text:
Talk:Lima

Sub-dividing Lima page into districts
Please see [Wikivoyage:Districts in Cities] and [Wikivoyage:Huge city article template]

I think creating a district page for Miraflores would be a good idea. Much of the content for the Lima page is for Miraflores. The Lima page is getting huge and alot of Lima isn't being recoginised for its restaurants and hostels whereas Miraflores swamps these sections. I think it would be better to divide the page. Miraflores already gets its own subsections but people are still sticking Miraflores stuff in the sections designated as other areas. Splitting the info into Miraflores and the rest of Lima will make it much easier to comprehend.

I'm going to go ahead and create the Miraflores district page, any complaints blame me! --(WT-en) Harleyca 21:20, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Thank you for starting this discussion. However, when districtifying we should have districts covering all of the city without overlaps or gaps.  Creating one district and keeping everything else in the main article is not the way to do it.  Please seek consensus for a district plan for the city here first, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:44, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

 * I see your point, as it is currently, more than half of the eat and sleep entries are for Miraflores, the page is being flooded with Miraflores stuff and the rest of the city is being ignored and people are probably reluctant to add new eat and sleep entires as these sections are already quite large. Miraflores is the number one tourist district in Lima, therefore having a page for it makes sense. Having separated Miraflores means the Lima main page has room to breathe and expand and as more entries are added for other districts perhaps then we can make more district pages but only when there is a justifiable amount of content. Barranco and Central Lima would be good candidates in the future for further dividing Lima into districts. The districts that require there own pages will evolve naturally as information is added to the Lima main page.

--(WT-en) Harleyca 10:25, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Would it make sense to establish Central Lima, Barranco and one more covering everything else? It would be great if we could avoid a situtaion with listings both in district articles and in the main page as it is now, and if the price for that is that we need to establish almost empty districts, then fine, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 10:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Miraflores, Central Lima, Barranco, Everywhere else, that could work for now. Almost empty pages encourage people to add information, so I can see its a good idea (I wasn't sure at first). This seems like it'll work fine, it leaves the door open for future divisions if need be. I'm happy to go ahead and do this later today. Thanks for your input.--(WT-en) Harleyca 12:48, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Any suggestions on what to call the article for everywhere else?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 10:16, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

 * We can't just leave it as Lima?--(WT-en) Harleyca 11:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

We should have a district article for the rest of Lima, where all the remaining listings should go. The Lima main article should not have any listings but should only give an overview, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 16:36, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

- Yep, I see thats the way its done on other pages. Naming everywhere else is difficult. Perhaps breaking it down a little further might make it easier to understand. There's 43 official districts in Lima, way too many for us here. We need pages for the major tourist districts and then the rest divided into geographical areas that are logical. - For the time being I'd suggest 7 Districts; - - Pros; - Cons; - I think 3 tourist districts and 4 geographical districts will be adequate for now. The boundaries are simple enough, might have to strictly define the boundaries for Central Lima, Barranco and Miraflores but its fairly straight forward.--(WT-en) Harleyca 21:03, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
 * 3 Tourist District Pages; Central Lima, Barranco, Miraflores.
 * 4 Potential District Pages by Geographical Area; Rio Rimac North, Javier Prado West, Javier Prado North East, Javier Prado South East.
 * Rio Rimac North - everywhere north of Rimac River excluding Cerro San Cristobal which is part of Central Lima.
 * Javier Prado West or Rio Rimac South West - south of Rio Rimac, west of Arequipa.
 * Javier Prado North East - north of Javier Prado, south of Rio Rimac and east of Arequipa.
 * Javier Prado South East - south of Javier Prado and east of Arequipa.
 * Rio Rimac is easily identifiable.
 * Javier Prado is a major road that people can identify easily.
 * Javier Prado is already divided east and west by Arequipa so naming districts Javier Prado North East, South East or West should be easy to comprehend.
 * Arequipa runs through the middle of Miraflores and
 * Javier Prado runs through the middle of San Borja.
 * There large areas.

 * That looks fine. But what do you mean, runs through the middle of?, the districts will have to be defined so that they do not overlap, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 06:04, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The rough guide of where the borders lie;

The official districts of;
 * Lima
 * Barranco
 * Miraflores

Geographical borders;
 * Rio Rimac
 * Rio Lurin
 * Av. Arequipa

 * Lima Province borders

In June I'll have access to a much better computer and will be able to create maps.

--(WT-en) Harleyca 21:52, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Inkscapes 32-bit and lots of computing power doesn't improve its performance, so I've taken the easy way out and just exported straight from OpenStreetMap

Might have to highlight the borders on the maps in the future. --(WT-en) Harleyca 06:01, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

- Done --(WT-en) Harleyca 04:59, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Thumnails haven't updated, dunno why--(WT-en) Harleyca 06:58, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I don't agree, because I live in Lima and Lima has 43 districts. Javier Prado Este/Oeste are avenues. NO ONE know that as an area. 179.7.117.126 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll suggest:

Periferia Norte: Ancón, Puente Piedra, Comas, Carabayllo, Santa Rosa

Lima Norte: Los Olivos, Independencia, San Martín de Porres

Periferia Sur: Lurín, Pachacamac, Punta Hermosa, Punta Negra, San Bartolo, Santa María del Mar, Pucusana

Lima Sur: San Borja, Santiago de Surco, Villa el Salvador, Villa María del Triunfo, San Juan de Miraflores

Lima Oeste: Chorrillos, Barranco, Miraflores, San Isidro, Magdalena del Mar, Pueblo Libre, San Miguel

Lima Este: La Molina, Cieneguilla, Ate Vitarte, Santa Anita, San Juan de Lurigancho, Lurigancho-Chosica, Chaclacayo

Lima Centro: Lima Cercado, Breña, Jesús María, El Agustino, San Luis, La Victoria, Rímac

Callao: La Perla, La Punta, Callao, Bellavista, Mi Perú, Carmen de la Legua y Reynoso, Ventanilla

They are known by local people, and easy for tourists. 179.7.117.126 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I know nothing about Lima, but if these districts are better known to locals, and since the map that was added to Lima shows no gaps, then a change probably makes sense. That said, it is typical to discuss these things first to provide others an opportunity to add feedback.  I'd suggest reverting to the original district structure for now, and if no objections are raised then the job of moving existing content into the new articles can begin.  Does that seem reasonable? -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No, it is not reasonable. The areas I am changing are very known by locals. Turbo8000 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I live in Lima. Javier Prado is an AVENUE, not a district.

 * Hi Turbo8000 - Living in Lima does not change the process. I have placed your district discussion below.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Dear User:Turbo8000, if official district names are of use to the traveller there is of course nothing against using them. However, quite often local government makes districts with things other than travel in mind (an area with many sights but few residents might have to be divided into several districts for WV purposes but be considered one district or part of one for administrative purposes). Furthermore, it is quite common for WV to have districts named after streets, as I think is at least one of the districts of San Francisco. I hope this was helpful in understanding the issue. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Districts by User:Turbo8000
User:Turbo8000 has proposed the following new district structure:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following pages include the province of Callao and the province of Lima and their districts

