text:
Talk:Sustainable travel

I'm not thrilled with the list of external links here -- I'd rather we discussed the principles of ecotourism, rather than make a Web directory. --(WT-en) Evan 11:05, 28 December 2006 (EST)

 * Me too. National ecotourism umbrella orgs should move to the countries' articles, this should just link to the countries in question, like we do for Scuba diving etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:23, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Hitchhiking
Why does hitchhiking have lower emissions than taking a bus or a train? It seems to me that they'd all be in the same class (there's a vehicle that's already going somewhere, and it's not going to produce any more emissions just because you got on it). Cheers, (WT-en) JYolkowski 19:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

 * Rewrite and expand... you have my full support :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 12:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)

 * I guess that's because when there are more and more pessengers taking a train or a bus, they'd put more buses/trains into service, thus resulting in a higher emission figure. But no one really would start driving down the road with the sole intention of taking a hitchhiker.--(WT-en) Vidimian 07:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * On the other hand them putting more buses/trains into service might mean more people leaving the car at home. If the bus or train usually is crowded, going by other (non-polluting) means is probably always good, while being the forth or tenth passenger on the bus is more likely to save an important service than doing harm. --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Amount of emitted pollutants per person per 1000 km traveled
I'm wanting to put together a infobox on flight and climate change for the fundamentals of flying page (presently the featured travel topic displayed on the homepage) I was wondering where the data in the Other pollution section was taken from. I've been having a hard time finding info to put in the box. Also if anyone is into helping out, they'd be more than welcome. At present there's just some discussion on the article's talk page --Keithonearth (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Name confusion
There is some confusion of the definition. According to Wikipedia, Ecotourism is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a low-impact and often small scale alternative to standard commercial (mass) tourism.

However, much of the article is about minimizing ecological footprint when travelling. It can be considered for business travel as well as urban backpacking and agritourism. Possibly, the article can be renamed as environmental concerns, sustainable travel or something similar. / Yvwv (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps the article should be merged to something like "green tourism" or "sustainable tourism" to contrast from biotourism. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Admin privileges needed to move to sustainable tourism. /Yvwv (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 * That's not a problem. I think the main point is that a consensus needs to be attained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ecotourism is something very different. Why not simply merge the content of this page into Responsible travel? --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

2019 revival
I agree with moving to Sustainable travel or one of the other variations proposed back in 2015. Ecotourism (in its actual meaning) could equally be its own article. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good merge target. The current content may be best removed from there, though. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the move. Ecotourism is something different and the current naming is confusing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the original article was deleted. That doesn't cause any problem copyright-wise, does it? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if content from those versions was used. --LPfi (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would add contents based on sustainable travel, not ecotourism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems to have a large overlap between sustainable travel and responsible travel, and the responsible travel article somewhat overlaps with what you expect in the ecotourism page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should be merged into one article on the topic. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The pagequote
I don't know, I don't like it. Are there any other quotes we might put there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bullet points
Should this article be written mostly in bullet point style or mostly in flowing text style? Currently it is a hybrid of both. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer flowing text. Overuse of bulleted points makes even an article with a decent amount of content (like this one) look like a laundry list. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Be my guest in converting some. My edits have already made the text of some bullets longer, which may or may not help in that endeavor. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The (currently) very last section
Now I have made some SEO edits as well as what I hope to be generally useful edits to this article, which helped bring down the copied content from over 50% to now barely 16%. However, the section headlined "CO2 emissions" still contains a lot of "copied" content, in fact I think most of the 16% are found there. I think that this section mostly duplicates advice we give above and some of the stuff said there could be better handled by the likes of Wikipedia. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On another note, should we be concerned about the dead weblink? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Name of ecotourism article
Wikivoyage has an article about how to minimize environmental footprint when travelling. The article is currently named ecotourism. As stated on Talk:Ecotourism, the title is confusing, because the term has other meaning. Please provide your opinion about a renaming. /Yvwv (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cruise ships
I'm editing the article to mention cruise ships. I'm not sure why they weren't mentioned before (maybe just nobody thought about it), but I've come across some interesting studies that show they are much worse polluters than even the filthiest airliner. I found different numbers as to HOW bad they pollute, but all agree they are worse than air travel. (The highest was well over 400 g/pkm for cruise ships). One article claimed that the 63 ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines emit more pollution each year than every single car in Europe. Considering there are many cruise lines, that would be a very sobering fact if the numbers are true. In any case, I think that a comprehensive article on the subject of sustainable travel can not overlook a substantial sector of the travel industry. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I think it could also include somthing on how effective the attempts at some of the cruise industry in this direction is. Are the few cruise ships with sails just window dressing, or do they have signifantly lower emissions than regular ships. If you want a cruise style vacation, how do you choose the most sustainable - is there comparison information available on different cruise ships.
 * Could we have some numbers comparing a cruise with a luxury train trip? Is it really more sustainable to spend 6 nights on a train like the Orient Express and flying home, rather than going on a 7 day cruise from a port near home? AlasdairW (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sustainable travel


text:
Talk:Ecuador

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

Removed provinces
I removed the provinces, I don't see any added value for travellers -- (WT-en) Ronald 22:19, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

Provinces

 * Azuay
 * Bolivar
 * Canar
 * Carchi
 * Chimborazo
 * Cotopaxi
 * El Oro
 * Esmeraldas
 * Galapagos
 * Guayas
 * Imbabura
 * Loja
 * Los Rios
 * Manabi
 * Morona-Santiago
 * Napo
 * Orellana
 * Pastaza
 * Pichincha
 * Sucumbios
 * Tungurahua
 * Zamora-Chinchipe

Chimborazo not a city
Chimborazo was listed as a city. There is a province called Chimborazo, but the city which is "host" to the mountain is Riobamba. --pjt33

English-language newspapers
I managed to buy the Miami Herald from a small street news-stand in Riobamba (by Correos). Was this exceptional, or should mention of the possibility of buying English-language newspapers in the street be added? --pjt33

ATMs
On the use of automated teller machines: I was part of a large group, and we had different (UK) banks. Most of us found that we couldn't make withdrawals from all banks, and which banks we could and could not use varied between us, although in each case a network universally worked or didn't. For example, I could withdraw from any Banco de Guayaquil machine, but never from a Banco de Pichincha machine. Therefore be prepared to try two or three ATMs in order to find one which works.
 * I added this info to article, as I agree and think it is important to travellers. --(WT-en) Fridday

Water
I deleted the price given for water ($0.25 / bottle) because, obviously, it depends on the size of the bottle. A 5 litre bottle is typically about $1, and a 25 litre bottle $2.50, although for the latter you may also have a pay a deposit on the bottle.

Visas
Should information regarding visas to enter the country be added? I have found it hard to find exact information(accept at the consulates themselves) regarding the documents to bring for the various visas.71.79.241.58 08:05, 12 September 2006 (EDT) No visa needed to enter the country

Regions
The regions used currently are quite a mess.. I d be willing to sort these

What we have right now is :
 * Amazon (Ecuador) : decent info but still references the provinces, which are almost empty articles.
 * Andean Highlands (Ecuador) : blank..
 * Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) : good shape but quite empty
 * Galapagos Islands : Very good

Could that be used as regions ? Three regions only for mainland Ecuador seems few.. I ll look for a list of the departments and a map so we can sort them out precisely.

(WT-en) Rafcha 16:24, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Here are a list of provinces with the capital and proposed region : 1 Azuay 	Cuenca                                    Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 2 Bolívar 	Guaranda                                   Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 3 Cañar 	Azogues                                   Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 4 Carchi 	Tulcán                                    Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 5 Chimborazo 	Riobamba                                  Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 6 Cotopaxi 	Latacunga                                 Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 7 El Oro 	Machala                                    Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 8 Esmeraldas 	Esmeraldas                                 Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 9 Galápagos 	Puerto Baquerizo Moreno                     Galapagos Islands 10 Guayas 	Guayaquil                                  Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 11 Imbabura 	Ibarra                                    Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 12 Loja        Loja                                       Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 13 Los Ríos 	Babahoyo                                   Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 14 Manabí 	Portoviejo                                 Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 15 Morona-Santiago 	Macas                            Amazon (Ecuador) 16 Napo 	Tena                                     Amazon (Ecuador) 17 Orellana 	Puerto Francisco de Orellana             Amazon (Ecuador) 18 Pastaza 	Puyo                                     Amazon (Ecuador) 19 Pichincha 	Quito                                     Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 20 Santa Elena 	Santa Elena                                Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 21 Santo Domingo 	Santo Domingo de Los Colorados     Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) 22 Sucumbíos 	Nueva Loja                               Amazon (Ecuador) 23 Tungurahua 	Ambato                Andean Highlands (Ecuador) 24 Zamora-Chinchipe Zamora                               Amazon (Ecuador)

To sum up : I ll wait for some feedback and then sort the articles using these categories(WT-en) Rafcha 17:15, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Amazon (Ecuador) : 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24
 * Andean Highlands (Ecuador) : 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 19, 23
 * Coastal Lowlands (Ecuador) : 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21
 * Galapagos Islands : 9

 * I agree that three regions is fewer than what would be ideal, but I don't know anything about travel in Ecuador, so I won't be able to really help. Your sort, though, into the existing regions looks good to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:06, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Oh, and that map can be uploaded to Shared—select the "GFDL and any Attribution-ShareAlike" option from the pulldown menu on the upload form. Here's a guide to the different licenses we allow for images. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:13, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
 * While doing the sorting i realize theses regions make the most sense, at least geographically. The only further division i could imagine is splitting the Andean region into north and south parts.(WT-en) Rafcha 18:28, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Volcano eruption: do we need a warning box?
Ecuador declares volcano emergency Pashley (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to have, at least in the Cotopaxi article. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cities (towns, etc.) in "Other destinations"
"Other destinations" means "other than cities (towns, hamlets, etc.)", such as parks, archeological sites, major waterfalls and the like (beaches qualify, too). Right now, this is the list of "Other destinations", other than "National parks":

 * Baeza - Gateway to the northern Oriente and up-and-coming mountain town -- still has sleepy small-town feel.

