text:
Talk:Eastern Europe

 * Discussion about Europe hierarchy is taking place on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Old threads that used to be here were archived. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 15:19, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

continentalsectiongude
The template contains magic RDF code defining Eastern Europe as a "continental section" in our geographical hierarchy. Please discuss here before deleting it. --(WT-en) Evan 14:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Restored article
I have restored the Eastern Europe article and removed the countries that now belong to other WV regions: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova. Now, a huge amount of expansion is needed for this article to be linked to other regions. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Soumya, have you got the consensus? Some of them belong in the Baltic states, not eastern europe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why you restored this after 12 years. During the Cold War, "Eastern Europe" encompassed the entire Warsaw Pact minus the Soviet Union. The term was used that way constantly in the U.S. media, at any rate. And nowadays, we have repeatedly had users who've claimed that the former Soviet Caucasus nations are Eastern European. What are your plans for this article, and why didn't you discuss restoring it at Talk:Europe before taking unilateral action? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Soumya, if you don't mind. Let me bring you a point on why you were banned on en.wikipedia. Because of w:WP:CIR and doing controversial actions. You should try and avoid making the same mistake here again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * And I have unrestored the article. Engage in dialogue and cease your editing for now. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan Kekek here; certainly he's correct about usage during the Cold War. Pashley (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Europe
Should it get its own article, and the countries that are considered as Eastern Europe be part of Eastern Europe, but also be part of the Baltic states. I rarely use the term eastern europe and mostly just say "The Baltic States" or simply "The Baltics". But Soumya-8974 has gone and unilaterally made the change with no consensus. and I have had problems with him, with disambiguations and redirects. But this message is really for, is whether Eastern Europe have its own article? I prefer it to be part of the Baltic states, but I would like to hear the opinions of others. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Eastern Europe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * If we are to have an article about Eastern Europe, we will have to discuss the diverse possible meanings of the term, as it's quite ambiguous. That said, Europe does have a currently unlinked "Eastern Europe" region at the end, which does not include the Baltic states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a Baltic states article. I get Ukraine, but I had always thought that Belarus was also part of the Baltics. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not and I don't think it ever has been. Note that it has no Baltic coastline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Eastern Europe only has 3 countries (and two disputed territories) on our map. I don't think there is any value in making that into an article. It's like making France and Monaco an article. It's pointless. If the talk is about expanding "Eastern Europe" to make it encompass all of the former bloc, I don't think that's necessary but those who know more about Europe can decide. I'm generally against the idea of discussions and decision-making formed around appeasing trolls and users who come to cause trouble and disregard policies which this seems to have stemmed from. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Also, for anyone that doesn't know, Soumya-8974 is banned on the English Wikipedia for doing controversial things, just like what they did today on Eastern Europe. (And for anyone who's concerned, this is not outing) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that someone who wants to restore the Eastern Europe article has to define the scope and answer the concerns that made us get rid of it. On a side note: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth stretched through Belarus and Ukraine from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. I don't think, though that that commonwealth should be a basis of what we call Baltic countries, East Europe, or otherwise of our hierarchy. –LPfi (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. The term is highly ambiguous, and I've heard people even say Turkey and Greece is Eastern Europe (although mostly recognized as Mediterranean countries rather than Eastern Europe, but there's still the minority.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that "Eastern Europe" covers what used to be behind the Iron Curtain. That was a widely understood meaning when I visited Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary etc in the 90s. Although Cold War Europe covers both east and west, Eastern Europe could be redirect to it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't think I'd support such a redirect, as we wouldn't redirect Western Europe to it, right? But we should if we're being evenhanded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Also, can you explain what did Eastern Europe means to you? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

East Slavic nations talk page
See Talk:East Slavic nations for previous discussion.

Issues
First, here's the current region list plus one followup sentence, from the article:

Since 2014, the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are self-proclaimed unrecognized entities in eastern Ukraine with some degree of functional independence.

Keeping in mind that Wikivoyage recognizes all reasonably stable realities per Be fair:

(1) Crimea is part of Russia, period, and is properly covered as such in the Russia article.

(2) Transnistria is covered in Balkans. Is there an important reason to move it?

(3) The Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are realities on the ground, and we need to cover them as independent countries, the same way we cover Abkhazia and Somaliland, not to mention Kosovo or Taiwan.

Second, because we are using the ambiguous term "Eastern Europe", which could confuse travelers and will engender complaints from users who give the term a different meaning, I think that we need to address this in "Understand" by stating that "Eastern Europe" was widely used in the West to mean all Warsaw Pact countries other than the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and that quite a few Caucasians from countries such as Armenia and Georgia consider their region to be in Eastern Europe, but that we've chosen to use it to refer to several former Soviet countries which are diverse but mainly Slavic and have important geographic, cultural and historical commonalities, though they've also been scarred by conflict, or something like that.

Third, I don't believe that Russian was the only official language of the Soviet Union. Can someone prove that? Otherwise, we should delete that statement.

Fourth, if we're going to use Cyrillic spellings for the names of cities, we should use Russian before Ukrainian for Odessa, which is a largely Russian-speaking city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * One more: Ukrainian cuisine is not the same as Russian cuisine, so stating that "Russian cuisine is the dominant culinary tradition here" is insufficient and strikes me as kind of insulting to Ukrainians. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Oh, and this shouldn't be an extra-region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with all of Ikan's concerns, except perhaps extra-region which depends on how we define the main regions for Europe; some choices there would reduce this to an extra-hierarchical region.
 * This needs to be either fairly extensively rewritten or just deleted. I might tackle the rewrite eventually, but likely not soon. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * ✅ I did a partial rewrite that I think solves most of the issues. That needs comment & the article needs quite a bit more work. Pashley (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your work, but Russian is the primary language in Transnistria, and I'm not sure why it's important to include information about the languages and religions of countries not covered in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I took most of it out. Pashley (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like it better now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, I made this edit, because I think there are at least 3 definitions of Eastern Europe other than the one we've defined: (1) the one that was standard in the U.S., which meant the Warsaw Pact minus the U.S.S.R.; (2) loosely including Yugoslavia and Albania because both were Communist, too; (3) including any of 3 groups of former Soviet republics and breakaway countries (the Caucasian republics, the Baltic states, Moldova and Transnistria). If you can make better sense out of this than I did, please go ahead, but I think the distinctions are needed. Also, I still think the breakaway regions of Ukraine should be treated as independent countries, period, with their own listings and colors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Russian was not the official language of the USSR. See Languages of the Soviet Union. Edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Name again
Most of Russia's territory is in Asia. Shall we rename this region "Eastern Europe and Russia"? If not, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good proposal, though I am against the name Eastern Europe in the first place, because sometimes South Eastern Europe is also considered to be part of Eastern Europe as well. And as Soumya already mentioned above, he considers the Baltic States to be part of Eastern Europe as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Does my new text at Eastern_Europe nullify your objection? Pashley (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * An option would be to move most of this article to some other title (but what?) & turn Eastern Europe into a disambig page. I've just written most of what the dab page would need (at Eastern_Europe); just add text pointing the renamed article & linking to its three countries. Pashley (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Odd inclusions
Why are Lake Baikal and Kamchatka listed here? Both are in Russia, but neither is anywhere near Europe.

I'd delete both, but am asking first. Pashley (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * We include all of Russia as a country in Eastern Europe, but do we restrict text and listings here to the European part? I suppose so. Asian Russia is listed as a region of Asia and Lake Baikal is listed in Asia, so it seems there is no reason to include specifics here. A note on the confusion would be good. –LPfi (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I didn't realize Asian Russia had been added to the coverage in the Asia article. In that case, I agree with covering only the European part in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I think it is common sense that the Asian bits of Russia aren't meant to be here, and it only takes two seconds to realize that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Not really, if they weren't covered in Asia, which as I recall they didn't use to be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * They're still in "Other destinations." Any objection to removing them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted, preserving here. Pashley (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * — the region of active volcanoes, geysers, mineral springs and bears walking in the streets.
 * — the "pearl of Siberia" is the world's deepest and biggest lake by volume and a remarkable destination for all who love the outdoors

