text:
Talk:New Zealand

Auckland
Given that Australia also appears in the Oceania section, I corrected Auckland to being the largest city in NZ (it comes out 5th largest in Ocrania, after Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth) —The preceding comment was added by Dazyndara (talk • contribs) at about 08:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Australia is often not regarded as being in Oceania, but rather the major component (along with PNG, etc) in Australasia. That was just one of the reasons that the text, until today read Polynesia! -- A l i c e ✉ 08:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * But in our hierarchy, it is in Oceania, so we should be consistent. --Inas (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yep, see Oceania. I have usually thought of Australia being a part of Oceania, for what it's worth. AHeneen (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a major flaw with our hierarchy, so I'll revert to what it was before today. Largest city in Polynesia. Oceania, for many, consists only of Mela, Micro and Poly nesia... -- A l i c e ✉ 08:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree largest city in Poly is best. There is no reason Australia can't be in Oceania and Australasia, the same way as PNG is in Melanesia as well as Australasia.  Overlapping regions - too hard.  Oceania is commonly understood, and the region Australia is assigned to in many geopolitical contexts.  --Inas (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the diplomatic solution we arrived at before. This argument has been rambling on at WP almost since I started editing there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oceania&oldid=154489221#Australasia_again Got very busy now that the banner is at WP, eh?-- A l i c e ✉ 09:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

State Highway abbreviation?
Should we agree to standardise on the abbreviation SHn (where n is the official number of the State Highway) and without any spaces, at least in listings ?

(eg: SH58 as seen here ) -- A l i c e ✉ 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Re space or no space before the number:
 * NZ Transit sometimes does it unspaced, eg, at
 * NZ Transit sometimes does it spaced, eg, at
 * NZ Post says "abbreviate 'State Highway' to 'SH' (eg. 'SH 1')"
 * Tenancy Info NZ says "there should be a space between 'SH' and the number"
 * List of New Zealand State Highways at WP has spaces.
 * Google finds 429,000 for "state highway" "sh 1" site:nz, and 57,000 for "state highway" "sh1" site:nz
 * Personally I find it more readable with a space. And it is helpful for the first use of a term to be unabbreviated. Nurg (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So we can agree that we ought to agree on a consistent abbreviation to use at least in listings but we still need to discuss with or without a space?
 * I can definitely agree that it is helpful for the first use of a term to be unabbreviated in articles (the MoS is for us regular editors to consult, not for the casual reader in order to understand our articles).
 * The rationale for choosing no spaces is twofold:
 * 1) I suspect that casual German and British editors are more likely to employ it (being used to the forms B4 and M1/A1 respectively) anyway
 * 2) it saves me the bother of incessantly having to go around afterwards and complete the deeply boring task of adding " "
 * It's also one less keystroke when putting in original text for itineraries and such like.
 * Government usage is quite variable (with the spaced form pre-dominating), but all those electronic roadside signs I see for passes or tunnels closed or roadworks seem to use the shorter "no-space" form - presumably for a similar reason to my preference. That might be another reason to choose the non-spaced form, travellers will usually see the graphic form in maps and permanent road signs - a red shield with just the SH number in white written on it.
 * Incidentally, what's the trick to getting google.co.nz to display the number of hits, please? -- A l i c e ✉ 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I just search for these exact, entire strings:
 * "state highway" "sh 1" site:nz
 * "state highway" "sh1" site:nz
 * Nurg (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * But if go to google.co.nz and enter any search whatever, I can not see any display of number of hits (unlike google.com.sg, where right underneath the search box it will display About 48,500 results (0.25 seconds) if I search for "SH 6" new zealand and About 637,000 results (0.33 seconds) if I search for "SH6" new zealand - ie with no spaces) How do you force the NZ site to display number of hits, please? -- A l i c e ✉ 08:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't do anything in partic. It's just there. I get the search box, below that "Web Images Maps More Search tools", and below that the result count and time taken. I wondered if it is a browser diff but I have just tried with IE8, Ff and Chrome and it is there with all. I wonder if you have cache or cookie data for google.co.nz dating back to when Google experimented with removing the count. Nurg (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't hurt to standardise on one form here, although I don't think it's a high priority, especially since usage elsewhere is mixed. I don't find the arguments about saving a character or avoiding the need for (which should only be needed occasionally anyway) very convincing. We should be more concerned about what's best for our readers than our editors. I'd suggest that since usage elsewhere is predominantly spaced, we should follow that form, e.g. "SH 1". And yes, the first occurrence should typically be unabbreviated. --Avenue (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if I have understood comments correctly, there seems to be a clear consensus here that
 * 1) It would be a good idea to standardise on either  or   (where   is the official number of the State Highway) but it's no big deal either way
 * 2) The first occurrence should typically be unabbreviated
 * There does not yet seem to be a clear consensus as to which to choose, the longer or the shorter commonly used abbreviation.
 * I would like to advocate again for the adoption of the shorter form as our standard.
 * If we are concerned about readability, then the non-breaking space sandwich construction is not an entirely trivial point. Rather than only being needed occasionally, if we adopt the longer form as our New Zealand standard, it should always be used for the same reason it is mandated elsewhere, eg: Units. Since folks read our guide on screens with different widths and operating systems, the only way we can ensure that this sort of orphaned appearance is avoided:

after passing the plastic Kiwi on the corner of Tasman St, fork left onto SH

6 and continue until you will see an electronic sign displaying whether SH

65 is open or not after the recent washouts
 * is to also suggest that all editors use an "SH-non-breaking-space-number-sandwich".
 * Since (for the reasons I outlined earlier in this sub-section) visitors to New Zealand will be more likely to have encountered the un-spaced version of the abbreviation on both electronic and hand-written temporary signs, from our readers perspective, the un-spaced version of the abbreviation is actually marginally preferable.
 * Since   is actually 6 keystrokes shorter (and much easier for casual editors to employ than , I really do have a strong preference for the former, shorter abbreviation. -- A l i c e ✉  23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to resolve this; it's really tedious having to add in those non-breaking spaces where editors have decided to use the longer, space form themselves and either do not know about our "avoid orphans" policy or overlook implementing it with their edits. Could we just standardise on the shorter form for the reasons advanced above? (It really seems to go against the Kiwi grain to make things unnecessarily longwinded...) -- A l i c e ✉ 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument for no spaces is convincing to me. --Inas (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion started, the code for a non-breaking space has been added to the edittools, so 6 keystrokes can be replaced with one mouse-click. I still think the space improves readability (which I put ahead of editor convenience), and is the more common usage on the web. I'm not really swayed by the casual German and British editors, or the saving of space. I don't see any consensus, with Avenue and I favouring the spaced form, and Alice and Inas the unspaced form. Nurg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that addition's made it a bit easier, but a lot of editors either won't know that or just don't bother to use it. I do understand that some think the spaced version is easier to read in prose - but this argument is entirely negated if the "two parts" end up on separate lines because an ordinary, breaking space is used, so your only real argument seems to be one of personal preference since this page indicates that the spaced version is not necessarily the official choice currently: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/current-conditions/highway-info/index.html -- A l i c e ✉  06:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The unspaced version is undoubtedly easier for the editors, and considerable less off-putting to someone who wants to make a quick change. So, if we can also demonstrate a common usage in that form, I think that makes a convincing case.  I think that has been done.  --Inas (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that doesn't convince me. I still think the arguments for making our guides more readable win over editorial convenience. So we still seem to have an even split, i.e. no consensus has developed yet, and the status quo (inconsistent usage, reflecting editorial whim) remains the default option. --Avenue (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy with a consensus that arrives at editorial whim. --Inas (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck-thru my premature consensus notice above.
 * Other things being equal, if there were to be convincing evidence that one form rather than the other (as displayed on a screen when reading NZ articles or printing them out) was clearer for the reader or more readable, would that change your opinion, please? -- A l i c e ✉ 00:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cities or Towns or Settlements?
This edit started me wondering if we should agree on an exception for New Zealand as a whole?