 * Canoa - Small beach town.

 * Esmeraldas - A lesser visited city to the north of some of the most popular beaches in Ecuador.

 * Guamote - A cosy and authentic Andean village though easy accessible.

 * Guaranda - A small Andean city famous for its Carnaval celebrations.

 * Mindo - Excellent bird watching in a cloud forest setting.

 * Montañita - World famous surfing beach and beach hangout.

 * Puerto López - Beautiful small ocean side city, access point for Machalilla National Park, and Isla de la Plata "Poor Man's Galapagos".

 * Puyo - Amazon rain forest town frequently destination of downhill bicycle rides from Baños.

 * Quilotoa Loop - An Andean travel route that encompasses Quilotoa volcanic crater lake, Zumbahua and Chugchilán. Quintessential Andean landscapes and cultural experiences.

 * Salinas - Beautiful beach and boardwalk, swamped with Guayaquileños during holidays.

 * Tena - Amazon rain forest town famous for some of the best white water rafting and kayaking in Latin America.

 * Vilcabamba - Popular for expats living and retiring, and famous for its legendary older inhabitants whom claim to have some of the longest lifespans in the world.

Without even looking at the articles, just based on the descriptions, the following should be removed, based on Wikivoyage guidelines:

Baeza (town), Canoa (town, although if its beach is made the "Other destination", that could work), Esmeraldas (city), Guamote (village), Guaranda (small city), Puerto López (city, although if the listing is for the coast or the island, it might work), Puyo (town), Tena (town, though maybe it could be listed purely as a center for rafting and kayaking). Vilcabamba seems clearly to be a town, too, based on the description that focuses on living and inhabitants.

Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding a lot of content for Baeza, having stayed here for a while and realized that it is a idden gem of Ecuador -- where would I link it from, if it doesn't belong here. I couldn't find the answer in the guidelines...maybe it is just that I'm a wiki newbie, apologies if so. Itinerant503 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 * The easiest answer is that you'd link it from the article for the region it's a part of. Many places that are gems don't get linked from the national level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Ho ho! So much information linked from the welcome message I received. And, "I couldn't find the answer in the guidelines," but only because I didn't really look. Thanks/sorry. Delete this thread if you like, Ikan. Itinerant503 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * No need to delete the thread. There are a lot of places in "Other destinations" that need discussion and possible deletion from this article, and it's not completely clear which ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Any more comments? We really haven't resolved anything much here. Which of these places belong in an "Other (than cities [towns, villages, etc.]) destinations" and is there any overriding attraction that is more of a draw than the city itself in any of the other places, which could be mentioned as the destination instead of the city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

7 years later, have we decided yet? There are still 17 ODs in the article, so 5 have to go. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 01:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Banner
I originally made this new banner for the article Latin America, but I ended up adding a different banner there, and I think this one would be better for Ecuador than the current nondescript green hills. Thoughts? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Seeing no comments for a few days, I've gone ahead and changed the banner. We can always change it back if someone objects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning box
I understand the need for it, but given that it only affects a small part of the country, wouldn't it be better placed in Ecuador instead? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I've moved it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, :-). --  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Ecuador


text:
Talk:Edakkal caves

Edakkal caves
An attraction, not an article.
 * Merge with the pre-existing listing on the Wayanad page. (WT-en) Texugo 09:31, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect A redirect may discourage people from recreating the article, but no strong feelings on this. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Edakkal caves


text:
Talk:Eden Valley

a start...but still so much more to do.Its a lovely valley with lots of attraction

title: Talk:Eden Valley


text:
Talk:Edinburgh

do we really have to discuss casual sex? there are sites specialized for that... since someone posted the same "gay sex/casual sex" into glasgow/edinburgh" and perhaps onto other cities: why not a "where to meet people", perhaps with links to sites specializing into the harder stuff...

Removal of sex section
I've removed the sex section since it really doesn't fit in the way it's written: -- (WT-en) Colin 00:25, 13 May 2005 (EDT)
 * It mentions "homophobia and related problems," but doesn't say anything to help a traveller stay safe. If someone has something useful to say, it should be in the Stay Safe section.
 * It says Gay Bars exist. Well good, but we actually want names, address, and phone numbers so we can add them as entries in the drink section.
 * It says look on the web for helpful info about wilder sex. There are a lot of topics that would be tedious to cover (not just sexual topics); we don't need to mention each one and point out you can google for it.  You can search the web for more information about the Edinburgh llama breeding community.
 * There's a lot of gratuitous commentary about sex without any actual content that I can see.

 * I've now removed most of the "Stay Safe" section, because I thought it was a bit OTT for Edinburgh. -- (WT-en) DanielC 09:41, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Separate Article for Leith?
The Rotal Yacht Britannia is mentioned, but do people think it is worth writing a separate article for Leith? I don'tthink it is worth the effort of splitting the city up into "Huge City" districts, but would this be worthwhile? -- (WT-en) DanielC 09:43, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * I've been mulling this over for a couple of days and I think that if it was split up, the sensible areas (from a tourist perspective) would be Leith, New Town, Old Town, and The Rest. This isn't really a great list - Most of the tourist attractions are in the Old and New Towns. Leith is a special case because some cruise ships dock there (or at Rosyth). "The Rest" only becasue spliting the city up further would just create too many articles with little in them. --(WT-en) Colin Angus Mackay 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * I know this discussion is 3 years old but I feel it's worth reviving based on progress since then. Currently there is virtually nothing in either the Old Town or New Town articles, while the Leith article is starting to look fairly decent. Colin's suggestion of New Town, Old Town, Leith, The Rest has merit, though I feel "the Rest" is a bit messy. For me, the Old and New Towns are already well covered in the main article, and I see little value in having separate articles for them, particularly given their proximity. For example it would be easy (and is probably commonplace) to meet for a drink somewhere on the Grassmarket, head across to Rose Street or George Street for something to eat, and then walk back across to Whistle Binkies or Espionage for more drinks plus music and dancing. From the fact that nobody has written anything in them it looks like nobody else feels the Old and New Town articles have value either. I'd like to propose that all the "City Centre" material gets left where it is in the main article, and that the districts should comprise "North", "South" and "Leith". Leith clearly has enough for its own district article. North could include Stockbridge and Canonmills (some folk would like to stay near the Botanics), Cramond, Portobello. South could include Southside, Marchmont, Bruntsfield, Morningside. Perhaps under the "Districts" heading we could have some text along the lines of "The City Centre is comprised of the medieaval Old Town and the Georgian New Town, on either side of the Waverley Valley. This area is covered in this article. Away from the City Centre, districts worthy of visiting are:" and then have the district list with links. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Having spent a bit more time on Wikivoyage and seen some of the quality guides to cities nowhere near Edinburgh's international stature, I have to go back on what I said above. It really needs some work to do it justice, and to make it managable I think districtification is a must. I've made a start on moving some of the relevant material into the Old Town and New Town guides, and added a new district, Stockbridge and Canonmills. You could make an argument for another district covering Bruntsfield, Marchmont, Southside but as there are no real sights here I think any restaurant/bar/hotel listings can just as usefully be left in the Old Town. (Stockbridge and Canonmills has the Botanics and the Water of Leith).(WT-en) Tarr3n 08:45, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

The University of Edinburgh
An anoymous (141.140.120.40) contributer marked in a change comment ~Learn - I've never heard it called "Edinburgh University," only the "University of Edinburgh"~ So, I would like to say that I have heard the term "Edinburgh University" used frequently, including by students and former students of the institution. I've used both terms myself depending on the formality of the situation. If I am in a particularly pedantic mood I'll use "The University of Edinburgh" as that is the correct title. --(WT-en) Colin Angus Mackay18:43, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I would agree, both terms are entirely interchangeable and frequently are by the University itself and students.(WT-en) Sgrobertson 06:31, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)

The names are interchangeable. I know people who refer to it as "ed dot ack dot uck" (as do I sometimes - it is shorter and just rolls off the tongue!) --82.41.11.43 08:16, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)

As an Edinburgh Graduate I used both depending on the time of day, although strictly speaking it is the UoE.

