text:
Talk:Lagos City

Err... do we really need a disambig for this? Lagos (Nigeria) is the capital of Africa's largest country and the most populous city on the continent with over 10,000,000 people, Lagos (Portugal) I didn't know existed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:36, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * Well it exists now, and I suspect that Lagos (Nigeria) was actually named after Lagos (Portugal). Unfortunately, the criteria for disambiguating famous places is rather vague. Besides the precedence for disambiguating famous places has already been set with New York (city). -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:22, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * There's an explicit exception in the Project:Article naming conventions for cases like this, with Paris vs Paris (Texas) cited as the example. And New York city is disambigged because there's also New York (state), not because of New York (Lincolnshire). (And for what it's worth I think NY city should also be moved to New York City, but that's another kettle of fish...) (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:29, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

I'd like to raise this up again -- I don't think Lagos, Nigeria (pop. 15 million and capital of Africa's largest country) is simply on the same scale as Lagos, Portugal (pop 15,000). Note that on Wikipedia Lagos also goes straight to the one in Nigeria. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:55, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * I think that Lagos does pass the much-more-famous criterion. --(WT-en) Evan 09:54, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

regardless of whether you think it's the biggest, when another place has the same name, it is important to show clarity, therefore I believe the (Nigeria) extension is valid and important.

I was tempted to change the wording for Etisalat mobile network, as it sounds like an advert rather than description; any thoughts? --41.219.147.234 16:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

 * The disambiguatory message at the top seems pretty clear to me, and adding (Nigeria) to the name would just make editing more tedious (since you'd have to type Lagos for every link). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Can someone clarify this?
When it says: "₦100 for Nigerians, ₦200 foreigners"

Does it mean that a foreigner has to pay more (I know that's a yes). And what's the verification process to see if one's a local or a foreigner? Can someone clarify? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hahahaha! I live in Lagos state and I can tell that I’ve never heard this before B.Korlah (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing something like this in Malaysia and Northern Australia too, but I can't remember what was the verification process. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

City districts?
Given the new articles being created for parts of the city, I'm wondering if we should create city districts for Lagos, making it a huge city article. We currently have Lagos/Victoria Island, Lagos/Lagos Island, Lagos/Lekki, and Lagos/Ajah as districts. I propose creating a district article for mainland Lagos and a couple more articles for the island districts to make this a huge city article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree. The islands should also have a section of its own too, somewhat like the Bass Strait Islands mentioned in Tasmania. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don’t think the mainland needs more than one article (ignore this comment; see comment below) as although it contains much of the city’s population, most of the POIs seem to be on the islands. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have one question. Are places like Festac Town and Ikeja considered part of Lagos City? What are the city limits of Lagos and how many of the cities listed at Lagos State are considered part of the city, if any? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

LAGOS State is a very big state in Nigeria, so Festac Town and Ikeja are part of LAGOS state. There are city districts and LGA (Local Govt Areas) in LAGOS state, and because of how big they have, there deserve a distinct article, I guess.

All cities listed on that link are considered to be part of LAGOS state B.Korlah (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the information. I understand they are all part of the state, but I'm wondering which are part of the city. On Wikivoyage, we typically use "district" for neighborhoods of cities. Suburbs are classified as cities. So for example, I've classified Lekki as a district of the city of Lagos, because if you were a traveler to Lagos, I assume you'd consider Lekki, Ajah and Victoria Island all part of the city. Let me know if this is incorrect.
 * However, Ikeja seems to be a city in its own right, but it's hard to know as I've never been to Nigeria; I'm judging by Wikipedia and maps. If you were visiting Lagos as a tourist, would you think of Ikeja as part of Lagos or as a separate city? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Ikeja is part of Lagos state, infact it is the capital city of LAGOS, so LAGOS is a state, Ikeja is a city in LAGOS state, likewise Lekki and others. B.Korlah (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Ohhh, I think I understand you well now, there are two distinct article for LAGOS on Wikivoyage Lagos and Lagos State, well for me I see no reason why those are two distinct articles cause Lagos is a state oh well and maybe a City, but LAGOS is Lagos and all those other areas are cities under Lagos. If you are going to have a distinct article for LAGOS, it should be Lagos Island, which is a distinct place in Lagos B.Korlah (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Okay. I think in that case we should make places like Ikeja districts of Lagos. How about Badagry and Epe (Nigeria)? Those appear to be in Lagos State but is not in the city itself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s correct. For better clarity, this is it. Lagos is both state and city.

There is Lagos State as well as Lagos City, I think it’s Lagos City that has the article name Lagos on Wikivoyage, hence my confusion.

Anyway, Lagos state is made up of many cities including Lagos, Ikorodu, Epe, and Badagry.

Lagos city, on the other hand, is made up of Lagos Island and mainland. Lagos island is made up of Isale Eko, victoria Island, Lekki and Ibeju. Lagos Mainland consists of Oyingbo, Yaba, Surulere, Apapa, Ijora ,Festac Town, Ojo, Iba,Isolo, Egbe, Ikotun, Oshodi, Agege, Ikeja, Ketu, Somolu, Ogudu, Magodo, Egbeda, Akowonjo, Alimosho, Mushin.

I hope it is clearer now @User:Selfie City B.Korlah (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Selfie City B.Korlah (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Forgive my error, was trying to ping you. B.Korlah (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Okay. This is how I understood from your previous comment, so I just did a lot of what you've suggested. Reading your comment I'm glad to know I'm on the right track. So as I see it, we can 1) rename Lagos to Lagos City and 2) decide which communities on the Mainland should have articles. The list of communities in the city is too long for all of them to have articles. Maybe there are some we can combine to reduce this number? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes yea, you are correct.
 * Some communities are not relatively big and do not have a lot of places in them, so they may not really need a stand-alone article.B.Korlah (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * There are in Lagos State but not in the City, that’s correct. B.Korlah (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've moved the article to Lagos City. Sorry for asking so many questions, but I want to make sure the districts make sense from a local perspective. Is Ajah part of Lekki? Should it be merged with Lagos City/Lekki? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ajah, Lekki and Victoria Island are all under the same Local Govt area in LAGOS called the Eti-Osa.

Ajah, Lekki and this areas are relatively close to eachother other and they fall under same Local Govt.

Although one could view Ajah and Lekki as two different areas but there are very close to each other.

So I don’t know if you would want to merge it B.Korlah (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * My bad, Lekki is under Ibeju-Lekki, so I think you shouldn’t merge cause Lekki is a big place with even different phases like Lekki phase 1 and others.

 * I think the two can both have distinct article since they are two different places with so many tourist attractions. B.Korlah (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I’m good with that. The districts seem to be taking shape. Thanks for your help! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Anytime. B.Korlah (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't this be Lagos. No other website calls it Lagos City and while it may be confused for the state this is probably what people are looking for Lagos. Another example of this is that most Japanese prefectures share a name with their capital but Tokyo is just Tokyo while its surrounding region is Tokyo (prefecture). Lagos (city) may also work. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think it's a similar situation to New York where it can mean either the city or the state. Luxembourg is another similar situation, although in international conversation, it almost always means the country. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand but New york city seems to be commonly used while Lagos city is not. Perhaps Lagos (city) is better, also look at my tokyo example above where it can mean either the city or prefecture. Tai123.123 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I did this because our Nigerian contributors were confused between Lagos State and Lagos City and identified this as the city. If they were then presumably most Nigerians would be confused by the lack of disambiguation of Lagos as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Lagos (city) be better then? Tai123.123 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lagos (city) is less natural and more difficult to type. I don't think it has any advantage over Lagos City. It seems to be work for the sake of technical precision, not for the purpose of building a user-friendly travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to forget the large number of pages that will have the redirect as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok reading the above discussion makes me understand why this name was chosen. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up the districts + template for approval
Right now, the districts are a mess. However, here's my proposal on cleaning up the districts. I don't know Lagos City well, and I've never been to Nigeria so this proposal is purely based on using municipal boundaries. It's substituted from User:SHB2000/Lagos map, but feel free to copyedit the descriptions as these have just been copied from the Lagos City article.

In a nutshell, these are the following major changes:
 * The "mainland" will ONLY cover the LGA, not the entirety of the mainland
 * A new district will have to be created; Lagos City/Ajeromi-Ifelodun
 * Lagos City/Victoria Island will remain, but all other articles breadcrumbed under Lagos City/Mainland will either be recategorixed under Lagos State, or be merged into one of the new districts

That should cap the number of districts to eight, significantly reducing the number of outline articles with little to no useful travel information, and though I'm 4.5 months late, as promised, the districts and the Lagos City/State mess should be cleaned up.

Now with that cleanup, I have one request to ask from the community: and that is a template for approval. Right now, due to an OpenStreetMap database problem, I can't seem to get the mapshape for Lagos Island, but I manually traced it out and the code is now stored in Template:Lagos Island mapshape. Without this template, the mapmask won't show, making the map useless as not having one at all.

