text:
Talk:Right to access in the Nordic countries

Only Norway?
This should be moved to Norway/Right to access or expanded to include other countries which have this concept. -(WT-en) phma 09:01, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

I agree, and the phrase "Right to access" is kinda confusing-- is that a common term somewhere? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:59, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I agree too, though consolidating here does create a redundancy problem, sinces all of the scandinavian countries have laws like this (it's also a feature of english common law, though it's been eroded a bit over the years). Still redundancy is better than finding missing the information becuase you can't click the link from the Norway page which you printed out and put in your backpack.. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 11:06, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Then maybe it could be moved to a "Right to access" chapter on the Scandinavia page? (WT-en) DhDh 12:00, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

Editing needed
Needs some editing. It really looks like a discussion on some cases, for example: If 'out of the way' sounds harsh... It's its own paragraph that refers to a paragraph two paragraphs above. /PutBoy

The page says to "..close gates even if you found them open..". Well, here in Australia, we say, " leave gates as you find them.." which seems more logical, if you don't want to annoy the farmer who left it open for his animals' convenience ! Clarification, anyone ? 203.63.143.122 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I think the Australian way is the way to go here also, as reflected in the current wording. --LPfi (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sections that need some work
I think apart from some wording in the lede, the "Quirks" section and the "walking and passing" section could need some attention, up to and including throwing out the old text and writing new text from scratch and/or changing headlines. Furthermore, there are a couple of dead links that should either be removed period or be replaced by their living equivalent. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * So, we are steadily getting better on the SEO front here, both through dilution (the other site has 60% copied content while we have 30% on this article) and through new better wording. But the "quirks" section (maybe we should think about a new headline?) still contains an awful lot of copied content. To be precise the entirety of the following "Along many popular tourist roads and spots, there are "no camping" signs. These are there to avoid a heavy impact on areas which are particularly popular, and should be respected. Just go a few hundred meters further, make sure you're out of the way, and you're OK.

Although camping vans are OK, it is generally, if usually silently, frowned upon just parking them in a parking area and staying overnight. Obviously mountains and other extreme areas are paved as little as possible. Parking areas are therefore deliberately a scarce resource, and should be used only for parking, not for camping. If you're using a camping van, use paid campsites.

Note that around some cabins in the more popular mountain regions such as Jotunheimen in Norway, extra limitations have been set up which prohibit tenting up to 2 km from the cabins. This is because campers have used sanitary facilities in the cabins without paying. Many Norwegians believe that these limitations are illegal and so blatantly ignore them (and love to be taken to court to have it struck down). They have not yet been tested in court, however, and as a foreigner you might not want to argue about it, so you might want to comply. If you do camp, don't use the facilities of nearby huts without paying the dues. In short: around most cabins you can camp as close as you want (or in a designated area) by paying a small fee – you then also get access to the cabin's facilities. If you don't want to pay, you'll have to go 150 m away. Around some cabins you will have to go even farther away."
 * Either we nuke it and write it anew from scratch or we decide it is so great that we keep it even despite the penalty, because I fear lateral ain't gonna cut it here. Or what do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * As I have said elsewhere before, I think we should avoid rewriting for the sake of rewriting, and especially if we cannot come up with something that is an improvement. The text here is not necessarily great, but as it is mostly about Norway (I believe the article was about Norway only in the beginning), I am not going to write it again after nuking, but it could be reworded. --LPfi (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * It's not "for the sake of rewriting" it has two very well defined objectives that must be weighed according to each individual case. One is Search Engine considerations and the other is whether our articles are up to date. It seems to me that if no deliberate effort is put into it, the old stuff gets slowly diluted (sometimes through adding a paragraph with more information, sometimes through a line here or there partially contradicting other wordings) but we as a wiki are reluctant to throw out old text, even if it would be beneficial in some cases. I think at the very least this text could be expanded to focus on places other than Norway Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * A search on "freedom to roam" or "right to access" and "Norway" or "Norway Sweden" gives me this article as second to fifth. If that is the general score, we need not worry about SEO for this article. If it is much worse for others, then I should be very worried about how much info I have let leak to Google. --LPfi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Using duckduckgo and searching "right to access", that other site is number one and we are not even on the first couple of pages. I don't know the amount of data this service collects, but yes, you should be worried about what google knows about you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It is OK to make a camp fire, or maybe not in Norway
It says: “It is OK to make a camp fire, but you must not cut any trees”. I Norway the law: Forskrift om brannforebygging have some important exceptions in § 3 (translated):

 * General requirements for care

 * Everyone is obliged to exercise caution in carrying out activities that may lead to fire.

 * It is forbidden to fire or treat flammable objects outdoors under such conditions or in such a way that it may lead to fire. Completed fire must not be left until it is completely extinguished.

 * During the period from 15 April to 15 September, it is forbidden to fire in or near forests and other land without permission from the municipality. Local government may, by local regulations, waive this prohibition if local circumstances so warrant. It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire.

 * If the fire hazard is particularly large beyond the period mentioned in the third paragraph, the municipality may propose to fire or treat fire-hazardous objects outdoors in certain areas. The prohibition may be adopted as a regulation without prior notice and notice pursuant to section 37, second paragraph, and section 38, first paragraph, letter c). The municipality shall ensure that the prohibition is generally known on the spot in question.

A guidance to thise paragraph is fundt her Forbud mot å brenne bål i skog og mark where is says:

 * The regulation opens for the enjoyment of the bonfire also when there is no snow on the ground. Section 3 says "It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire". The exception applies, for example, to established places for bonfires and other places that are completely safe. Are you in doubt, it's better to stand over the bonfires.

One shuld be extremely careful, the best is perhaps to only make a camp fire when it's raining?

It also says in the article: “... but you must not cut any trees.” I Norway, nobody will care if you break some dry branches for a bonfire, barely enough on private land. As far as I know, it is only in nature reserves that it is forbidden to break, or pick up branches on the ground, or disturb any natural processes. I don't know the laws in the other Scandinavian countries in thise filds.

Best regards --Frankemann (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, I have missed the "og annen utmark" (above translated as "other land"). With that wording forests and woods have no special status, which I have been told they have. Non-utmark land is hardly relevant for travellers, as there you would anyway ask the locals. I changed the article accordingly, but have made a mess of the wording. Is it correct now? Feel free to change the wording or improve the text in other ways.

 * In Hiking in the Nordic countries the wording is "In Norway, making a fire is generally forbidden from 15 April to 15 September, except at generously safe distance from forest, buildings and other flammable material or on designated sites approved by the fire department." I suppose that is how hikers interpret the law. I do not know whether such an interpretation is due to municipalities granting rights, or just people ignoring the letter of the law.

 * About cutting trees: I think the wording "Also leave aesthetically or ecologically valuable dead logs alone. Use twigs on the ground and similar instead" clearly hints on quite some leeway for own judgement. I hesitate to give definite advice, as what I would like people to do varies a lot depending on how many people are using the place on one hand and how special the environment is on the other – and the advice I'd give varies depending on how much I trust the judgement of people getting my advice.

 * --LPfi (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Latvia
Latvia has special law, there is a law that allows passage and picking mushrooms, berries, nuts and weeds (but not camping) in any forested land, be it private or state-owned. Passage is allowed along any river or lake (4 meters wide strip) on private properties. Also, Latvia partly classifies as a Nordic country. Anyone is against including Latvia to this article? Soshial (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, because Latvia is not considered a Nordic country on this site, and I think it usually isn't, in general. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 * All the Baltic states, and especially Estonia, have some ambitions to be associated with the Nordic countries. However, there are big differences in history, culture and languages. I think we shall not call the Baltic states Nordic unless they get full membership of the Nordic Council.

 * When it comes to right to access, even Denmark is not included in this article (other than as a mention and link). There are many countries with similar rights, mostly more restricted than in the four countries this article covers.

 * The more exceptions we have to cover, the less useful is the article. Now we can say that you can roam freely away from developed areas (in Norway; utmark), and we'd need to say "except in Latvia, were you are confined to a 4-m strip by lakes and rivers", and you can camp anywhere some distance from the nearest house (200 m in Norway), except in Latvia, where you must use commercial campsites.

 * We also have the problem that few editors know both the right to access in Nordic countries and in Latvia. Wilderness backpackers from Finland, Sweden and Norway all roam the Scandinavian fells and have probably noticed most of the differences, we have contributors from the three countries, and I can read Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian. Iceland is a bit problematic in this regard, but I feel it is important to be able to include it (and I think Snævar has read and approved the wordings). I am not sure we have any user from Latvia or fluent in Latvian, and we'd need somebody acquainted with the right both in Latvia and the Nordic countries for being able to explain the Latvian tradition in terms that would not be misunderstood when compared with the Nordic tradition.

 * What we'd need to do is to have a separate article on similar rights in Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, ... and Latvia. For Latvia, a section in the country article would be a good start.

