text:
Talk:Melbourne/Inner north

Comments
Is anyone else having a problem editing the Drink section? Every time I click "Edit", it takes me to the "By Tram" section. (WT-en) Kaci 15:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Whoa, that's very weird. I'm going to take a harder look at this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:37, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * What's more, the ToC isn't displaying any of the subsections beyond the "Eat" section. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:41, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Aha! Got it—a missing tag was the culprit. I'm surprised that such a small error in the listing code would cause so many problems in the article, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:44, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Boundaries
So there are no misunderstandings, I wanted to post the boundaries of this district here.
 * In the east, Nicholson Street
 * In the south, Victoria street
 * In the west, Citylink
 * In the north, Brunswick Road

These make geographical sense after I stared at Google Maps for awhile, but there may be inconsistencies in terms of what culturally and logically belongs in this district. I will make refinements later after doing some on-the-ground research. JamesA  >talk 12:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Numerous backpackers subside"
The intro says "Numerous backpackers subside in the residential and cosmopolitan area". What does this mean? Is this backpacking travellers or backpacker hostels? And in what sense do they subside? Nurg (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Melbourne/Inner north


text:
Talk:Melbourne/Inner south

Melbourne/South or Melbourne/South Melbourne
Er, I don't think it is accurate to label South Melbourne as Melbourne/South as the former is a specific suburb in Melbourne. Melbourne/South would be taken to mean the southern suburbs of Melbourne, which should also include Melbourne/St Kilda, Melbourne/Prahran etc, which are all further south than South Melbourne. Can I suggest we keep Melbourne/South Melbourne together with the other pages and leave Melbourne/South for the outer southern suburbs (like Brighton, Frankston etc), or consolidate all of them into a single Melbourne/South page.(WT-en) Slleong 03:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Melbourne/Inner south


text:
Talk:Melville Hall

Is there anything else here except an Airport? If this is just going to be an article about Melville Hall Airport then it should be somewhere else. If there is a surrounding region with other things to do then that is ok and it should stay. A google search gives lots of Melville Hall references. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:02, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Melville Hall


text:
Talk:Memphis

aww no pics?

Public Transit
"Public Transit - Bus service is available across the city but stick with driving if at all possible." Why? (WT-en) Nurg 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, i forgot to put in my edit summary. i took out a few things that were astroturfing for shitty companies in town or blatantly wrong (S. Parkway is nowhere near East Memphis). i'll come back in a few days and add some more restaurants and attractions... my brain is a little dead at the moment.

What about the Gibson Factory?...I haven't been, but If it is worthwhile when I go in about 3 week, I'll put in a couple of sentences or something.

Hi Tone
The HiTone is unfortunately gone. Really too bad. Ragityman (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Bettie Bus
Also the Bettie Bus. Caput. Many long years ago. If she has a new incarnation, please let me know. The bus used to carry air travellers to and from Little Rock to avail them of greatly reduced air connections, but no more. Sadly. Tata! Ragityman (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Will leave Bettie alone, until I can confirm. She still has a web-presence.  I don't know if she is active in Memphois.  Ragityman (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Commodore Hotel?
The Little Feat song "Dixie Chicken" mentions this establishment & has it in Memphis. Is it a real place? Google shows one in nearby Linden, but is that the right one? Anyway, is it worth mentioning here? Pashley (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Memphis


text:
Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)

Is it just me or should Memphis (Tennessee) lose the disambiguator? From personal experience I think the Tennesseean Memphis is far more famous/well-known than its Egyptian counterpart. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:41, 1 December 2006 (EST)

 * That's because you live nearby, but the one in Egypt has about 5000 years more history and used to be the biggest city in the world. Wikipedia uses a disambiguator too. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:21, 1 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, that one thought I had, but should both be disambiguated? Reading the WP article I'm under the impression that there's archeological treasures, but no Elvis! O weh!  -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:28, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I just came here to ask the same question, I'd never even heard of Memphis, Egypt until I just came across this page... (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:34, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * Can I ask where you're from? I thought it was possibly Midwest ignorance, but now I feel better. :) -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:49, 2 December 2006 (EST)

 * Lol, I'm from California. I've even been to Egypt and still never heard of it... and i would bet 90% or more of the people typing in Memphis in the search box are headin to Tennessee... hmmmm   (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:57, 2 December 2006 (EST)

 * Oops, I lied, I just read the page and now I do remember it... but in my mind I remember it as 'one of the two other places that you might want to visit when you go to the pyramids if you're willing to be hot and sweaty'. (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:59, 2 December 2006 (EST)

 * At the very least, Memphis should be a disambiguator and the Egyptian one placed at Memphis (Egypt). The one in the US is a major travel destination (along with Nashville) and is at least as likely a lookup among English-language users than the Egyptian one.  Googlefight! -- (WT-en) Colin 03:42, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * Are you suggesting using Memphis as a disambiguation page or move Memphis (Tennessee) to Memphis? -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:59, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * Well, I'd prefer Memphis, Tennessee at Memphis. But if there are objections to that then I think Memphis should be a dab. -- (WT-en) Colin 04:05, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * Agree with Colin... (WT-en) Cacahuate 05:22, 2 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'll move Memphis (Tennessee) to Memphis and Memphis to Memphis (Egypt) tomorrow December 6, 2006 barring major objections. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:02, 5 December 2006 (EST)
 * Done. A few links still need to be fixed, but I didn't want to mess with anything that had RDF in the title. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire)

title: Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Mendips

Made a start. (WT-en) Jezhotwells 17:51, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Naming
Should this be The Mendips or Mendip Hills rather than Mendips? (WT-en) Jezhotwells 11:54, 5 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Mendips


text:
Talk:Mendocino

Article name
Why does Mendocino redirect here? Shouldn't it be the other way around? -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:12, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * Yes, unless you think Modocino should be a disambig page for Mendocino County and this puny town of 800. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:20, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * I don't think we need a disambiguation page for the city / county, and if we do it might as well be "Mendocino (disambiguation)" (similar to how Buenos Aires and Buenos Aires (province) is done). I've actually been meaning to start a discussion about article names when there is a city & parent region, so maybe this is a good time for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:37, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * I think the "rule of thumb" for Latin American, Asian and European destinations is that usually the city is much more famous, and the parent region less so, e.g. Chiang Mai and Chiang Mai (province). I think this comes from centralized feudal and colonial governments, where the capital city of an area is delegated direct control of its surrounding region. Regardless of the origin, it's a pattern that we see a lot in some parts of the world.

 * I don't think the pattern is common in Canada, the United States, Australia, or New Zealand. It's not common to have states or provinces that have a major city with the same name; New York being an obvious exception. Even at the county level in the United States, the situation is rare, with the exceptions that come to my mind (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sonoma, Mendocino, San Diego) being in former Mexican holdings. It's not clear to if that's a big reason or not, or if it really matters.

 * I think my main point is that I'd be kind of uncomfortable about making a blanket rule about cities and regions with the same name. I think the current guideline in the article naming conventions is pretty good -- we call out the common case, and then apply the "much more famous" rule there. I don't see a pressing need to change that process.

