text:
Talk:Southeast Asia

To user jpatokal!

Why do you keep removing my link? It's good website with many visitors everyday. It offers an in-depth view about the area visited. It serves as a complement to Lonely Planet books and websites such as this. I was also thinking about writing some articles here, but that may not be welcome either? Explain yourself!

 * Greetings and welcome to Wikivoyage. You are very welcome to contribute your own content here, but Wikivoyage has a fairly strict policy for external links: basically, all Wikivoyage articles should be self-sufficient and we do not link to secondary sources (like other travel guides or image galleries). (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:14, 29 Dec 2004 (EST)

Splitting Southeast Asia
I wonder if it would be at all of value to split Southeast Asia into its insular and peninsular subsections. --(WT-en) Evan 00:31, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * As someone who lives and travels extensively in the regions, I would say no. It's a fairly coherent whole, there is no natural dividing line, and 11 countries is reasonably close to the 7+/-2 ideal. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:18, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * That's what I think, too. --(WT-en) Evan 01:41, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

Cities list
There are now 9 cities, but there is no city from Vietnam. I see Laos is featured twice, with both Vientiane and Luang Prabang. Two questions: which city of Vietnam should be included, Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City? And which of Laos should we let go? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:35, 14 January 2010 (EST)

 * I vote for Luang Prabang and Ho Chi Minh City, they are not the capitals but IMO they are the most interesting cities of the two countries, (WT-en) ClausHansen 17:45, 14 January 2010 (EST)

 * I thought the same, will apply this for now. If anyone objects, I'll hear it here. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:31, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Should Penang be on the list? No doubt it has a very rich cultural heritage, good food and should be on the destination of any traveller but it is not a particularly big city. I would say maybe Hanoi be on the list instead of Penang as it is a much bigger city. Penang can be sufficiently covered in the Malaysia article. (WT-en) Superdog 11:58, 20 January 2010 (EST)

 * Agreed. I have never really looked at that list carefully. I cannot think why Penang is there - it is not much of a city by Asian standards, nor an especially interesting one for travellers. Hanoi (especially), Vientiane or Phnom Penh could replace it.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:59, 20 January 2010 (EST)

 * Penang's not a city at all, we should be listing George Town (Malaysia) if anything, but I agree it doesn't really belong here. Hanoi is probably tops of the three you list, although I could be argued into supporting Phnom Penh as well (it's a bit funny for Vietnam alone to get two cities, when Cambo, Brunei and East Timor have none and way bigger Indon manages with one). (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:37, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * One per country is a better idea I think, having 2 from Vietnam is a bit strange. I'd go for Phnom Penh. Before Vientiane was listed, we could put it back, but then Laos would have 2 cities (though that is more acceptable as Laos has no listing in the "other destinations" list). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 04:54, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * Very good point that Penang is not a city at all! I would be happy with any of the three Indochinese cities suggested previously. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:59, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * I'll be happy with any of them, but I think if you factor in economic importance, it should be Hanoi on the list. In fact, I would think that Luang Prabang should be covered under other destinations, while Vientiane or Phnom Penh replace Luang Prabang. (WT-en) Superdog 11:14, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * LP is an interesting one, but it is a city. It is just an insanely charming, clean and unusual city. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:18, 21 January 2010 (EST)

vietnam and capitalism
Vietnam ist totally not on the road to capitalism ,it's an communist country —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 77.58.245.117 (talk • contribs)
 * Officially, yes; in reality, only in part. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:19, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * No, but i know why you think that, the american new agencys tell that lie. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 77.58.245.117 (talk • contribs)
 * I think those of us who have actually been there (and don't get our news from American news agencies in the first place), can also testament to the fact that Vietnam is very much trying their best to follow in the footsteps of China, which while also officially communist, is very much a Capitalist Technocracy in reality. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:21, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * It is a rampantly capitalist country as any recent visitor will testify. In places this is even out of control - the Vietnamese are less proficient than the Chinese at imposing centralised technocracy. That's probably a good thing. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:43, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * Why should they want to be capitalists? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 77.58.245.117 (talk • contribs)

 * Don't know, ask them? In either case, a much better solution than trolling around, is to think up a neat replacement that everyone can agree on - provided of course you are looking for a solution rather than conflict. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:08, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * Hey why not just say, "Firmly marching down its own road forward" ?

Burma update
Should our article be updated now that Aung San Suu Kyi encourages tourism  to Burma ? -- (WV-en) A l i c e ✉ 08:38, 4 November 2012 (CET)

 * That sounds reasonable to me. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2012 (CET)

 * I see nothing in this page that is outdated with regards to Burma. As for the article on Burma itself, add a mention of the new info if it can be confirmed from a mainstream source (such as a major western newspaper) but please don't remove information that's already there. I notice that you'd removed some information from North Korea - namely that the reason the ROK shut down all Kumgang tourism is that the DPRK military shot and killed a South Korean tourist. I also see you removed all mention of amateur radio being banned in the country. I disagree with the removal of cautionary information; this is serious as we do get situations where a destination has long represented a hazard or problem, someone promoting that destination pops up claiming "but we've changed" (usually because the country is getting desperate for hard currency) and we have no way to be certain how accurate the claim may be. To blindly assume that everything is fine would be like removing all mention of racial discrimination from a description of United States of America the day the Civil War ended, instead of acknowledging that black travellers were the target of continued discrimination well into the 1960s. Report the original warning, report what can be verified independently as to any change in the situation, let the readers decide for themselves. K7L (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)
 * I agree entirely with the general points you make so cogently, K7L.
 * (I deleted the passage about the demise of the single ham radio operator not because it was untrue or un-verifiable but from an editorial judgement that, in a country-level article, it was of only marginal interest to the traveller (especially as all radio transmitters are seized upon entry) to North Korea.
 * I would have no problem with you re-inserting the killing of the tourist. That is a salutary reminder of the dangers of ignoring requests by officials in the DPRK. Please do not think that I excised that passage because I am an apologist for the odious and repressive regimes present in most countries and of which the DPRK is probably the worst example in terms of pervasiveness and the detail of its repression. Please remember that it was I who added (in that same edit) the reading suggestions of: "Escape from Camp 14: One Man's Remarkable Odyssey from North Korea to Freedom in the West by Blaine Harden" and "The Aquariums of Pyongyang, by Kang Chol-Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot: An account of the imprisonment of Kang Chol-Hwan and his family in the Yodok concentration camp in North Korea". I edit other travel wikis and you should note that it was I who added government=Socialist Republic (de facto hereditary totalitarian dictatorship) to the info box there and I would encourage you to make the same clear in our article here.)
 * However, returning to the changing situation in Burma, I do think we should respect and reflect on the public position of the most recently democratically elected leader of Burma (and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) as reported by the BBC. -- (WV-en) A l i c e ✉ 20:58, 4 November 2012 (CET)

I changed to the description of Burma under Southeast_Asia. Comments? Further changes? Pashley (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was a neat move to introduce the contrast between the two empires. I've slightly changed the word order to (I think) make it read less as if we are saying that the military dictatorship has definitely ended, since it's still early days yet. Feel free to revert without further discussion if you think it's worse. -- A l i c e ✉ 06:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Water sports?
This section currently includes: I am inclined to remove both. The first does not strike me as notable enough to be mentioned in a continent-level article. It is not mentioned in Camarines Sur, though that is where we link. Nor is it in Philippines and it is only a one-liner in Naga. The second is not a water sport, just a tourist site, and we already have a link to Palawan under Southeast_Asia.
 * Try wakeboarding at Southeast Asia's largest wakeboarding centre in Camarines Sur, Philippines.
 * Explore one of the world's longest underground rivers in the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park located in Palawan, Philippines.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with your first point when we have some alternative content there; right now would not be the best of times since that section is looking a little thin. Perhaps save it there as a kind of artificial duck lure to encourage more notable listings.

