text:
Talk:Kosovo

Comments on and improvements to the article are appreciated. Just started it this afternoon on a whim and it is still very much a work in progress... Once finished I'll be moving on to do a detailed Montenegro, which will be a huge amount of work as well as more detailed info on Bosnia. (WT-en) Aburda 09:09, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * parts when talking about "Stay safe", where it calls Albanians as Xenophobic, are not appropriate. Thus, I will remove it. Keep this article apolotical, please! (WT-en) Ilirpz 19:21, 26 March 2006 (EST)

You seem to know quite a bit about the region, so I'd encourage you to re-write some of it with the mindset of a neutral party! Write with these guidelines in mind: No direct references to the reader ("you"), no narration ("Well, actually its not that hard" and in particular the "Ahh" preceding the main section), and a focus on facts rather than viewpoints ("Many in Kosovo have said" versus "People from Kosovo are"). Good luck, I know I'm curious about the Kosovo region myself! (WT-en) Experia 02:52, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Independence
So, I'm not set to believe Kosovo is an independent country. Russia, Greece, Spain, and Serbia are not going to recognize this declaration of independence as legit. Therefore, I suggest that we do not declare Kosovo as an independent country or a "former" province of Serbia. Kosovo needs legitimize its declaration before we make such declarations - that's what we did with Montenegro. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:07, 17 February 2008 (EST)

 * The traveller comes first, so once Kosovo starts acting like an independent country (eg. requiring Kosovan visas instead of Serbian ones), it's an independent country in my book. Cf. eg. Northern Cyprus or Palestine, which aren't independent by most measures, but are treated more or less as countries anyway. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * I agree -- the traveller comes first. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * Agreed. The US is already talking about setting up a mission there and it would seem that, for all practical purposes, it is an independent country. While that's not the issue, I don't see how this can be reversed anyway (short of an all out war).--(WT-en) Wandering 16:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * Well, I wouldn't rule out forcible retaliation against Kosovo's government by the federal government despite the Serbian President's assurances. The leader of the Kosovar branch of the Serb Orthodox Church has encouraged the army to intervene and to purchase weapons from Russia and ethnic Serbs are very angry about the declaration.  I'd propose dealing with this like the Palestinian Territories by saying the government is "Palestinian Authority and Israel" (Gaza Strip guide).  That way we're fair to all sides and travelers.  There are ways for Serbia to subvert the traveler and Kosovo's claim that it's declaration of independence is legitimate.  Plus, Kosovars are waving  Albanian flags around, so who knows if it will possibly end up to be absorbed by Albania.  -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:06, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * Aside from adding a quickbar, what would change if we call it a country? I see no reason to get overly involved in cataloging the politics—we don't need to declare anything. All that's important IMHO is who you need to go to to get your visa, and whose laws you must obey while traveling there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * My crystal ball foresees lots of stupid edit wars over the isIn|Serbia-vs-Mediterranean Europe bit... but I've now added the quickbar, changed the intro and moved Kosovo into Med Europe. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Insurance payment
Hi! I've been to Kosovo late last year (entered December 30, left December 31, 2008). At the entry point, there was no need for an insurance to be bought. Our (German) insurance had told us prior to the journey that Kosovo was dealt with like Albania (!). While I assume the situation is still in flux in some way it might be sensitive to have the "Get in by car" section re-worded a bit to make it sound less rock-solid. Thanks. --141.35.15.102 12:16, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Regions
What about the regions of Kosovo? Personally I don't think it needs any regions. IF (only if), we have to do something, we could use the UNMIK subdivisions, but I think we could do with just listing these cities in the city list. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:24, 11 January 2010 (EST)

 * If we some day have an awesome guide to Kosovo with tons of content, then it would make sense to add regions. But for now it's probably best to leave it as our standard light grey, a la Andorra. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:50, 11 January 2010 (EST)

 * No regions makes sense to me. I can easily create this map from my Serbia map. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:21, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

Fixing the map
The map of Kosovo is not separated Central, Western, Southern, Northern and South-eastern Kosovo although the regions are color coded.

Also the region's map is always on the top of the "Central Kosovo" descripitions for some reason and I can't fix.