We really don't have that many cities in the New Zealand meaning of the word. Yes, Colinsville, Kentucky, altitude 964 ft, population 236 may be called a "City" in US English but that would sound a bit strange in most Commonwealth varieties of English.

Should we continue to use "Cities" as the heading for not more than 9 settlements in each of our Regions and Sub-regions (bearing in mind that out of the 13 North Island and {soon to be} 7 South Island regions, most regions do not even contain one real city, never mind a list) ? -- A l i c e ✉ 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think there needs to be an exception here. The Cities section of the Region template says that if there are no cities then it's OK to call the section Towns, Villages or whatever is appropriate. If there is a range of sizes then the section should be left as Cities. For the edit you mentioned, Towns seems appropriate. At the North Island or South Island level, I wouldn't think Towns is appropriate. For the regions in between, I don't see why we can't follow the existing guidelines. -Shaundd (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution in conformance with our existing policies. Surprisingly, it's the first time I've read Region and the current relevant policy (in case this crops up again) is: Per One-liner listings, cities and towns should be listed in alphabetical order. If the region corresponds to a political entity (such as a state or a province), always list its capital city first.
 * Lastly, if calling the settlements in this region "cities" is a real stretch -- say, for remote or rural areas with only towns and/or villages -- it's OK to rename this section 'Towns' or 'Villages' or 'Settlements' or whatever. But if there are lots of different kinds and sizes of settlements, just leave it as "Cities". -- A l i c e ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Few restaurants outside the larger cities
"Outside of the larger cities, restaurants can be hard to come by". What is meant by "larger cities"? Bigger than 80,000 population or what? Nurg (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think any city in New Zealand is likely to have a choice of restaurants, and any larger town, so the population cut-off would be more like 10,000 or even 5,000. Small towns are more problematic. I found not a single place offering a sit-down meal one evening in central Kaikohe a few years ago, not even a pub. Kaikohe is just over 4,000 people, but as it is the centre for the Far North District Council I expected more. The slightly larger and more tourist-oriented towns of Kaitaia and Kerikeri do have a choice of restaurants.-Muscles (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Banner
Hez, I'd like to change the banner to the one French have cause it's sharper. Jjtkk (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The French banner is much better. James A ▪ talk 06:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The French one is better, but I'm not that keen on either of the photos of snow-capped mountains in June and July, which are among the months when the least number of visitors go to NZ. Nurg (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have another idea? There's a choice of panoramas here. Jjtkk (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the French banner used on this page too. I don't think the snow-capped mountains are a big deal; it's not an unreasonable amount of snow for more of the year than June / July and even in the middle of summer there are plenty of white-capped mountains in NZ. For example this. was taken in summer. --tiimta (hello) 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the choice of a banner has a huge subjective element. That said, we may be able to agree that
 * a) it should show New Zealand in a fair, but positive light
 * b) the image should work reasonably well with small screens on laptops and notebooks as well as larger desktop machines. This means that if the lower half of the image is obscure by the ToC panel,and the left third obscured by the Pagename (of "New Zealand", plus or minus the NZ flag) it should still work. For the same reasons it's best if the lower half is darker and the upper half lighter
 * Subjectively and of the three referenced so far, I prefer Tiimta's --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Understand" section
Politics section provides a little too much detail regarding Politics which is better described in Wikipedia. This should be shortened in line with Goals_and_non-goals Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult one. I think the current 2 paragraphs are not overly long. but I understand that they may act as an incentive to expansion over time (like list of cities and towns). Do you prefer to remove the section entirely again? I'd bow to anyone who has strong feelings either way. --118.93.67.66 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew. Also the "Sport" subsection is too detailed. Being an encyclopedia is non-goal #11. As a traveller I come to WV for travel-related info. For general background info that I may be interested in, but is not travel-related, I expect to look elsewhere. As a traveller it annoys me when I find long "Understand" sections with material of no relevance to me as a traveller. The same goes for "Learn" sections with info for students, not travellers. Nurg (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In theory, you're right, Nurg. The difficulty is that we Kiwis tend to take our sport rather seriously and if we chop it down we'll have to keep coming back to weed it again and, in that process, perhaps seem quite unwelcoming to new Kiwi editors who start small with something they understand.
 * As an example, both my wife and eldest daughter want me to be their meatpuppet and add a bit about young women enjoying playing touch rugby. Apart from some pacific islands, we haven't seen such an involvement by young women in other countries we've visited. (I was going to tell them to make their own edits - but because of all the allegations continually buzzing around this place, I've forbidden all my family from using my mobile device to edit!) --118.93.67.66 23:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Regions / cities / other destinations - Part II

 * (A recent bold edit archived past discussions to an archive entitled "Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2003-2012". Unfortunately it included this part, where the discussion was ongoing and only started in Sep 2013:)

This edit may have resurrected the topic of the current peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced division into 5 "Regions" named North Island (with a population of more than 3 million, South Island (one million odd), Stewart Island (400+), Chatham Islands (600+) and Subantarctic Islands (zero permanent residents and not exactly an easy or mass tourism destination).

Although the 7±2 rule. has been entirely discredited by subsequent psychological research, if we wish to continue to "group things into sets of 5-9 objects", I would propose that we divide into these more natural six' divisions:

6

 * North Island {as now, but adding the remote Kermadec Islands}
 * South Island {as now, but adding 1 new sub-region of Chatham Islands to the existing 8 sub-regions of Nelson Bays, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, Queenstown-Lakes, Otago and Southland (existing sub-region, but would then have Stewart Island added)}
 * Cook Islands
 * Niue
 * Tokelau
 * Polar New Zealand (a new division to include the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares)

Alternatively, and if the infamous 7±2 rule is thought no longer to trump the traveller's stance, I would suggest a simpler division of just three:

3
If we're serious that the print version really does matter, this would mean the printed map(s) would be more manageable and relevant to most visitor travel patterns.
 * North Island {as now, but adding the remote Kermadec Islands}
 * South Island {as now, but adding 1 new sub-region of Chatham Islands to the existing 8 sub-regions of Nelson Bays, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, Queenstown-Lakes, Otago and Southland (existing sub-region, but would then have Stewart Island added)}
 * Polar New Zealand (same new division to include the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares)

with the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau dealt with in a similar way to the "USA fiddly bits" by using one or two footer paragraphs such as: "The realm of New Zealand also includes the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. Although these share the same monarch as head of state and their citizens are issued New Zealand passports, because they are self governing with differing immigration régimes and with very different climates and cultures, they are dealt with in separate articles."

Incidentally, our USA article does demonstrate a precedent for breaching the holy writ of 7±2 : it has 7 + 6 = 13 regions. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Frank. I don't agree.
 * I think Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau should remain regions of Polynesia, not of New Zealand. They are part of the Realm of New Zealand, but are not generally thought of as part of geographical NZ proper. It is fine to mention them in New Zealand, as you've done, but I don't think they should be part of the region structure.
 * The title of the Ross article is Ross Sea, not Ross Dependency. I think Ross Sea should remain a region of Antarctica, not of New Zealand, for the same reason as the Polynesian islands.
 * Making Chatham Islands a region of the South Island makes no sense to me at all. They are closer to the North Island than to the South Island, although they are are the same latitude as the South Island. But they are so far from any other land, it is quite reasonable to treat them separately from the two main islands.
 * Making Stewart Island a region of the South Island is not quite such a stretch, but while NZ's third biggest island is much smaller than the largest two, I think it's good to have it separate from the South Island.
 * There is no article for Kermadec Islands yet (tourists can't land there), but if one is created one day I would add it as an additional region of NZ, separate from the North Island.
 * So, I'm in favour of keeping the present 5 regions as they are, expanding it to 6 regions when Kermadec Islands is written. Geographically, the NZ islands are "peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced" and it is natural for our division to reflect that. Nurg (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think we currently have a "peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced division".
 * I favour Nurg's rationale with regard to the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau being best dealt with as regions (countries?) of Polynesia, not of New Zealand. I also favour Nurg's rationale with regard to Ross Sea / Ross Dependency and it/they should remain a region of Antarctica, not of New Zealand.
 * Putting the needs of the traveller first, the most weighty argument is that the printed map(s) would be more manageable and this has more relevancy to most visitor travel patterns if there was a simple division into North and South Islands. ie the "3" solution, but without the new Polar New Zealand article including the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares that are extremely rarely visited other than by research scientists.