 * With respect to the specific case of Mendocino: as a Northern Californian, my first thought when I hear "Mendocino" is of the county and not the city. "I'm moving up to Mendocino" could mean that you're going to Ukiah or Willits as soon as the city. Often, people use the name "Mendocino Town" to differentiate the city itself from the county. However, I think that Mendocino Town is a very popular weekend destination, and I don't think that the Mendocino County can pass the "much more famous" rule here. Thus, I suggest we make Mendocino a disambiguation page. --(WT-en) Evan 19:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * Here's my (convoluted) thinking:
 * The county article should be "Mendocino County".
 * However, since people usually call the region just "Mendocino" then a redirect would be called for.
 * BUT there is a city called Mendocino, and the county is not "significantly more famous".
 * SO we set up "Mendocino" as a disambiguation. The city article is "Mendocino (California)" (not "Mendocino (city)") and the county article remains "Mendocino County".
 * Is that correct? It seems like both existing precedent and a reading of the article naming conventions could produce different names here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Mendocino


text:
Talk:Mendoza

I think we should move this page to Mendoza (city), as here both the city and the province are referred as simply Mendoza... (WT-en) Eclipse 06:52, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Aconcagua is not the highest mountain outside of the himalayas. c.f. Ismoil Somoni Peak, for example

It certainly is, I disagree. Yes, there are some higher peaks in central Asia, but they are generally considered part of the "Himalayas".

"Be wary of scams, especially around the bus terminal. Occasionally foreigners will pretend to have been robbed and use your sympathy to "borrow" money for a bus ride." Interesting, this actually happened to me. I never was able to figure out if what the guy told me was true. --(WT-en) Harmsma 08:07, 11 June 2010 (EDT) As of 2011, he is still doing it.

Reciprocity fee suspended
Please refer to same subject in "Talk" for Argentina. For at least U.S. citizens, fee for entry to Argentina has been suspended since late March. Regards. Hennejohn 1923, 3 June 2016 (EDT). Regrets, keyboard no longer supports entry of proper symbols to generate proper "signature".

title: Talk:Mendoza


text:
Talk:Menjangan Island

Pulau vs Island?
As a rule of thumb, we've used "X Island" or just "X" instead of "Pulau X" for Malay/Indonesian islands so far. Does this need an exception, or would "Menjangan" or "Menjangan Island" be good enough? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:19, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Ah Ok. Menjangan Island would be just fine and consistent with that. I assume the "Nusas" are OK though? Lembongan Island and Penida Island would really jar! --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:44, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Fine with me, it's the most common name. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:05, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

West Bali National Park
There is certainly an argument for renaming this article West Bali National Park as it could then cover Menjangan and other parts of the NP. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:53, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Does Menjangan have accommodation? If not, or if it's very limited, a national park article (with the park template) would make sense. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Very good point. There is no official accomodation at all inside WBNP (forbidden). It would seem in that case that the park template would be a good idea.  I will have alook at that.  Your advice is really appreciated on all these matters. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:46, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Have created a new article West Bali National Park which will be quite a substantial undertaking and encompass everything about Menjangan Island and much more. I would therefore suggest Menjangan Island is deleted. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Menjangan Island


text:
Talk:Menton

There were two more photos linkes:
 * Menton - Grave of WW Ellis
 * Menton - Orthodox Chapel

A bit much for a small place.

-- (WT-en) Nils 21:32, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Menton


text:
Talk:Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts)

Comments
I see several towns under Merrimack Valley that are really North Shore (or consider themselves to be). Georgetown, Hamilton, Rowley, Topsfield and Wenham. The North shore is more than just Cape Ann. I also see Manchester, Does this refer to Manchester New Hampshire (not in MA) or Manchester Massachusetts in Cape Ann, on the North Shore? Either way, it should probably not be under Merrimack Valley (WT-en) Jrdouce 12:33, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Please plunge forward and make the changes as you feel best! If you know the area well, you may also want to consider becoming a Project:Docent. (WT-en) Majnoona 12:42, 3 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks, JR, I'm a little weak on my North Shore. Will move them now. (WT-en) OldPine 13:13, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Dracut, Mass, USA
im interested in contributing to this. any sugguestions? Cactusflies22 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, go to this region article: Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts). Click the (currently red) link for Dracut, which will then prompt you to create a new page. Read this sentence: "To start, please click on one of the following links to pre-fill this article with the standard sections:" then click on the word "City"; this will automatically create an empty template for a city article. You can then start writing. This page will help you to know what kind of things to write about in each section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:Merthyr Tydfil

Can someone think of something nice to say?
Poor Merthyr gets a worse rap than Bihar. I quite enjoyed my brief visit there, nothing spectacular, but I wasn't unhappy to be there. Surely someone can think of some hidden gem that might put it on a traveller's itinerary somewhere? --(WT-en) Inas 00:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)
 * I would love to write something good about the place, but believe me there is nothing of interest there. You must have been on a high when you passed through (joking). However, as you say, there may be some hidden gem waiting to be found. Let's hope someone has had better luck finding in than 99% of the people that have passed through the town. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.10.36.200 (talk • contribs)

 * I'd hate to see a gem like "The town has nothing to offer the casual visitor, and you are only likely to end up there if lost or have a morbid interest in urban degradation" removed, but perhaps the page could tout more the town's proximity to Brecon Beacons, and the possibility of using it as a base for exploring the park? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Merthyr Tydfil


text:
Talk:Merzouga

To the board: Referring the reader just to hotel La Chance amounts to unfair advertizing. It easer should be removed or other references added. Wikivoyage is supposed to be unbiased source. There are many reasonable hotels in Merzouga. Even if you decide to stick to those with websites and eamils there are a few that are not any worse than La Cahnce, e.g. hotel Sahara that is cheaper and provides better desert stays http://www.auberge-sahara-merzouga.com/ (info@auberge-sahara-merzouga.com), Ksar-Bicha (ksarbicha@hotmail.fr) etc. Staff at all of these hotels respond to emails in english, french and German. They all proviude information. In fact it looks like they provide better information and more realistic prices.

Even though Elena Hall, the owner of the La chance, is an American (or maybe because of that) she quotes the least realistic prices and provides the least interesting responses to the request. She is least willing to customize iteneraries, hotels, etc. So I see it as unfair to post her address in the article.

I am a traveler who experienced all this first hand. You may also look at trip advisor to confirm my point. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.209.231.23 (talk • contribs)

 * This article was initiated by Elena Hall, of Haven La Chance Desert Hotel, with the intention that other local hotels would sdd their information, since Wikivoyage pages can be edited by anyone. Information about local hotels is useful information for travellers, and it would seem desireable to have as complete a list as possible included in the article. The information about Haven La Chance was put there to start the list so that others could add to it.
 * As for itineries, this is a different subject that corresponds to the associated Blue Men Of Morocco tour company, not to La Chance Desert Hotel, and ALL itineries are customised to the clients desires. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Haven La Chance (talk • contribs)

 * We welcome business owners who want to add listings of their hotels -- see Project:Welcome, business owners. We do not require business owners to add listings of their competitors.  If you feel other places should be listed, please plunge forward and add them. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Merzouga


text:
Talk:Mesa

So how do you recommend against something? There are safety and other issues with Salt River tubing. Broken glass underwater, and floating turds. And extremely easy to get sunburnt, even for natives who otherwise don't wear sunscreen.

 * Just state those risks, and let the traveler make their own judgment. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:55, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Mesa


text:
Talk:Mesa Verde National Park

Nearby hotels
I think the hotel listings should be restored. When Coz and I wrote this article we wrote it for people who would be visiting from out of state or country. it is unlikely that someone would know to look in the local cities to find lodging. They may not be sure if the locl cities are close enough. The locations we listed are all very close to mesa verda and are the only real options that are accesable to the park. I have read a lot of travel guides and traveled around the world. I look for travel guides that tell me all the avialable options in the area. I hate it when I get to a location and find that I could have saved tons of money staying 10 minutes away.

