text:
Talk:Reykjavík

The "Vegamot" restaurant seemed to have been lost by accident; I recovered it, but please feel free to correct. --(WT-en) evanp 11:35, 15 January 2007 (EST)

"Miss Universe"
The assertion that there have been three "Miss Universe" titleists from Reykjavik seems contrafactual. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe for data. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:11, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Sales taxes (VSK)
In the Buy section sales taxes are reported as 24% an 14%. This was changed to some degree in March 2007. I don't know the exact numbers. Someone who does, please correct this.

Why Reykjavík moved (back) to Reykjavik
I hope this explains why I moved Reykjavík (back) to Reykjavik. If you can tell the difference between the two names then your eyesight is better than mine. To me the difference between í and i is so miniscule, most English readers would see them as the same character. Only the computer sees them as completely different characters. I am going to rely on the naming convention of using English for place names and argue that most English readers and writers would not realise that the diacritic even existed in this place name, in English. Additionally, it is far more convenient to type i on an English keyboard. - (WT-en) Huttite 13:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * Fast forward 3.5 years and our policy has changed! So I've moved it back to the diacritical location. --Peter Talk 02:25, 16 September 2012 (CEST)

Expensive?
For all the talk about how expensive Reykjavik is, compared to switzerland it's nothing (<5 CHF for a pint? try 8). In any case it's relative so while it's worth mentioning it's probably not worth making such a big deal out of. 74.125.57.36 05:26, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't see the problem with it, Iceland is notoriously more expensive than the rest of Europe. And yes, Switzerland also belongs to that category. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:15, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Reykjavík Downtown Hostel
I removed the following description of Reykjavík Downtown Hostel:
 * "There is a woman that works at the reception who, after offering a refund, will short your change. The receipt will read correctly, but you will, in fact, receive less. Try arguing it and she will smile and reference the receipt. Beware of this place. This place has a growing reputation amongst seasoned travelers for being a shady, near criminal operation; avoid it at all costs!"

Apart from the last sentence implying criminality, this has been on the page for a while. However, I both know people who've stayed there and been reading reviews online, and I can't find anything to corroborate this. Not to mention the fact that the hostel is run by HI Iceland, which generally has a very good reputation. For these reasons I got the feeling the description was likely written by a competitor - at least the final sentence. However if this is not the case, I apologise. It would be very good to get a further input from the editor who wrote that description - or any Wikivoyage user who's stayed at the hostel! --(WT-en) sterio 18:13, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

 * Your removal seems reasonable - often one person's bad experience or misunderstanding ends up in a listing, despite not being typical for the location. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes. Jjtkk (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK now, this was a no-brainer so I just swapped the banners an here we go. I have also filled in latlongs for the POIs I could find on the map and placed a MapFrame (feel free to reposition/rezoom). Reykjavik is hardly my thing, so it would be brilliant if somebody more into it would pick it up from there and find the coords for the POIs still missing them and did a bit of double-checking/cleanup.

I feel this is a reasonably good guide, but could still use more maintenance / updating and pruning for accidental / random POIs. I guess we could use help from the local tourist board to keep the article up-to-date on a permanent basis, so if somebody could feel like contacting them and getting them to help out while things are slow at the tourist info counter, it would be just great. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Sure this new banner is very pretty! Danapit (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Work section
The Work Section is years out of date. Can somebody with knowledge of the employment situation of Reykjavík update it? Stidmatt (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

bad link
The link for Hellisheiði Geothermal Plant seems dead. I don't edit this site but I found (2) general urls: 1  and  2 --75.109.119.138 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, though it probably would have been as quick for you to replace the dead link and type "replaced dead link" as an edit summary in the "Summary" box below your edit screen. But still, your help is definitely appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I'm not sure we can use either link per this site's what not to link to guidelines. What we need is a working URL for the plant or the company. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the official page. I'll substitute that. Thanks again, because you prompted me to look for it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Campervan prices
A reference was added for campervan renting prices. As we don't use references in our articles, I put it here instead: campervaniceland.com. –LPfi (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reykjavík


text:
Talk:Reynosa

We just arrived in Reynosa. We crossed from McAllen TX by car.

TURN LEFT when you arrive. We didn't. It was sheer luck that we were able to find the customs office to get the car insured and the permits on it. (we're planning to stay for three weeks, heading down to Puerto Vallarta)

The area around the Pemex, 7-11 and Holiday Inn don't seem too shady, and were open past 11pm. We grabbed a lump of cash from the machine, some cheap beer and lots of water.

We had some trouble with the paperwork for the car, so we didn't clear until after dark. Otherwise I wouldn't have stayed at such an expensive Hotel (approximately $150USD/night after taxes). Should the Holiday Inn be in the "Moderate" range?

Learn
I removed the following list of universities from the article, since they don't appear to offer anything for short-term travellers.Texugo (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas Reynosa-Rodhe (UAT) Autonomous University of Tamaulipas
 * Universidad Tecnologica de Tamaulipas Norte (UTT)
 * Universidad Valle del Bravo
 * Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas Reynosa-Aztlan (UAT) Autonomous University of Tamaulipas
 * Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) National Polytechnic Institute
 * Universidad Miguel Alemán
 * Universidad Tamaulipeca
 * Universidad Mexico Americana del Norte, A.C. (UMAN)
 * Universidad TecMilenio
 * Instituto Tecnologico de Reynosa
 * Universidad Interamericana del Norte Campus Reynosa
 * Universidad Interamericana para el Desarrollo
 * Universidad Pedagogia Nacional (UPN) National University of Education Sciences
 * Centro de Biotecnología Genómica
 * Universidad Academica Multidisciplinaria

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

title: Talk:Reynosa


text:
Talk:Rhône-Alpes

I took out the quick facts box; I tried making it work, but the HTML tables just weren't going for me, and eventually it seemed like the effort wasn't worth it. --(WT-en) Evan 22:02, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

Regional subdivision
I am not an expert on the area, but does the current region breakdown make sense? Given that those subregion articles are not exactly all that fleshed out and all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The current breakdown makes sense if you'd ask me. The division is made based on France's Régions, which are clusters of ~6 Départements. This division seems logical if you'd ask me. Reworking France's official Régions shouldn't be considered since it's a lot of effort to replace a system that is already decent. I'd be in favour of the current breakdown over any other. -- Wauteurz (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Hobbitschuster, is your proposal to merge all of them here and redirect them all? I definitely understand the impulse, but is that what you want to do? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Looking at the way those subregions currently look the thought had occured to me, yes. But on the other hand given that departments are not exactly based on travel categories and France is a stereotypically centralist state (with department border mattering much less than state boundaries in Germany or the US) maybe some subdivision either combining more than one department into one or not based on departments is more practicable. I just found that the subregions in their current form are close to useless and went from there. I must admit that I don't have it all figured out... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 * My feeling is that some of the departement articles have some meat on them. I doubt that merging and redirecting all 6 articles would be best, though I don't really know enough to have a firm opinion about this. I could see where it might make sense to have a few super-departmental regions, but if we do that, someone has to know enough to propose them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The French Routard guide divides the former Rhône-Alpes region into three touristic regions: Alps, Greater Lyon and Ardèche & Drôme, which seems quite sensible to me. Someone who wants to ski, hike up mountains or do river-rafting will rather not care in which département their destination is, as long as there are high enough mountains. Same goes for travellers who want to taste local wines (which you will rarely find in the Alps) or enjoy Mediterranean climate and see lavender fields (yes, you'll find them in Ardèche & Drôme, not only in Provence). Such a division according to landscape, climate and culture rather than administrative divisions would conform most to "The traveller comes first". --RJFF (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this region but the solution sounds logical to me. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging up all the departments to Rhône-Alpes will mean the Cities list will get quite long, so I think it's good to have R-A divided up in some way. The version suggested by User:RJFF looks OK to me. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On top of that it might even bring some SEO benefits, as people might be more likely to search for travel related content using something like "French Alps" then the department names which few non-French would know. Furthermore, we might avoid the "duplicate content" penalty that gets slapped on so many of our articles (but notably not new[er] creations) Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Where are we on this?
Soooo... Three months have passed and nothing seems to have happened... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhône-Alpes


text:
Talk:Rhine

Is this an article?
See Project:Bodies of water. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:04, 6 Aug 2005 (EDT)

There is also some discussion on Project:Votes for deletion.