"The country"
In my opinion, the anonymous edit which removed every single instance of Kosovo being described as a country, and added the caveat of "administrative" to the description of the border with Serbia, is not "tidy[ing] up...neutrality issues" as was claimed in the edit summary, but is actually taking a Serbian nationalist perspective, rather than that of travellers. So I am taking up the IP user on his or her kind offer to talk things over here and invite other users to join in too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right you've made a number of glaring errors. The Serbian "nationalist" perspective is that Montenegro, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Krajina, Macedonia and Kosovo all belong to Serbia. The Serbian "government" position is different, and that is that Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia. Stating it is a de facto country is still heavily weighted towards the Kosovo/western position. So by saying "administrative border", it respects neutrality and removes the need for bigger circumventing (the territories that Belgrade and Pristina control are known). --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * See this edit, too. A country recognized by half the world is not merely a "de facto country". Can we please stop with these political edits? This is not a debating society on Balkan issues; it is a travel guide. I don't think we should be in the business of characterizing countries as "de facto" and "de jure" on this site, anyway, as the only point on a travel guide is what authority the traveler needs to approach for permission to enter and travel within an area of land (sea, etc.). Any problems a traveler might encounter from the governments of other places that don't recognize the independence or legitimacy of another country or are enforcing sanctions against it are also obviously relevant, but can we please stop setting ourselves up as legal authorities here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with number of recognitions. "De facto" means this is the way it operates. More than de facto is "de jure" and no convention exists to determine this factor. As for more than half the world, Kosovo pales in comparison to State of Palestine by about 20 countries, but click that article and see the biased pro-western narrative of the article. So if Transnistria is de facto, no reason for Kosovo to be different. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The original edit seemed more-or-less unobjectionable to me, but the user seems dead-set on preventing the word country from appearing anywhere in the page, even if it refers to the countryside of Kosovo or to Russia. I am leaning towards reverting the changes to the use of "country" wholly, if that is an option being considered. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As an act of good faith, I am happy to review it. I only meant to modify references to the political unit and I assure you I never intended to project some form of Serbian bias. I can see one instance definitely where I went overboard and I will fx that one as soon as this is posted. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Asides that, I'll happily pore over all other instances one by one to see where there is agreement and where there isn't. Where we have no agreement, we can explore "what else can we try" rather than pushing harder for the point that was rejected. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For travelers, de facto control of access and travel within a zone are the only issues, other than potential visa problems in entering other countries that don't recognize each other. So the issue with Palestine is precisely that they don't exercise much de facto control over access to their own country. I do agree that we should treat Transnistria - and indeed every place with stable control over access and travel within an area - the same way as Kosovo, except inasmuch as we mention something about how many countries recognize its independence in the "Understand" section. I have no interest in either "western" or "eastern" points of view on whether a place is a country or not, and at my earliest opportunity, I will propose doing away with all references to countries being "de facto", as not within the purview of a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am slowly coming around but let's try at least to get some consensus. I have these past minutes looked at other examples and in truth, there is clearly no one-size-fits-all policy on Wikivoyage. So how would you feel about an intro similar to Crimea? Get it out the way early on that dispute exists but due - not so much to number of recognitions but to facts on the ground - we will treat Kosovo like a sovereign state because that is precisely what matters to a visitor. Then we can forget de facto and even "administrative" as a qualifier before "border". --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be time to revisit some of the contents of the disclaimer in the Crimea guide, as for example, war there seems quite unlikely for the foreseeable future. My feeling is, go ahead and write your proposed disclaimer text for discussion here. But I do think that the larger issue is really that deviation from a strict policy of recognizing all stable de facto conditions ill serves the site, and any hint of bias in any direction in regard to borders and declarations of independence should be removed, in keeping with Be fair. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I never meant anything as drastic or complicated as that. I mean (roughly, not verbatim), "despite being unrecognised by Serbia from whom it declared independence, we treat Kosovo as an independent state because this reflects the facts on the ground". Hereinafter, we can go back to the original references. I'll have to check again what they are because a blanket revert would remove my additional material... --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone now wants to tweak or adjust my edit then that will be fine. I'll return tomorrow to check as I'm out the rest of the evening and I only use PC and never phone. Cheers to all and thanks once again to each person for discussing. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As IK said, "write your proposal for discussion here" and wait for consensus to be achieved BEFORE changing the page. Until so, it will be reverted every time. Ibaman (talk)

 * I think we should perhaps have a page (in "Wikivoyage" space) that clearly explains our stance on these political issues. This problem has come up before. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Be_fair -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 20:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Sure, but I mean a separate page just about political issues like this. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest we'd expand that section and if it looks like there will be a lot to say about how we handle places like Kosovo or Taiwan, then it can be split into a separate policy page. Though there isn't much to say; if someone going to the country X that is regarded as part of country Y by some but has its own immigration rules, borders, visa, currency etc. and the visitor will experience it as a different country, then we handle country X as a different country. ϒψιλον (talk ) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do a userspace draft like we did with WV:Deny recognition, but I don't have the time to do it at the moment — maybe I could start later today. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the compromising tone struck by User:Juicy Oranges above, but would like a bit more detail on what (s)he is proposing in order to fully understand it.

I am of the same opinion as Ypsi that a whole new policy page - even as a draft - probably isn't needed at this stage. Expand Be_fair.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * We just need to follow the be fair policy more closely, as I outline in Travellers' pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @ThunderingTyphoons! In my case it's he but thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Basically after making an amassment of changes that were neither intended to present Kosovo as a sovereign state (pro-independence viewpoint) nor as a Serbian province (anti-independence viewpoint), I came to realise that the wider Wikivoyage projects observe facts on the ground more than de jure status or controversy. On this note I began to dismantle my earlier changes but felt that the page would best be served by an initial note explaining that despite robustly divergent standpoints dividing the world in almost two equal halves, that as a project WV editors do not mean to flagrantly disregard this crisis but as an online travel guide merely seek to explain things to visitors in such a way that is relevant to them. I mean if most are not happy then we can go back to a "neither fish not fowl" arrangement but my hunches for improvement lie with the first option. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Any more thoughts here? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm happy with the changes made by User:ARR8 which follow our policies at Be fair, and think we adequately explain the situation to travellers in the lede and Understand section. Time to move on to different things, I'd say.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
I have protected Kosovo so it can only be edited by administrators, until February 1, 2019. This should prevent any more edit warring until then. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * For the record, I believe this is an overreaction, and is more likely to discourage the new contributor than welcome them. The user has shown every sign of good faith and a willingness to discuss and compromise, so recommend you rethink.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Agree with this (and that). The rules have been explained since the accusations of edit warring; we should demonstrate we trust the user to follow them. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 23:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Protection changes to autoconfirmed users accordingly, and maybe even that is overprotection. I don't think this reversion generally improved things, either, though I haven't touched it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Sure, but may I please explain something in the privacy of an abuse filter? It's relevant. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, sorry if I created a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"De facto countries"
There is currently a discussion on Talk:Kosovo about how to label the country, and indeed whether it should be referred to as a country at all. For this travel guide, this kind of discussion totally misses the point. Wikivoyage by policy recognizes all de facto conditions, perhaps with the caveat that they should seem reasonably stable (which is why we never had an article about the IS "caliphate" in Mesopotamia).

In practice, however, I would argue that we have deviated from this policy fairly systematically, by referring to some places as "de facto countries". Can we please stop? All we need to write is "X is a country in Y area. It declared its independence from Country Z in such-and-such year, though no other country/only Country A recognizes its independence."

A related issue is not recognizing de facto borders in maps. The portion of the Golan Heights controlled by Israel should appear as Israeli territory on Wikivoyage maps, period, and be treated in Israel as simply a region of Israel - not because we approve (or disapprove) of Israeli control or annexation but simply because we recognize all de facto conditions as a matter of policy.

