text:
Talk:Małopolskie

Subregions
Lesser Poland Voivodship has a terrible lot of cities, so it obviously needs to be split in subregions. How about something like this:

 * Jura Mountains — Mirow, Morsko, Ojcow, Olkusz, Oswiecim, Rabsztyn, Rudno
 * Lesser Poland Lowland — Siemiechow, Tarnow, Kraków, Bochnia, Krzeszowice, Niepolomice, Nowy Wisnicz, Tyniec, Wieliczka
 * Western Beskids — Kalwaria Zebrzydowska, Maków Podhalański, Myslenice, Sucha Beskidzka, Wadowice, Zawoja
 * Eastern Beskids — Biecz, Krynica-Zdrój, Limanowa, Mszana Dolna, Muszyna, Nowy Sacz, Piwniczna-Zdrój, Żegiestów
 * Podhale — Rabka-Zdrój, Niedzica, Chocholow, Czorsztyn, Grywald, Lopuszna, Nowy Targ, Ochotnica, Sromowce Nizne, Sromowce Wyzne, Szczawnica-Zdrój
 * Tatra Mountains — Bialka Tatrzanska, Bukowina Tatrzanska, Koscielisko, Male Ciche, Murzasichle, Zakopane

Suggestions for changes or improvements are most welcome, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 18:20, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Sounds great. Let's implement it. Just not sure on how we deal with the Tatra Mountains and the Vysoké Tatry article.--(WT-en) Globe-trotter 15:03, 24 November 2011 (EST)
 * Is there still something to be hashed out here, or can we remove the region discussion tag from the page? It's been quite a while now... Texugo (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Too many regions. I'd merge Jura Mountains (honestly Ojców should be covered in Kraków Go next section, it's a one day trip thing and that leaves only Oświęcim/Auschwitz) into Lesser Poland Lowland and Tatra Mountains (basically a destination) into Podhale. Jjtkk (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 * After giving it some thought I think (at least for now) three regions are enough:
 * West: Kraków, Wieliczka, Niepołomice, Oswiecim, Wadowice; destinations: Auschwitz, Kalwaria Zebrzydowska, Ojcowski National Park
 * East: Tarnów, Brzesko, Bochnia, Nowy Wiśnicz
 * South: Krynica-Zdrój, Limanowa, Sucha Beskidzka, Nowy Sącz, Nowy Targ, Szczawnica-Zdrój, Zakopane; destinations: Tatra Mountains
 * I think all these other small towns should be dealt with somehow on region level or as day trips from neighbouring larger towns. Jjtkk (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 * There are no regions needed atm. We barely have any content in this article, there is no point in creating additional empty regions. The destinations lists fit perfectly within the categories defined by subheadings, and if we were ever to have more blue-linked destinations, we could simply add subheadings. --PrinceGloria (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't understand, are you saying that we need no subregions below Małopolskie at all or that the current division is OK? My idea was to replace existing 6 regions with 3 (East, West, South). Jjtkk (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * We don't need any subregions. Let's do away with them. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think we can just do away with them - there are 25 bottom-level destination articles under this region so it should be broken up. I think Jjtkk's suggestion of 3 subregions makes a lot more sense than what we currently have. Texugo (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually, the six subregions as they are make more sense to me geographically. That said, those articles are empty, and I guess the new regional ones would remain so as well - there just aren't enough users involved to keep them flush with up-to-date, original and reasonable content. If we want to aid the travellers with navigation, we can subdivide the destination list for the 20+ blue-linked destinations we have into major cities and towns or by rough regions. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly agree with PrinceGloria. Just recently tried to use those far-from-complete articles and immediately got lost in the regions, subregions and sub-subregions. The idea of subregions is to improve navigation, but as long as we have a simple list of destinations with no descriptions whatsoever, it is much easier to peruse a list of 20+ destinations than to jump between empty subregional articles listing 5-7 destinations each. --Alexander (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The problem is, what you two are disagreeing with is the very way the entire hierarchy of our site has been constructed. It seems to me that if having region pages that list 25+ destinations were the condoned way of doing things, then that's what we'd have done all over the site. But that is not how we have laid out the whole site — we've pretty much always determined it's time to subdivide a given region when the number of grouped articles starts to greatly exceed about 10. If you take away our rule of thumb, you greatly complicate the issue of determining the appropriate time to subdivide. If you have paid attention to my recent activity, you'll know I've been on quite a crusade against empty region articles and overregionification in all its forms in recent weeks, but I'm not sure I would support dropping the common practice of trying to keep regions from having too many destinations/lists, at least not without hammering out the new parameters and gaining consensus that that's how we want to do it sitewide. Texugo (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Good to see you mention this, as I find it a common misconception that is often perpetuated and leads to creation of unnecessary regional articles. Our guideline is to avoid lists longer than 7+/-2 positions. This guideline does not automatically result in a rule that we need to create extra regional levels when a list of destinations exceeds that. The guideline is only meant to avoid long laundry lists that are hard to digest. Breaking down a list by subdividing it (within an article, not by creating new articles just to host fragments of said list) is just as good a solution.
 * A region should be created when it makes sense for the traveller and allows for better presentation of information. We don't subdivide cities into districts just because we have more than 10 restaurant listing - we rather split them into Budget, Mid-range an Splurge. We create new districts only when there is sufficient content to be presented on district level, and too much of it to be contained in one article that can be digested by a casual reader. I do not think this is "complicated" - I think this is not a clear-cut decision, but we usually reach a reasonable agreement. Discussing in more detail an taking more into account that the number of bulleted items usually leads to better results IMHO, we don't need to abuse the 7+/-2 rule to decide on regionalization.
 * I think we generally agree on that, save for some cases where an editor feels strongly about a particular region that is being discussed for elimination from the hierarchy as unnecessary. I guess we just need to sit back, re-read the guidelines and see that we may have been overinterpreting them to create unnecessary hierarchical levels. We may bring that back to the pub, but I guess for this very region, we can agree on a decision here. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I want you to know that I'm not entirely averse to that interpretation, but I think it is a new interpretation quite different from what we have done in practice across the whole site. I do not think we should simply decide to do it here without having a broader discussion because there are too many undecided parameters. For example, I might be OK with 2-3 lists of 7+-2 items each; I would likely not be OK with 5+ such lists (taking up too much scroll space before the article actually starts) nor would I be OK with having any list with more than about 10 items each. I might be OK with grouped lists of 7+-2 blue links each; I would not necessarily support multiple lists containing lots of red links. I know that the "grouping-rather-than-subdividing" thing has been done to eliminate some intermediate-level region articles, as for Germany, but doing so for lowest-level regions is more problematic because those lists usually need to include all the cities for which we have articles, and that number tends to change over time. If we are going to start interpreting things in this way for our cities lists, I really think we need to agree on some parameters first. Texugo (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a lot more simple. Grouped lists of destinations are a temporary solution for those regions that nobody wants to work on. The subdivision means that you not only create new articles and update IsIn templates, but also write meaningful introductions, draw maps, etc.
 * In fact, I am writing here, because I was reading through all those subregions couple of weeks ago when I knew I was going to Krakow and I would have a couple of days to travel around. I wanted to know where to go and, of course, I ultimately failed. Therefore, it is a kind request to anyone who wants to create 3, 6 or I-don't-know-how-many subregions: put yourself into my shoes, then add one-line descriptions of each destination, draw at least one map, write introductions for every subregion and an overview in the See section of Małopolskie. If you can't do that, better leave a list of 20+ destinations in one article. It will be a lot easier to navigate. --Alexander (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are saying "never subdivide unless you are willing to create maps and fill in all the articles", that is completely unacceptable. It's asking too much and it precludes any subregion article contributions made precisely because the subregion article already exists. It would also, in practice, tend to turn what you called a temporary solution into an essentially permanent, default one. Texugo (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you Alexander, yours is just the perspective I had in mind when proposing to rationalize rather than legitimize the course of action here. And this is the perspective we should put above all and not get into Wikipedia-style catch-all rulemaking. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. I do not think we need to requie maps and all when a region is created. We only need to require common sense and the interest of the traveller here, as Alexander laid it out nicely.

