text:
Talk:Azad Kashmir

To cacahuate: Who are you to say what should or should not be in a Wikivoyage article?

Division
I have redirected the following three recently created articles here and removed them from the article until such time as their relevance to travel can be demonstrated. This region does not cover enough content to warrant a subdivision at this time. Texugo (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mirpur Division
 * Muzaffarabad Division
 * Poonch Division

Remove Banjosa Lake Since It's Covered in Detail Under Rawalakot
Should we remove Banjosa Lake from other destinations since it's covered thoroughly under Rawalakot? It doesn't seem very necessary here except that it's showing the location on the main map.Lazarus1255 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I went ahead and removed it and replaced it with Sharda Valley. Lazarus1255 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Azad Kashmir


text:
Talk:Azerbaijan

Factbook Factoids
I have moved in a whole lot of factbook factoids to give the outline some content and hopefully give people some ideas. Feel free to edit these as appropriate. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:23, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

Link Bar
I'm unsure of how to post on the link bar, but I think that the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Tourism should have a link on the page. The address is http://azerbaijan.tourism.az/.

Regions Hierarchy for Azerbaijan
I removed the administrative divisions from the main page because they are not useful to the traveler and are visually overwhelming. The links, which I have copied below, should be turned into redirects to the appropriate Azerbaijani regions once we have worked out a hierarchical regional structure for the country.

 * This is now done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Off the top of my head here's a stab at a travel regions hierarchy for Azerbaijan: "Absheron Peninsula and surrounding areas?," "Ganca area," "Northeast (mountains)," "Baku area," "Karabakh area," "Central Azerbaijan," and "South Azerbaijan." --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

''Copied from Azerbaijan:
 * Administrative divisions : (Using Official Azerbaijani names, not English names.)
 * 59 rayons (rayonlar; rayon - singular) : Abseron Rayonu, Agjabadi Rayonu, Agdam Rayonu, Agdas Rayonu, Agstafa Rayonu, Agsu Rayonu, Astara Rayonu, Balakan Rayonu, Barda Rayonu, Beylaqan Rayonu, Bilasuvar Rayonu, Cabrayil Rayonu, Calilabad Rayonu, Daskasan Rayonu, Davaci Rayonu, Fuzuli Rayonu, Gadabay Rayonu, Goranboy Rayonu, Goycay Rayonu, Haciqabul Rayonu, Imisli Rayonu, Ismayilli Rayonu, Kalbacar Rayonu, Kurdamir Rayonu, Lacin Rayonu, Lankaran Rayonu, Lerik Rayonu, Masalli Rayonu, Neftcala Rayonu, Oguz Rayonu, Qabala Rayonu, Qax Rayonu, Qazax Rayonu, Qobustan Rayonu, Quba Rayonu, Qubadli Rayonu, Qusar Rayonu, Saatli Rayonu, Sabirabad Rayonu, Sheki Rayonu, Salyan Rayonu, Shamaxi Rayonu, Shamkir Rayonu, Samux Rayonu, Siyazan Rayonu, Shusha Rayonu, Tartar Rayonu, Tovuz Rayonu, Ucar Rayonu, Xacmaz Rayonu, Xanlar Rayonu, Xizi Rayonu, Xocali Rayonu, Xocavand Rayonu, Yardimli Rayonu, Yevlax Rayonu, Zangilan Rayonu, Zaqatala Rayonu, Zardab Rayonu

 * Here are the removed cities that need to be put into the region hierarchy (preferably sooner rather than later!) -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 10:36, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Ali Bayramli
 * Shusha
 * Yevlax
 * Xankandi
 * Astara
 * Goychay
 * Guba
 * Qax
 * Qazak
 * Shemkir
 * Xachmaz
 * Zaqatala

 * Done. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 14:19, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's my rough draft of a regions hierarchy; I would appreciate comments! Once we have settled on the hierarchy, I will turn this into a Wikivoyage-style regions map.

 * Central Azerbaijan (including Absheron Peninsula)
 * Northeastern Azerbaijan
 * Sheki Region
 * Nagorno-Karabakh (and Armenian occupied territory)
 * Northwestern Azerbaijan
 * Southern Azerbaijan
 * Nakhichevan (region)

We could possibly combine the Sheki Region with the Northeast, although there are no transportation links between these two areas. I was also kind of unsure what to do with the sparsely populated center of the country. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 12:44, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Kudos on the Sheki name change!! (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I would like to propose using these region names which coincide with the Azeri Tourism Ministry. This could be helpful if travelers need to gather information from the Tourism Office while visiting.

Rayons should also be listed for the regions. For regions like Nakhchivan, the area included is not hard to distinguish, but as it is listed now on wikivoyage, it is difficult to tell where some of the borders are. This will also help avoid overlap.

My suggestion for regions would be as follows: 1. Baku - Absheron: Includes Baku, Absheron district, and Sumgayit 2. Guba - Khachmaz Region: Includes: Guba, Khachmaz, Siyazan, Devechi, & Gusar 3. Shirvan Region: Includes: Gobustan, Shamakhi, Agsu, Goychay, Ismailly, Kyurdamir, Ujar, Zardab, and Agdash 4. Mugan Region: Includes: Ali Bayramli, Beylagan, Hajigabul, Imishli, Saatly, & Sabirabad 5. Lankeran - Astara: Includes Lankaran, Astara, Bilasuvar, Jalilabad, Lerik, Masally, Neftchala, Salyan, and Yardymly 6. Sheki - Zagatala Region: Includes Sheki, Zagatala, Balaken, Gabala, Gakh, & Oghuz 7. Garabag Region: Includes Kelbajar, Terter, Barda, Agjabedi, Agdam, Khojavend, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Gubadli, Lachin, Shusha, & Khojali 8. Nakhchivan Region: Includes: Nakhchivan, Ordubad, Julfa, Babek, Shahbuz, Sharur, Sadarak, & Kengerli (WT-en) Starvinghog 07:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Azerbaijani Regions
A couple of suggestions..

1. I think that southern Azerbaijan should be divided between the Southeast and South central. I think that the areas are quite different, so it would be better to do that.

2. Ucar, Zardab and Kurdimir should be in the southern region.

3. Shamaxi should be included in the Center region.

4. I think that the Sheki region and the Northeast region need to be separate. Also, they have historically been separate. (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 23:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

 * I will follow your lead on this, as I have only spent one week in Azerbaijan! One question and I'll get started on a full regions map: How do we divide the southeast from south central? What districts where? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:43, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I think that South Central should include:

Ucar, Kurdimir, Zardab, Agibadi, Fuzuli, Beylagan, and Imishli

The South East should have:

Saatly, Sabiribad, Salyan, Neftchala, Jalibad, Masally, Lankaran, Astara, Lerik, etc

(WT-en) Cupcakecommander 06:50, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Chage the names of the regions
There are noty such regions as Talysh region and Nagorno-Karkabakh regions.The region which refers to Nagorno-Karabakh is indeed is absolutely mis-representation. There is Greater Karabakh. Nagrono Karabakh is just part of the Greater Karabakh geographically, ethnically, and historically.

Second, there is not a region called Talysh region. Talish people are constitutent part of the Azerbaijani nation, adding up to 70 thousand people. They mostly live only in 3 administrative regions of Astara, Lenkeran and Lerik. In the rest of the region which you refer as the Talysh the majority of the population ethnically is not Talysh. So this is first of all injustice and mis-representation of facts again.

THird, I am suggesting to editors to remain aside of politics. THis is a wiki web site for tourists, not for politicians. We here in Azerbaijan do not change or name regions just becuase some foreigners or tourists like the name or it would seem interesting to them.

I am Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani. Those who don't like my name and me, are not welcome in my country. Atilla.--213.172.73.210 08:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)

 * Please do not make changes like this without first gaining consensus for your proposal. Please also see Project:Geographical hierarchy for information on how Wikivoyage organizes its region pages. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Update proposal
I would like to propose using these region names which coincide with the Azeri Tourism Ministry. This could be helpful if travelers need to gather information from the Tourism Office while visiting.

Rayons should also be listed for the regions. For regions like Nakhchivan, the area included is not hard to distinguish, but as it is listed now on wikivoyage, it is difficult to tell where some of the borders are. This will also help avoid overlap.

My suggestion for regions would be as follows: (WT-en) Starvinghog 07:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * 1) Baku - Absheron: Includes Baku, Absheron district, and Sumgayit
 * 2) Guba - Khachmaz Region: Includes: Guba, Khachmaz, Siyazan, Devechi, & Gusar
 * 3) Shirvan Region: Includes: Gobustan, Shamakhi, Agsu, Goychay, Ismailly, Kyurdamir, Ujar, Zardab, and Agdash
 * 4) Mugan Region: Includes: Ali Bayramli, Beylagan, Hajigabul, Imishli, Saatly, & Sabirabad
 * 5) Lankeran - Astara: Includes Lankaran, Astara, Bilasuvar, Jalilabad, Lerik, Masally, Neftchala, Salyan, and Yardymly
 * 6) Sheki - Zagatala Region: Includes Sheki, Zagatala, Balaken, Gabala, Gakh, & Oghuz
 * 7) Garabag Region: Includes Kelbajar, Terter, Barda, Agjabedi, Agdam, Khojavend, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Gubadli, Lachin, Shusha, & Khojali
 * 8) Nakhchivan Region: Includes: Nakhchivan, Ordubad, Julfa, Babek, Shahbuz, Sharur, Sadarak, & Kengerli

 * I'm all for using non-directional names (e.g., Northeastern Azerbaijan), so I definitely don't mind changing things a bit. We do, however, already list rayons on the region pages—I don't think it's a good idea to list them on the main Azerbaijan article, as they would start to clutter the region list. So to distill your proposal a bit, you are proposing we rename:

 * Northeastern Azerbaijan → "Guba-Khachmaz Region"
 * Shirvan Region would be made from parts of the Ganja Region, Southern Azerbaijan, & Southern Azerbaijan
 * Baku Region → "Baku-Absheron"
 * Mugan Region would be made from parts of the Talysh Region & Southern Azerbaijan

 * I like these four proposals, as they rename regions & redraw regions to reflect local names & local cultures.