To summarize: As you can see in the Talk:Kosovo thread, the site suffers more from deviating from a strictly utilitarian policy of recognition of all de facto conditions than by following it, because when we follow it religiously, we can defuse all political arguments over the legitimacy of a country's existence or control of disputed territory by pointing to our strict, objective policy of indiscriminate recognition. Otherwise, we create problems a travel guide is ill-suited to handle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. It's the best way to ensure fairness without deviating from travel content, and has the bonus of already being policy. Besides, the current ("de facto") approach may be misleading: the Golan Heights' treatment on the Israel page seems to imply danger or unsuitability for travel, but they are arguably even safer than many other regions and beautiful besides. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, is the way we handle the Vatican appropriate then? It's now listed as part of Rome, but as everyone knows, it's technically a different country. Sure, it's surrounded by Rome with no border controls, so the only way to get to the Vatican is to go through Rome, and visiting the Vatican is probably no different in procedure from visiting any of Rome's tourist sites. But every country, including Italy, recognises it as a separate country; there is absolutely no dispute on that. And let's say you commit a crime in the Vatican and get caught; Italian law won't apply because it's technically a different country, and you will have to be tried under Vatican law instead. The dog2 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vatican is an exception, for the sake of travelers, because it is part of the city of Rome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan Kekek about the Vatican, though I've never been there. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have. You just take a bus or subway from another part of Rome and walk there, no border formalities whatsoever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] If you all agree with me, there are a bunch of articles that need to be substantially edited. Without checking, some that come to mind would include Transnistria, Somaliland, Abkhazia... Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the basic idea, not to get involved with politics, is sound, but the "It declared its independence from Country Z in such-and-such year, though no other country/only Country A recognizes its independence." part is important. Such issues should be told up front. No need to go into details in the lead, if the situation is complicated (leave that to Understand), but use some phrase that makes it clear that use of the word "country" in controversial. The Understand or Get in should of course also discuss possible problems for the traveller. --LPfi (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's also important to remember that many countries refuse to recognize a country like Abkhazia for reasons beside those on the surface. IMHO, the reason Russia wants to see Abkhazia and South Ossetia secede from Georgia (the country) is that Russia intends to use those countries to have more power in the region; but if those Abkhazia, etc. are not recognized by the U.S. and the EU, then it gives Russia much less right to occupy the "de facto countries" or use them to gain influence in Georgia.
 * Therefore, it may be best in a few cases to go along with saying "de facto country" or something similar. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were clear where to draw the line I would agree, but if we cannot call all disputed countries "de facto" countries, there will be a never ending dispute on some of them (Kosovo being the most obvious example). Refusing to accept the de facto situation not to allow some country to take advantage of the de facto acceptance is a political statement. What about Taiwan? Our refusing to accept its independence helps China while our accepting its independence helps its government, Western interests and arguably its people. The same with Kosovo. What legitimate interests are we supposed to support? --LPfi (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Those of the traveller, of course, which is why we should give the facts that exist on the ground.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "De facto" simply means that it exist in real life and functions either on a country or a subnational level. If the word country feels like a political statement, the word entity is neutral and could be virtually anything. Perhaps we should make it policy to call anything disputed for an entity (or perhaps a word even better suited)? Philaweb (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * But please remember that we do not have to try to be "neutral", we have to WV:be fair and write from the traveller's point of view. If a place is de facto a country, then from the point of view of a foreigner who has to legally gain entry to that place, it's a country. Calling something an "entity" is so imprecise, it's practically meaningless. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And making a distinction between "countries" and "entities" is not very different from making the distinction between "countries" and "de facto countries". Or would you also call Sweden "an entity in northern Europe"? You could find a better word, but not calling countries countries would still be odd. --LPfi (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Sweden is not disputed... no, I would not call it an entity. When someone calls some place for "de facto" something, you can be sure it is disputed, and you will always have this conversation... a conversation that is mostly about being neutral. If this discussion is not about neutrality, why do we even have it then? Philaweb (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no legal definition of a "country". The United Kingdom considers itself to be four countries governed by one parliament and one monarch. It's ridiculous to get hung up on whether Kosovo or anywhere else is a country. We should just clarify that its independence is not recognized by Serbia and some other countries, and leave it there. Fussing over not calling it a country, when it operates exactly like an independent country, plays into the agenda of Serb chauvinists, and there is no reason we would do that. Ground Zero (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and you would not see anyone write "the de facto country England" since "de facto" implies that it would be a disputed fact. I agree on the current policy and Ikan's initial post. Philaweb (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And for clarity, I also agree with the current policy and Ikan Kekek's post. Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope it's clear that I do too. Therefore, with a near-unanimity, we can start to do as Ikan proposed and start bringing the relevant articles into line with what we've agreed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had a go at implementing this for Transnistria, South Ossetia, Artsakh and Abkhazia. Take a look and see what you think. Anywhere else applicable?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Somaliland looks OK, so I'm not sure what else there is. We can also look at controversial parts of countries, like Crimea and the Golan Heights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the French overseas territories. Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana for instance are legally considered to be just as French as any part of Metropolitan France, and have the same visa requirements as the Schengen Area. So should we list these ones under France? The dog2 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because geography wins out for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO: the problem I see with an article like Somaliland is that the first sentence could give the reader the wrong impression: that we're some website full of strange conspiracy theorists that "believe in" certain countries that no one else considers to be independent. At the same time, though, if a country has its own government and really operates by itself, then it only makes sense to consider the country independent.
 * I agree with User:Ikan Kekek that while French Guiana and Martinique, etc. may be politically just the same as France, you've got to consider how far they are from mainland France. What it would boil down to is, do travelers who visit overseas departments/territories visit the "mother country" on the same vacation generally, or do they just visit the territory? If they generally just visit the territory on its own, from the traveller's point of view it's a separate country; if they visit the "mother country" and the territory in one go, it's pretty likely that the two are closely associated, again from the traveller's point of view. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Somaliland is certainly functionally independent, and has been so for years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the correct way to go about it for the traveler's sake but as a small clarification, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria really only exist because of the largesse of another state and are not actually independent even in a casual sense. They are just extensions of Russia and Turkey on others' sovereign territory. I can't speak to Artsakh as I'm too ignorant but this is a clear distinction from the Republic of China on Taiwan, Kosovo, Somaliland, or the SADR in Western Sahara. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Artsakh, which we call Nagorno-Karabakh because that's a better known name in English-speaking countries for now, exists due to the largesse of Armenia, so it fits into the pattern you're discussing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Sounds about rite. In that sense, they are actually pretty reasonable as "Go Next" destinations from their shell overlords. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The dependence on a large country should be made clear in the Understand ("A separated from B with the support of C, which still is the only country recognizing it"). Often of course the dependence is denied by the large country, so we should mostly keep to the undeniable facts and be careful when stating the obvious result (not "lead by a puppet regime" if we can avoid that wording). (Kosovo is not necessarily an exception, it separated from Serbia with heavy military support from NATO, and recognizing it was part of the same Western campaign of gaining influence in the former East.)
 * And about the overseas dependencies, I hope we are not starting to call Svalbard or New Caledonia "countries", there is no need for that, as there is no controversy.
 * --LPfi (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that the discussion about "de facto" has turned into a discussion about "independence", and both of these words have absolutely no relevance on whether people travel there or not, they just do. Philaweb (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with that. So far, I think this has been a constructive discussion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong in a discussion. My point is that if we use terms like "de facto", "independent" and "feels like a separate country" about areas that are disputed, it will eventually lead to edits to the articles that will be unconstructive. I think we should settle at describing the actual hurdles when travelling to a disputed area, and not dwell on whether they are independent, want to be independent or whatever. Just the logistics. You need to apply for the visa in another place than the one you are going to etc. Personally, I think there is too much detail in much of the nitty gritty of the local conflicts and aspirations. But that may just be my perception. If I need to read about stuff like that there are better venues. Philaweb (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes Transnistria an interesting place to visit is that it had been in this twilight zone of unrecognized independence for over 25 years. It was fascinating to learn about their struggles and how they live in this weird state. If Transnistria ever rejoins Moldova, or somehow becomes part of Russia, there will no longer be any reason to go. There's really very little of touristic interest there. So the question of independence is paramount travel information, at least for Transnistria. I can't comment on the others. Ground Zero (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you can get convicted or denied entry in other countries if you got a stamp in your passport in some of these, which definitely is worth mentioning. And even in a place like Kosovo, I think the struggle for independence, and some of the nuances about it, is something you should be aware of as a tourist. --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict)I definitely agree with User:Philaweb about not getting too bogged down in using de facto, independent etc. But equally I was about to post a similar comment to User:Ground Zero's (edit: and User:LPfi's). The 'twilight zone' is a key part of these countries' attraction. Plus, the unrecognised status is an essential thing to know about a place you're going to visit. We always note details about a country's government no matter which article it is.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * @Ground Zero - "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and that goes for travel as well. Your comment on Transnistria can be applied to many places on earth, and it has very little to do with independency (most of the places are independent). A president used the term sh*thole for countries like that, not a word I would use. Transnistria is a Soviet Union open-air museum frozen in time (even more so than Belarus). I have experienced places like that and it's a once in a lifetime experience - but not because of their legal status or their aspirations.
 * @LPfi, @ThunderingTyphoons - what you mention is part of the logistics, stuff that you need to consider when planning a trip. Philaweb (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * With regards to whether or not you visit it in the same trip, Hawaii is actually quite far from the mainland US, and the native Hawaiians are actually related to the citizens of Pacific island nations such as Fiji and Tonga. But I know that many Japanese tourists visit Hawaii (and Guam) without visiting the mainland U.S., to the point that ANA purchased A380s specifically to fly to Hawaii. So whether or not you visit them in one trip is not a good criterion.