 * Well, one thing I am saying is that one needs some knowledge and understanding of the region. If you know why you create those subregions, please, be open and write something about it instead of simply re-shuffling the content. If you don't know, why would you ever create them? And as long as regional and subregional articles are going to stay empty (this situation is kind of permanent, you know), one list of 20+ destinations makes navigation much easier. --Alexander (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Coming in late to this discussion, it's not true that having more than nine cities in a region is always a reason for further breakdown - see Geographical hierarchy: "This doesn't need to be applied stringently to the lowest level of the hierarchy; if a region has more than nine cities in it, and there's no helpful way to divide it into subregions then don't split it." We ran into a similar problem with Contra Costa County, where the county was originally split into multiple regions solely to support smaller city lists, and it was decided that doing so was dumb since that's not a useful geographic breakdown, and it isn't helpful to add layers to the hierarchy in such a case.  I don't know if this region is similar, but if the sole reason for splitting things up is because it contains more than nine cities, I'd say leave it as-is. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your input, Ryan. I didn't find any discussion behind that case you brought up, and in any case believe that it should at the very least have the list visually grouped into rough areas. As to whether that case is comparable to this one, it's hard to say, but Małopolskie Voivodship is approximately 19 times bigger in area than Contra Costa County, and currently has 49 red+blue links versus CCC's 26. Texugo (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "leave it as-is", since in this case, "as-is" means the way this region was already divided into 6 defined and recognizeable subregions. The question at hand is whether to leave them at those 6, condense them down into 3 geographically-defined subregions as Jjtkk suggested above, or to pour everything back into this parent container. Texugo (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy is a general discussion on the subject, the specific case of Contra Costa County came up in a VFD discussion after it was sub-divided solely to keep the city lists smaller than nine - the decision after that was done was it isn't helpful to add levels to the region hierarchy when it is done solely to keep city lists small, and the policy page was updated to note that bottom level regions can contain more than nine cities. I can't really provide much useful input on whether this particular region should be sub-divided as I don't know the area, although 49 cities does seem like a lot. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa!

My idea above was: I'm not surprised Alexander found existing structure useless, that's why I proposed a new one, better in my opinion. Jjtkk (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * West - Kraków and around
 * East - Tarnów and around
 * South - let's say mountains
 * I don't know the region well enough, because I traveled there only for a few days. You have my full support if you can write reasonable texts, especially in the See section, so that readers understand where to go and what is important. On the other hand, if these new articles are going to be as empty as the existing ones, I see no reason to create any subregions here. Finally, another thing that I can't assess is the completeness of the subregions. Namely, can one fit everything into three articles, or will a finer splitting be necessary in the future? --Alexander (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just did come breadcrumb cleanup. There are currently 26 bottom-level destinations (not counting the 5 Krakow district articles), plus another 23 red links, probably not all of which will get an article someday. It seems to me like a fairly reasonable amount for splitting into 3 subregions with plenty of room for growth, as far as that goes. Texugo (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Jjtkk's idea sounds reasonable. I don't like having a bunch of practically empty subdivision articles but a very long list of towns and cities isn't much better and at some point we have to split them. Another thing to do would maybe be to reduce the number of links. If there is a redlink for some town consisting of 20 houses and a convenience store and nothing really of interest to a traveler I think it is safe to remove it. In the same way if some article has very little content, say just one sight or one hotel, the information could perhaps be moved to the region's article or the article of a larger town nearby. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think the current division makes a lot of sense and does reflect the natural way the region splits into geographically coherent regions that are also of similar characteristics from a tourism perspective. I'd keep the split as it is, and just work on filling in the regions and destinations with content.
 * Realistically, however, even this main article is a sorry stub of an article, and we keep on piling comments here where not much happens in the articles. Let's face it, we're far from reaching the critical mass of knowledgeable and passionate editors for this region. However we splice it, it's pure theory unless we have content therein. How about doing away with the subregions for a moment and start beefing up this very article unless it's filled with quality content to the brim and splitting just comes natural? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree. It would be much better to have real content than discussions about 26 blue + 23 red links (and, as I mentioned below, some important places are simply not covered). --Alexander (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Out of curiosity, just how long of a giant list would you be willing to keep to avoid splitting into subregions? 26 doesn't even start to seem like too many to you? 50 doesn't either? Texugo (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would try to add a one-line description to every destination. This will tell me which of these destinations are clearly repetitive (Oswieciem and Auschwitz being one example), or do not merit an article, etc. As long as it is a simple list, there is no difference between keeping it on one page divided into groups or placing parts of the list into different articles. Finally, I would like to re-iterate that sights and attractions are not cities that you see on the map. On one hand, UNESCO sites must be incorporated and highlighted in a travel guide in some form (and these wooden churches are unique indeed!) On the other hand, places like Chochołów likely do not need a separate article. --Alexander (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we work on the article a bit and then talk? It's always better to discuss actual content rather than theorize. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

UNESCO sites
Małopolskie voevodstvo has quite a few UNESCO heritage sites. While Krakow, Wieliczka, Bochnia and Kalwaria Zebrzydowska are more or less clear, I am wondering why one needs separate articles about Oświęcim and Auschwitz. But the most challenging question is how to describe multiple wooden churches in this region. So far there is an article about Dębno that has no chance to grow to a normal article, and 3 other UNESCO wooden churches (Lipnica Dolna, Sękowa, Binarowa) are not even mentioned anywhere on Wikivoyage. This is definitely one thing to consider when subregions are discussed. --Alexander (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regions within Małopolskie
The earlier conversation went quiet after 2014. But IMO Małopolskie page is altogether messy and needs review.