Russian North Caucasus
Why should we mention that x or y definition of "Eastern Europe" could include this area, when we are including the entire European area of Russia in our definition, anyway? I'd delete the mention of this region from "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I wondered the same, but as the list is about "Caucasus", not mentioning the Russian part might be confusing. I now put it in parenthetically and removed the bullet. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * That works. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Transnistria
While the scope of this article is still being worked out, I would prefer to see Transnistria as part of this region. While Transnistria is claimed by Moldova (which is part of the Balkans in our geographic hierarchy), it is functionally independent, associated with Russia, and has a distinct post-Soviet culture. /Yvwv (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * In that case, we would need to remove it from Balkans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Transnistria is still shown on most maps as being part of Moldova. The post offices sell Moldovan stamps since Transnistria is not part of the Universal Postal Union, graduates of the University of Tiraspol go to Chisinau to get their diplomas stamped so they will be recognized elsewhere, Transnistrians carry Moldovan passports (although I think they are now eligible for Russian passports), and travellers arriving by land will mostly come from Moldova (when I visited a couple of years ago, that is, although I understand the Ukrainian border is easier than it used to be).
 * I don't think we should be fussing over this politically contentious issue. This is a travel guide, and the current structure works fine. Ground Zero (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavic languages
To clarify the talk section. The Slavic language family has three sub-groups: West Slavic (Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc), South Slavic (Serbian, Bulgarian, etc), and East Slavic (Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian and Rusyn). The East Slavic languages have some mutual intelligibility, and the majority languages and de facto national languages in the three countries described in this article. That said, the minority languages also deserve to be mentioned. /Yvwv (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Kazakhstan
Should we mention the trans-continental Kazakhstan in this region? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Maybe in passing, e.g. as is done for Mongolia, and parts of Russia and China in Central Asia. Vidimian (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say nay. Kazakhstan is almost universally considered to be a part of Central Asia, even though a tiny bit of Kazakhstan is in Europe. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it could merit a passing mention as a curiosity, but nothing more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 * No. K is in Central Asia. Pashley (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 * You mean: K is partly in Europe, which is a curiosity, which could be mentioned in Europe if it isn't already (between the lines?) in the current wordings, but Eastern Europe is a region defined by us, and doesn't cover even one bit of K? –LPfi (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kazakhstan should be mentioned in passing. It is technically part of Eastern Europe, and has an East Slavic heritage (though the country has distanced itself from Russia politically and culturally, they recently abolished the Cyrillic alphabet). /Yvwv (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all that much of an East Slavic heritage. WP says ethnic groups are 70% Kazakh, 15% Russian & religion 69% Muslim, 17% Christian. Pashley (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was edited to say:
 * "Kazakhstan is a country mainly in Central Asia, with some territory in Eastern Europe."

Does that mean we have an entity Eastern Europe that is partly described in our article Eastern Europe or does it mean that this article covers also part of Kazakhstan?

I would prefer us saying that Kazakhstan [has] some territory in eastern Europe (or just Europe), thus using the proper name exclusively for the area covered in this article, and I don't think that should include any part of Kazakhstan.

I am also a little confused by Kazakhstan and the "republics" being treated equally. The "republics" are breadcrumbed to Eastern Europe, while no part of Kazakhstan is. Should the republics be added to the map and treated as countries, as we do otherwise (since a year?)? Their borders are bound to shift, but we can use the latest stable borders, those of before the full-scale invasion.

I moved down Kazakhstan and edited a bit, to make it more clearly outside the scope.

–LPfi (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Map colouring
The map has Crimea coloured as part of Ukraine. Pashley (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Right now, I'm not sure it's worth the time to change that, as borders in Ukraine are subjected to flux in the war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think it's worth bothering to fix the boundaries. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 01:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't see this discussion before, but Sbb1413, who uploaded the map file, updated Crimea to match Russia's color per region hierarchy. I updated the file by putting Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk all in a light shade of red and color-coded this with the regionlist. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this version is OK, but for the record: to my understanding, Putin declared all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson och Zaporizhzhia Russian territory. From Kreml's viewpoint there probably aren't any formal difference between those regions' statuses – and Ukraine regard the areas under Russian control as occupied Ukrainian territory to be taken back, including the "republics". I think we don't need to update the articles yet (other than mentioning the declaration). Anybody who wishes to visit those regions should make their own research. –LPfi (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those annexed regions seem to me such a sham, and their borders so variable, that they're not worth including at this point. I agree with you that for the exact lines between Ukrainian- and Russian-occupied territory, people need to do their own research.
 * I think there is a difference between the LPR/DPR and the two other de jure annexed regions in that the LPR/DPR have been operating as independent states for some time, whereas the other two are merely contested areas of Ukrainian territory. While all regions are de jure part of Ukraine, the LPR/DPR have a more separate status from Ukraine, even if that status is illegal, than the other two regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But Russia no longer pretends that they are independent, rather than part of Russia. I think we should now get rid of our articles on those "countries." Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose the "republics" will cease to exist, but I haven't heard what will replace them. The proclaimed new Russian regions cover a lot more of Donbas than what the "republics" did or what Russia now controls. Having articles on the imaginary regions is problematic, so we would have articles on the de facto Russian-controlled area, which will not be stable until some kind of long-lasting cease-fire is in effect, and none is in sight. I think "former LPR" and "former DPR" is the closest we can get. –LPfi (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that they are also functioning as region articles. If we delete the articles entirely, we remove our region structures for the cities in the Donbas.
 * So I guess my question is whether the city articles including Luhansk and Alchevsk would be breadcrumbed under Russia if we deleted the LPR and DPR articles, and if so, under what subregion?
 * Alternatively, we could form a new region titled Russian-occupied Ukraine and include all the Russian-occupied cities within this region. However, the frontlines are changing and Crimea would be difficult to classify under this circumstance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is becoming confusing as there is a separate discussion at Talk:Russia where some different points have been suggested... --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The word guide
As per wta we want to avoid the term guide. The confusion between a written instruction or a hospitality worker might not be the foremost issue here, but we also have an issue that guide is a rating level for articles. /Yvwv (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Article vs guide
We use to call the mainspace Wikivoyage pages "articles" a la English Wikipedia and we even have a guideline named What is an article. However, the term sound too technical (or simply wrong) when used by Wikivoyage articles themselves, since they are not encyclopedia entries. Therefore, we should use the term "guide" in Wikivoyage "articles" themselves instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Yvwv explained it already. Thank you for the reason. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Danger, kids
Yvwv It is dangerous to travel the Ukraine, a tiny portion of Russia. Why do insist of slapping a giant red warning for all of Eastern Europe? Brycehughes (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are risks for visiting Russia and Belarus as well. Many governments give caution about travelling to these countries. /Yvwv (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you genuinely think you would personally risk non-obvious life or limb by visiting virtually anywhere in Russia and Belarus? If so, honest q, how? Brycehughes (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to my opinions, I would probably be sent to prison as soon as I set foot in Russia. /Yvwv (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, with all respect, I don't think that's a reason to put a non-obvious-threat-to-life-or-limb warning box at the top of an article discussing an extremely large portion of the world. There are many many places where I'm sure both your opinions or my opinions, expressed loudly enough, would get us sent to prison. Much of the world is a convoluted, illiberal place, however this website serves all of it. Is there a compromise where we could at least move this into the Stay Safe section as opposed to the article lede? Brycehughes (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * During the last 24 months, political oppression in Russia has increased dramatically. Behaviours which used to be acceptable back in 2021, can now land people in multi-year prison sentences. As the current situation is unstable and subject to change, this is the kind of situation which should be described in a warning box. /Yvwv (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Prison is not death. Many countries have f'd up laws. Let's go to RFC on this. I'd like to see the warning box removed completely, because I think it is highly specific to Ukraine (where it is well covered) and not applicable to Belarus and Russia on a life-or-death level, as the warning box docs prescribe, whereas the vast majority of Eastern Europe is extremely safe to visit. Brycehughes (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably not worth a warning for the entire EE, but if we have sections for Ukraine/Russia/Belarus, those could have some sort of warning. Piotrus (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The country pages are the primary places for warnings, and the worst dangers are avoidable for most, so the appropriate place for warnings is in Stay safe. However, as all three countries are awkward destinations for the time being, I think it is good to note the problems early. A caution box in Understand could work for that. All three countries still do need the red boxes, as for many nationalities the crack-down on unsuitable opinions in Russia and Belarus is very unobvious for European countries, and all three are subject to military action. –LPfi (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Understand is the place for it. We could have a small warning box in the Stay Safe section that refers readers to the danger-countries' articles. Brycehughes (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think somebody contemplating visiting these countries without knowing the political situation might read much of the article carefully, choosing points of interest and checking connections, to only then notice that a visit at this time might not be a good idea at all. Some note in the lead or Understand could avoid the frustration.
 * Yes, those that don't know the current situation might not be troubled by the non-free speech issue, but not being able to reach Ukraine from Russia and their Mastercard not working in Russia are troublesome enough for a cautionbox. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a caution box in the Understand section. Or a warning box in the Stay Safe section. Probably not both. Brycehughes (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many countries do not have freedom of speech like the U.S. In Singapore, you could go to jail for insulting someone else's religion for instance, and we only have a note under "Stay Safe", not even a warning box for that. Even for the China article, I think a warning box is overkill, since the vast majority of foreigners who visit China are not there to topple the government, and it's generally safe if you just do the regular touristy stuff. Russia is probably a bit more of a grey area. Most of Russia is not a warzone, but some Ukrainian drones have managed to hit Moscow (though so far they have yet to result in any deaths), so that's a risk travellers ought to know about. The dog2 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian drones have hit many other targets in Russia, especially but not only those relatively close to the border (Rostov, Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh, etc.), and a whole bunch of buildings in many parts of Russia have burned up under mysterious circumstances. I think Russia is somewhat of a war zone and merits a warning in that respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Something to consider is the risk of being conscripted into the Russian army. From my quick search this affects people with dual citizenship: https://tass.com/defense/1536489 etc. That said, weird similar stuff like this happens elsewhere (read this reddit on korea if you care). Not sure if this merits a warning somewhere... Piotrus (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get conscripted into the Russian Army if you visit Eastern Europe. Come on. Brycehughes (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, I meant, do we mention this somewhere on pages for Russia and like. Piotrus (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is perfect. But not here, Eastern Europe. Brycehughes (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the warning. I just checked & Canada says "avoid all travel" for all three countries. Pashley (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * UK says the same. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The warning box is not just for the risk. It is for the unpredictable situation in all three countries. Russia had an attempted coup d'état some months ago, and Ukraine's army has made assalts into Russia proper. More changes will come, so the warnings will probably need an update within the next months again. /Yvwv (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pashley Of course the UK and Canada say that. We are not representatives of the UK and Canada. We need to be a little smarter than that, or at least try to be. I promise if you visit Russia you will be absolutely fine. Brycehughes (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My friend, your promise is worth exactly as much as both of us were paid to post here. If you want to be crazy and visit Russia, you should at least be warned that you could be subject to arbitrary arrest or get caught in some violence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends on where you are in Russia. Ukrainian drones and missiles do not have the range to hit Vladivostok and Khabarovsk, so those places will probably be safer than Moscow and Saint Petersburg. But certainly some warning about the possibility of being killed or injured by Ukrainian drones in warranted. And there was an incident when a Ukrainian saboteur managed to blow up a railway line in Siberia, so that's a risk that needs to be considered too. The dog2 (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ikan, what arbitrary violence is this? Are you or I, the typical tourist, going to march around with pro-Nalvany signs? I might shoot myself in the foot here, but could you do that in Malaysia? Just get there and then march with pro-opposition signs, as a tourist? Most countries don't accept this. Also agree with The dog2. Brycehughes (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Foreigners who didn't carry opposition signs have been arrested in Russia. The last time I was in Malaysia was 2003. Lots of Malaysians, especially Malays, were very angry at the U.S. for the aggression against Iraq. I told them I also opposed it, hated Bush and voted against the Republicans. They said: "We understand. We always vote for the opposition." Malaysia is just not comparable to Russia under Putin. And as for violence, Russia is at war. The dog, I believe I recall things catching fire in Vladivostok, too. If you visit Russia, you might want to steer clear of recruitment offices, factories, and maybe some big shopping centers and cars with "Z" and other such symbols on them, as they seem to have a greater chance of blowing up or going down in flames. Also, avoid taking any passenger airplanes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ikan, but when was the last time you visited Russia? This is all just speculation. Ah yes, they're bad because my government says they're bad. I have my personal opinions on Russia and I'd be reasonably confident that they'd match yours. But that's politics. Re travel: meh. Brycehughes (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't been to Russia, but the reports and video of things burning down and blowing up and people being arrested are not made up. If you don't think at least domestic airplane travel in Russia should get a warningbox, wow... Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't. Ok (bring the spirit of WhatamIdoing, bring the spirit of WhatamIdoing, I'm not going to swear), I'm just going to kindly move this warning box down to Stay Safe. It's the only way things get done here. Brycehughes (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How many incidents do there need to be. You think we have to wait for the inevitable calamitous plane accident to warn people about the dangers of domestic air travel in Russia? Have you been keeping track of the recent incidents? Moreover, you should not take unilateral action without consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh god i give up. If you really think there should be a big fat warning box on Eastern Europe then you get a big fat red warning box on Eastern Europe. Great, helpful, helpful, danger kids. Brycehughes (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't give up: try to convince a consensus. If I were the only one who was against your edit, it would be adopted by consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand consensus and I also give up. Big fat warning box on Eastern Europe it is. Ha. Brycehughes (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of a warning box is that it is temporary, and should be reconsidered once a year or so. By late 2024, the situation will probably be different from now. /Yvwv (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha yep I'm sure. Brycehughes (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, errr, why no big fun warning box at Russia? Piotrus (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah good point. We're fun lovers here. Brycehughes (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Eastern Europe has a big fat warning box. This is really embarrassing. Ikan you had a chance to impose some authoritah but you didn't, instead you went for process. Oh beware traveler to Eastern Europe of all places, it's just so stupid. Beware the food too, it ain't great. Brycehughes (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikis work on consensus. That's basic. I don't have individual authority to override consensus, nor does anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks but wikis have been around for 20 years now. I think most of us on this thread know how they work. Brycehughes (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for the Russia article. Let's have the warning box, but explain that the risk from drone strikes is higher the closer to the Ukrainian border you get, and lower the further east you go. It's objectively true that Ukrainian drones have managed to hit Moscow but not Vladivostok. As for these explosions, certainly they should be covered. Some of them have been linked to Ukraine. Putin tends to be more popular among older people than the youth, and the Ukrainians have managed to recruit some Russian opposition youth to conduct assassinations of journalists who support the invasion. You won't be targeted as a tourist, but people have been injured by being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The dog2 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this, but I think we should also warn that flying domestically in Russia may be dangerous because of the lack of spare parts and good maintenance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek has anyone actually died from this? Feels like we're speculating, stepping outside our bounds. Brycehughes (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to wait until the disaster before warning? The incidents have been recorded; they are not speculating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of proportionality. I don't have a list of list of tourist-deaths in Russia, but I'm sure that even if a Boeing or Airbus went down in the next few weeks, air accidents would still be extremely low on the list. I know that the warning box is for non-obvious danger, but it really feels like we're emphasizing the non-obvious vs the danger. I'd say we should instead do a caution box, as a compromise, but every editor seems to hate those for some reason. Brycehughes (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but I tend to think a warningbox is not needed for passenger air travel, probably anywhere in the world. Anywhere that passenger airlines are flying, the risk is too low to merit it. I think this is even true in places with comparatively poor aviation safety standards like North Korea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. You're far more likely to die in your taxi ride from the airport virtually anywhere. Brycehughes (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Europe


