text:
Talk:Damnoen Saduak/Listings

See
Royal Thai Handicraft Centre (รอยัลไทย แฮนด์ดิคราฟ เซ็นเตอร์) This is situated at 240 Mu 6, approximately 11 kilometres from Bang Phae Intersection at Km. 15 on Highway 325. The centre contains teak sculptures in many forms for decoration or furniture such as wooden sculpted picture, living room suite, wine cupboard, and screen. There is a demonstration of making mulberry paper, sculpting wood, and there are souvenir shops selling various products such as bag, lamp and wooden products. It opens daily at 08.00 a.m.–05.00 p.m. For further information, please contact Tel. 0 3225 3010-14 or www.royalthairtc.com

Wat Luangpho Sot Thammakayaram (วัดหลวงพ่อสดธรรมกายาราม) This is situated in Tambon Phaengphuai, on Bang Phae-Damnoen Saduak Road. From Bang Phae, the temple is on your left, 10 kilometres before you arrive at Damnoen Saduak Intersection. The temple’s ordination hall was constructed near the end of the Ayutthaya era, and it was the place to keep jade Buddha images in different gestures. Inside the temple, the learning garden and royal permanent forest garden is located with an area of more than 200 rai (320,000 square metres). This temple received the 1st prize for the outstanding forest garden from the Royal Forest Department in 1996. In addition, it is the provincial Pali language school. There is an exhibition concerning Lord Buddha’s relics and instruction of meditation and practice of Dhamma for Thais and foreigners is given on Sundays at 09.30 a.m.–02.30 p.m. The training course will be held for 2 groups each year. For further details, please call Tel. 0 3225 3632 ext. 190, 220 or www.dhammakaya.org

Damnoen Saduak Floating Market (ตลาดน้ำดำเนินสะดวก) Well-known as Khlong Ton Khem Floating Market, is one famous attraction of Ratchaburi, approximately 80 kilometres from Bangkok. Around 1866, King Rama IV commanded to dig Khlong Damnoen Saduak with a distance of more than 32 kilometres connecting the Mae Klong River at Bang Nok Khwaek to the Tha Chin River at Pratunam Bang Yang. There are several small canals, so people in Ratchaburi, Samut Songkhram, and Samut Sakhon can commute to visit each other conveniently.

Damnoen Saduak Floating Market was first known as a tourist attraction in 1967 in the picture of the floating market crowded with small rowing boats which contained necessary products for living. We could see tradesmen, who dressed in dark-coloured clothes with a hat made of palm leaves like farmers, rowing boats to sell and exchange products in the period when the waterway was the main transportation route. Damnoen Saduak Floating Market opens early in the morning until noon. Wat Prasatsit Floating Market, where we still can see traditional ways of life, opens early in the morning until 08.00 a.m. For more details, please contact the Tourism Public Relations Centre of Amphoe Damnoen Saduak at Tel.      0 3224 1023

Touring along the canal and admiring Damnoen Saduak Floating Market (ล่องคลองชมตลาดน้ำดำเนินสะดวก) Rental boats are available at Damnoen Saduak Floating Market. Each rowing boat costs Bt 300 and each long boat Bt 400. The long boat can contain 8 passengers, and it takes about 1 hour to bring them to see orchards and the process of producing fresh sugar palm sap beverage. For more information, please contact Yuwanda Pier at Tel. 0 3224 1392, 08 6668 9471, 08 9161 0909.

Talat Nam Damnoen Saduak Kao or Khlong Lat Phli (ตลาดน้ำดำเนินสะดวกเก่าหรือคลองลัดพลี) This is located at Wat Rat Charoen Tham (Wat Sun). This old Damnoen Saduak floating market has been revived to be active again. There are boats selling hygienic fruits and vegetables, noodles, traditional coffee, etc. A boat tour offers a chance to witness ways of life, local culture of 8 tribes, traditional massage, health treatment with a herbal compress and a herbal sauna, and OTOP products. For more information, contact the Damnoen Saduak District Office at Tel. 0 3224 1204.

How to get there: By car: From Bangkok, tourists can travel to Damnoen Saduak Floating Market by 2 routes as follows: By Bus: Air-conditioned bus Bangkok-Damnoen Saduak leaving the Southern Bus Terminal, on Borommaratchachonnani Road. The first bus departs at 5.00 a.m. taking about 2 hours. Get off the bus at the Choeng Saphan Thanarat Market. At the market, tourists can take a Song Thaeo to Damnoen Saduak Floating Market which takes another 1 kilometre.
 * 1) Drive along Phetchakasem Road (Highway 4), passing Bang Khae, Rose Garden, Nakhon Chai Si, and Nakhon Pathom. After you arrive at Km. 83, turn left at the Bang Phae Intersection and drive along Highway 325 for about 25 kilometres. Cross the Thanarat Bridge and go straight on for 200 metres then turn right and go ahead for 1 kilometre.
 * 2) Drive along the Thon Buri-Pak Tho Route (Highway 35), a distance of 63 kilometres. Turn right into Highway 325, passing the town of Samut Songkhram, then turn into Highway 325 for about 12 kilometres. The entrance to the floating market is ahead of the Thanarat Bridge for 200 metres. Turn left and drive on another 1 kilometre.

In addition, tourists can travel by other buses, such as Bangkok-Ratchaburi, Bangkok- Phetchaburi (Old Route), and get off at Bang Phae Intersection. Then, take a Song Thaeo on the Bang Phae Intersection-Damnoen Saduak Route, which departs every 10 minutes.

Amphoe Damnoen Saduak

 * Ban Suk Chok Resort (บ้านสุขโชครีสอร์ท) 103/5 Mu 5 Damnoen Saduak (Tel: 254301, 254982), 36 rooms: 250-1,300 baht

title: Talk:Damnoen Saduak/Listings


text:
Talk:Da Nang

Both Da Nang and HaiPhong are mentioned here as "Vietnam's third largest city", but there should be only one :) —The preceding comment was added by 77.41.103.107 (talk • contribs), 00:13, 15 August 2010

To Guide
This article seems to be almost at Guide status. The obvious thing it still needs is a map. Anything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How's this one? --Dragfyre (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Travel Map of Da Nang.png
 * Poor. No streets are labeled, no points of interest are shown, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK. Will take a look at maps for some other cities and see how it could be improved. Alternatively, is Mapframe considered a good option? --Dragfyre (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, all the Star articles that are either district articles themselves or about cities that are not divided into separate district articles use static maps. See, for example, Chicago/Loop. However, Tokyo/Roppongi is an example of an excellent Guide article that's been nominated for Star status and uses a dynamic map. The kind of dynamic map used in that article is being used more and more on this site. I should say, I don't think it's perfect because I have to zoom in to see more than a couple of street names, and it's actually very troubling that at the highest zoom level, there are still loads of unnamed streets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is as yet designated as only Usable, but it has a good dynamic map: Berlin/Mitte. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, using dynamic maps for Star articles is still open for discussion - which should really be carried out at Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition or Star nominations though there are pertinent comments at the pub. Right now there's a backlog of Star-nominated articles since there isn't a good agreement for usage. We do need direction, whether to work on static output or improve printing. For a guide article I think Mapframe does the job, particularly as many guides and even featured articles do not even have a basic map. Some of the places like Dakar and Tokyo just don't have a lot of named roads, a bit like Olgii, so it's not a purely dynamic map problem although Asia and Africa are indeed regions with poorer OSM coverage. If you do know the names of the roads, you can edit them at OSM using their new iD editor. -- torty3 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this conversation was never wrapped up. Per City guide status, the map should not be an issue at all, as maps are only required for Star status articles. Thus, I am going to upgrade this article to guide status. GeneralPericles (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, to get it to Star status, I would recommend adding a dynamic map (I believe that's the consensus now?) and expanding the Work section to at least a paragraph. GeneralPericles (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Get in/By car"
This is the entirety of that subsection, moved here for discussion:

Here are list trust company in Hoi An offer Danang Airport transfer service and from Hoi An to Hue city.
 * Hoi An Private Car
 * Hanoi Transfer Services - +84982358282, info@hanoitransferservice.com
 * Danang Airport Transfer
 * Book A car Vietnam - (+84)911 577 117,info@bookacarvn.com

First of all, here is a list of trusted companies, etc. But trusted by whom? This seems more than a little touty. Which, if any, of these companies should we be listing? And if we do list them, a local address is essential, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DotM?
This Guide article one could make a nice DotM (or OtBP?) sometime in early 2017. Some listings lack coordinates, and I don't know if the Learn section needs to go into details such as which books Vietnamese language courses use. Anything else anyone thinks has to be fixed before the article can be put on the Main Page? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anybody? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Bread of Life Western Bakery and Eatery"
The listing for Bread of Life is outdated and not a place I could recommend. A few years ago it was sold and while they say they hire the deaf and otherwise disabled I have seen no sign of this in my three visits there with friends. The food is fair and unremarkable.

