text:
Talk:Bolton (England)

Lancashire?
Although Boroughs such as Bolton,Bury,Wigan,Rochdale and Oldham are in Greater Manchester i have mentioned all all 5 of these Boroughs pages that the boroughs are considered more lancastrian rather than greater manchester and that they all have a strong connection with Lancashire and not greater manchester.

 * Mentioning it is certainly not a problem, but please do not disturb the regional structure.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:13, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

 * There's no evidence that its true. It's garbage. Better phrased as having "historic connections" with Lancashire or something like that.

 * How can you say theres no evidence that its true,i know for a fact that its true as im from Bolton i do know, on my post it says Bolton,Lancashire as will

all the other Boroughs mentioned.Ask anyone in Bolton,Bury and the other Boroughs what county they re in and theyd tell you Lancashire.Theres evidence that its true. It is a well known fact that people in these Boroughs prefer to call themselves Lancastrians, Each of the 5 boroughs have more of a Lancashire connection than a Greater Manchester one.Places such as salford,manchester,trafford,tameside and stockport might have Greater Manchester connections but the Boroughs i mentioned before are definitly Lancastrian.

Climate & Rivalries Query
Not completely sure about the 'Climate' section I've just added - any thoughts? Also, is the rivalries section completely accurate?--Nicholasjf21 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bolton (England)


text:
Talk:Bolzano

TGN gives the preferred name of this city as "Bolzano". Any reason not to move it? --(WT-en) Evan 09:18, 14 December 2006 (EST)

 * Some reasons why it would be better to not change:

 * "Bolzano" is a redirected name, any people who knows the city as "Bolzano" can simply find it
 * If the name will be changed this talk will be a place of fight like in that of Wikipedia
 * Both are official names
 * getty.edu gives the Italian names of all South Tyrolean places just because they are in Italy but the majority of the population is German-speaking

(WT-en) Strudl 21:22, 3 January 2007 (EST)

 * Wikipedia also uses Bolzano, and quite frankly, in Italy you'd expect to find the Italian name first. I'd also suggest moving it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:57, 3 January 2007 (EST)

 * Well, the article about Åland (Ahvenanmaa) uses Swedish names but in Finland you'd expect to find the Finnish name first, the article about Greenland uses Greenlandic names but in Denmark (officialy) you'd expect to find the Danish name first, the majority of Kosovo's places use Albanian names but in Serbia you'd expect to find Serbian name first. Then, which is the correct language for Swiss or Belgian places? German is an official language of South Tyrol, and in South Tyrol like in Åland you COULD EXPECT to find also a German (in Åland: Swedish) name. There is a redirect from Bolzano and the article begins with "Bolzano". Which is the problem? In Valle d'Aosta, a region of Italy, only French names are official: would you expect to find Italian names here too? (WT-en) Strudl 08:24, 4 January 2007 (EST)

 * The only criterion on Wikivoyage is most common name. Alone in Finland, Åland is unilingually Swedish (Finnish is not an official language there!) and is much better known by that name (3.1m hits on Google vs 711,000, and that's despite the funny accent).  Bolzano, on the other hand, whups Bozen by 17.2m hits vs 5.2m.  And if the article begins with name X, then than name X should also be the title... (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:45, 4 January 2007 (EST)

 * I resume in the following points:

''
 * Bolzano 17.2m hits vs Bozen 5.2m - Bolzano is also the name of an important matematician who results in the Bolzano list
 * You said before that in Italy you'd expect to find the Italian name first and not that the criterion is the most common name.
 * Bolzano is most common because foreign countries use the Italian name thinking that Bozen is a foreign name and that the city is absolutely Italian. This is what could happen in Åland if Finnish would be a minority official language like Italian in South Tyrol: this region in that state = the official language of the state
 * If you look on Google "Brunico" is for example more common than "Bruneck" (1.15m vs 0.85m hits) but the high majority of the population of that town is German-speaking. South Tyrol has two official languages, three regional languages with Ladin.
 * The English page of the official website of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol writes (down) ''Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol
 * The article Valle d'Aosta begins with "Aosta Valley".
 * Närpes (Närpiö) is a Swedish monolingual municipality of bilingual Finland. In South Tyrol's Constitution is written that monolingualism is forbidden. An other example. I didn't find a Finland's bilingual town here on wikivoyage but which method would you use? I think: Swedish name for mostly Swedish-speaking town - but if you see on Google the 90,2% Swedish-speaking Nykarleby is less common (0.49m vs 0.67m) than Uusikaarlepyy.
 * If you look the single town/city Bolzano is right but if you have to write about Bruneck you have to write Bruneck and not Brunico - unless it's more common in the Google-world.
 * I'm Italian mother-tongue.

(WT-en) Strudl 11:37, 4 January 2007 (EST)

 * My opinions are my opinions, but what matters is Wikivoyage policy. =) If you agree that "Bolzano is most common", then that's really all there is to it, it's not our job to start debating what should be the most common name.

 * Bilingualism has been debated on Talk:Finland, and the conclusion was to use the majority language in each city/county, with the alternate in parentheses in the intro It's a simple, deterministic rule, and it seems to correspond fairly well with most commonness.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:16, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Good. Well, we can do the same like in the Finland-related articles and the South Tyrol-related articles in the Wikipedia: the majority language in each city/district/city area. ;) (WT-en) Strudl 17:45, 4 January 2007 (EST)
 * Or better for South Tyrol majority/minority language (for example: Bolzano/Bozen, Bruneck/Brunico, etc.) with redirect from both the single names. (WT-en) Strudl 17:55, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Possible DotM/OtBP?
This is a Guide article about an interesting destination. Do you think it would make a good front-page feature? What improvements need to be made before nomination?

One thing that troubles me is the map. It's actually a great map, but to make it readable requires 3 clicks, the last being to enlarge it by pressing the + sign. Even if we made this map 900px on the page, it still really wouldn't be really usable, but is there any way to decrease the number of needed clicks to get to the full-sized file?

Anything else you notice? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bolzano


text:
Talk:Bombay/Name

Bombay should not be renamed to "Mumbai". Mumbai is city's official name; Bombay is its most common English-language name, which is in accord with the article naming conventions. --(WT-en) Evan 08:05, 12 Feb 2004 (EST)
 * Maybe the article naming conventions are flawed? (WT-en) F16 07:40, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * Uh, well we spent a good long time working them out and they've held up, with some revision, pretty well. If you would like to join the conversation take a look at Project:Article naming conventions, oh and Project:The traveller comes first. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:04, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai
I think that in our quest to become suited to travellers and get away from the political correctness of, say, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage has become, in many ways, incorrect. I understand we need to cater for travellers, but that doesn't mean giving incorrect or obsolete information.

Now, onto the actual topic - Mumbai. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai, we can read that the name was changed nine years ago, in 1995, officially from Bombay to Mumbai. Mumbai is an official English-language term that is now used by the travel industry - airlines, travel guides, etc.

It is incorrect and insulting to India, in my opinion, to not only name this article Bombay and make it redirect from Mumbai, but stubbornly continue calling this city Bombay. I think it should be redirected to Mumbai, which should be the main article, and Bombay should redirect to it.

In conclusion, I stress again that: YES, we need to cater for travellers, but NO, we can't be incorrect. It would be exactly like calling Istanbul, Constantinople or like making the UK article redirect to "England". Bombay is not particularly more common than Mumbai... people are starting to use Mumbai nowadays and it is the only up-to-date, correct name. (WT-en) Ronline 04:20, 6 May 2004 (EDT)

Who on earth told you that it insults Indians if Mumbai is referred to as Bombay. The average Bombayite refers to his/her h'town as Bombay, not Mumbai. Don't forget, it is the BSE. not the NSE. Bollywood, not Mollywood. The renaming was simply the work of the Shiv Sena, similar to their renaming of VT to CST. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:25, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Reversion of Change from Bombay to Mumbai
I reverted an anonymous user's change of name of this page because:
 * 1) The article uses Bombay throughout as the city's name.
 * 2) Discussion on which name to use has not reached a conclusion.

