text:
Talk:Westchester County

Running
I've moved Running from the article to the discussion page, as it does not provide any info other than secondary source URLs. See Project:External links and Project:Attraction listings "A link is not a substitute for actual information. Our goals include creating pages useful as printed guides. So, we need to include information that's at the other end of a link, even if it may seem redundant for on-line use." (WT-en) SHC 19:34, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Running The County has numerous and varied places for trail running as well as numerous races.

How many villages and towns are we going to list?
The standard on this guide is no more than 9. To get a start on pruning the list, I'm moving red links and their descriptions here:

 * Ardsley - this village is part of the town of Greenburg, not be confused with the nearby hamlet of Ardsley-on-Hudson, which is part of the village of Irvington
 * Buchanan - home of the Indian Point nuclear power facility
 * Greenburgh - historic sites in this town include the Romer-Van Tassel House (town hall in 1793), the Church of St. Joseph of Arimathea, the Odell House, and the Spanish American War Monument to the 71st Infantry Regiment.
 * New Castle this town includes the hamlet of Millwood. The Williams-DuBois House and Isaac Young House are listed on the National Register of Historic Places
 * North Salem - mostly rural; rolling hills, horse farms, and apple orchards. The fictitious headquarters of the X-Men superhero team is located in Salem Center.
 * Town of Rye - not the city of Rye, the town of Rye includes Port Chester, Rye Brook and part of Mamaroneck.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Another red link and description:

 * Mount Pleasant township containing Eastview, Hawthorne, Pleasantville, Pocantico Hills, Sleepy Hollow, Thornwood, Valhalla, and part of Briarcliff Manor.

 * We should keep all the descriptions - they may be useful. But we need to decide how to handle things. I think 9 cities and 9 villages/towns would be fine, unless we want to do 9 cities and 9 parks, but right now, that list of all the villages and towns is too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Split into subregions?
As a bottom-level region, Westchester County doesn't have to observe the 7±2 guidline, but with 38 communities, it does seem rather unwieldy. If we want to consider dividing to subregions, the county's tourism website might provide guidance. It has five regions. Any thoughts? --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Subdivision does seem to make sense. Maybe has advice. Ground Zero (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Subdivision is sensible. I'm unsure about their 5 subregions, though. I don't think it makes sense to say that because Peekskill is on the river, it's not in Northern Westchester, and it looks like their "Hudson River Towns" go all the way down to Hastings but not Yonkers. I'll suggest a division off the top of my head, and then I absolutely welcome disagreement and other suggestions:

 * Northwestern Westchester: Peekskill, Cortlandt, Croton-on-Hudson, Ossining, Valhalla, Plesantville, Briarcliff Manor, Chappaqua, Yorktown Heights
 * Northeastern Westchester: Mt. Kisco, Somers, Katonah, Bedford, Pound Ridge, Lewisboro
 * Lower Hudson Valley: Sleepy Hollow, Tarrytown, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington, Hastings-on-Hudson, Yonkers (move Elmsford here?)
 * Sound Shore: Pelham, New Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Rye, Port Chester
 * Lower Interior: Mount Vernon, Bronxville, Tuckahoe, Eastchester, Scarsdale, White Plains, Elmsford, Purchase, Harrison, Rye Brook (the last 3 could be moved to "Sound Shore and environs")

 * Disclaimer: I lived in Westchester County only for the 3 1/2 years I was in the dorms and on-campus apartments of SUNY at Purchase, that was in the 1980s, but I've hiked, gigged and hung out in many parts of the county and have traveled there and back by train, car and bus and have a fair degree of feel for the lay of the land and different characters of different areas and towns, but I wouldn't insist I know the county better than their tourism bureau! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an interim solution, I created subsections in the Cities section, placing the cities per your list above. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That can work, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like that split works. Can we remove the region discussion tag now? Ground Zero (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 * If we agree that splitting within the article rather than creating subregion articles is sufficient, then we can remove the tag. The article will remain in the auto-generated Category:Regions with more than 25 subpages. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I have no objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I defer to local knowledge on this. If you decided to split the region into subregion articles along those lines, I don't think anyone would object. Ground Zero (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph on the political geography of Westchester
Very clear explanation, given the complexities, but why is this relevant to travelers? It seems more useful for an article about New York State's geopolitical divisions somewhere other than a travel guide. Your thoughts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to read it to understand whether it would be relevant for a travel guide, but I was too bored and gave up half way through. Sorry: I tried. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Any suggestions for trimming? I'll give it a go... Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reduced the paragraph to three sentences. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that sounded harsh, but as someone who is not from the county, I don't find that paragraph to be interesting, or relevant for travel. Is there a reason why travellers need this information? Ground Zero (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I slog through adding coordinates to listings, I see on the dynamic maps—which have mapshapes of municipal borders—that many listings fall outside the boundaries. Our readers may wonder why this happens, so a brief explanation is in order. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the case of White Plains, I think what would be best would be to state that the article also covers North White Plains and to include that in the white area on the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OpenStreetMap has a "node" for North White Plains, but no "relation", so no borders defined there, so no source for the mapmask. It's not important enough for Wikipedia to give it anything beyond a disambiguation. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a real weakness of dynamic maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Westchester Municipalities (new).png
 * Apparent duplicate. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Westchester County


text:
Talk:West Coast (Canada)

This page needs to be moved but I'm not sure which title to move it to (Canadian West Coast? West Coast of Canada? - EVERY country with a seacoast has a 'west coast' and in many places it's a tourist region that we're going to want to write about... (WT-en) KJ 20:24, 24 Sep 2003 (PDT)

 * I don't think that's strictly true. China, for example, doesn't have a 'west coast'. But, yes, that would probably be a good thing to use for disambiguation. Wouldn't the article naming conventions suggest West Coast (Canada)? -- (WT-en) Evan 11:56, 29 Sep 2003 (PDT)

 * You are right (WT-en) Evan, this is what the article naming conventions suggest. However, I chose (WT-en) Karen's suggestion to use West Coast of Canada because it feels less clumsy than using West Coast (Canada) and seems to insert more naturally into prose.  I think the difference here is that we are talking about a natural geographical name rather than a geopolitical one.  It doesn't make sense to say "Victoria of Canada" in the same way.  Victoria (Canada) is clearly the correct choice in that situation.  (Although I still think that it would be useful to have a hierarchical structure in Wikivoyage, I suspect that substantial changes to the Wikimedia code would be required ...) (WT-en) Ctylemay 10:07, 1 Oct 2003 (PDT)

 * Yeah the existence of this page seems a litle confusing. There's going to be a lot of duplication with British Columbia, since most of the west coast of Canada is in this province, and many of the tourist attractions of British Columbia are on the coast. -- (WT-en) Nojer2 08:28, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * Personally I think that the West Coast (Canada) Section should be merged with British Columbia and called British Columbia. West Coast is not a well defined region.  Most people would not include the interior of British Columbia,  in the West Coast.  Everything in this region would also logically be in British Columbia.  Calling the region British Columbia would  create a little bit of overlap with the region Rocky Mountains, but I don't see how that is a problem.  Once I get my feet a little wetter, I think I will take on trying to fix this up. -- (WT-en) webgeer 10:35, July 21, 2004 (PST)

Re:Get Around section-- isnt some of that info applicable to all of Canada? ie trains, grayhound, etc. Maybe move some of it up into Canada, and some of it down into city specific pages, but certainly leave anything that's really only about the area. I don't think it's too long at all.

I moved this per the discussion -- OK, the monologue -- in Talk:Canada. -- (WT-en) Evan 15:56, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

As per the discussion in [[Talk:Canada], I amalgamated this with [[British Columbia. The content before amalgamation was:

The West Coast of Canada is located entirely in the province of British Columbia. The Pacific Ocean moderates the climate here so that winters are considerably warmer and summers somewhat cooler than in the rest of the country, creating an environment suitable for the development of vegetation not found elsewhere in Canada. Numerous fjords and the Coast Mountain range come together to create a coastline known for its beauty.

Like in most places worth visiting, there is a little something for everyone in this region. However, you will want to spend at least some time outside of the main cities in this region, and if you enjoy a very active and adventurous vacation, there are many options here to explore. "Ecotourism" is an often mentioned attraction in this part of Canada. Whether backpacking in the majestic forests or coast mountains, or kayaking through the many groups of islands, getting off the beaten path is sure to lead to a memorable trip.

Cities

 * Vancouver
 * Whistler
 * Victoria
 * Kelowna
 * Kamloops
 * Prince George

Regions

 * Lower Mainland
 * Vancouver Island
 * Southern Gulf Islands
 * Sunshine Coast
 * Okanagan
 * Interior
 * North Coast
 * Peace River

Do

 * Backpack the West Coast Trail
 * Kayak Desolation Sound

Get in/Get out
The main city in this region is Vancouver. This is where you are likely to arrive (or transfer) if you are coming by air. If you are in Seattle, you can take a ferry to Victoria on Vancouver Island.