 * –LPfi (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much LPfi for your elaborate answer. I completely agree with your viewpoint. Soshial (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 * As a side note Right to access applies in some form in the other Baltic countries (Estonia and Lithuania) too. I'm not an expert on the topic however, though I did start up Hiking in Estonia a few years ago inspired by and using a tourist brochure about the topic and some googling. Ypsilon (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured Travel Topic?
The article has quite a lot of information. Maybe it's comprehensive enough to be nominated and featured as a FTT? Ypsilon (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a good article. However, we have many Nordic articles coming up, and most of them are scheduled for northern summer. Also, we have plenty of travel topics nominated. We could nominate it, but it would probably have to wait until 2024 to fit into the schedule. /Yvwv (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the main "problem" with the nominations right now, there's not really space for new nominees... --Ypsilon (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Native proofreading requested
This article has lots of information, but the language feels heavy to read. I would be happy if a native English speaker could proofread and improve the language. /Yvwv (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I am not native, but I will try to simplify prose. Already done a little in the intro, please have a look if it works. Erik den yngre (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Focus on costs
Right to access of course has consequences for costs, but right to access is not really intented as a free option. The point is not to avoid commercial accomodation services. This is a common topic in Norway during the high season: many visitors misunderstand or misuse the right to access thus annoying the locals or breaking the rules. https://www.nrk.no/nordland/campingturister-slo-opp-telt-pa-jorde-pa-nordnes-i-sortland-1.16468369 https://www.nrk.no/nordland/vekket-turister-som-campet-pa-kirkegard_-_-de-syntes-det-var-jeg-som-var-frekk-1.13062476

I will weaken this point in the intro, Erik den yngre (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Natural parks
The article now says:
 * The right to access does not apply in natural parks and nature reserves.

This is not correct for Norway. Nature reserves (naturreservat) may be closed parts of the year such that birds and animals are not disturbed, but the main rule applies. "Natural park" is not a concept in Norway. National parks are utmark and fully open to the public with regard to hiking and camping. Erik den yngre (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Naturpark was the term I learnt as a child for nature reserves, but perhaps easiest to skip that. In Finland right to access in practice applies also in most national parks and nature reserves, but (if I've understood correctly) only because the equivalent rights are – usually – explicitly granted in the law on the national park (for them, there is always a law) and the rules of the nature reserve.

 * I tweaked your changes somewhat. I hope I didn't lose anything.

 * –LPfi (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Private land
I agree that private vs public land is generally not relevant to the right to access. But I think it is useful to point out that right to access does apply equally to private land, this is unfamiliar for many visitors for instance from the UK. And perhaps even more important: Visitors should be aware that they are guests on the land of a real person (not a vague government agency). My family owns a chunk of forest, valley, lakes and rivers. Hikers are welcome, but there is no doubt visitors are guests in "my home" and should behave accordingly. Erik den yngre (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 * It is important to point out that the right applies also to private land, but there is a specific reason I don't want to emphasise the owner as an individual: the land of the Sámi is regarded state-owned (I think there are some legal processes about that in Sweden, but at least in Finland it is the governance, not the ownership, that is under debate). In the duoddarat, I am a guest on land that is home to a Sámi community, even if the land is "owned" by the state and governed by Metsähallitus. (There are also other arguments, but as Sápmi is so important for hiking, this dominates.) –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, understand (Finnmark is the only area in Norway where the government owns most of the land with special rights of reindeer keeping Sami), but I think it is still a good idea to communicate the notion of guest. Visitors using right to access are expected to behave as guests: don't take or break anything, don't leave garbage behind, etc. From what I have seen, some visitors don't behave as guests (if such guests where in my house I would not invite them again!). Erik den yngre (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Nudity
I am a bit surprised about the recently added warning about getting nude. Most people from other countries would be much too shy in the first place, and who would get nude in company with locals who remain dressed? If you go swimming nude by a deserted shore and some locals happen to appear, then that would mostly be their problem in my book – they don't need to look at you, when getting ashore you would swiftly get to your towels and nobody would get offended. In what context is a foreigner likely to appear nude in a way that would offend locals? Finns in a Swedish sauna? –LPfi (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could agree that nudity would be contextual even within a single Nordic country, and might not be the highest risk for provocation outdoors, compared to other legal but foul manners mentioned. /Yvwv (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In Norway public nudity is perfectly legal, and swimming nude in the wilderness is in general no problem. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are only expected to be considerate. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove the warning about nudity. Most visitors from overseas are more shy than Nordic people, so I dont think it is an issue. Even "partial" nudity, such as naked upper body for male is in southern Europe not acceptable in town but perfectly OK in Norway. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Docks and outdoor furniture
I know that using private jetties is not allowed in Finland. I am a bit surprised if docks are treated otherwise. If there is private outdoor furniture, I would tend to count the place as part of the yard (and thus protected by domestic privacy, i.e. off limits). Does this differ between countries? Is it common to use private docks for mooring and swimming or could be just skip this paragraph? –LPfi (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * In Norway, private docks and jetties are not utmark so no right to access there (not even walking or bathing). Erik den yngre (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Some beaches in Sweden outside yard spaces are owned by condominiums (samfällighet) which means that the right to access applies. The owners tend to put up furniture such as benches, football goals and playground swings, which in themselves are private property. This is under debate in Sweden, in particular around Gothenburg and Stockholm. /Yvwv (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the most populated areas, docks/jetties in conjunction with houses may block movement along beaches, in that case hikers in Norway are allowed to walk across a private dock. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The right to domestic privacy doesn't extend to common spaces of condominiums (at least not in Finland). I would not hesitate to walk there and take a look, unless there are no trespassing signs or other hints. I still wouldn't moor there other than very temporarily, as there may be other boats coming and I don't know the local rules (I very much doubt the right to access applies to mooring at a dock). Neither would I swim there, as that might be very unsafe. Whether I would consider using the furniture depends on the feel of the particular place (difficult to give that detailed advice). –LPfi (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice, lots of people in Norway walk on private areas and nobody cares. But remaining on a private dock or using private furniture for swimming, sunbathing or even camping overnight is clearly not OK in Norway. Erik den yngre (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be because innmark is so widely defined. Here the right to access applies on most private land except private yards, and I suppose you don't want strangers to cross yours regularly. Anyway, I'll remove the paragraph now, with no prejudice on a better wording. In Finland, the cases you need the paragraph for are too few to be worth the hassle of explaining them. –LPfi (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Riley

Uh, anyone know where this place is or if it's an actual Project:What's an article?. Searching on "Riley" isn't going to be too useful I'd imagine. (WT-en) Maj 13:21, 12 December 2006 (EST)

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

title: Talk:Riley


text:
Talk:Rincón

Rincon Puerto Rico Article
I notice that the article for Rinc%C3%B3n, Puerto Rico page requires a large amount of sidescroll to the right in order to view the entire article. I suspect it is because of the template layout and the photos placed on the right hand side of the article.

I am not too familiar with templates and layout style and was wondering if someone could look at the Rinc%C3%B3n article and possible suggest how to make it more visually appealing.

Thanks

(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 12:58, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

 * It's fixed now. One of the 'Sleep' listings had a missing '*' at the beginning. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the quick fix and response.(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker 13:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

What To Do With a Eraser on WikiTravel
Hi there, went to the wrong forum, just wondering if anyone can help?.. I'm kinda new to these forums, but have put my Vacation rental listing back on WT, for the 3rd time. There is a user that keeps on Erasing my web listing. How should I deal with it..I have the persons name..I have been monitoring the page for several weeks now, and They did it again..Kind of surprised cause my listing has been here for a long time, and now her business is open, and is near mine on my block...What can I do? I own 2 business, a Hair Salon and a Vacation Rental here in Puerto Rico, listed here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Rinc%C3%B3n Please help..Im at my wits END.. my web site is url="http://www.prVacationRental.com" and my email is "mailto:prVacationRental@aol.com" or "mailto:RinconRentals@gmail.com", please if you can help send me a email..thanks.. The one I highlighted is the one..Carmen is my neighbor..and prVacationRental is me, redoing here eraser non-sense..

