text:
Talk:Iringa

Don't let Tanzanians see this page
Why is Tanzanian "food" in quotation marks? Why is riding the local transportation to the Stone Age Site "a deathwish"? Sounds like this article was written by some mzungu with an unhealthy dislike of anything that might require getting too comfortable with Africans. The author probably didn't intend the article the way it sounds, but it sounds pretty awful.

 * Feel free to plunge forward and clean it up! (WT-en) Maj 18:21, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

Please somebody find time to rewrite this entire article as I don't have time! It is awful, full of mzungu bias and verging on racist at points. Why is this person living in Tanzania if they have such an aloof attitude to everything?!

I just want to thank author for the amazing article!!!! I was working hard to find some info about Iringa and here it is - layed down in very atractive and informative style! I am so happy WikiTravel exists! Amazing!! Thousand times thank you!!! Rytis

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

title: Talk:Iringa


text:
Talk:Iriomote

The correct pronunciation of "Uehara (上原)" is "Uibaru". Is there a reason to use this pronunciation?

title: Talk:Iriomote


text:
Talk:Irish phrasebook

This is great! --(WT-en) Evan 22:19, 11 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Doesn't look so good to me, but I don't have time to do anything about it now. The 'phonetics' are dubious and it's ridiculous to say Irish has 'one of the least phonetic orthographies in Europe' - consider English for example!  This is one of those annoying 'verities' that get vomited up over and over again, but don't meet up to objective analysis.  I don't agree with 'diphthongs are generally irregular' either.  What exactly is that supposed to mean?  — (WT-en) Moilleadóir 20:44, 26 Feb 2005 (EST)

 * > Diphthongs are generally irregular [...] eg, 'ai' in "Corcaigh" [...] 'ai' in "faic" (nothing) [...] the 'ai' in "haigh!" <
 * I agree with Moilleadóir about the dubiousness, to say the least, of this statement.
 * "ai" is in fact a diphthong only in the last of these three instances. There are no diphthongs in either "Corcaigh" or "faic": the "a" in Corcaigh is present as an indication that the "c" is pronounced "broad" (velarized); the "i" in "faic" is there to show that the "c" is pronounced "slender" (palatalized). Neither of these letters is itself pronounced -- any more than the "e" in English "nine" or the "g" in English "sign", though the orthography of Irish is far more consistent and logical than that of English. -- (WT-en) Picapica 15:54, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Pseudo-Phonetics vs. IPA
I know that it is policy to only use pseudo-phonetics, but they make my head hurt. They are so badly characterized and clumsy that it amazes me that they get used at all.

Since it is policy though, they should be used. What I propose is that IPA is added as well. That way if you know IPA it's there and if you don't you still have the pseudo-phonetics.

—(WT-en) Moilleadóir 06:05, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * You're more than welcome to come up with some better pseudo-phoneticizations. It's not a novel approach; it's what's used in almost all travellers' phrasebooks. IPA, while very precise, is also practically useless for the average English-speaking traveller. --(WT-en) Evan 09:44, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 * "Pseudo-phoneticizations" are also what make almost all travellers' phrasebooks an anagram of carp. -- (WT-en) Picapica 15:54, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Stress
Apart from a few words in Munster Irish, stress is always on the first syllable, so we should not be using CAPITALS in the pseudo-phonetics except in those few cases.

—(WT-en) Moilleadóir 06:05, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Dialect
A vexed issue. Rather than choose one I think we should try to stick to standard spelling, but allow dialect variations (marked as such). Since it shares features of Munster and Ulster dialects I think pronunciation should be based on Conamara dialect (without the extreme reductions like cathair > cáir or cá bhfuil > cáil). Similarly

—(WT-en) Moilleadóir 06:05, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * The goal of the phrasebooks is that travellers should be able to make themselves understood. They don't have to sound like a native; they just have to be able to ask where the toilets are. --(WT-en) Evan 09:45, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 * Um, keen supporter of the Irish language that I am, the phrase "Where are the toilets?" will serve admirably in every part of Ireland (except possibly in the members' bar at the Celtic League, but then not too many travellers get to pay a visit, in either sense, there). -- (WT-en) Picapica 15:54, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

An
Pronouncing the n in an except before a vowel is a sure sign of 'wooden leg' Irish and it's a cruelty to inflict it on tourists, so let's not.

—(WT-en) Moilleadóir 06:05, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

If that's the case, then everyone in the south must speak "wooden leg" Irish, because native Munster speakers have pronounced the "n" in "an" and the "g" in "ag" every time the words occurred, although I have read many pronunciation guides that discourage this. As far as I can tell, this is a dialectic pronunciation issue, not one of foreigner vs. native speaker.

Question
Although the Ireland articles in both Wikivoyage and Wikipedia suggest that Gaelic isn't strictly needed, are there parts of Ireland where people would be unlikely to speak English at all? (WT-en) Valentinejoesmith 14:45, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

 * 6 years late, but yes. Gaelteach areas exist. They are very small (and very scenic) but you are unlikely to find yourself stuck in one unexpectedly. And they'll probably understand you (they just won't answer in English) 83.70.170.48 09:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you speak English?
Isn't that an odd and unnecessary question to include here? Are there even any monolingual Irish speakers left? Wouldn't either "Do you speak Irish?", "Do you speak French / German / Spanish / other common language?" or "Can we speak in English please?" be more useful? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Irish phrasebook


text:
Talk:Irvine

At 207,000 pop. Irvine is bigger than a small city, though compared to others in California this is relative. I understand that London and other great cities of the world could only support populations of 50,000 or so until motorised/mass transport and infrastructural developments resolved issues with food and energy supply and (animal) waste disposal. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:37, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Irvine


text:
Talk:Irvington

Removed Sunnyside which is in adjacent Tarrytown. The village of Tarrytown incorporated in 1871, the hamlet of Dearman incorporated as the village of Irvington a year later. Irving, who died in 1859, would not have considered himself a resident of either modern municipality since neither existed during his lifetime. However, in his sketch Wolfert's Roost Irving, with tongue in cheek, lays claim that his home, Sunnyside, is the very same residence of Katrina Van Tassel from his Legend of Sleepy Hollow. In The Legend, Irving describes the location of the Van Tassel home as in the Dutch farming community of Tarry Town. (WT-en) SHC 14:11, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Irvington


text:
Talk:Isa Town

VFD Discussion

 * No content (WT-en) –sumone10154 20:03, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:14, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Isa Town


text:
Talk:Ischia

Portions of the Ischia article have been contributed from http://www.appartamentiischia.it by its owner, User:(WT-en) Mimmo46

How to make Ischia a star article?
There need some contributions for adjust text in Ischia for get a star article; if have others ideas in purpose write here.
 * What about a Stay safe section? Even if safety is not a real problem there, a star article must be complete and that section is currently blank. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 14:18, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
 * I have complete Stay safe section, You think that article is good for to make star article?

 * The criteria for Star is brutally difficult to acheive. It's a big step up from guide.  The long and short of it is the article would need to be pretty much flawless.  Things to do, places to eat, places to drink should all be complete with all contact information and location information and be perfectly formatted -- checkout the Project:Manual of style for the gory details.   In my opinion, while Star is something to be very proud of, we are frankly perfectly happy having guides which are just plain good.   While you could work towards a Star, it's hard and is not the most important thing in the world.  If you really want to continue towards a Star, here's what I see offhand that would need to be done:
 * All sights to see should be formatted according to Project:Attraction listings and should include (when possible) addresses, directions if needed, hours, fees, contact phone numbers, etc.
 * Eats should be formatted according to Project:Restaurant listings include addresses, directions is needed, hours, phone numbers, price estimates.
 * Ditto Drink and Project:Bar listings.
 * Accomodations need to be formatted per Project:Accommodation listings
 * Get out is a bit bare and should include descriptive text of what you're getting out to do
 * Talk could use more text.
 * Cities and Other Destinations should have some descriptive text rather than a bare list.
 * Like I said, you've done a fine job and it's a good article today. If you choose not to go the extra mile, thats okay! -- (WT-en) Colin 15:46, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Ischia text
This guide need to improve english text, there is some wikivoyage's user can help? -- (WT-en) mimmo46 13:03, 29 march 2006 (EST)
 * As it is already listed on Project:Guide articles needing attention, I'll add a note saying it needs proofreading. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 06:47, 29 March 2006 (EST)
 * I haven't forgotten, and I really do intend to do this. I've just gotten bogged down in work for the last month or so.  I'm currently in Reading (Berkshire) on business.  I'll try to do the proofreading when I get back home. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:51, 29 March 2006 (EST)
 * Well, thanks Mark -- (WT-en) mimmo46

Manual of Style
I have improved the content in observance of the MOs, someone can check if it is necessary to make other improvements. -- (WT-en) mimmo46 22:52, 6 march 2006 (EST)

Ischia is the biggest
Ischia is the biggest island in the gulf of Naples, saying "one of the biggest" is wrong. Thats why im going to change it for the second time... hoping that this edit will persist. Otherwise please tell me wich island is bigger then Ischia. I know just 3 island here: Ischia, Procida and Capri. Thx for your work, bye.