A lot of research went into finding the hotels and rental car agencies. Why should we make readers find all this themselves.

 * Go ahead and add a "nearby" sub-heading under lodging and add nearby hotels back in. See Yosemite National Park and the Grand Canyon for examples of how this has been handled with other park articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:24, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

Static map
This map:  got replaced by the dynamic map with geo markers. I think the static map is still very useful to have as it contains additional details (altitudes, distances, opening times etc.) + offline users won't have the dynamic map. Would anyone mind if we have/keep both? 129.215.90.53 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent, myself. Feel free to add it back in. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mesa Verde National Park


text:
Talk:Mesoamerican Barrier Reef

Geographical hierarchy
Putting this "in" Mexico doesn't make sense. Even setting aside the fact that it's not in any country, only a small portion of the reef lies off Mexico's coast. Belize is the country that's most closely associated with the reef. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
Similar to a body of water, which we don't do articles on usually. Dive sites should be called up in their nearest destination. We do however have an article on the Great Barrier Reef. -- (WT-en) DanielC 06:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. It should be classified as an itinerary, because there are dozens of sites where one can visit and study the reef. There are also several museums in local places near the reef that offer materials, and these could be listed in the itinerary. It is actually a natural feature (not a body of water) comparable in some ways to the Grand Canyon, because it is 700 km long, however most people don't know about it because it is entirely underwater. Also, because it spans the Carribean coastline of four different countries, it doesn't have that much of an international identity (except to marine biologists). It is the largest coral reef system in the western hemisphere, the second largest in the world. You can't really say "dive site" because it is actually the destination for divers in four different countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras), spread over hundreds of kilometers. "Mesoamerican Barrier Reef" (in quotes) brings up more than 18K Google links. (WT-en) HLM 07:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * We have an article for the Great Barrier Reef because it's a region of Queensland, Australia consisting of several islands, and a part of our geographical hierarchy. It easily passes the "can you sleep there?" test. It's not there to describe the reef itself, which is beyond the scope of it. The fact that the Mesoamerican reef is so large is actually an argument against trying to put it into a single article. People are most likely to visit just a part of the reef, using one or two of the nearby countries as a base, and those dive sites can and should be covered in the articles for those countries. I'm not opposed in principle to having an itinerary-type article describing the route one might take from one end of the reef to the other (if people actually might do that), but it should be crafted as an itinerary, linking to the destination articles that cover the coastline along the way for info about accommodations, restaurants, etc. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * You can sleep there too! Honduras in particular has three large islands on the reef, which are famed among backpackers who want to dive for cheap. Honduras is the poorest country in Central American, and often the cheapest. This reef system has another common name, the Belize Barrier Reef. It is recognized as a Unesco World Heritage Site. The scientific name Mesoamerican Barrier Reef reflects an understanding that the name Belize Barrier Reef isn't really accurate. Maybe Mesoamerican Barrier Reef should redirect to Belize Barrier Reef. But I can't believe that wikivoyage deletes the names of Unesco World Heritage Sites while promoting names like Mayan Riviera, basically a travel agency invention. Furthermore, if you were describe the geographical features of Central America (coastal plain, cordillera, highland plateaus, etc.) then this would obviously be one of them. (WT-en) HLM 02:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * (I'd actually describe it as a feature of the Carribean Sea, it being in the ocean, after all. But them, this isn't a geography guide, so the question is fairly pointless.)  The Great Barrier Reef article is an article about the above-water land in that area, not for the reef under the water.  Similarly, we have articles for the Bay Islands because that is a region of another land-dwelling country.  Wikivoyage has a distinct air-breathing bias, I'm afraid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep, but move to Belize barrier reef since that's what Unesco calls it. We want the most common name; scientific precision is not particularly important. Scuba gear or snorkels allow this to be a travel destination for air-breathers. Link to it from Scuba diving. (WT-en) Pashley 22:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep Important for the traveler and several places to visit. We should keep as a regional article. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

 * So what is it a region of? If it's a region of the Caribbean, does that mean we pull any coastal islands of Honudras-thru-Mexico out of those countries and put them in here?  If not, then what is in it, besides water?  The only other body-of-water regions we have were created for the sake of islands that had no other region to go in; there are no such orphaned islands in this one.  Or, if it's not a region article, what is it?  An intinerary... from where to where... and on what transportation?  These aren't rhetorical questions; the topic is neither fish nor fowl, and I really don't see how to develop this Wikipedia stub into something that fits Project:What is an article?, or what purpose it will serve. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Why does it have to be a region of anything? The purpose is to describe an area people (especially divers) might travel to. As I see it, if such description doesn't fit policy, it is the policy (or your interpretation) that is wrong.

 * If this region overlaps others, I see no problem. Other areas are on borders; is Lake Tahoe in California? Or borders are somewhat arbitrary; do you include Turkey and Egypt in Middle East? Or southern France in Mediterranean Europe? The geographical hierarchy is helpful both for navigation and for categorisation when you're writing, but it can never be perfect, it isn't scared, and it needn't be a major factor in choosing which areas rate a description. (WT-en) Pashley 09:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep - I see no reason to delete this. It's a place tourists might like to visit so it deserves to be here. (WT-en) Xania 08:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It appears that the consensus is to keep this, and we're long overdue to resolve it. (FWIW, keep is my own vote too.)  Any new arguments for other actions?  If not, I'll do the bookkeeping shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:42, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
Swept in from the pub:

This article was vfd'd before (see the discussion on its talk page), but that was 4 years ago, and the article remains completely blank. It is a nebulous cross between a body of water and a cross-regional dive site region article, neither of which we really do, and contains no destinations because the few islands here belong in their respective country hierarchy. Can we revisit this? (WT-en) texugo 22:28, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

 * It seems to be of more benefit to retain this article than to delete it. I added some content to the article in May last year so it is not "blank". Perhaps we should consider if it is of benefit for the area to be defined and described if wishing to delete the article as it should not be deleted on the basis of insufficient content. There are many WT articles with far less detail or with sometimes quite dubious unverified content that are surely more appropriate for a deletion. Mesoamerican Barrier Reef is noteworthy, it is the second longest barrier reef in the world, after the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's eastern coast and is the largest coral reef in the Western Hemisphere. The reef system extends along the coast of four countries and includes several offshore islands. This surely makes it significant enough for an article. The Eat, Drink and Stay safe sections are lacking content but the other sections have quite reasonable detail. In any case those sections should be dealt with in individual destination articles. As it has content I am not clear on why it is still being considered as a vfd candidate as a "blank page". It is not blank?? -- (WT-en) felix 00:05, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Mesoamerican Barrier Reef


text:
Talk:Meteor Crater

I have serious doubts as to whether this page belongs. Meteor Crater doesn't match the "you can sleep there" criterion, by a long shot. Furthermore, it is reasonably well covered in the Route 66 and Flagstaff articles. VfD nomination possibly coming, but the floor is open for discussion first. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:47, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * I agree, it's just a single attraction as far as I can see. But instead of an outright delete a merge and redirect to Flagstaff should cover it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:09, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * Please feel free to do it. Is there a simple tool for that that I'm missing?  Thing is, there really isn't enough content in this article to merge anything into Flag or Rt66. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:05, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * It's now redirected to Winslow (Arizona), which is a bit closer (and can use all the attractions it can get...). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:02, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Meteor Crater


