text:
Talk:Western Waterlands

I am a bit confused by the structure of this article. The following are listed as Other Destinations but all redirect back to this article:

 * Kentucky Lake
 * Lake Barkley
 * Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area

Are they really articles or attractions within the scope of this article? I fear a body of water debate coming on :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)

 * I am confused as well. I am wanting to have seperate articles for Kentukcy Lake, Lake, Barkley and Land Between the Lakes as all three can have alot of content in their articles.  The other reason for having seperate articles is that all three of these connect to KY and TN (US states).  Sorry if I have created the confustion by starting to do edits without creating a user name.  I have compiled alot of information that I would like to list but havent becasue I can figure out how to get redirects removed.

--User:(WT-en) Kriscarlson

 * It would be great to see content get filled out for these destinations—I suppose the question will be how to organize it. Land between the Lakes NRA should definitely have its own page, and perhaps it could also contain the information on Kentucky and Barley Lakes? In any rate, I'd personally be happy to see the information added on the three destinations in the form Kris thinks natural (since I'm guessing you are the only one here who really knows the area!), and then we can sort out how best to organize it by article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:15, 30 November 2009 (EST)

 * Pet thanks for the info. Im gong to start working on all this all week.  I also own and operate a website KentuckyLake.com wich is a regional tourism website for the area so we have tones of information to put up.  I am also tring to get all the area tourism orginazation to help out with this as well.  Please let me know if you see me doing anything wrong.  Im very new to wikivoyage so it may not look great to the eye.  I just didnt want to start getting alot of LBL and lake info on the waterland page and then have to move it later on.  Also check us out on aboutus.org.  We are tring to promote wikipedia and wikivoyage where ever possible.

 * Kris, I think you have made a good start with the article. And I think Peter's advice is defintely the right way to go. I cannot be too much help on the specifics as I do not know this part of the world at all, but I do have the following comments:

 * If they have not already been removed I will edit the re-directs as it does seem that you have relevant content for all 3 articles. Please though do read Project:Bodies_of_water and be sure that these are valid articles in their own right and not just attractions. If the latter, then the re-directs can easily be reinstated later.

 * Please understand that the WT policy on external links will probably not allow the listing of your own website. This does not preclude you from building an excellent article which promotes the region of course.

 * If you need any guidance on formating, what goes where etc, please do not be afraid to ask. With your eat listings for example, you need to avoid using the first person and to change the tone a little - more informational/descriptive and a little less like a pushy ad. You will find this helpful guidance: Project:Manual_of_style --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * Hmmm, I might have been a bit tired or something, but the cities seemed to be duplicate, so I thought it was all different names for the same region, and redirects would be more appropriate than having the same content 3 times over. If that was premature, I apologize. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:05, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Organization
I have a location question. Lake Barkley is part of Western Waterlands in KY and Middle Tennessee TN. Is their a way for it to be both? 12.189.230.154 14:29, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * Heh, for a variety of reasons, organizing content for this region will be tricky. So lets try and figure it out so you can get to adding content without any more hassle.

 * I take it you see the tourism here in terms of Kentucky Lake, Lake Barkley, and Land between the Lakes NRA, right? That's the impression I've got from looking at tourism sites. The NRA already has its own page, and that's uncontroversial. For the two lakes, there are three basic ways to handle them:

 * Create an article for each lake, and then use that like an overview region page, with links to individual towns along the banks, and then put all the individual hotel, restaurant, etc. listings into the town articles.
 * Create an article for each lake, and then avoid creating pages for the towns altogether, and just put all the relevant hotels, restaurants, etc. on the two lake pages.
 * Don't create articles for each lake, but rather put overview information on them in the Western Waterlands article, and create individual town pages for the towns/municipalities along the lakes, in each of which we'll put the information on watersports and other activities available right from that town.

 * Which sounds to you like it will be a more effective way of presenting this information? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Peter let me think about that. Do you have a suggestion of which would be easier? Do you have any examples of other pages that have this issue. Off the top of my head I think option one is the best. Please let me know your thoughts.98.93.3.76 23:08, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * The question is mostly one of how much information there is, and how it is concentrated. #1 and #3 are best for larger lakes, which have many towns that could support full travel articles (with all the see, do, eat, sleep, etc. sections filled out). #2 is best for relatively sparsely populated and smaller lakes, where the various tiny municipalities would not sustain good travel articles on an individual basis, and the total amount of listings wouldn't overwhelm one article. So basically it depends on how big and crowded each lake is, and I'm sure you'd be a better judge of that than I would, since I've never been to Western Kentucky!

 * I just created that map & the regions pages, and was both intrigued about the travel opportunities for the lakes region, and worried about how hard it would be to cover it well in the Wikivoyage format! I figured I'd leave it alone until someone knowledgeable came along ;) Lastly, if we try something and it doesn't work out well, we can always reorganize in the future. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:22, 1 December 2009 (EST)

 * Lets go with option #1. I think that will work best.  To me the issue lies in that Kentucky Lake, Lake Barkley are both very large lakes.  LBL is also very large and all three cover several counties, towns and states so I think that #1 will work out best.  I hopefully will ahave alot more info posted today since both lake articles are now posted.12.189.230.154 10:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * I have another question. One the cities area.  Benton is a city in Kentucky.  How do I link the word Benton to Benton KY article.12.189.230.154 11:43, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:31, 3 December 2009 (EST)

 * The more I look at this, the more I think Kentucky Lake, Lake Barkley, and the Land Between the Lake NRA articles should be merged into a single LBLNRA article. The lakes are used primarily for water recreation and the NRA has lots of land based recreation opportunities.  I think the problem is that many visitors are only active in one body of water or the NRA lands and don't see them as one unit.  With the three articles you are going to get a lot of duplication of towns as there aren't many around.  Benton, Cadiz, Grand Rivers, and Kuttawa are the main gateways in Kentucky.  In Tennessee, it is Paris and Dover. Schwaltz (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So would there be a single NRA article and then individual articles for the various towns? Or just one big article? --Peter Talk 00:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A single NRA article including all of the activities that one can take part in for the lakes and land areas, much like a standard park article. It would probably have to include privately held properties such as marinas as well as publicly owned facilities.  The cities should have their own articles and referenced to in the NRA article.  I looked the the Great Smoky Mts. article as an analog.  All of the gateway cities are referenced in the article. I am not sure if there are any developed lake articles to look at as a reference. Basically like option 1 spelled out above, but with one overview article instead of three. I just think that there will be a lot of overlap with three separate articles.Schwaltz (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I may have to back track. I was trying to visualize how to lay out one article and I think you would run into a lot of confusion.  I think people would instinctively search for Kentucky Lake, LBLNRA, and Lake Barkley as separate areas.  The three article solution may be best even if there is plenty of overlap.Schwaltz (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at the end of the day the main thing is that we know where to put individual listings (none should be in more than one article). I'd love to map out our articles for this region, since it is pretty confusing. Could you maybe draw some lines on a screenshot of OpenStreetMap and upload it here, so I could see how you visualize the article boundaries? I'd be happy to help put together a Wikivoyage-style map, but am still confused as to how we're handling the content.  --Peter Talk 03:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Area surrounding the Land Between the Lakes NRA with notations.jpg I have created map that will hopefully convey how closely these areas are linked. I have outlined the NRA boundaries in green.  Kentucky Lake lies to the west and Lake Barkley to the east.  Each lake has one shore that is public lands and one shore that is privately developed.  There are also 4 state parks in the mix.  I have identified 9 cities that I would consider gateways to the region.  Places you would go for lodging, dining, supplies, as well as possible tourism depending where you are in the region.  Dover, and Paris in TN.  Cadiz, Eddyville, Kuttawa, Grand Rivers, Benton, Aurora, and Murray in KY.  There are also 3 larger cities on the periphery.  Clarksville, Hopkinsville, and Paducah.  As far as overlap potential, here are a few scenarios.  A visitor to Kentucky Lake or LBLNRA would both possibly look to the cities in the west for entertainment, supplies, dining, etc.  A visitor to Lake Barkley and LBLNRA could both be looking at cities in the east.  Visitors to either lake may look towards the NRA for activities to do.  In regards to the Western Waterlands region of KY, it is a mostly rural area and agricultural area (Hopkinsville is the largest city with a population of 30,000).  The lakes, parks, and NRA are a huge economic engine for the area and the primary interest for anyone visiting from out of the region.  Most of the information submitted for this part of the state will probably reference or be directly tied to the LBL activities.  I hope this information helps out.  Let me know if you have any questions about this area and I will try to give a helpful answer. Schwaltz (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky Lake
Why does Kentucky Lake keep getting brought back and redirected to Western Waterlands?12.189.230.154 14:46, 4 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Western Waterlands


text:
Talk:Westfield (New Jersey)

Whitney Houston's Private Burial
She's buried at Fairview Cemetery. Tourism potential when the burial's over? --(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 19:14, 19 February 2012 (EST)

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

title: Talk:Westfield (New Jersey)


text:
Talk:West Greenwich

Big river inn deleted, out of business —The preceding comment was added by 131.128.155.19 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 March 2011

title: Talk:West Greenwich


text:
Talk:West Hartford

Pics
They look very nice but they are not formatted correctly with caption and the way wikivoyage does their images. just wanted to let you guys know. thanks --(WT-en) RhinestoneRiver 00:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Nick
this person keeps adding more copyrighted images. --(WT-en) RhinestoneRiver 01:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Removal of Union Station Info
I'm sorry, but Union Station is actually in New Haven. It is not at all a fast way to travel through West Hartford, and even if it were in Hartford, West Hartford is still a good 10, 15 minutes away, plus highway traffic. The previous information in this article was erroneous and I apologize to those who were mislead. 199.231.28.147 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Hartford


text:
Talk:West Highland Way

Hmm, dunno if this is an article. Is this really along the lines of Route 66 or something or just a road? If it's a road, it needs to be moved to a destination page. (WT-en) Majnoona 23:00, 12 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * It appears to be a trail http://www.west-highland-way.co.uk along the lines of the Appalacian Trail or Pacific Crest Trail. Would this be a route? -- (WT-en) Colin 23:51, 12 Apr 2004 (EDT)

West Highland Way is an old traditional route up the West coast of Scotland. It is a walking trail that runs from Glasgow to Fort William past some amazing scenery.

