text:
Talk:Nazca

Copyedits
I removed this & some contact info from the article. Wikivoyage doesn't list 3rd party sites. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 *  This is a no nonsense travel agency that sells you exactly what they tell you. No extra prices, everything included UNLESS they told you very very clearly what not, and how much it is. They only work with official guides and reliable and safe airlines. With a wide variety of tours the best deals in town can be found here.

mysteryperu.com
There have been a lot of edits that add links to mysteryperu.com to this article. While one link that lists the tour operator under the "Do" section is great, multiple links should be avoided per Project:External links and Project:Don't tout. The "don't tout" guideline specifically asks that businesses "Don't list the same place many times" within an article - this guideline helps prevent articles from turning into advertising brochures and works to the business's advantage since readers who see multiple listings generally assume that the information did not come from travelers and is therefore less trustworthy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

more mysteryperu
I know for sure that the constant deleting on this page is being done by MysteryPeru.com while they usually change something about a hotel to point the blame there. I'm very sure that this hotel "Don Agucho" has nothing to do with the continuous deleting of MysteryPeru`s competition here. (WT-en) Red

Page Protection
I have temporarily protected this page since there is continual back and forth and because there is continual removal of content without explanation. Please discuss problems instead of just whacking the page. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Why the renaming of this article?
Why has this been renamed from Nazca_(disambiguation) to Nasca?

Wikipedia says that it is sometimes called 'Nasca' but the spelling is Nazca.

I'll move back in line with Wikipedia if nobody comments --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I was wondering the same. Its spelling in several other articles has been changed as well, so those need to be reverted if the page is re-moved. Powers (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Can do. It seems that Google Maps also beleives it is Nazca as well as http://www.fundeu.es/consulta/nazca-o-nasca-1456/  : El nombre tradicional, que es por el que se los conoce en el mundo hispanohablante, es Nazca.
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. If you see in Street View, all signals in this town says "Nasca" with s. And it's a word from quechua (Nasqa), so, I don't know why the "z". Turbo8000 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The only question that's really relevant, according to practices on this site, is which spelling is used more often in English. It doesn't matter to me which one it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should trust the signals and what the town people says, and it is Nasca. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Nazca is used more in English. Though I don't personally have a preference between the two. If Nasca is indeed the local name, this should be noted in the article, just as we would say "Roma" is the local name of Rome. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, given the low number of active users over there, but Spanish language Wikivoyage also calls it "Nazca". Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Spanish Wikipedia calls it Nasca. And Wikimedia is NOT a primary source, you should see the signals, the people writening, costumes, etc. Turbo8000 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the standard. By that standard, we should have articles about Roma, Firenze, Milano, Venezia and Napoli — but we don't. Please stop edit warring and seek consensus every time you would like to change the name of any article, and do not plunge forward like a bull in a china shop with such changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to understand..... every local people in Nasca use "Nasca"... .the signals are so.... the people call so... Turbo8000 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would take this edit, and this rather mocking reply as proof that there is no innocent miscommunication between languages going on here, but rather deliberate trolling for the fun of it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Turbo8000 : Obviously you 'think' that many of our naming conventions should follow Spanish, but it doesn't work that way. We use the most commonly accepted English word. Additionally it seems Spanish wikipedia does use 'Nazca'. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_(desambiguaci%C3%B3n) Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * @User:Turbo8000 That may indeed be the case (though I would not trust [hand]written signs in Latin America as to the difference between z and s, one year Nicaragua has taught me that), but we are here at English Wikivoyage. We follow English naming conventions unless there are good reasons not to. That includes München, Köln or the Falkland Islands just the same as it does Beijing or Kyoto. Of course as "redirects are cheap" (as has been said in an unrelated discussion) there is nothing against redirecting the local name(s) (many places around the world have more than one local name; just look at Sorbian regions of Eastern Germany) but as a general rule we use and prefer the English names for obvious reasons. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nazca is a term created by Spanish, adapted from the original Nasca. The Peruvian government prefered to use Nasca as the original form, that's why I say that it is Nasca with a s letter. Turbo8000 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The official spelling is irrelevant to Wikivoyage. The only relevant information is what spelling is most used in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Nasca" is now the spelling used in the town on Spanish-language signs. "Nazca" is only used in English. I've edited the article to reflect this. Ground Zero (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Get around for morons?
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/01/americas/nazca-lines-peru-truck-driver/index.html --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 * For 'Stay safe': "Travellers who destroy the archaeology with their motor vehicles can expect to be arrested by the police." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And re-reading this talk page brings back such wonderful memories... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe some archiving would be in order... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nazca


text:
Talk:Nîmes

Combined with the Nimes article as there were two (Nîmes and Nimes). (WT-en) Meltwaterfalls 05:16, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Nîmes


text:
Talk:Nebraska

Counties & regions
Maps:
 * counties - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nebraska_counties_map.png
 * regions - http://visitnebraska.org/myplanner/regions.asp

