text:
Talk:Surrey

Other Surreys: Surrey (disambiguation)
So I removed Other Surreys: Surrey (disambiguation) - I think it should read :

 * Note: This article is about the county called Surrey in England. There are other places called Surrey.

And should appear at the top of the page, if at all. I think there should be good justification before this header appears on the page. There is no need at present because the other Surrey pages have not been created ... yet. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:38, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

Too many towns in the cities section
I removed the following towns from this section as there was just a huge long list and it would not be useful to anyone at all as none of them have pages and most of them do not have much to do as such in the destination. If you make a page for one of these then put them back into the list!

 * Addlestone
 * Camberley
 * Caterham
 * Cobham
 * Cranleigh
 * Dorking
 * Epsom
 * Esher
 * Farncombe
 * Farnham
 * Haslemere
 * Horley
 * Leatherhead
 * Oxshott
 * Oxted
 * Redhill
 * Reigate
 * Staines
 * Tadworth
 * Walton-on-Thames
 * Weybridge

(WT-en) Tsandell 07:19, 6 May 2006 (EDT)

Once the Dorking article gets created please add Wotton House
, I noticed the Principal Hayley hotel Wotton House is not listed, can we have it listed? I know there isn't a main page yet for Dorking, so probably best to wait for that. Send me a message if you require any details not public on the website VerbInteractive (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

To save time here is the posting with only factual info (I can't post the listing as I represent the company) VerbInteractive (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Same issue here as in Picardy: Surrey is a region, and normally, places to stay shouldn't be listed at the regional level. Why don't you create an article for Dorking, and then this listing can be included in it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I started the Dorking page. I will put the request for the hotel listing there. VerbInteractive (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Surrey


text:
Talk:Surrey (British Columbia)

Probable copyright violation
Some edits on June 9-10 2007 appear to be copyright violations. The text in the "Understand" section are lifted from the City of Surrey's greetings page. I don't have time to fix it now, but I want to record this. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

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

title: Talk:Surrey (British Columbia)


text:
Talk:Surselva

Style brackets
Why does Texugo keep putting Style brackets on this page.(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 11:50, 23 December 2008 (EST)

 * At a guess, I suspect it is related to the long list of what I can only call words at the top of the article. They don't serve and obvious purpose, and probably go against policy as it leads to a long page that will not work well on a mobile device, and would take up an disproportionate amount of space in a printed guide. The Manual of Style may be worth a read. If you can provide any insight to the purpose of the list it would be helpful.
 * I also note the style of sub-heading in sections like Get In and Get Around are not as per the manual of style. I'll plunge forward and sort those out.
 * Once these 2 points are sorted, I suspect the style tag can go :)
 * (WT-en) Nrms 04:46, 9 January 2009 (EST)

 * A-ha! I think I get what you're after now... Effectively Surselva is a region, with sub-regions (i.e. the bold headers in the list) which then have the towns/cities (the list under the headers)?
 * In which case, the structure of the Surselva region needs restructuring I think... The Surselva article should list the regions, each of which would then have its own article, which would include a list of Cities. The article on the geographical hierarchy may better show what I mean.
 * I realise it possibly seems a little over-bureaucratic, but it helps keep things structured in a consistent way, and also helps reduce article sizes. Part of the idea of Wikivoyage is it can be accessed via mobile devices; but as many people pay by the Kb, a large article which contains much information not relevant to them is a waste of bandwidth. (Yes, you could counter that having to visit many pages may result in more data due to extra headers... Perhaps someone needs to do some playing around with the figures here ;) )
 * Anyway, keep up the good work. The community is here to help and guide.
 * (WT-en) Nrms 05:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)

 * I also notice the long list of towns in the article and wonder if you could subdivide Surselva into smaller regions, then you wouldn't need to list all the towns in one article. I have also separated the town names into their Romantish and German alternatives, as these names are easier to deal with rather than a single Romantish/German, or is it German/Romantish, name. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Presumably each of the towns wants a city template? Most of the names are in Romansch and don't have a German name. I will start creating pages for each of the places should there be further sub-regions (Ilanz, Val Lumnezia, Ruis, Disentis region,etc),or the actual towns. Does the information already on the Surselva article stay there, deleted or redistributed?(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:17, 25 February 2009 (EST)

 * Also could you boil down Llanz and Lugnez cities down to the 9 most important ones, that's how we organise stuff around here - seeing there's very few actual guides for the city, that shouldn't become a problem for the foreseeable future. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 02:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Eat
Also can somebody help with the Eat section for info--(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

St Martin
In the list of regions at the beginning of the article St Martin links to the island in the caribbean, I have created a disambiguation page for St Martin, however I think it would be better for the linnk to go straight to the disambiguation page rather than the island. If somebody could help I would be happy to discuss.

 * I have now disambiguated St. Martin and listed it on the Saint Martin disambiguation page that somebody else had already kindly created. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:27, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Should we simplify the region hierarchy
This region article has currently 5 subregions and 9 bottom-level destination articles. Overall there is very little content. The current subdivision is based on the political divisions as of when this article was created between 2008-2010. This doesn't necessarily make sense from the traveller’s perspective and in the meantime is not even correct any more as many of the communes have merged. I suggest to get rid of all the subregions and create the following structure instead:

 * Disentis as it is and merge any potential useful content from Disentis (region)
 * Ilanz merge content from Falera, Ilanz (region), Ladir, Ruschein
 * Laax maybe merge Sagogn here or at Illanz
 * Val Lumnezia as mentioned on the talk page there, I would merge Vrin here and turn it into a bottom-level article
 * Vals either as it is or renamed as Valser valley
 * Safiental as it is but as bottom-level article

Ruis has almost not content, so I would just redirect it to Surselva

I think this region could gain much from this change. As it is now, there's a lot of unnecessary red links for towns too small or insignificant to deserve their own article which makes it very hard to find those destinations with actual information. By bundling them into destinations like this (Mentioning the different towns throughout the article for valley articles such as Val Lumnezia or Safiental or by putting their few sights under the Nearby section for towns like Laax, Disentis or Illanz) we can make this much more useful I think.

Any inputs on this? Drat70 (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Taking a look at this, I can see "Europe > Central Europe > Switzerland > Graubünden > Surselva > Ilanz (region) > Falera" which would be way too deep for me as a prospective visitor.
 * My take is that excessive hierarchy is counterproductive for reasons you have largely described, and if you can merge things up to make it more traveler relevant then I would personally support this.
 * That said many here take the 'every destination is sacred' view, so probably wait at least some days before doing anything. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Of course, I'll wait at least a week or so before doing any merging to see whether there is any inputs or other suggestions. Note also that I won't remove any destinations or useful information, I'd just gather them as secondary information on a article for a main destination. Drat70 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It has now been two weeks, I am now going to start merging the articles as there have not been any objections to this. Drat70 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 * This is now completed. Drat70 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Surselva


text:
Talk:Sutherland (Nebraska)

Disambiguation
There appear to be quite a few Sutherlands in the world - at this time, this is the direct one, and the others go through disambiguation. Is there something about this Sutherland that makes it a primary tourist destination above the others? Admittedly this is the most developed article at the moment. Wikipedia points directly to Scotland, and others have to disambiguate. What is the consensus? --(WT-en) Inas 23:28, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't see anything in this article that indicates that this place is more significant than all the other Sutherlands. In Project:Article naming conventions rule 4, it would appear to me that, where there's more than one place with the same name, it should be left undisambiguated only if one is so much more famous than the others.  So, I would interpret that as indicating that this page should be at Sutherland (Nebraska) and there should be a disambiguation page here, and I think that's a good idea.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:40, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Sutherland (Nebraska)


text:
Talk:Suzdal

Removed listing
A local guide told me that this hostel is out of use. Check before you go there.
 * A hostel in city center. Prices are around RUR 600 per person.  Dorm style living.