Until and unless the article is rewritten to refer consistently to Mumbai as the city's name I think it should remain as Bombay, if it is kept in its current form. While I agree that Indians refer to the city as Mumbai, the name change has not caught up with the rest of the world and Bombay is still considered to be a city in India by many. By all means feel free to transfer the information from Bombay to Mumbai, but if you do, rewrite the article so that it is about Mumbai, the city formerly known as Bombay. Do not just Redirect the content without any other editorial changes. -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:45, 7 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Uh, when I was in India all the locals called it "Bombay" -- maybe we should check around before deciding what offends other people... 68.157.205.187 14:54, 8 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I think it is offensive to keep the article at Bombay. This explained in my comment above (Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai). I will move this article to Mumbai soon, with the editorial changes that refer to Mumbai instead of Bombay. (WT-en) Ronline 21:31, 8 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Ronline, the Project:Article naming conventions say that we use the most common English name. If you do not agree with this, then please explain why on that talk page.
 * Internationally speaking, I think Bombay is still used more frequently than Mumbai. If this has changed, please tell us where we can find that information. Then, of course, the name should be changed.
 * Also, why do you think Bombay is insulting? As far as I can gather from your explanation above, it is only in your opinion. I am not saying that your opinion does not count, but it is not the only one that counts. If I, and only I would call the shots here, I would also use official names for a number of reasons. But I am not calling the shots here, and right now I don't have the time and energy to propose other conventions and to defend them. So, unless we agree on a change of the article naming conventions we should follow what we have right now. (WT-en) Akubra 06:21, 9 May 2004 (EDT)

 * OK, maybe calling Bombay "insulting" is taking it a bit too far, but what I mean to say is that it is totally arrogant of us to ignore official name changes such as that from Bombay to Mumbai. The fact is that Mumbai is now used in the travel industry, so it is very common (in fact, I remember in 1999 when I was flying from Sydney to Singapore and the flight terminated at Mumbai - and at that time I didn't know where Mumbai was, but nevertheless, it was used by the airline). Why it is arrogant is, as I mentioned above, that fact that we fail to recognise official name changes. People might colloquially call the city Bombay (such as Hey! How was your trip to Bombay?), but formally, and that includes travel guides, which are formal pieces of text, call it Mumbai. Lonely Planet calls it Mumbai. Rough Guides Travel calls it Mumbai. Why shouldn't Wikivoyage. Therefore, we can see three problems with Bombay.
 * it makes Wikivoyage appear old and outdated
 * it is arrogant, if not insulting, to India's decision on name change
 * it is non-standard, incorrect, obsolete and not used by the majority of established travel guides.
 * If people still don't agree on the naming, then maybe we can have a vote (sort of like a mini-referendum) on whether we should use names like Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, or whether we should use Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. Because, as Akubra said above, he would agree with the name change. I would too. Maybe others would as well. The fact is, opinions aside, the article should be changed, but a vote would probably make that decision more valid. (WT-en) Ronline 09:39, 9 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Mumbai beats Bombay on Google by 4,780,000 to 4,360,000. It is the most commonly used English name for the place. It should be changed. And I think that the article naming conventions should change to the official name in any case. A vote, perhaps? (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 11:08, 9 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Yes, I think we should have a vote, but even with a negative result in the vote, we need to remember that, yes, Mumbai is the most popular name (as was proven not only by the Google hits but also by other criteria). How could we organise such a vote? (WT-en) Ronline 03:00, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I reckon that any referendum on the Project:Article naming conventions should take place on Project:Article naming conventions. Looks like said page could also use an archive, so if someone who cares deeply about this issue would like to clean the page up and prepare it for recording a vote somehow, I guess that would be the way to go. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:54, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I still don't get how you can decide what is insulting-- it's downright condescending to say how someone from India might or should feel. Now if we change this to Mumbai it will be 1)Through consesus and 2)Because it is the most helpful to travellers and _not_ because it is the PC option or the personal opinion of anyone here. In India the name change has long been held as something of a joke, something snuck in by one politician (part of the Hindu nationalist Shiv Sena party in coalition with the BJP) trying to make a point. Whether it will turn out to be the commonly used name is yet to be seen, but we're not the ones who get to decide based on what we think it "should" be. So can we continue this without mention of "insults" ?(WT-en) Majnoona 15:35, 13 May 2004 (EDT)

Interesting history: http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0297/0142.html, http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/3193/papers/india.html (WT-en) Majnoona 15:39, 13 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I keep on finding strange new comments on Wikivoyage since you and Evan came and accessed the site most recently. Like this one. We can continue without mentioning insults but only if you stop using "traveller comes first" as a handy shield from any real, constructive opposition. Wikivoyage is a travel guide. Lonely Planet is a travel guide. Rough Guides is a travel guide. The rest use Mumbai. Wikivoyage uses Bombay. Period. Notice any inconsistency there? (WT-en) Ronline 02:58, 14 May 2004 (EDT)

I think that the change of Bombay to Mumbai is merely a polical move from the BJP as explained above. And I know what I am talking about. I lived there for 4 years. Now the fact that Mumbai comes ahead of Bombay in Google is something new. (WT-en) Yann 15:01, 14 May 2004 (EDT)

Thank you Yann. This issue of "what the Indians call it" is not as straight-forward as some outsiders think. I've noticed that none of the Indian wikivoyage contributors have spoken up here (probably because it's kinda a silly argument), but it's good to hear a local perspective. It's not as if India took a vote for the name change (though they may have been voting _against_ this sort of thing in last weeks election ;-).
 * I'd also like to say that the "Traveller comes first" is one of the most basic goals of wikivoyage. It's not "Rough Guides comes first" or "Governments come first" and I don't see that changing any more than we're going to stop being a wiki... (WT-en) Majnoona 23:56, 17 May 2004 (EDT)

Referendum Open
Due to recent discussion on this topic, a referendum is now open on Project:Article naming conventions. Please vote. (WT-en) Ronline 04:56, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Don't bother. We don't have referenda on Wikivoyage; we come to decisions. --(WT-en) Evan 15:14, 13 May 2004 (EDT)

 * If you read my comment on Project:Article naming conventions you'll see that I am totally bewildered by your response. I mean, voting is a necessary part of wikis in general. Through voting we come to decisions. Yes, consensus is also good, but it can sometimes result in a freeze - it can't be decided what's good or bad. Therefore, voting is the best way. The reason why we introduced voting is that, for half a year or more, we haven't solved this issue. Evan, the majority of people are against the use of Bombay and yet it is still being used. (WT-en) Ronline 02:24, 14 May 2004 (EDT)

 * How can the "majority of people" be 6 out of the 500 plus registered users, plus all the other un-registerd contributors? Voting isn't going to work because we have a constantly changing population. If you and the five other voters stop working on wikivoyage, or 10 others show up to contribute to an article, how do we explain why the article has that name? We can either stand by numbers-- ie Google news counts (which worked for the "Burma" issue just fine) or say "well these six guys that were here for a while voted." Do we take a new vote every week? Btw, I think the article should be Mumbai, but for the right reasons... (WT-en) Majnoona 23:53, 17 May 2004 (EDT)

News survey
So, I started doing some checks on Mumbai vs. Bombay on http://news.google.com/. Here's what I came up with:

Overall, Mumbai 7950, Bombay 3840. USA, Mumbai 459, Bombay 1550. Canada, Mumbai 23, Bombay 57. UK, Mumbai 129, Bombay 217. Australia, Mumbai 29, Bombay 57. New Zealand, Mumbai 3, Bombay 18. India, Mumbai 7020, Bombay 1630.

It looks like, outside of India, Bombay is still much more used than Mumbai, by about roughly 2 or 3 to 1. Within India, it's overwhelmingly used, although that would probably be expected. Maj mentions that Indian newspapers are required to use the official names.

It's probably also worth noting that "Bombay" shows up in a few unrelated English terms, such as Bombay Sapphire gin and the movie Salaam, Bombay!. This probably skews the results towards Bombay somewhat.

I don't know what this all means means, but it's interesting, at least. --(WT-en) Evan 15:32, 15 May 2004 (EDT)

 * This morning I listened to a long standing Indian radio correspondent reporting from India on that country's recent elections. He discussed what was happening on the Bombay stockmarket while the government was being formed. If an Indian reporter calls the city Bombay, what am I to conclude? -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:05, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * That is because the Stock exchange is still called the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) - its name is unchanged. So don't jump to any conclusions :) --G

What's next?
OK, so it seems this whole Bombay-Mumbai problem has dragged on for so long, with so many responses in so many different pages: here, on talk pages, on Project:Article naming conventions, etc. I think we should now collect all of our arguments and really decide whether we should use Bombay or Mumbai. As a start, here are my arguments why Mumbai is a better bet:

 * The majority of Wikivoyagers agree with it. - I know this very fact has provoked sort of a scandal, but it's true. In the official-names poll, there were 6 YES votes and 2 NO votes. Although this fact alone doesn't provoke the change, it should at least signify that most people are for changing it to Mumbai.

 * Mumbai is the official name. - This is perhaps the strongest point. Mumbai is the official, short, English-language name. What I mean is this - I am in no way saying we should name the article "City of Mumbai" or whatever the official long name is. However, if the English-language media in India use Mumbai, we should too. It's the official name, it's what should be used in an official, public travel guide.

 * Most other guides use it. - Again, this is an important point. Lonely Planet use Mumbai. Rough Guides use Mumbai. Yahoo Travel uses Mumbai. Frommers uses Mumbai, and so on. Therefore, we should too. If all these well-established guides can afford to use this name, so should we.

 * We have to be politically-correct and instill this in our travellers. - It's not OK to say that just because everyone uses something, it's the right way to go about. Just because Bombay might be more popular in the USA or Canada, or even in the UK, doesn't mean it's correct. For street-talk it might do, but in a respectable travel guide, it will not do. We have to be politically-correct as well. Yes, we need to serve our travellers well, but no at the expense of being incorrect. Mumbai is the correct term, we need to teach travellers this as well.