Regions
I'm thinking about making a region map for Nebraska. I'm not sure Nebraska needs to be broken down into so many regions. Maybe just West (Panhandle), Central (Sandhills, Prairies and Lakes, Frontier Trails), and East (Lewis & Clark, Metro, Pioneer Country). Any thoughts? - (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I've thought some more, maybe 4 regions. East & West, and the North Central (Sandhills), and South Central (Prairies and Lakes & Frontier Trails). (WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's how I broke everything down: - (WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I've implemented the regions - ended up changing Western Nebraska to Panhandle (Nebraska). If there are any issues, of I've completely messed up something, let me know & I'll fix it. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nebraska


text:
Talk:Negeri Sembilan

Contributor link: for researching this article try: - (WT-en) Huttite 07:23, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * http://www.cuti.com.my/guide_n9.htm

title: Talk:Negeri Sembilan


text:
Talk:Negev

Baruch: would "Be'er Sheva" be better named "Beersheba"? I think that's the more common English name -- at least, it's the only one I've heard of. (See article naming conventions for details). -- (WT-en) Evan 12:00, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

In Hebrew it is usually pronounced Be'er Sheva, but it appears that the official name in English in Beer Sheba (definitely not as a single word). I'll do the renaming. -- (WT-en) Baruch Even 15:02, 10 Nov 2003 (IST)

 * Thanks! -- (WT-en) Evan 07:33, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

Listings for train stations
Given that there is a train line that goes here and a bunch of towns have train service, should there be listings in the "get in" or "get around" section? Dynamic Map marker of course included... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Negev


text:
Talk:Negros Occidental

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

Cities and municipalities
Should the cities and municipalities list be reduced to 9? I agree in reducing it to 9, other cities and municipalities don't have much of attractions. - (WT-en) SnappyHip 14:57, 09 February 2010 (GST)

 * Yes definitely. There should only ever be 9 in these sections. Would be good to find some Other Destinations as well if you could. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:22, 9 February 2010 (EST)

 * Actually, I think it should not be reduced until there are subregions per Project:Geographical hierarchy Although, I suppose there is a case to be made that the redlinked cities do not count. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Well the destinations list will be divided into regions :) if that is fine, it will be divided to - Southern Negros Occidental, Central Negros Occidental and Northern Negros Occidental -(WT-en) SnappyHipPrefersCokeToPepsi 16:57, 11 March 2010 (GST)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BacolodCollageByMcLovintosh.jpg
 * Kabankalanmontageownwork.jpg

 * Odd. I cannot find the images on the page, and there were no recent changes to it. --LPfi (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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) 09:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bacolod City Hall at night.jpg
 * Used at the Wikidata page, no FoP. Seems to be a clear case that doesn't affect us. –LPfi (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Negros Occidental


text:
Talk:Neiafu

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

Comments
I have restructured Tonga and added a lot of material. For a country with around 100,000 people I consider that four articles, i.e. Tonga, Tongatapu,Ha'apai, and Vava'u should be more than adequate. A case could be made for articles on The Niuas and ‘Eua but I doubt whether there is enough to say about either of them to merit a separate article. At present I have put them in as GET OUT under Vava’u and Tongatapu, respectively. It does not appear to me that a case can be made for additional articles on Neiafu and Nuku’alofa given the small size of the Groups in which they are found. Season’s Greetings (WT-en) Shep 13:13, 18 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Neiafu


text:
Talk:Nekala

VFD Discussion
Merge to Tampere. This seems to be somebody's idea of a joke, or a bizarre attempt at spam by the "detective agency". Nekala is a suburban neighbourhood of Tampere, mostly known for its wooden houses and large allotment gardens; my grandparents owned one and I spent many an idyllic summer day there as a kid. One chunk of it does contain dodgy public housing full of alcoholics, but the stuff about people going around carrying knifes, defending their honor etc is just ridiculous -- and the reason the article should be deleted is that there's absolutely nothing for a tourist to see. (WT-en) jpatokal 06:10, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Jpatokal; I think you are right and somewhat wrong at the same time. There is indeed no doubt that the article seems a bit ridiculous at its present state and the image it gives is very one-sided. However, I cannot find any actual errors or lies from article. From my personal and limited history in the late 90s I can say that at its worst, parts of Nekala where exactly as described in the article. I think the writer might just be familiar with a very small chunk of Nekala and therefore naively presents his experiences being true to the whole area. In my opinion, the article should be expanded to provide a more wholesome picture of Nekala. The mention about the detective agency seems indeed too much like an add.

