text:
Talk:Ahmedabad

Is it just me or does the tushar rickshaw part of "getting around" sound suspiciously like an ad? Can anyone confirm the validity

Panorama size
@ User:W. Frank

Why have you changed the size to 95 % ? Please explain !! Chintanvarma (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 * It's a bit difficult to be more explanatory than my edit summary at the time I made the edit, Sir: "probably better to use the Panorama template to display this panoramic image so it's not so prone to "falling off the right hand edge" on smaller screens"
 * Have a look at Template:Panorama and try and view the "before" and "after" result on a narrow screen.
 * Before the huge thumbnail image would have overflowed so that it was about the twice of the available screen width:
 * Ahmedabad Panorama 1.jpg
 * Ahmedabad Panorama 1.jpg

 * After the panorama image box (with a slider displayed below on narrow screens to enable panning) is set to occupy 95% of the available width of the page:

 * --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Okay... Chintanvarma (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 * That panorama would be a better, more vivid pagebanner, if it could be turned into one. Right now, it looks too small for that. Is the file sufficiently big for that purpose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Adalaj Step-Well
For an entry in "Go next," it is way too detailed! Should the village of Adalaj have its own article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Adalaj requires a separate article. It's a separate village-town nearing Ahmedabad/New West Zone and south of Gandhinagar. As Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar are twin cities, the area between them is rapdily developing. Except the step - well, Adalaj doesn't have a travel necessity. Also, I'm re - adding Ashok and Sapna cinema since to my knowledge, they are the only ones showing Gujarati films. All the three are in different zones, so they need to be listed on main page of Ahmedabad. Chintanvarma (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. Perhaps it should be put into a different section in "See," then, rather than "Go next." What do you think about that idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Where's the district discussion?
There's a district discussion tag on the article, however I cannot find any discussion here nor in any older version of the talk page. However the city is districtified in some way. Looks like someone has just created a bunch of districts and slapped the tag on the top of the article. I was planning to make a map of the districts however as there's no discussion here, the Wikipedia articles for most of those district parts mentioned give no clue about their location and limits (ex. w:Girdharnagar - not even the coordinates) and I know nothing about the city it's a fairly hard task. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Learn" section
First of all, a districted article should have no full listings, but secondly, this is exactly what we don't want a Learn section to be - touty listings for universities. Normally, this section would list places where visitors could take brief (e.g., 2-week) courses in a language, yoga, et al., but some prose description of the most important universities at the city level would be acceptable if someone wants to write it. Meanwhile, I plan to move all the current listings to this talk page within 24-48 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Moved from the article:

The list also includes the centers of learning in the twin city of Gandhinagar.

Ahmedabad

Gandhinagar

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The "metal scene" section is useless
The Metal Scene link is an empty Wordpress Blog. Is the whole metal section an elaborate prank or a play on the fact that it is so underground that even its blog is empty?

In addition, the metal scene section is completely useless, especially when the link it provides is dead. —The preceding comment was added by Ford prefect reporter (talk • contribs)

 * It sounds like the sensible thing for you to do is delete the section. Wordpress blogs aren't supposed to be linked, anyway, as per this site's external links policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I'll remove it. User:Ford prefect reporter, the next time you see something like that, feel free to amend it yourself. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

District discussion
Given that all but one of the districts are currently at outline and a district discussion tag has been slapped onto this article likely some time ago, let's have the discussion here and now: What are we to do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I've made Ahmedabad's district map (svg) which is also my first Wikivoyage-style map! Comments and suggestions welcome. :) If all looks fine, I'll go ahead and update the article. Csyogi (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I appreciate the effort. However, someone who knows anything about this city might have to judge whether the current district boundaries make much sense to our readers. One of the current districts contains quite a lot of information while the others are sitting at outline status right now. Maybe this is just due to some easily updatable listings not having been inserted, but it might also be due to the district boundaries having been drawn "wrong". I fear though that none of our editors could really answer the question, or do you know anybody who might? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Ravikiran r and User:Prof tpms, any input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ː Ikan Kekek The division into six districts looks quite reasonable. Prof. Manna (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks Hobbitschuster, I had referenced the map on Ahmedabad Muncipal Corporation website to draw the boundaries on Inkscape to create this map. Had asked my friend who lives in the city to check the boundaries if they are correct and he has confirmed that they're right. Any inputs from User:Ravikiran r? Csyogi (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry for asking so bluntly, but: Correct as in "useful from a travel standpoint"? Thanks again for making the map! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Right, then may be we should discuss if this is useful from a travel standpoint or not. I'll be happy to modify the map as needed. Csyogi (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry to respond so late, but I know nothing about Ahmedabad except that it must be districtified because it is a big enough city. I'll defer to those who do know. — Ravikiran (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear this discussion has become dormant without producing much of a result. Should we just go ahead with the districts as on the map or should some more traveler oriented different approach be taken? To reiterate: I know nothing about this town, I just saw the tag but no discussion and observed the state of the currently existing district articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, this article is a mess. If all the listings are moved to the district articles, will some articles have no listings or only a few while others have the great bulk of them? Csyogi and Prof. Manna, what do you think? I'd really like for the listings to all be moved as soon as possible and for the "Go next" section to also be dealt with (see ). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ikan Kekek, my knowledge of Ahamedabad is not sufficient for any useful help in the districtification process. It is far away from here in Mysore. Regards, --Prof TPMS (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So... there seems to be six district articles listed now. Are they covering all of the city? If yes, then I guess someone knowledgeable could just move the listings currently in the article to the appropriate districts. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 * @Csyogi,@Hobbitschuster,@Ikan Kekek,@Prof tpms,@Ravikiran r,@Ypsilon: Ahmedabad now has more zones; New West Zone is now divided in Northwest and Southwest zones. See here. The article should reorganised accordingly. Regards,- Nizil Shah (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Wikivoyage uses district divisions that aim to be most helpful to travellers, and not necessarily official ones. If we divide the New West Zone, about how many listings will each of the new articles have? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Got your point. If New West Zone is large enough, split should be done else there is no point in doing it.- Nizil Shah (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. So could you approximate the number of listings each article would have if a split is made? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge?
Would it make sense to merge the West and New West Zones of this city? --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 20:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is quite a bit of content in each of the district articles now, so I think there is no need to merge any, and it is time to remove the district discussion tag. Ground Zero (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving the details of listings to district articles
I've been moving the details of listings to district articles and removing them from this article, in line with Wikivoyage style. I would be grateful for assistance from anyone with local knowledge in correcting any errors I make, and in moving restaurant, hotel and other listings. Ground Zero (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ahmedabad


text:
Talk:AIG Travel Guard

I don't see why this should be an article -- travel insurance already covers the topic. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Agreed; this is an advert for a company, not information for the traveler. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Please Remove this Article
I am the original creator of this article. I agree with the other members' comments and would like to see it removed. Thank you for your help.
 * This article has already been voted for deletion, please do comment there, but do not blank articles. Thank you --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:AIG Travel Guard


text:
Talk:Air charter

Any potential to ever be an article? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:59, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

I have the same question. It is both a dead end and orphan at the moment. I am leaning to a vfd -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 19:41, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I can see a point to an article with this name -- how to get on a charter, where they usual go (or are the only way to go)... but not with the current content. I would not oppose a vfd, but I'd like to see if something more useful to travellers could be developed. (WT-en) Maj 21:12, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

 * I redirected to the "By plane" section of the Travel transportation article. That article was meant to be a catch-all for topics that might be valid articles but aren't large & complex enough to be worth a separate article.  Hopefully that's OK, if not please revert. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:58, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Air charter


text:
Talk:Air courier

(WT-en) Andrew wondered how others felt about vfd'ing this page. To me, it qualifies quite well as another way of seeing travel, and I would have no objections at all to keeping it and developing it into a useful page, although it's obviously pretty limited as it stands. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:43, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

 * This page needs some more info that I could not provide. someone who has used this method of travel should really write on it. I have not, i have only read about it and saw it in eurotrip. and also plan on using it traveling next summer. --brian (the one who originally posted it... btw what's VDFing?)

 * I VFD'd, because I thought we had an travel topic article that covered this, but I was wrong. I checked Travel topics and I didn't see anything that this could fit into. I guess I would have to vote keep. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:50, 24 May 2006 (EDT)
 * P.S. to the user who posted above VFD means we vote on weather to keep or delete the article. Sorry for jumping the gun.
 * P.P.S. To the user who created this how about creating an user name/account?

(WT-en) Brian hey, i made an account

Links to information

 * www.courier.org - quick scan looks like valuable info
 * www.plantetickets.com

Both of the above links are now broken.

A few news which say this is dying or no longer worth doing:
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21691542/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/air-courier-travel-no-longer-bargain/
 * http://budgettravel.about.com/cs/aircouriers/a/mission_courier.htm
 * http://work.chron.com/air-courier-jobs-21213.html

Basically, fewer document shipments hand-carried because more documents are transmitted on-line, more restrictive security post-9/11, more carriers using their own aircraft for courier parcels, and fares from other competitive sources that mean a ticket "ex- baggage allowance" is really no cheaper. Apparently a few FedEx items are still hand-carried onto commercial flights in certain premium price categories, but it's rare.

In 2013, (with correction ) claimed air courier travel to no longer be available in the US, and also attacks the content at discount airlines and consolidators. K7L (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this article obsolete?
Who does this anymore? Very few people and declining, it appears. Is it in the interest of travellers to have an article about this topic anymore? What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this even still exist?
Does it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dunno. According to https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/air-travellers-paid-to-carry-packages-1.6616893 a startup Fly and Fetch in Edmonton is claiming to offer a different model which they call "crowdshipping"; the theory is that you buy your own tickets through conventional means and, if you happen to have some unused checked baggage allowance, they'll dump an unsealed box of whatever someone else wanted to send back to the old country on you to bring on your trip.
 * Supposedly cheaper than FedUPS and the like for some destinations, but there are various pitfalls ranging from strict weight limits on airline luggage to items being subject to tax, duties or non-tariff barriers (such as the litany of bizarre restrictions on importing foodstuffs to various countries) at destination. Supposedly other "crowdshipping" organisations have attempted similar models, but most seem to either be defunct (like PiggyBee) or aimed primarily at domestic road travel (like CoColis in France or UPS-owned Roadie in the US).
 * Is it worth mentioning "crowdshipping" in this article, or is it too marginal a phenomenon with too many obstacles in the way post-9/11? 204.237.88.70 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not directly relevant to the question asked by 204.237., but it seems this practice may very well be alive, if rarer than in the past.
 * I don't know the details, but a friend of mine recently got a free plane ticket from Portugal to Turkey in exchange for transporting machinery parts, weighing 70 kg in total, and customs cleared if I'm not mistaken. He said they also provided a free (but non-changeable) return ticket for the next day, but he preferred not to use it in order to spend some time in Turkey. Vidimian (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Air courier


text:
Talk:Airlie Beach

Whitsunday cruises
As all the cruise information was repeated twice, both here and in Whitsunday Islands, I've removed the cruise info from here, and just put a pointer to the information in the Get out section. I think this works best. Arguable the cruises could go here, and the island information there, but I think this way works best. Please discuss if you disagree. --(WT-en) inas 21:36, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Airlie Beach


text:
Talk:Airline consolidators

''A paper ticket may show a fare much higher than what you actually paid, and not the airline's cheapest fare (or fare class in coach). This is to your advantage -- in case of overbooking you'll be more protected from getting "bumped."''

Err, huh? Paper tickets practically always say the full price, this has nothing whatsoever to do with bumping. Involuntarily denied boarding (IDB) is extremely rare these days, demand management systems do a pretty good job and the airlines ask for — and get — volunteers for bumps, because it's easy money if you're not in a hurry. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:37, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

I agree that getting involuntarily bumped is rare nowadays. However, most tickets from consolidators are in full-fare coach. The airline may sell (on its own) some discounted seats with lots of restrictions. If anyone gets bumped involuntarily, these people are the first to go. (WT-en) MMKK 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a useful article?
I have tried reading this article, looking for some way I could possible use this facility and have failed.

It hasn't been updated for a long while, and I don't actually see how it can be of any use to a traveler. It seems that if you can find an 'airline consolidator' then you may get cheaper tickets, but I just don't see where I can start. The descriptions also seems more like Wikipedia material.

Can anyone else see value in keeping this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of this concept before. Maybe airline consolidators are more common in e.g. the United States? ϒpsilon (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 * They used to be common 25 years ago. I don't know if they are now. Perhaps they might still be for people from certain foreign countries, like China, India, and Korea, who live in major US cities, but I don't know anyone who talks about them anymore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 * When I was very young, I heard about 'bucket shops' that see cheap tickets such as this. I also get the impression that this is not something people bother much with these days.
 * FYI: http://www.hasbrouck.org/faq/
 * I have placed a 'merge' tag on the page for Air_travel_on_a_budget Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Final cal before merging Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to see this merged. I never really understood it... --Nick talk 13:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to see this merged. I never really understood it... --Nick talk 13:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airline consolidators


text:
Talk:Airlines

Note to editors
After a series of lengthy discussions, Wikivoyage has decided not to have articles on individual airlines. Please '''do not link airline names in articles or in talk pages. These links should be removed.''' Ground Zero (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Practicality
Having a list of major airlines and links to their web sites might be useful, but I'm not sure how practical it is to try to list all the cities they fly to. It looks like this is still on the "A"s and it's already a pretty big set of lists. Plus, regular flights get canceled and added quite often, so it'll be almost impossible to keep this up to date. (Also added to anon. contributor's Talk page.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:33, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

 * This seems like a bit of a Project:Slippery slope edging in on our non-goal of becoming a yellow pages / link directory. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:22, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I can see a glimpse of utility in a Wikivoyage Worldwide Guide to Airlines containing stuff like "airline x offers lots of leg room and a great VIP lounge at JFK" and "airline y's food tastes like styrofoam" but such reviews would have to be written in a guide-like objective perpective and I agree with Maj that it pushes us too close to becoming a yellow pages/advertising brochure. BTW, as for the current content, we can't copy from Wikipedia, remember? -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 20:52, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Deleting pointless airline redirects
So if you have been active on Votes for deletion you might know that there are some that interpret current policy as forbidding deleting such utterly pointless redirects as Ryanair, KLM and the likes even while Lufthansa entirely justifiedly redlinks (which would probably also become un-deletable if it were ever created). As the "keep" or "speedy keep" votes are now not focused on the value those redirects provide or possibly could provide to the traveler, but on (an interpretation of) policy, this here is the attempt to change policy. I don't know which explicit wording where would have to be changed to get this needless amount of ballast jettisoned, scrapped and expunged, but I would please change either policy or interpretation of the same to get some consistency in the field of airline name redirects (namely that we don't want them) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Reasons to not to delete a redirect, per Deletion policy:
 * The redirect is a term for which links are commonly created, or is a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA.
 * If one user thinks Ryanair is article-worthy and creates an article or redlink, it's likely others will, too. Rather than having to explain every time that there was a past discussion where it was decided that airlines shouldn't get their own article, a redirect of Ryanair to Flying indicates to someone who might otherwise create an article that a past decision was made to handle that content in something other than a standalone article.
 * Just as important, redirects are invisible - what does it matter if there are one, ten, a hundred, or a thousand "pointless" redirects on the site, so long as they don't fall into the "when to delete a redirect" criteria in the deletion policy? I struggle to understand why there is any desire to delete them unless they are perceived as doing some harm to the site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, Ryanair does not redirect to flying but rather to air travel on a budget and iirc the argument against deletion was that there was "merged content" in low cost airlines in Europe which in turn was "merged" into the aforementioned air travel on a budget even though nobody could point to a single line of content from the erstwhile Ryanair article that ended up in air travel on a budget. So "we need attribution for merged content" was brought forth as a reason not to delete Ryanair and for KLM and the likes the reason simply seems to be "They're there, why do you want to delete them?". By the way, redirects are not "invisible" (if they were, what's the point in having them?), they show up in the search autocomplete and as such might make people think we have articles on airlines and induce them to create even more of this pointlessness, much more than simply deleting all the left over redirects and be done with it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The following discussions resulted in the current "redirects are preferred to deletion" policy and are useful background for this discussion:
 * Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion (from 2007)
 * Wikivoyage talk:Deletion_policy (from 2006)
 * Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy (from 2016)
 * -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I thought the previous consensus (as invoked here) is that while "real places" are next to impossible to outright delete (as opposed to "merge" and redirect) except in special circumstances which right now only include page creation vandalism (the leftover empty skeletons being gone), travel topics and itineraries are easier to delete on grounds of lack of content. If that consensus does not exist, we may have to be stricter in our rules as to which travel topics or itineraries to allow and we certainly have to change the message displayed at the bottom of outline itineraries. But to get to the topic at hand, while the subject of redirects seems to have come up repeatedly, this seems to be the first time it is not about places Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I disagree with your assessment that the current policy discussions have not previously focused on anything other than places - I believe that the discussions I've linked to explain why redirects are generally preferred to deletion regardless of subject matter - but I don't want to monopolize the discussion so will leave it to others to comment. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When I click on a link, I want it to take me to useful information. Linking KLM to flying is going to irritate me and other readers: in virtually every context it will be clear that KLM is an airline, so I don't want to taken to an article about flying if I click on the KLM link. I think it's better to leave airline links red, and let them be removed by wikignomes like me. Somewhere in a related discussion there was a link to Toronto (Prince Edward Island). That piqued my curiosity because I live a more well-known Toronto (not telling which one!) But the linked article told me nothing at all about Toronto, PEI. At least the page was about PEI, but it kind of comes across as a linking error rather than an attempt to be helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It is a good thing that we have contributors such as Hobbitschuster who desire clear rules around content and management since (I assume) they care greatly about the quality of this wiki. I would just say that many aspects of WV are ambiguous due to many of us having conflicting opinions on policy, and regardless of who is right or wrong in any given policy I would say that the question of 'low value' redirects here does not substantially help or hinder the traveler in any meaningful way. Effort spent discussing this could be far more productively spent on developing better articles or getting involved with DOTM article discussions. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Like Ryan, my interpretation of past discussions, consensus and policy is that existing redirects -regardless of subject matter- should typically not be deleted unless they do harm (although mass creations of redirects should also be avoided unless there's a consensus). In principle I object to discussions about deleting (especially individual) redirects for the reason Andrewssi2 mentions; there's not enough to gain and they cost too much time and effort that would be better spent on other matters. I also feel we shouldn't use VfD to create policy by setting and invoking individual precedents. That doesn't mean I'm in favour of "forbidding deletion of redirects". I have no strong feelings about the airline redirects. I imagine they indeed prevent the occasional creation of airline articles, but Hobbitschuster's point that a redirect to Flying is of no value and thus (through frustration for the reader) harmful in a way makes some sense to me too. The question we need to answer is, if these "low value" airline redirects do more harm than good. I will not stand in the way of deleting them all if there's a consensus to do so- but in that case, they should also be unlinked (as a general rule) because I believe red links do encourage creation. It is important however to separate this discussion from the much broader discussion User:Ground Zero is introducing above. Personally, I agree that a redirect should ideally be to a page where the search term is at least mentioned somehow - but it's not the same issue and would cloud this discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I do think the outcome of this discussion will apply to all or at he very least most airline redirects. However, I don't think we should end up with a consensus where the creation of certain redirects (e.g. for Air France or Lufthansa) is discouraged but their deletion (at least in theory) prohibited by policy. This would create the very unfortunate impression of "irreversible trolling". Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am personally disappointed with our coverage of airlines, and I would prefer that we did have articles that were reasonable targets for redirects from an airline name - somewhere where I could get a reasonable amount of info about the catering, seat quality etc offered by a particular airline. However that it is a different discussion.
 * When I follow a redirect, it should be obvious why I have been redirected. If KLM redirects to Flying, then it should mention KLM, even if it is just in a list of airlines. The only exceptions should be for spelling errors and other obvious cases like Airplane.
 * However some of these redirects are the result of mergers and so need to be retained for attribution. If we don't have a suitable redirect target, then I think that it would be better to have a short stub article saying something like "We don't have an article on the airline KLM, please see Flying for some related information, and see KLM for a Wikipedia article about KLM." The redirects which are not the result of merges might then be considered for deletion if there is not an article that is a reasonable target. In the specific case of KLM, a better target might be Schiphol Airport. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the discussion of whether we should have articles on airlines (in any form) is indeed a whole other story. But if a redirect is a result of a merger, do we have to retain the redirect "for attribution purposes" even if not a single line of content from the originally merged article shows up in the end result? Does that mean if the "article" vsbwöefaöfkny is merged to Moon we have to retain the redirect even if we ultimately throw out all the content that originally came from the aforementioned string of random letters? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to keep the article history if its former content is used anywhere on the site. This is usually in the article resulting from a merge, but it could also be in another article, where the edit summary is "moved from Ryanair". So unless we can find an alternative way of preserving this history, like my suggestion of short stubs, we need to keep the redirect, unless we have a way of checking for current use. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that we need to keep redirects if any undeleted revision contains content from it. The most recent revision of the article isn't the only thing that matters, because people can still see (and link to and attempt to re-use) previous versions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By the way, the edit history of KLM does not indicate any merged content ever having been there. To make this debate a little less theoretic, this is mostly about this list and this list which I hope includes all the redirects for airline names. There may be others, but I do not know how we would find them through means other than trial and error. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Ryanair in particular, this is the only diff that contains anything but a redirect or attempt at a redirect at this location and it lasted in that state for less than two days (which indicates even then the decision to redirect was taken rather fast), this to me does not indicate the need to attribute anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to attribute it if any sentence or other copyrightable element from that version was ever copied to any other page. How long it was shown on the site at that article title is irrelevant.  What matters is whether any of that content ever appeared on any other page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the edit history; none of the content seems to have been moved elsewhere; at least no edit summary indicates that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 * If the page is merged, that is usually mentioned in the edit summary. If, on the other hand, content is copied, then there is no corresponding edit in the original article, and thus no edit summary. I know no way of checking edit summaries of all articles (e.g. for a given date), and I cannot think of any list of patterns guaranteed to catch an attribution. Thus anything that ever existed might still be in unnoticed use somewhere.

 * I do not think we have to be too stringent, though. If the page was not attributed when copied, then the legal responsibility is with the editor (until we get a takedown notice). If it was attributed and anybody is interested in the original, we can restore that version on request. I think keeping the old version is important only if it has content likely to have been copied (or otherwise is interesting enough).

 * Much more important is having a culture of decent attributions when merging or otherwise copying, linking a permanent version of the used page (ugly urls can nowadays be avoided with the Special:Permalink/123 construct, where 123 is the oldid number).

 * --LPfi (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I fear this discussion has become sidetracked a bit. There are two (at least) separate issues to be resolved here. First, is there a need/benefit/whatever to deleting those redirects, and if yes, is it possible to delete them with regards to attribution issues. The latter (the attribution issues) would have to be checked separately after the first issue is resolved. Unless of course we decide that if there is any single redirect that is kept for attribution reasons, we have to keep even those that don't need to be kept for attribution reasons. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To try to break this logjam, I have proposed a changed to policy here to clarify our intent with respect to airlines. Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Airline redirects
Discussion moved from Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy

At Votes for deletion, we have struggled and failed to decide whether airline links should be deleted or redirected to articles like Flying or Air travel on a budget, or, in the case of airlines with a single hub airport, to the airport article (the example that is given is redirecting KLM to Amsterdam Schiphol airport. We do agree that we do not want articles on individual airlines. To try to resolve this, I am proposing to clarify the policy in this area. I think that this issue falls between the cracks of this part of the policy:
 * A redirect is inappropriate when: 3. The redirect could be considered self-promotion or spam (see also WV:Don't tout). Individual restaurants, bars, hotels or other businesses should not get redirects, although exceptions are made for large and/or important businesses and services like Amtrak (see #3 in the following section).

An airline could be argued to be a "large or important business", but the only example given is Amtrak, which overwhelmingly dominates non-competition rail traffic in the U.S. Airlines rarely ever meet that standard, and the airlines being discussed at VfD certainly don't.

So I propose that we clarify the policy by adding to the above either: Or
 * A: Airlines should not be linked or redirected to another article.
 * B: Airlines should be redirected to an appropriate article like Flying or Air travel on a budget. Where an airline's flights pass through one airport at least 80% of the time, the airline should be linked to that airport, if there is an article for that airport

I realise that there are other policies that can be invoked on either side of this debate, but that has not resolved it, so I am proposing to specifically set out our intent with respect to airlines in order to resolve the issue. Also, the wording can be adjusted and improved later, but I am hoping we can get a decision in principle on one approach or the other before proceeding to wordsmithing. Ground Zero (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 * A - I vote for A because I think readers will be frustrated and annoyed by links that take them to articles that provide little if any information about the thing that they clicked on. The redlinks issue can be resolved through normal copyediting, just like links to other articles we don't want. Ground Zero (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I think A is the preferable solution, though maybe the wording could be tweaked. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 * C: Votes_for_deletion Pashley (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please spell it out here so that the discussion doesn't become more fractured than it already is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Basically, Pashley's proposal is for Wikivoyage to maintain a table of airlines. I disapprove of that suggestion. Just as we don't maintain tables of railway or bus schedules here, we should not spend our time trying to maintain tables of - how many airlines are there in the world today? I'll suggest a choice D, though (or A1, if you like): Redirects only for budget airlines or any other airline for which a redirect to another article is truly topical. If the redirect would be to an article as general as "Flying", it's best to simply delete the link. And if that exception seems unfair or too confusing, let's do away with all redirects from airlines once and for all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The summary is correct; see my link above for more detail. Airlines are certainly important to many travellers and are likely search terms, so having some links for them makes sense to me. There are cases like Lufthansa providing (a? the only?) direct flight from Nanjing to Europe where they seem almost required.

 * Red links are useless and ugly & redirects to Flying or Discount Airlines make no sense. A table avoids those problems; an airline link then redirects to an article that actually has info on the airline. As I see it, the only sensible policy choices are my suggestion or a policy that all airline links must go to the company web site.

 * The maintenance burden for this should not be onerous. Ikan is correct that tables of schedules would be a disaster since those involve many trips & the data changes often. However, this would need only one entry per airline — & not all airlines, just major ones or ones that for some reason we want a link for — and the data is mostly static; airlines do fail or merge, or change names or change their hub, but that is rare. Pashley (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 * First, it hasn't been unusual in the U.S. in the last x-number of years for airlines to fail or merge. But that aside, you really want to set up a standard for what an "important" airline is? Any national airline has to be considered "important" for travelers to that country. And in terms of kilometres flown, I'm sure domestic Chinese airlines are up there. As for redirects to company websites, I don't think we should be doing that, both because it would seem to conflict with at least the spirit of not directly putting people into commercial sites without their deliberate intent to go there and because we'd have to maintain the links in redirects. Does Wikipedia have the kind of table you propose to create on Wikivoyage? In that case, if you feel it's more user-friendly to direct people to a table, can we please make an exception to our overly rigid policy on links to Wikipedia and just set up interwiki redirects, keeping in mind that I daresay most of us think that a table is neither a Wikivoyage-like thing to create as an article nor something we really want to or have the best manpower to maintain? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

First, it is not entirely clear to me what a "national airline" would mean. Does that include the likes of La Costeña that has a monopoly on domestic flights in Nicaragua (and dare I say a near monopoly in the kind of transport tourists typically partake in on certain routes) but only exists in a country of roughly six million? What then would be the cutoff point? What about "second airlines" that are or used to be almost as big as the flag carrier? I think there are two practicable solutions to give the information you want to offer via an easier route: One is to link directly to the WP page (maybe using a Wikipedia symbol instead of the slightly different shade of blue we currently use) and the other is a link to the company website (which is undoubtedly the most up to date source we can give, but not always easy to read or navigate and often intent to sell more than to inform). I personally don't bother looking up which airlines go to a place - I just put the place into an aggregator and see what flight to which prices it gets me. But then again, I consider the difference between flying airline A and airline B over 8 or so hours not worth a price difference of more than 100€. What we could do is use existing templates or create new ones to give something like [airline name] (w) where clicking on the thing in [] gives the company website and clicking on the thing here represented as (w) gives the Wikipedia page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of B where there is a target which mentions the airline (an airport or a country Get in section), but not to pages like flying - I think that the redirect must be mentionned on the target page. I am not opposed to the idea of a table, as it mentions the airline being redirected, but I would like to suggest an alternative. Rather than a redirect we could have a short stub page. This would say someting like: "Sorry we don't have a normal page for ABC (contributors see What is an article? for an explanation.) You may be interested in the following airport articles ...(list of the airlines hubs), these articles on flying..., this wikipedia article on the airline". If a country Get in section described the airline's network that could also be linked. (Personally if I am going to spend about 24 hours in a series of aircraft (UK-NZ), I am happy to spend £200 (20%) more for one airline & route rather than another, and would like information to make that comparison.) AlasdairW (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I think this summary misses some of the nuance in what I posted. Redirects only for budget airlines or any other airline for which a redirect to another article is truly topical. If the redirect would be to an article as general as "Flying", it's best to simply delete the link. That means, don't create any new article in order to make additional airlines topical. It also means that the simplest thing is just to delete all redirects. And then further down, I mentioned the idea of redirecting to a Wikipedia article with a table, which is a more user-friendly thing to do. So my suggestions, in order of preference are: (1) Redirect to a useful Wikipedia article; (2) Delete all airline redirects; (3) Keep only those airline redirects which are truly relevant to an existing article. The reason I don't prefer keeping some redirects rather than none is that I think that policing which airlines merit and don't merit redirects is a headache we don't need. It's so much simpler if either all can be redirected or none can be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to admit that there's no good solution here. I agree that creating full articles for airlines is undesirable, but how do we signal that to novices? People expect to read about airlines on a travel site. People will notice their absence and try to create them. It's happened before; that's why we have the redirects we have. Now maybe such activity is rare enough that we can gently redirect the efforts of the well-intentioned novices and remove the new articles. But my concern is that the surprise of finding no airline info on this site may be comparable to the surprise one would experience in being redirected to Flying upon searching for an airline. So if the surprise-factor is a wash, why bother restricting the creating of these redirects? Powers (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the argument that readers will expect articles on airlines. I've never seen a travel guidebook with a chapter on an airline, but maybe they exist, and I've never seen them. People may want to create articles in airlines, individual hotels, train stations, etc., but we don't have to accommodate them. We don't accommodate the desire of some to create articles on every airport out there, or on individual highways (in most cases). Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we don't accommodate the creation of such articles, but one of the reasons for creating redirects is to avoid the repeated discussions about why we don't want them and that we don't allow them when people try. As for the expectation factor, I'm not sure many travellers would expect an article about airlines (although more might expect a link to them, but okay). What if we would de-link airlines in all our articles, but create the suggested page with explanation that we don't have articles for airlines, with perhaps a logical link to a relevant Wikipedia page or whatever, and make redirects to that page? In that case, random users don't get redirected to a not very useful page when they simply click a blue link, those who really search for an airline would find the relevant explanation that we don't have them with a useful external link to a more suitable site, and the potential problem of unwanted creation would still be solved because the redirects would still be in place (just not visible in articles anymore). For destinations where only one airline has good connections, for example, we can explain that in text in the relevant article. Including an external link would even be an option in such exceptional cases, and can be discussed on a case to case basis. Wouldn't that settle all the major concerns? JuliasTravels (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with retaining redirects is that it would raise the question which airline deserves a redirect and eventually debates about creating or deleting marginal cases. I think we have entirely better things to do with our time and the easiest way to resolve this once and for all is to delete all those redirects period. I'm not sure whether I caught all of them but I think airlines redirects aren't to be found in article space currently nor should they be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I quite understand your proposal, perhaps because I don't have a good understanding of the linking possibilities of WV. Could you provide a short summary for us less experienced editors? Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your opinion is quite clear, Hobbitschuster, and I understand that anything short of deletion and a ban on airline redirects would be suboptimal in your eyes, but to get to some sort of consensus I do hope you'll consider a compromise of some kind. Otherwise, there can not really be any progress. @Ground Zero, my suggestion is simply to remove the wikilinks in articles, so to remove the brackets in American Airlines, and simply use un-linked text (American Airlines} in articles. That way, most readers will not even think we have articles on airlines, and will not be disappointed when they click on the current blue links. The few people who really expect to find an article on airlines could search for American Airlines in the search field. They would find the redirect to a short (sub)page (could even be a paragraph in Flying or something) explaining that we don't have these article and perhaps get a suggestion on where to find relevant information. That way, the redirects exist, satisfying the concerns of those who are opposed to deletion, but they are not visible in articles. Since they wouldn't be visible, it wouldn't actually matter much if an extra one was created. It's just a thought, though. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That makes sense to me. Ground Zero (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * is there any link to an airline redirect in mainspace? If yes, please tell me where. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think JuliasTravels' solution is the best one, and to clarify: What it means is that any airline's name can be redirected to this brief Wikivoyage article explaining why there are no Wikivoyage articles on individual airlines and pointing users to a useful Wikipedia article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

if any airline page is redirected to What is an article?, which already says that airlines do not get articles, then I don't think there need be any discussion about which airlines get redirected articles. There won't be any incentive for airline fans to create those pages in the first place. I am starting to think the JuliasTravels' proposal might be our best chance for a consensus position that would allow us to settle this and move on. Ground Zero (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weighing in at the eleventh hour. My dream scenario would be to link the airline redirects to the Wikipedia article on the relevant airline, while simultaneously striking down our confusing and nonsensical prohibition of inline Wikipedia links to accommodate this new policy. I realize that's a tall order, though, so put me down in favor of JuliasTravels' suggestion if no one wants to shoot for the moon. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is in general a desirable idea to have wp links that work by displaying the WP symbol (or a small blue w) behind the word(s) that is/are used to explain where the link points, perhaps with the possibility to enable a design of [external link] ((wp link)). I think for some things it is only fair to point to WP in equal measure as to an external site. And I think that for some topics (notably keeping our visa information up to date) much better use of WP than is currently made could be made.

 * At any rate, back to the main discussion. I do not think having a cross namespace redirect that is furthermore a "link that disappoints" - to use a well coined term of User:Ground Zero - is the most elegant or best solution. I think a clean amputation would be the best solution for the dubious growth of airline links, but if there cannot be a consensus built for this I won't let the good be the enemy of the decent, nor the decent be the enemy of the at-least-not-as-bad. This should not be misconstrued however, as establishing consensus on this over any other stated or not yet stated objections to this solution, but I won't stand in its way if that's the only thing we can agree on. I think we should furthermore establish that any newly created article, redirect or whatever under an airline name is to be deleted on sight without discussion and not redirected as well. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That last part is simply not going to happen. You will need to accept that this fierce disapproval of airline redirects in principle is something personal for you. While others (including me) share some of your concerns (like wanting to avoid utterly useless redirects) there is simply no consensus -and even hardly any support- for a ban and a "delete on sight"-policy. As has been pointed out before, creating redirects instead of simply deleting has been a long-standing practice aimed at avoiding recurrent creation of some topics. If someone does create an article for a major airline, it should be perfectly acceptable for another user to turn it into a redirect under the same conditions as our other airline redirects. No-one is suggesting to mass-create them or allow mass-creation, but once we have a suitable solution for this matter, there is no reason to treat airlines more strict than other topics that don't meet our article criteria but are still created sometimes, like major attractions. That said, I do agree that Wikipedia links can be used much more to our advantage, and could be in this case. I'm just afraid it's still to early to gain a consensus for that. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * JuliasTravels' proposal addresses my concern about "links that disappoint" in that it allows us to delete those links immediately. Creating redirects from the airline pages addresses the concern that others have about people using airline names as search terms, and about people wanting to create airline articles. Once they see the outcome of the search, they will be dissuaded from creating the articles. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion so far
Please change this if I've got it wrong: Ground Zero (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero: JuliasTravels' proposal
 * Hobbitschuster: delete airline links
 * Pashley: link to table with summary information
 * Ikan Kekek: in order of preference: (1) per JuliasTravels below; (2) Redirect directly to a useful Wikipedia article; (3) Delete all airline redirects; (4) Keep only those airline redirects which are truly relevant to an existing article.
 * AlasdairW: link to an article that mentions the airline, and where there isn't one, to a stub explaining that we don't have airline articles.
 * LtPowers:
 * JuliasTravels: redirect airline names to page/section explaining policy, and delete links
 * AndreCarrotflower: in order of preference: (1) redirect to Wikipedia article, (2) JuliasTravels' proposal.

Moving forward
Is it too early to conclude that, of the range of views that we have here, JuliasTravels' proposal is the only one that is going to resolve this issue so that we can move on? I think that while there is support for the Wikipedia links idea, that issue is bigger than just airlines, and should be taken up in another forum. Is this a fair representation of discussion?

If so, how do we move forward? I cannot find a logical policy in which to insert a statement to the effect of "airlines should not be linked, but should be redirected to What is an article" (or something to that effect). It does not seem to fit either with Deletion policy or with Internal links. Any ideas? Ground Zero (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm hesitant to redirect cross-namespace; an article in mainspace shouldn't redirect to a policy page. The target should be a mainspace page, maybe list of fly-by-night airlines or something with no more than a listing for each and an explanation? K7L (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Hmmm...If we're going to have listings for each airline, are you suggesting merely a long list article, or are you thinking of creating an annotated list with descriptions or appraisals of each airline that could be useful to travelers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is similar to what was proposed by Pashley above. There wasn't much support for the idea. Ground Zero (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the reasons were when we removed articles like Airlines in Africa from the site, but I guess those reasons were similar to the reasons now given for not having what I presume to be much the same in one single long list page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I don't think there was enough support for a list and frankly, I'm also not sure how useful such a naked list would be for travellers in the first place. Also, it wouldn't save us from discussions on which airlines would deserve such a listing (and a redirect to it). A simple text explaining that we don't have articles on airlines and an external link to Wikipedia or something seems much easier. If cross-namespace linking is the problem, let's simply include a small paragraph in Flying. It seems the most suitable place anyway, since that whole article is an explanation about what kind of information we give on flying, with links to where to find it. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I think we should do the same with airlines in x "articles" that we do with the existing airline redirects if we cannot delete them - which, to reiterate, I still consider the easiest and most elegant solution. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there is a policy somewhere that says that an article should not be redirected to a policy? Maybe we should reconsider that because redirecting "American Airlines" to "Flying" will disappoint readers. It's not so bad without links, but even searching on a term and being taken to an article that does not give you any information about it will lead to irritated readers. Being taken to a page that explains why we don't have a page on the subject will satisfy the reader better. Putting the traveller first and all that. Ground Zero (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's perfectly possible to explain that we don't have such articles in the Flying-article, and make any redirect link to that specific paragraph (so not to the general article). For the reader, it wouldn't make any difference in which namespace and which article they end up, as long as it's directly clear how the redirect is relevant and they immediately understand that we simply don't have articles on airlines. Main article namespace also gives us better options to offer an external link to e.g. the link of airlines on Wikipedia. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is a good idea at all to have our article on flying (which is short as is and has been previously featured) to randomly contain the sentence (seemingly apropos of nothing) "we don't have articles on airlines, here's a link to Wikipedia; carry on - tallyho". I think a cross namespace redirect would actually be preferable over that. But the best namespace for airline redirects to point to is redspace. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created an example page User:AlasdairW/Airlines which shows the sort of page that we could make all the current airline redirects pont to. This clearly states that we don't have airline articles, then links to WP lists of airline articles by continent, our Flying articles and our airport ones. This could be called Airlines or something like We don't have airline articles. A single page is probably more practical that my earlier suggestion of individual pages, although the airport listing is getting long, but I would prefer to keep to the category tree listings which are automatically updated as articles are added. AlasdairW (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good solution to me. Thanks for putting that together. Ground Zero (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I think AlasdairW wins this thread. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best solution proposed thus far that could achieve consensus. Have we explicitly gained consensus on how to handle potential new creations of anything that would turn Lufthansa from a red to a blue link? Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with placing it anywhere :) If it is to be in mainspace, I'd say Airlines makes more sense than We don't have airline articles (which sounds like a policy page). Just for the record, I thought the general idea was that there shouldn't be a link for Lufthansa in the first place, to avoid average visitors using the redirect? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be a blue link because it would link to your proposed Airlines page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yes, I understand that part :) What I mean is... do we want to have these links in mainspace (destination) articles after all? As I understood from earlier comments, some consider redirects to anything less than real information on the topic is not very useful for the traveller. That's why I suggested above that we avoid having any linked mentions of airlines in our destination articles, and only leave the redirects in place for people who (a) search for an airline in the search bar or (b) want to create an article for an airline. Personally I don't care either way, I'm just trying to avoid confusion on how to proceed. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, totally agreed that we should not have any linked mentions of airlines in any destination, travel topic or itinerary article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should only point the existing redirects to the new page and do nothing about airline names that still redlink. If and when they are created by page creation vandals or people who know no better, they are to be deleted without discussion. At least that's my proposal to have this issue settled and no need to debate whether Delta needs to include a disambiguation for Delta Airlines which would then point to our article on us not having articles on airlines. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the point in that? If the whole point is to have a place to link airline names, any of them could be linked there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Again, that suggestion simply has no consensus support. Once there is a proper way to deal with this, there's no point in making a difference between the airline we already have at this (random) moment, and another airline article some newby would try to create in six months. That would be completely arbitrary. Also, your suggestion would not address the concerns some have raised about repeated creation. I think we agreed that we'll have no links in main article space so no, there will not be any disambiguation page for Delta. If someone would feel it's really important to create a redirect from Delta Airlines to the explanation page however, that would be perfectly harmless. I'm not suggesting we should, but say a newby creates an article for Delta Airlines or another major airline, standard procedure should be to redirect that page to the explanation page - not have another of those frustrating deletion discussions. It's just not worth it. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor airlines' names could be redirected, too. Why waste further time on this, once we have an agreed-upon solution? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But let's put, at the top of Talk:Airlines, unless we can find a better place, a note that says something like:
 * Do not link airline names in articles iron talk pages. These links should be removed.
 * Ground Zero (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put the new content on Airlines. I expect that it could do with some tweaking - for example there might be a better set of WP lists of airline articles - I went for the set of largest airline ones because the main set of lists by continent then linked to further lists by country which included everybody that had a licence, even if they only had one plane for carrying cargo. AlasdairW (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Airline destinations
Some editors here may be interested in w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140. At the moment, all such lists (but not similar lists for railways) may be headed for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I think they are fine on WP, but I think if the decision is to delete them - we should take them. I don't think WV is a directory either, but I would love to have their editors and readers here at WV.  --Inas (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A list of all routes to and from an airport I can see as being useful to a travel site and travellers, a list of routes of an airline not so sure. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Traveler100. I initially thought they were going to delete all the 'Airlines and destination' tables from each of their airport articles, which would have been a disastrous move for us and WP. But that's not what this is about, and I don't see why it would serve the traveller for us to import all of these hundreds of pages. We haven't got the manpower to maintain such lists anyway (even the behemoth that is English Wikipedia think they're overstretching themselves), so the point is largely moot. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryanair redirect and airport thumbnails
Hi, 1) Ryanair and RyanAir as search terms lead to different pages. Is that intentional? Ryanair: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Airlines

RyanAir: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Flying_on_a_budget

2) The thumbnail for many cities (which you can see if you hover over search results, for example) often seems to be the airport for the city in question. Is that intentional too? (Examples: Dresden; Berlin)

Sorry if these topics have been discussed and agreed upon already. They just struck me as odd.

Thanks.

Griffindd (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * On the second topic, the preview being mostly airports is not intentional but a consequence of two things. First the thumbnail algorithm is that it finds the first reasonably proportioned image in a page. Second, due to the order of section the first listing with an image in it is often an airport. Now we have tried to get the mediawiki code to be changed so it uses the first actual visible image but that request was rejected a being too complex a code. Trying to put another image near the top of the page sometimes works but not always due to selection rules of the code. I did find a work-around method that worked which involved adding a hidden image and as small visible link to the top right of the page with some extra code in the geo tag and using the default image from Wikidata. But no-one voiced any support for the idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * If I had seen that proposal, I would have supported it. If you want to repropose, either here or elsewhere, let me know.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Ryanair and RyanAir were separately created as articles long ago, and both became redirects shortly after. Airlines was created as a target for all airline redirects in 2017, and I think that RyanAir was overlooked at that time. I have changed RyanAir to redirect to Airlines. AlasdairW (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I proposed a deletion of all airline redirects, given that some articles were created in times past before it was firmly entrenched that we don't have articles on private companies. There was some resistance because someone somewhere argued that there might have been some hypothetical "merged content" and we this couldn't delete the redirects due to "attribution issues". When we merged the former "low cost airlines in x" articles which were a hot mess to Flying on a budget, somebody insisted the Ryanair redirect which allegedly included some sort of merged content somewhere (nobody has been able to point out one bit of it) was retargeted. I reiterate my demand to delete the lot of them, but it likely won't succeed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the explanations. Griffindd (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

change from travel topic to disambiguation
The way the standard boilerplate message at the bottom reads one could think that Wer desire for editors to "improve" this page. I don't think this is the case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it is not a dab page by definition, and we cannot find a better alternative of this boilerplate message. Status quo by default. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we delete the boilerplate message, it would wind up to become another ghost article, which impedes the article count. Maybe we should do something that would put this article under the article count without showing any message. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

General description on airlines
Instead of just showing that WV don't have articles on individual airlines, what if we write about airlines in general? Instead of covering different classes of airlines at planning your flight (flag carrier, low cost), we can cover them at here, with a reminder that we don't have articles on individual airlines and WP links to the lists of airlines. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we do that, we can breadcrumb airline alliances under this article. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has an article on airlines. I don't think Wikivoyage needs its own. Wikipedia has a larger pool of contributors who keep articles up to date. Ground Zero (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the way our coverage on flying is currently handled is fine as is (with the caveat that updates and expansion are always possible). Frankly, I tend more towards deleting this article entirely than to "do something with it"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airlines


text:
Talk:Airplane seat maps

Purpose
Why do I get the impression that this article was created solely to promote a particular web site? This is a rather narrowly-focused topic which might warrant a passing mention in Tips for flying, but certainly doesn't need its own article. I'm going to propose that it be deleted. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:57, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Your right! I believe that this article can be rewritten to provide good information. --(WT-en) Texas Web Scout 18:39, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

Airplane seat maps

 * A thinly-veiled ad for a commercial provider. Doesn't look like an article to me, but should probably be discussed before it is deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:55, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. There may be a travel topic hiding around there somewhere, but that ain't it. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:05, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Neutral. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:05, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. This warrants at most a one-sentence mention (without the link) in Tips for flying, not a whole article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:10, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. However, this is a surprisingly big topic, and I do think there should be links to not this site, but SeatGuru and SeatExpert, the two biggest seat data sites. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:32, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I wonder, Jani, why you want to see it deleted even if you think it's a big topic. --(WT-en) Evan 20:18, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
 * It's a big topic in the sense that there are multiple other sites devoted to it, but I don't think it really falls within Wikivoyage's scope anymore. Is it really our mission in life to start maintaining seat maps of every airplane of every airline out there? (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:18, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Berru (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. If this is a big travel topic, as JPatokal says, it's probably worth having on the site. We have similar discussions about on-line services at e.g. Hospitality exchange. --(WT-en) Evan 13:45, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What is there for us to say about any of these sites, beyond telling people that such services exist? Take the brand-specific promotional verbiage off this page, and you're left with a stub, to which we can add little but an "External link farm" section. Merge and redirect to Tips for flying. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:02, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I point once again to Hospitality exchange or Discount airlines in Europe. We've already got a number of travel topics giving overviews for travel-related services, both online and off. Other ways of seeing travel has been an important part of Wikivoyage since its inception; part of our strength has been letting ideas like this germinate for a while. Sometimes they grow, sometimes they don't. As Jani said, this is a big subject, and it's worth taking care of it to see what develops. --(WT-en) Evan 20:18, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Pointing to the External link farm for discount airlines in Europe article isn't an argument I find very persuasive. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:07, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. I'd find this a usful topic myself. (WT-en) Majnoona 21:54, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a useful topic and as the internet empowers people more and more. This type of travel topic serves as an educational topic, giving consumers the tools to make informed flying decisions. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) FantasticFlyer (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. I agree that it seems to be a thinly-veiled ad. I'm picky about where I sit on airplanes, but I don't understand us covering this. Worth a mention in some article somewhere that these sites exist, I guess (though I'm not drawn to them). (WT-en) OldPine 21:30, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete for the same reason OldPine and Jani give. -- Sappphire
 * Keep and expand scope. I've updated the page to look more like an overview of the topic. However I don't think there's a whole article in Airplane seat maps, but there might be one in Choosing an airplane seat, given that there are all kinds of competing issues with children, emergency rows, aisle, window... links to a few of these sites would be part of that. (WT-en) Hypatia 21:37, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Do you feel the expanded scope will exceed what will fit in Tips for flying? -- (WT-en) Colin 21:53, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't think that's easy to answer given the size of some of our articles: it would certainly merit a big independent section. But I think it could be about the same size as First and business class travel if done comprehensively, and that has an independent article. (WT-en) Hypatia 21:58, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Move the content to Tips for flying. For travel topics the attitude seems to be that anything that might ever be useful to someone can have its own article, but I don't think that's helpful.  The guidelines in Project:What is an article? state: "In general, a good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, and events should always be initially placed into the article for the place they're located in, and only when that information becomes large and complex should a new article be considered."  Why not apply this guideline to travel topics, too?  In this case move the content to the more general Tips for flying, and if the section on airline seat maps ever grows to a point where a separate article is called for then it can be created.  As of right now, a separate article isn't warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:15, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What Ryan said. 202.156.2.35 23:57, 24 July 2006 (EDT) (Jpatokal)
 * I've added material to Tips for flying to cover this topic.  Unless anyone has additional information about Airplane seat maps to add... {crickets chirping}... that really ought to be adequate for now. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:42, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I also added the two sites suggested by Jani - they aren't clearly in line with Project:External links, but we do include similar links in a lot of travel topic articles, so hopefully they're OK. With that done I'd be fine with redirecting this article to Tips for flying. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:03, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Added on a little more and made it its own subsection. I think we have a consensus now that this can be deleted/redirected. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:37, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Airplane seat maps


text:
Talk:Airport Security

VFD Discussion

 * Delete Redirect to Tips for flying per Peter. While this might be a valid travel article for someone interested in writing one, the current article is a copyvio.  Additionally, general preference is to add information on travel topics to existing articles (in this case Tips for flying) and split it out only after discussion and a consensus that a separate article is warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:23, 18 December 2010 (EST)

 * Delete Tips for flying doesn't look very useful, but this is definitely not necessary. Airport security is extremely simple to get through and they will quickly correct you if you are not doing it correctly. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:29, 18 December 2010 (EST)

 * Delete Redirect to Tips for flying per Peter. A blatant copyvio originally written with a somewhat patronising tone and from a quite myopic cultural standpoint. It is an appallingly US centric viewpoint and has been placed on WT by someone who apparently has their vision limited to that available from within the socio-political boundaries and cognitive limitations of the United States of America. Absolute rubbish, get rid of it. As (WT-en) Ryan hints, airport and airline security issues should be dealt with as a topic within Tips for flying rather than an article in it's own right. Let this highly subjective GWOT inspired compliance inducing nonsense get treated as it should be, as a topic within a bigger picture. WT should not promote this sort of naive, myopic and culturally filtered content as being of worth or value to travellers. (WT-en) felix 09:40, 19 December 2010 (EST)

 * Delete - if just to be rid of the patronizing tone. Who writes this junk? (I feel strongly about this) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 10:32, 19 December 2010 (EST)
 * P.S. Ironically, I'm writing this from the airport! And the advice in said article didn't seem too applicable... (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 10:33, 19 December 2010 (EST)

 * Speedy redirect to Tips for flying. Since the content is merely ranting + advice from Captain Obvious, in addition to being a copyvio, there is no need to merge. (Speedy because copyvio.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:17, 21 December 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Airport Security


text:
Talk:Airlines in Africa

Hi, please do not add a template, except you will add some facts. Will return to work tommorow... (WT-en) Felix

 * I think this is much too narrow for a travel topic -- why not just put this under South Africa#Get around#By plane? But Discount airlines in Africa is waiting to be written... (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:04, 19 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * Wanted to write it in the South Africa page, but it seemed so much to me, if I do it in all detail. It would easily fill the whole page ;-) So I thought it is better to start a new page. (WT-en) Felix (I will work further here, so we can still transfer it to the South Africa page and delete the topic again)
 * There is still much more to come...