 * I agree with Nurg, that making Stewart Island a region of the South Island is not a stretch and it might even be made part of our current Southland region.

 * Making the Chatham Islands a region of the South Island makes perfect sense to me. Many of their transport links, marine and air, are with the South Island, and the children of the less than 700 population attend secondary schools there.

 * Both Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands share the same area code (03) as the South Island.
 * I agree with Frank, that the removed parts should be dealt with by using one or two footer paragraphs such as: "The realm of New Zealand also includes the Antarctic territories of the Ross Dependency, the various sub-Antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares together with the tropical Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. Although the latter share the same monarch as head of state and their citizens are issued New Zealand passports, because they are self governing with differing immigration régimes and all have very different climates and cultures, they are dealt with in separate articles." --118.93nzp (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 * What do you mean about the printed map(s)? Nurg (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, now you mention it I don't know exactly he was on about! I've emailed him for an explanation but there's no reply as yet. I assumed at the time I read his comments that he would have had a point, but now I'm buggered if I can see the relevance of printed maps to how we divide up NZ. Sorry!
 * Why didn't you ask Frank what he meant two months ago when he wrote that? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask Frank because it wasn't his main point and I addressed his main points. But for you, it is "the most weighty argument" when putting the needs of the traveller first, even though, as it turns out, you don't know what you mean! Nurg (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair points both.
 * It's a bit embarrassing to admit it, but because I've always found him and Peter Southwood to be unfailingly accurate in the past, I whacked that in without checking. I've struck it through now until I can find out exactly what he meant by that. Trying desperately to rescue the situation, it just goes to show what I have consistently sermonised about: assess the edit not the person who made it!
 * I suppose he could have meant that the South Island printed map would be a bit more manageable if it showed the connection from Bluff to Stewart Island but I have to admit I'm just floundering and guessing now... --118.93nzp (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious edit?
This edit removed and changed a lot of content, whilst not leaving a comment as to why. The user was anonymous. Should it be undone? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It's a complicated edit with some minor grammar errors and some facts need to be nuanced slightly differently, but my first reaction is that it's a bona fide attempt to assist the traveller. I'll look at it in depth in the morning. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Great. I don't have sufficient local knowledge to know which is the better edit. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm still allowed to edit when I finish my shift, I'll attempt to combine the accurate and germane from both. If not, then because this project is a wiki, somebody else may be able to improve it. Either way, I wish this project the best for the future. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinions not allowed?!?
This edit removed this text: While Maori Television receives large government subsidies, it still displays some advertising. If the intrusive advertising drives you crazy, then the Al Jazeera international news and current affairs station is widely available on DTT 24/7. with edit comment of "Undo revision 2512653 by 61.29.8.41 (talk) -- "intrusive" is opinionated".

There are some important differences between our travel guide and an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. WP requires all opinions to be authoritative (ie usually published in reputable sources) and referenced.

Reading between the lines here, I don't think that actually disagrees that there is an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera and neither that it is widely available on DTT 24/7 and neither that it does not interrupt the flow intrusively with advertising. No, I suspect his objection is to the idea that anyone should have the opinion that advertising is not an unmitigated "good thing" or, heaven forfend, that anyone could actually opine that interrupting a film or drama every few minutes can be "intrusive".

When we warn travellers that a motel is "dirty", it's typically not because we've read the results of a bacteriological survey by the local health inspector; if we go on to write that the "mattresses sag and are uncomfortable" that's typically just our opinion without reference to scientific tests. If we write in an opinionated way that travellers should try and get a room at the back away from the highway, that opinion, although unsupported by the readings of a decibel meter is allowed to remain because it is both fair and useful to the traveller.

Is there any difference with what has been removed? In my opinion, it's useful to travellers to know
 * (i) that there is an an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera available 24 hours a day throughout most of New Zealand (the only one now that BBC World on TV1 in the early hours of the morning has been replaced with US steam cleaner "infomercials") and
 * ii) that, almost uniquely amongst it NZ's free-to-air programming, Al Jazeera does not carry intrusive advertising.

And no, I do not work for and have not been paid by Al Jazeera but I do enjoy keeping up with world events when visiting NZ when I don't have the access to the BBC that I take for granted in Singapore. --61.29.8.41 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 * "Intrusive" compared to what? The statement is subjective - it may be intrusive to someone who watches non-commercial television all the time, but from an American point of view it would be much more pleasurable to watch with less advertising.
 * Yes, there is an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera and it is available on Freeview HD, but it is not unique to New Zealand. It is also available free-to-air in many other countries worldwide.Lcmortensen (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you have still fully understood that, to write an effective and entertaining travel guide, we have to use our subjective judgements and voice our fair opinions. Those are just two of the ways we differ from WP.
 * Another important difference is that, here at Wikivoyage, the print version matters. Yes, we strive to be comprehensive but we continually walk a tightrope (not helped by our overly restrictive policy that currently forbids in-line linking to Wikipedia for non-travel topics) between coverage and avoiding guides becoming too bloated to reasonably print out and put in a back pocket. It's always a tough judgement as to whether it's useful for travellers to know that the Arahura has 300 lane metres available, the Aratere 625 lane metres, and Kaitaki, 1780 lane metres, but I'd encourage you to always focus on more typical traveller's needs rather than those logistic planners needing to know whether their 500m long motorcade of vehicles can be accommodated or not.
 * Getting back to your point about our American visitors being delighted about less advertising in Godzone, that's but one perspective. Australians and British visitors, used to having several high quality channels with zero advertising from the ABC and BBC respectively, will be appalled by the intrusiveness and length of NZ TV ads - not to mention, the banality and relentlessly low-brow programming and the lack of documentaries and news analysis. That's why it's important to mention the existence of both Aljazeera and, for the rapidly increasing number of Chinese visitors, CTV8. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any figures for how many millions of dollars are returned to the NZ government annually (or expended on Māori Television) so that "New Zealand's small television audience and high overhead costs means it cannot afford the luxury in offering commercial-free television like in Britain and Australia" ? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NZ Broadband doesn't suck!
So I just had a fiddle with the Internet section of the article. Previously it was written with a very negative tone, as if trying to convince readers that we have 3rd world internet - which is utterly untrue! I feel it's a lot more positive now, and I'm just posting this to head off any accusations of fanboyism: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/sbiddle/8433 Ripdog2121 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Be fair and plunge forward. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This part of our article previously said (before removal): "This is compounded by the fact New Zealand is an island nation and there are only two cables out of the country, with a combined capacity of 4,000,000 Mbps (that's just under 900 kbps per person!)"
 * Is that statement now untrue? --118.93nzp (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It is also assuming that every single person is using 900kbps at any given time. Not untrue, but irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 earthquake
I disagree with the complete removal of all earthquake information here. A warningbox is a bit excessive if lives aren't currently in danger, but the road to Kaikoura being out does impede travel and therefore merits at least a mention (presumably, in "get around"). K7L (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that we need to have a prominent box near the top of the article - maybe a caution, not a warning. Otherwise the reader will assume that we haven't updated the article. (I have just looked at newzealand.com and it didn't mention the quake, which means that I would not rely on their info being current.) It can have a positive spin a - 7.8 earthquake which only resulted in two fatalities says a lot about how well the country is prepared.
 * Kaikoura should have a warning box until road access is open to all, and then a caution until SH1 is fully open (likely to take months). Wellington and probably some other places should have cautions, as there has been some damage and travellers may find places closed. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Actually I was disturbed about User:Nurg's edit comment : " Most of NZ is open & the tourism industry is concerned that people will be put off travelling to regions that are open, or to the country at all " - This does come across as actively trying to prevent the traveler from making an informed decision about travel to NZ, which I would like to believe wasn't the actual intent.
 * I recommend reinstating the warning, with an emphasis that the impact is very localised in specific areas. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I have added it back as a cautionbox, but changing the last sentence, to make it clear that it is mostly business as usual. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Actually reading the content of the warning, it seems to only impact actual travel between Wellington and Christchurch, and not a safety issue. Would it not be more appropriate placed in the 'Get Around' section? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that it should stay at the top of the page for a couple of weeks, as it impacts places to see, sleep etc. I understand that a few sights in Wellington are shut, but at the moment it is not clear which have just closed for a couple of days to tidy up, and which are shut for months. AlasdairW (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Do we need two boxes? The first box already explains that there had been an earthquake, so the second box (in "get around") doesn't need to re-explain everything. Just list what roads are closed or diverted, as the other box already has the info about the disaster itself. K7L (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I expect that there will be difficulties with getting around until SH1 and the railway reopens. There are no estimates yet of when that will be (other than "months"). I would expect to have the second box there for a large part of 2017, but the first one would be removed in 2-4 weeks depending on updates. AlasdairW (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Apologies if I over-reacted in removing the warning box completely. I had just come from reading this news article talking about "a risk overseas markets will get the wrong idea about the size of the area affected", and "much of New Zealand is unaffected", and "after the Christchurch earthquakes, even regions that hadn't been directly impacted suffered a significant drop-off in visitors". I was happy with the warning on the Kaikoura article but worried we might contribute to the fears expressed in the news article with a warning on the NZ article. I am happy with the "notes" now on the NZ, Marlborough and Wellington articles, and the warning on Kaikoura. I think they are proportionate and fair.