Travel by train
The statement that a "shuttle bus service links [Waverley and Haymarket rail stations]" is innaccurate and misleading. Several normal city bus routes serve both stations, but there is no dedicated shuttle, or any other bus service designed expressly to provide a link. Nor is there any reason for one. Almost all train services to and from Haymarket also serve Waverley, and vice versa. In normal circumstance, you would never need a bus to provide an intermediate link.
 * I've amended this and removed the Shuttle Bus reference.(WT-en) Tarr3n 11:53, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Whisky, not "Whiskey"
The article uses the American/Irish spelling of the word throughout. This might be confusing to visitors- Scotch is spelled differently to indicate a difference in taste and means of manufacture. Purists would be offended by the wrong usage.

Also, the "Whisky Museum" referred to in the article should be the "Scotch Whisky Experience". It would also be useful if a link could be added to the website: http://www.whisky-heritage.co.uk/index.html

 * I think someone has already amended all the "whiskeys" to the correct spelling. I've amended the "Whisky museum" and added the URL. (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:42, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

 * reworded section on Scotch Whisky Experience, added further info and included a warnign about the cost of some of the drams in the Centre bar. Yes, on their own terms they may be reasonably-priced, but some, by virtue of their age and rarity are very expensive indeed.  I didn't want anybody to get caught out. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ilikescider (talk • contribs)

Stay Safe
I think the "Stay Safe" section is likely to cause undue concern about safety in Edinburgh's suburbs.

Some of Edinburgh's suburbs are among the wealthiest and safest parts of the UK. A visitor is unlikely to experience violence or threatening behaviour. The exceptions are Craigmillar, Muirhouse and Pilton where significant social problems exist- but a visitor is unlikely to find himself wandering there late at night. It seems a shame to suggest that all of Edinburgh's suburbs are dangerous.

 * Looks like the above has been tidied up and made a bit more specific. Not keen on the recent edit to this section though - "seedy clubs on Leith Walk and in the alleys and streets nearby". Where? Name a seedy club in that area and I'll be there in a flash! (WT-en) Tarr3n 11:30, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

The text advises non-locals to avoid "Morningside (known for gangland violence) in the south". Is this true? - many years ago I lived in Morningside and it was famous as a "posh" and refined area. Either things have changed drastically or the statement is incorrect. Newburyjohn (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and have undone the IP edit from yesterday. AlasdairW (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Pudding/"Blood Sausage"
The "Eat" section suggests that visitors should stop by a chippy and have a "deep fried blood sausage". I realise that this was probably intended to make the term "black pudding" understandable to non-UK visitors, but I fear if someone turned up and said "I would like a deep fried blood sausage" they may be met with a vacant stare from the person behind the counter.
 * I've amended this so it makes more sense. The whole Eat section could do with a bit of work to tidy it up and bring it in line with the Manual of Style really.(WT-en) Tarr3n 12:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

 * re-worded the fried food info —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ilikescider (talk • contribs)

Travel by car in the city centre
The article is correct to claim that Edinburgh is not car-friendly, but the statement "Recently there have been massive changes to the traffic in the center of town, making it almost impossible to traverse by car." has been falsified by time.

This referred to the City Council's "Central Edinburgh Traffic Management" scheme that was implemented, for a short period, in 2005. Most of the restrictions were later reversed in the light of significant public discontent. More information here:

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/10/12_edinburgh_today_-_central_edinburgh_traffic_management_scheme.htm

 * I've started to update some of this info as it was outdated as noted above.(WT-en) Tarr3n 11:55, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Accommodation entries
There seems to be some contention as to what construes an entry. As per Policy I have removed all links that lead to "Directory" type agency sites. This devalues the philosophy and values of a wiki.

Leith Internet cafe removal
I have added Leith Internet cafe ande it was removed. I wanted to know what was the reason for that?

I have added Leith Internet cafe in 27/12. This is a real internet cafe, and it was deleted.

I wanted to know what was the reason for that —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 80.178.219.50 (talk • contribs)

Duplications
There is all sorts of duplicate information between the district articles and the main Edinburgh article. I suggest we remove most of the duplicates from the main article and leave them in the district articles. (WT-en) Carson 19:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Absolutely. Until recently (see discussion above under "Separate article for Leith?") there was virtually nothing in the New Town or Old Town articles. I've started the districtification process myself but the more folk working on it the better! For me, the major attractions should still get a mention on the main City article, with a reference to what district they are in, and the full listing should be in the district article. All the listings in Sleep, Eat, Drink, need stripped out to the districts. (WT-en) Tarr3n 03:30, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Districtification

As per the discussions above under "Separate article for Leith?" and "Duplications", I've been doing a fair bit of work tidying up, adding listings, and districtifying. Edinburgh/Old Town, Edinburgh/New Town and Edinburgh/Leith have all been in existence for some time, though only Leith had a significant amount of content, the Old and New Town content was all still in the main City article. I've now stripped out the content from Edinburgh into those districts, and created some new districts to cover areas away from the City Centre and Leith - namely Edinburgh/Stockbridge and Canonmills, Edinburgh/East, Edinburgh/South and Edinburgh/West. South Queensferry has had it's own article since April 2007, to which I have added a link under Edinburgh which will hopefully direct more wikivoyagers to that destination. It would be great if someone could create a district map for the article. I don't have the software or skills to produce one for Wikivoyage, but have quickly produced an outline entitled Edinburgh Wikitravel Districts on Google Maps. I'd appreciate opinions on the districts and boundaries if anyone feels they could be arranged better.(WT-en) Tarr3n 07:30, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I'd be happy to tackle that map. The google map is useful for understanding the boundaries, but I can't use it to create the map, since the content is copyrighted. If you find a good free content base map/satellite image for the city, leave a link to it on my talk page and I'll get to work! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I've started on a Wikivoyage-style districts map, but I noticed that Holyrood Park is split across three districts on your google maps outline. Is this desirable? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:10, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Ditto the Meadow Parks. I resolved this by putting the entirety of Holyrood Park in the Old Town district, and the Meadow Parks all in the South district. I have put two maps showing precise district boundaries to the right, do these look correct? You might have to download the entire (large) file to make out the details. Please feel free to give a detailed critique, and I'll adjust street & other boundaries accordingly before finishing the rest of the details to finish the map. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:29, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Sorry not to have replied any earlier to your question Peter. I completely agree with your solution re Holyrood Park and The Meadows. Maps look brilliant. Thanks for putting the work in. (WT-en) Tarr3n 20:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Great! Glad to have this districts map finally in place. I plan to eventually convert this to a WT style map (like this, when I have time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:15, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

South Queensferry
I didn't notice this article before. If it is to retain its article status (rather than be merged into Edinburgh/West), it should be moved to Edinburgh/South Queensferry and displayed on the map. Should we instead treat it as a separate town? If so, it should be moved from the districts section to the get out section. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:13, 8 February 2010 (EST)
 * It's marginal whether it should be treatded as a distrcit of Edinburgh or as a separate town. It comes under Edinburgh City Council but then which local authority is in charge isn't really of consequence to travellers! I'd lean towards keeping it as a separate town. I've moved it into get ou as suggested - if anyone objects let's debate it here. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:16, 25 February 2010 (EST)

"See" section and Landmarks
I dont understand why this article was featured previously. The things section that should interest most, the core part of a guide, nanmely the landmark section is merely a collection of links and does not offer any valuable information. Is wikivoyage meant to be this superficial? I think it should be encouraged to go more into dept. (WT-en) LiangHH 15:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)
 * The full listings for each attraction are in the relevant district guide, eg the Castle is in the Old Town so that is where the full listing for it can be found. The intoduction to the guide tells you that Edinburgh is a huge city and encourages you to refer to the all of the individual district articles. We've retained brief listings in the main city article for the major attractions to help readers to find the specific attractions they may be wishing to see. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:00, 21 November 2008 (EST)

B&B rows?
I seem to recall that there are two major B&B areas in Edinburgh, one not far north of Princes Street, and another in Old Town (Minto)? The Sleep section doesn't record this though. —The preceding comment was added by 206.47.210.130 (talk • contribs).