 * Ah! Thanks, that sounds great. We might want to make that more clear in the article, I thought it was a freeway ;-P. Thanks for the contribution. FYI: you might want to get a user account so you can sign your messages here and have your own talk page. But you don't have to... thanks again (WT-en) Majnoona 01:40, 13 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * This appears to be written as "West Highland Way" on the website. "West-Highland-Way" is only used for the URL. So, I'm goin to move this article. (WT-en) Akubra 16:22, 17 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Structure
This page is a mess, treating waypoints and different types of accommodation separately. I'm going to integrate them, though the page may look worse till it's done. See Great Glen Way for what the end product might look like. Grahamsands (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC) ✅ 23 Oct

 * Thanks, but please could you use listings rather than markers for the points on the route - it is then easier to add edit without opening the complete section, and the edit link may encourage walkers to contribute. AlasdairW (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Highland Way


text:
Talk:West Hollywood

The Ivy
The Ivy is indeed in LA, but I put it here because it's on that fine line in-between, and when I have time I was planning to expand Robertson Blvd as a major part of WH... that shopping strip sort of straddles the border, but in most Angelenos minds it's all west hollywood... and makes sense to have it all together in a travel guide... but is that against the rules? This section needs massive updating by the way, if anyone else here is familiar with the area... it should reflect the hipper/trendy side in addition to just the gay cruising side... (WT-en) Cacahuate 03:42, 4 November 2006 (EST)

 * I was trying to clean up several of the LA articles and moved it out as part of that cleanup, but since it's a border-case feel free to move it back. There aren't any "rules" per se, although one of the guiding principles is that Project:The traveller comes first, and from a traveler's standpoint it probably does make more sense to list the Ivy in this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:14, 4 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:West Hollywood


text:
Talk:West Irian Jaya

As there are major questions about the legality of the creation of Irian Jaya Barat (even under Indonesian law, never mind what the Papuans think) and the borders of the putative province remain unclear, I don't think it serves the traveller to have this article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:22, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * Maybe. Might it serve the traveler better to go ahead and keep the article, but include some appropriate warningbox?  I don't have a dog in this fight, nor do I know enough of the region to have an opinion as to what text to include, but intuitively that "feels" like the right path. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:35, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * Suggest the overall region (Western New Guinea AKA Irian Jaya) and the province / provinces (Papua / West Irian Jaya) it contains be merged into a single "all of New Guinea that belongs to Indonesia" region article - see Talk:Western New Guinea ~ 203.144.143.2 13:13, 1 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:West Irian Jaya


text:
Talk:Western Java

Map
The map is incorrect, the western part is missing compared to the map at the Java page. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:55, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Yep that map is incorrect as it covers only the political province of West Java. Our definition is different. At some stage I hope to get around to drawing a map of West Java as I have done for Central Java and East Java.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

=Food= Is it true that oncom is a frequent, if not characteristic, Sundanese ingredient? Briancady413 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, oncom is Sundanese unique food. It made from waste peanut from peanut oil compression/extraction factory, mainly from Central Java. The waste peanut is given oncom fungi to make oncom. I never heard that other areas outside West Java make oncom. The taste is rather bitter.Gsarwa (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Gsarwa Mushroom oncom tastes sweet though. Veracious (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Western Java
Wouldn't it be better to rename this page to Western Java, as it does not only include the province of West Java but also Banten and Jakarta? --ErwinFCG (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I hadn't thought of it, but that makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Regions of Western Java
Something to consider: perhaps in the (near?) future Western Java could be split further in regions, as the number of cities and other destinations is getting quite large, and after all it is a large region with a population of 69 million, and very diverse tourist attractions (cities, mountains, national parks, beaches, islands). The provinces are no useful regions, as the Greater Jakarta metropolitan area spreads into both Banten and West Java. How about regions as follows: If something like this makes sense I can certainly work on these articles, and try to structure all the articles a bit more. --ErwinFCG (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Greater Jakarta or Jabodetabek
 * 2) Banten except for the part in Jabodetabek and the Halimun/Salak national park.
 * 3) Parahyangan (Greater Bandung, Sumedang, Purwakarta, Southern Subang)
 * 4) East Parahyangan (Tasikmalaya, Banjar, Ciamis, Kuningan, Pangandaran, Southern Majalengka)
 * 5) Mountain area west of Parahyangan (name?) (Sukabumi, Cianjur, mountain and volcano regions of Bogor regency, Halimun/Salak national park part in Banten)
 * 6) Northern Coast region (name?) (Karawang, Cirebon, Northern Subang, Northern Majalengka, Indramayu)

 * The question that governs Wikivoyage's regional structure is, Does it best serve the traveler? The population is not at issue. A basic rule of thumb is: Are there about 7-9 destinations having or meriting their own Wikivoyage articles in each of the proposed regions? Keep in mind that just because a city is relatively populous doesn't automatically mean that it's of interest to a visitor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Western Java contains now 14 cities+8 Other destinations which suggest it might need a division in the future. However, as of now I don't think it's a critical task. At first, 6 regions is way too much for 14 cities, and new articles will end up being almost empty. Second, other parts of Java (Central Java and East Java) will require the same division, as it will be a bit strange to have only Western Java contain subregions. So I'd suggest, if you have something to say - start adding it to Western Java article + create a new articles if needed. If the number will grow substantially, we come back to this discussion. But pay also attention, that we will need to think about other Java parts as well.--Kiaora (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your replies. There are more than 14 cities, which are not all listed on the article. That was the reason I thought a further division might be necessary. See for example Anyer, Cimaja, Karawaci. Anyway, I will at first work on the various articles then, and perhaps later regions can be added. --ErwinFCG (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with this approach. We can revisit this if there is a need to do so later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Regions of Western Java 2
The last two weeks I have worked a lot on the city, district, and park articles in Western Java. This is by no means 'complete', but I think I have progressed quite a lot. I have checked an updated most of the existing articles: added banners, (re)written the introduction/understand, clarified and updated go next, added a dynamic map, checked the listings, and added go next listings. In addition, I have created about 30 new articles on the larger towns/cities (e.g. Serang) and on towns/villages with touristic attractions (e.g. Banten (town) and Linggajati). I will certainly continue to update existing articles and add new ones, but I think the time has come to add subregions to Western Java (there are now 44 city articles, 5 districts of Jakarta, 1 airport, and 5 national parks).

Two weeks ago I already proposed a division of subregions. While working on it I have slightly adjusted it, and my proposal is as below, with already a map created. I have added a small description to each region to explain their rationales.