What does the community think? Pinging participants of this discussion:. If this proposal gets community support and if there is consensus to use the template, I'll start this in two to three weeks time. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I’m supportive of any attempt to organize the regions. I ran into problems understanding the city boundaries and trying to categorize the various neighborhoods that currently contain articles, not to mention the writing of new articles that was actively taking place at the time. If you are confident you can overcome these issues, I’m in full support of the proposal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support reorganizing, but think it is worth asking for some input from a couple of the Nigeria project editors who might be more active on Wikipedia, just to make sure that the new organization makes sense from the Nigerian perspective. Ground Zero (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Implementing now. Sorry that I edited and overwrote the proposal here when editing. 2.55.172.6 19:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lagos City


text:
Talk:La Gran Sabana

Moved here for mining ...

La Gran Sabana, Bolivar State, South-east Venezuela.

 * This is written based on my experiences of touring most of Venezuela in 1997 with a school expedition, so things aren't as up to date as might have been. Kyle Sterry**

A world apart from anywhere else in Venezuela, can be easily entered from Cuidad Bolivar (Bolivar State) by road and air (flights from Cuidad Bolivar are available, and also flights to/from Caracas too). The airport in Cuidad Bolivar hosts a statue to Jimmy Angel, a US pilot who crashed near Angel Falls in 1938 (or so) and apparently discovered the waterfall. Boat trips to Gran Sabana (and see Salto Angel) can be made too.

It is recommended you get supplies in Cuidad Bolivar, as some things may be difficult to get in La Gran Sabana.

El Dorado is a town on a main road into Gran Sabana and Brazil, but it is a failed gold mining town (as at 1997) and quite "dirty". Personally, I quite liked it as it's not a kind of town I came across before but not somewhere where I'd stop overnight.

This vast, sparsely populated region is mostly high grassy plains with flat topped mountains straight "out" of the plains into the heavens, known locally as tepuis, and romantically by some as "islands in the sky". They partially surrounded by forests. There are countless of specatacular waterfalls everywhere in this region, including the world famous Angel Falls.

Some of the area (if not all) is protected (National Park?) and you need a Penom? Indian guide if you want to go off the track. You certainly need one if you want to explore Mount Roraima which is becoming increasingly popular.

Mount Roraima is perhaps the most famous of the tepuis, having been featured in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World book, in which he theorised that dinosaurs must still roam the top, isolated from the rest of the world. Whilst of course there are no dinosaurs, due to the geological evolution of the landscape, these sandstone mountains do contain unique species you cannot find anywhere else in the world.

Mount Roraima stands at 2,810metres, and takes about 4hours to actually ascend from the base of its cliffs. The top is very rocky, with a few places to camp, and the "tri point" can be reached on Mount Roraima - where Guyana, Brazil and Venezuela meets.

To get there, stop near Km88, at San Francisco de Yurani, on the road from Cuidad Bolivar to Brazil (takes about 11hrs on a cheap, bumpy overnight bus from Cuidad Bolivar). Accommodation/restaurant is available in San Francisco and is by a river. Guides can be found at this Indian village, which can organise to take you to a remote hamlet (which is a *very* rough ride in a 4x4) over some distances. From this hamlet, it takes about 2-3 days to reach and ascent Mt Roraima. In June-July, it can get very wet with some hot dry days. The top of Mt Roraima can be quite cold on some nights with rock features providing you shelter as it isn't exactly a forest - more like a moonscape occasional strange plants.

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

title: Talk:La Gran Sabana


text:
Talk:Lahore

Restaurants
This misplaced list of restaurants in Lahore awaits a rescuer. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:31, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park
The following content is from Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park, which is not a proper article. Please merge this content into the Lahore page: AHeneen (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Buy: There is nothing inside the park to buy, though Moon Market, one of the premier places of Lahore is less than 100 metres away and one can find things ranging from jewellery market, banks, clothes market (mostly for women and children) to restaurants.For men's (of all the ages) casual and formal wear, there is Kareem Block Market around 2 kms away, which is arguably hub of the men's wear.
 * Eat: There are around five, six cafeterias having very limited items like "Gol Gappay", some snacks, pop corn and cone ice-cream. They charge much higher as compared to original prices and it is a bad idea to buy anything from them. A good practice is to buy things from Moon Market (less than 100 metres away from the park) and take them alongside you.
 * Drink: Like the eatables discussed earlier, only drinks available are cold-drinks and juices - at times non-chilled in hot summer and charged higher than usual price. There are 4 water electric coolers erected: Two on both gates and one near football/gymnasium ground (opposite to slides and "jhooleys" place) and one opposite to the deer park (towards lake side). Availability of chilled water is subjected to timings - at evening or sundays, there are lot of visitors and these facilities fail to serve the requirements.
 * ✅ --Saqib (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Banner
I've changed the banner back to the previous version simply because the crop on the current image seems a little awkward and we could do with making the banner image different from the leading image. If you disagree please feel free to revert or suggest alternatives below! --Nick talk 23:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you liked the current one? --Saqib (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lahore


text:
Talk:Lahti

I took away restaurant Onnela from places to eat, because they don't sell anything to eat.

 * Then please put it in "Drink". (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Alternative page banner
The existing page banner is quite ugly. What do you think about the alternative? --Alexander (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Banner 1  SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The ski jumps are something Lahti is known for (or rather: the ski jumpers and the winter sports competitions). The other banner is nice, but I don't see anything telling it's Lahti. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, then Banner 2 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? So because #1 is special for Lahti you want #2? I understand if you think it is nicer, but then state that. –LPfi (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the significance of Lahti, nor even read the page. But after you told me that the ski jumps are known for in Lahti, then I changed my mind, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The jump towers are in #1. –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Lahti
Three of four entries show festival dates in 2018. The 4th shows last edit 2016. Pashley (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I think updating these is not terribly important as things stand. The old dates are more likely to be representative next year than anything set in these times of postponements. Anybody thinking about going to a festival should check the latest news – whether the dates are two years or two months old may make little difference. –LPfi (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Tirra and Torvi
I recently added a listing for Tirra, one of the most famous pubs in central Lahti. According to the map, the coordinates coincide almost exactly with Torvi. I don't live in Lahti myself and visit there less than once per year, but I'm pretty sure Tirra and Torvi share the same premises or are at least located right next door to each other, but are distinct restaurants. Should the listings be merged or something? JIP (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Maps shows them being in the same building, and has a picture showing their entrances being beside each other. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If they are independent from each other, I think there is no problem with having normal separate listings – other than the markers overlapping. I don't think we care too much about the latter problem (although I think we perhaps should). For big cities with lots of places, the two need to be very special to be listed, and might be listed only as a street with restaurants, but that's probably not an issue here. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lahti


text:
Talk:Lake Atitlán

Lake Atitlán as Region article
I think we should turn the Lake Atitlán article into a "region" in the geographical hierarchy. This means that this article follows the region article template, that all the towns around the lake are listed under Cities in this article, and that every one of those city articles has an IsIn tempate pointing to this article. I propose that every hotel, restaurant, etc that is outside any of the towns in the region be put here. For hotels etc that are in towns which have no article yet, I suggest that we create the article, even if it's a stub. I'm starting some editing to implement this. If anyone has suggestions or comments, please add them in here. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 19:07, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Part of the reason for making the Lake Atitlán article a proper regional article is to answer objections on Talk:Panajachel against listing regional hotels and attractions, which aren't in Panajachel proper, in the Panajachel article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 19:07, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Every article for a city or town in the Lake Atitlán region should have the following text at the bottom of the article. This is an IsIn template reference. It marks the article as being in the Lake Atitlán region, and sets up the breadcrumb navigation at the top of the article to include Lake Atitlán. The text is: isin: Lake_Atitl%C3%A1n (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 19:07, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Update much needed
Re:

On the road around the Lago de Atitlán, especially between the villages of San Juan and San Marcos, some daytime violent crime has been reported (Nov 2004)

- info is almost from 20 years ago!

Zezen (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It's probably best to simply delete such old information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Atitlán


text:
Talk:Lake Baikal

Would it be wise to make an exception to the rule to write a guide about this lake? A few of the things that I've been thinking about that have led me to consider this are the following:
 * The lake is a defacto region for many of the cities and villages that dot the lake's banks.
 * The lake is the largest (by volume) and deepest lake in the world.
 * Lake Baikal, is in itself a huge attraction and major stop on the Trans-Siberian Railway. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 15:01, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Having been there, I agree that it deserves its own page. While most visitors (foreign, at least) are going to pass through Irkutsk to get to Baikal, it is a completely distinct and separate destination. And there's a good page on de: about it. Wondering, though, if Listvyanka (which acts as a service town) deserves its own page - or if it should be a redirect to the Baikal page? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:20, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * See also Talk:Lake Titicaca - apparently that article has survived similar scrutiny unscathed. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * Because it is being used as a region article, why don't we move this to Lake Baikal Region or something of the sort? It would clear things up as an exception to our "no bodies of water" rule, and might help us avoid the slippery slope, since with the exception of its being the largest and deepest lake in the world, plenty of other lakes in the world fit the above criteria as well. (WT-en) Texugo 00:27, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I think it's being used as a destination article, not a region article. Eastern Siberia is the region. My notes, pamphlets, receipts, and other bits from my trip there are still in storage, so I haven't really gone to work on it since the discussion above, but I think it's possible to stock this article with content that's exclusively about the lake/park. It's not so much a body of water as a park - you can, in fact, sleep there. (Although most people sleep nearby instead.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:11, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Lake Baikal doesn't fit into our geographical hierarchy very well. I don't agree that the article is in a region format (especially since there is no subregions or cities sections), and it wouldn't work very well as a region article since it would overlap with Irkutsk Oblast and Buryatia. And because the lake is so remote, it way outshines the coastal towns in terms of importance—visitors to the lake's "towns" probably won't even learn the town names.