There's more of course, but these are the main pro-Mumbai points I have. BTW, there is a good set of pro-Bombay lists at Project:Why Wikivoyage doesn't use official names - (WT-en) Ronline 06:07, 17 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Here's my responses.

 * 1. The vast majority of registered Wikivoyage users never participated in that poll. In addition, our article naming conventions don't talk about majorities, votes, polls, or anything of the like. We do what's appropriate for our goals and what complies with our style guidelines (which derive from our goals), not what a handful of registered users say in an straw poll.

 * 2. Our article naming conventions are for the most common English name, not the official name. Bombay seems to still be the most common English name. Evidence to the contrary is welcome.

 * 3. This is a good data point for making Mumbai the most common English name.

 * 4. I 100% absolutely disagree that we have to be politically correct, and I 200% disagree that we have to indoctrinate travellers into any particular political belief system. According to whose politics? According to what criteria? If we want to be non-sexist, we'd change the name of United Kingdom to United Realm. If we wanted to be sensitive to Latino issues in the United States of America, we'd move Mexico, Texas, California and most of the Southwest into a guide to Aztlan. If we want to propound National Socialism, we would move most of central Europe into German lebensraum.

 * But we try to keep a neutral point of view and not espouse any particular political agenda. I realize the above are extreme examples, but I think that even though most Wikivoyagers would feel that cultural sensitivity is a worthwhile cause, I think adjusting our guide away from being useful, efficient, and navigable to something "politically correct" is a very dangerous road to take.

 * In whole, I think we're getting some good evidence that Mumbai may be hitting a tipping point for most common English name, but I'd rather not worry about these other factors. --(WT-en) Evan 00:10, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * By mentioning of Nazis you have now lost this debate by default... but nevertheless, there's a significant difference between United Realm/Aztlan/lebensraum and Mumbai: the former exist only the imagination of zealots, while the latter is the city's official name. This has nothing to do with political correctness! (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:48, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * This is not a debate -- it's a discussion. We're trying to figure something out, and not trying to win some points. I agree, though, that political correctness should have nothing to do with how we name articles. --(WT-en) Evan 01:31, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Why not hold the page at Mumbai, have an automatic redirect from Bombay, and start the Mumbai page with "Mumbai (formerly Bombay) is a city in..."? Then people can type in "Bombay" in the little search box, but are then smoothly made aware that there are two common names. They find the information (what Wikivoyage is for), and they learn - harmlessly - that they may offend Indians if they use the "wrong" name (a useful thing to know).

 * What we must also remember is that any maps that the traveller buys/refers to in-country, along with train timetables, bus routes etc, will have the local name on them, and if our guide does not refer to this name then they may have some trouble getting to the place - in which case this guide becomes useless anyway.

 * Some points to ponder, anyway. -- (WT-en) Sjc196 03:23, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Currently Mumbai and Bombay direct to a single page, which lists both names. As far as I can tell, all articles with disputed names have redirects from all names in use, and those names are mentioned in the introduction. And of course, this absolutely ought to be done.

 * The thing that puzzles me is, with this structure in place, how anyone can say that either name makes things easier, or "puts the traveler first". Redirects make everything as easy as they need to be. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 04:08, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I agree completely with Sjc196 and Paul Richter; put the page under Mumbai, mention Bombay in the first sentence, and redirect from Bombay. Problem solved.  Evan, what exactly is wrong with this?

 * And as far as popularity goes, "mumbai city" gets 2.2m hits while "bombay city" only manages 1.5m on Google... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:53, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Because Evan would rather put the page under Bombay, mention Mumbai in the first sentence, and redirect from Mumbai. It seems you're both missing the point. All of that redirecting and mentioning in the introduction has always been there! With redirects, ease of use within Wikivoyage a non-issue.

 * On the other hand, ease of use while traveling is the real issue, as Sjc196 points out. If you're stuck in a small Indian town, scrambling to catch the last bus back to the city, frantically scanning the posted destinations, what do you want to look for, Calcutta or Kolkata? That is the real ease-of-use issue, and that's what should determine naming. All this arguing so far has been either about politics or misguided goals of ease-of-use within Wikepedia.

Solved
OK, I think I solved the problem once and for all :) -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 03:51, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * I don't think this really solves the problem ;-) How about moving it to Mumbai? Or, if now, at least leave it at Bombay. See reasons for Mumbai change at Project:Article naming conventions. (WT-en) Ronline 05:52, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Not solved. I reverted the move to The City formerly known as Bombay because it does not solve the problem, only shifts it to something worse. Calling it The City formerly known as Bombay effectively implies the city does not have a name, perhaps even more insulting than using the historical name. That naming also violates several Manual of style guidelines. (e.g. Use of The, capitalisation of City, shortest practical name, etc.) The article is written as if the city is called Bombay and it does not make sense to give the page any other name. If the page is to be moved to Mumbai then the article needs to be rewritten - it cannot simply be moved. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:20, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

I moved it only as a joke, and fully expected it to be moved right back. Seriously, however, note that even if it's absurdly renamed, Redirects make everything as easy as they need to be. You could still search for, or link from, Bombay or Mumbai and go right to the article about the city.

It shows that, as I commented above, ease of use within Wikivoyage is a non-issue, and Project:Why_Wikivoyage_doesn't_use_official_names doesn't make a good case for using "Bombay". -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 07:34, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Exactly right. That's what I've been trying to argue with all the people who seem to think that if an article is moved to Mumbai, they will be shot dead if they type in Bombay! Redirects work greatly, and I think the whole transition to Mumbai won't be a significant one... some people might not even realise. People might now find Mumbai if it's listed on the main page and they are really looking for Bombay. But there's slim chances for that and then again, neither can you do that on Lonely Planet or the other guides. There is, however, a point where it could be significant. Mostly, however, I think this issue is so heated due to theoretical correctness rather than actual practical problems. Cheers and I hope this gets solved~ (and then we can get back to renaming articles on the artist Prince ;-) (WT-en) Ronline 08:57, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

Actually, Bombay is the English name of the city. Mumbai is the transliteration of Marathi language. (WT-en) Yann 13:07, 18 May 2004 (EDT)
 * Trying an analogy, it's a bit like London, which in French is called Londres, or Morocco (in English) and Maroc (in French). It's not because people from the place called it with one name that you have to use this name. It depends on the language used. (WT-en) Yann 05:54, 11 Jun 2004 (EDT)

NAME CONVENTION
Please use Mumbai which is the official name Naming conventions could be (a) Mumbai (formerly Bombay) FORMAL (b) Mumbai aka Bombay - CASUAL (c) Mumbai (Bombay) USED BY IATA in the transistion

 * I think you need to reread the prior discussion on this mess. In particular, official names are irrelevant (see Project:Why Wikivoyage doesn't use official names) and the IATA isn't in charge of Wikivoyage.  There are perfectly reasonable reasons for using Mumbai  — see Project:Article naming conventions for the ones that matter if you want to talk about them here.  Or if you think current policy is wrong, discuss on either Project:Why Wikivoyage doesn't use official names if you think Officialdom matters or  Project:Article naming conventions if you just think the current policy is flawed.  -- (WT-en) Colin 13:41, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Until the Moscow page becomes named Mosckva I'm changing this back to Bombay. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 79.74.136.155 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Bombay/Name


text:
Talk:Bomdila

Himalayan Holidays and India soujorn, do you think getting in is the best place to make your entry? You can add your listing in contact section but as far as I understand this guide is mostly for Independent travelers right? --(WT-en) anurag.thakur84 01:20, 3 February 2012 (EST)

 * Your understanding is right. Per tour, tour agencies should be listed only when they provide a service that would be impossible or quite difficult for independent travelers to do on their own. However, "Contact" is definitely the wrong place for any entries, other than for internet centers and the like - it's all about how to get online or otherwise communicate with the rest of the world from the place in question. Any tour agencies that actually fit the exceptions in this site's tours policy should be listed under "Do," generally. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:37, 3 February 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Bomdila


text:
Talk:Bonaire

Comments
Bonaire is a wonderful place!

Sleep
Believe the first two links listed are for third-party consolidators and should not be allowed.

 * See the 'edit' link? Click on it and delete them. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:09, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Spammer
Some idiot going by the handle of Sertmann is spamming on behalf of sun rentals, The plaza and kon tiki.