 * While I'm here, as someone with a long NZ watchlist, I want to thank everyone who contributes to NZ articles. I particularly notice User:Lcmortensen, an assiduous NZ encyclopedist, who joined us (I think) from Wikipedia on the day we officially started on Wikimedia. He doesn't post on Talk pages much but beavers away consistently. Also User:AlasdairW, for whom NZ couldn't be further from his domicile. In addition to his many contributions to text, he is especially valued for adding banners, an area I have no expertise in. And everyone else too, thanks. Nurg (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the warning at the top of the article might be removed now - but the the Get Around one needs to stay, probably for most of 2017. In the last ten days, I have been in Wellington, Nelson and then Christchurch (via the Tranzalpine). The only disruption I noticed was in Wellington, but this was minor (<5% of stuff was closed and I had to make a one block diversion to avoid an unsafe building). Those travelling direct from Picton to Christchurch were more impacted, due to the rail / SH1 closures. AlasdairW (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Replace Hawke's Bay in Other Destinations?
While adding the map markers for cities and other destinations, it seemed to me that we have Napier in cities and Hawke's Bay in Other Destinations, with basically the same blurbs. Should we keep Napier and replace Hawke's Bay with another destination? If we did replace Hawke's Bay, which destination should replace it? I was thinking Marlborough or Kaikoura would be a suitable replacement. Lcmortensen (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Maps
I have removed the dynamic map from this article. Wikivoyage policy is that particularly above the city level, when there's a static map, a dynamic map is not used. This has been discussed before. If anyone wants to argue the point again, try the Travellers' pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ikan Kekek, but the different cities are not highlighted on the static map but were on the dynamic one. So useful information for travellers has been deleted now.--Renek78 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest for the static map to be edited, not replaced. It's standard for countries to use static maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I realized with those static maps, that it takes quite some effort to alter them. Thus they are rarely updated. In the long run the dynamic maps are the way to go in my opinion. But that's a topic for the Travellers' pub as you already said. Nonetheless I would like to paste the alternative map here. Who knows what happens in the future. It is quite a bit of work to find the right Wikidata items. Would be a pity, if someone else has to repeat this work in a few months/years...--Renek78 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 * There are some very good static mapmakers. All they need is information on which cities and other destinations to highlight. If he were spending more time here, I'd ping User:Saqib, but really, just posting a message at the pub for a slight amount of help on the static map is all that's needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am happy to help. Just let me know what exactly needs to be done. --Saqib (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your move, Renek78. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Saqib, I just mentioned, that the dynamic map had markers for the 9 major cities in them (from 1 Wellington to 9 Rotorua). I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add those numbers 1-9 to the static map. Maybe not.
 * I think the point would be to highlight the names of the cities in the list of 9 and similarly featured other destinations. Names are better than numbers, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see 9 major cities already listed in the static map but there are few more cities or town listed. I assume those Should those go? Also I am going to add the "other destination" points in the map. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See the map please. --Saqib (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend deleting information (other towns); instead, I would support bolding the names of the 9 listed cities. Where can we see the revised map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * commons:File:NZ regions.png. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see all the "Cities" and "Other destinations" on the map. Had there been any other cities in the map before? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were few more locations which I have removed. --Saqib (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be great to leave those and simply bold the names of the featured cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Converting units
My edit using the "kmh" template" was reverted with the edit summary "overconversion" may I ask what the consensus on this is? I thought that template was introduced to be used, but if consensus says something else, so be it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 * It's hard to say what "overconversion" means but I think it means having to see the both kmh and mph speeds five times in the one paragraph. Not sure if I agree with that though. All five speeds are different so why make readers do the maths in their head if we can provide them with that information? The policy at WV:Conv doesn't really give specific guidance on this point. Gizza ( roam ) 20:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those Luddites who insist on using old-timer measures like "hundredweights" and "miles" should just get over it join the modern world. I don't see why we should cater to their bizarre clinging to the ancient world.
 * <Sigh>. But that's not what our policy says. I think a reasonable approach here would be to convert the first two, 50 km/h and 100 km/h, and leave the others to the reader's imagination. 40, 90, and 110 km/h are all close enough to those speeds that they will get the main point. If they are driving in NZ, they will have to learn these anyway. Ground Zero (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the template could/should be changed into a hover-over function? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be quite content to make metric our default measurement system and not bother with conversions except in order to provide metric "translations" of imperial measures on UK and U.S.-related articles. However, if we are to maintain the policy that conversions are useful, then they should be implemented fully and without exception, rather than half-heartedly. The only get-out clause should be where the same measurement is listed more than once in the space of a few paragraphs. I would also like to see a hover-over function, if possible. On the other hand, I've noticed that function doesn't work on mobile internet (like many other aspect of our crap mobile version), so maybe not yet. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows what a kilometer is, speed limits on New Zealand roads are measured in kilometers per hour only, and in fact it's unlikely that any car driving on a New Zealand road even has a speedometer that registers anything other than km/h. So I don't see any reason to convert here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should there be a link to Metric and Imperial equivalents somewhere? Theoretically knowing what a km is does not give the feeling in the same way as recognizing familiar speeds. Somehow I doubt most readers do the conversion themselves as they read. Where would American users found the link most easily? New Zealand is probably not the most important destination for US folks, so some central place could do, but I think there is none. The country fact box? --LPfi (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any time I want to do a conversion, I just type "convert x kilometers to miles" in a search engine, and voila! No need to spend much time worrying about this, IMO. If some Americans can't figure out what a km per hour is, how do you think they'll handle driving on the left side? Better not drive while in New Zealand, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has 19 uses of "km" including "sq km" and 4 conversions into miles / square miles. I think that is about right - a few conversions remind readers of the conversion factor. It would be fine to add a conversion for one of the speeds, but not all of them. I doubt any travellers will be driving cars with mph speedometers, as you don't bring your own car to New Zealand, and I doubt a traveller will be driving a car from before 1976. AlasdairW (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The conversion of square (whatever) differs from the conversion of not-square units. One square mile is not roughly equal to 1.6 square kilometers... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Our measurement policy asks us to "try to provide conversions for measurements" and "If the preferred units are metric, try to provide U.S. Standard measurements in parentheses." Just saying. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the conversions are useful for US folks. Some are in the metric world for the first time. And typing a conversion into a search box requires some effort, like doing the ×1.6 in the head. We have to balance that with too many parenthesis and figures making the text less fluent. But we do have the quite good article on conversions, and I do not know how our readers find it. Or, rather, I suspect few find it. --LPfi (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why use British spelling?
Doesn't New Zealand have its own spelling? SHB2000 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Have you tried Wikipedia to see what it says? Ground Zero (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it does. But as we did to the Australian version, can we not use British spelling and use Kiwi spelling? Or at least Australian. SHB2000 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Enwiki policy on this is to differentiate every spelling variant, so New Zealand-related articles are explicitly described as written in "New Zealand English" (and so on and so forth, e.g. "Indian English", "Pakistani English", "South African English"). I tend to think this is a little over-the-top, as formal language for any given Commonwealth (excl. Canada) country will look fairly similar. On the other hand, Wikivoyage is of course less formal. I think it's fine to shorthand refer to the 'U and S/Z' distinctions as going by "British English", but where slang-y language is used it'll of course be Kiwi rather than British. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But Kiwi english is pretty much Aussie english with a few variations. With one major (BE vs. KE) one being Kiwi vs. New Zealander. SHB2000 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, British spelling is used in NZ, and NZ does not have its own spelling. If I'm wrong, I'd be very interested to learn the details. Nurg (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WV:Spelling SHB2000 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. w:American and British English spelling differences - "New Zealand spelling is almost identical to British spelling, except in the word fiord (instead of fjord)." Nurg (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, yes, it does have its own spelling. SHB2000 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, but it's hardly a great fjord between the two. Nurg (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since WV:Spelling says for NZ articles to be written in kiwi english I'm going to change it, but feel free to revert it. SHB2000 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Phone number format
The general pattern specified at Phone numbers is +  with a hyphen within the local number. User:SHB2000 wants the format +64 X-XXX XXXX for NZ, replacing the space between area code and local number with a hyphen, and replacing the hyphen within the local number with a space. He says in an edit summary, "we had a discussion a couple of months ago which I believe was agreed upon, which you can see even on Talk:Chile which User:Ground Zero added (I believe that was the first one)." I cannot see any discussion at Talk:Chile about phone number format – all I see is the format at the top of the page. Where exactly is the discussion in which +64 X-XXX XXXX was agreed upon for countries like NZ? Nurg (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nurg, instead of starting this, you could have removed the dash yourself instead initiating an edit war with me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It has now become apparent that you were not trying to change the format – you just got it wrong. If I am still misinterpreting your actions, can we please just talk it through, without allegations of edit wars. We want to keep Wikivoyage fun. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the normal format is to have the hyphen in the last space, though let’s face it, who’s going to notice? I’m not seeing the discussion at Talk:Chile, so SHB, maybe you don’t have the correct link to the discussion. From what I can tell, Nurg removed a comment on this page, and except for highly offensive content, removal of talk page comments is to be avoided, so I will reinstate SHB’s comment even though it may be incorrect. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad for not looking closer. This is in the infobox, which is a different story. I wouldn’t be concerned by an edit, followed by a revert, followed by a revert. Both parties stated good reasons to revert the other and a talk page discussion seems like the best outcome. I don’t see an edit war on our hands. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the heavy handed harsh response. There's a little bit of a story to why I've been so annoyed at reverts this week, but mainly Ljupco reverting all of my edits on Wikipedia: this should explain a little bit. There's some other ones too, and that can be found in my edit history on enwiki. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, apology accepted. Sorry to hear you've had trouble elsewhere. Look after yourself and take a break if things get too heavy – sometimes one can get free of troublesome people by ignoring their edits for a while. Nurg (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He stalks me, so I don't think he'll stop. But on a side note, a little early happy 10000th edit :) (on the WMF hosted site) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * SHB2000, I would just ignore those edit summaries. Don’t even read them if they’re causing offense. Chances are they’re copied from somewhere else and they certainly pertain no relevance to you. With any LTA, it’s about a disturbed, unconstructive person versus a sane one, so their edit summaries aren’t worth consideration. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries aren't the problem, it's that every one of my contributions are reverted by WMF banned user, which is annoying. But I wish they'd get help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He won’t, but from what I see on WV, you seem to make plenty of contributions without his interruption. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To an extent, I've done a half decent job at driving him out of here, which has worked to a point where he just does what he used to do here elsewhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Skip Buses
The services of this bus operator were suspended in March 2020, and its webiste continued to say suspended "Skipping at home for a while" until March 2023. The website is now dead, so I think we can assume that they no longer exist. They were a budget brand from the same company as Intercity. the entry I have removed was: I will also remove Skip Bus listings from cities. AlasdairW (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Skip Bus operates express bus services across major cities in the North Island, like Auckland, Whangarei, Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua, Wellington.