 * As it stands, though, this article doesn't use any specific article template, which is un-Wikivoyage-like. The best type of template would be a National Park template, except that it would then overlap several national parks/zapovedniki. Ultimately, I think it probably is best to consider Baikal an exception to the rule, in a manner similar to some of the exceptions listed under China's other destinations. I think Gorilla's idea about merging and redirecting Listvyanka (as well as Severobaikalsk and Olkhon) makes a lot of sense, even despite the enormous distances between these settlements. I'll add that to my to do list.

 * My recollection is that the National Park template was used to create this article...am I wrong? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:48, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Ah yeah, you're right. But lets not call it that ;) Fees/permits should ideally be broken down by individual national park/zapovednik and it should be made clear that if you are not in one of them, there are no fees/permits at all. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Any opinions as to whether Lake Titicaca really deserves the same treatment? Please see my comments on its discussion page. (WT-en) Texugo 02:11, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lake Baikal


text:
Talk:Lake Biwa

I removed the link to the Photos at Wikipedia Commons. It doesn't conform to our rules for external links. --(WT-en) Evan 19:45, 26 Nov 2004 (EST)

Wanihama Seinen Kaikan
"one night costs just ¥2800 for HI members"

What's a HI member? --70.142.37.4 04:46, 27 February 2010 (EST)

 * Hostelling International. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:50, 27 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Biwa


text:
Talk:Lake Bolsena

VfD discussion
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Redirect after merging any relevant info with Bolsena or Montefiascone. (WT-en) Texugo 23:53, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Retain as is. Wikivoyage:Bodies of water states that Lake Tahoe region is an acceptable article. Apart from size and importance I don't see any difference in approach here.(WT-en) Shep 02:08, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Lake Tahoe's article is allowed not because it is an article about a lake but because it is set up as a valid region article, fitting nicely into the hierarchy without overlap, etc., and listed in the parent article as a region. This is not the case here, nor with the two below. (WT-en) Texugo 04:22, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Retain all and improve Trasimeno. Neither Bracciano nor Bolsena are articles about lakes but about the areas around them. I don't see any overlap. I think what is relevant is how the area is perceived. In Reno they might say " let's go to Lake Tahoe". In Rome, people say "Let's go to Lahe Bracciano". For me the important thing is that, as individual cities, the towns around the two lakes don't really rate individual articles but as groups they come together nicely. (WT-en) Shep 06:43, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Store. (WT-en) Mistertalk 08:18, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:50, 7 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Bolsena


text:
Talk:Lake Bracciano

VfD discussion
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep for all three lakes discussed above. I have just done a quick check. Lake Louise, Loch Lomond and Lake Garda are all on Wikivoyage. I think they, and surely many others, establish a precedent.(WT-en) Shep 08:49, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep all three. None of these articles violate what WT:Bodies of water was designed to combat—they are not encyclopedia articles about lakes themselves, rather they are destination articles, with plenty of overnight options. Bracciano and Bolsena each group the villages ringing a lake into one valid "city" article, akin to how we use a city template for small, inhabited islands. There are thousands of such lake-resort/lakeside community destinations around the world, many of them much smaller than Tahoe, and the majority of them deserving a travel article (like Lake Placid). Trasimeno seems clearly a valid region article, and I'm not sure that it conflicts with the existing hierarchy in any way. And even if it did overlap other regions at the same level of the hierarchy, that is allowed, and is very often a sensible way of organizing travel content. The Chesapeake Bay and Navajo Nation articles clearly overlap all sorts of regions, but it would not be sensible to omit such well-known and coherent travel destinations from Wikivoyage out of a desire to keep the geographical hierarchy more simple—a certain amount of complexity is necessary and IMO not a problem. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep - but review the region.

I disagree with much of the reasoning above for keeping the three lake articles.
 * 1) If the the reason for the bodies of water guideline is that we don't want encyclopaedic articles about bodies of water, it would be extremely simple to just put that in the guideline. There are many people who contributed to the guideline, and trying to assess their reasoning rather than following the text is the wrong way to proceed.  The text of the guideline is quite clear, and we should follow the guideline, or fix the guideline.
 * 2) I also don't agree that because there are other examples of a type of article, that we have established a precedent. There are lots of things that slip through the cracks for want of attention, and other articles which we just keep even though they are against policy (some just because they are good articles and useful to a traveller).  I don't think that means that a precedent is stronger than a policy or guideline.   We shouldn't let Wikivoyage documentation descend into unwritten policies, precedents, and conventions. If we think an article is good enough to establish a precedent, we should change the policy or guideline. To do anything else means that new users who want to follow the guidelines, don't have a clue where to look, and discussions here and elsewhere become excessively complex pointing to other examples, rather than building better guidelines.
 * 3) I don't think the fact that we allow regions that don't fit into the regional hierarchy, means that we should assume we keep regions that don't. Sure, we allow regions that don't fit into the hierarchy, but there should be a strong presumption against them rising to any more than just disamb articles. We should make new regions that don't form part of the hierarchy redirect/disamb articles, unless there really is additional information significant to the traveller that can't be sensibly placed anywhere other than the region.  I see bare and poorly developed regions are a significant problem on WT, and we shouldn't add to it by encouraging other full regional articles.  In this particular case, isn't clear whether the articles are going to end up as regional articles, containing towns, or city template based articles in themselves.