I suggest said idiot take out advertising on behalf of their clients and not spam this article. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 75.228.81.238 (talk • contribs)

 * Wow, you're confused. I'm amused that you think Sertmann's removal of excess Sun Rental links  is somehow advertising for them.
 * Another editor has already reverted your last edit because it replaces listings that are actually useful, albeit all similar, with a badly-formatted list of links that contains no useful information -- indeed, it looks far more spammy than what it replaced. If you wish to add listings for other accommodations in Bonaire, they would be appreciated, but please consult Project:Accommodation listings for the formatting.  -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime

No gloves?
When it says that, is it referring to the whole island or just underwater or something? It's a little confusing. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 20:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bonaire


text:
Talk:Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary

Merge
This should be merged back into Goa. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:38, 23 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary is a genuine destination (although this writer didn't like it), so I'll move the article there. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 15:27, 9 Nov 2004 (EST)

VFD Discussion

 * Merge and Delete, as this is an attraction. --(WT-en) inas 23:22, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge and Redirect, per Project:Deletion policy: "Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected" (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge and Redirect per LtPowers, unless its not a major attraction, in which case we should delete --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 * I interpret the major attraction, being a high hurdle to get over, so we avoid creating redirects for every zoo and garden on the globe. How do we decide?  --(WT-en) inas 19:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 * I disagree; redirects are cheap, so I don't see the hurdle as very significant. We should avoid creating redirects willy-nilly in any case, but as long as the page exists, and someone took the time to write what's really a decent article on the place, I see little harm in redirecting (especially after a merge, for attribution purposes if nothing else).  We should be cautious about minor commercial attractions, of course.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:01, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
 * My concern isn't so much with the redirect, which as you say is cheap, but rather with redirecting a minor commercial attraction.  I don't doubt its commercial - it isn't a santuary or a national park, it is a zoo.  As to whether it qualifies as major, not sure, but the google hits are a couple of orders of magnitude below any other zoo I could think of.  I certainly see the major attraction hurdle high enough that most commercial attractions wouldn't qualify for redirects, only exceptional or widely known ones.    --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Well, it's what, 8 square kilometers? More than twice the size of Central Park.  =)  I would say it's certainly one of the major attractions in or around Goa, commercial or not.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:40, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Merge and redirect. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:20, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
 * This nomination is three months old, but in trying to resolve it I'm unsure what people want it merged with - Goa? Any clarification would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:33, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Keep. I hadn't looked at this before, but what is the deletion rationale here? Simply asserting it is an "attraction"? Or asserting that it is a "zoo" not a "park"? The article states that you can sleep here, there is a restaurant, and it's actually a well developed Other Destination article of clear value to the traveler. If people think this information would be more useful if merged with another article, that's a question of content organization that would belong on the talk page, not vfd, but it anyway does not appear that anyone has a concrete idea of how to improve the organization. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:28, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure; maybe I didn't look closely enough at the article to see that there were accommodations there. I'm fine with keeping; maybe I just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted without a redirect.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:03, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

 * So is this a "keep" now? My sense of the discussion is that "keep" is the correct resolution, but if anyone feels differently please comment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:09, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:45, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary


text:
Talk:Bonito (Bahia)

I'm moving this page to Bonito (Bahia) because there is another city in Mato Grosso do Sul called Bonito (Mato Grosso do Sul) (WT-en) Rmx 19:59, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Bonito (Bahia)


text:
Talk:Bonn

Cafes
The current edit says 'The Einstein Cafe boasts excellent espresso, comparable to Starbucks'. One or the the other, please - those statements can't both be true. 86.153.225.219 12:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

That's the reason Einstein cafe went bankrupt :-) --Nordostwestwind (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DotM candidate?
I see this is a Guide-level article. I haven't visited Bonn. Do you think this is in decent shape for a DotM nomination yet? If not, what work needs to be done? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bonn is a brilliant Guide article and actually one that I've planned to nominate for DotM for some 2017 summer month. Some POIs have no coordinates and businesses that have closed should of course be removed. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the listings need some updating. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bonn


text:
Talk:Bontebok National Park

Comments
This is one of the loveliest and most underrated parks for campers in ZA

The tent pitches are large, and well separated, with lush comfortable grass, and in the mornings, as the mist rises from the dam, and you walk to the camp shop for milk, you will probably pass 50-100 beautiful chocolate brown bontebok, looking at you curiously with their white clown-faces, totally unafraid, unless you cross that invisible line, then they'll scatter in all directions, running and jumping like a brown river in full flood

And I can't get to come back here until July '08 8-( (WT-en) Chrisboote 11:09, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bontebok National Park


text:
Talk:Books

Hmmm, this is one of our mentioned Project:Slippery slopes, I'm not sure we want a list of all the possible travel books-- would it really be helpful? Maybe this is different than what I think it is, in which case it'd at least need a different article name "Books" is just to general. (WT-en) Majnoona 18:14, 20 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * As long as it is useful to somebody, I think it is good. (WT-en) Yann 18:42, 20 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * That's not the metric we use for what kind of articles to include in Wikivoyage. I think recommending particular books for particular travel destinations is a good idea, but I'm pretty much sure this article is too broad to be useful. --(WT-en) Evan 02:47, 21 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * What do you propose, then? (WT-en) Yann 08:32, 21 Feb 2004 (EST)

Seems like this died a few years ago! Perhaps the way to go is to have a list of all possible travel books and then have pointers to these books in individual travel pages. An entry in the list could read: The format will be well controlled, the description does not have to be repeated ad nauseum in individual travel pages. Then, in say the India page, the Myanmar page, the Chennai page, the Pyin U Lwin page, we could include a link to the book in a section entitled "Read."--(WT-en) Wandering 14:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Theroux, Paul, "The Great Railway Bazaar: By Train through Asia," Penguin, 1995. Paul Theroux writes about his travels by rail througn .........

 * "All possible travel books" is a mighty long list. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Indeed! But so is an encyclopaedia of everything! Gotta start somewhere.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Yeah, but that's not this project. :) And nobody's trying to put Wikipedia on a single page; the information is parceled out into articles by subject. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We actually do have something similar... Special:Booksources. But instead of us having to create/maintain/police a monstrous index page of the books it directs people where to go to buy the books. See Afghanistan for an example. The description would go straight into the article, and the title is linked with Booksource. Does that satisfy your desires? I also asked about doing a similar Moviesource, but nobody it hasn't really gained any momentum yet – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * To add one to an article, use A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush, replacing the appropriate ISBN# and book title – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * You can also simply include an ISBN in the text (e.g. "ISBN 156097432X") and the site software will link it to book sources. This has the advantage of showing the ISBN in the article if the reader wants to order it offline.  Getting back to the issue of repeating the same book recommendation in multiple articles, the ideal solution to this is to recommend a book about traveling through Asia in the Asia article, rather than in each of the countries the book covers.  If someone is traveling to multiple countries in Asia, they should look at that article, and if they're only traveling in Myanmar or going just to Pyin U Lwin, it's probably not an ideal book for them. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Not so in the case of the Theroux book. It is useful reading if you travel by rail in Asia, or if you just go to Pyin U Lwin. Either way, it would be recommended reading. Another example is Tiziano Terzani's "A Fortune Teller Told Me." Could easily go in multiple places and should be recommended reading even if you travel just to, say, HK.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't doubt that there are examples like that, but for most people the background information about the specific place they're going would have to be exceptionally good to justify buying and reading a book about an entire continent. And if they're thirsty enough for information to do that... don't you think they'd also look at the Wikivoyage articles further up in the hierarchy? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not dogmatic about this but do feel that the perfect travel resource should have a good way for dealing with books and movies &c because they are an essential part of the romance of travel. Meanwhile, I'll plug in ISBN numbers and see if I can figure out Booksources.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Books


text:
Talk:Boone (North Carolina)

Boone, North Carolina, USA discussion page now created.

title: Talk:Boone (North Carolina)


text:
Talk:Bophut

TAT Listings
I moved the clutter listings from TAT here for future reference.

 * Baan Hin Sai Resort (บ้านหินใส รีสอร์ท) 5/5 Mu 3, Tambon Bo Phut, Koh Samui, Surat Thani, Rates: 1,900-4,900 Baht
 * Ban Kaew Ruean Kwan (บ้านแก้วเรือนขวัญ) Bophut, Koh Samui, Surat Thani, Rates: 5,080-8,120 Baht

Hat Thong Yang (หาดท้องยาง)

 * Infoo Palace (อินฟูพาเลซ) 41 Mu 2 Hat Thong Yang, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 3066), 10 rooms: 300-800 baht
 * Lipa Lodge (ลิพาลอดจ์) 75/4 Mu 3 Ban Lipa Noi, Hat Thong Yang, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 3028, 0 7742 3084), 20 rooms: 300–900 baht
 * Rachapruk Resort (ราช��ฤกษ์รีสอร์ท) 95/5 Mu 3 Hat Thong Yang, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 3115, 0 7742 3181,0 7723 5139), 35 rooms: 800-2,500 baht
 * River Garden Bungalow (ริเวอร์การ์เด้นบังกะโล) 1 Mu 3 Tambon Na Mueang, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 4035), 9 rooms: 150 baht

Hat Phra Yai (หาดพระใหญ่) somewhere near Big Buddha Beach

 * Beach House Resort (บีชเฮ้าส์รีสอร์ท) 16/1 Mu 4 Hat Phra Yai, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7724 5124), 12 rooms: 200–500 baht
 * Pongpetch Servotel (พงศ์เพชรเซอร์โวเทล) 51/1-2 Mu 4 Hat Phra Yai, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7724 5100-7), 24 rooms: 300-600 baht

Ao Thong Son (อ่าวท้องสน) on the northern most tip of Samui

 * Samui Thongson Resort (สมุยท้องสนรีสอร์ท) 81 Mu 5 Ao Thong Son, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7723 0799), 16 rooms: 100-500 baht

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:04, 20 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Bophut


text:
Talk:Boracay

Request
I had the pleasure of meeting the staff at Coco Loco Bar during my vacation in Boracay. After a few visits to the bar and chatting with the young and friendly Staff, I began to learn about numerous unfair practices committed by Coco Loco's owners on their Staff.