Adding lastminute section
I would like to create a lastminute section and add in it some link as this http://www.ischiatravelweb.it/lastminute.asp. It is seriusly the cheaper way to sleep in Ischia. Usually the hotels put many offers in this kind of pages. It is a quality service and it wont be spam. Please, tell me what do you think about it.

 * According to the current external links policy the link you posted looks (to me) like a non-primary source, and thus is not a valid external link. Is it sufficient to just mention the link on this talk page, or does it provide some service that is so vital that travelers should definitely know about it? -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:14, 27 March 2006 (EST)

Well, when I need to travel I usually look for this kind of services about the place I am going to, just to spend less. I think it can be a usefull information for travellers.

 * I think the problem is that besides not complying with the extlinks policy, it also  does not fit our goal of being useful for the traveller on the go, i.e. it's not so useful for the offline readers of our guide. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 15:37, 27 March 2006 (EST)

About spam in the Holiday House section
In the Holiday House section I can see 2 suggested apartments but when i tried to add a good hostel it was been erased as spam. I thought that the hostel information that I added could be usefull becouse it is not easy to find a place like it on Ischia, I mean a cheap place for young travellers. I am not the owner and I am not linked to it absolutely.

In this way my question is: which is the meter for judge an holiday house info as spam? Why for exemple the info about Villa Marialuisa wasn't been deleted too?

I want just understand. Thx in advance for your reply.

 * Hi! I wish I could give you a simple answer, this has been an ongoing discussion here. (see Project:External links and Talk:Barcelona). We are mostly worried that we will end up with a big long list of websites and not a real travel information. Here are some questions that may help determine if an apartment listing is a good idea:
 * Is it for just 1 apartment or is there a selection available?
 * Is the rental company a 'real' company, with an office, phone, etc, or just a web booking site or an individual?

 * I hope this helps! (WT-en) Majnoona 07:15, 18 April 2006

 * Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure why this was removed:
 * Ring hostel - Forio d'Ischia (historical center)- +39 081 987546 - Cheap private rooms for 1 to 4 people with or without an ensuite bathroom as well as dorm rooms for 4, 6, and 8 people with or without ensuite bathrooms as well. Huge common area with a fully equiped kitchen, TVSat, Internet access, dvd player and a bar.
 * I think it might have been because the web site is not very well done (there is some broken html, etc) and because there's a big booking engine. But it doesn seem to be a real place offering dorms and rooms and not just a website booker. I'm going to go ahead and put it back in.
 * The person who removed it was anonymous, but maybe they'll comment here if they disagree! (WT-en) Majnoona 07:27, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

Well thx Majnoona, it was frustant becouse I was happy to discover it, it is a good place to stay, I visited it becouse a friend of mine was there. I live in Ischia, a touristic place where you can find 300 hotels but i know just 2 hostels and I cant advise 1 of them. I already contributed to make this page with some contents, im not here to spam. Bye all cya soon.

 * Please someone can added some contribute to Ischia and adjust the english text.

Thanks L.J. for your contibute.

Spam in "Sleep" section ...
I see "Hotel Ischia" (www.ischiahotel.net) voice (link) in Mid-range subsection ... Isn't it against guidelines? I think it should be removed. Could I do that, as editor? (I apologize, I'm a "newbie" of Wiki platform ...)

--Oldlhsguy (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It seems to me this is correct to remove, as it is not an individual hotel, but a chain or something similar. Moreover, it was touty. And yes, you can remove it even when you are a "newbie", after you make yourself familiar with WV rules :) --Danapit (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ischia


text:
Talk:Isfahan

Isfahan seems to be the most common English term, AFAICT, although the Getty Thesaurus gives Esfahan. I guess we should leave it here until more info comes in. --(WT-en) Evan 08:55, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Foolad mobarakeh
''I moved the following content from its own page as it doesn't meet our Project:What's an article? guidelines. I'm hesitating to add it to the See section -- is it really something travellers visit?'' (WT-en) Maj 09:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Foolad mobarakeh is a very large Iranian steel mill. It is one of the largest steel mills in Iran, and is one of the main industrial complexes in the Iranian city of Isfahan.

Construction of the mill began in the early 1980's. Construction was completed and the first steel production occurred in the mid-1990's.

 * It's fine to list a steel mill if they give tours. If they don't give tours and it just looks like an ordinary steel mill, it shouldn't be listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Double pricing?
"Be aware that some tourist attractions will have double pricing standards - one for national citizens and another for tourists. You cannot haggle this price, which is slightly more expensive than the citizen rate. "

Is this still true? I know this was the case in Iran some years ago but all the sights I went to in Iran this year had the same price for Iranians and foreigners. Is there some sights in Isfahan that still practice double pricing? --(WT-en) Sleepyhead 07:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Exaggerations about Isfahans beauty
I removed some exaggerations from beginning of Isfahan page. While said again and again that Isfahan is "the most beautiful city in the world" or that it's architecture is amazing makes me really wonder if people writing these things have ever visited Isfahan or have ever visited anywhere outside of Isfahan. The architecture is ordinary Persian architecture and Isfahans beauty is nothing special besides the square and riverfront. Sure, compared to many other big Iranian cities it's a nice place, however, that doesn't make it something special in the whole world. This is of course my subjective opinion but if you have actually been to Isfahan and think differently maybe you can rephrase what I edited. Isfahan is one of the most beautiful cities in the world with stunning architecture I went there in 1999

Isfahan or Esfahan?
I understand that both transliterations are used, but we need to pick the one that's used most and use it all the time in this article. I also notice that the province is called Isfahan on this site. So should we change the names of the city and province to Esfahan or not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Isfahan is what it is called on Wikipedia. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isfahan


text:
Talk:Isha Yoga Centre

VFD Discussion
I admit this user is putting a lot of work and some nice prose into this, and yes it does pass the sleep test, but... It is still a privately owned resort of no historical interest, really just an attraction with some cottages. How is this different from Xelha or any other privately owned resort that we delete, except that it's yoga instead of another tourist activity?
 * Merge and delete - (WT-en) Texugo 05:55, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * I thought of elaborating on the topic in Coimbatore but I took into consideration three factors: One, that it lies about 30 km from and well outside the boundaries of the nearest major town. Two, that a lot of people do visit this place - not just from Coimbatore but from various parts of India and the world. Three, that there are a lot of activities to do at the destination, a traveler could dedicate 2-3 days to this place. So adding all the information such as See & Do, Stay, Etiquette etc would just look too cumbersome in the Coimbatore page. BTW as the creator of the article, do I also get to vote or is my vote obvious? Thnx. (WT-en) Regstuff 06:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * You are of course welcome to comment here. I just want to hold this up against established policy and practice because I don't think it's a good fit. We have eliminated articles for other private resorts, despite them having a variety of activities or tourists who spend 2 or 3 days there. The info you have provided is well-written, but it is a great deal more detailed than we usually provide-- that's what the link to the official website is for. (WT-en) Texugo 06:29, 30 January 2011 (EST)

