text:
Talk:Oceania

Moorea as an other destination?
Why not replace that with Aoraki Mount Cook National Park? The literal reason given for Moorea is "budget alternative to Bora Bora with beautiful scenery", but given we don't have any mountain other destinations, it seems rather a better choice in my opinion instead of listing a "budget alternative" for a place that is not well known. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 * If there's no opposition by tomorrow, will change. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Support - The Southern Alps around Mt Cook are breathtakingly beautiful even by NZ standards, and quite unusual in Oceania.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. It's been on my "want to go list" for some time now. Have never seen anything like that elsewhere apart from Banff in Canada although don't think this is comparable to the fjords/fiords in Norway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Abel Tasman NP as an other destination
Now that Aoraki Mt Cook is on the list, I was wondering if it might be a bit too similar for a continent article. They're not very far from each other, so was wondering if Kakadu National Park should be listed instead? As none of the listed ones are known for its waterfalls, was wondering whether to switch. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think Tongariro National Park could also work as there are no volcanos on the list, it also has many maori sites which also aren't representefd. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that could work too. Egmont National Park is another alternative, which is quite internationally well known for its near circular forest. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I think it has the disadvantage of not being a UNESCO WHS and having an outline article here. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True. I was actually thinking of Tongariro NP earlier but only preferred Kakadu merely because one was an outline and the other was a guide article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, Kakadu would sorta put a compromise to having no ODs from PNG since a lot of the park feels like PNG, at least according to my uncle who's been to both (and an OD from PNG would be hard since most are inaccessible or too off the beaten path for even the adventurous). Another option if we want an OD from Papua New Guinea would be Kokoda Trail but arguably that trail has more ties to Australia than Kakadu. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Banner
I like the current banner, but I think the alternate one has a mix of the stereotypical Oceanian landscapes. While the beaches well represent Australia, Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Fiji, New Caledonia (Fr.) and many other smaller Pacific countries, it is not really representative of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea – the second and third largest countries in Oceania. PNG and NZ are more known for their mountains and highlands, so why not a banner with a mix of the two ;) -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer banner 1 — the alternative banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer banner 1. I disagree about beaches not being representative of New Zealand, although beach tourism is more a local than short stay visitor thing. AlasdairW (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer banner 1. Nurg (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. There's clear consensus to do so on such a high-profile page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oceania


text:
Talk:Ocean Park

Undelete Discussion

 * Undelete This one appears to have been speedy deleted by mistake. It has a population that can easily be found at Wikipedia and there is an official travel website for the location http://www.opwa.com . The listings may have been copied from another site, but just need a little formatting. This is a valid travel destination needs to be restored. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 17:07, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * Undelete. Definitely a valid destination.  Remove the copyvio if any, not the article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:18, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * See comments above for . If this had been created by a well-intentioned user I don't think there's any question that it should be kept, but Colin deleted it due to the author, who creates articles in the hopes of provoking Wikivoyage users.  If it gets recreated by a well-intentioned user that's fine, otherwise I say leave it as-is. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:22, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * Since it wasn't deleted via Project:Votes for deletion, and it was speedy deleted as being a mere page-creation troll, you are free to recreate the page at any time without the need of a vote. Or as I said in my speedy comment "feel free to recreate with content". -- (WT-en) Colin 17:46, 17 December 2006 (EST)
 * The policy indicates that an undelete of a speedy delete should be discussed here. I am not asking permission to recreate the article. I believe is should be undeleted so we can preserve the history. This also applies to . -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:53, 17 December 2006 (EST)

 * Undelete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

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

title: Talk:Ocean Park


text:
Talk:Ocracoke

Official link
hi! please change that linked website for Ocracoke information. That is NOT the official website of Ocracoke Island! this address is for Ocracoke Island http://www.Ocracokeweb.com and this one is also for Ocracoke Village http://www.Ocracokevillage.com please, and thank you.

 * The first link doesn't have any indication that it is an official link for the island, while the http://www.ocracokevillage.com/ link claims to be the official link for the island (maintained by the island business association), so I've modified the article to use the second link. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:55, 1 January 2009 (EST)

this is the search result for Ocracokeweb.com from Yahoo: Ocracoke Island, NC Welcome! Ocracoke Island, NC Official visitor web site. Find out where to stay, play, eat, ... Ocracoke Island is part of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. ... www.ocracokeweb.com

I think it has better visitor information.

title: Talk:Ocracoke


text:
Talk:October

 * Hey everyone, isnt the Oktoberfest more like end of September and just a couple of days of October? This year it starts on the 18th of September and finishes at the 3rd of October. So......anyone wants to get there in October?????

Global

 * 3rd October 2005: annular (full) solar eclipse in southern Europe (Spain and northern Portugal), North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan) and East Africa (Kenya), map

Austria

 * 8th October 2005: Night of Museums all across Austria - admission to almost all of the country's museums with a single cheap ticket from 6 pm to 1 am, with free shuttle buses and lots of special events.

Wales

 * 30th September to 22nd October 2005: Swansea Festival of Music and the Arts in Swansea, UK

Alternative banner for this article?
Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:October


text:
Talk:Odense

Sweden is spelled incorrectly at the map.

Removed danish link
from the albani listing in the drink section: (page in Danish)  -- (WT-en) Tim 16:31, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

I am an Irish student who is travelling to Odense to study in SDU from the 30th of August. During my stay I will fully update this article & improve the quality of English in use here. Regards, -Chris

Updated
I updated the listing tags and improved some information using the city's municipal website, and the tourism website, provided at the beginning of the guide. See User:(WT-en) Sapphire/Sandbox/Odense. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:47, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

Complete Overhaul of the Page.
I'm the Irish student, who left a comment above. I've been living & studying here for almost 8 months now, so I have finally decided to put everything that I've learned together & fix up this page.

Today I've edited the following...

Get in Eat (Budget Section)

Over the next few days I'll keep on working to improve the page..! Later :)

(WT-en) Disonyxiated 21:00, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Photos Removed.
I have removed the two photos on the page. They were too large & need to be resized. Once I finish editing the text I will replace them with many more newer pictures. --(WT-en) Disonyxiated 21:20, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

 * See Project:How to add an image for details of how to resize images within the article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:55, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I put them back. Replace them when you have something better. --(WT-en) elgaard 16:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Okay, thanks ;) --(WT-en) Disonyxiated 17:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Finished
Okay well I've finished my edits, let me know what you think. ;) (WT-en) Disonyxiated 18:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Looks pretty good. Thanks for all the work.  But of course no article is every "finished". :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:27, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Looks Good. A few pieces are not specific to Odense and should be in the Denmark artickle. Emergency numbers, Currency should not be in all city articles. --(WT-en) elgaard 18:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree to an extent. The currency part I feel should be left. For example yesterday I met 2 US tourists on the train from Hamburg to Odense for a day-trip & they didn't realise that Denmark wasn't in the Eurozone. As for the emergency numbers, I've replaced that with the Odense police number instead. --(WT-en) Disonyxiated 19:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Excactly. They did not think that there was a specieal Odense currency. They should look in the Denmark article for currency info. Otherwise we will repeat the same currency info 500 times for all danish locations. --(WT-en) elgaard 10:07, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Fixing the Page.
There's been a number of edits to the page which has lowered its quality considerably. For starters someone has copied a few thousand words directly from the 'visitodense' website & posted them directly into the wrong section of the page. This has been removed. Other than that I'm just going to read through & sort out any grammatical errors. --(WT-en) Disonyxiated 06:56, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * Glad you caught that - and thanks for tackling this! (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:05, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Capital??
I see that in the top line of the article it says that Odense is the capital of Fyn. Fyn does not have a capital, it's no country. So why does it say that?

 * The Funen article calls it the "regional capital". (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Taxi?
You can not hail a taxi from the street. Though this is done in some countries, it is not how people get a taxi in Denmark, it is seen as rude and is most likely not legal. Instead the taxi's have places designated by the council, where they hold. Besides that you can get at taxi, using the taxi companies websites, app or telephone nr.

title: Talk:Odense


text:
Talk:Odesa

Information we'd love to see:

 * How long does it take/how much does it cost to travel to Kiev and/or Moldovia?
 * What about language courses in Kiev?
 * http://www.ruslanguage.odessa.ua/

 * http://www.russian-in-russia.com/english/kiev/kiev.htm --unsigned message by 70.49.6.198

 * Does anyone have information on the climate?
 * http://www.2odessa.com/wiki/index.php?title=Water_/Electricity/Climate (WT-en) 2odessa 04:09, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

 * What about ferries leaving to/from Odessa? (I wanna go to Constanza, RO)--unsigned message by Timoluege
 * http://www.2odessa.com/wiki/index.php?title=Boat_Tour
 * A lot of other information can be found here: http://www.2odessa.com/ Hope this helps (WT-en) 2odessa 04:09, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Get in
The following needs to be sorted out. If you know, just go ahead and edit the text without using the first person. See our manual of style for more on the tone we like to use:

''It is possible to catch an overnight train in the city of Uzgorod (just across the Slovak border) to Odessa. The train leaves sometime around 4:30PM but be aware that when crossing into the Ukraine from Slovakia time changes so you'll need to add one hour to your watch. You will arrive around 10:00AM the next morning in Odessa.''