text:
Talk:Metric and Imperial equivalents

Boxes in the Temperature section
The Temperature section looks pretty crap with three boxes of different sizes and styles, all formatted differently, with only a tiny bit of regular text in the section. Essentially all three boxes aim to do the same thing: give the reader who only knows one system a rule of thumb for understanding the other system. Do we really need all three? Or is there some other way to fix the craptastic layout in this section? Texugo (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The information is useful but the layout sucks. The poem could be turned into a quote at put the top of the section and then either of the comparison boxes could be discarded. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The poem is exactly the sort of thing that we use infoboxes for. The tables are both useful; I don't see one replacing the purpose of the other.  Powers (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind keeping all three necessarily, but without more text in that section, I am at a loss as to how to make the layout look decent. Do you have any other idea, Powers? It does strike me that the tables could somehow be combined, but I'm probably not the guy for the job. Texugo (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be best to present each one in order, with explanatory text separating them. Powers (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Inofficial non-metric units
In some places ( I personally know for certain about Nicaragua) there are units of volume mass or distance that are not metric at all or "metricized" variants of customary units (a "Zentner" in German at exactly 50 kilogram comes to mind). How and where should we mention these, especially if their use is regional and they aren't really "standardized" in any way. e.g. a "vara" can be (in Nicaraguan parlance at least) a) a unit of distance (somewhere in the 10 (exp) 0 meter range) b) a unit of money (usually 1 Cordoba, but not necessarily) c) a unit of weight (I don't know how much).

I think it might be a good idea to give at least a hint that official use and policy don't necessarily determine the "reality on the ground" and maybe make a subsection "measurements" in country articles where appropriate. btw. this is less than trivial the NASA once lost a space probe due to a confusion between Newton (as the NASA uses) and pound-force (as Boeing, the company that wrote the program for the probe, uses) Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * These should definitely be mentioned if travellers are likely to encounter them. Whether they're mentioned at the national, regional or local level should be determined by the degree to which these measures are widespread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Guide?
I wonder what needs to be added to upgrade this article to Guide status and make it a FTT candidate? The article is really short, but on the other hand, can anyone come to think of anything more to say about Metric and Imperial equivalents? Also, if we want to expand the article to cover other units (similar to ons, vara, jin etc. that are mentioned in the article) that are used elsewhere in the world, then the name of the article should maybe be just "Units". ϒpsilon (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Units of measurement" instead of "units". Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expand to cover other units. Metric and U.S. standard / Imperial is all you need in any generic travel situation. The others are highly situational and best covered in the individual articles to which they apply. Powers (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so if we won't expand this one to other units, then is there something more to say about metric and imperial ones? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's anything missing, per se, but what's here could use some better organization and some standardization of grammar and layout. Powers (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Andre? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good looking out, Ypsi, as usual. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's a Guide. As Powers said, it's oddly laid out, but then again, by their very nature a lot of travel topic articles tend to be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nautical Miles
This edit removed nautical miles. Do you agree that no mention is necessary? I think it might be useful to avoid confuses between miles and miles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It's been restored. Powers (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wind speed approximations
I am not convinced it is important to give the exact figures for conversions between km/h, mph and knots. I know by myself, who often do quite advanced arithmetic in the head, cannot always be bothered to do the 3.6 exercise. Finding that dividing by four to get m/s is close enough made my life simpler. I am afraid showing the exact numbers make many people avoid the exercise. Sure, you can divide by four and then add 10 % to get about 1/3.6, but how many are going to do that even on a number like 56? On the other hand I'd be impressed if you estimated wind speed with an error of only 10 % (56/4=14, 56/3.6=15.6 m/s, both 7 Bf).

The mph is trickier, as 2:1.6 is off by 20 %, often landing on one Beaufort more or less, but still I'd think that is close enough, especially if one is aware of the error – and if we keep the table, the more exact values are there.

I think offering a simple model helps more than stating the true conversion factors, and the clutter of parenthesis – and the exact numbers themselves – makes fewer readers grip the model; in my experience people are too obsessed with exact numbers, especially when they cannot judge their importance.

--LPfi (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Name change
I think Metric and Imperial equivalents is a bit of a misnomer, as although the U.S. customary and British Imperial systems are similar, they are not the same. In addition, we also cover some units that are not part of either system, such as the traditional Chinese system of measurements. I therefore propose that we re-name this article "Systems of measurement", and redirect "Metric and Imperial equivalents" to the new article name. What does everyone think? The dog2 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Possibly "Metric unit conversions" or "Metric unit equivalents). This removes the debate about Imperial units (used in the UK) and Customary Units (used in the US). Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Metrication by year graphic
The graphic was removed by a relatively new user claiming it to be inaccurate. Is it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the image file for the graphic has several "This image requires updating because:..." templates plastered on it, and as a Brit I know that despite the graphic showing that the UK metricated in 1965, it is still only partially metricated. The problem may lay in the stated source for the data used, self-published data from the American metrication advocacy group, the US Metric Association. And although I haven't been active on Wikivoyage, I have made almost 15,000 edits on English Wikipedia and 18,000 edits on Commons over the last 12 years. DeFacto (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't judge whether it's accurate or not, but I am wondering whether a map showing the current status instead of dates would be more useful to the traveler. Wikipedia uses such a map (File:Metrication.svg). There are a handful other maps on commons, but I think that one would be the most useful. What do you think? Drat70 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The date of metrication is irrelevant to the majority of travellers who don't have a TARDIS at their disposal. The file proposed by Drat70 is infinitely more useful, and will help to tackle common misconceptions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well a more recent date might indicate more lingering old style measurements, whether officially or in the heads of older folks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True. I hadn't thought of that. But that information might be better conveyed in prose rather than as a map. Then again, it might not. Some people's brains are more visual than others'. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