This was written at the bottom of the page:

This page was last edited at 20:02, on 4 October 2010 by Anonymous user(s) of Wikivoyage. Based on work by Ryan Holliday, Peter Fitzgerald, Carmen E Gonzalez, Albert Lingelbach and Marc Heiden, Wikivoyage user(s) Roundtheworld, Ccrincon, Vidimian, LtPowers, Sandy Beach, Burmesedays, Tatatabot and Prvacationrental, Anonymous user(s) of Wikivoyage and others. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.139.87.115 (talk • contribs)

 * Your edit hasn't been removed by a competitor, it has been removed by several of the site's editors due to violations of Wikivoyage's guidelines on apartment listings and advertising. The article history shows every edit made to this article, as well as who made it and any comment they left on why the edit was made. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:39, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Ryan, thanks for the info..I have been reading on guidelines and all, It goes to show you how much I know about everything, I made my edit from copying someone elses, and just replaced everything with my name, email..etc..But, as I read there are already codes that you fill out in order to post, I will copy the code and try to place it back in the Budget accommodation listings. Thank you for my peace of mind..--24.139.87.115 06:56, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Please read the guidelines on rental listings. The reason your edit has been removed four times now is because your rental listing company does not appear to be an appropriate listing based on that guideline. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:17, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

I have read the guidelines..I dont understand how? My Rental Listing, is NOT Appropriate, I have been in business since 2004, and have all my permits for a business, there are some here that dont have legal permits...I dont understand how it was listed by me a year ago,(I backdated when I placed it here) http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Rinc%C3%B3n&oldid=1088620, (13:23, 16 March 2009 71.88.58.218) And its just recently it has been getting kicked..I know it is not easy for everyone that works there to monitor everything, and you might think I'm a pain in the butt, But I would like to know where I can post this than? I am part of the Tourism Association of Rincon Puerto Rico, and I am listed on Trip Advisor, for Accommodations in Rincon.Am I posting it in the wrong category? Am I using the wrong code? Is this the right code?: directions="extra directions if necessary" phone="Phone" email="email@example.com" fax="Fax number" checkin="Time" checkout="Time" price="$lowprice-$highprice" url="http://www.hotel.example.com/"> One to three sentences about the service, atmosphere, view, rooms, what have you.
 *  3 large beautiful studio guest rooms within walking distance to the calm beaches of Rincon. This is that special place where you can just get away from it all. Relax and enjoy the West Coast Caribbean in Rincon Puerto Rico
 * <sleep name="EV Vacation Rentals" alt="Barrio Barrero" address="Carr 429 Km 2.7"

 * Click on the link above (ie guidelines on rental listings). You will be taken to a section of the page titled "Rental listings".  The first line of that section is the following: "Wikivoyage is neither an apartment-finder service nor a real estate listing service, so in general real estate and rental agency listings are not allowed". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:12, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

Ryan, Im not a real estate agent..nor am I rental agency..--24.139.87.115 13:26, 5 October 2010 (EDT) I have been listed here since 2008? http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Rinc%C3%B3n&oldid=993205

 * Please stop re-adding this listing until there is some consensus to do so. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how a business named "EV Vacation Rentals" that offers property rental is not a rental listing - based on your web site, your business is clearly not a hotel.  As a rental listing, there are four conditions that are clearly outlined in the rental agency guidelines that must be met before the listing can be included in this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:06, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

Ryan...Have you even visited anyones web site here? Have you ever been to Rincon Puerto Rico? In Puerto Rico there are only a couple Hotels, the rest are owners villas, converted houses to inns, houses, apartments, some legal and some illegal( meaning they do not have operating permits, We Have ALL our Permits from (http://www.prhta.org www.prhta.org) The Puerto Rico Hotel & Tourism Association (PRHTA) We are a Guest House and use Vacation Rental..., Consensus, Who would have to make this? How would I prove to you that, I am NOT a broker..And am NOT trying to solicit anything... I dont understand what the situation is.. If you would see, www.rincon.org, http://www.rincon.org/lodging-vacation-rentals/rincon-s-south-caribbean-inns-guest-houses/, I am a Member since our Rentals inception 2005, We are part of the Tourism Association of Rincon Puerto Rico(TAR), and are a well known Vacation Rental in Rincon  OR  Guest House... If you were to understand the difference between a Vacation Rental and a Guest House or Inn, they are the same.. the only difference is that a Vacation Rental pays Tourism tax of 7%, while a Guest House is paying 9%, And a Inn pays 9% and has to have more than a certain amount of rooms. We pay Tourism tax,of 7%, hence we use the word Vacation Rental. Further more, The "EV" is my wife's nickname, -EV's Vacation Rentals, I hope I cleared some things up for you and your Consensus forming friends.

I do know http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Copyleft ,

Anyone can use Wikivoyage content according to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. And anyone can contribute their own or other people's text and images, as long as the work is their own or available under a compatible license.

 * Ryan, I was just wondering if you came to the conclusion that my Rental is for travelers and people on vacation. And Is NOT a real estate site or a broker, rental agency or a place to spam WT, I am just wondering why you are being so discriminate against me listing my site..

 * And if you are going to let me list my site, Why cant I post it in Budget - My prices are $75/ night. My rental is not a hostel, it is for families, couples, singles and large groups. Please get back to me...Thanks Joei--24.139.87.115 18:17, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

 * I've provided several links to the guidelines for getting non-hotel listings included in articles so there isn't much else I can say. If you re-add your listing I won't remove it, but without following the steps in the guidelines it is pretty much guaranteed that someone else will remove it in the future in accordance with Wikivoyage policies. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:39, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Ryan, thank you for being very understanding. Since, I live in Rincon PR, I know that there are only 4 Hotels here: Horned Dorset Primavera Hotel, http://www.horneddorset.com/, Hotel Villa Cofresi, http://www.villacofresi.com/, Rincon of the Seas Grand Caribbean Hotel, http://www.rinconoftheseas.com/, and Rincon Beach Resort, http://www.rinconbeach.com/,(But, Rincon Beach Resort is actually in the town of Anasco) It is an older hotel and was around first and had picked up the name long ago. The hotels in Rincon PR are not like NYC hotels. These hotels are anywhere from 2 stories to 4 stories high, and do not offer the number of rooms to accommodate travelers that are here on vacation, which is one of the largest vacation spots in Puerto Rico, that is why there are so many vacation rentals, guest houses villas etc..here..

EVERYONE on the list in WT, weather its Budget, Mid-Range or Splurge..NONE are Hotels!! And if the next editor edits it, I would explain that to him/her. Maybe before they edit it, or remove someone they would perhaps take a look at this page before they remove it. Because ALL would be out of the Guidelines for letting Non-Hotel listings included.

I would like to say thank you again for your help..I know you help out many people and edit a lot of pages, But instead of just pointing people in postings to read the guidelines, you can try to explain it to them a bit more, and be understanding that working with these pages are New to them..Not someone that has been fixing other peoples work since 2005..If they are posting it in the wrong place, show them where the right place is..dont just remove it..tell them they added it in wrong place, or if they are using the wrong code, give them the right code, and tell them to fill this one out and re-post it, thanks..just a thought..joei

 * Ryan...Thank you for re-posting my rental, and thank you for letting users of WT know that there are only 4 hotels in Rincon, others are Specialty Accommodations, Villas, Vacation Rentals, Guest Houses, Inns and Cottages.. I dont think I could have put it better than you did. There is one thing I would like to ask you if you can...Working with guidelines, our price $75/night...So, that would put us in Budget, not Mid-Range... If you can be kind enough to edit me to there You would probably see the last of me.. :), I would rather a better edit person do it..Thanks..

 * Oh, And 1 more thing..isn't there a law (not really enforced) But,in most of the USA, and in PR... That owners of a Condominium are NOT allowed to rent out their Condo, for vacations either for short term or long term. Condominium's are NOT allowed to be rented out down here unless The Homeowners Association of that condo agrees upon it, and Most frown upon it. Well there is one in the listing, and it isnt a puerto rico area code. --24.139.87.115 15:04, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

 * If there are listings that are invalid (condo, etc) go ahead and remove them - just click on the "edit" link for the section (the section, not the individual listing), then remove the offending code. You can do the same to move your listing (or any others) to a more appropriate section.  You've made a good faith effort to work with Wikivoyage, so it's clear you're not trying to promote your business at the expense of others.  I've got this article on my watchlist (as do others) so any edits that might go awry will be quickly fixed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

When I move it and get the nerve up to do so.. Do I copy it from Mid-Range.. Delete it from there.. than move to Budget, edit.. and paste it there... Is it that easy... I will wait, till you answer.. Beside that we received a email stating The Spot for eating went belly up..Closed up a month ago, and will not re-open this season... Someone said, she moved back to the states.

I was also clicking around here in Puerto Rico There is a lot of stuff on here...But I found a problem some of the towns at the bottom of this page for Aguadilla http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Aguadilla, they go strait to a edit page.. is this common, or is that a bug?? or is just that there is nothing going on in those towns...which I know Maricao, has the Coffee Festival and I think they hold the Orange Festival there too..I have only been there for the Coffee..God I love the smell of Coffee, there you can smell it for miles and if the wind is right even before you get to the town, But you dont want to go there when they roast the beans..It smells like burnt coffee.. Thank again..--24.139.87.115 17:23, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Project:How to edit a page has some details that might be helpful. In addition, if you create an account then people can leave you messages on your talk page with any tips that might be helpful.  In the specific cases you mentioned:

 * Any link that is red means that the article has not yet been created - see Project:How to start a new page.
 * To move your listing, just click the "edit" link next to the "Sleep" header, and move the code to the correct place, then click "save".

 * -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:44, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks..that was easier than I thought.Thank you for your time and Patience. I think I have a user account, but sometimes it is just easier to edit when you dont have to log in all the time..Im gonna check now.. Thanks for the walk threw...--24.139.87.115 19:01, 7 October 2010 (EDT) .

There are some edits that also need to be done with Rincon..I DONT think I should be the one to do it...Since I do live here some would think I am Bias, and that is not so..Starting at the top..

Whats the difference between DO and BUY, I think they're kinda the same...Well... DO a massage or buy a massage?

DO part Help the animals of Rincon | ARF, BARK & 413 Geek, This is not the correct name..Its ARF Animals of Rincon http://www.arfrincon.org/, http://www.413geek.com/ 413Geek is the new webmaster for many websites here in Rincon, hes a internet marketer, just check out his site..it says it there.. He is making people go to his web site! NOT ARF...