Article Topics
It's been a long time since I was there (1990) but I would think Along The Rhine makes sense. There are boat tours (as I recall ours was from Mainz to Koblenz; you can get off and stay in quaint villages and hostels in castles (Schloss something-or-other) and drink sweet white wine (Gewurtztrauminer). These are some really small places so I'm not sure if there would be articles for them.  I see no article for Weisbaden, maybe I'm missing it.  There is Rhine Valley - which also doesn't exist - perhaps a redirect to there?--(WT-en) justfred 14:04, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

Is this an itinerary?
Does (or could) this article qualify as an itinerary? ~ 61.91.191.8 09:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I've made it into a kinda-sorta disambig now. My gut feeling is that this is one of those exceptions that prove the rule, as there's a lot of Rhine-themed tourism etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

VFD discussion
There seem to have been inconclusive debates about this article a decade ago. I say delete it as a violation of policy Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I we should consider the policy based on the fact we now have ExtraRegions. The Rhine is a major focal point for tourists visiting Europe. Would to me be a big gap in a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an extraregion, and a pretty clearly defined one. It could be expanded into an itinerary or left as an extraregion, with more information added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment What is the violation of policy? It is tagged as an extraregion, so there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Exactly. Keep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment - If we keep this article, we have to seriously ask ourselves the question: Do we want an article about every river in existence? And if not, how and where are we going to draw the line? I see nothing that makes the Rhine "so special" that could not similarly be said about dozens of other rivers, including the Mississippi River, the Huangho or even the Volga Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I would say that any long, important river that is itself an attraction, currently has plenty of river traffic, and is lined with appealing places to visit probably would merit an article, either an itinerary with links or some kind of region or extra-region article. That definitely includes Mississippi River and Yangtze River; I'm not sure about Yellow River (Huang He) or Volga. By the way, do you notice that there are Along the Yangtze River and Along the Yellow River itinerary articles, though the Yangtze one is better developed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Judging by that, we need to have a serious debate on whether to update our current bodies of water policy. While I fully agree that some of those articles can be worthwhile if done right (after all, Ruta del Tránsito is basically "along the Rio San Juan" with a bit of Lake Nicaragua and Pacific Nicaragua thrown in), there does exist the potential for half empty articles on every. river. in. existence. If we say yes to Rhine and Danube, what about the Oder? It runs along a major international border, after all. What about the Neiße? Görlitz lies along it. And what about canals? Rhein and Donau are linked, after all. I mean yes, itineraries could cover the more well known of those, but just having articles on rivers because rivers exist strikes me as... silly, in absence of a better term. It's not like we have (more than) enough outline articles of certain types already. And I think we should have a debate on our bodies of water policy, which has become rather diluted, so to speak. Sorry for the pun. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * China also has Along the Grand Canal, quite undeveloped. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the test for bodies of water, as for any other subject, should be whether there is enough content, or at least potential content, for there to be useful articles about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Bodies of water needs updating. The key point is "We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water" [emphasis added] with the following caveat: "Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy." Itineraries and travel topics about traveling on or near bodies of water are also mentioned. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, though, feel free to start a new discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I am certain, that reading Australian media with clusters of travel adverts for river cruising, there are only so many rivers in the world where the conditions are ok for travel (that is length, type of boat, and adequate conditions for travel by tourist craft) with enough material to justify an article (thus perhaps allaying Hobbitschuster's anxiety about do we want an article about every river, the answer is a very definite no) I think that criterion should be where adequate information is available (same as Ikan's comment about adequate or poential content), and where genuine tourist travel occurs. There are not that many.JarrahTree (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes are approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep".  Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still in favor of deletion as there is no good target for redirection and the article in its current form does not provide much value for anybody. Furthermore it creates a slippery slop towards similar "extraregions" for each and every river which would violate if not the words than the spirit of our bodies of water policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is going to argue for the creation or retention of articles about every river and creek. JarrahTree and I gave you a standard above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to another admin to resolve this nomination since I am biased towards resolving as "keep" per my earlier comments. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ikan Kekek, how do you know? What does the Rhine have that other rivers don't have? If we keep this and articles like Lake Constance we can just as well change our bodies of water policy to "We have articles on bodies of water whenever it tickles our fancy". Most people would probably have never heard of the Rio Coco or the Rio San Juan, but to the Miskito people the former is next to sacred and at least as important as the Rhine was to many Germans in the past and the Rio San Juan plays a similar role in disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica as did the Rhine in thankfully long gone days. We have a region named after an official term based on the river (Rio San Juan region) but unlike the Bodensee disaster we don't have another article on the body of water itself. If we keep this river and Danube as well, how can we convincingly argue for the deletion of any other river article? If someone creates an article on the Nile, surely we can't delete an article on the longest (or second longest) river in the world that gave rise to one of the most important civilizations in world history, if we have an article on the Rhine. And once that article exists, how do we argue against one on the river Congo? We could of course do that and expand the scope of WV in that way. But quite frankly, there should be a consensus to change policy. I cannot see anything at Bodies of water that would allow the retention of this article and neither can I find anything in favor of keeping Danube. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you're reading Bodies of water, but please read Bodies of water, Bodies of water, Bodies of water and the third sentence of Bodies of water. I'm sorry, but I don't see your slippery slope argument as having any real substance or relevance. If there's ever an article about the Kill Van Kull or Newtown Creek that people want to keep, maybe you'll have a point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhine


text:
Talk:Rhine Falls

merging with schaffhausen
I decided not to merge this into Schaffhausen for several reasons:

 * technically, it is not in Schaffhausen but Neuhausen am Rheinfall, which is far less known
 * The article about Winterthur (and others?) also mentions it
 * the "Get in" section is quite large and would be more complicated if it was split up and distributed over the different city articles

Your call ;-)

Blubb 08:31, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I would also keep it seperate, especially if there are more pictures to come here. Greetings --82.130.90.24 03:22, 3 March 2010 (EST)

The problem is that unless you can sleep at the falls (literally at the falls) it doesn't fit the "can you sleep here" criteria of being it's own article. Haven't been there myself so maybe I'm wrong. Are there campsites/hotels or the like at the falls?

If not it would be better to include it in the "get out" section of Scaffhausen and/or Zermatt (with the different directions on how to get there on those articles. - (WT-en) Kayla 02:50, 13 March 2010 (EST)

 * It should definitely be a part of Schaffhausen, it is very close to it and generally seen as the highlight of that city for most travellers. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:40, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Good spot. I will merge and then redirect. (WT-en) jan 09:57, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Image not showing up?
Image:Rhinefalls.jpg

not showing up for me atleast. --(WT-en) Varajou89 06:20, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rhine Falls


text:
Talk:Rhineland-Palatinate

Regions
The present regions mentioned in the article do not appear to be suitable for a subdivision of the state. I suggest we either keep the state undivided or use the former administrative division in Koblenz, Trier and Rheinhessen-Pfalz. Comments?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes, the current regions certainly are a bit strange. I think at least the Rhine Valley, the Moselle Valley and the Eifel should be part of it. I propose the following:

 * Ahr
 * Eifel
 * Moselle Valley
 * Naheland
 * Palatinate
 * Rhine Valley (also known as the "Romantic Rhine")
 * Rhenish Hesse
 * Westerwald

I'm not sure about the Ahr, maybe we can just merge it with the Eifel. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:56, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Nurburgring
I wanted to add more info about Nurburgring - the racing circuit. The only mention I found here on Wikivoyage is in this article. As I am fairly new to Wikivoyage I am asking the more experienced ones: should I add the info just here or rather create a new page? Thanks (WT-en) Parimucha 03:49, 25 November 2011 (EST)

 * I have created the article Nürburg for you. Please add content about the Nürburgring there :-) --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 05:20, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Map update for NE Rhineland-Palatinate region
I can update the region map to show North-East Rhineland-Palatinate, but wanted to confirm the region should be all one colour. Is it important to still show the Westerwald and Lahn aspects of it like the Regionlist template currently shows? I'm thinking "no", but want to confirm first. -Shaundd (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, would be great if you made the two areas a single color, will then change the region list. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Updated map should now be visible. -Shaundd (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see when I click on the map the image file has updated but on the page it still shows the old one. Do I need to reload or delete some cache in my browser to see the change? --Traveler100 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Worked it out, needed to do clear offline cache in my browser. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhineland-Palatinate


text:
Talk:Rhode Island

I think the "See" and "Do" listings should be moved to the towns and have been doing that. I suggest the listings on this article be changed to provide a briefer overview with a link to the town. (WT-en) OldPine 11:26, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Yep, that's exactly the way it's supposed to be -- some "teaser" info in the region guide, with links to the town pages where there are fuller listings. --(WT-en) Evan 11:33, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Regions map
Nice map! Now, if we've got a regions map for Rhode Island, we must be getting close to having regions maps for all US states, I'd guess ;) Time to look and see which still need them (I've got a New Jersey regions map in the pipes). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:41, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, I did RI because it was easy, and not far from my home state. =)  And it had well-defined regions already, unlike, say, PA.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:36, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

first sentence
The first sentence of the article says that RI is part of Massachusetts....but on the edit page, it doesn't display that way. Whats up with that? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.106.213.2 (talk • contribs)