 * Good suggestion. I've added a paragraph. (WT-en) Tarr3n 09:24, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Airport Parking
This article currently has a large table giving some info about Airport carparks. I noticed that a user recently stripped out some of this info and it was reinstated by another user. I'd actually question whether this information is relevant at all to visitors? If you're travelling to the airport with your hire car you will have specific instructions on where to drop it off anyway. To me, detailed airport parking info is only relevant to people who actually live here and are travelling elsewhere. Those people are unlikely to be looking here for that information, and in any case the list of carparks in the table is far from complete and doesn't even give details of short stay and pick up/drop off facilities. I'd be inclined to strip it all out and replace it with a short paragraph summarising the parking arrangements at the airport. Anybody want to offer a counter opinion before I go ahead and do that? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:37, 26 November 2010 (EST)

 * I agree with your reasoning. Can't see any reason to keep that section.  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 15:30, 26 November 2010 (EST)

 * I would agree with removing the table. About a week ago I undid an edit of a few hours earlier that added a row to the table. The new entry did not have an address and seemed just to be listing a directory. I thought of deleting the whole table, but did not have the time to look into its history. Other cities do have these tables, see Bristol for example. (WT-en) AlasdairW 18:34, 26 November 2010 (EST)

 * They were all added by one user, making them easy to find: the other cities that have them are Manchester, Cardiff, Leeds, and Newcastle upon Tyne. It seems they were added with the intent of helping outbound air travelers from those airports, but I don't think this site is the place for them -- they're definitely not relevant to the Get In section of any city article, where each table has been placed.  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 18:48, 26 November 2010 (EST)
 * Thanks for the feedback folks, I've zapped it. (WT-en) Tarr3n 14:08, 28 November 2010 (EST)

UPdated Delta flight info
I updated flight info on this page-Delta airlines no longer flies into Ediburgh. Shanna —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ravenwind17 (talk • contribs)

Edinburgh Pass
The Edinburgh pass no longer seems to exist (removed from see section):

 * For the budget-conscious and/or avid sightseer, the Edinburgh Pass is well worth bearing in mind, offering a maximum of £155 worth of entry to 27 of Edinburgh's top attractions, a 90-page guidebook, retail and restaurant offers and discounts. All this, as well as free public transport around the city and airport transfers. A one-day pass costs £30, two days £40, three days £50 (2013 prices). Can be purchased online or at Tourist Information Centres.

26 July 2015 (UTC)

Todo list for guide status
Here is an incomplete TODO list which should help to improve the Edinburgh page to reach "guide" status. Pleas add/change anything that comes to your mind and/or work on the items listed here: 5 March 2016 (UTC), last updated: 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Main page (Edinburgh): almost fulfils guide status, except the following sublist items:
 * Expand on history in Edinburgh: write about ..., origins of Edinburgh Festivals, recent establishment of the Scottish parliament, ...
 * Edinburgh/New_Town: already has guide status
 * Edinburgh/Old_Town: now upgraded and has guide status

 * According to City guide status "For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status", so I think that with two guide articles (and all other districts usable) we have met that part of the criteria. I agree that Understand needs some work, and there are other areas that could be improved. AlasdairW (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great (I always wrongly thought that district articles need to have "guide" status before the main page can be a "guide" as well). Apart from the Understand section, what other areas do you think should be improved? 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Historic notes
Hi, here are some historic notes that could be placed into the History section of Edinburgh:

 * In the mid-18th century major building works and city expansions took place including the draining of the Nor Loch (now Princes Street Gardens, Waverley Station and the Mound), construction of North and South Bridge, the design (and construction) of New Town by James Craig, and the construction of the "Earthen Mound" (which was not finished until 1830 and is now simply called the Mound). In the early 19th century the union canal, which runs between Falkirk and Edinburgh, was built within four years mostly to bring minerals to the city.

 * The Edinburgh International Festival was launched in 1947. A year later the first Military Tattoo was performed at the castle and soon became an official part of the Festival. In 1993, the first Edinburgh Hogmanay Street Party was held as an organised event.

 * In 1998, the Scotland Act, which came into force the following year and was later amended in 2004, 2005 and 2012, established a devolved Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive (since September 2007 referred to as the Scottish Government). Both are based in Edinburgh and are responsible for governing Scotland excluding reserved matters such as defence and foreign affairs which remain the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament in London. Between 1999 and 2004 the Scottish Parliament Building designed by Enric Miralles, the Spanish Catalan architect, was constructed.

 * Between 1871 and 1956 trams were operated in Edinburgh, however buses were deemed more flexible and therefore replaced the trams. In 2008 work began on a new 14km tramway stretch between the city centre and Edinburgh Airport and only finished in 2014.

All taken and condensed/rephrased from: Timeline_of_Edinburgh_history and History_of_Edinburgh. Feel free to rephrase, add/remove information, etc. 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Copied to main page. 2A02:C7D:2E27:F300:65C8:D8F2:C783:C5AA 14:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No booking agencies please
Hi Alasdair, I respect your oponion but I think that's a bad idea and we can include Caledonian Way in the paragraph: "Other resources". The agency is a business based in Edinburgh and a company legally constituted like Super Mums Childcare Agency (paragraph: Babysitting). kind regards (Added at 02:52, 26 December 2016 by Edinside).

I accept that because the webside is not in English and I will remove the other Spanish link. Thanks. —The preceding comment was added by Edinside (talk • contribs)

 * The point isn't mainly that it's a bad idea but that listing it violates Wikivoyage policy. Alasdair explained the difference between a booking agency for services that already have a web presence and can be contacted separately vs. a booking agency for individuals who cannot be contacted separately because a traveller wouldn't otherwise know how to find them. Once we've established that, there is also the fact that a traveller to Edinburgh might well need a babysitter, but s/he is quite unlikely to travel there in order to study Spanish. But that isn't the fundamental problem with the listing. A listing for a booking service for English or Scottish Gaelic teachers who work for companies that are individually contactable wouldn't be OK to list, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Calm dowm, dear. I said: I accept that but I do NOT agree. Do you understand this? Well, I have included a link to a Spanish side but you reverted. Well, I think the best think you can do it's use the English link don't you? —The preceding comment was added by Edinside (talk • contribs)

 * Don't assume I'm not calm. I assure you, I am sitting here relaxed, but I can't know what's in your mind, or what it means to say that you "do NOT agree". This site's policy is what it is and has to be observed by all. As for your other point, I think it's best to use the English-language URL for the Spanish Consulate, so I found it and added it, rather than just deleting the URL that was there are replacing it with nothing, which wouldn't be helpful to travellers. Finally, please sign all posts on talk pages (only) by typing 4 tildes in a row. Gracias. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, do you expect me to work with you any more? Have a nice Boxing Day. —The preceding comment was added by Edinside (talk • contribs)

 * Calm down, dear. :-) You too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't assume I'm not calm. I assure you, I am sitting here relaxed, but I think you don't need my help any more :-)

Edinburgh Western map & S Queensferry
We need consistency either old country boundaries are used or councils. The Edinburgh Western map is based on council boundary, which includes South Queensferry. The South Queensferry entry is in West Lothian section. Either the map needs changed or S Queensferry moves to Edinburgh Western section Crann20 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 * We don't need to follow either old or new council boundaries. I don't think that a visitor feels that they are in Edinburgh when they are walking around South Queensferry. They would probably be more inclined to think that Musselburgh was part of Edinburgh, as you can get there without passing open country unlike South Queensferry. Also see the discussion above in Districtification.
 * I agree that the map needs to be updated. The problem is with the data used for the dynamic map overlays, not the static map in File:Edinburgh districts map OSM.png. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alisdair, thanks. That sounds the right approach. So who created the map, there must be a way to edit. Crann20 (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 * There are two separate map data sources. The multicoloured dynamic map here is data stored on commons. There is also the map on Edinburgh/West, which is a long list of co-ordinates in the see section of the article. I would suggest starting with this, and the co-ordinates can then be copied to the commons datafile. AlasdairW (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the map on Edinburgh/West, but it could be refined - for example it now includes the terminal but not the runway at the airport. I don't have any software for tracing a map route and so it was done crudely with a few co-ordinates. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed South Queensferry from "Edinburgh West" district in the dynamic map and updated the mapmask. Thanks for the hint.--Renek78 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edinburgh


text:
Talk:Edinburgh/East

Eat section
I tried to find some restaurants to review for the eating section for Edinburgh East but couldn't find any. Can someone who knows the region please list some? Thanks. --(WT-en) MarinaK 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
 * I only created this district article, (along with south and west) a couple of days ago so I'm still working on fleshing out the content. I'd be over the moon if some other contributors saved me the bother though! (WT-en) Tarr3n 09:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Hi Tarr3n. When you have the time, if you wrote down some listings, I'm happy to write reviews for them, if that's ok with you? --(WT-en) MarinaK 13:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
 * Hi Marina. This part of town isn't exactly overrun with places to eat but I've found a couple worthy of a listing. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Edits to layout
I've reverted some of the edits to the layout of the #See section as the section no longer makes sense. Duddingston Loch and the Secret Garden were indented under Duddingston Village because that's where they are. Without the indent the Secret Garden could be behind any church in the District.
 * My apologies! I didn't realise. Thanks for fixing it up. --(WT-en) MarinaK 13:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
 * No worries! (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Edinburgh/East


text:
Talk:Edinburgh/Leith

Have edited the "by tram" section to reflect the current state of this unhappy project, as the existing section gives the impression that the whole thing should be up and running by now, which is emphatically not the case, and probably never will be(WT-en) Khib70 10:44, 28 June 2011 (EDT)khib70

Doesn't seem to exist anymore:
 * Help to Clean Leith! . These guerrilla activists raise awareness of environmental issues in Leith and have a raft at The Shore where free entertainment happens every Friday afternoon.

title: Talk:Edinburgh/Leith


text:
Talk:Edinburgh/West

Eating section
I've tried to research some restaurants in West Edinburgh but to no avail. Can someone who has lived in the region please assist? --(WT-en) MarinaK 18:49, 21 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.
 * I only created this district article, (along with south and east) a couple of days ago so I'm still working on fleshing out the content. I'd be over the moon if some other contributors saved me the bother though! (WT-en) Tarr3n 09:11, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

South Queensferry
I think S Queensferry should be a separate District in Edinburgh. It's in West Lothian section. Historically West Lothian was West of the river Almond from Cramond Brig and Cramond. This is now all part of City of Edinburgh council Area. Crann20 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Disagree, SQ has a distinct identity for travel purposes. Edinburgh has spread its tentacles so far across the Lothians that all those towns are its commuter burbs, regardless of city governance. We'd reduce West Lothian to a rump and end up creating a page called "Outer Edinburgh" and coming full circle. Grahamsands (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edinburgh/West


text:
Talk:Edirne

i have tried to edit the article, but some idiot has changed it back, so i will not start an editing war, but I will leave my comments here, and if anyone here cares about accurate information, they will make sure it is incorporated.