 * For the underground river, it does seem a bit strange to list it in the current section title. However, I do think we need to find a prominent place for this amazing natural feature as to do otherwise would be as if we had an article about Egypt without the Pyramids or the US without the Grand Canyon. Please would others (not Pashley - I think he's already seen this website and made an assessment) look here for why I think that way: new 7 wonders of nature -- A l i c e ✉ 07:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Status?
So if I'm reading this right, SEA is pretty much usable except for the other destination bits like Ha Long Bay, Krabi Province and Palawan? That's a pity then, since they're all pretty diverse regions which will take a long while to get up to speed. Besides that, should See and Do be prose or bullet points? I could probably fill in Eat, but I'm not so sure what other improvements can be made.

For the images, I hope I'm not being too biased towards Singapore, but I just couldn't find a nice fitting picture of Petronas Towers or something that makes KL identifiable. Maybe something from Bangkok would be a good choice though. Also lacking a photo from Mynanmar. -- Torty3 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming the country a city is in
In this context:
 * The main international gateways to South-east Asia are Bangkok (Thailand) and Singapore, with Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) in third place and Jakarta (Indonesia) following suit. Manila (Philippines) also offers ...

Alice just deleted (Philippines) as redundant; she thinks people will know Manila is in the Philippines. She is likely right in most cases, but I want to re-insert in anyway. It is cheap (printed on 100% recycled electrons!) and some people won't know.

I have encountered some amazingly ignorant folk in my travels — a Canadian who did not recognise the name "Gandhi", two Americans who were convinced Indonesia was a Buddhist country, ... — and there is some indication such things are widespread. For example : 60% of surveyed Americans cannot find Iraq on a map, Forty-seven percent could not find the Indian subcontinent on a map of Asia, and about a third could not find Louisiana on a US map. Another link:

This sort of issue was discussed once before Talk:Grand_old_hotels.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Also, I'd have:
 * The main international gateways to South-east Asia are Bangkok (Thailand) and Singapore. Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Jakarta (Indonesia) and Manila (Philippines) also offer ...
 * I think this is more accurate as well as shorter & easier to read. Other opinions on that? Pashley (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Interesting. User:Ikan Kekek took out all the other country names in the lines quoted above (diff ); if one is redundant, they all are. That is true, but I'd say put them all back in. They may be redundant, but that does not mean they are unnecessary.

 * He or she also says in the edit comments "Also, the name of this guide is "Southeast Asia," so "south-east" shouldn't be used." I agree. At least in my dialect, south-east is simply an error; it should be replaced by Southeast everywhere. I suspect that may not be the case for other dialects, though.

 * Other opinions on those questions? Pashley (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * My opinion is that either all the country names should be there or none of them; I don't really care which. I would confirm that "south-east" is incorrect in American English, but it seems to be standard in British English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should aim for consistency (the main purpose of my sloppy edit was to counteract the strange idea that Philippine Airlines was renowned for either its safety or service standards (!)}
 * In most varieties of Commonwealth English that I am familiar with, there is a predilection for capitalised ordinal points of the compass and to either hyphenate or use two separate words for the the subsequent combinations of direction. I think that using the article title of "Southeast Asia" neatly sidesteps these varietal differences. -- Alice from a dodgy Internet connection: 180.190.245.34 04:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fast trains
Bullet trains from China to Singapore seem to be coming, either on a Yunnan-Laos-Thailand route or Guanxi-Vietnam-Cambodia-Thailand, perhaps both. There has also been some talk of a route from China through Burma to India and a high-speed Beijing-Moscow line. There is info on WP.

I do not think this is far enough along we need to put it in the article yet, but it seemed worth noting. One report I saw said Yunnan-Vientiane would go into service 2014, another said 2020 for the route through Vietnam. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fantastic news! (Despite my job, I hate air travel - unless it's in First Class). -- A l i c e ✉ 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Singlish?
This article now has an infobox on "Singlish", a rather unusual dialect found in Singapore. I'd say it belongs in the Singapore article, not this one. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Yeah, definitely not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See section
The 'See' section currently states "It's difficult to choose favourites from a region as varied as Southeast Asia, but picking one representative sight per country:", with then twice a warning "that's ONE (1) per country, alphabetical order by country name". Is this a rule for continental regions? (I see different practices in other articles). Personally I think it would be nicer if the section could be written as prose, rather than a rather random list of see listings. Would it be allowed to change the section to prose, with several subheadings (as for example I have done for the See section for Western Java). I have not been to all Southeast Asian countries, so certainly I couldn't write all of it, but would it be okay to start writing it with a few subsections? I would think of for example the following (I don't know suitable titles for all the subsections): Another section could also be City life, but that would also give overlap with some other sections perhaps. Also the sections above do not directly have a place for war memorials and related things. Any input would be much appreciated. --ErwinFCG (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Landscapes and nature: key national parks/nature areas in the region: volcanoes; wetlands; rainforest; rice fields; etc.
 * Beaches/coasts/islands/marine life: think of Ha Long Bay, Raja Ampat, Krabi, etc.
 * Ancient temples and related old structures: Angkor Wat, Borobudur, Bagan, etc.
 * Colonial sights and architecture: remains of the colonial times, such as Malacca, Vigan, Singapore/Riverside, Batavia, the Art Deco of Bandung, colonial forts, etc.
 * Museums: the several national museums and other key museums in the region.
 * Modern sights: the skyscrapers of Singapore and other cities, modern monuments, etc.
 * Places of worship: the largest mosques, churches, temples, etc. (although I realise there will be overlap with some other sections).

 * Go for it. Unlike "Cities" and "Other destinations", which are normally limited to 9 listings in non-bottom-level region articles per 7+2, "See" and "Do" are indeed envisioned as prose sections. See WV:Region article template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Sure, go ahead. There is a balance to be struck, though. For example Angkor Wat is worth a mention at this level, but most of the lesser temples should be left to country, region or city articles. Pashley (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with what you're saying. Mentioning and linking only a few really outstanding sights in each category would be the way to go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It indeed is best to have See as prose. South_America is a good example (yup, written largely by myself so of course it's exactly the way I prefer See sections to look :)). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your replies! I understand the point of linking to only a few of the most important sights. I will attempt to start the section. As I mentioned, I have not been to all countries in Southeast Asia, so additions from others will be welcome! Thanks also for the South America example. --ErwinFCG (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I haven't been to Laos, but my brother liked the palace in Luang Prabang a lot and just liked the town in general. That was in 2003, so a lot has probably changed, but of course the castle is still there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I have now 'completed' the See section with prose on the main sights of Southeast Asia. I have counted how many times each country is mentioned to keep some balance, but of course the larger countries are mentioned much more often than the small ones (e.g. Indonesia 28 times, Vietnam 17 times, East Timor only once). I have attempted to at least include all World Heritage Sites. Maybe I have in some instances gone a bit too much in detail on Indonesia, while perhaps leaving out important sights for the countries I am not so familiar with (such as Myanmar). Nevertheless, I hope this section provides a good basis. I will try to write similar prose texts also for the 'Do' section. --ErwinFCG (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mount Mayon Volcano
I've added this tourist destination of the Philippines. Mayon V (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 * And I've reverted it because per Wikivoyage policy, there are supposed to be no more than 9 "Cities" and 9 "Other destinations" in country and sub-country regional articles, and that's even more true of multi-country regions and continents. If you think that volcano should replace one of the current 9 "Other destinations", please make an argument about which one it should replace and why, and wait to see if you can convince a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Also, read the discussion on the "See" section right above this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dominant religion of Vietnam?
Per Vietnam:

According to a 2007 survey 81% of Vietnamese people did not believe in a god.[406] Based on government findings in 2009, the number of religious people increased by 932,000.[407] The official statistics, presented by the Vietnamese government to the United Nations special rapporteur in 2014, indicate the overall number of followers of recognised religions is about 24 million of a total population of almost 90 million.[408] According to the General Statistics Office of Vietnam in 2019, Buddhists account for 4.79% of the total population, Catholics 6.1%, Protestants 1.0%, Hoahao Buddhists 1.02%, and Caodaism followers 0.58%.[2] Other religions includes Islam, Bahaʼís and Hinduism, representing less than 0.2% of the population.