 * If it's likely closed, just move it out of the article. If someone can confirm that it's open, lets move it back in. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:39, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Suzdal


text:
Talk:Suzhou

68,000 ?
Text just added says Suzhou has "over 68,000 km of canals". I think that has too many zeros. That's 68 million meters of canal. If they're 5 m wide, 340 million square meters, 340 square km. I have trouble believing that. Anyone know the right number? (WT-en) Pashley 09:55, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * 42.5% of Suzhou, i. e. 3609 sq km, is water area though that includes lakes. (WT-en) Rincewind 04:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Another math error?
Current text has Suzhou to Pudong airport distance as "120 kilometers (about 65 miles)". 120 km is about 75 miles. 65 miles would be about 104 km. What are correct numbers?
 * Checked on wolframalpha and it gave a distance of 71 miles direct. (WT-en) Rincewind 04:47, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Contact: Wifi Hotels & Cafes
Is it really necessary to list the names of Hotels & Cafes that have WiFi? This information is a bit redundant since about 99.99% of Hotels & Cafes in Suzhou have FREE Wifi access.

What do you think? I am tempted to delete it, but would like some consensus.

 * If most places have it, then that may be worth mention and then you could delete the specific references. Another issue with this page is that it has 2 "Buy" sections. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:18, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Shamrock?
I was in Suzhou about a month ago and (Alas!) the Shamrock appeared to be closed. I see we still list it. Anyone know its current status? If it is actually gone, we should remove the listing, but I don't want to do that without checking. (WT-en) Pashley 06:02, 30 August 2010 (EDT)
 * An anonymous user deleted it, probably correctly. (WT-en) Pashley 06:57, 13 September 2010 (EDT)
 * It is gone. Pashley (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Guide?
Article status is currently Usable. What does it need to reach Guide? Guide status is required for a dotm nomination, which I'd say the place obviously deserves even if the article doesn't yet. Pashley (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I tagged it as Guide and nominated it: Destination_of_the_month_candidates. Pashley (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Water towns
I removed this text from the "Go next" section, am preserving it here:

 * Zhen Ze – A historical and authentic town with a river running through the center. The old buildings are still occupied by residents. 1 hour walk from the East end to the West end of town. Things to see are the Ci Yun Pagoda and temple ¥10, Shi Jian Tang, Yu Ji Bridge (qiao), and Shi Fan Bridge (qiao). The tomb of famous astronomer Wang Xiao An is located in a museum in Zhen Ze Middle School at the West End of town. Entrance fee is ¥5.
 * Mudu – Slightly shabby town with many lanes flanked by crumbling traditional homes to explore.
 * Tong Li – A smaller canal town with a many sightly crumbling old buildings.

One of the links for Zhen Ze comes up blank for me, possibly because of my flash & javascript filters, and the other is to ZhenZe middle school and in Chinese. A quick look at Google & WP shows nothing of interest. Pashley (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I also was thinking about 'zhenze'. The linked site says that it is a district of Suzhou. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I ended up creating Tongli and Zhen Ze, both as redirects to Wujiang, both with links in Suzhou#Go next, and both with brief descriptions at Wujiang. That should do until/unless someone wants to write more about them. Pashley (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bicycle shop listings?
Is the section Suzhou really needed? It seems long and targeted to expats living in the city. Can we just reduce to the places that can rent out a bike to the traveler?

Also, on a similar topic do we really need the Suzhou in 'Get In'? It is a really bad idea to suggest that people could bicycle from Shanghai to Suzhou considering how dangerous that option really is. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 * There are currently three bicycle sections. Get in/By bicycle which, as you say, is a risky ride & might be deleted. People do do it, though, so I'd be inclined to keep it. Get around/By bicycle seems OK to me now & it covers renting bikes. I moved a bunch of text from there and created Buy/Bicycles. That also seems OK to me as a subtopic of Buy where most people will not read it; it was far too much detail as a subsection of Get around.

 * Overall, I'd say keep all three. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 * There is also some bicycle stuff under Do. I do not much like the current text there but am uncertain how to improve it. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Just in terms of Suzhou, we really need to reduce this. It is basically a list of the contributor's favorite bike shops, takes a lot of space and is not relevant to the traveler. This is not a Yellow Page directory but a traveler guide.
 * I suggest keeping the first two listings as this will satisfy the few travelers who really want to by a bike for viewing the city. Listing bike shops for profesional grade bike components is really out of scope. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I rewrote it, both adding some stuff & shortening it a lot. I left the names & addresses of the high-end shops in but removed details. Comment solicited. Pashley (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd advice?
I am inclined to take out the first paragraph at Suzhou, partly because it looks to me like it violates No advice from Captain Obvious but also because I am not comfortable telling people either that they should trust hotel-provided assistants or try to exploit helpful local Chinese.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and edited. Comments? Pashley (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Map update?
Neither the map within the article nor the one linked at the top currently show Metro Line 2, Line 2, Suzhou Rail Transit. The line went into service about six months ago and is mentioned several times in article text, so adding it would be good. I assume that might need to be done at OpenStreetMap rather than here, but am not certain. Is there a volunteer?

Lines 3, 4, 5 and 6 might be added pre-emptively since all are due to go into service over the next few years; see Suzhou Rail Transit. I do not think that is important since none are due this year. Pashley (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Line 2 is now on both maps, Well done, someone! However, names for both streets and metro stations are all in Chinese. Is that fixable? Pashley (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I've added the metro names to the map. It looks like someone else is working in that space too, because there have been some other names added.  I'll come back and check them tomorrow when the map has updated.  I've no idea about the street names though.  Do you have translations.  --Inas (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I know the names of a few streets in pinyin (Chinese written in our alphabet), but that's all. Web search turns up several maps with English names. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 * We can't copy other maps into OSM --Inas (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Streets I know are: Best I can do, I'm afraid. For downtown & tourism, the most important thing missing is Ping Jiang Road. It runs N-S along a canal from somewhere near the museum most of the way downtown and parts of it are very pretty. However there are two canals in that part of the map and I cannot tell which it is. Also, I don't know the SIP well enough to help there at all. Pashley (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * E-W toward S of downtown, with Nets garden (#2) and Bookworm coffee house (#1) just off it: Shiquan Jie
 * N-S crossing Shiquan Jie by Nets garden: Fenghuang Rd
 * E-W nearer center, with subway under it: Ganjiang Lu
 * E-W, N of Ganjiang with Mountain Villa (#4) & Temple of Mystery (#13) nearby: Guanqian Jie
 * N-S, past Silk Museum (#15) N Temple Pagoda (#10) and Wave garden (#6): Remin Lu
 * E-W from N Pagoda past Suzhou Museum (#14) and Administrator's garden (#1): Dongbei Street
 * roughly SW-NE: Shantang Street, marked as #18 on map, runs from Changmen gate (#17) to Tiger Hill (#19), along a canal.

Walking downtown from station
Are the directions correct? "go outside the station and head right. At the first intersection, make an immediate right into either one of two tunnels heading under the train tracks". I'd have said go left out of the station and look for a bridge on your right. I do not remember a tunnel, but it has been a while and there may be more than one route. Pashley (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Danish Embassy?
Talking of the bars that are "thinly-veiled fronts for the world's oldest profession", the article mentions "the Moon Bar aka 'The Danish Embassy", known for its regular crowd of locals". I'm inclined to cut that back to just "the Moon Bar"; comments?

I suspect there is a story behind that text. Can anyone explain it? Pashley (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links?
I have added some at Suzhou, down below the list of the nine world heritage gardens, to indexes of garden articles elsewhere. I think these are fine, but they appear to be contrary to policy so it seemed worth mentioning here. Pashley (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The Suzhou Tourist Bureau listing is official and in my opinion, indisputably allowed under Wikivoyage's external links policy. The link to Wikipedia is neither allowed nor necessary, and I have deleted it. I'm not sure why you would think it is either allowable or necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not think the WP link was allowed, which is why I started this thread. I do think it is necessary, which is why I put it in and will argue that it should be restored. Each of the nine world-heritage-listed gardens has its own WP article. How should we deal with that, so that travellers can easily find details if they want them? To me, the last choice seems obviously best. If the current policy does not allow such obvious exceptions, then clearly we should change the policy. 21:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Copy details here? Fine for some stuff, but not all. We want neither to clutter this site with info not all travellers will want nor to have to maintain a separate copy.
 * Just mention that there are WP articles (as current text does) and expect travellers who want such info to search, either on WP or via Google, Bing, etc.? Not convenient, especially since they'll have to search once per garden.
 * There is a link to Suzhou in the sidebar. Expect users to follow links there if they want garden details? Not at all convenient.
 * Put links to all WP garden articles here, creating multiple policy violations? Overkill, and it is not clear where to put the links anyway.
 * Put in one link to Classical Gardens of Suzhou, a WP index article with links to all the garden articles?