 * You're seeing an old version that was previously reverted. I've purged the cache for this article, so hopefully it's looking better now. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:22, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Banging around
I'm working on a project for school, and am banging around in the RI section. If any of my changes annoy, I'd love a chance to get feedback about them before you edit over the text. Obviously, if you feel the change can't wait... This project should be done by Nov. 10, 2009. Hope my work is considered a small upgrade. Thanks. (WT-en) RhodeIslandWrite 02:40, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Looks good so far. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:37, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Swap Cities?
Central Falls is pretty far down the list of travel destinations in Rhode Island so I'm proposing swapping it for Bristol or Westerly. Bristol is my first choice since Bristol County doesn't have any of the nine cities at the moment. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Here's the current Cities list:

 * – The state capital, largest city and main commercial center. Home to Brown University.
 * – Spanning merely one square mile, it is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States.
 * – Founded in 1677, its historic district along Main Street features charming shops, excellent restaurants, and a community theater.
 * – Best beaches in New England.
 * – on Aquidneck Island. Once the darling city of the American elite, it is famous for yachting, mansions, and jazz.
 * – Birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution
 * , including the villages of Kingston, West Kingston, Matunuck, Peacedale and Wakefield.
 * – home of TF Green Airport, a shopping mall, and "Gaspee Days," it is an easy (and less expensive) place to land from your flight, and rent a hotel room and car.
 * – Once known as "Little Quebec", it has the largest French-speaking population in Rhode Island. Today, French is rarely heard: it has been replaced by English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

 * Just looking at the three articles, the one about Westerly is the most developed, though a subheading of "Fun" is always one that would need to be changed. Anyway, I would happily defer to your knowledge and judgment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhode Island


text:
Talk:Rhodes

Do we need a separate entry for Lindos?

 * Well, I don't see why not. It's separate village from Rhodes, with its own historical buildings, different tourist culture and so on. Why would you prefer to have them together ? (WT-en) Wojsyl 16:01, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)
 * (and happy new year 2005 :-) )

 * Fine, I just wanted to make sure before moving the pictures, but I see that Huttite lready did that. (WT-en) elgaard 23:55, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)

Working on it
Going to be working on this and related articles for a while today.... please butt in with objections when I am done. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Nils 14:45, 30 May 2005 (EDT)

 * OK I am tired for today, will continue another day. -- (WT-en) Nils 17:05, 30 May 2005 (EDT)

Eat
I think the "Eat" section should refer back to the main Greece article. I have made the proper revision. Let's only mention foods that are specific to Rhodes and the Dodecanese Islands, or if there's an issue specific to Rhodes (like where to find a fast food joint after a night out)...stuff like that. (WT-en) skyduster 01:03, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Stay Safe
Let's limit this to health and safety. Please don't include things about shopping (about the seashells for sale being imported, and not really local...I've moved this to the Buy section). Such things do not belong in the Stay Safe section, and they make the Stay Safe section look too long. It's a safe island, no reason in giving a false impression. (WT-en) skyduster 01:07, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Third party links
I've removed the listing and links to executiveholidays.gr in accordance with the Wikivoyage policies as stated on the Edit Page:

'''Wikivoyage has strong guidelines on links to external web sites. Links to booking engines, hotel and restaurant aggregator sites, or other third-party sites will be deleted.'''

and on the Wikivoyage external links policy page, which prohibits links to

 Hotel or travel booking services, aggregators, Nightlife guides and reviews in nightlife guides, [and] Restaurant guides and reviews in restaurant guides.  (WT-en) Sailsetter 18:14, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ambrosia restaurant
I've removed the listing and link for the Ambrosia Restaurant because 1) it belongs on the Lindos page, 2) it should have at least an address and brief description, and 3) the URL given for it is a third party site of a type which is prohibited by Wikivoyage policy. (WT-en) Sailsetter 19:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Too many sub-articles
There are too many sub-articles here.

 * I have redirected Lardos to Lindos as it only had one incomplete Eat listing in an otherwise empty Outline. Lardos is only a few km from the larger Lindos settlement.

 * I have redirected Pefkos to Lindos as it only had an incomplete Eat listing and an incomplet Drink listing in an otherwise empty Outline. Pefkos is within walking distance from the larger Lindos settlement.

 * I have established an article for Theologos, also called Tholos as that part of the West coast was otherwise not covered and the hotels there (one current listing) were otherwise orphaned or to be assigned to Ixia a fair way up the coas and on the other side of the airport. (WT-en) felix 06:26, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Long list of airlines
Moved here per Avoid long lists. Ibaman (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Airlines/destinations:
 * Aegean Airlines flies from Athens and Thessaloniki. They also fly seasonally from Frankfurt, Heraklion, Larnaca, Lyon, Marseille, Munich, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Saint Petersburg, Zürich
 * Aer Lingus flies seasonally from Dublin
 * Aeroflot flies seasonally from Moscow-Sheremetyevo
 * airBaltic flies seasonally from Yerevan
 * Arkia flies seasonally from Tel Aviv
 * Austrian Airlines flies seasonally from Vienna
 * Bluebird Airways flies seasonally from Tel Aviv
 * Blue Panoroma flies seasonally from Bergamo, Bologna, Rome-Fiumicino
 * British Airways flies seasonally from London-Gatwick and London-Heathrow
 * Chair Airlines flies seasonally from Zurich
 * Condor flies seasonally from Berlin–Schönefeld, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, Leipzig/Halle, Munich, Stuttgart
 * Corendon Airlines flies seasonally from Cologne/Bonn, Düsseldorf, Erfurt/Weimar, Friedrichshafen, Graz, Hannover, Karlsruhe/Baden-Baden, Katowice, Leipzig/Halle, Linz, London–Gatwick, Maastricht/Aachen, Memmingen, Munich, Münster/Osnabrück, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Weeze
 * Cyprus Airways flies seasonally from Larnaca
 * easyJet flies from seasonally Amsterdam, Berlin–Schönefeld, Berlin-Tegel, Bristol, Liverpool, London–Gatwick, London–Luton, Milan–Malpensa, Paris–Orly, Venice
 * Edelweiss Air flies seasonally from Zurich
 * Eurowings flies seasonally from Cologne/Bonn, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Munich, Stuttgart
 * Finnair flies seasonally from Helsiki
 * Israir flies seasonally from Haifa and Tel Aviv
 * Jet2.com flies seasonally from Belfast–International, Birmingham, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds/Bradford, London–Stansted, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne
 * LOT Polish Airlines flies seasonally from Gdańsk, Katowice, Warsaw–Chopin, Wrocław
 * Lufthansa flies seasonally from Frankfurt and Munich
 * Luxair flies seasonally from Luxembourg
 * Neos flies seasonally from Bergamo, Berlin–Tegel, Bologna, Charleroi, East Midlands, Kaunas, Liverpool, London–Stansted, Manchester, Pisa, Prague, Rome–Fiumicino, Stockholm–Skavsta, Vienna
 * Norwegian Air Shuttle flies seasonally from Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo–Gardermoen, Stockholm–Arlanda
 * Olympic Air flies seasonally from Kastellorizo
 * Ryanair operates flies seasonally from Milan-Bergamo, Bournemouth, Frankfurt-Hahn, Pisa, Kaunas and Rome
 * S7 Airlines flies seasonally from Moscow-Domededovo
 * Scandanavian Airlines flies seasonally from Copeenhagen
 * Sky Express flies Sky Express flies from Astypalaia, Chios, Heraklion, Kalymnos, Karpathos, Kasos, Kos, Lemnos, Leros, Mytilene, and Samos. They also fly seasonally from Sitia
 * Smartwings flies seasonally from Bratislava, Brno, Budapest, Košice, Ostrava, Pardubice, Prague, Wrocław
 * Sundair flies seasonally from Bremen, Dresden, Kassel
 * Swiss International Airlines flies seasonally from Geneva and Zurich
 * Transavia flies seasonally from Amsterdam, Nantes, Paris-Orly
 * TUI Airwyas flies seasonally from Aberdeen, Amsterdam, Basel/Mulhouse, Belfast–International, Berlin–Tegel, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Bristol, Brussels, Cardiff, Charleroi, Cologne/Bonn, Doncaster/Sheffield, Düsseldorf, East Midlands, Exeter, Frankfurt, Glasgow, Hannover, Liège, London–Gatwick, London–Luton, London–Stansted, Manchester, Munich, Newcastle upon Tyne, Norwich, Nuremberg, Ostend/Bruges, Paderborn/Lippstadt, Rotterdam, Saarbrücken, Stuttgart
 * Volotea flies from Athens. They also fly seasonally from Palermo and Venice.
 * Vueling flies seasonally from Rome-Fiumicino
 * Wizz Air flies from Tirana. They also fly seasonally from Budapest, Dortmund, London–Luton, Milan–Malpensa, Vienna

title: Talk:Rhodes


text:
Talk:Rhodes (city)