 * But that said, I understand that it would be a challenge to have a fix set of criteria as to what defines a country here on WV. Speaking of which, if you've heard the news, the Chinese government has said that businesses have to explicitly refer to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as part of China in order to do be allowed to do business there. I'm not sure if WV is blocked in China yet, but if it does come to that, perhaps it might be worth discussing what policy we wish to adopt regarding these. Of course, we'd like our site to be accessible to as many people as possible, and that includes Chinese netizens, but should we compromise our long-held rules for that? The dog2 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * You make a good point, but do you not see the difference between including all 50 U.S. States in the United States of America article and having different articles for French Guiana, Mayotte, and other Departements Outre-Mer which are so distant from the bulk of France? I mean, yes, Hawaii is extremely distant from mainland America, but it's not appreciably further than from California to New York, and it takes a bit less time to travel from LAX to Hilo than it does to travel from New York to either SFO or LAX, if I remember correctly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * We do say that both the governments in Beijing and Taipei officially recognize Taiwan as part of China, and that we treat Taiwan as a country only for practical reasons having nothing to do with politics or whether Taiwan truly is an independent country de jure, which neither side claims. There is also no contention that Hong Kong or Macau are independent, only that visa procedures and currencies are different. I don't see how we would change things in order to conform to the Chinese government's party line and still serve travelers as well as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm also fine with the status quo that we have. I just brought these up because I think it would be helpful for us to be clear on policy with regard to some of these ambiguous cases. The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the dividing line is between what I believe the U.S. calls an "overseas territory" vs. a state. Even if the state is not contiguous with the rest of the country, it's still likely to be a lot more connected than a territory is going to be. Still, it's good to get that sort of thing clear.

So do we have any consensus on how to treat de facto countries? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * As countries, with relevant explanations of their limited international recognition, etc.

 * Also, tangentially, be careful about considering every far-flung French possession analogous to a U.S. overseas territory. Some of them are Departements Outre-Mer, and therefore, integral parts of France that are politically much more analogous to Hawaii and Alaska, although we give them separate articles for practical reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I see. I mean Martinique, Guadeloupe, and French Guiana — the ones that were mentioned earlier in this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, those are DOMs. But they're thousands of miles away from the Metropole so are covered separately, yet mentioned in the main France article's 'Regions' section. Same goes for British Overseas Territories, though those are not integral parts of the UK.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * And for Hong Kong and Macau, while they are contiguous with mainland China, you really do feel like you're in a different country. I don't know how to put it, but the best description I can put together is that Hong Kong and Macau feel more orderly, while mainland China feels a bit more like a free-for-all. And you'll definitely notice a big difference in how the commuters behave when taking the Hong Kong MTR vs the Shenzhen Metro; I would say that Hong Kong commuters are a little more polite. And while I haven't been to Kinmen and Matsu and therefore can't comment on those, politics aside, as far as the main island goes, Taiwan also feels like a different country. So until we start getting blocked by the Great Firewall of China (if that happens, then perhaps we can re-hash those topics again), those should be treated as separate countries on WV. The dog2 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
I am a bit puzzled onto why American spelling is used. Kosovo's tourism website uses British spelling, and they do use the Euro (as trying to be part of the EU, and the EU officially uses British spelling), and moreover, Serbia which claims part of Kosovo uses British spelling. A little glance of our articles and some use British, others use American and some even use Canadian or Philippine spelling. Considering that English is only spoken as a third language in Kosovo, I'd not be surprised of the inconsistencies here, but can anyone clarify? ??