I think the above comment must be about train number 107Ш (107sh), but the Ukrainian Rail website (Russian/Ukrainian only) http://www.uz.gov.ua shows this arriving at 12.10 noon.

Naming conventions
This article was briefly and unilaterally moved to Odesa, a spelling I'd never seen before. I moved it back per Naming conventions, as the spelling with 2 Ss is quite obviously the one that's most often used in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While page moves should usually be discussed before they are done, during the recent war coverage, I have only seen the Ukrainian spelling Odesa, and not the Russian spelling Odessa. Ground Zero (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen both, but you're right that U.S. and other media have been using the Ukrainian spelling a lot, I'd say 90% of the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Policy is to use the commonest English name & since I'd never seen the single-s spelling before noticing it here, I think that is the double-s version. A google fight gives 169 million hits for Odessa, only 11.6 million for Odesa.
 * On the other hand, WP uses Odesa & perhaps we should be politically correct as well.
 * I'd say the deciding factor should be which spelling will be read by an English speaker who does not know the city with a pronunciation closest to Ukranian, Odd-ess-a vs Odd-ees-a. Pashley (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Odesa has been routinely used by U.S. media since the start of the broader Russian invasion last February. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The switch from Odessa to Odesa happened on most of these sites in June-July 2022. A simple Google search does not show the change in usage in 2022. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Russian drones smash power network in Ukraine’s Odesa --Globe and Mail (Canada)
 * Much of Odesa in the dark as Russian attacks batter Ukraine's power grid -- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
 * Ukraine war: Odesa port reopens after energy network hit -- British Broadcasting Corporation
 * Sipping cappuccino between air raids in unfazed Odesa -- The Times of London
 * Opinion: Odesa used to be known for two things – the port and raucous hedonism -- CNN (USA)
 * UN chief visits Ukraine's Odesa port — USA Today
 * Russia drones smash power network in Odesa, leaving 1.5 million without electricity -- The Age (Australia)
 * Russian drone attacks leave Odesa region without power -- Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 * I'm a bit late, but FWIW I've always spelled Odesa with one s, but that's because I've always favoured Ukrainian spellings of cities, even though they may not be in common use. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I understand the wish to show solidarity, but I am uneasy with changing place names (or their spelling) as political statements. I am surprised that Wikipedia has done that, and I am not sure we should follow their lead in this. For Odes(s)a, there is little risk of confusion, but in other cases The traveller comes first means that both forms should be told. I added a note on the names to Ukraine. –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Chernobyl hasn't been changed because that spelling is known in the English-speaking world. If this name change were purely for political reasons, I would oppose it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't just do this for Ukraine, but I do this for many other place names too (I always use Türkiye, Côte d'Ivoire, Cabo Verde or Timor-Leste, not Turkey, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde or East Timor). However, when it comes to articlespace, I'm all for following policy. That was just my 2 cents and how I personally write names, but I will always use the most common name in articlespace. None of this has anything to do with politics. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Aren't Odessa and Kiev well-known in the English-speaking world? And what non-politic reason is there for the change? There is a tendency to abandon externally given names in favour for the local ones, such as Inuit and Sámi, but that is also politics, and I didn't see "Odesa" or "Kyiv" before the war, so it isn't about this general trend.

 * (I have lately been trying to use Sámi names instead of the Finnish ones when writing about Sápmi in Swedish or English, for places unknown to most non-locals. I'd call that decision political. Making it easy to write Sámi names with the Finnish keyboard standard of 2008 was also a political decision. However, I don't see any need to call Germany "Deutchland" or Venice "Venexia" – and I really dislike Swedes calling Helsinki or Turku by their Finnish names when talking Swedish).

 * –LPfi (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * There may be a political reason why English-language media have changed their spellings of Ukrainian place names, but if so, the political reasons are theirs, not ours. If Odesa and Kyiv are now used more often in English-language writing, we change the names of the articles for that reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * OK, misunderstood. Still, is the point of reference what is written now or existing sources, including older ones? Most travel literature about Odessa is probably written pre-2022. Or should we simply trust Wikipedia, without checking their criteria? –LPfi (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * (For the Sámi names, I have noted the tendency at Metsähallitus, and assume using Sámi names in Sámi areas is following their lead, but I am not going to check usage name for name). –LPfi (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * The point of reference is current usage in English, whenever there's a consensus that it's been established. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy says: "articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries." It does not specify the time frame. "Most commonly used" does not tell us that we should include or exclude older sources. In a case like this where a change has been adopted widely and suddenly, including older sources means that Wikivoyage would lag behind common use and look out of date compared to media sources. I don't think we want to look out of date. Using "Kiev" in particular would make Wikivoyage look both out of date and culturally insensitive. Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Odessa is the name I have seen more often, but right now it's true that mainstream Western media is using the Ukrainian version of the names to show solidarity with the Ukrainian government, but if you look at alternative media, pro-Russian media still uses the Russian name. Another example is Bakhmut, which is the Ukrainian name used by mainstream Western media, while pro-Russia alternative media uses "Artyomovsk" (but in that case, Bakhmut is indeed the most common name used in English). In the case of Kyiv/Kiev, I have noticed that Western media use "Kyiv" to show solidarity with the Ukrainian government, but many Americans still use "Kiev" colloquially even if they may been on Ukraine's side in the conflict. The dog2 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, I've been using "Odessa" all my life, and find this polemic sooo lame. After all, it's pronounced Oh-DES-sah, not Oh-DEE-sah, not Oh-dee-SAW. Ibaman (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People also used "Peking" all their lives, until they didn't. Ditto Swaziland. Things change. And unlike those, this is a minor spelling change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's not a "Constantinople >> Istanbul" situation. Which makes it look even lamer. Oh well, don't let's fight over this trifle. Ibaman (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also added a note to the "Talk" section of the Ukraine article about this. Even if the Russian name is still more commonly used in English than the Ukrainian one, you certainly do not want people to misinterpret you as showing support for the Russian invasion unless that is your intention (since RT and most pro-Russia political commentators use the Russian names), so you should most certainly make an effort to learn and use the Ukrainian names whenever you speak to Ukrainians. The dog2 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * dude, you sometimes get TOO political. You definitely have a valid point here, but the overeagerness with which you push the political themes, all the time, gets kind of tiresome, eventually. I have no love for NATO and aggressive pro-NATO POV pushing, that's true. But this is a travel guide that should be POV-free. Ibaman (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm not directing this at anybody in the thread. I'm just stating things as it is. I'm no fan of NATO either, but as a travel guide, we should assume whoever is reading this is just a casual traveller who wants to avoid offending the locals in whatever place they visit. For instance, if you talk to Filipinos, the name "South China Sea" is very offensive to them, and Filipinos will call it the "West Philippine Sea". So we should most certainly inform people that they should use the name "West Philippine Sea" instead when they talk to Filipinos. And likewise, whenever I travel to Taiwan, I am always careful to avoid insinuating whether Taiwan is a country or part of China until I have had enough time to determine the other person's political position, and then I will adjust accordingly, but on the other hand, whenever I travel to mainland China, I am very careful not to imply that Taiwan is a country. The dog2 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

were you active here already, to witness the edit wars over the name of Transnistria? This situation is Transnistria all over again. Not very pleasant, you know. By the way, here about the sea you have a solid point, but your latest edits on Ukraine seem to me a little too obvious for readers of a travel guide like ours, IMHO. I mean, if one of us HAD to travel there RIGHT NOW, they surely would engage in tremendous pre-trip planning, and the reading of many official and non-official sources, which would include the hows and whys about not calling Bakhmut Artyomovsk, and Lviv and Mykolaiv and so on. To include this in Wikivoyage with such emphasis sounds really excessive. But this is just MHO. Let's keep on improving our content. Wikivoyage is the best. Best wishes, Ibaman (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Odesa


text:
Talk:Odisha

Some points: -- (WT-en) Nils 04:04, 23 May 2004 (EDT)
 * Stay safe - that ripoff should probably be put in some more general terms.
 * "Ask for Dr. so-and-so" - I am not sure what to make of this... If there's only one reliable doctor, we might as well remove the hospital.
 * Original author states that there are cyber-cafes in various parts of town but Orissa is a state