text:
Talk:Eastern India

This page should be deleted! It's content was copied into India. (WT-en) F16 00:30, 2 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * No, it shouldn't. It's a region of India. If you don't agree with the region breakdown for India, take it to the Talk:India page. Also, India has been reverted. --(WT-en) Evan 09:04, 2 Mar 2004 (EST)

Maps
OK, this article's static map sucks! But the dynamic map isn't so great, either. I think the best solution - as usual in region articles - is to have a good static map, if someone would like to improve it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Eastern India


text:
Talk:Eastern Ontario

Renfrew County
I think there's a problem here. You have Renfrew County listed in Eastern Ontario, a region described as "south of the Ottawa Valley." There are two problems with this.
 * 1) The vast majority of residents of the County would consider themselves as living in the Ottawa Valley.  Even the Yellow Pages edition for this area is "Upper Ottawa Valley."
 * 2) Even if, for some reason, it is decided that they should be in Eastern Ontario, instead of the Ottawa Valley, there's no possible way that Renfrew County can be thought of as south of the Ottawa Valley. - 216.58.51.139 18:06, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

National Capital Region?
Not sure if the regional coverage is thorough. Where should Ottawa and Carp go? (WT-en) texugo 01:32, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Formally, there is a "National Capital Region" which includes both Ottawa and Carp, but also some areas in Quebec. Pashley (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regions
This conversation has been copied in from User talk:K7L:

Hi K7L, I agree with you that those county articles in Eastern Ontario are useless and we need to get rid of them. But that leaves about 25-30 "city" (and "city" means city, town or village) guides for Eastern Ontario that should be organized in some way. Some of them, like Clarence Creek should be redirected somewhere else, but I think there's about 15 or so that look like they could become usable articles with a bit of work. I don't have a lot of time right now, but if you have some ideas on how to better organize Eastern Ontario, put them up on Talk:Eastern Ontario so we can get the ball rolling on getting rid of the counties.

On a kind of related note, Cobourg and Port Hope are currently grouped in Central Ontario with places like Peterborough (Ontario), Barrie and Wasaga Beach. I was thinking it would make more sense to group them with Trenton, Belleville, etc. (I'm guessing most people who go to Cobourg continue along the 401). Any thoughts - agree/disagree? Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * See also Talk:Renfrew_County. I think the county article should be a redirect to Ottawa Valley, not the reverse as you've done. Pashley (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, I deleted Ottawa Valley, it's all clear for Renfrew County to move over. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I've tried to redraft eastern Ontario to break the reliance on counties as an arbitrary division, by adding "Quinte region", "Southeastern Ontario", "Ottawa Valley", "Seaway region" and the like (Prescott-Russell will likely need to be kept as the name of a subregion for the large, somewhat-francophone rural area between Ottawa and Montréal, but the rest of these county lines are useless and the empty outlines should simply be deleted).

 * The "Quinte-Kawartha" split between central Ontario (Cobourg, Peterborough and the Kawarthas) and eastern Ontario (Belleville-Trenton and the Quinte region) is done arbitrarily on the +1-905 area code boundary (Brighton is +1-613, that oversized apple on [[Image:Ontario 401.svg|15px]] is in +1-905 Colborne). This is done as these areas are closer to Toronto (or the sprawl around it) than to either Ottawa or Kingston (Ontario).