Having a page for Małopolskie itself makes sense geographically, administratively and from a visitor pov, the problem is its internal organisation.

On WV-EN it’s broken into five “regions,” which don’t form part of the breadcrumb trail for their component cities. They’re poorly developed and the contents are a wash of red ink. These five are
 * Jura Mountains (NW of Krakow and straddling the adjacent province of Silesia) has six red and one outline city.
 * Western Beskids (SW of Krakow) has two red, three outline and one usable.
 * Eastern Beskids (SE of Krakow) has five red and three outline.
 * Podhale (S of Krakow) has one red and six outline.
 * Tatra Mountains (further south) has seven red and one usable.

There is then a separate list of 12 cities, four of which aren’t included anywhere on the regional lists, including Kraków.

On WV-PL there’s a different hierarchy, of 22 powiaty or counties. These are difficult to navigate if as an outsider you don’t know whether you should be looking in powiat wadowicki or in powiat proszowicki or wherever. Doesn’t look like the way to go.

I therefore propose:
 * For two red cities, Biecz and Myślenice, there is good info on WV-PL, WV-DE or Wikipedia-En. It should be a quick job to construct usable English pages for both, and this is worth doing whatever we decide about the regional structure. Any volunteers?
 * All the other red cities should simply not be mentioned, though any salient POI should migrate into the nearest city page (perhaps with a special section somewhere to draw together all those wooden churches and similar). They have scant info in German or Polish so it's not realistic to expect their development soon. But I didn't search systematically in any other language, please holler if I've missed a nugget.
 * The regional layer here is unhelpful and should be dismantled, leaving a plain-text description and grouping on Małopolskie main page of the 22 remaining cities (including the two additions above and ejecting one in Silesia). There won't be much over half-a-dozen per group, not too listy; lots of regional pages take this approach.
 * A suitable grouping might be: Krakow & surrounds, north, SW, SE and south. Plain text is very simple to amend if the groupings don’t quite work.
 * No reorganisation meanwhile of the component city pages, which may need to absorb orphan POIs.
 * However if anyone’s got the time, it doesn’t feel right that Oświęcim is a mere outline – surely a priority. Its better-known namesake Auschwitz is of usable standard so it’s a quick job to improve.

Views? Given the season, I'll make no moves on this till New Year. - GS on 13 December 2019

And further to that, I'm pinging those who participated in the earlier discussion. That's Globe-trotter,  ClausHansen, Texugo, Jjtkk, PrinceGloria, Alexander, Ryan and ϒpsilon. Please forward to anyone I've missed.

An example of the general layout I'm proposing is County Dublin. That's smaller of course but has a similar pattern of one prime city tourist destination then a sprinkling of outlying towns and attractions across three or four counties. Grahamsands (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not have a chance to visit the region (except Krakow) since 2014, so my knowledge of it did not improve, but on general grounds I can agree with your proposal. I personally find excessive subregions very inconvenient from reader's point of view. --Alexander (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

One in favour, no other comments, so this work has begun. The towns have been grouped in plain text roughly as proposed above; this might not be their final arrangement. There are 22 of them so that's quite a lot of blue dots, but several are obvious candidates for redirecting. I'll leave them all be for now as potential homes for other swept-in material. Still to do:
 * - construct pages for Biecz and Myślenice.
 * - ensure all relevant but potentially orphan material has found a home, including a second search of WV POL & DE.
 * - check for knock-on effects for adjacent counties and hierarchies, then redirect the redundant Małopolskie subregions.
 * - sort any other glaring priorities.  Grahamsands (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting there. Biecz is constructed, Myślenice to follow. All the "cities" need overhaul to try to get them to a usable standard; volunteers? I don't propose any merger / redirection of the scrappier examples until that's done. However there are yet more extra-hierarchical pages - I keep stumbling across further examples, eg "Beskids" - that are little more than lists of cities. They don't add anything to the regular hierarchy, so I intend to redirect these to Małopolskie (or other province) whenever discovered. One exception is Carpathian Mountains, which covers a huge area so the list of cities is especially tedious. This could reduce to a list of regions / provinces, with just a few main cities mentioned but majoring on the parks. And with that I'm now going offline, back on 15 Jan. Grahamsands (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've now reached end of this work. Second thoughts on Myślenice, it's marginal for being a page so I just gave it a couple of lines under Rabka as somewhere you might stop en route. I redirected the redundant extra-hierarchicals except Carpathian Mountains, which is a separate and wider task to rationalise. So too is expanding (and in some cases merging / re-directing) those Małopolskie pages that have thin content - the point is that hopefully this can now be done on the same basis as any other place, without being impeded by an awkward sub-regional structure. I've adopted the term "Province" for Małopolskie and will propose on Poland / Talk doing so for the rest of the country, since a "voivodeship" sounds like something commanded by Darth Vader. Grahamsands (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Małopolskie


text:
Talk:Lesvos

Sleep listings
I just deleted both of 2 sleep listings. The first one was indisputably a self-listing, in violation of policy. The second one probably was, too. We may have to face the question of whether we'd prefer no listings than listings which could be untrustworthy by self-interested people. In the meantime, I hope the second lister returns with a proper listing that doesn't spend most of the entry on the location and doesn't use words like "perfect." Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Lesvos


text:
Talk:Letterkenny

This page has had a good bit of editing by one person who I suspect is a local resident... some contributions from a genuine traveller would be welcomed.
 * I just upgraded it to usable status -- it really just needs a once over to bring it more in line with our Project:Manual of style to make it a guide. I think it's a great job-- I always love local knowledge! I'm going to invite that user to become a Project:Docent... (WT-en) Maj 19:24, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

Great web page - thanks, I found it helpful and useful. Only typo I could see was the reference to "midgets" when out walking. Should this be "midges". Thanks to the people who put in the effort to write this information.

Wrong banner
The current banner is from Derry, Northern Ireland, but not from Letterkenny. You might want to fix that. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reset it to the default. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The banner now is actually of Knockalla Fort, see Fanad Peninsula. Grahamsands (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Letterkenny


text:
Talk:Leuven

content of external links section

 * Leuven OnLine, a virtual tour of Leuven.
 * Tourist Office
 * City of Leuven
 * TraBel

see Where did the "External links" sections go?

Drinking Options
I've converted this to drink listings, but somebody should clean up this part of the article as it doesn't seem to have any structure right now (WT-en) stef.van.dessel 16:16, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Leuven


text:
Talk:Levant

Merge tag
The Levant should have its own separate page within the Middle East page, since it is so small yet diverse. This makes it clear that the Levant is a compact, dynamic area that diserves special attention. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 99.177.241.204 (talk • contribs)

Relisting in alphabetical order
Many of the listings in the article, whether city or country, are not in alphabetical order. If there is a reason that they should not be e.g. in descending order based on frequency criteria, that is appropriate. If not, it is appropriate to list in alphabetical order. Doing so ensures:

 * 1) consistency between sections in the article;
 * 2) no implied inferiority or superiority is unintentionally conveyed

I will alphabetize as needed.