The most arbitary might be the Bogor Raya region, but considering that most of the touristic destinations in Bogor regency are shared with Sukabumi (Halimun Salak NP) and/or Cianjur (Puncak, Gede Pangrango NP), I think it makes sense to make this one region. The northern parts of Bogor (e.g. Cileungsi/Cibinong) would fit better with Greater Jakarta, but these places are not touristic anyway. In general, I think the regions like this are very clear and well-defined. --ErwinFCG (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm no expert on the different subregions of Western Java, but you have my blessing. But let's see what others think and keep this discussion open for at least a couple of days. I'd like to solicit the opinions of User:Kiaora, User:Othello95, User:Gsarwa and User:JarrahTree, if he's around. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * only just. One of the things that really put me off this sort of thing here in wikivoyage - were the divisions of areas within Australian cities - was the arbitrary nature - no actual correlation with local conditions and very rarified versions of very subjective conceptual imaginary spatial constructions - the thing is if this was being in central java I would have a much better handle - I am not a sundanese cultural area enthusiast, simply because my fieldwork was based on yogya and solo. (there is only so much you can do) However the description given above does have loose geographic parameters and that in itself is encouraging when balanced against indonesian government tourism promotion schemas that try so hard to counter common sense, geography, and western imaginations as to what constitutes java. JarrahTree (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I might ask stupid questions, but anyway. Are you sure there is enough information for each of these 6 new region articles? Just because they will contain 7-8 cities each, doesn't automatically mean there is enough data to describe. I understand, a lot of people live there, but if there are a lot of things to see and do? As otherwise all of them (both regions and cities) will be of more enciclopedic nature and will better suite wikipedia rather than travellers and wikivoyage. Second idea, have you considered any alternative ways of splitting Western Java or Java itself? For instance, can we split Java itself differently and divide it say into 5-6 regions? Or East,Central and West Java- is a well established and widely-known division? --Kiaora (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * (responding specifically to Kiaora...) - not sure where that is going - the west, central and east java are government designated provinces anyway...  I would suspect that the best way is to follow the government boundaries of west, central and east - and not try to create any artificial 5-6 regions, the problem that I expressed above is where artificial regions are created specifically for wikivoyage purposes - separate from established government designations, you are asking for trouble imho JarrahTree (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your replies. The division of West/Central/East is well-established indeed. Especially West Java is clearly established because of its different language (Sundanese in most parts of Western Java). I think there is certainly enough information for each of these 6 regions of Western Java. Officially, the region is divided in three provinces (Banten, Jakarta, West Java). However, West Java is still huge, so I divided it further. Also, the province of Jakarta only includes the city itself and not the suburbs, so I propose Greater Jakarta (similar to Tokyo (prefecture)). This division is not official/administrative, but based on landscape and history (although I tried to follow the regency/city borders as much as possible; each region proposed consists of about 6 regencies and/or cities). And I think there is a lot to do, and it will certainly not be encyclopedic. Beaches, about 10 volcanoes that can be climbed, hot spring resorts, 5 national parks, historical villages (e.g. old sultan palaces, but also some with special stories and museums from the colonial time), huge cities including Jakarta and Bandung, etc. I would like to write articles on the subregions, and after that I think the Western Java article itself can be much improved as well (because rather than a list of all places it can give a more thematic overview of things to see, such as the volcanoes). --ErwinFCG (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Jarrahtree, I see you are moving the discussion on the regions to other talk pages as well, but I just wanted to add that I think these regions are well-defined, and easy to understand (based on 'The traveller comes first'). Yes, they are artificial (in the sense of not officially government-defined), but the official regions are either too large and not useful (the provinces, as described above), or way too small (the regencies). This definitely means that 'artificial' regions have to be created. However, the regions are propose are all based on real boundaries, either of historic regions (Parahyangan, East Parahyangan, Banten, Bogor Raya), official definitions (Greater Jakarta, Banten except Greater Jakarta), or geographical features (the three mountain regions as well as the North Coast as flat land region). In addition, I have used the regency boundaries in all cases, to not draw artificial boundaries, except for Subang and Majalengka which are clearly both in the flat region and in the mountain region, and there I used the toll road. --ErwinFCG (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Erwin - I like your reply, and agree that sometimes in some cases some 'real' boundaries are not as effective as artificial - and your general response makes me feel that whatevr you come up with is well reasoned - thanks for the effort to explain JarrahTree (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The important question are (foreign) tourists need very detail regions? Geographically north West Java is low land and south West Java is mountaineaous, although certainly it have also beaches, but only a few cliffs contrary with Bali. Consequences of developing of toll roads are new tourist sites can be found and some cities are not lure tourists anymore such as Cianjur or Purwakarta. So, Bali, Jakarta and West Java should be updated regularl;y to catch up the progress.Gsarwa (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Gsarwa - many foreign tourists are content to go where they are 'led' by either being part of tour groups and use tourist information or guidebooks - others really want to have details about every part of a region and its smaller components and they need details JarrahTree (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * @ErwinFCG. I see you are pretty competent in this field =) which is quite important for the person who is going to work on the new regions.
 * And just to add a few more concerns here. The number of topics in Java: 3 main regions with potentially 50 destinations each, plus regional articles will result into about 150-200 articles in total. Which is for unprepared tourist is way over his needs. I. e. even briefly looking through them might take days. So the key point here would be to create a good regional division and then creating a very clear overview of the available content and placing it into Java, Westert/Central/Eastern Java articles (and to the lesser degree in their sub-regions). --Kiaora (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you all again for the additional comments. I indeed like to think I am rather knowledgeable when it comes to Western Java (I have been to each of the six subregions I propose multiple times). I have been a few times to Central Java, and only once to East Java, so for those regions it will be a bit more difficult for me. Nevertheless, I think at least for Western Java these subregions will be useful. From there I can then work my way up to the Western Java and Java articles, to provide the overviews (e.g. a 'See: Volcanoes' section explaining about how many volcanoes there are, which ones are the most famous, and which ones are the easiest to visit, with links to the relevant region/city/NP articles) and to make sure the 'Cities' section is no longer a list of all towns and cities. I might start tonight or tomorrow on one of the subregion articles as an example. --ErwinFCG (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There it is: example of an article for Banten region. Unless anyone disagrees I will start tomorrow to implement the new subregions. --ErwinFCG (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cities and other destinations
After the discussion above I have now created all six subregion articles (I think all at least usable, if not guide*), and added the regionlist template with the map to this article. I will also update the remainder of this article (e.g. See and Do), but I already updated the lists for Cities and Other destinations. I have selected 8 of both (so in line with the 5-9 rule), but I would like to ask input on what others think about the choice of destinations. I have tried to have them spread across the region, and a mixture of beaches, volcanoes, and historic attractions.

 * if I understand the rules correctly, all subregions except North Coast would now be guide status (?). --ErwinFCG (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 * See Region guide status. The thing that usually prevents a region article from being a Guide is as follows:

 * Gives you different choices for which linked destinations (i.e., the 5 to 9 item cities, subregions, and other destinations lists) to visit (all usable status or better)

 * Are all the cities and other destinations at least Usable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. For some of the subregions that is indeed an issue, mainly because not all towns have an 'Eat' section yet. For Greater Jakarta however, all cities/ODs (and also all districts of Jakarta) are usable or guide, and I think the article itself is also good enough to be guide. I am a bit confused though by the explanation of the Region Guide status though, for two reasons:

 * "Has different choices for accommodation (there is not even a Sleep section in the standard Region template?) and eating/drinking, and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. (there are no 'listings', because they are not supposed to be in a Region article, but in the underlying city articles, right?) For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status. There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions."

 * Apart from those two issues (Sleep and Listings), I am confident that Greater Jakarta is at Guide status. --ErwinFCG (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right: There shouldn't be specific listings, and I think that language in Region guide status should be changed. And yeah, if there's nothing special to say about the style or range of eateries or sleeping accommodations in the region, it's fine to leave those sections out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should start a discussion either in the Traveller's Pub or at the talk page of Region Guide Status as to how exactly the new wording should look like, because I do agree that a change would appear in order. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the thread should be at Wikivoyage talk:Region guide status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Guide status - to Star and/or DotM?
I have worked a lot on the Western Java article and all sub-articles, and I have just upgraded the article status to Guide. All sections of the main article have elaborated text. The subarticles are almost all at least Usable, and include 6 subregions (3 Guide, 3 Usable), 47 cities (1 Guide, 41 Usable, 5 Outline), 5 districts (1 Guide, 4 Usable), 5 parks (3 Usable, 2 Outline) and 1 airport (Usable). Within Western Java there are no longer any red links. Apart from this main article of Western Java, the Guide status articles are Greater Jakarta, Banten, Parahyangan, Central Jakarta, and Puncak. I would like input on what should be done to make this article ready to be nominated as a Star article, and/or to nominate it as destination of the month. --ErwinFCG (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very well written and organized page. Nice job! I like the balance of images to text, this can be very tricky to get right. If I had to nitpick, you could maybe consolidate the sub-sections under sleep? Or rename "Monuments and architecture" to "Modern monuments" so you don't use the word architecture twice? Pretty small stuff. The only other thing I'm noticing is all the links. They're great at the top, but do we need to link Bandung like 40 times? Again, great work, I'm envious! --ButteBag (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply ButteBag. What do you mean by consolidating the subsections under Sleep? I have followed your suggestion of changing the Monuments section title, and also I have removed many of the links to Bandung, Jakarta, and Greater Jakarta. More comments and suggestions are very welcome! --ErwinFCG (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I Guess I was thinking to write the bullet points under "sleep" into paragraphs or something, but now I think that's a bad idea. Sorry you aren't getting more responses to this. Try posting on the Star Nominations page, and on the Traveller's Pub too. I think most talk pages get ignored due to the poor people to task ratio here. --ButteBag (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Western Java: to Star status or DotM?
On Monday I asked this same question on the specific article talk page, but to get more responses, the same question here. I have worked a lot on the Western Java article and all its sub-articles, and I have upgraded the article status to Guide. All sections of the main article have elaborated text. The subarticles are almost all at least Usable, and include 6 subregions (3 Guide, 3 Usable), 47 cities (1 Guide, 41 Usable, 5 Outline), 5 districts (1 Guide, 4 Usable), 5 parks (3 Usable, 2 Outline) and 1 airport (Usable), and 1 related itinerary (Usable). Within Western Java there are no longer any red links. Apart from the main article of Western Java, the Guide status articles are Greater Jakarta, Banten, Parahyangan, Central Jakarta, and Puncak.