 * I suppose the other option is to create southeastern Ontario one level below province and put everything in Quinte, Kawartha and 1000 Islands (Ontario) there. K7L (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think those regions look pretty good. I'm going to try to put a rough map together this weekend I put a rough map together so we can see how it looks, see if anything is missing, etc. Some preliminary thoughts:
 * Is there supposed to be both a National Capital Region and a Prescott-Russell region? When I was checking the definition of the National Capital Region, it looks like it takes up 2/3 of Prescott-Russell so there's considerable overlap. My initial thought is to combine the Ottawa region articles with Prescott-Russell into one region (say Ottawa-Prescott-Russell). The idea of the National Capital Region and the francophone rural nature of Prescott-Russell could be explained in the Understand section. The other option would be to make the National Capital Region much smaller than it's official definition.
 * Do we need a Southeastern Ontario region if we have a Quinte Region? It seems like an extra region layer, with another of those region templates to fill out. Would it be better to group Kingston (Ontario), Perth (Ontario), Smiths Falls, Gananoque and the Thousand Islands into a region like Frontenac or Frontenac-Rideau Country (to better differentiate it from Frontenac County)? Then we get a flatter hierarchy like:
 * Ontario > Eastern Ontario > Quinte > Belleville, and
 * Ontario > Eastern Ontario > Frontenac-Rideau Country > Kingston (Ontario)

 * instead of

 * Ontario > Eastern Ontario > Southeastern Ontario > Quinte > Belleville
 * I hear what you're saying about the Quinte-Kawartha split and being closer to Toronto (although it can't be by much), but I still think Cobourg has more in common with the Quinte region than the Kawarthas. The Kawarthas are cottage country while Cobourg is right there on the lake and the 401 corridor. From a traveller's perspective, I think they're much more likely to do Cobourg > Belleville > Kingston then Cobourg > Peterborough. Could we cheat a little on the borders of Quinte to include Cobourg, or possibly call it Quinte-Northumberland to cover the larger area? -Shaundd (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By "one level below province" I was thinking:
 * Ontario > Southeastern Ontario > Quinte-Northumberland > Trenton, Belleville, Napanee, Prince Edward County
 * Ontario > Southeastern Ontario > Rideau Lakes > Perth, Smiths Falls, Merrickville, Rideau Canal (itinerary)
 * Ontario > Southeastern Ontario > 1000 Islands region (Ontario) > Kingston, Gananoque and the Thousand Islands
 * The other option is that "southeastern Ontario" contain cities and towns directly instead of being subdivided further.
 * Otherwise, as you indicate, it's just one more pointless layer. Both "national capital" and "thousand islands" are awkward as they cross provincial boundaries - this question was discussed on Talk:Thousand Islands but never properly resolved. The destination-level page on the 1000 islands currently covers the islands themselves, tour boats, a bridge, boat rentals and ferry crossings into the islands and a few small points on the mainland that lack their own town/village-level article. I'm hesitant to create 1000 island region (Ontario) and 1000 island region (New York) if there are only two or three pages in each (the NY version would be Alexandria Bay and Thousand Islands as we still don't have an article for Clayton). If we create a mess of hollow shells, this is no better than the existing (mostly useless) county articles. K7L (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about not creating a region with just two or three pages. I put up a map that roughs in what I think you first proposed. Does it look like I've captured everything? -Shaundd (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks reasonably accurate. If there's substantial overlap, that may be because worker bees are commuting from places like Embrun or Arnprior to work in Ottawa as housing in Ottawa-Hull itself (at least on the Ontario side) is overpriced. (The same mess occurs with Toronto sprawl into the +1-905 area, to Oshawa-Hamilton.) Hawkesbury isn't part of Ottawa as (by distance) it's actually closer to Montréal. Kanata should never have been given an article, unless the intent were to districtify Ottawa - and even then districts of this little notability are normally subpages.
 * For the portions not already marked as subregions, the Rideau Lakes area (Perth, Smiths Falls, Merrickville) could either be a subregion or be attached to Ottawa. The large empty space north of Belleville has little; two under-5000 population towns (Bancroft and Madoc) exist but neither of them actually has an article here. Both are on the Belleville side of the county line so likely could be accommodated there were there a reason to create the articles.
 * One destination-level article which does not exist but should: the rural area around Prescott-Morrisburg as the home of Fort Wellington and Upper Canada Village (between Brockville and Cornwall on the seaway). K7L (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What region are Perth & Smith Falls in? I cannot tell on the map. Pashley (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Smiths Falls and Merrickville are on the Rideau Canal (as is Westport, a village 1/3 of the way from Perth to Kingston). If they get a region they'd be Rideau Lakes but I'm not sure if a region for three towns is overkill - especially since Smiths Falls and Merrickville/Kemptville are a local 'phone call to Ottawa. K7L (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think a region with three towns is (almost always) overkill. Let's avoid it and group the Rideau Lakes with Ottawa. The 1000 Islands region and Seaway Region also only have two or three destinations each right now, as well. Can we combine them into one region? If there's enough content someday to create several pages, we can split the regions then. That would give us a structure of:
 * Eastern Ontario > Ottawa Valley > Renfrew, Arnprior, Pembroke, Petawawa, North Algona Wilberforce
 * Eastern Ontario > Ottawa and Rideau Lakes > Ottawa, Kanata, Perth, Smiths Falls, Merrickville, Rideau Canal (itinerary)
 * Eastern Ontario > Prescott-Russell > Embrun, Russell, Hawkesbury, Rockland
 * Eastern Ontario > Seaway-1000 Islands > Cornwall, Brockville, Prescott-Morrisburg, Kingston, Gananoque and the Thousand Islands
 * Eastern Ontario > Quinte-Northumberland >Trenton, Belleville, Napanee, Prince Edward County, Cobourg
 * I'd also prefer to add a sixth region to cover the big empty spot where Madoc and Bancroft are. That area also includes northern Lennox and Addington, northern Frontenac and some of Lanark County, so I'm hesitant to include it with Belleville or Quinte. I was reading on a couple of sites that the area is often considered the "Highlands" of Ontario (apparently the highest point in the province is in there somewhere). Maybe call it Ontario Highlands and see if we can get some content added to it. -Shaundd (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The five regions look good (using Ottawa-Rideau contains the subregion in-province, where "capital region" would need to include Hull). I'm not sure there's enough for a sixth region here. Lennox County is coextensive with Napanee (so runs south, not north), the "northern Addington" and extension into Frontenac is mostly Canadian Shield and therefore rural to wilderness - there is a Land of Lakes tourist association in Kandahar Kaladar (a tiny village at the highway 7/41 crossroads north of Napanee) marketing this as hiking and fishing country, but no major cities to serve as anchor. The piece of Lanark County to which you refer (as we already have Perth and Smiths Falls, and Carleton Place belongs with Ottawa/Kanata) is presumably Calabogie Peaks, a ski hill. There is golf. motorsports and some sort of lodging so Calabogie might be just enough to fill one small town/village-level article but not enough to justify a subregion. It markets itself as "on the edge of the Ottawa Valley, one hour from Ottawa" so likely should be placed with Ottawa Valley.
 * I'd suggest "Land of Lakes" and Bancroft/Madoc (which might not have enough for a page) as in the same region with Napanee-Belleville (respectively) while Calabogie fits best at the edge of the Ottawa Valley. K7L (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's leave it at five regions. If Quinte ever gets overrun by articles about the northern reaches of Hastings County, we can deal with it then. I'll try to update the map and post it tomorrow. -Shaundd (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Revised map is up. If everything is OK, we can finish this off. -Shaundd (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable. If Westport (Ontario) is created (Rideau Canal, by road 50km south of Perth) it should likely be grouped with Perth and the rest of the Rideau villages. We are still missing articles for Prescott (Ontario) and Ogdensburg, but "Fort Wellington" in Prescott, "Upper Canada Village" and "Crysler Battlefield Park" in Morrisburg are clearly, as you indicate, seaway (Brockville-Cornwall). The US side regionalisation currently calls northern New York "North Country" and includes destination-level articles directly under it - "Ogdensburg" would be a city in that region if created. I think user:LtPowers was discussing subregions for NNY on Talk:Thousand Islands a while back, although the region is sparse in population. At least this wraps up East Ont. K7L (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bancroft, Maynooth and Algonquin PP
The subregions here have filled out nicely, but things seem to be a bit of a mess in the northwest. Maynooth is listed as part of the Kawarthas, Bancroft is breadcrumbed to Quinte-Northumberland and Algonquin Provincial Park is listed as part of Eastern Ontario (but breadcrumbed to Ontario). Looking at a map of the area, I think it would make more sense to: I know there would only be three "cities" plus one other destination in the new subregion, but I think it makes more sense from a geographic perspective (we're currently stretching the definition of the Kawarthas and Quite-Northumberland quite a bit here), as well as all four destinations being similar in terms of focus on things to see and do. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * group these three destinations, plus the Haliburton Highlands, into one Central Ontario Highlands region, and
 * make Central Ontario Highlands a subregion Central Ontario.