Spelling
Do we change the spelling immediately because the government changed the spelling? Travelers around the world don't know the state as Odisha. I don't think the immediate spelling change is in keeping with the "common English name" policy of Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:45, 4 January 2012 (EST)
 * It's a tough one. It looks like usage is swinging toward the new name, but it's hard to tell for sure.  Wikipedia hasn't made the switch yet, but it's a fairly obscure state.  That said, it looks like the new name is inevitable; while I wouldn't have suggested making the change, since it's already been made I'm finding it hard to recommend going to the trouble of reverting.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:54, 5 January 2012 (EST)
 * Hi peeps. I made these changes thinking I was doing a good thing. I'm terribly sorry if this was a major breach of etiquette by doing so unilaterally. One thing I tried to do when doing the change was to ALWAYS refer to Odisha as the state "formerly known as Orissa", and to make sure pages such as "Orissa" redirected properly. My thinking (and hence why I foolishly acted unilaterally) was that this way, anyone looking for "Orissa" would find the information they need, and get the explanation as to the name change. Second point: I live in Odisha right now, and the Government went through a lot of trouble to update the name everywhere. My main concern would be that someone who doesn't know about the name change might get confused, say, if they're looking for a train from Kolkata to Puri, Orissa, and only see Odisha in train stations, etc. It's probably better to be confused on Wikivoyage than once here. :) Anyway, I don't have a vested interest in this, so feel free to revert if you feel it would be better. Again, my apologies. --(WT-en) Triseult 05:10, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Spelling of Odisha/Orissa
SWEPT IN FROM THE PUB

Hi, everyone. User Triseult has been editing every mention of the Indian state formerly known as Orissa to reflect a new official Indian government spelling. I appreciate his/her diligence but have doubts about his/her decision. We have not changed the spelling of Bangalore to Bengaluru, for example, because the latter spelling is still at least somewhat more common in English.

I have started a thread in Talk:Odisha and invite your participation.

All the best,

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:21, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Where are the borders of the subregions?
This state was partially divided into four vague subregions without a map or any text defining exactly where the borders between them lie. As a result, we have 3 out of the 4 subregions created — Coastal, Northwest, and South, with 6, 3, and 4 destinations under them, respectively &mdash then there is a fourth region that hasn't been created, and another 16 destinations directly under this parent region, and with no borders defined, there is no way to definitively determine which of the proposed 4 subregions each should go under. Anybody want to take another shot at defining exactly where we draw the lines between these? Texugo (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Texugo I have made a new division of the regions, with a proper map and defined lines of separation. Do have a look and if you think it is OK, do remove the banner. --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved from "Stay safe"
This isn't relevant to staying safe, and I wasn't sure what to do with it, so I've moved it here:

The people of Odisha are known for their hospitality. It is largely peaceful (To date, there has never been any large scale violence on communal grounds), and the society is very tolerant and accepting towards other cultures. However, the State, for reasons historical, economic and political,has remained isolated from the country's mainstream and hence has not been able to take in it's stride the tremendous progress the Indian people have achieved in all spheres, including those the social sphere. The people, especially in the tribal western belt, remain extremely simple in their way of living, and are mostly unaware of the mannerisms of the urban world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I've put the info at the People subsection of Understand. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

LiLists
I've updated the lists of Cities and Other destinations at Odisha and its regions in order to fit with Wikivoyage's guidelines. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Also, I have put Khordha district under South Odisha as it is not a coastal district. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Odisha


text:
Talk:Odsherred

Odsherred is now both a bigger region and a municipality. We need to restructure it. --(WT-en) elgaard 18:27, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * I suggest we structure this article as a city guide, merge the content of each town's article into Odsherred Article and delete those towns' articles (as they are not large enough to justify individual articles). Any objections to this? (WT-en) ClausHansen 00:16, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Odsherred


text:
Talk:Offa's Dyke Path

This could be a nice itinerary. --(WT-en) Evan 12:20, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Measurements
It would be good to decide whether the standard measurements (with conversions following in parentheses) should be expressed in customary units such as yards and miles or metric... --118.93nzp (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as much as I hate to do it, I think that the usual measurements in the UK are "Imperial", so I guess miles and yards it has to be. But they sell gas by the litre... Man, they are having even more trouble than Canada in switching to the metric system  :-)  Thanks, by the way, for the map.  It's great!!Dave.mcc (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you want to do with the units (distance measurements, etc)? I believe in the UK they use the Imperial system so miles and yards would be the standard there.  Should we be using miles as the standard with metric in parentheses?  What's the usual practice on those? Dave.mcc (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Brits are making a real pig's breakfast of metrification. Although all the road direction signs are still in miles, I did notice that all the latest footpath signs have now changed to metric. I think the decider would be the predominant usage along the actual path itself on the official markers. Personally I am in favour of metric but with the first few/important measurements in the prose having the imperial conversion in parentheses. Just to complicate matters, the Welsh Assembly seems to be more in favour of metrification than traditional English counties like Shropshire... --118.93nzp (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Har! Very true.  Well, I'm just fine with metric with a nod to imperial in parentheses.  I liked Wales when we were there a couple of years ago.  Better roads, less traffic, nice scenery, less crowded.  We didn't actually walk on the Dyke, but we must have crossed it several times as we wandered our way south through Wales and then back into England.  Dave.mcc (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 118.93nzp, are you sure Welsh footpaths are now using metric? I'm just a bit surprised because then you would have road signs in miles and footpath signs in km. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * On the slightly off-topic subject of Wales and silly signage...
 * Precisely.
 * No "old" footpath/bridleway signs have been uprooted and replaced, but any new ones are in metric. I'm sure you'll manage to turn up a few stones with incised druidic runes if you look carefully (grin)...
 * Evidently an advisory leaflet was issued by the English Department for Transport and English Heritage in June 2005 which stated that "All surviving traditional fingerpost direction signs should be retained in-situ and maintained on a regular basis. They should be repainted every five years in traditional black and white livery. Other colours should be used only when these are known to have been in use before 1940".
 * Although the UK's Metrication Board was wound up in 1980 the only exceptions to SI units currently allowed in law for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes are to allow the use of the mile, yard, foot and inch for road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement; the imperial pint for the dispensing of draught beer and cider and for the sale of milk in returnable containers (and non-returnable containers in Scotland where almost all milk is still sold in half, one, two, four or six pint containers); the acre for land registration and the troy ounce for precious metal transactions. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know! Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just call me 118 if you find that easier... --118.93nzp (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that if I use the convention of 118.93nzp then it will appear as a notification for you next time you log in. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! Perhaps I should ask for an account name change... --118.93nzp (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

To Guide
What do you think remains to do to make this article a Guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It probably should link better to articles on any nearby towns. Its the length of Wales, so there should be several towns on or near the path. Altaihunters (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can select "Destinations" layer on dynamic map. All WV destinations along the route are displayed. Markers are linked to the articles [shift-click for new window]. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that useful hint, Joachim!
 * However, since the visual effect is akin to a mini-tornado or dustcloud that is not intuitively obvious to a naive reader as to what it signifies, my personal preference would be to leave them switched off... --118.93nzp (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

101
Although I've just written "When it’s less urgent than a 999 call, contact the local police in England and Wales on 101. This number should be answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. " this story puts that statement in context... --118.93.237.66 01:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Offa's Dyke Path


text:
Talk:Offenburg

Rhine Valley vs. Upper Rhine
Hello Vidimin, sorry, i made a mistake when i described Offenburg being located at the Rhine Valley. Its located at the Upper Rhine, which is no the same. I corrected this an deleted your link to the Rhine Valley. There is no atricle to the Upper Rhine so far. best regards - Diego —The preceding comment was added by 109.192.100.37 (talk • contribs) 19 August 2011

 * OK, no problem. Cheers. – (WT-en) Vidimian 15:04, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Offenburg


text:
Talk:Off-roading in California

This looks great! I think some of the places listed should probably have their own pages, but we can finesse that for now. I moved the page because we tend not to use sub-pages (stuff with a "/" in the name) except for districts of cities. --(WT-en) Evan 18:55, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

Moved from Project:travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

How does a page on "OHV Recreation" or "OHV Riding" sound? I'd like to start a list about some of the best places in California.(WT-en) Gjetost 16:40, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * So, I think it sounds great, if it stays concentrated on travel-related topics. Articles about specific activities are another way of seeing travel, and I think we need more rather than less of these. Why don't you go ahead and add a page, and we'll see how we can fit it in? By the way, if you want to make a specific page for California, may I suggest Off-road vehicles in California? Or something of the like? A future Off-road vehicles page might provide an index to pages about OHV driving around the world (like on http://www.offroadpakistan.com/ !). -- (WT-en) Evan 17:00, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * moved external links to discussion page: see Where did the "External links" sections go?'
 * California SVRAs (WT-en) SHC 21:40, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Off-roading in California


text:
Talk:Off the beaten path in Alberta

Just a thought: this is supposed to be "off the beaten path". To me, the Calgary Stampede doesn't qualify as "off the beaten path." It seems like a well-trodden path to me. If the person who submitted it agrees, could you do the honors and take it out? Thanks

 * Considering the recent catastrophe with horses "off the beaten path" at the Stampede, it's just in bad taste. I'll take it out right now.