At least 3 of the waitresses are under 18yrs. old, but they are told to lie about their age by the bar's owners. The owners prefer to hire underage teenagers in order to lure men and older men clientele to the bar.

The wait Staff are each paid P3000/month (about $70/month) way below the minimum wage required. They also have to work 7 days a week with no overtime pay. They often go for months before getting one day off.

Those who read this might want to think twice about spending a dime at Coco Loco in sympathy to their maltreated Staff. Hopefully this would send the message to the owners that their maltreatment of their Staff has to end.

Today I did some major editing:

I did some minor grammatical changes to make the tenses agree: A restaurant is more generally referred to as in the he/she form not the they form unless you are referring to many restaurants at once:

"The English Bakery has sausages" NOT "The English Bakery have sausages"

"There are a wide variety of gift shops" NOT "There is a wide variety of shops"

[Wrong! Last time I looked, a 'variety' is singular, not plural]

Also, I tried to fix the formatting, making sure that a heading is surrounded by == and that a subheading is surrounded by ===

For example: Get In (surrounded by == ==) Looks like "Large letters with a dividing line" By AIR (=== ===) Looks like "Bold subsection within a general division" By Boat (=== ===) By Bus (=== ===)

I also tried to modify some of the wording so that it doesn't read like a blog "Such and Such's place is really sweat with fantastic steaks" but instead reads like a recommendation that may be more easily trusted. Too glowing of a review sounds like the owner may want to try to spur on sales or, as I said before reads like a blog not a Wiki-page.

I also added a subsection of (=== ===)Breakfast and (=== ===)Lunch and Dinner to the Eat(== ==) section

and I tried to clean up the Sleep section by adding locations.

I really like Boracay and many places there but I write my glowing "hey that was fantastic" to my own blog and I try my best to make this Wiki sound more professional so that it will get used as a professional resource and not get treated like another blog.

I have no time for more changes so I left most of the 'too colourful' and 'too personal' references slide for today. (WT-en) Seaniz 11:21, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Great work — keep it up! (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:14, 5 March 2006 (EST)

 * Hello! Great work fixing up this article, perhaps one day it will become a star. It seems like you really understand the tone we're going for here... Just a couple of quick suggestions: you may want to take a look at our Manual of style and templates to see how we've been formatting things -- for example, we usually don't breakdown the Eat section by type of food but by price.
 * Also, it helps if you sign your comments with ~ which will insert your user name and the date/time so we know who's said what!
 * Anyway, looking forward to more of your contributions! (WT-en) Majnoona 11:17, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * sounds good I'll check out the style guide, but I do think breakfast should be a category as it's a very different type of meal for me! (WT-en) Seaniz

 * In that case you haven't been in Asia long enough =P (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:46, 5 March 2006 (EST) (who had century egg porridge, raw fish and soya milk for breakfast yesterday)

Eating format
I was just adding a few lines to the eating section and thought that it may be time to start breaking it apart and putting it back together following the style guide, as discussed above. I'd start it but I haven't been to any of the listed restaurants. More than anything this message is just support for anyone that might be thinking of reformating the section. (WT-en) Johnycanal 00:00, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

DO
I added more information on Scuba Diving in Boracay in the Do section; the previous content said not a good place for diving, however with 20 dive centres along the beach I feel that this contradicts that opinion. I will add an external reference later to more information on diving in Boracay, when I work out how to do that —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 82.44.114.192 (talk • contribs)

 * Cool, thanks for the update! You may want to take a look at Project:External links though about the reference you're talking about, we don't usually add in links like that... only official websites for the dive shops can go in... If you've got any other info on Borocay, keep updating! – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 17:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Actually, I removed these links, as they are just advertisements. There are literally dozens of diving shops lining the beach on Boracay, and I see no need to list those two here. People who are interested will have no trouble finding a shop.User:(WT-en) Jdylan 17:18, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Added Miscellaneous Section
Hi, I just added the misc. section to list things that I thought travelers should need to know, or would want to know, at least. I put in three things so far, the ATM's, the Vendors and that Bat Cave. The ATMS I put in for obvious reasons, as I myself got stuck with no money. The vendors..well, I wish I had known about them beforehand. Finally, the Bat Cave is very dangerous and there is no mention of it being so. I am open to any more suggestions.User:(WT-en) Jdylan 14:27, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

 * I've moved the "Miscellaneous" information to the Buy and See sections, as that's where we usually put information about financial/shopping matters and attractions, respectively. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, thanks. I didn't know where to put that info, such as the ATM section. I thought maybe making a "Travel Tips" section? If more people throw ideas out, perhaps we could later on. User:(WT-en) Jdylan 17:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

 * See Project:Where you can stick it for a rather long list of where to put various kinds of information. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:37, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Does anybody Know - Nigi Nigi?
I see info in the site about Nigi Nigi Noo Noo's, with beach cottages, but when I was there I ate and drank at "Nigi Nigi's Beach Resort", which had NO cottages, it was a 3 or 4 story pretty fancy hotel with a nice lobby. I htink the owners might have bought this hotel and renamed it NNBR? I am aware of the Nigi Nigi Noo Noo's and have seen the cottages. Maybe this is new to the beach? User:(WT-en) Jdylan 18:11, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

You were at Nigi Nigi 1 - Beach front resort at Boat Station 2. There is a Nigi Nigi 2 beach front resort with cottages at boat station 2.

No Advertisements, Please!
Today I removed 3 obvious, biased advertisements with links to the respective websites. One for a sailboat company, the other two for diving companies. Looking through the history, I see most of the edits have been made to remove things like these. There are literally dozens of companies offering every service you can think of on Boracay, so we don't need to list them. We normally only list Hotels, Restaurants & Bars. Plus, there are actually too many companies to list. And keep your blatant advertisements out, such as "The Best Diving Company in Boracay!" or "Cpt. Jack will be sure you have a good time!" Okay? They will be deleted anyway.User:(WT-en) Jdylan 17:29, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By Air / Sleep Section
Hello everyone! I edited a big part in this section. Kindly check if the edits are ok. I suggests that there should be a [tips / notes] section where we can put our side notes like the 'beware from travel agents' or the 'tips for guests with international flights', etc. Thanks! (WT-en) Wiccaglaiza 12:33, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Hi! I updated the Caticlan airlines portion. Cebu Pac, Airphil & Pal are already allowed to land at Caticlan. (WT-en) Wiccaglaiza 11:30, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

I edited Asian Spirit, it has rebranded to Zest Airways and they have changed website already. I also edited the routes. SEAIR has no Cebu-Caticlan-Cebu flights already. Thanks!

 * Thanks! (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the reminder. I already edited our part. FYI also, there are other resorts listed under the sleep section that have their outlets in other sections aslo i.e. Fridays Boracay & Boracay Regency.\

You edited again the part of Patio Pacific. FYI, buffet is not served all year round. Also, why delete the accreditation? Other resort listing have their accreditation in their write-up... DOT accreditation is very important so tourist will know the standards of the different resorts.

 * Most resort listings in Boracay are absolutely terrible and will be dealt with in due course, please don't use them as a model for anything. Project:Accommodation listings shows how it should be done. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Well, I gave the sleep listings a long-overdue once over. There are still way too many listings with nothing informative though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:09, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Boracay Beach Live Cameras
I corrected the information on Boracay Beach Live since I am the owner of that camera and TravelOnline. I wanted to put an external link to the camera but discovered that it's not allowed. I find this a little confusing since the page is riddled with external links. My thinking: You can talk about Boracay all you want and describe many things there BUT seeing and hearing Boracay should be highlighted on your page. I am not saying this because I own the camera or TravelOnline, but rather my intention was to increase tourism. This camera is the best way to increase tourism. SEEING IS BELIEVING!!!

This camera was the first camera in Boracay that streamed live on the internet. It was first located at Hey Jude. However, during that era, the camera had a rough time because of the internet. TODAY, it is located at Red Coconut on the beach walk pointed toward the beach. It catches beach activities and sunsets. You can also HEAR the beach live too!!! The camera is a 14 mega pixels, wide angle lens, streaming live 24 HOURS A DAY! This is accomplished by a Fiber Optic line that runs from Kalibo Cable to Red Coconut which is connected to a converter, router and camera lines with emergency power back up and protection. The internet cost per month is $100 just to run the camera. People can wave hi to their friends from the beach at desired times. Now that is cool! All this paid for and provided by TravelOnline.

Now with that said: Would an external link (boracaylive.com) to that be worth wild on the Boracay Page? As opposed to the obvious advertising external links that riddle the page. I think this should hold high precedence on the page. Please advise – Thoughts? It’s just a shame that such information is hidden.