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please discuss below Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I commented in the previous thread, but it seems like our original Lima subdivisions were created by someone who wasn't particularly familiar with the city, so this new proposal seems fine to me. The main concern I have about a change is making sure that existing content is moved to the new articles - we aren't going to just throw out ten years of contributions because the district structure changed, so we need some clarity on whether some of the existing articles are being renamed, where things overlap, and otherwise how to move content. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Right, there is some considerable work in merging/renaming the existing district articles into this proposed structure. Would User:Turbo8000 be prepared to do this? (It is a lot to ask for an apparently new contributor) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ryan, those are the official districts. I can't leave a fake district. I love my city, I won't let you change the districts to fake areas because you just want. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. And yes, I can merge it. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 Please can you detail how the existing district articles will be changed into the proposed ones above? Thanks Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, I know the city, I'll set the places in the correct districts :-) Turbo8000 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) So after a quick look at the current district articles, I do think that redrawing district lines may be a worthwhile effort. However, many of those current district articles contain quite a handful of listings and it seems the proposed new districts are rather different from those that were there before. Fortunately, we seem to have coordinates for quite a few listings which aids greatly in the task of moving them were they belong in any new district layout. However, as someone who has never been to Lima, I have to at this point stress again, that the focus should be on travel. The new districts should be based on what someone looking for things to see, do and places to eat or sleep would consider a useful layout. Administrative districts in and of themselves may be helpful there, but more often than not aren't. It can also be helpful to use visible dividing lines like rivers and major roads. But as I said, I know next to nothing about Lima, and if you say your map works better from a travel standpoint than the current one, I will trust your judgment of a local. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * But is it a simple mapping change? i.e. does Lima/Rio Lurin South become Lima Sur ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Rio Lurín South means ~South Peripheric Zone. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I am not limiting the area by avenues, I am doing it by a group of DISTRICTS. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm not being clear enough... how about you just create the articles above so that we can see what the outcome will be? (The district section can be updated on the article page later) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Another concern. I googled 'North Peripheric Zone' and nothing came up for Lima. Additionally 'Peripheric' isn't a common English word and seems to be directly translated from Spanish. Finally I can't even find reference to 'Periferia Norte' in Wikipedia : Lima and List_of_districts_of_Lima or Google, which would suggest this is something made up by yourself as well?
 * I guess what I am saying is that the districtification of Lima is a lot more involved than the the proposed structure above claims --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * You might want to consider renaming 'North Peripheric Zone' and 'South Peripheric Zone' to 'Northern Suburbs' and 'Southern Suburbs'. Carabayllo_District (for example) doesn't otherwise point to any particular region in Lima. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) I've found matches for four of the eight proposed districts in other projects:
 * "Southern Lima" →
 * "Northern Lima" →
 * "North Peripheric Zone" → Cono Norte
 * "Central Lima" →
 * "Western Lima" →
 * "Eastern Lima" → Cono Este
 * "South Peripheric Zone" → Cono Sur (Lima)
 * "Callao" → c:File:Callao big div num.PNG
 * If we move ahead with this change we should consider matching Wikipedia's naming rather than using what appear to be less common names like "North Peripheric Zone". -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

About the map
The red and dark red bits don't seem to appear in the list of districts to the left of the map. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red is Callao and San Lorenzo Island, not Lima in fact. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would a traveler or visitor notice them as being different? For example, what is commonly known as Las Vegas is not in fact Las Vegas, but rather Paradise, Nevada. (see this video) Still, we cover "Paradise" as a part of Las Vegas, because it makes more sense from a travel standpoint that way. And in fact sometimes we even cover nearby rural places in other articles. So if that island has enough on it to merit a separate article: Great. If not: Let's just keep it to a few lines in the go next section of the appropriate city or district article or find some other solution. And if Callao is not distinguishable from Lima from a travel standpoint or if making it a district of Lima serves the traveler better, we should treat it as a district of Lima, even if it is not in the administrative sense. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am treating it as an area of Lima. 179.7.120.126 13:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one know that as Suburbs, peripheric well. 179.7.120.126 13:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether we want redlinked districts until consensus is achieved about this matter. Meanwhile, it's best to mantain the current districtification, that seems to serve the traveller better. Turbo8000 should be advised to create his scheme in his own sandbox and submit it to the community's approval. Any objections? Ibaman (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something I don't think anyone disagrees that redoing the Lima districts based on Turbo8000's suggestions makes sense, but we're trying to figure out the best names for those districts, and how they map to the old districts. In the mean time, the continued edit wars are an unfortunate distraction that seems to be causing this process to take longer than necessary - given that the existing district division has been in place for over five years there is no harm in leaving it in place for a few more days while the details of the new structure are worked out. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I protected the article so that only autoconfirmed users can change. More than happy to lift the protect once consensus has been achieved here.
 * Turbo8000 : The process of consensus building can take days or sometimes weeks. It would really speed up if you are more detailed about what changes you want to see. "I live here so you must trust me" isn't how it works. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * THOSE AREN'T DISTRICTS. Are fake areas. 179.7.105.190 02:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My scheme serves the traveller better, it isn't confusing, it isn't fake. Callao has NOTHING to deal with Javier Prado, for example. 179.7.105.190 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

How about the following taken from Lima_Metropolitan_Area?

 * Cono Norte (Lima) Ancón, Carabayllo, Comas, Independencia District, Los Olivos, Puente Piedra District, San Juan de Lurigancho, San Martín de Porres Distric, Santa Rosa
 * Cono Este (Ate District, Cieneguilla, Chaclacayo, El Agustino, Lurigancho, San Luis District, Santa Anita District)
 * Cono Sur (Lima) (Chorrillos, Lurín, Pachacamac, Pucusana District|, Punta Hermosa, Punta Negra, San Bartolo, San Juan de Miraflores, Santa María del Mar, Villa el Salvador, Villa María del Triunfo):
 * Residential Lima (Barranco District, Jesús María District, La Molina, Lince District, Magdalena del Mar, Miraflores, Pueblo Libre, San Borja District, San Isidro District, San Miguel District, San Miguel, Santiago de Surco, Surquillo):
 * Callao (Bellavista, Callao District, Carmen de la Legua Reynoso, La Perla District, La Punta District, Ventanilla District):
 * Central Lima (Breña, La Victoria District, La Victoria, Downtown Lima, Rímac District):

Does this work at a high level? If so then we can work out how the existing district articles can align to them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 * A bit more analysis:
 * Cono Norte (Lima) replaces current Lima/Rio_Rimac_North
 * Cono Este replaces current Lima/Javier_Prado_East
 * Cono Sur (Lima) replaces current Lima/Rio_Lurin_South
 * Residential Lima (No WP article) replaces current Lima/Miraflores and Lima/Barranco
 * Callao replaces current Lima/Javier Prado West
 * Central Lima stays as current Lima/Central
 * Any issues with the above? Please note that is isn't a perfect match of actual districts, so there would still need to be some remediation work afterwards.Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't replace. The current scheme has no deal with the districts. My scheme is clear, is good, is easy for a traveller. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How can I tell you that Javier Prado is not a district? How can I tell you Callao has nothing to deal with Javier Prado? How can I tell you that Javier Prado is a simple avenue? How can I tell you the currently scheme is confusing? How can I tell you this scheme is a great error made by a stranger who doesn't know anything about Lima? Turbo8000 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you are wrong man, Cono Este does not replace Javier Prado East, cono este is Lima Este (Eastern Lima) like I proposed before. Río Lurin South most of the part is on South Peripheric Zone. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How can I tell you that Javier Prado is not a district? How can I tell you Callao has nothing to deal with Javier Prado? How can I tell you that Javier Prado is a simple avenue? How can I tell you the currently scheme is confusing? How can I tell you this scheme is a great error made by a stranger who doesn't know anything about Lima? Turbo8000 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you are wrong man, Cono Este does not replace Javier Prado East, cono este is Lima Este (Eastern Lima) like I proposed before. Río Lurin South most of the part is on South Peripheric Zone. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 * You have already told us that, and honestly I think all of us here accept it. You don't need to keep repeating it. What you haven't done is engage with us to explain how the the proposed sub articles will look. It is not acceptable to break the existing structure unless you have a plan to rebuild it.
 * Can you explain why the districts I proposed above taken from Lima_Metropolitan_Area is inaccurate? At the very least the naming looks better.
 * Additionally I am really concerned that "South Peripheric Zone" turns up no google results at all! I mean zero. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that no-one is collaborating in discussing the regions, I propose the following regions based on existing content and Wikipedia.

This is based on:

 * Preserving existing district articles where considerable effort has been taken
 * Incorporating established regions from Lima_Metropolitan_Area on Wikipedia
 * Continued concern that Turbo8000 is mistaken in their approach by proposing 'South Peripheric Zone' and 'North Peripheric Zone' that cannot be found in Google anywhere in the world, let alone Lima. It would be great if that could be addressed.

Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

NO, Miraflores and Barranco, shouldn't be alone. And Residential Lima is wrong, too, because it is different, even the weather. What is the problem with my scheme? Turbo8000 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Breña is not a residential zone, and Jockey Plaza is not cono este. You should consider the limit of the DISTRICTS, not the avenues / streets. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And Callao is not Lima, and shouldn't be mergered! Please serve the traveller, don't be an idiot, if you don't know don't propose dumb things! Turbo8000 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Cono Sur is not south of Río Lurín, the cono sur is not north of Río Rímac.. please, stop giving wrong data! Turbo8000 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I would suggest you not call people "idiots", if you would like to persuade them to agree with you. This website functions based on consensus, not on one person, no matter how correct, trying to force their way on everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See http://www.costosperu.com/ap-site-noticias-informacion.php?seccion=&noticia=2217 - Periferia Sur. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Two comments:
 * Can someone explain what the issue is with using Turbo8000's proposed districts, aside from the naming? From my limited research it seems clear that our existing Lima districts are arbitrary, so it makes sense to me to move forward with districts created by someone who knows the city well, with the caveat that we want to use established names for these districts.  Per Wikipedia, the following seem to be in wide use: "Cono Norte" instead of "North Peripheric Zone", "Cono Este" instead of "Eastern Lima", and "Cono Sur" instead of "South Peripheric Zone".
 * As Ikan stated, calling people "idiots" is counter-productive.
 * -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * My concerns include why Miraflores and Barranco are being merged. They appear to be full articles. There should be a reason to remove them and not just because somebody arbitrary feels like it.
 * Additionally I had no response until now about the the naming of the northern and southern regions.
 * Finally, what is actually wrong with my suggestion? It seems to align with wikipedia much better, although the only feedback for my efforts to resolve was being called an 'idiot' Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion is very wrong, and I'll explain it: Turbo8000 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The cono sur (Lima Sur) is not south of the Lurin river, it is in north of Lurin river, very much to the north.
 * 2) The residential Lima is not Breña, and the Callao is another area who should be treated as another zone.
 * 3) The Southern/Northern Peripheric Zone or South/North Peripheria, is not the Southern/Northern Lima. Those are very different.
 * 4) Miraflores and Barranco are part of Western Lima, and we SHOULDN'T delete the articles, we should merge them into Western Lima.
 * 5) We should create another zone with another article called "Callao" and not Lima/Callao. Because CALLAO isn't LIMA, but we can treat it as a zone in some things though.
 * 6) The cono norte is not all the north of the Rimac River.
 * 7) If Miraflores and Barranco have articles, we should create articles called "Santiago de Surco" or "San Isidro" or "San Miguel" and every district of Lima.
 * 8) And the last point, you SHOULD understand that we should treat the DISTRITAL LIMITS. Not the rivers and streets.

 * Thanks for the feedback. So:
 * # Callao is indeed not in Lima. Agreed.
 * # WHY should Miraflores and Barranco be merged? It is allowed to define separate districts on Wikivoyage, and as I said they appear well defined with content already.
 * # Can you suggest alternative English (or Spanish) names for your Southern/Northern Peripheric Zones? I do not believe people will know what I'm talking about if I go to Lima tomorrow and ask about these.
 * # Also please note that although we can use official districts if it helps the traveler, we have no obligation to do so.
 * Thanks Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I think what would help (me at least) is to have some sort of overview how big an area we are talking about here... I mean, there is a city in China that has the administrative size of Austria while San Francisco is only - what - ten by ten miles?Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
What about the following as a compromise (for now)? It uses Turbo8000's proposal with two changes (NOTE: map not updated):
 * Common names are used for three of the regions: "Cono Norte" instead of "North Peripheric Zone", "Cono Este" instead of "Eastern Lima", and "Cono Sur" instead of "South Peripheric Zone"
 * It leaves Miraflores and Barranco as separate articles pending further discussion on whether there is value in merging them.

Would that be acceptable for the moment? I think it would be a vast improvement of the outer districts while not requiring a lot of reorganization of the central districts. Thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Cono Norte is not the peripheria! Cono Norte = Lima Norte Why is it so hard to understand? I prefer to use Lima instead of Cono because of internal reasons. It is easier for the tourist. And Miraflores and Barranco are part of Lima Oeste. Turbo8000 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give me a reason why Miraflores and Barranco should be covered as one single article rather than two separate ones... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 Does Ryan's list above work if we swap the districts in 'Cono Norte' and 'Northern Lima'? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't work. I highly don't recommend to use "cono". Turbo8000 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly it would be easier to follow you if you could give any indication as to why you have arrived at this conclusion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm really sorry to keep laboring this. It just seems very strange that the areas that you refer to as 'Periferia Norte' and 'Lima Norte' are one region referred to by Wikipedia as Cono_Norte. I can also find lots of Google links to 'Cono Norte' such as this.
 * I do not for one second claim that I know your city as well as you, and I don't claim Wikipedia is always correct, but why push 'Lima Norte' when as far as I can tell from a neutral point of view it would appear that 'Cono Norte' is far better known when conducting internet searches? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Do we really must put up with this arrogant know-it-all-everyone-else-is-stupid tone? It's reminding me of Frank and Alice trying to shove subjective arguments down our throats. It's getting annoying. Ibaman (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. We want to welcome a new user and do what we can to make them a useful contributor and that might require a bit of effort sometimes, as seen above. I would say we made some positive progress today. Although it has been difficult to deal with, I do believe that they have good intentions towards these Lima articles. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ibaman, while it can be frustrating when someone is aggressive and/or uncivil, please don't respond with name-calling. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger. Will comply. Let's keep on concentrating on writing awesome travel guide pages. Ibaman (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I do hope the user in question has gotten the hint, if we were not clear enough, earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we prefer to use "Lima" and "Periferia" because cono is really controversial, and for foreign people this term is really confusing. For example, Ancón is not the cono norte (Lima Norte), etc. So I suggest "Lima" and "Periferia". Turbo8000 (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Cono Norte, Ancón is part of Cono Norte, which is part of the reason I am confused. If "Cono Norte" is a confusing name, Wikipedia suggests that area is also known as Lima Norte (see Lima Metropolitan Area, so I've updated the proposal above accordingly.  What issues remain to be resolved? -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * My remaining concern is that there are now two regions called 'Lima Norte' and 'Northern Lima'... which pretty much means the same thing in different languages.
 * As far as I can tell, Spanish Wikipedia describes 'Lima Norte' (otherwise also known as 'Cono Norte') as covering the area proposed as 'Northern Lima' as well. Can we just merge them? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No, Ancón is not part of the cono norte. PLEASE stop using the term "cono", it's confusing with the south cone (South America). That's why we prefer to use "Lima" for tourists. Turbo8000 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we leave it so?

If you accept I can do all the work :) Turbo8000 (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Turbo8000 (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I am not familiar with Lima, but "peripheric" is definitely not an English word. "Periphery", however, is, though "Outskirts" is more idiomatic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is, I agree with "Periphery" but not with "Outskirts". See here. Turbo8000 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * We don't use these colored letters anywhere else, they should be black; if you would PLEASE consider telling the community WHY "Northern Lima" and "North Periphery" should be separated, instead of simply shoving down everybody's throat things like "that doesn't work" and/or "I know my city and you don't"... that would be appreciated. Ibaman (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 : 'Lima Norte' and 'Cono Norte' are interchangeable. Since the majority of internet appears to refer to 'Cono Norte' you should accept it as part of the discussion. I'm OK with using 'Lima Norte' as the name of the northern area as a concession to move things forward.
 * 1) Please leave Miraflores and Barranco as separate articles. You can always propose to merge them later.
 * 2) Please explain why 'North Periphery' and 'South Periphery' should not be merged with 'Lima Norte' and 'Lima Sur'. Wikipedia refers to the districts contained in what you call 'North Periphery' in the area of 'Lima Norte', so frankly it is confusing to the traveler.
 * 3) Please explain why Ancon is not part of Cono_Norte as stated by Wikipedia. This is also stated by Spanish Wikipedia, so you really need to prove why two versions of Wikipedia are wrong.
 * Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my suggestion based on Ryan's previous work, reflecting districts defined in both English and Spanish Wikipedias and preserving existing articles:

Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Ancón is not part of the populous "Cono Norte". Ancón is a balneario.