 * If you think there are necessary details which are not viewable in any official sites but are in Wikipedia articles, and you're afraid of cluttering this article, Classical Gardens of Suzhou could certainly be made into a travel topic, with the side effect that this Wikipedia article could be linked from that topic, but that shouldn't be the main reason for creating the topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I still think a single link (index) to the WP article that indexes all the garden articles is the obvious and correct solution. However, I understand why Ikan deleted it, though I think he was wrong, and do not want to start an edit war by restoring it. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion died out the better part of a year ago. I still feel strongly that the link should be restored, that this is quite clearly a place where an exception to our usual policy is warranted. Pashley (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's clear at all. You've enumerated arguments for including the link, but you haven't explained why this case is significantly different from all the other cases in which editors would like to link to Wikipedia articles. At the moment, I don't see anything novel here that would outweigh the basic objection to Wikipedia links in general. Powers (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What is different here is that there are nine World Heritage listed gardens, we list them, each has its own WP article, and there is a tenth WP article which is an index for the other nine. I think we should link to that index since ttcf and the index provides an easy way to find more information for anyone who wants it. Current text, just after our list of the nine gardens, is:

 * Each of those gardens has both its own Wikipedia article and its own page on the Suzhou Tourist Bureau site (index); see those for additional detail if required.

I wrote it like this, & want to restore it:

 * ... its own Wikipedia article (index) and its own page on the Suzhou Tourist Bureau site (index) .... Pashley (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 * There are lots of cases where we would have a list of attractions, each with its own Wikipedia article, as well as another Wikipedia article that lists them. What about this scenario overrides the concerns that led to the deprecation of inline Wikipedia links? Powers (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Any exception to policy has to be a judgement call. As I see it, this one is obviously justified and I have given the reasons above. It is just far more convenient for travellers who want more info, and not problematic for those who do not.

 * It seems distinctly bizarre that the link to another index on a Tourist Bureau site is allowed without question but a parallel link to a WP index is vetoed. Granted, there is good reason to limit our use of WP links, but they are a sister project so arguably we should link to them whenever that is reasonable. Pashley (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 * My point is that this is not a singular exception. This is a common enough scenario that allowing it here would necessitate allowing it in hundreds of other articles. The reason the Tourist Bureau site is allowed to be linked is because it is a presumptively reliable primary source, while Wikipedia is a tertiary source (and its index articles could be considered worse yet). Powers (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I guess I don't see how this is a special case, either. Most attractions have their own WP article which if developed and written well would have more information that we would be able to provide in our descriptions. That also includes historic events, people, etc. It would seem that if the argument is that there is more information, it could be said about nearly any attraction. I also think it's sort of obvious that if you want detailed information about specific sites, you would look at sources specifically about those locations without feeling WV let you down. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree: it is not a singular exception. Frankly, I wish inline WP links were freely allowed. I wish a tourist, reading on her mobile device about a Czech military museum with a pink tank in front, could click the link to read the interesting story behind it, without having to open a WP app and type "pink tank" in the search field. And I would love to wikilink the public art depicting people and events in my home town. But that is not how WV is currently structured, and until we have consensus to change the MoS, we should be consistent. Peter Chastain (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But that raises the question of why you would want a reader to stop reading our site and go read some other site. Powers (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Our Prime Directive trumps almost everything else, so the question here is whether easy access to encyclopedic information is important to the traveller. I know it is for me: the joy of travelling is learning, understanding, seeing interesting stories, and I don't want obstacles placed in my way for proprietary reasons. But I don't want to have to wade through the extra information in Wikivoyage: we cannot be encyclopedic. After satisfying my curiosity, I will probably use my back button to get back to this very cool site that lets me explore the way I want to. Moreover, Wikipedia is not "some other site"; it is a close sister project with goals complementary to ours. I am not advocating that we should become link farms for travel sites with which we compete. Bottom line: if I am the only traveller who likes to dig deeper, then we shouldn't have Wikipedia links, but if a substantial percentage of others would find the links useful, I hope we can accommodate them. Let me repeat, since we are on the Suzhou talk page, that I am not advocating that we make the exception that Pashley has requested. Departing from an agreed-to style would be a disservice to our readers. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Well our Prime Directive is not a good policy tool since it can be used to support pretty much every specific argument carried out here. It is better employed as a guide for forming other policies.
 * Although consensus was reached around Wikipedia links before, there is no reason why you can't revisit it. I suggest that you raise this on Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't remember a consensus being attained; rather, my memory is that because no consensus was attained, the status quo was maintained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope we eventually revisit the issue but think it would be difficult to get consensus now. My comments, above, were by way of saying that Suzhou should not be a special case, and of planting the idea that our policy on WP links might not be serving us well. But I am really new here—despite joining in early 2013, I didn't start editing in earnest until 6 weeks ago—and would like to understand the Wikivoyage we have now, and its long-standing policies, before proposing major changes. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 * That is factually more correct. A discussion was had, and worth reading before considering how to take that discussion further. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 * A different but marginally related issue was discussed. The "wikipedia=" field in the listing template, exists quite happily on fr: and maybe elsewhere, but not here because an extensive January 2013 discussion deadlocked right down the middle - just as many just as strongly for or against. That proposal was specific to the individual templated listings. There are other approaches which could've been considered:

 * An inline link, which WP allows for Wiktionary entries if there's no encyclopaedia article. "Anytown is known for X, Y and Z." Point blank. Unlikely to be desirable as the links look too much like internal links to pages on the same wiki.
 * A link permitted wherever an external link is permitted. This is WP's policy toward most of the sibling projects, as a WP article has an "external links" section; they allow any Wikimedia project a templated box with an interwiki link in that section on any page. The deadlocked listing proposal is somewhat analogous as it would have proposed Wikipedia links on the same terms as links to the venue's own promotional website.
 * A sidebar link. This depends on various non-standard extensions like "Related Sites" and works poorly in that it assumes (falsely) that one WV article corresponds to one WP article. It also heavily overlaps the page-level Wikidata link in capability. Apparently our current status quo.
 * None of these are the same as "Anytown is known for X, Y and Z. (...brief description...) More information on X, Y and Z is available in Wikipedia." as a "see also" style mention where the summary and the fact the links point to Wikipedia (and not to individual Wikivoyage travel topics) is spelled out explicitly. Something like or seealso looks like a reasonable solution, but is a different animal from the listing field which was discussed and deadlocked a few years ago. I am not adverse to a discussion being had on explicitly-marked "see also" links, as they're not the same proposal that deadlocked last time. K7L (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend posting these kinds of proposals at Wikivoyage talk:External links. Since external links now open in a new window by default, this may be a good time to revisit the issue of allowing more links to sister sites, including inline links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is now possible to add wikipedia links to listings as per Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia Drat70 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * All the gardens have WP articles & all are now linked from our garden listings, so the controversy above is now moot. Pashley (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wuxi airport
The airport is actually located between Wuxi and Suzhou, but our current ground transport directions mention only going into W by bus and getting a train to S. Are there also busses to S? Will any of the hotels in S provide transport?

Can you just get a cab to S? What is that likely to cost? It looks to me like it might be considerably more convenient, especially if you have a lot of luggage, and might not be more expensive if there are several people. Pashley (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know the answer to your transport question, however Wuxi is a pretty local airport with not many many or frequent connections. Probably best to take the high speed train to Hongqiao airport in Shanghai. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes & the article mentions both Shanghai airports plus Nanjing & Hangzhou, and describes the limitations of Wuxi.
 * But the question about transport to/from Wuxi airport would still be worth answering if anyone knows. Pashley (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Auspicious light pagoda
Our current description has:
 * It has two storeys and is 53m (about 174 feet) high.

I'd expect a two-storey building to be about 10 meters. Do we need a correction or an explanation here? Pashley (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks like 7 storeys - maybe only two are open? AlasdairW (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"See also"
Why is there a "See also" for a red-linked Suzhou in Anhui? Does someone plan on starting an article about that place? If not, we need to delete a recommendation to "see" a nonexistent article as soon as possible, because it will frustrate readers and make us look really stupid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Yeah delete it – "See also" sections are not standard on destination articles and on top of what you mention. If someone does create it, it can be linked via related. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Done. Though I've seen "See also" in other articles and I think it's fine if it goes to an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've only seen "see also" sections in travel topics, so this was a first for me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Districts
A large Districts section has just been added, without discussion, by User:ZHANG0822ZH. Questions arise.