Eat: What is "Budget", "Mid-range" and "Splurge?"
What constitutes "Budget", "Mid-range" and "Splurge?" Having lived there for a couple of years in my experience to the traveler "Budget" would be 20.000đ to 50.000đ, "Mid-range" 50.000đ to 500.000đ and everything else in "Splurge." Is this something that should be added as a guide?Thanks --Beelerb (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 * You can use Template:Eatpricerange to create an infobox so that visitors know (roughly) what a cheap, mid-range or expensive meal will cost. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bridge
Breathtaking Bridge In Vietnam Has Just Been Opened And It Looks Like Something From Lord Of The Rings Pashley (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Departing train schedules
I don't know if we want to keep these updated, but they were in "Get in" and clearly are not about getting in to Da Nang:

Da Nang to Hanoi
 * Train SE2: Depart 12:06, Arrive 04:02 next day
 * Train SE4: Depart 14:42, Arrive 05:00 next day
 * Train SE6: Depart 10:34, Arrive 04:45 next day
 * Train SE8: Depart 23:27, Arrive 15:28 next day

Da Nang to Hue
 * Train SE2: Depart 12:06, Arrive 14:43
 * Train SE4: Depart 14:42, Arrive 17:06
 * Train SE6: Depart 10:34, Arrive 13:21
 * Train SE8: Depart 23:27, Arrive 15:28

Da Nang to Nha Trang
 * Train SE1: Depart 10:46, Arrive 22:28
 * Train SE3: Depart 10:24, Arrive 22:03
 * Train SE5: Depart 09:11, Arrive 19:40
 * Train SE7: Depart 21:56, Arrive 07:37 next day

Da Nang to Ho Chi Minh City
 * Train SE1: Depart 10:46, Arrive 04:10 next day
 * Train SE3: Depart 13:24, Arrive 05:00 next day
 * Train SE5: Depart 09:11, Arrive 04:40 next day
 * Train SE7: Depart 21:56, Arrive 15:05 next day

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible xwiki spamming at Da Nang
I would like to hear opinions about special:diff/4685759, should this be reverted or not? The same user inserted the same external link at Japanese Wikivoyage without complying with the existing context so I reverted it, though this edit may match with the Spa subsection in the Do section. I'm looking forward to hear from active users. MathXplore (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi,, I've reverted that edit per our policy on touting. I can't find the relevant policy on ja.voy (could be since I only checked via Wikidata and my ja-0 doesn't help either), but I'd be surprised if there wasn't on ja.voy. Best, -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Da Nang


text:
Talk:Dandenong Ranges

So, are these reachable in a day trip from Melbourne? Would you stay there overnight? I'm wondering if we need a full article for this, or if it should go under the Melbourne one. --(WT-en) Evan 14:00, 15 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Good questions. Easily reachable in a day trip. Could sleep there though - there are numerous places to sleep. The answer may be determined by asking what the optimum size of an article should be. Melbourne is now 32k (as I write, the 3rd biggest article in Wikitravel) and I guess it will expand with more detail over time. (WT-en) Nurg 01:03, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * I guess the big thing is differentiating between a destination and an attraction. The would-you-sleep-there metric is one rule of thumb we've been using, but it's obviously imperfect (we don't have articles for individual hotels or individual beds, even though you may sleep there). --(WT-en) Evan 11:38, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Mount Dandenong is positively littered with guesthouses and bed-and-breakfast places. Lots of people stay there... It's a very popular place for weekend getaways, and also for daytrips from the city. I was just looking at the Melbourne article and I'd reiterate my former argument - it's getting too freaking long for its own good and it NEEDS to be broken up into subpages, not lengthened more. User:(WT-en) Karen Johnson (not logged in because I'm just popping in to see how things have grown :) )

I think the Dandenong Ranges definitely needs a separate section from Melbourne, and also from the Yarra Valley. The Dandenong Ranges has a definite culture and region that's well known to regular tourists and locals. Although the Dandenong Ranges and the Yarra Valley are part of the same Shire, they are distinct destinations and have a distinct culture and 'feel'. I guess I'd informally describe the Yarra Valley more (but not exclusively) as a farming, dairy and wine-making region; the Dandenong Ranges as a mountainous, forested, cafe and B&B region. --The RealScott (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dandenong Ranges


text:
Talk:Danish phrasebook

Pronunciation guides
The phonetic pronunciation guides are frankly completely ridiculous, would there be any complains if i delete them?

 * Any chance you might fix them instead? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Nah, I'm not good at that sort of stuff. The current problem is that currently they are completely build up over Danish pronunciation of the letters, which really isn't helping the non native speakers - it's supposed to help. My idea was that deleting them might encourage someone with a bit more talent than me and the original author, to step forward....(WT-en) Sertmann 09:51, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Fair enough. I'd say delete them, then, and perhaps include a stub phonetic guide to encourage further contributions. Danish pronunciation boggled my mind when I visited! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:19, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Banner
Given how Denmark is known for cycling, how about one that represents that? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The current banner is pretty bad, and the best out of your two is #2. But won't the article title bar obscure the most interesting bit (the Danish text)? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Either I wasn't clear enough, or you didn't read my comment fully. I wasn't supporting the proposed change, because (as predicted), the article title covers up the Danish text in the banner.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't read your message properly. However, on my view, no text is covered up – only an arrow. Is the mobile view different? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Banners don't really work on mobile at all. On one of my desktops, the text was covered but on this one it looks OK. It's probably just a question of screen size etc. The only thing that might have solved it for all is moving the sign to right-of-centre in the banner, but the source image doesn't look like it would allow this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's why dewikivoyage decided not to use banners. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I support the change now in retrospect.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danish phrasebook


text:
Talk:Danube

I just removed the link to this page from another article, I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under Project:What is an article?, i.e. we don't do rivers... though you could maybe make a Danube trip page-- I could imagine somethign like that for a Nile river cruise or something... ideas? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:16, 24 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * Yep. Rivers probably don't belong here. An itinerary might be good, but I don't think a page on the Danube works. --(WT-en) Evan 11:27, 24 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * While Project:Bodies of water says we do not do articles about rivers, it does say we are able to do articles about the regions around the rivers. If this article was couched in terms of discussing the hughe region of Europe that is drained by the Danube River, would that work? -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:31, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I have tried to link in all the countries that lie in the Danube basin. I may have left off places on the end of the tributaries, like Montenegro. If anyone knows this area better and can think of other major places please add them in too. I have put in major capitals on or near the course of the river as well as places where tributaries meet. This may make it seem like a river article, but the concentration should be on the surrounding land. Of course as the river is a big one it is likely to play a big role anyway. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:23, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)