Also, since this article was tagged as a WikiVoyage project item, in need of an image from Commons, I will try to locate at least one suitable image. The floor tiles of Madaba are lovely, as well as cedars of Lebanon and views of the Mediterranean Sea. I will look for beautiful images for our beautiful Levant.

--FeralOink (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Levant


text:
Talk:Levice

Saved for data mining:

WEB:www.levice.sk

Postal code: 934 01

Preselection: +42136

Number of inhabitants: 36782

Altitude: 163 m

TOWN MUNICIPALITY: adress: Námestie hrdinov 1, Levice contact: phone +42136/6350 211 fax +42136/6350 901 e-mail msu@levice.sk />

Tourist information agency: Holubyho 2, Levice, 036/6318 037 Information service EDB: 036/16185

History

The first written record of Levice is from 1156 and mentions Martirius, the archbishop of Esztergom (Hungary), who consecrated the church in Bratka village dedicated to St.Martin. There was established a parish where the villages "villa Leua" and Vitk were annexed. At that time the village of Leua (Levice) was a subject to the Tekov castle, and was situated on the east part of today’s town Levice, somewhere on the slopes of the vineyard, which is still called Old Levice. The castle in Levice was built in the 13th century, when the Tartar-looted Tekovsky castle’s importance declined. It was built on andesite rock, the remain of Neogenic volcanic activity, which continued to the Štiavnica hills. From the west side the castle was bounded with the marshy meadow of the river Hron, with its several river branches. The castle itself had been a fortress for protection of the mining towns. Under the protection of the castle in the 14th century there had been established a settlement "Big" or "Old Levice", which is now the real predecessor of today’s Levice town.

The 150 years Turkish occupation, which started in the 16th century, weakened economically the town and made it more dependent on the castle’s estate. In this time the Levice castle, then already a royal castle, was listed among the 15 most important defence forts. In the middle of 17th century the Turkish incursions grew stronger. Seeing the enemy’s huge odds the captain gave up Levice without resistance. The Turk’s rule in Levice lasted for only 224 days, when in 1664 by an unexpected action they were expelled out of the town. After the end of the Turkish wars Levice lost its important role as a frontier-castle and in 1699 in accordance with official orders it was abolished as a fort. Frequent fires meant for Levice great disasters. In 1696 flames destroyed almost the whole town. In 1715 there were 195 taxpayers and 43 craftsmen in the town. In the time of Rákoczy’s Revolt in the 18th century the castle was in a very bad condition. In order to prevent from using the castle for military purposes the rebels before leaving decided to destroy it. The castle has never been reestablished and thus it lost its military importance. In the second half of 18th century Levice significantly grew, became an agricultural centre of the southern riverside of Hron and vivid trade and artisan in organised trade guild were going on in the town. The best known and because of their products the most famous guilds were those of boot-makers, cobblers and button-makers. In the 19th century the number of small enterprises gradually grew; the trade, which mostly concentrated in hands of Jewish entrepreneurs, developed as well. The investments of the richest families Leidenfrost and Schoeller mostly concerned the agriculture and some other industries: they built a liqueur factory with distillery, steam flourmill, brickwork, they planned new vineyards and also extended selective cattle breeding. In 1873 there were 6000 inhabitants in Levice. In the first half of 20th century during the first Czechoslovak Republic began Levice’s architectural, town-planning development. In 1933 was built the tobacco-factory. In the fifties there was a big housing shortage in Levice, because country people moved to the town in large numbers. In 1961 there were 13744 inhabitants in the town and Levice became an enlarged district’s centre. To the end of eighties the number of inhabitants increased to 37500. The originally separate communities of Kalinčiakovo and Malý Kiar were administratively incorporated into Levice in 1976, and the settlements of Čankov and Horša joined the town in 1986.

The Castle The most significant building of the town is the castle fortress built in the second half of the 13th century on a steep hillside extending to a swamp. In the upper section of the castle ruins of the Gothic palace, the oldest part of the fortress, remained. At the walls of its eastern side some of the bastion lower parts remained where a summerhouse was built in the 19th century (nowadays it is run as a teahouse). There also remained fortress’s external walls, corner stone framing, the oldest Gothic palace’s portal, some parts of plaster and fortification. In the 16th century the fortress was enlarged, strengthened by a bulwark and a palisade bastion was raised on its top and later it was gradually replaced by stonewalls, with bastions for cannons on their corners. The other fortress buildings from the times of the Turkish wars close the lower bailey. The biggest one (the Dobó’s Mansion) dated back to 1571 - a rectangular Renaissance castle with a storied keep above the entrance from the town side. This entrance could only be approached from outside across the drawbridge. In the 17th century this castle was rebuilt in Baroque style and elevated by another storey. On the western side of the yard the Captain’s house was built and on the north-western part there is a huge multi-angular gun bastion, where in the old times a castle chapel was situated and used during the Turkish occupations as a mosque. During feudal uprisings in the 17th century the castle was badly damaged. In 1702 Rákoczy’s rebels occupied the castle and before leaving Levice in 1709 they decided to destroy it. They burned it down, ruined the castle walls, filled the moats with ruins and thus the castle lost its function as a military fort. Less damaged buildings of the lower castle were later repaired and useless annexes were removed. Since 1958 the Tekov Museum has been seated here.

Churches The Eszterházy family during the period from 1773 to 1780 built the Classicist parish-church of St.Michael Archangel on the site of the old church destroyed in the great fire. Over the main pediment front there is built-on a double-tower superstructure. On the straight pediment between the towers is the statue of St.Ladislaus. The Classicist altar was built in 1793 and has an illusive columnar architecture with symmetrically placed sculptures. In the middle there is a picture of St. Michael Archangel, after the painting of Quido Reni. Remarkable carved late-Baroque wooden benches from the middle of the 18th century show scenes from St.Francis’s life. The classicist epitaph of the Eszterházy family with a plastic family coat of arms and inscription comes from the year 1786. Franciscan-Minorites built the Roman Catholic church of St. Joseph with an adjacent cloister building. In 1814 the Piarist order took the cloister over and opened a grammar school there. The church was rebuilt in 1773.