The majority of Vietnamese do not follow any organised religion, though many of them observe some form of Vietnamese folk religion.

Based on this, I don't think it's correct to say that any school of Buddhism is the dominant religion in Vietnam today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree. Even especially when there's more Catholics per Wikipedia. But re-writing it is something that I'll leave to . SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 * OK, the official stats can be a little misleading though because of the way different religions have become intertwined with each other in some parts of Asia. Many people may officially register as non-religious, but still go to Buddhist or Taoist temples to perform rites during important festivals or life celebrations, and that is the case for lots of people on Vietnam, who practise a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Vietnamese folk religion. And even in Singapore, many of my relatives who are nominally non-religious still go to Buddhist or Taoist temples to perform rites for important festivals or life events. And even my own parents are nominally Buddhist, but will still perform the rites when they go to Taoist temples. So in a country like Vietnam, things aren't always so clear cut religion-wise. And the same applies to other Asian countries like China, Japan and Thailand too. It's not like Christianity or Islam, where it's very clear cut that you're either a believer or not, and where you have to practise the religion exclusively.

 * So anyway, how do you guys suggest addressing this complicated situation then? Because the reality is that even if they may be nominally non-religious, most Vietnamese still visit Buddhist temples for important festivals (unless they are Christian of course). And also, with regard to Buddhism, there isn't a god per se, and the Buddha himself even claimed that no god can be called the creator, and that he himself was not a god. The dog2 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that makes sense. It's quite the opposite to Australia where most people say they're Christian but only go to church once or twice a year ;-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So what do you think it means when "according to the General Statistics Office of Vietnam in 2019, Buddhists account for 4.79% of the total population"? Are those statistics restricted to people who go to temple at least once a week or something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite arbitrary. It's probably just based on what people declare to the government. The problem with this is that in many countries, you can legally have either one religion or no religion, and you can't officially register as having multiple religions. So people who adopt practices from multiple religions may just register as non-religious for the sake of bureaucracy, but they may go to a Buddhist temple one day, and a Taoist temple the next. The dog2 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I don't know how to address this, but here's an attempt:
 * "Traditionally, Mahāyāna Buddhism has been the dominant religion in Vietnam, though today, many Vietnamese people call themselves non-religious in surveys and rarely go to temple." Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd leave the last part out. If you look carefully at the survey, the "non religious" groups include Vietnamese folk religion. And in reality, Buddhism has been integrated with Vietnamese folk religion to a large extent. So just because they declare themselves non-religious does not necessarily mean they don't visit the temple regularly.The dog2 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I think we need a different source to be able to try to quantify that. Shall we say that traditionally, Mahāyāna Buddhism and folk religions that are often syncretized with it have been the dominant religions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn’t this similar to China where most people say they are Atheists because this point of view is endorsed by the government, but actual religious practice (for now) is different? The Dog2 seems to be making sense on this. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it's similar to China in this regard. Although to be accurate, religion is only banned for people working in government jobs in China. Private citizens are allowed to have a religion. But also, religion in China has traditionally be syncretized, so the average person practises Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion to an extent. I came from a family that left China before the communist revolution, so I am quite familiar with traditional Chinese religious practices. And Vietnamese culture has historically been strongly influence by China, so the traditional religious practices are very similar to southern China.

And yes, I'd be happy to state that the Vietnamese have traditionally practised Vietnamese folk religion with Mahayana Buddhism. The dog2 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I feel like your latest edit handled this well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Hopefully this is good enough. The dog2 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thailand
Something strange has happened with shape of Thailand on the map (archive). Can anyone fix it? May be related to this (follow links in the discussion). 217.117.125.83 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 * You must be talking about the dynamic map. I'll try deleting it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seasons in Malaysia
From the article:

"The equatorial parts of Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines and southern Thailand, have only two seasons, wet and dry..."

Granted, global warming has changed some things, but is it not still the case that there are actually three seasons: wet, dry and then the nameless season the rest of the year when it sometimes rains and sometimes doesn't? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Do you think it would be better to say that it has no distinct seasons then? Singapore is a little cooler in December and January because of the monsoon, but it's still not a cool season by any stretch of the word. The dog2 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 * It absolutely would not be right to say that it has no distinct seasons, and especially not when considering the East Coast! I personally experienced staying home for a month and half for two years because it rained streams of water continuously during the monsoon season, and it was quite notably cooler then than during the rest of the year! But even on the West Coast, the monsoon (which is during a different time of year) can bring flooding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Why don't you take a stab then? If I remember correctly, the dive resorts off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia close in November-February because of the monsoon. The dog2 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Does the whole area have three seasons, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 * For Singapore, I'd say no. I'd say it's just dry and rainy. But even the "dry" season is in relative terms, because it can and does rain quite a bit. The dog2 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Do you think it might be best to differentiate between the East and West Coasts of Malaysia? The monsoons are different, and the one from the South China Sea is much stronger. Malaysia covers these well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 * In the Malaysia article yes. For this one, I don't know how much detail we want to go into since it's a generic article for all of Southeast Asia. Speaking of monsoons, since Singapore is at the tip of the Malay Peninsula, it is affected by both monsoons, though the one from the South China Sea is the stronger one and more noticeable. The dog2 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like generalizations over too wide an area are problematic. We should either try to be accurate or make really general remarks that reference 2-3 seasons, with monsoons at different times from the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I would lean towards making very general remarks. We should go into more detail in each individual country article. The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you OK with this edit, which still oversimplifies things by not mentioning the two different monsoons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southeast Asia


text:
Talk:South China

10 > 9; should a city go?
Our current cities list has ten, policy says nine. Which one goes?

The one that is not on the map, & therefore the obvious candidate for removal, is Quanzhou. I'm inclined to keep it even though it is not important today, because it was so important historically. Marco Polo called it far the busiest port on Earth, etc. On the other hand, I won't be really upset if I am overruled; it is linked from Fujian and from its region.

Others that might go are Haikou, even though it is a provincial capital, or Zhanjiang, even though it is the only place we list in Western Guangdong. Neither is remarkably interesting or particularly important to travellers.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 * A few years have gone by & no change. Is this a problem? I'd say Zhanjiang could go. Pashley (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Zhanjiang for sure... Haikou actually gets a lot of tourists who visit Hainan Island. 17:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree. I've gone ahead and removed Zhanjiang from the list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

New Cities and Other destinations discussion
Now that Fujian is in East China and Guangxi is in this region, three of the featured places in "Other destinations" need to be removed (probably moved), as do Fuzhou, Xiamen and Quanzhou. However, Guilin should be moved in and Yangshuo probably deserves a mention, if not a listing as one of the 9 cities. I'll go ahead and move things around a bit, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * When I moved the Fujian cities out of this guide and the Guangxi cities in, there were still 9 cities, so maybe it's OK, but is Yangshuo important enough, or should a different city replace it? Also, should there be more listings in "Other destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say take out Yangshuo, or maybe incorporate it into a one-liner description of Guilin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * But then we'd have 8 "Cities" listings and could choose to add another. In that case, which one might be good to add? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I looked at the three province articles and nothing jumped out at me. Of course, it's perfectly fine to have a list of 8 cities. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it would be OK to stop at 8, but in a country as populous as China, couldn't we find a suitable 9th place? What about Sanya, or perhaps Dongguan? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Sanya is already listed. Dongguan isn't that interesting for tourists from what I understand – mostly manufacturing – and we already list three cities in the Pearl River Delta. A lot of people in Shenzhen seem to go to Huizhou on weekend trips, and Shaoguan has also been recommended to me as a destination, so if you think we need to bring it up to 9, maybe one of those would work, but I don't think either of them are nearly as well known as the cities currently listed. Come to think of it, Shaoguan might be better covered by listing Danxia Mountains in the "Other destinations" section, because that's the main attraction there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd keep Yangshuo. At least for the backpacker types, it is the most important tourist destination in the region. Banana_Pancake_Trail mentions it & not anywhere else in this region. Personally, I've spent several weeks there & only an afternoon in Guilin. Pashley (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I cannot think of anywhere that urgently needs adding. Maybe Zunyi which gets few international tourists but was important as a stop on the Long March & gets lots of Chinese tourists? If we did need to lose a city, I'd remove Shantou. Pashley (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Map needs updating
If someone with abilities in static mapmaking could please update the map, that would be very helpful! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:South China