 * Now, here's my general concern: I'm not sure the whole "off the beaten path" thing works in the first place. Couldn't most of this information be moved to the pages for the destinations in question (Vulcan, say)? I'm just not sure that "off the beaten path" is really a field of pursuit in the same way that, say, off-road driving or literary history is. And, as this point shows, it's really not clear what's "on" or "off" the beaten path.

 * I think there's a value in, perhaps, a "roadside attractions of Alberta", but I'm just not convinced we need to ghettoize certain destinations or attractions by putting them in the "off the beaten path" genre. Comments? Ideas? --(WT-en) Evan 20:18, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * "off the beaten path" articles can have good value, but this one is an example of how not to write one. Stuff like the Stampede (probably the biggest annual event in Calgary) and Head-smashed in (a UNESCO site) are on the beaten path, not off.  This seems to be a bunch of unrelated "things to do" lists all smashed into one article.  To me, an OTBP article should be about interesting sites that are rarely seen.  The first sentence of Off the beaten track in Japan pretty much sums up for me what an article like this should be like. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:52, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * Vulcan seems to be an article about some place in Transylvania. To move the Star Trek nonsense, first Vulcan (Alberta) would need to be created. Anything specifically constructed for tourists (such as novelty architecture dinosaurs) doesn't belong "off the beaten path" as that normally infers places with few travellers that haven't allowed their core identity to be altered by tacky roadside visitor attractions. K7L (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Off the beaten path in Alberta


text:
Talk:Off the beaten track in Japan

This is a little unusual for an itinerary, but I needed a place to link together my articles of obscure Japanese destinations. Will be enhancing this with photos and a bit more data later. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:34, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * I think this is a really good idea -- a great way of seeing travel. --(WT-en) Evan 13:48, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Re: the recent addition of Yakushima, while I have no doubt that it's a great off-the-beaten track destination (and on my personal to-do list), it would be nice to write it up before adding it! (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:20, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

adding a link to this article?
Would it be appropriate/acceptable to add a link to a forum on this article? Secret Japan - Travel off the Beaten Tracks is a forum where members publish their own guides about destinations that are seldom visited by foreign tourists : http://www.secret-japan.com/forum. It is a good starting point to find new places to visit in that country.

 * Sorry, Wikivoyage is meant to be self-contained. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:20, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Will be Deleted
It seems to me that this article is not the type of article that will become a "guide", because it is a list, so does the "will be deleted after 1 year" rule apply to this? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:08, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Kanazawa
Kanazawa is a great city, but considering it is on our "Top 9" sites in the nation on the Japan article, it doesn't seem to make sense for it to then appear here as an "Off the beaten track" destination. Shouldn't it be one or the other? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 07:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Text over images
I don't think I've ever seen this before on Wikivoyage, but the text is running over the images for me. Is anyone else seeing this? Do we need this specific layout for the thumbs in the first place? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was seeing it too. Somebody added an html div in there which was responsible. Removing that cleared it right up. Texugo (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, seems fine now :) Thanks. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Off the beaten track in Japan
It's a seemingly well-liked article that is prominently linked to in Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates and (if I remember correctly) been brought up in a number of previous VfD arguments as an example of why list articles shouldn't be deleted. And I suppose that's a big part of why this article has avoided the chopping block for so long, but if we're to avoid being hypocrites, it needs to be VfD'd like the above two.

Especially because it openly describes itself as a list article: "This is not really an itinerary... but rather a listing of interesting places scattered around Japan."

Also worthy of note is the article is classified as a travel topic and has not received any updates since July 2013, so the one-year rule applies.

 * Merge where appropriate to corresponding destination articles, then redirect to Japan. see below. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I concur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep. Skeletal itineraries & travel topics should be deleted; we have a policy on that & I agree with it, but this one is not skeletal. It has decent one-line descriptions of nearly all the attractions, in accordance with policy, plus a few longer descriptions which might well be justified exceptions; if not, they could easily be edited down. It also has a nice collection of photos. I'd say promote it to usable. which seems justified & gets it clear of the 'delete outlines after a year' policy.

 * There is also a broader issue; index-type articles with many links are good for search engine ranking, so we should be trying to create more of them wherever that is reasonable, definitely not to delete existing ones if that seems avoidable. Discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition. Yes, rubbishy indexes should go and we should not create silly new ones, but we should be looking for opportunities for useful indexes. Pashley (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The answer, then, is that we need to clarify our policy. I was under the assumption that we did have an actual policy written somewhere that concurs with what Ikan said above, "this site frowns upon list articles", hence my nomination of this article and my now-struckthrough vote to merge and redirect. However, a later search for any such policy text came up emptyhanded.

 * Does Wikivoyage, in fact, have a clear policy against list articles? If so, are all list articles included in that prohibition, or are they sometimes allowable? If so, under what circumstances? On the other hand, if there is no such policy, is the disdain for list articles just the personal opinion of one or more editors? Or is it something that has broad community consensus but we simply didn't get around to officializing?

 * Before we start nominating list articles for deletion, we need answers to those questions. Otherwise, we lack a uniform standard by which to make judgments on a VfD of a list article, and the outcome of any VfD decision depends on the random chance of which editors comment on the nomination and/or the arbitrary personal whim of whichever editor performs the deletion.

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Goals_and_non-goals does explicitly mention as non-goals both being a "yellow pages" for all of a town's hotels and restaurants and being a "web directory" collecting masses of external links. There are perhaps exceptions; for example Retiring abroad is rated a star article but it has many external links as well as many internal links. There are also articles like Volunteer travel that look to me to badly need cleanup because they are too much a web directory now.

 * I do not think an index-type article with large numbers of internal wikilinks is at all problematic in terms of those policies, and I do not know of any other policy that would apply. Pashley (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment - While it's unavoidable to have list articles in cases like packing list I think we should avoid them when it comes to destinations per the policy against yellow page-like articles. In the past we've also even deleted outline itineraries because they were personal ("one week in X") and not referring to an official route. From that POW I'd say redirect to Japan and merge the content into the regions. On the other hand, if people think the article is useful for something like SEO it can be kept. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment - User:ChubbyWimbus has put in a lot of effort into the Japanese articles in general, so perhaps he would have some insight? I personally would suggest turning this into an Itinerary article (even though, yes, it states clearly that is not what it is). It could even be multiple itineraries within the same article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * User:Jpatokal has also contributed a lot to Japanese articles in general and he started this one way back in 2004. It would be nice to hear from him as well. Pashley (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep. I have been to Japan a couple of times and have made a point of visiting places off the beaten track (but not on this list) each time. The article is a useful list and may be good for SEO, but could be improved by stating the criteria for inclusion, and by showing the places on a map. I am not sure about converting it to an itinerary, as that would probably best be a mix of places off and on the beaten track. The article is ten years old, and I think that we should only delete articles that have been around that long if there is a really good reason. AlasdairW (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep. I think our aversion to list articles was more specifically aimed at avoiding yellow page-type listings and things like the many list articles they have on Wikipedia. The above nomination for Ohio Museums is primarily a yellow-pages-style directory of names and addresses of museums, but the main reason I nominated it was that the museums themselves are not particularly unique or notable even on a state level, just the regular local museums that small towns have almost anywhere, with no particular reason to be all listed together and nothing very likely to help shape anyone's potential trip to Ohio. This article, however, I feel is more than a simple list, but more importantly, is full of things that are notable, on a national level, and would easily enhance the research and preparation experience for anyone preparing for a trip to Japan. Texugo (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep, although as the article's original creator and former primary maintainer of sorts my opinion on this is obviously unbiased. That said, I think the page is useful, sufficiently complete to be usable, and cannot really be transformed into any other article type we have: it's not a sensible "itinerary", for example, because nobody is going to visit every place on that list sequentially.  I do agree that a map and clear inclusion criteria would be useful.  Exclusion criteria might be a good start: cap the number of places at N (3?) per top-level region in Japan and require discussion on the Talk page for any changes once the cap is hit. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: This is exactly the kind of commentary that is generated when we try to VfD articles for reasons that are not based in policy. Off the beaten track in Japan is well-written, it's useful for travellers, it's a list of notable sites rather than little rinky-dink ones, it helps our SEO - those things may all be true, but wouldn't they also be true for Off the beaten path in Alberta if it were developed to its full potential? If so, why are the votes running unanimously against that article and unanimously in favor of this one?

