text:
Talk:Jesus Trail

VFD Discussion
Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:15, 2 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since October 2009, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is an actual waymarked hiking trail (see Wikipedia article here), and as such, should be kept as per a brief discussion here that suggests official, and well-known itineraries should be exempted from "delete if outline after a year" rule. However, as per naming conventions, it should be renamed to Jesus Trail, with the "the" dropped. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:08, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep It's a legitimate trail. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:21, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Delete. It even got edited 2014-11,and it passes the 1-year policy.Also,the Wikipedia article is much better.I suggest expanding with it if not deleting.Jaydenhwang (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio
User (WT-en) Yankale copied text from the Wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Trail) which was mainly written by an author named Frank Peregrinus. This text must be removed because it is not correctly attributed. --Unger (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

Link? Merge?
There is an article at Holy Land which links to others. This article at least needs links to/from there. Possibly some articles should be merged. Pashley (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Map for The Jesus Trail

 * Would this help improve the Itinerary any?

 * — beginning of the Jesus Trail
 * — a ''kibbutz
 * — a village (nearby ruins thought to be the ancient site of Arbel)
 * — twin peaks of an extinct volcano. Besides the Mount of Beatitudes, is considered by a few as the site where Jesus dilivered the Sermon on the Mount
 * — thought to be where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount
 * — (return via different route)
 * — Jordan River flows into the Sea of Galilee and the contnues to flow toward the Dead Sea
 * (Nebi Shu’eib) — Druze holy shrine
 * — believed to be the site of the Tranfiguration of Christ (via different return route
 * — (via different return route)
 * — twin peaks of an extinct volcano. Besides the Mount of Beatitudes, is considered by a few as the site where Jesus dilivered the Sermon on the Mount
 * — thought to be where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount
 * — (return via different route)
 * — Jordan River flows into the Sea of Galilee and the contnues to flow toward the Dead Sea
 * (Nebi Shu’eib) — Druze holy shrine
 * — believed to be the site of the Tranfiguration of Christ (via different return route
 * — (via different return route)
 * — (return via different route)
 * — Jordan River flows into the Sea of Galilee and the contnues to flow toward the Dead Sea
 * (Nebi Shu’eib) — Druze holy shrine
 * — believed to be the site of the Tranfiguration of Christ (via different return route
 * — (via different return route)
 * (Nebi Shu’eib) — Druze holy shrine
 * — believed to be the site of the Tranfiguration of Christ (via different return route
 * — (via different return route)

title: Talk:Jesus Trail


text:
Talk:The Landings

Is The Landings a commercial, privately owned enterprise??

Is this page an advertisement??

Just wondering...

200.252.135.73 13:07, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:The Landings


text:
Talk:Mohawk Trail

Comments
Hi, I just wanted to briefly state that I recently began this Itinerary for the Mohawk Trail as a project for my writing course at the University of Rhode Island. I know that right know it looks a little rough and hasn't really taken the shape of an itinerary yet, but it is still in it's adolescent stages as an article. I'm sure with my additions and the help of fellow wikivoyage users and fans of the Mohawk Trail, this page will blossom soon enough.

-On a side note, I just wanted to clear up that some of this information may also be found, in similar format, in what is my "Blogger" page for this same class. The blog is my process blog for the class and it is where I, as a student, post pieces of my project and thoughts on the process of working on the project. Just wanted to clear that up in case it became an eventual question. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Jnorth (talk • contribs)

 * While it's obviously not finished (and nothing on a wiki is ever really "finished"), this article looks like it's coming along very nicely. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to post them here, but otherwise keep up the good work.  Out of curiosity, there have been a number of New England articles that have popped up in recent days that have the look of student projects - are other people in your class contributing to Wikivoyage? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:29, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Yeah there are actually quite a few students that are contributing to Wikivoyage. I'm not sure how many sections of this course there are this semester, but this is one of the projects that all students in the "writing in electronic environments" class participate in. We have the option of either adding to an already existing page, or creating a new one, and this seems to becoming a pretty popular class, so I'm sure you might notice a "boom" of New England posts here on Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Jnorth 13:57, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Formatting
Why does this itinerary have an eat and a see section? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm currently working on an actual itinerary format for this article.
 * I added some stuff to the article, but I realized afterwards that the format on this itinerary is not actually correct for an itinerary article. Shadar86 (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mohawk Trail


text:
Talk:The Moon

I'm not quite sure if this should be VfD'd or not. The Moon does hold the singular distinction of being the only place outside Earth ever visited by man, but it seems highly unlikely at the moment that any tourists will follow in the foreseeable future... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:32, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * This is a candidate for Project:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense if you ask me. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:12, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Moon


text:
Talk:North Fork

Vote for Deletion
This article was at one stage nominated for deletion, but concensus was to keep it. The discussion can be found at Project:Votes_for_deletion/July_2008

Move to North Fork?
The current page title is not consistent with the manual of style, thus I propose moving it to North Fork. Thoughts? Rastapopulous (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Rastapopulous, I've changed the title. --Saqib (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Structure
Right now the whole article is structured to include pretty much the whole North Fork from Riverhead to Greenport in one article, despite there being arguably several "destinations" within the North Fork. Personally, however, I think only Riverhead and Greenport could sustain such articles, if that, and the remainder of the sights and activities would have to be in this page. Not sure that they deserve their own articles just yet, however. Thoughts? Rastapopulous (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Fork


text:
Talk:Thepha

Sleep listings clutter
Moved these TAT listings here to clean up the main page:

 * Chao Thong Resort (ชาวทองรีสอร์ท) 260 Mu 7 Chana-Pattani Road (Tel: 0 7432 5292), 12 rooms: 500 baht
 * Leela Resort (ลีลารีสอร์ท) 311 Mu 1 Tambon Sakom, Hat Yai-Pattani Road (Tel: 0 7432 9116-7, 0 7424 5778), 50 rooms: 400-1,800 baht
 * Sakom Bay Resort (สะกอมเบย์รีสอร์ท) 291 Chana-Pattani Road, Tambon Sakom (Tel: 0 1277 1202, 0 9733 0382), 7 rooms: 300 baht
 * Sakom Cabana (สะกอมคาบาน่า) 136 Mu 4 Chana-Pattani Road (Tel: 0 1213 0560), 14 rooms: 800-1,000 baht
 * Thepa Beach Resort (เทพารีสอร์ท) 255 Mu 4 Hat Yai-Pattani Road, Tambon Pak Bang (Tel: 0 7432 5551-2), 28 rooms; 1,200-4,000 baht
 * Thepa Guesthouse (เทพาเกสท์เฮ้าส์) 254/2 Mu 7 Tambon Thepha (Tel: 0 1275 2551), 5 rooms: 90-200 baht

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Thepha


text:
Talk:The Royal-Imperial Route in Poznań

The Royal-Imperial Route in Poznan
No links to or from it. Merge into Poznan, delete this. (WT-en) Pashley

 * keep Hello, the article The Royal-Imperial Route is linked to Poznań site on Wikivoyage, and has an itinerary template. This tour is special one. That's not only some monuments but a route showing history and culutre of the city. In Poland we have only a few of this kind of tours. There are some articels on Wikipedia about The Royal-Imperial Route, too. We add on the website links to articles in other languages. http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trakt_Kr%C3%B3lewsko-Cesarski_w_Poznaniu http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Trakt_Kr%C3%B3lewsko-Cesarski/brudnopis. Best wishes Trakt Królewsko-Cesarski (WT-en) Trakt Królewsko-Cesarski 02:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It has been expanded some and tagged as an itinerary. Worth keeping now, I'd say. (WT-en) Pashley 08:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't care one way or another whether it stays as an itinerary or not, but the "The" has to go for sure. Just seems severely anti-wikivoyage style to have that. (WT-en) Texugo 16:05, 20 February 2009 (EST)

 * Keep, possibly rename. Would be awkward to have this in the incorporated in the Pozan article.  --(WT-en) Inas 18:55, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Keep This is a perfectly valid itinerary that a user is working on. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Outcome: kept (WT-en) Pashley 10:57, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Royal-Imperial Route in Poznań


text:
Talk:Thessaloniki

Touting
The Bustart section is blatant adverisment! Therefore I took the liberty of ousting that part...
 * I reverted your deletion - you're right that we don't let touting take place on Wikivoyage, but in future, remove the touting bit of the listing, and you're left with a valid bit of information. See Project:The traveller comes first for more info. -- (WT-en) Tim 18:11, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Rest rooms
(There doesn't seem to be any place for this sort of thing in wikivoyage. I wonder why.) Anyway, we found facilities were lacking in the downtown pedestrian mall unless you were a restaurant patron. That is, there are no public rest rooms.(WT-en) Student7 21:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Splurge hotels
on splurge for hotels, there is the Chandris Hotel Chain and this month a hotel "The Met" has opened. Also, Macedonian Hotel which belongs under 'splurge' list - both hotels are in the center —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 89.210.137.27 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 July 2010