 * But you have forgotten the rest of the rayons in the current Ganja Region—do you think that should be left intact, after having broken off the rayons going into the Shirvan Region? You also left out Khizhi from your proposal—should it belong to the "Shirvan Region?"

 * I oppose creating a Nakhchivan Region of Azerbaijan, because the vast majority of it is controlled by Armenia & the unrecognized government of Nagorno-Karabakh, and is therefore not open to visitors from Azerbaijan. I prefer to leave the current Nagorno-Karabakh section of the map as is, as it delineates, more or less, the line of control.

 * I also oppose the name change from Talysh Region to Lankaran-Astara—I prefer "Talysh Region" because that refers to the culture of the region, rather than simply its principal cities.

 * Lastly, I don't think it is necessary to rename Sheki Region to "Sheki-Zaqatala," because Sheki is overwhelmingly the most important destination in that section of the country. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 07:57, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for pointing out my oversite on Ganja. It should be the final region. The Tourism Ministry calls it the Ganjabasar Region. This would include: Yevlakh, Mingechevir, Goranboy, Ganja, Khanlar, Dashkesan, Samukh, Shamkir, Gadabey, Tovuz, Gazakh, and Agstafa.

Khizhi is generally grouped with the Guba-Khachmaz regions of the NE.

I agree with your idea of the Nakchivan Region would be confusing to travelers to have the occupied territories listed under Azerbaijan, but they are accepted as Azeri territories. Perhaps they should be included in a section called "Occupied Territories" also. This might have a few benefits including travel warnings. As you can imagine, this territory is a hot topic throughout Azerbaijan. Not listing it on the Azer travel page could also be perceived as a political affiliation.

I don't think the Talysh Region name needs to change. Same goes with the Sheki page. But for the Talysh Region, we should definitely include rayon names. I've never heard it referred to as the Talysh Region by locals. They go by rayon/city names. Lankeran is synonymous with SE.

In short, I think the following pages should be added: add Khizhi to Guba-Khachmaz; add a Ganjabasar Region; and an Occupied Region.

(WT-en) Starvinghog 08:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I do not agree with Starvinghog on his suggestions on the names of the region. You are talking of ,aki9ng the list of regions consistent with the list of the Ministry of Tourism, but then you are suggesting to keep the name of the region as the Talysh region. This is illogical. You don't provide any arguments for this as well. I reject your proposal. I suggest that we should be consistent with the Azerbaijan Ministry of Tourism and names of regions shall be consistent with the the names given by Azerbaijani people. This will also respect the choices and names given by Azerbaijani people. Secondaly, I am sure that non-Talysh people of the region would very much dislike to hear that they live in pse-udo region called Talysh region by a distant foreigner who has no clue on the history and ethnic composition of Azerbaijan. Second naming this region as Talysh would just confuse tourists and can create problems with the police and the local population. So if you objective is to create problems for tourists then we can go on with Peter's illogical and groundless suggestions. Atilla--213.172.73.210 02:32, 17 November 2008 (EST)

 * All !  Exisitng names of regions don't match their real borders and NAMES  !  In Azerbaijan, we don't separate country to regions in daily life, but there are some for statistical and analysis proposals:

1. Absheron. Includes City of Baku and Sumqayit, Absheron and Xizi rayons

2. Ganja-Qazakh. Includes City of Ganja, Agstafa, Qazakh, Tovuz, Shamkir, Gadabay, Dashkasan, Samukh, Goygol, Goranboy rayons

3. Shaki-Zaqatala. Includes City of Shaki, Balaken, Zaqatala, Qakh, Shaki, Oquz and Qabala rayons

4. Lankaran. City and of Lankaran, Astara, Lerik, Yardymly, South Lankaran, Masally, Jalilabad rayons

5. Quba-Khachmaz. Khachmaz, Shabran, Siazan, Qusar, Quba rayons

6. Arran. Includes. City of Shirvan, Mingachevir, Naftalan and Yevlakh, Lankaran North, Neftchala, Bilasuvar, Salyan, Sabirabad, Saatly, Imishli, Beylaqan, Hajiqabul, Kurdamir, Zarbad, Barda, Yevlakh, Agdash, Goychay, Ujar rayons

7. Daglig-Shirvan. Gobustan, Shamakhi, Agsu, Ismailly rayons

8. Nakhchvan. Territory of Nakhchvan Autonomus Republic ( enclave )

9. Yukhary-Garabakh ( Original territory of Nagorno-karabakh autonomus oblast)

10. Kalbajar - Lachin. Defacto occupied by Armenia. This area links landlocked Garabakh and Armenia.

This changes will make life of travelers easier and will help to better understand country. Also as variant, it can be used Old russian or safavi iranian, osman, seljuk or halifate admin division that used to be presented those times. I think travelers have to be familiar with the former historical states that used to be presented in different regions. Besides Azerbaijan, i can't make maps...plugs dont installing on my pc. Maybe someone can make map like this Ismail Khatai (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * You're proposing 10 regions. Currently, there are 7 on this site. Given that regions are set up on this site for the benefit of travellers, regardless of whether they are official or not, is there currently enough content to support 10 region articles or will there be after you add it? I guess the basic question is, can each of these regions support at least 7 or so city + "other destinations" articles (maybe 5 might be sufficient in a few cases)? I think that what would help would be to detail which currently existing articles would come under which of the 10 regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * for the benefit of travellers - the exact reason to change region list for the article. Current divisions mixing different geographic and cultural regions which is not convenience for tourists. My proposal is to separate mountanious regions from dry steppe and river valleys. Such sepations will creat more density of landmarks and to do thing for every single region. I agree to remain Nagorno-Karabakh territory as it is, but with some remarks of the occupied and original terrritory to give a better understanding for tourists.

One more region need to be added to achieve the required amount of regions. Current regions can be renamed in other way than regional classification:

 * 1) Baku to Absheron-Shirvan

 * 1) Ganja to Ganjabasar

 * 1) Shaki to Shaki-Balaken

 * 1) Talysh to South-East Arran-Talysh

 * 1) Southern to Arran

 * 1) Northeastern to Quba-Khachmaz

Nakhchivan and Nagorno-karabakh remain the same Ismail Khatai (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I expressed my feeling about the Nagorno-Karabakh map at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. In the interest of travellers, the parts of Nagorno-Karabakh under the control of Azerbaijan should not be grouped with the areas that are de facto independent.

 * But that said, I think it's still a relevant question how many city + "other destinations" articles can currently be linked from each of the 10 regions (you can also include articles you plan to start). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I notice you've started creating articles for rayons. I didn't realize you planned on doing that. It may be that there is enough content for 10 region articles, but I seriously doubt that there will be enough content to have an article for every rayon, and therefore, at this time, I would oppose there being any rayon articles. Instead, let's see if we can develop a consensus for re-regionalizing Azerbaijan into the 10 official districts, as you'd like to do. You can start by listing the cities and "other regions" — not rayons — in each of the 10 districts that already have articles, or which have enough potential content (for example, a couple of potential listings for "See", "Do", "Eat" and "Sleep") for you to create useful articles about them.

 * The other thing is, we will need more than 2 people discussing this, so after you address this question, one of us should post a pointer and summary to Requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Should cities + see + do lists added to current region pages ? Ismail Khatai (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * No. See Region article template for some basic guidance, but the basic idea would be to give brief prose (not templated and not bulleted) summaries of the highlights of things to do, see, etc. in the region. You might want to read through that page before discussing a new regionalization scheme for Azerbaijan. It's waited for some time and can wait longer without any terrible consequences. You could also consider looking at that article's talk page afterwards. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * To clarify: All cities in a region should be listed and linked in the "Cities" section, but "See" and "Do" should not be lists in region pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Presentation in Azeri
Guys, I have a recently translated explanation of Wikivoyage; detailing the purpose and benefits of creating a wikivoyage page in English and Azeri if any of you are interested. Just let me know and I can send it to you. (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 09:04, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Orphaned (and unreachable) cities
The following towns are in the Azerbaijan region of Nagorno-Karabakh, but are not actually part of the unrecognized state of Nagorno-Karabakh:

 * Jabrayil, Kalbajar, Lachin, Qubadli, Khojali, Khojavand, and Zangilan.

All these towns are under the full control of either the Nagorno-Karabakh separatist government or the Armenian military and, I believe, are totally closed to foreigners. Many, if not all, may also be ghost towns with no remaining places to stay. I'm not too sure what to do with these—we could change the regional structure of Azerbaijan somewhat to have a Nagorno-Karabakh region and a Armenian occupied territories region to cover these cities, but I'm not sure we should bother if no one can go to these places anyway.