 * It seems odd to merge it into an article that's 35 km (22 miles) away, especially since the content that is here would overwhelm the Coimbatore article. It appears to be a destination in its own right to me.  Is there an example of the level of detail that you deem too much for our site?  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * I dunno, a map and a walk-around guide of the small complex with its 3 main buildings, a play-by-play of all the goings-on at all two temples plus detailed aesthetic descriptions of them (remember these are recent structures, not historically significant), the two temples dominate both See and Do... It seems a bit much to me. At any rate, the more important issue for me is that it is a privately-owned resort, as are Xcaret and Xelha and others that we have (rightfully, I think) deleted in the past, the only difference being that it is for relaxation and yoga instead of tourism and swimming with dolphins. Do we give it a pass just because it's yoga? just because it's 30km from the nearest article (Xel-ha is perhaps a bit further even from the article in which it is described). How do we justify giving this one an article? -- (WT-en) Texugo 21:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
 * There is no policy demanding the deletion of privately-owned resorts, nor do I understand in the least why we would want such a policy. We have six star articles that are collectively, exclusively about a single privately-owned resort destination.  I'm working on another article about a privately-owned resort now: Darien Lake.
 * I do understand your concerns about level of detail, and it probably could be pared down a bit. But I don't think a merge is the answer.  It doesn't seem like people visit this resort as part of a trip to Coimbatore; they specifically take a trip to the resort.  The fact that there's nothing else nearby is not the fault of the resort.  It's not unlike a hotel and restaurant out in the middle of nowhere here in the U.S. -- putting it in the article of a town twenty miles away feels insufficient, and has every time that this issue has come up.  My feeling is, if there's a place to sleep and a place to eat, and it's not part of some other municipality, we might as well have an article on it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:34, 31 January 2011 (EST)

"keep!" this is not just some private resort. Isha Yoga Center gets millions of visitors each year. There are some events which attract 100,000 participants in a day. Keep it! You have an article about the Playboy Mansion, which is private. —The preceding comment was added by 24.7.91.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. While I'm no expert on yogic retreats, this seems to be a nice little article, and seems to have all the things we look for in destination guides (sights, food, lodging, etc.). And it's created by a clearly talented new contributor who has even created a WT-style map for the article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:07, 31 January 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. I'm planning to go to the Isha Center later this year and have found this information most helpful - I don't know where else I could access some of these specifics that will help me plan my travel so I am very grateful for this. There is some duplication in the article that could be paired down and I suspect the author could include links to other sites where some of this material is discussed at length. One important point to consider is that this is NOT a private resort. Based on my understanding the Isha Center is open to the public and hosts many events throughout the year to which the public is warmly invited.  (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 00:43, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Hi Rebecca. Just wanted to mention that I elaborated and went into such detail because I thought that all the valid information should be available on a single page so the traveler could just print-out the wikivoyage guide and set off. And the manual of style recommended that external links be kept to a bare minimum, which is why I avoided them. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Regstuff (talk • contribs)
 * You're absolutely right about the external links. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:40, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Thanks for your responses, I stand corrected, as I said I am grateful for this information and appreciate how easy it is to locate with Wiki, my first destination search site. (WT-en) Rebecca Reynolds 13:28, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Um... No, we don't have an article about that. you're confusing us with Wikipedia perhaps. (WT-en) Texugo 12:17, 1 February 2011 (EST)

Does anyone else find it extremely suspicious that we would get five "keep" responses from five different people, none of whom have ever contributed to Wikivoyage before, but all of whom have knowledge of this not-so-well-known place and all of whom have managed to happen upon the vfd page to make their first contribution?. (WT-en) texugo 22:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 * Erm,Keep, this is a tricky one. It seems like a very nice article, but one which sets a dangerous precedent, especially for a destination in India, where i'm less inclined to deviate from any policy, since we already have anarchy ruling on Wikivoyages own Indian micro cosmos. I say keep, but I just want to go on record and say I have a feeling this will spell trouble with persistent Indian resort/hill station owners down the line. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 13:05, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 * Merge and delete As Stefan explained this article sets a dangerous path for all indian yoga shrines. If we keep this article we will face creation of hundreds of similiar articles. India is already one of our most touted countries and its already today hard to control. I fear that touts like in Rishikesh will take over and therefore oppose this precedent. (WT-en) jan 03:04, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. Velangiri Biosphere is an important geographical location within India located in South. They rival the spiritual and sporting charm and romance of the Himalayas.  Isha Center happens to be one of the places from where to experience the Southern Kailash, as the Velangiris are known in India.--(WT-en) Classictoad 23:01, 6 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep. One of the things that distinguishes this Ashram is that it also has a Rejuvenation Center which I visited in Aug-Sep 2010. This seems to be an important feature that should be mentioned in this listing as it attracts visitors with an array of medical issues which are addressed at the Rejuvenation Center.--(WT-en) mkh 19:29, 7 February 2011 (EST)
 * Keep.I was looking for more info on this yoga center and I found the information really useful. I don't understand why would we want to delete this. The whole point of wikivoyages is to provide this kind of information to folks searching the net. Please keep this. —The preceding comment was added by 99.59.229.175 (talk • contribs)
 * Considering there's a notice at the top of the page in question, I don't think it's so odd for someone to find their way to this page. Maybe the page is more popular than we thought.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:00, 11 February 2011 (EST)
 * I agree with Texugo; I don't think this place seems to be that popular. (WT-en) –sumone10154 12:06, 11 February 2011 (EST)

 * Keep. While this doesn't meet the standard Project:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:05, 18 February 2011 (EST)
 * Any further comment? This nomination has been open for a while so it's time to get it resolved - I'm not sure that there is a consensus, but there are enough reasons & votes to keep it that I would lean towards resolving it that way. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep - Great travel destination for enlightment. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 173.48.130.208 (talk • contribs)

 * Reluctant Keep I really wonder if this place could not be summed up in a single listing in a city article however, for now, I'll go with Ryan. I do agree with Peter though that this could lead to a slippery slope, since our Indian articles are usually very spammy, touty, etc. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:55, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

 * I am still of the opinion that 5-6 of the above "keeps" are a person or persons involved in doing that kind of touting in the first place. (WT-en) texugo 09:17, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

VFD Discussion #2
I'd like to put this up for re-nomination, as the earlier voting process was obviously rigged (see ). If Delta Works should go, which has no clear city where it should be redirected to, we should at least redirect the Isha Yoga Centre. It is clearly an attraction, and belongs to Coimbatore, where it is already listed in the See section.

 * Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 02:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. - As the one who nominated it for deletion the first time, I also felt that the voting was rigged: New users practically never make their very first contribution on the VfD page, and for this one little-known attraction, there were at least five or six such never-contributed-before users voting to keep it within only a day or two of its nomination? Not at all believable. (WT-en) texugo 02:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep per my comments last time. New users were hardly the only people recommending the article be kept.  Merging to a community 35 kilometers distant seems absurd to me.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Speedy keep. The previous VFD was not "obviously rigged" - there were four "keep" votes from regular users and two "merge and delete" votes. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep I don't particularly like ashrams, but merging this one into the nearest huge city (which is not at all the nearest town!) just makes no sense to me either. For travellers, this ashram is a destination of its own and apart from being a transport hub on the way there, the huge and industrial city of Coimbatore has little to do with it. Also, putting all this info into the Combatoire article would throw that one totally off balance, as the ashram is not a major sight of that city. If the yoga centre has to be merged into something, it should probably be into the village article of Semmedu. However, in practice it doesn't clearly belong to any city or town, it is a destination of its own, you can eat and sleep there, and the current article is functional (guide status even), so just keeping it seems the most sensible thing right now. (WT-en) Justme 11:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * That discussion puts a dangerous precedent for Wikivoyage, so it should be discussed thoroughly. The previous discussion is 100% rigged to the bone with 6 obvious fake in favor voters, even excluding the writer of the article (who probably set it all up). A majority of votes were fake, which puts the whole process at stake, and with that, the credibility of Wikivoyage as a whole.
 * Having an attraction 35 km far is by any means not "absurd", it's the way many articles are structured on the site. Kanchanaburi has attractions more than 100km off. People visit the attraction from Coimbatore, so that's where it should be listed according to current Wikivoyage policy (and it is already listed in that article in the first place).
 * And Justme, I don't think it would throw the Coimbatore article out of balance. This article has way too much information for just one sight, a lot of it should go. I could easily write 30 pages about the Grand Palace in Bangkok and then make it a separate article, but that doesn't mean it's a good fit for a travel guide. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Globe-trotter - while I respect your opinion, I take offense to your repeated comments that the previous discussion was "rigged to the bone". As was pointed out above, even if you take away all votes from new users, there four "keep" votes and only two "merge" votes.  And I'm far from convinced that all of the new users who voted were "fake users". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * They were all fake. I could be political correct, and state that the only contributions they did were voting on that particular VFD, but let's be honest here, they were all fake users (probably created by the writer of that article, who might even be the owner of the attraction). On Wikipedia, those votes would not even count as only users with a particular number of edits made count there. Obviously the votes from the Wikivoyage veterans are real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look more careful to this slippery slope. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Reading that vfd discussion again, there was a genuine 4-2 vote to keep. The other votes appear to be highly questionable though and, to be polite, somewhat outside the normal pattern of vfd voting :).--(WT-en) burmesedays 11:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * While we normally don't get many VFD comments from new users, Wikivoyage is also the #2 Google result for anyone searching for this ashram, so while the voting was suspicious, without seeing the logs I think it's impossible to definitively call fraud - I suspect if some of our other high-ranking articles like Grand old hotels were put up for VFD that they might also attract significant attention from drive-by users. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