I would like input on what should be done to make this article ready to be nominated as a Star article, and/or to nominate it as destination of the month. I am looking forward to comments and suggestions! --ErwinFCG (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Great work, ErwinFCG. Nothing keeps you from nominating the article for DotM; any guide level article is eligible for the front page, and you'll get pointers for improvements during that nomination process. Star status is more demanding, especially for region articles like this one. To start, all listed subregions, cities and other destinations should be guide status. While there's always some room for exceptions, the majority of the listed subarticles for Western Java seem to be usable. A great achievement, but perhaps just a bit early for a star nomination. You're free to try, though. I'll have a more thorough look later, but to keep things organized, we should keep concrete suggestions for improvements on the article talk page, so I'll do that there. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Java


text:
Talk:West Macedonia

West Macedonia is one of Greece's official regions, and this article may yet be used for that. Please don't delete it for now. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:37, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Unfortunately, many regions are divided into smaller and smaller units, which do not make any tourist sense. Wikovoyage is a travel guide and should not repeat Wikipedia. I would suggest that the three subchapters (Western, Central, Eastern Makedonia) all be grouped together in Makedonia User: DocWoKav

title: Talk:West Macedonia


text:
Talk:West Michigan

Renaming proposal
This region should be named West Michigan. Very few people from the area would refer to it as Western Michigan, which will affect its search engine significance. Some backup: West Michigan Tourism Association, West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, West Michigan Strategic Alliance. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Skyl4rk (talk • contribs)

 * The name change sounds fine to me. Please feel free to make the move and update the links yourself—the instructions are here! Also, you can auto-sign your name by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:30, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

 * See also wikipedia:Talk:Western_Michigan and Special:Contributions/70.168.243.234. It sounds like this is a rename that should be made, so I've moved the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:30, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Which cities should be listed?
26 are now listed, including some red links. The standard here is no more than 9. So which 9 should they be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would list Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon as four that I would believe should automatically remain. Allegan, Kalamazoo, Coldwater, Grand Haven, Holland, and South Haven might still be listable, though that would still be about the limit.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say you could plunge forward and make the change, but does anyone have any objection? If there are no objections by tomorrow, I think that the change should be made. Thanks for your input! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at WWMT, a local news station, seems to list similar cities. As a suggestion, we might be able to include the removed links in a County article or something similar.  Finally, no problem.  :)  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Regions
Could do with created a couple of more regions under West Michigan. Any suggestions? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First idea:
 * Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area or Greater Grand Rapids
 * Grand Rapids
 * Wyoming (Michigan)
 * Jenison
 * Ada (Michigan)
 * Sparta (Michigan)
 * Lowell (Michigan)
 * Allendale
 * Kalamazoo
 * Battle Creek (Michigan)
 * Marshall (Michigan)
 * Marshall (Michigan)

I've created the Grand Rapids Area subregion. I propose grouping Kalamazoo, Battle Creek (Michigan), Coldwater and Marshall (Michigan) as "West Central Michigan" or "Southwestern Michigan". Ground Zero (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Having seen no comments since May, I plunged forward and did it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Michigan


text:
Talk:West Midlands (region)

"Regions"
The West Midlands does not have regions. It is a region. -- (WT-en) Picapica 19:50, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Is this some special British or Irish use of the word region I'm unfamiliar with? In geometry, any time you subdivide a region you have a bunch of smaller regions, and one could descibe the supraregion as "having" (i.e. containing) the subregions.  So I'm at a loss to understand what you are trying to convey. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:17, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

England is divided into regions (see: Regions of England). The West Midlands is one of these (see: West Midlands (region)). So, whatever happens in geometry, it's a bit confusing to start talking in a travel guide about a region's regions.

Herefordshire, Shropshire, etc. are not regions. They are counties. Together they make up the region. That is why I wrote that the West Midlands does not have a region; it is a region.

 * The United Kingdom is made up of countries. One of these is England.
 * England is made up of regions. One of these is the West Midlands.
 * The West Midlands is made up of counties. One of these is Herefordshire.

-- (WT-en) Picapica 11:04, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Ok, so I think we're getting a bit het up here.... It's true, England has regions and each region is further divided into counties and (these days) administrative districts, these latter usually based on urban areas. For the sake of consistency within Wikivoyage, however, I think we can get our heads around the equivalency "regions = counties (when in England)". Best practice, I believe, would be to use the heading Regions (even inside a larger Region), then make the English practice explicit by saying something like: "The xx region is divided into the following traditional / historic counties:" (WT-en) Pjamescowie 11:15, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Ok. I get it now.  Region is used as a descriptor for a Specific, non-arbitrary subdivision of England which contains an integral number of counties.  Ouch.  In the US, Region only means a contiguous area of land, and you can subdivide any region into more regions.  And this is what the Wikivoyage article templates mean when they say region... which makes in problematic. -- (WT-en) Colin 11:34, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * I've started a discusion at Project:Article templates suggesting we changethe Region header for at least England, and maybe some US cases too. -- (WT-en) Colin 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Problem with West Midlands, advice appreciated
Archived from the Pub:

I'm currently working on a map of the West Midlands (part of what will hopefully become a full UK map), and have run into a significant problem, namely that there's two West Midlandses. The West Midlands listed on here is the common, everyday sense of the term, ie the region made up of the five counties of Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Shropshire. The problem comes with the fact that West Midlands also refers to the administrative area made up of Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton and the surrounding towns. This page illustrates the problem quite nicely, listing the local councils in the West Midlands area, with the West Midlands being one of the listed sub-regions, and there's also a map here. So we've got a West Midlands in the West Midlands. Naturally this presents problems both on the technical side (IsIn) and the confusion side. So I'm not sure what to do about it.

Do I go ahead and move the current West Midlands to something like West Midlands region and use to old West Midlands for the sub-area? Another option is to ignore it and use the old pre-1974 map (here's a map of the old boundaries, compare with, which would solve the problem but would be out of keeping with other urban regions (like Merseyside). Or I could rename the smaller West Midlands area, but all I can think of is the horribly unweildly "Birmingham, Black Country and Coventry". Or just move Coventry to Warwickshire and make a "Birmingham and Black Country" region. The other solution is to move all of the larger regional stuff to Midlands, but I'd really rather not do that as the West and East Midlands are really quite distinct areas. Basically I can see a lot of options but none of them seem completely satisfactory, so I figured I'd ask for advice here in the hope that someone else has faced similar problems and can offer advice. --(WT-en) Paul. 10:58, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Would Project:Disambiguation pages help? West Midlands (region) and West Midlands (county) (or whatever it should be called), with West Midlands being a disambiguation page?--(WT-en) justfred 12:10, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

 * That makes an awful lot of sense. The only reason I was hesitant is because I thought having region in the title was frowned upon but looking more closely at Project:Article naming conventions I guess it should be ok in parenteses. The only remaining issue is the confusion of having the West Midlands in the West Midlands, but most people will probably be able to understand "West Midlands (county) IsIn West Midlands (region)". --(WT-en) Paul. 17:11, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Castle combe cotswolds.jpg

title: Talk:West Midlands (region)


text:
Talk:Westminster

I strongly believe that the primary Westminster at WT should be London/Westminster and not a town in Orange County with a few motels and no attractions!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:56, 3 February 2010 (EST)
 * This was changed to a disambiguation page/ (WT-en) Eco84 21:54, 5 February 2010 (EST)

 * I see that yes. I think more appropriate as 99% of users will be looking for London/Westminster would be a re-direct to London Westminster and an other uses template there. Eg with Bali.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:59, 5 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Westminster


text:
Talk:Westmore

Yes. I moved information from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage that didn't belong in Wikipedia. A trucated form still exists in Wikipedia. What is wrong with that? (WT-en) Student7 12:43, 7 February 2007 (EST)
 * See Project:Copyleft. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 10:15, 8 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Westmore


text:
Talk:Weston-super-Mare

Outline, needs lots more content. (WT-en) Jezhotwells 14:23, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Hyphens
Looks to me like the article title should be hyphenated and this should become a redirect. Both the official town council website and the official Somerset website use hyphens. (WT-en) Texugo 20:46, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fair enough - have made that change. (WT-en) Jezhotwells 09:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Edit conflicts
A whole bunch of formatting edits I made were erased when an anon editor added a listing, so I have reverted the article to restore them. Ground Zero (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Weston-super-Mare


text:
Talk:West Palm Beach

This needs to be updated with regard to the horribly torn up downtown (Clematis street is almost unreachable and the businesses there have either gone under or are closed until the streetwork is done). Through most of 2006, West Palm Beach's old downtown is not a travel destination. All the streets are ripped up as they are rebuilding all of the city's infrastructure.