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage's general policy is to use U.S. spelling, unless another spelling system is actually used in the country. For the EU, we've decided to follow the EU organisation's standard, which is UK spelling. Kosovo does not belong to the EU, so that doesn't apply here. Let's focus on what spelling is used, rather than trying to infer something from unrelated concepts like what currency it uses. Kosovo does not consider itself to be part of Serbia, so that is also irrelevant. That the country's government uses UK spelling is relevant, but on the other hand Kosova Press uses U.S. spelling. Unless we can find some other English-language Kosovo websites to inform the discussion, we have a split decision, so I don't think we should change the guidance. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is no rule that says to use either. It depends on where the influence is coming from a particular case. Kosovars won't notice much. --Arianit (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, spelling isn't really a big problem unless it's Portuguese... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions
Are these deletions accurate? Some of the deleted text looks dated (I don't think NATO troops are closely guarding anything in Kosovo now), but is all of it untrue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 * ? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kosovo


text:
Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica

Should this article be merged with Mitrovice?

 * → Talk:Mitrovice --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:46, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Real name is Kosovska Mitrovica
This is town real name per wikipedia all other relevant sources. --(WT-en) Blurey 18:24, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica


text:
Talk:Kosrae

Can you put a "Sleep" section in the Kosrae page, as I would like to list my hotel.

Also, how can I upload one or two photos?

 * Please see the help pages. They have lots of info as to how you can plunge forward and do it.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Kosrae


text:
Talk:Kota Bharu

The correct spelling of this city should be Kota Bharu although many variations seem to be in regular use.

 * Project:Article naming conventions suggest we use a common English name, not the official name. As such there are 3 alternatives and all are given in the article. Google searches give:

 * Kota Bharu - ~416,000 references
 * Kota Bahru - ~782,000 references
 * Kota Baru - ~2,440,000 references
 * Whats more this google search gives all 3 variations in the first three listings! In this case I think google cannot be trusted to count correctly and we stick with the name we have as it is probably the most phonetically accurate for most English speakers. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:05, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * "Kota Baru" actually just means "new city" and I'd posit that half the hits for "kota baru" are for random new cities anywhere in Malaysia/Indonesia, not this particular New City in Kelantan. Phonetically "Bharu" is definitely an aberrant spelling, but it seems quite common for the place in question and is even used by Kota Bharu City Hall. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:42, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Well if it is used by the city official then it must be the official name, even if it is allegedly spelled wrong. One must assume that the city officials know what they are doing by promoting this spelling. Besides this is not the first time I have known city officials to choose a different name for their city as a marketing campaign. I think that is conclusive. Use the current name. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:52, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

mobile phone numbers
Just a note on Malaysian mobile numbers. To dial the number from anywhere in Malaysia requires the provider's code - eg 012, 016, 019 - to be dialled too. So to write it as +60-12-XXXXXXX is not correct as dialling 12-XXXXXXX locally will not get you connected. I have posted a discussion in the phone numbers discussion page. Basically, it needs a solution. Until one is found, I have decided to just write the way which it can be dialled locally.(WT-en) Slleong 06:01, 26 February 2006 (EST)

 * Numbers should always be entered in international form. Please see Project:Phone numbers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:13, 26 February 2006 (EST)

on socially acceptable dress ethics
The article states that we should all dress conservatively, avoiding the exposure of legs and arms.

I am from Kelantan and have ALWAYS walked around in shorts and my female friends have on many occasions wore mini skirts. A lot of Chinese local does that (chiefly because the temperature is often in excess of 30 degress celsius). I do not see what all the fuss is about.

little of interest in the town?
I object to this characterization. In the town is a large day market and a very good night market, beautiful royal buildings, and some museums that some visitors (like me) may find of interest. Not everyone is going to Kelantan just to scuba dive or sunbathe, so while I'm not going to take it upon myself to edit this text myself and will wait and see if a consensus can be established, I think that a travel guide should embrace the needs and interests of many types of travelers. 151.202.65.13 02:48, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

 * If you disagree with what the article says, please plunge forward and change it! If others disagree with you, they can argue for why it should be changed back. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:49, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Edits by 61.6.39.139
I've undone this set of edits as the information content is minimal, the English is terrible and much previous non-complimentary info on the town was deleted. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:02, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

PCB Beach, or just PCB?
Pantai, of course, means beach. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:31, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Nobody outside the region will understand what "PCB" means without the qualifier... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:31, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

 * They will, if there's a good explanation in the article. As in "PCB (Moonlight Beach)." I'll make the change, unless you object a priori. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:23, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Budget guesthouse prices altered for commercial gain?
After visiting a number of the listed budget options last year it is hard to believe prices have doubled and quadrupled in under 12 months. It appears user 115.134.197.34 made all the changes on 13:11, 8 March 2010. "My Place Guest House" is currently the only listed place with sensible prices. I don't know how to revert this. -thanks, William

 * Wow, what an obnoxious thing to do. I have undone that edit. Thanks for catching that. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:27, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Thanks Peter.  Interesting, clearing Firefox cache was not enough for me to see your changes, made a new profile and can see them now. Cheers :-) 203.82.81.33 06:16, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Kota Bharu


text:
Talk:Kota Kinabalu

Hotel removed
I removed the Plaza Hotel. I stayed ther for some days but moved later. The staff is really friendly but the rooms are not that good. The rooms smell wet. There is no mold but you have to open the windows every day, probably because ther is no ventilation in the bathroom. The town has heaps of hotels. There are some options. -- (WT-en) DerFussi 08:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Kota Kinabalu


text:
Talk:Kota Kinabalu to Brunei by land

Discussion on Merging Article
Per Wikivoyage's guidelines, I believe that this article properly qualifies as an article and should not be merged into the Malaysia article. This itinerary applies to a specific route (Kota Kinabalu to Brunei) and a specific region of Malaysia. Therefore, I would strongly recommend against merging it with the Malaysia article.