 * Of course as I thought - corrections have been changed back to dribble that means nothing - insignificant/non-informative/useless.***
 * who is the administrator of the Boracay page and how can I contact him. I would like to chat about this! *****

 * I just edited out about 90% of what you added. See don't tout and Tone for reasons. I also tried to add a link and found it blocked. I'd say a link to boracaylive is fine.
 * Please sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes ~ Pashley (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I dont understand dont tout ? I did not put any advertising. I just put history. How do you call what I wrote advertising when the whole page is riddled with advertising and external links. You have kiteboarding, travel agency websites, hotels, spa and it goes on and on? You have "Ariel's House Camera at Ariel's Bar" which is according to you not advertising but mentioning that TravelOnline owns the camera and the location is red coconut resort is advertising????? Ariel's House Camera at Ariel's Bar - Ariel House is the name of the resort and he adds a plug for Ariel Bar.

OR Nigi Nigi Too Camera at Nigi Nigi Too Resort - NIGI NIGI Too is the name of the Resort and the second time it is written is for advertising. NOW, Please explain why I cant have camera owned by TravelOnline and located at Red Coconut???? instead you have Boracay Beach Live - What's that? The website is boracylive.com not boracaybeachlive.com???? I would rather have TravelOnline Camera than Boracay Beach Live. I will make the correction to TravelOnline Camera ~ User:Glade22

I tried to put either or link on the word boracay beach live but it gets blocked. If you authorize the link and if you are administrator - can you put it or put what is legal. I want it done legally, so please do the link for me as administrator. Thanks ~ User:Glade22
 * I believe the blocked link is because its external. I think that the administrator has to do it. Are you the administrator? I prefer boracaylive.com but boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ is ok. I actually have some good history about the camera and Boracay for that matter. I have lived here for 20 years and I go to Boracay about 3 months out of the year. There is not a question I could not answer about Boracay. ANYWAYS - Just trying to help - not advertise. I already own the number 1 position for boracay camera or boracay beach camera in ALL search engines. There is no benefit here for me or TravelOnline. I just want to help!!!

 * I am a site administrator; we do not have admins for specific pages and there are a few dozen users with admin privileges for the site. I do not know why the link is blocked, but it is blocked for me too. I wonder if it is on the spam blacklist. Pashley (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hummm, Spam Blacklist??? How did that happen? How do you get it removed? Can you help on this? There are haters out there hehehe Hope you can solve this problem so that there is more meat on this section. I think it is very important for tourism. That is why I spent all that money and still do so people can see the beach. That camera alone is about $15,000. SEE what you can do. ~ User:Glade22

 * There are about a dozen Boracay domains at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist; they are added to shut off spam advertising, but I think in this case someone added too many. I've removed boracaylive there and inserted a link here. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, You the man. Open-minded - I love it! Your correction look perfect. Great Work! Glade22
 * I wonder why we should link to webcams in our guides. --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can answer this. You can only talk about something and write about it But seeing it and in LIVE STREAM is Amazing! As technology increases things like webcams must be considered in communicating a topic. The other added benefit is people can wave to their friends, see the beach and hear it to be relaxed or just get a quick weather report. Your flying to Boracay and you want to know the weather. Quick look and you know! Your page should have ALL information about Boracay.

EXAMPLE: There is a link on the page to Paulo Collection BodyWear - Now what does that got to do with Boracay. What does kiteboard school or shops have to do with Boracay. They are at all beaches in the world --- Not just Boracay. The only reason there listed AND WITH A LINK is because its in Boracay and the article is about Boracay.
 * YES, webcams have nothing to do with Boracay BUT a BORACAY webcam does. - See my point? Glade22
 * No, not really, because this is a travel guide, not a guide to help people see faraway places while they sit at home. I'd like to reopen this discussion and challenge people to explain why the "Boracay Beach Live Cameras" subsection shouldn't be deleted or at least replaced with a very brief (i.e., even briefer) summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting to Guide?
Boracay should be an obvious candidate for a destination of the month nomination since it is a major destination with a reasonably well-developed article. However, it cannot be nominated until it has Article status of Guide. It seems close, but what else is needed?

Certainly it should have a custom banner before being a DotM, arguably before promotion to Guide. I think it also needs an editing pass to clean up touting language and external links. Anything else? Pashley (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I made one pass, mostly fixing grammar or usage errors. It needs more. Pashley (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The eateries should be arranged into Budget, Mid-range and Splurge. Plus, the latter half of the article could have some nice pictures, now it looks like a novel. Listings for everything and geo coordinates would also be very useful, however I don't think that'd be absolutely mandatory for putting the Guide tag on it. When we want to make a Star of it comes formatting phone numbers and currency and such.

 * Other than that, information-wise the article is quite good and really I look forward to having a proper beach destination as one of next (Northern Hemisphere) winter's DotMs! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * We might consider classifying places geographically as well as or rather than by price range. Some of this is done already.

 * Perhaps we could even break the article up into one for each major beach, as large cities are broken into districts? That would help eliminate some duplication; e.g. Bulabog gets described twice, under "Do/Kiteboarding" and again at "Sleep/Bulabog". Pashley (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea, why not? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Boracay actually was Dotm in April, 2009, so its status was presumably downgraded from Guide to Usable at some point. I may have even downgraded the article, myself, because it was for some time a mess of touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I do not think Boracay would be a good DotM candidate until its sanitation/sewage problems are resolved and the threatened government shutdown of the whole island (see next section) either gets cancelled or has ended.

 * Other beach destinations that might be better candidates are Panglao or Puerto Galera; both are rated Usable & would need some work before being good nominees, though. Pashley (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 * As I stated immediately above your post, Boracay was already a DotM, in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sewage & other problems
We do mention problems with raw sewage being dumped in the sea but that, or at least the government response, has gotten more severe of late. Duterte backs six-month Boracay shutdown Pashley (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Boracay closed for 6 months starting April 26, says Roque Pashley (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 * That was a Philippine source. Here's an international one Philippine island a 'cesspool,' will close for 6 months. There is now a caution box at Boracay, but we need to track developments & perhaps update the page. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Probably the closure notice box should be mentioned at the top of the page instead of just under the understand page? Also notify users that some info in the page might become outdated once Boracay is open again to the public since the government plans to demolish non-compliant businesses.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * ✅ Done.
 * Should we add suggestions for alternate destinations? Bohol? Puerto Galera? El Nido? Others? Pashley (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * While I'm not familiar with the Philippines, I think that would be a good idea given that Boracay is/was one of the country's most popular beach destinations. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * See also 2018_Boracay_closure. Pashley (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-opening?
They said six months when they closed it April 26, so re-opening might be soon; 2018 Boracay closure and redevelopment says Oct 26.

Web search turns up other stories Telegraph Philippine source ‘Where will tourists stay if only a third of Boracay reopens?’ which say Oct 26, but with only about 30% of businesses open. Some stories talk of a limit on number of visitors.

Does anyone here know more? This almost certainly needs updating soon. Pashley (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Boracay reopened again last October 26, but numerous bans have been in place, such as bans on partying and fire dancing. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No smoking?
A friend saw a blog post claiming that since re-opening the entire island has been declared smoke-free. Neither smoking nor cigarette sales are allowed anywhere.

If this is true, we should mention it. Can anyone confirm it? Pashley (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

re-opening again?
I suppose like nearly everything else in the country, B has been shut down for COVID, though I do not see anything about that in the article.

This article says re-opening Oct 1 with restrictions; you need a negative COVID test to get in. Pashley (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boracay


text:
Talk:Bordeaux

Deletion
Hi. I deleted the following- the city itself is one of the 5 biggest cities in France, with a population of about 660,000 people including suburbs.

As I researched it and apparently Nice is the 5ht largets city in France. --(WT-en) MarinaKMarinaK.

Deletion
Hi. I deleted this- As mentioned before, Bordeaux is known for its red wine, and has also a lot of local pastries that you cannot find elsewhere in France (if not in the world). The canneleés are only the most known example of such a pastry.

As I already mentioned the above wine and pastries in the Buy section. I have added restaurant and cafe listings to add to this section. Thanks. --(WT-en) MarinaK 18:27, 3 October 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

Bordeaux districts - What is happening?
I notice that some districts have been created for Bordeaux, though the article seem to follow a large city, rather than a huge city, template and the name of the districts is not preceeded with Bordeaux/. Consequently, I am not sure if this means an attempt is being made to districtify the article or if someone is simply not following the Manual of Style. What is going on? - (WT-en) Huttite 16:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Bordeaux is the capital of what?
The article mentions that Bordeau is the capital of Centre but that link leads to a disambiguation page. Shouldn't it be capital of its department or region. What is correct? - (WT-en) Huttite 16:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Centre?
Changed "capital of Centre" to "the department of Gironde in the region Aquitaine", because Bordeaux is very very far away from Centre to begin with, and the link itself didn't work either.

restaurants
Living in Bordeaux I can say that some of the selected restaurants are very bad and not worth to visit.