Get around
Getting around here is not always easy. Many worthwhile destinations are outside of the cities and not accessible by public transportation options. This makes renting a car quite a popular option for getting around. If you look around however, you will find other options, mostly buses of some variety or another.

Pacific Coach Lines and Perimeter operate standard bus service on some of the more popular routes between cities. Sometimes you can arrange to be dropped off at points in between, and in the summer, guided bus tours may be available. Greyhound covers some of the smaller cities and other, less popular routes. Bigfoot Adventure Tours runs a unique service on less travelled routes that is a combination between "just getting you there" and a tour of some very worthwhile destinations. They have a number of quite flexible packages available, many of them connecting the coast with popular destinations in the Canadian Rockies.

You will also find that the ferry service (provided by BCFerries) is indispensable to access many island and coastal communities. Some of the smaller islands can be visited on foot or by bicycle, but in many cases additional road transportation is necessary. Although ferry service is generally reliable, taking an automobile on board is rarely cheap, and you will likely find it cheaper to take the ferry as a foot passenger and rent an automobile from your destination. If you are taking bus service across a ferry, you should confirm when buying your bus ticket that the ferry fare is included.

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

title: Talk:West Coast (Canada)


text:
Talk:West Country

I moved West Country from West England because almost all the links I saw (and also the article) talked about the West Country. I think that this is the most common English name too. I have heard of the West Country, I do not hear about West England. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:00, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * You are right: "West England" is neither a term in general use nor a recognizable entity. Note, however, that "the West Country" is not an official description: for me it covers Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall. Whether it includes all of Gloucestershire (though I feel it did include all of the former county of Avon, centred on Bristol) and Wiltshire (in particular, Salisbury) is, I feel, rather more debatable... -- (WT-en) Picapica 20:43, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The Map is now out of date due to the fact that Avon no longer exists. The correct areas should include:

Gloucestershire County, South Gloucestershire District, Bristol City, Bath and North East Somerset District, North Somerset District, Somerset County,

Will try to do some work on it.

Colour coded map?
The colour coded map is rather... blue. Is this by design? I can't easily match each region description to its corresponding map location. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely too blue. This should be changed to colors that are more easily identifiable. Usability should always trump cutesy-ness. Texugo (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All the England region maps follow the same style: different shades of the same colour for the different counties. I completely agree that it isn't the best way to go about making them legible. Particularly bad offenders as well as this one: East Midlands, West Midlands and North West England. The Yorkshire map is bad for a different reason, in that there are too many different splodges of colour to make any sense of what's what. The other regions' maps aren't so bad. Unfortunately, in my case, all I can do is criticise because I don't have the skills or the software to do any better.
 * Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I didn't realise that all UK maps have this issue! Seems like an obvious area for improvement, since it makes the guide less useful for those with poor eyesight / colour blindness.
 * I have the skills, just time is not abundant right now. In any case I'll raise this at a country level --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Talk:United_Kingdom --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Good move --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Static map
Noticed you removed the dynamic map in favor of the static one. Thought I'd point out, in case you didn't notice, that the Isles of Scilly are a separate region in the article, but not on the static map. The dynamic map didn't have this right, either, but it would be, of course, a faster fix on that one. Either way, someone should probably put a map request; I'll do it unless you think the Isles are better off not being separate. ARR8 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I don't see why Isles of Scilly wouldn't be part of Cornwall. But that's a separate discussion, so please go ahead and make that request. Thank you for spotting it :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

 * ✅ ARR8 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2018 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Castle combe cotswolds.jpg

title: Talk:West Country


text:
Talk:West End

West End
With that, it links to London/West End but there are multiple "West End"'s and travellers may be looking for others. It may be the most common, but still! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
 * Delete.' Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 16:49, 13 November 2008 (EST).
 * Keep, but make it a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Even if London's is the most famous West End, it doesn't follow that it's always going to be the one for which users are looking.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:29, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Exactly, good point. Disambiguation page would be great!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 17:36, 13 November 2008 (EST).

 * Changed to a disambiguation page. (WT-en) Texugo 00:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:West End


text:
Talk:Western Australia

Snakes/spiders
Should information about snakes/spiders be repeated in the Western Australia article, or should there be a link to the appropriate section of the Australia article in the Stay safe section? (WT-en) Jamboo 09:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Proposing a regions rename
Im planing on doing some work the WA page but first I want to get the regions in order. What exists bugs me though, so I have a few questions before I start changing things. Anyway, just some thoughts. Any objections?
 * The Heartlands region. Isn't this usually called the Wheatbelt?. Every map I look at agrees with me. Id like to propose a name change. The page has almost no info yet so it wouldnt disturb too much.
 * Should Rottnest_Island be its own region or part of the Perth_(region)?

 * Totally with you on the Wheatbelt. I identified with that name as soon as I read it. Rottnest should be part of the Perth (region) I think. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:17, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't think the smaller regions in the South West add much. I think the Margaret River could be a single article, and having it as a region and a town is messy.  Same goes for Perth, and Albany.   Really ugly.   Especially with the amount of content there is there now.   I'd be in favour of just having a South West Region, incorporating all those towns.  I'd put Rotto in there too.   The Wheatbelt is a well-defined, well known region. When you are given a region like that, jump on it, I say.  --(WT-en) inas 01:23, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Agreed on the Southwest also... it is over-refined at the moment. If someone Cardboardbird?) can get a definitive list of proposed regions up on this talk page, then it could be a quick re-organisation I think. I would be happy to do the map. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:30, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

 * This is what I have come up with, including the major travel spots
 * Perth (Region) - Perth, Northbridge, Freo, Rottnest Island.
 * Kimberley - Broome, Kununurra, Warmun(Bungle Bungle NP), Wyndham and Fitzroy Crossing
 * Pilbara - Port Hedland, Karratha, Dampier, Tom Price, Newman, Marble Bar
 * Gascoyne - Monkey Mia, Carnarvon, Coral Bay, Exmouth(Ningaloo Reef), Shark Bay, Mt Augustus
 * Midwest - Geraldton, Dongara, Kalbarri, Meekatharra
 * Wheatbelt - Toodyay, York, Gingin, Lancelin, Cervantes(The Pinnacles), Hyden(Wave rock)
 * Peel - Mandurah, Serpentine, Waroona, Dwellingup(Lane Poole Reserve/Nanga Brook), Preston beach, Pinjarrah.
 * South West - Bunbury, Harvey, Busselton, Margaret River, Augusta, Manjimup, Walpole
 * Great Southern - Albany, Denmark,
 * Goldfields-Esperance - Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Coolgardie, Esperance

 * I could easily see South west, Great Southern and Peel being combined into a single South West region, to make 8 regions total. Even the Gascoyne and Midwest, could combine if need be. That area always seems connected in my travel memory. That would make 7 regions. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:34, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Guess what I am going to ask :)? Could you please mark out that scheme on a suitable free map source... this one is good: . I think I understand your proposal and it seems eminently sensible. But it is much easier to visualise with a marked up map. Cheers.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:21, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Added the image for further discussion. This is my preferred 8 regions idea. (WT-en) Cardboardbird 06:53, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

 * That looks very sensible indeed to me. Lets wait for more comments before progressing the map further.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:33, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Nice to see this being broken down thoughtfully. Just FYI, my Australia trace was very precise, so it should be a ready made base for a Western Australia regions map, which should save time ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:33, 13 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Perfect Peter. Just this evening, I was looking around for traces at Commons. Yours is definitely the most appropriate for this task. That will save time for sure. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:52, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

Here we are. Please let me know if anything needs changing or adding. I am not at all sure which of the more minor roads should go on? Or anything else? I am generally pleased with this map. Using Peter's detailed trace of Australia saved a lot of time. Apologies for the nasty bright colour for the Perth region, but tiny regions need that otherwise they are lost. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:57, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Looks great! As far as extra roads go, Albany Highway (Route 30) from Perth to Albany is a popular route for travellers heading directly to the south coast. All the other major routes are represented. Also, how about putting Eucla on there? It's on the South East border and the first/last place you are if coming from/to SA. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 19:47, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Thanks. All done, plus I added a couple of other roads which link main destinations. Now, over to you to do all the regionalisation work =). You could copy the regionlist table (map is included in this) to the main article at any time now. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:22, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Tell you what, I am pleasantly surprised that the sub-region articles are in reasonable shape. There are very few sub region articles with any meaningful content at Wikivoyage. WA is looking good. The biggest task will be sorting the re-assignments in the previously over-refined South West I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:01, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I had a spare hour and I think the new region scheme is now all in place, redirects issued, breadcrumbs correct etc. Please do check though.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:49, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Thanks, I was trying to get on it but WT is slothful for me right now and you were making the changes before I could even get the edit page to open. I'm going to be short of free time over the weekend so further work will have to wait till Monday. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 11:01, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
 * I just noticed that the Gascoyne region comes down a bit lower than it should be. Kalbarri NP is in the Midwest. The Gascoyne border should be horizontal just below the Shark bay peninsula. I see that my original sketch was inaccurate. The two coastal districts below Shark Bay should be part of the Midwest. Sorry, all my fault. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 23:00, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