Supermarket colours
Regarding this edit while it is, as user:AlasdairW says, "it is useful to know what colour the large metal sheds of supermarkets are - look for the large green shed if heading to Woolworths / Countdown, the blue one next door isn't a supermarket", I agree with User:Brycehughes that this doesn't belong in a country-level article. "Though it aims to tell people how to travel all over the world, Wikivoyage does not document everything on the planet or how it ended up that way." I spent a month in New Zealand, and did not starve. Finding supermarkets was very easy, even though i did not know what colours to look for when i arrived. Ground Zero (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Likewise. From my experience last summer, the choice is fairly abundant and you can never been too far away from a supermarket in NZ, making the addition of supermarket colours redundant. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 06:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In smaller towns there may be only one or two supermarkets, and they are often away from the small shops on the main street, next other large warehouse buildings. On my first visit I was travelling without the help of online maps, so it was good to find a supermarket just by looking down the street. As I have always walked to the supermarket, it is nice to see my destination in advance and head straight to the right building. As supermarkets are the same colour all over the country, the colours only belong in the country article (until we have a shopping or cuisine travel topic). However it is not a big issue. AlasdairW (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I (obviously) support removing the colours, as the supermarkets all have distinguishable and convenient signs with their names on them, but not all their buildings display their colours. For example, the New World on Queen Street in Auckland is located in a pink and black building. Moreover, as Ground Zero alluded to, brevity. Brycehughes (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Zealand


text:
Talk:Neza-e-Sultan

Is there any way we can integrate this into Pakistan somehow? -- (WT-en) Evan 18:10, 8 Nov 2003 (PST)

Most of this page is text copied from another article. There is a disclaimer to that effect, but that doesn't mean it's not copy-written. Can the author confirm that all the text is theirs to put up? If it is, it probably still needs to be edited down as it's neat background info, but not actual traveler info. Maybe just link to the orginal article? (WT-en) Majnoona

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

title: Talk:Neza-e-Sultan


text:
Talk:Nha Trang

Region
Where is Nha Trang in the Vietnam region system? South, Central Coast, Central Highlands? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 02:04, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * South, definitely. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:10, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I moved it to Central Highlands (Vietnam) as that's what the map shows. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 05:13, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Edits by Viettravelsthm -- revert it all?
I can't seem to find any direct matches for Viettravelsthm's latest batch of edits, but he's deleting previous information, adding in blatant touting in semi-incoherent English, and unresponsive to Talk comments. Should we just revert the whole lot? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Nha Trang Sailing Club
I edited this description down...anyone care to defend it? I don't see any similar experiences on the web. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Nha Trang Sailing Club, 72-74 Tran Phu St.. Open late. The place to get drug and rub. Management show their inability to protect the customers. The police doing nothing to stop a gang of Wolfpack stealing customers at the exit of the bar. Management, Security and Police close their eyes on this. No ways to report to the police, all paper work must been done in Vietnamese that why no foreign tourists can complain. That bar is the shame of Nha Trang. This club is extremely popular. Prostitute all over the place. BEWARE. It is kind of an after party place everyone goes to when other bars are closed. There is a large area with pool table and a dance floor.