I see no reason to delete the article just because the area is not interesting. Don't we all feel that way about the places we live in? Finnish neighbourhood might feel very exciting to someone from a different culture. For example, the lake Iidesjärvi is a very important natural scenery very close to the city centre. 88.192.177.6 14:42, 22 October 2011 (EDT) Viinikka Vanha Liitto

 * This is the wrong place to have this discussion, as no one is arguing for it to be deleted. The article should have the merge tag on top of it, and this discussion (about merging or not) should be relocated to the Talk page of that article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:03, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Keep for now.  As per (WT-en) globe-trotter.  Sure it probably needs merge and redirect.  I'd like to nominate (WT-en) jpatokal for the job, given his familiarity with the area.  --(WT-en) Inas 20:49, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added for Tampere. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:27, 17 December 2011 (EST)

 * I will merge the relevant content into Tampere now. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nekala


text:
Talk:NEK Border with Canada

This can be split into different sections later or even into different articles from the higher level page (NEK). (WT-en) Student7 10:18, 7 February 2007 (EST)

 * Maybe I'm confused about what NEK is, but this doesn't seem to fit with our Project:What's an article? guidelines... could you clarify? Thanks. (WT-en) Maj 10:21, 7 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:NEK Border with Canada


text:
Talk:Nellaiappar Temple

As this seems to be copy and paste from wikipedia and doesn't meet the article guidelines I forwarded to the existent info at Tirunelveli (WT-en) Sebindi 11:43, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nellaiappar Temple


text:
Talk:Nelson

Port Nelson (Western Australia)
Is a tiny gazetted port in the state of Western Australia with about 4 people according to http://bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=27925&cmd=sp

title: Talk:Nelson


text:
Talk:Nelson (New Zealand)

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using article discussion pages, see Using talk pages.''

Region/City
There needs to be a differentiation between Nelson the region (encompasing Nelson, Richmond, Motueka, Golden Bay, and ?Murchison) and Nelson the city. Or should there be a Nelson/Marlborough region (I don't think I favour this but throw it out there)? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Rimu (talk • contribs) at about  22:59, 31 August 2007
 * This has now been implemented. -- A l i c e ✉ 20:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Te Puna Wai Lodge
Is it just me, or is the current description a bit too floral? --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:35, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Ethnic diversity
I've added a paragraph about ethnic diversity. Much of the information I got from talking to Evey McAuliffe, the Co-ordinator at Nelson Multicultural Council Inc and these are some of the other sources I used: http://www.thaimedicalnews.com/medical-tourism-thailand/long-neck-karen-tribe-thailand-burmese-border-remove-rings/ http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/247513/Human-zoo-can-t-come-here http://www.nelsonmulticultural.co.nz/site/nelsonmulti/files/ethnic_info//Thailand%20Deny%20Padaung%20Exit%20Visas.pdf http://www.nelsonmulticultural.co.nz/INFORMATION/Ethnic+Information.html I also spoke with British, Czech, Dutch, Filipino, German, Irish and Japanese stall holders and retailers over an extended period and to the local police commander. -- A l i c e ✉ 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't Discover any orchestra, not even a small one
Discover includes the interesting fact that "Nelson, New Zealand is the smallest city in the world to have its own symphony orchestra.". But I cannot find any information about this in the article - which is required for things in the "Discover" page. The article doesn't even mention the orchestra. What's even more confusing: I cannot find anything supporting the fact on Wikipedia, at the home page of the orchestra or the city or by googling it. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think the sponsors are being defrauded: http://nso.org.nz/support-the-nso ? What a bizarre idea! Our article doesn't mention Fairfield House either (I can assure you that has existed for more than 100 years too) - that's because our article is nowhere near complete and is not yet at guide status. I don't think you have read the website of the NSO properly. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really think Mick Dowrick stands there waving his baton in front of any empty hall: http://nso.org.nz/conductor ? Has the local newspaper been fooled as well ?--W. Franke-mailtalk 15:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um...what? Criteria #5: "The article linked to must contain the fact in question.". Period. Now I'm not a "Friend of the orchestra" and don't have access to the secret subpage where the fact "Nelson, New Zealand is the smallest city in the world to have its own symphony orchestra." is stated, but I am nevertheless going to reveal the secret and add the fact to the article! BTW I've never said that the orchestra doesn't exist but after reading your furious edits to this talk page maybe I should. You may have a very good reason not to add (such a great) orchestra but I don't think I'd care to ask. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a common fallacy to think that all human knowledge is now to be found somewhere on the web and especially in a Wikipedia article. However, you are absolutely right in suggesting that, in "Discover", "The article linked to must contain the fact in question" so thanks for improving our Nelson article, ϒpsilon!
 * PS Please note that, in non-US English usage "city" has a meaning that is not synonymous with "town", village or settlement. In non-US English useage, "city" is reserved either for a large conurbation such as London, Wellington, Paris or Tokyo or for a town that has a cathedral - as Nelson certainly does (with Christ Church Cathedral currently being the seat of Bishop Elena of Nelson), or letters patent declaring city status (as Nelson also has). --W. Franke-mailtalk 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nelson (New Zealand)


text:
Talk:Nelson Bays

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

Article Naming Conventions
I know this part of New Zealand as Nelson, so I have an issue with this article being called by the clumsy name of Nelson Tasman. Nelson Tasman appears to be a recent construct of local government (dis)organisation in the area. I note that this region is variously called both Nelson and Tasman, often interchangably, by different agencies. ,, ,.