That said, this article seems to me to describe a land region named after the lake, rather than the lake itself, and Shep's arguments that it is a common name for the land region seem convincing to me. However, we should be careful that this article doesn't end up just a bare region. If this is a real grouping for a number of smaller towns, perhaps the towns themselves could be redirected to this region, if they all have something in common, and are close together? Or perhaps we could rethink the regional hierarchy in this area? If it is a clear region that the towns belong to, perhaps it should be part of the hierarchy? --(WT-en) inas 20:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Ian, your rebuttal is borderline incomprehensible to me. 1) If the text of the guideline is quite clear, then why were we having this discussion (where I made it clear that I disagree with your reading of the policy, for that matter). Anyway, I've updated the policy in a way that will hopefully make more sense. 2) The examples I cited are hardly articles that slipped through the cracks, they are examples that should make it obvious that we should have destination guides named after lakes, provided (as the policy has always said), they are about the land destination surrounding the lake, rather than the water itself. 3) I have no idea why there should be a strong presumption against region articles just because they are not a part of our hierarchy, which exists for navigational purposes. If a region is a valid travel region, we travelers a disservice to arbitrarily refuse to write travel content about it. Moreover, bare and poorly developed articles are far more likely for regions created out of navigational convenience (like Northern X) than something coherent like a specific resort lake. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the Italian lakes in question to be able to comment on the specifics, but I just wanted to chime in my support for Peter's interpretation of the policy. If a lake is a sensible destination/region -- and the pattern of having small communities dotted around a lake surrounded by mountains is quite common -- then there's no reason why the lake should not be a destination/region. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Agree much with Inas. For me the bodies of water policy reads that, if at all possible, we avoid having articles about them, instead preferring to redirect. Yes we know there are exceptions to the bodies of water guideline out there, but they all either have reasons to be exceptions, or they need to be re-examined. The ones already mentioned seem to have valid reasons:
 * Lake Placid is the name of the town, so is actually not an exception at all.
 * Loch Lomond is a hierarchically valid subregion article of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park
 * Lake Louise is very remote with no logical nearest town to direct to, yet is a popular destination with its own places to sleep.
 * Lake Garda is a very large lake which borders three provinces, has attractions around it, but no single community big enough to warrant an article, so no logical place to redirect or disambiguate. This is the treat-all-the-villages-as-one-city example that Peter was looking for.
 * Since even our geographical hierachy states that exceptions need to be made on a case by case basis let's look at the three at hand:
 * Lake Bolsena - Has two town articles (Montefiascone and Latera which is no further away but not mentioned in the current article). Has one town, Bolsena which could probably do with its own article, having a castle, a cathedral with an interesting story, a theater, and several dozen restaurants and places to sleep. Has one small village worth mentioning in the Get out section of nearby Montefiascone because it has a castle and provides access to a small island. I don't see any information that wouldn't fit nicely into another article, given a disambig page, so I don't see any reason to make this an exception from current body of water policy on the basis of anything other than possibly naming a subregion after this lake. On that point, the question as to whether this article should stand as a valid region article can be answered by asking "Can (and should) the province of Viterbo be subdivided into regions, and would this be a logical component of that subdivision without causing overlap?"
 * Lake Bracciano - Currently has no articles of cities around the lake, but Bracciano is a city of 15,500, well deserving of an article, and we can redirect there. We can put info about enjoying the lake in the new city article, with the much smaller Anguillara Sabazia and Trevignano Romano covered briefly in the Get out section. Again, I see no reason we can't follow the disambig and redirect guideline. If, as above, we decide that subdividing Viterbo is necessary, this could possibly make a logical region with no overlap, though I'm not sure it would contain anything at all besides the aforementioned city article.
 * Lake Trasimeno could very well be a valid region article at some point. However, right now Umbria is not subdivided into regions, so, as in cases where someone creates a lone district article for an otherwise undivided city, I think it needs to be nothing but a disambig page, at least until such time as someone justifies and proposes subdistricting. The current article contains nothing but links to cities anyway, and is essentially already the disambig page I would have it be, except that it has a region template.
 * To respond to Peter's position about overlap, I agree that a little overlap doesn't hurt sometimes, but our guidelines still encourage us to avoid it when possible. So far the few exceptions we have made have been on a very case-by-case basis, sometimes hotly contested, and only about very large and famous regions which cross multiple macro-regions or countries. Many of the exceptions we have made have resulted in what are basically glorified disambig pages with little extra information. I really think what you are proposing is a slippery slope. If we start making exceptions for any little ol' lake with a couple of villages on it, we undermine both the bodies of water policy and the geographical hierarchy guidelines, and we'll end up with hundreds of new lake articles that overlap, confuse breadcrumb navigation, contain little information that couldn't be included elsewhere, and invite further rule-stretching to include rivers, etc. I get the feeling that you essentially disagree with the bodies of water policy, which is your right and we can of course discuss in the appropriate place and possibly make some changes. But as Inas said, the current policy is pretty clear on avoiding such articles if at all possible. In the above cases, I think it is very easy to avoid. (WT-en) Texugo 00:29, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Lake Bolsena: I'm least sure of this one, but WP lists seven comuni on the shores of the lake, so it should be a fine region article. Lake Bracciano is small, as are the communities around it, which is why Shep recommended they be covered within one article. I haven't been there, so I'm happy to trust his judgment—and I certainly don't see a compelling reason not to (other than some arbitrary discrimination against articles with the word "lake" in the title?). Lake Trasimeno is a valid region article already, and is not suggested as a region in a subdivision of Umbria, nor should it be, as it would only be listed as an other destination on whatever parent region article. It's clearly a travel destination, and I'm baffled as to how this undermines the geographical hierarchy, confuses breadcrumb information, or otherwise creates any problems of overlap. It's a coherent travel destination, it can sustain a good travel article, and travelers heading there would be well served by an article for the lake region. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:27, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Wow! If I had known that writing for Wikivoyage was going to lead to so much debate I'd have read a good book instead. Anyway, I am happy to go along with the consensus, if there is one.(WT-en) Shep 13:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * This is a debate we had to have - because the relationship between wikivoyage and bodies of water has always been odd, and it is good to see the points of view come out. Please don't feel you have to wait on the sideline for a consensus, a new opinion I'm sure would be valued by all.  Hopefully we can get a better guideline as a result.  --(WT-en) inas 19:09, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I wrote the two lake articles thinking that it was a logical way to present the locations in the area. I'm trying to increase coverage of Lazio and as I noted above most places around the lakes do not really merit an article on their own. But I do think Wikivoyage should avoid articles such as the present one on Lake Trasimeno, which is not much help to anyone, with no information and listings of cities that have no articles!(WT-en) Shep 01:06, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
 * This discussion is currently on hold because it sparked a larger discussion here. Please chime in there. (WT-en) Texugo 01:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Result: Keep. No consensus for deletion.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Bracciano


text:
Talk:Lake Champlain

Lake Champlain is a body of water and, because we do not write about water, it should not be an article. As we also have Champlain Valley, which contains the lake, the contents of this article can be merged into that article instead. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:08, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

Merged this info to Champlain Valley. (WT-en) Xltel 18:48, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Champlain


text:
Talk:Lake Chatuge

I am going to take a plunge here and say this should be a region article, not one about the body of water known as Lake Chatuge. -- (WT-en) Huttite 20:40, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The Lake should be a POI in a city article about Hayesville, North Carolina. Suggest move and restructure of this article. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Chatuge


text:
Talk:Lake Como

Could anyone specify on the public transport system?

Water pollution and swim across the lake
As far i know, the water is no loger at risk. Public safety department performs annual check-ups and last year they gave the permission for bathing

So i think it's better to remove the news form the "stay safe".

Swimming across the lake is certainly dangerous, but locals usually do it in some occasions. They do it safely with support boats and teams, so if you want to do it just ask to the tourist office if you can join one of these events. —The preceding comment was added by Gerryino (talk • contribs)

 * Go ahead and remove it. Thanks for posting the reference here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Red-linked cities
These listings were deleted from the article but might be useful if anyone wants to create articles about them:

 * Bellano - just north of Varenna on the east side. Nice non-touristed town, with a pedestrian-only area in the town center. In the Italian tradition, most stores are closed from noon/1PM until about 3PM. Bellano was a silk production center but those factories are now closed. The orrido (gorge) is geologically impressive but most of the tremendous flow is now directed into a powerhouse.

 * Griante - small village on a plateau on the west side of the lake. Worth visiting for its surrounding villas and for the spectacular views of the lake from the Santuario Della Madonna delle Grazie di San Martino, a small church perched high on the mountain side.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Mandello del Lario - between Varenna and Lecco on the south eastern branch of the lake. Since 1921, Mandello del Lario has been home to Moto Guzzi—the Italian motorcycle manufacturer. At the factory there's a museum that can be visited from Mon to Fri at 3 pm.

Both Mandello del Lario and Bellano should be included in the list of cities.

Mandello del Lario is actually mentioned further down the page in the section on arriving by motorcycle. It is one of the more important industrial towns on the lake and attracts thousands of visitors annually because of the Moto Guzzi factory and museum. There is usually a Moto Guzzi rally on average every 2 years which may attract up to 5,000 motorcyclists.

Bellano is a an attractive and historical town that fronts on to the widest part of the lake and is probably of greater interest than some of the other small villages mentioned in the list.

--AlicediLago (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd be fine with them being added, but even better would be to create articles about them, so that they are blue links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A selection of page banners for Lake Como
Some alternative banners to choose from. --Renek78 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Como


text:
Talk:Lake Constance

''The following first person account was removed from the article. Perhaps someone can use it. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:15, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)''

CROSSING THE BODENSEE

'' Driving your car onto a big boat to cross a wide body of water is very civilized excitement. My wife and I have crossed the Bodensee (Lake Constance) four times between Konstanz on the south shore and Meersburg on the north. It's a delightful half-hour ride with cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians. The upper-deck lounge sells coffee, sandwiches, snacks, and cold drinks. What more could you want?''

'' The fare depends on the size of your vehicle. A compact car like a Ford Focus or an Opel Astra costs nine euros, about $11 (in September 2005). We've never had to wait -- there was a ferry loading every time we drove onto the slip.''

'' The Bodensee and its shores are very beautiful in a quiet, cultivated way. The views are serene, not spectacular. If you want dramatic scenery, drive a couple of hours to the Alps. If you want to spend a pleasant afternoon swimming and sunbathing, however, go to a beach in Uberlingen. Buy an ice-cream cone. Watch people change into their bathing suits right out in the open (this is Europe, not New Jersey). Doze on the grass. See how many sailboats you can count in one minute. I didn't realize how much I needed this vacation....''

VFD discussion
This article may or may not be in violation of our "bodies of water" policy, given that we have a region article named after the lake already, Bodensee region. Quite frankly I see no path forward that would make this article of any actual use to anybody and there is no real place to redirect it other than Central Europe which just strikes me as nonsensical Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's currently set up as an extraregion, and there are 53 links to it. I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't just leave it as-is? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Bodensee_Region only covers the German parts of the lake. I think an extraregion is appropriate to cover the Austrian and Swiss parts as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Policy is to use the commonest English name; arguably Bodensee Region should be redirected to this. Pashley (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * But the Bodensee Region is an actual Region article, so it shouldn't be redirected to an extraregion article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * No, but it might be handled like Ferghana Valley, as an extra-hierarchical region with three real regions in three countries under it.
 * I do not know the area and am not at all sure it is a good idea, but moving Bodensee Region to the English name "Lake Constance (Germany)" looks to at least be worth discussing. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I guess 'Lake Constance' would be known by English speakers better than Bodensee, although the 'extra region' only describes the towns around the lake whereas the 'Bodensee region' reaches far into the land of Baden-Wuerttemberg state up until the city of Ulm. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment : stop feeding trolls. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Restating my case: If I don't misunderstand our bodies of water policy (such as it is) it says something along the lines of "We don't have destination style articles on bodies of water" and then there are a couple of "however"s, one of them allowing "regions named after bodies of water" (which would mean the Bodensee Region article). However, I don't see anything allowing an article such as this one when there already is another one that covers a region named after the body of water. If we want to change our bodies of water policy to a simpler: We allow articles on bodies of water if they are large enough and/or of sufficient touristic interest, I am fine with that, but unless I am misunderstanding the current policy, this is at least an article that stretches some interpretations of it. And I was told in earlier vfds, that I should cite a policy an article violates as grounds for deletion (as opposed to its size, its bare outline state or other things) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to give my own take on 'bodies of water' policy since I don't have one. :) I admire that you are tackling it, I just don't have the bandwidth to analyse and engage at this point.
 * I have sympathy with the view that Lake Constance is not a destination in itself (unless you want to zip around all the countries in a motor boat) and the article is possibly a candidate for a disambiguation page to the respective regions bordering it. Practically I would suggest just cleaning it up and making it shorter. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Constance


text:
Talk:Lake District

While I think Lake District is a well known name around the world, Lake District National Park is a better one. I would prefer to see this article become a disambiguation page or redirection page that describes all the Lake Districts around the world and points to the correctly titled articles for each of them. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:35, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake District


text:
Talk:Lake District National Park

Lake District
Should this be called the Lake District or Cumbria? Are they one and the same or are they different, with one being bigger or smaller than the other? We currently have two parallel articles that look like they are covering the same place, but I do not know enough about England to make a sensible decision.