For anyone that's got time to get them, there are some decent photos over at the Wikipedia article that are either public domain or CC-SA 3.0. They could really improve this guide.-- (WT-en) Tim 03:41, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Map problem
The map linked at the top of the article is OK, but the one within the article shows Greenwich in London, not Rhodes. I do not know how to fix this. Is there a volunteer? Pashley (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhodes (city)


text:
Talk:Rhyolite

Nice post!

 * It's not obvious to me that Rhyolite meets the "you can sleep there" criterion -- in fact, you can't sleep there. Shouldn't this be merged with Beatty? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:30, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * Yes. A ghost town a couple of miles from an actual town should definitely be merged into the actual town. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:35, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * OK, so I've merged the content into Beatty. Anybody see a reason why this shouldn't be redirected there?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:12, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

 * No dissent, so the deed is done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:59, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rhyolite


text:
Talk:Ria formosa

Archived VfD
Copyvio from, no content otherwise. Redirection to Algarve is another option. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 20:25, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * Keep - Copyright Violation is not sufficient reason to delete a page. Tag it as a copyright violation and/or redirect to the page where the attraction is best listed if it cannot become an article. (WT-en) Huttite 09:29, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Delete. We can't keep copyright-violating text in the history of an article.  Better to delete it outright, and if a redirect is desired, one can be created afterward.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)

 * Policy discussion moved to Project:Deletion policy''

 * Wipe and redirect to Algarve, unless someone wants to argue it deserve an article of its own. There are plenty of instances where copyvio text has been inserted into an existing article along with our original content, and it's been dealt with by deleting the copyvio text. The history is there to show we fulfilled our obligations. Seriously, think through the consequences here. As a vandal, I could nuke Paris by dropping copyvio text into the second paragraph. Then Wikivoyage would have to delete the entire history of the article to get rid of that copyvio. After it was recreated, the entire valid revision history (and contributors) would be lost. Nose, spite, face, etc. On the other hand, we would need the contributor to explicitly say he or she had rights to re-license that text. We absolutely should not assume they did. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Policy discussion moved to Project:Deletion policy''

 * Keep, either as an article or redirect if needed. Copyright text and images are removed, we've never wiped history before for that. I also removed a line that was confusing in the deletion policy – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Redirect to either Ria Formosa or Algarve—with very limited knowledge, I would recommend the latter. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete! The title is wrong, should be Rio Formosa. All of the text is a copyvio. Nuke it. (WT-en) Pashley 09:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Spelling mistakes should be redirected not deleted. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep as redirect to Algarve. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:06, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ria formosa


text:
Talk:Riau Islands

isIn or isNotIn Sumatra?
My call would be that this province is part of Sumatra. This does not mean that it is not administratively independent, because there isn't really a single administrative unit which covers the whole of Sumatra. Sumatra is just a geographical division for Indonesia, like Java (which has 4 independently administered provinces and two special territories), Irian (2 provinces) or Maluku (2 provinces). The Riau Islands were part of a larger Riau province which included a portion of the Sumatra "mainland" and also because of its proximity to Sumatra, the islands have been regarded as part of Sumatra. Of course the Natuna and Anambas islands are miles away from Sumatra, but that should not be the deciding factor. The southern Maluku islands of Wetar and Kisar are more geographically linked to Nusa Tenggara, but because of the political connection, are deemed part of the Maluku archipelago and in Maluku province.(WT-en) Slleong 00:02, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Riau Islands


text:
Talk:Richland

Removed text
''An anonymous user wrote the following that I removed from the article. It may give someone ideas to contribute -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:41, 15 Aug 2005 (EDT)''

Richland! woo! This place is Radioactive!

There's a good Thai restaurant in Richland, and that's about it.

Other links:

 * http://cityguide.aol.com/richlandwa
 * http://www.livejournal.com/community/3city_fscks/
 * http://www.reactormag.com/ is some kind of zine about the area.

--

The default WikiTravel template is incredibly lame. --Tobin

title: Talk:Richland


text:
Talk:Richland County (Ohio)

were can I find major cities and industry

write back --69.130.55.115 17:29, 25 April 2008 (EDT)kbb

title: Talk:Richland County (Ohio)


text:
Talk:Richmond

Can we move this to Richmond (disambiguation)? It would seem to me that Richmond (Virginia) is by far the most famous Richmond, and should be moved here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:11, 18 November 2009 (EST)

District discussion
Given that one district redlinks and the rest are currently ranked at outline, the question presents itself: Is the current division of this city into districts as it stands now a good idea? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Two years later, the district articles are in better shape, but they're still on the short side and three of them are still outlines. My first instinct is to think it would be better to merge the districts back into the city article for the time being. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Northside still redlinks. Another problem is that many listings are still contained in this here city article instead of the districts... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So do you agree it would make sense to merge the districts back into the city article? Or do you think it would be better to try to move the listings from this article into the districts and see how they look then? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's go for the latter first. And what about the redlinking district? I also have not the foggiest idea whether the district boundaries make sense from a travel standpoint. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know either; I've never been to Richmond. I'll start moving the listings to the districts and we can see how it looks, but I suspect they're still going to end up being pretty short. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved all the listings to the districts, except for one listing that looks like it belongs in the still-redlinked Richmond/Northside. We now have one fairly short city article, two very short district articles, four district articles that I would call moderately short to at best medium-length, and one redlinked district. Like I said, I haven't been to Richmond, but from the length of these district articles it looks to me like it would be more useful to merge all the district articles back into the city article. Of course, it would be great to have other people's opinions, especially anyone familiar with Richmond. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been almost a year since the last comment in this discussion. Does anyone else have input? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * There is a new user, Magicstar1234, a local from Richmond VA, I'm sure she can help this discussion. I invite her to opinate. Ibaman (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could try finding listings to add where they are needed, but if we can’t find enough listings to add because the size of the city makes district articles inappropriate, let’s merge them back to the city article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look overwhelming for a non-districted article. Listings could be subdivided by area in the main article as needed. Not surprisingly "Downtown" is the longest (and the only really fairly full-looking) article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging from the Richmond article, perhaps there should be fewer city district articles. There seem to be a lot for a city of this size. Could a couple of them perhaps be combined into one? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good thought. I don't know Richmond. If one of the districts is Downtown, what would the other one(s) be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the district articles are reasonably well developed, with the exception of Richmond/Southside, which is skimpy, and Richmond/Northside. Merging all of the districts would require a lot of effort and create a less useful article with dozens of listings in each section. I don't know what to do about the Northside and Southside articles, though. Ground Zero (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Richmond/East End is either close to usable status or is already at usable status. Would you call it usable status yet? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the requirements for usable districts, but the lack of address info for many or most of the POIs is disappointing, as is the lack of info on getting in by bus, except to say that you can. Ground Zero (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been open for 5½ years, and there has been no further discussion for 11 months now. I think we can close this discussion, allow the existing districts to continue to develop, and remove the district discussion tag. Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Richmond/West End includes listings in the northern area of the city, so perhaps Richmond/Northside does not have to exist and Richmond/West End can be moved to Richmond/West End and Northside. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Ground Zero (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Six years later, I created the Northside article by moving all the listings that were not in West End. Done and simple, I guess we can finally close this discussion. We could have alternatively used @Hanif Al Husaini's suggestion, but that would require a change in the static map. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem of history
I have cut down the history section and put in a couple of infoboxes to make this less encyclopedic and more like a travel guide. If you look at the edits, you may wonder where the section on the First African Baptist Church went. I moved it to Richmond/Downtown and created a listing for the building so that travellers can go to see it.