Wikivoyage convention is to use the simplest or commonly used English names, it is not always appropriate to strictly use the official names.

Historically, the original Nelson Province included the top of the South Island, covering what is now Marlborough, as well as Nelson and Tasman and extending into the Buller region of the West Coast. Areas known as North-West Nelson and Nelson Lakes are in Tasman an Marlborough District Council areas respectively. Consequently, I think that Nelson or Nelson (region) would seem to fit better here. The name Nelson Bays, which the rugby team was once known by, is another alternative.

I notice there is also some commentary on Talk:Nelson (New Zealand) that also suggests there needs to be separate regional and city articles about Nelson. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:12, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I agree and changed the name to Nelson Bays when I did the map for the South Island (chose that name because I remember the rugby team and I prefer to not to use the "cityname (region)", it's also a very apt description of the area). - (WT-en) Shaund 00:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Nelson Bays


text:
Talk:Nemea

deletion of links to wikipedia
I left a question in Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia about the removal of links to wikipedia. Would be happy to see some comments there. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:28, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Nemea


text:
Talk:Nenetsia

Pictures
I'm pretty sure that this would get deleted off the article per the Project:External links policy, but I figured I would put this on the Talk Page since images of this far-flung region are so hard to come by. Here is an excellent and fascinating collection of photos of Nenetsia. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 21:46, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Nenets audio phrasebook
I'm pretty sure licensing restrictions prevents us from using this here, and the external links policy prevents us from linking this in the article, but I thought such a rare resource would be useful, so I'll link it here: Russian-Nenets audio phrasebook. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:44, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nenetsia


text:
Talk:Nepal

King's Name
"GYANENDRA" is written in all caps as if it were his family name. It isn't; as I understand it, it's his given name, and his family name is "Bir Bikram". -(WT-en) phma 06:06, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
 * According to this site his full name is Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. It seems that "Gyanendra" could be his given name and "Bir Bikram" his family name, as you say. I understand that "Shah" is the name of the dynasty he belongs to. I'm not sure what "Dev" means, although it seems to be the male form of "Devi" -- perhaps an honorific title? (WT-en) DhDh 07:30, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)
 * "Dev" means "god" (at least in Hindi, which is closely related). Some of the kings on that page are named "Bikram" without "Bir", so I think we'll have to ask a Nepali to sort it out. -(WT-en) phma 07:42, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)

i am a nepali. Gyanendra is his first name and shah his last name, and also the name of the dynasty. 'Bir Bikram' is just a middle name. The first king of Nepal, as a kingdom, was Prithvi Narayan Shah, Narayan being his middle name and Shah his last name. just to prove a point.

 * The royal family probably replaced a more ordinary family name with 'Shah' at some point, just as the Ranas originally were the Kunwars. Apparently Shah is a Persian word that comes from the same root as 'Kshatriya', both meaning 'preserver'.

 * Although contemporary accounts say Prithvi Narayan's forefathers were already 'Shah', that seems pretentious in Gorkha, which was not a big kingdom in its day. If I were a neighborhing king, I might have been tempted to attack just to put those pretentious people in their place!  So is there more than a little creative fiction in the royals' family history? (WT-en) LADave 03:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

"Dev" means "deity". It may be tacked on because of the belief that the king is divine. This only applies to the current king. Dead kings have outlived divinity and crown princes don't have it yet. (WT-en) LADave 02:06, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

The part Bikram is interesting. It did not exist in the name of the kings until Rana Bahadur Shah. After him, the tradition of Bikram started because Rana Bahadur Shah made Girban Juddha, not the first child born to him, a king. It literal translation means 'not in order'. So all the kings after Girban Juddha are called Bikram and this applies to the currently 'suspended' king.