text:
Talk:South East England

Although the "official" South East is now the counties NW, W and S of London, this is just to make some useful regions for the EU and regional development boards. Most people in the UK would also include the counties of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex in the Home Counties and the South East. I may change the regions to reflect this if no-one objects. -- (WT-en) DanielC 07:47, 6 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * I agree - in my experience, these counties are more widely considered to be part of the South East.
 * As it is, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire are relegated almost to an afterthought in sections of the East Anglia page, which does not look very good. --(WT-en) David Edgar 13:50, 1 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Yes, I pointed out some time ago that Herts was not part of East Anglia. Much better to have them here. (WT-en) Shep 09:05, 7 February 2010 (EST)
 * Just shows how popular region articles are eh? This was mooted five years ago and today is the first response! :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:08, 7 February 2010 (EST)
 * I guess people just look up the places they plan to visit. Regions might be useful in the case of, say, Indonesia, with one article per island, but in the UK??(WT-en) Shep 09:11, 7 February 2010 (EST)

cities and towns
There is a problem here. Wikivoyage uses "city" in the American sense. Any two-bit town is a "city". So to have a section "cities and towns" is an arbitrary distinction that Americans would not understand. But if we revert to cities only, the rule is only nine in the list so some towns will have to be dropped!(WT-en) Shep 09:08, 7 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:South East England


text:
Talk:South-Eastern

Um, well, I'm thinking this does not fall under Project:what is an article? or our Project:goals and non-goals. Interesting issue though, what to do about cruises, boats, trains, etc... is the Trans-Karoo Expres different from the [not linked to] TGV which is different from Route 66? I see a policy issue coming on. (WT-en) Majnoona 00:44, 28 Jan 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:South-Eastern


text:
Talk:Southeastern Alaska

I moved this article because South-Eastern seemed like a mistake. --(WT-en) Evan 17:11, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Southeastern Alaska


text:
Talk:Southeastern Islands

Islands region
I think adding Menjangan Island in this grouping makes the whole grouping quite useless, as it is located completely at the other side of the island (which makes it hard to write about the history, climate, etc). Maybe we should rename this article in something like Southeastern Islands? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 08:57, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southeastern Islands


text:
Talk:South East Florida

Comments
This region could really be deleted (or redirected, but to what?) as it is completely covered by the two regions listed in it. (WT-en) OldPine 20:34, 8 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:South East Florida


text:
Talk:Southeast Michigan

Duplicate headings
Every super section has duplicate headings of the sub-section, therefore, there it makes no sense to claim something is a duplicate listing. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a complete list. If someone wishes to make highlights as a paragraph and improve the article that's fine, but deleting lists without putting something better in place of them is not right. They can serve as a starting point. Also, it makes no sense to call counties 'regions'. 12.110.178.25 14:23, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Propose renaming this article "Metro Detroit"
Propose that this section be called "Metro Detroit" since it is more widely known that way instead of Southeast Michigan. For Illinois, this section is called "Chicagoland." 12.110.178.25 14:28, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * I find that unneccessary, but what we could do is have an article for Metro Detroit, like what Chicagoland is. Realize-Chicagoland article really is just to list the cities in Metro Chicago.  Because the Chicago article(s) only go on the stricktest Chicago borders.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 14:30, 27 December 2008 (EST).

 * I prefer to have the Detroit article be the for Detroit area, meaning tri-county is fair game, and have the districts be Downtown, Midtown-New Center, Metro East, Metro Northwest, Metro Southwest, and Hamtramck/Highland Park as an oddity, that would solve the need for a Metro Detroit article, but I would go along with a Metro Detroit article if need be.(WT-en) Thomas Paine1776 15:41, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I only have one problem renaming this article to Metro Detroit: Southeast Michigan includes places such as Flint, St. Clair, and Ann Arbor; Metro Detroit only includes Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. So, I think creating a Metro Detroit article is a good idea. --(WT-en) Local  hero  17:56, 27 December 2008 (EST)

 * It would be best to create a Metro Detroit article as a subregion of this page. That way we wouldn't exclude from our hierarchy the counties listed here that do not fall into the Metro area. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:24, 28 December 2008 (EST)

 * I agree. Metro Detroit is a subregion SE Michigan. The only people I've ever heard refer to SE Michigan as "Metro Detroit" are from in the tri-county area.  Let's not confuse people into thinking that Washtenaw, Livingstion, Genesee, Bay, and the other SE Michigan counties are part of Metro Detroit. They're not. Mjz (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Vintage Flipper World
This A2 URL is just a meta-physical beacon for news of progress and local color intelligence. As all-ways, Happy Linking. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southeast Michigan


text:
Talk:Southeast New Mexico

Artesia (New Mexico) & Roswell (New Mexico)
Why does this page directs users to see Roswell for Artesia? Since they're 40 minutes away from each other, I can't believe that travelers see them as one destination, such as Bloomington-Normal. Any other reasoning? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Simply put, there's not much to Artesia but a couple of eateries and motels, an incredibly vile-smelling stockyard, and an even worse-smelling oil refinery. A garden spot it isn't.  It wouldn't be inappropriate to have an Artesia article, but until a need for one is identified, adding an article would be gilding the lily (although "lily" isn't a term I'd use for Roswell either...).  We actually could do with a different article type for "rural areas," in which Artesia information might sensibly fit; there has been discussion of the possibility but nothing has ever been done on it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southeast New Mexico


text:
Talk:Southeast Ohio

East Liverpool, OH is in Columbiana County which is in Northeast Ohio. Look it up.

Marijuana
If you question the isertion about marijuana being grown in the Wayne National Forest, it can be confirmed by a call to the Athens County Sheriff Dept. (WT-en) 2old 14:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, I checked several regions of California, for example, the North Coast, home to "Humbolt County, Ca." that made no specific mention of marijuana farming on public lands.

Which makes me wonder, is this warning REALLY required for a national forest in South East Ohio?

title: Talk:Southeast Ohio


text:
Talk:Southend-on-Sea

To flesh out
This is the list of things I still want to look at for Southend:
 * The shops in the town centre and nearby area
 * List of places to stay - hotels and b&bs
 * Better eating/drinking list including more town-centre pubs. Reviews of the places to eat and some rough prices.
 * Better town history.
 * Better understanding of how the town is laid out.
 * Addition of some more things to see/do in the local area - Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Thorpe Bay and Shoeburyness.
 * Reformat sleep to use the Accomodation listings template.
 * (After reading the style guidelines, reformat the rest of the items as well)

12:59, 14 September 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southend-on-Sea


text:
Talk:Southern Africa

Other destinations
When re-doing the map for this region I noticed that we only have 7 OD's listed. After the re-organisation, I suggest we need one from each of Zambia and Mozambique.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:02, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

 * I suggest either Kafue National Park or South Luangwa National Park in Zambia, and Ilha de Mozambique.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:44, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

 * South Luangwa is fine. But the Victoria Falls can also be seen from Zambia. However, as I've states at the Talk:Africa page, I think Malawi should also be in this grouping. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 05:26, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes, me too. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:42, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Added South Luangwa National Park and Ilha de Mozambique.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

New region map
Map done to reflect the additions of Zambia and Mozambique.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:39, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Nine cities
With the addition of Malawi to Southern Africa, Lilongwe was added to the list of Cities, but that gives us 10. We need to reduce it to nine. Which city should go? Powers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Considering that every nation's capital must be included, Maun looks like the one to remove. Does anyone disagree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Why must every nation's capital be included? Lesotho's and South Africa's capitals are not. (Not that I have a problem with removing Maun, as it's not even on the map.) Powers (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I thought the policy was to include all capitals. No? You're right that Pretoria isn't included, though Cape Town is described as South Africa's legislative capital, but Maseru is included. Anyway, I'll remove Maun, but I'd like clarification on policy about capital cities in super-national region "Cities" listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Swaziland's capital.
 * As for capital cities, we simply can't include them all and stay within our nine-city guideline. You can see this at Central America (no Belmopan), South America (no Brasilia) and Southeast Asia (no Hanoi), for example. There was also extensive discussion on Talk:Central Europe over whether Ljubljana merited inclusion over Munich or Krakow, just for the sake of making sure Slovenia had a city on the list.  Powers (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I do recall the discussion about Ljubljana, now that you mention it.