(Edit conflict).
 * Merge and re-direct to Coimbatore. At first glance this article totally deceived me, and I even stuck it up as an OtbP candidate. It is though clearly not an article. It's a 150 acre Yoga-based property, as stated in the 3rd sentence of the article. I am bemused as to why veteran Wikivoyageers voted to keep it first time round? This sets a very nasty precedent indeed, and would make deleting any future resort article more than troublesome. The fact that there is loads of detail is irrelevant. I could write as much about a large Four Seasons golf resort if I put my mind to it.  As for the appropriateness of merging to Coimbatore, 20 miles is a nothing distance in India (or anywhere else for that matter), and should be no impediment to such a merge. It is certainly not "absurd".  --(WT-en) burmesedays 11:20, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * It's not that I want to keep this article specifically, but it seems weird to put it into Coimbatore. Even in India 35 km is a good bus ride, but more importantly, there are other towns closer. It would be like putting the Keukenhof into Amsterdam, despite the fact that there are other towns nearer. The fact that WT (and even Wikipedia) is underdeveloped as far as that region goes, doesn't seem a good reason to dump information into the nearest city we have. Keeping it seemed easier, but if it's a precedent matter I don't think ashrams generally make good separate destinations. (WT-en) Justme 11:56, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Coimbatore is not set in stone to me. We could also maybe create an article Velliangiri Mountains, or maybe another town/village from where travelers visit this attraction. I have objections with the principle of creating articles for attractions, which is not allowed per Wikivoyage policy. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Merging it with Coimbatore would be like merging Walt Disney World into Orlando. Except even farther away.  If you can sleep there, I really don't see what the problem is.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * You can't really sleep there, it's a hermitage. The sleeping facilities there all need to be booked weeks in advance, because it's a religious retreat. Accepting Isha Yoga Centre as having sleeping facilities, then we could count every temple in Thailand as an article, as every temple has a monk's quarters where you could stay. About WDW, it has an immense size and millions of annual visitors and many many attractions. However, if it had just a few buildings (it doesn't I know), then indeed it would have to be listed at a nearby town. I visited WDW sleeping in Kissimmee.

 * Just look at the map to see how small Isha Yoga Centre really is, it really cannot be compared with WDW. The scale uses 0.05 km (!), something I've never seen before on any map. Just looking at the See listings is laughable, they describe rooms in the buildings. One listing, to give an example, is the "audio/visual centre", with the description "Move on to the audio/visual center where you will be shown a short introductory video which will give you a better idea of the temple, its background and history. The video is played alternately in both Tamil - the local language, and in English". Many museums I know have these kind of introductory videos, those in no way should be See listings of their own. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * In any case, "can you sleep there?" is a sloppy criterion which has never made sense to me. You can sleep at hotels, campsites, homestays and all manner of other places, but that does not make any of them articles.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Speedy keep. The original vfd was not "rigged". Even if you discount votes from anyone without a long track record at Wikivoyage, there were 4 keep votes and 2 delete votes. And discounting votes from new users is not fair; even if you suspect that someone is voting multiple times, their arguments should still be taken into account (and the vfd page does not follow a straight majoritarian voting system either). Nothing has changed with the article since then, so a second nomination seems inappropriate and a waste of time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * To respond to points made, though (and this would be more appropriately done on the article's talk page): 1) for every time someone asserts "this is an attraction," I can assert "this is a destination." Perhaps developing formal criteria would be worthwhile, since this is not the first time this has come up. 2) Why would we name the article after some random nearby town that no one visits, if this is the place people go to? In any rate, the vfd page is not appropriate for that type of discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. 3) For my (and others') opinions on why this article should not be deleted, see the first vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Formal criteria would be useful if they stop this happening again. On your point 2), I thought that putting listings into the nearest town was standard Wikivoyage procedure, or have we all been doing that wrong?
 * On the purported lack of fame of Coimbatore (which I would dispute anyway as it is the 2nd largest city in Tamil Nadu beaten only by Chennai, and it has its own international airport), it seems that Project:What is an article? deals with that: If an attraction is really famous and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the city or region and put the description in the city or region article.
 * I would suggest leaving this here for now, or moving it to Project:What is an article?, rather than burying it on the article talk page, as it is a rather important policy discussion. --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I don't think this is ready to get swept aside, and I resent any notion of speedy disposal. I am astonished that long-time users are voting to keep this. If it were a spa resort or a Methodist retreat with five times as many buildings and twice the land area located 20 miles from Childress, Texas, there is no way in hell any of you would be voting to keep it as an article. But because it's in oh-so-mysterious India land of yogis, you are voting to keep it. As (WT-en) globetrotter pointed out, this article is embarrassingly detailed for an establishment that is in no way historic, and I think it makes us look like touts. Like maybe I can throw a religious retreat together somewhere and get my own Wikivoyage article too. This place is essentially an accommodation that must be booked in advance plus non-historic religious facilities, and I cannot wrap my head around the fact that some veteran users are being fooled by the original writer's detail into thinking that this place merits its own article. If it had been written a little more poorly like most such attempts, I think everyone would see it for what it is -- just another place trying to make money. (WT-en) texugo 00:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * The rules at wiaa clearly state that individual companies should not have their own articles. I heavily object to a speedy, as this article is a violation of Wikivoyage policy, and thus those in favor should give arguments why this should warrant an exception. The exceptions section states the following: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." I think both of these do not apply here. The Isha Yoga Centre is easily done as a day-trip from Coimbatore and does not require an overnight stay. The information would not overload that article, as this article gives a ridiculous wall of text that is in any way too detailed for a travel guide. As I read it, exceptions are made for obvious very large and popular attractions like Walt Disney World and Angkor Wat, not for any company that happens to be somewhat out in the countryside. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 04:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Cedar Point is immediately adjacent to Sandusky but we still have an article on it because it's a popular attraction that people are looking for separate from going to Sandusky for a visit. Darien Lake is a theme park resort within easy day-trip distance from Batavia (New York), Buffalo, and Rochester (New York), but I wouldn't recommend merging it because it is a separate destination in its own right, not part of a trip to Batavia.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * As I wrote before, I'm not against articles for big theme parks and attractions with millions of visitors occupying large amounts of space. Smaller theme parks, like Tivoli, shouldn't have their own article. This is already common practice. Exceptions should be made on a case-by-case basis and only if they fall within the policy guideline of wiaa. I think the Isha Yoga Centre cannot be compared with big theme parks, a better analogy would be small attractions in the countryside, like a museum or another religious retreat. There is also an Amsterdam Yoga Centre , I don't think that should be a separate district of Amsterdam. And the Onze Lieve Vrouwe van de Besloten Tuin , a similar religious retreat in the countryside of the Netherlands, I don't think that should be its own article. I think the exceptions section was not meant to include these kind of attractions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * My comment from the previous VFD discussion addresses this point:

 * While this doesn't meet the standard Project:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions.