These appear to be the administrative districts & in many Chinese articles we prefer to use Wikivovage districts, chosen to be useful to the traveller. See Xiamen or Shanghai for examples.

Towns within the administrative region are sometimes treated separately rather than as city districts. See Talk:Fuzhou for one discussion. The Suzhou article has:
 * Suzhou is a prefecture-level city in the Chinese system of administration, which makes the name "Suzhou" somewhat ambiguous; it can refer either to the city itself or to the entire administrative area. This article covers the city; some towns within the administrative area, like Kunshan and Wujiang, have separate articles.

I think that is all that needs to be said about those places, but the article currently lists both as districts of Suzhou. This cannot stand; either they are districts, the articles go at Suzhou/Kunshan and Suzhou/Wujiang and they will automatically be breadcrumbed to Suzhou, or they are separate articles with breadcrumbs to East China. I much prefer the latter.

We also have:
 * Suzhou boasts one of the hottest economies in the world; ... The Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) east of downtown and the Suzhou New District (SND) in the west have dozens of factories for both Chinese and foreign companies, and ...
 * The SIP is definitely the main center for the computer and communications industries, but it is by no means alone. The SND on the opposite side of downtown is also doing very well and seems to be becoming a hub for biotech industries.

If it were up to me, I might have only three districts: downtown, SIP & SND.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Zhangjiagang & Changshu also have articles & perhaps Taicang should, but all are listed as districts. Pashley (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I would like to see Suzhou converted into a region article similar to Jiangmen, with the core urban area contained within a single district article, which we may call Central Suzhou.
 * By the way, User ZHANG0822ZH has also recently added large district sections to other cities in Jiangsu, including Changzhou, Taizhou (Jiangsu) and Zhenjiang. STW932 (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. First of all, China has the concept of prefecture-level cities and county-level cities. County-level cities are under the jurisdiction of prefecture-level cities, and county-level cities are under the jurisdiction of prefecture-level cities. Therefore, Kunshan, Zhangjiagang, Taicang, and Changshu in Suzhou are part of Suzhou City. Secondly, in October 2023, Suzhou's industrial park has been merged into Suzhou's Gusu District. Finally, there are currently four districts in Suzhou: Gusu District, Huqiu District, Wuzhong District, and Wujiang District, and four county-level cities, Taicang City, Changshu City, Kunshan City, and Zhangjiagang City, all of which are part of Suzhou. Moreover, Wuzhong District and Wujiang District in Suzhou also have many tourist attractions such as Xishan. I think I should not just write about Gusu District and Huqiu District. ZHANG0822ZH (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Did you read the link at Talk:Fuzhou (& the next section of that page) above? This seems to me to be a very similar problem. For travel guide purposes it is not the case that "Kunshan, Zhangjiagang, Taicang, and Changshu in Suzhou are part of Suzhou City"; they and Wujiang should have separate articles & most already do. They are not "districts" in the sense that Wikivoyage uses the term. Pashley (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Which administrative districts are downtown? In the SIP? Pashley (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The downtown area is basically just Gusu District. And contrary to User ZHANG0822ZH's assertion, the SIP has not been amalgamated with Gusu District. It has been added to Gusu District for statistical purposes only. See here STW932 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Suzhou has a map which we might use. It refers to:
 * satellite cities, including Kunshan, Taicang, Changshu, and Zhangjiagang, which together with the city of Suzhou form the Suzhou prefecture
 * That is, it considers those areas not part of "the city of Suzhou". I'd add Wujiang. Pashley (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I have gone ahead & rewritten extensively, see Suzhou. The previous version is preserved below. Comment and edits solicited. Pashley (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing districts
I am about to radically alter this section per discussion above. Preserving current text here:

Pashley (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I like how your version has wikidata/wikipedia links (listings), but the old version was prettier, layout wise (with colors). Piotrus (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, although (at least on my system, Linux & Firefox) it did not display a map using the colours. See also Wikivoyage_talk:Mapmaking_Expedition. Pashley (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Suzhou


text:
Talk:Svalbard

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Svalbard/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Information For Contributors
The following information may assist contributors who wish to improve this article
 * The Svalbard Pages
 * Svalbard Images - Maps, Pictures, info and links

To do before it's a DotM
We are heading (partly owing to me opening my big fat mouth) toward this article as a possible Destination of the Month for May 2006. However, as I look at it, I'm not convinced it's ready for that. Fleshing-out of the "Sleep" section is really very important, and more clarity on things to see and do wouldn't hurt either. Anybody? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:37, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Never mind. The daughter pages seem adequate for the "Sleep," and while improvement on "See" and "Do" would still be nice, it's not essential. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:30, 3 Feb 2006 (EST)

IsIn Norway
So Svalbard is a bit of an interesting case. It's administered by and sovereign territory of Norway, but the Svalbard Treaty's provisions mean that Norway's actual control is limited. Most notably for the traveller, it's possible to visit Svalbard without getting a Norwegian visa or dealing with Norwegian immigration. Other opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:10, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Seeing the article about the town of Longyearbyen, I went "up" to the region (island) of Svalbard, and fully expected to be able to go up the trail to the country that the island was part of, but instead was forced to jump up to the continental region of Northern Europe. So is Svalbard a country? Is it something like Antarctica? (I knew only that Longyearbyen was about 3cm above the top of the page on the route map in the SAS in-flight magazine...)

 * I think the isIn trail should give the reader an idea at a glance where the subject is located, in familiar terms, as city-region-country. And in this case it's the reader's concern "where in the world is this?" that comes first, before the travelers need for visa issues or (someone?)'s need for administrative divisions. If I were planning a trip to Longyearbyen and needed a mainstream published guide, I would expect to find the best information in "Rough Planet:Norway", not "Lonely Guide:Northern Europe".

 * Places of this type aren't common, so maybe ad-hoccing it is best; Easter Island probably doesn't have to be placed under Chile. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 04:07, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * For what it's worth, Hawaii and Alaska are both listed (using isIn) as being in the United States, despite the fact that they are geographically far away from the mainland US, so using that as a precedent it makes sense (IMHO) to list Svalbard and Easter Island as being part of (isIn) Norway and Chile, respectively. Additionally, the argument above about whether a traveler would expect to find info about Svalbard in a Norway travel guide is a good one since isIn could eventually be used to produce country and region specific guides. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:12, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Yabbut Hawaii and Alaska are full-fledged states and undeniably parts of the US. On the other hand, the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory, aren't under "US" but (IMHO correctly) under "Micronesia", and the stamp in my passport from there doesn't say "US", it says "CNMI".  Svalbard is similar: it's Norwegian territory, but not quite a full-fledged part of Norway the country.  (I didn't get any stamps, but they did check my passport when returning to Oslo, which they wouldn't do for a purely domestic flight.)

 * And I'm not actually sure about how The Other Guide classifies Svalbard; I am quite sure, though, that it got its own section in the LP Arctic guide. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:24, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

Svalbard is a full-fledged part of Norway. A lot of areas were established according to international treaties. Andorra, the Vatican city state and Monaco are presently all established on treaties. One could claim that de facto Andorra until 1993 was under French and Spanish rule, that Monaco still is a French territory and that the Vatican city state in many ways is under Italian control. Anyway all these three countries are accepted as separate independent national bodies. Due to historical reasons the administrator is called "Sysselmann" (which means "county prefect" and not "governor" as it is often wrongly translated). (WT-en) Jakro64 16:40, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Andorra due to the lack of clear division of powers while it was ruled by a Spanish bishop and the French president, according to a treaty.
 * Monaco since the head of government is chosen by the French government, according to a treaty.
 * Vatican City since there is in fact no common population and that citizenship is only granted for the period of official work in the Vatican. The Lateran Treaty provides that in the event a Vatican citizen has his or her original nationality revoked and also loses Vatican citizenship, he or she will be automatically granted Italian citizenship.
 * Svalbard is not a Schengen member, nor is Helgoland, Germany.
 * Svalbard has special tax rules, so has the Northern part of North Norway.
 * Svalbard has no own flag, and the administration is very similar to the rest of the Norway.
 * In a similar way to Schengen as one passport area, the citizens of the Svalbard treaty member states can freely visit and stay in Svalbard.
 * And in a similar way as the EU/EEC as one economic area member states companies have the same rights to do business on the islands.
 * For citizens and companies from non-member state countries Svalbard is an ordinary part of Norway.