(WT-en) Dancgreer 16:08, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

 * The guidelines for what is a valid itinerary article were recently changed - see Project:Itineraries. As outlined in the "Personal itineraries" section of that article, almost all of the "X in Y days" articles have been tagged for merging.  If "Kota Kinabalu to Brunei in a day" is about a specific route it should be renamed with the name of that route, such as Appalachian Trail or Natchez Trace.  If it is not about a specific route than it may not qualify as a separate article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

 * . . . I think that you're simply reading the rules, going through this site, requesting dramatic changes (such as article merges), and then moving on with life in order to increase your number of edits without really thinking about the bigger picture. Given the change in policies, and given that you're so knowledgable about the minor details, it's obvious (with about 30 seconds of reading) that this article should be re-titled "Kota Kinabalu to Brunei by Land" or something similar. Why didn't you just move the article in the first place? Now you've wasted your time and my time discussing something that doesn't need discussion. . . (WT-en) Dancgreer 17:55, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

 * I'm not sure I understand your point. If this article is about a specific route it should be renamed with the route name - there is mention of the "Borneo Overland Trail", but the article does not claim to be about that route.  If the article is just an arbitrary set of directions for getting from point A to point B in a specific amount of time, which it appears to be, then it should be tagged for merging. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:34, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

 * Umm, it covers the coastal route across Sabah state within Borneo (with a bit in Sarawak state), and into Brunei (a SEPARATE country). This itinerary covers two countries, so how does it make sense as part of Malaysia? There is no such thing as an "official" Borneo Overland Trail, it is probably something that someone on this site either created, heard mentioned, or was created in a travel guide. Either way, this article is: 1. Useful, 2. Linked to two countries, 3. An actual useful travel itinerary (which could take one day or many. . . (WT-en) Dancgreer 02:26, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
 * I've done this trip, return, twice. It is very unusual because in the course of about 5-8 hours you must clear 14 seperate border posts and get 14 passport stamps that easily fill a whole page in your passport. This unique situation occurs because Sabah and Sarawak have autonomy in immigration matters from Malaysia, and Brunei is a different country with two parts to cross. For the traveler who likes passport stamps, this is a worthwhile excursion, just for the fun of it.I removed the merge box as there is concesus to keep this article. JadeDragon (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please point the reader to the consensus. I'm not expressing my own opinion about whether this article should be merged or not, but I don't see a consensus and therefore question whether you are following proper procedure in removing the merge tag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Route Updates
managed to get a flight to Brunei want to get to Kota Kinabalu as quick as poss How?

 * Fly? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:26, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Details on the boring route
I think this article would be even more usable if you gave some details on the so called "boring" route by bus. I am interested in going from KK to BSW without stopping for anything. ¿How long does it take? ¿How much?

Lawas to Bangar
The ferry ride at trusan has been eliminated by a bridge and there is no need to stop for customs as the Malaysian customs checkpoint is now operational. Everything is fast and easy. I just went through it on a bike two days ago. 175.142.117.78 20:41, 6 February 2012 (EST)Michael Turton turton.michael@gmail.com. Have pics if you want to post them here.

Ferry menumbok to brunei
Does anybody know when a passenger ferry leaves from menumbok to brunei and back. Is there a hotel and a carpark in menumbok where we can leave our car save for two days? Many thanks for any recommendation.

hi there

the service nomore available..you can get it from labuan menumbok -> labuan -> muara brunei

title: Talk:Kota Kinabalu to Brunei by land


text:
Talk:Ko Tao

Hey great start! I'm glad to see more of Thailand appearing. I was wondering if anyone has a good idea how to do the Thai names-- what I'd love is to settle on some sort of authority so we don't end up with Koh Phangan, Ko Pha Ngan and Kohpahngan (Ko(h) Sa(r)n Road is another good example). Any ideas? (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Apparently there's a lot of problems with romanization of the Thai alphabet. According this article, "Ko" is the official word, but it's sometimes written as "Koh". I think that with no schematic romanization in popular use, maybe the best idea is to use the most official romanization. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:48, 5 Nov 2003 (PST)

Yah, got all that. What I'm hoping for is that we can find one source, or list of place names that we can point to and say "we're doing it like this" rather than have everyone's idea of what's "most official" (since the Thai gov can't quite decide either). Havign a list is easier than trying to look at the Royal Institute with Pattaya or whatever every time we want to sound out a name. I'll look around for one. (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Oh, man, it's a pain in the butt, actually. The Royal Institute has their Romanization ("Ko", for example), but other government organizations like the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) don't use it (they say "Koh"). I guess I'd say go with TAT, at this point, since they're the tourist resource and probably overseas and local tourist organizations would copy their names. -- (WT-en) Evan 13:01, 5 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Better late than never: the above has been listed on Project:Romanization as policy for a while, and now I'm attempting to enforce it. Please help out. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:17, 2 Feb 2005 (EST)

Romanization in Thai is really tricky. There is no standard and even if we develop a standard on this page it will probably be different once the traveler gets there. I know this is probably wiki-heresey but maybe its better to keep prospective travelers on their toes about the changing names. (WT-en) Gcilley

TAT Listings
Moving TAT listings that deal with Ko Tao to Talk:Ko Tao/Listings for future reference. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:37, 6 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Ko Tao


text:
Talk:Ko Tao/Listings

See
Ko Tao (เกาะเต่า) Situated 60 kilometres off the coast of Chumphon but falling under the jurisdiction of Surat Thani, Ko Tao lies 45 kilometres north of Ko Pha-ngan and is only 20 square kilometres in area but it is known as the best diving site in the Gulf of Thailand. The turquoise water of Ko Tao is crystalline, coconut plantations still cover much of the landscape, and concrete roads are built along only a few beaches. Getting around the island is either by pick-up taxi or by boat. Motorbikes and mountain bikes are also available for rent to explore the island. Attractions in and around Ko Tao include:
 * Hat Cho Po Ro or Hat Sai Ri – This small powdery beach provides accommodation. The Giant Clam Park nearby breeds the near-extinct giant clam and exhibits many aquatic animals. It is open daily.
 * Ko Nang Yuan - A coral island with a high viewpoint and long white sandy beaches.