 * So is the policy that when there aren't more than 9 capitals in a non-bottom-level region, all are listed in "Cities", or is it a looser policy than that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * No, I'm not aware of any such policy. Note Central America, which only has seven countries, but Belize's capital isn't listed. If we have fewer than 9 countries in a continental section I think we would try to get one city in every country listed, but it doesn't have to be the capital. In practice, of course, the capitals will usually be among the most important cities in any given region or continental section. But there's no rule about it.  AFAIK, the only rule regarding capitals is that the capital is listed first in the article corresponding with the administrative division or country of which it is the capital. Powers (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I can understand why Belmopan wouldn't be listed in the Central America guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern Africa


text:
Talk:Southern Alps

I changed "Fijords" into "Fjords" in the See section. Or should that be "Fiords" (as in "Fiordland")? (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 11:02, 31 Mar 2004 (EST)

My dictionary tells me that it's normally written as "fjord", but "fiord" is also accepted as an alternative spelling. (WT-en) Akubra 11:00, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

Extraregion?
Shouldn't this be an extraregion since this is not a region article under South Island? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern Alps


text:
Talk:Southern Azerbaijan

Armenian controlled areas
If I am correct, it is not possible to travel to Agdam and Fuzuli, because they are under control of the Armenian military and travel is not permitted. If I am wrong, we should reincorporate these settlements into the Southern Azerbaijan article. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk

title: Talk:Southern Azerbaijan


text:
Talk:Southern California

Hierarchy
There's a discussion of how we broke down Southern California into regions on the Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy page. --(WT-en) Evan 14:17, 21 Dec 2003 (PST)

Counties
San Bernandino & Riverside are currently being lumped into the Inland Empire region - I'm too lazy to check and see if they actually overlap with what we're calling Southern California, but if not they should be removed. That said, I've never really been convinced that Southern California and the Inland Empire should be split into two separate regions... -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:47, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)

Riverside and San Bernadino Counties are part of Southern California according to all conventions. Riverise County, for instance, is home to a popular travel spot, Palm Springs, which is always considered part of So Cal. Together Riverside and San Bernadino Counties form the Inland Empire, which is part of Southern California, although virtually never used by locals (as in "I'm from the Inland Empire").

 * See also Talk:California. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:18, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * Yes, I saw this. It's wrong about the IE.  Check the wikipedia entry on IE, it correctly considers the IE an integral part of Southern California as do all demographers and historians.  Just trying to help.

SLO, Kern
I rolled back an addition of SLO County and Kern County, since I believe they're both listed elsewhere. --(WT-en) Evan 12:28, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

Santa Barbara, Ventura Counties
Discussion regarding cleaning up discrepancy between California Regional definitions and Southern California subregions currently at Talk:California/divisions. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Updated regional map to reflect California regional hierarchy. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles with Mount Baldy.jpg

title: Talk:Southern California


text:
Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy

Southern California, for Wikivoyage, is a region in the southwest of California. It encompasses Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as all the cities in that area.

Borders:
 * West: Pacific Ocean (but Santa Catalina Island and the Channel Islands are included)
 * North: The Grapevine on highway 5, and that part of highway 101 where it leaves the coast north of Santa Barbara
 * South: The Mexican border
 * East: The Inland Empire, although I'm not sure what the traditional border for this is

Here's a hierarchy for the region. Note that we don't normally do this kind of hierarchical list thing for articles -- it looks terrible, and isn't really useful -- but it can help us hash stuff out.

 * Southern California
 * Santa Barbara County
 * Santa Barbara
 * Carpenteria
 * Goleta
 * Isla Vista
 * Channel Islands
 * Ventura County
 * Ventura
 * Oxnard
 * Los Angeles County
 * Antelope Valley
 * Gateway Cities
 * San Gabriel Valley
 * Santa Clarita Valley
 * West Side
 * Malibu
 * Santa Monica
 * Venice Beach
 * Marina del Rey
 * South Bay (Los Angeles County)
 * Manhattan Beach
 * Hermosa Beach
 * Torrance
 * Palos Verdes
 * San Fernando Valley
 * Encino
 * etc.
 * Metro Area
 * Los Angeles
 * Los Angeles/Downtown
 * Los Angeles/East LA
 * Los Angeles/South LA
 * etc.
 * Santa Catalina Island
 * Avalon
 * Two Harbors
 * Orange County
 * Beach Cities (Orange County)
 * Huntington Beach
 * etc.
 * Inland Cities
 * Anaheim
 * Mission Viejo
 * etc.
 * San Diego County
 * North County
 * Rancho Pensaquitas
 * Scripps Ranch
 * Ensenitas
 * Metro Area
 * San Diego
 * Inland
 * El Cajon

OK, just go ahead and edit that, adding and removing cities and regions. We'll give this a try. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:07, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

Wow you work quick!(WT-en) Ron 12:16, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * I removed the high desert; I think that stuff goes in Desert (California). -- (WT-en) Evan 12:18, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Also, I think the Inland Empire (California) is it's own region, outside Southern California. See California for the ones I listed there. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:20, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Wow! I just went searching on google to see other sites' listings of California regions. Look how close we are to the Open Directory's! Not really cogent for Southern California discussion, but still. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:27, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Hmm, ok i think i see how its structured now. But you would get some diagreement that the Inland Empire is not in Southern California. I also dont think that it would hurt to included the desert region in southern california along with the california section. Its your call. Im gonna read some more before i start adding templates to these.   (WT-en) Ron 12:34, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

While i was updating the Southern California page, i really thought that the westside and south bay portions should be placed into the los angeles metro area. Thoughts?(WT-en) Ron

 * i filled in most of the regions on the southern california page, im not sure if you will agree with the LA breakdown, but i think that it works well. (WT-en) Ron 14:53, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * I don't agree. First, Los Angeles is lost. I also don't like having the Westside and Southbay be part of some greater LA Metro region. That's pretty much what we have Southern California for in the first place! Also, Catalina is not one of the Channel Islands! -- (WT-en) Evan 07:39, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

All right, let's see if we can take another poke at this. I went ahead and broke up Southern California into 5 regions, matching the five counties: Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. I used Ron's breakdown of SD and Orange, and made region pages for those. SB and Ventura are pretty sparse; I think we can leave them as leaf-level regions for now.

For Los Angeles, I added the nine regions listed on the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation's regions page. They may need some fine tuning, but you can see that most of the regions were ones we were dealing with before. My main change was that I considered South LA to be part of the city of Los Angeles, which is in the Metro Area region.

I think the essential thing is that we now have 2 levels of regions of SC: the first one is counties, and the next is sub-county areas.

Los Angeles is just the city of Los Angeles. It can be broken down further into districts, since it's pretty big. But let's not try shoving other cities into it, too! -- (WT-en) Evan 09:48, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

One last thing: for parts of Los Angeles County that are distant from downtown, but still technically part of Los Angeles, let's use the district format. Like, say, Los Angeles/Hollywood. -- (WT-en) Evan 10:22, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Hey Evan that looks great! I dig it. I know that this is not one of the most interesting places in the world to organize, but since its in my backyard i wanted to see it done right. (WT-en) Ron 12:19, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Interesting? Totally! This little exercise has really stretched some of the core concepts of how we organize articles on Wikivoyage. It's been a good test for how we can deal with different kinds of urban geographies. I've been fairly averse to using government-made distinctions (like county borders) for making regions, but I think the key concept here was figuring out that counties in California really do have a lot of cohesion, culturally, geographically, and climactically. Once we were over that hump on using counties as the first level of regions, everything else fell into place. Well, except for the amoeba-like shape of Los Angeles... but we'll see how that turns out. I'm interested in seeing this section of Wikivoyage expand. Thanks for sitting through this with us, and having the patience to take a breath and recalculate. P.S. I love LA! -- (WT-en) Evan 12:28, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

Channel Islands and Catalina
The Channel Islands National Park should probably be under Ventura County since the headquarters are located there and all the regular trips by boat or plane to the Park are from the Ventura/Oxanard area (see . I'm not sure which county the northern islands officiall belong to, but I know that Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands are officially part of LA County.