Sunlight?
Since the island has polar night for part of the year and the sun is usualy hidden behind dense banks of fog, this would contribute to the lack of sunlight, do children undergo a daily ultraviolet session? The lack of sunlight would also mean that if an inhabitant of this island were to migrate driect to the equator and go out in the hot sun, their skin wouldn't be well prepared, wouldn't it? Do people tend to be shorter on this island than elsewhere in the world (for the same reason)? What is the rate of rickets like? (WT-en) Fucking, Austria

 * Is that you, Willy? I've never seen you string four nearly coherent sentences together before, maybe there's hope yet.

 * Anyway, Svalbard isn't that different from the rest of Scandinavia. Vitamin D is added to milk and other products, so rickets isn't an issue.  UV therapy is reserved for seasonal affective disorder.  And yeah, blonde, pale-skinned people do tend to turn a shade of angry lobster red after sitting out in the tropical sun for too long, but after a while you get used to it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:12, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Most northern settlement?
I doubt Ny alvebard or whatever is the northernmosty settlement, I believe that honor belongs to Alert Bay, Canada User:154.5.132.51
 * Apparently it is because Alert Bay is located at 50°34'48" N 126°56'11" W, while Svalbard is located between 76 N - 81 N. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:03, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
 * {grin} 50°North?! London is that far north!  Edmonton is north of that that; Canada even has three whole territories north of that!  Several entire European nations are more north than that!  I think we should all chip in and buy Mr 154 a globe. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:06, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
 * I assume that someone mixed up the Alert settlement on Ellesmere Island with Alert Bay, British Columbia. Alert (Ellesmere Island) is at 82°30′05″N 062°20′20″W indeed farther north than Ny-Ålesund. The tricky bit is in the defintion of settlement. While Alert is inhabited all year round, it is purely a military/scientific community, while Ny-Ålesund also has 'civil' residents. Usually, the distinction is given that Alert is "the northernmost permanently inhabited place" (but nor settlement), while Ny-Ålesund is the "world's northernmost functional public settlement".

Uninhabited islands
...are not destinations and hence don't need links. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

About rifles
License or equivalent document is needed for renting a rifle. Regulations changed this year.

 * Plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:39, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Status
Should this be rated as "guide" or should this be downgraded? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2017 (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) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Femhundrelapper IMG 1771.JPG

Banner
Title. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I definitely prefer banner 1, but I think we could do even better. Maybe a view including one of the towns or at least a local ship? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Svalbard is more known for its pristine nature rather than its towns so a banner without either would represent the archipelago better. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with SelfieCity but I think I'm happier with Banner 1 than he is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Svalbard


text:
Talk:Sveagruva

This is pretty much the only source of info I could find on any tourist ever making it to Sveagruva: (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:10, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Is this an article?
This seems to be on the very edge of WV:WIAA as there is nearly no infrastructure for the visitor. Should this be merged/redirected or deleted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Svalbard?
When this article was created in 2006, it made a lot of sense to have an article for Sveagruva. At that time, it was one of Europe's most productive coal mines. However, the town closed in 2017 (due to economic conditions per Wikipedia), with the town's one main POI, the coal mine, closing in 2020, meaning this is nothing more than a ghost town. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * per nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sveagruva


text:
Talk:Svealand

So, at one point the names of the regions on this page were as follows:

 * Sudermannia
 * Uplandia
 * Westermannia
 * Nericia
 * Wermelandia
 * Dalecarlia

The comment for the change that added them suggested that they were the proper English names for the provinces. But I couldn't find any of these listed anywhere -- even the Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names couldn't come up with one. (Wait, no, not true -- it comes up with "Dalecarlia" for Dalarna, but as a non-preferred name.) So, I switched them back -- each of the names now listed is "Preferred" on TGN (minus the umlauts) and is used on Wikipedia's Svealand page. --(WT-en) Evan 23:26, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Svealand


text:
Talk:Swahili phrasebook

i think with the colors the first latter is missing but a great collection of swahili words and phrases

 * The letter changes depending on the noun class of the subject AND whether it is singular or plural. That is why the colors (and other words) begin with "-" rather than a letter. Noun classes are important in Swahili. They determine many conjugations/prefixes/infixes. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Swahili phrasebook


text:
Talk:Swakopmund

Desert Sky Backpackers
Can I ask why this place to stay was removed? Does it no longer exist? Did someone have a bad experience there? I stayed there twice and found it to be a very good place. --(WT-en) Dawnview 18:26, 6 Jun 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Swakopmund


text:
Talk:Swansea

Car park
I have a question of prefering car park (the British term) over parking lot (the American term). In Britian these places would be called Car parks, and signposted that way, so they should be called that in British articles too. Just as you would call it a parking lot in America because I would expect the sign to say that. -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:02, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)

Subdividing this page
I notice that Swansea is starting to become rather large. I have created a regional page, Gower Peninsula to move some attractions that are out of the city to, but contributors might like to also consider subdividing the city into districts such as Swansea/Gower and Swansea/Mumbles. -- (WT-en) Huttite 00:59, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * The current subdivision is rather clunky, with only one district. I think Gower Peninsula could be a separate district, or Swansea should be turned into multiple districts. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm looking to create a district for the Swansea page for Swansea City Centre as there is a lot going on in this area which I think needs its own page due to the volume of shopping, eating, drinking and things to do within a mile or two radius. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Nat reynolds (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Well if the city is to be districtified, it needs to be fully districitified; you can't just make one district article. LtPowers (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling
Hmmm... Lots of American spellings here "center", "theater" etc. This is about a British city so spelling and terminology should be British??? --204.104.55.242 09:31, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * Hi - thanks for your comments. Please take a look at this page Project:Spelling. Hopefully, that will give you some insight into the reasons why American spelling is used even on articles for British cities. However, proper nouns are spelled according to local custom, for example in the Swansea article, you'll find "Grand Theatre" and "Dylan Thomas Centre" etc. Hope that answers your query. If you have any further comments regarding this policy, the best place to raise them is on Project:Spelling. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:56, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * ...and note the "This policy is disputed" tag at the top of Project:Spelling which has been there for over a year... ~ 203.144.143.8 10:22, 22 December 2006 (EST)

 * True, but at the moment, all articles are spelled according to the US tradition. Basically, one style had to be adopted and as the founders were from that side of the pond that was the style decided upon. Without a standard policy, I think you'll appreciate that articles can be a mess. For the UK, it is easy to decide which style to use, but what about Japan or Siberia? From a personal prospective, I don't care which way we spell center/centre. If the UK model is chosen as a standard, I'm very happy to use that. Likewise, I'm equally happy to use the US or Australian styles. Anyway, as I said, if you want to re-start the debate on the issue, the place to do so is on this page: Project:Spelling. Furthermore, at Wikivoyage, all policies are decided by consensus, and I do not have the authority to grant a contributor the right to adopt in a particular writing style. All I can do is help point them in the direction of the pertinent info. Anyway, I hope this info is helpful, and if you decide to re-start the debate, I wish you well. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:33, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Removal of Sancta Maria Hospital
Would there be any objection to removing the reference to Sancta Maria?

It is a private hospital having limited facilities and tending to undertake pre-planned elective surgery and it's unlikely to be of use to a visitor to Swansea.

Singleton and Morriston Hosptial, (particularly the latter) are much better equiped NHS, (state owned hospitals) and would be more likely to be of use to a visitor to Swansea, and so it seems daft including this hospital in the same category.

Indeed on a similar point would it not be better to refer to the NHS direct telephone numbers or even the 999 number as a means of accessing healthcare in Swansea rather than the hospital switchboards- (those are more for businness or admin calls e.g. "I am calling from ABC office supplies about the invoice for printer ink required for the Hospitals' payroll department", rather than "My companion has turned blue/ orange/ has chest pains" sorts of calls. Although perhaps this is more a general point about accessing healthcare anywhere else in Wales or the UK for that matter.