The best period is from December to April. It is possible to travel to Ko Tao during the rainy season (May to October), though obviously, you should be prepared to run into showers and rainstorms.
 * Kong Hin Khao and Kong Hin Khiao – These overlaying rocks have submarine alcoves, whereby many fish frequent.
 * Kong Hin Chumphon – Many fish frequent this area on the northwestern part of the island. During breeding season in March – April, this area is closed from any fishing activities.
 * Ban Mae Hat – Pier, transportation terminal, diving schools and shops renting diving gear, concentrate in this economic centre of the island.
 * Kong Sai Daeng – Rarely seen black-eared shark frequent the red sandstone by the mouth of Thian Nok Bay.

Ko Tao

 * Hat Sai Ri (หาดทรายรี)
 * A.C. Resort 1 (เอซีรีสอร์ท 1) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6197, 0 7745 6033, 51 rooms: 300-1,200 baht
 * A.C. Resort 2 (เอซีรีสอร์ท 2) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6195, 19 rooms: 300-400 baht
 * Ban’s Diving Resort (แบนส์ไดฟ์วิ่งรีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6061-2, 50 rooms: 300–500 baht
 * In Touch Bungalow (อินทัชบังกะโล) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7722 2723, 0 7745 6514, 15 rooms: 300–400 baht
 * Lotus Resort (โลตัสรีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6297-8 www.siamscubadive.com
 * Ko Tao Island (เกาะเต่าไอส์แลนด์) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6680
 * Ko Tao Royal Resort (เกาะเต่ารอยัลรีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6156-7, 16 rooms: 950-3,500 baht
 * Ocean View Bungalow (โอเชี่ยน วิว บังกะโล) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 1229 4849 E-mail: khao80@hotmail.com, 7 rooms: 500-1,500 baht
 * S.B. Cabana (เอสบีคาบาน่า) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6005, 0 7745 6600, 40 rooms: 300–500 baht
 * Sai Ri Cottage (ทรายรีคอทเทจ) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6126, 40 rooms: 250–600 baht
 * Sea Shell Resort (ซีเชลล์รีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6271 www.kohtaoseashell.com, 29 rooms: 300–600 baht
 * Thipwimarn Resort (ทิพย์วิมานรีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6409
 * Tommy Resort (ทอมมี่รีสอร์ท) Hat Sai Ri, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6039, 0 7745 6251, 27 rooms: 300-1,500 baht

 * Ao Chan Som (อ่าวจันสม)
 * Charm Churee Villa (จามจุรีวิลล่า) Ao Chan Som, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6393-4 Fax: 0 7745 6475 www.charmchureevilla.com, 17 rooms: 1,700-7,700 baht

 * Laem Thian (แหลมเทียน)
 * Laem Thian Bungalow (แหลมเทียน บังกะโล) Laem Thian, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6477, 9 rooms: 150–600 baht

 * Hat Ban Mae Hat (หาดบ้านแม่หาด)
 * Blue Diamond Resort (บลูไดมอนด์รีสอร์ท) Hat Ban Mae Hat, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6175, 0 7745 6255, 12 rooms: 400-1,200 baht
 * Sensi Paradise Resort–Coral Beach Bungalow (เซ็นซีพาราไดซ์รีสอร์ท–คอรัลบีชบังกะโล) Hat Ban Mae Hat, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6244 www.kohtaoparadise.com, 40 rooms: 900-8,000 baht

 * Hat Chalok Ban Kao (หาดโฉลกบ้านเก่า)
 * Carabow (คาราบาว) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6206, 11 rooms: 250 baht
 * J.P. Resort (เจพีรีสอร์ท) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6099 E-mail: jpresort@hotmail.com, 25 rooms: 250–500 baht
 * Ko Tao Cottage International Dive Resort (เกาะเต่า คอทเทจ) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6198, 0 7745 6133 Fax: 0 7745 6419 www.kotaocottage.com, 50 rooms: 550–780 baht
 * Ko Tao Tropicana Resort (เกาะเต่าทรอปิคานารีสอร์ท) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6340-5, 0 1211 6352 E-mail: wantropicana1@hotmail.com, 42 rooms: 500–600 baht
 * Sunshine Bungalow 1 (ซันชายน์บังกะโล 1) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6155, 30 rooms: 500–1,200 baht
 * Sunshine Bungalow 2 (ซันชายน์บังกะโล 2) Hat Chalok Ban Kao, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6154, 40 rooms: 250–500 baht

 * Ao Tanot (อ่าวโตนด)
 * Blacktip Resort (แบล็กทิป) Ao Tanot, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6488 www.blacktip-kohtao.com
 * Diamond Beach Hut (ไดมอนด์บีชฮัท) Ao Tanot, Ko Tao, 12 rooms: 150–250 baht
 * Tanote View Resort (โตนดวิวรีสอร์ท) Ao Tanot, Ko Tao, Tel: 0 7745 6757, 32 rooms: 500-2,500 baht

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:37, 6 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Ko Tao/Listings


text:
Talk:Ko Tarutao

Does it make sense to have separate articles for this and Tarutao National Park, or should they be merged? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think these articles should be merged. "Koh Tarutao National Marine Park" refers to 51 separate islands. Many of these islands are very different from each other; for example Koh Lipe, one of the islands in the national park, is a resort-based island featuring dozens of resorts and many tourists, whereas Ko Tarutao Island is more nature trail oriented. Therefore, I think all of the major islands in the National Park deserve separate articles in Wikivoyage. Ko Lipe in fact does have a seperate article. Ko Tarutao should have the same.