While I think Lake District is a well known name around the world, and Cumbria is not, if these two articles are about the same area then I would prefer to see this article become like a disambiguation page or redirection page that describes all the Lake Districts around the world and points to the correctly titled articles for each of them. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:11, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * After more information was added, I moved this article to Lake District National Park as that better described the way the article was going. Clarifies (and partly answers) my question above. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:30, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Historical note: This article was called Lake District and looked very much like Cumbria at that time (4 Jan 2005 ). They have now evolved ... differently ... and the above comments are resolved. -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:39, 13 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * People usually talk about going to the "Lake District" rather than the "Lake District National Park", so I think the article name should be changed back. See also my comment on Wikivoyage_talk:Article_naming_conventions. -- (WT-en) DanielC 12:54, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

Lakes?
Sorry to be a pedant here, but does the Lake District really have 16 lakes?

If you notice, only one is acutally called Lake... All the others are technically Meres, Tarns, etc. WIndermere is often incorrectly refered to as Lake Windermere.

In fact, I quote from http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/index/understanding/facts_and_figures.htm that "There is only one official lake - Bassenthwaite Lake. All the others are 'meres' or 'waters'"

Is anyone going to shout at me if I change this? :)

title: Talk:Lake District National Park


text:
Talk:Lake Geneva

What's the meaning of "Lausanne - like San Francisco, but more Swiss."??? (WT-en) Rmx 01:11, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Hills in town, public transport as an attraction, laid-back cool people, great restaurants, happening arts scene, trolley busses (though the ones in Lausanne don't de-rail the way the ones in SF do), those are just the first things off the top of my head. Of course there are lots of differences too.  If you can think of a better description then go for it. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:12, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I forgot a couple: Beautiful natural environment, strong tech sector, vineyards nearby. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:50, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Geneva


text:
Talk:Lakeland

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

Comments
The Eat section is so big its not helpful. This website should not have exhaustive lists of every restaurant in a city, thats for the phone book. This website should have more of an insider knowledge feel, listing unique dining opportunities, not fast food chains you can find in any US city. (WT-en) Jtesla16 22:16, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2017 SNF Aerial.jpg

title: Talk:Lakeland


text:
Talk:Lake Maggiore

Hi, Thanks for starting this article, but you'll want to take a look at Project:What's an article? and Project:Article naming conventions. There are two problems with this article: So, there are two things we can do: Hope this helps! (WT-en) Majnoona 12:24, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * We don't do bodies of water (i.e. lakes), only destinations like cities, etc. It makes sense if you think about how you don't really eat sleep or shop in a lake ;-)
 * The article name should reflect the most common English name for the location, so it would just be "Lake Maggiore" Other versions of the name (i.e. Italian, French, and German) should be included in the article so people can search for it.
 * Delete this article
 * Move it to Lake Maggiore Region or Lake District (Italy). I suggest the second one (the Italy part is to distinguish it from the Lake District in England, see the article naming conventions for more about this).

 * I disagree. I think that Lake Maggiore would make a good geographical district. Just as there is an article on the English Lake District and many on National Parks, so there could be one for this lake. It's a chance to point out the main points of interest, the main towns etc. If I was going to this area, I would certainly be looking for Wikivoyage to provide a brief overview of the area.

 * I am not sure that there is a need to rename it as the Lake Maggiore Region - for a lake this big, isn't there an implicit assumption that we're talking about a region, rather than just the lake itself.

 * I think that there is potential for an article on the Italian Lakes, but as they are very spread out, it would probably be better to have ones on Lake Como and Lake Garda separately. Anyone think differently? (WT-en) DanielC 19:42, 10 Apr 2005 (BST)

 * I totally agree that it's a valid region.. So we can have both-- how about Lake District (Italy) with general info about the region-- ie how some of it is in Switzerland the nice weather etc... and then one article for each of the specific Lake regions? Of course, those would have links to the cities in those regions. How's that sound? In any case the (Lago Maggiore) part should be removed. (WT-en) Majnoona 14:26, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * I just did a check of the other Lake place we have and you're right, we don't seem to include the word "Region" so never mind about that! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:28, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * Thanks. Haven't been there since I was tiny, so I'll just add the towns. I'll do more on Lake Como though. (WT-en) DanielC 21:18, 11 Apr 2005 (BST)

Lake Maggiore
Bodies of water don't get their own articles per policy.
 * Delete - (WT-en) Texugo 03:53, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it may be time to revisit that policy. We have articles on Great Lakes and Lake Titicaca, for example.  Lakes and rivers that are likely to be the target of user searches should have articles, even if just to direct the user to other articles.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Delete - sometimes lakes refer to a region around the lake, like the Great Lakes. That would seem to me to make them valid articles, because they don't just refer to the body of water, but the surrounding area.  This doesn't appear to me to be the case for this article.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Merge and Redirect - I have to agree with (WT-en) LtPowers in that Lake Maggiore is a likely search target for users. I don't know an awful lot about either of them but my perception would be that Lake Maggiore is of a similar status to Lake Garda, which does have an article. Before being drawn to the articles by this vfd I had never heard of any of the towns listed as being on the shores of them, however I was aware of both lakes as popular destinations for tourists and travellers.
 * On the other hand I do feel that the policy of bodies of water not being a valid topic is a sound one in most cases. I wouldn't like to see a sudden slew of articles about random rivers, lakes, bays, gulfs etc which would make a mess of the existing geographical hierarchy we have here and which would take up efforts which would be better directed on the relevant regions and cities.
 * I suggest that this article should be merged into Italian Lake District, with a redirect put in place. Likewise for Lake Garda and Lake Como. Individual listings should be moved into the relevant City/Town articles as and when they get written. (WT-en) Tarr3n 10:09, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Merge and Redirect into Italian Lake District. (WT-en) Pashley 19:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)

OK now, the result of this VfD was to at least Merge and Redirect, if not Delete. So what is this article still doing here? Is there any reason why this wasn't a consensus? PrinceGloria (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what happened here. Shall the article be merged and redirected?
 * If not, though, I think the name is weird, because it's half-translated, and I don't think we'd want to use "Major Lake" or "Big Lake," so why don't we use "Lago Maggiore"? Is "Lake Maggiore" really most commonly used in English-language publications (printed and online)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Text moved from Piedmont
Just in case anyone finds any of this compelling and wants to add it to this article:

Its shores cover a total length of 150 kilometers (93 miles) from Canton Ticino in Switzerland to Sesto Calende (Va), reaching with its waters two regions: Piedmont and Lombardy, and three provinces: Novara, Varese, Verbano Cusio Ossola. Wedged between the pre-alps, Lake Maggiore, of clear glacial origin, is framed in its lower section by the soft hills of the "Novarese" region, and in the upper section, by high mountain peaks, some of which with perennial snow. These features make it possible that in the coastal areas the climate is temperate, milder in winter than in the inner areas and cooled down in summer by the breezes that blow on the water's surface changing its color. Thanks to its mild climate it was possible for many species of flowers and plants typical to the sub-tropical climate to adapt to the coastal areas. The populations that inhabited Lake Maggiore in ancient times were quite varied, from the Celts to the local "barbarian" tribes and then the Romans; it was subsequently governed by the lordships of the Visconti, Sforza and Borromeo. Commerce was the main activity, initially only by the lake and later by land due to the construction of the first section of the public road of the Sempione at the beginning of the 19th century. By the beginning of the 1900s with the launch of the Sempione railway, commerce flourished along with tourism and hotels, these activities have protracted up to date.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Maggiore


text:
Talk:Lake Nyasa

Comments
I'm thinking this info should just go into individual locations around the lake, do we really need a Lake Nyasa article when the majority of the whole country of Malawi is taken up by the lake? Anyone wishing to visit the lake should and I think would likely just refer to the Malawi article... (WT-en) Cacahuate 06:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Nyasa


text:
Talk:Lake of the Ozarks

Body of Water
This looks like one of those slippery slopes. This is a body of water and we don't do bodies of water. The annon user 69.153.168.34 has been making some very good contributions, but I think this information should be rolled back to the Region Central (Missouri). Comments? - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:17, 28 April 2006 (EDT)