VFD discussion
We don't have articles on rivers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 * No, but we do have itineraries like Along the Yangtze River and another half dozen Along... titles. Would this make sense rewritten to one of those? Pashley (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand. In its current state it is a debatable article but the Danube is such a tourist attraction I think it should stay as an Extra Region and needs some work put into it. Itinerary is a possibility but the whole length is not often done with the exception of a few cruise ships and the most fit of cyclists. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (that is, don't delete), as per Traveler100's and Pashley's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete. Rivers don't make good extra-hierarchical regions because they don't have well defined areas. (Watersheds could be used, but usually they don't make for very good travel groupings.) It could be valid as an itinerary (vis Erie Canal), but Traveler100 points out a significant barrier. Powers (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - an itinerary might make sense, but this as a "region" covers 1/3 of Europe. It doubles a number of smaller Danube-centred regions along its route and does not serve a purpose. Instructions on how one can travel down the entire course of the Danube would make sense as an itinerary, but not as a regular guide. This is not Wikipedia, we should not have an article for EVERY phrase one may look for. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, if not as an extraregion then as an itinerary. It is a major tourist attraction and has some of the most beautiful and historic cities in the world along it. Often the focal point of peoples holidays either with car, hiking, cycling, private boat or cruise ship. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment - Danube is massive. It is not a "tourist attraction", trying to "see the Danube" is almost impossible unless one has at least a fortnight. Therefore, an itinerary for hardcore Danube enthusiast might be interesting - not only for following entirely, but to be used in parts, an containing mostly information on moving along the Danube that would otherwise be a bit too much to keep in successive destination articles. But it is not a region in any sense and is impossible to describe the way we describe regions, unless we immediately start splitting it into smaller regions, which in turn makes it a superfluous region that would rather better be a disambig page.
 * In short, if you want to know where Danube flows and what lies along it, visit Wikipedia. If you have advice on travelling along the Danube, create an itinerary. If you want to create yet another alternative layer of regions to cover the same things prompting duplication of content and potential splitting of the thin editorial effort, as well as making maintenance an issue (yet another article to update with every bit of relevant info, decide on splitting info between articles and making sure articles do not contradict, which is often an end result of users deciding to each tend to their own preferred allotments) - please don't. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A fortnight is not a long time for a trip and not for a holiday. Attraction as in a see listing no, but try not to think WIkivoyage policies and think someone thinking about visiting part of the Danube. It is a real challenge to find your way round the Wikivoage articles without this page. Are you seriously proposing jumping back a forward between WIkipedia and Wikivoage? Also not talking about alternative regions covering the same topics as existing, This is the reason for Extraregions, to collect articles together on a subject a visitor to the site may asked about but then guide them thought the structure of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 *  Delete . If I'm reading the previous comments correctly, the "keep" votes are being made under the argument that the current article could be reworked into an itinerary.  If that's the case, delete the existing article since it isn't an itinerary article now.  Nothing is stopping someone from creating an itinerary in the future, but the policy on itineraries is that they need to either be about a recognized route or see a minimum amount of development, and this article currently meets neither of those criteria.. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been reworked into an extraregion, so I see no harm in keeping it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To also consider for deletion: Hudson Valley; Amazonia; Delaware Valley; Loire Valley. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with Hudson Valley? It's a disambiguation-style extra-hierarchical region. Valleys are often used as travel regions.  Powers (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing, just another example of a river extraregion, which I think is valid but other not. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not a river-based extra-hierarchical region. The valley is a related but separate geographic feature and a well-known travel region. Powers (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Move to "Along the Danube" (leaving a redirect) and tag it as an outline itinerary. The existing article is already more like an itinerary than a region, so make it one. Pashley (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would work fine as an itinerary; travel topic has also been suggested. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] It's very disturbing how many of you want to just throw away something of use to travellers. Are we to inflexibly follow a narrow interpretation of policy just because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest the current article seems to be a failed experiment and precisely not of use to anybody. And I doubt many people would be served by articles on rivers just for the sake of it. If there are well established routes like the Elbe Radweg, we are talking about something else, but I fear that we will soon be overwhelmed by hard to maintain stubs whose only reason for existence is the fact that some water flows downhill Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also worries me this need to delete articles or text from articles just because it is not perfect. Seem to me to be against the spirit of a Wiki site. There are a lot of articles with room for improvement, the point if wiki is to improve on other peoples work not endless criticism and discussion. We should all be spending more time enhancing articles not removing information. And remember you cannot always predict how someone will come across this site or want to use it. It is important to have landing pages that then guide the travelling into the real useful pages of Wikivoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan here. I see no reason to even consider deletion; the questions are how to make what we have more useful and what needs to be added. Pashley (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to vote on this one. I would comment that we will continue to see friction based on people's own belief about what 'Wiki Spirit' and Ttcf really mean. I would ask the 'keepers' to make some compromise here, for example by agreeing that all the generic 'lists' can be removed and only genuinely useful content should remain. This would allow someone to rebuild this a more helpful way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what you're suggesting as a compromise. No-one who opposes deletion is arguing that the article shouldn't be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 * What here is useful to travelers? The list of countries? The only thing I see, aside from what can be found in any general reference tome, is the link to our The Danube Cycleway article. There's basically nothing else on the page. Powers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 * It seems to me, this is properly an itinerary or travel topic. The fact that it's not a well-developed article is a reason to develop it, not delete it, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Please also look at Wikivoyage talk:Bodies of water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly could be improved, but as it stands it still provides some useful info to a potential visitor to Europe. Consider somebody at the first step of planning a visit to Europe, who has been told by a friend to "take a cruise on the Danube". From this article they can get to Bratislava (and other articles). AlasdairW (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this should be kept and improved. I can imagine several ways to improve it, but for a certain (older) demographic, this is a pretty popular "destination".  There's quite a lot to say about just the river cruise aspect, such as why fares are cheaper in the Spring (higher risk of flooding = higher risk of cancellation).  The question of whether to shoehorn this into Artificial Page Type X or Artificial Page Type Y seems far less important to me than providing relevant, useful, accurate information to the traveler.  Keep the page now; classify it some other year, whenever there's nothing important to do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call it "shoehorning" into an "artificial page type" as much as the reason why this article has not been updated much prior to this vfd. Besides not being linked to from very many places, anybody stumbling over it will most likely be confused as to what this article is supposed to be and do. Other articles, that are clearly travel topics, destination guides or itineraries are much easier to update than this strange otherworld limbo. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been re-worked into an extra-hierarchical region since it was originally nominated for deletion, which I think addresses the concerns that would have made it a valid candidate for deletion. Since votes were approximately split, and since the policy concerns that would have justified a deletion have been addressed by changing the article type, my inclination would be to resolve this VFD as a "keep".  Any further feedback before doing so? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced by the keep argument. In its current state the article is ironically less travel relevant than the WP article on the same subject. While there might be a SEO argument (which I doubt, given the duplicate penalty), it is doubtful we would gain more than one hit by a visitor who searches for that as this article is unlikely to create any form of retention. Other articles are much better in that regard. If we want to keep this article and others, we should change our bodies of water policy as we know de facto do have articles that are about bodies of water. Maybe we even have to create a new "River" article template. I don't like that idea, but if it is well executed (and does not saddle us with yet more work on a marginal part of our guides) it might provide some value after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to another admin to decide how to resolve this nomination, but to my reading of the discussion the "delete" votes still aren't citing policy to justify deletion, while the argument for keeping the article is that it's a valid extraregion. Since deletion should only be done in accordance with the existing deletion policy ("Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our current policy") it still seems to me that the correct resolution in this case is to keep the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Keep There are many useful information about the river. Not only the cycle path. Danube river cruising is very popular. Usefull hints about this topic could even fill up an own article. Improve it as a travel topic. -- DerFussi 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danube