This highlights the problem of Wikivoyage being used to write history without references from a single perspective: lots of history about the church, but no information on how to get there. History writers should focus on Wikipedia, and leave Wikivoyage as a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that, and your point is well taken, but I do think something about the removal of the Robert E. Lee memorial should be appended at the end of the "History" summary, because that shows so clearly how things have changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richmond


text:
Talk:Richmond (California)

Lol. Nice city.

title: Talk:Richmond (California)


text:
Talk:Richmond (disambiguation)

Can we move this to Richmond (disambiguation)? It would seem to me that Richmond (Virginia) is by far the most famous Richmond, and should be moved here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:11, 18 November 2009 (EST)
 * I would suggest that the disambiguation page should be moved back to the base name. Since the British Columbia one has nearly as many people, (and so does the London borough though its not a separate location) the one in California has about half the population and the one in North Yorkshire though much smaller it is still a popular tourist resort and is the original. Wikipedia (and most of the other WPs) have a DAB at Richmond, and I'd say that while the one in Virginia is the most famous it doesn't meet the "so much more famous rule". I therefore propose moving back. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richmond (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Richmond (Kentucky)

If you know of anyother information concering Richmond, Ky, please fell free to add your contributions.

title: Talk:Richmond (Kentucky)


text:
Talk:Riejka

what is the weather like in November?

title: Talk:Riejka


text:
Talk:Rietvlei Nature Reserve

Spellcheck
If anyone has some time on their hands, please spell and syntax check this for me. Thanks (WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:58, 3 February 2007 (EST)

When is a good time to visit?
This is presently up for consideration as an OtBP, and I'm curious whether November or December would be a good time to run the article. It's currently scheduled for September, but it would be advantageous to have either Guinsa or Namche Bazaar that month, if it's feasible to delay this one. Is the November/December weather at the Reserve acceptable? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:28, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rietvlei Nature Reserve


text:
Talk:Riga

Riga Card
I'm wondering: Should the Riga card, which covers both transportation and attractions, go under Get Around or See, with a mention in the other? I'm thinking See --Rastapopulous

 * I also think See, since the reader will see it with the list of attractions. You wouldn't buy it for the transport alone, but you may buy it for the attraction admissions alone. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 08:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Categorizing
Does anyone else know what categories the remaining restaurants are in? --Rastapopulous

 * I'm trying to figure out a scheme for categorizing the restaurants. Anyone have any ideas?  I'm afraid I'm not very good at this.  (WT-en) Rastapopulous 18:06, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Lido Entertainment Center
This will be a nightmare, especially considering I've never been there, but I am going to try and take on this listing. Does anyone know if by "holidays" on the website (in the section w/ the hours), they really mean "weekends"? (WT-en) Rastapopulous 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

 * Looks like you made a decent stab at it. By the way, the convention is to add new items on talk pages at the bottom. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 08:10, 12 November 2009 (EST)

 * Okay, I've split it up a bit now. Anyone have any idea whether the "Russian-themed" restaurant is what's on the middle floor?  (WT-en) Rastapopulous 18:04, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * No, the whole thing appears to be Russian-themed; the middle floor is simply the main (and largest) area. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 09:02, 15 November 2009 (EST)

 * Okay. What exactly is on the middle floor anyway, that's different from the other two?  (WT-en) Rastapopulous 16:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Duplicate listing
I have the suspicion that this listing:

 * The markets next to International Bus Terminal are full of people selling their wares at stalls, both inside the large halls and around the outside. The market is actually quite non-touristy with more emphasis on selling things like second-hand clothing, food, furniture or kitchen supplies. In here you can buy almost anything... Very good for souvenirs. There are lots of small cafes scattered around the markets that serve up cheap local eats.

Is the same as the Central Market. It is pretty close to the bus terminal. Can anyone confirm/deny this?(WT-en) Rastapopulous 21:48, 12 November 2009 (EST)

 * Yes, now I look at it in detail I'm sure you're right. There were stalls outside the back of CM, the descriptions of the things on sale are right. Descriptions of where buses ran from were vague - some said Central Market, some said the Stockmann centre. These were positioned either side of the main railway station, and I don't know where the International Bus Terminal would be. I say delete it as a duplicate item or merge some text. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 03:51, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * Do you think I should merge them into Buy or See? I think Buy.  (WT-en) Rastapopulous 11:18, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * Either one works, as it's a bit of both, so go with your preference. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 11:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

 * The listings have been merged together and placed into the Buy section. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 16:54, 13 November 2009 (EST)

image budget hotels in the journey's time
This image was done by myself. The data come from google maps and a latvian magazine. I did it for a friend who work in travel agency. I can confirm the data can be used for any document, and I give to everyone the right to use this picture. It's very usefull for customers. Even if it helps the Top 5 of the hotels in this table, it also provide a right information to others. If a guest get a good deal with one hotel, he can decide if want to spend more time in transport or not for such price. But it will not have an unpleasant surprise. (WT-en) Peterisvalkis 11:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

 * I'm going to remove this image. The info it presents is a detailed comparison of hotel distances which, presented in any other form, would still likely be eliminated. It also contains a great deal of tiny tiny text, much of it in other languages, and it does not generally fit with our style to present info tables in image form. (WT-en) texugo 12:08, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Stay Safe
I haven't seen a notice on pickpockets. Be aware, they operate smoothly at the underground passageways connecting old town, 13.janvara iela, stockman centrs and central station. Even the locals say that it is an infamous place for pickpockets. I got robbed from my media player while I was even listening to that device and I didn't see who did it! I have captured a picture of a pick pocketer operating by using a fake hand bag with his arm hidden under it. Maybe I can upload it to this site. From Damian.

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like this banner. First, it is too broad, and each object is so small that it becomes indistinguishable on my 14' screen. Second, it is a 360-deg panorama wrapped into a "linear" image, which makes it confusing: there is only one river in Riga, and you should not see it on both left and right sides of the photo. --Alexander (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even just purely as a composition, I at least marginally prefer the current banner, although it's a little hazy in the distance. —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs)
 * Like Alexander, I find it slightly "disturbing" and unreal to see Daugava River both on the right and the left, hence I prefer the old banner. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this one, I recropped the panorama to avoid "double river effect". Jjtkk (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That improved it a lot. I would favor replacing the current banner with your recropped image. But I'd like to see what people who know the city have to say, as I've never visited Riga. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This recropped image is now very similar to the old banner. I still weakly prefer the old one, though, because it shows individual landmarks more clearly. --Alexander (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very similar cause I like the current banner except the fact that Zeppelin hangars and TV-Tower are cut off and Academy of Sciences is in renovation. When I made the current banner I didn't find the panorama we have now and there were more serious dimension constraints from source photo. Jjtkk (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be pretty if anyone who can take photo from the 11. novembra krastmala of Riga, and make banner as this: File:Riga daugava.jpg. --Great Brightstar (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I created a new banner for this, which captured from a panorama image from west side of Daugava River, and I beliebe this should be worthy of the best view of the city throughout the history (see c:Category:Panoramics in Riga). --Great Brightstar (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the new banner. Let's discuss the pros and cons of the different banners. The first banner probably has the best light, except for people who prefer sunsets; the third banner has the most distinctive view but is a little fuzzy; and the second banner is probably sharpest but has the least appealing light. Your thoughts, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 look more appealing than 3, FWIW. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seen from EXIF information from original file, this was taken during a sunset. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd assumed it wasn't a sunrise, but we have doubts that it's the best of the 3 banners. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Bus rental Riga
Its very useful to have a bus rental address, because, people who may visit wiki voyage website are probably planning their trip by them self's, and they are probably looking for a cheaper and a better way to explore Riga and Latvia in this case. If they have a place where they can compare prices with existing bus routes, It may be interesting for them to expand their trip in Riga and Latvia all together.

It could be very useful information for people who are traveling in big groups. Or, for travelers, who are just looking for some options and are planning a group tour. —The preceding comment was added by Oskars123 (talk • contribs)

 * I'll have some arguments later, but perhaps someone would like to address whether bus rental listings have been permitted on any other page on this site, and what reasoning has been used in regard to policy so far. Meanwhile, please wait for a consensus and don't edit war. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

District split
We now have 58 "See" listings alone, and I believe there are many more to add, not to mention a lack of most of the important "Do" listings. This will probably push the combined number of POIs in those two sections alone to over 100. Moreover, we still have the Eat, Drink and Sleep sections to cover, which will make it something around 200 with the ones we already have and a few more that will probably be added.