 * We might also think of making this a sub-region to Central (Missouri). I have to admit this is a area that is very popular with tourists and could cover many things to See and Do. This is also typical for lake areas in the United States. - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:24, 28 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lake of the Ozarks


text:
Talk:Lakes and Mountains

Regions / Counties
Currently:

 * Androscoggin County
 * Cumberland County (Maine) (northern portion only; excludes Greater Portland)
 * Franklin County - which redirects to Lakes and Mountains
 * Oxford County - which redirects to Lakes and Mountains
 * Rangeley Lakes - which is in Franklin County
 * Pennacook Valley - AKA River Valley - all 10 towns currently listed are in Oxford County

Any reason why that couldn't/shouldn't be simplified to:

 * Androscoggin County
 * Cumberland County (Maine) (northern portion only; excludes Greater Portland)
 * Franklin County - including the Rangeley Lakes region
 * Oxford County - including the River Valley region

~ 58.8.14.22 06:06, 28 January 2008 (EST)

That sounds like a good idea. It should also clean up the map. If there are no objections, I will implement this in two weeks. Ground Zero (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Support. There's no good reason to separate those "regions" from their containing counties. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

These changes have been implemented. It would be help if someone familiar with the area could decide which 7±2 cities should remain in this articles, and which should be shifted to the county articles. Ground Zero (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 * There are technically ten cities, but two of them are twin cities, so I don't see a need to remove any cities from the list. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lakes and Mountains


text:
Talk:Lake Tahoe

So, we have a bit of a problem with Lake Tahoe and the geographical hierarchy. The shores of Lake Tahoe are a really cohesive travel destination, but the region straddles the border between two American states -- California and Nevada. We normally don't have regions with two or more "parent" regions -- the chances of overlap are too high. When there's overlap, there's no "definitive" guide to a place... and contributors and readers get confused.

So, there's two things we can do here: one is to divide Lake Tahoe into its California and Nevada sides, like Lake Tahoe (California) and Lake Tahoe (Nevada). Then we could have a hierarchical structure like this:

 * United States
 * California (state)
 * Southern California
 * Sacramento Valley
 * Lake Tahoe (California)
 * Nevada (state)
 * Eastern Nevada
 * Greater Las Vegas
 * Lake Tahoe (Nevada)
 * Lake Tahoe is thought of by it's residents as North, or South Tahoe. The West Shore is another region of note, with access to wilderness areas such as "Desolation Wilderness", or "The Rubicon Trail", an off road vehicle route. During winter months snowfall may cause road closures at Emerald Bay, isolating the West Shore from the South Shore communities for weeks at a time. North Lake Tahoe is often now called "No. Tahoe/Truckee" as the town of Truckee is the gateway for vehicle traffic entering North Tahoe from California. Two roadways from California provide access to Lake Tahoe, U.S. 50 to South Tahoe, and interstate 80 via Truckee to North Tahoe. From Nevada, rte. 207 meets 50 near the border in the town "Stateline", NV. U.S. 50 from California is the main drag through the town of South Lake Tahoe, and continues to Carson City NV, and eastward where it is known as "America's Loneliest Road". It can be many miles between filling stations out there! From Reno NV rte 431 known as the "Mt. Rose Highway" connects to the town of Incline Village, on the North Shore, in Nevada. Rte 431 climbs to a summit of 8889 ft, with year round snow removal. Commuting times can vary with the tourist season and road/snow conditions, or road construction, and a drive from North to South is about an hour on average without any traffic considerations.
 * As a point of interest, or maybe frustration to many, construction and development in Lake Tahoe is governed in many ways by the "Tahoe Regional Planning Agency" (TRPA) for environmental reasons. The TRPA includes representatives from both states, including their four counties, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the Sierra Club, and also a Congressional appointee. Various other water quality management agencies are also involved.
 * Summer recreation includes boating, camping, cycling, rock climbing, golf. Daytime temperatures from late June to mid September range from 80*-95* with overnight lows around 55*.
 * Winter ski seasons start when snow conditions arrive, hopefully before the Thanksgiving holiday, and last through the Memorial Day weekend for ski areas Alpine Meadows or Squaw Valley (No. Shore). Sugar Bowl, Boreal Ridge, Northstar, Homewoood, Mt. Rose, and Diamond Peak are on the North Shore. Royal Gorge is near Truckee and is America's premier cross country ski resort. So. Shore ski areas include Heavenly Valley, Kirkwood, and Sierra at Tahoe. For powder skiing Kirkwood, Alpine Meadows, Homewood, and Sugar Bowl are recommended. On windy days Northstar can operate chair lifts while many other resorts shut down. Squaw Valley is considered by many locals and experts as the most challenging terrain. with cliffs, moguls, and steep slopes.
 * Dining options on the North Shore include a large selection of restaurants, catering to visitors from the S.F. Bay area with creative food and extensive wine menus. The So. Shore dining scene focuses more on mid priced cuisine, with a few notable exceptions. The casinos on the So Shore attract most of the tourist business away from local operators with buffets and entertainer attractions. This is a factor separating North Lake from South Shore, as many tourists have different ideas about their Tahoe Vacation.
 * Winter ski seasons start when snow conditions arrive, hopefully before the Thanksgiving holiday, and last through the Memorial Day weekend for ski areas Alpine Meadows or Squaw Valley (No. Shore). Sugar Bowl, Boreal Ridge, Northstar, Homewoood, Mt. Rose, and Diamond Peak are on the North Shore. Royal Gorge is near Truckee and is America's premier cross country ski resort. So. Shore ski areas include Heavenly Valley, Kirkwood, and Sierra at Tahoe. For powder skiing Kirkwood, Alpine Meadows, Homewood, and Sugar Bowl are recommended. On windy days Northstar can operate chair lifts while many other resorts shut down. Squaw Valley is considered by many locals and experts as the most challenging terrain. with cliffs, moguls, and steep slopes.
 * Dining options on the North Shore include a large selection of restaurants, catering to visitors from the S.F. Bay area with creative food and extensive wine menus. The So. Shore dining scene focuses more on mid priced cuisine, with a few notable exceptions. The casinos on the So Shore attract most of the tourist business away from local operators with buffets and entertainer attractions. This is a factor separating North Lake from South Shore, as many tourists have different ideas about their Tahoe Vacation.

This wouldn't be all that bad -- I think it's pretty common in the area to refer to the "California side" and the "Nevada side". There's only a few inhabited areas that straddle both -- where the Cal-Neva casino is... I think it might actually be called Cal-Neva.

The other is just to say that Lake Tahoe is a region of both California and Nevada. I'm kind of inclined to stretch our idea of a hierarchy for this, and other instances like it. I think it makes a good exception to the hierarchy rules, if applied carefully. I think Tahoe is a good application of the exception.

Comments, ideas, suggestions? --(WT-en) Evan 19:12, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

--

I like the idea of making Lake Tahoe an exception to the hierarchy. It would be rather cumbersome to separate it into two, especially since the people who visit Tahoe don't think of it as "Tahoe, California" and "Tahoe, Nevada". Can we link it from both states' pages? --(WT-en) Anca

--

I agree with Anca, and it kinda fits the destination-rule-of-thumb (ie "where do you sleep?") as people _do_ eat in California and sleep in Nevada or vis-versa. I figuer if the Grand Canyon is one place despite about 100 miles between the north and south rim, then Tahoe sure as heck is. The other thought is to keep the Tahoe page very general and then just deal with the city-level so you'd have:

Nevada--Tahoe--Incline Village California--Tahoe--South Shore

and Tahoe would be the same for both...(WT-en) Majnoona 22:53, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * I think you mean:

 * Nevada (state)
 * Lake Tahoe
 * Incline Village
 * South Lake Tahoe
 * California (state)
 * Lake Tahoe
 * Truckee
 * Tahoe City
 * Tahoe City

I think that's the right way to do it. The Lake Tahoe page should be formatted like the region article template -- and have the same depth of information. Restaurant, bar, other information should probably be on the individual city pages, with maybe some highlights on the region page. --(WT-en) Evan 23:44, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Ski resorts
I also unlinked the ski resorts. Resorts kind of lie on the border between an attraction and a destination. We don't usually write articles about attractions -- just destinations.