EAT part Delete move to Aguadilla Natural High Cafeis no longer in Rincon..they moved to Aguadilla, Plaza Victoria Shopping Center located on Route 2, at the traffic light just south of the Aguadilla Mall, across from the Walgreens Drug Store and next to Pitusa and Western Auto.Route #2 km.129.5, Aguadilla Puerto Rico  Append''' El Cerditounder new ownership about a year and a half ago..New Name is Simply Delicioso 787-823-5225, Southern Style food with a Puerto Rican influence.

Delete The Spot Restaurant & Bar closed down, and garage sale'd her restaurant equipment, and went back to the mainland(USA)

ADD Shipwreck Bar and Grill Carr. 413, (Black Eagle Marina) 787.823.6429 Nightly seafood special fresh of the boat, large salads, burgers, pastas, steaks. Try the tuna tamari salad or Nana’s 7‐Hour meat sauce.

ADD Tropical Gourmet Hwy 115, (next to Bonet Liquors) Authentic Puerto Rican fare in a casual atmosphere. Try the mofongo!

ADD The English Rose Bo. Ensenada, (Pineapple Hill) 787.589.9000 Highly regarded as the best breakfast in Rincon. A must‐do while in Rincon.

Append Rincón Nativo is in Drink has to be moved to Eat

Budget part Delete Poinciana Condominiums its a condo...

Splurge part Delete move to Anasco Ti Chi Mountain Estate, carr. 115 km 7.7, Bo. Caguabo, Rincon Located on Private Mountain Culva de Rincon.....First there is no such place in Rincon..Its in Anasco, Besides there is no Mountain Culva de Rincon....

So how'd I do with editing...after you put these in place..I will look to see if there are any other attractions bars restaurants, hotels, rentals for more pages for rincon or for some other towns..

 * Ryan..Hey I did it and you know what ..I kinda feel good.....And its time consuming to edit this thing...Hey the only thing I didnt do was this:, change these:...If were gonna do this were gonna have to do it right. Oh and you never got back to me on whats the diff between Do or Buy?? where would this fall into? massage?

on Splurge part....

Delete or move to Anasco... Ti Chi Mountain Estate, carr. 115 km 7.7, Bo. Caguabo, Rincon, Located on Private Mountain Culva de Rincon.....First there is no such place as Barrio Caguabo, Rincon..Its in Anasco. Guess if you dont get back to me...I will fix it..but just wanted to show off what I did.. 17:12, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Your recent edits look good. One request though - especially when removing a listing, can you add a note in the "Summary:" box (which appears just above the "save page" button) indicating why the listing is being removed?  Something as simple as "business is not located in Rincon" or "business has closed" is sufficient.  Often when someone is reviewing recent changes it is difficult to tell whether a listing was removed because it was misplaced, closed, or if the editor simply made a mistake, so adding an edit summary makes it clear that the person making the change had a valid reason for doing so.  Thanks for helping out with this article! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:29, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Regarding the massage question, if it's a full health spa (an activity you might spend a day at) then "Do" is the right place. If it's just a 30-60 minute massage place then "Buy" is probably more appropriate.  Project:Where you can stick it has an exhaustive list that provides some details.  If the mountain retreat is in another town then it should be moved there, and if the "club" isn't operating it can be removed as well; if it's open but not a place people can sleep at then "drink" would be the right place. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:36, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks about the Buy & Do, I read it thanks for your help...--(WT-en) prVacationRental 16:41, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Animal rescue
While a worthy cause, these don't look like travel activities to me so I've taken them out. - (WT-en) Shaund 01:09, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Please remember you can call the police if you see a dead or abused animal 787-823-2015. Find numbers and websites to Animal Rescue & Support Organizations in Rincon

adoptive homes.
 * Independently owned and managed animal rescue foundation in Rincon, dedicated to removing animals from the street and finding

 * Shaund, I know it doesnt seem like its on ANYONE'S to do list, but there are vacationers that have been coming down to Rincon for 20+ years, guess since the start of the 1968 surfing tournament that got Puerto Rico on the map for big waves... Just 1 of the problems with Puerto Rico, Rincon especially, is that we are overpopulated by animals,(dogs+cats). Since it is mostly populated by Gringos(americans), Puerto Ricans know this all to well and if there dog/cat have had puppies/kittens they throw them out of the car, put them in a box..whatever the case is it gets over populated during the touristy months..

Believe it or not, in recent years do to wide spread news about our animals travelers from the states(USA) are coming down here as snow birds(people that stay longer than 3 months) and wind up getting a house guest(dog or cat) and bringing it back up to the states, ARF has a success rate of 65%, and the percent keeps going up...They are a no kill shelter,While most in Puerto Rico are cause of the population. I know it doesnt look like a travel activity, but we have such a diverse age group that travels here (18-70 maybe older) that we see much of the older snow birds, picking up a companion and leaving with them to their new home. In some cases ARF also pays for the dog/cats medical shots nuter and even helps the person with fees for traveling back to the states.. I donno..Its not up to me, but I guess you know how I vote.. --(WT-en) prVacationRental 09:30, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Caps or No caps..
EL FOGON DE LA CURVA RESTAURANT (OCEANVIEW), Hwy 115 (The curve going into Rincon), ☎ 787 826-0096, [10]. 10:00am-11:00pm. Offers traditional Puerto Rican dishes, lechon, fresh daily fish specials, beers and homemade infused rum. Soon to open Sushi & Martini Den, with fresh sushi and selection of martinis. Attached Fresh Fish market, Yes this is a real place... But, the url points to a free make a web site on webs.com, this person does not have a dot com...is this ok, his web site has many ads..just checking, before I De-Capitalize him, and maybe take out his url?...ANYONE? --(WT-en) prVacationRental 19:46, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

 * On the internet writing in All capital letters is considered shouting and is highly discouraged, so no caps is definitely preferred. As to the web site, if the free site is their official site (owned & operated by the business) then linking to it is fine - the key is that it's the official web site for the business. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:57, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rincón


text:
Talk:Rinjani

Rinjai
I just did a basic page for Rinjani I originally did this to set up a re-direction as I kept on inadvertently typing Ringani instead of including Mount as a prefix. I assume there are others out there as vague as I am so I thoiught I would do a redirect. Having no idea how to do this I failed and so did a basic page with a understand section and links to Mount Rinjani

Please help me out with this and let me know what is the appropriate way of handling this. Maybe Jan or Burmesedays would like to advise.

If proceeding with this basic referring page then ...

How do I insert this at the top? Asia: Southeast Asia : Indonesia : Nusa Tenggara : Lombok : West Lombok : Mount Rinjani. (WT-en) felix 02:36, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I will redirect. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:46, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rinjani


text:
Talk:Riobamba

Alausi?
Is it Alausi or Alausí? I believe the latter, but I'm not certain. --pjt33

The Devil's Nose
Does anybody know if this train is still running? I was there in early 2005 and it wasn't running because the tracks had been damaged. gearoidoceallaigh

They were running the services in January 2009. There were also special tourist trains for roof riding. J-P

title: Talk:Riobamba


text:
Talk:Rio de Janeiro

I'm so impressed with the way this article is progressing! Excellent job adding information and excellent job getting it into our preferred format. Good show all around! --(WT-en) Evan 23:01, 12 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * I can only agree with Evan on this, and say that it's going to be very useful for me since I'm planning to go there in July/August. One question: the international airport used to be called Galeão. On this site it's called Galeão (Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport). Has it changed names or are both used now? (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 03:47, 13 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * The airport was originally called Galeão, and renamed about 10 years ago. I don't know which is official, but I would think locals use both. And I would make a guess that like most renamings, the older, shorter one has stuck. - - (WT-en) Paul Richter 01:41, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

---
 * The airport is still called by its old name by the local people. It is normally outsiders who call it by its new name. Brazilian politicians enjoy changing names of roads, places, etc, to praise someone they like which can become very confusing. The official tag for the airport continues to be GIG.

 * All the best,
 * (WT-en) Robert Martim

--

most road signals are placed after the curve you were supposed to take Do you mean "most road signs are placed after the exit you were supposed to take"? -(WT-en) phma 00:10, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Inacuracy
I deleted this part here:

"Brazilian (or at least carioca) men have a curious shopping custom that will delight female and gay tourists - shirts are tried-on right at the counter, not in a changing room. This can create some confusion to the uninitiated male tourist, as the store clerk will instead of leading you to a changing room, motion you to change right there. Of course, if you are a typical flabby American, you will likely elicit more giggles than delight..."

From the "buy" section because it's just not true.

I also corrected some small inacuracies and cut out some untrue parts.

201.5.155.238 17:14, 23 March 2008 (EDT) Rafael Alves.