 * Please plunge forward and add them yourself, preferably formatted as listings, complete with address, contact, and price info. – (WT-en) Vidimian 03:40, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * This initially seemed like a tough choice to me, because the current banner seemingly focuses on a couple of iconic buildings. However, I would support changing to this beautiful panorama, and what clinched it for me is that the current banner is a 360-degree view of a single building, which no-one can see at a single glance. Both banners are fine compositions, so that's no issue either way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I am OK with changing to the new banner. I am quite afraid it is a bit generic - I know Saloniki and I wouldn't recognize it from this pic! PrinceGloria (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Good point, Ikan Kekek. I was thinking: such a nice symetry... The newly suggested banner is fine, but not brilliant. Still, worth replacing. I plan to go to Thessaloniki later this year, so maybe I'll have an opportunity to make some good banner photo. Danapit (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Yup replace, only because the current one is somewhat deceptive. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current. Though there is space for improvement. Syced (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Best gyro on Aristotelous Square
I reccomend to eat gyro at Λάδι και Ρίγανη on Aristotelous Square. Trust me, it will pay off. EmiliaITČA (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Post a listing in the article, though have a look at the don't tout guidelines, some of which may surprise you. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, rarely I edit on Discussion page EmiliaITČA (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Names
There are names provided in a bunch of languages in the lead paragraph. Surely we need only English and Greek. The rest can be found in the Wikipedia article. Ground Zero (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, in the name of WV:Tone and WV:Goals and non-goals. Ibaman (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thessaloniki


text:
Talk:The Village

Is the Village actually a separate city destination in Greater Oklahoma City, or should we be using a huge city template for Greater Oklahoma City? We do not normally have places starting with The. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:01, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The is part of the towns name. see http://www.thevillageok.org -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:50, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Village


text:
Talk:The Wire Tour

Let me be the first to say
Sheeeeeeeeit! (WT-en) Sen. Clay Davis 16:54, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

In the news
Here's a fun read by a blogger who took the tour recently! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:05, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Greenmount Cemetery...
Just like to point out a slight error in the North Central section:

The cemetery where Omar 1st meets McNulty & Greggs isn't Greenmount - it's actually Holy Redeemer Cemetery on Belair Rd. The entrance that McNulty uses is located along Moravia Rd - there are two, I can't really pinpoint which one they use.

If you look at the scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmqZkpM_ZsI - skip to about the 5:00 mark), you'll see that the roads of the cemetery they used for filming are all straight, as is the orientation of the graves. For the most part the roads in Greenmount are curvy. Also, the green-domed tower in that shot is definitely from Holy Redeemer - I checked it out Google Earth.

I don't remember Greenmount being mentioned in the scene but the producers may have been trying to pass Holy Redeemer off as Greenmount or another graveyard closer to downtown. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Tommyt1971 (talk • contribs)

 * Good eyes! I wonder if that was my mistake or one that I borrowed from elsewhere ;) In any rate, I don't think it's worth putting Holy Redeemer Cemetery in this tour, just since it's a little too far away from the other "attractions," but nice to have it documented on this talk page, at least. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:05, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Wire Tour


text:
Talk:Thimphu

I understand that DRUK PNB ATM is operating in Thimphu. ATM Cards of Punjab National Bank (India) are being accepted by this ATM. ATM Cards of other Nationalized Public Sector Undertaking Banks of India are also being accepted by this ATM.

Somebody please check and give useful info to visitors of Thimphu.

E-Mail Id: J_V_ANZANEYULU@YAHOO.CO.UK —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 112.110.122.153 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 November 2010

 * Please plunge forward, and note/fix this in the article. – (WT-en) Vidimian 16:03, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

What is druknet.bt?
This comes up a few times in listings as an email. What is it and should it be in the article? Selfie City (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * It seems to refer to Bhutan Telecom, the largest telecommunications provider in Bhutan (the equivalent of AT&T or Verizon in the States). It also appears to be a webmail service and many people Bhutan use it instead of Gmail, Yahoo!, etc. Gizza ( roam ) 21:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Oh, okay; thanks Gizza . Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a scam or anything of that sort. Also, I think when I copied one of the listings I forgot to delete the e-mail on the clone of the listing, which I'll do now. Selfie City (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the new banner. The current one is too close. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New banner. I prefer the composition. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thimphu


text:
Talk:Thira

Thira (also called Thera or Fira) is the main town of Santorini island. Also an official name of Santorini island.

The island of Santorini is also called Thira (Greek Θήρα). Its "capital's" name is Fira (Greek Φηρά ). I do not believe that there is some kind of connection between these two as mentioned in the article, as Thira in greek is a "she" and Fira is an "it". I check it out and soon revert with more info on it (WT-en) Unique 07:12, 8 January 2007 (EST)

 * This looks to be a bad redirect. Should there be an article for the island? If not, maybe this redirect article should simply be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 * No, the solution is to redirect to Santorini, which I just did, but does it matter that some of the history is lost? See . I don't know what to do about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

toiled paper lady
Whilst the info on the "crazy lady" who charges for toilet paper made me laugh. Is it really appropriate for WikiTravel? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 213.38.11.86 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Thira


text:
Talk:Thirukkadayur

As far as I can tell from the net, this is a temple in Tamil Nadu so am redirecting there. Wikipedia article. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 10:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Thirukkadayur


text:
Talk:Thiruvananthapuram

Good site
hi, this site seems to be an interesting one.I am aswathy from trivandrum.By seeing my blogspot somebody suggested me to see this site. I dont know who is that.thats why i opened this site.. anyway its a good work. Aswathy

Copyright violation
the copywrited information that you say from http://www.spiderkerala.com/kerala/tourism/Tvm.aspx is not original nor copywrited content from the site, the information is available in all tourism related brochures, bookletsetc which are informative purpose in trivandrum.

 * Unfortunately, just because something is freely available, it doesn't mean that it is free in the copyright sense. The government of India owns copyright over them. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:37, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

The new addition ( Introduction to Trivandrum) seems to be copied from the website http://www.tvm.kerala.gov.in/placestovisit3.htm which may have implication with copy rights. I recommend removing this from the website.(03/aug2006)10:14 GMT —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sulfis (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for pointing out. I've removed it. In future, feel free to remove it! — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:23, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
 * P.S. You can sign your comments with ~

ATM
Can someone please list the ATMs in Trivandrum? I do not have an updated list. (WT-en) Sulfis 16:08, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Guide article?
I think this qualifies for a guide article. Any objection if I update the tag? (WT-en) Sulfis 15:03, 10 December 2009 (EST)

 * Yes, me. I think the See, Do, Buy and Cope section all do not correspond what we mean with a "guide" quality article. Much of the listings are empty. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:50, 16 February 2010 (EST)

 * Agree, this is far from being a guide, but if most of the empty listings are elaborated on, it might qualify, (WT-en) ClausHansen 14:30, 16 February 2010 (EST)
 * Looks like it is much improved now and a guide status is appropriate.(WT-en) Sulfis 14:13, 21 February 2011 (EST)

French link
The French link don't seem to work. Someone know why ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was missing the second ] at the end. Now it's there.  -- D. Guillaume (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thiruvananthapuram


text:
Talk:Thodupuzha

please improve it;) Thodupuzha has one of the genuine Ayurvedic hospitals of India: the Dhanwandhari Hospital with its banch in Dewalokam, Koduveli. Dewalokam, Koduveli is a good address for people looking for good Resort in Thodupuzha. The Resort Dewalokam has fifteen rooms, all with attached bath and toilets. The Resort is on the bank of the Kannadipuzha river. The the park in which the resort is situated is really enchanting. This resort is about 15 Kilometres from the city of Thodupuzha. Thodupuzha is an adminitrative centre with no industry. The educational institutions, the trade centres dominate Thodupuzha. One sees pupils, students and academicians all the time, the whole day in the City.

title: Talk:Thodupuzha


text:
Talk:Thong Nai Pan

Discussion moved from Ao Thong Nai Pan Yai/Noi Talk Page

I gave the wrong name when using the /. Not really sure if the '&' sign will be any better.

Full name of the two beaches are: Ao Thong Nai Pan Yai  and Ao Thong Nai Pan Noi. Together they form a destination/district on the island. Who knows best how to solve this? {(WT-en) 3wisemen}
 * Actually, now I'm realizing that the places are only beaches not towns, and Wititravel doesn't create articles for lakes, beaches etc. Therefore the articles should be listed under the name of the nearest village or town. Any ideas? (WT-en) WindHorse 07:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 * OK. I've checked maps of the area, and it seems that the swathe of buildings that surround the beaches are named after the beaches themselves, and so we can use those names for the articles. Also as the beaches are separated by a headland, they can be designated as separate articles. The problem with using a slash in the title is that no one will type in XXXX/XXXX in the search box. Hope this solution is ok with you, 3wisemen. (WT-en) WindHorse 07:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Why not merge the two as "Ao Thong Nai Pan"? That's what the map calls it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Yeah, if 'Ao Thong Nai Pan' is really the actual name for the whole area, then that would be the best solution. However, on the maps and web sites I checked, the beaches were listed under their individual names, and I didn't see a single title used to cover both. I guess we need someone with first hand knowledge of the area. (WT-en) WindHorse 08:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Moved from 3wisemen Talk Page in reference to Jpatokal's suggestion:
 * WindHorse, it does make sense, since it is considered one area. I can explain in the article about the specifics of getting to the two beaches etc, it's actually easier. So it's fine with me {3wisemen 09:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)}
 * OK. Let's do that. If you give me thirty minutes, I'll set it up. WindHorse 09:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT) (WT-en) WindHorse 09:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanx, WindHorse!Guess I'll have to fill this darn page with some quality info now ;-) {(WT-en) 3wisemen 09:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)}