Cities and Other Destinations

 * It seems odd to me that Port Hedland is not one of the 9 listed cities. I suggest it replaces Exmouth which is easily mentioned in the OD's as the gateway to Ningaloo.
 * There are too many ODs listed. I suggest losing Wave Rock, New Norcia and Rottnest Island. I know Perthies love Rottnest, but to be frank it ain't up to much from a visitor's perspective when compared to the wonderful, dramatic ODs in this state. That would get us back to 9.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:34, 13 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Mandurah should also be listed on the cities list since Mandurah really is a city. In my view, Port Hedlands only attraction (for a traveller) is its proximity to Karijini NP, which is covered on the OD list. Agree with cutting the OD list and dropping Rotto, Wave Rock and New Norcia. Eighty-Mile beach and Mt Augustus seem inessential too. Cutting those 5 would make 8. I'd like to see the Valley of the Giants be a general Southern Forests area that includes Walpole, Pemberton, Gloucester Tree, Valley of the Giants and D'Entrecasteaux National Park. Valley of the Giants is a commercial attractions so it seems a tad touty to list it specifically. (WT-en) Cardboardbird 01:35, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Not sure if you know this or not, but our obejctive is always to keep these lists to a max of 9 (the so-called 7+2). Having been to both 80 mile beach (stunning) and Mt Augustus (magnificent rugged beauty), I would pitch for keeping both of those.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Yes, I'm quite aware of the max of 9 rule, hence my suggestion of cutting a few. (Pinnacles, Kalbarri NP, Shark Bay/Monkey Mia, Purnululu, Coral Bay/Ningaloo, Karijini National Park, Margaret River, Southern Forests; makes 9). If 80 mile and MtAugustus go in, something has to be cut out. Which one to drop is a tough question since I think they all make a compelling case. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 03:04, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
 * There are 8 on the list you give above. If I had to choose, I would plump for Mt Augustus ahead of 80 mile to make that list up to 9. If you agree, I suggest you plunge forward and re-structure the list. Same for Mandurah - you are dead right there. Lose Exmouth for Mandurah. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:13, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Crikey, so there is only 8. My mistake. Too many late nights I think. I agree, Mt Augustus it is then. I'll get on the reorganising - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 03:26, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Got to say I don't agree with this list. Exmouth is a prime tourist destination.  Mandurah?  Bunbury?  Geraldton?  ahead of Exmouth?  Mandurah is almost part of Perth, and really doesn't warrant a mention at the top level.  Rottnest may not be up to much, but it has the advantage over much of WA that you can actually get there, without a spare week just to drive there.  It also has lots of visitors, so lets be realistic here.   --(WT-en) inas 23:51, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I think the point on Exmouth was that is gets a key mention in the OD list as the gateway to Ningaloo Reef. If that is not enough, then a swap for Mandurah would be fine with me - a place I know little about and don't even remember passing through (although I must have many times).  Bunbury is definitely on the international traveller map for surfing and other water sports, and I guess as the nearest proper town to Margaret River? Geraldton is a world class surfing destination, and I think I met more nationalities of traveller there than anywhere else in WA. Rottnest Island - if you insist :). It is though a grim option compared to the fabulous natural wonders available in this state. Point taken about convenience but I wonder how important that is for most travellers to the state? If you wanted it nice and easy, then why go to WA in the first place? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:12, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't think Bunbury is really associated with the Margaret River, I think that is quite distinct. Maybe Busselton, is associated with it, but not Bunbury.  I'm surprised it is internationally known at all, but I'll take your word for it.  Can anybody  speak in favour of Mandurah though?  As far as Rotto goes - lots of people go there, which does make it important in a travel guide, and it really isn't that bad.    I also think that Broome is not really best characterised as the gateway to the Kimberley.  Lots of people go to Broome, ceble beach, chinatown, many fewer explore the Kimblerley in any depth.  --(WT-en) inas 01:25, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Agree that Mandurah is of little interest to most travellers. I originally suggested its inclusion as it's the second largest city and so should get a mention. Perhaps if the Perth (region) was extended down to Mandurah it could be included under that? Inas rightly observes that Mandurah is almost a suburb of Perth. The suburban rail line goes there and city workers commute daily to PerthCBD from Mandurah. Same for Rotto. It's close enough to Perth to be a comfortable day trip so might only warrant inclusion in Perth (region). The Cities heading throws me since Esperance, Broome and Kununurra are not actual cities, more like regional centres. Broome is highly overrated but highly popular so its difficult to leave it out. And the Kimberley needs some representation and Broome is usually the first place people go before venturing off yonder. Kununurra, as much as I love it, is not really a big hitter and could happily reside in the OD list. Margaret River should come under the South West region. Yep, "gateway to" anything is a terrible overused cliché. I need to change that. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:06, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Remember that in the Wikivoyage context, a city could be a village, town or city.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:26, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Rail lines for the state map
A state level map should show only main rail routes. I was planning to show: Are any of the northern routes worth showing in addition? Or are they mainly commercial mine lines?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:20, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Perth - Kalgoorlie - Nullabor etc
 * Perth - Bunbury
 * Perth - Albany
 * Perth - Geraldton
 * All of the rail lines in the north are privately owned lines for the mines. The passenger lines are; The Prospector (Perth > Kalgoorlie) Avon Link (Perth >Northam) and Australind (Perth > Bunbury). As far as I know there are not any passenger rail services to Albany or Geraldton. The Indian Pacific goes via Kalgoorlie . Also the Perth suburban rail line now goes all the way to Mandurah. This map is a useful reference - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 04:00, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

 * So just to confirm, the lines shown on the map you reference to Albany and Geraldton are not for passengers?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:12, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Yes, The thin light blue lines are ore/wheat train lines. Only the thick lines are for people. Sadly, WA doesn't have much of a rail network - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 04:38, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

And the Albany Highway should probably be red. It is the main road to Albany. --(WT-en) inas 23:57, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Also, what is the basis for marking the airports. Interstate flights?  --(WT-en) inas 01:09, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

 * The main basis is that it is my favourite icon :). Please suggest changes if you wish. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:19, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

WA state map
(swept in from User talk:Inas)

Hi there. If you have any more comments on the WA state map (eg airports?), please try to make them today as I am about about to fix the Albany highway colour. Be good to get any more fixes done in one hit. Cheers. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:51, 21 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Hi -