text:
Talk:Daqin pagoda

VFD Discussion

 * Merge/Delete. An article about a pagoda is not a Wikivoyage article, per Project:What is an article? - with the following exceptions: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." Large and complex wouldn't seem to apply to what's described as "the oldest known church building in China," and it is clearly a viable day trip away from Xian. I'd suggest taking the essential information from this article and appending it to the "Get out" section of the Xian guide. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * "Get out" is for links to other destinations. It can't be both deleted as a destination article, and placed in a "Get out" section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * I didn't realize that all "Get out" items had to include a link to another article. In that case, the info could be inserted in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian, though I find that problematic because I think a day trip taking a couple of hours or more each way should really be in "Get out." (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)
 * I've never heard such a rule, LtPowers. As far as I know, the Get out section is for things that would be good as a daytrip, whether they actually have their own article or not.(WT-en) texugo 00:37, 3 December 2011 (EST)
 * Project:Big city article template says Get Out is for "Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good 'next stop.'" I've never seen any case made for allowing non-destination listings in the Get Out section.  Think about it -- if it's an attraction, it belongs in "See" or "Do"; why make the reader check both places for something to do?  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)
 * Because it's 62 km from Xian and the trip from Xian to there takes 1-3 hours by bus. It's not an attraction in or even that close to the city. That's why it makes sense for it to be a "Get out." Is your alternative to put the information in the "Outside the city" subsection of Xian? What would your distance limit be for that kind of subsection? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 00:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * I agree with (WT-en) LtPowers. Attractions that are commonly visited from a destination should be in the See/Do sections of that articles. Get out is a what comes next in the journey section, and not for attractions that lie further afield (no matter how far).  The confusion in the heading has been discussed before, including here  --(WT-en) Inas 00:25, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * Going by that linked discussion, we really ought to revisit the confusing "Get out" subtitle. However, in any case, would any of you like to weigh in on whether or not you support deleting the article in question and merging the information as appropriate into the relevant section of the Xian article? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)
 * I think it is an obvious candidate for merging. There are only a handful of attractions which justify their own article.  Doing the merge is the real issue.  If this was just merged and redirected I think no one would have raised an eyebrow on vfd.  --(WT-en) Inas 21:21, 7 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge and redirect (per Project:Deletion_policy) to its own subsection of Xian. If we divide Shaannxi completely, and have a different bottom-level article, which would be more suitable, then the information can be moved there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:43, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 * Agreed. merge (WT-en) Pashley 20:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 * Merge to Xian per Ikan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:18, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:30, 5 February 2012 (EST)

You are welcome to use some of the photos I took during my last trip there for the article: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevsunblush/5236196866/

title: Talk:Daqin pagoda


text:
Talk:Darfur

Shouldn't we get a more specific travel advisory, like "This is one of the most dangerous places in the world," or something? 126.112.208.194 11:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Agreed, although I don't like the "in the world" part so much. Perhaps "Due to the ongoing conflict in Darfur, this is an extremely dangerous region to travel in." Something like that, preferably with better grammar. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Darfur


text:
Talk:Darien

An attempt o found a colony in Darien bankrupted Scotland? I don't think so!

 * Well, you may not think so, but it's non the less a fairly accurate account of what happened, so please leave it in the article. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:49, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme — 165.228.191.249 10:36, 2 March 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Darien


text:
Talk:Dari phrasebook

See Talk:Persian phrasebook for prior discussion on whether this should be separate from that phrasebook – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dari phrasebook


text:
Talk:Darjeeling

Blacklisted hotel
I saw someone remove an entry for a "blacklisted hotel". Project:Be fair says we include such warnings, so I've amended the format (it was listed as a section Blacklisted Hotel and I'm sure we don't do separate sections like that), but would appreciate anyone with any knowledge of the place giving an opinion on whether this warning is genuine. Both the edits adding and removing the entry were by unregistered users so I'm wary. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 05:30, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Updates?
Dates mentioned in the article range from 2008 to 2011. Has anyone got more recent info? Can we just delete obsolete bits? Pashley (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Darjeeling


text:
Talk:Darkhan-Uul

LOL

this is a real stub :-D
 * Actually this is the discussion page for the Darkhan-Uul article, but what ever makes you happy! (WT-en) Majnoona 09:39, 5 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Darkhan-Uul


text:
Talk:Darmstadt

Copyright Violation
Much of this appears to be copyvio from http://www.tu-darmstadt.de for example. I'm tempted to just revert the whole schebang back to the last version by Nils. Does anyone want to try separating out the good from the copyvio, or should we just slam it all? -- (WT-en) Colin 11:57, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Well done Colin.

I will re-write the Darmstadt article. Should not be to difficult, because I studied In Darmstadt. (WT-en) Jens 16:57, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT).

Let's review how far I got in one weeks time.

 * That would be great if you could rewrite it! Thanks!  I've reverted out all the possibly bad stuff.  If you or anyone else wants to review and reinsert stuff that is obviously good, just go for it -- (WT-en) Colin 12:41, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Didn't find any copyright violations. Where do you see a copyright violation? I didn't find anything on http://www.tu-darmstadt.de and can confirm the things on the page, since I'm living near Darmstadt. No reason to revert everything, just go back to the description that has been there.

 * It used to be a copy and paste from the site. Click on the [1] in my origina commentl to see a page that was copied from. Since I have already removed the inappropriate content, what you see in the article now is okay. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:10, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Questionable listings
Another group of listings (like with Dortmund) removing from article. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apartments Duval, Haupstr, [0] 6151 / 22028
 * Villa Oriental, Kumlbacher Str., [0] 6151 / 15398
 * Manhattan, Kaulbachstrasse, [0] 6151 / 22313
 * Hotel Obergasse, Breisacherstr., [0] 6151 / 26897
 * Hotel Monopol, Rungenweg, [0] 6151 / 30744
 * Crown Hotel, Haupstr, [0] 6151 / 16995
 * Hotel tourist, Aberlestraße, [0] 6151 / 15769
 * Concord, Nymphenburgerstr., [0] 6151 / 11487

 * Oseki, Neckarstraße 20; good sushi: all you can eat, served on a running sushi belt, plus buffet of Asian food, reasonably priced (lunch 8,90€, dinner 14,90€).
 * Mama Mia, Rungenweg, [0] 6151 / 2698
 * Havana, Leisberg, [0] 6151 / 4862
 * Luna Rossa, Mühlbauerstr., [0] 6151 / 2960
 * Zum Goldenen Anker, Nymphenburgerstr., [0] 6151 / 14850
 * Korfu, Holzstrasse, [0] 6151 / 16481
 * Il Borgo, Aberlestraße, [0] 6151 / 21982
 * Gyros, Alter markt, [0] 6151 / 26850
 * Hong Kong Bar, Breisacherstr., [0] 6151 / 13205
 * Weisses Brauhaus, Stollbergstr., [0] 6151 / 7590
 * Shiva, Mühlbauerstr., [0] 6151 / 24807
 * Maredo, Kaulbachstrasse, [0] 6151 / 23241
 * Riva, Kumlbacher Str., [0] 6151 / 5449

title: Talk:Darmstadt


text:
Talk:Dartmoor National Park

I wonder if its poissible to camp here. Qay say wild camping?

title: Talk:Dartmoor National Park


text:
Talk:Dartmouth (disambiguation)

Is this the same place as Dartmouth (Nova Scotia)? ~ 60.51.204.185 07:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I sure hope so, because otherwise we have one hell of a disambiguation problem on our hands. :) (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dartmouth (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Dartmouth (Nova Scotia)

Is this the same place as Dartmouth? ~ 60.51.204.185 07:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed 'MacAskills' and added in its place the Wooden Monkey, which purchased the space and moved in this past December. Also added 'John's Lunch'. Technically in Woodside, many still view it as part of Dartmouth--and likely any visitor would as well. —The preceding comment was added by CollieNS (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry
I've made a mistake that I can't solve: i move Dartmouth (Nova Scotia) to Dartmouth (Nuova Scozia) (I was thinking to be on it.voy, it's late ... I should go to sleep). May some administrator fix this? thanks and please forgive me! -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 20:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just moved it. I'm not an admin, though. If there is something that still needs fixing, please tell an admin... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually an Admin is necessary to delete Dartmouth (Nova Scotia) - blank article - in order to allow the moving. You have moved to Dartmouth (Nuova Scotia) that is wrong too. I'm sorry to cause so much trouble ... -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 21:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, and no big deal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, may you also fix Talk:Dartmouth_(Nuova_Scotia) (to Talk:Dartmouth (Nova Scotia)), please? -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 12:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I had taken care of that, but now I have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dartmouth (Nova Scotia)


text:
Talk:Darwin

Most famous
Does this Darwin meet the "most famous" rule? I've not heard of it, but it's a capital of an Australian state. The other Darwins seem to be minor cities in America - Darwin (Minnesota), Darwin (Ohio) and Darwin (California). There is also a Darwin in the Falklands and a Darwin island in the Galapagos, but I don't think either merits its own article. Unless this meets the "most famous" exception then this article should be moved to Darwin (Northern Territory) and a disambiguation page created. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:10, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Personally, I'd claim it does meet the "most famous" criterion. Is there a problem? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:13, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

 * The Australian Darwin is definitely the most famous of the cities you mention. (WT-en) WindHorse 5 April 06

 * ...and what's more, it's certainly the only one that draws a lot of visitors, as it's the only city of any size in northwestern Australia and the main gateway to Kakadu National Park etc. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:12, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

 * There's no problem, it's just that a disambiguation page needs to be created since there's more than one Darwin. The naming of that page should either be "Darwin", or if one Darwin is very, very famous then the disambiguation page would be "Darwin (disambiguation)".  If I've got it straight, the vast majority of travelers who search for "Darwin" will be searching for this place, right?  If that's the case, this one meets the "most famous" exception and the disambiguation page should then be "Darwin (disambiguation)". -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:24, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Yes, that's what I'd recommend. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:35, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

permission
Hi I'm Lex. In regards to all Northern Territory information I have added, you may notice that some of the text I am adding appears in another website eg travelnt.com, that is because I am the original author. --Lex 11:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

guide status
is the darwin article ready for guide? if not, where is it lacking? keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:18, 3 November 2008 (EST).