1) The Turkish word for mosque is spelled "Camii" with two "I"s, not one.

2) Üç Şerefeli means "three balconies" which refers to one of the mosque's minarets which indeed has three balconies. THE MOSQUE HAS FOUR MINARETS. I saw them yesterday. http://www.archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=2910

People, lets not be so block-headed.

 * As you could see yourself with a quick glance at the History, your edits are still there -- you're just seeing an old copy of the page for some reason, probably a badly configured proxy on your side. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:21, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

144.122.125.114 07:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC) nope in turkish mosque is not translated as "camii" on the contrary it is directly coming from arabic and a wrong usage. The actual usage of the word is "camisi". Although none of them means "mosque" by itself rather they mean "mosque of x". So you are wrong my friend.

 * I don't want to delve into this weird part of the Turkish grammar, but just for the future reference; the actual Turkish word (of Arabic origin) for a mosque is cami, according to the Turkish Language Association (TDK), while accusative case for it is camii or camisi (the latter being the less usual style in the written form). So if you want to construct a proper noun phrase (isim tamlaması), it's camii or camisi (as in Selimiye Camii), and if you want to use it with an attributive adjective in a noun phrase (sıfat tamlaması), it's only cami (as in Eski Cami, "old mosque" or Üç Şerefeli Cami, "three balconied mosque"). Vidimian (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopes for this article
This is a place with a spectacular history, and there are great photos in the article. I'd love to see this be improved to Guide level and eventually featured on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 * This is a city that I really love to spend time in, and that's not only because it's the hometown of my maternal ancestors. Your wish and copyedits are the most welcome, thank you. Vidimian (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

To add
Some important sights currently absent from the article: - Vidimian (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Religious: Bulgarian churches, sacred sites of the Bahais in the city, as well as numerous smaller Ottoman mosques scattered around the old town that deserve a mention
 * Other: The hunting lodge of Mehmet IV in Sarayiçi, and maybe some of the important historic houses (like that of İbrahim Koman).

title: Talk:Edirne


text:
Talk:Editing User:Halibutt/Warsaw

I copied the essential content of this article to Warsaw. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:41, 11 Apr 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Editing User:Halibutt/Warsaw


text:
Talk:Edmonton

Driving by bus, south from Edmonton (maybe Calgary) and get to Rapid City, SD
Are there any? Not Samuel Pepys (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * you may be better off asking this on the tourist office. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edmonton


text:
Talk:Edmonton/Central

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

HALP!!!!!!
Am I adding good information, or does it look silly or something? Please just look over it, it's simple, I really need someones oppinioN! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT) HALP!
 * Also, what do you think of the pics? Please comment :)!  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:25, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry for the impatience, but I really nieed some comments:)! Hello?  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:49, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
 * For crying out loud, you create a new district article that people haven't seen before at 16:54, then post a comment at 22:17, then 8 minutes later you're saying "Please comment", then 24 minutes after that you are being impatient? I think your expectations are unrealistic.  Chill out. Slow down. Enthusiasm is great, but "HALP" in all caps with six exclamation points should be saved for when the building is burning down, not for a volunteer wiki. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:10, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * My overall comment on Edmonton/Central is that, having created the district article, you should move listings out of the main Edmonton article into the appropriate district article. That will give the district article more flesh. Also, consider taking a couple of afternoons off to read the Project:Manual of Style. That should give you more clarity on what is desireable. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:13, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I second Jim's assessment, and having done a number of corrections here and on the Edmonton page, I too would like it if you became more familiar with the style manual. Overall, I think your writing style is pretty good-- your descriptions are fairly objective sounding and non-first-person descriptions, but specifically these things come to mind:
 * Consistent spelling problems:
 * definitely, not definately
 * particularly, not particularily
 * amount has only one m
 * neighborhood, not neighbourhood and  center, not centre -- We use American standard spelling here.
 * Images go at the top of the section they are in, and always on the right side.
 * Colloquial spellings like goin' or keepin' should be avoided unless there is a specific reason for them.
 * Restaurant listings should be organized into Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge sections, not by cuisine type.
 * Sections like See and Do should not be subdivided further unless there are a lot of listings. Especially avoid creating idiosyncratic headers with no content.
 * Hope that helps! (WT-en) Texugo 08:24, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Jim: Thank you, I am sorry for my impatience, I will try and stop that. What I was going to do, was today put more info in the district artcles, the nstart summarizign the main one then:).

Texugo: Hey, ok well with some of those errors, I understand, but whats the big deal if I spell center centre, hmm? It's the proper Canadian way, and afterall, this is a Canadian artcle. I just don't get it, care to explain. I will stop with the goin'/keepin'. I was going to do Budget/Midrange/Splurge on the main page, and then use cuisine type on the districts because it would better seperate it, it think. Thanks (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:18, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Looking at it now, have I improved the article drastically? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:15, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Considering that there was no article before you started, it is definitely much better. As others have pointed out, moving details such as addresses, web sites, hours of operation, etc for hotels, restaurants, etc. from the main Edmonton article into this article (rather than just listing places) would improve it greatly.  I would suggest, however, that rather than posting general requests for immediate help all over the site that it would be more constructive if you ask specific questions.  Most editors will not respond to "Help Me!  Is this article OK?" but will quickly respond to specific questions.  A caveat, however, is that there is already TONS of help information available (as others have pointed out) - Project:District article template provides guidelines for districts, and you can follow examples of other cities with good district articles by looking at Chicago, Paris and San Francisco. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

 * With regards to "center" and "centre", see Project:Spelling. To be consistent the official policy used to be to use American spelling in all articles, but enough people disagree about spelling that unless there is an edit war no one will complain loudly when British spelling is used. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:02, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Ryan is mistaken -- that policy has been updated. Centre is preferred for Canada. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, Ryan! Yes, as I have already said, once I move most of the listings from Edmonton, I will summarize/delete on the main article. You just need to give me some time.  Thanks for the kind words.  I am glad I am progressing well.  I am sorry for all the disturbances, it's just I'm curious, and very talkative, and to me, I don't get much help.  Yeah, Chicago is a good example.  I am using the Vancouver adnd Chicago articles as guides.  I want to aim for at least one of them.  Theyre both bpretty dang good!  Thanks, and although small differences, you could say a lot of British SPELLING is Canadian, too.  Heh.  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:11, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

pictures in the article

Why can't we have them on the left side too? It's much more eye pleasing and unique! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:27, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * If anyone has opposition, please tell me, because I am putting A FEW on the left. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

 * There isn't a rule against left aligned images, but you have to use them selectively, they often mess up the flow of the text in a strange way. See how this page looks in my browser? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Looks similar to mine, but i'ts not that bad. It's just ncie for some variety, yes, I will have most right alighned (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty strongly against this because a) the left side is where you scan for that listing you read about and left-aligning picture moves some titles and headers away from the left, making it harder to index, and b) different browsers break the flow in different places, so even if it looks fine on your browser, it doesn't necessarily look fine on mine. I think 99.99% of all the pictures on Wikivoyage are already on the right, and I don't see any good reason for us to make an exception just for variety. If the pictures are getting crowded up on the right side, then it's a sign that the article has too many pictures. (WT-en) Texugo 04:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Texugo: 1) Nice computer, Ubuntu? 2) I think I will only fit the images on the LEFT now if it doesnt fit properly on the right with it's listing.  But that should be pretty rare.  I don't think there should be too many picutres unless it's like really cramped, so I think some, and ONLY SOME need to be left aligned.  I am pretty sure I'll only need to do that mmmm...1 or 2 times...maybe 3, thats it!  Thanks, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Listings
Since I'm pretty much doing this all by myself, I wanted some feedback, could'ya look at a few listings from each section and tell me if they're good enoguh for travellers? Thanks, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Overall, I think your your listings are pretty informative. Your writing is pretty good, although I think you unconsciously tend to overuse the words "definitely" (usually you misspell it too), "neat", and sometimes "funky". I also think you occasionally use exclamation marks where none are necessary, which can give your writing a rather overzealous tone. Otherwise, I generally like your descriptions. (WT-en) Texugo 06:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * There are two waay to spell definatey...we went through this already. Definately-Can/Brit; definitely-america. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:56, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. 'Definately' is a spelling mistake. The word is derived from the Latin root 'finire' - its family includes 'infinite', 'infinity', and 'finish'. It's not a British/American difference like center/centre. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:08, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, my bad, heh. Comments on my listing --back to topci!  (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Edmonton/Central Guide
Edmonton/Central is now a guide and I'd like to see some discussion on that-as in-what do you think? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 20:50, 6 November 2008 (EST).