Pasted for reworking
From the See section, this seems like a copyrighted material:

 * The castle in Levice was built in the 13th century, when the Tartar-looted Tekovsky castle’s importance declined. It was built on andesite rock, the remain of Neogenic volcanic activity, which continued to the Štiavnica hills. From the west side the castle was bounded with the marshy meadow of the river Hron, with its several river branches. The castle itself had been a fortress for protection of the mining towns. Under the protection of the castle in the 14th century there had been established a settlement "Big" or "Old Levice", which is now the real predecessor of today’s Levice town. The most significant building of the town is the castle fortress built in the second half of the 13th century on a steep hillside extending to a swamp. In the upper section of the castle ruins of the Gothic palace, the oldest part of the fortress, remained. At the walls of its eastern side some of the bastion lower parts remained where a summerhouse was built in the 19th century (nowadays it is run as a teahouse). There also remained fortress’s exterior walls, corner stone framing, the oldest Gothic palace’s portal, some parts of plaster and fortification. In the 16th century the fortress was enlarged, strengthened by a bulwark and a palisade bastion was raised on its top and later it was gradually replaced by stonewalls, with bastions for cannons on their corners. The other fortress buildings from the times of the Turkish wars close the lower bailey. The biggest one (the Dobó’s Mansion) dated back to 1571 - a rectangular Renaissance castle with a storied keep above the entrance from the town side. This entrance could only be approached from outside across the drawbridge. In the 17th century this castle was rebuilt in Baroque style and elevated by another storey. On the western side of the yard the Captain’s house was built and on the north-western part there is a huge multi-angular gun bastion, where in the old times a castle chapel was situated and used during the Turkish occupations as a mosque. During feudal uprisings in the 17th century the castle was badly damaged. In 1702 Rákoczy’s rebels occupied the castle and before leaving Levice in 1709 they decided to destroy it. They burned it down, ruined the castle walls, filled the moats with ruins and thus the castle lost its function as a military fort. Less damaged buildings of the lower castle were later repaired and useless annexes were removed. Since 1958 the Tekov Museum has been seated here.

 * The Eszterházy family during the period from 1773 to 1780 built the Classicist parish-church of St.Michael Archangel on the site of the old church destroyed in the great fire. Over the main pediment front there is built-on a double-tower superstructure. On the straight pediment between the towers is the statue of St.Ladislaus. The Classicist altar was built in 1793 and has an illusive columnar architecture with symmetrically placed sculptures. In the middle there is a picture of St. Michael Archangel, after the painting of Quido Reni. Remarkable carved late-Baroque wooden benches from the middle of the 18th century show scenes from St.Francis’s life. The classicist epitaph of the Eszterházy family with a plastic family coat of arms and inscription comes from the year 1786. Franciscan-Minorites built the Roman Catholic church of St. Joseph with an adjacent cloister building. In 1814 the Piarist order took the cloister over and opened a grammar school there. The church was rebuilt in 1773.

(WT-en) Michal Stankoviansky 05:12, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Levice


text:
Talk:Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail

Merge?
No need to have two articles, and Lewis and Clark Trail looks like the more fleshed out of the two already. As for what's worth bringing over - half of the Understand section is lifted straight from 16 USC 1244(a)(6), which is of little interest to travelers (though I have to give it some credit for being the only piece of U.S. federal law I've seen quoted in a travel article). However, the Do section might be more valuable... it's little more than a link farm right now, but they're all primary links to NPS; maybe merge that in but replace with links to specific articles wherever possible? - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:17, 20 May 2009 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Lewis and Clark Trail

Pompey's Pillar
I'm not sure where this fits into the itinerary, but it doesn't go in the intro: (WT-en) Maj 12:23, 26 December 2006 (EST)

One of the many famous points to visit is Pompey's Pillar Monument in Pompey's Pillar Montana.

Cycling
The Lewis & Clark Trail is mentioned in Cycling. I suppose that means this is a viable bike touring route, with maps and facilities available. Could somebody add information to the article? --LPfi (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Electric cars
Here's a paragraph that was added by w:User:Shortiefourten to English Wikipedia article "U.S. Route 12 in Washington": ''The installation of EV chargers began in 2023 along the White Pass Scenic Byway beginning with a Washington State Department of Commerce Clean Energy Fund grant of $1.15 million. A total of 8 stations were planned at such locations as Chehalis, Elbe, Morton, and Salkum. Each location is to contain a minimum of one level two and level three charger. The infrastructure initiative is headed by Energy Northwest, working jointly with the state, and in conjunction with Lewis County Public Utility District, Twin Transit, and local community efforts. Here's the change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_12_in_Washington&oldid=1160944503. It was deleted less than 48 hours after it was added. The rationale for the deletion was "Equivalent to mentioning every gas station and restroom on a route, which is not allowed per WP:NOTGUIDE; a short mention is all that is needed once it is complete". This is probably true, but it also seems to me that WikiVoyage "ISGUIDE" (so to speak). I'd like to encourage User:Shortiefourten to find the right place to add their work on WikiVoyage. Should this editor add the paragraph to Lewis and Clark Trail which is concurrent with U.S. Route 12 in much of the Pacific Northwest, or should they try creating a new article for U.S. Route 12? -- RobLa (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * cite news |author1=The Chronicle staff |title=Construction Begins on U.S. Highway 12 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Network |url=https://www.chronline.com/stories/construction-begins-on-us-highway-12-electric-vehicle-charging-station-network,315141 |access-date=June 19, 2023 |work=The Chronicle |date=March 7, 2023
 * cite news |author1=The Chronicle staff |title=Work Continues to Install New Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on U.S. Highway 12 |url=https://www.chronline.com/stories/work-continues-to-install-new-electric-vehicle-charging-stations-on-us-highway-12,316872 |access-date=June 19, 2023 |work=The Chronicle |date=April 5, 2023

title: Talk:Lewis and Clark Trail


text:
Talk:Lexington (Kentucky)

Street names
I just discovered that, according to the US Postal Service, Broadway and Limestone do not have a suffix like Road or Street! (There are a few others, too: Cheapside, Esplanade, etc.)

I don't know what Lexington is putting on the street signs, but since the point here is to give addresses that can be used for mapping or mailing, let's follow the USPS. (WT-en) BigPeteB 14:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Kentucky Wine
As a Kentucky resident that doesn't drink wine, I do keep noticing that apparently Kentucky's wine industry is growing in prominence. Perhaps someone with experience in such a field could recommend some additions to the page? 74.131.176.89 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lexington (Kentucky)


text:
Talk:Lexington (Massachusetts)

Removed restaurant listings from main article
Davis and Teele squares are actually in Somerville, as is Tu y Yo. -(WT-en) Nick 17:50, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)

Fixing Needed
This one needs some formating fixes for the picture on the left and breadcrumb is not working. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:21, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lexington (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:Leysin

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Closed hotels
Adding the following listings here of closed hotels. One has been reported as demolished but no easy way to confirm. The other has closed and is up for sale as confirmed by the website, but since it may reopen as a hotel, keeping listing here so it can be reused. (WT-en) Nrms 08:15, 28 February 2010 (EST)

 * Recently renovated by it's new owners, La Primevere is located in the centre of the village close to all amenities. Relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Happy Hour in the bar 4-7pm. Great home cooked food. Free WiFi connection.