 * If there was no Isha Yoga Centre article and someone was asking where to list it we obviously wouldn't tell them to start a new article, but there is now a complete, useful article about this place and no compelling reason that I see for getting rid of it. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * My vote for speedy keep has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with the fact that the vfd was already resolved. In general, the vfd page is not a great place for a nuanced discussion on where to put content—that is better done on the article talk page. And this clearly cannot be a case for deletion, as at the most it would be redirected, if content were to be merged elsewhere. Again, the vfd page is not necessary for such a merge discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:26, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * This opens the door for every large resort owner (or whichever marketing company they engage) to create an article about their property, which, instead of being disallowed by Project:What is an article, is apparently now OK. That's not the way I see Wikivoyage, and I find it seriously disappointing that some others do.
 * Peter, are you saying that your vote to keep this non-article is based on a technicality of delete vis-a-vis merge, rather than the points you originally made?--(WT-en) burmesedays 22:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Nope, my speedy keep vote was based on the fact that this article's vfd already concluded, and that I don't think it appropriate to re-vfd. That just leads to going-nowhere efforts like this eyesore, which will probably languish here for months without purpose. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Peter, we have Votes for undeletion, which similarly admits that the VfD process isn't immune to mistakes. You yourself have nominated things for undeletion which had previously passed through a VfD process. Aren't mistakes in the other direction just as likely? A sort of "Votes for Unkeeping", if you will? (WT-en) texugo 00:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

 * (WT-en) Ryan, it's not at all "too extensive to merge" if we cut it back to a level of detail that isn't plainly ridiculous. I could write an article about my arsehole local Catholic church grounds that would have more See and Do items and a larger map than this place, but just because I cast it onto Wikivoyage fully formed with great detail doesn't mean that it should be automatically kept as an article. This is like arguing that a museum should get its own article just because someone went to the trouble of describing in detail what's in each room. It's just far too much information. I also agree with (WT-en) burmesedays argument that it sets a precedent to allow any and all similar business owners to fly into a lot of their own ramblingly detailed articles. And (WT-en) Peter, regardless of the fact that a redirect would remain in its place, I'd say this is more of a vfd in the sense that the majority of this article needs to be flat out deleted, with only a short listing at Coimbatore. Leave all that detailed, overhyped stuff to their website. (WT-en) texugo 22:43, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I'm not even sure if we should be redirecting companies, the [Wikivoyage:How_to_redirect_a_page|redirecting]] policy does not state anything about that. Should we make a redirect for Ronny's New York Pizza and redirect it to Bangkok/Sukhumvit? Or redirect British Museum to London/Bloomsbury? As far as I know that has not been common practice, but I don't know if and where discussion about this has taken place. I only proposed to redirect as there otherwise might be broken links.

 * However, more important is I think what Ryan states. It was probably the business owner who created this article from outline to guide status within 24 hours . This is easily done, because its a small sight, so it is quickly at guide status. Because its now guide status, the community accepts this article as being "too long to merge", even though the article rambles on about minor details and none of the sights have any real cultural or historic value. Now the business owner has a full article dedicated to its own business, accepted by the Wikivoyage community, and so immensely detailed that its own website looks bleak in comparison. I consider this the mother of all touts, and it seriously questions the credibility of Wikivoyage as a whole. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:52, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * The writer himself admits that he's a visitor/follower there. I think ashrams should be seen like all-in-resorts, just with a strong spiritual and a sight-seeing component. It's hard to judge how many visitors ever make it there, but it's a fact that many of these places have interesting festivities and temples, making it also an attraction to visitors. I tend to agree with Ryan that it seems a waste to delete properly formatted articles, but I wouldn't want to create any kind of policy in favour of ashrams having articles of their own. Their promotional activities are more aggressive than resorts :-) However, I fear for a huge city like Coimbatore (bigger than Amsterdam, for the record) if it would have to absorb all small destinations in the large Coimbatore (region) area. This might be one of the larger ones, or due to its US centre a more popular one among international travellers, but there are at least some 20 other ashrams in that area. As a popular one it could have a get-out listing in Coimbatore perhaps, but I really wonder if the Coimbatore (city) article is a good idea for a full listing.

 * As an aside: I think fear of redirects is only ever a matter of policies and editors, and can only be helpful to travellers. I wouldn't want to embark on a mission to create them, but I would never delete one either. (WT-en) Justme 05:52, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

 * And now for something completely different (not really completely, but I felt the urge to use the phrase).
 * I have briefly read through the article and a few impressions may be worth noting;

 * 1) This is a small place with a lot of detail for it's size in the description.
 * 2) The policy appears to try to separate things into black and white. Many things are grey. This seems to be one of them, and to me it is towards the non-article end of the scale.
 * 3) The tone of the article does seem a bit hyped, but I have seen worse.
 * 4) This does look a bit like the sharp edge at the top of the slippery slope.
 * 5) Maybe we should be looking at this in a different way. Not as grey, but as yellow. Then it gets its own scale. Perhaps as a travel topic on Religious retreats, or Spiritual retreats if that is considered more appropriate, of India, if there are enough of them, and I suspect there will be, where this could be a sub-article, in much the same way that Scuba diving has national articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands with sub-articles like Scuba diving in the British Virgin Islands/RMS Rhone. This would leave us with the equivalent Spiritual retreats of India/Isha yoga centre or something similar. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:54, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I think Peter has it exactly right. The travel topic idea is a fine one. The overview should be linked from India, particular ashrams from the overview and appropriate regional articles. (WT-en) Pashley 23:22, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Suggestion. Since this article has previously survived a VFD nomination, and since there isn't a clear consensus to delete it, I would suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre.  Does anyone feel that would be inappropriate, or can this be moved and the discussion continued there? -- (WT-en) wrh2 12:56, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Any objections? Going twice... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. I've moved the discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:39, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

But...
I'd like to point out that there was no consensus to Keep this article either. Rather, consensus seems to lean toward handling this kind of thing as a travel topic, and this article still needs to be changed into another less-detailed form to avoid setting a precedent for every ashram in India to be clamoring for their own article. Regardless of the fact that we haven't fully agreed on what to do with this, it is nevertheless a non-historical religious attraction which shouldn't have its own article, and shouldn't be presented in such excruciating detail-- Bangkok's Grand Palace and Wat Pho complex are a thousand times more culturally and touristically important and reams could be written about them if we went into this much detail (and it would be a far more interesting read, to boot). The above discussion might have been forgotten and abandoned, but I still despise the existence of this article. We shouldn't allow the ridiculous level of detail given fool us into thinking that our normal policies don't apply to this article. I for one, should have noticed Ryan's "suggestion" to bury this again- the whole issue would probably get resolved sooner on the VfD page than it will here. I can hardly think of a better existing example of what our attractions policy was trying to avoid. I have nothing but *SEETHING HATE* for this article. I'm sure it makes the business owner very happy.(WT-en) texugo 00:30, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I have placed an "under discussion" disclaimer on the article that will hopefully dissuade other potential retreat owners from looking to this page as an example of something we fully embrace.(WT-en) texugo 00:45, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't have anything against an ashram travel topic, where Isha Yoga Centre could be a listing. The Meditation in Thailand article could be an example. However, that doesn't really change the nature of this discussion. The Isha Yoga Centre should not be its own article per wiaa, it should only be a listing placed in the city article (and additionally in a travel topic if someone is interested in writing it). Just read wiaa, it's crystal-clear that only geographical units get their own articles, and that companies do not. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:25, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

 * I agree with (WT-en) globe-trotter and (WT-en) texugo. Where or not the original vfd was rigged, the delete arguments appealed to strong policy.  The keep case largely considered the complexity involved in merging, and other non-policy reasons (such as how nice the attraction is).  --(WT-en) Inas 19:36, 18 December 2011 (EST)
 * Its been years now. Did we reached to a conclusion? --Saqib (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that there's now a Yoga stub article (claimed to be an Outline), with but one "destination" - this yoga centre. Is there anyone who doesn't think that's absurd? OK, of course we could add Rishikesh and various other cities and resorts, but how many ashrams have their own articles on Wikivoyage? Giving this one an article, just because an interested person wrote it, is highly discriminatory and favoratist toward a single business. If we can't merge and redirect this article, I think we should discuss our policies on articles about individual ashrams and which other ones of the thousands and thousands in existence ought to also have their own articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I substituted Rishikesh there, but I don't think that's the end of the story. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Encapsulate, Merge and redirect
The fact that this commercial establishment has an overblown article that was given the category of "Guide" does not mean the attraction merits it. This is not a huge historical temple complex like Angkor Wat, but one of thousands of modern ashrams around the world. Proposals to encapsulate, merge and redirect are not relevant to Votes for deletion, where nominations to delete this article outright have failed twice. Leaving this as a separate article gives rise to absurd situations like the Yoga topic article having had (before I edited it) only one listing under "Destinations", that being for this ashram. This may be a great ashram, for all I know, but there's no reason it deserves the favoritism of uniquely having its own article.