 * Hi EE, it looks good content-wise -- plenty of listings, nice photos, generally good tone and style to the writing. We're a picky bunch around here though, and some things I think that will hold it back from DoTM or Star status are:

 * - a number of empty listings in the Eat and Drink sections
 * - many of the listings are incomplete (i.e., missing an address, or phone # or website) and not consistent with the Manual of Style (this is tedious to deal with but important!)
 * - a couple of non-standard headings -- typically we use Get in not Get around for a district and Neighbourhoods should be a subheading within Get in
 * - are there more Budget or Midrange hotels? I'm not familiar with accommodation in downtown Edmonton, so I don't know, but the listings are heavily weighted to Splurge.  If there are more decent cheaper hotels we should get them listed to help balance the Sleep section.

 * Your effort to get all this content in has been fantastic and the Edmonton articles are a lot better for it. Now, it's just a case of getting the details in so a visitor can use the guide to consistently find the place, contact it, know when it's open, how much it will cost, etc. (WT-en) Shaund 23:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

 * for those particular details, thanks for the list! i know theres a few listings i need to fill.  there is not really any budget hotels that are any good in central Edmonton unless listed, and in downtown specifically, there is NONE.  there is also not a high ammount of midrange.  but yeah.  THANKS.  keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 00:19, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Downtown Edmonton, AB Map
Hey! I would like to make a request for a map of downtown Edmonton (maybe Peterfizgerald or Shaund?)! I would like you to know that I would personally give you ALL the information all you'd need to do is apply it to a map. It shouldn't be TOO bad. Keep smilig (and also those who I gave a message I;d like in here please;)), (WT-en) ee talk 20:52, 6 November 2008 (EST).

 * Sorry, I'm not up for city maps at this point (I haven't even done them for Vancouver yet!). Also not sure that the article is ready for a map yet. There are a number of See, Do, Eat and Drink listings that don't have address info yet. These should be pretty much complete before a map is done. (WT-en) Shaund 23:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

 * That's fine. I'll add more info soon! :)  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 00:03, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Downtown Edmonton is only one neighbourhood in the district, and 99% of it for downtown is filled. 'Workin on it... Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 15:55, 7 November 2008 (EST).

For those who don't know, User:(WT-en) PerryPlanet took the job. Thank you everyone. But if you still want to do a map, there are a few more I'd like to get done (Old Strathcona, Edmonton LRT, and I'm sure i can think of some more)...Thank-you! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 19:33, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Coast Sports?
I tried looking it up but i found nothing? Do you ever go here maybe you know more about than i do. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * i see your working hard on the listings so please take your time... --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST) you'll probably add info onto it anyway silly me. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * Hey Hayfield-yeah I looked on GoogleMaps (they list addresses, etc.) for some reason it isn't listed. But, if you go to the Edmonton City Centre website, you'll see there is Coast Mountain Sports.  I don't get it- I even have ap icutre of Coast...Idk.   Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 13:33, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Star?
Man this travel guide has it all man oh man should be a star in my eyes. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:49, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * I was thinking the same myself. I'd like to see some more opinions.  Of course we do need to go through the nomination process.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 00:54, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * It's not quite there yet. Many of the listings are missing an address, phone number or description. A map of the district as a whole would be good to show where the other neighborhoods are in relationship to Downtown. The Buy section is probably too long; it needs to at least have the chain stores weeded out. (I wouldn't go all the way to Edmonton to buy printer cartridges at Staples) Also, I'm surprised there is no Contact section with some internet cafes. That's always important to me when I travel. (WT-en) Texugo 01:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * 'Tex, sometimes people don't think of it-but they end up needing to go to an office store or a grocery store. What I'll do is organise it into mid range, splurge, etc.  The contact thing, well internet café's are in the main article.  I'd rather not change that.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:03, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * Ee, we all know how to use the phone book if we need to buy office supplies or eggs. What a travel guide should do is recommend a finite selection of places, unique places that make a destination what it is. (WT-en) Texugo 01:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Ok, but that Sobey's one is useful despite it being a chain. Some like Aldo and yeah should stay.  Save On Foods is pretty good too.  Any other thoughts?  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:07, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * I do think this section is too long. For one thing, it lists some areas like 104th and 124th street under shopping areas, and then under the "specific stores" section there a lot of listings in those same areas. Could they not be combined somehow with just a mention of 3 or 4 stores within the street listing? Also, grocery stores should be listed in the Eat section, not here. (WT-en) Texugo 01:17, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * I think the specific listings are much better, note: I am not using all the stores on 124 or 104.  I am adding images to get rid of the planeness.  Hmm well I think it will be better when I organise it bettter-tomorow.   I think the more listings, the better it'd be for the traveller because they'd have lots of options.  keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:24, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * It is an issue that comes up over and over again on Wikivoyage: There is such a thing as too much information. 39 listings are far too many for only two categories; it overwhelms the user with too many options, making the user return to the question "which places are the best?", which rather defeats the point of a travel guide. As for images, this article probably already has too many (16). See our image policy. (WT-en) Texugo 01:39, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Okay, I really don't know what to do. I worked really hard on all those listings and now I'm putting in too many images...UGH!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:42, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * Don't be disheartened. Of course your hard work is appreciated. It's just part of the normal process; articles get bloated and then pared down over and over until they are just right. (WT-en) Texugo 01:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * Sigh...so how many should I get rid of? How many images should I get rid of...ugh.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:49, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * I'd say just leave it as is for now and see if we get any more comments. But I don't really think you should keep adding more. (WT-en) Texugo 01:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * How about if I add more, I'll delete another? Also could you check the Talk:Edmonton (eat, Just for fun, my images, 104th Street) I really would like some responses.  I usually ask questions and then have to wait because I dont want to change it until I get some responses.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 01:52, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Buy section
So I am thinking of three approaches to the Buy section in the part about particular store listings. Please vote on which you prefer the most.

 * Get rid of all the listings and just add them to the map.

 * Add all of them to the map. And then have categories where you mention sertain stores: EG: Furniture and Décor - Edmonton is home to a wide variety of good quality home stores.  If you're looking for cutting edges, 29 Armstrong would be very good. Dwell has a good selection of ultra modern pieces...youd have this for clothing, shoes, electronics, grocery.........etc.....................

 * Shrink the listings down to 15-20.

So?

'''WHAT-do-you-think!¡?¿

Keep smiling,

(WT-en) ee talk 03:16, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * I think the second one. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 13:13, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * Ok, no offense, I am sick of waiting and I'd like to see some action. I will be going with the only one with a vote.  If anyone else wants to contribute any, please vote, we can always change it again.  OK?  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 14:13, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * To add, I am sorry for my unreasonableness, I just really would've liked 1-2 comments. I guess it goes back to "Where is the community?"  I mean it's not hard to click recent changes and see.  I raid that page (R.C.).  Not a difficult concept.  Also, a lot of people were asleep when I asked, so that doesn't help, but some people I've noticed have been online that could have contributed.  Of course, they don't have to.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 14:15, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * EE - I can't speak for others, but in regards to your "where is the community" comment, while I read many of your postings via Special:Recentchanges, the reason why I don't personally respond to more of your comments is that doing so is time consuming and I'm not sure you're taking the time to read the guidelines and example articles that others have already pointed you to. You posted a comment on Talk:United States of America asking about changing the city list, but the discussion right above your posting was on exactly the same topic.  With respect to the Edmonton "Buy" section, others have already pointed to the Project:Huge city article template guidelines, as well as the existing examples of star articles in Chicago and Singapore that can be followed - I don't have much else to add to that advice.  You've done a lot of great work here, and while it's completely reasonable to expect the community to help out when you have questions, bear in mind that the wiki process is by definition a slow one, and sometimes you just have to do what you think is best with the understanding that someone will probably come along and change it later. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * Thanks Ryan! I kind of wanted to talk specifically about the thing I was talking about in the USA Discuss, I knew there was something similar above.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 14:57, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * Before I go any further, check out About the types of stores in Central Edmonton and tell me if you like it, if you do, I'll continue. THOUGHTS?