Most resorts do have hotels, restaurants, etc., but I'm not sure we'd write individual guides about each one. I made the links on this page into attraction listings -- we might want to make destination pages about some, on a case-by-case basis. --(WT-en) Evan 19:14, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Yaouch! Those are trickey... I think this will have to be a case-by-case one, which mean lots of arguing. In the case of Tahoe, my instinct is that they are attraction-- big ones with lots of stuff, but attraction all the same. Maybe list there stuff as attractions and hotels and restaurants as needed? Cause some people go for the day, some for the evening, and some spend the night... unlike, say Verbier in France, which is a ski resort _and_ a town (there's nothing else around for miles). I guess just start is as attraction and see where it goes.(WT-en) Majnoona

 * Hmm, what should we do about the fact that at Northstar, you can do things in the summer (like mountain biking) as well as in winter (skiing)? I guess I'll show Northstar twice, once for summer stuff and once for winter stuff.  Comments?  -- (WT-en) Anca

TODO's

 * Link to all the ski resorts, add price info for each
 * Recommended hotels/motels?
 * Ski Lease info in more detail
 * Rank the resorts from a snowboarding perspective (?) is this a good idea?
 * Travel by Bus to Lake Tahoe
 * Index of good capmsites
 * Restaurants, coffeeshops, and wifi hotspots

-- (WT-en) Anca

Removed some extlinks
I took out some external links, but these might be useful for research.

 * http://www.tahoesbest.com
 * http://www.virtualtahoe.com
 * http://www.tahoereservations.com
 * http://www.lake-tahoe-california-hotels.com

--(WT-en) Evan 14:42, 11 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Okay, I evicted these two because I see no evidence that they actually link to what they claim to link to: Also, there is a list of Chamber of Commerces and suchlike on the California Gov't website, but it looks to me like Tahoe has fragmented Chambers (one for each subregion) rather than any overriding single Chamber.
 * http://www.tahoe.com/ - Lake Tahoe online newspaper. (points to some newspapers, but I see no news on it now)
 * Official Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (whois provides a contact address 500 miles away in La Jolla.  Does provide a nice set of links to real chambers of commerce though.  Whoever owns this site has been pagerank scumming)

-- (WT-en) Colin 19:39, 11 Jun 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lake Tahoe


text:
Talk:Lake Taupo

Merge with Taupo?
Should this article be merged with the Taupo article?

No
The lake itself is not so much a destination as an attraction and perhaps the page should be developed as such. Along the lines of the Mount St. Helens, Mount Rushmore pages possibly? This would leave the towns/settlements pages ie. Taupo, Turangi to provide information on accomodation, activities etc. in the relevent locations.

title: Talk:Lake Taupo


text:
Talk:Lake Titicaca

Body of Water
Does this Body of Water article fit with the Project:What is an article? ? -- (WT-en) Mark 07:51, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * There are several islands to visit and interresting places on the shores, so I think it deserves an article.

 * Can you sleep there? That's the usual rule of thumb.  Or is there a destination nearby for which this is the main attraction.  If so we usually redirect there. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:25, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * There are several islands where it is indeed possible to sleep. (WT-en) Ronald 13:55, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Because it is being pointed to as a precedent to start similar articles on es:, I'd like to re-open discussion on this one. I'd argue that it should be redirected to Copacabana because it is, as Mark said, a nearby destination for which the lake is the main attraction, and it is the main gateway through which tourists explore the lake area. The places to sleep are already contained in the respective island articles, and any interesting place on the shore is going to have its own article as well. Unlike Lake Baikal, in this case I don't know that it's all that logical to use it as a region article. Plus I can't imagine much of anything else that could be added to the article as it is; all it can really contain are a few scientific facts about the lake, and a short list of links to the three islands you can visit, which makes for a very un-wikivoyage-like article, in my opinion. Thoughts? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Texugo (talk • contribs)

VFD Discussion

 * Redirect. Is this an attraction or a region?  I think it is essentially an attraction, and should redirected.  However, it may be a region of islands, in which case we should probably rename it to Lake Titicaca Islands to avoid possible confusion.  I understand this is a bit of an unorthodox vfd, but I know there are views on what to do with these sorts of articles, so I think this makes a better place than the article talk page.  --(WT-en) inas 21:35, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

IMO, it's a valid region article, although the article needs the rest of the section headers. Since there is no clear deletion rationale here, I don't think a vfd is appropriate. The vfd page is a magnet for controversy & barn burners, as it is the only page where we do not follow Project:Consensus strictly. Accordingly, I think this discussion would be better suited to the article's talk page. If we can't figure out what to do with bodies of water as regions, that's something that will need to be resolved via policy discussion and consensus before we can safely use the vfd process. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:21, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * There seems to be enough islands in the Lake to make it a reasonable region article. I prefer the current title over Lake Titicaca Islands, but if it needs to be moved, it's not a big deal. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:02, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * We have a clear policy on bodies of water. The first line of our policy states We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water.  This is a destination guide about a body of water.   I understand this issue is contentions, but it really is down to anyone who thinks we should have destination guides about bodies of water, to build the consensus to change it.  There is a clear deletion rationale for an article about a body of water, like this one is.  However, in line with our deletion policy, articles about major attractions should be redirected.
 * I accept that a valid region guide may one day be created for this region, and I wouldn't object to that. Right now we are dealing with an article that is not a region, but rather about an attraction, and the attraction information should be moved, and the article redirected.  --(WT-en) inas 19:35, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * And following that line is Some land regions are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about those bodies of water, and this style guideline does not apply to them. For example, the Lake Tahoe region in California is named after the lake there, but it is about the towns, national parks, and ski resorts that ring the lake. We should have a guide to Lake Titicaca, and it should of course focus on the towns and relevant islands, rather than the water itself. The fact that the article is currently a stub is not a deletion rationale, and how to fix it up is a question for the talk page. A merge & redirect doesn't make sense—would you copy the information about the "attraction" to each and every town on the lake?

 * There is contention about the bodies of water policy, what it means, and how to apply it, and the vfd page is a bad place to hash it out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:34, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I've no intention of arguing the ins and outs of the bodies of water policy here.
 * This article is about an attraction, and like any other attraction it should be merged and redirected. We do this for every other attraction - even ones which can be reached from several places. The author of the text surely had no intention of creating an article about a region.  If you want to make this article about something else, a region, or whatever - then by all means go ahead, however in general I would argue for a more methodological approach to regioning, rather than taking attraction articles and applying a region template to them. --(WT-en) inas 23:50, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * There are also a number of towns such as Puno and Copacabana in the lake region. The lake spans the border of Bolivia and Peru, half in each. This seems to be analogous to the Great Lakes region, which has a regional article, though the Great Lakes has been expanded beyond a stub. The Lake Titicaca region seems to have three natural subregions: Islands, Bolivian Coast, and Peruvian Coast. Each of those subregions breaks down into multiple towns or islands, and has things to see and do. (WT-en) Bill in STL 18:19, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Keep, but turn it into a region article. (WT-en) Pashley 08:32, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Current consensus seems to be to keep this article as a region. Any further comment? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Converted to a region article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:37, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lake Titicaca


text:
Talk:Lake Toba

Cafe recommendation
We have just returned from Samosir Island on Lake Toba. We visited many restaurants, all of which were OK, but we were particularly impressed by Todays Cafe in Tuk Tuk, the main tourist centre on the island. This cafe is run by Juliet, a young Batak woman who speaks good English and some Dutch and German as well as Bahasa. She is great fun, and loves to chat. Her food is terrific. Her dad is a local fisherman, so all the fish dishes are super fresh. If you have ever tasted rendang, try it here and see how it should be made! She is a real cook who knows how to use the most extraordinary mixtures of local spices. Honestly, you cannot but enjoy this place, we really recommend it. Gregor Benton

Split article?
I think this article should be split in to three: This is a similar situation to Halong Bay in Vietnam, where loads of tourists go to one spot but the area is far bigger. Pratyeka (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lake Toba (regional overview)
 * Tuktuk
 * Parapat

 * I could envision a lot of village articles for places on Pulau Samosir, too, but since I haven't been there since 1976, I wouldn't be the one to create them. I think it all really depends on how much content there is. My feeling is, you usually put in a lot of great content into the articles you work on, so if you've got a lot of stuff to say, go ahead and start the separate articles, and link them here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 * True that Lake Toba is big, but I think individual article content will not be much. A single article IMO still can cover most of important places. --Sylphar (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sylphar Hmm, maybe split Danau Toba article into five derivative region articles (western side,eastern side,etc)?
 * Or maybe you want to split the North Sumatra provinces into several derivative kabupaten articles? So every tourist attraction could be placed to each kabupaten. Veracious (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Veracious Several derivative kabupaten articles may be too short and might be overlook by potential tourist. After all, when talking about North Sumatra, everyone seems remember only Lake Toba and/or Brastagi only. Splitting into 5 derivative region sounds good. Will try to work it out in future. Sylphar (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sylphar Well.. Wikivoyage is low-key a platform to promote local tourism to the world, as long as you are not touting. Veracious (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Talk" section
I just copy edited that section, but there's something I wanted to add: When I visited Pulau Samosir in 1976, I was struck by the fact that everyone seemed to routinely use the familiar forms of "you" and "I" — "kamu" and "aku" — and not only among themselves, as was also common in rural Terengganu, where I was living at the time, but also to visitors. (In the village in Terengganu that I lived in, my parents had to protest that they didn't want to be called "Tuan", "Puan" et al.; people started using the familiar forms with all of us when they accepted us as part of the community, rather than just visitors.) In much of the rest of Indonesia, and especially in Java, people were much more formal, using "Saudara" and "Saudari" routinely.