 * No problem. Actually, merging the two articles under 'Ao Thong Nai Pan' was Jpatokal's brain wave. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I've now moved it to "Thong Nai Pan", which is the most common form by far on the web. "Ao Thong Nai Pan" doesn't make much sense, since that would be "Thong Nai Pan Beach", which doesn't exist -- it's one place (Thong Nai Pan) which has two beaches (Ao TNP Noi/Yai). (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Thong Nai Pan


text:
Talk:Thousand Islands

Bodies of water discussion moved to Project:bodies of water by (WT-en) Evan

OK, somebody give me a good disambiguator for this, 'cause it's gotta move once I finish writing up Thousand Islands (Java). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:44, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

I've moved this promotional material plus apparently unuploaded jpg files here. Anyone who wants to edit this should please do so:

Alexandria Bay
Boldt Castle - amazing guilded age castle on its own five acre island

Uncle Sam Boat Tour - various scenic tours on large tour boats

Cornwall Brothers Store - nice local history museum on waterfront

Clayton
Antique Boat Museum - largest collection of freshwater recreational boats

1000 Islands Musuem - great local history museum in downtown storefront

American Handweaving Museum - hidden treasure of craft and handweaving

Clayton 1000 Islands Tours - boat tours on the St. Lawrence

 * These appear to be valid destinations, but would require that someone look up the info and include basic facts (location, contact info, neutral description) instead of just "great" and "hidden treasure". We currently do *not* have an article on Clayton (New York) (although Alexandria Bay exists on WV). Clayton (population 2000) is about ten miles west of metropolitan Alexandria Bay (pop 1000) so this becomes a question of whether to list points of interest for these under-5000 villages here (keeping Kingston, Gananoque, Watertown and Brockville as city/town-level articles), list Clayton/A-Bay together or create pages for every tiny village in the region. K7L (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2012 (CEST)
 * There was a piece in the Sorrycuse paper a little over a year ago which may have a few landmarks which should be listed either here or at an adjacent point like Alexandria Bay. K7L (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Cape Vincent
DEC Fisheries Station - freshwater aquarium and fish research station

Tibbett's Point Lighthouse - lovely spot where St. Lawrence flows from Lake Ontario

Listings
Just a reminder, listings should not go in this article; they should go in destination articles. LtPowers (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (CEST)

 * I've kept Kingston, Watertown, Brockville and the like off this page as these are small cities with their own established articles. The same is not true of places too small to have an article (Clayton, Lansdowne, Cape Vincent or anything actually located on one of the islands or on parkland). Gananoque (pop 5000) and Alexandria Bay (pop 1000) are included as jumping-off points for boat tours of the islands, although more local listings (like "eat" or "sleep") are left in the local article for these two. I'd suspect the Thousand Islands does pass the "can you sleep there" test on its own as Wolfe, Hill and Wellesley Islands all have some sort of tourist accommodations. K7L (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2012 (CEST)

 * That's a strange sort of hybrid approach that doesn't fit with our usual Geographical hierarchy. Maybe several islands can be combined into a single article.  Or is your contention that this is that article?  (Sadly, North Country isn't well divided yet, so maybe that's some of the confusion.)  LtPowers (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2012 (CEST)

 * As opposed to 1700 articles, one for each island? That'd be a bit much, as many are just large enough for a single cottage. There's also the problem of what to do with the various rural villages (mostly population 1000 or less) on either side's mainland. North Country extends to Massena, so is likely too broad to accommodate individual listings, and Eastern Ontario ends up in the shadow of Ottawa. Keeping Hill Island ON and Wellesley Island NY together (they're the two large islands in the centre or center - take your pick - of the Thousand Islands Bridge) makes sense geographically, even though this is an entity arbitrarily split by a border (much like Glenrio NM/TX or Beebe Plain QC/VT). I think the islands should be one article, not a thousand articles. The rural areas will have to be assigned to either a region-level page or to the nearest town which has a page. Clayton (New York) might be viable as a stand-alone topic, but otherwise these are under-1000 person villages spread across a 40-mile/60km region and an international boundary. Cape Vincent is likely too small for a page, but fits better here than in Watertown as it is a seasonal ferry crossing point onto Wolfe Island.
 * The applicable sections of the geographical hierarchy would be:
 * Other divisions "large rural areas... in which the individual towns do not really merit their own articles (which would lead to an excess of articles, and content being spread across too many separate pages) can benefit from having their own articles"
 * Overlap "Occasionally a well-defined region will straddle a political boundary between two countries, states, or provinces. It is usually preferable to deal with these instances as a single region, rather than dividing them up into unnatural, small pieces"
 * Keeping it together "Geographical unit articles need to meet the criteria for articles too. There should be enough scope in the article to have at least 4 or 5 good quality destinations or attractions, especially for regions."
 * I'd say the Thousand Islands is "a large rural region" which straddles a political boundary but which should be kept together to provide enough scope for an article. K7L (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2012 (CEST)

 * Regions function as "container" articles, so the whole region should be divided in articles at the lowest end of the hierarchy. I don't think LtPowers suggested having 1700 articles for each island, but suggested to group different islands together in a single article, as appropriate. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2012 (CEST)

 * If something is rural or on a small island, there might not be any lower article in the hierarchy. The only places for which we have city-level articles are on the mainland on either side (like Kingston or Alexandria Bay), the Thousand Islands has no village-level articles for Wolfe Island, Hill Island, Wellesley Island, Amherst Island, Howe Island or the individual island parks. Grouping different islands together gives Thousand Islands... the same salad we already have. Even then, some of the sections ("drink" in particular) have no viable entries without including mainland points or establishments primarily serving food. K7L (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (CEST)
 * "Drink" is not a required article section. If there's no nightlife, then so be it.  We can and should create subdivisions of Thousand Islands as necessary.  LtPowers (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2012 (CEST)
 * I suppose this raises a question... is Thousand Islands a bottom-level article (much like Kingston or Watertown) or yet another pointless level of regional subcategorisation? I'd prefer to place it as local-level as we already have eastern Ontario, northern New York, Frontenac County and Leeds-Grenville (so everything except Jefferson) and most of these at the county level are rubbish. Province - region of province - county is already three sub-national regions. I'm inclined to treat the Thousand Islands like any other small (1000-2000 population) but travel-noteworthy region split by a border. It's one community as it's too small to be two. As soon as something can be put in another local-level page (unless its infrastructure needed to "get in" or "go next", like boat rentals, ferries or bridges) it's in Kingston or Watertown (or wherever) so it no longer needs to be here. K7L (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
 * There are a number of ways it could be handled, but the article was begun as a subregion of North Country, as indicated by the presence of the Regionguide template and the presence of the "Cities" section -- only Regions contain Cities. I think the area covered by the Thousand Islands is too large to consider it a single destination.  LtPowers (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2012 (CEST)

 * This is a difficult case. Could K7L draw a rough boundary of the areas actually considered part of the Thousand Islands on an OpenStreetMap screenshot and upload it here? Does it include things on the mainland(s), or just the islands themselves? --Peter Talk 23:25, 28 October 2012 (CET)

 * Roughly? From an OpenStreetMap, export (44.1 to 44.6 N, 76.8 to 75.6 W) and remove the mainland on both sides. (Kingston, Watertown and Brockville are not islands.) The region is every island in the St. Lawrence River (both nations) from Lake Ontario in the west to Brockville-Morristown in the east, including the ones in the middle of the 1000 Islands Bridge. K7L (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (CET)

 * If the article is just about the islands themselves, then I think it might be able to work as a "bottom-level destination guide." It looks like the "Towns and Villages" on the mainland belong in this article, though. But they may be small enough where the article wouldn't get overwhelmed with content. I don't know. I'm inclined to encourage you to give it a try, if it makes sense to you, especially since it seems simplest. If the article were to get too long, we could divide it later. I'm not terribly concerned about it spanning administrative boundaries, although any border issues should obviously be covered in the article. --Peter Talk 01:48, 29 October 2012 (CET)

 * I've been picturing it as a subregion of North Country; it seems too large (geographically) for a single article to me. But I don't have a good sense for how much content might be in here.  LtPowers (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (CET)