 * I see no-one replied to this back in 2008. I'd like to revisit this. The article needs a city map, might do with a better banner, and needs for all its legacy footnote-style external links to be changed to the current external links format. Also, entries in sections of "See," "Do" and "Buy" should be alphabetized or put in another logical order. Once all that has been done, I think the article will be a Guide and ready for a nomination for either Destination of the Month or Off the Beaten Path - probably the former, I'm guessing, but I really don't know how many visitors Darwin gets per year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Get Out and Attractions..
There seems to be an overlap between Get Out, and See and Do in this article. Are the Adelaide River cruises out of Darwin? Berry Springs? Humpty Doo? Territory Wildlife Park? Litchfield? Strictly speaking they all are, but it would be rare for a traveller to see any of these places from a base other than Darwin. My view is that Darwin is if Darwin is really the natural base for the attraction, then lets list in in See and Do - unless they have their own article, in which case they go in Get out.

So Berry Springs would be in See, Territory Wildlife Park in See, Adelaide River Cruises in See, Litchfield in Get Out. And so on. Any dissent? --(WT-en) inas 18:14, 14 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Darwin


text:
Talk:Dassen Island

I'm not sure if this should be an article according to Project:What is an article?, it might fit better as an attraction for the nearest town... (WT-en) Majnoona 11:13, 26 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * I already suspected something like that. Dassen Island is a Nature Reserve and not open to the public. Can we move the data to Yzerfontein and get rid of this unnecessary article??? --(WT-en) Babbelas 15:14, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dassen Island


text:
Talk:Daugavpils

Style
Please see the following policies/guidelines to find out more about why changes have been made to this guide: Please feel free to ask ask if you have any questions, here or at the Project:Travellers' pub. Thank you, (WT-en) Maj 13:56, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Project:Copyleft: Please only contribute original material for which you are the copyright holder. If the content appears elsewhere on the web, it helps to make a note on the discussion page indicating that you are the author and give permission for it's use.
 * Project:Manual of style: Please see our manual of style to find out how we like to format guides.
 * Project:Don't tout: While we welcome hotel and other business owner's contributions, please keep promotional material out of the guide.

 * I've copied the changes to Daugavpils/Archive and reverted to the last known good version. The data is there should this user want to use it for updates, but we need to maintain standard styles and avoid using source that is not CC-SA licensed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:48, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Daugavpils


text:
Talk:Davao

Cebuano/Bisaya is the main language spoken in Davao.

Warning box
The Canadian travel advisory "advises against all travel to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao ..., as well as to the Zamboanga Peninsula and the provinces of... Davao del Sur (excluding urban areas of Davao City) ... due to the serious threat of terrorist attacks and kidnapping."

I found it interesting that they explicitly exclude Davao. Pashley (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * See also Talk:Philippines. Does the warning box here need an update? Pashley (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Davao-durian-monument.jpg (discussion)
 * People's Park, Davao City.jpg (discussion)

Marco Polo
This hotel closed in May 2020. The chain's site says indefinitely, some other sites say temporarily but it has been about 18 months & no sign of re-opening. An anonymous user deleted the listing & I tagged their edit as patrolled. Pashley (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Davao


text:
Talk:David (Panama)

Los Pozos de Caldera
I just added a note on these after a trip today. I see they are mentioned in passing on the regional page (Chiriqui - sp?) but there isn't much detail there, and I think the practical details of getting there from David certainly don't belong there. You can also access them from Boquete in a similar manner (although the buses are even scarcer) - I haven't done this personally, but I met people there who were doing it. I do wonder if there's scope for rearranging things here (ideally there would be a page on Caldera which we could link to, but there's probably too little there of interest). Anyway, I thought it was valuable to record these practical details while I remember them, wherever they might get moved to later. --(WT-en) zorn 22:16, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:David (Panama)


text:
Talk:Davis (California)

Daviswiki.org / wikispot.org ?
Where is an appropriate place to link to http://daviswiki.org/ ? As a recent visitor to Davis, it is THE place for local information - with something like 1 in 7 residents actually making edits/updates and more than half of the residents visiting the site each month. The logical place seems to be in the sidebar next with the Wikipedia link - how does one go about getting an "interwiki map" entry for wikispot.org and thus http://davis.wikispot.org/ ? (WT-en) J-beda 22:55, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Our current external links policy would exclude these links from the article since they don't meet the definition of "primary sources" as defined in that policy. This is unfortunate, but in several years no one has figured out how to allow links like the ones you've mentioned without opening the floodgates to a host of links we don't want.  If you have any ideas please read the discussions on Project:External links and propose a solution. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Davis (California)


text:
Talk:Davos

Do we really want 2 big photos on the page? I like them & think they are basically OK but suggest downsizing them a bit. --(WT-en) Nils 22:05, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

Edit links not working
Has anyone else noticed that the edit links send you to the wrong sections? For example clicking on "edit" for Splurge brings you to the "Get Out" edit page.

Any idea how to fix this? 99.189.92.97 16:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)Trew

 * It results from a caching problem, after a recent edit. Forcing a reload from your browser usually fixes the problem, or also the purge cache link at the bottom of the edit page.  Hope this solves your problem.  --(WT-en) Inas 18:11, 11 December 2008 (EST)

More photos
Hi. How do we add more photos to this page? Thanks, --(WT-en) MarinaK 18:52, 12 December 2008 (EST)MarinaK.

→ Project:How to add an image --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Hi, I spent a lot of time yesterday finding appropriate images for Davos and uploading them onto Wikivoyage shared but they seem to have dissappeared from this article overnight. Has someone deleted them? If so, why? --(WT-en) MarinaK 14:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)MarinaK.

title: Talk:Davos


text:
Talk:Dawnsonville

Should this be Dawsonville? No "n." --(WT-en) Jtesla16 19:08, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dawnsonville


text:
Talk:Dawson (New Mexico)

To my understanding, Dawson is a ghost town with zero services and very few standing structures. Are we sure that it should have an article? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:53, 21 December 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Dawson (New Mexico)


text:
Talk:Dawson City

Salmon freshness
salmon doesn't get any fresher? you douchebag. the salmon we pull out of the yukon river at dawson have travelled up the river from the bering sea. look at a map sometime. its a long way. by the time they get to dawson their flesh has already started to rot, although they are technically still alive, they exist only to spawn and die. If you want fresh salmon go to the coast. What a moron.

Just eat blocks of cheddar cheese and sour keys like the rest of us do.