Is this still true in the Toba Batak country? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Exploring the wilderness
Re: this edit: Someone I know almost got himself killed wandering off on a firewood-gathering path in the interior of Pulau Samosir in the 1970s. When he did manage to get back to a village by following a stream (including a 12-foot jump he landed in a cat stance), he was all scratched up. I would be very cautious about recommending that even adventurous travelers go into the jungle without a guide who really knows where s/he is going and how to get back unscathed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 * @Ikan Kekek Yeah, the rule of thumb in exploring wilderness in Indonesia (even for Indonesian people) is never go into the jungle without a guide who really knows about the area. Aside from wild animal and poisonous plant, you might surprised what might be hidden in the forest like unfriendly forest tribe, secret criminal base, and supernatural being. Veracious (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Interesting that you say that. When the individual I know got back to the village my parents and I were living in in Malaysia, a Main Teri (healing ceremony led by a Bomoh) was held for him in which the diagnosis was that he hadn't asked permission from the spirits of the mountain for his visit, and that's why he got all scratched up. Either way, going into the jungle by yourself is really dangerous with a significant risk of death if you are not very experienced in jungle trekking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek Yup, that's why I've never done any jungle exploration, haha. Also, wild animals in there are probably become accustomed to the local people's body odor, skin color, walking movement, outfit/cloth, nor body aura/magnetism; thus, they will mark you as a food if they noticed something is off in your body. Veracious (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lake Toba


text:
Talk:Lake Trasimeno

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

Region or destination?
(WT-en) Shep questioned why I linked to the Isola Polvese page, which was just an outline and had less content in it than Lake Trasimeno article did about Isola Polvese. So I took a closer look at the Lake Trasimeno article. Here is my response. - (WT-en) Huttite 19:37, 28 December 2009 (EST)
 * I can see now that it does not follow the Manual of style as the long descriptions for each destination which need to be shortened to one line listings and it also has sleep listings for several destinations. Over time I would expect those listings to migrate to their destination articles, once they are written, as should also happen with the information about Isola Polvese in the Lake Trasimeno article.
 * Please note that region guides and other destination guides, such as city and park guides, perform different functions in Wikivoyage's geographical hierarchy. A region guide provides an overview of the destinations in the region, while the city and park destination guides provide the details. This is so that the region guide is not too cluttered with minute details. One implication is that region guides do not usually have a Sleep section, as Sleep listings appear only once each in the respective end destinations. Since being able to sleep there is a minimum criteria for an article, the logical consequence is that the sleep section is redundant in the region guide. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:45, 28 December 2009 (EST)

My question is should the Lake Trasimeno article follow the regional template more strictly and should there be separate articles for each destination? I think there should be. I would welcome beng convinced otherwise. - (WT-en) Huttite 19:37, 28 December 2009 (EST)

 * OK! I wikilinked the Cities and Other destinations and discovered that we already have about half the destination articles written. I see this discovery as further supporting this article following the region template more strictly. - (WT-en) Huttite 20:02, 28 December 2009 (EST)

 * It is not a Region; it is a relatively small lake with perhaps just one destination that merits its own listing. The lake is a destination in itself. As I indicated earlier the whole topic of lakes has been the subject of unresolved discussion so please stop acting arbitrarily. Wikivoyage is sadly lacking in content and it seems to me that the important thing is to get some decent content, which I have been trying to do (note that the Lake Trasimeno page was there before I started working on it!). Please stop arguing about whether it should be Vava'u or Neiafu; Lake Trasimeno or wherever and concentrate more on providing information about places. Happy New Year. (WT-en) Shep 14:43, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Changes to Wikivoyage's organizational structure should not happen over objection (see dark arts), so I have reverted to the original version.

My inclination is to trust Shep's judgment, as he is a) the only person actually contributing content to this region, b) seems quite familiar with the region, and c) is a regular contributor well versed with our policies and relevant discussions. If at some point this article is bursting at the seams with information, maybe it will make sense to find a good way to break it apart, but I see no reason to do so now. And even then, I can't imagine an uninhabited island in the middle of the lake  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:10, 1 January 2010 (EST)

VfD discsussion
Per Project:Bodies of water.
 * Merge and redirect (WT-en) Texugo 04:21, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Result: Keep. Per the Bolsena and Bracciano discussions.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:50, 7 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lake Trasimeno


text:
Talk:Lake Tsongmo

Lake Tsongmo
Is a lake -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect to Gangtok --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lake Tsongmo


text:
Talk:La Llacuna

The following is a Catalan translation of the article. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:26, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT) - La Llacuna is a city in Catalonia, Spain.

Com arribar
http://www.lallacunaonline.com

Entorn
http://www.lallacunaonline.com

Què Veure

 * Bastoners de La Llacuna - Una tradició Cultura representada per aquest grup des de fa 2 anys. http://www.esigual.com/bastoners/
 * Ball de diables de La Llacuna - Una tradició Catalana que s'ha recuperat fa tres anys.

Què Fer
Vendre la Casa i anar de Lloguer

Comprar
S'esta habilitant un portal web per podre fer d'aparador virtual dels productes del poble. Si et vols anunciar en aquest portal envia un mail a info@lallacunaonline.com.

Menjar

 * Restaurant Ca l'Americano
 * Restaurant Cal Tiquets
 * Restaurant la Bona teca

Beure

 * Bar Cal Joan
 * Bar La pansa
 * Bar el Trull

Dormir
http://www.lallacunaonline.com

Sortir
http://www.lallacunaonline.com

Enllaços
http://www.moltapor.tk/ Moltapor Club d'oci de la llacuna

external links from article
[www.lallacuna Llacuna]
 * Comunitat Virtual de La Llacuna
 * Moltapor Club d'oci de la llacuna

(WT-en) Tsandell 06:50, 12 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:La Llacuna


text:
Talk:Lamai

TAT Listings
I moved the following listings from the Sleep page to here for future reference:

Hat Thong Takhian Beach is a beach in Lamai

 * Coral Cove Chalet (คอรัลโคฟชาเล่) 210 Mu 4 Hat Thong Takhian, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 2260-1 Fax: 0 7742 2173), 72 rooms: 1,500-2,000 baht
 * Hi Coral Cove (ไฮคอรัลโคฟ) 210/3 Mu 4 Tunbon Maled (Tel: 0 7742 2495), 10 rooms: 200-600 baht
 * Samui Yacht Club (สมุยยอร์ชคลับ) 209/1 Mu 4 Hat Lamai, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 2225-6 Bangkok Tel: 0 2651 0016-7 Fax: 0 2651 0018 E-mail: sycsamui@samart.co.th), 40 rooms: 1,500-2,000 baht

Hat Na Thian(หาดนาเทียน)

 * Central Samui Village (เซ็นทรัลสมุยวิลเลจ) 111 Mu 2 Tambon Maret, Hat Na Thian, Ko Samui (Tel: 0 7742 4020-2 Fax: 0 7742 4022 E-mail: csvsamui@samart..co.th), 99 rooms: 3,600-4,500 baht

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:48, 20 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lamai


text: Talk:La Manga

title: Talk:La Manga


text:
Talk:La Miel

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

La Miel is in Panama not Colombia
Can someone correct this page?(WT-en) Captjack 09:39, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

 * While I couldn't find any references of a La Miel on quick Wikipedia and Google searches (they all point to another La Miel-something in Spain), I guess you are right, and modified lede and breadcrumb navigation of the article accordingly. La Miel is in Darien region of Panama, right? Or else, could you please point out which Panamanian region we should put it in? – (WT-en) Vidimian 10:03, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
 * You're correct. La Miel, Panama is in the Darien Region. It's rests on the Panamanian side of the Panama/Colombia boarder on the Atlantic. Sapzurro, Colombia is on the other side.(WT-en) Captjack 13:48, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:La Miel


text:
Talk:Lampaki

Lost info
The info at Talk:Lampaki/Lost was added accidentally to Country name (since deleted). --(WT-en) Evan 12:31, 19 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Lampaki


text:
Talk:Lampaki/Lost

=Lost info=

Regions
Country: MalaysiaNorth Borneo

Cities
Lampaki is a small village in the state of Kudat.

Understand
Lampaki is a village inhabited by Rungus.

Talk
The Rungus of Lampaki speak their native language which is also named Rungus.

Get in
There is only one dirt road in and out of Lampaki.

Get around
There is no public transportation in Lampaki.

See
There are no Longhouses in Lampaki. One can see farm animals and a family that bakes goods to sell in a market outside of Lampaki.

Do
One can visit the elementary school in Lampaki or visit the tiny Christian church.

Eat
There are no restaurants in Lampaki but locals are friendly enough to invite you to join them in a meal.

Drink
There are no public places to drink in Lampaki.

Stay safe
Lampaki is a very safe village.

Get out
There is only one dirt road to enter and exit Lampaki.

title: Talk:Lampaki/Lost


text:
Talk:Lampang

TAT Listings
I placed some listings of TAT that cluttered the province page at Talk:Lampang/Listings. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:47, 4 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Lampang