I agree. I add "l'entrecôte". But we can add "marché des capucins" too --Boudienny (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Drink
I think the drink section is not well organized. I think we could sort the bars in many categories :
 * Wine bar (we are in Bordeaux, don't forget) ;
 * Irish pub (there are many Irish/English pub in Bordeaux, because of the history) ;
 * Bar with terrace ;
 * Dancing bar.

Deletion
I deleted this : "While the entrance is free to the majority of the clubs, don't get there drunk or you will not be let in.", because you have to pay to get into the most of the clubs.--Boudienny (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

By Boat
(possible added sub-section for "Get in")

Have visited the city twice while on ocean cruises. Believe that during the late-Spring to early-Fall "season", many other cruise ships also stop there...but under limiting conditions. From apparently decent sources, have put-together the following; would appreciate if someone who knows more than I can make sure it's accurate before putting it in the article:
 * "Cruise ships occasionally visit. Only rather modest ships can go up the river to dock at the city.  Others must dock near the village of le Verdon (sur Mer), more than 60 miles from Bordeaux (and a significant walk to the village).  The port and le Verdon are not served by any public transport or taxi service adequate for so many people.  To see the city (or country-side), the ship may offer shuttle service, or passengers must elect in-advance to take guided tours."

Thanks for the help, Hennejohn (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both banners look good, but yours is a beautiful photo. I tend to favor it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the new one. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also favor the lower banner. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Go players
Early in the Alpha Go movie it shows professional Go player Fan Hui playing outside Jeux Barjo in Bordeaux, presumably giving lessons. That seems worth adding; some travellers might be quite interested.

But is he still doing that? On what schedule & at what cost? Also, web search turns up two places named Jeux Barjo, a bar & a store. Which one? Pashley (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd like to add both a listing here & a link from Go, but I do not know enough & the French article does not seem to have anything. Anyone? Pashley (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I've added the bar to "Do" since it feels like the games are primary and the drinks are secondary. They offer a multitude of games, many modern of the D&D or Warcraft stable, and don't single out Go. Given Fan Hui's busy schedule teaching computers to beat himself, he might turn up for a tournament or PR event but he isn't going to haunt the place like a casino hustler. Grahamsands (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pashley (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger
I propose merging Villenave-d'Ornon into Bordeaux. It's only a few km out and its POIs can easily sit in See / Elsewhere. Grahamsands (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) - DONE 24 / 7

title: Talk:Bordeaux


text:
Talk:Borjomi

There are still listings for "Borjomi Hostel" at 17 Kostava Street on at least hostels.com and their own Facebook page. They definitely do not exist as of yesterday, June 23 2012. There is no sign on the outside of the building but there is still a large sign in the inner courtyard. The neighbours living in and around there tell me it's not operating but I have no further details since nobody there spoke English and my Georgian wasn't sufficient. — (WT-en) Hippietrail 04:58, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Borjomi


text:
Talk:Borobudur

Borobudur
This is a slightly strange one as we do not yet have a monument at star status. I am therefore a little unsure about exactly how much academic detail about Borobudur should be included. I have tried not to dumb it down too much, whilst also bearing in mind that we are not an encyclopedia. It would be straightforward to add lots more detail, but I am unsure about the need for that?

The article also covers some nearby monuments. I have not though included any other types of nearby attractions or activities. I figured that the related temples on the Kedu Plain belong in a Borobudur article, but the local golf course doesn't! By necessity, the article is quite heavy with prose and relatively light on templated listings.

Heading off one question I can anticipate coming, I tried using a park template for this article some 2 years ago, and it does not work.

Anyway, I am now very pleased with the article, and think it is ripe for a star nomination. Finally, please remember to clear cache when viewing the article as ancient versions keep re-appearing (for me at least). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:30, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Support, My personal view is that most people who go somewhere like Borobudur will either expect at least the current depth of "academic" detail, worthy of such a site, or certainly appreciate the information that is currently provided. To make it any lighter would not be appropriate. As (WT-en) Burmesedays has suggested, the site itself determines an article that is quite heavy with prose and relatively light on templated listings. I also agree that the article could accommodate some more detail but it is adequately provided for in it's current form. It reads well. Is the ticket office still using an exchange rate of Rp 9,000 = US$1?(WT-en) felix 13:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)--

 * Comment. Thanks for the support Felix, but is it really necessary to be showing the measurement conversions which you have just added? I think this is both butt-ugly and unnecessary.--(WT-en) burmesedays 02:53, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * The manual of style strongly suggests conversions be included. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:13, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes, that is why I did them, so it would be MoS/Star article compliant. It does also help the people who are not acquainted with the metric system. I agree it can be a bit ugly at times but it is informing. I come across a lot of people who cannot visualise 100 mm, or 10 cm, and don't know if it is a yard long or a fraction of a foot, and others who are sure a foot is something that belongs in a shoe. Sorry if I made the article "butt ugly", that was not my intention and I hope you will forgive me. Remember it is the content that counts and it still remains quite attractive in the Borobudur article despite the feet.. -- (WT-en) felix 11:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * By the way (WT-en) Burmesedays, a little off topic but I am also having caching problems and have to keep clearing them, I assumed it was at my end though, but did think it was a bit odd I was getting the same issue using two entirely different browsers. It is not just related to the Borobudur article. The time-outs are also ongoing and I am getting occasional server not available and some 404 errors when trying to access WT articles or upload edits. Lasts for hours at a time. -- (WT-en) felix 11:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Indeed. But that's largely ignored I think? Certainly when looking around other star articles, that is the case. Showing the conversion of 2.5 cm to 1 inch (as a measure of ash fall during the 2010 eruption of Merapi) seems especially pointless to me. If that conversion has to to stay then so be it, but it's ugly to my eye. Same goes for saying a hotel is .... 200m (655 feet) from the entrance. For the sake of consistency, if these stay I will also have to convert other measurements in the article.--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I agree that the hotel distance is a bit clunky but the ash measurement is useful to visualise the depth. I actually thought I had got all the measures.. My personal view is the dual measures do provide useful information. It is especially useful for longer trip distances, height of mountains and similar. However I agree 200 m (655 ft) looks clunky. I should really have been 200 m (650 ft) for the sake of tidiness and really is unecessary as (I hope) most people can understand that smaller measures expressed as metres can be roughly equivalent to yards, also if someone cannot visualise 200 m then they are probably not going to make to Borobudur in the first place. However if we do them all then it is odd to leave some out because just because we don't like them. It would be good if there was some flexibility in this, Star article or not. However I am going to revert the (XXXft) from the hotel listings as I also think they are quite unecessary and agree they are quite unattractive. I think the other conversions are appropriate though for article usefullness and will leave them for later review as per this nomination process. I do understand this is not WP and we are not trying to be encyclopedic here but I believe measure conversions in general are in the travellers interest.-- (WT-en) felix 11:52, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Felix, picking and choosing which measurements to convert is worse than showing them all. We must be consistent. Either we don't post conversions (my preference and in line with lots of other star articles), or we convert them all. --(WT-en) burmesedays 12:16, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Actually, I think the intent of the WT:measurements article was that only the more difficult and important conversions be shown—I get that impression, at least, from the examples, which are limited to long distances (km/miles) and temperature (F/C), and the occasional height question. Accordingly, it might be appropriate to provide conversions for mileage/kilometerage in the get in/get around sections (maybe—the map probably already covers this concern), and perhaps for the height of the monument itself. I think it's reasonably fair to assume that anyone who has been to science class can understand 2.5 cm, and in general we don't need to gunk up the article with excessive conversions. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:29, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Noted and done. --(WT-en) burmesedays 00:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Support — nice article. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:23, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Support. This is a fascinating place! I have a few suggestions, but I do think the article already strikes a nice balance between too much and too little information. Especially if most visiting is done by people wandering around on their own touching and defacing statues, they will need a good pocket guide to help them understand what, exactly, they are defacing. Anyway, suggestions: 1) Perhaps add more or generally rethink the early history section. It struck me as a bit disjointed, and didn't answer questions that would immediately come to mind (who built this and why?), although those answers are perhaps not forthcoming. 2) The map grey regions look a bit off—maybe they could be lightened? Right now they almost look greyed out. 3) A height scale on the cross section map would be awesome. 4) Is the recommendation for #Around Borobudur to use a car? Or is it practical to visit these other sites without one? 5) What are the opening times for the other sites, and how is it possible to climb back up Borobudur for the sunset if the monument closes at 5PM? 6) Try to think of something creative to say for "Drink" :P  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:29, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Thanks for all that Peter. The article so needed a fresh set of eyes. Half the problem is that I have been there way too many times, and it has become too easy to make assumptions. On your specific suggestions:
 * Early history. I see you have made a few good edits yourself to this section and let me try to clarify a little more. A key problem is that the history of the Sailendra Dynasty and just after is both poorly recorded, and confusing.
 * The road map - will do.
 * Height scale on the diagram - I will try. The base image itself is traced from an old academic book which I don't have a copy of, and I am a little unsure if it is 100% to scale (although it looks about right).
 * Other sites can be visited anytime in the hours of daylight and I will state as much. Climbing back up for sunset is ... errr... "not exactly officially sanctioned".... but I have managed it and and so have others :). I will clarify that it is the entrance that closes at 5PM.
 * Drink. Sigh... I will try. Actually, this is a prime example of an article where Eat and Drink should be combined I think? --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:08, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
 * On the road map I was using the normal grey background for a district map. Rather than lightening it, I have darkened it a little using c0c0c0 from the regionmap template. Is that more pleasing on the eye? --(WT-en) burmesedays 00:28, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree with (WT-en) Peter Talk, some heights on the elevation diagram would be a good added feature. Also a mention of the relative proportioning ratios maybe something to consider. I went and had a look at the WP article and found they have one there illustrating this. If this was done it may be appropriate to incorporate elevation measures and the proportional relationships (9:6:4) into a single diagram if it did not get too visually busy as an outcome. -- (WT-en) felix 03:47, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Yep, that's the source picture for the diagram I did Felix. I can work out the heights from the 9:6:4 proportions. Not sure they are interesting in themselves except to a student of ancient architecture, but they can provide rough heights for each level. I will do that.--(WT-en) burmesedays 05:44, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I suspect you might be correct about the limited interest. The detail is probably similar in some ways to the use of the 'golden mean' (1:1.61803) in many classical buildings, including the Acropolis and describing it may assist some in understanding the proportions of the building. Certainly as you have noted they should assist in calculating the relative heights for the diagram. Actually describing those ratios in the diagram may be of interest if it can easily be incorporated without excessively confusing the diagram but the heights are a far more important aspect than the proportional ratios. BTY you are doing a great job on the article and it is looking really good. -- (WT-en) felix 10:34, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Support. The only concern I have relates to the Do section. The first two paragraphs do not describe any kind of activity, but are better placed in a Respect section. For the rest, it's an awesome read. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:20, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
 * You are quite right and done. I just wanted to get that be nice to the locals message across to counteract the usual whinging traveller stuff that is published elsewhere.  But you are certainly right - it should be in Respect.--(WT-en) burmesedays 00:18, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Comment. Have now added a height scale to the cross section diagram, and with that, I think all comments made so far have been addressed. Any more comments please?--(WT-en) burmesedays 05:35, 8 September 2011 (EDT