 * What about making it "Air travel in Southern Africa"??

Maybe add something about JNB it is the biggest airport
 * Please do so, as I don't have much time at the moment. User:(WT-en) Fluglotse2000«Felix

Roll into South Africa?
Bump. This has been around for a year and I don't really see it going anywhere -- would suggest incorporating this into South Africa and the appropriate cities. (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:14, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Having airport information here should be moved to the destination guides. --(WT-en) inas 22:29, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Ok, lets do it then! --(WT-en) Babbelas 06:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Doing it now, 7 years later! --Nick (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cut
I cut the following as it doesn't really seem to fit any where and is probably very outdated:

International
South Africa is a major hub for air travel in the Southern African region.

The two most used airports for international flights are Cape Town International and OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg.

There are regular flights arrive in South Africa from major centers throughout Africa including: Blantyre, Cairo, Gaborone, Dar es Salaam, Harare, Lilongwe, Livingstone, Luanda, Lusaka, Kinshasa, Maputo, Manzini, Maun, Mauritius, Nairobi, Victoria Falls and Windhoek.

 * Cape Town to Gaborone - SA Express on Mondays and Fridays
 * Cape Town to Maun - Direct on Monday and Friday
 * Cape Town to Mauritius - Thursday and Saturday on Air Mauritius
 * Cape Town to Walvis Bay - Sunday to Friday on SA Express
 * Cape Town to Windhoek - Daily on SA Airlink and Air Namibia
 * Dar es Salaam to Johannesburg - Daily on SAA and Air Tanzania
 * Johannesburg to Dar es Salaam - Daily on SAA and Air Tanzania
 * Johannesburg to Gaborone - Daily flights on SA Express
 * Johannesburg to Kilimanjaro - Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday on Air Tanzania
 * Johannesburg to Lusaka - Daily on SAA
 * Johannesburg to Maputo - Daily flights on either SAA or Mozambique airlines.
 * Johannesburg to Mauritius - Daily on either SAA or Air Mautirius
 * Johannesburg to Maun - Daily flights
 * Johannesburg to Maseru - Daily flights on SAA Airlink
 * Johannesburg to Nairobi - Daily on either SAA or Kenya Airways
 * Johannesburg to Seychelles - Tuesday and Saturday on Air Seychelles
 * Johannesburg to Swaziland - Daily on SA Airlink
 * Johannesburg to Victoria Falls - Daily on SAA and BA
 * Johannesburg to Walvis Bay - Sunday to Friday on SA Express
 * Johannesburg to Windhoek - Daily on SAA, BA, Comair, and Air Namibia
 * Johannesburg to Zanzibar - Tuesday and Sunday on SAA. Daily connecting flight via Dar es Salaam.
 * Gaborone to Cape Town - SA Express on Mondays and Fridays
 * Gaborone to Johannesburg - Daily flights on SA Express
 * Kilimanjaro to Johannesburg - Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday on Air Tanzania
 * Lusaka to Johannesburg - Daily on SAA
 * Maputo to Johannesburg - Daily flights on either SAA or Mozambique airlines.
 * Maseru to Johannesburg - Daily flights on SAA Airlink
 * Maun to Cape Town - Direct on Thursday and Sunday
 * Maun to Johannesburg - Daily flights
 * Mauritius to Johannesburg - Daily on either SAA or Air Mautirius
 * Mauritius to Cape Town - Thursday and Saturday on Air Mauritius
 * Nairobi to Johannesburg - Daily on either SAA or Kenya Airways
 * Seychelles to Johannesburg - Tuesday and Sunday on Air Seychelles
 * Swaziland to Johannesburg - Daily on SA Airlink
 * Victoria Falls to Johannesburg - Daily on SAA and BA
 * Walvis Bay to Johannesburg - Sunday to Friday on SA Express
 * Walvis Bay to Cape Town - Sunday to Friday on SA Express
 * Windhoek to Johannesburg - Daily on SAA, BA, Comair, and Air Namibia
 * Windhoek to Cape Town - Daily on SA Airlink and Air Namibia
 * Zanzibar to Johannesburg - Tuesday and Sunday on SAA. Daily connecting flight via Dar es Salaam.

Direct flights also arrive from major European centers, including: Amsterdam, Athens, Madrid, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich and Lisbon.

There are also direct flights from Abu Dhabi, Bangkok, Dubai, Doha, New York, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Buenos Aires, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, São Paulo, Singapore, Sydney and Perth.

National
There are multiple daily flights to all the major airports within the country. Contact any of the airlines for details. The low cost airlines (1 Time, Kulula , Mango ) are usually the cheapest and prices can be compared online. It is also worth comparing with the SAA rates as they usually have online specials which are very reasonable. --Nick (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Flying
By placing the template on this page I am fulfilling what was discussed and agreed at Talk:Flying. Please do discuss that there, if you want to, to keep the discussion in one place. Let me also explain that I find very little if anything worth merging into Flying. Feel free to propose merging selected content into other articles. Otherwise, the merger would constitute merely turning this article into a redirect to Flying. PrinceGloria (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there actual reasons not to delete this?
I mean apart from the debate now going on at https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy&curid=69601&diff=3158173&oldid=3158169#Airline_redirects what is/are the reasons this page is still a redirect to Flying? Does it have to be kept for attribution? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airlines in Africa


text:
Talk:Ajlun

You say the castle took 701 years to build (from 1184 till 1885); there is probably a typo here (WT-en) Out of Saigon 06:31, 29 January 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Ajlun


text:
Talk:Akita

Naming
Perhaps the prefecture page should be "Akita" and this page should be "Akita City". Or perhaps, a disambiguation link is needed. -qwerty

 * For consistency, every prefecture in Japan with a city of the same name uses the same naming pattern, since as a general rule the city's the most common destination by far. (This is also site-wide policy.)  I'd argue that this holds true for Akita as well.  There are prominent links to the prefecture both in the hierarchy view at the very top and in the first paragraph, so it shouldn't be confusing or hidden.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 22:04, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * I think the naming convention works well, and don't propose changing it, but anyway, maybe it's not true that Akita City is a more common destination than Akita Prefecture. Certainly the opposite for me.  (WT-en) Orcrist 18:35, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Unfindable location
The location for "Koizumigatta Park, Prefectural Museum and 300 year old rich farmer's house" is not specified. I cannot find anything by that name with a web search or a Google Maps search. There is no Japanese or telephone number. If we do not get more information, we should remove the listing. Right now it is useless to travelers. -Douglaspperkins (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Douglaspperkins, I've never been there, but the google search for "Aikita Prefecture Museum" indicates that it is probably here: 39.817322, 140.066180. Also in the map there is a park of similar name (spelled slightly differently) around the building. Not sure about the farmer's house... --Danapit (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Akita dog
Dogs aren't mentioned in this article. Is the Akita dog associated with this city? If so, or even if not, that should be mentioned, because it's what a lot of non-Japanese people will think of when Akita is mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Akita


text:
Talk:Akita (prefecture)

Jpatokal: I took the time to write some accurate contributions to this article earlier today, and you came in and simply erased it all. I lived in Akita for years, and I think it was pretty obvious that what I wrote was legitimate, as opposed to someone who just comes in and writes "penis" 500 times or whatever. Is it because I don't have a login name? If you don't want anonymous users to contribute, make the case for having those contributions disabled. I've traveled quite a bit and I'd like to help out with this website, but I won't bother if my efforts are going to be met with blatant disrespect. Good luck with being an Internet cop, I hope it works out for you. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 76.119.101.190 (talk • contribs)

 * Arrgh! Sorry, it's the stupid caching bug again, the only part of your edits that I saw was unlinking "Yuzawa" (which was in the wrong place).  The accidentally deleted content has been restored.