 * I don't know if a traveler needs to know about every kind of store in a city - beauty, souvenir, etc. I think you basically just want to hit the highlights such as major shopping malls, unique stores (such as those that are locally popular or have been in business a long time) and unique areas.  See Chicago/Near North and Singapore/Orchard for good examples. Remember that the idea is to guide the traveler to places that are interesting/useful rather than list every single establishment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * So maybe do something like this: 104th Street: ....29 Armstrong is a major interior design store on the street that combines good furniture with originality. Also, there is Ces't Sera Chemistry Clothing which is a men's/woman's clothing store with stylish pieces for casual and formal.  Among that, there is much more including the nice stationary store, Scroll Shop and the nice bridal store, Pure Bridal.  Like that?  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 16:00, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * Bear in mind that since this is a travel guide, it's probably not necessary to list places like bridal shops. As to the others, I don't know Edmonton well enough to know if there is anything special about the stationary, furniture or clothing shops.  Using my own town as an example, the Culver City article lists a furniture shopping mall and a gourmet food store under the "Buy" section because they are both unique within Los Angeles; beyond that there are pointers given to the arts district and major shopping mall, but a traveler wouldn't need to know about the OfficeMax off of the highway or the video rental stores that line Jefferson Boulevard. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * I understand about the bridal. For furniture shops, sometimes people like looking around in them, they could buy small accessories (candles, clocks, frames, ornaments, lighting, mirrors), and if they liked the furniture enough, they could ship it.  I am not going to list IKEA or The Brick, but 29 Armstrong, Dwell, Inspired, and Lightform deserve mention because they have really good quality items that look awesome.  For clothing, well a lot of people buy clothing on trips.  I remember my gramma when we went down to the states-always had to go to the chain's-Victoria's Secret and Bath&Body works.  Of course Bath&Body now is in Canada and Victoria sells products in LaSenza.  Anyways, the clothing stores I will most likely list are the unique, independant one's like Ces't Sera and Red Ribbon.  I would love to like list Strada...but it's out of business. Hehe.  I think I got it, no?  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 16:15, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Oliver Map
Office Depot, Wendy's, and Safeway on the map?? I find that lame in the extreme. They shouldn't be in the article, much less on the map. (WT-en) Texugo 00:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * I'll give you Wendy's, but the other two are useful. I told Perry to put those two on because Safeway is a grocer and it's nice knowing where those are-now listings for them aren't really correct but listing them on a map's ok.  Office Depot is similar.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 00:45, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * Once again, it's not about useful. Gas stations are far more useful to a traveler than chain grocers and office supply stores, but we don't list gas stations either. Why? Because they are commonplace, they don't represent the destination in any special way, and they add no value to the article, especially in a Buy section already as convoluted as this one. Please axe them. (WT-en) Texugo 00:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * FINE. Sigh, tonight I'll make a list of stuff to update and give it to PerryPlanet.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 13:32, 10 November 2008 (EST).

 * Also, what about Aldo, Holt Renfrew, Henry Singer, Shopper's Drug Mart listed in the downtown map? Those are all chains-more of a destination than Wendys or Safeway, but still.  I find those stores in the downtown one useful, except perhaps Shoppers which is a megachain.  Aldo, Holts, and HS are useful though, among others.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 18:07, 10 November 2008 (EST).
 * I believe chains like that might be best listed in the article for the region or country in which they exist. I am not familiar with those establishments, however, but I would definitely avoid anything that might be characterized as a mega-chain. I don't want to see Wal-marts, Targets, Home Depots or the like start popping up in every destination article of North America. (WT-en) Texugo 20:15, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * The only time I'd put Home Depot is if it is urban format-which is a little more unique like the one in Vancouver and Chicago. Aldo is like Payless Shoesource, but higher end, I guess.  Holt's and HS would be like combining Luis Vuitton, Prada and those designers into one.  Make sense?  Now you can make an educated response!  KEep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 20:26, 10 November 2008 (EST).

article maps
Hi there! I was wondering about the maps that lovely PerryPlanet provided, I mean, did I set them up ok or should the maps be in a different location, smaller, right aligned, or are they pretty good just how they are. I just don't know. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 14:13, 12 November 2008 (EST).

skyline guide
Recently made a Skyline guide for Edmonton on the different skyline views and architecturally best buildings. I'd like for some feedback on it. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:42, 22 November 2008 (EST).

 * I removed two listings because encouraging people to enter a residential building where they really shouldn't be strikes me as a bad idea. If people actually started following the guide and it became noticeable to the building owners or residents, those people would not appreciate it, and that would be a pretty crap first experience with Wikivoyage. Here is what I removed:

 * Sask. Dr. residential towers if you don't mind trying to get in a residential high rise and looking out a north window, then this is great for you. It has the most unbeliveable skyline view as you can practically see the entire skyline.

 * West Jasper basically means getting in a residential tower and looking out a west face window west of 109 St NW and looking out. Very cool view and shows a lot of density.

(WT-en) Texugo 02:01, 23 November 2008 (EST)

 * See where you are coming from. I may add one for views from office towers, they can be more lenient-or not, I will look into that.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 11:57, 23 November 2008 (EST).
 * Why the hell did you delete the under construction thing - look at Chicago skyline guide - that's why I put it and if you are going to want me to get rid of it, then you gotta delete the Chicago one other wise it is unfair. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 12:19, 23 November 2008 (EST).
 * With Chicago, it doesn't take up space in the main article. Chicago has (and should) a separate skyline guide. I'm not sure that Edmonton needs one, but the level of detail in the main article is starting to make it much too long. (WT-en) Texugo 02:28, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * So your' thinkin'? Dont be surprised on Edmonton it's much better than youd think.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 10:36, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Image
Does it look funny or does it look really good?

Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:18, 23 November 2008 (EST).

too much light i think and blurry

Funky. I like it artistically, but I don't think it'll work in a travel guide. (WT-en) Shaund 22:38, 24 November 2008 (EST)

 * Hey thanks, I already replaced it :)! Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 22:39, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Skyline Guide
The Architecture and Skyline guide in this article is getting quite lenghly-probably due to it's fantastic historic and utilitarian buildings. I was wondering, because it is getting very big, if we should split it off, and give some of the best a mention in here, and link it to the seperate page, similar to Chicago. If we do, should we include buildings of architectural beauty outside of Central? The University and West End are hopping with that kind of stuff. Also, should it include architectural walks (I.e. Mill Creek, Heritage, Church St., Top of the valley-bear in mind I haven't added most). Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:16, 24 November 2008 (EST).
 * To recap, Edmonton's Architecutre/Skyline guide has 2,487 words and 11,742 characters, whilst Chicago has 3,550 words and 17,498 characters. I must say, for a city six times smaller than Chicago, that is A LOT.  That's really because Edmonton has a lot of hidden gems (depending on the style[s] you like) and I am sure Chicago could have 5,000 ish words and 26,000 characters if that guide listed all (or near) Chicagos architectural hidden gems along with a lot of lesser known skyline angles.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 18:28, 24 November 2008 (EST).
 * I'd recommend that you cull the list dramatically. I left out the vast majority of the Chicago skyline to highlight only the most interesting—too much information crowds out the most important info, and lessens the impact of the writing. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:41, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Why does it need to be cut so much? I don't see why.  But, even with a cutback, could it use it's own article?  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 23:43, 24 November 2008 (EST).

To recap Edmonton has circa 40 listings and Chicago circa 50. Why should it be cut back if it is less than Chicago-I could see 10 less or so, but why a bunch? I just think it needs an article!! Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 00:30, 25 November 2008 (EST).

 * It looks to me like it would be easy to cut many of these listings. There are plenty of buildings with unappealing sounding descriptions like "tacky", "plain" and "just regular," and some listings still have no description at all. Are "Family Worship Centre", "Low-level Bridge" and the other churches and bridges actually unique architecturally? I also have to agree with whoever said it before: I think very very few people can get as excited about brutalist concrete-box architecture as you seem to. (WT-en) Texugo 01:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

 * EE, Chicago is practically synonymous with the word "skyscraper". Edmonton's skyline is impressive for a city of that size, but it simply doesn't have anywhere near the number of iconic, well-known buildings as Chicago has.  I'm not saying a skyline guide is out of order, but it really needs to focus on the most notable buildings.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:33, 25 November 2008 (EST)

 * Texugo, Low Level Bridge is kind of "meh" to me, but it is a truss bridge basically. The churches I chose have architectural appeal.  Which one's seem tacky, ordinary, and despite you not saying it basically...blah?  Plain can be a good thing, depending on how it is used.  Another thing, a building doesn't have to be entirely unique to be any good or listed here, Sear's Tower isn't that unique, it has a more different shape and is a bit taller than a black box.  What about the Empire State Buidling, it has uniqueness yet still takers a lot of ideas from buildings already built in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and New York. That kind of makes me a touch mad as these styles are very interesting it just so happens so many people don't appreciate it, not unlike the whole city of edmonton, and they are really neat.  You gotta realise the 1947-1969 era and the 1980-1990 era were times when Edmonton's architectre was leading the country.  Edmonton has Canada's first planetarium and first curtain wall building and the 80s architecture was 10 years easily ahead of it is time.  Yes I know, Chicago, NY, Tokyo, Dubai, Toronto, Frankfurt, Miami, Shanghai all have that "skyscraper" idea going on.  So, in that, how many should I drop it to?  I was thinking around 25 (excl skyline views)?  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 10:34, 25 November 2008 (EST).

 * Ok-I deleted 12 listings, I think it is a good compromise. What do you think?  AND-should it still be it's own article-keep in mind I might add a couple more if it does :).  Realise that some of the buildings you may find as ugly are quite beautiful to others liek the brutalist.  Also ones like AGT and Milner-though may not appeal to your and you self, it has architectural appeal and historical significance.  AGT was the furst curtain wall bdlg in Canada and Milner is the first tower in Edmonton after WorldWar II.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]'  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:53, 25 November 2008 (EST).