Northern Lima and North Periphery are separated because of the type of zone. North Periphery is very far from the main city center, and the Northern Lima is very conurbated with the city center, and it's populous than North Periphery.

And in the South, is the same thing. Beaches and balnearios (residential zones) are in South Periphery, while in Southern Lima are some populous zones and some residential zones but they are very conurbated with the main city center. Turbo8000 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Ah, and Barranco and Miraflores are part of the Western Lima, if we separate, then we should create AT LEAST articles for Chorrillos, San Miguel, Surquillo.... Pueblo Libre... etc. So I don't see reason for separating Barranco and Miraflores, they have nothing special in fact, they aren't provinces, etc. Turbo8000 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC) So again:

It is better to separate the north and south areas, and remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source. I live in Lima and nevermind we can include Ancón in the cono, the cono term is meant for populous zones in Lima. The new younger generations are accepting the terms "Lima Norte" and "Lima Sur" as part of their lives. It is better for understand to the tourist. Same thing with the color letters, it is easier though. See Spanish Wikivoyage.Turbo8000 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 * At this point I'm OK with either of the above proposals. It looks to me like this is where things stand:
 * There seems to be agreement on Callao and Eastern Lima, right? So those are ready to go?
 * If we can agree to leave Miraflores and Barranco alone for now (since there are already well-developed articles) then we would also have agreement for Western Lima and Central Lima - does that sound OK? It would always be possible to merge those two districts later, but since the existing articles are already pretty long it seems reasonable to leave them as they are for now.
 * That would then leave just the north & south to deal with - personally I'm fine with either two or four districts, so hopefully an agreement can be found that everyone is happy with.
 * Does that seem accurate or did I miss something? -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's unfair to separate Miraflores and Barranco, they have nothing special and they're part of Western Lima. Really, I can merge them into Western Lima article. Turbo8000 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * With respect to Miraflores and Barranco I see that there is a fundamental gap of understand how districts work in Wikivoyage. There are so many listings in both of them that merging them into Western Lima would be of great disservice to the traveler.
 * If you want a comparison, I have the same issue with Sydney/Bondi_Beach and Sydney/Eastern_Suburbs (i.e. Bondi is actually part of the Eastern suburbs, not a separate area). It does however work best considering the work done on both articles so far and serves the traveler well.
 * Also please don't cite 'the younger generation' as a rationale for changing districts. The guide has to serve everyone, not just the group that you identify with.
 * It would be good to agree to keep these two articles before discussing north and south Lima. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And if we move it to Lima/Western Lima/Miraflores and Lima/Western Lima/Barranco? Turbo8000 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I would personally prefer to avoid another level of hierarchy, but would be interested in the views of others. For reference, the version of Western Lima before Turbo8000's merges is here . Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even cities as complex as New York City and London use only two levels of hierarchy, so I don't think it's a good idea to use three for Lima. In the interest of moving this discussion to a conclusion I'd suggest leaving Miraflores and Barranco as they are for now, and once reorganization is complete if the Western Lima lacks content then there would be a better argument for merging them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * For the record, I strongly dislike the idea of another level of hierarchy (it's best avoided, I agree with Andrew), as I dislike the colored letters. If there is consensus about them in Spanish Wikivoyage, muy bien. This consensus does not exist in English Wikivoyage; the matter must be discussed. I'd be happy to be outvoted about these colored letters and leave them be. But, the fact is, I find them corny, unelegant, unnecessary Ibaman (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know Lima and Turbo8000 does, so I respect his opinions on how best to divide and name districts of Lima (which should not be read to imply blanket support for all his suggestions; I lack enough information to actually express a preference one way or the other). However, I strongly disagree with using anything other than black letters for names of articles. Using red letters is especially confusing, as red links have meant the absence of an article from the inception of this guide, to my knowledge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can change the color of Callao in this case. Opinion? Turbo8000 (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. All the text must be black. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But it'd be easier for the tourist if we separate the zones by colors! @Ikan Kekek Turbo8000 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course use colors for the map. But not for text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Want an opinion? Very well! Start caring less about what YOU want, and a little more about what THE COMMUNITY wants. This should improve things. regards, Ibaman (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, color text removed @Ibaman Ikan Kekek Turbo8000 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Slowly getting somewhere I think. So we have consensus to keep Miraflores and Barranco, although they can be revisited on an individual basis later. Letter colors remain Black, because that is our convention.
 * I'll just go back to my origional regions (below). Now the last question seems to be about splitting 'Lima Sur' and 'Lima Norte' into two each. I would be against this because Wikipedia refers to all the districts belonging in Cono_Norte (That Turbo8000 really wants to call Lima Norte). Should we really split?

 * Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No Andrewssi2, Miraflores and Barranco aren't special districts. I propose to leave them as subarticles of Western Lima. And don't delete the Periphery, they should be SEPARATED of South and Northern Lima. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000, if you read the comments above, consensus points to keeping the existing Miraflores and Barranco districts where they are. You may not think they are special, but obviously someone did.
 * I still have reservations about splitting the well defined districts in Wikipedia for South and North Lima. If you really MUST split, can you at least suggest a different name? (You rejected all other suggestions) 'Periphery' is really weird name to give to an area, and it isn't used in either Spanish or English to describe any area of Lima. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I can explain, Turbo8000, why we should keep Miraflores and Barranco separate. Some areas, however small and unimportant on a citywide or administrative scale, are inherently more travel-orientated than others. They have lots of attractions, and tourism-related infrastructure (hotels, nightclubs, restaurants etc.) that mean we give them a lot of attention and make lots of listings for them. Far too many listings to cram into one gigantic article for the whole west of Lima, for example. These are also neighbourhoods already popular with travellers, that many people are likely to search for and expect specific detailed information (in our case a district article) on the exact place, not just the general area they're in.
 * As I believe User:Andrewssi2 has already told you we already do this for Bondi Beach in Sydney. We also do it for many other cities around the world (for another example, see the attraction-heavy Richmond-Kew and Wimbledon areas, that are within the otherwise dull (for visitors) suburban parts of South London). It's quite normal policy, and it's something that makes good sense for the traveller. We don't need to stick rigidly to what areas are defined by the city government or other officials, neither do we need to always divide a city based on how its inhabitants see it (as much as we appreciate the kind of priceless input only a local like yourself can offer), which is one of the joys of writing for Wikivoyage :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Periferia (in English Periphery) is used well in Spanish to refer as the further areas of Lima... Turbo8000 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Again, just look at Google (in Spanish). Various articles talk about the 'periferia' of Lima, but very few describe an area called 'Periferia Norte'. Just check Google. In fact the first article I can find that talks about it as a direct subject is actually the one you yourself created on Spanish Wikivoyage.
 * Additionally, not only is it rarely used in Spanish in the way you describe, it is even less used when translated directly to English. I think you need to start taking some input from the English for an alternative, such as 'Northern Outlying Districts'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem if we leave Miraflores and Barranco, is the district of Chorrillos, which is part of Western Lima and has only limit with Barranco (Western) and Surco (Southern). Now, could you understand why Barranco and Miraflores shouldn't be separated? Turbo8000 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can use "Far south" and "Far north" like São Paulo, if we agree. Turbo8000 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bricheras
I am not familiar with this term, but it's obvious that the "first type" is not practicing prostitution, as the word is usually defined in English:

"the first type are women that are genuinely looking to meet foreign men in the hopes of dating or marriage or even a quick fling."

None of these are acts of prostitution because there is no payment required or (apparently) expected for sex acts.