 * Relax my friend, it's just a travel guide. I didn't write the offending phrase, but I will say that for most of the world salmon probably doesn't get any fresher than anywhere in Yukon. If you don't think this is good "eat" advice for Dawson City, please replace it with better advice—for now I put the recommendation back in, sans the offending phrase. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:33, 2 March 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Dawson City


text:
Talk:Dawsonville

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

Comments
This article should be moved to Amicalola Falls State Park because it contains nothing about Dawsonville, other than the headline paragraph. It would be better to move this article to its own destination and start Dawsonville again. - (WT-en) Huttite 22:47, 20 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Dawsonville


text:
Talk:Daylesford and the Macedon Ranges

Explain the need for this article and the Daylesford article
The advertising copy posted in both articles is identical. We don't need such language anywhere, but why do we need two articles, and if we do, why was different language not posted to each article? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 22:47, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Daylesford and the Macedon Ranges


text:
Talk:Daytona Beach

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

Daytona Beach vs. surrounding cities
To other editors contributing here: Please add info that only falls within Daytona Beach City Limits. Anything outside the city - please put in the correct surrounding city or town. Otherwise this page will get out of control quickly. (WT-en) Gamweb 17:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Other Languages
Anyone here fluent in a foreign language? I noticed that WikiTravel has a few different language versions; they appear to be less developed than the English version.

I did a little work on the other Daytona Beach pages, but I need someone fluent in the language to check up on my work.

 * http://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach German (I have not touched this one yet)
 * http://fr.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach French
 * http://it.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach Italian
 * http://nl.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach Dutch/Netherlands (Just a template page)
 * http://es.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach Spanish (Just a template page)
 * http://pt.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach Portuguese (Just a template page)
 * http://sv.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Daytona_Beach Swedish (Just a template page)

Still need (pages not created yet):

 * Finnish
 * Polish
 * Hungarian/Magyar
 * Romanian
 * Japanese
 * Hebrew

Some of the languages do not even have a functioning Florida page yet. Oh well.

(WT-en) Gamweb 15:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Parks
I found a list of parks we can add. Placing links here for future reference.

http://volusia.org/parks/

http://www.ci.daytona-beach.fl.us/standard.aspx?p_PageAlias=LSCityParks (WT-en) Gamweb 19:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Image Gallery
I am starting to develop an image gallery for Daytona Beach. Please make sure you add your image to the Daytona Beach Category when uploading new images so they do not become "orphans." (WT-en) Gamweb 20:06, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Category:Daytona_Beach

Harbour Beach Resort
Have you guys ever heard of a compromise? Check the new listing, and please, oh pretty please, you two - just leave the listing as it is now, and spend your energy more constructively will you!? There are loads of other useful things to improve on this article, than having an infight over a single stupid property. (WT-en) Sertmann 04:53, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
 * User Open321 has contributed absolutely nothing to the guide, except to spam it with his own hotel listings (which he obviously has a stake in). It would be nice if he/she would contribute something else to the guide. (WT-en) gamweb 20:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Daytona Beach


text:
Talk:Daytona Beach Shores

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

No Cheating
List businesses here (hotels, restaurants) that are located in Daytona Beach Shores. Do not attempt to list them a SECOND TIME in Daytona Beach - they will be removed from the wrong city. (WT-en) Gamweb 13:43, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Daytona Beach Shores


text:
Talk:Dêgê

I found this page with numerous errors of fact, poorly rendered Tibetan names, and choppy English. I have edited to repair the most egregious mistakes and to smooth the English, but doubtless more errors remain. For more & better info, I suggest a visit to www.khamaid.org.

title: Talk:Dêgê


text:
Talk:Düsseldorf

 * see also: Talk:Düsseldorf/Archive

Public transit
Can we please have the tram/Stadtbahn lines show up on the map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Station Airport außen.jpg

Im Schiffchen
I think we can delete this listing. We have listings for other restaurants. Would we list a restaurant that says that Black people are not welcome? Or one that says that Jews are not welcome? I hope not. There is no apology on the restaurant's website, so I don't think they get why this is a big deal. Ground Zero (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I see your point, but the traveller comes first; this is a popular and acclaimed restaurant with apparently high quality food, so travellers will hear about it from elsewhere but may not, if they don't see it here, know about this incident. People should decide for themselves whether they eat there or not, and without knowing the facts, the choice isn't a free one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * When did they say that? This Jew, who had a pleasant meal there several years ago, is quite disappointed and upset to hear this. However, a place where Goethe was a regular and which many other famous cultural figures patronized is IMO too historically important to be delisted, even if the quality of their food and drinks declines at some point. I think we have no real choice in this situation but to maintain the listing and mention the bigotry, and in this kind of case, I think we should make an exception to our usual external links policy and include at least one link to a respected news source. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * If I recall our "avoid negative reviews" policy correctly, this is almost a textbook example of when to include a "negative review" - the place is well known, might even meet wikipedia "notability criteria", but there is a reason not to go there which we should tell our readers. And I also like Ikan's proposal to include a link or several to reputable media covering the issue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Does anyone remember what we did a year or two ago with the listing of a hotel and bar somewhere in northern central US (Montana?) that didn't want Native American patrons? Some users thought we should keep it with a warning, others that we should delete it. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm neutral on whether to keep the listing or not, but if we do keep it, we need to clarify that the chef later denounced the apparent meaning of his Facebook post, and Chinese travellers are in fact still permitted to eat there. This is important to know for any Chinese travellers who do want to visit the restaurant despite the incident. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like I am the righteous minority of one here. Granger's edit is worth including since the majority is in favour of keeping the listing. Ground Zero (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the ping above didn't work—I only saw this discussion because I happened to look at this talk page. I believe pinging only works if you add your signature in the same edit that you use to add the ping. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's inconvenient, but good to know. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm quite certain that whatever chef thinks, a restaurant cannot refuse service to people based on their nationality or ethnicity in Germany. The restaurant clarifying that they "allow" Chinese customers, when those customers' rights are protected by the law, is the same as if it put out a statement saying they "allow" kids to talk at the table, or as me saying I "allow" Ground Zero to comment on this discussion. It's utter fatuous nonsense and shows, as GZ said, they don't get it at all.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

[undent] If they'd rather not serve Chinese people, they could be pretty unfriendly to them and have that chalked up to the blunt style of service one often encounters in Germany, rather than illegal discrimination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) Readers may not know that Germany has that law, and even where discrimination is outlawed it is sometimes still practiced. Some restaurants in multiple countries have been refusing service to Chinese customers this year; it's useful for travellers to clarify that, despite the Facebook post, this restaurant isn't actually one of them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this is to defend the chef, of course. I'm just saying that in the listing we should aim to give readers as much clarity as feasible about whether or not they will be refused service. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Featured article?
Is this article ready for Dotm? Or is something missing? /Yvwv (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the listings were added before 2015. Are they still open? Ground Zero (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Düsseldorf


text:
Talk:Dc in 4 days

VFD discussion
Redirects to Washington (D.C.) in four days ~ 61.91.191.10 14:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Redirected to the previous candidate, which was kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dc in 4 days


text:
Talk:D-Day beaches

I'll pretty soon have a stay at my parent's place, on Sword beach. I'll try to write a little detailed someting and take pics on Sword and Gold beaches. Maybe even write an itinerary? (WT-en) Toitoine 14:53, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Geo tags?
What are the "geo" tags supposed to do, and do they do that on other browsers? For me -- Firefox on a Linux box -- they just display a globe & if I click on it, I get taken to a toolserver.org menu.