Airport taxi fare
Airport to city taxi fare cost me VND300,000 this week. I couldn't find the official fares online to confirm that I didn't get ripped off, but the meter appeared to be working correctly. Discussion on the web suggests fares have increased a lot recently due to higher fuel prices, so it's probably correct. If anyone else can confirm this experience we can update the article. (WT-en) Hmoffatt 2 October 2008

Yes, that seems to be roughly correct. A taxi tour of about 5 km will set you back somewhere 65'000 VND. the airport is well 25 km + away —The preceding comment was added by 123.19.194.1 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 August 2009

Airport to city taxi fare cost me VND200,000 in Apr,2016 —The preceding comment was added by 113.178.20.149 (talk • contribs)

 * If anything needs updating, please edit accordingly. Thanks a lot. (By the way, I "signed" for you. On talk [discussion] pages, it's expected for everyone to sign their posts by typing 4 tildes [the ~ key] in a row at the end, so that it's easy to tell who posted what.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Crime
moved in from the article (--(WT-en) ClausHansen 16:23, 28 March 2010 (EDT)):

During 5 days in Nha Trang my phone and money got stolen, a bouncer kicked me in the face, my friend had her phone nicked from her purse as she slept in her hotel during the day, another friend was taken down an alley and robbed by moto drivers and one moto driver tried to forcibly extort another two of my friends. The police are also not interested in helping Western travelers and may ask for cash for the privilege of a report for insurance purposes. This is not to say this is everyone's experience of Nha Trang but it is worth considering. 9 weeks in Asia experiencing no crime and then I see or hear about all of this in one place... Take care.

Entries being deleted
I had two legitimate entries, one for the Louisiane Brewhouse and another for the Starlet Hotel. Both are gone. Why? What's the point of trying to help people out and give good recommendations if they just get deleted with no justification? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Cigrainger (talk • contribs)

 * Hi. They weren't deleted at all, I just moved them to their relevant subsections, as they should have been placed in the first place—Louisiane Brewhouse is now listed at "Mid-range" subsection of "Eat", while Starlet Hotel is placed at "Mid-range" of "Sleep". If you disagree with the subsections they are placed, i.e. if you think they are more of "budget" or "splurge" places, please feel free to move them around. – (WT-en) Vidimian 06:13, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

 * I do apologize for the confusion! For some reason they were not showing up on my computer earlier. They are there now. Again, very sorry! Something must have been going wrong on my end. --(WT-en) Cigrainger 13:54, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

 * No worries. – (WT-en) Vidimian 14:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Entries being deleted
I also had a legitimate entry under "Sleep" where I added the subtitle "Apartments and houses for rent" and a provider of fully equipped apartments for rent from 1 day to longer periods. Although such service providers fall under the category "Sleep", the entry was quickly deleted, apparently because it's not hotel... In other words, those who look for apartments as an alternative to hotel rooms should find them anywhere but in Wikivoyage! --(WT-en) Travologist 10:21, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Please see the Wikivoyage policy on apartment listings. You entry was deleted as it did not fully comply with that policy. A note to that effect was left in the edit dialogue here --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:30, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Entries not deleted at the complete Nha Trang travel guide, but welcome!
Wikivoyage's policy says "it is not an apartment-finder service" and does therefore "not allow rental agency listings". And if it does - exceptionally! - "apartments or cabins must be available for rentals of one week or less." Wikivoyage is not an apartment-finder service but a hotel room-finder service as it publishes plenty of hotels and if somebody wants to stay 8 or more days or even months he is not supposed to find an apartment at all. Thus, Wikivoyage's average traveler must stay no longer than 7 days in one place! These and other Wikivoyage rules appear quite arbitrary and even non-sensical.

Travologist, send us your post and we will publish it on www.nha-trang.travel - the complete Nha Trang travel guide. We know Nha Trang inside and out and recognize immediately which post is legitimate and true and which not. Unlike Wikivoyage's policy ours is simple: we post anything travelers (in the broadest sense of the word) need to know and may want to know. Check it out and use it! --(WT-en) Nha-trang.travel 04:39, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

Cam Ranh beach description
The description about Cam Ranh beach may be mistaken or obsolete. As of 2011, there is no beach within 30km from city center apart from Diamond Bay resort. There is in fact a Cam Ranh beach but it must be around 60km from city and is quite undeveloped.

Easy Rider
I have restored the *original* easy rider contribution that i made some time ago. The spammer User:(WT-en) Easyridervietnam took the original description for a legitimate tour operator and simply changed the details to his own, see this change http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Nha_Trang&diff=1744413&oldid=173769. I believe that User:(WT-en) Wrh2 mistakenly removed the original listing so I have restored this.

So called "work"
Nha Trang article has the following: It looks like the owner of Travel to Teach just found the way to earn easy money. I pay tribute to his ingenuity, however, I propose to remove it from the article. --Kiaora (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nha Trang


text:
Talk:Nhulunbuy

Merge
I think we should get rid of this and keep one Arnhem Land article. This just spreads the info on multiple articles, while in fact it's one destination. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Nhulunbuy


text:
Talk:Niagara Falls

Errors
Many factual errors and very poor writing style. Fixed some, I'll be back later to do some more cleanup! 69.157.105.30 03:07, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

Disambiguation?
What is the difference between this article and Niagara Falls (Ontario)? It looks like the information is duplicated, and we don't actually need both. Where that leaves Niagara Falls (New York), I'm not sure... -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:46, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * So I take it that Niagara Falls is the region article, but currently it contains more detail than Niagara Falls (Ontario). -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:49, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * We have:

 * Niagara Falls - this page.
 * Niagara Region - A region in southern Ontario.
 * Niagara Falls (New York) - The town in New York state.
 * Niagara Falls (Ontario) - The town in Ontario.
 * Niagara Falls (disambiguation) - An index of all of these.

 * That's at least one too many I think. Can we move the relevant content in Niagara Falls into Niagara Falls (New York) and Niagara Falls (Ontario), and then make Niagara Falls a disambiguation page and get rid of Niagara Falls (disambiguation)?  That would seem to make the most sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I plunged forward and made this change as it seems obviously correct given Project:Article naming conventions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

What just happened?
Whose idea was it to change this from a dab page into an extra-hierarchical region? While the idea isn't inherently unsound, it should have been discussed first. And the implementation has several problems: -- Powers (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The banner image chosen is already in use on Niagara Falls (Ontario); we can't re-use it here.
 * The links to the two cities with all of the content are hard to find for the casual reader.
 * The two images exceed the length of the prose.
 * The text criminally minimizes the importance of the natural wonder that is the falls.