A good deal of the information here is incorrect, but I feel unable to accurately edit it (I'm from WPB, but have lived elsewhere and only recently been back to visit family).

title: Talk:West Palm Beach


text:
Talk:West Pomeranian Voivodeship

Why not just West Pomerania?
(WT-en) Jpatokal 12:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

 * Indeed. We should use the English name. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Get out sections
The Get out section for at least a dozen villages in this region are massively long and almost copies of each other each referring to the next, whereas the articles themselves have almost no other information whatsoever. Hrmph. (WT-en) Texugo 01:23, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Name
Guys, make up your mind, during last month this article was called: Zachodniopomorskie, West Pomerania, West Pomerania (Poland) and West Pomeranian Voivodeship now. I don't really care which name wins but all the other voivodeships have Polish names (since October) and this should be consistent. Jjtk (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as consistence is concerned "Zachodniopomorskie" would be the right name. Does the scheme to name sub-regions according to the Polish nomenclature suit well English speaking tourist ? I dont know. Another layer of consistency that needs to be considered are names used by the English Wikipedia (mixed traditional English names and Polish names). I imagine that generally for an English-speaking tourist it's far more understandable name "Silesian" than "Śląskie" or "Slaskie" as a name for a sub-region. Probably using redirects is the way to go. Kpjas (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to Zachodniopomorskie
Same here, User:Ikan Kekek. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Pomeranian Voivodeship


text:
Talk:Westside (Los Angeles County)

Uh... this doesn't really seem to be about Los Angeles at all. What about something like Beach Cities (Southern California)? It might be a good idea to check out the Bay Area (California) for ideas. Nevertheless, I added a space before the first parenthesis. -- (WT-en) Evan 21:11, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

This area, which I currently reside in, is regulary refered to as West Los Angeles. The 'beach cities' of southern california seems like it would be way too general encompassing San Diego to Malibu. I have also places several different regions of Los Angeles as they are commonly known. Maybe I should move out the cities section, but am a little uncertain about how you would like to organize the greater Los Angeles area. (WT-en) Ron 21:17, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Well, I would love to distinguish between the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles metro region. Any suggestions? I know there's like 80 cities in the LA metro region... -- (WT-en) Evan 21:32, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Hmm ok, then its time to set up a LA metro region, maybe the Greater Los angeles area and break it down. The broken down regions will typically also contain some portion of the city of Los Angeles.  If you settle on a name for the greater region, ill start breaking it down as i know it. (WT-en) Ron 21:39, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * I agree, maybe it should be "Los Angeles Metro Region", or simply use the "Los Angeles" page. Then we can start making subdivisions (with slashes) and move stuff around and work it all out. (WT-en) Gjetost 14:25, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Gjetost: so, we had this discussion across several pages -- you might want to try navigating down from Southern California to see the hierarchy we ended up using. Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy I think ended up being the central place we brainstormed this out. --(WT-en) Evan 14:33, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

The "west side" as a region of Los Angeles does not actually include the beaches, although I guess some people would consider Santa Monica, Venice. Thinking about how to process this. Putting back my edits.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:34, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Restaurants
I tried to straigten up restaurants by formatting and adding headers; they were organized by ethnicity rather than by price, which in this area is probably more appropriate. I've heard of most of the places on this list, and they're all worth mentioning, I think, along with at least a dozen others I can't think of at the moment.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:26, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Nailing down some boundaries

Now that the Mapping L.A. project data is available to us thanks to Peter, I say it's about time we tackle the confused mess that is the layout of this article. Going through the individual city/district articles, I've found both some overlap between different articles and some gaps in our coverage. So this is an attempt to set a solid organization down.

Alright, so using the Mapping L.A. data (adjusted for readability) and going through all the articles, I'm proposing the layout you see in the map. Each color would correspond to a different article. Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Venice, and Playa del Rey are all self-explanatory. Additionally, Marina del Rey, Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Agoura Hills each get an adjacent neighborhood since those articles have listings that are technically in that adjacent neighborhood (for instance, Beverly Grove is surrounded by West Hollywood, and trying to draw a hard line between the two seems silly and unsuitable for a traveler's perspective). So far, pretty simple.

Now here's where we get into actually changing stuff around. Right now, Los Angeles/West covers West Los Angeles, Mar Vista, Palms, Brentwood, and Westwood - which has its own article, which baffles me since there just isn't enough content in either article to warrant splitting it off. And a pretty sloppy job was done splitting it off, since there are still Westwood listings in LA/West. Additionally, there's an article for Century City which lacks any content whatsoever, and an article for Bel-Air which has a grand total of five listings (three restaurants, one hotel, and one golf course), both of which are neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles. Since none of these articles have enough content to really justify being split off, I propose we merge and redirect all of these into LA/West, until it covers the entirety of the light blue area on the map.

And finally, there's currently two gaps in our coverage: Westchester on the south side (home to LAX and a bunch of airport hotels), and the Santa Monica Mountains (a National Recreation Area that holds Malibu Creek State Park among its attractions) on the north. For both we could create new articles: Westchester (California) and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (while we're at it, we should probably merge and redirect the existing Malibu Creek State Park article into the new one to avoid content overlap).

(whew) So there it is, for a grand total of 13 articles. Thoughts? PerryPlanet (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I've had a go at the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area | (talk) article. Where would Topanga fit in this structure? It seems like the SMMNRA should be a park-centric article, but Topanga could be a little thin for a full article, especially if Westwood doesn't have one either! -- MisterCustomer (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Good question. If the map on the NPS site is anything to go by, it looks like the borders of the recreation area encompass Topanga, so the simplest thing to do might be just keep Topanga in the SMMNRA article for the time being.
 * On a side note, do you think it would make sense to merge the content in Malibu Creek State Park into the SMMNRA article? Looking it over now, I feel like it could be easily distilled into a long See listing (plus the SMMNRA article could poach that nifty banner). PerryPlanet (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 * We've traditionally kept a logical separation between park articles and city articles, and even though SMNRA is a weird corner-case, I think it still makes sense to try to keep the SMNRA article focused on the recreation area, and create a separate Topanga article for businesses located in that city. I suspect that someone looking for a business in Topanga would be surprised to be redirected to SMNRA, and someone trying to learn more about recreation options in the park would be surprised to be redirected to a city article.

 * As to Malibu Creek, it's a small enough place that a merge to either Malibu or SMNRA would make sense to me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 * II think it makes the most sense to merge the state parks into the SMMNRA. I don't think the jurisdiction is as important as how they are experienced by a visitor. I would propose that Point Mugu, Malibu Creek, and Topanga State Parks stay with the parks, but the State Beaches be classified with Malibu for geographic clarity. As to the Topanga city entry, I'll at least pull those entries from SMMNRA over to that article, and the Cornell items into Agoura Hills. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think Agoura Hills and Westlake Village should be in this article. They are on US-101 and wholly north of Mulholland Drive/Mulholland Hwy.  Anything north of Mulholland Drive or Hwy should be in the Valley article. Pur ple back pack  89    18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd agree that they don't really mesh with what I'd consider 'Westside'. If anything, it groups with Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park, despite being in Los Angeles County. I also think there is a definite distinction between the San Fernando and Conejo valleys, perceptually. I'm open to suggestions of how to manage the dissonance between political and geographic boundaries. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * No objection from me if Agoura Hills and Westlake Village are moved. Mapping LA has them grouped with the Santa Monica Mountains, but since we've already moved Calabasas out of that grouping it shouldn't hurt anything to move the other two as well. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Works for me. As far as I can tell, that's just an oddity of the Mapping LA data. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Count me in as an 'aye'. Just playing with solutions here, but should we use a Southern California→Conejo Valley region, like a smaller-scale Bay Area (California) grouping separate from the county groups? I mean, we're getting pretty granular here with the hierarchy in a largely suburban area, so if we want to throw in with the San Fernando Valley and be done with it, I can live with that. We also seem to be double-dipping the boundaries of Southern California and Central Coast for Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, but that's already part of a discussion on another page. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of not being held to arbitrary political boundaries, but I think the issue you'd run into with a Conejo Valley page is that we'd only have three cities to populate it with (Agoura Hills, Newbury Park, and Thousand Oaks), which isn't an ideal situation for a region page. Though I agree that throwing Agoura Hills in with the San Fernando Valley isn't an ideal solution either (though we do seem to be in agreement that it would at least be better there than here in Westside). What a perplexing problem... PerryPlanet (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Actually, Ventura County might work perfectly well under the rule of 7+2 with Agoura as an added-on item. What about this list (and I'll cross post on that page) - Thousand Oaks, Simi/Moorpark, Fillmore, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard/Hueneme, Camarillo, Ojai, plus Agoura/Westlake. Maybe we're just trying for the perfect fit when there isn't one. What do you guys think? If we could wordsmith out a way to make it clear on the county-level page, maybe it would be worth a try. I'm not sure yet, I've got to sleep on it. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I have absolutely zero problems with this. Even if we're fudging the truth by classifying Agoura/Westlake under Ventura County, it seems to make more sense from a traveler's perspective, and that's what really matters on this site. And if we're really worried about confusing people, we could always just, as you said, wordsmith in a note saying that while it's technically in LA County, it lies in the Conejo Valley, isolated from the rest of LA County by mountains (a nice way of saying to the counties, "Screw your rules, our system actually makes sense!" :P ). PerryPlanet (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Seems like we have the beginnings of a direction. I propose we shift future Agoura Hills discussion over the regional nuts-and-bolts to Talk:Ventura County, if there are no objections? I have a preliminary map proposal there. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Added Agoura Hills on the Ventura County page. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I'll go ahead and take it off this page and the map. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Westside
This article was recently moved from "West Side (Los Angeles County)" to "Westside (Los Angeles County)", which appears to be correct. However, that move broke the breadcrumbs for all cities in this region so I've reverted for now. Would someone with time available be willing to update the isPartOf tags for all of the cities in Category:West Side (Los Angeles County) and then re-move this article? We'll also need to move the category once everything is done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 * All of the above changes are now done and the article has again been renamed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Westside (Los Angeles County)


text:
Talk:West Virginia

Nothing on Harper's Ferry?! That's one of WV's biggest draws!! There are great views of that area too ;)