New temperature chart
To be honest, I liked the previous temperature chart better—I thought it was visually clearer and easier to use for a general sense of what temperature corresponds to what and how Fahrenheit and Celsius match up. The new one is cluttered with a lot more numbers arranged in a less straightforward way, and it takes a lot more mental energy for me to try to understand it. What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I think I agree, at least somewhat. The beauty of the previous chart is that it looked visually like a thermometer, with the numbers simply increasing in both scales. The new version with text describing ranges is much harder to read and understand. It could be nice to flip the chart to be vertical, like a regular thermometer, but that does take up a lot of visual space on the page. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I've put back the previous chart. If someone finds a way to make it vertical while still keeping it easy to process and understand, that would be fine with me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I changed the chart to begin with because the temperature descriptions didn't match international conventions and had problems working with the horizontal chart. I'll try again working with the horizontal chart format.Lcmortensen (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "international conventions" in this context? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 * The conventions I followed is from the Köppen-Trewartha climate classification system. The problem was temperatures at the bottom end of the scale were too high to match their descriptions, so using the previous scale you would have the likes of Atlanta with "cold" winters and Edmonton with "frigid" winters.Lcmortensen (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think I'd call 23C hot, and isn't 0C freezing by definition? Obviously most of these temperature terms are inherently subjective, but overall the previous scale seems better to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I leave the words to native speakers, but I think it is odd that some of the versions had equal distance from 0°C to -40 and to +10 (which may in fact give the impression cold is cold, instead of realising that very cold and very very cold are different things). With vertical versions we do not have to shrink the scale. Having the table push down all text and fact boxes is also not that pretty. --LPfi (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * 23C is definitely not hot! I'd call 30 hot and 27 is mildly hot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't care for these numbers from Köppen-Trewartha. They may be useful and accurate for describing climate in terms of vegetation, but for travel most people are concerned with their bodies. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * - the previous version had 24°C defined as "hot", so there has been no change there. All the changes have been at the lower end of the scale. Lcmortensen (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, so the previous chart was designed by polar bears who can't stand merely mild temperatures. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * 20-23 is room temperature, not "warm". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Depends on where you live - a house which can maintain at least 18°C inside is considered warm in New Zealand. Lcmortensen (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * When I was in primary school, 18°C was the recommended room temperature, but nowadays most people here (southern Finland) seem to agree with IK. I am a little confused by -10°C described as "very cold", but I am probably one of the polar bears. Suitably for the winter vacations we have wonderful winter weather with the sun shining and -18 in the morning and -8°C in the afternoon. I'd call that cold (not English winter, which we've seen a lot of lately, but cold enough for the snow to be dry) – I have even used my winter coat. If memory serves -15 was the limit in school for mandatory outdoor breaks and ice skating. Below -25 could be called very cold. I think parents are told not to have their babies take naps outdoors when it is below -20. --LPfi (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Common prefixes
We seem to disagree about what the "most common" prefixes are (listed in the new section "Metric units"). Mega, giga and tera are common in the computer world (GB, Mb/s), but that is just one use, and one where everybody is using them (except for the 1024=210 vs 1000=103 thing). If somebody needs to be told about them, then it is in the context of memory cards, not in Metric and Imperial equivalents. --LPfi (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems pointless to list those because, as the title says, they're common so everybody with enough intelligence to travel will already know milli, kilo, mega, and so on. Of course there is the confusion of 1024 bytes being referred to as kB whereas you'd expect them to be 1000 bytes, but that's not a relevant issue for travelers anyway because it's an ambiguity that only exists in computer storage capacity. ArticCynda (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a measurement of computer storage not based on either 1000 or 1024? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 512 B is common for disks :-) And bytes came in different sizes. But in practice I think the answer is no. And the difference between GB and GiB is not the most important issue with sizes, as the relevant thing is SD storage and similar, which have a lot of hidden storage (to not "shrink" when parts of it becomes too worn). But for metres, litres and grams the prefixes are important. If the prefixes are less known to US readers, they should probably be explained quite in the beginning. I am not sure the current format is ideal. --LPfi (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Machine "words" came in different sizes; "bytes" were always two "nybbles" or eight "bits". K7L (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The French translation for "bytes" is significant - they use the word "octet" which implicitly implies "eight". Martinvl (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. And octets are used in the internet RFCs too, exactly because bytes are not always 8 bits. w:Byte says "... that most commonly consists of eight bits" and that a byte usually was understood to be the size of a character. In communication I think what was transferred by 8+N+1 was a byte, and likewise with 7+parity or 6+parity. But that is quite irrelevant here.
 * The question was about the table of "common prefixes", which makes most of the section "Metric units" (really strange section name in this context). I cannot think of any traveller relevant context where T, G or M would be used (outside computing). Hecto is used in Sweden, perhaps nowhere else. Micro may have some use, but nano? Virus size and nanotechnology, but for travellers?
 * –LPfi (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The prefix "M" is useful when expressing internet bandwidth - this might be important for some travellers. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and G for flash memory size. But they will have used those at home too (or seen them in our internet and photography articles). They can of course be included for completeness. –LPfi (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even think we need to include them for completeness. The point of this article isn't to teach the metric system. It's to help people from the US, Liberia, Myanmar (as well as older folks from the UK and Canada) visit the rest of the countries in the world, and help the rest of the world visit those countries. We should be covering the kinds of measurements people use in their everyday lives; anybody needing measurements for, say, their work should be looking them up as needed and not trusting a travel guide! I have no idea why this article covers such obscure things as nautical miles, furlongs, surface area (the only use I can imagine for most travellers is the size of their lodgings), acre-feet, or horsepower (unless you're renting a sports car, but again, they can just look it up). --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Furlongs should probably be handled in the horse racing article, but nautical miles are commonly used at sea, and if your destination is an island, it is good to know them. Area is useful to get a feel for the size of e.g. national parks. But yes, this is a kind of article that collects cruft. –LPfi (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been to islands by plane and by ferry, and I've never needed to know nautical miles. I think that too is specific to Cruising on small craft or a similar boating article; not something travellers need to know unless they're navigating a boat or an airplane. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbol vs Abbreviation
The letters "km/h" are a symbol, not an abbreviation because they are the same regardless of language. For example, in Italian, "kilometers per hour" is "chilometri all'ora", but the shorthand form is "km/h" even though the letters "k" and "h" do not appear in the full Italian text, hence it is a symbol, not an abbreviation. Section 5.2 of the SI Brochure 9th edition clarifies this with the text "Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations" (English) or "Les symboles d’unités sont des entités mathématiques et non des abréviations" (French). Martinvl (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we use ml or mL?
Wikivoyage guidelines state that we shoull use the units of measurement that are most commonly used in the locality about which we are writing. The guideline goes on to state that the symbol "L" rather than "l" should be used for the litre, preceded by a prefix where appropriate. The official guidance appears to be:
 * BIPM, in the SI Brochure states that either "L" or "l" can be used as a symbol for the litre. The SI Brochure contains the definitive description of SI.
 * NIST, in their translation of the SI Brochure into (US) English state that "L" and "mL" are the preferred symbols for the litre and millilitre in the United States.
 * British Government legislation permits either "L" or "l" to be used as a symbol for the litre but appears to favour the use of "L" for litres where there is no prefix and the use of "l" where there is a prefix.

I had a look at the markings on pharmaceutical, hygiene products, DIY product, gardening product, beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), condiment, dairy product and fuel packaging. All used a lower-case "l" for millilitres, but an upper-case "L" for litres. (I live in the South of England). From my memory of having worked in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands and also having been on holiday in France, Italy, Australia and South Africa they do likewise. I therefore feel that Wikitravel should use "L" for litres, but "ml" for millilitres, except where local usage is otherwise. This is of course different to the English Wikipedia where the above arguments suggest that "L" should be used in all cases, but in my view, under their WP:ENGVAR rules, "mL" should be used where US English is used and "ml" should be used where British English is used. This matter is currently the subject of a RFC introduced by User:Beland. Martinvl (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Firstly, this is Wikivoyage, not Wikitravel. I'll assume that was a slip of the tongue.
 * Secondly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since we're a travel guide, not an encyclopedia, it's not worth our limited time to standardize this. We're fine with lively colloquial writing rather than dry technically-precise prose, and I don't think our guides are substantially improved by consistent usage of "ml" or "mL". --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

UK
Apparently the UK is considering to go back to the imperial according to this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Government had a consultation. The results were:
 * Go back to the imperial system - 0.4%
 * Allow more choice - 0.9%
 * retain the status quo - 81.1%
 * Complete the metrication process - 17.6%
 * Martinvl (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relevance to travel?
I'm wondering how relevant this point is to travel?
 * "Unlike almost all other units on this list, km/h is not the most commonly used unit for its purpose in science – there m/s dominates, keeping to SI base units. One meter per second is exactly 3.6 km/h. To give an intuitive approximation, world class sprinters do the 100 meter sprint in 10 seconds or less - which works out to 10 m/s."