 * This still strikes me as a good deal too much. If I were visiting Edmonton, I'd look at the skyline section and feel overwhelmed, and would want to simply identify the most interesting tall buildings. If you think it would be worthwhile to highlight a lot more of Edmonton's architecture, I'd recommend writing an itinerary, which would walk a visitor through downtown and give background on the architecture they are seeing. As it is, the skyline/architecture section is too overwhelming on this page. If you're looking for a good example of how to do this, I'm a big fan of (WT-en) Marc's Along the Magnificent Mile. Loop Art Tour is another good example. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:45, 25 November 2008 (EST)

 * What I seriously don't get is why you can't realise that Edmonton has a lot more architecutally signifigant buildings outside the "ten tallest". I will give the itinerary a thought.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 16:48, 25 November 2008 (EST).
 * A problem I have is how do you incorperate skyline and architecture into one article...the skyline ones are a little "off to the distance" from all the architecture stuff. They can't really fit into an itinerary and I don't want to create two.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 17:00, 25 November 2008 (EST).

 * New York (city) arguably has thousands of architecturally significant buildings; highlighting even just 1% of them in that article would make for a terrible travel guide article, and the same holds true for Edmonton. The goal of a travel guide is to provide an overview of a destination with highlights - if you want to write an architecture guide that's totally fine, but don't be upset when the opinions people give you are that an architecture guide won't be as useful to most travelers as an article that is leaner.  There will of course be some people who want to know more about Edmonton's architecture, so split the detailed info off into a separate article and go into as much detail as you like, just as Peter suggested.  However, when writing a guide to a city remember that if you write about 35 of anything (buildings, museums, bookstores, whatever) then you're overwhelming your reader and not giving them any sense of what they might want to focus their potentially limited visit on. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I think Edmonton originally had about 50 listings (exlc skyline) and now it has like 35. Not bad, I could probably drop it a touch more. I am still not really lenient towards itinerary, I don't really fit's this correctly IMO, but a Skyline/Architecture guide would be fantastic. As LtPowers said, it isn't out of the question, so I'd like to keep that idea vibrant, but I am open to itinerary. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 17:51, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Ryan, what do you propose I shrink it to? I think it should be treated more like Restaurants not Museums. Do you really think it would be useful for a guide like that? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 18:03, 25 November 2008 (EST).

 * The reason why I am bumping this is because I don't know where to go with this and maybe someone will see it now because if I could get 1-2 comments, then I'd have an idea of what to do with this because it isn't truly working as itself. Just a suggestion, please don't get angry at me for using a talk page or if I worded it wrong, please.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:54, 26 November 2008 (EST).

Is there any more opinions as I'd like to get this started. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:34, 28 November 2008 (EST).

Though there has been no thoughts I have cut it down and lemme know what you think! (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 20:45, 1 December 2008 (EST).

Useless disclaimer
I removed this disclaimer from the skyscrapers section:
 * This is to describe the buildings over 80m in Edmonton that are the best in beauty, not saying others don't have it, but this is a selection of the very best.

Every section of every article is just that-- a selection of the very best. If we allowed this kind of defensive-sounding disclaimer here, what's to keep something similar being posted 5-10 times in every article we have? (WT-en) Texugo 23:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

 * Well someone who isn't familiar with what we do might think there isn't anything else. That is the point.  (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST).

 * You are missing the point that your argument causes a slippery slope, because the same argument could be made to introduce the same kind of disclaimer into every section of every single article we have, and that would just cause a mess. (WT-en) Texugo 00:06, 1 December 2008 (EST)

 * Our edits conflicted, but my take is essentially the same as Texugo's:

 * General practice is to use disclaimers as seldom as possible. In this case I agree with Texugo that adding such a disclaimer creates a slippery slope which would create a precedent for putting a "this section includes only a sample of X" on every section of every article on the site. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I'm glad to see discussion of this here. No more edit warring until you come to a decision here, or I will protect the page from editing. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 1 December 2008 (EST)

 * No worries LT, I think we have consensus. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 15:54, 1 December 2008 (EST).

Hey guys, just because you decided to stop edit warring here doesn't mean you can go do the same thing on Edmonton over the same disclaimer. Stop it. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:46, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Chill, I wouldn't call it an edit war. We were just disagreeing and we've resolved it. No worries. :-|). Keepsmiles, (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 21:51, 1 December 2008 (EST).

3 Bananas
I really am unsure about this listing. It is by far an nice pplace, but I dont know where ta put it. On one hand, it has a lot of coffees, smoothies, hot chocolates, drinks, and ice creams which are very good and gives a café mood to it, but it also has mini pizzas, cookies, muffins, paninis and other little snack or lunch food. Should it go in eat or drink? (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 13:57, 11 December 2008 (EST).
 * While Drink is often used for coffee shops, I'd say its primary use is for nightspots. I would put it under "Eat".  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:08, 11 December 2008 (EST)
 * Alright thanks. (WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee]  <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 14:09, 11 December 2008 (EST).

Does it work?
Does this work for the buy section or is it too extensive or is it good?

 * 124th Street & Environs is a major up and coming shopping area in Oliver. It features neat cafés, boutiques, furniture places, gift places, hair salons, spas, restaurants, and galleries.  124 Street has a few sub areas that are worth mention:
 * 124th Street (between Jasper and 111 Avenue). This part is divided into:
 * Block to Shop (124 between Jasper and 102 Ave NW). This area is home to a nice concentration of woman's boutiques.  Most of these are catered to proffessional women and are quite stylish and lead in brands and price range (some with cheap prices).  For the men, some of the stores also carry menswear.  There is also a few restaurants.
 * Gallery 124 (124 between 102 and 104 Ave). This area isn't just full of galleries of neat art, it also has some nice stores.  Cute little furniture destinations and outdoor wear places line this section, as well as a lot of hair salons and a few boutiques.
 * 124th North (124 between 104 and 111 ave). This part of 124th is growing very fast.  It is the transitional area.  On one part, it has high end, good stores that cater to a varied range of people.  Then, there is still the stuff from before this place had interest in boutiques, interior designers, cafés, and restaurants.  It hosts interior design places that are high end and some nice clothing shops for all kinds of people.  It also has a lot of gift stores and small restaurants.
 * High Street (102nd Avenue NW between 124 and 127 St NW). This area is host to neat café's and cute restaurants with top notch quality.  It also has small gift stores, most notably, Notables.  There is also a few furniture places and little pastery stops that are worth it.
 * 124 and Jasper (Jasper Avenue between 123 and 124 St NW). This area is home to the "Gallery Walk" which is totally different from shopping, unless, of course, if you are interested in buying artwork.  It also has a few neat little stores, but not too many.

(WT-en) <font color="#339989">edmontonenthusiast [ee] <font color="#8848d7">.T.A.L.K. 17:32, 12 December 2008 (EST).

title: Talk:Edmonton/Central


text:
Talk:Edmonton/Highlands

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

I'm gonna-useable
I'm gonna get this up to useable after I add some information. The article won't be long and that's cause there isn't much do do, but it can't be put into other districts because each district has a different' personalityt. After a litttle cleaning up, it'll probably get a guide without gettin 1500 characters. But it will be informative and good info. for the traveller, and if you object please state why here. Thanks youu! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 18:04, 4 November 2008 (EST).

East Central or Highlands?
I am just beginning to think-should this be renamed "Highlands" or kept East Central? Technically the whole area is Highlands with the exception of Rundle and could be generelised nice with just Highlands. Highlands is the name given back before WorldWar II as it was the furthest area of Edmonton from the core and was more north, like "high" sometimes can mean up or north. Kind of like the New York uptown downtown thing. So, what do you think? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:02, 24 November 2008 (EST).
 * I think you are probably the only user familiar enough with the city to make that call. How do the locals/local publications usually refer to the area? (WT-en) Texugo 20:08, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Well it depends. Usually people call it Rundle or "The East End" or sometimes apart of the North End.  But that is just really odd lingo, like how people generalise Oliver with Downtown because it's "easy" to just make it a one plus they can be uneducated about proper placement of places, as any other city, even in Texas (Iam sure).  I have heard Highlands from time to time but it is probably the best generalisation of the area(ALONG with East Central).  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:29, 24 November 2008 (EST).

 * So anymore opinions? I am leaning to Highlands as it is a unique name.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 19:33, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Move
Moved. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:51, 26 November 2008 (EST).

title: Talk:Edmonton/Highlands


text:
Talk:Edmonton/Mill Woods

Does
Does anyone know anything about mill woods? If do, Plunge Forward...(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 01:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

miss nythinh
Hey, if I miss something that would belong in Mill Woods (basically west of 91 St. NW, south of Whitemud Drive NW...although more complicated than that...) from the Edmonton article, please add it. Even if you make a mistkae and it belongs somewhereelse, thats fine, just try, I'll edit it up. Thanks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:44, 3 November 2008 (EST).

Useable
I know it may seem silly, but I am gonna make this one usable because there really isn't much to this district. Any opposition dont revert, discuss! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 20:55, 5 November 2008 (EST).

title: Talk:Edmonton/Mill Woods