 * The entire US shore (Cape Vincent < 1000, Clayton 2000, Alexandria Bay 1000) isn't going to fill more than one local-level article and the Thousand Islands themselves have no towns of over-1000 population on them. Kingston/Brockville are cities and stand alone, but of the towns Gananoque (5200) is the largest and the only other than Clayton to be over-1000 population. The end result is a sparse population scattered over a wide rural area. Many of these islands are large enough to hold a cottage and precious little else. K7L (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (CET)
 * I think this is a mistake. Anyone going to Alexandria Bay is going to say they're going to the Thousand Islands; that village, then, should be "IsPartOf" the Thousand Islands region, not merely an access point to it.  LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * That would create a problem of where to put listings. Points of interest actually on the islands belong in Thousand Islands, points on the US mainland belong in Alexandria Bay (although this needs to be replaced or broadened to extend through Clayton to Cape Vincent). Listing Alexandria Bay venues here (unless they're transportation, like the Uncle Sam boat tour to Heart Island) would be pointless duplication. Treating Gananoque, Thousand Islands and Alexandria Bay as three separate localities on the Canadian mainland, the islands themselves and the US mainland respectively (and only ending each where the next locality begins) leaves each listing with a proper home in one article and only one article. Towns which don't already have articles are a grey or gray area (is Cape Vincent closer to Alex Bay or to Wolfe Island?) but A-Bay listings belong in that town, not on the islands. K7L (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * I'm not sure you've said anything I disagree with. The problem is converting Thousand Islands into a bottom-level entity, when conceptually it should contain other bottom-level entities like Alexandria Bay.  LtPowers (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * We already have a "container" for places like Alexandria Bay... at North Country. Creating multiple levels of sub-provincial regionalisation just creates a string of empty shells, like Frontenac County and Leeds-Grenville in eastern Ontario which serve little useful purpose as all listings are pushed out of them onto the bottom-level local pages. There is a need to define bottom-level articles in rural areas broadly, so that Cape Vincent to Alexandria Bay is one local area, ending where Ogdensburg picks up to continue eastward toward Massena. No place should be without some article to which its listings may be posted. I just don't see creating multiple layers of regional article to be the answer unless those regions, like bottom-level articles, are able to contain listings for everything not already listed in a city page. I realise Alexandria Bay is just one span of a bridge away from Wellesley Island, but usually it's best not to create huge areas of overlap.
 * In any case, there is one clear reason not to tag onto pages. If the 1000 islands region is part of eastern Ontario and Alexandria Bay is part of the 1000 Islands region, then Alexandria Bay is part of Ontario. (Not to worry, Fort Drum will march in and "liberate" them from the jackboots of Canadian oppression... but "Alexandria Bay is part of northern New York" and "Gananoque is part of eastern Ontario" would be best if an international incident is to be averted). K7L (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * What I was envisioning was to include Alexandria Bay in this article directly (not as a sub-article). The fact alone that it's on the mainland shouldn't be reason to give it a separate article—if it makes sense as a part of Thousand Islands, almalgamate it here. If you're worried about the breadcrumb trail, don't be, since that's likely to change soon. Nice work, by the way! --Peter Talk 16:44, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * North Country is far too large to be a bottom-level region. Even Adirondacks is going to have subregions.  Other regions of New York State (like Niagara Frontier and Finger Lakes) have been subdivided.  So if we're going to subdivide North Country, it seems like Thousand Islands should be a subregion, not a destination.  LtPowers (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * You lost me here. --Peter Talk 22:32, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * Once fully developed, I'm fairly certain that North Country will need subregions, just as Finger Lakes does. It's just too wide a swath of land.  The Adirondacks are even more sparsely populated than the North Country, and we've talked about subdividing that, so I don't see why we wouldn't consider subdividing North Country.  Given that, it seems like Thousand Islands would be a natural subdivision, with articles like Alexandria Bay IsPartOf it.  LtPowers (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * Thousand Islands wouldn't have to have sub-destinations to be part of that structure, though, and Alexandria Bay could just be merged into it as a single article. --Peter Talk 03:19, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * It would be weird to have both leaf nodes and non-leaf nodes at the same level of the hierarchy, wouldn't it? It'd be nice if we had a better idea how much content we're talking about, but Thousand Island still feels more like a region to me than a single destination.  LtPowers (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * It's not something we've been doing (I can count on one finger the number of instances that I know of), but I can't think of a reason not to, just so long as it makes sense in terms of dividing content. It makes all the more sense if we're not sure what the end quantity of content will be, as in this case. --Peter Talk 20:19, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * North Country appears to be a single Congressional district, at most. Watertown and Plattsburgh are the only cities of any size, and neither appears to be the largest city in the state. K7L (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * What odd metrics to measure by. LtPowers (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (CET)
 * How so? Take a look at the total population of the area which you want to create as a region with multiple destinations within it. The entire south shore of the St. Lawrence from Cape Vincent to Morristown might have a little over five thousand people, so is comparable to one small town. Take something larger like "St. Lawrence Valley (New York)" (Clayton, Ogdensburg, Massena...) and then maybe you'd have enough for more than one article. Even then, unless North Country is unmanageably large now (and not merely the target of speculation that it might grow larger in the future) we do not need additional levels of categorisation at the current time. K7L (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * Well, only one city is the largest one in the state, and that has its own region; not having the largest city in the state is not very informative for all the other regions. Also, population (which determines Congressional districts) doesn't map well to "number of attractions or destinations".  LtPowers (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * I look at North Country and see a mostly-blank page (there's a one paragraph introduction, a list of towns and then two lines of actual body content with many sections entirely empty). Why does this need to be broken into multiple levels of regionalisation, again? K7L (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * I believe I said "Once fully developed". I could be wrong, but every other region of New York has been or will be subdivided.  LtPowers (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2012 (CET)
 * By the looks of Talk:New York (state), NYS is a mess of empty or outline region articles. There really is no need to create more classification levels at this time. K7L (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (CET)
 * I don't understand what that has to do with my statement. LtPowers (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2012 (CET)

 * The eastern Ontario region has been restructured to scrap the county-level articles and create Seaway Region as the Kingston-Cornwall subregion in which Thousand Islands partially resides. Presumably, if there were a need to split NNY further below North Country (and there won't be while we're still missing many towns like Ogdensburg and Massena), Jefferson/St. Lawrence counties could be grouped as St. Lawrence Valley or something similar? K7L (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Miss Thousand Islands II image
Is that a commercial image? If not, why is it a good one to include, anyway? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * It's a Wikipedia (commons:) image of a tour listed in the "Do" section as available from the Antique Boat Museum in Clayton. It is relevant to that section of this page. The museum is notable; WPBS-TV actually did a documentary on this place. As a Wikipedian, however, I do see it odd that a "User:AntiqueBoatMuseum" uploaded a pile of these to make multiple edits to Antique Boat Museum on that wiki on Jan 5, 2012 with no one actually questioning this as a conflict of interest. (WP's article is tagged "lacks reliable sources" but that's a different issue.) If the museum put this on Wikipedia themselves, it is under a free license and not a copyright violation, but if this looks to be self-promotional on their part (which might be an issue to raise at WP if it concerns you) feel free to substitute something else as a photo. K7L (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * I have no photo to substitute, but there is no problem with simply deleting a photo. Also, I believe we have different standards for what constitutes a promotional image than Wikipedia does. In a Wikipedia article that's specifically about the Antique Boat Museum, an image of a boat is clearly relevant, even if it has a secondary effect of promoting the museum. However, this article is about Thousand Islands, not about a tour that's provided by a museum. I guess I'm undecided on whether this photo should be removed from this article; I think its caption insufficiently explains what the image is of, though. Can you think of a way to remedy that without making the caption a paragraph long? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * The only way to fix the caption (short of just removing the image, and feel free to do so if you like) would be to list "Antique Boat Museum" or "Miss Thousand Islands II, Antique Boat Museum" in the caption - which would make this even more blatantly promotional. The "do" listing already explains the boat and the museum, so the image is optional at best. Pull it. Wikipedia's standards are WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:IRS which advise against conflict-of-interest editing and require information come from reliable, independent secondary sources. There's also a username policy under which this could be problematic over there. "An article about yourself", personal or organisational, is the sort of thing they're usually prone to jump all over... not sure how this slipped past them. Those same standards don't apply here (for instance WV allows primary sources and doesn't use footnotes and citations, WP discourages overreliance on primary sources and prefers citing secondary works) but self-promotion is normally a no-no on both wikis. K7L (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2012 (CET)

'Talk' section

 * For a sample sentence in eye-dialect: "Oh my Gad, I kyan't believe you wint fesheen at nuyt and cot so mawch!" Honestly, though, it's not nearly as difficult to understand as all this explanation makes it out to be, and unless English isn't your first language it shouldn't give you any trouble. There is little vocabulary deviation from General American; in terms of word preference, locals call sugary carbonated drinks "soda" and when they say "the City", they usually mean Watertown (or Syracuse, if they're feeling daring).

^^^^^^^^^WTF are you talking about? I grew up in Watertown and worked in Clayton for 3 years, and have never heard anyone talk like that around here. If someone did pronounce words like that around here, they'd be laughed out of town. -- 01:40, 19 May 2014 24.58.229.247 (talk)

(...moving this comment from article to talk page... K7L (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC) )

 * The whole thing is a little overwrought. Granted I'm from Upstate NY myself, and we're notoriously deaf to our own accent, but I simply can't imagine it's anything that needs to be particularly noted for a traveler. Powers (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I have no idea why an article at this low a level has an extensive "talk" section. Admittedly this was started as a region instead of a city-level rural area, but North Country and Seaway Region are silent and blank. (Eastern Ontario is a different beast, as it includes a chunk of Ontario-Québec border which actually is significantly bilingual.) It's possible to hear a slight difference from Kingston to Watertown but what's here now is overkill. K7L (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk
The Thousand Islands are home to two distinct dialects of English, depending which side of the St. Lawrence River you're on.

On the American side, residents speak American English with an accent colored by the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (as in Rochester, Syracuse, or Chicago), along with a little bit of Canadian Raising absorbed from north of the border. Essentially, this means that:
 * the short "a" as in "can" (/æ/) sounds like "eea" ( [ɪə] ) before nasal consonants /m/ or /n/;
 * the long "ah" sound in "father" or "God" (/ɑ/) is shifted towards the short "a", ending up as [a] (sounding close to "Gad");
 * the "aw" sound in "law" or "bought" (/ɔ/) is moved towards an open "ah" sound ( [ɑ] );
 * the "uh" as in "cut" or "mother" (ʌ) has moved further back, closer to where the "aw" sound was ( [ɔ] );
 * the short "e" in "bet" (/ɛ/) is close to, but not quite, a schwa (rather close to the New Zealand short "i", [ɘ] );
 * the short "i" sound in "milk" or "hit" is closer to the former short "e" ( [ɛ] ), except in the "-ing" verb ending, which sounds like "een" ( [in] ).
 * and the long "i" sound in "right" or "like" (/aɪ/) is pronounced something like "uh-ee" ( [ʌj] ). This last one also means that locals can still tell the difference between pairs like "writer" and "rider", even if they sound identical to you.