It seems to me to be more suitable for Wikipedia. What do others think? Is there other text here that might not be useful to travellers? Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Suits more to Wikibooks, but it could be useful for those travelling to do a marathon but that's what WB exists for. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me this isn't relevant to travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of people have the default assumption "metric is scientific". That is not entirely true (at least not with how metric is used in practice) for the cases of Kelvin for temperature and meters per second for speed. But figures that GZ would oppose what I do here on principle... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The principle being "relevance to travel". I understand the point you are making about assumptions regarding the scientific nature of the metric system. Is this relevant for travellers specifically? Ground Zero (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What do other people with some experience from mph countries think? Does somebody have an opinion? –LPfi (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In the US, for scientific things, they use the metric system, and that might explain why (from my personal experience). I can't speak for the UK, Belize or Liberia though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seldom seen m/s used in the UK. In cricket, the speed of the ball is usually given in mph, though occasionally if there is a direct feed from Australia for and England-AUstralia match, in km/h. Skiing events, which are often broadcast from the ALps (or other Continental European locations) will display a speed in km/h. Formula One motor racing also gives speeds in km/h (to three decimal places making mph conversions a pain). Martinvl (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"The symbol for "kilometres per hour" is "km/h" regardless of how it is written in full in the local language"
I dispute that statement, because I remember seeing km/j on my trip to Malaysia during 2018 (think the j stands for jam?). These signs  also seems to confirm that too. Should that sentence just be removed, or should Malaysia get a mention. (cc as both of you know Malaysia better than I do). -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, they use km/j in Malaysia. The j does stand for "jam", which is the Malay word for "hour". The dog2 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So removing that statement? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We could clarify it to "The symbol for "kilometres per hour" used by Wikivoyage is "km/h" regardless of how it is written in full in the local language". I don't think it would be helpful for readers to start using other symbols, although the local symbols can always be explained in text. Ground Zero (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence in the article is intended as travel advice for readers, not as a Wikivoyage style guideline. The style guidance would belong at Measurements. I support editing the sentence to clarify that it is evidently not true in all countries. Not sure we need to mention Malaysia specifically, but we could. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right. I misread this discussion. I support a clarification. Ground Zero (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Percipitation
I did a quick check on units of measure by means of a Google search "Rainfall XXXX" where XXXX was the name of a British newspaper. All reports that I found after polling the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Express and Mail gave rainfall in millimetres, though some reports included the inch equivalent. The Met Office warnings are always in millimetres.

I did a similar poll for snow. I only got one or two hits - entirely in centimetres. This is understandable - many Brits ski in the Alps (there is no real skiing in England and for people living in London and the SE, it is as almost as easy to get to the Alps as to Northern Scotland and the Alps have a much bigger selection of slopes. Apline snow reports are always in metric units.

Martinvl (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Symbols, not abbreviations
Metric units do not have abbreviations, they have symbols. The subtle difference is that the "shorthand" used for any unit is independent of language, thus for the Italians "km/h" means "chilometri all'ora". On the other hand "VAT" is an abbreviation for "Value added tax" - in Italian this translates to "IVA" is an abbreviation for "Imposta sul valore aggiunto". Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Exact equality and approximate quality
The lead section contains the sentence «Not all the conversions below are exact, even though the "=" is used». I propose deleting this sentence and adding the box that you see alongside this posting. This box would be added at the top of the first first sub-section ("Metric units"). Thus we could write:
 * 1 ft = 30.48 cm
 * or

Either could be used, depending on whether we were trying to convey an exact equivalence to the user or a quick rule of thumb. Martinvl (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 ft ≈ 30 cm

 * The problem is that "≈" is not easy to type on most keyboards. We have the symbol in the symbols section of the special characters menu above the edit window, one can copy and paste, or one can use the HTML &approx; or the equivalent TeX code, but all these require some expertise, and the difference is seldom essential for travel needs. On the other hand, the page is quite well developed, so there is not necessarily any great need to add those characters (other than once, changing the equal signs to ≈ where appropriate). What do you think? –LPfi (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How difficult is it on a normal Windows keyboard, though? On a Mac, it's as simple as using opt+X. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As User:LPfi says, it is likely to be a one-off exercise. If anybody needs to make an update after the main edit has been done the easy way for the novice editor will be to copy and paste the "approximate symbol" from elsewhere in the text. I was about to make the changes myself, but I thought it best to float the idea past other first, particularly the bit about the info box. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the stringency aimed for with the proposal. I understand that stringency often is counterproductive in travel writing, but I am happy when I can achieve it without it disturbing the flow or enjoyability of the prose. I don't find the info box intrusive and I think its educative value makes it worthwhile in this specific type of article. The biggest danger in stating how a word (or whatever) is used in an article is that later editors don't follow that standard, which can get very confusing or misleading. In this case, I think the risk is small, but if it sets a precedent, the risk has to be acknowledged. –LPfi (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly we should give quick rules of thumb. Stating that something happens to be strictly equal is useful, so that those who need the figure don't have to look it up elsewhere. The exact figures can be given beside the approximation when the approximation is bad or the exact figure is easy, usually as a complement to the approximation (1 NM = 1852 m, 1 in = 2.54 mm). LPfi (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think we should go overboard with complementing the approximations. I suggest that we extend the box as shown. This we would write:
 * 1 yard ≈ 1 metre (-10%)
 * 1 inch ≈ 2.5 cm
 * I have chosen the value of 2% as this will allow the conversion factors of 2.54 and 454 to be quoted as approximate without further qualification.
 * Martinvl (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support using the symbol ≈ where appropriate, but I'm not so sure about the parenthetical percentages. I think something like "1 yard ≈ 1 metre (-10%)" is more likely to be confusing than helpful. If we want to provide exact figures in parentheses, I'd say we should provide them straightforwardly and precisely rather than as an approximate percentage adjustment. Still, I'm not sure how useful the exact values are for this article – if I'm on the road and need to convert units exactly (a rare occurrence) I just type "4 inches to cm" or whatever into Google rather than looking up the conversion and multiplying on a calculator. (In contrast the approximate conversions are useful to a traveller for intuition, memorization, and quick mental math, when exact precision is not needed.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should rely on travellers using Google, Siri or the like for doing conversions. What I meant is that I like that the °C/F formula is exact and that I don't need to ask Google, an encyclopaedia or the like to see that, when I want to check whether my rounding is too much off. Similarly with winds in knots and m/s and other cases where we happen to give the correct translations and not approximations. –LPfi (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, I like us giving the exact figures once (just once) and a rough measure of the "offness" where appropriate, such as the present
 * 1 yard (1 yd) = 3 feet = 90 cm
 * […]
 * 3 miles = 5 km (off by 5%)
 * Much editorial sense is needed to avoid too much detail, too many examples etc., but I don't think we need very specific rules.
 * We don't need to tell that a furlong is 201.168 m; "1 furlong = 1/8 miles = 220 yards ≈ 200 m" suffices very well, as we already give the metric equivalent to a mile; we want to avoid figures with (many) decimals. And why do we tell that "Everest is about 8,848 m (29,031 ft) above sea level"? "Nearly 9,000 m (30,000 feet)" is much clearer.
 * –LPfi (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we are nearly singing from the same hymn-sheet. Under my proposal, we woudl have written:
 * 1 yard (1 yd) = 3 feet ≈ 90 cm
 * […]
 * 3 miles ≈ 5 km (-4%)
 * Since the difference between 90 cm and 3 feet is less than 2%, I have not quoted the difference. However 3 miles is equal to 5*0.9654 km (ie 3.5% less than 5 km, whch is greater than 2%, so I have rounded the value. I have also put in the sign (minus) to show that 3 miles is less than 5 km and reduced the amount of text. Martinvl (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the way to help travelers most is to give exact equivalents and approximate ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Ikan's approach works best. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metric and Imperial equivalents


text:
Talk:Metro Area (San Diego County)