Another orphaned city is Tartar, which is right by the de facto border, but is controlled by Azerbaijan. I think it would fit into Ganja Region, but I was just curious whether Azerbaijan allows travelers to visit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:59, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

 * It is possible to go to Tartar city as the actual line of control is about 10 km west of it. (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 01:59, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Great, I've now deorphaned it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:03, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Trans-Caucasus Itinerary
I am interested in assisting in creating a 12-15 day trans-Caucasus itinerary with Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia. Would anyone be interested in assisting me with this? (WT-en) Cupcakecommander 02:53, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Visa Requirements for Azerbaijan
Any one knows what is the visa requirements for Azerbaijan ? I found a page in Ministry of Forign Affairs site of Azerbaijan but interested to see what is it actually like in real cases and experience of travellers. --(WT-en) Mehrdad 08:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT) Entering Azerbaijan from Georgia. All I needed to do was fill out a form, put down an address of a hotel, pay $63 (for Canadians), provide2 passprot photos and I was fine. No letter of invitation needed.

Transliteration
We are all over the place with our Azeri→English transliteration. While some consonants (like ə and ı) are odd enough where we should simply defer to the name-specific English-language standard (like Ganja), we should aim for consistency with others:

 * Cc → j
 * Çç → ch
 * Ğğ → gh
 * Xx → kh
 * Jj → y
 * Qq → q
 * Şş → sh

These are pretty much based on standard English-language transliterations of Turkish. The only one that would be at all controversial is q→q, since a lot of people seem to gravitate towards q→g, but that just makes it harder to divine what the original Azeri spelling was—there's no reason to drop the q. Any objections to using these as transliteration rules? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Azerbaijan edit conflict
copied from User talk:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald

I rolled back three edits made by an anonymous user yesterday on the Azerbaijan article (history) in an attempt to keep the working neutral regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This user redid those edits. The paragraphs have been moved and broken up, but the only significant change is the wording of NKR-related sentences (which I recently wrote). It started off as this little blurb:
 * The region of Nagorno-Karabakh was the subject of a war with Armenia that has left it a de facto independent republic. "Occupied" by the Armenian army, this conflict has not officially ended with minor skirmishes frequent, and is a major source of contention among Azerbaijanis.''

Occupied is in quotation marks to reflect the attitude you find throughout Az. regarding the situation. I thought that was a good description of the situation and fair, but this anonymous user has changed it to:
 * The Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, which is part of Azerbaijan, was the subject of a war with Armenia that has left it a de facto independent republic, which is not internationally recognized, ironically including Armenia which "supports" it. Azerbaijan has lost 13% of its territory and must support some 800,000 refugees and internally displaced persons as a result of the conflict. Despite a 1994 cease-fire, Azerbaijan has yet to resolve its conflict with Armenia over the Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Occupied by the local Armenian troops to this day, this conflict has not officially ended with minor skirmishes frequent, and is a major source of contention among Azerbaijanis. "

The user asserts in the edit summary that: "Occupied is a fact based not on politics but on the actual situation which does affect potential travellers to that area." It would be nice if, as an admin and third-party, you could please explain this to the user as I'm not sure how to best explain this to him/her and would like to avoid an edit war. Thanks. (WT-en) AHeneen 00:00, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

 * It's probably best that we discuss before continuing in light of disagreement, so I have reverted the article to the prior version per Project:Consensus. I don't have any serious problems with either version in terms of reconciling them, but would strongly suggest that we significantly decrease the amount of attention paid to the N-K conflict in the understand section, as it's not terribly important background information for travelers, who would be better served by information related to the kinds of things they will see when visiting the more visited parts of the country (Baku, Sheki, Qobustan, etc.). Very few visitors are going to see anything related to the war and none will visit N-K on their Azerbaijan trip.

 * Also, it would be nice to shorten that intro and move some of the info to the understand section—but not the entire thing! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:37, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Currency?
Our Currency article currently says prices in Azerbaijan should be in the format "AZN100" but this article mostly uses "100 AZN". I'd prefer "100 manat" to either of those; I think it is more readable. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The currency article now says to use "manat". If a different decision is reached here, that article will need updating too. Pashley (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I think we should use the local name and not the ISO code. Jjtkk (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree, but that may not count for much since I don't know the country. Pashley (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cities and "Other destinations"
First, towns or villages should not be included, because populated places are classed as "cities" on this site. However, as only 7 "Cities" are listed (one of which currently is red-linked), 2 of the "Notable towns and villages" should be moved to the "Cities" section. Which ones?

Second, are we OK with resorts being listed with external links at the country level? Perhaps that's OK. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The two that have articles and are inhabited; Khinalug and Gakh. The ghost town can stay in Other destinations.
 * Because there are just a few of resorts with external links, and we don't have articles for them, I'm not opposed to keeping them here. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Qakh and Khinalyg are not ghost towns. They should stay in Town and Village section. User:Ismail Khatai (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 * There should not be a separate section for towns and villages. Wikivoyage policy is to consider all communities as "cities", regardless of their population and what they are officially called. See Geographical hierarchy and Country article template for some guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Respect for Women
I changed the following point in Respect because it seemed suspect. I'm not suggesting the Azerbaijan should be a sexist country, but suggesting that all areas of the former USSR are female friendly, as well as the somewhat aggressive tone doesn't sit easy with me. Women_in_Azerbaijan doesn't support the view below with "40% of Azerbaijanis surveyed in 2012 still believed that agree that women should tolerate domestic violence in order to keep their family together, and 22% agreed that there are times when a woman deserves to be beaten"

 * Women in Azerbaijan are traditionally treated with utmost respect, as it is also the case in the entire CIS/former USSR area. Female travellers should not act surprised or indignant when their Azerbaijani male friends pay their bills at restaurants, open every door in front of them, offer their hand to help them climb down that little step or help them carry anything heavier than a handbag - this is not sexual harassment or being condescending to females. Male travellers should understand that this is exactly the sort of behavior that most Azerbaijani girls and women will expect from them, too.

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning box

 * "However, the warnings vary—Canada and New Zealand are often on one side of the extreme. "

Should we really casting shade on travel warnings provided by any countries? Do we have better intel than these countries' foreign ministries? That sounds presumptuous to me. I think it would be better to report the gist of various countries' warnings, and let the readers make up their own minds. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't quite understand what it's supposed to mean. Selfie City (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's best to link various countries' travel advisories. It's certainly possible to characterize those warnings, but only descriptively. See Danakil Depression for an example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberal attitude towards Islam?
What is a "liberal attitude towards Islam" (in Understand/Culture)? I would take that as Azeri accepting Islam and Muslims, but as the majority are Muslims, that cannot be the intended meaning. Is it about them accepting Muslim denominations other than their own? Would Shi'ite Muslims be assumed to be less liberal? Isn't that prejudice? Anyway, this needs to be reworded in a way that travellers with little knowledge from before can understand. –LPfi (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume what that means is a liberal form of Islam, meaning one relatively lacking in strong efforts to restrict dress or behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that too. I think Azerbaijanis are among the, if not the, least religious and practising Muslim-majority nations. From WP: "Azerbaijan ... is often considered the most secularized Muslim-majority nation." Vidimian (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I'd presume. I would take it to mean that most Azerbaijani citizens still identify as Shia Muslims, and still retain some Islamic cultural practices, but are otherwise not very strict in their observance of things like Islamic dress and sex segregation. The dog2 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Or abstaining from drinking alcohol. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible. Does somebody know? Could somebody put into words in the article? (On least religious: how do Azeris compare to Bosniaks?) –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Azerbaijanis vs Bosniaks, there are many questions asked in inquiries attempting to assess the religiousity of societies. Off the top of my head, this is a research commonly cited on online forums, estimating the support for w:Sharia (the fundamental Islamic law) among Muslims. The least support is among Azerbaijanis, and the Bosniaks' support is almost double that of Azerbaijanis, although the overall margin is not very wide. w:Religion in Europe also has some comparisons (30% more of Bosniaks replied "yes" to "is religion important in your daily life?" than Azerbaijanis), and w:Cultural Muslims has some background info. Vidimian (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Carnet required?
Azerbaijan says that to bring in a car a deposit of several thousand US$ used to be required, but no longer is.

Is a Carnet de Passages required? Pashley (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Azerbaijan


text:
Talk:Azerbaijan (disambiguation)

This page is not necessary. The country Azerbaijan and the Iranan province Azerbaijan (Iran) should just point to each other. They used to, but someone has "fixed" that (If it ain't broke ...) and added this page. Any comment before I remove the "fix" and vfd this? (WT-en) Pashley 02:06, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Agreed -- go right ahead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:20, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Azerbaijan (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Azerbaijan in 5 days

VFD Discussion

 * Delete Can someone else just confirm that these articles are just to make you do a tour of specific cafes/restaurants, and aren't really itineraries at all? --(WT-en) inas 19:13, 9 December 2010 (EST)
 * Keep. Created by a reasonably well-established Wikivoyager, who has done plenty of good work in good faith on articles around the globe, and it's beyond the outline threshold.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:42, 12 December 2010 (EST)
 * Okay. --(WT-en) inas 17:19, 12 December 2010 (EST)

 * Keep - I do find it odd that your first meal in Azerbaijan is actually Lebanese and that the first two nights' dinners are at the same place (Also wonder why you automatically get sent to Georgia at the end of your trip), but there seems enough to sketch out each day and be potentially useful. (WT-en) Texugo 22:18, 12 December 2010 (EST)

 * Keep also. Texugo, Georgia might actually be a good place to send a traveler to end a stay in Azerbaijan.  If I read this correctly, there are over 70 countries, whose citizens do not need a visa to enter or stay in Georgia for up to a year.  According to our Caucasus article, the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia are closed for obvious reasons and I imagine it would be difficult and dangerous for travelers to head into Iran (Tehran has, after all, arrested Americans hikers in Iraq for "entering" Iran illegally and being spies).  But, I refer this to others with more experience than I in the Caucasus.  Peter, do you  have any insight? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 15:58, 13 December 2010 (EST)
 * Not saying that it isn't a logical choice to continue on by land, just thought it was weird that it was presented as an obvious only choice. The article doesn't tell you where to enter Azerbaijan from. Why should it deal with where you go afterwards? (WT-en) Texugo 22:03, 14 December 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Azerbaijan in 5 days


text:
Talk:Azerbaijani phrasebook

Multiple alphabets
For travelers, contact with written Azeri will be overwhelmingly in the Latin alphabet, and I think the inclusion of all three alphabets in the pronunciation guide is visually overwhelming (and overwhelming is especially undesirable when it comes to phrasebooks). I'd like to remove the other two, and then put a long infobox on the right showing the three alphabets next to each other. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I thought that adding the persian/arabic script was necessary since that is used in Iran. Since I had gone that far, I figured I might as well include cyrillic (since that was used until just 7 years ago & not haing been to Azerbaijan, I don't know how much is left in cyrillic). As long as all three are shown on the page, feel free to do what you propose. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:16, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
 * On second thought, how about just axing the cyrillic. According to Wikipedia, Azerbaijani is really a macrolanguage with North Azeri (Azerbaijan) and South Azeri (Iran) being mutually intelligible. While the traveller will be more likely to encounter the latin script...there are more speakers (24mil. vs. 7mil.) of south Azeri using the Persian script. Given this, I think leaving out the cyrillic and keeping the latin & persian scripts will not be too overwhelming. I'll go ahead and do that (you can use history to see the three, if you want to put in an infobox).(WT-en) AHeneen 00:19, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

 * I like this solution—it already looks much more manageable. I don't think you'll see much Azeri in Cyrillic at all, unless it's on a sign that also has a Latin transliteration. And even then, I can't recall seeing it used anywhere in Azerbaijan. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:41, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Name?
I thought the language was just called Azeri, not Azerbaijani. If so, the article should be moved to Azeri phrasebook. Pashley (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Azerbaijani phrasebook


text:
Talk:Azores

Terrible Article
Wow... This is the worst wikivoyage article I have ever seen. It looks like it has been taken out of a travel brochure, and probably has been. This needs to be completely rewritten.

 * Plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:23, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Thing is I haven't been there so I don't really feel I should be the one to do it as I know nothing about it. Anyone here been there? Or should I just delete all that BS?

 * Yes, much of it appears to be copyright violations. The first thing I searched for to test was "salt water fly fishing Azores". That entire section, and several that follow it, are word-for-word identical with http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g189123-c91598/Azores:Portugal:Active.Things.To.Do.html. I do not know if the writer here took it from Trip Advisor or vice versa. (WT-en) Pashley 04:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * I'd be tempted to just delete everything right down to the understand section, and let the article grow appropriately. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:15, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * Sooooo, should we proceed identifying and deleting the copyvios? (WT-en) Sertmann 13:26, 1 December 2008 (EST)

 * Yes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

 * Certainly. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:35, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Awful Article
Is there not a single person on the Azores who would look to see their islands portrayed in a more positive light than this?

Truly pathetic photo as well.

0/10

Curio-Shop Article
I just came across this article and I thought, "why never disclose it anyway?" --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorize with Portugal?
The Azores are an integrated part of Portugal. The category "Islands" is awkward; Portugal should be better. /Yvwv (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Azores and Madeira are both listed in Portugal. I don't see the downside in simply breadcrumbing them to Portugal. Canary Islands are breadcrumbed to Spain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Azores


text:
Talk:Babahoyo

I add this wiki because i live in that small town. It is very particular place that people can enjoy it. Luis Goya

title: Talk:Babahoyo


text:
Talk:Baños

Flat share listing
I appreciate the helpful gesture in listing it, and I have not yet deleted it, but I would like to read an argument for why we should allow listings for renting a room or two in a house. This seems much more perilous than listing vacation rental agencies, which is already a controversial topic requiring a consensus in any article (see Project:Accomodation listings). My fear is that allowing listings for house and apartment shares would really open a Pandora's Box and turn Wikivoyage guides into bottomless pits of dubious listings of all sorts. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:33, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Flatshare Baños
Hi,

I've never contributed to Wikivoyage before but I was impressed by this flatshare and I thought it would be useful for people who wanted to learn Spanish. The guy who ran it was really nice and it gave us an opportunity to get to know some of the locals. I thought that the whole point of Wikivoyage was that it was powered by travelers rather than being a commercial advertising platform. I understand your concern but I think it would be a shame if useful knowledge which could only be obtained first had was lost.

Kind regards,

Ben

 * Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sincerity and the feelings you express. But could you suggest a way for us to police these kinds of listings against the "Pandora's Box" argument I offered above? Also, not to worry in case you (and the rest of us) can't: There are other places where you can share your tips if we can't formulate a way to prevent these kinds of listings to turn every article into a new Craigslist.

 * All the best,

 * (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:08, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

 * I also stumbled upon this listing. Maybe we should rewrite it to make Ben's point clear here? Or should we delete such listings?
 * Saraedum (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Keeping in mind the pitfalls to allowing such listings, we could still cautiously adopt a "traveler comes first" justification for including them when they seem truly legitimate and useful. What's your feeling about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Thinking about it, the question is probably also whether the rooms can be rented for single nights. If so, then there is not much of a difference between this place and a BnB. I wrote an email to the owner to ask about this. I might also just ring the bell and ask if I happen to pass by the place later. Saraedum (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * You're right: That is like a BnB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Minimum is one night. I'll adapt the listing to make this clear. Saraedum (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Casa Verde
I removed the Casa Verde listing which to me seemed clearly promotional. I am somewhat new to WikiVoyage so let me know if that was the wrong thing to do. Saraedum (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It was a right thing to do, though not the only possible way to deal with the touty description. Another possibility, if you think the listing is otherwise useful, would be to restore the listing minus the "content", which looked purely promotional. I would trust your judgment on this, either way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baños


text:
Talk:Backpacker

Overlap
There's significant overlap between this new article and these articles: Hostels, Rock bottom budget travelling, Urban backpacking and Wilderness backpacking. Any reason why it shouldn't be merged into Urban backpacking and redirected? (WT-en) Hypatia 01:49, 15 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Merger looks appropriate to me; but redirect to Backpacking - ? ~ 203.144.143.2 06:18, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Yeah, that's probably a better idea. (WT-en) Hypatia 21:00, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

Redirected
Content now merged into Urban backpacking, and the article has been redirected to Backpacking

title: Talk:Backpacker


text:
Talk:Bad Aussee

I have to ask, is this a real place? (WT-en) Maj 23:58, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bad Aussee


text:
Talk:Bad Bevensen

Quickbar
We don't use quickbars for cities, so I'm putting it here. (WT-en) texugo 01:08, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Official website

 * http://www.bad-bevensen.de/
 * http://www.bad-bevensen-tourismus.de/

I took these from the contact section. We usually choose only the most relevant official site and put it in the lead, in the first line after the destination name. I don't know which of the 3 sites that is, so if the one left in the article is not the official site, please change it. (WT-en) texugo 01:14, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bad Bevensen


text:
Talk:Baden

Disambiguation
Actually this page should be a disambigation page, since there's other Baden's around the world, but I don't really understand the policy on disambiguation. Should it be named 'Baden (Switzerland)'? -- (WT-en) Nojer2 14:06, 14 Dec 2004 (EST)
 * Yes I think so, unless there are other Badens in Switzerland. (The USA has this problem: there are lots of towns there that share names -- see Burlington!) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 15:27, 14 Dec 2004 (EST)
 * Now that the article about Baden has been moved to Baden (Switzerland), this discussion should stay with Talk:Baden, not Talk:Baden (Switzerland). So I am moving (only) the talk page back. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:50, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Ok - move done. Now for the tricky question. What other places in the world are called Baden, other than Baden (Switzerland)? I know there is Baden-Baden and Baden-Württemberg but is anywhere else simply called Baden that we write articles about? Until there is a bit of a list there is no point in creating a disambiguation page, so I am thinking of moving Baden (Switzerland) back too. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:02, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Please see there: WikiPedia:Baden (disambiguation) and WikiPedia:Baden, and this: Baden (Region). --(WT-en) Atlas 05:12, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Baden


text:
Talk:Baden (Switzerland)

Northeastern Switzerland?
If I am not mistaken Aargau is located in north-central Switzerland. I believe that for a location to qualify as laying in Northeastern Switzerland it'd have to be to the east of Zürich? I think a few other people should look at a map of the country and post here before I change anything as whoever wrote that Baden is located in the northeast has placed it on the "Northeastern Switzerland" page and I do not feel right changing it on my own. -- 151.203.161.206 - 20:29, 8 March 2006

 * Yeah. I wrote that it's in Northeastern Switzerland but you're right, that probably should be only places east of Zurich. Looking Switzerland I'm not sure which one Baden should be in though. It's not really Central Switzerland along with Lucerne is it? Maybe it's Zurich (region) close to the border of Basel (region) ? hmmm Need a map of regions -- (WT-en) Nojer2 19:05, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * They call it Mittelland, which my wife does not know how to translate into English. She and I would argue "Mittelland" applies to the flat area (Flachland) of the country from about Zuerich to the Romandie. If you want to put Baden in a region, put it with Zuerich because it is connected to the city's S-Bahn system and many people commute to Zuerich from there. It is only 15 mintues away via a fast train. Basel is 45 minutes. On a side note, the Müllerbräu beer garden now has its own website, so I updated the link. It tells you when it is open or closed via the internet, much easier than treking over there to find it closed on account of the weather. (151.203.161.206 again, or Seanmullan on Wikipedia). 29 June 2006.

Crest hike over the Lägeren maplink correction

 * I corrected the maplink (LineString) for Crest hike over the Lägeren in the Baden (Switzerland) article. There were errors in coding the coordinates section (each set of) and argument (parameter) order for that maplink - Will check again at a later date to insure it is working correctly.... Matroc (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baden (Switzerland)


text:
Talk:Baden-Württemberg

Baden-Württemberg or Baden-Wuerttemberg
Does this have to be "Wuerttemberg" instead of "Württemberg"? Yes, I've read the naming conventions, but:

 * is "ue" the commonly used spelling? Or rather "Wurttemberg"?  I'm German, and live in BaWü, so I don't know.
 * the naming conv says not to use non-Latin characters. "ü" is Latin... so?

I'd like to move it to the proper spelling, but don't want to commit a big faux-pas on my first day on WikiTravel. --(WT-en) Jae 08:52, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Have a read of Project:Foreign-language names before moving. Google indicates that "Baden-Wurttemberg" is a more common English name but "Baden-Wuerttemberg" is a common alternative. I would move the article (but not this talk page) to "Baden-Wurttemberg", and add a redirect from Baden-Württemberg then mention all 3 spellings in the first line of the article.  This means all the Google possibilities are covered as the article is presented under all 3 titles, though only sits on the most popular English one. Unfortunately ü is not standard English. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:25, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * 'Wuerttemberg' is definitely wrong, but whether ü is OK or not is in flux right now. Let's hold off on this for a moment. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:00, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Wuerttemberg is definitely more correct than Wurttemberg (which is incorrect but widely used). Umlauts are correctly transcribed using e: ä=ae, ü=ue, ö=oe

 * For our purposes, "incorrect but widely used" is kind of a contradiction in terms. We standardize on "English names" because (despite not being the correct names used by the people who actually live there) they're widely used by our audience.  "Vienna" is a bad transliteration of "Wien", "Florence" is a butchering of "Firenze", and how did we get "Munich" out of "München"?  But those are the spellings that anglophones use, so we do as well.  If Wurttemburg is more widely used than Wuerttemburg, it should be used instead. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:45, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Interesting to see that our São Paulo article is not called by the more common anglicisation of Sao Paulo. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting into further sub-regions?
There is a bunch of orphaned pages which need to be de-orphaned. The following lists were deleted under the 7±2 rule, but if there are no objections, I will turn them into sub regions in a few days. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 08:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Here are the different regions for each Regierungsbezirk:

Freiburg (Regierungsbezirk)

 * Waldshut
 * Loerrach
 * Freiburg i. Br.
 * Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald
 * Konstanz
 * Tuttlingen
 * Schwarzwald-Baar Kreis
 * Emmendingen
 * Rottweil
 * Ortenaukreis

Karlsruhe (Regierungsbezirk)

Tuebingen (Regierungsbezirk)
 * Baden-Baden, kreisfreie Stadt
 * Calw, Landkreis
 * Enzkreis
 * Freudenstadt
 * Heidelberg
 * Karlsruhe, kreisfreie Stadt
 * Karlsruhe, Landkreis
 * Mannheim
 * Neckar-Odenwald-Kreis
 * Pforzheim
 * Rastatt
 * Region Mittlerer Oberrhein
 * Region Nordschwarzwald
 * Region Unterer Neckar
 * Rhein-Neckar-Kreis

 * Alb-Donau-Kreis
 * Biberach
 * Bodenseekreis
 * Ravensburg
 * Region Bodensee-Oberschwaben
 * Region Donau-Iller
 * Region Neckar-Alb
 * Reutlingen
 * Sigmaringen
 * Tübingen
 * Ulm
 * Zollernalbkreis

Stuttgart (Regierungsbezirk)

 * Böblingen
 * Esslingen
 * Göppingen
 * Heidenheim
 * Heilbronn, kreisfreie Stadt
 * Heilbronn, Landkreis
 * Hohenlohekreis
 * Ludwigsburg
 * Main-Tauber-Kreis
 * Ostalbkreis
 * Region Heilbronn-Franken
 * Region Ostwürttemberg
 * Region Stuttgart
 * Rems-Murr-Kreis
 * Schwäbisch Hall
 * Stuttgart

 * I removed this lists without considering that this will create orphaned articles. I'll create region articles, but naming them "xxx (region)" not "xxx (Regierungsbezirk)". Feel free to change this if you do not like it, I am not sure what is better. --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 09:18, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 06:14, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

--ludwigshafen is not in baden-württemberg !!!!!!! so BASF is in rheinland-pfalz

 * I do not like the current political regions we have set up, I think we can better use tourist regions for this state. Stuttgart Region doesn't ring any bells with most visitors, so I suggest the following sub-regions:

 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald)
 * Lake Constance (Bodensee)
 * Northern Baden Württemberg
 * Swabian Alps

I'd like to hear some input before I implement these regions.

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:43, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I see a problem that both Black Forest and Lake Constance already exist as regions extending far beyond Baden-Württemberg, further do the suggested regions cover all of the state? We need to set up regions for the regional hierarchy without gaps or overlaps.  But apart from that, I agree that we should avoid the political regions, if possible, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 19:00, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

 * This way we can cover the whole state:

 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald)
 * Electoral Palatinate (Kurpfalz)
 * Kraichgau-Stromberg
 * High Rhine-Lake Constance (Hochrhein-Bodensee)
 * Heilbronn-Franken
 * Odenwald
 * Stuttgart Region
 * Swabian Alps
 * Upper Swabia-Lake Constance (Oberschwaben-Bodensee)

The Black Forest article does not extend beyond its purpose. The Lake Constance region does extend into Austria and Switzerland, so we could create the two articles I just proposed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:24, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

 * That looks fine. I think it is important to define these new regions, ideally by a map but until we have that by explanation eg with reference to counties or other, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:40, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Pedelecs (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
 * Southern Odenwald
 * Region Heilbronn-Franken
 * Region Stuttgart
 * Southern Upper Rhine Plain (Oberrheinische Tiefebene)
 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald)
 * Swabian Jura (Swabian Alps) (Schwäbische Alb)
 * Westallgäu (district Ravensburg) or Upper Swabia–Lake Constance
 * Lake Constance (Bodensee) or Upper Swabia–Lake Constance

Now four sub-regions with 3 extra regions --Traveler100 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened for a long time. I would suggest a mixture of geographical and political regions:
 * Lake Constance (Bodensee) with the districts Konstanz and Bodenseekreis
 * Upper Swabia (Oberschwaben) north from Lake Constance to Danube river
 * Swabian Mountains (Schwäbische Alb) north of Danube river with districts Rottweil, Zollernalb, Tübingen, Reutlingen, parts of Göppingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis, Heidenheim, Ostalbkreis
 * Stuttgart region with the districts Böblingen, Esslingen, Stuttgart, Ludwigsburg, Rems-Murr-Kreis, parts of Göppingen
 * Heilbronn-Franken (with the districts Heilbronn, Hohenlohekreis, Main-Tauber-Kreis, Schwäbisch Hall)
 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald) all the southwest part with the districts of Karlsruhe and Enzkreis
 * Rhein-Neckar region - with disticts of Rhein-Neckar-Kreis, Neckar-Odenwald-Kreis and Heidelberg/Mannheim

Or the simple way --Uhkabu (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald)
 * Lake Constance (Bodensee)
 * Swabian Mountains
 * Northern Baden Württemberg

After some more research in official tourist pages (e.g. http://www.tourism-bw.com/) I suggest a similar division. Until there is not enough input for the northern region I would suggest to keep this as one region. And the problem with Lake Constance could be solved with a "Lake Constance Region". A map would help a lot. --Uhkabu (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Northern Baden-Württemberg
 * Stuttgart Region
 * Swabian Mountains
 * Black Forest (Schwarzwald)
 * Lake Constance Region (Bodensee-Region)

I added a simple map for the suggestion above. --Uhkabu (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I reverted your change only for the time being, because no one seems to have noticed or contributed much to this conversation. Please let me have a look at this first. Texugo (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, this seems fairly reasonable to me, so I have reverted by reversion above. Please don't forget to adjust all the breadcrumbs/IsPartOf/categories accordingly though! Thanks! Texugo (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Uhm, and what do we achieve by that? Do we have too much information in the Baden-Württemberg article that needs to be split out? Do we benefit from extra content added to the regional articles? Most are stubs at best, Black Forest is an article on the mountain range rather than region anyway, and what does the article on Lake Constance Region add vs the one Lake Constance? I think we are just creating an artificial level of subdivision that doesn't ad anything. Let us focus on expanding content in this main article and see whether we are reaching the point when we really start having too much region-specific content to keep it all in one article. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Hey, at least the conversation is back on ;-) What is the alternative to region articles? Put all in the Baden-Württemberg article? In my opinion travellers need an overview of the area/region they travel to, Baden-Württemberg seems for me as a native to big. But I agree an empty page is useless, so that's what we have to work on! And the governmental districts (Stuttgart, Tübingen, Karlsruhe, Freiburg) are really artificial and have nothing to do with the tourist way of seeing BW, so thats why nobody can add information (including me). As I said before, the official tourist site http://www.tourism-bw.com/ has similar divisions! But if anyone has a just great idea, I'm curious. --Uhkabu (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 56 city articles under this, so we definitely need regions of some kind, so let's not wipe them out til we decide on new ones, or we'll have to put the giant list of all 56 cities in the article here.  User:Uhkabu, if we use the suggestion in the map above, would you be able to write about those regions? Texugo (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, I can see that most of them are already written about to some degree. I'd support a move to that scheme instead of the current administrative one. I would absolutely not support making this a direct parent to the 56 articles. That would be at least 20 cities longer than the next fullest region anywhere on the site. Texugo (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with the travel regions, they absolutely make sense instead of the administrative ones. Globe-trotter (talk)

Let's go then
If we all agree on that, let's go then. I've already started. What still needs to be done: PrinceGloria (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Move destinations from old regions to new - one needs to both fix the breadcrumb ("IsPartOf") at the bottom of the article AND make sure destination is linked to from the new regional article. It is also good to check the lead and fix it wherever necessary
 * 2) Turn Lake Constance into a region of Baden-Württemberg - currently it only links to one destination in Austria and one in Switzerland, both of which have their own regions in their countries. The experiment with this "extraregion" failed, so we can use (and perhaps rename) this article to collect all the destinations from the former Freiburg (region) and Tübingen (region
 * 3) Adjust the articles on other regions to match what they now are - descriptions, understand etc. E.g. it would be good to state in the articles on mountain ranges that they cover the AREA surrounding the range, not just the range itself. Same for Bodensee - Ravensburg is not quite on the lake.
 * 4) Make a new regionmap! It would be good for the borders to actually follow the administrative borders of Kreise, so that we would have no problems placing all current an future destinations in an article.
 * 5) Fix categories - User:Texugo, do you have the necessary powers?
 * 6) Meticulously go through "What links here" for every article, especially the old regions, and fix any references that have become incorrect

Lake Constance Region -> Bodensee, or Bodensee Region?
We've had a bit of a private discussion with Texugo regarding Lake Constance and Lake Constance Region. The coexistence of them both can be quite confusing for the readers. I believe if we keep Lake Constance as a separate article, we need to rename the Lake Constance Region somehow. Lake Constance Region (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) does not seem like a good idea obviously.

I would propose to call this region Bodensee or Bodensee Region. While this is the German name for Lake Constance universally used in all three countries around the lake, the reference to the surrounding lands as Bodensee or Bodensee-something is pretty much uniquely German - the Swiss and Austrians have their own names for those regions, which generally do not reference Bodensee in their names. OTOH, even Oberschwaben is actually quite often called Oberschwaben-Bodensee for touristic purposes, even though Ravensburg is quite away from the lake. If we choose to use that name, we obviously need to explain in the lead that the name is universal to the German world, but this article only covers the part in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Any opposition, alternative proposals? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I think Bodensee Region would be a good method to differentiate from the international Lake Constance article. Agree the Bodensee fits for the German region even in on the English site. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It seems a good solution. Texugo (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for weighing in guys. I guess there isn't that much interest in B-W, so I take it we have reached a consensus and will plunge forward to implement it. In case this is premature, reverting this should not be a problem. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks good. You moved the page, I changed the link in the Region section and fixed the breadcrumbs and categories, so I think this part of the change is complete. Texugo (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well actually, not quite. We still need a map, but at least this map with one mislabelled region is better than none. Texugo (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a quick and dirty map to illustrate the regions and cities. Should have it up in the next couple of days. -Shaundd (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW - there are ten cities listed right now, should I place all ten or will one be removed? -Shaundd (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shaundd ! --W. Frankemailtalk 22:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Map
Shaundd, thank you for taking the time to prepare a map for BW! In reply to your comments, I am quite afraid we do need to keep those 10 cities, I cannot think of one of them to be removed - frankly, I'd gladly add more :)

I would be mindful in following the borders of Kreise to indicate where our regions begin and end - the regions themselves are quite universally understood (perhaps except for Northern BW, where we didn't want to open a jigsaw puzzle box), but it is important to note where we put the exact borders, as the region, as you already noticed, is full of small towns and villages of note, and where to put them is actually important.

I would use the map with division into Kreise as guidance, and let me offer a few pointers:
 * Bodensee Region is formed of Kreise Konstanz, Bodenseekreis, Sigmaringen, Ravensburg and Biberach
 * Stuttgart Region is Stuttgart and the four surrounding Kreise - Boeblingen, Esslingen, Ludwigsburg and Rems-Murr-Kreis
 * Northern Baden-Württemberg is Karlsruhe (city) and Karlsruhe (Landkreis), Rhein-Neckar-Kreis, which surrounds Mannheim and Heidelberg, Heilbronn city and Heilbronn Landkreis, Neckar-Odenwald-Kreis, Hochenlohekreis, Main-Tauber-Kreis and Schwabisch Hall.

Do take a moment to follow the tricky border of the two Kreise of Karlsruhe - the Landkreise surrounds the city from both north (larger part) and south.

The other two regions will result from the puzzle - just note that Tubignen, Tuttlingen and Zollernalbkreis go to Swabian Mountains.

The airports are in:
 * Stuttgart
 * Baden-Baden
 * Friedrichshafen
 * Basel (in Switzerland, just at the southwestern tip of BW, this airport also serves Freiburg and is important to put on the map)

Would be good to put main railway lines on the map, as getting around is a bit of a pain if you don't know which towns are connected with which. I can't find a good, simple map to help you, but you can try this one (huge file) - at least all of the green lines should be rendered. I guess the blue ones are not necesary either, except the one at the bottom running from Friedrichshafen to Basel.

With regards to motorways, this should be easy, here's a schematic.

The rivers Donau, Neckar and Rhine should be marked on the map as well, obviously.

Hope this helps! PrinceGloria (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support Gloria's helpful comments --W. Frankemailtalk 10:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's very helpful. Thanks very much. Just a couple of questions/comments:
 * The original map uses the Donau River as the dividing line between the Swabian Mountains and the Bodensee, while you suggested using the Kreise above. Which of the two should I use?
 * Is the Get in section going to be updated to include the airports in Baden-Baden and Friedrichshafen? If the guide doesn't reference them then I'd prefer to keep them off the map.
 * Just to let you know about timing, I'm going to build this map in a few stages since I only get time to work on it periodically. The basic region structure and cities is almost done, so I'm hoping to upload it soon. After that I'll add the roads and railroads and upload it again. Stage three will be the subregions (time permitting and depending on how the subregion articles look) and refreshing the main B-W map based on GIS data. -Shaundd (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Please use Kreise, less ambiguous as many cities lie on the actual river and allocating them would be a pain. This is why I'd go with Kreise, the border does not move far
 * Get in mentions both of those airports, please take a look again
 * No rush with the map, we are most obliged to you for considering devoting your time to this! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first pass at the map is up. Still need to add the roads and railroads, plus I think the font size needs some work. Let me know if there's anything else that needs changing. Cheers. -Shaundd (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks brilliant, danke schoen! Let me do some bickering or I wouldn't be me:
 * Karlsruhe landed in the wrong region, we placed it in Northern Baden-Württemberg. I told you it's tricky, as the Karlsruhe Landkreis is actually comprised of two parts, one "above" and one "below" the city of Karlsruhe - you have spliced the Landkreis as well.
 * Karlsruhe is on the river Rhine (its eastern riverbank). The centre is indeed a bit removed, but it shouldn't look like it is removed from the river on the overview map
 * Baden-Baden is much closer to the border and to the airport - it is right outside its borders, not so far away.
 * BTW, do we mark rivers as "Rivername R"? I might have missed that.
 * I speak German and often mix it up with English inadvertently, so I referred to the river Danube as "Donau". The correct English name is "Danube".
 * If we show Friedrichshafen Airport, we should also label Friedrichshafen, otherwise it is hard to guess which airport this is.
 * Actually, I guess with so much free space we may mark more cities that are not necessairly on the list, but we could mention them in passing. My suggestions are Ravensburg and Schwaebisch Hall
 * You may want to consider a lighter hue of gray for the background, so that Mannheim, Basel and Konstanz labels are easier to make out. I also believe the manual of style asks for darker hues to be used for regions, like the ones you used for Portugal.
 * Please bear with me, I still believe you did a massively great work! PrinceGloria (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's difficult to improve things without feedback. So, a new version of the map is up... I think I’ve addressed most of the issues above with a few comments.
 * For #7, I’m holding off adding new cities (other than Friedrichshafen) until the roads and railroads are added. They’re going to add some clutter to the map so I want to see how that looks first before adding more cities.
 * For #2 and #3, I moved the city markers, although perhaps not as much as you’re expecting. Looking at maps of Karlsruhe, it looks like the city center is 7-8 km from the Rhine, so on a map with this scale it makes sense the city marker would be a little off the river. Google, OpenStreetMap (Mapquest layer) and Bing all show the city off the river as well, at this scale. For Baden-Baden, it looks like it sprawls a bit, but the heart of the town seems to be located several km east of the A5 on Hwy 500 (around where it has a tunnel). This looks to be 10-12 km east of the airport, so again there will be a noticeable gap between the city marker and the airport (and the border).
 * For #4, I’m not sure if there is a standard for how river names are displayed. Looking at a handful of other European maps I see the “R” is dropped, so I’ve dropped it here.
 * For #8, I changed the palette so it’s a bit darker. I’m not aware of any style guideline that says the colours have to be darker, though. There is a standard palette that comes with the map template, but we’ve often desaturated or lightened the colours because the standard palette can become difficult to read and work with once you add all the details to a map.
 * As always, let me know if you love it, hate it, want changes, etc. :-) -Shaundd (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, I obviously love it and your concerns are valid, but I'd still like to discuss two things:
 * While technically the centre is away from the river, Karlsruhe still IS on the river (and it's an important port!), and this is important for stuff like navigation over water etc. If we could simply portray cities in their full size this would become apparent. If we use little dots to signify them, I believe considerations like that trump the exact geographic centre. I am happy with where Baden-Baden now is tho, just to make sure
 * I still believe a lighter shade of gray in the background could make the labels more readable.
 * Thank you for considering those. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We sometimes portray cities at approximately their full size, and I'd like to see it done more often as we start working on these lower-level region maps (I experimented with it at the Kootenays map, see Calgary and Kelowna; Peter did it on the Haiti map). I have some data on urban areas -- not sure if includes Karlsruhe -- but I will try to incorporate it with the roads and railroads to see how it looks. At the very least, I imagine Stuttgart is much larger than it's current dot.
 * The gray background is tricky since there's both white and black text on top of it. I did lighten it by 16 points, but if I lighten it too much more, the white text will be much less visible. -Shaundd (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: gray - then why don't we use black and gray text instead of black and white? Somehow other articles appear to use lighter gray background, but that might be just my eyes.
 * Re: cities - please do so, does make sense. You don't need any extra data - the cities of BW, and indeed most of the cities of Germany, are contained within their Kreis (if they are a Kreisfreie Stadt). Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, BB, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Heilbronn and Mannheim all are, so you can go by their boundaries from the map as originally in the article. Just don't confuse them with Landkreise with the same name - the cities are usually indicated with abbreviations only on said map.
 * PrinceGloria (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

An updated map is (finally!) up, with roads, railroads and urban areas for the larger centers. There are still a few small things to add (some minor roads, the scale), and I'm not entirely happy with how everything looks yet, but please let me know of any other changes and I'll incorporate them into the next version. -Shaundd (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's FAB! Better than I could ever imagine it could be! I guess BW is lucky to now have the best region map across WV :)
 * Very quickly what I noticed:
 * It did get cluttery with so many details (nonetheless so informative!) - perhaps you could play with lightness/saturation to make sure the most important stuff (esp. labels) stands out. Labels are really hard to read in some cases right now
 * I would still move to keep the surrounding areas in very light gray with darker gray labels, borders etc. For now, they are very heavy and impact the ability to e.g. read the Konstanz tab. It also looks like Basel, Zurich and Wurzburg are somehow relevant (they are not, they are covered elsewhere).
 * Baden-Baden, Heidelberg and Ulm are also Stadtkreise, they ought to be marked the yellow/orange way that Karlsruhe is
 * So much nitpicking from me. I remain in awe! PrinceGloria (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries about nitpicking.
 * A new version is up. Baden-Baden, Heidelberg and Ulm are now marked by their urban areas. I've also tried to filter out some of the impact of roads, RRs and borders when they're underneath text to help improve readability. The grey background is a bit lighter than before, but what I found is that if it's any lighter it starts to clash with some of the region colours (i.e., the grey needs a certain level of darkness to make the coloured regions stand out).
 * I've included Basel, Zurich and Wurzberg because they're major cities close to BW. Normal practice with the region maps is the region shouldn't be drawn in isolation -- it can include major cities or features of neighbouring regions, particularly if they're relevant. All three cities are referenced in Get in / Get around, so they seem relevant. If the map was a bit bigger, I'd also include Frankfurt for the same reason.
 * Should I start working on the maps for the subregions? -Shaundd (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! To nitpick - Friedrichshafen somehow became "Friedrichschafen". As regards maps for subregions, I'd let them mature before they get detailed maps. Meanwhile, there are many regions who lack a proper map - e.g. Brandenburg, Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein have none. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, some clumsy fingers. I'll try to get the spelling corrected in the next couple of days. -Shaundd (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Markers to listings
Not sure for the list of cities adding Wikipedia and Wikidata links is a good idea. Looks over busy and is not needed as the links are available on the article page sidebar. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map
I know we don't want to use dynamic maps for larger regions, but at least the Wikidata ID's can be useful to create mapshapes for the subregions. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes. --Renek78 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Now updated --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baden-Württemberg


text:
Talk:Bad Fallingbostel

Religion
I removed the following stuff as I feel it is encyclopedic in nature and not really useful for the average traveller.(WT-en) texugo 04:50, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Evangelical church

The majority of the church-going Christian residents of the town belong to the Evangelical Lutheran church. Within the borough there are two church parishes:

Fallingbostel parish: the Church of St. Dionysius with 5,598 parishioners (and the Peace Church (Friedenskirche) in Bommelsen (municipality of Bomlitz) with 625 members) Dorfmark parish: St. Martin's Church with 2,848 members They are served by three pastors. Both parishes belong to the church district of Walsrode in the diocese of Lüneburg, which is part of the Evangelical Lutheran State Church of Hanover.

Roman Catholic church

The Catholic Christians in Bad Fallingbostel belong to the Roman Catholic parish of St. Mary of the Holy Rosary (Sankt Maria vom heiligen Rosenkranz), which was first founded in August 2004. This brought together the hitherto independent Catholic parish of St. Mary in Bad Fallingbostel with the neighbouring parishes of St. Mary's Church in Walsrode and the Church of the Holy Spirit in Bomlitz-Benefeld as well as the Church of the Sacred Heart in Visselhövede. The parish lies in the church district of Verden in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Hildesheim.

title: Talk:Bad Fallingbostel


text:
Talk:Badlands and Black Hills

Sub-Regions
If there are no objections, I am going to move the information on Black Hills to the Black Hills National Forest and move the information on Badlands to the Badlands National Park then redirect these. We have this region that covers both and I don't think we need the additional region split and we can centralize the information in the park pages. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:26, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Makes sense to me, I'd support making that change. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:52, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * After further research it appears Badlands describes a large region that is in both North Dakota and South Dakota, so I am going to leave the page, but remove it as a sub-region in South Dakota and associate both North and South Dakota to it, as well as the Badlands National Park. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:30, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * There is already a Badlands (North Dakota) region. Is there an advantage to maintaining an additional parent region for both the North & South Dakota badlands?  Or do we need a Badlands (South Dakota) region?  And if we do, what does that cover that isn't covered by the Badlands and Black Hills region?  I'm not familiar enough with the state to know how best to divide it up, but regions that cross states are a bit of an organizational problem unless they are a well-known travel destination like Lake Tahoe, and I'm not sure the Badlands meet that criteria. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:42, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * This would be outside the normal hierarchy. It would be done like I did the Ozarks which covers parts of Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas. If you notice there are three breadcrumb isIn's there. When Evan gets that working all three will show up. We can also use the new in other pages to relate back to it. In other words Badlands would be a seperate article that covers an area outside the normal hierarchy. Does that make sense? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:51, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * I don't know the area well enough, so if it makes sense to you then my opinion would be go ahead and plunge forward. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:21, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Badlands and Black Hills


text:
Talk:Badlands National Park

This article was begun primarily to ensure that the link on the United States National Parks page actually goes somewhere. Most of the text actually comes from the article on the Badlands, though the sentences describing the shapes and colors of the rock formations are my own (stuff I wrote for the other article and copied here). -- (WT-en) Mikito 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Fees / Permits
I just added information to the fees/permits section that applies to all US National Parks and wonder if there is a better place to put this information. -- (WT-en) repayne 21:57, 27 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Extensive update
Each section has content now, so I removed the outline tag from the article. (WT-en) Lather 16:19, 30 October 2006 (EST)

Alternative banner for this article?
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Prefer the new banner. 14:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (unsigned comment by User:Vaticidalprophet)

 * New banner is clearly better. Ground Zero (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New banner. Current is too hazy. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New banner per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New banner current one looks fugly. SHB2000 (talk)  11:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Badlands National Park


text:
Talk:Bad Reichenhall

Usable
Sorry, but I just can't see this as a Guide -- yet. There are too many things that are mentioned laundry-list-style without elaboration, contact information, etc., and that therefore are not yet ready for use by other than the "adventurous traveler." Good start, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:42, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)

Style
The style of this article is - not good - to say the least. Can we decrease the amount of bulleted lists, especially those that are two deep already? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bad Reichenhall


text:
Talk:Bad Säckingen

Can somebody add a few pictures please

title: Talk:Bad Säckingen


text:
Talk:Badulla

Badulla is a nice city in Sri Lanka.

title: Talk:Badulla


text:
Talk:Bagalkot (district)

manoj

title: Talk:Bagalkot (district)


text:
Talk:Bagan

Surely Angkor is larger? What is the substantiation for the claim that Bagan is the largest in the world? (WT-en) Jetlife2 11:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Buses to Bagan
The Bus section of Getting In needs some editing but I wasn't sure how to go about it so I'll just put my contribution here.

My friends and I took the JJ Express overnight bus from Yangon to Bagan. It departed Aung Mingalar Bus Station in Yangon at 8 PM and arrived at Bagan Shwe Pyi Highway Bus Terminal at 5:30 AM. That's around 9 hours of rather bumpy sleep with two pit stops. So it's not the most comfortable mode of transport but you travel with the locals and the pit stops are kind of interesting.

 * —The preceding comment was added by Zxzxlch (talk • contribs)

Hi

I had taken the same mode of transport. And I heard from atleast 5 other travel parties who returned from Myanmar that they did the same. It seems to be the most standard, preferred and failsafe way for tourists to travel. Cheap, also, in comparison to some other bus rates we saw. I think it is worth to mention J.J travels in the Get in section. Though not a testimonial per se, it will be a good tip for people to start looking for bus operators. User:Harivishnu

An anonymous user keeps reverting edits about climbing pagodas
... on the basis of danger and prohibition by law.

I know that some pagodas in Bagan are closed for tourists to be climbed, having locks and barriers. However, there were some even very famous ones generally open for sunrises and sunset (like Shwesandaw) that have even staff checking the tickets and letting people onto the pagoda.

Also, this is a statement from the official tourism website: Rise early to watch the sun rise from the top of one of the temples which can be climbed (we recommend the Shwesandaw or Shwegugyi temples) (http://myanmar.travel/myanmar-destination/bagan-central-myanmar/)

Does anyone have further information on the current situation and whether pagodas are in general closed due to the earth quake? And do you have any objections reverting these edits?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Please do not add content that may encourage people to climb on the temples & stupas. This because such is:

 * Disrepectful to locals and other Buddhists.
 * Potentially dangerous.
 * Damages them.
 * Illegal.

 * This is only partly true. Certain pagodas are opened for sunset and sunrise. 80.188.89.21 23:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

 * whether or not climbing the temples is forbidden is A grey Area and seems to change often. In 2019 many temples do not allow climbing - even ones with stairs and modern climbing rails fitted. But you can pay guides to take you to smaller temples where not even the guard cares.

While many Buddhists consider climbing the temples disrespectful this isn't neccicarily a Buddhist teaching - just their personal view. (though I stand to be cortourist and most importantly views on this have changed over time. Certainly we should warn tourists that Buddhists object to temple climbing, but the view from the top of these temples is the highlight of many people's visit to Myanmar,if Tourists knowing the risks want to climb a temple that's up to them. We're not the moral police.

Pager banner

A selection of page banner.Maybe Banner 2 is slightly better?--Renek78 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I like the second one better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, the 2nd is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Okay, I changed it. --Renek78 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 * It's already done, I know, but I'd like to add that I, too, prefer the second banner. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Guide level?
What does this article need to achieve guide level? /Yvwv (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's anything missing, apart from maybe a few bars – however, I wouldn't expect to find a bar at an archaeological site. Would love to see this upgraded to guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be a good Dotm candidate when the country becomes more stable. /Yvwv (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no other comments, I've upgraded the article to guide status. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the upgrade to guide status. Excellent article! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Destination of the month?
Can this article be a Dotm? Or is anything missing? /Yvwv (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost none of the listings have dates on them, which suggests that they may be very, very old. We should feature articles that have more up-to-date information. Ground Zero (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, it would be a injudicious decision to feature an article from Myanmar for the time-being (and this is not going to change for a while, at least by the looks of how it's going). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bagan


text:
Talk:Baghdad

Needs update to reflect improved, even adequate reduction of risk
The coalition and the Iraqi government are now officially sanctioning tourist entry and travel around Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/mar/21/iraq-baghdad-tourists-package-british

The article needs updating. Iraq is no longer "strictly NO go". Some people want to keep the impression of an insurgency going of course, but in fact, put simply, we being the coalition: we won. --90.218.44.39 11:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

 * There's nothing in the cited source to describe this as "adequate reduction of risk". It would be possible to note that a tour was *possible* in 2009 and offered commercially (although this doesn't tell us whether this effort continued, was a brief flash in the pan, abandoned, met with disaster, or whatever else became of it - that needs to be followed up) and it would be a good idea to note the issue raised in the article that no travel medical insurer was eagerly willing to insure travellers to Iraq... so you're on your own in that regard. K7L (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes. I don't like the tops of the row of buildings near the end of the bridge being cut off, but it's better than the hazy and quite nondescript banner now on the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning box
I have reverted edits which have removed the warning box a couple of times. The original warning was a bit excessive, so I updated that. Other opinions? The editor who removed the warning is anonymous. Can an IP be blocked if necessary? Davidbstanley (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is indeed possible to block IP users. Is this user engaging in edit warring? Did you post to the IP user's user talk page to request a stop to these kinds of undiscussed edits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is too early to call it an edit war. They edited the Iraq and Baghdad pages a couple of times and the edit have been undone by another user and myself.  I have not posted any warning.  I had assumed it was not possible to do that for an IP.  I will do so if they delete the warnings again. Davidbstanley (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1973 Baghdad mosque.jpg (discussion)
 * Umm al-Maarik Mosque crop.jpg (discussion)

 * We don't have a name in the caption for the mosque completed in 1973. Is it important enough to keep in spite of the lack of freedom of panorama in Iraq? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Inbound830042011741643229جامع ام القرى بغداد.jpg

title: Talk:Baghdad


text:
Talk:Bahamas

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

Turning circle
What are Turning circles and why are they a problem for American drivers? As I understand it, a turning circle is a measure of how small a circle a vehicle can turn around in. Or should it be traffic circles or roundabouts? -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:38, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * It's proably roundabouts. Here in California, I'd guess 99% of drivers have no idea they exist, and have even less idea what the right-of-way rules are in a roundabout.  The only one I know of is in Berkeley.  Until a few years ago the right-of-way was basically determined by local custom that had arisen from drivers' guesses about right of way.  Fortunately, they added signs explicitly indicating the rules. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:43, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * Yes, I suspect you are right. They had the right-of-way problem in NZ too until they changed the right-of-way rules and put up signs to ensure all drivers on the roundabout had right of way over all entering traffic. They defined the circle in the middle as a center line to do it too! Now you even have to indicate your entry and exit; and get fined if you don't, because straight through traffic is turning. (It is when you really think about it - though most drivers don't.) -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:39, 18 Jan 2006 (EST)

Geographic Location
This appears to be another sad case of geographic ignorance. The simple fact is that the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos nor Bermuda are in the Caribbean. Someone assumed that they were many years ago and the falsehood has been self perpetuating ever since. The Caribbean ends in the channel that runs North of Cuba, Hispanola and Puerto Rico. If you want to want the Bahamas to be in the Caribbean you will also have to inclue Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in the Caribbean.

Regions

As far as I can tell, the two ways of breaking down the Bahamas for travel are:

A. 1) Grand Bahama, 2) Nassau/Paradise Island, 3) everything else. B. Each island as its own "region," per the map on the front of the official tourism site.

Between those two, I definitely prefer B—even though it will leave us with a fairly large regions list—if for no other reason than to flatten the hierarchy (especially since an "Everything else" region article will never be anything good). But are there any other ways to divide up this country? If so, please detail them here. In the meantime, I'll be working on the map assuming B. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:00, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Mmm, new problem: the Ragged Islands. Population 72, apparently no tourist facilities, and not seeming to fit with any other islands. They definitely don't need their own article, but there should be somewhere to cover them, in case there are interesting places for yachters. I've shaded them in here in black. Any ideas what to do with them? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I would recommend following the principle you have used for the rest of the map - each island grouping is a separate "region". The alternative would be to ignore them I guess.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:26, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

 * As you might have guessed, I do not like B. Do we really need to split the country in regions at all?  If there are no obvious way to do it, I would say leave it without regions, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 07:19, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * On that basis we would need to re-do just about every island group in the world, from the Falklands to the Solomon Islands. The established approach to island groups makes for clean, easy-to-read maps which help the traveler. It is for example, no co-incidence that the official Bahamian government site uses exactly that  approach. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:41, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I do not suggest any changes to the maps which indeed are great, I just suggest that we do not regionalise countries too small to make it necessary or where there is no reasonable way to do it. Btw, I just checked the official page linked to above, and as I see it they are doing what I suggest: no regions, 14 articles for the 14 islands/island groups, simple and flat, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 08:22, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I think I misunderstood you Claus. So you are OK with a map division as done? It is just the "region" terminology that you object to? If that's the case, then I would agree with you.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:59, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Some of the island/island group pages are already subdivided, or just slightly subdivided as region articles into either component islands or a handful of cities. From what I've seen this all looks pretty legitimate, and was done by someone with more knowledge of the area than I have. I'm happy with this as stands, with the one exception of the Ragged Islands, as I said above. I can't find a good place for them, but they definitely do not deserve their own article. A short bit on them, in a similar manner to Gambier_Islands, would suffice, but I just don't know where that should be put. They are not important enough to take up space in the country article, and they do not naturally group with any other island grouping in the country.

 * Anyhow, I went ahead and made the map + new "divisions" scheme live, but have neither the time nor energy needed to really do a good job organizing the individual regions. If, ah, anyone else is interested, please feel free... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:00, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Regions/Islands again
I'm not sure the redlinking islands are exactly the most elegant way to break this down... Also is San Salvador Island and Rum Cay the same thing or is it two different things? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Banner
This new alternative one looks more Bahamas-like to me. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given there has been no comment, I have replaced the banner. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I slightly prefer the new banner, but I’d like to see banner 0 used in another article if possible, as it is a nice banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bahamas


text:
Talk:Bahariyya

Hotels
I've formatted the Qasr el Bawity ecohotel information that was in the stub, but I'm not sure about the phone number, which the website gives as (202) 847 1880. As Egypt's international dialing code is +20, I can't tell if that's an international number or if it's just a coincidence that the hotel's area code begins with 20. Can someone with more familiarity with Egyptian phone numbers than I figure this out and format the number as per Project:Phone numbers? -(WT-en) Fipe 20:44, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * In principe, the phone number ist correct. 20 is the dialing code for Egypt; 2 for Cairo (Bahariya belongs to the governorate of Giza and has therefore the same calling code like Cairo). Maybe you can write it as +20 (0)2 ... -- (WT-en) Unger 02:17, 19 December 2006 (EST)
 * OK, thanks heaps. -(WT-en) Fipe 04:19, 19 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Bahariyya


text:
Talk:Bahía de Cádiz Natural Park

Park?
Does wikivoyage support this? (WT-en) Cleaner 10:38, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, National parks are supported and encouraged Project:National_park_article_template, parks on the other hand are not. There is a template here: Project:Quick_park_template --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:45, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bahía de Cádiz Natural Park