 * The "region" would be very sparse, except for the park itself. The structure isn't the same as Adirondacks as that park contains incorporated villages like Saranac Lake which were within the park boundaries when it was established and were exempt from the restrictions on development in the rest of the park. Algonquin Park contains no villages - although there are a few small hamlets like Maynooth and Wilno outside the park boundary in the east, and the Hwy 11 "cottage country" corridor to the west.
 * I'm thinking that Algonquin Park should be listed directly under Ontario instead of inconsistently trying to place it in northern Ontario at times and eastern Ontario at others. Between the Hwy 7 corridor (Madoc-Tweed-Sharbot Lake) and Bancroft there are relatively few populated places by southern Ontario standards - perhaps the terrain is Canadian Shield and mostly rock or forest? Splitting Bancroft, Tweed and the like out of Quinte-Northumberland - or Wilno and the villages nearby out of Ottawa Valley is possible, but would leave a very sparsely-populated subregion as there's relatively little outside the two "beaten path" corridors: Trans-Canada Highway in the Ottawa Valley, Windsor-Quebec corridor in the St. Lawrence Valley and Great Lakes. K7L (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * That's a good point about Algonquin Park. It overlaps a number of regions so the breadcrumb should go directly to Ontario. I think the park should still be listed as an Other destination on subregion pages (like Central Ontario, Eastern Ontario and Northern Ontario) so anyone reading the subregion page can access it easily.
 * I agree the proposed region would be sparse -- it's mostly Canadian Shield -- but that's part of the reason why I think it makes sense to pull it out. It's very different than the 401 corridor towns of Quinte-Northumberland and people go there for the outdoor activities like canoeing, hiking, fishing, snowmobiling, skiing. That's not so much the case for say Cobourg, Belleville and Trenton. In the end, I'm not too fussed about the sparseness or number of destinations if the region makes sense from a travel perspective. -Shaundd (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I thought the borders might be, my initial thoughts were the Highlands subregion would consist of Haliburton County, the northern part of Hastings County and the part of Nippissing that's south of Algonquin Park. Including Wilno and vicinity (I think it's officially called the Township of Madawaska Valley) is an interesting possibility, I'm hesitant to include places further east though because I think the subregion would then straddle both Central and Eastern Ontario. I was going to leave everything on the Hwy 7 corridor as part of Quinte-Northumberland, on the assumption that someone may wander off the 401 to see Tweed but you're not going to go all the way to Bancroft unless that's your ultimate destination. -Shaundd (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I've been giving this more thought and looking at how this area is treated for tourism purposes elsewhere. The "official" Ontario tourism region is the Ontario Highlands, which stretches from the Muskokas to the Ottawa River. The Ottawa Valley tourism association includes Renfrew County but also nearby outlying communities like Maynooth, Bancroft and some of the places we have in the Ottawa-Rideau region.
 * The main issue I have is I don't think Maynooth (Kawarthas) and Bancroft (Quinte-Northumberland) are in the right region right now. Creating an Ontario Highlands region like the Ontario tourism site has would mess with our current region structure and I don't think we need to go there. The simplest approach seems to be to include Maynooth and Bancroft in the Ottawa Valley region, which is at least consistent with the Ottawa Valley tourism site, and doesn't involve creating new small subregions. I also think it makes more sense than what we currently do. -Shaundd (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Happy Thanksgiving. Does the 7±2 rule favour creating a region in such a way as to include at least five destinations? If so, Maynooth and Bancroft might be too small to be an entire region unto themselves, but including Highlands and Upper Ottawa Valley together might make sense. K7L (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Happy Thanksgiving. The 7±2 rule is an important guideline, although it notes common sense should be applied. In this case, I think (after further reflection) that the most sensible thing would be to include Bancroft and Maynooth in the Ottawa Valley article. They're kind of in-between everything, but (now) seem to have more ties to the Ottawa Valley region than Quinte-Northumberland or the Kawarthas. -Shaundd (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Ontario


text:
Talk:Eastern Plains (Colorado)

Cities List
Increased list to 9, but most of these are undeveloped. Please plunge forward! and help this area of Colorado grow! 18:23, 30 January 2009 (WT-en) WineCountryInn

Other destinations
What should we do with this section? Only one has a link to its own article, 4 have National Parks Service links and 1 has a link to its own site and is in Cañon City, which has its own article. Should we delete everything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Plains (Colorado)


text:
Talk:Eastern Shore (Maryland)

Usable status
For usable status, I'd say the following towns are important enough, where they must also be at usable status: St. Michaels, Snow Hill, Crisfield, and Princess Anne (other important articles are already usable). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:37, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Eastern Shore (Maryland)


text:
Talk:Eastern Sierra

DOH! There is a region template available, and I didn't use it. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll try to reorg this page according to the correct template. : (WT-en) Colin 15:31, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Looking good now. Do the Sierra Nevada ranges affect the weather in Eastern Sierra like the Southern Alps do in New Zealand? They are about the same height. Perhaps some comment on the weather and rainshadow effects, thunderstorms, etc. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:30, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * They sure do. Nevada and Utah (both downwind) are deserts for a reason.  Good idea for an addition!   Hmm, wonder if the fact that no Eastern Sierra streams lead to the ocean is worth mentioning too.  - (WT-en) Colin 02:35, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Wow--I LOVE the mention of 'shady' regions in the Eastern Sierra. I grew up here and while we have our share of shady people, it's hardly "The Hills Have Eyes" and it's certainly safer than most more populated areas of California. This isn't really up to wikimedia standards here--unsourced vague references to danger doesn't really serve any purpose in a travel guide, unless you're talking about the spot next to my house where the sun is being blocked, thereby keeping the ice from melting. I suppose those sorts of shady spots abound this time of year. —The preceding comment was added by 72.47.179.241 (talk • contribs)

Alternative banners
The current banner is mediocre and there are better potential banners at the Eastern Sierra Commons page. I suggest a few I've cropped:

Feel free to get more at the page to which I linked in the beginning of my comment.

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

* My vote is 2, 3, 1, partially because #3 displays Mono Lake (as the original says) and therefore I'm 99%, but not 100%, sure the mountains in the background are the Sierras. Also, #3 has a lot of brown/orange in it. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming these are all photos of the region, I consider #3 most picturesque, so I'd consider it my top choice, followed by the very harmonious #1 (harmonious but not an unusual sight in a mountainous region). I'm not sure which of #2 and the current banner would go next for me, but I think they're quite a bit less good than #3 and #1. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Hm... I think that i will have to go with ALT 3... the leveling of the photograph is better than the other two, and it adds a bit of diversity into the article.  Arep   Ticous                                                    09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the Sierra Nevada, USA Commons page includes the #3 (in its original form), I think we can be pretty sure that the mountains in the background are the Sierra Nevada. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the mountains in the background are Mount Gibbs (left) and Mount Dana (right), well-known Sierra peaks. The low hills in the left midground are part of Mono-Inyo Craters. Hike395 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I would like to propose Alternative #4. Mammoth Lakes is the most popular tourist destination in the Eastern Sierra, and this banner is the crest of the Sierra Nevada behind the town. A canonical view of the Eastern Sierra. Hike395 (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My favorite is now #4. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is now a new alternative banner. I think it looks good — how do you guys feel about it? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Well... that looks pretty good... but my votes still go for the third alternative banner, since it has a more colorful effect than the other three. I also prefer the ALT 3 because it has the idea of having a Tank in the middle of a hot desert.  Arep   Ticous                                                    15:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tank? Hot desert? Not sure I follow you. Mono Lake is not that hot --- it's at 6700 feet elevation. The typical high in July is 84F. It also gets 90 inches of snow a year. Hike395 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting; we now just need to wait until IK votes, and then hopefully we'll be decided on either 3 or 4. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess #4 is prettiest, so it's now in first place for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it was a rather unusual comment; I think what he was saying was that the rock formation and surroundings resemble a tank in a hot desert. I agree, however — it's worth pointing out that Mono Lake is not a "hot desert" in terms of what's usually called a hot desert. While 84 degrees Fahrenheit average high in July is quite warm, as typical for the Great Basin, that's countered by very cold weather during the winter. I'll adjust to banner 4 as the new banner. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Sierra


text:
Talk:Eastern Thailand

It seems that this article overlaps with North Gulf Coast (Thailand), although this one is listed in Thailand and NGC is not. I'm not well-enough acquainted with Thailand geography to understand the details, but it seems to me that NGC is the coastal area of what is here called East (Thailand).

I'm kind of guessing that the anonymous user who started this new page wasn't aware that registered users can change the names of pages.

Unless there's a particularly good reason to keep one name or another, I'd like to have NGC redirect to here, and call it a day. --(WT-en) Evan 00:19, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

Provinces, Islands, Provincial Capitals
I don't like "Islands". We either need to move them to "Other destinations" or rename "Provinces" back to "Regions" and move them there.