Following changes 13 Jan 2006 by User:(WT-en) DavDavin - Is this now the same as, or smaller or bigger than San Diego? Should they be merged or treated as separate, one a region and the other a Huge city? -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:42, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * Seems as if this is functionally equivalent to San Diego and should be merged (eliminate this article, point to the other).--(WT-en) justfred 19:05, 11 October 2006 (EDT)

Name
Is there some reason this isn't call San Diego Metro Area? This disambiguation seems rather awkward and unnatural. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:04, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

Deletion discussion
Has no information apart from list of towns. Not linked to from any article. Is this even a known term from the area? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to San Diego County. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the obvious solution. I don't understand nominating this kind of redirect target for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would normally do redirect, but did not know if this area is actually known as Metro Area. No need to cause confusion if was not. --Traveler100 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Traveler100. If it's not a term that is used by locals, then it makes no sense to have a redirect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is "Metro(politan) Area" not used around an American city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete I don't really care much either way, but with nothing to merge there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep/redirect this. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. In case anyone wonders why I haven't taken action yet, per policy we can wait 21 days for consensus, and currently that is what I am doing. That would mean action should be taken 23 March 2019. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. We're now at that time and with no more votes, I'd go on the side of redirect. We have a clear-cut vote on each side, one that's not a vote but is a clearly expressed opinion in favor of redirecting, and a couple that seem to lean towards delete but don't say so outright. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirected according to the above comment. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metro Area (San Diego County)


text:
Talk:Metro Atlanta

Regions & cities
I'm not sure whether we want articles for all of the existing five subregions (counties), but I don't know the area well enough to be a good judge of how to do this. I listed all cities for which we have articles falling within the region on this page, mostly just to keep things organized while this is sorted out. But if we do decide that we want the subregion articles, this list should be reduced to the traditional maximum of nine. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:43, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Counties are not regions
Seriously, have you seen the shape of Fulton county? There's no way that's a useful division for travelers. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 14:27, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

 * See Project:Geographical hierarchy. In general use of counties as regions is not encouraged unless they make sense for travel; they are also helpful to locals who are trying to figure out where to put content in Wikivoyage.  As an example, for California the regions aren't counties, but where it made sense we tried to align region borders with county borders as a way of making it clearer what the region boundaries are. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

 * So... you agree?

 * I'm realizing as I look at all of the sub-pages that this is really a mess. It's been almost entirely divided by political divisions (counties and cities) which is not even intuitive to me as a local... it would be a complete mess for a traveler trying to use this as a guide.

 * I'd really like to see the whole thing reorganized from the top down, but I'm not sure how to go about this, given the amount of existing content (not to mention that it appears a single user has made Decatur (20,000 people) into a slightly longer article than Atlanta (420,000 people)) but I think it needs to get done. Atlanta's political divisions are a mess compared to most metros of this size, and using them to subdivide articles here makes no sense. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Propose a breakdown, ideally with a map (it doesn't have to be a good one), and then if there is a consensus for change solicit help in reorganizing things. See Talk:Washington (state) for a similar discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:17, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Proposed new breakdown for "Atlanta" limits

I'd like to see Atlanta and its surrounding communities restructured some. The subdivisions of Metro Atlanta are just counties, and are unintuitive even to me having lived here for 10 years. It also looks like Atlanta is mostly defined using the city limits, which is really unhelpful. I propose changing the definition of what goes under Atlanta to be closely (but not exactly) aligned with MARTA and ITP, so that small towns like Decatur and Chamblee get put in proper context as one part of a sprawling metro area.

My concept for "Atlanta" is that it should roughly be areas served by MARTA. This is broadly similar to ITP, but it excludes the whole I-75 corridor north of Howell Mill Rd. It includes a decent chunk of Sandy Springs and Doraville, even though they're partially OTP. It also includes all of Dekalb County ITP—I don't see a compelling reason why it was left out in the first place.

Since travelers will inevitable use the highways to visit areas outside of Atlanta (whatever that ends up being) I propose using them to divide Metro Atlanta into manageable areas: Conveniently, the highways all go in cardinal directions, which is easy for visitors to keep straight.
 * I-75 North: Smyrna, Marietta, and Kennesaw
 * GA-400: Roswell, Alpharetta, Cumming
 * I-85 North: Norcross, Duluth, Lawrenceville... there are a lot to choose from here
 * I-20 East: Stone Mountain, Snellville
 * I-75 South: Stockbridge
 * I-85 South: Fayetteville, Peachtree City
 * I-20 West: Powder Springs, Douglasville, maybe Six Flags if it gets its own article

I don't want to act unilaterally, and I welcome debate. I'd love to see some feedback, for or against. But let's work on getting Atlanta organized in a way that's useful for travelers, instead of politicians. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 13:26, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Well, it's been a week, and no one has given any comments. I'm going to explain in a little more detail why I think this is a good plan, in hopes of soliciting some comments. (And then if no one replies still... well, we'll see what happens first.)

 * Atlanta has a long history of not merging with surrounding communities. In fact many of the small communities outside the city limits have themselves not incorporated until very recently (Sandy Springs and Johns Creek just incorporated within the last few years.) Between that and the obvious gerrymandering, the legal borders of Atlanta and Fulton county, and the surrounding areas, are totally meaningless to visitors. In keeping with Wikivoyage's policy, we shouldn't be relying on them to define the limits of Atlanta.

 * Atlanta is also mostly a driving city. For the foreseeable future, public transit is only useful for visiting a handful of areas; and even between MARTA-accessible places, it would be faster (and probably cheaper) to drive. The connecting bus services (CCT, GCT, etc) are even worse; I wouldn't even mention them to travelers because they're a massive waste of time compared to just renting a car.

 * That leaves the problem of where to draw the limits of Atlanta, and then how to divide up Metro Atlanta. As an easy measure, I've suggested roughly following MARTA because it nicely separates MARTA-accessible destinations from ones where having a car is a necessity. It's easy to comprehend and to decide whether something belongs under Atlanta or Metro Atlanta. And (at present) it's very similar to ITP/OTP, which is how locals tend to think of Atlanta versus the rest of the metro area.

 * This involves some major reorganization, but consider:

 * All three of the major Atlanta airports (Hartsfield-Jackson, Dekalb-Peachtree, and Fulton County) end up under Atlanta. Seeing as PDK and FTY are the second- and third-busiest airports in all of Georgia, it seems silly to exclude them because they're not within the official city limits.

 * Destinations served by MARTA, like Decatur, Chamblee, Doraville, and Sandy Springs, end up under Atlanta which is where MARTA is described. This fixes the hierarchy problem that currently exists with them.