Nice work (WT-en) burmesedays, this is a nice article. -- (WT-en) felix 05:52, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Nice

Out of date information?
I haven't been to Borobudur and have been doing some research - it looks like the point in the article that you can't touch or enter the temple is incorrect. The information online is a little unclear, but it appears you can climb for around $100USD, or just walk around it for $25. Happy to be corrected by anyone with recent experience on this point. —The preceding comment was added by 220.253.127.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Check the TripAdvisor reviews, which are as recent as the 14th and 18th of this month. They say you cannot access the temple. Ground Zero (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Borobudur


text:
Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. ---

English Spelling Irrelevancies
For some reason, Americans have been making irrelevant spelling changes to this page. If someone contributes "flavour" as opposed to "flavor" - it is not wrong, they're just using English/Canadian/Australian spelling as opposed to US spelling. Don't bother wasting time making irrelevant changes like that as both "flavor" and "flavour" are correct!

Regions
The B&H Tourism Assocation presents the country as five regions which (refreshingly) bear no resemblance to the political gerrymander of Srpska vs. Federation-B&H, but are instead fairly easy to draw on a map and seem travel-friendly: Any objections to taking the geographic route rather than the political/ethnic route? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Herzegovina
 * Sarajevo Region
 * Central Bosnia
 * Northwest Bosnia
 * Northeast Bosnia

You could, but it is not clear to me from the article whether it is safe and unproblematic to travel from one entity to the other. Maybe you could also specify that. 88.117.112.28 06:37, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

 * OK, so I stuck my hands way down the hornets nest, and tried to come up with something neutral. This proposal overlooks the Federation and Republic boundaries completely (on purpose, Per Todds comments above), and instead focuses on a mix of 3 indisputable historic regions (Bosanska Krajna, Herzegovina & Posavina) and lends the rest of the division from the official tourism agency . I'd really like some comments - before implementing this, and will leave it up for 2 weeks. As for the anonymous comment above, the Inter-Entity_Boundary_Line is unguarded and crossing it pretty much resembles crossing a US state line.

 * Se the proposed division on the right hand image ->

 * --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

 * It is unproblematic to go from one part to the other, as long as you keep to roads and paths (due to the risks of mines). But somehow I think its a bit too idealistic a division for wikivoyage - (which in a sense is also political), as it pretends theres no such thing as political issues? Also, what do you want to achieve with a division in parts? There are not many big articles in Bosnia, and it doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to make further subdivisions, whereas many towns are actually quite empty? -- (WT-en) Eiland 10:00, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Well seeing that the Bosnian tourist organisation has gone the same route, I'd like if you could expand your thoughts on the Republic/Federation division a little? Also while I know there is not much content, we also need to have a sensible hierarchy, that would work as coverage grows - I Don't think 5 regions are too much. What if we merged Posavina and Northern Bosnia into one region (and maybe less so Sarajevo & central)? I'm willing to take sensible advice here, I've only been in Bihac and Sarajevo (and the southern parts of Herzegovina before the war). --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:41, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Its in the interest of the BiH tourism agency to play down anything related to nationalistic tensions or other scary things, but that doesnt mean there arent any. But I agree to have the RS/Federation division is abit too much going with the flow of silly politicians. But this is a non-dicussion as long as there is no content - and i dont see it growing any time soon, so i wont spend too much time on it. I am going to Mostar for the weekend :) -- (WT-en) Eiland 11:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

 * bump, any other thoughts on this? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:15, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Bump again. This will soon be the last country left in Europe without a WT map or a region structure. Thoughts on Stefan's proposed scheme anyone? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:54, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Given the facts that the travel between the entities can be done unimpededly, distinct banknotes of two entities are legal tender anywhere in the country, and language is not a barrier (Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are practically the same, though they use Cyrillic in Serbian part I guess), I don't see any reason not to implement Stefan's proposal; a hierarchy based on entities with such turning and twisting boundaries would be hard indeed. However, having a "North" just south of another region seems a little problematic to me, may "Northeast" be a better naming? – (WT-en) Vidimian 05:20, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

In fact, now I come to think of it, the B&H Tourism Association is the touristic agency of the Federation of BiH. See the infobox I just made. In principle, wikivoyage using this division can be interpreted as support for the unifying aspirations of the Federation; and against the strict entity border maintenance aspirations of the RS. But I wont push this unfair matter of fact :) -- (WT-en) Eiland 11:28, 22 January 2011 (EST)

 * Hi. That sounds like an interesting trivia. However, when added to the "regions" section as an infobox, it pushes the map below in a rather ugly way, at least in my small size screen (10.1", I guess?). So, it might be better if we move it to somewhere more suitable at "understand", perhaps in a section in which tourism in the country is discussed and perhaps as prose, rather than in an infobox. – (WT-en) Vidimian 17:24, 25 January 2011 (EST)

 * I agree it distorts the layout somewhat, so maybe its better to move it to understand. I prefer it the infobox, because it is not so important for tourists ("here you find a hotel") but it illustrates a bit the dynamics of the the current political situation. -- (WT-en) Eiland 06:13, 27 January 2011 (EST)

 * It looks good now, especially as it aligns (at least on my screen) with the "constitution" section, where the political entities are discussed. I've removed the "Did you know" part from its header, though, as that looks kind of cliché to start an infobox with such an expression. – (WT-en) Vidimian 06:51, 27 January 2011 (EST)

FOOD
Could you please make sure you SPELL things correctly if you plan to make edits to the FOOD section? I think this was a beautifully-written article and small edits, likely by the locals, are really messing up the spelling. If you plan to add something, by all means do, but go to a website like www.dictionary.com and make sure that the word you intend to add means what you *think* it means and assure that the spelling is correct!!! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 216.232.195.232 (talk • contribs)

Regions listing colors
I see only white space next to the "Regions" listings for Herzegovina and Northeastern Bosnia. How did that happen? I've looked at the history back to 28 February, 2015 and still see the problem. More importantly, I hope someone will fix it. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. The hashtags before the color codes were missing. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ϒpsilon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reconstructed mosque reopened
There is no article about the town of Foca, evidently. Should there be? If not, where should this mosque be listed? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48160101 Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Foča — is this another town with the same name? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like that's it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, the name of the correct article was actually listed on Foca which is a disambiguation page. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Landmines Bosnia.jpg
 * This sucks. The map is on the page, and the linked page has a copyright on it, so it will have to be removed, unless someone else understands the Serbo-Croatian text and it is not a generic copyright (the stupid page won't let me copy and paste the copyright notice, so that I could do a Google translation). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We sadly won't. The copyright notice on the Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Centre website says "Sva prava zadržana" which means "All rights reserved" (according to Google Translate). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Landmines Bosnia.jpg

title: Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina