text:
Talk:North America

Cities
Montreal should replace Vancouver. (WT-en) Zepppep 13:16, 7 March 2012 (EST)

 * Why? Vancouver has always been a popular tourist destination in Canada, but especially after the 2010 Winter Olympics.  I don't think Montreal is as popular internationally (for tourism) as Vancouver.  I say this as a Torontonian, so I don't have a bias in favour of either city. (WT-en) londonHK 16:08, 9 March 2012 (EST)

 * It shouldn't replace Vancouver or Toronto but Montreal should definitely be featured as a North American travel destination. It has a rich historic and cultural heritage and is quite unique. I don't think it can rival Toronto or Vancouver in its European ambiance. The cuisine is diverse. Summer is festival season - Jazz and Comedy to start. Winter has hockey, proximity to skiing in the Laurentian's and eastern townships, tobogganing on Mount Royal and skating in the old port. Old  Montreal itself is just a beautiful place to stroll,admire the architecture,  go for a caleche ride or eat at one of the many restaurants. Of course there is the charm of French overall but Montreal's Chinatown and Little Italy are also great for cultural and  culinary  exploration. There are several Museums as well as the Biodome built in the old Olympic installation, the Botanical Garden (considered one of the most important in the world )and of course there's great shopping. Great hotels, great restaurants, great entertainment ( even a casino which Toronto doesn't have or at least not yet). It is also features a huge convention centre and regularly hosts international events. —The preceding comment was added by 66.131.142.44 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but we're limited to nine cities. Which one would you replace with Montreal?  LtPowers (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How was Vancouver chosen in the first place? I don't see the discussion here. I would think Montreal or Quebec City would be of similar interest to tourists so some debate might be useful.  There's also only one Mexican city on the list which seems odd to me since its a much bigger country and I would have thought a bigger tourist draw. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We try to have a good geographic spread, which is why Kingston and Panama City are on the list, despite being not terribly exciting destinations. If we were to change the list, I think the most sensible city to drop might be Vancouver, in favor of probably Montreal or Cancún. We could also swap out Kingston, on the basis that the Caribbean is represented adequately by Havana, and I would guess that Kingston is the city here that sees the least international visitors by far. --Peter Talk 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kingston definitely looks out of place. Panama City probably does too.  LtPowers (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Panama City isn't as much of a destination as a lot of cities that got left off, but removing it would leave Central America without any representation. Cancun is a good idea, but is it of interest to people outside of North America?  I've never been there, but I always pictured it as full of Americans. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The drunken beach party scene is all about U.S. college students + sleazeballs with expensive video cameras, but Cancún is the main jumping off point to explore the Yucatan Peninsula, which is one of the best tourist destinations on the continent (Mayan ruins, diving, caving, cenotes, colonial towns, Mayan villages, spectacular beaches, delicious regional cuisine, etc.). --Peter Talk 22:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yucatan is already represented with Chichen Itza in the Other Destinations. LtPowers (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Guadalajara? Or is it too close to Mexico City?  The article is at guide status. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] I think Montreal should definitely be in the article, as its French-Canadian culture is unique (I prefer Quebec City as a place to visit, but I'd have trouble arguing for it over the much bigger Montreal at this level). I like the idea of a 2nd Mexican city. Guadalajara is 5 hours, 19 minutes' drive from Mexico City according to Google Maps, so not too close, in my opinion, but I also understand the merit of a Yucateca city being listed. As for Central America, there's San José (Costa Rica), which is at usable, and Guatemala City, also usable. I think those would be more likely alternatives to Panama City than Tegucigalpa and San Salvador, which don't seem like major tourist destinations. Costa Rica is a very popular vacation spot, so San Jose might be a good alternative to Panama City. I do think Havana is probably OK as the sole representative of the Caribbean.

It's difficult to pare this kind of list to 9 cities, as good arguments could be made for Chicago, and also for Miami or/and New Orleans as Caribbean cities (though Miami is actually on the Atlantic). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I suspect the only reason Montreal isn't on the list is geography; if we tie up four out of nine slots with cities within 500 miles of New York, that leaves a very empty rest-of-the-continent. LtPowers (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Not to derail the current discussion, but I remain of the opinion that we should simply remove the city and other destination lists for continent articles and use the "See" and "Do" sections of the continent article to write about important cities and explain why a traveler would want to visit them. The linked discussion provides more in-depth reasoning, but I don't think it's a productive use of editor time or much value to readers to maintain an arbitrary list of nine cities for such large regions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Limit of 9
So, I followed the comment limiting the number of cities and other destinations to nine each, but what is the reasoning behind that? I know a lot of people from Europe who visit, and many of the locations listed simply aren't ones they care about. Some of them are just plain terrible, too (Niagara Falls is great for an hour on the Maid of the Mist, and then spending the rest of the day shopping for tourist trinkets you will give away to family members who don't want them).

If we're going to limit it to nine (why nine and not ten, like a top-ten list?) I think we should have some objective reason for picking the top cities/destinations, like how many tourists visit each location per year. Otherwise the list is just a favorites list of whomever controls the page. This is a wikimedia project, not some moderator's travel blog. --Kerkeslager (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Our Manual of Style limits lists like city/other destination lists to 7±2, based on Miller's Law which is a concept in psychology that humans' working memory is generally limited to 7±2 items. Setting limits for any list would arbitrary, so why not 100 or 1000 or every page in North America. Objective lists aren't necessarily better than lists chosen by the community, because the idea behind the "city" & "other destinations" lists are that they showcase a variety of important destinations. It would be difficult to come up with an objective methodology for such lists, as finding a list (especially for "other destinations") of most-visited would be difficult and the majority of the list would be composed of U.S. destinations and not showcase destinations in Canada, Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean. It's also not simply about destinations people from one region care about...I'm sure most Americans don't care about Berlin, Istanbul, Moscow, or any of Europe's other destinations, except the Alps or Stonehenge. Again, the two lists should showcase diversity: geographic & types of places (not all national parks or tropical cities). If you object to any of the listings, feel free to start a discussion here. AHeneen (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't take issue with the specific items chosen, I take issue with HOW they were chosen. I agree that objective lists aren't better than ones chosen by the community, but I don't agree that they were chosen by the community. I don't know how they were chosen. And that's the problem: I want to see more transparency about how these decisions were made, especially since the kind of publicity that one gets by being one of the top nine cities in North America according to Wikivoyage gets you would definitely attract manipulation from cities looking to attract tourism. --Kerkeslager (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 * They were chosen by whoever first chose them, and then whoever joined in the discussion about whether they were good choices. That's the basic nature of a wiki. To change them, we discuss per Consensus. If you would like to propose some changes, then this discussion will become a good, transparent illustration of how such items are chosen ;) --Peter Talk 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

South America / North America
The first page of Wikivoyage should reflect this definition.
 * Delete South America or North America is not a valid definition of continent. There are only five continents in the world. Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Some may consider Antartica another continent. However its mainly in the United States that this separation exists because of the co-mingling of the word America (referring to the United States itself) and the American continent. The United Nations, the Olympic Committee and other international organizations only recognize five continents.
 * I think they are useful travel regions. It's not relevant to travel whether they count as separate continents. --Peter Talk 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep Wikivoyage uses the common definition of regions, even if the official one differs. Plus, North and South America are extremely different both geographically and culturally. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Please pardon me for saying so, but the reasoning behind the argument to delete seems absurd to me. In no sense - neither geographic, political, historical, traditional, nor cultural - is there a single continent of "America." If anything, one could make a strong argument for a third continent of Central America, based on tectonic plates. But Central America is grouped more with North than South America. Nor, by the way, do I know of any geographer who questions Antarctica as a continent. You could make a much stronger argument for Eurasia being a continent, but we're not going to delete Europe, either. Tourists visit Europe, South America, Australia, etc. - all continents. And we would serve the traveler in what way be eliminating the articles about these continents?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Do you also plan to delete Southern Africa and Northern Africa? In many cases, it is useful to have an article about a group of countries even if the group of countries might not officially count as a "continent". --Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. They are logical groupings that travelers will recognize. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not the travellers' concern whether they constitute actual continents or not. They are useful and often used distinctions. Texugo (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: If Northern and Southern California have articles, so to should North and South America. Regardless of whether they are continents are not, they are well-known geographic distinctions.  This isn't the proper place to discuss the merits of this being designated Pur ple back pack  89    04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "keep" while some country's schools teach a world model where there is only one American continent, most of the world sees N and S America as very different. Frankly, Central America is not seen as being in North America by most Canadians. JadeDragon (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedy keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Azores
There have been repeated edits to add the Azores to this article, but as they are already included in the Islands of the Atlantic Ocean article, since they are 2100 miles from North America, and since they are most closely aligned with Portugal I don't think this is appropriate. Starting a discussion in the hopes of ending the current edit war. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, only two of the islands are on the North American tectonic plate, so I can't see a strong geographic argument for including the archipelago in North America. But from a traveler's perspective, the islands are culturally European, most easily accessed from Europe, and the inhabitants speak Portuguese.  I think the case is clear.  LtPowers (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The two islands have a combined population of 4,400. The Azores have a total population of 246,000. At any rate, the islands as a whole are part of Islands of the Atlantic Ocean not North America nor Europe. AHeneen (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Only the western end of the archipellago is in America, the division of the European and American plates runs through the Açores. The islands are Portuguese territory but with a very distinct and unique Atlantic culture.

As for European culture, with that reasoning one could also say the USA have European culture... And since when is Portuguese culture European? It started in Europe but it is much more than that. It has a celtic-latic-goth-arabic kinda complicated root sure, but in Portuguese culture and language one can find influences of the entire world, globalization started in the 1400's for Portugal, that's what made this semi-artificial country (originally with an old pre-Roman people who only got independence as a prototype Israel for Templars and Crusaders) so radically different from Spain (altough still similar in border regions to our language's celtic motherland of Galicia, still Spanish) If you go to Malaysia for one you can find some people who look Asian, have never been to Europe but call themselves Portuguese to the bone (the Kristang people), same kind of people can be found in India, Sri Lanka, China, some places of Africa... so "being Portuguese" isn't synonimous with "being European", whatever that is. Is St Pierre and Miquelon going to be on the European page from now on? They are French and proud to be so, they talk French, are they European? They have the exact same political status of the Azores (ultra-peripheral regions of the European Union) and are European citizens, and also like people from Corvo and Flores, they live in North America.

By the way (so language isn't an issue) 80% of Portuguese speakers are in America, South America to be more specific. FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * You aren't going to win this argument, and I don't understand why it's so important to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Ok, thank you for your honesty, but be minded that an argument is a battle of thought, not reasoning on one side and "you're not going to win an argument" on the other. You're right, it's not that important in one's life to edit this page, but I'm into precision, and we all can multitask right? Secondly is to raise awareness of the Açores, some of the most beautiful islands I've been. Thirdly, harmless national pride (only activated when attacked), but that doesn't make the other reasons any less valid. FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think more to the point is that North Americans generally would never think of the Azores as part of North America, and I find it doubtful that Azoreans would consider themselves to be North Americans. Even if you consider it to be technically part of North America, we are not here to educate people on such technicalities. The traveller comes first, so it is our policy to use the most commonly-used names and denominations for things, not the official or technically correct ones.Texugo (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * re "you aren't going to win this argument", I think Ikan's point is that there isn't a compelling case for including the Azores in North America by any measure - the islands are closer to Europe culturally, politically, and by physical distance, the argument about tectonic plates is tenuous, irrelevant to travel, and might not even pass muster with a geographic society, and most importantly it doesn't make sense to to include an island nation that is located far from land in the middle of the Atlantic in a continent article. We welcome your contributions, but this is a strange battle to be fighting, and if your goal is to "raise awareness of the Açores" then your time would be far better spent adding content to that article rather than waging a hopeless battle to add a line about them to the North America article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Your arguments baffles me, and I agree with the others that the Azores really doesn't have anything to do with North America other than an encyclopaedic technicality of tectonic plates. I know SATA flies to North America these days and all, but still, from a travellers perspective they are squarely in Europe, especially since these flights land on the European plate, if they are to be considered important for some reason. Sertmann (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, everyone. If the earth still stands in millions of years, the continents will drift apart enough for people to consider those two islands America, and then travel literature will be written accordingly. =) As for Azoreans they already do and joke that people in those islands can see New York on the waterfront. It was a good one guys, and the towel was thrown before sour bytes. I guess if there's one thing we can all agree is democracy wins. Cheers FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Water purity
n 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water in nine states across the country and found that 85 man-made chemicals, including some medications, were commonly slipping through municipal treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Another report by the Associated Press found trace amounts of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of some 46 million Americans. [Unsigned|173.217.70.199]

 * First, don't put comments in any guide - the Talk page, like this one, is the place to do that, and please sign your posts in talk pages (only) like this ~ and put them at the bottom of the page. Second, regardless of what it does or does not do to long-term residents, I don't think that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals make tap water unsafe for visitors to drink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month
Since no one seemed to be doing much to the see and buy sections, I added a little bit about downtown shopping districts and the sheer range of things to see in NA. As an American, my knowledge is pretty US centric so please add info for the rest of the continent. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Other destinations
I added Gaspé Peninsula and it had been removed. I understand the rule of only 9 for other destinations and cities. However, I think this destination should be part of the list. It is on almost every top places to visit from National Geographic and publications alike. In 2012, National Geographic included it in its Top 10 Winter Adventures Destinations in North America, a season that we seem to forget touristically-wise since almost if not all destinations on these pages are almost only summer-type. More than that, the National Geographic Society included the Gaspé Peninsula in its list of the world 50 places one should visit in a lifetime, and it was the only Canadian destination in that list proving its importance in North America for me. I had also added Montreal, but this is already been discussed higher in this talk page. We should consider it since this is the largest French-speaking city in North America after all. The argument of wanting geographically spread throughout the whole region is understandable, but is a bit 'crappy', since Greenland occupy more area in North American than Carribeans and Central America together, but it has no city listed, which is normal, since there is no real city for tourists there, I agree we should consider geographical spread-out, but we should consider first the importance of each city for tourists. Amqui (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of competing interests to consider. Geography is only one; importance is another, as is popularity.  They all have to be balanced.  But the most important thing is that when you're suggesting an addition, you also have to suggest a removal, because we're already at our limit for both sections.  We can all agree with you that Montreal is a fine destination, and one travelers are likely to be seeking, but without proposing a city to remove, we have no basis on which to judge whether the addition on Montreal would be an improvement or not.  LtPowers (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the cities, I would remove Kingston to put Montreal. There is already another city in the Caribbeans and the touristic value of Kingston is very limited compared to Montreal. Amqui (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the other destinations, I would replace Teotihuacan by the Gaspé Peninsula since there is already Chichen Itza as a similar archaeological site in Mexico (not to say Teotihuacan is not an awesome place to visit, but for the point of 'diversity' we should include something else especially since Tikal is also in the list), while the Gaspé Peninsula and its national parks offer a different types of landscapes and wildlife including herds of caribous, that are not part of any other destinations in that list but are well representative of a part of North America. Amqui (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Banner
I have to say I'm not happy with current banner because of the pale colours and blueish-grayish stain in the middle. My suggestion: Jjtkk (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The current banner has problems (but the lighting in the canyon is fabulous). The issue I would take with your suggestion is that no countries in North America have that type of landscape except the United States. I tried to use a good Grand Canyon image because a) it's an iconic feature of the continent, and b) it has similar, smaller cousins in several other North American countries, so it doesn't give too U.S.-centric a visual. Also, I think the stain you are referring to is just a cloud/rain in the distance, but the fact that you see it as a stain doesn't reflect too well on the image ;) --Peter Talk 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Outline status
What does this article need to move from outline to usable status? Texugo (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Minimally, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, and Canada need to be brought up to Usable status. LtPowers (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Central America
Hello, Central America isn't part of North America. See es and pt versions of wikivoyage, and see Wikipedia. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Turbo8000, see Wikipedia yourself. Have a real good look at the map there, as well as w:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. Then come back and undo your edits to this article. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't true. North America is not Central America, they are completely different. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With such major changes to structure we should discuss first then make the change. I have reverted the edits until there is some agreement here. Also note, just removing a section is not enough to make the change. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Central America is indeed part of North America. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm safe in predicting that we aren't going to make a separate continent article for Central America any more than we would make one for the Indian Subcontinent, which is geologically a separate continent from Eurasia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there is this, though that actually makes a great deal of sense from a travel standpoint as the five Republics that were part of the United Central America ca. 1825 and to a lesser degree Panama and Belize have a lot of things in common that their neighbors to the North and South don't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, but it's not a continent article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * From Wikipedia : "Central America (Spanish: América Central, Centroamérica or América del Centro) is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent" Central_America --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Carribean cities
Kingston (Jamaica) and Havana are cities in the carribean. When I think of North America I do not think of the carribean as it is a distinctly different region. If anything I would associate Carribean with Central America. If I was travelling to the carribean I'd go straight to the carribean books in a book store, I wouldn't think to look in North America, as my understanding of North America is Canada, Mexico and USA (plus possibly Greenland). I am sure this subject has been argued to death but I'm keen to understand the thought process. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't associate the Caribbean with Central America at all, but since Central America is part of North America, too, I don't think that advances your argument. The Caribbean is already treated as a separate region, in any case. You aren't proposing treating Central America as a separate continent, are you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Is there an article which defines how these regions came about? It just surprised me to be honest to see a city from Carribean in a travel article about North America. What would you call the region that is not Carribean, not South America and not Central America? To me this is North America. Most travel books and sites use North America to encapsulate Mexico, USA and Canada, for example: lonely planet, travel independent, rough guides. This is how I think of North America (maybe it's a cultural thing?) but right now I'm a little confused with what page I would go to just to learn about these three countries. At this point I'm not arguing either way, as I said I'm keen to understand the thought process and if there are any pages explaining how the project arrived with these categorisations. Shouldn't we be trying to be consistent with other guidebooks? Jdlrobson (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The region that only contains the US Mexico and Canada could be called "NAFTA". If you divide America into two continents (which is not global consensus, mind you) a "North-South" dichotomy makes more sense than dividing it up into three or even four parts. Soccer has done a similar thing, with the US playing - among others - Panama or Cuba in qualifying rounds (though on the other hand a qualification round for only "NAFTA" would be sorta pointless). If not part of North America, what are the Caribbean and Mainland Central America? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Jdlrobson, did you look at the "Regions" section of this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC

 * Yes I did. This is what confused me. The problem I have is I know many people who have planned overland trips around North America and look for inspiration about where to go. They usually buy Lonely planet guidebooks which cover these three big countries. These trips usually involve taking a train from Vancouver or Montreal to America and a border crossing in San Diego. Never do these trips head into the Carribean (and if they do I'd recommend they get a carribean specific book anyhow). Reducing a region so big to 9 top places is a shame. Imagine if there was no South East Asia region and the only way you could explore travel around this region was on the Asia page. It would be very limited and miss many of the highlights. Is there a page on Wikivoyage solely for the region of USA, Canada and Mexico? (If not maybe we could create Mainland North America? Jdlrobson (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * It's been the opinion of Wikivoyagers that the US, Canada and Mexico are big and varied enough to merit being their own regions. What specific advantage do you believe creating another layer of hierarchy would serve? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * As I stated... many people combine these places in a single trip. It helps to have an overview of recommended destinations within that region. Printed travel guide books, do this for, I suspect for this very reason as there is demand. I fear I'm now sounded like a broken record.

As a newbie, I have no interest in arguing this point at this time, all I'd appreciate is the background information - I can't find any talk page topics on this subject. It's a shame to see the above "We try to have a good geographic spread, which is why Kingston and Panama City are on the list, despite being not terribly exciting destinations" - travel should always be exciting. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Caribbean and Mainland Central America is that most cities while not exactly boring are less interesting than the nature and countryside. Though we might argue replacing Panama with something like Granada (Nicaragua) which is a city worth visiting in its own right whereas Panama City mostly seems to be a travel hub (I have only ever seen the airport; I was too cheap for the Yellow Fever vaccination to make the most of my layover) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * ... but the same applies to other destinations. The Central America destinations Tikal, Corcovado National Park are both covered in Central_America but poor Yosemite doesn't make the cut due to the high competition. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * It's covered in both California and USA. We might argue endlessly whether there is too much weight given to the parts of this region that isn't the US Mexico or Canada, but ultimately I think most travelers will actually read our country or region articles rather than the continent(al section) articles. Europe might be an exception to that rule, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * @Jdlrobson: There have been arguments made over the years that a list of 9 cities & destinations at the continent level is arbitrary and confusing, which I think is what your primary concern seems to be for this article. The counter-argument is that in some cases they still provide useful shortcuts - someone going to the Europe article, for example, is very likely to want to read about London, Rome & Paris.  See Wikivoyage talk:Continent article template for a past discussion on the subject. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Jdlrobson, don't hesitate to argue points here: That's what "Talk" pages are for. Anyway, I guess I just disagree that it would help most travelers more to put the U.S., Canada and Mexico together into a sub-continental region. But let's discuss pros and cons. You believe that having a U.S./Canada/Mexico region could make it easier to show how to travel between the three countries. And OK, we could list 9 cities and 9 "Other destinations". But what else would be worth mentioning separately? In other words, why is it worth the effort to create such an article and, for example, thrash out which cities and so forth should be covered in it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I think this is somewhat similar - though not he same - as us not subdividing Germany into any level between states and the whole country. While you could reasonably create super-regions (and many printed guides do for reasons that have to do a lot with the medium), there is not all that much that you could say about any given three state combination but not the whole country and fewer things still that shouldn't rather be mentioned on the state level. Mexico and Central America share many traits. Central America and the Caribbean share many traits. Many Caribbean islands have a lot of US influence and one even is a US territory. There is little that the US, Mexico and Canada have in common that they do not share with other parts of North America and a lot that separates them and would have to be mentioned at the individual country level regardless. Now there are many people that have trips somewhere along the Panamericana and for those an itinerary article might be helpful. And as I just saw, this article already exists, but it could take some editing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious to why Lonely Planet and others do this. I suspect this is related to demand. Usually people that visit the Carribean either go to one destination or island hop. A trip to the USA is more likely to include a trip to Canada then to say Jamaica due to the easy border crossing and for historical reason. Anecdotely I know many people who are too nervous to travel to Central America. Although for whatever reason, although Mexico I would more closely associate with Central America, it seems to be more accessible and more likely to be visited by English and American friends (disclaimer I'm a Brit living in the usa). My father for instance still remembers Nicaragua as a place where a civil war occurred. Hs would never dream of going there however he would happily take a road trip through Canada/USA if the idea was put in his head.

Personally, I think an article reserved for these 3 places would help a lot of people in planning their trips and exposing them to possilities - is that not the purpose of these articles?

I see these regions as a jumping off point for people who say "I want to do a Europe trip where should I go?" Do people when they think like that say "i want to go to North America ?" and in saying so mean Carribean and Central America? I'm not sure. As an exercise I'd suggest asking a few friends "If I said I was thinking of going on a trip to North America which destinations would you suggest as possibilities?" And see what they say. That said im sure it depends on where in the world you live with how you think of the world. Jdlrobson (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(And fwiw many central Americans might be offended by being grouped in North America which might explain the above topic which carries a similar theme). Jdlrobson (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 * While the word "Norteamericano" is indeed sometimes used a synonym of "Estadounindense", I have not talked much about the subject with my Central American friends so I am mostly guessing here, but generally in Central America people talk of "America" (singular) whereas Americans talk of "the Americas" (plural) which might mean two (North and South) but often is intended to mean three (North South and Central) or even more (US+Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America). And what Lonely Planet and others do is mostly do to the limits of their medium. Lonely Planet can have duplicate content between separate guides because few people are going to buy the "Central America" guide and the "Nicaragua" guide. On the other hand our regional hierarchy often works the way that people click them up and down (I know I do that) and is probably partially intended to do so. So duplicate content is not a feature, it's a bug. And furthermore we are not (for the most part) paper. We have few limitations in terms of space whereas lonely planet cannot simply press its five (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala) Central American guides into one book without cutting a single line. We in contrast can do that, figuratively speaking. You might want to create the article in your user space and we can see from there, because right now we are discussing philosophy and policy more than having any concrete thing to look at. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Philosophically, this is an interesting question. I think the main problem with a Canada-U.S.-Mexico article would be that together they cover probably three-quarters of the land area of the entire North American continent -- and that goes up to 85% or 90% if you include Greenland. So such an article seems like it would be largely duplicative of this article. The alternative would be to elevate Caribbean and Central America to continent level, but they would be by far the two smallest continents on the site. I see that Lonely Planet, in addition to Caribbean and Central America, considers the Middle East to be a top-level region, while we include it in Asia. Ultimately, I think these are differences in style that are inevitable given differences in the projects. Powers (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only discussion about the inclusion of Caribbean and Central America that I can find (offhand) can be seen in a 2008 revision of this talk page: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_America&oldid=1660064 Powers (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of other destinations
It might just be me, but I think it's waaay to US-centric. Right now, there are 3.5 ODs in the US and that's too much for just one country – or basically, it looks like 44.44 per cent of United States of America was copied with other ODs substituted for other North American destinations. Compare it to the US' northern neighbour which only has 1.5 ODs, and not a single Caribbean destination. Central America and Mexico's share seems just about right.

I don't have a strong opinion on which US destination should go, but one of them have to go. Just because the US is the most visited country in North America does not mean it gets a third of all ODs in its relevant continent article. If we did that, then Oceania would be filled entirely with Aus/NZ/Overseas French destinations, Africa would mostly be filled with Egyptian and East African destinations and so on.

If one did have to be removed, I would remove Walt Disney World. Niagara and the Grand Canyon have to stay IMO, and Yellowstone could be argued either way. As for which OD should the one removed destination replace, I would personally prefer a place in the Caribbean since there are no ODs from the Caribbean. Some good ones that I can think of from the top of my head include Viñales, Guadeloupe National Park, Central Eastern Barbados or if we don't mind listing entire territories, Montserrat. But right now, the list is way too US-centric and one of them needs to go. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I agree with you, but then I haven't been to the Caribbean attractions you mention. But I think it's hard to delete any of the U.S. destinations from the list, and though I've never been that interested in going to Walt Disney World, how many visitors does it get per year? Deleting that seems kind of like deleting Mecca from the list of Saudi cities because non-Muslims can't go and might not be interested in going if they could. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The US has more than half of the population of North America, so it's not surprising that a large fraction of the continent's major destinations would be in that country. It would be nice to get a Caribbean island destination onto the list, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's hard to pick one, but then again, this is a continent article. If we really went by population figures, all but one or two of Oceania's ODs would be in either Australia or NZ (given that both countries together make up 70 per cent of Oceania's population, and most visitors visit either one of the two countries), but it's not. I don't have a problem with three ODs from the US, but four?
 * re Ikan's comment: The difference between deleting Mecca from Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is a country article while this is a continent article – notice how Middle East does not contain Mecca? (I know ME is not a continent, but it's the next article up in the hierarchy from Saudi). My choice of Walt Disney World was because is a theme park really significant for an entire continent? It makes sense to go in USA, but in a continent article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Middle East includes Mecca, as it should. And per Walt Disney World Statistics: "With an average annual attendance of over 58 million visitors, Walt Disney World is the most visited vacation resort in the world." Per Travel Weekly: "Cuba closed out 2018 with a record 4.8 million visitors." Jamaica Earned US$3.64 Billion From Tourism In 2019, Welcomed 4.3 Million Visitors. And this is about the Dominican Republic: Dominican Republic Travel Surge to Generate Seven Million 2022 Visitors: "Reaching the seven million visitor threshold will bring Dominican Republic travel within close proximity of its pre-pandemic high-water mark of 6.4 million land-based travelers and 1.1 million cruise ship visitors in 2019, according to Caribbean Tourism Organization data." Do you still want to eliminate Walt Disney World? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, you've made a point of keeping WDW, but then what should be removed then? Yellowstone seems like the only other choice to me if we're going to substitute a Caribbean destination. If we don't want a destination of Cuba because it's still a very restricted destination, then what about a destination in the Lesser Antilles? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't know if any of the other U.S. destinations should be removed, but in what way is Cuba very restricted to visitors, other than in terms of restrictions the U.S. puts on travel to Cuba? And it is the largest Caribbean island in size by far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, meant the other way around. But if we're going by visitor numbers, then maybe a destination from the Dominican Republic? I don't know much about the Dominican Republic, but none of its ODs seem suitable, but here are some of my suggestions from other Caribbean destinations with their article statuses:
 * Morne Trois Pitons National Park (outline)
 * Guadeloupe National Park (usable)
 * Viñales (usable)
 * Arikok National Park (usable)
 * Gran Parque Natural Topes de Collantes (outline)
 * Central Eastern Barbados usable
 * I'll suggest a few others when I get to it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're apologizing for. Also, I don't think the statuses of the articles should have any influence on our decisions about which "Other destinations" should be listed. I've never visited the Caribbean, though, unless the West (Gulf) Coast of Florida counts (and it doesn't, really). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Is it safe to travel to Mexico, Jamaica, and the Bahamas in 2024?
https://boingboing.net/2024/03/04/is-it-safe-to-travel-to-mexico-jamaica-and-the-bahamas-in-2024.html

In a real tragedy for the scale of a blog post, they link the wrong article. Here is the correct one. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:North America


text:
Talk:Northampton (England)

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

Comments
Why did someone delete mine and my very very naughty friend's amazing wikipediac work of venerable art? I mean, if you're going to delete someone else's hard work, you should at least put an article to replace it. I demand an apology and a full restoration. Or maybe just a doughnut.

Original (and most awesome) Article
Understand Most Northamptonians are wonderful culturally diverse people. However there are some chavvy personalities dirtying the otherwise clean facade of Northampton's general social welbeing.

Get in Northampton has a bus station, which smells really bad and it was stated on a show about England's worst buildings, and frankly it deserves to be there. It also has a train station, which isnt great but it's okay.

By plane If you wish to hijack a plane this a viable method of gaining access to Northampton but in my friend's experience, not worth the effort. Especially since plane meals are awful.

By train I guess. The train station is conveniently situated about 2 miles away from anything remotely interesting.

By car There are regular car journeys into Northampton. Hijack one, as my very very naughty friend says this is a more viable hijacking method.

By bus I've already mentioned that. Unless you want to be rattled to death and be given evil stares by old people I do not recommend this travel option.

By boat You CAN drag a boat along dry ground. It'll certainly burn off that millies cookie you bought in the Grovesnor Center

Get around Uhh, walk?

See Interesting nightlife, IE Prostitues. However if you prefer doing tourist stuff in the day you can take advantage of the vast amount of chavs and goths wandering around.

Do Nothing. At least nothing worth dragging a boat along dry ground for.

Learn The best way not to get mugged.

Work Why would you want to work there? Aren't you supposed to be on holiday? And if that's the case WHY ARE YOU IN NORTHAMPTON?

Buy A cheap cat glove from a 99p store!! Complete with bells.

Eat Highly over processed over stringified crap. Or a millies cookie.

Budget Highly over processed over stringified crap.

Mid-range Highly over processed over stringified crap. Or a millies cookie

Splurge Go to Greggs and buy food thats not completely made out of sponge

Drink Urine. Or beer. Or both.

Sleep Where ever you like

Budget Floor

Mid-range Comfy Floor

Splurge YMCA

Contact Me!

Stay safe Don't! You must fund the muggers!

Cope Don't go.

Get out THERES NO ESCAPE!

Sedgebrook Hall
, I noticed the Principal Hayley hotel Sedgebrook Hall in the village of Chapel Brampton is not listed, can we have it listed? Send me a message if you require any details not public on the website VerbInteractive (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To save time here is the posting with only factual info (I can't post the listing as I represent the company) VerbInteractive (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggested description: A hotel and event venue located in the village of Chapel Brampton in the Northampton countryside offering 102 bedrooms and 23 event suites. VerbInteractive (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Learn" and "Work" from article
Neither of these sections seems useful to travellers, but I move these listings here, in case you can glean anything of any relevance to people in Northampton on ~2-week visits:

Learn
The University of Northampton offers tertiary level courses in a range of subjects.

For vocational courses and A level courses, Northampton College has a wide range of courses on offer.

For apprenticeships, workplace learning and training courses, take a look at Options 2.

Work
Northampton Job Centre is on Frances Street and has listings for casual and permanent positions as well as job advice. It is essential for migrants to the area to visit the job centre to secure National Insurance Cards.

Adecco and the usual temporary work firms also operate in Northampton.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Nah. This seems to be a case of wrong template to start with. The big city template has been used, although this is not a city at all, according to the article itself. I'll remove stay safe and subdivisions in eat and get in as well, to get rid of unnecessary headers and obvious advise. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Northampton (England)


text:
Talk:Northamptonshire

The several references to Wikipedia articles are interim links to information. Contributors should rewrite these to suit our style and use primary sources. We want the information here not there. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:46, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Northamptonshire


text:
Talk:North Coast-Nechako

Queen of the North and Inside Passage
The Queen Of the North sunk last night south of Prince Rupert. All aboard are safe, but BC Ferries will not be running the Inside passage route for a while. -- (WT-en) bulliver 14:51, 22 March 2006 (EST)

Well, seems to be worse than first reported. There are still two passengers unaccounted for. Plus, the only other ferry that serves the Queen Charlotte Islands is drydocked for retrofitting, and as a result, the Islands and the remote communities along the Inside Passage are essentially cut off for the time being. Probably not a good idea to travel here till this is sorted out. -- (WT-en) bulliver 02:06, 23 March 2006 (EST)

Indigenous dialects?
We say, in Talk:
 * "The official language is English, though you will hear indigenous dialects if you are in villages inhabited by the First Nations People."

Wouldn't that be indigenous languages? The wording suggest you'd hear indigenous dialects of English, which makes little sense: as English is not indigenous, any dialects of it can't be either.

If people speak indigenous languages, then that would be the point, not whether they talk the official version of some unnamed language or a dialect of it. Mentioning what languages these are would also be valuable, for those who might be able to study the basics before arriving.

–LPfi (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I presume it's creole based languages. It's a similar situation if you go to outback indigenous communities in Australia or if you go up to the wet tropics, languages such as Australian Kriol, Torres Strait Creole or Gurindji Kriol are spoken. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Coast-Nechako


text:
Talk:North Beach

Disambiguation
This article was previously redirecting to Chesapeake Beach, but I felt it would be better as a disambiguation. (WT-en) Eco84 22:53, 5 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:North Beach


text:
Talk:North Cape

I don't think it's a good idea to merge into Honningvag. The North Cape is the main reason people come to this area. It is the ultimate goal for many cyclists, motorcyclists and people with mobile homes. Nobody visits Honningsvag and then thinks "So, lets see what we can do here, oh well, there is a North Cape.". Travellers visit the North Cape, and Honningsvag is only the nearest town. If the North Cape wasn't there, hardly anyone would ever visit Honningsvag at all.

Nordkapp is one of the most important tourist attractions in Norway (with an extortionate entry price to prove it). No-one goes all that way to visit Honnigsvag - most people wouldn't even stop there on the way to the "northermost" point of mainland Europe.

title: Talk:North Cape


text:
Talk:North Carolina

Regions
I have started a reorg of the regions. If anyone has good input, please jump in. I am not familiar with the states regions. From what I see the three regions I have set up are most commonly used. Some of the minor regions can be listed under those. I would like to also move the county listing under the major and minor regions. Any help would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:59, 9 December 2006 (EST)

 * The regions you have are the ones that the state visitor's board uses, as well as Open Directory . It may not be perfect, but it's a good start. --(WT-en) Evan 20:37, 14 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'm with the state tourism office, and we use the Coast, Piedmont and Mountains. I can give you the breakout of which counties fit into each of the three if you want that. Some economic models break the state down into seven "regions." They are the Northeast, Transpark, Southeast, Triangle, Triad, Carolinas and Western. I can give you the county breakouts for that as well. But I think the visitor experience really only relates to the three regions we use. People typically are visiting for a mountain experience, coastal/beach experience or for the cities or activities in the Piedmont. I hope that helps. 149.168.205.4 11:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Revisited
Here is an 8-region division that looks like it would work for us as well. By moving regions like Research Triangle up to top-level, it would allow us to eliminate a level of the hierarchy. (So we'd have North Carolina --> Research Triangle --> Raleigh, for instance, without the extra region that's there now.) Thoughts? Powers (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Cities
The city listing need to be moved under their region and/or county articles, leaving only major cities. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:51, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Why doesnt the NC map include the third and fourth largest cities in the state? Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point have been entirely omitted.

 * The cities list needs to be redone. Cities lists are determined not by size, but by travel-relevance & geographic distribution. Moreover, there is a hard limit of nine cities, not ten. Once we've got the cities list figured out, I'll be willing to make a nice regions map for this page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Boone is pretty close to asheville and also smaller. Chapel hill could easily be found by anyone visiting raleigh or durham and is much smaller than either of those cities.  I vote Boone and Chapel Hill are removed from the list to reach 9 cities. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Chapel Hill is the home of UNC. Why not remove Fayetteville instead? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that makes more sense. Although Fayetteville is much larger, the only reason I can see for going there is the military base. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

North Carolina
I'm going to try to fill in some detail that will assist travelers. But I wanted everyone to know that I'm new and I work for the state tourism office. So please let me know if I'm doing things the right or wrong way. I think the NC page is fantastic! 149.168.205.4 11:29, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Banner
I went ahead and added a banner from my recent trip to the state. It's barbecue-themed, since I think that's a nice representation of the state that isn't the Cape Hatteras lighthouse. I deliberately left out where it was. Thoughts? Rastapopulous (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a barbeque-themed banner, but I think we can do better than this one. It's kinda grainy, dark, and doesn't look all that appetizing. I'll see if I can find something else. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice choice! Rastapopulous (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Carolina


text:
Talk:North Carolina Mountains

Spectacular Fall Foliage
Each year many people come to Hendersonville to experience the fall foliage and the spectacular display of beauty and diversity in nature. This time of the year is a busy time for visitors who want to explore Western North Carolina and enjoy the vibrant colors of the fall leaf change. The scenic drives during the fall season are mesmerizing and out of this world beautiful.

The fall color season begins at the end of September and goes through the end of October; however, some tourists will come in late September or early November to miss the crowds. The difference in the elevation here in Hendersonville and the many different species of trees found here in the Blue Ridge Mountains are what make the views exceptionally good in this area of Western North Carolina. The peak in color changes to different areas from week to week depending on the elevation.

This festival of color offered by nature's changing of the leaves is certainly one of the greatest shows on earth. Each fall the trees in the deciduous forest respond to shorter days and cooler nights by beginning preparations for their dormant winter ahead.

Fall Foliage in Western North Carolina (WT-en) Waterfallsrus 09:52, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

WNC Wildlife
Western North Carolina has many unique and interesting species of wildlife. Some of these animals are pretty special to us and can't be seen anywhere else in the world. This list is by no means comprehensive, but just lists some neat animals that are frequently seen in this area.

White Squirrels live here in Hendersonville, Nc. They can be spotted in several neighborhoods and they are a beauty to behold. These animals are not albinos, they have normal dark eyes. They also interbreed with other gray squirrls and produce a mixed litter.

It is said these rare creatures were found in Brevard close to where a carnival van had tipped over in 1951. They spread all through the area where now they are a common sight among the people who liver here.

Black Bears are thriving here in North Carolina. North Carolina has about 3 million acres of relatively contiguous bear habitat, which provides ample room for roaming, and prevents inbreeding.

Wild Turkey are spotted in many neighborhoods in Hendersonville, sometimes even with their young following close behind. A beautiful site to see, these creatures spread there iridescent feathers in a rainbow of colors.

The wild turkey have been placed here by the National Wild Turkey Federation's Super Fund Program. There are many of these around so they are not hard to find.

A Hell Bender is a huge aquatic salamander without gills. They are gray or brown in color with yellow, brown, or black spots. They are found here in the rivers and the streams or under large rocks and debris piles. The Hellbender is listed as a special concern species in North Carolina. They are disappearing due to silting and pollution of our streams.

WNC Wildlife(WT-en) Waterfallsrus

Talk section
I think this section should be done away with or re-written altogether

This is the most hilarious (and for the most part wrong) stereotype on WNC dialect i've ever read. While a few of these words might have been dead on 75+ years ago the majority of WNC residents today DO NOT speak like this. Simple words aside, most of them are not exclusive to WNC but to the south as a whole. Seriously I've heard the words "Blinds" and "Buggy" used all over the U.S. As well as "Polecat" (which has about 15 different names). The way the section is written it sounds as if we all speak this way and I can assure you we do not. Never in my life have I ever used the words "Crik" "Worsh" or "Chaw" and rarely have I heard them used by anyone else. Sure you still have your old-timers who very much fit in to this dialectic stereotype, but certain words are becoming non-existent as outside dialects creep in and the population swells. So if Johnny New England thinks we still "talk funny" it's o.k., we think you talk funny too.

 * Yeah, its stupid, and its gone. --(WT-en) inas 23:17, 1 December 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:North Carolina Mountains


text:
Talk:North Cascades

Subregions?
I think there's room for making subregions of North Cascades. As I factor out the county articles, I'm getting a feel for what that should be. However, I don't think that "East" and "West" of the Cascades are the right divisions. The Cascades are pretty wide, so a big chunk of the region is neither "East of" or "West of", it's "On top of" the Cascades. Subregions should divide the mountains from the lowlands to the west, but at least Whatcom and Snohomish counties extend into the mountains. I don't have a clear idea for what the regions should be yet. Ideas: Skagit Valley, Bellingham region, Everett region, Coleville Indian Reservation region. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:09, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Intro
I think it's not ideal to put the list of counties, and links to county governments, in the intro section. This part of the article is to give the traveller a feel for the region, what makes it interesting, what makes it distinct. A recitation of political boundaries and links to websites doesn't have that effect for me. I think this list belongs in Understand. I duplicated the list there, and will let discussion unfold here before changing the intro. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:09, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Bellingham? What about Ferndale and Blaine
Perhaps Bellingham is the last large US city on I-5 before reaching Canada, but the statement as written in somewhat misleading.

title: Talk:North Cascades


text:
Talk:North Central Florida

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

title: Talk:North Central Florida


text:
Talk:Northcentral Indiana

Should this page be renamed to North Central Indiana? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 12:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Northcentral Indiana


text:
Talk:North Central New Mexico

Is anyone else seeing the box with the copyright info and the editors details halfway up the page here? Might just be my version of good old IE working its magic again :P (WT-en) Tsandell 14:03, 13 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:North Central New Mexico


text:
Talk:North China

Are "Shaanxi" and "Shanxi" really two different provinces? --(WT-en) Evan 18:34, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

City and Region at the same time?
This article list Beijing and Tianjin as both cities and regions.

Since both cities cover very large areas this is accurate, although is this how they should be handled in the article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:North China


text:
Talk:North Coast (California)

Nine cities
There should only be nine cities listed in this article. Not knowing the area, though, I can't make any recommendations. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:43, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. I removed the ones I've never heard of or which have no articles.  Then took some guesses.  Improvements are welcome. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:14, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

Sonoma County is (in its entirety) part of the North Bay of the San Francisco region
Somoma County is part of the San Francisco Bay Area, and specifically is part of the North Bay (Bay Area); Sonoma County is not part of the "North Coast".

The map in the North Bay article shows all of Sonoma County as part of that area (which is correct), while map in this article splits Sonoma County into a northern half (in the North Coast), and a southern half (not). That split is absurd - if nothing else, there is (and should be) a single article about Sonoma County. As importantly, no one that I know (I'm a resident of the county) thinks of the county that way - that the north part of the county - for example, Cloverdale, is in the "North Coast".

Unfortunately, the map in the North Bay (Bay Area) article also shows that split (showing only the south part of Sonoma County as part of the North Bay.)

If someone would fix the map and text in this article, to exclude all of Sonoma County, it would be greatly appreciated. -- John Broughton 16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Coast (California)


text:
Talk:North Coast (United States)

Is this needed?
Are we really going to create a travel guide for this area? Or is this just documenting a clever turn of phrase? These 4 states are already covered in Midwest (United States of America). Unless there's a good reason to keep this, I'm going to redirect it. --(WT-en) Evan 20:26, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Redirect is fine, or you can probably just vfd it. I've also heard of states that border the Great Lakes being called the "North Coast" (Cleveland used to advertise itself as being on America's North Coast), so it doesn't seem to be a well-defined area. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:55, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:North Coast (United States)


text:
Talk:North County (San Diego County)

Should this article be moved to "North San Diego County"?

 * I'd go with Northern San Diego County, to avoid giving people the impression that "North" is an official part of the name. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:01, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * SanMarcospan.jpg

 * Not visible in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:North County (San Diego County)


text:
Talk:North Dakota

Do we need all these counties???
Aagh! Wikivoyage isn't an encyclopedia - do we really need to list all the counties in North Dakota - surely we should only list the interesting areas / cities? See Travellers' pub/Non-Destinations. (WT-en) DanielC 16:10, 8 May 2005 (EDT)

It may be hard to judge from London, but North Dakota is quite interesting for many visitors. It offers outdoor sports galore, including skiing, hunting, fishing, boating, biking, hiking, etc. There is probably a better hierarchical organization by region, which I will work on after I am done making it comprehensive. (WT-en) Stavp 8 May 2005.

I'd be open to other suggestions of how to organize the breakdown of the state if there's something better than counties-- is there any sort of generally recognized "areas"? But it doesn't look like an overwhelming list-for-lists sake. I don't think anyone wants to get into judging what's "interesting" or not (I mean it's not like we're going to run out of room ;-) so all the destinations should be covered. (See conversation at Travellers' pub/Non-Destinations). It may just be a matter of deciding on how to organize them... (WT-en) Majnoona 22:22, 8 May 2005 (EDT)

Sorry for coming across overly negative and picking on this page as an example. The list of counties - it was about 1 1/2 pages long looks much better now that you have sorted it into groups. I should learn some patience - I was just looking most of the counties and they do look quite encyclopaedic - eg. Burke County (North Dakota) & Cass County (North Dakota), plus the town that I looked at - Medora is just a list of shops, restaurants and hotels. I guess that this is just a starting point. I'll make my more general points on Travellers' pub/Non-Destinations. (WT-en) DanielC 14:37, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

regions
There were already two regions defined: Turtle Mountains and Badlands. I carved those out of the four generally recognized regions of the state, so now we have six, with a pretty tight organization. All counties are in alpha order in the regions, so if you want to find a particular county, its not too hard to locate in the list as now organized,

County (North Dakota) Article Names
Copied from my talk page. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:11, 11 Jun 2005 (EDT)

When I first set up the 53 counties of ND, I was finding many names duplicate names of counties in other states. To avoid confusion and duplicate work, I decided to name all 53 as Name County (North Dakota). I realized when I did this that some of the counties were not duplicated in other states and the ND parentheses were not necessary, but it was easier to stick to one naming convention as I wrote the various articles. By changing Oliver County (North Dakota) to Oliver County, this becomes an exception to the naming convention I am using, and will almost certainly lead to errors down the road. Unless there is really a good reason to go changing some of the names and leaving others unchanged, I would like to keep the (North Dakota) in all the county names. Do you see a problem with that? (WT-en) Stavp 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * According to the Project:Article naming conventions, Oliver County is prefered over Oliver County (North Dakota). Unless there are multiple articles (regions in this case) with the same name, there is no need to disambiguate them with the (North Dakota).
 * The Big risk with having (North Dakota) in the name is that other unwitting authors will create a second article without the (North Dakota), rather than contribute to your wonderful articles. I understand this has already happened with Bismarck and Bismarck (North Dakota).
 * If you intend to continue using the (North Dakota) in article titles, can I suggest you also create redirection pages to those articles from pages with the matching names that do not have (North Dakota) in the title, especially when you know there are duplicate names. That way we can set up disambiguation pages, in the future.
 * However, I think the better solution is to leave the (North Dakota) off the name unless there are other articles with the same name that already exist. Even though other places may exist, we may never write articles about them. We can always move existing pages to disambiguated names later, to make room when we need it.
 * Lastly, if I have upset your plans, I am sorry; but I was unaware of your decision to use the (North Dakota) for the County articles. To save all this pain, frustration and disputing it may have helped to document your decision somewhere where I, and others could have read it. By responding here I hope that I have now done that documentation. Unfortunately, as many of the (North Dakota) articles do not follow the existing naming conventions, they are still at risk of being aligned to it, by others. I can tolerate what you are doing, now I understand it, others may not. How we resolve the risks oulined above I leave as a challenge for the Wikivoyage contributor community. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:11, 11 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Thanks, for the explanation Huttite. I certainly understand the need for clear and unambiguous conventions in a large multi-contributor project. I think the complexity comes from the very common county names used in so many states. For example (by no means comprehensuive) here is a list of 8 counties in ND that are also county names in other states:

 * Ward County: North Dakota, Texas
 * Golden Valley County: North Dakota, Montana
 * Ramsey County: North Dakota, Minnesota
 * Pierce County: North Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Georgia
 * Mercer County: North Dakota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Kentucky,
 * Logan County: North Dakota, Ohio, Illinois, West virginia, Kansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma,Arkansas
 * Adams County: North Dakota, Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Idaho, Mississippi
 * Grant County: North Dakota, Wisconsin, Washington, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota
 * Now, I have not checked if any of these names have been used in other WikiTravel state articles, but I think the odds are if they have not yet been, they will be at some time. I would like to propose that, for the time being, and until the North Dakota article data base is reasonably well filled out, I would like to continue to use the (North Dakota) modifier for each county name. I probably have another couple of months to go to get this done. Once that is done, I would be very glad you or anyone else who is willing to take on the task of renaming and/or redirecting the county articles as necessary to abide by the WikiTravel naming conventions. Thanks again for your help. (WT-en) Stavp 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * I am not too worried that the naming conventions are not being followed to the letter in this case. There are valid reasons for doing what is being done. Also I am not familiar with the counties of the United States of America. Consequently, I have not interfered (too much) with the work going on developing these North Dakota articles. It is also quite clear that famous presidents and generals do get honored by having a lot of counties named after them. Given the above research by (WT-en) Stavp indicates almost 4 dozen other ambiguous county article names exist, pre-disambiguated county articles may be a good thing. Perhaps there is also need for deciding how political regions (which US counties really are) fit into a geographical heierachy. In some places, counties and their like will be the most convenient way of dividing up a larger regional area, like a state. However, in other cases, counties may not be appropriate, especially where the political division does not match the natural geographical division.
 * The basic questions I have are:
 * (1) Is it County, with a capital, or county, with a lower case C?
 * (2) Should the word County be included or not?
 * (3) Should all counties be disambiguated by state as in Countyname County (State)?
 * (4) Should this apply world wide or only for the USA? (Compare shires Australia and both counties and shires in England.)
 * (5) What are the consequences of these decisions?
 * (6) How can any risks, such as duplicate articles, multiple redirects and article moves be (or should they be) mitigated?
 * In some respects, what we decide now locks us into the way we must move forward. Also, what seems expedient now may not be convenient later. I would like others to think about these issue and comment. -- (WT-en) Huttite 00:48, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Removed external links
The following links were removed from the main article but may be useful for research:

 * Official State web site
 * North Dakota Tourism
 * Discover ND
 * North Dakota.com
 * The Real North Dakota Project

Get rid of county articles
This state is waaaay too subdivided... we should combine all of the county articles into their immediate parents, leaving the 6 region articles only – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:22, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

 * There's a lot of underdeveloped articles.... but if you eliminate the county layer then you get too many cities per article. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Stay Safe section

 * This section reads like an Uncyclopedia parody.

Absolutely agree. The whole section makes it sound as though leaving city limits will doom you a short life of being frozen, then eaten by wildlife. It's overly histrionic and sounds very unprofessional. The Understand section, with its declarations about people using Native American sites as a "toilet," seems unfounded and is also overly dramatic. A simple request not to disturb prayer flags, cairns, etc. -- and to remove any trash you generate at these sites -- would be a better use of the space. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Afraydknot (talk • contribs)

 * Please plunge forward and make any needed changes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:50, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Alternative banner
I propose a new banner for this page:

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 04:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC) (comment adjusted on April 20, 2018)
 * Moved discussion from Talk:Theodore Roosevelt National Park to here and adjusted my comments accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I like this one better than the current. Ground Zero (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Added current banner for comparison. /Yvwv (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I like the new one better too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely favor the proposed replacement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The new proposal is better but I would crop it a little lower.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer Traveler100's crop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggested banner as modified in Suggestion 1A would be a great improvement over the current banner. Zcarstvnz (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go with 1A too. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that focuses on the important stuff even more! Thanks. Nice version of it, though I've actually created another alternative just in case you guys really like it. I'm not sure, though, if it's quite as good as 1A. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The new image is good and could be used somewhere, but I prefer 1A. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think 1a is better than 2 because it shows both detail and a vast panorama in the same photo. Hopefully someone will find a use for #2 elsewhere. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to information in North Dakota Banner Alternative.jpg, the image is from Theodore Roosevelt National Park so it could be used there. Also, in case you didn't know, I've also done some alternative banners for Texas (see Talk:Texas) and it would be great to hear some thoughts on those. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion 2 looks like a good replacement for the currently-used banner at Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Suggestion 2 would be a much better alternative for TR National Park. Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * World's Largest Buffalo Monument 2009.jpg

title: Talk:North Dakota


text:
Talk:Northeast

I moved this page back to Northeast from North East because, according to my dictionary, northeast is the direction midway between North and East. I believe that northeast is also the most common English name for the direction, so should be the name of the article. My dictionary does not show north east or north-east as alternative spellings. Also a North East place could also be interpreted as the northern part of the eastern area rather than the northeastern area, which is a slightly different area, with the north east place (perhaps) being more south of the northeast place and probably better being referred to as being eastnortheast.

Also, because this is a disambiguation page, shifting the page is not the appropriate thing to do as disambiguation pages are also linked directly from the Project:Links to disambiguating pages page. This means that each disambiguating page should have a separate entry and there probably should be duplications of each alternative spelling too - unless it is clear that redirects to the disambiguation page should not be removed. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:51, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

See my comments on Talk:Southwest (WT-en) DanielC 07:55, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

North East vs. North-East vs. Northeast
The editor in me is screaming that, except in cases where it forms part of a proper name, we should choose one orthography and stick with it for consistency's sake. Judging by Google hits, the un-hyphenated, un-spaced "northeast" is more common than the other two combined. I hate to see a haphazard assortment of orthographies being used. Anyone agree? (WT-en) Texugo 06:38, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

 * I'd say anything but northeast is actually incorrect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:54, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Absolutely agree. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

VFD
Deleted per VFD archived at Votes_for_deletion/July_2021. Pashley (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northeast


text:
Talk:Northeast China

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

Comments
Dong Bei, means Northern Province in Chinese. The region was populated by Koreans and Manchurians. ( Korean-Manchurians). Altaic people: Koreans, Mongolians, Manchus. ( Not Han-People/ Han-Chinese). You must understand Greatwall Border line that separates China ( cultural sphere) to Korean-Manchu ( Altaic cultural sphere). - —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Korean1Professor (talk • contribs)

 * Thank you for your comments on Talk:North East (China). please feel free to plunge forward and edit the North East (China) article to read how you think it should. Please try to understand that some of our naming conventions have been a bit arbitrary for China, because there simply was no other formal English name for North East China at the time someone created the article. If you think the name is wrong, please discuss it.

 * PS: Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing  ~  at the end of what you write and it will be magically converted into a signature like this. -> (WT-en) Huttite 04:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Needs de-duplication?
The introduction and the understand section currently have essentially the same history repeated twice, though in different words and with some differences of detail and emphasis. I think it needs some cleanup and redundancy removal but, having written parts of both sections at different times, I do not want to tackle this myself. Any volunteers? Pashley (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I took a crack at it. Other opinions and contributions are still needed. Pashley (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Status of Manchu language?
We currently have:
 * There are substantial groups whose first language is ... Manchu ...
 * Sadly, Manchu is now a moribund language, and is only spoken natively by a few elderly people in isolated villages,

Which sentence is correct? Can someone clarify the text? Pashley (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * By all accounts Manchu has very few native speakers remaining – I've adjusted the paragraph accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Korean names of Chinese cities with large ethnic Korean communities
I wonder if we should only list the local Chinese-Korean name, or if we should also list the South Korean name. Usually, the ethnic Koreans in China will use the Sino-Korean readings of the city's Chinese name, while South Koreans will use a transliteration of the Mandarin name, so the two Korean names can actually be quite different from each other. Yanji is a particular example, where the local Chinese-Koreans call the city Yeon-gil, while South Koreans call the city Yen-ji. The dog2 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 * The local names are the Chinese name and Chinese-Korean name, so those names should be used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northeast China


text:
Talk:North East England

Hadrian's Wall
This article says "near the Scottish borders is Hadrian's wall"...this would be a good time to point out Hadrian's wall is 80 miles away from the Scottish border!

Northumbria - move to North East (England)?
For me (resident of the UK, visited the area several times), this sounds like an artificial description of the area. The vast majority of people would talk about the North East. For me, Northumbria is just Northumberland and Newcastle/Sunderland.

The North East is more inclusive - Durham (city), Middlesborough and Teeside. Northumbria seems to have been re-invented by the local tourist board. See also Wikipedia:Northumbria.

I would suggest moving the article to North East. What do other people think? (WT-en) DanielC 23:38 (GMT) 24 Mar 2005

 * I think that Northumbria should be a subregion of North East (England), with all the other places shown as well. Although the local  tourist board may have resurrected Northumbria, it is obviously not the same as Northeastern England but a specific region within it. Wikivoyage regions can nest one upon another, several (or many) layers deep. If Northumbria is being promoted as a region to visit, especially if it has a tourist board website, then there probably should be a separate article about it. Even if the article pretty much indicates that this is just the region the tourist board has defined and is promoting, it gives those people who think a business in the promoted area somewhere to list. Besides, if it is not listed here now, while it is still small, someone will eventually go to the trouble to break this page up in the future. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:38, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

As there is so much overlap between the two, I would have thought what we have now (a redirect from Northumbria to the North East) works OK - it avoids confusing duplication (WT-en) DanielC 07:37, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

North East or Northeast?
Should this article be called North East (England) or Northeast (England), or even Nor'east (England)? -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:13, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Does it matter? We could re-direct from the others if people start using them. (WT-en) DanielC 07:37, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Article name
For consistency with North East Scotland (see Talk:North East Scotland), should North East (England) be moved to North East England? ~ 202.72.96.2 04:24, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Counties
Your list is wrong.