 * No good? By all means, plunge forward and fix it... just be careful and watch out for the really big waterfall. K7L (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Recent changes have been an improvement, though I still think it should have been discussed first. I thought it was all right as a disambiguation page, and I'm curious to know the reasoning for changing it.  Powers (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you want the disambig put back up? A disambiguation makes sense if the two places are unrelated in all but name (Aylmer, Ontario is not Aylmer, Québec and Springfield (Illinois) is not Springfield (Massachusetts), so an overview of Springfield, Massachusetts and Missouri makes no sense as an extraregion) but Niagara (ON/NY) are geographically the same place, arbitrarily split by a region boundary down the middle of the huge waterfall. K7L (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's not exactly arbitrary considering the gorge and river running through it. =)  But this is a unique case as the two cities share both a name and a location.  Powers (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unique" infers "only one"; this is rare, but there are likely others which are geographically contiguous across some arbitrary boundary under the same name. I didn't bother looking at Kansas City because I presumed that Everything is Up to Date there. K7L (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going to be that pedantic, you meant "implies" not "infers". I note that Kansas City gives priority to the Missouri side, which makes sense given the relative predominance of the two. Powers (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Frozen falls photos?
The region is currently undergoing a cold snap; Toronto hit -30C (about -35F) last week. I've seen some sensational photos on Facebook of mostly-frozen falls, but cannot find one on Commons. Can anyone else find or take one? User:AndreCarrotflower; you are the closest of our regular contributors. Pashley (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Underground railroad?
Article currently has:
 * By motorcar ... By rail, it was one of the few places where a bridge could carry a locomotive across the Canadian border during the Underground Railroad era of the 1850s; Amtrak/VIA still use Niagara as a rail border crossing ...

I know this region was important in that era, but have no idea if the "underground railroad" used actual railroads. Even if it did, I'm inclined to think the historic underground railroad reference does not belong in the middle of a paragraph about current transport options. Put it in a separate paragraph, or a sentence at the end of this one?

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 * IMO, the article could do with sections. Then it would be easier to figure out how to organize the paragraphs. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Banner reshuffling
Many articles have banners with the Niagara Falls. Some of them have poor photographic quality. We can reorganize them to improve quality and originality. They can even be considered for high-level articles such as New York (state), Ontario or even North America. /Yvwv (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Candidate 1 has the wrong dimensions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, #2 and #6 have poor photographic quality and are uninspiring. They should be replaced by #10 (for Niagara Falls (Ontario)) and #8 (for Niagara Falls (New York)), respectively. Niagara Peninsula's image is a bt uninspiring and can be replaced by #11. /Yvwv (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Banner 0 or 4. The others don't give me a feel for the place. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest #7 for Niagara Falls (featuring the natural scenery), #9 for Niagara Falls (New York), #10 for Niagara Falls (Ontario) and #11 for Niagara Peninsula. /Yvwv (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Niagara Falls


text:
Talk:Niagara Falls (New York)

External link
In this edit, the external link for Niagara Falls State Park was changed to the New York state park web page instead of the official site created by the operator of the park's amenities because the latter is "a commercial site". Yes, it's a commercial operation, but they're the official operators of the park's visitor center and its retail and restaurant locations. It's also a much more useful site than the state park page.

Thoughts on how our external links policy informs the decision between these two sites?

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 20:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

 * I would tend to favor the state park site - if the listing was for a hotel or restaurant within the park then the web site for the business's operator would make more sense, but since the link is for the park itself then the official state park link seems to be the appropriate choice. As to being a more "useful" link, per the external links policy that shouldn't be a major factor in determining what to link to since one of the stated goals of that policy is to encourage contribution of information to Wikivoyage rather than links to other sites ("this is an incentive issue; if we have lots of links to other travel guides, we lose the impetus to create our own"). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:31, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Well, yes, but the sort of information that is useful, the whole reason we allow external links at all, is found on the commercial site rather than on the state page. It is an official web site, and so does not run afoul of policy in that respect.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:24, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I unfortunately agree with (WT-en) Ryan to a certain extent. Once we start an evaluative process of what is the most "useful", rather than the - stricter - most "official", things can get harder to determine.  In this case, the NY parks site features the commercial site link quite prominently, so I'm not sure it merits an exception to ensure the traveller gets to the site they want.  That said, I can see the other side of this, don't have too strong an opinion on it.  --(WT-en) inas 23:38, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't see the point in making the user click twice to get "to the site they want". (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * The issue here as I see it is that extlinks are a hassle to manage, and have the potential to detract from the guide. Therefore having a easy to interpret extlinks policy is necessary.  I agree in this case the policy gives the wrong result.  The question is whether it is worth broadening the scope of potential extlinks to make it give the right result.  The positive side is the traveler gets to the useful info with less clicks.  The negative is that we may have to arbitrate usefulness of links, rather than just their status as the most official link.  When I weigh those to things up, I come down on the side of the sticking to the most official link, particular as the traveller isn't much inconvenienced here.    However, I can see the line of reasoning which leads clearly to the opposite result.  --(WT-en) inas 18:50, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * To me, if we have to balance the traveler's needs with our needs, the traveller comes first. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:06, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

 * I'm with Inas on this one - our external links policy is far from perfect, but it's better than any alternative that has been proposed, and I don't see any obvious reason for an exception in this case. As to invoking the "traveler comes first" policy, unfortunately I don't see that travelers are in any way being done a disservice in this case - and if they were in this case, in what case would any external link ever be excluded since you could always make the argument that an external link might be useful? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:41, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Replacing one link with another is not exactly a step down that slippery slope. We're not talking about adding links willy-nilly all over the article; we're just talking about which official link is better.  That's an editorial judgement we can and should make.  The state website is practically useless, while the commercial site offers all of the information we typically like to see in an external link.  Both are official; neither one is a fan site, or a blog, or run by a consortium of businesses looking to advertise.  Those are the kind of links the policy prohibits, not ones that happen to be commercial.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

 * But when we are dealing with business owners and vested interests in enforcing our xl policy on a regular basis, then what you refer to so positively as "editorial judgement", can quickly become ugly when we have disputes with vested interests over links without a consistent and firm policy basis to fall back on.
 * If you can frame a policy clarification which leaves what links to include as unambiguous - i.e something like "when an official concession or operating contract has been given over the entire area or attraction to a third party organisation, we may additionally link to the concessionaire", I'd be inclined to support it. It isn't the link that I'm concerned about, so much as opening holes in xl for less scrupulous editors to take advantage of.
 * I guess in reality we already do this in cases like operating leases over airports. --(WT-en) Inas 17:10, 10 November 2011 (EST)

 * I guess I don't understand the concern here. What kind of "bad" external links are we expecting to proliferate if this page links to the official operator of the park's amenities?  Our "consistent and firm policy basis" is we allow a link to the official web site for a particular listing.  In this case, there are two official web sites, with a very basic one focused on the park as a component of the state's park system, and a more comprehensive one focused on the tourist and visitor amenities available.  One is not "more official" than the other just because one of them is operated by a commercial venture; they are both "official".  Is this a common situation where we have official concessionaires and operators trying to spam their links on Wikivoyage?  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:48, 10 November 2011 (EST)

 * No it isn't, and commercial nature or otherwise isn't a concern. My simple concern is if we have two potential links, that we may be introducing a "most useful", criteria as opposed to the "most official" criteria that I think our policy implies now.  "Most useful" greases that slope.  If we can limit this specifically to situation of concessions and operators, I'm sure there is a good solution there.  --(WT-en) Inas 22:00, 10 November 2011 (EST)
 * I think we already make a similar distinction, don't we? Project:External links says "If the destination has both an official visitor's guide and a general government site, include only the visitor guide."  I think the state park web site versus the local handler of the tourism facilities is a similar distinction.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:17, 11 November 2011 (EST)

 * Really? I thought that was to guide us clearly towards the government tourism body site, rather than the one where you might go to pay your taxes.  I don't think it is applicable at all here.  I don't think it was meant to offer guidance between two visitor oriented sites, one government and one not.  --(WT-en) Inas 20:36, 11 November 2011 (EST)