Usable
I'm still trying to get a feel for the 'states' but I really think this is closer to a 'Guide' than something like Essen which qualifies as a "usable" article. I'm not saying it doesn't need some details filled in, but it seems more fleshed out than just 'usable'... comments? (WT-en) Majnoona 22:39, 20 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Maj, I think everyone is still trying to get a feel of the ratings. I belive the point of the Guide status is to have a erm...guide that can be used as primary and sole source of information. With a Guide article, you wouldn't normally need to resort to other sources, even if it's some internet search or asking the locals for precise directions. In that sense, I see Rio still at usable status - you can certainly get in and find some accommodation (if you're lucky enough, as listings are too short), but would still have a hard time finding attractions and sights by yourself, let alone choosing what to see, because most attractions haven't been described yet. In other words, listings do not yet "closely match the Manual of Style". Or am I being too picky? (WT-en) Rmx 06:49, 21 Nov 2005 (EST)

renaming to Rio de Janeiro
I think this article should be moved to "Rio de Janeiro" and shouldn't be "Rio de Janeiro (city)". The city is far more famous than the state. -- (WT-en) Ronald 17:29, 6 March 2006 (EST)

riotour web site
I removed several links and replaced the "official link" (external link on first mention of the name) with what actually appears to be the official rio web site (http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/). I can't find mention of the riotour site on the main site, despite the spammer's claim of it being official. If I'm in error, please advise (and cite). (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Zona Oeste
First the short description of Zona Oeste "   *  Zona Oeste (West Zone), a suburban area including primarily the districts of Jacarepaguá and Barra da Tijuca, popular for its beaches." Was literally copied and pasted in from this article (https://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm?articleid=233908) I am going to do some research and change the line completely because hacking someone else work is not what wikivoyage is about. Second - I would love to get the district page up and going, but I am not finding much out there, does anyone have any suggestions?(WT-en) Trew 17:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)Trew

Reorganising Rio
Although there is a vast amount of info here I think it needs restructuring. There is too much duplication between the main page and Zona Sul, for example and lots of repetition everywhere. The normal practice is to list hotels under districts not the main page and to use the main page to give a brief summary of sights, listing them in the district articles. See Chicago as an excellent example and Rome as an example of one that is getting there (slowly!). Any volunteers? (WT-en) Shep 20:50, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Me again. Does Rio really need district articles? There is not so much in most of them and they could be merged back into one main article. 95% of the hotels are in Zona Sul. I've just been looking at Cape Town. Excellent presentation of Guide quality without the need for separate sections?(WT-en) Shep 12:57, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I have begun some serious work on these articles, beginning with Centro, adding details and places that are simply missing. If you have ever been to RJ, you know that it unquestionably needs district articles, perhaps even more than the four we have now. I will continue to work with the four we have so far, and we'll see how full they get. The fact is that there is simply a lot of stuff that has never been added. Anyway, I'm going to work on filling up the district articles first, and then we can go back and rewrite the main page. (WT-en) Texugo 00:28, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * You put me to shame. I should have started this ages ago. I shall follow what you are doing with interest. The problem with more district articles is that (1) this would probably involve breaking Zona Sul into two parts (north of the tunnel to Copocabana and south?)and (2) that outside Zona Sul and Centro there are lots of restaurants, shopping centers, etc. but not that much to attract the tourist and I feel that District articles need to have a fair balance of attractions. Wikivoyage on Rio gets updated almost daily. If you haven't already, take a look. I suggested once that there should be a Wikivoyage Conference along the lines of Wikipedia meetings. Perhaps Rio would be a great place to start? Anyway, good luck.(WT-en) Shep 15:18, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * I don't necessarily agree with the need for all district articles to be perfectly balanced, since different areas have different characters. Having an abundance of unique, interesting Eat or Drink listings could be as much of a draw as having an abundance of See or Do listings, if one is there long enough to really get to know the city rather than just to do the touristy things (I spent five weeks in RJ on my last Brazil trip). Forcing balance could sometimes cause an unnatural jumble of listings that are too distant from one another. That said, at this point I still don't think Rio needs any more or less than the four districts we already have.
 * By the way, I believe Wikivoyage gatherings have occurred in the past, though I'm not sure where the place for discussion is and I haven't been to one. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend any in the near future unless perhaps it ends up being here in East Asia. Maybe you should bring it up in the pub though. (WT-en) Texugo 22:33, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Understand section
Does anyone still think of Rio as Brazil's capital? I suggest we delete the first line of Understand. Or at least delete "common". (WT-en) Shep 14:49, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
 * As far as I know, it is still a common misconception, at least among people who have never traveled abroad. (WT-en) Texugo 22:41, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Please
Please make no change like We are Brazilian, and we are not American. We do not spell words like America.

 * Eu concordo
 * I'm not saying you are American any more than you are saying you are British. I teach at FISK and my Brazilian girlfriend is a school teacher, so I am positive that there is absolutely no standard way of spelling English in Brazil. There is a mix of both spellings, leaning heavily towards American spelling-- Except for Cultura Inglesa, practically all the English schools (FISK, Wizard, etc.) and practically all public schools teach with American spelling. While you two (if you are two separate people) may have learned British spelling, it is definitely not a "standard way". As in this case, when a non-English-speaking country has no clearly preferred spelling, Wikivoyage tells us to leave the articles as written, which in the case of almost all the Brazil articles, is American English. I'm going to revert it back to the status quo again, where it should stay. If you have further arguments, please present them here and don't go making changes in the articles without consensus. (WT-en) Texugo 10:14, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

Gay Travel
I disagree that Rio is a gay travel hub. While yes there are very attractive men there its not a gay destination. There have been many instances of gays being attacked in Rio. There is maybe ONE gay club in Rio and a gay friendly portion of ipanema beach. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Starnexus (talk • contribs)

 * The page should be protected for a while, there's this childish dumb homophobic idiot who writes about antibiotics and Aids. It's getting boring. 187.36.106.137 21:21, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Get in
Request someone who knows make an entry about visa requirements. Hennejohn (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * Visa requirements should go in the Brazil article... unless Rio is a special case in some way? LtPowers (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * No, Rio don't have any special visa... (WV-en) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * No, Rio don't have any special visa... (WV-en) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)

"Rio" as redirect?
We currently have a disambig page at Rio. I suggest that be moved to Rio (disambiguation), the Rio page made into a redirect here and an otheruses|Rio tag or some such added in this article. It seems to me that "Rio" almost always refers to this city. Pashley (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually have much precedent for primary-topic redirects like this. However, we can push that uncomfortable discussion off for another day as the only other use is a redlink. We can just redirect it; I don't think we need a dab page or a hatnote.  Powers (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Paternalism
I probably won't edit this or any other Wiki-Voyage article, but the "advice" here needs to be more neutral. The "Do" and "Sleep" sections, for example, both say that a lot of favelas are safe. And they tell the user to use her own judgement when offered a tour from a strange guide. Later, the "stay safe" section has some out-of-date opinionated crap that makes it sound like all favelas are equally dangerous and that unfamiliar tours should be rejected without a second thought. Connor Behan (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Advice shouldn't be neutral; it should be fair, accurate, and should serve the traveler well. It should also be internally consistent. If you have current information, please plunge forward and edit the article accordingly, because like any other Wiki, Wikivoyage is only as good as volunteer editors make it — and that means you, as much as anyone else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * My disclaimer was meant to avoid a debate about the merits of the site itself, but here goes. Serving the traveller means writing from the point of view of an upper-middle-class Westerner who has free time and disposable income. This makes it fundamentally incompatible with being fair. Even if a business in a developing country worked tirelessly and cared about its customers 10 times as much, it would be very difficult for it to secure the same kind of approval from this audience as a wealthy New York establishment. The editors you want are the ones who agree with the guideline about ignoring Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Connor Behan (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I think you have somewhat of a misconception about who Wikivoyage editors are. I am far from upper-middle-class, and while our readership naturally skews toward the Anglosphere, it includes people from the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. And now it also includes you. You have just as much say in making and keeping things fair as anyone else, and more than others if you know the place well. Of course your larger criticism is inescapable - the nature of the editors does bias things to some degree, inescapably. But understand that neutrality is not only impossible but undesirable in a travel guide, which has to recommend some places, criticize others and simply leave out many listings for establishments that can't be recommended. Neutrality in listings would reproduce the Yellow Pages in every article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I hope I don't come across as overly defensive. I think your criticisms hold some water, and I myself, though a native New Yorker, had an anthropologist mother and lived in rural Malaysia for 2 years of my childhood, and I've edited out some pretty extreme examples of ethnocentrism where I found them. Since you can more easily spot these kinds of things than many other readers, I hope you stick around to help edit out that kind of language wherever it's inaccurate or offensively phrased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-compliant redistribution?
rio.city mirror a lot of content from this article, as far as I can see without leaving any attribution. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerned Wikivoyagers, please direct your comments and ideas to this thread. Best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How to note a museums temporary closure...
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-45395774