THIS HOTEL IS NOW CLOSED INDEFINITELY

 * THIS HOTEL HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED! A four star hotel and restaurant

title: Talk:Leysin


text:
Talk:Lhasa

Usable status
I have downgraded this article to usable status primarily due to the poor quality of Lhasa. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lhasa


text:
Talk:Liberia

"Handshaking is the normality, usually followed by a finger snap"
Is this vandalism? Snapping your fingers as part of a greeting? Could someone please explain or revert. Thanks. Bob

 * http://sixdegreesnorth.blogspot.com/2007/10/handshakes-and-applauding.html. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:55, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

CIA Factbook
For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Liberia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:51, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Removed someone killed at Mamba Point
"Also keep in mind that one person was killed at the Mamba Point Hotel, and you should exercise security and be in the hotel room before it gets dark."

I removed the line above as it's not necessarily relevant. The murder took place already on the 24th of May, 2004, when John Auffrey, the head of the American Military Team for restructuring the Army, was murdered in his hotel room. Apparently at the same time Sierra Leone's war crime prosecutor, David Crane, was also staying at the hotel, and the killers had mistaken Auffrey for Crane.

Recent pictures from Liberia
I recently traveled to Liberia on a research project. During the trip I gathered a few photos which might be interesting to some. If interested, they can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kippster/sets/72157594330811969/

It is just the Monrovia area...

Kipp

Regions
Liberia has fifteen (15) political sub-divisions, known as counties:
 * Bomi
 * Bong
 * Gbarpolu
 * Grand Bassa
 * Grand Cape Mount
 * Grand Gedeh
 * Grand Kru
 * Lofa
 * Margibi
 * Maryland
 * Montserrado
 * Nimba
 * River Cess
 * River Gee
 * Sinoe

I removed this administrative division list, since that's not a useful travel subdivision, and is too fine-grained anyway for such a small country. Ideally, the first travel division of the country would probably be more like 2-5 regions. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Regions Revisited
For 2-5 regions suggested above, I propose the following three regions: The simplest distribution map to see how this would look that I can find is here With the exception of a small portion of Bong County, the rivers also follow the political borders. The mountain ranges are also divided by each of these regions.
 * The easiest seems to be to use the rivers:
 * Southern Liberia (South of the Cestos River)
 * Central Liberia (Between Cestos River and Saint Paul River/Nianda River)
 * Northern Liberia (north of the Saint Paul River and Nianda River)

I was going to use the mountain ranges (Putu Range in the south and Wologizi and Wonegizi Ranges in the north), but that would require extra regions, like a coastal region, and either separating the north into two slim regions or coming up with name that combines the mountain ranges, so I think the above works better. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:21, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * That all looks very sensible. Thanks for this and all your contributions to African regionalisation. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:36, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * I agree, looks like a good plan. (WT-en) AHeneen 02:36, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Done. That was a nice one to draw. And I know a lot more about Liberia than I knew 24 hours ago. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:37, 30 January 2010 (EST)

Regions a third time
Why do we have regions? We have six articles for the whole country, all of which are linked from the country article. None of the region articles have any content. I propose to remove the unnecessary regions until such time as there is more content and more articles. The existing content would be commented out so that it could be easily restored if more city or other destination articles were created. Ground Zero (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 * In really obvious cases like this, I think you can just act and note what you did and why on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guyana was a bit of a test case to see if there is any objections to merging regions into a country article. I don't want to push through a bunch of these mergers and gave to undo them if there are objections. I'll wait a week on this. Ground Zero (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Done. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles about Liberia. Ground Zero (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Colony or not?
In an edit summary on Ethiopia, the claim was made that "Liberia was an American colony". This article doesn't say so. The other article now claims that Ethiopia is the only country in Africa never to [have been] colonised, which I suppose is an overstatement given this country's history. I think we should be clearer on the actual situation here in 1822–1847, and on what happened in and around 1822. –LPfi (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Americans went to "colonize" Liberia, but it was never a colony of the United States. The dog2 again is writing stuff they don't know about without looking it up to confirm . Ground Zero (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple solution: add "colonised by Europeans" (or Europe or whatever). Problem solved, no need to continue this further. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with SHB2000's proposal to add the qualifier "by a European power" or something similar. There are many different ways to colonise a place. The start of colonial rule in Singapore is considered to be in 1819, even though it was strictly speaking the British East India Company and not the British government at that time that ran Singapore. The American Colonization Society was an American institution, so you can consider it a certain form of American colonial rule. The dog2 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is clear that Liberia wasn't ever an American colony. Ground Zero (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It did declare independence from the American Colonization Society. And the founding of Liberia was a settler colonial project. Just that this time, the colonists were black and not white. And like any other settler colonial project, the indigenous people were oppressed by the colonists. The dog2 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All of which proves the point that Liberia wasn't ever an American colony. The Philippines and other territories were governed by the United States as colonies. Liberia wasn't. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Update needed - the peacekeeping mission
The last paragraph says "although the situation countrywide is improving with the presence of UN Peacekeepers", while the previous paragraph says "the UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia ended in 2018". I don't know whether the mission isn't needed any more or that the situation has since deteriorated in the absence of the mission. –LPfi (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liberia


text:
Talk:Librazhd

Librazhd may lie on the northern banks of the Shkumbin, but to call it part of Northereastern Albania is grossly inaccurate. The Shkumbin was used as a traditional dividing line for DIALECTS of Albanian and it is not an effective way to categorize cities in this area. Even so, the dominant dialect of the city if Tosk Albania, the dialect of the south. Librazhd is also on the national road between Elbasan and Pogradec, two decidedly un-northern cities, and lies within the Elbasan county. (WT-en) Sethinthebox 10:05, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

 * It's already in Southeastern Albania. I think you are referring to the breadcrumb at the top of the page when you're writing this, I too saw it going like ... : Albania : Northeastern Albania : Librazhd. But in fact, when I checked its tag inside the editing window, it said "Southeastern Albania", so I guess that's because of the usual caching problem of Wikivoyage. After I purged cache of the page and refreshed my browser window, that was all correct. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:39, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Hey thanks, sorry I get pretty irate about that confusion, thanks for clearing that up!(WT-en) sethinthebox 15:15, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

 * No problem, glad to be of help! ;) – (WT-en) Vidimian 16:05, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Librazhd


text:
Talk:Libreville

On driinking tap water, I really can't believe it's safer than in other African cities. Any comments about that? —The preceding comment was added by 201.58.10.191 (talk • contribs) at 05:10, 17 April 2009

 * People say it's fine and I know plenty of people that drink it. However, the main filters were not working properly for several months. Most people run the tap water through a Britta filter, or a ceramic one for those that live in worse areas. —The preceding comment was added by 41.158.178.236 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Libreville


text:
Talk:Libya

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Libya/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:33, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

The Understand section
I removed some spam from this article and I noticed something strange. The spammer had input a whole bunch of information, and at the very end of it included some poorly worded English and some spam-worthy contact information. I removed all of what the spammer added because while the information in the Understand section seemed relevant, the majority of it was much better written than the spammed contact info, leading me to believe it was plagiarized from elsewhere. If it was part of a previous version from some time ago, then feel free to revert my most recent edit, which is strictly of the better-written portion. - (WT-en) Pastrami on Ry 18:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Boat travel
The article says "no water, so no boats", in the "Get In" section, but that must have been intended for the "Get Around" section. Libya has a coastline on the Mediterranean -- I can't imagine that no boats travel to e.g. Tripoli from places like Greece or Italy. Can someone check on this?