If there's anything inaccurate in the description, I have no reason to oppose an edit, but (and hoping not to be too hard on User:Turbo8000, who's been working hard though not always so collaboratively to improve articles about Peru) I would say that this edit is clearly unsatisfactory. (Also, for whatever it's worth, here's Urban Dictionary's top definition for "brichera", but it looks like only two definitions are given.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Ikan Kekek. "Bricheras" isn't a term used in Peru. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. If so, we should definitely remove the term. Is there another term used in Peru that applies to the first type of women described above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm really trying to assume good faith here about these blanket assertions about Peru and Peruvian people. However if you do a very simple search on "Bricheras Peru" then you get over 3,000 results. It seems to be a valid term used in Peru after all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * OK, Turbo8000, what do you have to say about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * In the grand scheme of things, 3000 results isn't very many (compared with the 507,000 that "prostitute peru" turns up), and it is entirely possible that all of those 3000 results are foreigners with the same misunderstanding as the article. But I agree that the ball really is in your park, Turbo8000, to explain your position satisfactorily. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * 3000 isn't a huge amount by Goole results, but neither is it insignificant considering the assertion that it just doesn't exist in Peru. Just reading through the fist hits suggest that there is a lot of discussion around them.
 * Also given that 'Bricheras' apparently target foreign men and not local men, then surely these travelers are in a better position to talk about them?
 * I would ask Turbo8000 to consider whether they may be mistaken (and not just on this subject). Just because you live in a country doesn't actually mean you know everything about it, and there is no problem with that (it applies to everyone on Wikivoyage). Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Something being a good company or the likes - grounds for non inclusion in our guides?
Now I have not monitored every single change made to this article, but sometimes a bus service or airline seems to have been removed on the grounds that the editor in question calls them "not a good company". Now I know we have a policy to avoid negative reviews, but how does it serve our readers if we just ignore some travel options instead of not listing a hotel or restaurant that don't really deserve a visit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I've been trying to work through each of the (many) editing issues one by one, but yes, this had concerned me as well. Basically we obviously do not remove companies that we don't like, for multiple reasons but also we have no idea if the contributor who removed them has any conflict of interest. They should be returned. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Equally, including a listing with the promise that it's "not a good company" should be avoided, when there is no further substantiation or explanation. For instance, Ormeña appears to be one of the largest coach companies in South America, operating across multiple countries over 1000km + journeys between the continent's major cities and stopping off at many smaller places on the way, so whether or not it is "good" in one editor's opinion is neither here nor there.
 * Can we assume that the IP users who have been editing occasionally and User:Turbo8000 are the same person? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I guess we can delist United Airlines throughout Wikivoyage then :)
 * But yes, sounds like Ormeño should be there. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. I can add Ormeño (is not Ormeña, is Ormeño) again. Just wanted to say what everyone here knows. Ormeño was the better bus line in South America, but, when his owner dead, the service quality isn't the same. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please to reinstate Ormeño. Thanks!
 * If you can say what specifically is wrong with the service (e.g. frequent delays, unsafe vehicles, bad drivers), that would be useful information to add. Just saying it's "bad" is too vague to be helpful. Please also stop changing Nazca to Nasca, and Panamerican Highway to "la Panamericana"; this guide is in English, so every name should be in English. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nazca or Nasca isn't English, they are toponyms. In Peru signals, Nasca is the most user grammar, among that it is a quechua word. So I prefer to leave that with an S. Greetings, Turbo8000 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But our destination article uses NaZca, which is the more common name in English. You're now edit warring, and I will be too if I revert one more of your edits on Nazca or the Panamerican Hwy, so can we please discuss this instead of you dictating what should happen and then doing it? Gracias, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nazca is not the common name, and we are discussing the rename of Nazca to Nasca, ThunderingTyphoons! Turbo8000 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, once there is a consensus over there, we can change the spelling on here as necessary. Thanks, Turbo8000 :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is the English Wikivoyage, the place names used in English should be used for destinations, period. For instance we have articles for Rome, Moscow, Munich and Copenhagen — NOT "Roma", "Moskva" (and surely not Mockba), "München" and "København". At most we can have a redirect for non-English terms. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah, Mockba hahahahahahahaahhaah it's Москва, well, in that case it's different. I always used "La Habana", Havana I thought was an error.. Turbo8000 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, you should learn the correct English name for things before changing them on a whim. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Periferia
Can we use Far North and Far South like São Paulo? I have no problem with Periphery, but some users don't agree I think... Turbo8000 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm OK with 'Far North' and 'Far South' (albeit unconvinced by the need for them, but anyway). Please wait for the opinions of others before changing anything though. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. @Ikan Kekek @Jamie, @Hobbitschuster, Opinion? Turbo8000 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have yet to hear the case why the outermost districts need to have separate articles at all. If and when that case is convincingly made, I can live with "Far North" and "Far South". Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with using the term Periphery. Far North and Far South are also fine. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Periphery", but it seems that most of users prefer "Far". The reason to separate the outermost districts is because of the commercial, rural and luxury zones with beaches (balnearios exclusivos). Turbo8000 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant question for this travel guide is whether these neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city, whatever we would call them, have enough points of interest for visitors to be worth covering separately. What do you have to say about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * In an ideal world, Turbo8000 would create those new articles in their namespace to demonstrate that there was sufficient content to separate out. Since this appears unlikely to happen, we could simply allow the split, with the disclaimer that they would be quickly merged again if the resultant articles were too empty? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Why is it unlikely for that to happen? User:Turbo8000, please create these articles about areas on the periphery of the city in your own userspace, with links here. You can use User:Turbo8000/Sandbox 1 and User:Turbo8000/Sandbox 2, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 rejected that suggestion before (much earlier in the thread). That said there have been a huge number of edits on WV by Turbo8000 that have not stood up to the most simple Google research (see next topic), leading me to doubt their knowledge about this city. We want to welcome new users but ultimately we can't allow that to mislead the traveler. Once the districts are split then it will be harder to control incorrect edits.
 * I would ask, yes, please create 'Far North' and 'Far South in the user space of Turbo8000, and lets see if they stand up by themselves. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if Turbo8000 "rejected" that suggestion earlier. Individual users don't dictate to the rest of the community. Create the articles in your sandbox, Turbo8000. If we agree, they can then be easily moved into articlespace, where they would be normal city district articles. Or if you prefer, don't create the articles at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the events of the last hours, I get the impression a break on this discussion may be in order.

I suggest rolling everything back to how it was at the end of December before the edits of January. If we want to return to the district structure in the future then we have so far agreed on the following:

Turbo8000 has further suggested splitting the north and south areas into 'Far North' and 'Far South'. They will create these proposed articles in their own namespace and on agreement could be added into the structure above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not able to keep close tabs on the site right now so I'm not clear on what the current drama around these proposals might be, but it would be a shame not to move forward with a new district structure since it's clear that the old one doesn't align with any other existing divisions for the city. I'm fine with the proposal above from Andrewssi2 and would suggest that be implemented unless there are objections. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I am supportive of the above proposal. Why not go for it? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I support this proposal too. Ibaman (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The benefit of the structure above is that it addresses Turbo8000's primary concern around the Javier Prado areas that do not apparently exist. Once that is fixed then the remaining concerns can be addressed on an individual basis later, since the resultant structure will be correct if not optimal from Turbo8000's perspective.
 * I'll make the changes later if nobody objects. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I have made a start. I'll try and get the district map colored today. Comments until now appreciated. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I implemented first map of the districts with the help of Wikipedia, since not all districts were included in the original change proposal. Please provide constructive comments. (Non-constructive comments will not be considered obviously...) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Andrewssi2, that looks good. Two small things are, firstly it might be nice to have the districts in alphabetical order. And secondly, the colours for Eastern Lima and Barranco are a little similar at first glance.
 * On the map, what purpose do the black lines serve (as opposed to the white lines), as colours seem to overlap both? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Actually the black lines are the main regions as defined by Wikipedia, which our friend Turbo8000 was vehemently against. The overlaps are therefore a compromise with some of the district groups that he wanted. I don't have another Lima map with which I can edit like this unfortunately.
 * Yes, I will place the districts in alphabetical order (I was waiting for any feedback on the naming convention as well)
 * Finally, sure I can change colors. I'm challenged like that :) I could turn Eastern Lima into a more pink color or what would you suggest? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Any colour you like, mate :-) How about a dark green? It's not a pretty map anyway, so really the colours just need to be as different from one another as possible. I definitely don't know Lima well enough to suggest alternative district names, and I don't see anything wrong with the ones you've chosen. Shame about the lines, but most people probably won't notice them --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 is edit warring the map image on MediaWiki! I'll remove maps for now to prevent his vandalism. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * What are the white lines? Both the white and black lines bug me, and will definitely confuse readers. If necessary, we can house the appropriate map locally on Wikivoyage and protect it from edits by anyone who isn't an Autopatroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I did this earlier (although Turbo8000 is an autopatroller by the way).
 * The Black lines are the general North/South/East/West/Central regions that Wikipedia defined (and frankly I am giving serious thought to just use those). The white lines are actual official individual districts.
 * Would it help to remove the white lines and use districts as Wikipedia defines them? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think it matters as long as the lines are clearly explained. In other words, the white lines may be OK but the black lines are not, unless we decide to use the same districts as Wikipedia. I don't know Lima, so I have no opinion about that. Are you saying Turbo8000 is an autopatroller on this site? Seriously? If someone made him an autopatroller, that was a serious error that needs to be corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry, he is an 'autoconfimed' user Special:UserRights/Turbo8000 which he aquired by virtue of being a member of WV for 4 days. That means protection level needs to be restricted to Admin to prevent him making changes, which is unfortunate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * (1) Is there a way to rescind his autoconfirmation? (2) Is there a way to restrict the protection level to Autopatrollers, rather than Administrators? However, (3) None of this matters as long as he is banned from editing here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Regarding (1) and (2), I have asked on the Pub for people to help move this forward at Wikivoyage_talk:Autoconfirmed_users. I would like to emphasize that I do not want to see an indefinite ban, and would much prefer Turbo8000 actually discuss in clear terms what they want to see in the map above. They can do this by taking each individual district and proposing to move into North/South/East/West/Central, along with simple rationale. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I found an SVG version of the Lima map at Commons. If you want, I can adapt it for our uses. It will take a few days as it wasn't designed in a way to easily colour code districts -- but it gives us the ability to get a map without all of those white and black lines. -Shaundd (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * SVG? Awesome! Thanks so much Shaundd Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted the reworked SVG file on Commons. Each district has its own polygon so it can be easily recoloured if our WV districts change. -Shaundd (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Shaundd, I was actually waiting to see if there was any further constructive input from our Lima based contributor first, but your map looks so much better already! Many thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't sure if I should post it or not for that reason, but I sometimes get distracted or pulled away by other things so I thought better to get it up now. Each of the 40 or so official districts has it's own shape in the map -- so unless the borders of those official districts change (which I gather is one of the points of contention), it will be pretty simple to change the WV district it belongs to if needed. -Shaundd (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 * We do have claims that the districts have changed, but as those claims are not yet backed by any evidence then I think we are good for now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cruz del Viajero
A recent edit claims that the "Cruz del Viajero" does not exist. Wikipedia claims otherwise. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * This is getting really tiresome now. Not only does it have its own article but it is referred to explicitly as an attraction of Pueblo Libre : Pueblo_Libre and Spanish Wikipedia as well.
 * User:Turbo8000 : you obviously do not know everything about your city. That is fine, no-one everything about their own city. However you MUST STOP deleting things just because you yourself are ignorant of them. A simple Google search would have quickly told you that it did indeed exist. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Good to know my own sources weren't wrong. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * You do realise, User:Turbo8000, that I and others are trying to improve the quality of coverage on your home city, to increase the amount of knowledge readily available to travellers. It is quite wearing to have to fight you over every little detail just because you don't approve. Try to be a bit more relaxed, would you? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * My fellow Wikivoyagers, call me harsh if you will, but this must be said: a mocking non sequitur like "hahaha, it's not Mockba..." within the context of this debate is more than just disrespectful and immature, it's crystalline proof that this guy is not at all interested in engaging on constructive teamwork. I thought of blocking him on spot, but said to myself, naah, let's see if this goes somewhere. But it's clearly going nowhere. My opinion. Ibaman (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With regards to that, I left him a message as it still cannot be ruled out that he simply misunderstood the previous messages. I think he should be given time to respond, but if I interpret the attitude around here correctly, he should not do anything of the likes of what you mentioned above again. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * There is much to criticise about Turbo8000's edits and I won't bother listing them, however we should bear in mind that A) They are not trolling, B) Not taking things personally against any individual contributor who is rolling back their edits, and C) are demonstrably not fluent in English, therefore a few of their comments may easily have been taken out of context. Call me naive if you will, but very worst case we just have to roll back the Peru articles back to December. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Personally speaking, it would be really good to find a solution together with Turbo8000 and move past these problems in a positive direction. The more new and enthusiastic editors (and I don't think we can doubt Turbo's enthusiasm!) we can get, the better. No offence to you guys, but time and again I see the same few names performing most of the edits on my watchlist and leading most of the discussion on talk pages, and it is great to have some 'new blood' coming in, in addition to all the fabulous work you already do. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree. There's no offence, you said the wholesome plain truth now. Let's hope he gets the gist. I'd be glad to be proved wrong in this case. Ibaman (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Having said that, I am once again at loggerheads with him over something small (see below). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget it. The issue has been resolved, albeit not in the way we hoped for. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

He was warned... time and again... may the timeout be good for him. Ibaman (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Chorrillos District
Chorrillos_District was cited by User:Turbo8000 as incorrect on MediaWiki. This is currently in Lima/Western Lima, so if they can propose which region it should appear under or become a separate article then that would be appreciated. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * How is he going to do that while he's banished? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, he is only banned until tomorrow, and if his ban is extended then it would just be another week.
 * The point being, he doesn't have to change everything in these articles right away! If this subject takes a couple of weeks or more to conclude, then that is really fine. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * OK, fair play. How time flies. Chorrillos does seem quite a touristy district (assuming it has the hotel and restaurant infrastructure to go with the beach) looking at the article, so maybe it should have a page all its own. But I suspect no-one editing here except Turbo knows much about this city, which let's face it is a problem. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Typically we would trust someone from Lima to make all these edits, but this user has made some significant errors in the past week and unfortunately those edits would be harmful if left unchallenged. On that basis I would go with the Wikipedia first as the source of truth, and ask then ask the user why there is a difference.
 * Chorrillos_District looks like it 'could' be a separate article, but I would leave in Lima/Western Lima until a good reason is given to change. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Ideally, Turbo is going to come back a changed man, which would be wonderful as the popular travel guidebooks ('Lonely Planet' etc) tend to be written collaboratively by residents or regional experts, which is something a wiki can easily emulate much faster than a book. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to get changed this wrong map to my map. I don't know why mergering the nearer south/north and the further south/north. Turbo8000 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Instead of calling this a "wrong map", please explain what's wrong with it, and why. Keep in mind that the Wikivoyage districts for a city are set up for the convenience of visitors and based on things like the number of points of interest in particular areas and the degree of ease for them to be able to understand a particular area of the city as a coherent chunk, even if it comprises several different official districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000, please give specific reasons why it is a 'wrong map' . Seriously, we are not going to change anything until you are willing to explain.
 * Additionally after working on the 'North' and 'South' articles, I can really assure you that there is insufficient content for a split at this stage. You may personally not like it, but we don't create extra areas for your own personal preference. Again, a solid reason may change our minds. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to explain! I live here more than 15 years, and I know as a local resident. Don't take it as a wrong attitude, just let me explain:

 * Chorrillos and Surco are having a territorial conflict. Chorrillos wants to get the 9 and 10 sectors of Surco.
 * Finishing this point, another error is that Pampa Pacta and Chancherías are part of Santo Domingo de los Olleros (Huarochirí) and not Punta Hermosa/Negra. Turbo8000 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Turbo, for trying to explain to us out-of-towners and foreigners.
 * The territorial conflict between Surco and Chorrillos, unless it poses some kind of safety hazard to travellers (e.g. if each local council has a dangerous militia at its disposal), should have no bearing on what we do here on Wikivoyage. Travellers are not generally interested in local administrative headaches like this, nor are they affected by them. If Surco ends up being absorbed into Chorrillos officially, then we may have to change something.
 * Pampa Pacta and Chancherías aren't, as far as I can see, mentioned anywhere on Wikivoyage, neither is Sto. Domingo de los O. / Huarochirí. What are they, towns? Do they need their own articles or are they districts of Lima? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Pampa Pacta and Chancherías (Olleros) aren't part of the metropolitan Lima area, and nothing interesting for the tourists. As it is official, we should leave Surco with all the sectors and Chorrillos. Turbo  8000  13:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with all that. I like your new signature. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * To remain on the topic of Chorrillos, can you just point to what are the official boundaries are today? Obviously this is a more fluid subject in Peru than we may experience in a town in Germany (for example), but the problem with your changes is that you present no evidence. Just point us to an official website of some sort that shows that the Wikipedia districts are wrong and I'm personally happy to change things. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am putting the boundaries as TODAY. Turbo  8000  21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Awesome! Can you please provide an official reference to today's districts that would show Wikipedia is incorrect? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Good news! I found a map on the Government of Lima website :)
 * So... the current maps district outlines for Chorrillos and Surco are correct. I see now that our map should in fact place Chorrillos in the southern area. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, if you see, La Encantada is governed by Surco. Why can't you trust a local resident? Turbo  8000  15:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See here and here. Turbo  8000  16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * If the "local resident" has been wrong multiple times (see here and here for just two examples), then it is completely reasonable to verify their changes. In any case, it is perfectly fine to review the changes that anyone makes here.
 * So your Google maps link shows the subdistrict of 'La Encantada' is by the coast... OK, but Google maps also shows that the district of the district of Santiago_de_Surco nowhere near it and instead agrees with the Wikipedia boundaries of Santiago de Surco. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong, I just want to tell the truth about the Lima boundaries, not like the maps or wikis want, I live here and I know all about the districts, the conflicts, the limits, etc Turbo  8000  23:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Not good enough, mate. The maps have no reason to mislead us. You, on the other hand, have (accidentally or deliberately) done so on multiple occasions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Turbo8000 - if your boundaries are indeed the truth, then there should seriously be no problem pointing us to an official map that shows that both Google Maps and Wikipedia are wrong. I'm happy to show the true boundaries once you've demonstrated that. Take your time, there is no hurry. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 * In case it is of interest, I was looking at OpenStreetMaps as well. Here are the boundaries of Santigo de Surco and Chorrillos, and it cites the Peruvian ministry of the environment (Ministerio de Ambiente) as the source. The boundaries appear (yet again) consistent with Google Maps and Wikipedia.
 * I'm still open to believe that all these maps and sources are out of date, but I do need some concrete proof that they have changed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lima districts
It has been a rather difficult process to discuss the Lima districts over the past weeks. I'll just record our status before taking a break:

 * 1) Wikipedia has a comprehensive and complete list of districts (including maps) in both English and Spanish
 * 2) Wikipedia has a clear definition of the 5 regions of Lima in English and a variation into more regions in Spanish
 * 3) Turbo8000 has claimed these regions and even individual districts on Wikipedia are 'completely wrong', citing territorial changes in 2013 that are not reflected in any official (or unofficial) map as well as not reflected in Google Maps. It is still a complete mystery what their suggestions are based on
 * 4) Turbo8000 wants to remove many districts from Lima on the basis that they "are not interesting for travelers", which as far as I know is not acceptable practice on Wikivoyage
 * 5) We achieved consensus to keep the existing Lima/Barranco and Lima/Miraflores district articles. They have a good amount of content in each.
 * 6) There is currently insufficient content to justify splitting 'north' and 'south' into more 'far north and 'far south' articles at this point.
 * 7) Since we need a solid basis to structure the districts, I propose that we just use the one defined on English Wikipedia for now. I'm happy to wait for another solid basis to be provided by Turbo8000 (or anyone else) in the next few weeks (seriously, I am not attached to the map I created, I just want to be able to verify that any proposed map is correct).

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Andrewssi2, you've done a good job leading this so far. Enjoy your break. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Lima
We have a new contributor who is unhappy with the existing districts of Lima and wants to completely reorganize them.

It is fine to achieve consensus and then change districts, however this contributor rejects the consensus approach. The attitude has been "I live here, you are wrong, use my districts".

Given all the recent discussions of 'Biting Newbies' I have been making all attempts to reach out to the contributor and even make my own proposal that draws from Wikipedia regions and existing well defined articles for Lima.

I'm now concerned that I am making no progress whatsoever with explaining collaboration to this contributor which may result in:

 * We rejects all of their changes, resulting in an angry contributor who could otherwise have provided valuable input to Lima
 * We allow them to make whatever changes they like, thereby throwing out well establish previous consensus for the city, deleting good existing articles for specific districts and with a district naming that seems wrong.

Neither is a desirable outcome. Can I ask for help from anyone to help work this one out at Talk:Lima? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I am happy to help you out, though the user in question has hardly edited over the past month, either here or on Wikiviajes. Since it was him and him alone calling for change to the established convention in the first place, I don't think we're obliged to carry on this discussion in his absence.

 * Do you plan to invite him to join in with this region issue again? I too want to encourage as many new users to join as possible, but have serious doubts as to whether this user's attitude will ever change. We start as we mean to go on, don't we? Sorry to be so negative --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 * This discussion was swept from the pub from earlier --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Oh, I didn't look at the date. Sorry! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 * NP, although the offer to work constructively with this contributor does still stand. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Making it clearer that Lima Metro is in fact a rail system
I know the term "Metro" should be obvious, but unfortunately some cities in some places have seen fit to call their buses "metro" and then there is this "metro" of some kind. Given that the line 1 of Metro Lima is mentioned in a paragraph about buses, we might wish to be more explicit. Especially given that many, many people - if for justified reasons or not - would not take a bus if they can half avoid it but would prefer urban rail over a cab in most situations. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be a separate paragraph to the bus one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Climate chart
It is sourced from Lima, but the chart there looks substantially different. The recent ravages of global warming? In any event, I guess it has to be changed here... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Stay Safe - Corrupt Police
The section 'Current Police' says, that Lima doesn't add stamps to your passport at borders. I am in Lima currently and arrived over land from Ecuador, where I received a stamp on the border. So can someone reconfirm the information or should it be removed? Carroll D. (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lima


text:
Talk:Lima/Barranco

Subdivision of See section
I noticed that the uncategorised listings were moved from a subsection called More to the start of the See section without a subheading. I do not think this is a good idea. Having these listings at the end in a subsection called eg Other gives a much better overview. I notice that this is also how it is done eg for a star article like Chicago/Near South. I suggest we do the same here and elsewhere, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 08:45, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I rather strongly disagree. For one thing, the Chicago article has a non-standard organization divided into 3 clusters of attractions and has a couple that don't fit in, so its organization is a little different. That's fine. However, the vast majority of articles are divided by attraction type, if at all, and the attractions that don't easily fit into a category are often the most unique and interesting (hence the reason there aren't enough to warrant their own category in the first place). Lots of cities have a list of museums or parks or whatnot but the things they have that no other city has may be only one or two of a type. Standardizing them into an "other" section forces them to always come at the end and, in my view, somewhat marginalizes them. I'd rather see them at the top because they are, by default, a list of the things that are most unique in the city.(WT-en) texugo 09:10, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I see your points. However, browsing through some of our star articles, I only found one article with a number of uncategorised attractions in the start of the see section, and found a few with an other section following categories by type of attraction.  I agree, that if a destination has one or two very important attractions that do not fit in any category they should be in the front, but often such attractions are important enough to take their own subheading.  But in the case of Barranco, I still find that having more than half of the attractions in the beginning of the article before the categories does not help the readers' understanding.  The way forward here might be to make more subsections like landmarks, buildings, areas or whatever would be relevant here, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 11:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Lima/Barranco


text:
Talk:Lima/Central Lima

Map
An excellent map of Central Lima can be found here - [Tourisitic map of centro historico]--(WT-en) Harleyca 19:10, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Walking Tours
I think the Lucid Lima Walking Tour listing should stay. Its a free tour and certainly makes things a bit safer for the unsuspecting tourist. I haven't personally been robbed in Lima but have witnessed theft turned violent and a fight were a fire arm was drawn and knocked to the ground.