Was trying to find it in the Rio article, to leave a note.. What's it's Portugese name, and what sort of wording should be used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was removed from Rio de Janeiro/Zona Norte... -- andree.sk (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Andree. Was just about to say the same. Shakespeare, the Portuguese name is Museu Nacional, and if you want to note a temporary closure in future, you can just add it to the listing in a prominent place, either on top of the opening hours or in the 'content' field. Or if you want to be really fancy, you can hide the whole listing with a set of these bad boys, and note the closure somewhere prominent in the 'See' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I'd hesitate to downplay destruction on this scale as a "temporary closure". When to use dates says "our goal is to give only current information to the traveller, including old information only when it is useful to avoid being misled by information commonly available elsewhere" and "the general rule is, once an establishment has closed the listing should be removed" with a few, limited exceptions. K7L (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Quite right. But it will become apparent only with time how permanent the closure is likely to be. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I added an infobox to Rio_de_Janeiro/Centro. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * If anything opens in its place, it won't be the original (which was destroyed) but a new museum with a similar name or location – and it would be too soon to list that as no construction has started. I'm not sure if we had a guideline on "coming soon" listings, but they're of limited use unless and until the voyager can actually go there. Again, something on this scale may trigger an exception as the history of the palace, which existed for a couple of hundred years with the grounds becoming the zoological garden, along with the history of the museum and its destruction might fit in "Understand" or as part of the listing for the (I presume, still functional) zoo. Also, should this infobox be in Centro or Norte? K7L (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WV should only list the current situation, to reflect the attractions travelers can actually visit if they'd travel there today. Listings of closed attractions or speculations on future developments are needlessly confusing, not helpful to the traveler, and probably belong on Wikipedia instead. 94.119.64.15 13:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * In most cases a destroyed attraction or business would just have been deleted, but as this apparently was a world-class museum and a major cultural and historical attraction in Rio, I think an infobox could be warranted.
 * Our district division of Rio de Janeiro puts the park where the palace stood in the Centro (not in Norte, where it was listed), and therefore the infobox should be there too. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area
Please, I would like to know if there is anything wrong, any kind of mistake according to the rules of Wikivoyage, in this version of the article about the Grande Rio region.

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Grande_Rio&oldid=4870753

I have read several pages about Wikivoyage's policies, but have not found in this text anything that violates them. If there are any inappropriate parts in it, please, show them to me, and I will correct each one of them as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance! 187.111.14.164 03:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Further discussion is at Talk:Rio de Janeiro, FWIW. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 05:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * In any case, there's no way for any of us to know which part of that version of the article you want our feedback on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the situation. Basically, the anonymous IP has the extremely encyclopaedic approach, adding long paragraphs of description and comparison, full with long lists, "located" 's and other Words to avoid, not really getting the spirit of WV:Goals and non-goals or WV:Tone. I trimmed some, but the whole region, with all the sub-articles under it, needs heavy copyedit. Furthermore, some of the ares described are hotbeds of drug trafficking gang activity and shootings, and I'm not really confortable with the thought of them being encyclopaedically described in Wikivoyage as to invite visitation. I tried to dialog but the answers I got from them smelled to me somewhat like "respect me, I'm a local, you're not" sarcasm. I'm Brazilian. For the record, I lived in Rio for one year, SP City for two, I love going back to SP but Rio I don't miss at all, I admit some prejudice, and would label this sarcasm "carioquice", local cockiness, so I think I'd better stay out of this discussion to avoid any hint of "going personal" or bairrismo, that is, local bias. Ibaman (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ikan Kekek!
 * I just want to know if there is any part of the whole text of that version of the article that should be changed and in what way. I am willing to make the necessary changes to that article in any way I can.
 * As for the comment above, I have never been arrogant with anyone here. I only expect logical argumentation and rationality (as well as a respectful dialogue) when changes (especially drastic changes) to an edition of an article are made, be this article about Rio de Janeiro, be it about Tokyo. 187.111.14.164 12:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The risks concerning the crime in Rio are well explained in the article about Grande Rio, as well as advices to stay safe. On the other hand, the article about the city of Rio de Janeiro (which I did not write) makes several invitations to the so-called "favela tours", what I definitely do not recommend. 187.111.14.164 13:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To anyone with some free time: A quick read of the articles about Los Angeles, Mexico City, and Metro Manila is enough to see that there is not a big difference between the texts of these articles and the text of that version of the Grande Rio article. 187.111.14.164 22:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point that Wikivoyage is a travel guide. The existing Understand section makes the point that in one way: Grande Rio has a large population. Your edit makes that point again in a different way, but doesn't make a new point. Then it goes into a long Urban Studies/academic explanation of the socio-economic structure of the region that would be suitable for Wikipedia, not here. If there are other articles that are similarly off-mission, they should be edited, rather than held up as a justification for making this article worse. Ground Zero (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I was waiting for: A rational and objective explanation of what was wrong with that article. Since there are no clear criteria (or at least I do not know of them) defining what is appropriate for a travel guide and what would be better suited for Wikipedia, I generally guide my work in two ways: Taking other articles of Wikivoyage as models, or following accurate advice on specific mistakes I may have made here from more experienced Wikivoyage members. Thank you, your explanation really helped. 187.111.14.164 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And a subtle reminder to anyone else: don't bite the newbies. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I will not stay, Wikivoyage is not for me. There are no criteria for distinguishing what is appropriate for a travel guide from what is too "academic", and there can not be, since this distinction is subjective. With the exception of extreme cases, what some see as encyclopedic content, with excessive detail, I consider as useful information for a trip, just as what some consider appropriate for a travel guide, I might see as lacking several interesting information. I still consider the information in the articles about, for instance, Grande Rio, Mexico City, and Metro Manila as valuable for some travelers. I, for example, have never been to Metro Manila. If I were about to visit that metropolis, I would want a guide about the region with all that "encyclopedic" information, it would be useful for me. Given that there can not be clear, objective criteria established in Wikivoyage policies for a subjective distinction, the majority opinion, in this case, defines what is appropriate and what is not.
 * I would not feel comfortable on Wikivoyage, and Wikivoyage also will be fine without my work.
 * So I wish you all good work, I'm leaving. 187.111.14.164 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, goodbye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Encyclopedic information can be found on Wikipedia. No need to duplicate it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

having been thus reminded, and making apologies for my harsh manners, I suggest better study examples for good Wikivoyage style on formatting a big city: Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Downstate New York for a Grande Rio-sized thing, and especially Buffalo, crucially the trimmings made from 25 April. They reflect the writing style Wikivoyage is striving for. Ibaman (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I, too, hope I wasn't rude. It's simply true that I didn't have the time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of you were rude, but for a newbie, it might have been a little bit intimidating (since some users learn slower than others). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rio de Janeiro


text:
Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)

Destinations
Just want to get a list of all current destinations in one place so nothing is orphaned. (WT-en) Texugo 00:28, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Cities
(removed out-of-date list of destinations in favor of the current one below)

 * We need to regionalize this state. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:43, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

 * Agree, should we do it as indicated in the article, or could we do with fewer that the suggested seven regions?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 18:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Again, with the greater number of articles on pt:, I made a mock-up map and tried to start a discussion at pt:Discussão:Rio de Janeiro (estado), though with the low traffic pt: is getting lately no one has commented.

(WT-en) texugo 20:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Category for routeboxes
commons:Category:Rio de Janeiro state road shields Texugo (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Subdivision check
OK. Just wanted to see where we are at, since we have now been talking about regionalizing this state for years. We have more destination articles than we did before, and a few still missing that we probably should have. I think this subdivision scheme rounds out pretty nicely, both in terms of coherent regions and in number of probably destinations in each. Does anyone have a comment before I split this into region articles? Texugo (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Alright then. I have plunged forward. Texugo (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Page banner
A selection of page banner.--Renek78 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Regions of the State of Rio de Janeiro
Hi, Ikan Kekek. How are you doing?

The official division of the State of Rio de Janeiro is very similar to the previous one, however it is more accurate. For example, the Região Metropolitana corresponds to the area of the metropolitan agglomeration of Rio de Janeiro (that is, the area through which the metropolis has expanded over the years) and, to measure this space, daily commuting patterns, distance between a specific location and the metropolitan core, availability of urban public transport between the center of the metropolis and the surrounding municipalities, urban expansion from the core to peripheral areas, among other things related to the metropolitan phenomenon are taken into account. "Costa Verde" refers to a stretch of the Brazilian coast known by this name and which is located in the state of Rio de Janeiro (part of it is located in the state of São Paulo), but outside the area of the metropolis of Rio (Itaguaí does not belong to it therefore). "Região dos Lagos" refers to the region of state in which there are successive lagoons, but also outside the metropolis. The Central-South and the Valley (Médio Paraíba) regions differ from each other in terms of industry, history and, to a lesser extent, relief - they also do not include Paracambi, another municipality located in the area where the metropolitan process took place.

This division follows technical criteria, and will allow readers to identify the urbanistic, topographic, ecological, historical and structural features of each municipality according to the region in which it is included.