 * 1) Highway 1 up to Port Headland, and around to Albany and Esperance, isn't a National Highway.  So, it shouldn't use the green shield, but the white one.
 * 2) The Albany Highway should be red - its is a main, sealed road.
 * 3) The road to Exmouth should be red - again, it is main and sealed.
 * 4) I still don't understand the reasoning for where the airports are marked.  If they are just for interstate flights, then Kalgoorlie with its one flight to Melbourne a week, doesn't really rate higher than Kunnunurra with its daily to Darwin.  If it is major scheduled jet services, then at least Geraldton, Albany, Karratha, should be on there.
 * 5) I'm not sure the town is commonly known as Kalgoorlie-Boulder.  Maybe the airport is, but the town is just Kalgoorlie.
 * 6) The National Park and Ningaloo may be better with a blue shaded area, than just a dot. Maybe Shark Bay doesn't even need a dot, being next to the bay it is apparent.
 * 7) I'd still think that we may need more work on our cities list.  I think Karratha is more worth a mention than Port Headland, but these decisions are always a little arbitary. --(WT-en) inas 21:46, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I will copy to this to Talk:Perth. Thanks for all that, just a few comments:
 * It is normal on any WT country or region to differentiate between roads. Red does not mean sealed and yellow unsealed. In a country with decent roads, red would normally mean super big sealed roads such as main highways, and yellow another main road of less importance.
 * Airports. Nothing to stop more being on there and I will add.
 * Our article is called Kalgoorlie-Boulder. If you think that article should renamed Kalgoorlie, then I would agree with you.
 * Blue dots are used universally at WT to mark an OD and I would be reluctant to go against that standard.
 * Karratha can be added to the map and I will do so. There is nothing to say that only listed cities should be on the map. As long as all the listed ones are, then the map complies with our star map standard. Others can be added and nearly always are, by me at least. I already added Derby and Eucla which do even have articles!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:06, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * The straightforward changes all done, including correction of the Gascoyne borders. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:03, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Looking good. There is a precedent for the Greet Barrier Reef on the Australia map, for when a dot just doesn't cut it.  Take the point re Kalgoorlie.  Still not sure on the airports though.  --(WT-en) inas 09:20, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Regions grouping as found
As found, Great Southern and South West is a problematic grouping/combination, whereas Gascoyne/Midlwest is a much better grouping. Strongly suggest this gets changed, if the amount of potential articles to be created can happen - Gascoyne/Midwest feature, population and attraction wise is much more limited - the South West and Great Southern need separating due to the large number of potential tourist locations being a problem if it stays as it is. If there are any watchers for this article - please respond - as in its current state, the concern to keep things down to the 7 rule does not really fit the size of this particular state... try walking the length of it if you dont understand... the state is bigger than europe... sats (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point about the South West region having so many attractions that it would be overloaded. This is not really the case at the moment as there is not that many complete articles. I'd suggest it would be better to develop the existing articles for major destination first and then dividing the region later - Cardboardbird (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ok point taken, (I would have a problem with specifying any one location as a major destination or attraction necessarily, I would consider parts of wa more in sequence as places that are part of an itinerary rather than having any one 'big number' which is the really heavy obsession on the part of the WA government tourism publicity machine at the current moment), but simply components of the an otherwise empty set of region categories (hardly any articles or itineraries or anything) for most the wa regions. I am suprised by how under-developed the western australia subject area is... sats (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * more I look at under-developed region articles on the western australian collection, the less I am convinced that the arbitrary distinctions made above need to be held as solid. I would strongly suggest the earlier proposal of merging Gascoyne Midwest and separating Great Southern and South West is self evident and really should be made. sats (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't travelled widely in WA, but I think that the vast experience of sats on Wiki's means that he is perhaps prescient in indicating that it would be better and easier to do any re-organisation of WA regions before rather than after articles are completed.
 * I also find the earlier proposal of merging the Gascoyne and Midwest regions to be attractive. However, don't worry at all about that daft 7 plus or minus two nonsense. That's just used by the old guard to justify them parachuting in and causing havoc with an area's natural regions. If they cause trouble, just point to the (non) regionalisation of the US with 13 official regions coloured on their map and then a motley collection of non-state territories as a kind of after-thought! If you think that a regionalisation of four or fourteen regions works better than the "magic 7" then plunge forward.  -- A l i c e ✉  04:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way. If someone wants to plunge forward and change the regions and the map, please do. Cardboardbird (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

clarification
As discussion has crept onto editor talks pages rather than here, and I was a lot less wikivoyage adept some three months ago - I would like to clarify, that I consider the conflation of the south west and great southern regions as being very unhelpful for the traveller - visitor... and would like to change South West - to South West and Great Southern, and rather merge Gascoyne and Midwest... it appears that agreement had occurred in February, I just weant to re-visit this, and to clarify, before possible changing of the western australian tourist regions. Unfortunately the government tourist bureau has an unhelpful conflation similar to the one here at http://www.tourism.wa.gov.au/Pages/welcome_to_tourism_western_australia.aspx  and it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the existence of a monstrosity known as the golden outback as well - their denial of the existence of the wheatbelt region shows a very odd mental certography that has some severe deficiencies. I do not think that the tourism western australia schema does any help for the localities in the regions that are denied - and would consider the regions as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Western_Australia as being far more equitable spatially to the range of destinations found in the rather large sized state (bigger than europe for that matter) sats (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Page banner
I have just made a different crop of the same image at Commons. It hurts my eyes when horizons aren't horizontal :) Hope it's ok like this. Danapit (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a billion times better than the previous one. Thanks! - Cardboardbird (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ninth city
Since we only have eight cities listed here, I was wondering what could be the ninth? I was thinking maybe Geraldton, Bunbury or Karratha, but since I like many Sydneysiders, have gone all over the world, but never been to WA (although I do have plans to go to Purnululu National Park next winter, but not Perth). If some editor here is from WA, do you have any suggestions. Maybe, do you have any suggestions? Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say Busselton but I'm biased because I live there ... or somewhere in the south-west. Busselton is closer to Margaret River than Bunbury, which doesn't have as much around it. Graham87 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh how did I forget Busselton. I do have to say, most of those cities are in the north and not the south, and it's pretty easy to forget about the south. I'll wait for a response from JarrahTree though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * a little off topic, but your userpage says you live in Perth. Did you forget to update it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly most of the city/town-based tourist infrastructure (apart from Broome/Exmouth) is in the south; the rest is national parks and the like. I kinda semi-forgot about my user page here lol; I've updated it. Graham87 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , most of the semi-north is just the outback, isn't it? And about user pages, I forgot to update my commons userpage once and lol, it still had the semi retired tag on it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, basically. Lol re user page. Graham87 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * :) Anyway, with no input from JarrahTree (happened with docent request as well), Ima just add Busselton. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * just added it, though what should be the mini blurb? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked yours ... should be good now. Graham87 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Other destinations
I think we can choose a better "Other destinations" list. Currently, while all of them look nice, only three of them are blue links. I think we should do existing articles for the time being, until someone works on the red links. As someone who's never been to the other side of the country, I believe that Purnululu National Park, the Margaret River, Mt. Augustus, Shark Bay and Coral Bay, but what are some good articles that we have, and are places that are quite important. , what would you choose here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ... Make that five. We could replace The Pinnacles with New Norcia, but the former has a pic attached. Otherwise I can't think of anything to add. Graham87 (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what else to add as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

New banner
Title. Current is also being used for Eyre Highway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Both nice, but I prefer 1, and thanks for your work! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this counts as being used "elsewhere" but Banner 1 is also being used on Australia Expedition SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC).
 * I don't know the area, so I'm not sure how representative either is, but banner 1 looks more colourful and much better, indeed. (And I don't think it being reused in non-mainspace counts as duplication.) Vidimian (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also never been to WA as well, but the park that banner 1 is taken in is a UNESCO site. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So another banner should be found for the expedition, but this is a destination article and therefore more public-facing and important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think there's that much of an issue with having a banner in an expedition and an article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Banner 1 for the article. Maybe you can use Banner 0 for the expedition? Ground Zero (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the Australia Expedition banner with a banner of Mungo National Park (particularly known for containing the world's oldest human bodies), so now banner 1 is will only be used on this article (and banner zero will only be used on Eyre Highway). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if someone is willing to make it, how about using a banner from the Pinnacles Desert? That was certainly one of the highlights of my trip to WA. And unlike Wave Rock, I'd say the Pinnaces Desert was well worth the drive. The dog2 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did make one yesterday, although it doesn't look as nice as Purnululu National Park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 * OK, good point. It's amazing when you're actually there. But as a banner it's not as spectacular. Banner 1 comes off better. The dog2 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah Western Australia has always been on my "to go" list, and when they did open up their borders for one month, it was rainy season up north. Like to try again next year, hopefully in either autumn or spring. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Found this beauty just now and cropped a banner out of it, with the Pinnacles. The night sky looks nice with it, but I'd wish to see more of those rocks. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With the important caveat that I've never been to Australia, my choices are 3, 1, and then I suppose 2 and then 0. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still favor 1, merely because it's a UNESCO WHS and the Pinnacles don't really look like how it's seen in banner 3. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Park
See Karratha Discussion for a proposal to merge in Murujuga National Park, which is small and on its doorstep. Grahamsands (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice article!
Just did some ce and wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading this article! It was obviously written by somebody with a sense of humour, and the turns of phrase made it enjoyable to read. It is much less dry than some of the other pages on WV. Thanks! Sgroey (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Australia