Volunteering
Hmm, I dont think I agree with moving the whole Volunteer in Nepal article into the Nepal article. It was never part of the Nepal page before. We have seperate travel issue articles for driving in different places, etc, so there is a precedent for detailed info. I'd include a graph or two about it on the Nepal page of course... but there is a difference between the travel info and the travel topic. (WT-en) Majnoona 23:32, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * It's short info for a specific country. If it was really long and had various subsections and detailed info, I'd agree... but why make an article for a few sentences? Doesn't make much sense IMO. It's not like Nepal is overflowing with written material either. I think a much better idea would be a general "volunteer work" article; many underdeveloped countries could stand from such help and several organizations exist that organize such projects. -- (WT-en) Nils 05:59, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * It's not a few sentence-- it's several graphs at this point and I hope it grows with added information. A general "volunteer" article may be ok, but it sounds too general too me-- like a "Driving" article. I would be happy to see travel topic pages on volunteering in all areas of the globe, but you have to start somewhere and I started with Volunteer in Nepal. (WT-en) Majnoona 19:04, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

Layout
I'm all for the big warning at the top, but is there some way to deal with the crummy layout? There's about two pages of white space along the side-bar... I don't get wikimarkup enough to do anything about it, but maybe just moving the sidebar down or something? Help? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:56, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

Not mention of the civil war?
The article fails to mention that about 60% of the country is under Maoist-rebel controll and that sporadic firefights occur near military bases. There should be quite an extensive section added to it. --213.65.21.82 20:11, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * There is a mention in the 'Stay safe' section, but if you feel that more needs to be added, please click the 'edit' button and write. However, please bear in mind that this is a guide not an encyclopedia, so the information should be more traveler based. (WT-en) WindHorse 14 Feb 06

Government
The Parliament has been reinstated by the popular movement in April 2006 (the Jana Andolan-II) So the type of the government should be changed in the Infoox.202.161.131.72 04:30, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Please feel free to do so. -- (WT-en) Mark 05:00, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

Rs500 notes
Regarding the latest addition, are you sure it's a punishable offense to carry the notes, or just unwise? My understanding was that, due to excessive counterfeiting, they were just pretty hard to get rid of... but this is the first I've heard of it being illegal... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Carrying Indian currency of 500 is punishable offence under the act! I understand this was due to many bad experiences of fake notes of 500 in the past.

Drinks
there is nothing else to drink than alcoholic drinks?

 * I'm pretty sure you can find water somewhere in the country too... if you know of something that should be added, go ahead and add it to the article or put it here and I'll do it for you... – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 17:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Sure there's water. With most people doing their 'business' outdoors, it's practically guaranteed to make you sick, so it should always be boiled or chemically treated enough to kill resistant cysts and eggs as well as bacteria and protozoans. A great excuse for adding alcohol prophylactically, even if it doesn't really work.  Tea is safer because it's made with boiling water and won't have you stumbling off the trail.  (WT-en) LADave 16:47, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Nepal regions
The following comments were added to my Talk page by contributor David. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

The government's super-zones must have been set up for administrative convenience. They lack geographic, historical & cultural validity. Of course travelers might be better equipped to deal with the bureaucracy if they are somewhat familiar with the government's schema. So let's leave this scheme alone for bureaucratic purposes.

However for other travel purposes it made more sense to me to organize things by drainage basins: (1) Kosi in the east, (2) Bagmati (Kathmandu Valley), (3) most of the Gandaki basin, (4) (west) Rapti and Babai basins and stuff north of them (technically in the Gandaki and Karnali/Bheri basins) through the Dhaulagiri range and valleys behind, and (5) the remainder of the Karnali/Bheri basin and Mahakali up to the Indian border. Perhaps these could be called Kosi, Bagmati, Gandaki, Rapti-Dhaulagiri, and Karnali-Mahakali Regions.

For travel purposes it seemed really unnatural to divide Mid-West and Far-west at the Karnali River! Nepalis and trekkers quickly get across rivers via primitive ferryboats or bridges. Major drainage divides -- these tend to be high ridges -- make more sense than rivers as boundaries. Getting up to these ridges can be a serious hike! Nepalis are as practical as anyone else and try to avoid it, thus drainage divides are cultural divides too.

The way I did it has more historical validity too. Khas peoples speaking the progenitor of Nepali developed their core identity in the Mahakali and Karnali/Bheri basins. They detoured around the Babai/Rapti basins into the Gandaki basin to settle and grow rice. Prithvi Narayan appears there in the 1700s and heads east to conquer the Bagmati region (Kathmandu valley), then the Kosi region beyond. He or his heirs also consolidate the rest of the country -- the "Chaubisi" (24 principality confederation of the Gandaki basin) and the "Baisi" (22 principality confederation of the Karnali/Bheri basin).

Each river-oriented region can also be subdivided by elevation into Terai (Madesi and Tharu), Lower hills (Brahman-Chhetri), upper hills (Magar, Gurung, Tamang, etc.), then Bhote (Tibetan). It may be a little complicated, but travelers exposed to this stuff will be better prepared for "ground truth".