 * I agree that these articles shouldn't be merged. Maybe Tarutao National Park could be a sub-region of the Andaman Coast region, with the islands that have accommodation facilities listed in there? (WT-en) globe-trotter 16:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Ko Tarutao


text:
Talk:Kothamangalam

Make it bigger; )

title: Talk:Kothamangalam


text:
Talk:Kottenheim

Could someone please review my removal of some extlinks. It looked wrong to me, but it was done by a user with a history of doing the Right Thing, so it'd be nice if someone more fluent in German could recheck me. Thanks -- (WT-en) Colin 12:26, 7 Sep 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Kottenheim


text:
Talk:Koudougou

"Koudougou used to be largely, but has expanded with more"
Okay, I give up: what does this mean? It's a curiously evocative turn of phrasing, to be sure, but casting it in English would be nice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:16, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Koudougou


text:
Talk:Kourakuen

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

Comments
It is not clear from the article if Kourakuen is part of Tokyo city or prefecture. This place is not mentioned in either of those articles. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Kourakuen is in Bunkyo, Tokyo
Kourakuen is located in Bunkyo ward, Tokyo. This article should be redirected to the Bunkyo article. (WT-en) JRHorse 00:02, 30 December 2009 (EST)

 * Plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:35, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Kourakuen is in Bunkyo,it is true.But Bunkyo is too large sphere,I think.So I concider there are Kourakuen page and Bunkyo page separately,it will be understandable for many people.

title: Talk:Kourakuen


text:
Talk:Kovalam

How do I go to Kovalam from Europe (best/cheapest/safest way)? Britt-Mari from Sweden

Sleep section
I've re-categorised the Sleep section. The hotels that didn't have a price, I've left under Splurge, but have done a little research on the web for some of them. This isn't ideal, as prices should come from real experience. I'd suggest removing hotels that are just a name, as a list of hotel names helps no-one. I'll come back later and do some more work. --(WT-en) Dazzla Talk Contributions News Expedition Docent - York 10:15, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Kovalam


text:
Talk:Kowloon

Planter's Bar
As the prose was straight out of some hotel catalogue and I couldn't find a single reference to the place outside booking engines, I nuked the listing for Planter's Bar. In the unlikely event that it actually draws non-guests, feel free to restore. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:00, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Much of this page appears to have been lifted wholesale from Lonely Planet. More wikiplagiarism? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 86.136.131.134 (talk • contribs)

 * Plunge forward and identify the offending text. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:24, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Kowloon


text:
Talk:Ko Yao

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

Doesn't Make Sense
"Ko Yao Yai is significantly larger than Ko Yao Noi due to a lack of (basic) infrastructure in some areas of the island."

The island is larger because it has less infrastructure?202.82.171.186 22:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Comments
Hi Jpatokal,

I am georges cortez. The text about koyao noi was indeed copied from koyaobay website. I am the owner of this small resort. I think there should be no reason to take it out as it gathers the most effective information about the island. Apart of small business activities I am a gratuate social anthropologist and I worked many years about south thailand linguistic, ethnic history plus plus many other researches... Please let me know why you have deleted this info, it can be used as I am the original writer of it. A previous version posted in 2001 on Koyao Island Resort website ave been used and rewritten on many commercial websites since then.

Keep me posted

Best,

Georges

 * Great! That's what I wanted to hear.  I've restored your text, please do feel free to fill in information on your resorts, any interesting restaurants or attractions, details of getting there and away, etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:32, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Excellent, Jpatokal, and thank you. I will contribute further (when I have time!) as I live on the island and can provide many more info about flora, fauna, culture, tourism of course, etc....

Cheers!

TAT Listings clutter
I moved some TAT listings here that cluttered the page:

Itinerary
Koh Yao Noi - 4 Days / 3 Nights
 * Day 1 - Leave for Koh Yao Noi Island by ferry from either Phukets Bang Rung Pier approx. 50 minutes or Talen Pier in Krabi province. On arrival take a Tuk-tuk taxi to the chosen overnight location. Enjoy the afternoon sunbathing and swimming. In the evening, enjoy a seafood dinner.
 * Day 2 - Hire a long-tail boat and bring a picnic lunch for a full day snorkelling and sightseeing tour. Visit Koh Hong and other nearby islands in the Tarnboke Koranee Marine National Park. If you are in to rock climbing it's possible to try it out or enjoy the thrill to watch. Visit the Swallow Cave and swim among Sergeant Fish. Everywhere you will be surrounded vertically limestone formations rising from the seabed.
 * Day 3 - Get up early and enjoy the sun rise behind the islands to the east. Rent a bike, motorbike or Tuk-tuk taxi and go sightseeing around the island. Find some nice beaches and relax. There are several home stays around the island, if you want to meet the locals. Koh Yao Noi has an considerable Cashew Nut production. Enjoy the relaxed atmosphere.
 * Day 4 - Continue to either the bigger and less populate Koh Yao Yai Island, the mainland or Phuket Island.

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:25, 15 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Ko Yao


text:
Talk:Kozhikode

Reversion
As vast quantities of this have been copyvio'd, I've reverted all of it back for safety. Rahul, if you actually own the copyright to any of that, please post here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Removal of hotel listings
User:Ikan Kekek See I have trimmed Sleep Budget section of Kozhikode removing all hotels without location inforamatin. Prof tpms (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good move. I've moved this post to the bottom of the page and added a new heading for ease in reading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Koyilandy Hookah
The following stuff on Hookah on 'Buy' section can be replaced by a shortened version like this: Koyilandy Hookah. Rs. 1,200 to Rs.2,500 Contact. 0496-2623151

 * Water pipe enthusiasts should look out for the Koyilandy Hookah, made in the nearby town of Koyilandy. Preparation of an average hookah requires up to 1.5 kg of copper, 1.5 kg of zinc and half kg silver. It takes a week to prepare a Hookah.Available in different sizes (12 to 24 inches), these Hookah are sold anywhere around rupees 500 to 1500. Specially crafted Hookah come at rupees 15,000. To procure one of these, you may contact the Kozhikode District Handicrafts Artisans Co-operative society. They have several pieces ready and can polish it and sell it to you within an hour. These range from Rs. 1200 to Rs. 2500 depending on the size. They can also ship it to you in India at a price(not sure if they have international shipping). Their contact number is +91 496-2623151.

Prof tpms (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Long Distance Attractions
User:Ikan Kekek Should I remove attractions in See section of Kozhikode that are 20 km or more away from the city? I mean, those having their own cities.. Prof tpms (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the place where the attractions are located, have articles on WV, please feel free to move listings there. --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And mention the relevant cities in "Go next". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prof tpms (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Colonial buildings
It's fine to list them even if their interiors cannot be visited, if walking past them and viewing their facades is rewarding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kozhikode


text:
Talk:Krabi Province

TAT listings
I moved some TAT listings to Talk:Krabi Province/Listings to remove the clutter on the page. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:03, 5 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Krabi Province