For Evan: Catalina is not part of the Natl. Park, but it is one of the (California) Channel Islands that run from San Clemente Island through San Miguel Island (see ). (WT-en) gK [[User talk:(WT-en) GK|¿?]] 04:16, 19 Dec 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy


text:
Talk:Southern India

I reverted this article to my earlier version. Lakshadweep is an Indian territory quite separate from the state of Kerala, just as Pondicherri is separate from Karnataka. Actually, Pondicherri consists of a number of enclaves surrounded by more than one state. (WT-en) DhDh 16:00, 10 Feb 2004 (EST) -- This page should be deleted! It's content was copied into India. (WT-en) F16 00:31, 2 Mar 2004 (EST) -- Why does the talk page speak only about Kannada? there are several languages each with several dialects in Southern India (WT-en) Rockypg 04:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Which 9 cities and Other destinations?
There are 10 cities listed, and the total number of Other destinations, though cleverly categorized, is 25. The whole point of a regional article like this is to provide an overview, not a deluge of recommended places to visit, because many of them can be covered at the state or lower levels. So which city should be removed, and which Other destinations? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Vizag --W. Frankemailtalk 11:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Anyone else with an opinion on this? I'll go with Frank's opinion if I hear no other views on the cities in the next day or so. Meanwhile, what about the "Other destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please update the map to include Telangana?
should definitely be updated to include Telangana. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Remarks copied from India Expedition
None of this has changed, so:

''Southern India has way more than 9 destinations and should be pared down. This region of India has a very important history, but Southern India needs more explanation and connection with travel and less in the way of long lists like "the Hoysalas, Chalukyas, Gangas, Kadambas, Pallavas, Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras." Some pictures of historic monuments from different periods could help. Compare the efforts at history coverage in Germany and Indonesia.''

Any help you could give would be a good service to the reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I ruthlessly pared down Other destinations, leaving one major example of each category of attractions. For historical ruins, I left Hampi. For an example of a religious destination qua religious destination, Tirupati. I mentioned Brihadeeshwarar temple as the iconic example of Hindu temple architecture. I left Ooty and Kodai for hill-stations, and Havelock Island for beaches. We do have an article for Kerala Backwaters, so that's an obvious choice. That leaves us with seven destinations. We can add a couple more, but before doing that:

Ravikiran (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) If the destination you are proposing falls into one of the above categories, make the case for swapping an existing destination with your choice
 * 2) If it is a new category of destinations, we can add a new entry
 * 3) If we run out of categories, we can add a second example for some of the categories.

 * Thank you very much, Ravikiran! About hill stations, though: They are questionable as "other destinations" because they are cities and towns, so they would seem to belong in "Cities" or otherwise could perhaps be mentioned in "See" as sights, but they aren't really "Other (=non-city) destinations". See Talk:India Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I have joined the discussion there. Ravikiran (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern India


text:
Talk:Southern Karnataka

Is this neccessary?
After reading the introductory statement to this article, I asked myself, is this really neccessary? However, before putting it up for deletion, I thought maybe I just didn't understand the region well enough to make that call.

It comes across to me like something is being divided too much. I'm from Tennessee, but I don't believe see anyone dividing it into West, Central, and East even though those regions are occasionally referred to. Is an article about the southern part of the state of Karnataka something that is going to highly useful to a traveller? Or could all of its information simply be compiled in the entire state's article?

So can someone that is more familiar help me out?

Thanks!

-- (WT-en) Ilkirk 17:28, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * Tennessee has 5.6 million people, Karnataka has 55.8 million. You do the math. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:05, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * That's what I needed! Thank you. :)  Now, is that on a page here and I missed it, or does it need to be added?  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 00:20, 12 Oct 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southern Karnataka


text:
Talk:Southern Maryland

Usable status
For usable status, I'd say the following towns are important enough, where they must also be at usable status: Prince Frederick, La Plata (Maryland), and Chesapeake Beach (other important articles are already usable). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:43, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southern Maryland


text:
Talk:Southern Reef Islands

Revert
I just reverted what appeared to be a copyvio from. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:21, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southern Reef Islands


text:
Talk:Southern region

Western area and Southern region

 * Delete - When I think of cardinal directions given absolutely no context, the first thing I think of just doesn't happen to be Sierra Leone. How about you? (WT-en) Texugo 22:30, 21 December 2007 (EST)

 * Western area - Delete ~ 203.144.143.6 08:36, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Western area = Delete --(WT-en) Wandering 16:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * Southern region - Keep and redirect to South ~ 203.144.143.6 08:36, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Western area deleted. Southern region redirected to South. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Southern region


text:
Talk:Southern Russia

Merge Adygea and Krasnodar Krai?
How does the (newly created article) Adygea fit into the established region structure of Southern Russia please? I see that the Krasnodar Krai region definition has just been changed to be Krasnodar Krai and Adygea. That does not sit well with the way we usually regionalise at WT (i.e. one region cannot really be two articles). Should Adygea be a part of Krasnodar Krai and Adygea or a separate region altogether? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:05, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Adygea officially is a separate region of Russia, among the smallest ones and the only fully enclaved. Several years ago there were rumors about plans to merge Krasnodar Krai and Adygea, but as soon as this issue was a sensitive one, those plans were cancelled. Continuing the topic of Southern Russia, at the moment there are two official Russian federal districts on this territory: Southern District (includes Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai, Adygea, Kalmykia and (!) Volgograd Oblast + Astrakhan Oblast) and North Caucasus district (includes national autonomies that are currently mentioned as North Caucasus at Wikivoyage + Stavropol Krai). So, ideally, Russian regional structure need to comply with federal districts structure (there are quite many mismatches in other regions as well). But if not, Adygea should anyway be shown as a separate region. (WT-en) Andrey Selskiy 12:03, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

 * A separate article for Adygea isn't really something that we need for our purposes—at least until we have more content for this region. But people will still probably expect to see one, and will re-create it, so I see no harm in keeping it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:08, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

 * 12 years later, Adygea still has but two blue links and very little content. Is there any objection to merging and redirecting it to a Krasnodar Krai and Adygea article that Krasnodar Krai would be moved to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Geographically and touristically, this makes total sense. No objection. Ibaman (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes. The problem is that Adygea has its own ethnicity, which probably is the reason for its separate existence. I think this can be honoured by a sentence in the lead and a separate paragraph or two in Understand, Talk and perhaps Respect. I would like to have w:Adygea linked in some way, I don't know our practice in cases like this, where two Wikipedia entities are covered in the same Wikivoyage article. –LPfi (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the merge. They're politically two separate subnational jurisdictions and it can make Wikivoyage look like it doesn't know what it's talking about (even though this defies Wikivoyage norms), but I wouldn't object to one on the basis of lack of content. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article would make it clear that these are two separate jurisdictions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, but there's some weird error in Krasnodar Krai and Adygea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bordering areas?
Current text has "bordering... Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea to the east" but the map shows Astrakhan Oblast on the eastern border and Kazakhstan beyond it, with no border between this region & Kazakhstan. Pashley (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 9 years later, why don't you just make the edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. –LPfi (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Violates international law"
It seems to me, this is exactly the type of controversy we're trying to avoid on this site:

"Although this annexation violates international and Ukrainian law, visa and border control issues require the region be treated as part of Russia from the traveller's point of view."