 * That's sounds ok, though please consider that many travelers will be covered by medical insurance and so their decision where to seek medical attention will not be influenced by financial constraints. From what you state, emergencies would obviously be directed to the two larger hospitals, but travelers also seek treatment for non-urgent matters (such as minor eye or muscular problems), and some may prefer to go private rather than wait in line at a national health hospital. Anyway, please consider these points, but I'll leave the final decision in your very capable hands. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:07, 14 January 2007 (EST)

"first uphill water slide"
Currently on the front page of the site is a claim from this article that The LC's waterpark boasts the world's "first uphill water slide". This strikes me as a highly dubious claim, since the park only opened in 2008, but water coasters have been around for about a decade. Anyone have any evidence to support this claim? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:04, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Guide or Usable?
I'm not convinced this article is a Guide, as long as it has 77(!) incorrectly formatted external links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * tend to agree. Is on my to do list but could be some time before I have the chance to get round to it. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Does anyone demur on downgrading this article to Usable in the meantime? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not for the links being wrongly formatted. Guide status is about content; formatting is an issue for Stars. Powers (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true, sorry. I quote from City guide status:

 * Guide
 * [...]Listings and layout closely match the manual of style.[...]

 * Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I even checked, but I missed that sentence. Still, I think it's fair to say that formatting doesn't have to be perfect, which is all I was trying to get across. For guide status, we ask that the travel content be essentially complete, but we tolerate some formatting issues. Powers (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * We differ about how serious _77_ incorrect external links are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering it was a relatively recent change to our MOS, and the incorrectness doesn't affect usability in any way, it seems silly to demote an article simply for not yet having been changed over. Powers (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's still Usable, just not a Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. When we agreed to change the formatting for links, I don't believe we required every article to be immediately reformatted or face demotion, nor do I think we would have had much agreement on that point had anyone raised it. We don't even demote Stars just for still formatting links under the former standard. Powers (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryan has helpfully edited the external links in the meantime, obviating this discussion, but I would merely observe that our definitions of "immediately" seem to differ. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that we have always granted leeway to articles that followed a previous standard so that no one felt compelled to have to change every article on the site to bring them all into compliance with a new standard. If you think there should be a time limit on such leeway, then that's a topic that should be raised in a more appropriate forum. Powers (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which forum do you think is most appropriate for such a discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be Wikivoyage talk:City guide status or Wikivoyage talk:Guide articles. The former gets more traffic but the latter is more on-point.  Powers (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wenglish
The expression 'Ych a fi!' doesn't translate as 'dirty', but rather as a general declaration of disgust. Further, it's by no means Wenglish (a pigdin mixture of Welsh and English words and phrases) but is rather wholly Welsh.

 * This is the free travel wiki which anyone can edit, so please plunge forward and make changes as you see appropriate. Croeso i Wikivoyage! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2019 (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) 05:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Swansea airport logo.svg

title: Talk:Swansea


text:
Talk:Swansea/Gower

Should this be moved from Swansea/Gower to Gower Peninsula? ~ 203.144.143.4 00:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

 * I think so. It's certainly better known as the Gower Peninsula, and the fact that it falls under the administration of Swansea isn't really relevant for travelers. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:13, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * The Gower is just a suburb of Swansea and is as much an integral part of the city as Garfield Park or Mount Greenwood are parts of Chicago. The 'centre' of Gower is Swansea City centre, and that is where the train and bus stations are located. In addition, the article actually covers all rural areas of Swansea (as stated in the text), and the title Gower is merely given as this is the more well known part of these areas. Furthermore, to save any confusion, there are links from 'Gower', 'The Gower Peninsular' and 'Gower Penisular' to the page. I'd say leave it as Swansea/Gower, which accords with the general way of listing suburbs on WP. Cheers. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 23:14, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I go with Frequenttrekker on this one. As I'm sure many people do, I discovered the Gower while visiting Swansea (not vice versa). It is definitely just a suburb of the city. In fact the only thing that distinguishes it from Garfield Park and Mount Greenwood (I guess - I'm not familiar with Chicago) is that it is also defined by geographic as well as administrative boundaries. If we start splitting off all suburbs, then WP will be full of unconnected articles. Anyway, I appreciate your comments Peter and follow your logic, but I still feel the best place to list the Gower is under the Swansea banner. In addition as FT stated, there are a number of links already in place so no one can miss the article. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:44, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but now Swansea is a city with only one district, which is odd. In The Hague/Scheveningen and Pattaya/Jomtien, we have fixed this by making two separate articles for them, which is easier to navigate. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Following convention, suburbs are named according to the city where they are located. Other cities such as Boudha/Kathmandu follow this convention. If we begin creating independent articles for all suburbs, the site will soon be a mess. I agree with Windhorse and Frequenttrekker that Gower should be listed under Swansea with a link from Gower Peninsular and Gower. I have consequently reverted to the former title as I believe there is no consensus for change. I hope that is acceptable. (WT-en) Cityskyline 14:16, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

 * By convention, we have separate articles for separate destinations if that makes sense. Just look at The Hague and Scheveningen, and at Pattaya and Jomtien, like I showed before. It's funny you use Bouddha as an example, as that exactly shows what I am talking about: Kathmandu and Boudha are separate articles. While the Gower and Swansea are administratively and politically one municipality, for travellers they are separate destinations with a completely different landscape (urban vs rural). The 'huge city' template is meant for cities with around 7±2 districts, where the main article should give an overview and no separate listings. It is not meant for one city and a separate outlying area. Besides Swansea, there is not one other example on Wikivoyage where a huge city has just one district article. The current situation falls outside of Wikivoyage practice and should be changed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:46, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Swansea/Gower


text:
Talk:Swansea Bay

Future developments

 * Future of Wales Rally GB in doubt
 * New Go Ape at Pembrey Country Park to open planned for opening Easter 2010

 * I have noticed one violation on this page.

Self Catering Accommodation Agencies

Home from Home, 101 Newton Road, Mumbles, Swansea SA3 4BN, ☎ +44 1792 360624, fax: +44 1792 361626, e-mail: enquiries@homefromhome.com. They offer a range of holiday cottages and apartments in Mumbles, Gower, Swansea Marina and other areas of south west Wales.

This listing appears on the Gower Peninsula and Swansea pages. Dwtmill (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this article needed
Obvious a lot of work has gone into this article but most of the listing are, or should be, on other pages. The entries cover a large area of South Wales, would summaries at county level provide alternatives to this page? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'd say tag it as an extra-hierarchical region, move or just remove most of the listings, and all is fine. Pashley (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 * It certainly needs a map, though. Pashley (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Swansea Bay


text:
Talk:Swartz Creek

Merge with Flint
I wonder if Swartz Creek should be merged with Flint? There doesnt seem to be enough to justify a separate article without a listing for accommodation. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)
 * It depends on what area is used for Swartz Creek. The City proper, no, there isn't any public accommodation. If you widen the area to the neighboring townships (that people consider a part of Swartz Creek via Swartz Creek PO address, telephone exchange & school district; what I call the Swartz Creek Area) then Swartz Creek would pick up Mundy Township hotels at the least, not to mention the overlap in Flint Township which some what identifies with the City of Flint. However, the Mundy Township hotels have Flint zip codes. So what is the deterinating factor for the area? --Spshu (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided the city's URL; therefore, case closed anyone? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Swartz Creek


text:
Talk:Eswatini

Swaziland -> eSwatini
The official country name of the Kingdom of Swaziland has been changed to the Kingdom of eSwatini.