For a sample sentence in eye-dialect: "Oh my Gad, I kyan't believe you wint fesheen at nuyt and cot so mawch!" Honestly, though, it's not nearly as difficult to understand as all this explanation makes it out to be, and unless English isn't your first language it shouldn't give you any trouble. There is little vocabulary deviation from General American; in terms of word preference, locals call sugary carbonated drinks "soda" and when they say "the City", they usually mean Watertown (or Syracuse, if they're feeling daring).

Speech on the Canadian side is much closer to a generalized Canadian accent (with a few regional peculiarities), perhaps best exemplified by Hockey Night in Canada commentator and Kingston native Don Cherry. On Wolfe Island, "the mainland" always refers to Kingston, not Cape Vincent.

In spite of the bilingual French/English signs on the Canadian side of the river (and the French heritage on the American side), actual Francophone speakers in the Thousand Islands region are few and far between, being far more populous downriver in Québec. Pronunciation of French-named landmarks tends to hew closer to actual French pronunciation on the Canadian side, while in the North Country it is heavily localized ("Chaumont", for example, is pronounced "sh'-MOE", while "Frontenac" is "FRAHNT-'n'-ack").

In spite of these wide differences, there are still points of commonality. In terms of weather, "Lake Effect" is heavy snowfall due to the influence of nearby Lake Ontario (though relatively few travelers come to this area during the winter), while "the Ice Storm" was an event in January 1998 that felled many trees and knocked out power across much of the North Country and Eastern Ontario. Be prepared to be outclassed in nautical terminology unless you grew up near a body of water. And of course, don't forget that "the River" is always the St. Lawrence River, no exceptions.

Disambiguation
The way the articles for the various destinations named Thousand Islands are structured now seems somewhat unconventional. There is the Thousand Islands at the Canada/US border, and the Thousand Islands National Park in Indonesia. However, both are commonly known simply as Thousand Islands, and both contain/consist of a National Park. According to the Anc guidelines (of using the most common English name, and of disambiguation) I would say that Thousand Islands should be a disambiguation place, referring to Thousand Islands (North America) and Thousand Islands (Indonesia). Is that correct? --ErwinFCG (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say absolutely, that is correct. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One's a city/village-level article, the other is a park article. We don't have a city-level article for "1000 Islands, Indonesia" so I don't see a need to disambiguate. I've removed Leeds and the 1000 Islands from the hatnotes as that's just one tiny rural municipal township (already mentioned inline) which was only being hatnoted because one specific user from Mallorytown (who's no longer active) seemed to be promoting "Front of Yonge" township here for whatever reason. K7L (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter that one article uses a city template and the other uses a park template, when it comes to making a decision about having or not having a disambig page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It matters because it means the names are already different; the article with the park template has "park" in the name. You're trying to fix something that's not broken. K7L (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is broken, actually. For someone looking for Thousand Islands, there is a 50/50 chance that is for the one in North America, or the one in Indonesia. Similarly, Thousand Islands National Park exists in both cases, so someone looking for the NP also does not necessarily look for the one in Indonesia. Based on the guideline that the most common name should be used, also in the case of the one in Indonesia that should be Thousand Islands. --ErwinFCG (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Much like, if someone searches for "Manhattan", there's a 50/50 chance that they're looking for Manhattan (Kansas) and not some backwater in New York (state)? I tried looking for "thousand islands" on a couple of search engines... it's sending me to Clayton (New York), it's sending me to salad dressing, it's sending me to Gananoque, to some place stateside with "ten thousand islands" and to basically anywhere but Indonesia. Naming conventions indicates "if one place is so much more famous than others with the same name that the disambiguation is a hindrance rather than a help, leave it without a disambiguator on the end". By that standard, the main entry would not be Indonesia. K7L (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, that sounds a very North America-centric way of thinking. Also, Google may give different results based on location, as for me on the first search results page, 6 are on US/Canada, 1 on dressing, and 3 on Indonesia. Nevertheless, my main point was that the current way of disambiguation is unconventional. If the Thousand Islands in North America are indeed "so much more famous", then I think according to the guidelines Thousand Islands National Park should be moved to Thousand Islands (Indonesia), and Thousand Islands National Park should redirect to Thousand Islands. --ErwinFCG (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another possibility, if you move the existing park article to Thousand Islands (Indonesia), is to leave a disambiguation page at Thousand Islands National Park. Thousand Islands State Park is unambiguous, it's in New York State and nowhere else, but there is a 1000 Islands National Park in each of Canada and Indonesia. K7L (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have followed your suggestion. --ErwinFCG (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thousand Islands


text:
Talk:Thousand Trails

I'm pretty sure the content here should be moved to the destination articles per Project:What is an article?. Any thoughts to the contrary? (WT-en) Maj 23:11, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Thousand Trails


text:
Talk:Three days in Berlin

VFD Discussion

 * Redirect to Berlin. Has been more than a year at outline status, which per the deletion criteria is enough to subject it to deletion.  The content that's there is already in Berlin, so no need to merge, but a redirect (rather than delete) probably makes sense for SEO purposes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Agree redirect (WT-en) Travelpleb 23:55, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Berlin. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:14, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Three days in Berlin


text:
Talk:Three days in Nara

Comments
Bearing travel times in mind, should Asuka, Yoshino or Kashihara be a part of the Three Days, or are they better as Extensions? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

 * I would like to propose the rewriting of this article in accordance with the suggested itinerary by Nara Prefectural Govenment, which covers all the significant sites of Nara/Kansai/Japan in Nara. I think I can give you the link of the website when I can type Japanese language on PC. Now I cant...--79.180.38.230 05:16, 12 November 2007 (EST)

 * No, but you are welcome to write a separate article that is in accordance with the suggested itinerary of the Prefectural Government. We like to have a variety of suggestions and ideas for travelers — not just the official suggestion of the government. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

 * OK! :) Thanks for your suggestion. Gorrilla san :)--58.70.12.79 23:48, 30 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Three days in Nara


text:
Talk:Three days in Singapore

So, my apologies to the anonymous contributor, but I'm going to have to remove Newton Circus from this itinerary for the following reasons:

 * It's not along the Riverside like the rest of the attractions of Day 1's evening.
 * $80 for a hawker meal is an insane price by Singapore standards.
 * The touts at Newton are really annoying.
 * Kang kong is usually served with sambal, not oyster sauce, which is used for kailan.

Newton is already listed in the main Singapore article and Singapore/Balestier. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:23, 30 October 2006 (EST)

I'm a Singaporean, and I think that this itinerary is pretty comprehensive! Good job!

SGD/US
From the introduction: "Please clarify in all cases as to whether you are talking about US dollars or Singapore dollars. "

Naturally all prices should be in SGD. Why not just remove all prices quoted in USD and the above sentence?

Review required
On the front page of this article is a suggestion it should be merged into the Singapore article. viz Itineraries

In view of the three days itinerary idea being deprecated into localities, is there anything in this article worth moving over to the singapore article? sats (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The discussion on deprecating iteneraries specifically called this one out as an exception that should stay, since it has tightly-defined routes and even maps for them. I'm thus removing the tag. Jpatokal (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinatown Heritage Centre
is currently closed for renovation, wondering if we should suggest something else in the itinerary instead. We went to the Tintin shop, but that's only because my son is a big Tintin fan. Ravikiran (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't going to recommend a change since it was reaching the end of renovations. I would highly recommend the Singapore City Gallery in its place, although not a like for like replacement. -- torty3 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Three days in Singapore


text:
Talk:Three Forks

Created by (WT-en) MrMetropolitan, same person that created the Yap page.

 * Ok! (WT-en) Mr. I know you guys need to do something to keep yourselves warm and entertained in winter but enough fun ...... could we please have a nice travel article. Though I do think the article in its current form is a good candidate for Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Though not as good as the joke article about Antartica -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:45, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * Also The Times reports that the sport of Cow Tipping requires at least 2.07 people to be accomplished successfully - according to Dr Margo Lillie, of the the University of British Columbia, and Tracy Boechler of the Royal Canadian Mounted Corps. It is certainly a relief to see some serious scientific research is going on in this area. Now that you are in San Francisco, have you tried Bus Tipping? -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:06, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Three Forks


text:
Talk:Three gorges dam

VFD Discussion
An attraction, not a destination. Not properly capitalized, and all content was copyvio from http://www.discoveryangtze.com/Yangtzediscovery/three_gorges_dam.htm.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 04:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect to closest destination article, likely search term. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)
 * Redirect to Along_the_Yangtze_river (WT-en) Pashley 06:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Along_the_Yangtze_river

title: Talk:Three gorges dam


text:
Talk:Three Rondavels

Three Rondavels

 * Delete. The is a non-article :: (WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:03, 4 February 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Blyde River Canyon is probably better as this is a feature of the canyon. I have reused the photo there already. -- (WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:10, 14 February 2007 (EST)

 * Keep - redirect to Mpumalanga ~ 61.91.191.11 03:05, 4 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Three Rondavels


text: Talk:Thunder Bay

title: Talk:Thunder Bay


text:
Talk:Thuringowa

Merge
This page should be merged with Townsville and the page name changed to Townsville-Thuringowa. Townsville and Thuringowa would redirect to the Townsville-Thuringowa page. For the traveller there is no difference between Townsville and Thuringowa and the 'twin cities' should be treated similar to Albury-Wodonga and Kalgoorlie-Boulder. - (WT-en) Ctbolt 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

not a good idea to merge
The visitor experience is very different in Thuringowa and I feel that this page should be left here as Townsville has (for years) taken the credit for many of the great attractions that Thuringowa has to offer, and by merging the 2 together would again take away the independents of Thuringowa's tourist attractions. (WT-en) Thuringowacityrep 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

 * The visitor experience is very different in Thuringowa and the experance is not the same in both cities
 * You can’t tell when you’re leaving Townsville and entering Thuringowa – the suburbs of Townsville don’t have the same experience - The Strand / Palmer St / city centre – but we don’t have separate pages for them.