text:
Talk:Western Australia/Hierarchy

This is a starting point to work from to form a hierarchical division of Western Australia. It is largely based on this site and no attempt has been made to see if all the places really deserve an article of their own. Feel free to adapt, add or delete, preferably with some explanation. (WT-en) DhDh 13:41, 22 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Western Australia
 * Esperance (region)
 * Esperance-Bay of Isles
 * Archipelago of the Recherche
 * Cape Arid National Park
 * Cape Le Grand National Park
 * Esperance
 * Stokes National Park
 * Hopetoun-Ravensthorpe
 * Fitzgerald River National Park
 * Frank Hann National Park
 * Hopetoun
 * Peak Charles National Park
 * Ravensthorpe
 * Gascoyne
 * Ningaloo Reef-Cape Range
 * Cape Range National Park
 * Coral Bay
 * Exmouth
 * Ningaloo Reef Marine Park
 * Outback Coast
 * Carnarvon
 * Gascoyne Junction
 * Mt. Augustus National Park
 * Shark Bay
 * Denham
 * Dirk Hartog Island
 * Hamelin Pool
 * Monkey Mia
 * Goldfields (Western Australia)
 * Goldrush Country
 * Coolgardie
 * Kalgoorlie-Boulder
 * Ghost towns (Western Australia)
 * Northern Goldfields
 * Ghost towns (Western Australia)
 * Great Central Road
 * Nullarbor
 * Eyre Highway
 * Norseman
 * Great Southern (Western Australia)
 * Albany (region, Western Australia)
 * Albany (city, Western Australia)
 * Torndirrup National Park
 * Denmark (region, Western Australia)
 * Denmark (town, Western Australia)
 * Mt. Frankland National Park
 * William Bay National Park
 * Mt. Barker (region)
 * Mt. Barker
 * Porongurup National Park
 * Ranges
 * Fitzgerald River National Park
 * Hassell National Park
 * Katanning
 * Kojonup
 * Stirling Range National Park
 * Heartlands (Western Australia)
 * Avon Valley
 * Avon Valley National Park
 * Northam
 * Toodyay
 * York (Australia)
 * Central South Heartlands
 * Dryandra State Forest
 * Narrogin
 * Wagin
 * Wave Rock
 * Coastal Heartlands
 * Nambung National Park
 * New Norcia
 * North East Wheatbelt
 * Merredin
 * Southern Cross
 * Kimberley
 * Broome Surrounds
 * Broome
 * Derby-West Kimberley
 * Derby
 * Geikie Gorge National Park
 * Gibb River Road
 * Prince Regent National Park
 * Tunnel Creek National Park
 * Windjana Gorge National Park
 * East Kimberley
 * Drysdale River National Park
 * Gibb River Road
 * Kalumburu Road
 * Kununurra
 * Lake Argyle
 * Wyndham
 * Halls Creek Surrounds
 * Canning Stock Route
 * Halls Creek
 * Purnululu National Park
 * Tanami Track
 * Wolfe Creek Crater National Park
 * Mid West (Western Australia)
 * Agricultural-Wildflower
 * Alexander Morrison National Park
 * Batavia Coast
 * Geraldton
 * Kalbarri
 * Kalbarri National Park
 * Outback Mid West
 * Canning Stock Route
 * Cue
 * Gunbarrel Highway
 * Meekatharra
 * Mt. Magnet
 * Murchison
 * Sandstone
 * Peel
 * Forests of Gold
 * Boddington
 * Holiday Coast
 * Mandurah
 * Steam Train Country
 * Dwellingup
 * Pinjarra
 * Waroona
 * Perth (region)
 * Fremantle (region)
 * Fremantle
 * Perth
 * Perth Hills
 * Jarrahdale
 * Kalamunda
 * Mundaring
 * Rockingham (region)
 * Garden Island
 * Rockingham
 * Rottnest
 * Sunset Coast
 * Yanchep National Park
 * Swan Valley
 * Guildford
 * Pilbara
 * Central Pilbara Coast
 * Dampier
 * Roebourne
 * Karijini
 * Karijini National Park
 * Millstream-Chichester National Park
 * Tom Price
 * Outback Pilbara
 * Marble Bar
 * Newman
 * Port Hedland
 * South West (Western Australia)
 * Blackwood River Valley
 * Beedelup National Park
 * Bridgetown
 * Scott National Park
 * Warren National Park
 * Margaret River (region)
 * Busselton
 * Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park
 * Margaret River
 * South West Tapestry
 * Bunbury
 * Tuart National Park
 * Southern Forest
 * D'Entrecasteaux National Park
 * Manjimup
 * Pemberton
 * Shannon National Park
 * Valley of the Giants
 * Walpole
 * Walpole-Nornalup National Park

Note that there is at least one other Peel in the world: Peel (Isle of Man), so I've moved your Peel to Peel (Western Australia) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 04:30, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Western Australia/Hierarchy


text:
Talk:Western Cape

Not sure where these guys go:
 * Cape Nature Conservation - Nature Reserves information and reservation
 * Information about Yzerfontein

title: Talk:Western Cape


text:
Talk:Western Europe

 * Discussion about Europe hierarchy is taking place on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Old threads that used to be here were archived. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 15:19, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

Train scehedule from main page
''The below was removed from the main article because a schedule is not the best information to have in the article due to the fact that it may change. What would be better is to have a few paragraphs explaining the possibilities along major routes.'' -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 15:17, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * It looks like this info, or something similar, has been put back in the article. I'd like to echo Ilkirk and say that a descriptive paragraph is much more useful than scheduling information. It's really not the easiest format to read for one, and will be very difficult to maintain as times and route can change often. Plus, we're not going to be able to list all the routes in Europe, not even just the major ones, and still have a useful article. Maybe just mention the unique or special ones (ie TGV Orient Express etc)? and then more an overview of trans-europe train travel (ie moving between major systems, system-wide rail cards, etc) with links into the country articles for more info...

selected trains

 * THA 9496 Liege-Guillemins (6:40) - Namur - Charleroi Sud - Mons - Paris Nord (9:44)
 * THA 9499 Paris Nord (19:13) - Mons - Charleroi Sud - Namur - Liege-Guillemins (22:17)

 * EC 305/EC 304 Paris Est (10:49) - Chalons-en-Champagne - Bar-le-Duc - Metz Ville - Hagondange - Thionville - Luxembourg (14:35)
 * EC 327/EC 326 Luxembourg (12:32) - Thionville - Hagondange - Metz Ville - Paris Est (16:11)
 * RE 37517/RE 37516 Hayange (7:09) - Thionville - Hettange Grande - Luxembourg (7:53)
 * RE 37527/RE 37526 Nancy Ville (9:59) - Pont-a-Mousson - Pagny-sur-Moselle - Metz Ville - Hagondange - Thionville - Bettembourg - Luxembourg (11:46)
 * RE 37681/RE 37680 Luxembourg (17:45) - Hettange Grande - Thionville - Hayange (18:20)

WESTERN EUROPE ??!
Since when western Europe is limited to UK/Benelux/France ?? I am sorry but those countries doesn't share any common point in terms of Geography, culture, language or climate. France doesn't even have border with the UK and Netherlands. France, as a latin catholic and mediterranean country has nothing to do with northern European countries such as UK and Netherlands.

What about Ireland?

Corsica
not only this "region" is completlty inacurate, but the map is wrong: Corsica is part of France.

Spain and Portugal ?
Spain and Portugal not included ?? Those countries are included among the mediterranean countries only. Portugal is not technically a mediterranean country, and Spain had as much coast on the Atlantic ocean than on the mediterranean. If I look for informations about Porto, Santiago de compostella,, Santander or the Basque country, i find it strange to be obliged to look in the mediterranean sub-category. especially concerning Portugal.

Both countries are situated more western than France, (which in included in western Europe only).

I have difficulties to understand the logics of the classifications. "western Europe" is understood by everybody as a much wider group, which includes countries from Portugal to Norway. the selection made seems really arbitrary. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

 * Please read the discussions at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Listing
Should the countries be listed from left to right, top to bottom? As is, it is quite ambigious as to how the list is ordered, though i do believe it is by their ISO codes...

Other categories
is there any point having the 'sleep' sections? also 'eat' and 'drink' seems a little pointless since individual countries will have pages on food and drink in that area (WT-en) Prof Jack 20:15, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, some wide brushstrokes on accommodation options (B&Bs, Zimmer Frei, etc), cuisine (meat, potatoes, beer, repeat) and prices would be nice. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:00, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Western Europe


text:
Talk:West Coast (Finland)

It looks like a lot of the cities listed on this page are from different areas (Southern Finland, etc.). I'm not sure if southern or western is correct, but the ones not in western Finland should probably be moved to the Get out section. (WT-en) Fastestdogever 22:25, 11 February 2007 (EST)

 * The dividing line should be the province boundary. Unfortunately it's not very intuitive even for native Finns... (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:23, 11 February 2007 (EST)

FYI
As you might have noticed I just moved this article to a new name as User:Andyrom75 suggested the former was incompatible with its Wikidata article. However I'm not going to do any substantial edits to the article or static map as I'm looking into dividing this one into two - the old Vaasa county in the north (the Ostrobothnias) and Southwestern Finland in the south (Pirkanmaa, Satakunta and "Southwestern Finland" > Finland Proper). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, it was in conflict with the wikipedian voice that was linked through Wikidata (Western Finland) because the two pages (the article in voy and the voice in w) talk about similar but different areas. Now with the two different wikidata instances that have different names, the conflict has been solved. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I see. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Main division?
I am puzzled by a paragraph in the resent edit 2944182, especially one sentence:
 * In Finnish ethnography, the main division is between Pohjanmaa and the Southwest, which have distinct Finnish dialects and culture.

Is this trying to tell about the division between western and eastern culture, where Ostrobothnia (Pohjanmaa) and Finland Proper (Varsinais-Suomi) both represent the west? In that case it is very confusingly written. Or is this referring to some important difference between Ostrobothnia and Finland Proper? Anyway, I am not sure I recognize the characterisation.