Please change the title of the article. —The preceding comment was added by 91.115.50.230 (talk • contribs)

 * No, because no non-Swazi readers know the new name. Please read Naming conventions:

 * articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. This means that official names are often not appropriate for use as article names. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I believe that the pages relating to Swaziland should be moved to Eswatini. It has changed literally everywhere for example the United Nations, Wikipedia all users have agreed to adopt the new name Eswatini. Swaziland no longer in use. —The preceding comment was added by Ben2949 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your concern. These huge modifications on our breadcrumb navigation cannot happen overnight; consensus must be achieved. This discussion is opened already. The community will manifest itself. Please wait for said consensus BEFORE making any changes to any page; pretty please with sugar on top, do not edit war on this. Ibaman (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be time: Lonely Planet and TripAdvisor are using the new name. Let's let the discussion run for a couple of weeks before making a decision, though. Ground Zero (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's changed? Is this new name now suddenly, within a few months, the most widely used one in English? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Adoption of a new name for a country into common use is never sudden, but changing the name of an article always is. Can we ever say that Tuesday, "Swaziland" was more common, and on Wednesday "eSwatini" was? No, of course not. If sudden and definitive change is our criterion, then we won't ever move the article.
 * The evidence is mounting: TripAdvisor and Lonely Planet, Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a similar policy on article naming to us, and a much larger group of editors who discuss these things. There were several lengthy move discussions through 2018, until it was finally moved in October. Evidence is provided there of the common use of Eswatini in English-speaking world media around the world. Let's not spend a whole lot of time second-guessing those deliberations. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read through the entire Wikipedia talk thread, and clearly, their criteria are not the same as Wikivoyage's. They are relying on what name news sources and other encyclopedias use ("its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"), and those opposing a move were doing so on the basis that the new name is not (or not yet) the most used in English vernacular. The name most used in English vernacular is the only criterion on Wikivoyage. I think the opposers have a stronger argument for now, for the purposes of this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Our policy does not make any reference that I can find to "the vernacular". Naming_conventions says: "the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries" and "For destinations where multiple names or spellings are in use and there isn't an obviously correct English name, the title should be the most commonly-used name in the local language." The English-language sources cited are a the only indicator of common use in English that we have. What evidence would you accept for "common use" if not media sources? A public opinion poll survey on English-speaking countries? If you are looking for a citation for common use by the person in the street, there never will be one, and we'll end up with a travel guide full of Siams and Upper Voltas and Ceylons. That won't look good. Anyone planning to travel to Swaziland had better learn very quickly that they are going to Eswatini or they will run into trouble. Ground Zero (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Move The most common name used among anyone who knows what he's talking about is eSwatini (or possibly an Anglicized "Eswatini"). Since virtually no one talks about Swaziland/eSwatini in common conversation, we can't exactly do even casual polling on a common name. Instead, we have published sources like the ones mentioned above or (e.g.) BBC. Create redirects and a note at the beginning since the name change was fairly recent. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Should we also change East Timor to Timor Leste? How about Vatican City to Cittá del Vaticano? As far as what evidence we use, well, what evidence do we use for English language varieties? Primarily the collective experience of English-speakers who edit this site, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, as I see it, the question is, would more than a handful of non-specialists outside of Southern Africa have any idea what eSwatini is? Would more know what Swaziland is, even if they're a bit vague on its precise borders? I guess we'd have to balance against that the number of English-speakers in South Africa who know very well where the kingdom is vs. the number of English-speakers outside of the region who have never heard of the country under either name, and I'm honestly not sure where that balance would end up, so I may have to grudgingly concede to the inexorable attempts to change the name on this site, which are bound to continue coming. I should say, I'm not at all convinced about using Cote d'Ivoire as the name of that country in English, but I think Myanmar got very widely accepted (as did Pinyin spellings like Beijing and Guangzhou, earlier). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a precedent; a while ago it was suggested that Cape Verde should be moved to Cabo Verde, because the government of Cape Verde had decided that should be the official English name for the country, even as Cabo Verde in practice isn't the most common name used in English. The article wasn't moved. And to my understanding we do have a status quo bias here on WV. So I would not suggest we rename the article, at least as for now. -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, if you think the Vatican City and East Timor should be moved, propose moves at those pages. Throwing those in muddles this discussion. (For the record, TripAdvisor and Wikipedia call them East Timor, Vatican City and Cape Verde, while Lonely Planet uses Timor-Leste and Cabo Verde.) Since the media in English-speaking countries (and other popular travel sites) use the new name, it is reasonable to believe that anyone with an interest in the country will know that name. The redirect from Swaziland will take care of anyone still using the old name. I don't think it is reasonable to say that our tiny pool of contributors can make a better call on this than the much larger pool of contributors at Wikipedia, and international media, and other travel sites. I have posted a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit more input. Ground Zero (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think those articles should be moved, I am unconvinced this article should be moved, and I think Cote d'Ivoire should probably be moved to Ivory Coast. Consensus rules, so I'll probably be overruled on this name, but you've got my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Move I think This should definitely be move because the king denounced its colonial name Swaziland from its constitution and Eswatini has become the official English name. For example Rhodesia and Zaire old names for Zimbabwe/DRC are no longer in use and as time goes on you will find more sources relating to Eswatini rather than Swaziland Swaziland is slowly becoming extinct. —The preceding comment was added by Ben2949 (talk • contribs)

 * Please read Naming conventions. "Because it's the official name" is specifically not a criterion for naming on this site, and the question is just how slowly the name "Swaziland" is becoming extinct. I would urge all new users to read the Wikivoyage guidelines linked to and discussed several times in this thread before commenting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * At some point we should move the article to eSwatini or Eswatini, but I am not sure whether that is now or later (2025?). Looking at other travel sites, I see some have "Eswatini (Swaziland)", and but more just have Swaziland. I didn't find any of the main booking sites just using Eswatini (however it is capitalised). I don't think we should use "Eswatini (Swaziland)", which would suggest disambiguation rather than an alternative name. When referring to the country elsewhere I would suggest "Eswatini / Swaziland" (there are about 80 incoming links Swaziland, ignoring user pages etc 40-50 need to be changed). If a hotel called itself "mOtel", we would call it "Motel", and I think that we should do the same and use Eswatini unless there strong evidence of eSwatini being used in other countries, which so far I haven't seen. Although the name change was announced in April last year, is there an official timetable for the change or an indication of what percentage of signs in the country have been changed? AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Do not move yet. I agree with AlasdairW that around 2025 may be a more appropriate time (though, personally, I'd say to go later rather than sooner). Let's remember that redirects are in place, so if anyone types "Eswatini", they still get the right article. Neither names are well-known; Swaziland is a small country. But still, keep in mind that "Swaziland" is more natural for English speakers than "Eswatini". --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't make ourselves like out of date. Maybe I'm mistaken in the discussion on the Main Page about being the most up-to-date if there is a strong preference to lag behind other sites and media. Even that other wiki site, which has almost no active editors these days, has moved the article. It's disappointing that Wikivoyage wants to stand out by living in the past. Ground Zero (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's really a pretty disrespectful argument. You know very well that Wikivoyage has no policy to automatically change the name of an article a few months after an official name change is made, and you know why, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this could just be an example of Wikivoyage being different than some other sites, for good reason. As I see it, in a case like this, redirects are more important; someone who types "Eswatini" into our search system still gets the article with the same content about the country.
 * While I can understand the concerns that WV doesn't seem to be growing quickly enough, the issue of this article's name will have little impact on WV's future. Let's not look at things in a way that's out of proportion — Swaziland is a very small country. Probably, the majority of people in the world don't even know that Swaziland/Eswatini exists, let alone which name to use. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 05:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, in no way do I mean to be disrespectful toward your contributions here. But at no time have I suggested that the article name be changed because of the change in the official name of the country. I fully agree that that is not a valid reason for changing the article name. And it's why People's Republic of China is appropriately redirects to China.
 * As I've pointed out on your talk page, when I was travelling in Cote d'Ivoire in 1990, no English-speaking travellers called it "Ivory Coast". Your suggestion that moving that article was a mistake supports my argument that our little group of contributors is not as good a barometer of common usage on English as is the panoply of other websites and media sources cited here and in the Wikipedia discussion I linked. Lagging behind the rest of the web is not a good look for Wikivoyage. (I have not been to southern Africa yet, so I have no personal experience with Swaziland.)
 * The complement to SelfieCity's argument about redirects is that if we update the article name, anyone searching on the old name will be redirected automatically to the name that others on the web and in the media are using. Something they need to know if they are going to visit the country. Ground Zero (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken on Cote d'Ivoire, but isn't a web search a bit more reliable than just media and encyclopedic practices? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And one other thing: just because we continue to use Swaziland here, doesn't mean that were are, to quote, "lagging behind the rest of the web." It would be very unfortunate if any event caused WV to lag behind other websites, but at the same time I don't believe the Swaziland issue has much, if any, relevance to whether we are keeping up to date with other sources. Also, User:Ikan Kekek has a good point about web search. Quite a few websites still use Swaziland, but there are a lot of sources mentioning the name change: see and . --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you do a Google search on Swaziland and look at articles updated since April 2018, you end up mostly with redirects to articles that use the new name, e.g., Google's own article, and the others mentioned above (Wikipedia, Trip Advisor, that other travel site, government and international organizations, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA), and articles about the name change. I came up with some commercial travel sites that use the old name. They look like they haven't been updated in a long time because they do not mention that the country officially uses another name. The New York Times's only article since the name change, a film review, uses the old name. The Times of Swaziland has not changed its name, but calls the country "eSwatini".