 * 90 minute guided walking tour with English speaking guides.--(WT-en) Harleyca 15:04, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Walking tours usually don't meet the criteria laid out in the Tour policy, and are generally only left in articles when there aren't a lot of other activities listed. I removed it in this case to be consistent with the removal of the other three tours, none of which had any useful info and all of which look questionable to me.  If you feel strongly that the Lucid tour should be restored I wouldn't object, but if the other tour companies re-add their listings then I suggest that all should be removed in order to be consistent with Wikivoyage's policies and guidelines. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:08, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Replacement banner

Can I propose replacing the current drab banner with this one? ( image needs adjusting) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know Lima, but that's a lot nicer than the current one. Any opinions by people who know the city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Done --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

List of churches
There was a long list of churches with no details whatsoever. I have moved them here for reference. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

title: Talk:Lima/Central Lima


text:
Talk:Lima/East

The border looks pretty confusing, its not that bad really;

 * Rio Rimac
 * The provincial border of Lima (the province)
 * Rio Lurin
 * The coast
 * District border of Barranco
 * District border of Miraflores
 * Avenida Arequipa (This is the divider of Avenida Javier Prado Oeste & Este)
 * District border of Lima (the district)

--(WT-en) Harleyca 03:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Sub-dividing
The reason to subdivide by suburb is that the city is really big and if your staying in one area its easy to find restaurants etc if they're divided by area, you can then also subdivide the suburb by price. —The preceding comment was added by 190.234.4.38 (talk • contribs)
 * No problem. I'll revert my changes. Please remember to sign your comments using ~ --Saqib (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Santiago de Surco
Once the edit restriction has been lifted, I plan to change "Surco" to "Santiago de Surco", as it is apparently officially known. If I forget, I apologise and ask whoever sees this to please make the change. Gracias :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lima/East


text:
Talk:Lima/West

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

Comments
Listing subdivisions and order

Listing subdivisions and order and Avoid long lists. I feel dividing things by neighbourhood here is the way to go as its a large area and chances are people are going to visit one neighbourhood in a day not go running around all over the show. I think I'm keeping to wikivoyage style by dividing by neighbourhood. The wikivoyage style guide also says "whatever suits the location" and "invent your own as needed".--(WT-en) Harleyca 20:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry. You're going to have to build consensus here before you institute a non-standard breakdown. I don't find it appropriate to subdivide a district article into a million subsections by barrio. It doesn't make sense to organize the See section that way because people are going to choose sights based on their interests, not by what neighborhood it's in. Yes the list of museums is a bit long, but we are here at the lowest level of the hierarchy so it's ok, and it's a lot less unsightly than having museums in 12 different lists. Similarly, I can't find a reason not to divide the Eat or Sleep listings into our standard budget categories. (WT-en) texugo 21:22, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Oh, and by the way, that link you provided to justify subsections "to breed district content"-- please read that again. It says you can make district subsections in the main article to breed content, presumably before district articles have been created. We are not seeking to further divide this district into smaller ones, so this is not a valid justification.(WT-en) texugo 21:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Please read the avoid long lists section again and take note of this in particular "Create other suitable subdivisions: Further subdivisions within district and price categories can be invented as you go along, whatever suits the location: by neighborhood, which can be more fine-grained than districts". and perhaps this also; "Within each subdivision, when no other standard of ordering listings is used, alphabetical order should be the norm". Your removing a system that has some kind of order and replacing it with a system that has no order at all. So please, instead of just vandalising my work either improve it or leave it alone.--(WT-en) Harleyca 00:33, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Excuse me? I have made tens of thousands of edits here since 2005 and every one of them has been with the intention of improving what we have. I do not at all appreciate being accused of vandalism. I do remain fully and completely unconvinced that this article, which is by no means full in the first place, benefits from chopping the content of each section up seven ways geographically. The neighborhood information is already given in the address after all. Yes, the policies do allow for unconventional organizational schemes sometimes, but I don't think that necessity has been at all demonstrated here, and I think we should build consensus before we go deviating from the standard. Putting the 21 Eat listings in our standard 3 budget categories is a lot more useful and easier on the eyes than making 7 categories of about 3 listings each. Dividing the See section like this makes even less sense. I'm not going to go choosing a sight to see because a certain museum is in one barrio and not another; I'm going to choose a museum because it's a museum I'm interested in, so I want to see them grouped by types. What is so special about this district that you think warrants an idiosyncratic organizational scheme? It may be a kind of large district, but probably not substantially more so than Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul for example, which has lots more info than this and is organized in our standard way. (WT-en) texugo 04:22, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * I would like to give my thoughts on these issues, which hopefully can help making a compromise between you two great contributors:
 * See: I usually use a subdivision by attraction type as I believe travelers will be looking for say a museum rather for attractions in a specific neighbourhood. However, if the neighbourhoods are very large or if it is likely that they eventually will be split out in individual district articles, subdividing by neighbourhood could be justified.  In this case I would suggest to subdivide by attraction type and then further subdivide eg Museums by neighbourhood if that section is still too long.  As I remember it, our manual of style does not say that the see section have to be subdivided by attraction type
 * Eat and Sleep: Here I think it is important to split by price range (Budget, Mid-range, Splurge) as some travellers will only have interest in one of these ranges. Furthermore, it is stated in our manual of style that this is how it should be done.  If one of the ranges then have too many listings, that one can be split furhter by neighbourhood
 * Drink: Here I usually split by neighbourhood as I would expect travelers to look for bars in the area they are in rather than for a specific type of bar
 * I hope some of that can be of help, I am happy to hear any arguments against mine and happy to further elaborate if needed, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 06:03, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Basically, I agree with User:(WT-en) ClausHansen. It often makes sense in the Drink section since nightlife is usually clustered on certain streets or areas of a few blocks, and part of the fun can often be bar-hopping, checking out more than one place. In the other cases, splitting it into neighborhoods is not the most useful organizational scheme. (WT-en) texugo 09:04, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * This page is quite new (5 days) and I am/was seeing how much info each neighbourhood received incase further subdividing was neccessary. I had considered that San Isidro or Pueblo Libre might deserve their own page (I think I mentioned this in the Main Lima discussion on sub-dividing) but I'm not convinced. So for me, I find it easier to work with small lists divided by neighbourhood. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. I think Chorrillos needs to be moved to another district, where it fits I'm not really sure, but its south of Miraflores and Barranco, it doesn't really belong here, perhaps amalgamating Barranco and Chorrillos together (and possibly Miraflores as well) in to one page. --(WT-en) Harleyca 12:14, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Lima/West


text:
Talk:Limassol

Cyprus Beaches

Cyprus doesn’t have the nicest beaches in the world with white sand and all that we associate with it, but they are not bad. There are better beaches in the Turkish occupied area – notably Farmagusia. And you cannot go surfing there, as the Mediterranean Sea doesn’t produce waves, but for many people it makes it nicer.

The beaches in general, are gray and some have stones. The public beaches are mostly cleared of stones, however. There are some swimming areas where there are a lot of stones in the sea, but again, where most of the tourists go it’s pretty much cleared of such debris. The sea is mostly calm where it’s like swimming in a lake and the water is clear that you can see down to your feet.

Best beaches near Limassol
Best beaches near Limassol are outside the city. Go to Ladies Mile or Curium Beaches, both to the west of the city.

title: Talk:Limassol