 * The responses here duck the real issue, which is whether or not we want this type of article on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek says we frown on list articles here, but we're falling all over ourselves to prevent the deletion of this list for reasons that, at the end of the day, are arbitrary. I know that crafting policy on Wikivoyage is a minefield, and no one likes to do it. But if we want a policy basis to VfD this article or any other list articles, including the two nominees above which are all set to be deleted, we need to continue this discussion on the relevant policy page. I'll shortly be beginning a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article? and I hope to see you all there.

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The clear deletion rational comes in where it says "was last edited on 20XX-XX-XX and will be merged or deleted if not modified for one year." If we decide that any of these should be upgraded to "usable", they'll be saved, if not, they should go. I'd argue that both this one and the Alberta one are useful enough, and therefore "usable", while the usefulness of the Ohio museums one is highly questionable unless you happen to already be an Ohio history buff with some plan to make sure you don't miss any small-town museum in the state. Texugo (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly wouldn't hurt to develop guidelines for what an "Off the beaten track" article should be like, though. I think they are much more likely to end up being useful than a bunch of "list of museums in X" articles could ever be, but there is still going to be a notability threshold. It's doubtful that we need "Off the beaten track in Random County, Minnesota". Texugo (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suspect the guideline is that, if "One day in X" or "Off the beaten path in X" contains nothing other than a duplicate of the main article on X, then the page can be proposed for merge as duplicate. For instance, Off the beaten path in Labrador would be all of Labrador while Off the beaten path in Manhattan would likely be empty. Conversely, Quebec has a clearly-defined "beaten path" through the southern portion of the province and the St. Lawrence river valley while the north is empty, frozen wilderness; Saudi Arabia has an even more obvious "beaten path" trampled by Hajj pilgrims. Certainly our list articles need to be more descriptive, for instance archaeological sites lists everything from Nineveh to l'Anse-aux-Meadows but doesn't explain what makes these places notable. The topic is valid, though, and VfD is not a substitute for repair. K7L (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement that "VfD is not a substitute for repair" appears to be at odds with the current policy that says we delete outlines that aren't improved for a year. If sitting untouched at outline status for a year or more is not sufficient for VfD then we shouldn't say that on the outlinetopic tag. Texugo (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep, but only because I feel it ought to be at usable status. If it was truly nothing but an outline, then deletion would be called for.  Powers (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know what to say anymore. This article is a list, though a pretty well-annotated one. If a majority of you would like to keep it, I think that's OK, but it seems to me that more people would be looking for these "Off the beaten path" attractions in articles for the regions in question, rather than a Japan-wide list with links, though I do see that it's linked to from Japan. I really think it's important to arrive at a clear policy on list articles, for the benefit of article-starters, people posting requests in Requested articles, and for the sake of judgments right here in Votes for deletion. I propose a moratorium on any deletions of list articles until we arrive at a consensus on a clear policy wording. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Heartily seconded. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, though it got away from me today, I do intend to launch the policy discussion I mentioned above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that having a policy discussion would be the best way forward. This wouldn't be just to define new 'rules and regulations' but rather clarify what should be a relevant article content for the goals of Wikivoyage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't have any strong opinions on this (keep vs delete), but I do believe there is a difference in this article versus the Alberta one above. The Alberta article's name may be "Off the Beaten Path", but in fact it is a list of Alberta travel topics which (if enough content is found) could easily each be their own article but there it makes no sense to have a list of roadside attractions in the same article as First Nation sites. The content simply doesn't match the title. I would also argue that Alberta itself is kind of Off the Beaten Path, so it seems odd to have an article about what's off the beaten path of the unbeaten path.
 * This article attempts to list sites that are less commonly visited while maintaining that the sites found in these places are likely of interest to enough travelers to warrant mention. Arguments could be made against a few (Hirosaki and Mount Koya are rather well-known and popular among visitors in their respective regions), and some regions could use a few more listings, but I think it meets its goal pretty well.
 * I don't personally have anything against lists, particularly if they are official. These sorts of arbitrary lists will always be called into question (or always deleted if such a decision is reached), but I don't personally have a strong aversion to lists if there is a clear and useful purpose (and perhaps if they are developed enough). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Resolution: promote to usable and keep Pashley (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Off the beaten track in Japan
I feel this article should be deleted as there is no objective criteria for what is off the beaten path, along with that nothing in this article couldn't be presented in each individual article. Tai123.123 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure. This is really an annotated list of links. We don't need objective criteria, but the list has to be plausible enough to be useful. Is it, or could it be edited so as to be useful? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before -- see Talk:Off the beaten track in Japan. I think it would be a good idea for Tai123.123 to review that discussion and respond to the arguments that led to the article being kept when it was discussed in 2014. (The article has had few edits since then.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't realize it was posted before, feel free to delete Tai123.123 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it's okay to renominate an article, but you want to be sure to respond to the arguments raised before to convince other editors to change the decision. Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ground Zero Sorry, for bothering you guys Tai123.123 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can but it seems it has been kept before Tai123.123 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The details should be in the individual articles, but an article like this let's a reader find which individual article to look at. A subjective list is ok - we don't need an objective criteria like "destination visited by less than 10% of international visitors to Japan". The reasons I gave for "keep" in 2014 also still apply. AlasdairW (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments presented in the previous RfD nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Off the beaten track in Japan


text:
Talk:Ogunquit

Gay people have children, too. The article falsely juxtaposes gay visitors against family visitors. Many gay families with children visit Ogunquit. Please leave the homophobia out of the article. Perhaps you should instead warn gay families that they may encounter some homophobic tourists in Ogunquit instead of warning homophobic tourists about the gay visitors.

title: Talk:Ogunquit


text:
Talk:Ohio

move listings
Feel free to move the Places to eat to their respective city pages. Was a new user's experiment - (WT-en) Huttite 04:17, 30 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * Reverted page as content now on the respective city pages. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:39, 30 Mar 2004 (EST)

"Local travel guides"
I took out the "Local travel guides" section of this region page. I'm not sure I understood what it was supposed to signify. All the cities and sub-regions listed in a region guide are also travel guides. Is there something I'm missing here? --(WT-en) Evan 17:24, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Hamilton!
Actually, the exclamation point is part of the name. See, for example. That article notes, "These days, however, Hamilton! is not widely used." So Wikivoyage policies would indicate removing it. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:30, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
 * How did you find that? I guess we learn something new every day (Even something about our hometown areas). - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:37, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

Regions
There are currently five regions defined for Ohio:

 * Mid-Ohio
 * Northeast Ohio
 * Northwest (Ohio)
 * Southeast (Ohio)
 * Southwest (Ohio)

I'd like to propose renaming these regions to remove the "(Ohio)" so that we would simply have "Southwest Ohio". User:(WT-en) TVerBeek has already done something similar for Alaska, and eventually it might be nice to see it made part of the Project:Article naming conventions since no one says "I'm going to visit Southeast".

In addition, while counties are not always a good way to define a region, when I lived in Ohio counties were commonly used and seem like they might make a good way to keep regional borders straight. How about the following (see for a map):

 * Mid-Ohio
 * Auglaize County (Wapakoneta)
 * Belmont County (St. Clairsville)
 * Carroll County (Carrollton)
 * Champaign County (Urbana)
 * Clark County (Springfield)
 * Coshocton County (Coshocton)
 * Darke County (Greenville)
 * Delaware County (Delaware)
 * Franklin County (Columbus, state capital)
 * Guernsey County (Cambridge)
 * Harrison County (Cadiz)
 * Holmes County (Millersburg)
 * Jefferson County (Steubenville)
 * Knox County (Mount Vernon)
 * Licking County (Newark)
 * Logan County (Bellefontaine)
 * Madison County (London)
 * Marion County (Marion)
 * Miami County (Troy)
 * Mercer County (Celina)
 * Morrow County (Mount Gilead)
 * Muskingum County (Zanesville)
 * Shelby County (Sidney)
 * Tuscarawas County (New Philadelphia)
 * Union County (Marysville)

 * Northeast Ohio
 * Ashtabula County (Jefferson)
 * Columbiana County (Lisbon)
 * Cuyahoga County (Cleveland)
 * Geauga County (Chardon)
 * Lake County (Painesville)
 * Lorain County (Elyria)
 * Mahoning County (Youngstown)
 * Medina County (Medina)
 * Portage County (Ravenna)
 * Stark County (Canton)
 * Summit County (Akron)
 * Trumbull County (Warren)
 * Wayne County (Wooster)