Also, I'm changing "Provincial Capitals" back to "Cities". --(WT-en) Evan 10:35, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)

Alternative page banner
The page banner is too dark and not of best quality. We have got a decent alternative through the Wiki Loves Earth competition. Would you agree to the change? --Alexander (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Thailand


text:
Talk:Eastern Zambia

the link for Chama is wrong (a bit there are two Chama's)

it shoukld be: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Chama_%28Zambia%29&action=edit

or:

http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Chama_%28Zambia%29

PS this is an empty page (a page with no info)

title: Talk:Eastern Zambia


text:
Talk:East Flanders

Since it's not in English, this link shouldn't be in the article. Might be of some use for Dutch speaking contributers. (WT-en) Jelse 02:53, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Title should be changed
This title should be changed: there is no province in Belgium called East Flanders. It's called Oost-Vlaanderen and just because the word "oost" means "East" and "Vlaanderen" is Flanders does not mean we have to invent new words in English! It is also confusing for foreigners if you force-feed them with English terms they have never heard before. It is much more user-friendly if you provide them with one term for each concept as much as possible.

Especially when contributors decide, for instance, to consequently use French names for Dutch-speaking towns (Bruges, Louvain, Malines,...) it may become very difficult for tourists to find their way there. Many tourists eager to see the medieval college town of Leuven looked for Louvain and ended up in the 1970s town of Louvain-la-Neuve! Also, using the name Oost-Vlaanderen will save us the trouble from always having to explain why "East Flanders" is in the western part of Flanders!

I would like to add that this tendency to "invent" translations and pass them off as official (rather than just translations between brackets to help explain the origins of a name, for instance) is typical of the English articles on Wikivoyage/Wikipedia about Dutch and Flemish (Dutch-speaking Belgian) cities, provinces, and other places ("Flemish Brabant" is another such monstrosity). They do not help travelers to find their way around at all.

title: Talk:East Flanders


text:
Talk:East Greenwich

Copyrights??
Why are there copyright notices on the photos in this article? Don't they conflict with our own? --(WT-en) OldPine 07:09, 4 March 2008 (EST)

 * Looks a little dubious — we need to doublecheck that the pics aren't copyvios. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:East Greenwich


text:
Talk:East Haddam

Edits to this article
I've reverted the most recent batch of changes to this article in their entirety as they completely mangled the standard Wikivoyage formatting - see Project:Listings and Project:Small city article template. I'm not entirely sure what the author making these changes is trying to do, but deleting existing content and then re-adding the same text with different formatting is not an ideal way to edit this article. Hopefully some discussion on this talk page can clarify what's going on. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 28 October 2010 (EDT)

 * To the editor making these changes: I've blocked you for 30 minutes. Wikivoyage has very specific style guidelines, including standard section headings and formatting guidelines for individual attractions.  Your previous edits have all been updated to use proper formatting so PLEASE follow that style guideline rather than deleting the changes and re-implementing a non-standard style. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:48, 28 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:East Haddam


text:
Talk:East Java

Project:Tone
This article currently has a tone approaching borderline psychotic. The article disagrees with itself, shouts, rants, & raves. I don't know anything about this region, so if I tried to clean this up myself, I'd just wind up removing content without adding anything in its place. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:50, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Don't worry. This sort of stuff -- most commonly rambling rants about safety ("NEVER go to the beach wearing expensive jewelry!!!") that could apply to almost anywhere the globe, and are typically the writer's way of saying, "Dude, I was just there, and let me tell you what happened, you're not gonna believe this..." -- may be terminated with extreme prejudice. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 00:38, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Knocking this region and its articles into shape
It is coming along.

Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park is not far short of guide. I have cleared up the style problems with Surabaya and that article is as good as it will get I think - a huge city but not a great destination. Banyuwangi and Baluran National Park are getting there. Malang will be easy. Any help from users familiar with the region, particularly the minor cities, would be greatly appreciated. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Malang and Batu now quite well developed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:40, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Banyuwangi now usable. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:16, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Madura now a strong usable article. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:21, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

 * and Sukamade now usable. Fantastic place by the way - a wonderous experience and a real adventure. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Jember now usable. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

To recap: That leaves:
 * Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park is now a guide.
 * Madura, Malang, Batu and Surabaya are not far short of guide.
 * Sukamade and Banyuwangi are quite well developed usable articles.
 * Jember is a weak usable article.
 * Baluran National Park not hard, I have been there fairly recently.
 * Kediri, Bojonegoro, Madiun, Blitar, Pacitan, Trenggalek, Probolinggo. Some of these are merge candidates. I will definitely merge and re-direct Sukapura to Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Amazing work once again. Not sure many (any?) Wikivoyagers know the area nearly as well as you do... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:39, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Thanks Jani. It has become a bit of a struggle now and upon reflection I do not think I can finish the region. This is a bit disappointing but I really do not know some of the remaining places well enough. It was ambitious anyway I realise for such a relatively poorly known region amongst travellers. Maybe someone will come out the woodwork here who knows well the likes of Madiun and Kediri. Naturally, I started with the destinations I know quite well (Malang, Banyuwangi, Madura and the National Parks or nearby). One thing I really wanted to do is draw attention in WT to Madura before it loses its OtBP status..... star hotel groups are moving in now that the bridge is finally open. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:54, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Baluran National Park and Blitar are now usable.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:36, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

That leaves four destination articles in the region which need developing by somebody other than me - I do not know enough about Kediri, Madiun, Pacitan and Trenggalek. Hopefully someone will find this regional article and tackle those 4.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:36, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Sub-sub-regionalisation
Rather like Central Java, the orphaned articles are piling up. Any idea for subdividing East Java into two further sub-regions?

City articles which breadcrumb here:
 * Surabaya — capital of the region; Indonesia's second-largest city and a huge industrial sprawl
 * Banyuwangi — the Ijen Crater, famous Java arabica coffee plantations and ferries to Bali
 * Batu — charming old hill town that was formerly a Dutch colonial playground
 * Bojonegoro — teak plantations and the unique Samin culture
 * Bondowoso — prehistoric stones are scattered in the region and this is the western gateway to the Ijen Crater.
 * Jember — large city with verdant hills to the north and beautiful beaches to the south
 * Kediri — Mount Wilis, waterfalls and significant archeological sites
 * Madiun — verdant agriculture and Mount Lawu
 * Pacitan
 * Malang — cool, clean air and the ancient seat of the Mataram kingdom
 * Probolinggo — gateway to the Bromo-Tengger-Semuru National Park
 * Trowulan
 * Blitar — birthplace of Indonesia's first president and independence hero, Sukarno
 * Trawas
 * Tretes
 * Pacet

And Other Destinations:
 * Baluran National Park — large forest and coastal park. Relatively easy access to and from Bali
 * Bromo-Tengger-Semeru National Park — popular hiking destination featuring the still-rumbling Mount Bromo. The star attraction in the region, however it may be closed at times depending upon the eruptive status of the caldera
 * Pulau Sempu
 * Madura — a dry and crowded island very much off the beaten path for visitors
 * Sukamade — turtle conservation beach
 * Trenggalek — beautiful white sand beaches--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Done. Whew, it took a whole decade until this happened. Veracious (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hats Off
Wow, that Burmesedays contributor had quite a run, creating the foundation for just about every article in the Wikivoyage compendium on Lombok, Bali, and East Java. He must have had quite the appetite for writing and travel savvy. Too bad he's not around anymore to give him recognition. Lazarus1255 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * He was great and one of my mentors. I miss him. He just dropped off the face of the Earth, seemingly, at a certain point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (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) 16:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Soerjo Kedunggalar Monument Statue.jpg
 * Not visible on the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Java


text:
Talk:East Kootenyas

vfd discussion

 * Delete. My bad, I created this page by mistake. It is a misspelling of East Kootenays. - (WT-en) bulliver 20:18, 17 March 2006 (EST)
 * Just move the last good page to the correct spelling and leave the mispelling behind as a redirect. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 20:21, 17 March 2006 (EST)
 * As I said in the discussion of Mexico City/Tlalelolco, what's the point? If there's a page that clearly doesn't belong, was created in error, has no redeeming features, and just clutters up the data base, get rid of the durn thing.  It won't be missed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:08, 17 March 2006 (EST)
 * Also, I cannot simply rename it, as I created and added content to the real East Kootenays page as soon as I realised my error, so rename is not allowed (for me anyway). -- (WT-en) bulliver 00:57, 18 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:East Kootenyas


text:
Talk:East Lansing

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

Outline, anyone?
If this travel guide is full of information, why is it labelled as an outline? – (WT-en) CurvyEthyl 15:42, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

 * There is no formal review for article status except for Star — any user that thinks a city has met the appropriate requirements can change it. That said, this particular article is remarkably unhelpful, containing almost no addresses, phone numbers, hours, or other vital details on listings!  Until most of its entries are substantially fleshed out, I think outline is still where it belongs.  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 23:11, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:East Lansing


text:
Talk:East London

Removed Brick Lane entry
Removed "Brick Lane" entry as it refers to Brick Lane in East London, UK, not East London, South Africa.