Regions
The new district designations are very practical and helpful, and as a frequent visitor to Nepal, your efforts are appreciated. It should be a final goal, however, to produce a totally new hierarchy to replace the government designated zones, and so we could keep the information on the front page short and succinct (like perhaps Bhutan or even India). Do think we could use your list as it stands? It needs to be kept to no more than nine places max (which it is). Under this hierarchy, where are the Solu Khumbu and Dolpo regions. Presumably they are classified under Himalaya? This article might be helpful: Project:Geographical hierarchy. Maybe some of the more popular tourist areas could be mentioned in the blurb. What do you think? However, I replaced the dab for Pashupatinath and Dakshinkali as these are just temple complexes, not destinations with hotels like Boudhanath. Please see: Project:What is an article?. Anyway, thanks for all your input. Your practical knowledge is very helpful. So, at the moment, do you want to replace the original list with your new hierarchy? That is fine with me. We can tweak as we go along. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Moved my detailed discussion of regions to ;Understand' section and put capsule summaries in 'Regions'. I hope this improves flow of this article: lay out key concepts first, develop them later. I also added topic headers under 'Understand' for future development. (WT-en) LADave 14:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Cities
Hi Dave, thanks for continuing to add your knowledge and insights to the Nepal page. It is looking good. However, Wikivoyage has a policy that lists of places (cities, other destinations etc) should not exceed nine, and so I have removed 4 of the places you recently added to the list. Sorry about that. Anyway, please check to see if you agree with my choice of deletions. The cities that are listed should be chosen by their popularity with tourists, and is drawn up to give them easy access to info, like an index. It is not a promotion of places. Obviously, KTM, Pokhara, Patan, Bhaktapur and Namche Bazaar should be listed, but the others are open. Also, the info on the front page should be kept succinct (see India and Bhutan as examples), and more in depth info should be placed on the actual articles themselves. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or one of the regular contributors. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT) Ps. you might find the info on this page of use: Project:Manual of style

 * Maybe the administrative districts should be tossed out. Development workers need to know them, but not travelers.

So now we have kind of a matrix: south to north and west to east. I think we need to explain both. The south to north is obviously important in understanding the geography. West to east explains the flow of history, as well as certain aspects of geography.

Most treks are along the north-south axis, along rivers and streams. Going east or west means going against the grain with a lot more up and down. Exceptions might be Trisuli(Nuwakot)-Gorkha-Pokhara, Baglung-Dhorpatan(-Jumla), and the Terai or Inner-Terai. This seems to argue for a structure like this:

* Mahakali, Karnali-Bheri, (west) Rapti region o Terai, Siwaliks and Inner Terai o Mahabharat Range and Hills o Himalaya o transHimalaya * Gandaki o (repeat elevation structure) * Bagmati o Kathmandu Valley * Kosi o (repeat elevation structure without transhimalaya)

Probably the text about regions can be boiled down some. However after looking at the India article, I don't think the Nepal article has gotten too long. Bhutan is far simpler.

 * Hi Dave - Personally, I am fine with replacing the regional list based on administrative zones with a more traveler-based hierarchy. However, irrespective on how we divide up the Cities and Other destinations, they still should not exceed nine. That is the same for a small place like Bhutan or huge countries like China or India, so I'm afraid I have had to revert that edit. Apologies for that. Think of the front page as merely an index in a book. People don't want to be overwhelmed with info at this stage of their search. They just want easy access to the places they seek. Take a look at Project:Manual of style and Project:Geographical hierarchy. I think you'll find them useful. Anyway, thanks again for your contributions. They are really helping improve the quality of the Nepal article. Incidentally, any further discussions regarding Nepal should be conducted here so thatother contributors may add their opinions. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:26, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, Let's collapse Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur into a single entry. Something like "Kathmandu (the capital) and its satellite cities Patan and Bhaktapur.  Also we can delete Biratnagar, Birganj and Nepalganj in that top-level city list because they are transportation hubs, not tourist destinations. Transportation hubs can be dealt with regionally and in conjunction with itineraries.

For the western half of the country, I would add Tansen, Gorkha (possibly combined with Pokhara) and maybe Jumla. This leaves slots open for tourist destinations in eastern Nepal besides Namche. I hardly know eastern Nepal at all, so let others advocate for their faves.

BTW, -gunj endings (Birgunj, Nepalgunj) break with conventions for transliterating devanagari into roman and should be changed to 'ganj'. 'U' in a transliterated word should always rhyme with 'moo', but the sound we call a 'short u' gets transliterated as 'a', which must be where the confusion arose. 76.171.35.220 05:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Hi Dave. Combining cities to form one entry has been discussed many times before and rejected. The 'Cities' and 'Other destinations' lists should not exceed 9, and that's the absolute max. Sorry about that (though it was it good suggestion). In addition, if we can draw up a list of nine popular cities for huge countries like India, China and the US, then Nepal should be no problem. So, I suggest Kathmandu, Patan, Bhaktapur, Pokhara and Namche Bazaar. Gorkha is another possible option. As for the others, I'll leave it up to you. However, in making your decision, don't forget that the list of nine cities is to supply info based on majority usage. It is not a promotion. So, if, for example, thousands of people pass through a transportation hub, it is not for me or Wikivoyage contributors to deny them easy access to information about that place just because we do not think the town is beautiful or interesting to travelers. If the hard facts state that more people visit, say, Biratnagar than Tansen, then information for Biratnagar should be given priority because more people will be searching for it. It is about offering convenience for popular articles. However, I am not saying that the transportation hubs do receive more visitors than the other towns you mentioned, but am just pointing out the philosophy behind the system. As for changing the names of towns ending in 'gunj' to 'ganj, Wikivoyage policy states that the most popular English name has preference, not the official or best transliteration. (Please see: Project:Article naming conventions), and according to Google hits, Birgunj and Nepalgunj are more popular than Birganj and Nepalganj by a two to one margin. So, based on that, we should leave the names as they are (even though I personally agree with you that 'ganj' is a better transliteration). If you have any questions, please feel free to raise them here. Thanks again for your input. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:46, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