I am deleting the opening clause in favor of a "just the facts, Ma'am" approach, and I hope it's soon enough to avoid arguments arising from this deliberately or recklessly provocative language. This site is not the proper forum for documenting applicable laws, in case of an argument, and we recognize de facto conditions, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Right. Similar issues have come up before for other areas & there is policy discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Regions_map_Expedition. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The term 'international law' seems to be something that people with a political agenda would use, and as such should be avoided on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 * What alternative would you propose when discussing actual international laws? Powers (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I would propose not to discuss them at all on this site. This is neither Wikilaw, WikiForeignAffairs, nor Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 * (Edit conflict, but agree with Ikan) Well.. none actually. 'International law' is an abstract concept (as opposed, just as an example, to United States Federal Law). It belongs in the domain of diplomacy and international relations. I can see no purpose to discuss it at all on Wikivoyage, a site for travelers.
 * If you want to discuss the reach of national laws into different countries, for example the implication of recognizing the Crimea as part of Russia and thereby breaking Ukrainian law, then that might be relevant. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering we delve deeply into the topics of visas and passports, I think discussing international law is rather unavoidable in some cases. Powers (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, Powers. There's a distinction between the laws of different countries, which for example may refuse someone entry if they have entry stamps from Israel or some other entity they don't recognize, and international laws that lawyers at the World Court at The Hague refer to in cases against alleged war criminals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Passports and Visas come under bilateral treaties between sovereign states. Although the signing of such treaties would be governed (very loosely) under the framework of 'Public international law' it is not actually relevant from point of view of a traveler.
 * The Wikipedia article International_law describes the different aspects of International Law. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The problem with 'international law' is that it isn't really international and penalties for disobeying are still decided by national governments. If larger governing bodies are relevant, I think it's better to say exactly what they are, such as the UN, that way the reader knows exactly what governing body we are referencing as opposed to the abstract concept of 'international law'. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Current text reads "As of March 2014, the Crimean peninsula is under the de facto control of Russia, which considers it an integral part of its territory. Most countries do not recognise the annexation and consider it to still be part of Ukraine, though under Russian occupation." and that is just fine, all we need here. There is no need to go into the politics or the legalities. I'd change "Most" to "Many", but that is a minor quibble.

 * Other pages do need a bit more, & they have it. Crimea has a somewhat more detailed explanation and Ukraine explains some visa complications. I think everything that is important for travel is covered. Pashley (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern Russia


text:
Talk:Southern Thailand

Koh vs Ko
see also later discussion: Talk:Thailand

The article names here have gone back and forth between 'Ko' and 'Koh' a few times already. While I generally advocate sticking to the Royal Thai General System, here I'd cast my vote for Koh due to the following reasons: Discuss. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:20, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * More popular. "Koh Samui" gets 1,330,000 Google hits, "Ko Samui" gets 303,000.
 * Easier to pronounce. It's a long o, not something that rhymes with "Cow".
 * The maps systematically use "Koh".
 * I don't particularly mind -- it seems that every "Koh" article gets moved to "Ko" so I've been updating the links. In either case we probably should have redirects for the lot of them. ("Cow" has a dipthong, not a short vowel, at least in Australian English -- "Ko" to me reads more like it has the 'o' vowel in "box".) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 22:26, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * For the record, I changed my mind, and the Wikivoyage standard has for several years been Ko. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southern Thailand


text:
Talk:Southern Tier

I have removed certain headers that do not make sense for the region. As per Wikivoyage guidelines (from the FAQ page here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Article_templates) only certain headers are required in each article. Specifically:

The following sections are obligatory and should be in every article:

* Get in   * Get around * See * Eat * Sleep

As an example, the Drink header does not really belong in a regional page unless the region is known for a given drink. The Finger Lakes region needs a drink section as it is world famous for the wines it produces... The Southern Tier has no special drink, hence, not drink header.

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Jtpurdom (talk • contribs).

 * Sure, just one problem -- you also removed the Sleep section. In fact, you've added the Drink section back, despite justifying its removal above, yet Sleep is still missing even though it appears on the list of obligatory sections.  Get Out is also very useful and should only be omitted in extraordinary cases.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:57, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Ok. Good call on the sleep... although it is a good example of a heading that has no meaning in a Regional setting. As for the drink section, I recalled that a decent brewery is located here. --jtpurdom

 * Sleep is often an excellent candidate to be removed from region articles, since there is often nothing unique about accommodations in one small region to another (say, from county to county in the US). And the section can attract spam.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:16, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I believe it's appropriate, if only to specify where one might find accommodations -- like "For a decent selection of hotels, you'll need to go to Jamestown, Corning, or Binghamton; Elmira and Olean have a few but options are more limited. Outside of those communities, you'll have to take what you can get."  Something like that.  I assume there was a reason "Sleep" is required on all articles at one time, though I could see an argument for removing that requirement.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:33, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

 * That's a fine sleep section, but still strikes me as unnecessary. It basically duplicates the information from the cities section, which identifies the main cities. And it's the U.S.—virtually every town will have somewhere to sleep, in addition to endless highway motels. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:08, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

I am going to call this entry done. I leave it in usable status... I am going to go work on some of its sub-pages (probably Binghamton and Tioga county) and try to get a guide status here. I may come back in the near future to add some pics. Feel free to add anything you think would help. --Jtpurdom, 17:50 8 July 2009
 * Very nice work. My only suggestion would be to consider if the counties really are the best way to subdivide the region.  It's possible that it is, but on the other hand it may be too fine a division given the number of destinations in the region.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:38, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

County list order
I think that the list of counties should be sorted geographically as opposed to alphabetically. Having only edited a couple of articles, I am not completely sure if they have to be sorted in alphabetical order, but if not, I think that it would make things simpler to see where it is on the map. If it is to be sorted geographically (preferably west to east) it would go in this order.
 * Chautauqua
 * Cattaraugus
 * Allegany
 * Steuben
 * Chemung
 * Tioga
 * Broome

--Bothvar (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Go ahead if you like, mentioning that you are listing counties from west to east. Why that way, by the way? East to west would be just as easy, so why is one way more intuitive to you than the other? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what I liked better about west to east. I'll sort it east to west, given that it seems a little more natural. Bothvar (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * West to east is natural because English-speakers read left-to-right. You're correct that sorting geographically is better than alphabetically in this instance.  However, all that said, I'm still not convinced that by-county is the best way to organize this region.  There's precious little in Allegany County, for instance, compared to Broome, and there may be other subdivision schemes that would be more appropriate.  LtPowers (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought on how people read maps, LtPowers. I think that in states that have a seacoast or at least a port and greater population in the east (which would be at least most of the Eastern Seaboard states), many people may read the maps the other way, but I don't say this to be contrary and don't have a strong opinion about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true downstater, Ikan! =)  LtPowers (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Southest
Hi it says Southest. Is this a typo for Southeast or Southwest? WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Could you specify where it says that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern Tier


text:
Talk:Southern Vietnam

Moved
I've moved this from it's former location, Mekong Delta (Vietnam). It seems to me that since there is just the one Mekong Delta there should be no reason for any dis-ambig. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:58, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * A chunk of the Mekong Delta lies in Cambodia, so it's a little awkward to squish two countries into the region... but the Cambodian bits are not very touristy and the start of the delta is a line drawn in water (har har!) anyway. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:39, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)

I think it should move back to Mekong Delta (Vietnam). If we then need a disambig page and Mekong Delta (Cambodia), fine. The current region is confusing, trying to include the urban(?) area around Saigon and the rather agricultural delta. Also "Southern Vietnam" is ambiguous with the old term "South Vietnam". Pashley (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Difficulty showing a section
I tried to add a short section about the visits of interest in the Mekong delta, and found that although it appears on the source, it does not show up... must have done something wrong but what?