Further still, it is hard to give a single set of directions on getting around for the POI-filled largely pedestrian Old Town, the dense Centrs and the sparsely sprinkled POIs outside of the Centra rajons. Therefore, my proposal would be to split Riga into three separate articles:
 * Vecriga
 * Centrs (may include the bit of Maskavas forstate immediately adjacent to the railway station)
 * Outer Riga (basically everything outside Centra rajons)

I know this seems quite radical and would provide for two relatively small districts and one super-large, but I guess the relative POI density makes it the only reasonable solution. Having separate guides for every of the five outer districts would results with near-empty articles with little chance of being filled with relevant content. Only by combining them do we get a critical mass necessary for a reasonably useful guide.

What do you guys think? Should I go forward with that? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. User:Ypsilon, User:Jjtkk, User:Abstraktn, User:Nurg, User:Carsten R D - I saw you made edits to this article in not-so-distant past. You may perhaps want to weigh in on the above.

 * What is Centers? I think even locals will be confused, because the center of Riga is the Old Town.
 * Riga has several well-defined districts, such as Pardaugava (+Daugavgriva), Maskavas forštate (from the central market and Academy of Science to the church of Old Believers and Jewish memorials; an essential part of Riga that most tourists do not know), Vidzemes or Peterburgas priekšpilsēta (with its Jugenstil buldings and industrial architecture). And the rest could be called Outer districts, where places like Mezaparks and ethnography museum will be described.
 * If you don't feel that you can write about each of these districts, then perhaps keep everything in one article for the time being? --Alexander (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for chipping in, Alexander! I take it you know Riga very well, so your opinion is very valuable.
 * I have in fact never been to Riga, I am just researching it for the coming visit. What I have found is that the Centrs part of the Centra rajons is very often referenced, and that most POIs that are not in Vecriga are located there, including the Jugendstil buildings (Elizabetes, Albertas, Marijas etc.) It seems to me that the official district of Vidzemes priekspilseta is the one further out, where we do not have many POIs.
 * Regarding Maskavas forštate, it surely is an important district, but it seems like most POIs, apart from the said Grebenshchikov Church, are actually close to the train station, and there isn't even 10 See items there. So creating a separate guide would provide for a stubby one, so I propose to add this part of the Maskavas forštate to the part on the 19th-century centre (however we call it).
 * As regards Pardaugava, there doesn't seem to be more than 10 POIs in total (including hotels and the airport, which isn't even in Riga actually) on the right bank of the river. Therefore, I believe we would be creating an empty shell of an article just to "highlight the significance" of the district, which we can well do by appropriately formulating the "Understand" and "See" (and other) sections of the combined "Outer Riga" article.
 * Do take into account that I am looking at Riga from a tourist's point of view, not local's. There may be many well-defined districts that follow, or don't follow, the official borders, but some of them are simply of less interest to the tourist and I guess we should gauge if a district "deserves" a separate guide by looking at the number of POIs first and foremost, not its cultural, historical etc. significance for the locals. Which is not to say we should not mention and emphasize how the locals see Riga, and what they find important, this is only the principle I'd adopt for districtification.
 * Finally - no, I cannot write at length about any of those districts much more than is already written, and what I can find in the sources, as I don't know Riga. I was just trying to use the guide to plan my journey and found it unwieldy, due to the extreme concentration of POIs in the Old Town, which I guess could be better described in a separate article, as almost every street has some significance and that would be more of a walking guide. Furthermore, I have found the area that I have found references as "Centrs" similarly filled with POIs to the point that outlying POIs in the other district you mentioned would be distracting. Hence my idea for the split, as those three guides would allow for easy trip planning and would make getting acquainted with the city easier due to the respective POI density.
 * Lastly - while I believe I have an idea of all the important "See" listings, both already included and still to be added (which I plan on doing in due course), I may be very wrong on that. Would you be so kind and try to add the ones you believe are missing so that we could get a better idea of the concentrations of POIs on the map and then I could better understand your points?
 * Again, thank you for joining the discussion - I am very happy to have you, with your obvious knowledge of Riga, on board! PrinceGloria (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Riga is a pretty long article. Been once to Riga, but it was a while ago, so I don't know how much I can help (I added coordinates for everything a few months back but had to use google maps+the address for everything but the most famous sights). IMO it would be logical to divide Riga into four: 1. Vecriga (Old town), 2. Commercial centre or something like that for places around the railway station and northeast of the old town, 3. East bank (east of Daugava outside those two, don't know where to draw the border), 4. West bank.
 * Or then Vecriga could just be chopped out as one separate district article, Andrewssi did this to Haeundae beach when districtifying [Busan for the first time.
 * Or we could keep everything here and arrange sights under subheadings for each district and for the sight-dense Vecriga even "sub-subheadings" for different kinds of sights if needed.
 * Ps. I'm traveling and won't be editing much this week. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * This article is long enough to be split in my opinion. Old Town/Vecriga should get its own article but I'm not sure about Centrs, I agree it's hard to define its borders while in Riga. I'd go with three "districts":
 * Old Town - UNESCO listed, one day tourists mostly stay just there
 * East Bank (with POIs along Brivibas iela and in Maskavas forštate) for those who have a bit more time
 * West bank (with islands on Daugava) - not much to see there really
 * This way borders are well defined and we don't have on huge outer district (which I think are very impractical). That's how I dealt with Riga when I stayed there for two weeks or so. Jjtkk (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Riga for tourists in 2 days" does not need any districts. It should be all about the Old Town plus few points next to its borders. This is what most people see, and one single article covers it very well, even though it will be a long article. But one article is always better than 2-3 articles, because you don't have to jump from one text to another every time you cross the boulevards and leave the Old Town.

I emphatically disagree with statements like "not much to see there really", and I can start adding POIs (how many POIs do you want? how many POIs warrant a separate district?) but this will bring us to a discussion whether each of these POIs is important or not. I also don't think that counting POIs makes much sense, because most of the pre-WWII districts have their own ambiance, which is something that you never get from the map. Maskavas forštate, Āgenskalns, Grīziņkalns all deserve a separate walk and will give you a real feel of the city with its rich history and controversial reality, but this is not what most tourists are interested in.