Regions
Looks like the regions on this page could use some help. I think WV could be broken into four regions. This map does a decent job. I'm thinking that renaming them to North Western (Ohio Valley), Central (Mountains & Lakes Country), Eastern (Potomac Hignlands), and Southern (New River & Greenbriar Valleys) would make sense. Any suggestions? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 16:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I think the current regions are based off this map, which is what most of the government-affiliated sites use. But given that we don't have all that much content yet for WV, I like your thought to break it down into fewer regions. The only real problem I have with the map you linked is that it neglects the "Metro Valley Region", which I think has a character pretty distinct from the rest of the state. As for the names, if we provide a map, names like "Eastern" won't tell people as much about the place as "Mounains & Lakes Country," so I would prefer to keep descriptive names if that's alright with you. Here's my idea for a scheme, based on these two maps:

 * Metro Valley, Ohio Valley, New River & Greenbrier Valleys, Mountains & Lakes Country

 * The "Mountains & Lakes Country" might be too big; if it is, we could always split off either the eastern panhandle region or the whole Potomac highlands. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 22:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

 * So, by going by that map & your suggestions, it would look like:

 * Metro Valley - Metro Valley Region (yellow)
 * Ohio Valley - Mid-Ohio Valley Region (light purple)
 * New River & Greenbrier Valleys - New River/Greenbrier Valley Region (gray)
 * Mountains & Lakes Country - Everything else?

Maybe we could break up the Mountains & Lakes Country region? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Sounds like a good plan to me! How about breaking it up into Mountains and Lakes Country and Potomac Highlands? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Love the map! And it's great to have some region articles for the state, too. Peter, you were asking about cities to link from each one; I'll have to give this more thought when I have more time, but for now I'd say:
 * Metro Valley - Charleston, Huntington, Logan, Point Pleasant, Williamson
 * Ohio Valley - Parkersburg, Wheeling -- but I'm really not sure what else!
 * New River & Greenbrier Valleys - Beckley, Bluefield, Fayetteville, Lewisburg, White Sulphur Springs
 * Mountains & Lakes Country - Buckhannon, Fairmont, Morgantown, Summersville, Sutton, Weston
 * Potomac Highlands - Harpers Ferry, Elkins, Marlinton, Martinsburg, Berkeley Springs
 * Just a thought... not sure they're all really "big" enough to be considered major draws, but that's something to start with, anyway. Looks like you've done more for the Ohio Valley and the Potomac Highlands than I'd have thought of! (Or did you mean the cities on the main page? That's down to 9 now, so it looks good to me...) -- (WT-en) Haem85 21:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Cities
A new user just added Charles Town to the list, and I'm inclined to agree that it should be there, since it's probably the most visited locale in the state (owing to its historic value, gambling, and proximity to the D.C. metro area). That makes the list one too long, though, so we'll need to drop one. I removed Fairmont, as it's a pretty small town, and not too well known for any major attractions. If anyone disagrees, please revert, and we'll discuss here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:29, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

"Take Me Home, Country Roads"
As my wife, a big John Denver fan, is fond of pointing out: this song actually references the western part of the state of Virginia, not the state of West Virginia. It may seem like a nitpick, but the lyrics as quoted in the article mention the Shenandoah River, which only clips the very easternmost extremity of the panhandle (see here), and the Blue Ridge Mountains, which are located wholly outside the state line. Given that, should we maybe remove the quote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a pity. I guess, but do you have any thought for a substitute? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Wikiquote's page on West Virginia contains a number of good candidates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Virginia


text:
Talk:West Yorkshire

Towns
Only Bradford and Leeds are cities. The rest are towns.

 * In Wikivoyage all places, including towns are called cities for simplicity. -- (WT-en) DanielC 07:58, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

West Yorks is now a county in name only, divided into five metropolitan districts or "cities". I've re-organised the page accordingly. Search has not yet revealed a "city" of West Yorks cut adrift from this structure, but "Calderdale" & "Bronte country" pages appear redundant. Grahamsands (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Yorkshire


text:
Talk:Wetherby

Images on commons won't upload, surely they should? (WT-en) Mtaylor848 11:49, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
 * And they do - more than 30 uploads in the last ten hours, as I write this. Keep in mind that shared uses different user accounts, so you'll need to create another one there and log in to it before uploading.  (I don't see a "Mtaylor848" in the user creation log over there, apologies if you already did this under a different name.)  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 12:54, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I have both wikivoyage, en:wikipedia and wikicommons accounts under the same name. They should all be there.  My problem is that the images I put into the text box will not appear on the page.  The images are all on commons so I would have thought they should work on all wiki projects. (WT-en) Mtaylor848 13:38, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Wikivoyage Shared is not Wikimedia Commons. Despite the superficially similar formatting, wikivoyage is independent of wikipedia et al., and shares no servers with it.   - (WT-en) Dguillaime 15:25, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Wetherby


text:
Talk:Wexford

Vandalizing
This has been clearly and extensively vandalized with silly and rude stories mixed in with real information. Someone who knows about Wexford should fix this - I'm not sure what's real and what's not anymore! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 155.245.122.10 (talk • contribs)

- 7 June 2009

 * The article was pretty thoroughly mangled, so I just went ahead and reverted to an older, clean version. Apologies to any whose good edits might have been lost! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:07, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Wexford


text:
Talk:Whale watching

Destinations
When a new destination is added, that whale watching (tours etc.) should feature in the Do section of the linked destination. This should also be fixed for the existing destinations. Danapit (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Identifying species
Should we be capitalizing the names of animal species, or leaving them without the initial cap? I see both conventions being used in this article, for example, Gray Whale and gray whale. Orca or orca? I don't have a preference either way, but it would be nice to have it consistent throughout. Any thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Museums with remnants of whales?
Shall we include museums with displays of whale skeletons and similar? The Museum of Natural History in Stockholm has a prominent collection, though live cetaceans are nowhere to be found nearby. /Yvwv (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Those are off-topic for a whale watching article. Looking at skeletons is not watching. Those would be for a topic on natural history museums. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whale watching


text:
Talk:What things cost

This is an interesting idea, and I could very easily see it turning into a "Travel topic." However, I'm not sure it's practical. The problem is that exchange rates are highly volatile, to the point where keeping this information current could be practically a full-time job, even putting aside the changes in prices for the commodities themselves, which will be hard to track. (I also don't think you have the "right" set of commodities here yet, but that's solvable.) Let's discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:33, 17 February 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:What things cost


text:
Talk:Wheatbelt

I moved this to "Heartlands (Western Australia)". I dunno, I figure "Heartlands" is a bit ambiguous. -- (WT-en) Evan 09:03, 15 Nov 2003 (PST)

title: Talk:Wheatbelt


text:
Talk:Whetstone

vfd discussion

 * Delete. Apparently a district.  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:15, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:45, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. There are 3 or 4 of these (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whetstone), I will disambig this. --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:00, 31 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep as a disambiguation page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:37, 31 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Whetstone


text:
Talk:Whistler

Booking agencies?
The following entries look to me like booking agencies, rather than operators of properties. The Wikivoyage policy on this seems to be at Project:Accommodation listings. Based on that, I think they qualify. However, I want to highlight these listings so that other editors can also take a look. I've moved them to their own list within Sleep... Splurge. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 13:21, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Aloha Whistler Accommodations, http://www.alohawhistler.com
 * Whistler Home Holidays, http://www.homeholidays.com
 * Whistler Luxury Condos, http://www.whistlerluxurycondos.com
 * Whistler Mountain Accommodation, http://www.alpinewhistler.com

 * I removed a number of the property management companies from the Sleep section because they weren't consistent with our apartment listing policy (didn't provide a physical address for their office on their website). For reference, they are:

 * Exclusive Accommodations in Whistler, . Provides luxury short and long term rental homes and chalets in Whistler Canada resort. Great selection of deluxe rental properties available in all locations.

 * Whistler Holiday Accommodation, . Offers vacation rental packages including condos and ski chalets at Whistler Blackcomb resort.

 * Whistler Luxury Condos, . Pricey luxury suites, many come with jaccuzis, fireplace(s) and multiple bedrooms or a loft. Minimum stay requirement with prices ranging from $290 / night (low season) to $790 / night high season for a one bedroom unit.

 * Whistler Mountain Accommodation, +1-888-938-0707, . Fully-furnished luxury ski-in, ski-out Whistler condos and town home rentals, located in Taluswood development on the Whistler Creekside gondola. 2 to 4 bedrooms, prices vary based on date, from $330-495/night (2 bedroom) or $840-1550/night (4 bedroom), with minimum stay requirement.