 * It shows up fine here, maybe your browser/proxy has cache problems. And thank you for the contribution, but please use the standard template headings as shown here: Project:Quick region article template. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:08, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Added
Just added a pic from the last time we were on the Mekong. I have others and am happy to add them if it's okay with you. Thanks. (WT-en) Kirasw 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

Subdivision into provinces
Someone had started to divide this into provinces, and there were three province articles so far, covering a total of three destinations. However, given that there are so far only 23 destination articles in all of Southern Vietnam, I believe that subdividing it into 19 province articles would be ill-advised, or at the very least extremely premature, not to mention far beyond our typical 7+-2 guideline. I have merged the three existing province articles back here pending a more thorough discussion of if and how this region should be subdivided. Texugo (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the section?
I'm sure that placing Southern Vietnam section inside Mekong Delta section is totally wrong. Southern Vietnam is a phrase referenced to a larger area in Vietnam, combining of East South Vietnam (6 provinces: Ba Ria- Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh city, Dong Nai, Binh Duong, Binh Phuoc and Tay Ninh) and West South Vietnam (or Mekong Delta). In other hands, Mekong Delta is an area in many countries, which has one of the parts of Mekong River (China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam). The part of Mekong Delta in Vietnam has another name, which is more popular, Cuu Long River Delta. So I suggest we should separate these sections. —The preceding comment was added by Reinowis (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Southern Vietnam


text:
Talk:South Florida

I don't think this is structured properly, but for now I have qualified the sub-regions by describing their "known" names. I still believe this should be dealt with structurally, since "South Florida" is the terminology only used for the Atlantic Coast from north of North Palm Beach south to Homestead (just north of the Keys). In other words, "South Florida" describes the mega-metro area of Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (though I have not specifically checked the US Census Bureau regional breakdowns (MSA, Consolidate MSA, etc.) for the area). The other sub-regions, though in the southern realm of the Florida peninsula have other geographic nicknames. User:(WT-en) Mayor pez 17:52, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Apparently this is still an issue. I had hoped to settle it by creating Florida Gold Coast as a region. I'm seeking comment on whether people think we should rename South Florida to "Southern Florida". As it stands now I don't believe anyone has trouble finding the area, but it seems to run against the grain of some of you locals. People I know from the Vero Beach area refer to the area we now show as South Florida that way, but there are indications that just the three counties of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach are the common reference. In any case, I would not support renaming Florida Gold Coast to South Florida as I feel it is ambiguous. (WT-en) OldPine 10:49, 4 August 2007 (EDT) -

The Gold Coast is referred to as the region of the Southeastern coast of Florida between Palm Beach and Miami. This region runs along the eastern shores of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade County. Yes it is referred to as South Florida Metropolitan area, but since the it housex the very Rich and Famous it has been separated from being known only as South Florida and  instead as a region within.

I do not support renaming the Florida Gold Coast to South Florida either. I has been well established that it is indeed a region within South Florida. (WT-en) Flowergirl 14:17, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

--

I know I am late in getting in on this whole "regions" talk - but its really difficult to sort out structures that are not "official" government entities. I have seen an old Florida map promoting tourism with 7 regions (8 if you include the Keys) but I cant seem to find that map anymore. DMOZ has 8 regions defined: http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Florida/Regions/ Wikipedia seems to have 14 regions with some "sub" regions listed too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_the_United_States#Florida State of Florida's current tourism site does not even have larger regions - they seem to be all smaller entities: http://www.visitflorida.com/ The Florida State Government site (Governor's office) does not even break down regions anymore - just counties and cities: http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95 (WT-en) Gamweb 17:35, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Not sure what your point is. One advantage to having the counties is that the IsIn can be changed easily as all the cities will point to counties. When you say "sort out", are you unhappy with the current region layouts? Bear in mind that we have the 7+/-2 rule to satisfy, and that we don't necessarily have to follow anyone else's breakdown. We just want to have commonly used names for regions, or at least ones that make sense. Sometimes the delineation just has to be arbitrary. California is often put forward as a model I believe. Of course a color-coded map helps clarify things for everyone. I guess nobody objects to the South Florida name, which is all I was asking. (WT-en) OldPine 00:09, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Cities
Why is Altamonte Springs listed here? Thats in Central Florida, to me! Its northeast of Orlando. Kissimmee is questionable too. (WT-en) Gamweb 15:50, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Heh. I agree. These regions have changed a lot. Could be there was just North and South Florida originally, or maybe someone just placed them wrong. (WT-en) OldPine 19:08, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Guide Article?
This is marked as a Guide Article? I do not think it is ready for that yet. "Usable" would be a good label right now. (WT-en) Gamweb 12:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree, and so I changed it. It's missing region sections isn't it? (WT-en) OldPine 21:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Too Miami centric
This article is too Miami centric at the moment I.M.O. 90% of this article talks about Miami with a brief mention of Fort Lauderdale and/or West Palm Beach. It completely ignores Fort Myers the Keys and inland Florida. Someone needs to change this before this page can become a Guide Article.--66.176.63.70 13:36, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Yep, I agree. I think it's because this region name was formerly used to identify what is now Florida Gold Coast. Changes should be made. (WT-en) OldPine 13:47, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hollywood Beach bikers.jpg

title: Talk:South Florida


text:
Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Volcanic activity
NASA reports some eruptions. Pashley (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Iceberg
One of the world’s biggest icebergs is on a collision course with an island, 1800 sq miles of ice, head for S Georgia Pashley (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Update
As this page has been populated, it feels like it covers the rest of the South Sandwich Islands in enough detail. I therefore propose re-directing that page to SGSSI. Grahamsands (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 * This page was originally created automatically by the CIA World Factbook import and exists primarily since the two island groups are an administrative region of the UK. If we were creating the pages from scratch today I don't think this page would have been created since it's an arbitrary grouping (we wouldn't create a page for "Hawaii and Midway Island", for example), so I'd lean towards keeping the separate pages for South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and then have this page redirect to Sub-Antarctic Islands.  That said, there isn't going to be a lot to write about the South Sandwich Islands, South Orkney islands, etc, so I don't feel strongly on the matter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I did consider doing it that way round, populating SSI and hollowing out SGSSI. However it seemed more natural to populate SGSSI and regard SSI as their chilly coda, sufficiently described as "See" paragraphs. A tour of them would always be combined with a tour of SG (eg you may be required to physically check in at Grytviken), but not vice versa. Grahamsands (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grahamsands (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


text:
Talk:South Hadley (Massachusetts)

There is no need -- yet -- for the Massachusetts disambiguator, as there only seems to be one place in the world called South Hadley. The obvious redirect has been done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:50, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:South Hadley (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:South Holland

Rijnmond vs Rijnland / Regions
Rijnmond is in the Netherlands a more commonly used for the area around Rotterdam, Rijnland revers to the area around the city of Leiden (The river Rhine passed in the Roman times through that area.) and in Dutch even parts of Germany (Rhineland). --(WT-en) Rein N. 01:02, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

The question is whether Rijnmond refers to the StadsRegio Rotterdam. This definition would include Voorne Putten which is now mentioned under the islands. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 17:03, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, there seems to be regions missing see --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 17:06, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I now made the regions like this. I think it's a pretty good way to divide regions, and it's pretty similar to the division of the VVV (Dutch Tourist Agency). A few points I'd like some comments on though:

 * Spijkenisse now is in the South-Hollandic Islands, but it might as well be part of Rijnmond. It's a part of both. Which do you think is better?
 * Rijnmond is not the Stadsregio Rotterdam, instead it's Rotterdam and it's urban suburbs. I chose this region so that all urban areas are grouped together, as rural destinations have a completely different travel purpose. The only exception now is Spijkenisse, as it is physically separated, but I think it should be mentioned in both regions.
 * What to do with the Hoeksche Waard? I now did it like the VVV, as the Hoeksche Waard maybe is not an island, but is a Waard, just like Alblasserwaard and Zwijndrechtse Waard. This makes a nice grouping with the others in the South. On the other hand, it might be included with South-Hollandic Islands, as that region is now rather small.

Would like to hear your input :) (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:46, 21 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:South Holland


text:
Talk:South India

Is there really a reason to separate South India and South (India), when the only difference seems to be Andaman/Nicobar Islands? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:04, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:South India