Finally, one can easily compare Tallinn and Riga, which are cities of similar size and similar tourist importance. The current version of the Tallinn article is pretty much a dumb-tourist-oriented travel guide fitted into a single article. It mentions Nomme as "another residential district", which is quite funny to read about the richest collection of Estonian buildings from 1920-30-s (the short period of independence), let alone the gorgeous Glehn's manor, but indeed nobody goes there because it is not featured in popular travel guides. The current version of Riga article is a similar mainstream tourist thing, and it should fit into one article as well. Whenever we have other people who are interested in non-mainstream things, a proper district scheme can be developed. --Alexander (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * User:Alexander, first of all - if you know of more POIs, by all means do add them (both to Riga and Tallinn - we have only 2 weeks until Tallinn goes onto the front page!). You are a seasoned contributor, I seriously doubt we would have any qualms about any POI you may add. Some of them may be "less important", but I guess that's what guides are all about - if we provide and appropriate description, it is up for the tourist to decide what they find important and interesting for them. The more choice and more in-depth information, the better. There is no point dumbing things down.
 * I believe there is a certain number of POIs that can serve as a good rule of a thumb if a district should be carved out. I'd say this should be around 25 POIs in the See & Do sections combined. May just as well not work everytime, but I believe districtification is first and foremost a way for us to reign in overly long lists of listings. For areas that are interesting, but not really filled with POIs in the strictest sense, a good way is to give them a descriptive and attractive description, e.g. telling tourists that it is worth going there for a stroll and experience the wooden architecture of 19th-century ambiance, particularly along XX and YY streets. We don't need a separate article for that.
 * OTOH, I cannot agree with you that everything that a "casual tourist" (I wouldn't call them dumb - attractions that are the most popular tend to be so because the most people are interested in them, let us leave judging people's tastes aside) may want to see in Riga is in the Old Town or "next to its borders". First off, Riga's Old Town is very unique in the way that it is quite clearly separated from other parts of town by a river, canal, belts of green and two main roads. Going from the Old Town into other parts requires a conscious decision and I believe tourists can easily see they are going into another district, plus there is a bit of a walk (or a bus ride!), significantly more than between the POIs within the Old Town, between the Old Town and the 19th century Riga.
 * It is easy to walk from Elizabetes into Albertas, or further into Marijas, Krisjana Valdemara or Baznicas. Just like moving between Doma, Livu and Ratslaukums is a matter of turning around a corner. This is why both of this areas could use walking guides that one could constantly reference while they walk. But crossing the canal is a longer walk and then we can advise the tourist to turn to a different guide, where a different set of instructions would be given (e.g. we pretty much don't have to mention trams for the Old Town, but could discuss individual lines when dealing with 19th century Riga, which is how I understand "Centrs").
 * User:Ypsilon - thanks for chipping in and finding time for that during your "voyaging"! Seems like your first impression is the same as mine, with the difference that you would split out the west bank entirely. User:Jjtkk thank you as well! With regard to your comment - is the Old Town enough for a day? What about the Elizabetes, Albertas and other 19th-century streets? I guess they may be even more of a draw than the Old Town itself. At any rate, putting Elizabetes and Albertas, as well as the Academy of Science and Central Market, in the same article with outliers like Mezaparks would not provide for a hnady guide IMHO, which is why I proposed to split them in the first place.
 * What I would propose is for us to start the Old Town article (we seem to all agree this is a separate, well-defined, touristy or not, part of Riga), and I would propose for you to reconsider my proposal for a Centrs article to avoid putting stuff "close to the Old Town but requiring a bit of a walk or two bus stops" and "requiring an hour's bus ride" together. Then we could leave out everything else in the "Outer Riga" article (and continually add to it) and see if any of the further districts mentioned emerges from that as a useful material for a guide. How about this? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you want to see Riga first? Honestly, I find it very strange when one writes about the city without visiting it. This is something like writing travel guides on the basis of other travel guides and copying their bugs instead of providing your own view based on first-hand travel experience.
 * Regarding extra POIs, I intentionally refrained from editing the Tallinn article, because it is a good and concise travel guide for a first-time visitor. If I now add 50+ POIs (which is very easy to do), we will have to split the article into districts, write overview texts explaining what to see and why, etc. I don't have enough time to do it myself (in fact, I do it, but very slowly and in Russian), and I don't see other editors having deep knowledge of the city (same for Riga, unfortunately). Therefore, I strongly recommend to keep the article as basic as possible. However, if you want to see Riga beyond standard tourist attractions, here is a list (which is by far incomplete). --Alexander (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Either this is a wiki about voyages and we treat it seriously and add content as we go - as it occurs to us, as we have the time - or we are trying to write a perfect offline travel guide. I would hope we all truly accept the perpetually imperfect nature of our guides stemming from the sole fact that they are being created that way. I don't think we should EVER refrain from editing, or adding to, a guide for fear of making it "less perfect". This work is never finished and we should never stop just because it is "good enough for now".
 * So, if you find the below worth recommending to me, they are worth recommending to any other traveller who might stumble upon our guide. Why don't you start adding them to the article (same goes for Tallinn) and my observation is that this usually starts a snowball effect of other users getting interested, chipping in their knowledge, copyediting and such. So there is no need to worry that you will just add 50 POIs and nothing will happen. Please do just that, and things WILL happen. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. Regarding the fact I edit this guide BEFORE visiting Riga - I did it several times for places I haven't been before since I started at Wikivoyage, and I found that I usually had little to add or change after I visited the place. There is a surprising breadth and depth of information if you are an inquisitive and imaginative traveller - be it online, on paper or to be got directly from those in the know.
 * PS2. If after all that we shall see that there is a good reason for districtification of a certain area, it will be done in due course (and again, you will see that even if you don't have the time to write intros and such, somebody will). I would only suggest keeping POIs under headings of districts you may think may emerge, it will make the districtification easier (and will help the travellers anyway, regardless of whether we districtify or not).

 * Well, I did what I deemed necessary, and now I will step back to see how the wiki mechanism handles this information. --Alexander (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The borders of the old town are not a problem, I'd say. These would be Daugava, Vansu bridge/Krisjana Valdemara iela, Pilsetas kanals and 13 Janvara. But where the border between the "commercial centre" and the outer districts is not as straightforward.
 * As for now, however I'm fine with keeping the article as one.
 * Also, if we are going to add a lot of sights with the aim of making districts we should also look into adding other types of POIs. I remember - Alexander for sure also does - the case with Moscow a few months back when a certain user added everything that could be considered a sight (I think there was close to 300 in one of them) and no additional restaurants, stores, hotels and bars and the article looked like an Opel Corsa with 50 sacks of cement in the trunk... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

List of POIs by User:Atsirlin to be added to the article
Maskavas forštate:

 * Red warehouses. A huge cluster of mid-19th century warehouses between the train station and Central Market. They remind of the former trade harbor.

 * St. Francis Church (Katoļu iela 16). Built in 1892, a gorgeous neo-gothic building in the middle of slums. Features copies of Giotto's mural paintings in the Papal Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi.

 * All Saints Church (Katoļu iela 10). Orthodox church built in neo-Romanic style around 1880. Unlike other orthodox churches in Latvia, which are typically Russian in their style and nature, this one was designed by a Latvian architect.

 * Church of John the Baptist (Kalna iela 21). Construction started in 1913-14 but it was not finished before the Russian Revolution and continued in 1920s when Latvia became independent. This led to a strange mix of styles rendering the church a rare example of modernist architecture implemented in an Orthodox temple. The adjacent Ivanovskoe cemetery is the main Orthodox cemetery of Riga.

 * Church of Our Lady of Kazan (Kalna iela 21). Another church on the same cemetery. Build of wood in 1812-15 in a somewhat awkward style with 5 small domes sitting on a massive drum.

 * Church of Gregory the Illuminator (Kojusalas iela 5). Armenian church built in 2011.

 * Old New Synagogue (Altnaie Schul, Maskavas iela 57). The only synagogue that survived through the WWII. Built in 1889, partially restored after the war and converted into a residential building.

 * Church of Michael Archangel (Maskavas iela 170). Old Believers church from 1894-95, nice example of the Russian Revival style.

 * Horse-drawn omnibus (Maskavas iela, crossing with Mazā Kalna iela). A funny monument commemorating the first Riga tram that was driven by horse power. An old iron construction nearby reminds of the former Hay Market.

 * Old Jewish cemetery (between Tējas iela and Ebreju iela). A huge area that reminds of the Jewish population of Maskavas forštate. Established in early 18th century, this cemetery kept expanding till the beginning of 20th century. After all local Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during WWII, Soviet government destroyed the remaining gravestones and converted the area into a Park of Communist Brigades. Nowadays, there is a small Jewish memorial.

Āgenskalns:
 * St. Martin's Church (Slokas iela 34). Lutheran church from 1850s. Its decorations are fairly plain, but the location among the trees is remarkable.

 * Baptist Church (Mārupes iela 14). A mix of cultures and styles. Built in 1913-16, this church had neither a tower nor a dome and resembled a simple residential building. The tower was added in 1936. Baptist services continued until 1961 and resumed shortly after Latvia re-gained its independence.

 * Trinity church (Mārupes iela 2). A fine example of Russian style from the very end of 19th century. Don't miss rich decorations as well as eye-catching mural paintings and icons inside.

 * Methodist church (Slokas iela 6). A fairly bland building from 1930s. However, the very presence of a big methodist church in Riga is remarkable.

 * Church of St. Albert (Liepājas iela 38). Baroque edifice from early 20th century. The interior of the church was partly designed in 1950s despite the official atheist propaganda that was widely imposed in the Soviet Union.

Grīziņkalns:

 * St. Paul's Church (Augusta Deglava iela 1). Neogothic church from 1885 marks the center of Riga's main industrial neighborhood. Most of the mural paintings are from 1930s and represent the art of independent Latvia before WWII.

 * Two gas storage buildings from 1882 and 1901 (end of Matīsa iela) are landmarks of the old gas factory in Riga. These enormous structures reaching 40 m in diameter are probably the largest buildings of their kind in Eastern Europe. Note the pressure meter that mimics a clock.

 * Baptist church (Matīsa iela 50b). Light neo-Romanic building from 1867 looks completely alien to its dark industrial neighborhood.