The official division would be a better choice in my opinion, since it is more analytical. 187.111.14.17 04:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your analysis. I think the most important question for Wikivoyage is approximately how many cities (and "other destinations," if relevant) would you expect to have an article in each region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Each region would have approximately 10 municipalities, except for the Costa Verde and the Região Metropolitana, which would have, respectively, 3 and 21 municipalities. However, the municipalities located outside the Rio's metropolitan agglomeration usually have areas much larger than those of the municipalities within the metropolis, and therefore the areas of all regions of the state would be proportional. 187.111.14.17 11:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you provide a map of your proposed new regionalisation? Mapshapes are fine (and much easier, in fact) – Renek78's tool might help. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi!
 * Yes, it is right here.
 * [[File:Maparj2018-Mapa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Brasil - Regiões de Governo e Municípios - 2018.png|thumb|325px|Regions of Rio de Janeiro]] 187.111.14.17 11:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The imbalance of one region having 3 cities and another having 21 is very problematic. Is there any way to change the regional boundaries for the purpose of this site in such a way as to get that ratio closer to even? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the official division, the Região da Costa Verde has only 1 less municipality than it has in the current division, and the Região Metropolitana has only 2 more. However, in the three municipalities of Costa Verde there are several places with tourist value that can be listed as "other destinations", increasing the number of places which could be called "cities" in this region from 3 to approximately 10. 187.111.14.17 20:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What kinds of destinations are these? But in any case, 21 cities in a single region is quite a lot. How should we deal with that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are existing articles on Ilha Grande and Mambucaba, in the municipality of Angra dos Reis, and Trindade, in the municipality of Paraty. There could also be articles on districts such as Itacuruçá and Conceição de Jacareí, in the municipality of Mangaratiba, which are well-known tourist destinations sometimes conceived by tourists and even by locals as distinct cities.
 * As for the 21 municipalities in the Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro, they correspond to the real area of the sprawling metropolis of Rio de Janeiro, and they are not too many if you consider that the São Paulo Metropolitan Region is divided into 39 municipalities having an area similar to that of the Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janeiro. Moreover, the current state division presents Grande Rio (Região Metropolitana do Rio de Janeiro) with 19 municipalities, and excludes the municipalities of Itaguaí and Paracambi, which also belong to the Rio's metropolitan agglomeration.
 * 187.111.14.17 06:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those sound like "Other destinations," as they are populated areas. In terms of the 21 municipalities, per Avoid long lists: "Regions should generally have no more than nine cities/towns/villages and nine other destinations. If there are more, consider splitting the region or creating subregions." I'd say 12 cities would be OK, but 21 should be divided somehow, if possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A usual division of the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area separates Baixada Fluminense from Leste Metropolitano, but none of these sub-regions includes the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. 187.111.14.17 06:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not need to use official divisions if they are not the ones that are most useful to the traveler. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This division is not only official, but also technical. The metropolis of Rio de Janeiro is a unity. In fact, it is a single (and huge) city. Mentioning Baixada Fluminense and Leste Metropolitano and ignoring the metropolitan area of Rio as a whole would not be useful to the reader. What would be the most useful presentation of Greater Rio as a metropolis to people who really want to know it? 187.111.14.17 07:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the small number of municipalities in Costa Verde, a possible solution would be to merge the regions of Costa Verde and Médio Paraíba. However, it would confuse the visitor, since these two regions have distinct characteristics. 187.111.14.17 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The distinct characteristics can be explained within the article. However, I don't think I've made it clear enough to you that 21 cities in one region is a big problem. Is there any useful way to divide them into two or three groups? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible. The metro area of Rio could be divided into Rio de Janeiro and the 13 municipalities of Baixada Fluminense, on the west side of Guanabara Bay, and the 7 municipalities of Leste Metropolitano, on the east side of the bay. There are existing articles on Baixada Fluminense and Leste Metropolitano, but the former does not include the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. So the only change to be done would be to merge Rio de Janeiro and Baixada Fluminense in a single article. 187.111.14.17 08:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of the cities here are barely an outline at the moment, so when I click through, I can't get a good sense of what a potential trip might look like. Most of the ~60 city articles in the state don't provide enough information to be useful. Even when an extensive list of rivers and churches is provided, and even if I wanted to visit every last one, there is no location provided, and not enough information in English for me to orient myself or understand what I'm looking for. Likewise, it's difficult for me to understand the logic of either the existing or the proposed region scheme.
 * Before worrying about the regions, I'd suggest a bottom-up approach. Could you propose some cities for merging/deletion? If existing cities should be kept as-is, could you make sure that they are well on their way to becoming a usable article, with good useful listings instead of lists? Then once we can see where the major destinations are, drawing lines for the regions should be easier. Gregsmi11 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! How are you doing?
 * I started to create and edit articles here a few months ago, and have been adding this information you are looking for little by little along the time. However, I guess there is already a relatively large amount of information about the municipalities and regions, especially, of the metropolis of Rio de Janeiro, area to which I have paid more attention since I began my activity on Wikivoyage. And more information about these places will continue to be added to the articles, it is an ongoing work. 187.111.14.17 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, some help to expand the articles is always welcome. These articles should not have a single author. 187.111.14.17 18:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, some help to expand the articles is always welcome. These articles should not have a single author. 187.111.14.17 18:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)


text:
Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Centro

Trams and safety
I should maybe just plunge forward and edit the article, but I'm not an expert or that familiar with the city. I just visited Rio (and Sao Paulo) and I was scared stiff at first by all the stuff I'd picked up from guide books about the potential dangers. I'm not saying you don't need to be careful, but is it really as bad as all that? I didn't feel taking the tram was a risk and neither, by the looks of it, did hordes of other tourists. (I might add that my printed guide book made no mention of any danger related to the trams, except for one comment about the Estacao Carioca area where the trams start, which is completely the opposite to what the article says. I won't say what the guide said as I don't want to risk any copying.) While some general advice to take care and highlights of anything particularly dangerous is surely welcome, I can't help thinking the current article is over-egging the pudding a bit. Maybe I'm just totally naive. Anyone? --(WT-en) zorn 00:56, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Bairros
Just to make clear what bairros belong here: (WT-en) Texugo 11:04, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Campo de Santana
 * Centro
 * Gamboa
 * Lapa
 * Santa Teresa
 * Saude

Page banner
I like the current one a lot already. Just wanna summarize the available options:

The national museum has burned down
The Brazilian National Museum in the former Imperial Palace (Paço de São Cristóvão) was destroyed in a fire yesterday together with a huge number of historical artifacts from Brazil and all over the world. Surprisingly we hadn't listed this museum, though it's no point to do that any longer. Still, I think it's good to mention it here on the talk page, as it apparently was a major attraction and per Wikipedia one of the biggest of its kind in the Americas. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yeah, amazing that it wasn't listed. Terrible tragedy and also due to neglect and underfunding. Yes, it's worth mentioning that it burned down, so any visitor to the city who was hoping to go there will know not to bother. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, it was listed in Rio de Janeiro/Zona Norte. -- andree.sk (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at that article too before writing the comment, in the case someone had accidentally listed it there (per the district division and the map mask the museum should be in the Centro, but just 200 m from the border to North). As the listing was deleted earlier, I could of course not see it. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox added. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48023691 Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Carnaval Museum
Only comments I have found on this are a few years old. Removed from article, please return if anyone finds recent information about it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Centro


text:
Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Zona Oeste

Unidentified restaurant
I couldn't find info on this restaurant so I could listingify it:
 * There is also an excellent 'light' feijoada served at the in House restaurant in Rio design Barra on Saturday lunchtimes. It is slightly sanitised in that it doesn't include the ears and tails that a traditional feijoada may contain, and a full menu is also offered for those not wanting the feijoada.

If anyone knows more about it, please do tell.(WT-en) Texugo 08:52, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Zona Oeste


text:
Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul

Moved from the article by (WT-en) Evan.

i have enjoyed reading this and it has helped me very much in geography, thank-you, from miss. N. L. G.

Bairros
Just want to note here-- these are the bairros included in the Zona Sul:
 * Oceanside

 * São Conrado
 * Vidigal
 * Leblon
 * Ipanema
 * Copacabana
 * On Guanabara Bay

 * Leme
 * Botafogo
 * Flamengo
 * Urca
 * Glória
 * Interior

(WT-en) Texugo 10:49, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Lagoa
 * Jardim Botânico
 * Gávea
 * Humaitá
 * Cosme Velho
 * Catete
 * Laranjeiras

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fachadalaranjeiras.jpg

title: Talk:Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul


text:
Talk:Rio Grande do Sul

Map
Things have developed much faster over on pt:, so I have created a region map. Here on en:, we aren't really to the point where it is necessary to subdivide into regions, but I'm putting the map here on the page with non-linked region titles, for the time being. When the time comes, it will be very easy to determine which region each destination belongs in because the scheme is based on this scheme from the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). (WT-en) texugo 10:33, 10 February 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Rio Grande do Sul


text:
Talk:Riomaggiore

Cliffjumping
The "Do" section is basically all about cliffjumping - the advice seems a bit unwise. There are a few places where you could hop into the water and get back out again, but actually cliffjumping from around Riomaggiore would be lethal. 2.231.138.221 19:26, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Riomaggiore


text:
Talk:Riverside (Rhode Island)

Athough Riverside is a part of East Providence, RI. There are many things that Riverside offers that East Providence does not. Also, Riverside has their own middle school, elementary schools, grocery stores, and more which make it its own town itself. East Providence is really big too which means it is hard to put all of the information on that page. By making a Riverside page, the East Providence page can be more organized. Some people may want to just visit Riverside and not East Providence too.
 * Information for Riverside should go in East Providence. We usually don't create district articles until the main article gets too big, which is not the case with East Providence.(WT-en) –sumone10154 22:45, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Riverside (Rhode Island)


text:
Talk:River Valley (Maine)

Talk:Pennacook Valley (merged from renamed page when Pennacook Valley was renamed to River Valley)

Comments
I am trying to get this done properly, but it keeps getting deleted. The actual name of the region is River Valley, but someone has claimed that name already in reference to the Kennebec and Moose River Valleys. Pennacook Valley is a name that many in the area don't approve of as it refers to the original name of one of the towns. I would prefer to have the guy mis-using the River Valley designation change to the proper designation and let us use the River Valley designation as we have been in the real world for a while.