 * BTW, if you had signed up for an account, I would have been writing an apology to you personally. But now I have no way to contact you... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Banner
I suggest that change the banner. Lake Towada is a lake located on the border of Aomori, Akita Prefecture. If anything, the impression of Aomori prefecture strong. Image of now is a photo taken in Yasumiya, Towada, Aomori. I suggest to change the banner, such as the picture for example on the right,. I think it's image like more Akita prefecture.--OskNe (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * You would know. Both banners are dramatic, but I trust you to choose the one that most reflects the spirit of the place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * No problem. I agree with Ikan Kekek. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, and maybe the current banner can be used elsewhere, what do you think, OskNe? Danapit (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Everyone, thank you for the favor! I will change the banner of this article.
 * For the current banners, I think appropriate is used in the article Towada-Hachimantai National Park than current File:Towada-Hachimantai National Park banner.jpg. But I will not cause the action to proceed.--OskNe (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Akita (prefecture)


text:
Talk:Aklan

Map legibility
Would be nice if someone had time to change the map colors here. The gradients are so subtle that it's almost impossible to tell which is which. (WT-en) Texugo 00:09, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Needs help
Like several other Philippine province articles, this one has problems with format, grammar & missing sections. Pashley (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aklan


text:
Talk:Akron

Drink section removed from Summit County (Ohio)

 * Brubaker's Pub, 373 South Main Street, (330) 253-7771
 * Club Amsterdam, 358 South Main Street, (330) 535-6776
 * Daiquiri Bar, 1 West Exchange, (330) 434-0046
 * Electra, 370 Orleans Avenue, (330) 253-9300
 * Fuel Lounge, 348 South Main Street, (330) 434-FUEL (3835)
 * Jillian's, 363 South Main Street, (330) 252-0085
 * Lime Spider, 207 South Main Street, (330) 762-2350; live music
 * Posh Nite Club & Bistro, 1 West Exchange, (330) 253-POSH (7674); nightclub
 * R/E Nightclub, 117 East Market Street, (330) 375-9693; nightclub
 * Saddle Ranch, 328 South Main Street, (330) 253-2808
 * Tear-Ez, 360 South Main Street, (330) 376-0011

Stay Safe:Hospitals Add Akron City Hospital/Summa Health System 525 E. Market, Akron, OH hmm

 * I would say that Mocha Maiden isn't in the Northside district. It is downtown. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 204.210.194.31 (talk • contribs)
 * Please go ahead and make changes! -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:37, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are very appealing. Maybe the new one is better than the old one. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The alternative banner is better. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 14:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah neither is great, but the original one is better. --ButteBag (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Guide status article
This article is currently at guide status. Considering the number of listings in sections like "cope", "do", and "connect" that used Template:See rather than Template:Listing, which is the standard (as I understand), and the number of listings that lack coordinates altogether, a lot of useless listings in the "Drink" section, etc., etc., etc., etc., should we perhaps make this a usable status article? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Akron


text:
Talk:Akrotiri

I've just wrote few things on Akrotiri, based on some info i've found in the web and from my personal experience during my visit to Santorini. Hope its helpful and will soon be expanded. I may find few more photos to add. And i'll search for restaurants and hotels in the area, though i don't remember i saw a lot - comparing to the other villages of the island (WT-en) Unique 06:59, 8 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Akrotiri


text:
Talk:Aktau

Aktau is an extremely small and out-of-the-way type of place. Wikivoyage is based on Lonely Planet's Guidebooks, which have two different sections for Get In and Get Out. It is hard to imagine any significant number of travelers entering Aktau by one method of transportation and exiting by another. Putting separate sections for getting in and out of Aktau is superfluous for a city that has two daily trains, one weekly "ferry" and no more than a dozen flights per day. On top of that, there is no real inter-city bus service to anywhere, notwithstanding those to even more remote outposts in the desert.

If someone really insists on Get In and Get Out sections, I will simply restate Get In and Get Out while wasting space on Wiki's servers. The terms suggest that one cannot get out the same way he/she got in, which is extremely rare in the case of a city. I understand that countries operate differently as some borders are closed in one direction while others are open in the other direction, or exit procedures can be different from those procedures for entering.

For Aktau, the sections should be left together for reasons of brevity.

(WT-en) Telamon 08 00:44, 31 October 2010 (EDT)Telamon 08

 * The "Get Out" section is actually meant to list other destinations that are nearby. It is not meant to repeat the information in the Get In section, because for almost any location, the ways to get in are also the ways to get out. People are often confused about the meaning of "Get out" on Wikivoyage.

You can refer to the "Get Out" section of these articles for further clarification: If you don't want to write text, you can just list them like Tsuyama.
 * Hamburg
 * Marrakech
 * Baku

 * If the text is copied from Lonely Planet, please point out the text, because copied text should be removed. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:50, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Or, if there is really nothing else that could be said apart from what is already said at "get in", and there is really no logical next destination other than the one you entered in, simply say so in that section, as it's extremely rare to find such destinations, and an empty section may make readers think that it's not yet written (as all wiki articles are in some state of "under construction" process) rather than that there is no next destination. E.g., something like (quoting Jon from the initial message) "Other than buses to even more remote outposts in the desert, Aktau is an extremely out-of-the-way type of place, so getting out of town usually means backtracking to the direction you've come in." would do.

 * By the way, while patrolling the edits to this article, I've made a google check against possible copyvios, but got no exact matches. I think Jon refers to general layout of the articles when he was saying that Wikivoyage is based on Lonely Planet books. – (WT-en) Vidimian 07:44, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

 * To further clarify the difference between "Get in" and "Get out": Article's get in section lists flights from as far away as Moscow and Istanbul. Sure, you could take a plane out to Moscow at the end of your trip, but that isn't really a logical "next stop", so that doesn't go into "Get out". However, trains to Atyrau might be mentioned at "Get out", and then it could go on telling about arranging trips further on to Astrakhan. – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:08, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Thank you for the clarifications. Firstly, none of the information on this page has been taken from any other source without linking to it.

 * Secondly, I will try to get more information for these small towns in Western Kazakhstan, which can fill a 'Get Out' section.

 * Third, as a native English speaker, I would contest that Get Out is not only crude but also misleading. A better way to phrase it would be Around Aktau, or (in the case of border towns) Border Crossings.  Many potential employees ask about other things here, which is why I wrote so extensively and tried to be as professional and thorough as possible.

 * (WT-en) Telamon 08 11:26, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

On a new note, DO NOT remove the external links to official government websites about the region. The links do not violate Wiki policy, and the pictures on those websites are great. I am becoming very annoyed with this. If you want to waste my time, at least give me some explanation for it! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Telamon 08 (talk • contribs)

 * That shrine is a good start for "get out", thanks for adding it. "Get out" is a header that many users find problematic, see (and join if you'd like to) the discussion at Project:Article templates (which also has links to older discussions on the same subject scattered around various talk pages throughout the site). And I was the one removing the links—without the slightest intention of wasting your time (why would I do that?)—and left an edit summary each time I did so (you can check them at the revision history of the article). I've checked www.portaktau.kz, and thought it wasn't an official government site (there was no indication of that as far as I could see). If it is an official site, though, it qualifies to be added to the article (please see Project:External links for more on this policy), and per convention, it is best to add it just after the very first word of the article, i.e. Aktau (you can take a look at Washington, D.C. for an example of this). However, link to Wikipedia article about the Ukrainian poet is totally out, as per Project:Links to Wikipedia.

 * Oh, and if there is any text directly copied from some other source in the article (whether linked to or not), please point it out and/or remove it. Text from other sites following the terms of CC-by-sa 3.0 license is OK, but legal issues dictate that we need to attribute that properly.

 * All in all, this article is turning out to be a good one—those potential employees are lucky to have you as a pioneer. :-) – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:34, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm glad that we've been able to come to an understanding! I will try to fix these things as I get better information.  Wikivoyage is a great website for this kind of information for daily living, which is useful for both work and travel. Jon95.58.37.156 14:12, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

directions to and from the ferry port and train station
Aktau is usually a transit destination, and for so much writen it's strange nobody has information about the bus number to mangyshlak station, and the ferry port......

title: Talk:Aktau


text:
Talk:Akumal

Comments
Originally placed in Today's Log, then archived from the Pub:

has anyone been to Akumal,Mexico lateley?

title: Talk:Akumal


text:
Talk:Akureyri

Very picturesque?
When I traveled in Iceland, I was very disappointed about Akureyri. I found the main street not "picturesque" at all. Actually I found it amazing to find such a dull little town in the beautiful country of Iceland.

I think that a proper travel guide shold also advose travelers what not to do, like the Lonely Planet did in better days! (WT-en) Rbakels 04:50, 14 December 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Akureyri


text:
Talk:Alabama

Counties & regions
Maps:
 * regions - http://800alabama.com/travel-tools/driving-maps/
 * counties - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alabama_counties_map.png

title: Talk:Alabama


text:
Talk:Alabama shakespeare festival

I've redirected to Montgomery, where there's already a listing for the ASF. We typically don't have an entire article for a theater festival; see Project:where you can stick it and Project:what is an article. The listing on Montgomery could definitely use some more info. --(WT-en) Evan 16:11, 30 October 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Alabama shakespeare festival