Should this search term be merged and redirected to Coimbatore, or is there any closer place with its own article to which we should redirect it, instead? And if you oppose merging and redirecting it, please explain why this deserves to be the only ashram with its own Wikivoyage article, or if not, which of the thousands of other ashrams around the world we wouldn't delete articles for on sight. Let's not allow ourselves to be blinded by the quality of the article. That has nothing to do with Wikivoyage policies or with the utter unfairness I referred to above.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Speedy merge and redirect to Coimbatore, which is indeed the closest place with its own article. This is really a no-brainer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your input. Once a decision has been made, we may need to discuss precisely what should be merged. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I do agree that ashrams should simply not have articles, so neither should this one. They are businesses. The fact that the communications people of this place filled an entire article doesn't really change anything. I'm also not entirely sure why the previous VfD's failed, as we usually follow the "guilty until proven innocent" principle. I don't like that principle, personally, but whatever policy we use, we should use it more or less consistently. In any case, those were years ago and a re-evaluation seems fine. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Does 3-0 constitute a consensus, or should specific people who took part in Vfd discussions be pinged? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Ikan, a quick perusal on my part of the previous VfD discussions saw no stronger arguments to keep this article than "but it's so complete and well-written". Maybe so, but that doesn't mean its existence isn't still pretty much a naked violation of wiaa. If it were me, I'd be tempted to just ignore those votes as lacking policy-based rationales. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I think we should wait at least another day for any more comments, at any rate, but I agree with you: This yoga centre isn't so important and complex that analogies with articles like Walt Disney World are relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I am ok with it being merged with Coimbatore (30km away). If somebody has time, it would be better to merge it into somewhere nearer like Alandurai (10km away). AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * It could always be moved there after someone starts the article. Do you know if there are other things to do, see (etc.) in Alandurai? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't know much about it, but there are two hotels] and Karunya University with 9000 students. AlasdairW (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * So as you said, probably enough for an article if someone wants to start one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] I added this listing to Coimbatore. Is that sufficient? If you feel there's more to add, please do so. If you don't, can we turn this article into a redirect now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. If Alandurai ends up being created, we can always move the listing. At long last, let's redirect this article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Any objection? I will wait 24 hours, just in case, but of course, if anyone has a really good argument for restoring the article after the fact, a reversion could be done (ugh, I feel slightly queasy even mentioning that in this case). Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me too. I don't see any possible argument to restore the article under policy, and if someone wants to move the listing to another destination article closer by, then they can just go ahead. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Done! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isha Yoga Centre


text:
Talk:Ishigaki

I removed the following section because it looked out of place and too much of an advertisement:

Relax&Beauty
Aroma&hypnotherapy,nude jewelry3-C NS.HOUSE 1955-1 Arakawa Ishigaki Okinawa #907-0024 Tel:0980-87-8800 E-mail.info@hypno-283.com/ The salon which can go in 5 minutes from in the city. See the ocean,, Taketomi Island, sunset, shooting stars,& more. Aroma and nude jewelry
 * 『Wing Hypno Garden』

title: Talk:Ishigaki


text:
Talk:Isla Amantani

i spent new year on amantani in 2006...stunning!

title: Talk:Isla Amantani


text:
Talk:Isla del Sol

More content should be moved to the articles on the respective villages, Yumani, Challapampa and Challa, with a quick reference and a link. (WT-en) Mariusm98 19:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

"and the to accommodation are cheaper." needs clarification
"and the to accommodation are cheaper" probably needs clarification, but I don't know what to suggest. R. Henrik Nilsson (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isla del Sol


text:
Talk:Isla de Ometepe

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

Comments
Should this page be split up in more pages? I mean, it now is a gathering of more or less everything that's on the island, scattered around, not categorized. There are two (major) towns, Moyogalpa and Altagracia and some smaller ones scattered around the island.

We could group the island too on the Conception (north) and the Maderas (south) part, because these are landmarks on both parts of the island.

A google map of the area might help. (WT-en) Sanderr 20:21, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Owing to its small size and population (the size of a large town/very small city), I personally think it might be best to leave this as one article, to avoid splitting up the content across too many layers. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:45, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Ok, fair enough, but I still feel that the info should be a bit more orderly, it is, as I said before, all scattered around. I'll do so if there's consensus here. (WT-en) Sanderr 22:32, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Hi Sanderr, no-one will object to you bringing better order to an article, as long as it's in line with the Project:Manual of style. I'm not sure how the info is scattered around (the headings are standard for articles) but just plunge forward and improve when you can! (WT-en) Justme 06:02, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

 * as there are now (very basic) articles for Moyogalpa and Altagracia, maybe the accomodation that is IN those places could be moved there?

 * Yes indeed, each should be moved to its respective city article. Texugo (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The third and fourth from last of the accommodation entries are in Moyogalpa.... I don't know how to move them and don't want to cause unnecessary work, but I think moving them to the Moyogalpa article might improve this one...

I was just bold and moved a lot of the acommodations to the respective city articles (including Playa Santo Domingo which appears to have been dormant for quite a while) I hope no one objects 141.30.210.129 23:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 * That was exactly the right thing to do. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hacienda Merinda
This reversion eliminated some touting, but what was reverted to also violates policies, including Project:Avoid_negative_reviews and avoiding first person writing.

Can someone who knows the area please fix this? (WT-en) Pashley 22:20, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

Banner
ויקיג'אנקי; As I see that you seem to have quite a knack for banners and the current one is okay at best (and thus does a disservice for this stunning island) would you like to have a go at creating a more perfect banner? In case there are no suitable images on commons to make a banner from, I may look through my own pictures taken on my two visits to the island, though they are probably of middling quality and most include a (somewhat ugly) timestamp... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the current one being used and am afraid it would be very hard to find a source image online, that has the right license (Commercial use + mods allowed), and looks better (in my opinion, if the current banner is just slight rotated, it would look good enough). I found so far this source image (which all have the proper license that allows creating a derivate image and uploading it to wikicommons). Maybe you can spot a good source image on this page? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war
Please have a look at this diff and the one immediately preceding it. Given that Central America is part of North America, I think this is highly misleading (and btw, dogs in Mexico are a similar story), so if you could find some way of putting it that is clear and avoids edit wars, I would be glad. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. México is part of North America, but not Central America. Hobbitschuster. Turbo8000 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one said Mexico is part of Central America. The statement is that Central America is geographically considered part of the North American continent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also see North America--ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have to be technical about this (sorry about that). Mexico is - as a matter of fact - 88% non Central America - North America and 12% Central America. The boundary being the isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is of course all Latin America (which is often confused with South America) and all North America as Central America is - as mentioned earlier - part of North America. Now if we only consider the "cultural region" of Central America, only the five Republics with blue white blue flags would count, them being Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala. But that of course matters little here. So how should we formulate the passage in question? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean that México is part of North America, but Central America isn't part of North America. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Little Morgan's
First of all, the place seems to have somehow finagled its way into three separate listings, second of all, the website now links to a link squatter, so there is a false negative in the bot runs (by the way, this particular type of links squat always looks the same, can we have a bot that detects those?). Is there any reason not to remove the listings until proven otherwise? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isla de Ometepe


text:
Talk:Islamabad

The entries for the following restaurants "Cafe @ Brabus" and "Luciano's pizza" are pure advertisement. They need to be changed!

 * You probably could have changed them yourself in the time it took to type this message :). Never mind, I will have a look. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:31, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

McDonalds
Sorry, but just not interesting.... if it's closed when someone arrives, then it should be promptly removed. fyi, from what i've read it's being threatened based on illegal construction in a park without proper permissions.... not because of pakistan's discomfort with the west. Seems that it's a pakistani-owned franchise anyhow, only western in the name/logo – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:09, 20 October 2010 (EDT)

Islamabad in Punjab
I think that Islamabad should be listed in the Punjab hierarchy for the following reasons: Overall I think it lacks sufficient draw in its own right and its transport connections make it a useful hub for that part of Punjab.Travelpleb (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a quiet, new, planned, concrete, grid city with relatively little of interest for travellers. It is not a the sort of mega-city that can captivate travellers for several days or weeks.
 * It is completely surrounded by Punjab and any trip to it would likely be taken as part of a wider Punjab experience (notably Rawalpindi). E.g. land in Islamabad, have a look round for a few hours, go somewhere else.
 * It is intended to be, and becoming, an integrated conurbation with Punjab's Rawalpindi.
 * The airport, while obviously vital to the whole country, serves northern Punjab domestically.
 * I somewhat agree with you. --Saqib (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Saqib (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I disagree . Islamabad is not in Punjab. Its completely separate Territory .Islamabad should not be listed in the  Punjab [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad Wikipedia on Islamabad]