 * Northwest Ohio
 * Allen County (Lima)
 * Ashland County (Ashland)
 * Crawford County (Bucyrus)
 * Defiance County (Defiance)
 * Erie County (Sandusky)
 * Fulton County (Wauseon)
 * Hancock County (Findlay)
 * Hardin County (Kenton)
 * Henry County (Napoleon)
 * Huron County (Norwalk)
 * Lucas County (Toledo)
 * Ottawa County (Port Clinton)
 * Paulding County (Paulding)
 * Putnam County (Ottawa)
 * Richland County (Mansfield)
 * Sandusky County (Fremont)
 * Seneca County (Tiffin)
 * Van Wert County (Van Wert)
 * Williams County (Bryan)
 * Wood County (Bowling Green)
 * Wyandot County (Upper Sandusky)

 * Southeast Ohio
 * Athens County (Athens)
 * Gallia County (Gallipolis)
 * Fairfield County (Lancaster)
 * Hocking County (Logan)
 * Jackson County (Jackson)
 * Lawrence County (Ironton)
 * Meigs County (Pomeroy)
 * Monroe County (Woodsfield)
 * Morgan County (McConnelsville)
 * Noble County (Caldwell)
 * Perry County (New Lexington)
 * Vinton County (McArthur)
 * Washington County (Marietta)

 * Southwest Ohio
 * Adams County (West Union)
 * Brown County (Georgetown)
 * Butler County (Hamilton)
 * Clermont County (Batavia)
 * Clinton County (Wilmington)
 * Fayette County (Washington Court House)
 * Greene County (Xenia)
 * Hamilton County (Cincinnati)
 * Highland County (Hillsboro)
 * Montgomery County (Dayton)
 * Pickaway County (Circleville)
 * Pike County (Waverly)
 * Preble County (Eaton)
 * Ross County (Chillicothe)
 * Scioto County (Portsmouth)
 * Warren County (Lebanon)

I'm most familiar with the counties along Lake Erie, so I may have goofed up a bit, but does this seem like a reasonable proposal? It basically divides the state with a band across the middle for Mid-Ohio and the four corners of the state are given their own regions. Also note that I'm not proposing we necessarily create an article for each county, but using the above for our definitions of each region makes it really easy to figure out what city goes where. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:16, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * I like the idea and I've already started some counties for Southwest Ohio. Since Ohio's regions are fairly large I do agree that using counties are a good idea to help a traveller locate his/her destination.  The county articles also help with covering small attractions for cities that do not warrant an article.  Renaming these articles will require a lot of work with fixing the isIn tags.  I'm not too worried about links in articles, because a redirect can help with that.  -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:28, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Aye, it's the IsIn's that make this sort of thing difficult. That's why I did it for Alaska: not much IsIn the 49th state. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:30, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * I'll wait a bit to see if anyone disagrees, but otherwise we might as well copy the county lists into each region article, similar to what (WT-en) Colin has done with the California regions (it worked nicely there, although California counties are much larger than Ohio's). To alleviate Todd's concerns about counties we can create the county name as a non-link for now, and only use Wiki links for pre-existing county articles.  As to the isIn issues, I can do my best to update them (probably late tonight) - I'm with Todd in that I think "South (Foo)" or "Northeast (Goo)" really don't follow the "use the common name" rule, since who really ever says "I live in Northwest"? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:10, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * I was going to ask would you want to split the work? You could take the northern half since you have more knowledge about that area than I do and I could take the southern regions?  -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:14, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Sounds good! I'll wait a bit longer before making any changes just to give anyone who's interested a chance to chime in, but will probably start out updating things later tonight. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:52, 1 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Ok, just leave a note on my talk page whenever you're ready. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 18:07, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * If counties are in fact the best way to break down a region into subregions, then by all means use them. They certainly work in some places (e.g. the UK), and if Ohio has a strong enough sense of "county identity" that travelers will find them useful, there's no problem.  My main concern is that people are sometimes using them as if they were an automatic part of our hierarchy (e.g. including them pre-emptively on disambig pages) rather than using them when-and-only-when they are the best way to divide a specific state or region.  And keep in mind that even if counties are used to divide most parts of Ohio, they don't have to be used everywhere in the state; if (for example) Greater Columbus happens to make a few local counties superfluous, don't use them. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:26, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks Todd - based on my experiences in Ohio it seems like a region such as Ashtabula County is often going to be the best region we can get - it's non-ambiguous, and what else are you going to call that corner of the state? In other cases you're right about counties not being the best - Greater Cleveland seems like a more useful region to me than Cuyahoga County, although the latter might be a useful sub-region for the sake of organization.  I'll start on this cleanup when I get a chance later tonight. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:51, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

On further comptemplation...
Copied from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2

Is Mid-Ohio even a region? I've heard of the other four, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of Mid-Ohio is there possibly another name for this region? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:03, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Personally I would have gone with "Central Ohio" (which is also what dmoz.org uses) but I didn't make it down to Columbus that much so I'm probably not the best judge. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:07, 1 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Another project, possibly? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:10, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * I'm not as opposed to "Mid-Ohio" as I am to the "North (Foo)"-type names, but if you think it should be changed I'd be glad to help out. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:17, 1 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Nah, I'll just make a notation that it could also be called Central Ohio. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:24, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

 * For what it's worth, one of the big regional comicbook conventions is called Mid-Ohio Con, so it seems a natural term to me, and probably has local usage. A fair number of Google hits for "mid-ohio" as well. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:22, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

I know this is a bit late, but I'd say "Central Ohio" is more prevalent. As a Cincinnatian, I've heard "Central" more than "Mid", but if you pay attention to what you're searching for on Google, "Central" is a lot more common. Compare "mid ohio" -comic -"mid ohio valley" (about 1,090,000) to "central ohio" -"central ohio valley" (about 16,400,000). The comic book convention doesn't really give an indicator of how common the term is for locals, and there were a lot of hits for "Mid-Ohio Valley", which is in West Virginia. – Minh Nguyễn 22:57, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Upon looking at Image:Mid-Ohio counties map.PNG, I see where the confusion might lie. "Central Ohio" and probably "Mid-Ohio" are supposed to refer to the central part of the state, not the middle latitudes. So Darke County is really considered Eastern Ohio (or the Miami Valley), and Jefferson County is probably considered Western Ohio. I've never heard of anyone defining Mid- or Central Ohio the way we do here... – Minh Nguyễn 23:01, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Here again, as a new contributor, I am reading old news, but I thought I might add:Mid-Ohio has no real definition, kinda like "predatory lending", everyone has an opinion but there is no "legally accepted" definition. So, carry on, you did a fine job of breaking up the state as you did. (WT-en) 2old 13:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Lead Photo
I am starting to get a bit parinoid about making changes rather than creating new. Actually, I am a bit skittish about both. The reason I changed the photo, although a great shot and very colorful, is that, it is of the back of the Ohio Supreme Court along the Columbus Riverfront. If you wish to revert it, no problem. If this one remains, I will try to replace it with a more colorful version in the fall. (WT-en) 2old 14:51, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Museums
We need to remove a lot of the listings of museums and such because this page is supposed to be a teaser page and shouldn't be biased toward Cincinnati, but rather include a wide variety of places for travelers to read about and consider visiting. Secondly, the geographic breakup has to go because it's MoS does not like breaking things up under geographic sections. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:36, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

 * On this topic, the see, do, etc. sections of this article have way too much content in the form of bulleted lists. They are visually overwhelming and, I think, not really what we try to do with higher level regions. Ideally, I think these article sections should be mostly paragraph(s) describing the types of attractions/activities/etc on offer throughout the state and where are the best places to go to see/do them. Some individual listings are fine, but should not be over-described, only linked in-text to the page where the listing properly resides. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 * As a new contibutor, I am sure this article will soon be rewritten, and I am sure it no longer conforms to MOS. As a Ohio resident for 58 years and as one who wanders like a loose coon dog on weekends, I make the following suggestions. 1. Drop However, when travling into inner cities take caution. Voilent crime within Ohio cities have been rising, so make sure to travel in groups at all times and advoid traveling by foot alone at night. I think advoid traveling by foot alone at night could be added to most all cities, if it is to remain here. 2. And, I know this is touchy. Ohio and America were founded by individuals seeking religious freedom. As I peck away at this and make my meager contributions, I have made myself aware of the diversity of religions in Ohio, which I never really thought about before. A short paragraph on this should be included in both the USA and Ohio articles. I do not think I am the person to write it, as I get to wordy as it is, in this example. (WT-en) 2old 13:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Lead Photo
Was changed to reflect the view from Adena State Memorial of Mount Logan in Ross County as illustrated on the "Great Seal of Ohio". (WT-en) 2old 11:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Lodges - need homes!
The following list of lodges need to be placed in the city or region article in which they are located... if you are familiar with Ohio, please do so, or make a note here as to where they belong and someone else will. Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:31, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 * The following resort/lodges have been moved the the appropriate locations (WT-en) 2old 11:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