I nearly deleted all these as unacceptable external links, but it seemed better to ask first. Pashley (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced them with listing templates and filled in the coordinates. Texugo (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbering
Is there any particular reason why all the listings are numbered here? Texugo (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has responded, so I am going to remove the numbering. Texugo (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Travel topic or Destination?
Is this a travel topic (as would template outlinetopic suggest) or a destination article (based on geographic hierarchy)? Danapit (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think someone has intended it to be an itinerary because of the numbered points of interest. Ypsilon (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it was me who changed it from "region" to "travel topic" last month because:
 * It does not represent a contiguous region.
 * It is not a part of the region division scheme of the parent region.
 * It is not a region article in the sense of being designed to contain subdivisions or children articles.
 * It is topically oriented towards people interested in WWII sites.
 * In fact, I think it should be further pushed towards being a topic article, removing the Buy, Eat, Drink, and Sleep sections - three of these are empty, and the Sleep section only duplicates listings which should rightly be placed in Bayeux, Caen, etc. Texugo (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidendatally, I am removing the numbering. Texugo (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Those sections are now gone & I have done some other edits.
 * I promoted it from outline to usable. What else, if anything, would it need for Guide?
 * Is it ready for nomination as a featured topic? June 6, 2014 is the 70th anniversary & would be a good time, if it is not too late. Pashley (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's a bit late, although the 70th anniversary would certainly not be a bad idea. Andre? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On a quick look through, this article seems very good. One thing I wonder about (though hardly something that would cripple a nomination) is this phrase in "Go next": "People interested in earlier history might look for sites associated with William IV of Normandy." It would be better if someone knew enough to say ""People interested in earlier history can see sites associated with William IV of Normandy in X, Y, and Z." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I assume those sites are easily found, though I don't actually know, Pashley (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit seems fine for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to Ypsilon's query, in gray-area cases like this one the best barometer is how the article is structured. In this case, the article is clearly structured as a destination – it has "Get in", "Get around", "See" (listingified and all), and "Go next" sections. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dagle? What's that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ikan. I'm talking into my iPhone, and sometimes Siri hears me wrong. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 * So should we tag it as an extra-hierarchical region, since it does not fit directly into our region scheme, and change the IsPartOf tag?
 * I'd say yes. Pashley (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Done. ✅ Pashley (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 * To me, this is obviously a destination, not a travel topic. It is a place you can go, not a concern like pickpockets or altitude sickness that applies at many destinations. Andre's comments above about article structure are another indicator. However, I do think it not actually matters much how we classify it.

 * On the other hand, I object strongly to the change of IsPartOf tag. I am not convinced that breadcrumbs are a good idea for any travel topic (see Talk:Travel_topics), and making this part of that hierarchy rather than the natural geographic one strikes me as really dumb. Pashley (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had fixed this, but I see it currently has a travel topic breadcrumb. I'd like to change it to IsPartOf Normandy. Does anyone object? Pashley (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Bump. I still think this should be tagged as PartOf Normandy. Pashley (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 * I can see both arguments. But I won't make a fuss if you change it. The only thing is, how would you fit it into the Normandy hierarchy? Probably as an "Other destination"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

German visitors?
There are no doubt German visitors to this area; for one thing there are over 30,000 German graves and many of the occupants were likely someone's grandfather.

Our current text has "The French people will be happy to see you - these people remember, and the welcome will be warm." It occurs to me to wonder, though, how German visitors are treated. Does anyone know? Pashley (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In 2004, the German chancellor Schröder, was for the first time present at the official ceremony but didn't visit the German graves (due to German concerns, that it could be seen as paying respect to war criminals). A delegation of the German armed forces were also present for the first time. German press states "respectful reactions" from the local population. In Germany the D-Day beaches are not big symbol. Verdun & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad are the main German turning points in war history. D-Day was rather the final point in a long road of defeats. jan (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Pashley, we've traveled the area including the German cemetery La Cambe in our van with a German number plate and although speaking mostly English, we might have been perceived as German visitors. As far as I remember (although I couldn't swear it is really so), the monument even had information boards in German language. I didn't feel any hate or other negative emotions from the locals and I felt welcome everywhere. After all, 70 years had past and in the end, the dead soldiers were the same young boys and men independent on their nationality. And the number of people who really have the first hand experience (and still remember things) is thinning.  --Danapit (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * That sounds right. My dad landed shortly after D-Day and, as a Canadian intelligence officer, was involved in the collection of evidence that eventually led to the trial of Kurt Meyer whose Waffen SS units shot Canadian prisoners during the fighting around Caen. By the 1970s, though, he was no longer remarkably hostile to Germans. Pashley (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pashley, my grandfather was stationed on the channel islands and then POW in UK from 45-48. He visited the channel islands and D-Day beaches after his retirement in the 70ies but most Germans prefer to be lowkey. D-Day has never been a hot topic, contrary to some other issues, it was rather seen as inevitable. I guess that's the reason they didn't completely looted France and hoped to be POW by Western Allies. War crimes happened in France, too but it was significant less compared to the crimes in Eastern Europe & Russia. I guess this reflects the local sentiment from the German point of view. jan (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Euros for prices?
Quite a few prices in the article currently have the £ symbol. Are they actually in euros and just using the wrong symbol? Or are they in British pounds? Either way, we should have prices in Euros. Pashley (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Algae problem?
Normandy's D-Day beaches invaded by green algae

How severe is the problem? Should we cover it here? In what section? Pashley (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted material

 * I added some material that offers tourists an upmarket offering from the Guild of Battlefield Guides ... for some reason it vanished. I've replaced it as it doesn't violate any of the policies... unless you could say touting but then Normandy Tours is touting so clearly that rule doesnt apply —The preceding comment was added by 2a01:cb05:80:be00:4af8:a3b1:ff6:e1ec (talk • contribs)

 * This has been deleted & replaced more than once. I've now de-touted it & put it back. Interstingly the "guild" link actually redirects to another web site, so I used that name & link. Pashley (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Au contraire, User: 2a01:cb05:80:be00:4af8:a3b1:ff6:e1ec. The touting rule applies to every page on the site. If there is a touty listing that hasn't been deleted or detouted, you should delete or detout it yourself, except that it sounds like you have a conflict of interest, and in that case, you should post about it here, but never with the attitude that "you [who?] let them tout, so I can tout, too". Ikan Kekek (talk)

 * Feel free to reply to these remarks below, but please do not delete remarks on a talk page again. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Manche
Utah beach is in Manche not Calvados. This and other factually wrong statements are made. —The preceding comment was added by 2a01:cb05:80:be00:4af8:a3b1:ff6:e1ec (talk • contribs)

 * First, on talk pages (only) please always sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of the post. Second, please plunge forward and correct anything that's factually incorrect. If you think your corrections might be controversial, mention them here, but the kind of thing you stated above is very simply true or not true, so go ahead and make the correction. Thanks a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:D-Day beaches


text:
Talk:Dead Cities

The Dead Cities doesn't quite follow our guidelines about articles starting with "The". I would consider moving it to Dead Cities. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:12, 26 January 2009 (EST)

 * I see no reason for objections, so I have done this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Dead Cities


text:
Talk:Dead Sea

Snappling?
I didn't know that ice tea can kill you. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:10, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

West Bank
Wondering why the West Bank is not part of this page? Israel is not the West Bank and vice versa... There should be a note of this on the page.

 * Wondering why you didn't add an update to the Dead Sea article? The talk page is not the main article and vice versa...  There should be information on that page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Split?
Shouldn't we split this page to "Dead Sea (Israel)" and "Dead Sea (Jordan)" (and maybe "Dead Sea (West Bank)")? Travellers can't cross the border near the Dead Sea, having one article for both sides seems a bit silly. This should be a disambiguation. --(WT-en) ElectAbuzzzz 07:59, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dead Sea


text:
Talk:Dealing with emergencies

Moving the article: "overseas" is not the same thing as "international" unless you live on an island... (WT-en) Hypatia 19:02, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Emergency call
User:Mx. Granger just removed some general information from the London article, and it's of course true that these are questions you will be asked when calling the emergency number probably anywhere in the world including where you live. Would it still make sense to copy the information to this article instead? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't object to that, though I wonder if it would be starting to go in the direction of writing a guide about everything instead of a guide about travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Some of that might be useful, as few people are trained on how to make such calls, but I agree that this is not our prime concerns. I am also not sure that this advice is the most important: If there is a car accident or fire, somebody else will probably do the calling, so we should perhaps concentrate on cases where the traveller him/herself has to do it. If you are prepared to answer questions, then it is not that important what questions are going to be asked (as long as you understand the language) – unless you should have figured out the answer before.

 * I think it could be important to advice travellers to tell about their medical conditions, allergies etc. to their company. I think not everybody tells about medical conditions and about being allergic of nuts, and that few tell about allergies against drugs (such as aspirin or penicillin) – and such things may be important in an emergency. There is also other important information, such as one's address, that not everybody in the company necessarily knows.

 * Then there are things that differ between countries. Professionalism of emergency services surely differ, as do their practices. I thought a moment about adding info that AED:s are now quite common in Finland, but quite few travellers have a significant risk of needing CPR, and mentioning AED:s in no good without a longer explanation. I think we should concentrate on common scenarios where knowing what to do makes a big difference.