Regions
Libya is vast, but very empty away form the north coast. I think three regions might be enough (oddly enough, the country used to be three kingdoms, which sort of correspond, roughly): Northwest, Northeast, Sahara. Comments please.

 * While I don't know how common they are used in travelling scene/tourism industry in the country, these three regions can be named Tripolitania (northwest), Cyrenaica (northeast), and Fezzan (south/Sahara) with Tripolitania and Cyrenaica restricted to the coastal areas only (and yes, these are the names of those three former kingdoms). – (WT-en) Vidimian 04:52, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes indeed. They are a bit different though. I think the almost empty Saharan region as one probably makes more sense for travelers? On the other hand it would be good to have three regions that exist and already mean something. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:02, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Actually Tripolitania/Cyrenaica/Fezzan regionalization does not divide Sahara into more than one region: while the maps on the Wikipedia articles I linked to claim otherwise, if you read the last sentence of first paragraph of Cyrenaica article there, you will notice that historical Cyrenaica (which we should use I think) corresponds to only that peninsula-like northeast coast, it was extended to include parts of Sahara only during the Italian occupation of 20th century. No matter what, I agree that we should keep all Saharan Libya in one region, anyway. – (WT-en) Vidimian 05:32, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Using ancient Tripolitania/Cyrenaica for the north, and a single Saharan region for the south, we look like this. Any comments before I regionalise the article? A rather minimal map, but there is not much to draw. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:54, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

 * 10 days and no comments, so I will regionalise on this basis. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:59, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

 * The "Saharan Libya" is not a logical region as it is hard to be traversed through from west to east. That's why I think it is better to extend Cyrenaica southwards, as the road follows that direction. Then the desert area in the southwest could be called Fezzan. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:37, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

2011 Libyan civil war and speaking against Muammar Gaddafi
Given the hatred against him, is it okay to speak against him and his crumbling regime in rebel-held areas of Libya? I wish there's an update on the Stay Safe section about that. --(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 00:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

 * My guess would be that it's best to just avoid politics altogether (as impossible as they may be regarding what's on everyone's minds in Libya at the moment.) This would be inkeeping with Wikivoyage's advice in many other countries with a troubled past and present that it's best to stay impartial or avoid talking about areas where you have limited knowledge. Iran and Syria are two such examples. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 86.149.183.193 (talk • contribs)

 * I pretty much erased the entire section, since it's irrelevant until the Civil War is over—at least to the point where it's no longer laughable to consider driving into camels at night one of the more serious dangers to travelers in Libya. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:56, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Libyan Time Zone change
Libya changed its time zone on the 10th November 2012. Clocks were put back one hour to bring them into line with most of central Europe. Libya will now also observe DST. The rules for DST are a little different from Europe though. Clocks advance one hour on the last Friday of March at 0100 and revert on the last Friday of October at 0200. This is not that well known outside of Libya. Microsoft have not noticed so far - you will not find a time zone for Libya in any Windows version which causes problems for many systems.

I was lucky enough to be in Libya in November and one of my jobs was to resolve the problems the time zone change had caused at a TV station. TV stations typically use a master clock system. Like many PC's it was set to Cairo time, but needed a custom configuration to follow the new time zone.

I do not know whether it is correct to say Libya is on CET and then moves to CEST when DST starts. Would it be correct to say it it has its own time zone - Libya Standard Time and Libya Daylight Time?

If anyone wants to add the time zone to a Windows PC, here is the registry key I created for that:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Time Zones\Libya Standard time]

"Display"="(GMT+01:00) Tripoli"

"Dlt"="Libya Daylight Time"

"Std"="Libya Standard Time"

"TZI"=hex:c4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,c4,ff,ff,ff,00,00,0a,00,05,00,05,00,02,00,00,\ 00,00,00,00,00,00,00,03,00,05,00,05,00,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00

"MUI_Display"="(GMT +1:00) Tripoli"

"MUI_Dlt"="Libya Daylight Time"

"MUI_Std"="Libya Standard Time"

For Windows 7, you could change the GMT reference to UTC for consistency.

Davidbstanley (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Libya


text:
Talk:Liège

Please help!! I've copied in and translated a lot of info from the fr: wikivoyage, but as I've never been to Liège and I'm not a particularly gifted translator, I've probably got lots of stuff wrong. Any review and corrections would be greatly appreciated. (WT-en) WTDuck2 13:16, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

New banner
It is not spectacular, innovative or inventive, but it is not worse than the one before either, and to some eyes it could agreed to be marginally better. My thoughts though are that why go the effort and replace a banner that is already there and is not strikinkly bad when there are still so many destinations in Belgium and the Netherlands which either have no banner or do really have bad banners. Moreover, there are still a few dozen cities in Europe and a few hundred usable cities who do not have a custom banner at all. Wouldn't it be better to focus on those? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Don't worry - I was just implementing the banners that were posted in the expedition. See here for more info --Nick talk 22:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liège


text:
Talk:Venice/Lido

Is this the right name for this article? Is Lido Island a better option? I'm also not quite sure how we deal with the relationship between the islands of Venice. Some, like San Michel are clearly not articles in their own right, but Lido and maybe one or two of the others are more fuzzy... thoughts? (WT-en) Maj

 * I'd just suggest "Lido", like Wikipedia. The smaller islands can be listed just as excursions from Venice. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:04, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Or Venice/Lido - ?

 * I think I agree with Jani. Move this to Lido and add an entry under Get Out on Venice. (WT-en) Maj 15:04, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Venice/Lido