. A 60-room lodge with 30 cottages in the adjacent hillsides. The cottages are within one mile of the lodge and the offer air-conditioning, screened-in porches, furnished kitchens, televisions and four to six beds. Morgan County Southeast Ohio <moved to
 * Atwood Lake Resort, Golf Course & Conference Center ,2650 Lodge Road, Sherrodsville. 18-hole regulation resort golf course, some of the most scenic holes in Ohio, a lighted, nine-hole, par-3 course. Five lighted tennis courts are available, resort lake activities including boating and fishing. 104 spacious guest rooms 17 cottages and two lake houses some with lakeview. For more privacy or a great adventure, four-bedroom lakeside cottages are the ultimate Ohio getaway. Carrol County Mid-Ohio <moved to
 * Burr Oak Resort & Conference Center, 5250 Beach Road, Glouster
 *  Deer Creek Resort and Conference Center, 20635 Waterloo Road, Mt. Sterling (West of Zanesville). 3,100 acre retreat with lodge, rooms, cottages or historic Harding Cabin. Dining in a lakeview restaurant, marina, lake and golf course. Muskingum County west of Zanesville Mid-Ohio <moved to
 * Hueston Woods Resort & Conference Center,,, 6301 Park Office Road, College Corner. Located in  200 acre forest with views of the lake. It is a spacious, comfortable retreat with modern amenities five miles from the Miami University of Ohio. Offering picnicking, boating and fishing on Acton Lake, golf on an 18-hole championship course and cross-country skiing. Butler County NW of Cinicinnati < moved to
 * Mohican Resort & Conference Center, . Surrounded by 6,000 acres of Mohican State Forest and borders Pleasant Hill Lake. Hiking, swimming and boating are nearby. 96 recently renovated guestrooms offering a private balcony. The dining room is also open Sundays with a great buffet for $12.95. A Ohio Department of Natural Resources facility. Ashland County Mid-Ohio < moved to
 * Salt Fork Resort & Conference Center  14755 Cadiz Road, Lore City. Located in the rolling hills of south eastern Ohio, at Ohio's' largest state park. The wooded surroundings contain miles of hiking and horseback riding trails, deer, turkey, flowers, song and water birds all with a view of Ohio's largest state park lake. Guernsey County Mid-Ohio < moved to
 * Shawnee Resort & Conference Center,   4404 State Route 125, Portsmouth.  Located in the 63,000-acre Shawnee forest, the Shawnee Resort & Conference Center offers a many vacation attractions and amenities, golfing along Ohio River, indoor or outdoor pool. 65 miles of adjacent hiking trails, ideal for avid hikers or photographers. A cedar and flagstone lodge with 50 rooms, 25 2 bedroom cottages, and the O-Hee-Yuh Restaurant. Portsmouth  Southeast Ohio <moved to
 * Maumee Bay Resort & Conference Center, 1400 State Park Road, Ohio. An 1,850-acre State Park, Maumee Bay, a fine recreational facility with a unique natural environment as seen by the convergence of the land and Lake Erie. The lodge, cottages and golf course are at Ohio's premier resort and the newest state park. The Lodge is located along the shore of Lake Erie with a two-story stone fireplace that welcomes guests. The 120 guestrooms with private balcony/patio gives spectacular views of the surrounding park. There are 24 cottages with fireplaces adjacent to wetlands and the lush greens of the golf course.  Toledo Lucas County Northwest Ohio < moved to
 * Hueston Woods Resort & Conference Center, double entry-deleted

Counties - still a good idea?
I think our Ohio coverage is very watered down by all these largely empty county articles. Do we really need 88 county articles to cover Ohio properly? As you can see from the chart, in all but one region, doing it this way has left us with a county article for every one or two city articles — we would have to have four to five times as many city articles to really make it worth subdividing everything at such a fine grain. Only Northeast Ohio with its proliferation of cities around the Greater Cleveland area really benefits from being divided this way. I believe that we should rethink the subdivision of the other areas and find a way to group the counties into clusters instead of having a separate article for each one. For example, Mid-Ohio could be split into about 3-4 subregions, maybe 4-6 for Northwest Ohio. Southeast Ohio may not even need subdivision at all right now. I don't have any personal knowledge of Ohio, but maybe we can hammer something out that does not involve dozens of useless county articles. Ryan, I notice you participated in the first regions discussion above — what are your thoughts? And what does everyone else think? Texugo (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Ohio really does have a strong sense of county identity, and they seem like as good a way as any of organizing largely rural areas. On the flip side, it's problematic to have so many skeletons, although that may speak to a larger problem with how we handle regions (*cough* Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy *cough*).  If there is a specific set of sub-regions that could be proposed to replace the counties it's worth discussing, but if not they seem like logical units that help organize the state, even if many of them are mostly empty at the moment. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Ryan. I was hoping you or someone else who knows Ohio better could suggest some subregions. Anyway, what of the fact that when we subdivide, we aim to divide into 7+-2 subregions? It's highly unusual to divide into as many as 26 and not, I think, desirable. Texugo (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah it's not so much that they're skeletons as that the number of bottom-level city articles isn't sufficient to support an article for each county. The other issue is that having more than 9 or 10 subregions makes it very hard to communicate to the user.  Take Northwest Ohio; how would a reader select from among those counties?  Even if one-liner listings were added for each of them, how do you describe 21 counties so that each one is unique and explains what each one has to offer without completely overwhelm a reader trying to review them all and pick one?  Powers (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What if we make Greater Cleveland (Cuyahoga County, Geauga County, Lake County, Lorain County, Medina County) a top level region, and introduce two new regions: a Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area region (Delaware County, Fairfield County, Franklin County, Hocking County, Licking County, Madison County, Morrow County, Perry County, Pickaway Count, Union County) and a Cincinnati metropolitan area region (Brown County, Clermont County, Hamilton County, Warren County, Butler County, Clinton County). That would reduce the number of counties in the other regions, making them more manageable. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a step in the right direction, though it still doesn't address the uselessness of having a county article for every one or two city articles in most of the state. Texugo (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And it would leave Northwest Ohio with 21 counties. I think the biggest city in that region is Toledo.  The idea has merit, though.  Out of curiosity -- I'm not familiar with Columbus -- would the remainder of Mid-Ohio be a ring around the Columbus metro?  Powers (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at File:Mid-Ohio counties map.PNG creating a new top-level region for the Columbus Metro would indeed split Mid-Ohio in two, leaving it non-contiguous. As I said before, the idea has merit, but it only goes about halfway to solving the problem.  Would it satisfy Ryan's concerns about county-level identity if we introduced subregions that organized their information by county, even if we don't yet have individual county-level articles?  Powers (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that sub-regions at county level is not particularly useful. One level below the State should be sufficient. How about new regions for around Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and a West Erie shore region. The North-West, North-East, South-West and South-East loose the counties around the new regions but expand to take in what is currently in Mid-Ohio.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 * After looking at the numbers, the North-East need a little more thought. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of Ohio towns that are not in county regions but in sub-regions of Ohio. I will move these into county regions just so we can get a correct picture of the situation. Once we have a better structure defined they can be moved again and the county pages redirected to the new regions. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Looking forward to comments and suggestions for improvements -- (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Region around Columbus (no county sub-regions)
 * Region covering Erie shore west (no county sub-regions)
 * Northwest Ohio with 3 sub-regions (no county sub-regions)
 * Greater Cleveland (with county sub-regions) - not sure about Ashtabula County
 * Northeast Ohio with 3 sub-regions (no county sub-regions)
 * Southeast Ohio (no county sub-regions)
 * Greater Cincinnati (with county sub-regions)
 * Southwest Ohio (no county sub-regions) - or what about Miami and Scioto valleys as region definition?

 * I'm not entirely sure I understand the current proposal - the list above shows eight regions, but the map shows thirteen. I'm supportive of the list above, although we might want to use something like "Greater Columbus" instead of "Central Ohio" for clarity since the latter is often used to include a larger area than what is being proposed here.  Similarly, "Erie shore west Ohio" seems a bit of a mouthful - what about re-arranging things a bit so that we have a "Northwest Ohio" region and a "West Central Ohio" region, similar to ? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated the table, hopefully a little clearer. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support moving ahead with Traveler100's proposal above, including Ryan's suggestions. Were there any objections? It's been a year since I started this thread; I think it's time for action. Texugo (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

First step
As first step what about moving Greater Cleveland out to below state and creating also Greater Cincinnati and Central Ohio at the same level. Question: is there a better name for Southwest Ohio if it does not include the counties around Cincinnati?