 * as Townsville has (for years) taken the credit for many of the great attractions that Thuringowa has to offer
 * This is no reason to start confusing the traveller. If you want to raise the profile and promote Thuringowa, instead of going the whole hog with it’s own page, how about starting out with the twin cities title Townsville-Thuringowa.  Few people outside of Queensland would know that Townsville was a ‘twin city’ so this would raise it’s profile better than separate pages - when they are looking for Townsville and the Townsville-Thuringowa title comes up they will be learning something.

 * by merging the 2 together would again take away the independents of Thuringowa's tourist attractions
 * Again I’d rather think of it from the travellers point of view. Eating, Staying, Drinking, Seeing etc are going to be the same for both – if there is a problem with the ownership, say it in the article.  And in the section Understand explain what is going on with the twin cities.

 * as it is 2 cities even though it looks like one
 * I realise, according to the Local Government boundaries, that they are two different cities but to the traveller / tourist they are one – similar to the Albury-Wodonga, Kalgoorlie-Boulder situation.

 * just linking the two would be a better thing
 * Linking is do-able but we’d be doing the traveller a disservice. In my opinion there will be few people who would click on the Thuringowa link and so would miss out on the all the information on that page.  However, when staying in ‘Townsville-Thuringowa’ they would want to do activities on both pages.

 * it would get very messy trying to popint out this is in Townsville and this is in Thuringowa
 * This is not a problem. Just say they’re in Townsville-Thuringowa if you must or just Townsville if you don’t want to confuse people.

 * I really think it would be important for a ‘twin city’ of 160,000 people to have only one page for travellers and tourists. You can explain the difference and promote Thuringowa under the heading Townsville-Thuringowa rather than the separate page.
 * The other quotes were left on my talk page User talk:(WT-en) Ctbolt - (WT-en) Ctbolt 04:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

sorry but this is how i feel and as you may already now i am against the Townsville-Thuringowa term, The Townsville page has never said anything about Thuringowa before now so i can't see why there needs to be now, it's about time Thuringowa got better known as a city and not a suburb or part of Townsville as it gets called most of the time. Again sorry but i feel that how it is will be fine. (WT-en) Thuringowacityrep 06:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

 * My gut reaction is to put Thuringowa up for merging then deletion (redirect) as it doesn't help the travellers by having two pages about the same area and your reasons seem personal rather than for the good of Wikivoyage. However, you seem willing to put in a lot of effort for your city - you should just think about how good a combined page would be.  I've added a prominent link to your page on Townsville.  Good luck  -  (WT-en) Ctbolt 07:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

How is Thuringowa pronounced.
How is Thuringowa pronounced.--(WT-en) Dmol 03:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Thuringowa


text:
Talk:Tianjin

Recent edits
An anonymus user has recently edited extensively, but some of the added material appears to be taken from a university page, making it a copyright violation and other parts from Wikipedia which is contrary to our policy. I very nearly reverted the lot.

Does anyone else, in particular the anonymous contributor, care to comment? There is some good stuuf in the additions; is there anyone who knows both WT policies and Tianjin that would care to volunteer to do an edit? (WT-en) Pashley 21:28, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

 * It should also be pointed out that most of the images have been uploaded (from commons) without attribution. To the uploader: wts:How to upload files provides info on how to provide correct attribution for images from commons. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:33, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

Learn
The following listings apparently do not offer anything for the short-term (<3 mo.) traveller, so I'm putting them here. Texugo (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the National Ministry of Education:

 * Nankai University (南开大学) (founded 1919，one of the most prestigious universities in China)
 * Tianjin University (天津大学) (founded 1895, oldest university in China)

Under the municipal government:

 * Tianjin Academy of Fine Arts (天津美术学院)
 * Tianjin Agricultural College (天津农学院)
 * Tianjin Conservatory of Music (天津音乐学院)
 * Tianjin Foreign Studies University (天津外国语大学)
 * Tianjin Institute of Physical Education (天津体育学院)
 * Tianjin Medical University (天津医科大学)
 * Tianjin Normal University (天津师范大学)
 * Tianjin Polytechnic University (天津理工大学)
 * Tianjin University of Commerce (天津商业大学)
 * Tianjin University of Finance & Economics (天津财经大学)
 * Tianjin University of Science & Technology (天津科技大学)
 * Tianjin University of Technology (天津工业大学)
 * Tianjin University of Technology and Education (天津职业技术师范学院)
 * Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (天津中医药大学)
 * Tianjin Urban Construction Institute (天津城市建设学院)

Under the government of Hebei Province:

 * Hebei University of Technology (河北工业大学) (founded 1903, the earliest institute of technology in China)

Under the national Civil Aviation Authority:

 * Civil Aviation University of China (中国民航大学)

Foreign institutions:

Note: Institutions without full-time bachelor programs are not listed.
 * The Florida International University Tianjin Center, opened in 2006 as a cooperative venture between the municipal government and the Miami-based university.
 * The Great Wall MBA Program, Oklahoma City University Meinders School of Business, established in 1986 on the campus of Tianjin University of Finance & Economics.

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes. Jjtkk (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Style?
This is a big article that looks like a merge between a typical WV article and a Wikipedia article. Are there any specific issues that need addressing in order to start removing the 'manual of style' template? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Specifically it looks like someone has gone to the efforts to define districts (Divisions) along with red links, but not yet moved content down there. I'll look into seeing if we can at least create those district articles with some of the main article listings. The results will likely be 'outline' articles for the time being. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * The map shows four main areas for the city, whereas the district list shows 13 (red linked) articles.
 * Tianjin is China's fourth largest city (by some measures), but I feel to make this useful to the traveler now we should just break it down into the four areas on the map.
 * Any thoughts on this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hospitals
I guess Microsoft FrontPage lives :) I found some really crazy HTML tables embedded in this article. I simplified the 'emergency numbers' table to a few bullet points, and moved hospitals to this page for discussion: Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Hospitals

Highways connecting Tianjin
There were a lot of listings of highways through China that I felt probably did not help the traveler too much. Yes, roads are important, but the east coast of China has a very well developed highway system so it shouldn't be very important to say how each major city connects to Tianjin. I have included the removed text below: Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==

Inner Ring Road (neihuan)

Middle Ring Road (zhonghuan)

Outer Ring Road (waihuan)

Tianjin's roads often finish in dao (道 avenue), xian (线) line, more used for highways and through routes) and lu (路 road). Jie (街 street) is rare. As Tianjin's roads are rarely in a cardinal compass direction, jing (经) roads and wei (纬) roads often appear, which attempt to run more directly north-south and east-west, respectively.

The following seven expressways of China run in or through Tianjin:

Jingjintang Expressway, from Beijing, through Tianjin's urban area, to Tanggu District / TEDA

Jinghu Expressway, from Jinjing Gonglu Bridge to Shanghai (together with Jingjintang Expressway, this is the expressway from Beijing to Shanghai)

Jingshen Expressway, through Baodi District on its way from Beijing to Shenyang

Tangjin Expressway, from Tanggu District, Tianjin, to Tangshan, Hebei—known in Tianjin as the Jintang Expressway

Baojin Expressway, from Beichen District, Tianjin, to Baoding, Hebei—known in Tianjin as the Jinbao Expressway

Jinbin Expressway, from Zhangguizhuang Bridge to Hujiayuan Bridge, both within Tianjin

Jinji Expressway, from central Tianjin to Jixian County

The following six China National Highways pass through Tianjin:

China National Highway 102, through Ji County, Tianjin on its way from Beijing to Harbin

China National Highway 103, from Beijing, through Tianjin's urban area, to Tanggu District

China National Highway 104, from Beijing, through Tianjin Municipality, to Fuzhou

China National Highway 105, from Beijing, through Tianjin Municipality, to Macau

China National Highway 112, circular highway around Beijing, passes through Tianjin Municipality

China National Highway 205, from Shanhaiguan, Hebei, through Tianjin Municipality, to Guangzhou

The expressways are sometimes closed due to dense fog particularly in the Autumn and Spring.

The expressways to Beijing are sometimes closed due to dense smog in the autumn and spring so allow extra time if planning on using them during this period.

Group-share taxis from Tianjin (to Beijing, or vice-versa) run ¥50-60 per seat (4 seats in total), but these may be illegal taxis.

Car rental information is available via +86 13102107700 or ].

Bars and restaurants with no descriptions
There are a large amount of listings for bars and restaurants with names and addresses, but with no descriptions whatsoever.

Is it OK to remove these? I don't see what value they are currently adding and makes the article very long. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I moved listings to this talk page, since someone has put the thought into adding addresses and contact details. If someone has knowledge of any of these establishments and want to add back then please do so! Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Restuarents

Bars

Buy listings with no descriptions
Again, listings with no descriptions so why go visit? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

District discussion
I have moved the district content to the talk page since it is not ready yet.