text:
Talk:Liechtenstein

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Liechtenstein/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:55, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Liechtenstein, I'm pretty sure is a member of the EU
I'll check, but I'm pretty certain Liechtenstein is a member of the EC/EU. 143.232.116.172 21:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Liechtenstein is a member of the w:European Free Trade Association as opposed to the E.U. They also have a close economic union with Switzerland, which is not an E.U. member. A list of E.U. member states can be seen here.AHeneen (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The old banner is a pretty poor one and the view you chose is quite brilliant, so this is a clear choice. If you could play a bit with contrast and lighting in some photo editor before you commit to a final version it would be just splendid - the image looks quite dark now and features are hard to make out. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Again, this is the best I could do with what I had available. I would definitely do a better job if I had the opportunity to photograph the site myself. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new banner is aesthetically a better choice. Danapit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Where are our contributors with experience in photo editing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I have extensive experience with Photoshop. The problem here is simply that the original photo is not a good one - and therefore I cannot magically produce something of higher quality from what we currently have (the data needed to do that does not exist in the source image). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I second what the OP said - I tried to fiddle with the image myself and the picture was taken in a way that does not allow much improvement, data on the areas appearing black was mostly lost. I find that the original photo is a good one, it just wasn't taken with the aim for this section to be used as a banner on its own. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * This is a clear choice. The current banner is nice, but the new banner is beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current. The proposed has strange colors Syced (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, opening up the proposed banner at full size shows the green colors in a really strange way. Keep origional, but I think we can find a better one. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 04:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)t
 * The new one is better. The old one is fairly dark, and the composition of the new one is a good choice for Liechtenstein. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ; I think you were looking to weigh in on this section, instead the one above ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Banners should be like artwork, and the second one is far better than the first - magical. – Hshook (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * New. Danapit (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a more beautiful banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks JuliasTravels, the 'cookie cutter' approach to pushing these banners took me to the earlier discussion! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Agree the new banner is better, but I'm concerned that the last time the banner for this article was replaced with no clear consensus. Please establish clear consensus when replacing banners first ויקיג'אנקי --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 * New one. Syced (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the banner
The banner looks very nice, but the problem is that it shows Schloss Hohenschwangau which is in Germany and not in Liechtenstein. The previous banner shows Schloss Neuschwanstein which is also located in Germany. Until someone creates a new one, we should restore the banner from before August 2015. --Anonymous 18:04, 10 October 2016 (CET)

 * You are right! Suprised I didn't notice the old banner was of Neuschwanstein. Yes it should be changed to something specific to Liechtenstein. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire
Hello Hobbitschuster, Liechtenstein is not more or less a "remnant of the HRR" than, say, Austria, Hamburg or Luxemburg. The HRR or the German Confederation have no "remnants" at least in a legal sense. By the way, I don't find it very kind of you to simply revert my edit with many modifications including the update on the stamp price. Ziko (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I revert that? It is possible that there was an edit conflict on some part, because I don't see that. I also did not claim it was a remnant of the HRE, I think that claim was introduced by someone else. However, it is doubtful whether Liechtenstein was de jure an independent country during its HRE days (and later on when it was part of the German confederacy). Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure what a "postmark op Liechtenstein" (sic!) is and why one would want it in their passport. Due you mean an "entry stamp" or the likes? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! - Is it "postmark" (dict.cc advises that), or an "entry mark"? - According to de.Wikipedia, Liechtenstein is "independent" since 1806. Ziko (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Liechtenstein certainly was something for the few years between the end of the HRE (1806) and the foundation of the German Confederation in the wake of the Congress of Vienna. It was before as it was afterwards a forgotten piece of real estate of a ruling family that did not even reside there and for practical purposes the first truly independent foreign policy move it made was after the First World War, when it decided to go under the Swiss instead of the Austrian umbrella. You could argue that as a member of the German Confederation it was just as much sovereign as a member of the EU is today (and the EU actually has more powers than the German Confederation had) but the HRE in the 18th century had roughly the same amount of jurisdiction and powers as the German Confederation. That said, those legalities are likely of no matter to visitors and the de facto independence is limited even today. Were Austria to invade, Liechtenstein would have to rely on Switzerland and/or the international community to stop them - not exactly a hallmark of a fully independent and sovereign state. I think what you are getting at with the "postmark" is that you can get your passport stamped. Back in the old days you'd get a stamp in your passport when crossing e.g. the border between Germany and Austria. But as Liechtenstein has no airport with flights outside the Schengen area and all its land borders are open, there is no legal need for such a stamp. Hence the possibility to buy it as a tourist souvenir. I'd say we either write "You can get your passport stamped" or "They sell an "entry stamp" for your passport as a souvenir". Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Redlinking villages
I am not sure they can carry an article by themselves. Maybe redirect them to Rural Liechtenstein or some such? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic Map
Should we have the official municipal boundaries shaded in different colors on the dynamic map? One warning: They are decidedly weird with an off the charts number of exclaves... Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Liechtenstein cuisine picture
I uploaded a picture of Liechtenstein cuisine on Commons, showing bacon and cheese from Liechtenstein. Can I add it to the Liechtenstein page? The thing is, it was not actually taken in Liechtenstein, but in neighbouring Austria. JIP (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Is there any such thing as Liechtenstein cuisine, as distinct from Austrian or Swiss cuisine of neighboring regions? I see no description whatsoever of the style of local cuisine in Liechtenstein, so I'd say that's where you should start, not with a photo out of context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Looking at the section to which IK links, I'd say that it could do with some information about local cuisine, if applicable. Once that information exists, a picture would be useful for the reader. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liechtenstein


text:
Talk:Liepāja

Comments
Moved the following comment from the main article. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:50, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You are welcome to send any questions about Liepaja and tourism here to karosta@tvnet.lv and you can also check Liepaja on Google Earth and see the Panoramio pictures of this wonderful city!

Ready for Guide status?
It looks like this page is ready to be upgraded from usable to guide. Any work left to be done? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Upgraded to guide status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured article?
Could this article be featured as is? Or does it need improvement? /Yvwv (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liepāja


text:
Talk:Lignano

Anyone know if this is a city or a region? (WT-en) Majnoona 21:04, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lignano


text:
Talk:Lihue

THE AIRPORT IS NOT INTERNATIONAL!!!

title: Talk:Lihue


text:
Talk:Lijiang

The article suggests paying 80 RMB for a candle to send floating down a river. Is there some reason for such a high price? I'd be offering 5. (WT-en) Pashley 09:49, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Tiger Leaping Gorge vfd discussion
Copied from: Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/November_2006#Tiger_Leaping_Gorge

Tiger Leaping Gorge
An attraction rather than a destination. I have copied the text here to the nearest town, Lijiang, which was the only page linking to this. (WT-en) Pashley 09:59, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Is there any chance that this thing could be a multi-day trek, with overnight stays along the way, and therefore possibly defensible as an itinerary? I'm not familiar with it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:08, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Leaping_Gorge says its only 15 km long. However, according to another site http://www.passplanet.com/china/sw/tiger_lg.htm there are guesthouses on the route. Perhaps it could become an itinerary, but I'd say delete unless someone wants to do that work. (WT-en) Pashley 19:24, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Lijiang. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Outcome: redirected to Lijiang. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:08, 25 November 2006 (EST)

It has since been re-created and is now a substantial itinerary. Of course that should be kept. (WT-en) Pashley 11:43, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

DotM?
This was nominated for DotM some time back & the nomination was slushed: Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Slush_pile. In principle, it would be a good nominee since it is quite scenic, one of China's more popular destinations, and on a popular route Yunnan tourist trail. However, it needs work before it could be re-nominated. Most of it I cannot do; I have not been there in about a decade.

The main problem mentioned in the slushing was lack of geo co-ordinates for various places. Looking now, it appears to me Eat & Drink could use a few more listings, while Sleep might need pruning & certainly needs dead links dealt with. Quite likely there also are problems I missed.

Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lijiang