs you quoted above are important, and at least a good summary of the "Lower-level divisions" section is needed too. I'm not sure how much of the "Development zones" and "Treaty ports and concessions" sections are needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say the "Treaty ports" section is relevant to a "History" section, nothing about current-day Chinese political divisions. However, "Development zones" is interesting background. One thing it's lacking is a mention of whether "Development in these areas has been phenomenal" encompasses Kashgar. Does it?

 * After the discussion we've had so far, I'd propose to keep these sections: (1) "Province-level divisions", not including "A full list of province-level divisions" or any text below that; (2) the second paragraph of the lede, starting with "There is some ambiguity when one uses place names in China"; (3) "Lower-level divisions". The "Development zones" section should also be kept (whether edited somewhat for brevity or not, and possibly with information about whether Kashgar has been greatly developed added) but put in a different part of the China article, because the text in that section consists more of background than information about political divisions. Of course the background is about SEZs and cities where investment is encouraged, but I think the pendulum there is more toward socio-economic explanation than political divisions per se.

 * Is this really too much to add back to the China article, since "Treaty ports and concessions" would be deleted or summarized for merging with the "History" section and most of the "Province-level divisions" section would be deleted as not necessary (with the info about Taiwan redundant if it were merged back into the China article)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 * That sounds fine to me, though I'd like to hear User:Pashley's thoughts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 * (Undent) OK with me if there's a consensus that way, though I still see no good reason to delete this.
 * I also see no reason to get rid of "A full list of province-level divisions", even in the China article. Pashley (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The reason is that all the provinces are listed in China, and if you want to know the Chinese characters for a province, all you need to do is click over to the page for that province. This article wouldn't be deleted, though; it would be redirected, and the text being removed could certainly be added to Talk:China as a reference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm ambivalent about this but if we can cover information about all 50 U.S. states within the United States of America article, there must be some way we can cover all this information in a succinct way in the main China article. Information about sub-divisions under the provincial levels could perhaps be covered in the individual province articles. The dog2 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan
I object to this edit, replacing references to "Taiwanese government" with "ROC". I almost just reverted it, but decided to discuss instead.

Yes, we need to mention some of the history and the terms "PRC" & "ROC", but neither term should be used beyond that. Nor should politically loaded terms like "Red China" or "Taiwan Province". Even "mainland China" should be used sparingly, only when required to avoid ambiguity. The correct terms here are China, Taiwan, Chinese government & Taiwanese government.

Other opinions? User:The dog2? Pashley (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I'd also remove the text about Kinmen & Matsu, which I see as not needed here. Pashley (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't see the need for us to be politically correct in a travel guide. Simply using terms like "Taiwan" and "Taiwanese government" makes things easier to read from a traveller's perspective. I, for one, never say "I'm going to the ROC." I always just use the term "Taiwan". As for Kinmen and Matsu, keep them. The description of their statuses is appropriate given that this article is about Chinese provinces. Officially, both the PRC and ROC consider them to be part of Fujian, but they are controlled by the Taiwanese government, which is why we treat them as part of Taiwan. A significant portion of the Hokkien people in Singapore trace their ancestry to Kinmen (see for an example, although she was born in Kinmen and moved to Singapore during World War II), and you'll never hear them say they are of Taiwanese descent.  The dog2 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this discussion before I reverted, but I agree with The dog2. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese provinces and regions