Walking in the Margalla Hills

 * I'm not sure whether such a long trial looks appropriate in the article. --Saqib (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Page banners
I've cropped two new page banners. Both showing the most important structure of Pakistan and a symbol of Islamabad. --Saqib (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I think the article's current banner looks nice. From the two above I would vote for the first one. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sector Names
As a formed resident of F-6/3 I am deeply sceptical of the sector naming scheme discussed in the article - "D for Diplomats" and so on. I never heard of any such theory and think it much more likely that this is a "post facto" rationalisation. Is there any sort of cite for this? —The preceding comment was added by 81.102.75.130 (talk • contribs)

 * This isn't Wikipedia, so if something probably isn't true and is of no importance to travellers, there's no reason for people to spend time researching it, let alone cite it. Instead, why don't you plunge forward and change it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islamabad


text:
Talk:Isla Mujeres

Some of the "sleep" entries are very long and seem to contain personalised descriptions. There are also a lot of listings for places to eat, perhaps too many for such a small island?--(WT-en) Goldie 07:01, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Someone who's on location should do some serious cleaning up, many of the descriptions are unlikely real traveler comments. I removed some of the most obvious ads, and have a strong feeling that the rest are fakes too, but an empty article wouldn't look very nice. (WT-en) vesse 15:28, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Isla Mujeres


text:
Talk:Islands

I doubt the usefulness of the Islands part of this page if it means listing every single island or island group. (WT-en) D.D. 13:26, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * The idea wasn't to list every island anywhere in the world. It was to catch all the countries that aren't on one of the other 7 continents. A better name may be in order. "Island Nations"? -- (WT-en) Evan 15:58, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * I'd list all the MAJOR island groups and islands that people are likely to want to visit for tourism... the way I see it, these pages are purely indexes and a little redundancy doesn't hurt - they should be as comprehensive and logical as possible. No need to list Fred Nerk Island (size 5 acres) here, but I'd list places like Fraser Island (in Queensland) because it's a world heritage area...

 * No, no, no, please don't. I've changed the name of this article to "Island Nations" so we get away from that idea. We don't need a list of all lakes in the world, all statues in the world, all Irish pubs in the world, and we don't really need a list of all oceans and islands mixed up together. -- (WT-en) Evan 06:52, 11 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Hierarchy
I'd like to restructure the "islands" hierarchy somewhat. In particular, the North Atlantic islands and South Atlantic islands division doesn't work for me. Why subtropical Cape Verde should be grouped with Iceland, but nigh-equatorial Ascension with frigid South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands escapes me. There's also some annoying overlap involving the Southern Ocean. I'd like to adjust the categories a bit, the main difference being to shift the fringe Atlantic islands into the Arctic/Southern/Caribbean groups and combine the rest of the Atlantic into a single group. So we'd have: This would put all the icy-cold islands in their own two groups, and the sunny-warm islands in groups based on which ocean (and perhaps geocultural group) they're in. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:52, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Arctic - as it is now, plus Iceland: all the non-continental islands in/near the Arctic Circle.
 * Southern - expanded to about 45°S: every island that's closer to the South Pole than New Zealand or the tip of South America is (it already pretty much does this, but some of these are also classified as South-Atlantic or Indian).
 * Atlantic Ocean - everything from the Azores to Gough Island: the Atlantic islands near(ish) Africa.
 * Caribbean - as it is now, plus Bermuda: the Atlantic islands near the Americas.
 * Oceania - as it is now: every speck of coral or lava in the Pacific between the 45th and 45th parallels.
 * Polynesia - as is.
 * Micronesia - as is.
 * Melanesia - as is.
 * Australasia - as is.
 * Indian - pretty much as it now, but without the near-Antarctic islands: all the places that were briefly underwater on Boxing Day 2004.

Oceania
I have removed the oceania sub-categories from the Oceania (Pacific) grouping, due to the fact that the sub-categories are moving to Oceania. This doesn't really appear to be a significant change to this article. --(WT-en) Inas 02:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Newfoundland
Does the Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) qualify? It's primarily an island, but it includes Labrador which is on the mainland. K7L (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1948) would not qualify because we have artificially restricted the ambit of this article to those island nations that do not have a portion of their national territory on a continental mass. (Thus excluding such "nations" as Equatorial Guinea.)
 * However, I have visited some of the outports of Newfoundland and their accents are unintelligible to mainlanders ( I actually had to act as an interpreter to my Albertan companion who had not had the benefit of studying Elizabethan English playwrights). Newfoundland Colony would have qualified and there is currently an independence movement of about the same seriousness of purpose as the South Island Independence movement of New Zealand. I'd like to hear from any Newfies as to whether they regard themselves as any less a nation than some of the rather modern and artificial constructs that have seats in New York
 * It's for this reason that I intend to remove the part added in parentheses to "Labrador" after I recently started to expand this article today: "(1907-1949 Commonwealth Dominion, boundary includes Labrador on mainland)" and also internally de-link it from our article on the current Canadian province....-- A l i c e ✉ 03:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfidious Albion
Whether a nation has achieved either de jure or de facto recognition as a state or is internally self governing or not is largely irrelevant for the purposes of this article. That means that, although Scotland is clearly a nation, it is not included in these lists (since it shares the partly Scots island of Great Britain with the "home nations" of England and Wales and neither is the United Kingdom since it does not have a distinct national identity separate from its constituent parts. Neither the UK nor Great Britain issues their own banknotes; nor possess a single, separate legal or judicial system; have either a single distinctive national costume or multiple ones peculiar to the whole sub-division; don't have discrete languages from their neighbours; possess long-standing historically or naturally defined borders. For these reasons I intend to remove Great Britain, which although one of the larger islands of the world is not a nation within the meaning of this article. -- A l i c e ✉ 03:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This is a top-level navigation page, that makes sure islands can be found that are not listed under any continent. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * After 9 years you've just decided that have you? I see that you've slapped a disambiguation template on the article after you nuked the up-to-date content too. So you've unilaterally decided it's NOT a travel topic? -- A l i c e ✉ 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * We're not telepathic you know, why don't you discuss abusing your nuclear admin tools before you come up with such a (for this article's discussion page at least) novel suggestion?

Re-locating archaic and obsolete content to new article "Islands"
The Globe-triped™ new content has now been re-located to User:Alice/Kitchen/Island nations if anyone wishes to develop a "Travel Topic" in peace...-- A l i c e ✉ 04:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the historic stub article was intended to serve the purpose GT describes in the section above, then it would have been better for GT to spell out on this discussion page that the current title of Island nations needed changing, the lead needed nuking, and that this was not a travel topic but a necessary disambiguation page that should NOT have "Island Nations" listed.
 * Now that GT and I have had further polite discussion on his user talk page I instead propose moving the historical content (that GT recently block reverted to) into a new article of Islands, which I assume would better and less ambiguously serve the real purpose GT describes above, and then reverting to the more appropriate content for a travel topic article entitled Island nations contained here:

 * What do folks think - should we have a disambiguation page called Islands and another, different travel topic article called Island nations ? -- A l i c e ✉ 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think it would just lead to confusion, and that it would be a better use of time to post more content on the pages of particular island nations. Not all well-written passages are actually useful to travellers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Agree, let's leave it as is – cacahuate   talk 02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with keeping it like it was (sorry, Alice). However, this page would probably be better as simply "Islands" with a redirect from "Island nations" and serve more as a category than travel topic. The biggest reason being that not all islands included are nations, yet every single island in each ocean isn't listed...only countries & territories/dependencies are listed. Using just "Islands" allows the geographical hierarchy to make more sense. Island nations > Islands of the Southern Ocean > French Southern and Antarctic Lands for French Southern and Antarctic Lands doesn't make sense, but Islands > Islands of the Southern Ocean > French Southern and Antarctic Lands does. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Azores & Canaries
When and why did we move the Azores and the Canary Islands out of Portugal and Spain in the regional hierarchy? I frankly think it's pretty ridiculous to have them listed as Island Nations in the the breadcrumbs. And why then, is the Faroe Islands not an island nation but grouped with Scandinavia? They are more independent than these two countries ever were, not to mention Iceland. Not that I for a second would agree that they should be moved out of Scandinavia, just pointing out weird inconsistencies. Sertmann (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * You are not wrong to point out the inconsistencies that will always exist with our hierarchies (and, at least until technical improvements mean we can have more than one breadcrumb trail at the top of an article, with the consequent breadcrumbs).