So it's hard to find a current site in the top listings that has not switched to the new name, other than Wikivoyage and The New York Times's film review section. They are lagging behind most other sites in making the change -- this is what "lagging behind" means. Most other sites have changed to the new name and we have not. Ground Zero (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Alright, change the name, but should it be "Eswatini" or "eSwatini"? And of course keep redirects from Swaziland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree, we're lagging behind. I don't really know which capitalization is better, but here is the discussion on Wikipedia. Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise we might as well follow their reasoning and use "Eswatini". (And of course we should keep the redirect and mention the older name in the lead.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * If we change the name, it should be "Eswatini", not "eSwatini", per standard English Capitalization. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with English capitalization. We can leave the fancy stuff for the siSwatini-language version of Wikivoyage when it is created. Ground Zero (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with this. The question would be, which capitalization is used most in English (and maybe in signage)? There are examples of non-English capitalization already used on this site - some national park in South Africa (I forget which one) is one example, and there is also someplace in the Netherlands with two capital letters in the beginning of the word; I forget which one that is, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * IJsselmeer. We use that spelling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 * To clarify, my comment 'If we change the name, it should be "Eswatini", not "eSwatini"...' is not intended to be an endorsement for moving the page. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * It seems like there's general agreement on moving to "Eswatini". I'll try to carry out the move sometime in the next few days unless someone else gets to it first. Some adjustments will also be needed in other articles and maps, as we've been doing (but haven't completely finished yet) for North Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Is there? Why not eSwatini? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen anyone arguing for "eSwatini". Ground Zero and SelfieCity expressed support for "Eswatini" as being standard English capitalization, and I pointed out that that's also the capitalization Wikipedia uses. You expressed uncertainty about which capitalization is better and argued against Ground Zero and SelfieCity's reasoning, but didn't argue for one capitalization or the other. If there's an argument in favor of "eSwatini" then we should consider it, but so far it seems no one here has made one. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia discussion I linked to includes other reasons for using "Eswatini", which also seems to be the English-language capitalization used by the Swazi government. Both capitalizations seem to be widely used in English online. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, that's clear. Thanks for answering my question. So yeah, I guess there's a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I still oppose the move, and I do not see consensus for such a move. There is a redirect in place to Swaziland from Eswatini, so currently, there is no need to move the page. In a year or two, however, I think we should reconsider. That is still my stance on the issue. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm kind of with SelfieCity, but also have in mind that since we were so quick with Macedonia, we've set a new precedent. With Swaziland, if this precedent is ignored, it looks like double standards for no good reason, and if it's followed, then we are rather undermining our common name policy. Personally, I don't care what these places are called, but the thrust of my comment is perhaps we need to more broadly revisit the common name policy to avoid this kind of ambiguity in future? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also not clear what will be the basis for a move in "a year or two". If other websites are, for the most part, using the new name already, what will change to enable us to move the article? Ground Zero (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we ought to be careful with trying to uncover unmerited favor where no such favor is intended. As stated elsewhere, there is a difference between the Macedonia page move and this discussion. In the case of Macedonia, consensus was simply to add the word "North" in front of the name, but in this case, we're taking an Anglicized-sounding name and turning it into something that sounds strange to the English speaker, on the say-so of a national leader who has a poor record for his actions in his own country. But, I agree, the common name policy should be revisited.

It would be sensible to set a date, like the first of a particular month this year or the next, when we commit ourselves to revisiting this issue. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument for change is not based on the say-so of the ruler, but on common use, which is, as demonstrated by the many examples listed above and in the Wikipedia discussion, now strongly on favour of the new name. Ground Zero (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But outside of Wikipedia and other websites, is it in common use? With ordinary travelers? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with the idea that we should base our naming conventions on what we think of a given country's government. You keep saying we should revisit the issue later, but you haven't said what we should be waiting for. Most people online seem to have switched to the new name—what could be different in a year that would cause you to change your mind? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Easy:
 * I'm not saying that naming conventions should be based on the government. But it's an important, relevant factor. It only makes sense that a country that does a good job of following the highest standards on human rights, etc., is one we would trust most, compared to governments that don't. When large countries decide to recognize a smaller country or not, like in the case of South Sudan, national governments and their human rights abuses are a major concern.
 * If we wait a year, it will probably be much clearer which name, "Swaziland" or "Eswatini", is more common, so we can make a better judgment then. I see nothing wrong in waiting, and therefore, patience. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, I never said that we should base our naming conventions on a country's government. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A country's human rights record has nothing at all to do with our naming conventions. They are based on common use only. We don't have any good measure of what travellers are saying. What new information will we have on one year's time? What will change? Delay for delay's sake seems like a bad policy. Ground Zero (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Support moving to whichever name is in most common use, which seems to be Eswatini at the moment. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 01:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at it another way, perhaps we shouldn't move the page until we know what travelers are saying. It shouldn't be impossible to figure out. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SelfieCity: A precedent would be that presumably, during the period when the grotesque autocrat, self-styled Emperor Bokassa, ruled what had been the Central African Republic, we presumably would have changed the name of the article to Central African Empire, then changed it back after that nightmare passed from history. If in the future, some new ruler changes the name of the former Swaziland back, or to something else, we can change the article's name again, if the new (or new-old) name gets into common use in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 05:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have trolled through the 20 most recent discussions in the TripAdvisor Eswatini Forum counting only contributions made by posters to those discussions on the last year. I found 9 posters who used Eswatini, 8 posters who used Swaziland, and 2 who used both. I have counted each person only once, and not counted the number of posts. So there is a slightly the advantage to the new name. And there are all of the websites mentioned. And there is still no indication from those opposing the change just what would be sufficient proof to justify a change. And still no evidence provided that Swaziland is the most common usage in 2019 beyond "well, I haven't really heard anyone using the new name". The fact is that this is a small country that few people talk about. Those who are talking about it are switching to the new name. It is time for Wikivoyage to catch up. Our small group of regular contributors here are not going to be more knowledgeable about this than the interwebs. Ground Zero (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiting to see which term ultimately won out among general usage was the right thing to do, IMO, rather than changing the article's name immediately after the announcement. But yes, at this time I think we need to move the page to its new name. Regarding Eswatini vs. eSwatini, I'm happy to defer to consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No new comments in more than a week, and overall there's now clear support for moving, despite one or two dissenters. I'll move the page to Eswatini. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Eswatini on other pages
As the name change is fairly recent and a significant number of other travel sources have not made the move yet, I think that we should use both names on all other pages when referring to the country. I suggest that in most cases we use Eswatini (Swaziland), except in articles on historical travel where Swaziland (Eswatini) would be better. A total of 89 pages link here, but ignoring user and talk pages, it is about 50 pages to change.AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably right, although I'm not sure we need italics in the second choice. Just

 * Swaziland (Eswatini)

 * or

 * Eswatini (Swaziland)

 * seems fine. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Maybe - I used italics so that it was like the alternative name in listings, not like the region disambiguator - so nobody though that there was also Eswatini (Somewhere-else). AlasdairW (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should use italics, but I like putting the alternate name in parentheses for now. Swaziland is now the alternate name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Putting the other name in parentheses seems reasonable to me, with a couple of exceptions. In the long lists of nationalities in other countries' "Get in" sections, I think it's fine to just say "Eswatini", because citizens of the country looking for visa information will surely be aware of its new name. And for destinations within Eswatini (like Mbabane) I'm not sure if it's necessary – at most, it should be fine to use the parenthetical on the first mention in those articles, and then just use "Eswatini" afterwards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and one more thing: if Eswatini is mentioned multiple times in article, I think the parentheses like

 * Eswatini (Swaziland)

 * should only be used the first time Eswatini is mentioned. Every time after that, just one name needs to be mentioned. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As a general principle I agree, but I think it's fine to use our best judgement on a case-by-case basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that also. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Name for the people
What are the people of Eswatini/Swaziland now called? If there will now be two names, should we do the same principle as used above for the name of the country? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The demonym "Swazi" continues to be used by sources that have long switched to "Eswatini" (such as Wikipedia and the Eswatini tourism website), so I'd say we're safe using it. The alternative demonym "Swati" also existed before the name change and continues to exist. I don't think this requires any action on our part. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * [Moved to top of page.]

title: Talk:Eswatini