 * Holiday Whistler Accommodations, . Provides a large selection of condo and chalet rentals in Whistler BC Canada featuring ski vacation units. Nightly rental units from 1 bedroom up to 7 bedrooms available during all seasons.

 * Owner Direct Vacation Rentals lists over over 300 rental homes in Whistler to accommodate a wide range of guest numbers and budgets.

 * Whistler Select Accommodations, Offering the best selection of luxury vacation homes in Whistler Village and Whistler Creekside since 1976.  604-938-6263

--(WT-en) Shaund 01:35, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Whistler


text:
Talk:Whitehorse Hill

Should this info go in Swindon or Oxfordshire, hardly a valid destination on its own metinks. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 03:13, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Whitehorse Hill


text:
Talk:White Island

Regarding the naming, if White Island is the more popular name (which it seems to be based on the official site names), then that's the name of the article. Wikivoyage only uses slashes for districts. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:59, 18 May 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:White Island


text:
Talk:White Mountain

vfd Discussion
Archived from the Project:Votes for deletion page:

 * Delete. Created by our serial creator, but also doesn't fit with Project:What is an article? unless someone discovers some fantastic route or something... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 19:22, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. It's a region in New Hampshire . Oddly enough, we're planning on stopping around there next week on our way to Boston. (WT-en) Maj 20:11, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Keep. Hopefully, someone could convince Evan and Maj to pay special attention to the area, while they're travelling. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:13, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The region is the White Mountains. If we're going to keep this then it should be a redirect . -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * There's also a "White Mountains" in Washington State. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:00, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Confused. When I click on the White Mountain link I get a page that says it's in Alaska. There does appear to be such a place. What am I missing? *OldPine checks his capital I's* (WT-en) OldPine 20:43, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * After reading "OldPine's" (if that is in fact your real Wikivoyage user name) comments. I did some sleuthing and according to Getty's there are many White Mountain locations, including one in the Czech Republic .  I check my lower case l's :).  It seems the best solution is to disambig. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The question isn't whether a place with the name of "White Mountain" exists (there are lots) but whether a destination that we're going to write an article about with that name exists. Mountains and mountain ranges are not subjects for articles (per Project:What is an article?) unless the article is about a region named after the mountain or range.  In this case Maj is proposing to redirect the article as a typo for the White Mountains region of New Hampshire - while I think that's being generous, creating a disambiguation page for this one would be going too far. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:17, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What about the place in Arizona ? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:20, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * And the one in Alaska that is what the page now represents. It's listed as a city by Wikipedia. Geez, so there might not be anything written. Are we policing out stubs? (WT-en) OldPine 21:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Referring to the existing article about the tiny town on the Seward Peninsula, it's not that this article is a stub that's an issue, it's whether or not it has the potential to eventually become a useful guide, or whether the level of granularity should be at a more regional level. Normally I'd say the fact that someone felt a need to create the article would justify the level of granularity, but since it was created by a mischevious contributor who creates articles for inconspicuous dots on the map and fills them with useful content like "White Mountain a town", I think this one could safely go away.  If some day someone who really does want to create a useful guide to the area comes along then there would be nothing stopping them from re-creating it or else creating an article at a useful level of granularity, but for now I don't see a reason to keep a useless guide about a place none of us knows much about simply because Wikipedia says it has a population of around 200. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:35, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * OK, OK, I'm starting to remember that I don't really care. Sorry. (WT-en) OldPine 22:08, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * What Ryan said. It is not one of Wikivoyage's goals to create an article for every place on the planet, but for every destination on the planet.  An article with little potential to reach "usable" status (for a city that means at least one place of public accommodation, at least one restaurant, and at least one "attraction") and no potential for "guide" status (multiple options for each), is probably not a viable article unless we know that tourists are going there, regardless of the lack of facilities for them (e.g. a few of our Off the Beaten Path nominations).  To be useful to the traveler, what little information we could collect about that place should instead be incorporated into an article that covers a larger area that collectively could be a travel destination with enough to See, Do, Buy, Eat, and Drink to make it worth a visit.  Maybe that larger area is a county; more likely it's a region with a locally-understood name (e.g. Leelanau Peninsula).  See Project:Geographical hierarchy for some "policy" about this, but a key bit is this: "Where suburbs, satellite cities and villages deserve their own Wikivoyage entries is a matter of judgement -- probably depending on the amount of information about those places."  Not enough information to be had means it's not an article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:24, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Regarding all of the above "should it stay or should it go" conversation - whatever gets decided here may then should be applied to most of the work in my contributions lately. I worked through a stack of orphaned articles (created by you know who) to give them a parent.  The majority of those articles are very, very dot on the map locations - plenty in Alaska and India.  I have to agree that its pretty silly to have articles about dots... I'd say that most villages of +/- 200 people probably don't have a lot to offer tourists.  Sure - there are exceptions, but we're going to have an awful lot of "City in region" only articles... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify my position on this issue I was not advocating for the Alaskan town to be kept. I was advocating to disambig White Mountain and White Mountains, because there appear to be several regions with similar names. I.e. checking this page shows that the White Mountains article page had been confused by someone who linked to the article from Arizona thinking White Mountains was referring to the region in Arizona.  Does anyone have a problem keeping the White Mountain page and making it a disambig?  This really isn't a debate about whether or not to keep an article on some god-forsaken town in Alaska. -- User:(WT-en) Sapphire
 * Keep. Additional edits have made this into a reasonably useful article for someone visiting that region of Alaska. HOWEVER, I don't think that every small dot on the map should be given an article UNLESS there is a minimum of useful information about the place in the article. If we're going to have this discussion every time an article for a place with a population of 50 is created that contains nothing more than "Foo a town" then we might as well simply mine the US Census Bureau's data and create outline articles for every dot that's out there (which I'm not advocating). -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:54, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. And everything Ryan said. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:01, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Re: the Census Bureau import notion. The CIA Factbook import created a bunch of articles that were pretty dubious (the rock-in-the-ocean sort), and as I was converting leftover Factbook articles a while back, I considered VFDing a bunch of them.  But because of their presence in the Factbook and other well-known "list of countries/territories" resources (and even labeled on globes), they were probably going to be recreated eventually by a well-meaning atlasmaker.  So I figured it was better to instead turn them into basic articles that made it clear how poor a destiantion they'd be for a curious would-be visitor.  Plus, since there's a certain class of traveler who seeks out these deserted and isolated places, these were arguably useful articles.  With them being so widely dispersed, I couldn't even hope to combine them into a regional article.  Furthermore, because they'd been in existence for a while, many of them had already been included in lists and linked to; it was going to be a pain to eradicate them.  The thing is, none of these arguments that convinced me to spare the rock-in-the-ocean articles apply to crossroads-in-the-field articles: They aren't infamous and inevitable to be recreated, they aren't sought out just for their lack of lodging and things to do, they can be combined with neighboring small communities and have articles written that cover them collectively, and they aren't (yet) entangled into our hierarchy.  With that said... a few of the rock-in-the-ocean articles did turn out to be actual destinations, with enough to support a real article.  And like I've said, if someone can show me in the article that a dot on the map has enough going on to be a destination, I'll be convinced.  The White Mountain article is now... borderline.  It might be worth keeping, but I suspect it would be a stronger article if it were about the area including White Mountain AK, with other towns included, which is how we should strive to handle the dots of the world: put enough of them together and you can draw a picture. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:41, 27 July 2006 (EDT) Update: I see now that it is on the Idiot Ride  I Did It, Rod Iditarod Trail.  So a small but measurable number of people (perhaps not all of them with dogs) do in fact visit it every year.  That's significant.  Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:29, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. I have added some content to this article, but I do think we should move the article to White Mountain (Alaska) and then create a disambig page on White Mountain. The reason is so people looking for White Mountains in New Hampshire have a parachute if they leave off the "s" on their search. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:04, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:White Mountain


text:
Talk:White Mountain National Forest

Comments
OK, I reset this, moving listings that were not National Forest Service administered out to towns and installing the National Park outline. Perhaps someone more experienced could comment on what listings are desired. I looked at Yosemite, and I did not see listings for hotels from surrounding towns, etc. The region is also called "White Mountains", so that is also available to highlight regional attractions etc. (WT-en) OldPine 14:58, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I think it makes sense to move listings for places that aren't actually in the WMNF to the articles for the towns they're in (or the region article if the towns are too tiny to sustain an article of their own). But since lodging in the Forest itself is fairly limited, it would be Useful To The Traveler™ to put a comment in the Sleep section of this article directing people to those towns as another option. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:16, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:White Mountain National Forest


text:
Talk:White Mountains (California)

Template
Since the White Mountains are a region rather than a park this article should be converted to the Project:Region article template, which is more appropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was more like a park than a region. There is a park-like Bristlecone preserve embedded in part of a national forest, which is also park-like. Anyhow, it isn't too hard to edit in new categories, or rename existing categories. What changes would you suggest, Ryan? 76.80.26.121 20:02, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I've updated the article to use the region template. Generally the park template is only used for an area with clearly defined borders that is under the management of a single entity, such as a national park, state park, wildlife refuge, African game park, etc.  Areas that don't meet that criteria are considered regions and use the region article template.  Project:Article templates has a few more details if you're interested. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:17, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

 * A decade later either Wikivoyage has changed, or I need to admit that in my younger years I was wrong about how to write about this area. While the White Mountains aren't exactly like a national park, the park article headings are more appropriate for writing about this area than a region template would be - visitors want to know where to camp and hike, and not what cities are here.  I'll convert it back to a park template now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:White Mountains (California)


text:
Talk:White Mountains (New Hampshire)

Needs disambiguation. In the U.S. there are White Mountains in New Hampshire-Maine, California-Nevada, Arizona-New Mexico, Alaska. Also in on the island Crete. (WT-en) LADave 00:24, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:White Mountains (New Hampshire)


text:
Talk:White Rock

Restaurants
This is the lengthy list of restaurants on Marine Drive in White Rock that I just moved from the guide. The Eat section shouldn't be just a listing of restaurants, but these might be useful if someone wants to fill in enough details to make a proper listing.