Removing copyvio
A lot of copyright violation was introduced into this guide by a probably well-meaning individual or two. I've been editing it out, but unfortunately, it's a big job. Please help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:East London


text:
Talk:East of England

Article Renamed From East England
Renamed this article from East England to East Anglia.

East Anglia is a more specific region than East England, and the page was clearly talking about East Anglia, not East England (which would include eg. Kent, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Northumberland. (WT-en) Chris j wood 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * Trouble is, "East Anglia" (government "economic regions" aside) does not traditionally include Bedfordhire and Hertfordshire (some would say that East Anglia is really only Norfolk and Suffolk, though most would nowadays admit Cambridgeshire and Essex too). What the BBC calls "The Eastern Counties" encompasses the counties included here (plus Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, though I think that has more to do with transmitter coverage than anything else) -- might that not be a better name for the present article? -- (WT-en) Picapica 14:37, 3 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Well, for me East Anglia is only Norfolk, Suffolk, (the new, well really Cambridgeshire) Huntingdonshire and probably Cambridgeshire. Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Essex are part of the South East. They have only been included in the government's / EU's new "Eastern England" region to make it bigger and more equal with the others (as well as doing the reverse to the South East). -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:11, 6 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * This article needs to be moved back to its original "East England" name. ~ 61.91.191.10 15:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I concur with both the conclusions and the reasoning of the two contributions above this one.

 * ...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Hertfordshire
I was born and bred in Hertford and certainly don't regard myself as East Anglian. So we are all in agreement. Who can change this?(WT-en) Shep 11:08, 7 November 2009 (EST)

 * Hmm. Regional issues are the bugbear of Wikivoyage :). I would just (only just) agree with changing the article title back to East England. The problem with that though has already been identified - East England could mean (and does mean) areas way to the north of the scope of this article.   East Anglia is normally only used to refer to Norfolk and Suffolk (with small bits of Essex and Cambs perhaps). Certainly not Hertfordshire and Bedforshire. But, do folks in Herts and Beds regard themselves as living in East England?  That is far from certain.  I just come down on the side of changing back to East England but it is far from obvious. To answer your question Shep - anyone can change this. But it is right that it is discussed first. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:29, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Not sure I know how to change a page without creating a new one and cutting and pasting. By the way, I see you have been working on the Broads. Perhaps this should be changed to Norfolk Broads given another meaning of "Broads"? (WT-en) Shep 12:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

 * East England is currently a redirect page to East Anglia, so the redirect would need to be removed and the current East Anglia content copied in there. However, I think it should wait for more opinions and a concensus. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:12, 7 November 2009 (EST)
 * Technically, if there is a need to divide England up in this way then Hertfordshire should be classified as one of the Home Counties (Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, etc. (WT-en) Shep 14:20, 7 November 2009 (EST)

 * "East of England" looks like it is commonly used to define this region? If so, I think it would be nice to use a name a bit more precise than "East England". And to rename this article, you should use the move tab, which will preserve the attribution history. --96.231.44.244 15:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

 * Dead right about using the move function to preserve the attribution history. If we decide that East England is the name, then the exisitng East England (re-direct) page will need to be deleted by an administrator before any move is possible I think. East of England is not a bad suggestion. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:03, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Rename East of England
I think this article should be renamed the East of England that's the official name of the region and East Anglia only refers to Norfolk and Suffolk. 152.78.235.20 15:38, 19 January 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:East of England


text:
Talk:East Palo Alto

Hmm, I'm not sure if East Palo Alto needs a seperate article from Palo Alto. I can understand that the distinction should be made, but are they really different destinations? They may be worlds apart, but it's a little fuzzy travel-wise. Suggestions? For now I'm going to try and clarify this article, but my vote is for merging the two. (WT-en) Majnoona 01:20, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Just for info... they are different cities in different counties. Do we have any precendent for absorbing small cities into the articles of nearby larger ones?  I guess if one was going to stay in the new big hotel in EPA, one might want to know more about the city (specifically, stay safe and eats)  -- (WT-en) Colin 03:07, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * I realize this discussion is almost fifteen years old, but I agree with Majnoona. This town is not well known, the sole hotel is "on the Palo Alto side of the freeway", and the sparse content in the article can easily be incorporated into Palo Alto. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I always thought that Palo Alto and East Palo Alto were completely different in their makeup and culture. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to argue against this merge but @Mx. Granger made some good points about EPA not being anything of a destination city or really even having a basic infrastructure to accommodate visitors. Palo Alto and EPA are about as different as night and day but since I really can't imagine how this article could ever evolve into something meaningful on its own, I think merging it makes sense. 🐈⚞ℛogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, if they "are about as different as night and day" — to quote your comment — I think they should not be merged into one article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merger. Being different from each other is not our criterion for evaluating what is an article. We should be asking "what is most useful for travellers?" There are lots of destinations that have a good side of the tracks and a bad side of the tracks, a leafy residential neighbourhood and a gritty industrial park, a historic heritage district and a modern glass-and-concrete office park. As East Palo Alto would most likely be visited from Palo Alto (or from the Palo Alto see of the freeway), it would be most useful to have the single point of interest listing in that article. Ground Zero (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. But if they're so different, we could confuse readers by abruptly switching from one of the wealthiest places in the world to a much more ordinary one (that being East Palo Alto). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Imagine that instead of "East Palo Alto," it was called "JohnSmithCity." What's in a name? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll, it isn't called JohnSmithCity, but that's neither here nor there. EPA isn't a destination on its own. It has one POA, so it is most likely accessed on a day trip from PA, so it is more useful to put the info in one place for the reader. Ground Zero (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we can merge North Valley into San Fernando Valley? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to do that, you'd have to propose doing so at Talk:North Valley so that people interested in commenting would be aware of the proposal. This isn't the place to decide that. Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So your point isn't clear, then. Ground Zero (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Names are words. Ignore the name and then make a decision. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And no-one in the 2019 discussion is arguing for a merger on the basis of the names of the cities. I won't repeat the arguments that Granger, RogueScholar and I gave made -- you can read them above. Not one of us has brought up the name issue. I agree with you -- it isn't relevant. So why do you keep coming back to that? Let's discuss the relevant arguments instead. Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at a map and found that oddly enough, East Palo Alto is located northwest of Palo Alto. I wonder how that happened.
 * Anyway, SelfieCity, you have a point, but what's the alternative? Merge to Menlo Park? Find a way to expand this place, with one "Do" listing and one hotel, into a real article? (Not only that, the hotel is almost in Palo Alto, and on Google Maps it looks like part of the "Do" listing is technically in Menlo Park.) What do you envision as the way forward for this article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to over-emphasize race here, but East Palo Alto says that East Palo Alto is 65% Hispanic/Latino. That is vastly different from Palo Alto itself. We can expect that culture will be different as a result. The point is, these are two separate places. All the cities in this area are connected anyway, and that's common knowledge. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have lots of destinations that have different ethnic quarters in the same place. We don't split up cities onto ethnic neighbourhoods unless they are large cities. And even then, we split the cities up on geographic factors, not simply on ethnic make-up. (For example, Chinatown in London is part of the Leicester Square article, which includes the West End, Trafalgar Square, and so on. It does not have its own article.) There is still the more important issue that no-one seems likely to go to EPA as a destination on its own, but would visit it from PA for the purpose of seeing its one, single, solitary, lonely, unique point of interest. So let's put that information where it is most useful to travellers: in the PA article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that Palo Alto and East Palo Alto are very different; I don't think you need to keep making that point. But you haven't answered my question—what do you envision as the way forward for this article? Merging with Palo Alto is not a perfect solution, but so far I haven't seen a better idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking back, I realise that I did make the point in my first comment two days ago that "Being different from each other is not our criterion for evaluating what is an article." SelfieCity, I think it's time you give up on this one. You still haven't found a policy-based reason for opposing this merger, and you are going around in circles.  First going on ad nauseum about the name, and now going back to bring different. Neither is relevant here. Ground Zero (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Like all our articles, the solution is expansion, which takes time. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But I can see consensus is against me here, so go ahead and do the page move if you want. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The one POI here was imported from the predecessor site 15 years ago, so I think we can assume that expansion is extremely unlikely. If some decides to explore EPA and finds more POIs, the article can be restored easily. Thank you for accepting the consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Palo Alto


text:
Talk:Eastport Peninsula

Minimal use of images
I think this article does not follow the minimal use of images policy. Many of those images appear on the featured communities too, so I'm removing them from this article to avoid unnecessary duplication. --(WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 18:04, 23 February 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Eastport Peninsula


text:
Talk:East Sepik

This is currently an orphaned article, and it seems Sepik is currently far from needing subcategories, so should this be redirected to Sepik or deleted for now (with the possibility of it being recreated later if the subcategories are needed)? The current content is already on the Sepik article, so a merge would not be necessary. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 09:52, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Agreed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:41, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Thirded, and done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:46, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:East Sepik


text:
Talk:East Sussex

IS there anything anyone would like to see / not see on this page. since I am a local (live in Uckfield) and am willing to tinker about with the page (I'm on study leave and haven't an exam for about a week)

Thanks

Prof Jack

 * Nothing specific... but would you consider becoming a docent for the county? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

map
could anyone make a map of sussex? I've had a go, but it ends up looking pretty bad.

thanks

profjack

What more can I do? East Sussex
I've been doing quite a bit on this article, but now I've reached a wall, I could put contact details for everything on it, but would it be worth it? since that would make the article immensly long; has anyone got any suggestions they'd like to see? or comments? I'm willing to spend ages on it, if need be

(WT-en) Prof Jack 20:41, 28 December 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:East Sussex


text:
Talk:East Texas

East Texas
Appears to be an old and now redundant region article ~ 61.91.191.8 07:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Redirect to Piney Woods? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Reasonable idea, as I can imagine Googling on East Texas and getting to this page. Are they really equivalent, though?  I don't know much about east Texas. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * They're not exactly equivalent (this area this article covers includes our Gulf Coast region as well) but it's a logical place to send someone looking for "east Texas". - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

And verily, it was so. However, this might still get some more discussion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:East Texas


text:
Talk:East Timor

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

Census addition
The population data comes from The National Directorate of Statistics. The TLD for Timor-Leste just changed from .tp to .tl so the address will probably change to reflect that rsn.