Can anyone with good knowledge of Tianjin please comment on the items below? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not exactly an expert on Tianjin, but I did a little research online and I would like to make a few comments:

 * There are three districts not included in the list below. Those districts include Ninghe District, Jinghai District and Jizhou District.

 * The districts in rural Tianjin are not totally rural. They generally include a mixture of urban and rural areas. In fact, in some of those outer districts (e.g. Beichen, Dongli, Jinnan and Xiqing), the majority of the population are living in urban areas (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin#Administrative_divisions).

 * I personally don't see any problem with districtifying based on administrative divisions. If we assume that each district should have a minimum of about a dozen attractions, then each district would appear to have enough attractions to justify having its own article. I imagine, however, that some people might argue that some of the districts with relatively small numbers of attractions should be merged. Districts in Tianjin with a relatively small number of attractions include Baodi, Beichen, Dongli, Hedong, Ninghe, Jinghai and Jinnan (see below for some statistics).

 * At the present time (July 2021) it's probably too early to begin the districtification process. That being said, I'll certainly be doing some more work on this article in the future. In fact I'll be visiting Tianjin next month, so I'll be able to add some firsthand data later (I've been to Tianjin once before, but that was more than two decades ago and I didn't do any sightseeing at the time).

 * Below are some figures on the number of attractions in each administrative district according to Boya Travel (博雅旅游):
 * * Heping District: 200 attractions
 * * Hedong District: 16 attractions
 * * Hexi District: 60 attractions
 * * Nankai District: 55 attractions
 * * Hebei District: 71 attractions
 * * Hongqiao District: 32 attractions
 * * Binhai District: 93 attractions
 * * Jinnan District: 20 attractions
 * * Dongli District: 19 attractions
 * * Xiqing District: 40 attractions
 * * Beichen District: 20 attractions
 * * Baodi District: 19 attractions
 * * Wuqing District: 32 attractions
 * * Ninghe District: 20 attractions
 * * Jinghai District: 20 attractions
 * * Jizhou District: 80 attractions

(I use the Boya Travel website as a source mainly because the interface makes it easy to count the number of attractions in each district. I'm aware that the site isn't completely accurate and that there are a few attractions missing from their lists - one example being the National Maritime Museum in Binhai. It should also be noted that the figures include a lot of minor attractions such as historical buildings that can only be viewed from the outside). STW932 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The page is difficult to navigate due to the numerous sites spread over a large area. I suggest splitting it into three separate pages: (1) Central Districts, (2) Suburbs and Rural Areas, and (3) Binhai New Area. This division will be stable because the Suburbs and Rural Areas are unlikely to see much additional content, reducing the need for further division in the near future. The Central Districts have many sites, so a dedicated page will help improve map navigation. Muzzleflash (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are 33 sites listed under "See" with geo coordinates. I think thrre is a good argumeht for splitting this article. Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I strongly believe that Jizhou District should get its only article. Jizhou District is not only further from the city centre than any other district, it also has more to see than most of the other outer districts (apart from Binhai). STW932 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea because Jizhou is the northernmost district and home to sections of the Great Wall and skiing. It is a day trip tourism destination from Beijing separate from Tianjin city making a standalone page useful. I think we should go ahead and divide things up into 4 pages in 3 groups: (1) Central Districts, (2) Suburbs and Rural Areas + (3) Jizhou District and (4) Binhai New Area. Muzzleflash (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is roughly what the map would look like if we implemented your proposal:
 * STW932 (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that looks very messy. I didn’t intend for the map to appear next to the older map. And I’m not sure why some districts such as Nankai are not coloured correctly. Perhaps someone with more experience editing maps can help to fix the problems. STW932 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also included a district list, but you can’t see it unless you look at the source code. STW932 (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based just on the number of currently listed See and Do sites with geo coordinates, we would see 22 listings in Central Districts, 4 listings in Suburbs and Rural Areas, 5 listings in Jizhou District and 8 listings in Binhai New Area. STW932 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the stats it looks like a good way to divide because roughly half of listings are transferred to other pages and the divided district map will remain stable for years unless there is a huge surge in editing of the Central Districts in which case another discussion should be held on further division. The one revision that I would suggest is changing Suburbs and Rural Areas to Suburban and Rural Districts to make the naming parallel to Central Districts. I'm not good with the technical aspects of wikivoyage so if I may ask could you please start the district division of Tianjin. Muzzleflash (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be happy to do that. I’ll be embarking on a 1-month trip next week, but I’ll try to at least prepare the initial drafts before I leave. STW932 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We may want to consider abbreviating the titles for Binhai New Area and Jizhou District. In most district articles, including those for Beijing, we don’t tend to include words like ‘District’ in the title. Also, we should take note of the fact that there is currently a discussion in the Traveller’s Pub about whether to change the naming conventions for district articles (See Travellers' pub). If the naming conventions are changed, then Tianjin/Central Districts would have to be changed to either Central Districts (Tianjin) or Central Tianjin. Likewise, Tianjin/Suburban and Rural Districts would have to be changed to Suburban and Rural Districts (Tianjin) or Suburban and Rural Tianjin. Personally I prefer the latter in both cases. STW932 (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think either way works. The latter does sound better to my ears also. Muzzleflash (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based just on the number of currently listed See and Do sites with geo coordinates, we would see 22 listings in Central Districts, 4 listings in Suburbs and Rural Areas, 5 listings in Jizhou District and 8 listings in Binhai New Area. STW932 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the stats it looks like a good way to divide because roughly half of listings are transferred to other pages and the divided district map will remain stable for years unless there is a huge surge in editing of the Central Districts in which case another discussion should be held on further division. The one revision that I would suggest is changing Suburbs and Rural Areas to Suburban and Rural Districts to make the naming parallel to Central Districts. I'm not good with the technical aspects of wikivoyage so if I may ask could you please start the district division of Tianjin. Muzzleflash (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be happy to do that. I’ll be embarking on a 1-month trip next week, but I’ll try to at least prepare the initial drafts before I leave. STW932 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We may want to consider abbreviating the titles for Binhai New Area and Jizhou District. In most district articles, including those for Beijing, we don’t tend to include words like ‘District’ in the title. Also, we should take note of the fact that there is currently a discussion in the Traveller’s Pub about whether to change the naming conventions for district articles (See Travellers' pub). If the naming conventions are changed, then Tianjin/Central Districts would have to be changed to either Central Districts (Tianjin) or Central Tianjin. Likewise, Tianjin/Suburban and Rural Districts would have to be changed to Suburban and Rural Districts (Tianjin) or Suburban and Rural Tianjin. Personally I prefer the latter in both cases. STW932 (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think either way works. The latter does sound better to my ears also. Muzzleflash (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Districts
The 7 districts in urban Tianjin are:

The 6 districts in rural Tianjin are:

Suggestion a separate page for Binhai
Binhai is a separate city and should have its own page. The distance from Tianjin railway station to TEDA, the economic center of Binhai, is about 45km. But it doesn't look like there is a page for Binhai. Muzzleflash (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tianjin


text:
Talk:Tibet

History section
The section currently starts with:

 * In the mid-7th century, Songtsan Gampo established the unified Tibetan Empire, and married two princesses, one from China and one from Nepal. Tibet and Tang China fought repeatedly for control over the Silk Road during this time. Although the country was unified, it was seldom peaceful and between the 9th century and the mid-17th century it was often embroiled in turmoil. This period finally drew to a close when the Dalai Lama invited a tribe of Mongols to intervene. They gained military control of the region, but decided to stay, with the leader declaring himself king. However, the Dalai Lama actually administered the country.

 * In the early 18th century, Tibet was again in turmoil, and seeking to replicate the success of the earlier means of restoring peace, the Dalai Lama invited another tribe of Mongols to take control. However, the emperor of Qing China was unhappy with this arrangement, and ordered an invasion. The Mongols were expelled, and the Chinese and Tibetans began a special relationship which was maintained until the end of the Qing dynasty. Tibet was a tributary state, nominally under Chinese control, until the end of the Qing Dynasty. The British invaded Tibet in 1904, while the Qing emperor carved out states from areas under Tibetan control in the North and East.

I think that is much more detail than travellers are likely to need, especially since we have a WP link where they can get much more if they do want it. I would cut it to just:

 * Tibet has a long and complicated history, at times an Empire, at times warring with China, and at times a tributary of China or the Mongols.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 * No comment in over six months, so I went ahead & made the change.

 * I've also moved some things from intro to this section & added new material. Comment solicited.Pashley (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

UUNREALIABLE INFORMATION SOURCE; the content created on TIBET here
This Tibet page might have created by someone who is stuffed with knowledge by himself or not by common knowledge and sense that others understand. If it is deceiving someone knowing nothing about the topic gives worth darkly into the smart way of a perspective self promoter. So far, what i have understand here is somehow he miss use WIKI VOYAGE and i am regretted that there isn't a stuff checking the contents before publishing. The source page WIKI VOYAGE is for what is real but nor for writing skills and unreal contents!! —The preceding comment was added by Adventuresintibet (talk • contribs)

 * I don't think you understand what a Wiki is. There is no staff being paid to fact-check. Instead of casting aspersions, what you should do is if you see something you know to be wrong, edit it yourself! Just make sure you have no axe to grind and aren't motivated by monetary gain in your edits, but are acting in the service of travellers. Welcome, and I look forward to more constructive contributions from you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tangula luxury trains?
I just removed this text:

 * If you're not up to rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi, Tangula runs roughly weekly luxury trains (Apr-Dec only) from Beijing to Lhasa and back. The 4-day journey costs USD5,500 (twin sharing), including all meals, drinks and excursions.