hi Windhorse, the Policy of taking up not the nice places, but the places that are visited most makes of course sense but I think applying it by the amount of people going there is not right.The time spent is I think more important, a majority of travellers might come through Birgunj or Nepalgunj or Biratnagr, but only very few will actually stay there for more than a day or two.Its a question of how you interpret the "hard facts", I think we should deny good information on those hubs because, although many people go there people are not interested in those information.Information on these places is not needed as badly as where the real destination lies.Also it doesn't help you a lot, looking for information about nice places to go in Nepal, to find descriptions of bordertowns where nobody really likes to stay. Although of course these towns are really import for transit.Therefore I think also if its a reinterpretation of the rules it could really improve the site and help people to find out where to go in Nepal. Onindo 15.9.2008 (a little late answer but I hope someone will introduce the changes or show me that I am wrong

New regions
Hi Dave, I notice that you have changed all the regions. It looks good. However, does the new hierarchy cover the whole country in its entirety? In addition, the new regions will need to be linked to new articles and any useful information from the previous regional articles transferred to these pages. Furthermore, if there is an overlap, the previous regional articles can be redirected to the new pages, but if they are totally incompatible, then we need to submit them for deletion. I think with the new hierarchy, we can perhaps omit the district articles, except with a few famous ones like 'Solu-Khumbu' and just concentrate on the main centers of population. What do you think? Also, we need to replace the original list of regional names, such as Annapurna, Everest, Dolpo etc on the front page as people will look for these. Thanks for all your hard work, and let me know what I can do to help to complete the new set up. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Windhorse, The new regional workup is comprehensive. Perhaps a workup on himalayan subranges and noteworthy peaks should be worked into the Understand section. Are there other titles we could ad to 'Understand' to try to solicit contributions? Maybe if we put in 'Mountaineering' someone would actually write it up.

I have linked to all articles I am aware of, except some development region articles that have almost no content. But there may be articles I don't know about yet. If you could post a list, I'll link to any with significant content.

I modified the reference to the food poisoning article slightly. It's a good article with a misleading title. Food poisoning is what you get when food isn't kept hot or cold enough to retard bacterial growth, so toxic metabolic byproducts build up. Botulism would be an extreme example. Treatment is mostly about getting the toxins out of the body or neutralizing them. The article lumps this with issues that might be called 'fecal-oral contamination'. Poor sanitation gets specific disease-causing organisms, cysts or eggs into your body via food and drink. Then treatment tends to involve killing off the organisms that are trying to multiply in your body.

Tropical medicine also seems like a misnomer because Nepal is subtropical, and by the time you reach Kathmandu it's borderline temperate. This rules out many tropical diseases. Some of it still applies, so I kept the link but put it further down in the subtopic. 76.168.50.104 05:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Hi Dave - thanks for your continued efforts. Actually, the title of the article "Tropical diseases" is incorrect as many of the ailments mentioned are not confined to the tropics. Maybe we need to think of another title. Any ideas?

 * I'm not coming up with a memorable title. I'm no M.D., but I think you are correct that all lot of it isn't necessarily tropical, but more accurately third-world.  Rabies would be a good example.  If you really worked at it you might be able to catch rabies in the U.S., but there would be so many red flags along the way that you wouldn't specially caution tourists about it.  The fact that rabies is a significant risk all over Nepal has little to do with climate and lots to do with domestic animals not being vaccinated.

 * These kinds of risks must vary from place to place. A catch-all article might have to include too many diseases that are in country X but not Y or Z.

 * Maybe the tropical medicine article should limit itself to diseases that are truly tropical, tropical/subtropical, or with risk substantially increasing as it gets warmer/moister (e.g. fungal infections).