~llaurén

Looking forward to understand a way to book tickets via Marpanti from Bali? Where you can do it?

 * It is Merpati. You can book online . If you are not comfortable with that,  a  reliable Bali-based agent is Wita Tour, .--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:47, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Thanks, but it shows me a message stating that there no free seats or flights for the chosen dates whatever the combination of the dates I chose on the official website in English or Indonesian. There is no availability and on the site of the agency you have recommended me. I might contact them directly.

Travel advisory warning box
It has been removed again. I am not really a fan of warning boxes (except in extremis) and would be happy to see this one gone. There has been no significant violence in East Timor since 2006 I think? Three of the four main advisories below advise caution and common sense, with only Canada advising esential travel only. The UK advisory seems to sum it up well:

 * We advise you to be aware of and attentive to the uncertain security situation when travelling in East Timor. The security situation in East Timor remains fragile. You should avoid demonstrations and large crowds and if you become aware of any nearby military activity you should leave the area immediately. See the Political Situation section of this Travel Advice.

 * Crime continues to be a problem in East Timor, including gang-related violence, robbery (in some cases armed), assault and attacks on vehicles. You should exercise caution if going outside after dark.

 * Australian Government Travel Advisory
 * Canadian Government Travel Advice
 * US Consular Information on Timor Leste
 * UK Government Travel Advice

I see no current need for a warning box. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:24, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Travel advisory warning box should stay because there has been significant if short-term violence again in 2008 after the attempted assasination on the president Ramos-Horta. Although East Timor is not a "War Zone" like Iraq or Afghanistan, the country is still volatile and polarized beneath the surface and state authority is still not successfully implemented throughouth the country even in the capital. There is a risk for INDIVDUAL travellers and sightseers, in the form of mugging and robbing. The risks must be highlighted.
 * I have reverted your entry of the warning box. Please don't reenter it and discuss first otherwise it is edit warring which is frown up here substantially. 2008 is two years ago, it is defintely not a war zone (last time was the indonesian troops withdrawl) per our definition. I think the Stay safe section is significantly discouraging enough and the situation is not new. (WT-en) jan 07:37, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
 * To anon 81.214.153.85: Wikivoyage is not about politics and i protected the article because here consensus rules and not strong opinions. (WT-en) jan 10:17, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Regions division
I haven't studied in detail East Timor, but the first division that I'm proposing is in these two regions:
 * 1) Mainland
 * 2) Oecusse District

Not only because obvious geographic reasons, but also because they speak a different language and usually this bring a differences in culture.

A potential further division for the mainland could be based on the central range that divide the two coasts, so we could have the following:
 * 1) East Timor northern coast
 * 2) East Timor southern coast
 * 3) Oecusse District

A more expert review would be appreciated. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Personally I think it'd look a little awkward to divide any article into just two sub-regions, three would be better. But I don't know very much about East Timor. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I have updated the map to reflect the Oecussi/North/South region split, and will update other articles to reflect this :) Hshook (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Prices
So are prices meant to be S100 or $100? I've noticed the latter being used, but this page tells you to use the first. So which one should we use? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected. It is USD, so $ is the right one. Ground Zero (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Currencies
Although our policy is to use $xx for prices about Timor, I'm commonly seeing a mix of US$ and $. Before I do any fixes, I'm just wondering whether this was done to distinguish it from the Australian dollar (which is commonly used in neighbouring Indonesia's tourist resorts)? I doubt it'll be taken because the US$ is a stable currency but I'd like to double check for reassurance just before doing any fixes. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea. I haven't been to ET. When I was in Indonesia many years ago, I didn't go to the sort of places where they would take AUD. I doubt that the people who go to Kuta would also be going to ET, so I don't think there is a need for using "US$" in ET articles, but I would defer to anyone who has been there. Ground Zero (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So I guess we're keeping it as $xx as opposed to US$xx. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is information to support changing it, I'd be okay with that, but I don't think there is, so let's leave it for now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Timor wasn't on Wikipedia's "unofficial" use. It's been deleted because it was unsourced although that list doesn't look complete – my A$ was accepted in Phuket when I was a couple of notes short and then not to forget Indonesia (or mostly in Bali). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me why I was casually reading this PDF from the UN peacekeeping, but I found "However, if you want to, you can use other currencies present in East Timor - the Indonesian rupiah, Australian dollar, Portuguese escudo and Thai baht - for every day business." Many of our articles still use US$xx, so it might just be easier if we stick with that as an exception to the norm. What do you think? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Solar eclipse
First up, I don't think it should go in a country article. It was the first thing at the top, but it is definitely *not* the most important thing to see in Timor-Leste which has much interesting things to offer.

Secondly, according to that sentence, it only lasts for one minute and seventeen seconds – if so, does it even need to be mentioned? That's not overly long, and it can only be seen on a track in Watulari.

Thirdly, if there is only a 30 percent chance of seeing it, is it even worth mentioning it? I don't think anyone will plan to visit Timor-Leste for a solar-eclipse when there's a high chance of failure. Any objections to removing? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Ground Zero (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , given you added the listing, any last comment before it gets removed? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO It would be petty and carping to remove it now. You'd be mad to travel any great distance in hopes of seeing it in East Timor, but if you happen to be in the area, what sort of sad travel guide would fail to mention it? 77 sec is quite long enough to enjoy, most totalities are only for a minute or two, and 30% of a populous country means that quite a few people will get lucky. Same argument for Papua further down the track. The way to get it removed is to bide your time until 21 April 2023, whereupon all entries on that track will magically vanish if I have anything to do with it. Grahamsands (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it should be in this guide, it should be the last sight mentioned, but the thing is, for it to be mentioned at the nation level, it should be one of the main sights, and I think the other guys have established that it is not. Mention it in the guide that includes Watulari. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am content with its lower ranking, the important thing is to enhance East Timor content not knock it down. But I am not seeing arguments for ejecting this one-liner. Solar eclipses sets out why short duration and dicey viewing prospects are inherent, and why travel arrangements are key. That's why they belong in WV. Grahamsands (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at the country level if there will be visibility only in a small area (if at all). The traveller comes first trumps SEO claims. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The track of totality covers 33% of the country, and frankly that's better coverage than by WV itself, which is woefully sketchy. TTCF means documenting some of those "much more interesting things to offer" which kicked off this discussion, not jibbing at a one-liner. Grahamsands (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think it's good to keep it at the end of "See." Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Timor


text:
Talk:Eau Claire (Wisconsin)

Transportation to/from Minneapolis Airport:

Chippewa Valley Airport Service is a new shuttle service based at the Ramada Convention Center -downtown Eau Claire. They will make stops in Menomonie at the Motel 6, Baldwin at the AmericInn Hotel, and Hudson at Denny's Restaurant - provided a reservation was made.

Chippewa Valley Airport Service is the most affordable shuttle in Eau Claire and they operate the newest passenger vans. Covered parking is another major advantage of using their service. With a round-trip ticket, passengers are entitled to park in the Civic Center parking ramp for free (up to 10 days at no charge).

Reservations are required to the Minneapolis Airport and they are strongly recommended from Minneapolis to Wisconsin. Expect the shuttle to be busy around the holidays and in the winter. It is best to make shuttle arrangements as close as possible to airline ticket purchases.

Reservations can be made by telephone: 715-830-9400 (local - Eau Claire) and 877-811-4211 (toll-free). Online reservations can be performed at www.chippewavalleyairportservice.com.

 * This sure sounds more like an advertisement than a good faith report from a traveler or guide. Any reason it shouldn't be deleted? (WT-en) Butwhatdoiknow 13:18, 5 November 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Eau Claire (Wisconsin)


text:
Talk:Ecoregion

I'm pretty sure this does not fit under Project:What is an article, unless you wanted to make it more destination based.

title: Talk:Ecoregion