 * No, if I thought it was directly applicable, I would have cited it sooner. I'm suggesting it's analogous; we already introduce an additional criterion beyond "most official".  At the national and state levels, certainly the official tourism site is a production of the government, but at lower levels like county and city, often it's a Chamber of Commerce or a non-profit organization that maintains the official tourism site.  (See, for example, the link that leads off Rochester (New York), which goes to http://visitrochester.com, which is run by the Greater Rochester Visitors Association, not the City of Rochester.)  So given that we already have a provision in our external links policy that allows for non-government links to be included, I don't understand why it's such an issue to include a non-government link for the Niagara Falls State Park.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:18, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Hmmmm.. It's clear that policy is there to make us link to discoveramerica.com, and not usa.gov. I think our current practice and policy would see us remove a chamber of commerce run link over an official city run tourist link. If we want to include a link to an official concessionaire over a park or attraction, lets just say that, rather than trying to shoehorn something which I think has a different intention. --(WT-en) Inas 19:20, 12 November 2011 (EST)

 * (WT-en) Inas's comments match my own opinions - unless a change is made to the external links policy, let's stick with the site that is obviously the official Niagara Falls site, rather than the site for the concessionaire. In cases where there is not a clear "official" link then some editorial judgment might come into play, but where there is an "official" link the external link policy seems (to me at least) to be very clear that it should be the only link considered.  Opening the door to exercising editorial judgment over what is the most useful link is (per policy) not a consideration since such concerns lead to four month long discussions that tend to end without agreement :) -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:36, 12 November 2011 (EST)

 * There are two official links! That's what I've been saying all along.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:34, 12 November 2011 (EST)

 * I disagree. The state park link is clearly official (© 2011 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation), but the other is the link for the park's concessionaire (© 2011 Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts at Niagara, Inc) rather than the park itself. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:42, 12 November 2011 (EST)

 * What exactly is "unofficial" about the official operator of the park's amenities and concessions? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 * I don't think we need to change our primary external links policy, so Inas and Ryan are theoretically right here. However, this is one of those cases where we can make an exception to policy so as to put travellers' needs first (and without slipping down any slope) for the reasons advanced by the good lieutenant. (We do need to change the formatting of external links - since we shouldn't be using misleading footnote style formatting that produces those incrementing, but meaningless numbers - and our policy on links to tertiary sources such as Wikidata and Wikpedia - but those are whole new questions...) -- A l i c e ✉ 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue that we shouldn't change our primary external links policy. In fact, I nearly argued the opposite, that if we want to prefer concessionaires sites over the official sites we should enshrine that in policy and make it clear we are doing so.  An objective xl policy is the key.  One that doesn't require us to look at and argue which link is the most useful before linking to it, as such a policy would bog us down to the extent that we'd end up giving our travellers less appropriate links.  As for the single exception argument - as I said above, this article doesn't justify it.  The concessionaire is only one click away from the parks site.    --Inas (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the web site has changed over time because I couldn't find the concessionaire's link at all from the NY State site. I saw the concessionaire's logo but it wasn't clickable. And I don't think I misunderstood your points. As policy is currently written you are technically correct - but that's not helpful to the traveller - if I couldn't find the link, lots more won't either. -- A l i c e ✉ 07:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again the bald assertion that the concessionaire's site is not an official one. There are two official sites here, and my determination that one is more useful than the other is no different than someone else determining that one is "more official" than the other.  LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More official is more objective than more useful. That's the difference.  @Alice - I know ttcf, but my single point here is if you want to point to the concessionaire link, then suggest the policy change that would allow multiple links (or some such) where there is a concessionaire, or some such.  It must be a pretty common situation, and there is no reason we can't address it directly.  Revisiting each link using the most useful to the traveller, would ultimately have the reverse effect, as secondary links creep in and we have to discuss each one.  --Inas (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being tedious, no policy change is needed to allow either two primary links in this article or the more utilitarian of the two to be listed solely. Our xl policy page already states in the lead paragraph> "In general the Wikivoyage policy is that external links should be kept to a bare minimum, and only links to primary sources should be used." (my boldening added) and nowhere does it go on to say later "External links should point to only one primary source s ". (my faux amendments in red). ttcf should always trump any more specific policy or style suggestion - otherwise it's all hypocrisy. This is a similar principle to the one that allows English law lords to distinguish one very similar case from another in order to arrive at a just and equitable decision that, otherwise, would be legally incorrect and contrary to precedence. There does not seem to be any dispute that both the sites in question are primary sources and LtPowers' judgement should not to be disregarded for legalistic wiklawyering reasons in this case. -- A l i c e ✉ 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that "more official" is any more objective than "more useful". In particular, I don't see any cause for claiming that the state park web site is more official than the concessionaire's site, any more than www.cityofchicago.org is "more official" than www.choosechicago.com.  Guess which one we link on Chicago.  LtPowers (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why you keep pressing the most useful criteria, when it is quite clear to me that it opens a can of worms with external links. I presume we agree that more useful is definitely subjective?  Are you really trying to making the case that more official is equally subjective in the general case? I think official is usually generally quite easy to follow.  We start owner of the land/property/region, and follow the chain of delegated authority down until we get to the first visitor oriented site.  That's the most official visitor site for the region.   --Inas (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(re-indent) I'm not clear why an argument is being made that the concessionaire's web site is an official link. In this case, the site in question clearly states in the footer that it is by "Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, Inc." and nowhere states that it is the officially sanctioned site for Niagara Falls. To cite a similar example, http://www.yellowstonenationalparklodges.com/ is not the official link for Yellowstone National Park, although it is the official link for some of the lodging and other amenities operated by the concessionaire. In both cases the external links policy is clear that we point to the official link, and the "most useful" argument would only be relevant in cases where there is more than one official link, such as with http://www.ny.gov/ and http://iloveny.com/. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, it's official because they officially run the place. It's the same reason we link to convention and visitors' bureaus instead of government administrative websites actually run by governments.  The "can of worms" about which Inas is worried is thus already open.  LtPowers (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have a difference of opinion in interpreting the external links policy then, specifically External links ("The official tourist office or government web site for a destination"). -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider the concessionaire's website in this case to be equivalent to the official tourist office. There is no tourism information on the government site.  LtPowers (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead image
I'd like to ask why the previous image, showing the American Falls in full view with a rainbow and the Maid of the Mist, and a lighthearted caption, was [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Niagara_Falls_%28New_York%29&diff=2147182&oldid=2125272 replaced] by a blurry nighttime shot and a boring caption. LtPowers (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I thought it was a better image, mainly because it shows more context, but I won't object if you change it back. Commons has many others as well. Pashley (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The newer image is certainly the more attractive and artistic photo of the two. We do already have a similar image in this article-- A l i c e ✉ 00:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC) to the one replaced, lower down the page and captioned: "The Maid of the Mist and the American Falls"
 * I have no objection to the aesthetics of the new image, aside from the slight blurriness, but I fear it's almost too abstract. I certainly don't think it shows more context; side-on views of the falls don't really communicate what one is looking at well.  LtPowers (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing that hasn't been touched on in this discussion is that the new image was taken from the vantage point of the American side, whereas the old one was clearly taken from Canada. I much prefer the new image because it is much more illustrative of the vantage point a visitor to Niagara Falls, New York has of the falls, rather than a visitor to Niagara Falls, Ontario. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, could we at least punch up the caption a bit? =)  LtPowers (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that caption is a bit lifeless. I'll get on that in the next little while. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Niagara Falls SP
Any objections before I create it? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * SP=state park? What's the advantage in creating the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * By the way, the external link in the listing for the park produces a warning when I click on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maid of the Mist - pot-o-gold.jpg

title: Talk:Niagara Falls (New York)