If this is not in the right spot, please fix it and leave me a redirect. KevinNSaisi 03:56, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Suggest you also comment at Talk:River Valley (Maine) as it's a little more complicated than usual because the Image:MaineRegionsMap.gif map will also need to be revised. ~ 203.144.143.4 04:02, 28 January 2008 (EST) I moved River Valley (Maine) to Kennebec and Moose River Valleys. After it redirects to the latter you can click back to it from the top and edit it. I may be able to redo the map. Will check when I can. -- OldPine 17:26, 6 February 2008 (EST) [edit] Counties Which counties are entirely within this region, and which (if any) counties are partly within this region? ~ 203.144.143.4 04:53, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Is this region the same as Oxford County, or entirely within Oxford County? ~ 203.144.143.6 05:12, 28 January 2008 (EST)

The region consists of 11 towns, one of which is in Franklin County, the remainder of which are in Oxford County, but do not encompass the whole county. KevinNSaisi 05:15, 28 January 2008 (EST) Thanks. Which town is in Franklin County? I checked with Wikipedia and I thought it said all the ones currently listed (10) were in Oxford County. ~ 58.8.14.22 05:39, 28 January 2008 (EST) Carthage is in Franklin County. I don't know where you looked on Wikipedia. In Maine each county consists of a variety of regions. I live in the River Valley Region. The greater Norway area is the Oxford Hills Region. I believe it consists of towns in three counties. While these are not political sub-divisions, they are economic regions. We also have school districts which are being forced to merge under order of the state government. Some if these super-school districts will cover portions of multiple counties as well. Just because we don't do things the way others do, doesn't make us wrong, just different. By the way, we have one village that is in not only two separate towns, but two separate counties (East Dixfield, Maine). KevinNSaisi 08:09, 28 January 2008 (EST) i think eat and drink should stay due to policy of wikivoyage --Lone.guner 20:34, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Wikipedia does have Carthage as being in Franklin County - I looked in the right place, just didn't look carefully enough. ~ 203.144.143.6 08:26, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Template question
moved to here from User talk:203.144.143.4 following these edits: [1][2]

If you cannot put food and drink establishments on regional pages, why is there a place for them?? For that matter, why even have some other categories? It seems foolish to have categories that cannot be used. 130.111.8.110 20:34, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Please see Wikivoyage:Region article template#Eat and Wikivoyage:Region article template#Drink, and of course the rest of that policy page for all the others. ~ 203.144.143.4 02:20, 30 January 2008 (EST) Retrieved from "http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Pennacook_Valley"

title: Talk:River Valley (Maine)


text:
Talk:Riyadh

Thinking of going to see a beheading?
Actually it depends on your temperament, if you are emotional and sensitive or tough mentally. First time I went to see it I was trembling like a leaf. Second and third time I was battle hardened. Didnt bother me, even had a hearty lunch. Special:Contributions/82.194.62.200

 * That's a little harsh. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 18:02, 5 November 2008 (EST).
 * Speaking of Chop-chop Square, is it officially called As Sa'ah Square or Deera Square or are they just one in the same? (WT-en) Zainiqbal 17:53, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I suspect that the official name is As Sa'ah Square and nobody ever uses it (which seems to be the case for most official names in Riyadh). Deira Square is probably the most common name. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

cats and dogs banned in Riyadh
I recently read at ABC that cats and dogs are banned in the capital. Should I add that in for travelers who travel with pets (particularly blind people who rely on sight seeing dogs)?--(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 11:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * You can't go to Saudi on vacation (there are no tourist visas), and business travelers don't take their pets. If you're moving to Saudi as an expat, you can still bring in your dog, it's just a "guard animal" and not a pet (and this has been the case for decades). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:15, 15 December 2008 (EST)

 * On saying that, on the Western compounds you can, somehow, get around this. I have family in KSA on a Western compound who do, along with many others, have pets. Of course, these are people who are there for the long term rather than a traditional business trip of a couple of nights or so.

 * Also, sorry to go slightly off-topic, but is that strictly true about tourist visas? I was under the impression that you could go to KSA as a tourist; just that it had to be on an organised tour with everything arranged by the tour operator, and that you were kept under strict supervision by the tour guide. Basically, that it is possible, but under heavily regulated conditions? (WT-en) Nrms 03:46, 16 December 2008 (EST)

 * Yes, expats can bring in their pets as "guard animals". (Beware being licked to death by ferocious guard kittens!) I'm also not sure whether the muttawa prohibition is enforced, but I'm not sure it makes much difference either way, as I don't remember seeing any animals out in public before the ban either.  What goes on behind compound walls is another story.

 * And yes, tourist visas are technically available through licensed tour operators, but tourists in Saudi are still as rare as hen's teeth — the point is that it's not the kind of place you can just choose to visit on a lark next weekend. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:52, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Hi to all, since the subject shifted to Tour Operator, I am a licened Tour operator in saudi and uthorized to issue tourist visa, and we are required to coordinate with ministery of interior in order to ensure the safty of the tourists in Saudi. Tourism is one of the new aims to Saudi government and it is taking very heavy steps to compete in tourism map. Saudi have many thing to do and see, but the problim is that most of the people do not know where and how to do it. if any one have any inquireis about tourism in Saudi please do not hesiate to send it to 'meteb@alsarhtours.com. aditionally I am arranging weekend tours for expacts in Saudi such as ( desert camping, desert advanture, desert wonders, cultural tours, diving programs, city tours, hunting programs, and more ). I realy haven't heard that pets are not allowed in Saudi where we have pets shops and I have a cat home, but having pets in Saudi is not commen, where normally people may have camels instead "hhh".

Taxis and deadness
Riyadh is, by any standard, more conservative than Jeddah or Damman... and the two female expats I knew in Saudi certainly refused to take cars driven by anyone other than trusted company or compound drivers. (WT-en) jpatokal 06:37, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Yes, but compared to everywhere else bar Khobar and Jeddah, it's a liberal oasis. If memory serves me correctly, the original article stated that it was the most conservative part of the country (or something to that effect) and that is simply not true. The fact that a few ignorant compound residents call it the "dead center" of the country does not mean it is true and, in fact, it is misleading for the reason I stated above. If you think Riyadh is "dead", try Bureidah, Hofuf, Abha, Taif or any other Saudi city other than Jeddah and Khobar.  I don't know about Western expat women, but single women in Saudi Arabia use taxis all the time (a minority among women for sure, but male taxi riders are a minority among men as well).

 * There are very few expats or foreign visitors outside the big 3, and Riyadh certainly is dead as a doorknob compared to, well, pretty much any other city of the same size outside Saudi. (WT-en) jpatokal 05:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Demotion and removals
So Saqib demoted this to usable on the grounds that it only covers a "few" of Riyadh's attractions. Pray tell, what would those missing attractions be...?

Also, AFAIK, beheadings are still done the way they've always been done, on Fridays in Deira after the noon prayers, and very much in public. Jpatokal (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be objective
Although I agree that there are limitations to many forms of entertainment in Riyadh, the notion that everything in the city is negative would be an incorrect description. I noticed that the first paragraph in the topic is a misleading one that pictures Riyadh as a miserable site of collisions that are apparent for all visitors. I agree that the cultural controversy exists, there are a number of places to see in the city that are more enjoyable than focusing on the negative. Riyadh is not a destination for tourism from outside Saudi Arabia, but if you come to Riyadh for business or you live elsewhere in Saudi and decide to come to Riyadh, you can plan your visit in a way to enjoy the most of it! There are a few great restaurants around the city as well as shopping malls and hotels that are pleasant to be in. —The preceding comment was added by Bionkid (talk • contribs)

 * I was treating this text with an emotion that Buddhist/Hindu holy people would call "attachment"; I thought the prose very clever and well-written, but I see and respect your point. I have never been to the place and cannot opinate. Please plunge forward and excuse my former interventions. Ibaman (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

phone number format
In Eat entry Taste Of India, how should the phone number 4091333/0505923330 be interpreted? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Royal Saudi Air Force Museum
This listing was added earlier today by a new user and was reverted shortly after. It appears to be a genuine museum. Should it be listed here? AlasdairW (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Riyadh


text:
Talk:Ro

This page is an experiment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick/January_-_October_2005#wikivoyage: for more information -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Ro


text:
Talk:Robbinsville (New Jersey)

Merge with Trenton
Robbinsville is a separate town with its own hotels and restaurants; it doesn't need to be merged with Trenton. I'm going to change it back. (WT-en) –sumone10154 14:19, 2 February 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Robbinsville (New Jersey)


text:
Talk:Rochdale

Is this article supposed to be about the borough of Rochdale or the town of Rochdale? It appears to be neither one nor the other at present.

title: Talk:Rochdale