 * --LPfi (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Transport accidents, building fires etc.
There are many kinds of emergencies that we don't write anything about, e.g. what to do if you find yourself in a traffic accident, plane crash, shipwreck, building fire, building collapse etc.. I've read that traffic is the single greatest risk for travelers, more so than diseases or natural disasters. From that perspective things like these sure seem like valid travel topics.

On the other hand, some of that are things that could happen at home and/or borderline Captain Obvious stuff. What say you? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This might be the kind of travel topic in which to include things that are considered obvious in other articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dealing with emergencies


text:
Talk:Dearborn

See section
the photograph seems sloppy try and move it possibly thank you. --(WT-en) Caharoute3 11:19, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
 * good job texugo but one thing remains the description of the photograph thank you. --(WT-en) Caharoute3 11:24, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
 * Why does this article have a photo of a hotel? Wikivoyage policy is that there has to be something very special about a place of business to include its photo. (WT-en) Shep 14:31, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
 * The photo is under consideration for deletion from Wikivoyage Shared, although I left it in the article as relatively harmless for the time being. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:25, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dearborn


text:
Talk:Death Valley National Park

Feedback
This is our first national park article, and it's going to shape how we do the rest of them. So, let's get this right.

I don't think that there needs to be two "regional" articles about the north and south of Death Valley. I really don't. -- (WT-en) Evan 21:18, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Agreed, but since Death Valley is the largest National Park outside of Alaska at 3.4 million acres it gonna need some kinda breakdown or it will quickly get outta hand. This might not be the case for most other National Parks. Most of the pavement accessed areas reside south of the Hwy 190 and in general offer a different experience than the northern area of the park which tends to be more rugged. Maybe it needs a backcountry article and off the beaten path article. On second thought maybe its time to look at some NPS sites and check out their general template as a starting point. It is a true pleasure to be working on Death Valley as the first National Park! (WT-en) Ron 21:59, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

Hi! Saw your request for template help. Have you thought about using the small city template? I used that for islands like Ko Samet and big parks like Grand Canyon and Angkor Wat. Remember, you can leave out anything that doesnt make sense and add your own bold subheads for subsections that need more attention (like Dehydration under STAY SAFE). Lemme know if you have any specific questions/concerns. Great content btw! (WT-en) Majnoona

I more or less agree with Maj. The Project:Small city article template could be used as a base for a "park article". You don't have to follow it rigorously, though. If you think other headings make more sense, then go right ahead. In time, we could even develop a true "park template" if this would be sufficiently different from the others. One observation, though: try to use verbs for your headings, as is generally done in Wikivoyage articles ("get in" instead of "getting there", etc...) Otherwise, keep up the good work! Cheers. (WT-en) DhDh 13:23, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Thanks for all the input. Ill work on DV again tonight. Along with the SoCal hell. I have started some work on a Project:Park template based on the DV stuff i did.  I will tweak it accordingly (WT-en) Ron 13:35, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

Hi Ron. I just had a quick look -- it looks far better already. Maybe a few remarks: I hope you find my remarks valuable -- Maybe you can ask Evan's opinion too on some of this. Cheers. (WT-en) DhDh 13:58, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)
 * I'd write "Understand" instead of "Introduction"
 * Perhaps "Pay" would be better than "Fees/Permits", but I'm not too sure about it. Maybe there's another verb that describes it better.
 * There could be a separate section called "Obey" for rules and regulations.
 * Under "Sleep" I'd write "Lodge" and "Camp" instead of "Lodging" and "Camping". And I wouldn't make a separate heading for "Backcountry camping" -- I'd put it separately under "Camp".

 * Ok, the changes sound good and I made them, except for the new section on Obey. Maybe this can be part of the Pay section and i included it as Pay/Obey. I think that permits can fall under rules and regulations and we might as well get the official junk all out of the way in one section...well thats how i see it at least.  Thanks for you input/advice.  I would really like to see this develop into a template for Park in general, as asking new users to modify a small city template may begin to generate a lot of variance in style/layout and i do believe that standardization can help to eliminate most of this. (WT-en) Ron 14:30, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

"Some of the roads in can occasionally be snowed in at the passes may require chains in the winter." This doesn't parse, and I'm not sure whether the chains are on the tires or across the roads. -(WT-en) phma 18:46, 6 Mar 2004 (EST)

A couple of the paragraphs in my last change seem to have been altered in the diffs for no apparent reason. I blame KDE's kate editor. It is so fired. I'll use something else from here on out. Also, I eliminated the use of "Route 190" etc in favor of the SR and US prefixes (e.g. US 395 and SR 190). "Route" sounds nicer though. Also, do visitors from other countries recognize the SR (State Route) designation? Or is the CA (e.g. CA 190) designation better? I think SR. Hmm, should that be US395 or US 395? Argh.: (WT-en) Colin 21:02, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * OK, so, your attention brought my attention back to this article. I made some modifications to the headers, tried to move things around a bit... Don't know if it worked at all or even if it was a good idea. But I did it. --(WT-en) Evan 22:26, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Since I'm new around here, and don't yet have a feel for how the headers should flow (still studying up on the templates), the odds of me reorganizing the headers are exactly zero. So it was definitely a good idea!  -- (WT-en) Colin 00:13, 9 Mar 2004 (EST)

Temperature
"ground temperatures are usually up to 50 percent higher." 50% higher than 120°F is 209.9°C (when a temperature is multiplied by anything it must always be in Kelvin or Rankine). This is obviously wrong; please correct. -(WT-en) phma 19:05, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * Well, I think it's pretty obvious that they mean 50% higher F. And I think it's flat out wrong even in F.  At the very least, it's a really strange way of saying anything. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:56, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * They could have meant "degrees" and come out with "percent" by mistake - whatever. Does anyone know what the temperature really is? -(WT-en) phma 03:06, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * I think the author is referring to the temperature of the actual ground that is baked by the sun. It is a little confusing to use percentages for temperatures, so this should probably be changed to degrees or just thrown out altogether. -(WT-en) nick 22:04, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * I don't know where you went to school, but where I went 50% of 120 is 60, and 60+120=180 - not 209.9! You are easily confused if you cannot follow the logic in that statement.

Article name
The name of this article is inconsistent with other national park articles ("Death Valley" vs. "Death Valley National Park"), and it's also a bit ambiguous - Death Valley National Park encompasses much more than just the valley itself. That said, would there be any objection to moving the article to "Death Valley National Park"? I realize that the "most common" name rule says that we use just "Death Valley", but in the case of state parks and national parks, provided a redirect exists for the "most common" name it seems to be in the interest of the traveler to use a naming convention that lets the reader know that the article is about the park, and not just the geologic feature the park is named after (examples: "Everglades" vs. "Everglades National Park", "Canyonlands" vs. "Canyonlands National Park", etc). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:03, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Personally I prefer the shorter (and yes, usually more common) versions of the names, but as long as we're naming the rest of them X National Park, let's be consistent. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:29, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:04, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The current banner feels deader but the new banner is a much better picture. I find this an obvious choice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new suggestion is a better quality picture - I support the change. Danapit (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new banner is less dark, hence my support. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Oh my, yes. Definitely the new banner. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Second is better quality and more awe-inspiring. James A ▪ talk 09:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support new one for all reasons above. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Proposed because current is low-resolution Syced (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death Valley National Park


text:
Talk:Debrecen

Nagytemplom
Great Church or Grand Church? Right now, both are used randomly. Nagy means "big", so I think we have the license to just pick one (preferably the one that's more commonly used in English) and use it throughout the article.

Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 * We have 8 "Great Church" and 2 "Grand Church" and Reformed Great Church of Debrecen, so I would use Great. AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm good with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Debrecen


text:
Talk:Decatur

VFD discussion
From Project:Votes for deletion:

 * Decatur - Accidentally added this one before I realized that Decatur (Georgia) existed. I knew there were a couple of Decaturs, but I really didn't expect the other to show up.  Suppose I was being a little narrow-minded.  Oops.  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 21:48, 28 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 * Keep. Decatur is now a disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 22:01, 28 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 * Keep - Perfect as a disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:45, 28 Jul 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Decatur