It's late 2016
...and Ohio still has a ton of basically empty county articles. Based on the discussion above I believe many active Wikivoyagers are familiar with Ohio to some extent. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Since it appears that this reorganization is moving ahead, a few comments:
 * I realize I was the one who originally suggested making Greater Cleveland a top level region, but in retrospect it seems odd to exclude Greater Cleveland from Northeast Ohio. Yes, there is enough content to warrant splitting Greater Cleveland into its own top-level region, but anyone from Cleveland considers himself to be from Northeast Ohio, so I'd suggest it would be better to keep Greater Cleveland as a sub-region of Northeast Ohio.
 * Within Greater Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and Lorain County are populous enough to leave as standalone sub-regions. The other counties in the region are less populous, but don't lend themselves well to any particular grouping, so i suppose we would leave those county articles as they are until a better solution comes along?
 * The names of the other Northeast Ohio sub-regions need tweaking - "Canton-Massillion area Ohio" sounds very alien. What about the more familiar "metropolitan area"?
 * Canton-Massillion Metropolitan Area
 * Youngstown-Warren Metropolitan Area
 * Akron Metropolitan Area
 * "Greater Cincinnati" is very large and would require sub-regions, but I don't know that area well-enough to make suggestions.
 * -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have done the rename. If you look at the table above counties under Cleveland and Grater Cincinnati are in the keep column. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone familiar with Ohio?
A similar thing to the thread right above. Ohio is probably the record holder for number of nearly-empty subarticles in the form of counties. In Talk:Ohio a new division of the state was thought out and at least partially agreed upon a year and a half ago but that was pretty much it. Someone (or preferably more than one :)) here who's familiar with that part of the US and would like to continue the merging project? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have been working in other areas of Wikivoyage but can get back to this topic if people are fine with the proposed restructure. I am familiar with the towns along the I75 but have no personal experience of other areas of the state. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Ryan and LtPowers who participated in the earlier discussion. Andre and Justin also hail from nearby. Anyone else? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I'm too ignorant of Ohio to help. I haven't spent much time there. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problems. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have created some new sub-regions but not yet started expanding them. Have also added merge tags to county pages so people can see and comment on changes. Also started Ohio Expedition, which does show the number of regions is excessive for the number of city articles in the state. Hopefully provide place to discuss issues on individual articles as well a showing the to-do list. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - about the most I can say is that individual counties definitely aren't the way to go. But I'm not familiar enough with Ohio to be any more specific than that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm monitoring the discussion on Talk:Ohio but I don't have any further input beyond what I've already contributed there. Powers (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if people are not familiar with the area it would be good to get some assistance moving listing currently at county level down into the relevant city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it took more work that I first thought but I think things are better with less regions. Could do with some tidying up of the sub-region still. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I live in Ohio and travel regularly throughout most of the state. I have several opinions to offer here:
 * Ohio has 88 counties. Yes, that's right...everyone is close enough to their county seat to ride there and back by horse and take care of business within a day or two...but it's also why there are so many empty articles. I would create a hierarchy that mostly ignores counties, because regions and subregions are where it's at. Here are my thoughts:
 * Regions:
 * Northwest Ohio
 * Greater Toledo
 * Sandusky Bay/Lake Erie Islands
 * etc.
 * Northeast Ohio
 * Greater Cleveland
 * Akron/Canton Area, basically Summit, Portage, and Stark Counties, maybe throw in most of Wayne County...there's a serious blur into Greater Cleveland here in northern Summit and even a teensy bit into Portage and definitely into Medina Counties.
 * Amish Country East, as in Geauga/Ashtabula Counties, east of Cleveland, and I can try to find a better name, because that's not what I think they quite call it.
 * Amish Country South, which centers mostly around Millersburg, including all of Holmes County, the better part of Tuscarawas County, and spills into surrounding counties a bit.
 * Youngstown/Warren Area, which is pretty much Trumbull, Mahoning, and most of Columbiana Counties.
 * Mid-Ohio, which is Mansfield and Ashland Counties
 * Central Ohio is almost subsumed entirely by Columbus, and the Census Bureau has so vastly expanded the CSA now that it's obvious there isn't much difference as far as they're concerned. Columbus proper has already spilled beyond the boundaries of Franklin County, although there are still several discrete suburbs in Franklin County. I'd almost make the argument that the county article for Franklin County is totally superfluous, and that the city article for Columbus treat most suburban areas like neighborhoods. I'm not entirely certain whether Zanesville/Muskingum County goes more appropriate into Central Ohio or into Southeast Ohio...it fits well with both.
 * Columbus (city)
 * Downtown Columbus
 * Dublin/Worthington
 * Easton/Gahanna
 * etc.
 * Chillicothe/Circleville area
 * Delaware area
 * etc.
 * Southwest Ohio
 * Dayton Area
 * Greater Cincinnati, which is a bit of misnomer, since that actually spills into parts of Kentucky and Indiana. The good thing is that the part that's in Kentucky identifies itself as "Northern Kentucky".
 * etc.
 * Southeast Ohio...this would be a pretty wide swatch of state from East Liverpool on the PA border all the way down to Portsmouth, which is really more South-Central, but is more married to the river and what's on the Kentucky side rather than connected in any way to Cincinnati to the west.
 * Hocking Hills, which sort of starts with Lancaster and goes down to about Athens and spills out to touch the eastern edge of the Chillicothe/Circleville area along the Scioto River.
 * Zanesville area (probably)
 * Central Ohio River Country (lousy name) with Portsmouth and Ironton
 * Marietta area
 * Steubenville area
 * Coal Country, which would be the regions near the Ohio River between Wheeling and Marietta.

I'm most familiar with the Northeastern portion, but hopefully before we get too many crazy lousy names in other parts of the state, we'll get some people who want to help clean things up in the rest of the state. There are definitely areas of the state with lots of tourism, while other parts are pretty sparse with no big draws. All the major metros have a lot to write about (Cleveland, Akron/Canton, Columbus, Cincy, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown/Warren) and the other big draws would be the Lake Erie Islands/Sandusky Bay area, Hocking Hills, two Amish Countries, and Lake/Ashtabula County Wine Country. You could have a region for Ohio River Country stretching from East Liverpool to Greater Cincy I suppose...but there's not much that's a big draw unto itself except for the Hocking Hills Region. Everything else is mostly leftover stuff that isn't really well publicized or marketed (that I'm aware of).Leehawkins (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With 21 article Southeast Ohio is getting to the limit of a sub-region, however unless the number of locations increase substantially I would not split it into too many sub-regions. BTW if not already spotted, take a look at the breakdown of sub-regions at Ohio Expedition --Traveler100 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

East Palestine freight train derailment
I updated the warning boxes regarding the freight train derailment. Wondering if this should instead be a caution box? It looks like evacuation orders were lifted already (per the Wikipedia article). JRHorse (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine to put it in the East Palestine article, but not here. It does not affect the whole state, just one town.
 * Template_index says: a warning box is "Used to call out information that is vital to a traveler's safety, such as recent damage from a natural disaster, political instability, or some other serious condition. Warning boxes should be sparingly used and placed either at the top of an article or within the article section that is related to the warning.
 * A caution box is "Used for non-life-threatening warnings that could affect a traveler's possessions, finances, or health, and other notices that need presentation in an attention-grabbing format. It should be used sparingly—only if normal prose is insufficient for some reason."
 * Ground Zero (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

List of highways
Is the descriptive list of highways in Get in/By car useful for travellers? Or is this just duplicating Wikipedia? If I were driving through Ohio, I would look at a map, or use a mapping app, rather than read this list. I propose to delete it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty useless to me. IMO for a region of this size the "By car" sections should focus on broad, general information about getting in and around by car. In some cases it might be worth mentioning a small number of key arteries for general orientation and potential road trip inspiration, but not a list of 20+. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ohio


text:
Talk:Ohio Museums

This info has been gleaned from Ohio - See Ohio discussion.(WT-en) 2old 11:12, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Reorganise?
Might it be better to reorganise this list so that it is split up into different types of museum? i.e. Music Museum, art gallery etc. My reasons for thinking this is that we already have a list of what museums are in each city on the city pages, which makes this current list a bit redundant... -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 11:57, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Good idea. Once I have the list complete, it can manage it a bit easier. Takes a bit to get it all. One of the reasons for this is that everyone thinks theirs is the most important museum and should be on main page. It will slow down re-edits and be very easy to maintain. (WT-en) Workerbee 12:10, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree with Tim's recommendation. That'll make this unique from what people can already get from the city/county pages. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:11, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
 * All is well-let me complete the list first. Then we can re-organize it. It will take a while as, this is a bit boring and I enjoy working on the destinations to keep it interesting (for me). (WT-en) Workerbee 12:15, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Sure, no hurry. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:20, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ohio Museums