--LPfi (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it's best to ask User:Vuo who added it. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Coast (Finland)


text:
Talk:Western illinois university

Western illinois university

 * Delete, a school of any sort is not usually an article. Possible speedy candidate. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Keep and redirect to Macomb (Illinois), which I just created. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 19:39, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete even if redirected it's still not appropriate. (WT-en) Xania 20:21, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect as Andrew proposes. We've handled other universities (e.g. Baylor) this way; no reason to vary the routine for this one despite the crummy capitalization. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:38, 8 December 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 14 December 2006 (EST)
 * Delete this. If we need a redirect, do that with correct capitalisation. (WT-en) Pashley 02:18, 15 December 2006 (EST)
 * I suspect that the unusual capitalization is due to a MW feature (flaw?), which causes the first letter of every page to be capitalized. I know a great many people who refuse to capitalize when they're searching for things on the net and I believe the user who created the article typed in "western illinois university".  Hence the abnormal capitalization, which, I feel shouldn't be an issue since a user can use all lowercase letters and still be redirected to the appropriate page. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 09:44, 15 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Western illinois university


text:
Talk:Western India

This page should be deleted! It's content was copied in to India. (WT-en) F16 00:25, 2 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * No, it shouldn't. It's a region of India. If you don't agree with the region breakdown for India, take it to the Talk:India page. Also, India has been reverted. --(WT-en) Evan 09:04, 2 Mar 2004 (EST)

River In MP
Hi I am Planning to tour MP. I need to know about riverNarmada. That"s the rout we are going to take. Starting from Amarkantak,(the starting point of the river) and following up to Varuch, where it is meeting the ocean. Please send me some info Thanka.                                   Manu Roy.

Hey, I'll try and look it up for you and let you know. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 10:14, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Maharashtra's size
Is it the third largest?? Isn't it the 2nd after Rajasthan. After MP got split, Maharashtra became the 2nd largest and MP the 3rd. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 10:14, 18 February 2007 (EST)

 * Oops, sorry. I looked up the CIA factbook and MP is larger than MH. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 10:25, 18 February 2007 (EST) :)
 * I was correcting from memory. Thanks for checking. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:34, 18 February 2007 (EST)

By boat???
Hey, what I meant was that there are boat services from Mumbai to Cochin. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 07:13, 19 February 2007 (EST)
 * I thought so, but the backwaters thing made no sense. (Backwaters are inland.) They are ferry services right? Feel free to update. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:19, 19 February 2007 (EST)
 * ok. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:58, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Get out
I think we should just remove the "Get out" section. It makes no sense to suggest day trips from such a large region, and suggesting entire states as we do now is sounding forced. It is best to remove it. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

 * ok. The only reason I included it is because there is always a Get Out section in a Region template. Feel free to delete (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:58, 20 February 2007 (EST)
 * Bump. I am planning to remove the section tomorrow. If anyone wishes to object, please do so now. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 04:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)
 * Removed. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 06:24, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Nine cities
In the list of nine cities of region why should Panji capital of Goa not appear. I suggest we need to include Panji. Yndesai (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Which city would you leave out to include it? Ibaman (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am searching for the criteria of "nine cities" could not locate. However, Pushkar and Aurangabad are more of destinations than cities, much more populous and economically important cities are Vadodara and Surat. Nasik again is more about the temples again a candidate for destination. Panji is capital of state and also has an international airport.Yndesai (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the guideline you could not locate: Avoid long lists. Your argument makes good sense. Ibaman (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I suggest that Vadodara & Surat be in the cities by moving Pushkar and Aurangabad to Destination.Yndesai (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 * What in Pushkar and Aurangabad do you feel is more of a destination than the cities themselves? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Pushkar is more of destination as people mostly visit it for the Temple of bhramha and Aurangabad also is visited for there is elora and daultabad fort. While Surat is a city with 4.5Mil population and a diamond making and treading hub. Yndesai (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 * OK, I get how you're thinking. The thing is, in order to link these cities' article from "Other destinations", does the most important and famous sight have to be the only one we list, because that's the destination? I'm not sure when we've linked more than a single destination attraction to the same city, unless you count Fatehpur Sikri, which is covered in Agra but a different town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Interactive map, problem with Goa
I have introduced the interactive map of the states in Western India using wikidata, but the state of Goa is not coloured. I can not solve the problem, can any one help. --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western India


text:
Talk:Western Kansas

I'm not sure that every single one of those towns needs its own article. Hays and Garden City might, but some of the others don't have more than a few thousand people. (WT-en) RedRollerskate 00:30, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Hiya! You might want to take a look at Project:What is an article? as the usual rule-of-thumb is "can you sleep there?" Some of our best articles are pretty small towns, and I have a personal fondness for finding at leasts something to say about just about every dot on the map-- though not every agrees with that approach ;-). HTH (WT-en) Majnoona 00:39, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Fair enough. (WT-en) RedRollerskate 09:06, 30 May 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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Garden City, KS, welcome sign IMG 5933.JPG

 * Will be deleted as a copyright violation, but not visible in any Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Kansas


text:
Talk:Western Maryland

Usable status
All important linked "sub"-destinations are already at usable status—this article just needs info in the "get in" and "see" sections for usable status. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:46, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Western Maryland


text:
Talk:Western Oases

Merge
Does Egypt need this much sub-dividing? I think Western Desert can easily cover the western two-thirds of the country, there isn't a lot to see... (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 07:12, 1 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Western Oases


text:
Talk:Western Province (Sri Lanka)

Naming
I think that these should be called Western province (Sri Lanka) Northwestern province (Sri Lanka) etc. for the same reason that most counties in the US are prefixed with county - the "province" is part of the name, without which it sounds weird — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:33, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Western Province (Sri Lanka)


text:
Talk:Western Romance Company

What is wrong with this article. This is suppose to be an article that is relevant for travelors out there. I'm just beginning this article and don't feel it should be deleted. I'm open for comment and suggestions on how to make this article better. Mcdav

I've made some changes on this article to make it more relevant and better. I've added an address so that others can see exactly where this company is located. Yes, this is an actual company and place. Although this company's activities take place at different locations in Billings, Hardin, Huntley, etc; this is the headquarters. I also added some incoming links to this webpage to support it as well. I'm still open to suggestions on how to make this article better. (WT-en) Mcdav 09:22, 23 December 2006 (EST)Mcdav

 * Please take a look at Project:What is an article?. Basically, Wikivoyage articles are built around destinations (places to go), and Western Romance Company should be listed in the place(s) it operates. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:26, 24 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Western Romance Company


text:
Talk:Western Sahara

Countries vs. Sovereign States
Moved from Project:Travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

I'm not quite sure where this comment should be posted, so bear with me. I've just noticed that WikiTravel has a seperate country article on the Western Sahara, a disputed chunk of land that is being fought over by Morocco and Mauritania. Although the sovereignty of this land is still unclear--which is why the CIA factbook gives it its own listing--it is currently administered by Morocco, and for the purposes of travel (currency, border formalities, language, etc) can be considered part of that country. I would suggest subsuming the Western Sahara article into the Morocco section, but have no idea how to go about it. Cheers. -- (WT-en) Allyak 13:40, Jul 30, 2004 (EDT)

 * Essentially political questions like this are difficult for a travel guide to answer: see also Palestine and a few other tough nuts to crack. I would suggest that, in general, we stick to the CIA World Factbook's divisions since at least we can claim that those are unbiased (or at least biased by somebody other than Wikivoyage!). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:50, 30 Jul 2004 (EDT)
 * Yes, because claiming that the CIA is unbiased... ;o)
 * These are controversial subjects, and I think it better to have separate articles for disputed pieces of land, and to mention that the sovereignity of these is not settled in the article. (WT-en) Yann 04:06, 31 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Railway
As long as I know the furthest south you can get in Northern Africa by train is Marrakech, far far away from Laayoune. (WT-en) Al_turtusi

 * I'm sure you know Western Sahara better than 99.9% of Wikivoyage, so please plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Flag of Western Sahara
According to what is mentioned above, Western Sahara has no official flag as it's not a sovereign country. The flag in this page is the one of the auto-proclamed republic of Polisario Front backed in Tindouf south Algeria far from the Western Sahara region. I propose to get rid of this flag as the official statute of the region is a non self governing territory even if it's actually under the moroccan administration.--(WT-en) AhmedSalem 07:02, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Flags do not imply sovereignty, and we have them for plenty of other non-state territories like Hong Kong, Greenland, Palestine, etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:06, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * In this particular case YES. It induces people into error because first the independent movement is taking place in Tindouf south Algeria far from the Western Sahara region then the UN has never put an official flag to the region. For those who are visiting the region regularly, the most commun flag is the moroccan one but to ensure more neutrality I suggest to get rid of any flag. There is no customs between the north of the country and the Western Sahara region. There is a line in worldwide maps separating Morocco into two parts (for some historical reasons) but in practice there is no customs. Everyone can cross the line by foot, car, bus...without any custom control.

SADR Administration
I disagree with this paragraph as there is no officiel UN document mentionning that SADR is a sovereign country. After the war held in the region from 1979 till 1991 between the Moroccan army and the Polisario Front army, the UN peacekeeping force MINURSO took place to maintain peace in the region. MINURSO defined a buffer zone where these locations are situated. This buffer zone is forbidden to all military forces (Moroccan & Polisario Front).--(WT-en) AhmedSalem 07:09, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * The article does not claim that SADR is a sovereign country. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:31, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Writing these cities are under the control of SADR administration is totally wrong. There is no nationality called SADR. There is no municipalities under the control of SADR in the Western Sahara region. These cities are located in a zone controlled by the MINURSO. According to the ceasfire agreement, SADR has no right to come in this area. If you go to this website link title you can get all statistic information about these locations. But again for more neutrality, I suggest to change the title into : "Cities located in the Minurso controlled area". That's the most neutral expression.

 * Simply put, that's factually wrong. MINURSO does not "control" anything.  The Berm separates the two sides, the Buffer Strip around the berm is 5 km wide, the Restricted Area is 30 km wide.  The zone to the east of the Berm is under de facto Polisario control, just like the zone to the west is under de facto Moroccan control. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:17, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Wrong Information
There are many wrong information in this article about : 1. the local currency is definitely MAD (Moroccan Dirham) 2. the education system is there. please look at the following website link title 3. the 'Eat' section doesn't make sense !! Sugar as many produces are subsidized in the whole country 4. the 'Respect' section is also biases. It must be rewritten to ensure neutrality. Dakhla spot is the most famous spot in the world. People are coming from the fourth points of the world. --(WT-en) AhmedSalem 07:33, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Re: 1, that's what the article says, but SADR pesetas also exist.
 * Re: 2, 3 and 4, please suggest your own replacements. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:31, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * 1. Excuse me but I am from the region and I can attest that there are Moroccan dirhams in the Western Sahara region and there are Algerian dinars in Tindouf camps (stronghold of Polisario Front) as they are located on the Algerian soil.
 * 2. Too much to say about the education system. Let me ask the municipality of Laayoune city and get back to you with updated information otherwise there is information in the above website.
 * 3. As the objective of this Wiki is to relate the reality on the ground, I think we can simply say in good English as mine is quite dodgy that travelers can find all food products they want in all locations in the Western Sahara region.
 * 4. I believe this wiki is to inform people about vacation facilities and not about the political issue. There are many hotels and restaurants in Laayoune and Dakhla. Do you want me to give more details on that?--(WT-en) AhmedSalem 09:54, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, that would be much better than pointless political squabbling. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:19, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Important
Is it a wiki for worldwide travelers or a wiki for politicians and Polisario Front supporters? I guess it's the first case so I believe travelers will envoy visiting the region as I am native from the Western Sahara region. I can give advices on that but I have no idea how to make without violating Wikivoyage policy.--(WT-en) AhmedSalem 07:44, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Easy -- give actual travel information. Attractions, restaurants, hotels, how to get in, how to travel around, etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:31, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

 * In the meantime, I suggest to delete all what is related to the political issue as each side will argue his position (unionists vs independentists)

wv:EngVar
Before this edit, the variety of English used in this article was not US English. (As evidence of this assrertion, "travelling" and "traveller" were not written as "traveling" and "traveler"). That edit meant that we now have mixed US English and non-US English spelling.

Many folks on Wikivoyage argue about spelling, but most are in favour (favor?) of a consistent variety of English spelling within the same article.

My own personal opinion to the (rhetorical?) edit summary question of "Why re-write one term in en-gb?" is:

"No good reason at all in this case. Except where the article has a strong connection to a particular variety of English, you shouldn't do it! without having a reason to make more important and substantive edits at the same time": http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pashley/Spelling&oldid=2338993#National_varieties_of_English --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Spelling I didn't even realize that "traveling" and "travelling" were EngVar issues: they're just common (mis)spellings in the United States. Note that this article includes (e.g.) "recognized". Why would we include en-gb spelling then? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's already there.
 * The "ize" spelling is an Oxford English Dictionary thing - it even has its own code: en-GB-oed
 * It does rather grate to have different US and non-US spellings in the same sentence: eg: "However, independent travel in the region is restricted, and while crossing through Western Sahara while overland between Morocco and Mauritania is usually OK, some  have been turned back when trying to enter, especially during periods of political strife." --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should be in US English per current policy, see Spelling. Quoting a user page sandbox won't change that. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are technically correct for a short while. But this conversation began because just one word (rather than the whole article) was switched from non-US English spelling to US English meaning that we now have mixed and inconsistent spelling. Be my guest if you want to switch the whole article's spelling to a consistent variety, G-T. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we merge to Morocco?
In other parts of the world we have been discussing 'facts on the ground' being important to the traveler, rather than political opinions. For example, Crimea is now completely under Russia because that is how the traveler will now experience it (no matter how much one would object or support that state of affairs).

So in reality Western Sahara is not an independent country, but a restive part of Morocco. Western_Sahara shows that a small part of the territory is still controlled by the Sahrawi Republic, but overwhelmingly everywhere else is under the control of Morocco and has been for many decades.

Given this situation, should we not just merge this into Morocco with the usual disclaimers that we don't take political positions on disputes? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging Well, if someone wanted to visit Western Sahara, there would actually be two regions which are completely separate. The most populous parts are under Moroccan occupation but there would be a sizable portion which isn't as well. So the idea of traveling to "Western Sahara" really means traveling to an occupied portion or a non-occupied portion (a la Palestine). I'm not necessarily sure what that means for the traveler but if nothing else, there will be folks looking for a guide through a hierarchical list or from a search engine and it's useful to have a page that says something about the territory as a territory. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 * If I understood that correctly, could we have this as a disambiguation page between the Moroccan province and the Sahrawi Republic ? I get the impression that the status quo will not be changing for a good long while... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I implied above but did not explicitly state that just as the Palestine article has some content which will overlap either portion of that territory, there are also distinct sections for both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The difference would be very large for a traveler. Western Sahara could have plenty of information which is true for both regions but then also have some content that would be unique to the Free Zone (which is not an area where many would travel anyway but that's another story). There will probably not be enough content nor enough differences to justify splitting off an entirely separate guide, though. (Whereas there is plenty of content to justify a guide just on Gaza or just on the West Bank--huge populations, tourist attractions, etc.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Justin, it doesn't seem like there's enough content to split this article in two. However, the Morocco article should probably feel free to cover the Moroccan-controlled part of W. Sahara, as it would any other part of Morocco. From the traveller's point of view, Moroccan-controlled part of W. Sahara is part of Morocco. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does Morocco consider Western Sahara a "sub-unit" of its territory (akin to what the UK consider Scotland to be or the likes)? Is there any type of "visible line"? Be it a "security check" or the likes? And would Western Sahara "work" as a subsection in the current Moroccan regional hierarchy? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is not distinction between "Western Sahara" and "Morocco" for purposes of administration and occupation on the part of Morocco. The administrative subdivisions which intersect Western Sahara overlap Morocco. That said, there will definitely be some security checks and military personnel, so someone can easily tell that he's not in Casablanca anymore. Also, Western Sahara should not be a part of a Moroccan hierarchy. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hobbitschuster's suggesting that the breadcrumb be changed to place this guide under Morocco. I think what he's asking is: Within the Morocco guide, can W. Sahara be listed alongside the regions of Morocco (with the appropriate disclaimers and all)? Or is the northern border of W. Sahara just not a good dividing line between one region and another?
 * And Hobbitschuster: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well to give just one other example (though it is in many ways a whole other can of worms)... The part of Jerusalem that was occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 has been annexed by Israel under their law and is - to a visitor - not distinguishable from a part of Israel in terms of the permits needed to get there in terms of access and so on. However, some of the Jewish places in the area occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 are notably different to access and so on and so forth. As far as I know, Western Sahara is rather sparsely populated and if there are notable differences between crossing the line and travel on either side of the line without crossing it, such should be mentioned. And as for the breadcrumbs, I am not suggesting anything on that for now. That can be discussed separately. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The officially accepted term for referring to Western Sahara in Morocco is "Southern Provinces"; due to various province border reforms they don't correspond to the old borders anymore. The clear distinction between these provinces and those in the rest is that, as a tourist, one can be expelled and banned from going south of some specific city (usually Agadir or Guelmim) under threat of imprisonment. --Jlg23 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The current page is not clear about this, but traveling to Western Sahara is difficult if one does not heed some unusual advice. The political situation is difficult, to say the least. It should definitely be listed as a separated geopolitical entity and I'll add some more advice to the page in the next days. (Disclaimer: I currently (again) live 1h north & go down there regularly) --Jlg23 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But also note that the borders of what constitute the "Southern Provinces" overlap but are not identical to Western Sahara. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 * So.... do we merge or not? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think so. Only part of W. Sahara is actually controlled by Morocco, merging the non-Moroccan part into Morocco would be problematic. Plus Morocco is already split up into sub-regions, so there's nothing to merge anyway: The Morocco guide lists W. Sahara as one it's sub-regions. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I believe it should be merged as per our 'de facto' policy, such as placing Crimea under Russia. There is another de-facto country called Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic that controls a maximum of 25% of this region, but I'm assuming those areas are very lightly populated (the capital Tifariti has a population of 3 thousand). Why not just cover this country separately? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Free Zone is not equivalent to the SADR--they claim the whole territory and control about a third. Morocco claims the whole territory and occupies the rest. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * For Wikivoyage purposes: I think the Free Zone is equivalent to the SADR. The SADR claims the whole of W. Sahara, but only controls the Free Zone. So from the traveler's prescriptive: The Free Zone is the SADR, and the rest of W. Sahara is part of Morocco. However, that doesn't mean we should merge (see my below responses to Andrewssi2). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 * But that's not a merge. Morocco is already split up into sub-regions: W. Sahara isn't going to be merged into the Morocco guide, because W. Sahara is a sub-region of Morocco. Albeit, a sub-region that includes some non-Moroccan land, hence why IsPartOf points to North Africa rather then Morocco.