Tyne & wear and Cleveland were abolished as administrative counties in 1996. I believe the areas of Middlesbrough and Redcar now have their own unitary authorities and are now part of the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire. Its ridiculous that Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire but not part of the "Yorkshire and Humber" region!!

Can you please stop using the 1974 administrative counties please?

 * Furthermore, "Tyne & Wear" is now further divided into "Gateshead", "Newcastle", "North Tyneside", "South Tyneside" and "Sunderland". Tyne and Wear is now only used as the postal county, in terms of administrative measures there is no longer a Tyne & Wear.

 * I agree with the comment re Cleveland. It's 22 years since it was a county, and the name isn't used for tourist or ceremonial purposes. I therefore propose moving its destinations into their current county: everything south of the Tees into N Yorks (Middlesbrough, Redcar & Yarm); everything north into County Durham (Billingham, Hartlepool and Stockton). I'll wait till W 1 Aug in case anyone objects. The empty county then can be left with a short note, and links tidied up. Grahamsands (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree the towns in Cleveland should be moved to their correct counties, then make it an Extraregion with a bit of explanation. At this point though would not split Tyne and Wear into metropolitan districts, not enough content for that. We do not have to follow exactly administrative regions although are useful guidelines. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Cleveland has now been hollowed out, and its content moved to County Durham or North Yorks. Could someone with admin skills please check that links are as they should be (I don't know how the archive system works), and adjust the various maps. Some of the town entries need overhaul but that's regardless of whichever county they happen to be in. I don't propose any change to Tyne & Wear as that name remains in use, and it coheres as an area in a way Cleveland never succeeded in doing. Grahamsands (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good,have deleted a region category and updated the region map here. The Yorkshire region maps still need an update. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. I guess the hollowed-out page should remain where it is, because if someone typed "Cleveland" meaning the area of England, where is it best for them to land? Not on a general list of "pages containing Cleveland" as these overwhelmingly refer to the US cities. Probably not by a re-direct onto either County Durham or North Yorkshire, since the transferred towns are only a small part of their new hosts, and it wouldn't be obvious why the re-direct had occurred. (Nor should it: as mundane post-industrial towns, they're a long way down any list of those counties' attractions, and don't merit greater prominence.) So status quo seems simplest; is the disambiguator okay as it stands? The hollow page might mention other eponyms such as "Cleveland Way" and "Cleveland Hills" just to state where now to find them. Grahamsands (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:North East England


text:
Talk:North-Eastern India

This page should be deleted! It's content was copied into India. (WT-en) F16 00:35, 2 Mar 2004 (EST)

Pagebanner issue
There's a problem with this pagebanner: It's a view in Darjeeling, which is part of West Bengal and not treated as part of North-Eastern India. It's beautiful and should be used for something, but a different banner is needed for this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It might actually be superior to the currently-used West Bengal banner, but North Bengal has no banner, so this banner should be moved there right away (or whenever anyone gets around to it). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The banner still hasn't been moved. I'm not really sure how to do it. This banner needs to be moved to North Bengal and replaced with a scene from this part of India. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the banner to Northeast India, and managed to persuade the %&/€%&€ known as Wikidata that it shouldn't be on this article. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean you added it to North Bengal, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unless Wicked Wikidata automatically reverted my edits later. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic map
Dynamic maps are normally not used in region articles, so I've reverted the addition of one. Instead, if any cities or other destinations need to be added to the static map, that should be done.

The places listed on this map are not likely to be moved or close. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Ikan Kekek I have added dynamic maps in other regions of India, do you think they need to be removed?? --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, there should not be dynamic maps at the region or districted city level. If there's a reason for an exception to the rule, it wouldn't normally be in an article that already has a static map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I guess someone restored it at a certain point. Can we please re-delete it and add any parks not already in the static map to that map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sikkim is in North East India
Sikkim is in North East India, and not in East India. It's explicitly written in English Wikipedia article. Haoreima (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Wikivoyage's divisions doesn't always correspond with encyclopedic definitions and administrative divisions. Countries and regions are divided and subdivided as per the 7+2 rule as well as The traveller comes first. Chhattisgarh is another state which is treated differently between the project (Central in Wikipedia and Eastern here). The divisions are based on making the guide easier to navigate and the geographic realities of the region. French Polynesia is technically part of France but it is not treated as such under the breadcrumbing structure because it is so far from France that it is practically more useful to treat it as a separate geographic entity. In the case of Sikkim, Eastern India has fewer number of states and Sikkim is physically connected to Northern Bengal, while it does not border Assam or any northeastern state. Hence the decisions to classify under Eastern India. Gizza ( roam ) 07:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, friend, for your clarification. I am new to Wikivoyage! Well, I like your kindness for clarification! :) Haoreima (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it can be mentioned in here, and note that Wikivoyage covers it under East India, similar to how NZ is mentioned in Polynesia. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Other destinations from Manipur and Mizoram
The § Other destinations section currently has five, but I noticed that there are currently no other destinations listed in Manipur and Mizoram and per wv:7+2, there's four more that we can add. Tripura also doesn't have any other destinations, but it is not as large as the other states, but we can try to have one. For Manipur, my suggestions would be Keibul Lamjao National Park and Sirohi National Park as these two national parks have an article. Don't know whether it's the most important thing in Manipur though.

For Mizoram, I don't know what to add, as coverage on Mizoram is very low, but the only suggestion I'd have is Vangchhia (currently has no article), but only suggesting it because of this. For Tripura, I don't know what to add, given it's a small state, but Clouded Leopard National Park seems like a nice one to add, but we don't have an article on that either. If we don't want to add non-existant articles, we can at add the two Manipuri national parks, and leave out the ones in Mizoram and Tripura until we get an other destination from both of these two states. , what do you think? If you've got better suggestions, please call it out. I'm no expert in the region, and my experience in India as a whole is mostly limited to Kerala and a quick visit to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * SHB2000 Thanks for informing us! Yeah, please add the two National Parks of Manipur. Meanwhile, I will try to add some more contents of Manipur as well as other North East states, by creating articles. In the section "§ Other destinations", I saw only "national parks", if that's the case, then shall we change the section's name into "National park" explicitly to draw more attention from readers! Just my opinion! And if the case is that the section also allows other destinations, besides national parks, then, I have some suggestions — Loktak Lake, Thanga (this island itself is within the Loktak lake and the Keibul Lamjao National Park itself is within this island's political jurisdiction) and Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary! --Haoreima (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, anything can be listed as an other destination, as long as it is not a city or a town, unless it's something like a resort village or town. Similarly, they also don't have to be just about natural attractions – cultural attractions can certainly go too (just like how Taj Mahal or Ellora Caves are mentioned in India, Mount Rushmore National Memorial in USA, Disneyland Paris in France or Budj Bim National Park in Victoria (state).
 * As to which ones you think fit best, I'll leave that to you – feel free to add what you think is best. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @SHB2000, Yep! I will add something about Tripura probably mid-May (maybe later today) Cheers! 2006nishan178713t@lk 12:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take your time and it's really appreciated. Good luck for your exams :-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:59, 24 April 2022 (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) 20:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Screenshot 20210317-123131 Instagram.jpg

 * Unclear license. We'll have to let this one go. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:North-Eastern India


text:
Talk:Northeastern Minnesota

Brainerd, Crosslake, and Pequot Lakes are all in Crow Wing County, which is listed under NW MN, not NE.

 * Good catch, please feel free to plunge forward and put the content where it belongs! --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 15:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk (local dialect)
I never heard the term Pasty, and I grew up here. I did see it on American Pickers when they went to the UP. I'm not sure the usage ends, but I grew up in Koochiching county and went to school at UMD (Duluth) and don't recall ever hearing it. Nerfer (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northeastern Minnesota


text:
Talk:Northeast Iowa

 * I am going to right a article! Just need to find a few sources!||

title: Talk:Northeast Iowa