 * Slainte By the Pier
 * Roxy's By The Beach
 * Washington Ave. Grill
 * Sheesh Mahal Restaurant
 * Moby Dick's Fish and Chips
 * Uli's
 * The Pier
 * DOCK'S Fish & Chips
 * Caribbean Breeze
 * The Boathouse
 * Charlie Don't Surf
 * Ceilo's
 * Fronds Bistro
 * Iguana's Restaurant
 * Little India
 * Dolce Gelato

- (WT-en) Shaund 22:20, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

 * I've been adding full listings back one by one, starting with those I know personally or are highly rated by collaboratively-built sites like TripAdvisor. Note that it's good to have `lat=` and `long=` filled in. It allows the listing to appear on the interactive map. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Detailed listing?
There's so many restaurants on Marine Drive that even as someone that lives in White Rock impossible to give an impression of all of them....

However, apart from the more upper scale WAG (Washington Ave. Grill) which is quite a bit east of the main drag and usually needs a reservation, the vast majority have menus out front and you can kind of judge it as you walk along the street.

Usually the thing to do is (ideally low tide near sunset) is to find a parking spot in the west, walk down the beach until your at the pier, walk to the end of the pier, walk back, walk to the east end of town along the beach. There, you done the nature/ocean thing.

Cross the street.

Then you walk along the street portion and figure out where you want to eat. Find a place you like, and either walk in and eat dinner, or perhaps get a reservation for later.

If you happen to be staying somewhat close (even at the top of the hill) you can always walk down to the beach (not that big a deal) and then you can find a nice patio to eat and drink while the sun goes down, and then take a cab back up the hill.

—The preceding comment was added by 204.76.196.14 (talk • contribs)

 * Great info; why not put it in the article? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:51, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I just put this in the article under White Rock. It was a great suggestion. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:White Rock


text:
Talk:White Sands National Park

I've taken the liberty of pronouncing this thing a "Guide," even though there's no restaurant information. After all, you can't include information on something that doesn't exist! The rest of it is very thoughtfully and accurately laid out, with a nice picture. Well done, Ryan! -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:52, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

Ancient footprints
Fossil footprints: the fascinating story behind the longest known prehistoric journey, on the Playa lake bed. Worth a mention here, I think, and perhaps also Indigenous cultures of North America. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:White Sands National Park


text:
Talk:Whitewater sports

Whitewater Kayaking
Needs to be deleted, or redirected, or else renamed Whitewater kayaking ~ 61.91.191.8 08:55, 2 February 2007 (EST)

 * Keep. This can make a nice travel topic, but the garbage needs to be removed, some real info needs to be added and it should be listed under Travel_topics. I'll add some detail, lets see how the voting goes from there.
 * Friday afternoon, a week of work made me braindead. I missed the fact that Kayaking was spelled with a capital here. Have move the content to Whitewater kayaking and redirected Whitewater Kayaking to the new page.

 * Keep - is now a valid redirect, and the page it redirects to has valid content. ~ 61.91.191.11 06:37, 4 February 2007 (EST)

 * Delete - just spam related stuff.

 * Keep. - This can be made useful. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)
 * Keep. Pretty standard kind of redirect, and Whitewater kayaking is certainly a valid travel topic, if one where our nascent cooperation with WikiOutdoors should be taken into consideration. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)
 * Either keep or preferably move the content to Travel activities and leave the old article as a redirect. We still don't have a standard for what is a valid travel article, so it's difficult to say whether something stays or goes.  My preference would be that we move content into more general articles whenever possible, and only create new articles when the content becomes large and complex, similarly to how we handle museums or airports currently. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Whitewater sports?
Is there a more generic name for kayaking, canoeing and rafting all combined? The places where you can do these are, after all, pretty much the same. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:07, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Support; definitely better name--and we'd better have a wider scope here until we have too much content to split. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:56, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Destinations
I wonder what the criteria for the selection of destinations are. We now have destinations where "rafting [...] is said to be quite good", rafting/kayaking/canoeing just mentioned or even not mentioned at all.

We probably should list at least articles about white water sports in some area and articles about areas especially noteworthy as white water sports destinations, but we should not list countries or regions on the bases that there are some white-water sports destinations in that area – there probably are in most countries, and there are zillions of individual white-water destinations.

Should we try to choose a few (5–9?) destinations on each continent, based on noteworthiness and amount and quality of information in the article in question? The rest would be found in the Do sections of relevant articles, depending on noteworthiness (lesser routes only in the destination article itself).

--LPfi (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 * One more country was added to Europe. The section now had this content:
 * Albania: Osumi Canyon, Black Drini, Vjosa River
 * Croatia
 * Finland
 * Russia
 * Turkey
 * Slovenia
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina

 * Osum was indeed mentioned in Berat: Osumi Canyon and the Wikipedia article says that it is navigable by (some?) whitewater craft. I added that info to the see listing.

 * Black Drini (Drini i Zi) and the Vjosa are mentioned in a few articles, but none of the mentions hints on whitewaters.

 * Slovenia seems to tout adventure sports, and the mentioned Triglav National Park indeed says that rafting is popular at the Soca River, but nothing more. Nothing makes me feel this is an outstanding whitewater destination. Russia has a link to one company, nothing more. The rest of the country articles have nothing (Finland mentions canoeing, but tells nothing about it).

 * Bosnia and Herzegovina has the only convincing description of whitewater possibilities. I am sure there are a lot of them in the other countries (I know some for Finland), but I think somebody with real experience or some knowledge of the field should add the bullets – after having shared some of their knowledge.

 * Thus, I am removing these all, except Bosnia and Herzegovina, which at least looks like an honest attempt to share information.

 * –LPfi (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whitewater sports


text:
Talk:Whitianga

Image
This image is not so good as it matches that on Coromandel, there is a more appropriate (and free) one at.

title: Talk:Whitianga


text:
Talk:Whitsunday Islands

I just finished most of what I could think up to say on the Whitsundays. I hope it's helpful, although I don't know much about the higher end of the market! Please ask questions, especially on camping, if you want. (WT-en) Wellwikid 03:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Minor change.
An excellent article so far with some good information many thanks to the original author. I made a small change to correct the fact that Captain James Cook was not the first Englishman to come to Australia. William Dampier was the first Englishman to arrive in Australia, he landed on the West Australian coast in 1699, Cook however was the first Englishman (and European) to explore the east coast. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Grandy (talk • contribs)

 * You're right. For smaller edits like this, you can simply plunge forward without the need to notify at the talk pages at all, however. If there's a disagreement and the edit gets reverted back and forth, then it's of course time to use talk pages. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:22, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

Splitting into per-island articles
It would be a bit of work, but What is an article? suggests that most islands ought to have their own article, meeting the "Can you sleep there?" test. (Many islands, although not all, have multiple accommodation providers, in fact.) It also removes the awkwardness of Hamilton Island, only, having its own article and listings. Thoughts? Querent (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Lets not go out of our way to generate sparse content. Hamilton has a serious amount of additional content, with attractions, multiple accommodation providers, restaurants, take-aways, airport.  I'm just saying lets build the content up, and when it no longer fits comfortably in an article, go from there. --Inas (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Banner
I think a banner of the Whitsundays have to contain some of the whitest sand you could ever find. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Both banners look great to me. What can be done with whichever one we end up not using here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 * The current can be used on Queensland national parks (though that article is a mess and needs a cleanup). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 * But that article also has an excellent pagebanner, so where could that one go? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That one could go in South East Queensland which its current banner is very similar to the current in Queensland national parks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like the same banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whitsunday Islands


text:
Talk:Whitton

This is an orphan, and should be merged into the appropriate district of London. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:39, 7 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Whitton


text:
Talk:Wiarton

what is this article about? we should delete it. chinzh 23:13, 26 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Wiarton


text:
Talk:Wicklow Town

Wicklow is part of Leinster and Leinster has all these counties in it : Louth, Meath , WestMeath , Longford , Longford , Dublin , Kildare , Laois , Offaly , Wicklow , Wexford , Carlow and Kilkenny. Please look at the website : link title http://askaboutIreland.ie/. Italic text By Lisa

Copyvio
Forgot to note in the edit summary, but I just blanked a bunch of stuff that was copied directly from http://www.wicklowtown.ie/. (WT-en) texugo 09:22, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Wicklow Town