 * I think this a really a proposal to split W. Sahara into two sub-regions. And I don't see the point of that: I don't think this guide has enough content to support two sub-regions. All three articles would be heavily overlapping, and give mostly the same information. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't misunderstand me: I agree that it's de facto conditions on the ground we need to be concerned with. But I think this guide already does that, spiting it in two isn't necessary. Morocco on the other hand: I've looked that guide over, and it seems to treat W. Sahara as a separate country. It probably shouldn't do that: The Moroccan-controlled part of W. Sahara is (from the travelers perspective) part of Morocco. In other words: I think it's the Morocco guide that's the problem here, not the W. Sahara guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But there are demonstrable differences--military checkpoints, thousands of land mines, etc. While the exact border where this starts is not the 27th parallel north but there will be a change in how someone travels from Morocco to Western Sahara, including with some legal and practical implications. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are. The Morocco guide should make a note of that, and the W. Sahara guide should go into more detail. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Then again, the Israel guide more or less treats the Palestinian territories as a separate country. I suppose this is a conversation for Talk:Morocco. As for this guide: Like I said, it already presents the de facto situation, so I don't think spiting it in two serves any purpose. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I think there may be a misunderstanding. When I said 'Merge', I meant place Western Sahara under the navigation breadcrumb of Morocco. Not actually merge the content of any articles (which would stay the same). Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * But that would involve spiting off a separate guide for the SASR/Free Zone, wouldn't it? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes it would. Given the SASR is a widely recognized country and a member of the African Union, I would say that this is anyway overdue. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Then like I said, that amounts to a proposal to split W. Sahara into two sub-regions. And I don't think this guide has enough content to support two sub-regions, all three (or two) articles would be heavily overlapping. And I think this guide already presents the de facto situation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * My personal take is that it should split since we never categorize smaller (fully independent) countries under larger ones (e.g. Monaco is not categorized under France. Lack of content for a country is not a reason to keep it under another. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, W. Sahara isn't exactly a country (by Wikivoyage standerds anyway). It's a territory that's partly in one country, and partly in another. Like an extra-hierarchical region, except that W. Sahara isn't actuality outside the hierarchy.

 * Like I said, I think both W. Sahara guides would be so overlapping, that there's no real point in spiting. But I'll tell you what: If you really think we should split this guide, create a draft-guides in your userspace. It's one thing to talk about spiting this guide in theory, it's something else to actuality see how the guide would look after a split.

 * Maybe after I see your drafts, I'll change my mind, and decide that it'd be better to split W. Sahara in two. Or maybe you'll change your mind, and decide that there isn't enough content for two separate guides. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Actuality, you said we never categorize smaller countries under larger ones. That's not quite true: Vatican City is categorized under Italy. And at Talk:Eastern Ukraine: An editor suggested that it'd be better for Donetsk and Luhansk (two unrecognized states) to continue to be covered under that article, rather then to create two empty articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm not looking to 'try something out'. Simply put if they are two seperate (de-facto) countries then we should... well split them, completely regardless of how much content you feel that they need. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * In my opinion: If it's more practical to cover the two parts of W. Sahara in the same article, then we should, regardless of if they're technically two separate countries. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It seems our debate is at an impasse. You think this guide should follow the precedent of the other guides, and I think we should do what's most practical for this guide. Well, want to head to Talk:Morocco, and discuss how that guide should handle W. Sahara? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I would say that that my position is clearly stated as supporting a split, but at this time I don't see the benefit in spending time on this in the list of priorities we otherwise have on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) This is a no-brainer. Do not merge. The place is a distinct political entity from Morocco regardless of who controls what territory, and notwithstanding any fig-leaf statements we may make about the merge not constituting an endorsement of either side in the political dispute, the act of merging per se would put us in the position of appearing to have taken sides regardless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 * How is it a distinct political entity in the portion controlled by Morocco? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It may be Andre was confused by my position. My position is Western Sahara (the majority of which is controlled by Morocco) should fall under the Morocco country hierarchy (no merging). The country known as Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic should become a seperate article and cover the territory that it controls. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * On the face of it, that seems sensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * (1) Have conditions or amount of territory controlled by either side changed since 2017? (2) Would anyone like to revisit this discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen any relevant news about Western Sahara since 2017, but I think there is no use creating a new article about the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic unless we have something travel-related to say about it other than what is already said here. And bread-crumbing the SADR under Marocco would be declaring the SADR rebels of Marocco, while it would do little to help the traveller: one shouldn't travel to "the Southern Provinces" without knowing about the conflict. Thus, for the time being, the current organisation seems to be the least problematic solution. –LPfi (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I support splitting this up – it's a no-brainer given the situation on the ground. Morocco controls most of the territory, so not merging it is taking sides in this political dispute. The small chunk of land that's controlled by the SADR should be covered in a separate article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara is a political entity controlled in part by two states. Merging it into Morocco in the hierarchy would be taking sides in this political dispute. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying we should merge this whole thing under Morocco, only the portion that's currently controlled by Morocco. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What should be at Western Sahara? Where should it fall in the breadcrumb hierarchy? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This page would be an extraregion, while Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara would be named Western Sahara (Morocco). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The extraregion would have little content not in both of the two new articles. An other possibility would be a redirect to North Africa. Any change in the tension between the SADR and Morocco would need to be reported in both (or all three) articles, and perhaps in Morocco – easily forgotten. I don't see the benefit for the traveller, although it would make our hierarchy more consistent. This certainly isn't a no-brainer. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Understand - Free Zone west of the berm?
The articles "The Free Zone of Western Sahara, the area to the immediate west of the sand wall (also known as "the berm") was formerly peppered by land mines" is confusing as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_(region) states; "The Free Zone or Liberated Territories is a term used by the Polisario Front to describe the part of Western Sahara that lies to the east of the Moroccan Berm (the Moroccan border wall) and west and north of the borders with Algeria and Mauritania, respectively." --Andrez1 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Ground Zero (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The warning box says "The area starting at the Berm and extending for 30–50 km west is littered with land mines." Is that part of the same mistake? Wouldn't the mines by laid east of the berm? They may of course be a leftover from before the berm, but I'd assume there are mines at least in front of it. –LPfi (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I would think the Moroccan army would lay landmines on its side of the berm to cause injury to any SADR people who go over the berm. If you have information to the contrary, please correct it. I don't know enough about the situation to change this. Ground Zero (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Sahara


text:
Talk:Western Sudan District (Darfur, Kurdofan)

--(WT-en) Salaih 16:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)in the my Darfur is my country


text:
Talk:Western Transdanubia

Comments
I very strongly believe, sub dividing further under this level is pointless, unless the new contributer plans to do significant work around this region? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:45, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * I concur. It would be better to first fill this article with information, and to develop the region's city and town articles, before thinking about whether further subdivision would make sense. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:35, 1 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Western Transdanubia


text:
Talk:Western Visayas

Palawan
Palawan is not a part of Western Visayas. It now belongs to another Region of Southern Luzon.

 * We should not, and generally don't, care much about what the administrative groupings are; the important question is what groupings make sense for travellers. My guess is that Palawan is different enough it should be treated as a separate region, not in either Luzon or the Visayas.

 * Something definitely needs to change. The current text lists Palawan among the provinces and Puerto among the cities for this region, but the map does not match. Pashley (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BacolodCollageByMcLovintosh.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kalibo aerial.jpg

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) 09:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bacolod City Hall at night.jpg

 * No FoP; used via Wikidata. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Visayas