The link goes to a page in a script I don't recognise (Korean?) with no pictures of trains.

Searching the web, I find several stories about the Tangula service "coming soon" or "has been postponed", dated 2007 to to 2012, but nothing indicating it is actually running. However, I'm in China and without a VPN, so many Tibet sites are blocked. It is possible it is running but I cannot see the info.

If anyone has better recent info, please update the article. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Link above now looks dead. Web search turns up a story saying the train is "still not in service" as of Sept 2015. Pashley (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitchhiking
Does the section Tibet violate Illegal activities policy? Pashley (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Addressing Tibetan soveriegnty
As per my long running distaste for political agendas being pursued (intentionally or not) on Wikivoyage, I was concerned to see the edit wars and the following statement in the 'History' section:

+++++++++++++++++++++

The question of Tibetan sovereignty is a hot-button issue in China. The Party Line is that Tibet has always been part of China and foreigners have no business "meddling" in "internal Chinese affairs". There was no "invasion" in 1950 as they felt Tibet was already their own territory and that a country can not logically invade itself. Also it claims that as the central government, it was asserting its authority over a province to "liberate" it from a severely oppressive serfdom system, a corrupt medieval theocracy with slavery. (That part makes a lot of sense to Chinese, liberated from their own feudal system in 1911.) Chinese would state that Western powers are being extremely hypocritical since they roundly condemn theocracy (rule by priests) in Iran and simultaneously support it in Tibet. To the Chinese government, separatists are equivalent to terrorists, with no aspirations legitimate enough to even be considered; no discussions with them could possibly start until they recognise the basic principle that Tibet is part of China. Quite a few Chinese accept this line without question, and some of those will ask foreigners about it then firmly "correct" their "errors". Avoiding such discussions is a good policy.

+++++++++++++++++++++

I would like to replace the whole paragraph with something shorter, accurate and less opinionated. How about this:

"Tibetan sovereignty is a disputed issue both in China and internationally. The Chinese government maintains that the region has always been part of Chinese territory and that they helped liberate the population from an oppressive feudal regime. Many Tibetans believe that they were invaded by another country with their culture being eradicated. This article makes no judgements on either side of the dispute."

Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Perhaps too detailed, but I thought the text that was there before 122.whatever started editing was just fine:

 * The question of Tibetan sovereignty is a hot-button issue in China. The Party Line is that Tibet has always been part of China and foreigners have no business "meddling" in "internal Chinese affairs". There was no "invasion" in 1950, only the central government asserting its authority over a province to "liberate" it from a severely oppressive feudal system, a corrupt medieval theocracy with slavery. (That part makes a lot of sense to Chinese, liberated from their own feudal system in 1911.) Western powers are being extremely hypocritical since they roundly condemn theocracy (rule by priests) in Iran and simultaneously support it in Tibet. To the Chinese government, separatists are equivalent to terrorists, with no aspirations legitimate enough to even be considered; no discussions with them could possibly start until they recognise the basic principle that Tibet is part of China. Quite a few Chinese accept this line without question, and some of those will ask foreigners about it then firmly "correct" their "errors". Avoiding such discussions is a good policy.

 * Should we revert to that? Pashley (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I like Andrewssi2's shorter version. It says enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I think the longer one is more helpful, with its warning to travelers about the reactions of modern-day Chinese to discussions on the subject. We could probably do without the scare quotes, though. ARR8 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I think we should keep the fact that many (I think most) people in China agree with the government position, and keep the advice about avoiding discussions. I don't think we need the legalistic "This article makes no judgements" sentence, which doesn't add much and is already effectively indicated in the disclaimer box. The other parts of Andrewssi2's suggestion are fine with me. (The version Pashley quoted is fine with me too, though I agree we don't need the scare quotes.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * This, I agree with completely. ARR8 (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * One of the things I dislike about the longer text is the tacit assumption that our readers are all from "the West". They are not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I prefer the longer version but I think it would be better without "To the Chinese government, separatists are equivalent to terrorists, with no aspirations legitimate enough to even be considered; no discussions with them could possibly start until they recognise the basic principle that Tibet is part of China." I think that is true, but it is highly controversial & not very relevant for travel. Pashley (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
Please can those who want to shape political opinion on the Tibet article come here and discuss their edits. I've temporary locked the article until a proper and respectful discussion can be had. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Respect section
I think the last point in the Respect section needs re-writing. Whether or not Tibetan culture is being eroded is highly controversial, and I don't think we should take a stand on this issue. If most Tibetans feel that way, we can certainly write that that is what most Tibetans feel, but we should neither acknowledge nor deny those claims unless there is solid and uncontroversial evidence backing it. The dog2 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think Be fair means that we have to give equal weight to propaganda by a brutal dictatorship and people reporting on its depredations. I don't agree that it's "controversial" that Tibetan culture is being eroded any more than it's "controversial" that the Rohingya people were raped en masse by the army of Myanmar with their villages burned down, and forced to run to Bangladesh for refuge. Genocidal or otherwise oppressive regimes almost always deny what they're doing. That doesn't make reports of it "controversial". Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with the situation on the ground in Tibet, so I shall not comment on that, but I think we already acknowledge in the Understand section what the Chinese government is doing to the Tibetans. I'm not proposing that we change that. Speaking of which, are you OK then with being honest about how U.S. imperialism has caused many of the problems in Latin America and the Middle East? The dog2 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Of course! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my link and leave all the other travel agencies?
Tibettour.org is indeed operated by the CITS, and a good travel agency which if is listed here too will make the article better, isn't it obvious? If this kind of listing is promotional, you should remove all of the travel agencies there. Why just mine? The website is tibettour.org, if I use "Tibet tour" as the anchor, it may look promotional, so I changed it to the subordinate's name: Tibet Vista

 * One reason might be that you put it in the wrong place, first on the list. There is a note, visible when editing, asking editors to keep the list in alphabetical order. You apparently either did not see that or ignored it.
 * another might be that CITS is Chinese government owned & some travellers to Tibet prefer to deal with Tibetans instead, whenever possible. Pashley (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * speaking for myself, who has done it, it was about the "alphabetic order", oh yes. It's fixed now. Please DO NOT EDIT WAR. Thank you Ibaman (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Simplifying
I am about to delete a lot of text which I consider far too detailed & encyclopedic:

 * A British expedition to Tibet, in fact a temporary invasion by British Indian forces, led by Colonel Francis Younghusband, took place between December 1903 and September 1904, with the purported mission of establishing diplomatic relations and resolving the dispute over the border between Tibet and British Indian Sikkim. The expedition fought its way into Lhasa and reached it in August 1904. A treaty was signed, and the British forces withdrew to Sikkim in September, but nevertheless continued the physical occupation of Chumbi Valley until February 8, 1908, even after having received the full payment from China. Actually, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, where Britain and Russia signed an agreement to regulate their economic and political interests, widely seen as the official end to the Great Game, stipulated that neither country would interfere in Tibet, which lies in China's sphere of influence. In early 1910, Qing China sent a military expedition of its own to Tibet for direct rule.

See Tibet for my version. Pashley (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Update?
Tibet starts with "As of 2018," then explains about permits & guides. Has anything changed? Should this be altered to "As of mid-2021", or just deleted? Pashley (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dalai Lama encourages travel to Tibet
Hi, I was wondering if anyone had a reliable source for this statement:

>Travellers who disagree with the current political situation may think they have an ethical dilemma because if they go to Tibet they feel they are implicitly supporting the Chinese regime, with some of their money going to the Chinese authorities. However the Dalai Lama encourages foreigners to go, so that they can see the situation for themselves and because Tibetans welcome their presence.

I wasn't able to find any direct statement or account of this. The closest that I found was a Tibetan travel operator echoing the same thing, so I could not verify the veracity of this claim and the following readouts: Now, I'm in exile already 13 years. So when I hear that the situation is getting worse in the monasteries, my concern or recommendation is not really a clear one. But I guess if access to the media opened up so it can go there and freely report or find information from inside Tibet, it would be a very helpful thing." from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112jhrg70941/html/CHRG-112jhrg70941.htm
 * "   So that is why the inside policy is still very, very tight.

Cyali (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * It seems to be this statement from 2009 from the office of the Dalai Lama: https://www.dalailama.com/news/2009/dalai-lama-in-ny-urges-americans-to-visit-tibet Cyali (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tibet


text:
Talk:Tibetan journeys

The Tibet/Nepal border
Do we have any info on when the Friendship Highway border crossing is open, or what the weather related disruptions can be. I read somewhere that there can be issues during the monsoon, with sections of the road sometimes washing out. (Though I have crossed it at that time of year w/o issues) What about winter? Is it (or the highway further into Tibet) ever closed due to snow? --(WT-en) keithonearth 12:59, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Removing advice on illegal tours
The advice here on illegal tours went far beyond warning travelers about their safety. Without making any particular political comment regarding Tibet/China, I have removed it as per my understanding of http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Illegal_activities_policy.

title: Talk:Tibetan journeys


text:
Talk:Ticino

Regions
This article needs regions, I like the ones already listed in the article, yet they need more succinct names I think.--(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 14:26, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ticino


text:
Talk:Tier

Please correct to: TRIER  !!!!

uncorrect city name
Please correct to: TRIER

title: Talk:Tier