 * I would welcome your edits at my draft here: User:Alice/Kitchen/Island nations -- A l i c e ✉ 23:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Extraregion
Shouldn't this be an extraregion instead of a region as it kinda defies geographical boundaries and classifications?Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I think a travel topic is fine. An Extra region would indicate 'the planet' right? :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really nations
This article is about islands, of which a very few constitute island nations. An island nation would be something like Polynesia (many islands in one nation), Taiwan, UK, Japan, etc.

Can we just rename Islands ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll rename tomorrow if no one objects Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Southern ocean/Antarctic islands
Should we include a link to islands of the southern ocean or antarctic islands here? Marathonian (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we could. Of course, you could consider the Antarctic Islands to be part of Antarctica, rather than just islands in an ocean. But, in my view, simply the term "continent" shouldn't mean any islands, even if they're near the coast.
 * But that's unrelated.
 * Add the link if you want, I won't object. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 22:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it, unless wikivoyage is less about completeness and more about logical flow. Just out of curiosity, I might need a geography lesson but any idea why Diomede islands are singled out here? Why not aleutian islands? Marathonian (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I had to adjust. You see, Islands of the Southern Ocean is a disambiguation page, and we try to avoid links to disambiguation pages. Also, yes, there are probably some islands that could be added to the list, but haven't been. Quite possibly Evan's choice (see first discussion this page). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 13:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islands


text:
Talk:Pašman

Article of Name
Why not just Pašman? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:24, 19 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Pašman


text:
Talk:Islands of the Arctic Ocean

Should this be renamed as "Arctic" or "Arctic Ocean"? It would seem a bit more sensible as a region if the North Pole was included... although I'm not sure about whether Greenland, northern bits of Canada etc should also be in here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:19, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * This article goes with the various Island nations that are in the Oceans. So it should stay as named. However, I think it might be helpful to also have an Arctic regional article to balance Antarctica, but as the Arctic is a body of water should we be writing about it, or should we have an articles about the Arctic circle or Lands of the midnight sun? -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:49, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * None of the islands listed here are 'nations' though. And Antarctica is a clearly delineated continent, so it's not directly comparable. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:34, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * The islands are all mentioned in the CIA factbook as countries. Similarly they are on the List of countries and territories. Besides Antarctica is not a country either, so these places all have about the same status, I think. Mostly uninhabited places of scientific and of mild tourism interest. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:15, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Islands of the Arctic Ocean


text:
Talk:Islands of the Atlantic Ocean

Is the Caribbean really in the Atlantic?. Or are they separate seas and oceans?. -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 10:44, 5 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Great Britain and Ireland
Should the islands of Great Britain and Ireland count as islands of the Atlantic Ocean? --(WT-en) The.Q 12:18, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

 * No. This is meant for obscure little bits that don't have a better place to go.  (Note that eg. Iceland and Greenland are also "missing".) (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Purpose
An anonymous editor made several edits that start to add every single island in the Atlantic. I've reverted that but wanted to leave a note here. The original purpose of this article was to create a place to list landmasses that didn't fit under any other container - South Georgia Island (for example) isn't a part of any continent, and we needed a place to list it. I think we want to stick with that model, but perhaps it needs to be called out more explicitly in this article? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:27, 23 December 2009 (EST)

 * I've re-reverted that, essentially. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of this article
As per the above Wikitravel-era discussion, "[t]he original purpose of this article was to create a place to list landmasses that didn't fit under any other container". However, most islands listed are breadcrumbed into nearest countries and continents (Azores and Madeira are breadcrumbed into Portugal, Bahamas and T&C Islands are breadcrumbed into the Caribbean and so on). The only islands of the Atlantic that don't fit under any other continents are Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Similarly, in Sub-Antarctic Islands, the only sub-Antarctic islands that don't fit under any other continents are Bouvet Island, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Sub-Antarctic islands of French Southern and Antarctic Lands (although Antarctica is a possible candidate for these islands). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, Britain and Ireland are missing from this list, which are the largest islands of the Atlantic, because "[t]his is meant for obscure little bits that don't have a better place to go". However, as I've shown above, most islands of the Atlantic are breadcrumbed into respective countries and continents. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Heard Island and McDonald Islands also don't belong in any category. It's 4000 km from the Australian mainland which is greater than the distance between metropolitan France and St Pierre and Miquelon. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We could alternatively categorise St Helena, etc. under Africa. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha can be categorised under Africa, especially under the non-existent West African Islands, where Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe can also be categorised. Heard Island and McDonald Islands are currently categorised under Sub-Antarctic islands, which can be merged with Antarctic islands (excluding Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego) and categorised under Antarctica. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This means, the original purpose of the Islands category tree is largely obsolete, and broadly speaking, we can categorise all islands under nearest continents. Wikipedia and Commons categorise islands in this way. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 100 per cent agreed. There is very little practicality between separating Antarctic and Subantarctic islands as things currently stand. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've created User:Sbb1413/Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands in my userspace as the resultant region after merging the two regions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
Realistically, 98% or so of travellers visiting these islands will go through South Africa. I think it us mire useful to group them under the Southern Africa region. Ground Zero (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islands of the Atlantic Ocean


text:
Talk:Islands of the Indian Ocean

East timor
I removed East Timor from the list. Wikipedia seems to define the Indian Ocean as being bound by the southern limit of Indonesia, hence excluding East Timor and if you are going to include East Timor why not Indonesia itself? (WT-en) Shep 15:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Straits of Malacca
Aren't Langkawi and even more so, Penang in the Strait of Malacca, not an ocean at all? We need to make a decision about how far north(west) the Straits of Malacca extend, because some of the Thai and perhaps Burmese islands are questionable, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 * We should only use this page for islands that are outside of the regular area of a state, and do not clearly fall within a continent, I think. Listing islands like Phuket here is nonsensical, as we'd have to list hundreds of islands that are right off the coast of Thailand. Globe-trotter (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Zanzibar
I don't think we should include Zanzibar here. It's an island just off the coast of Tanzania and isn't an island far flung out into the Indian Ocean unlike the others mentioned here. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I think you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, should Socotra also go? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islands of the Indian Ocean


text:
Talk:Isla Palenque

Dguillaime, thank you for your help! I am not very familiar with the wiki and am battling vandalsim here and on Wikipedia. If you have any advice for me, please let me know. I'd like to know how to stop vandalism and/or get a user blocked and/or have an arbitration. I read that the first step is to warn the user - do I do that on this talk page? I welcome your advice. (WT-en) flimoncelli 18:40, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

The Factor-X Reply
Dear WikiTravel Staff, and dear FLimoncelli:

The information I am posting here comes from Panama's biggest and most respected news media. Right now there is an ongoing journalist investigation. I belive that anyone who seeks information about a subject has the right to know everything there is about such event, person or topic. To let the public know the entire picture of what is going on at Isla Palenque is not in the interests of the developers. That is the cause of the complaint by FLimoncelli.

On my behalf I am commited as well as the rest of the international journalist community to be as impartial as possible and to post the information citing trusted sources.

Thank you and God Bless America.

Isla Palenque
Would like a second opinion on this. I think the correct location is where the hotel is marked as this fits the description at the start of the article. Wikidata coordinates are a little off but current Wikivoyage geo, Wikipedia and Google Map puts this as an island way off shore. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 * From what I can tell there are three very different coordinate locations in question. The geo coordinates for the article are in the middle of the ocean, the Wikidata coords are around several islands close to shore, and the hotel coords are on a particular island east of the Wikidata coordinates.

 * It seems pretty clear to me that the Google maps coordinates, which seem to be the same ones as this article's coordinates, are incorrect. I've checked maps and satellite, and there's pretty clearly no island near this point. But if I go to the hotel's coordinates on Google maps, the label "Isla Palenque" shows up. The Wikidata coordinates are basically in the middle of a swamp, so I'm pretty sure the approximate coordinates for Isla Palenque are: 8.1814, -82.255. Selfie City (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, had come to the same conclusion but as contradicting a number of sources need confirmation. I have updated the page on this site and removed the error on Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isla Palenque


text:
Talk:Isla Tiburon

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

Can you stay there?
Is accommodation available on the island?--(WT-en) Wandering 14:35, 16 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Isla Tiburon