 * Twin water towers located at the crossing of three railway lines (Mazā Matīsa iela) are known among locals as Anna and Zhanna (Ann and Joan). Legend has it that Anna was a skilled quack in medieval Riga. She was accused in being a witch and burnt to death. This triggered her sister Zhanna to commit suicide. Their ashes were brought to a place that was considered wicked, which is exactly the triangle between the railway lines where the water towers are located. This place is indeed quite strange and renowned for its remoteness dominated by a huge cemetery and a prison. The water towers from 1885-87 are very pretty, though, and seen from afar.

 * Matisa cemetery adjacent to the water towers has an interesting monument to the heroes of the Russian Revolution of 1905. The monument was built during the time of Soviet occupation (1956-59) and represents the typical gloomy-gray concrete style of Latvian military monuments constructed after WWII. Another and equally gloomy 1905 monument is in the small park on Grīziņkalns hill on Pērnavas iela.

 * Valmieras iela and adjacent streets boast gorgeous industrial buildings from late 19th century. The largest factory was Russo-Balt that produced first cars and airplanes in the Russian empire. Most of these buildings are now abandoned and derelict but quite interesting to see. You will find lots of old plaques, signboards and other 100-year old artifacts.

Bar scams, language school scams
Are those still current issues? Can't find any info on that on the US embassy site. Can anybody more in the know confirm if we should keep all those lenghty infoboxes about those? PrinceGloria (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the language schools. Regarding the bars, I suggest to remove the list and extend the text in the Stay Safe section. I am not sure whether such things are still common, but they might exist, similar to taxi drivers who tend to drive you for a fixed price instead of using the meter. --Alexander (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing picture
It may well be true that Riga has regular ferry connections to Stockholm, but this picture is confusing. I took the picture myself in Riga, and that ship was going to Turku, not Stockholm. And besides, it was a special Christmas cruise. Normally it doesn't even go to Riga but sails between Stockholm and Turku. JIP (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or it did at the time. Apparently it now sails between Helsinki and Tallinn. JIP (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tallink sails from Stockholm to Riga, but not with Europa (which we BTW won't see around for a while). But showing both a passenger ferry and the terminal I think it is the best photo we currently have on Commons. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I put that picture with the caption there for the very reason outlined by Ypsilon. Silja Europa and Romantika aren't that totally different in terms of ship type and size. This picture is just to show that Riga has a ferry terminal that handles large passenger ferries of that size - and currently the only regular ferry connection is to Stockholm. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oddities in the Understand section
Much of the old town was either destroyed by fire or destroyed by the Germans in World War II and remained in ruins until it was rebuilt in the late 1990s, mainly to make Riga attractive as a tourist destination.

The only important building rebuilt in 1990s is the House of Blackheads. USSR-time tourists would be surprised to know that the beautiful (and by far less crowded than today) Old Town "remained in ruins" at the time when they admired it

It is surrounded by a ring of ~19th–early 20th century architecture, followed by a mix of private 2-floor house districts (many also pre-WW2) and Soviet-era 5-18 floor apartment districts, with an occasional factory (especially near railroad lines)

Given the fact that Riga was the second largest industrial center of the pre-1917 Russian Empire, "occasional factories" essentially fails to describe the amount of old industrial buildings that are still preserved in the city

The term "centre" loosely refers to quite a large area around Old town limited by the river to the west, the railroad lines to the east and south, and without a definite boundary to the north.

If you allude to Peterburgas forstate, that district has a well-defined northern boundary, the railway.

As such, much of the architecture in Riga has been heavily influenced by Germany.

??? Despite its German name, Riga Jugendstil was developed by the local architect Sergey Eisenstein who was largely inspired by the French architecture of art nouveau. Wooden houses, orthodox churches, Latvian pre-WWII architecture... they have nothing to do with Germany.

''There are many administrative districts in Riga; however, almost all tourist attractions, historic buildings and hotels are contained within the borders of Centra rajons, which is relatively small and walkable. The outer districts do have their own draws, but they may require significant travel time and would not be of interest to a sporadic visitor.''

I am sorry, but that's bullshit. The outer districts are of little interest because they are not covered in the travel guide that we read before going to Riga and writing this article. Is it what you mean?

--Alexander (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 * It would be great if you rewrote it to better reflect the city and added the POIs you find missing. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the limited amount of my free time, I can't promise that I will do it in the nearest future. --Alexander (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:PrinceGloria, in the case you wonder, it was Alexander's point #2 and #3 above I tried to address with the edit you just reverted. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I am not sure if discussing Riga's administrative situation in detail in the very opening of the article is necessary to address those, but then I may be missing something at 4:40AM... PrinceGloria (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Districtification, again
At Riga's DotM nomination, in addition to many other things, it was decided that Riga would benefit from districtification. I would propose 4 districts, as per my 2014 comments above; 1. Old Riga, 2. Centrs, 3. the rest of Daugava's east bank, 4. the west bank (ie. Pardaugava). What do you all say? Prince? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I disagree, I don't think we have enough content to districtify, nor that Riga would ever need districts. 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)PrinceGloria (talk)

 * See and Sleep are very long for an article of this size (while Do and Buy are very short). I guess whether to districtify depends on whether there are more activities and shops to list in the district articles than are listed here already.  Powers (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I've created four district articles in my sandbox: User:Ypsilon, based on the division above. So, this is what the districts would look like. Except for Get in information (which can be added using a street map and a public transportation network map), all four of them are technically usable. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 * They do need introductions and "Understand" though. I'd also call "Old Riga" > "Vecriga" if we go with "Centrs". PrinceGloria (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Given that there is nobody opposed to the districtification any longer, I'll move the districts to mainspace now. After this it will be easy to eventually add more POIs etc. (perhaps beginning with the ones Alexander mentioned above), no matter if Riga is on the Main Page in September or not.
 * And to clarify; these districts are not something I single-handedly invented yesterday, but they were discussed already in above. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Alexander is right that we went for an odd choice for Centrs borders, leaving out many landmarks. Please go to e.g. Google Maps and type "Centrs" to see the current (?) administrative borders of Centrs and consider applying them instead.

I also believe we have an odd cluster of landmarks in Outer East in Maskavas Forstate, which are easily reachable on foot from the Centrs / Vecriga. I would move to consider a districts like "Centrs and Maskavas Forstate" to cover all of the "close" landmarks together - in my experience this is good for planning a visit to Riga. You will probably not have the time to Pardaugava and Outer East unless you stay for at least one night, but for a day visit the entire area is walkable. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * If the outer borders of Centrs are incorrect that's my mistake and I apologize. We should of course use the official borders for Centrs (or perhaps a slightly simplified/less zig-zaggy version in the north of Centrs which would make it easier for users navigating around Riga). I checked out the borders sometime in May when it still was possible to see the borders on our dynamic map (last week and now that functionality is broken and also in http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/geomap.php no borders show up no matter how many times you check and uncheck the boundary box in the menu) and now had to draw it up out of memory. Luckily Google Maps provides the correct borders and I will try to amend them within a few days most importantly with respect to the westernmost corner. Right now our Centrs article also includes a small triangle northeast of the railway station which apparently isn't officially part of Centrs, but I guess it's no harm in keeping it there.
 * Maskavas forstate is a hard one; the POIs with the central market are indeed close to the old town but the district officially stretches 2-3 kms southeast. Alternatively we could cut off just the westernmost part of Mf (for instance along Lacplesa iela) and include just that part in the Centrs article ("Centrs and Inner East") but I somehow guess that not everyone would be happy with such a solution. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not realize the depth disproportion between Centrs and MF - let us just call it Centrs and perhaps note somewhere in "Understand" how we included the bit with Central Market and the Academy of Sciences. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Let's do this. Uploading a new version of the static map right now with a larger Centrs. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. So, now there are four things left to do:
 * 1. listingfying and adding POIs that Alexander suggested above to Outer East Bank and Pardaugava ✅
 * 2. fixing Riga's Understand section (those oddities) and/or otherwise incorporate the information into the article ✅
 * 3. expanding some of the shorter sections in the main Riga article insofar as possible
 * 4. trying to find a couple more POIs for Eat and Drink (possibly Sleep too) for the two outer districts, possibly the chains mentioned in the main article's Eat section. ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Connections in Riga
In about a week, I and my girlfriend are going to Riga, Latvia. Our hotel is very near the centre of the city, at Kaleju iela, almost right next to the railway station and close to the river. How do we get there from Riga airport? JIP (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reposted at the tourist office. JIP (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 13.JPG

 * No FoP in Latvia. Do we want this? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 * It's a featured picture, but the statue is pretty small when it's used as a thumbnail. I wouldn't say it's obligatory, but then again, I've never been to Riga. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Riga