 * There are some points for debate. I personally think that some or all of Sandy Springs and Doraville should be included under Atlanta, because although they're on the border (or just outside) of I-285, they're both directly served by MARTA stations. On the other hand, I would leave out North Springs Station, since it's almost exclusively used by commuters and there's not much to visit near it.

 * To the northwest, you quickly run into Cobb County, which is very difficult to access from MARTA. The nearest place of interest is Vinings (which is off the highway and pretty much requires a car to access) and then Smyrna, which is definitely OTP. So I would cut it off early near Howell Mill Rd, and let the whole I-75N corridor be covered under the Northwest sub-region.

 * On the west side, MARTA rail doesn't quite run to Fulton County Airport, but it's easy to connect by bus, and it makes a lot more sense than putting FTY under Metro Atlanta/West or some other nonsense place that hides its connection to Atlanta. Six Flags, on the other hand, is more of a Get Out destination since you'd be spending all day there, so leaving that out from Atlanta seems to make sense.

 * On the east side, I'm strongly in favor of including Dekalb county, which is the only other county that did agree to participate in MARTA from the beginning. 285 is a convenient border, since you really need a car to go out any further (say to Stone Mountain).

 * To the south, I don't see a point in towns like Hapeville, East Point, and College Park having their own articles; there's barely enough to write about. It would be much better to cover them more generally under Atlanta/South.

 * --(WT-en) BigPeteB 12:46, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * I think the lack of response has mostly been due to lack of contributors with knowledge of the area. Knowing almost nothing about Atlanta I can personally only offer suggestions based on efforts to define boundaries for other cities in regions, and the biggest one is just to make sure that the borders are very clearly defined, particularly if your proposal is to use something other than recognized city borders.  Contributors to Wikivoyage need to understand how a region is organized, and locals generally assume that official government borders are being used unless there is a map or other delineation that they can easily follow.

 * As a result, it is often good to use official borders as much as possible and to deviate only where there is a clear benefit to doing so. You've made some good arguments above, but for cases of individual towns, even if they are small, it is definitely worth strongly considering whether they really won't ever deserve an article before subsuming them into another city article.

 * With that said, the current article apparently has issues, so barring further comment your best bet may just be to plunge forward and start making what you feel are some of the more obvious cleanups and see how things go. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:09, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * @Bigpeteb: I would very much like to help fix the districts and content on the Atlanta. What the would be the best first step for a group discussion? Tdempsey (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Scrap the empty county articles
In agreement with the general opinions above that counties are no way to organize the communities of the Atlanta area, and given that all the existing county articles are essentially empty and in any case are not a part of the IsPartOf hierarchy, I propose doing away with them entirely by redirecting them to this Metro Atlanta article, where we put a simple in-article grouping in the Cities section. I am not very familiar with the Atlanta area, but looking at the map, it occurs to me that we could just use something like this: (please comment below the breakdown)

West and Northwest
Cities along the I-20, I-75, and US-278 corridors.
 * Austell
 * Lithia Springs
 * Kennesaw (NE)
 * Marietta (NW)

North
North of the I-285 loop.
 * Alpharetta
 * Roswell
 * Sandy Springs

Northeast
Along the I-85 and US-29 corridors.
 * Buford (NE)
 * Duluth (NE)
 * Lawrenceville (NE)
 * Lilburn (NE)

East
Along the US-78 corridor.
 * Loganville
 * Snellville
 * Stone Mountain

South
Along and between the I-75 and I-85 corridors.
 * Fayetteville
 * Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport

So, is this suggestion not better than the current mess we have, and/or does anyone have suggestions? Alternately, we could just dump all 16 cities in the list and call it done, but the above organizational outline makes sense to me. What do we say? Texugo (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Athens is Atlanta?
So if I visit Athens I visit Atlanta? This must be the most ridiculous wannabe "Metropolitan Area" ever... Atlanta proper is not even close to being the biggest city in the south. Even Charlotte is almost twice as big. —The preceding comment was added by 80.217.103.193 (talk • contribs)

 * What does the size of the central city have to do with anything? If what you're saying, though, is that some of the text in this article is inaccurate, such as the following —

 * 'The Metro Atlanta area has 28 large Counties spreading from the Georgia-Alabama Border, east to Athens, south to about Macon, and north to Jasper. It is over about 8,376 square miles and holds over 5,475,213 people, making it the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States.' —

 * In precisely what way is it inaccurate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite
This page needs a rewrite. It has TOO MANY opinions and few facts. Tdempsey (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're just the person to give this article the re-write and update it needs. Please plunge forward! Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ground Zero Thank you. And plunge forward is very informative.

title: Talk:Metro Atlanta


text:
Talk:Metro Detroit

Listings on region pages
I agree with Claus that these listings should not be on the region article. It's a slippery slope that leads to business owners trying to add their listings to multiple pages, and it's just good practice to have one place for any single bit of information. But this is good information, so lets make sure those listings get placed into the appropriate city articles ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:38, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Metro Detroit


text:
Talk:Metro Manila

Article Needs Attention
This article need attention, the article looks more of like a Travel Agency catalog for hotels because the article is usually dominated with the sleep section. Other sections lack information. - User:(WT-en) SnappyHip 11:01, 25 January 2010.

"Well, this one is simple, this page should not list any sleep listings, it should just give an overview of where the hotels are in the region. It should just give a brief overview. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:55, 25 January 2010 (EST)

FYI
BTW, FYI I haven't been to Metro Manila, I'll just edit and organize as well as add historical informations for attractions and listings for the cope section. Just clearing this out to avoid controversy similar to Thomas Kohnstamm's controversy. For Metro Manila articles including the Manila districts, I hadn't visited them however I'll do my best to provide information for the Understand, See sections. --(WT-en) SnappyHip 23:52, 29 April 2010 (GST)

9 "Cities" only?
Please clarify: This seems to be a bottom-level region. If that's the case, all cities with articles that fall within the region should be listed in "Cities". Or do you think there should be separate region articles for the 4 districts identified and mapped in "Regions"? Another problem is "Other destinations", which should not be cities, towns, etc., but all except Quezon Memorial Circle are identified as cities, neighborhoods, towns, districts or suburbs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us then put all actual cities into the "Regions" section, and remove all cities from the "Other destinations". --Krauser levyl (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Parañaque in Cities list?
I would suggest replacing Caloocan or Marikina by Parañaque in the list of cities. Parañaque is home to Manila's Entertainment City, containing large casinos (Solaire, Okada, City of Dreams and the future Westside City) and the associated range of entertainment, restaurants and hotels. I don't think Caloocan is a major touristic destination, Marikina has the famous shoe museum but that's all. --Krauser levyl (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Do" section
I decided to plunge forward and rewrite the do section of the article to cover more festivals and entertainment. The original is too bad with the lack of good info about others activities, but despite having been a resident and frequent visitor of the region, I have a few ideas about it. I need help from someone who may have travelled there. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Quezon Memorial Circle 04.jpg

Region map
I think the existing static map for the region: File:METRO MANILA MAP.png needs to be replaced by another map with roads, transit routes, and better region names (the regions are just fine, except we need to use names more convenient to the travellers, not the administrative fluff the existing map has). Pinging User:Sky Harbor. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * ✅ I created a new map and made necessary changes, except that I left out the static map (which I quickly worked out).-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * City of Dreams Manila view from the pool deck 2.jpg (discussion)
 * Quezon Memorial Circle 04.jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ayala Museum.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Venice Grand Canal Mall Taguig.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quezon City Montage.png

title: Talk:Metro Manila