 * Regarding the list of regions, I was actually referring to the new highlighted titles: Lowlands, Midlands, Himalaya and Transhimalaya, Karnali, Gandaki, Kosi, Mahakali, Rapti and Babai and Bagmati. These all need to be tabbed and linked to articles of the same name. For example, we need to set up a new regional article entitled 'Lowlands', which will include a clear description of the area that the region encompasses plus a list of the main centers of population. Without this, towns other than those listed on the main page will be orphaned, meaning they can only be accessed via a direct search. Take a look at Karnataka as an example. Let me know is I can help with any of this. Thanks again for your efforts. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:42, 11 June 2007 (EDT)...I've just noticed your additions to 'Understand'. Actually, this info pretty much covers the requirements for the independent regional articles. So, once the new articles have been established, this should be moved from the front page and added to these pages. I'll help you with this. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:15, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Conceptually it's a matrix or graph. Let's call basins "regions" and elevations (Outer Terai, Siwaliks,...) "zones". Then we could imagine an XY matrix -- regions by zones.   But we don't want to go very far with this because zones are just a means of orienting the reader, shorthand for what kind of terrain to expect.  OK, so we could organize things by zones to a certain extent: travel destinations in the Outer Terai, in the Siwaliks, in the Inner Terai, ... Beyond that, road trips, treks and rivers are usually multi-zone so we don't want this structure to get too Procrustean.  (more to come...)

 * Anyway, the priority at the moment is that the new regions (i.e. Lowlands, Midlands, Himalaya and Transhimalaya, Karnali, Gandaki, Kosi, Mahakali, Rapti and Babai and Bagmati) get tabbed and new articles with these names are started. If this doesn't happen, then there is a strong possibility that everything will be reverted to its original form, which would be a shame after all the hard work you have put in. In addition, once the new regional articles are set up, then we will need to change the breadcrumb link on the towns to accommodate the new regional names. I'll help you with this. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:15, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I've been looking at the divisions more closely. At the moment, we've got Lowlands, Midlands, Himalaya and Transhimalaya, which cover vast tracts of land, and then we've got names of actual river valleys, such as Karnali, Gandaki, Kosi, Mahakali, Rapti and Babai and Bagmati. Nepal is not a huge country, so we should not exceed a categorization that exceeds eight or nine regions. If we use the current sub-regions of the Lowlands, Midlands and Himalaya and Transhimalaya regions (such as 'Outer Terai', 'Kanchenjunga' 'Mahabharat' etc) plus the river basins, we will have far too many regions. So, I'm thinking we should combine two or three of the valleys under one regional title, for example 'Eastern River Valleys', 'Eastern River Valleys' etc. I'm really not familiar with the geography of Nepal at this level, so we need your expertise here. Finally, the regions section should look something like this: Karnataka  or Japan. Thanks. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Restoration of former regional hierarchy
I have restored the former regional hierarchy to allow access to information on districts and cities not listed on the front page. These can be removed when the new hierarchy is complete. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:55, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

 * To avoid unnecessary clutter on the main Nepal page, I have placed the the unlinked regional lists on this page (below). They can be restored when they are ready to be linked to articles. Otherwise they can be left here for reference as much of the same info is available on 'Understand' section. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:42, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Nepal can also be divided into elevation zones from south to north and river basins from west to east.

Elevational Zones

 * Lowlands
 * Outer Terai - Nepalese territory, but geographically, culturally and linguistically more like adjacent India.
 * Siwalik Ranges - outermost range of low foothills.
 * Inner Terai - large lowland valleys inside Siwalik Ranges.
 * Midlands
 * Mahabharat Range or Lesser Himalaya nearly continuous across country, 2,000 to 3,000 meters high, separating lowlands from 'hills' to north.
 * Valleys north of Mahabharat Range. These include the wide Kathmandu and Pokhara valleys, as well as narrower valleys along rivers and streams.  These are the main rice growing areas in the hills.
 * so-called Hills north of Mahabharats, up to midlands habitation limits at about 10,000'/3,000m.
 * Mountains
 * Lekhs - mountain ranges rising above midlands' permanent habitation zone into subalpine or alpine zone with snow cover in winter but not through summer.
 * Himalaya means 'abode of snow', i.e. mountain ranges higher than the permanent snowline. There are about twelve himalayan sub-ranges in Nepal including Kanchenjunga, Khumbu (Everest), Langtang, Ganesh, Annapurna, Dhaulagiri, and Kanjiroba.  The  highest summits in these ranges usually exceed 22,000'/6,700m. and sometimes exceed 26,000'/8,000m.
 * Transhimalaya - In the Karnali and Gandaki basins a number of valleys and lower mountains north of highest ranges fall within in Nepalese territory. This zone is inhabited as high as 17,000'/5,000m. by essentially Tibetan peoples.  However in the Kosi basin the transhimalayan zone is in Tibetan territory.

River Basins

 * Three largest basins, west to east:
 * Karnali - with major Seti and Bheri tributaries in western Nepal, original homeland of Khas peoples who colonized eastward and now dominate the country. Their language evolved into modern Nepali.
 * Gandaki - seven major tributaries in central Nepal. Also a staging area for Khas families who became the country's unifiers and rulers.
 * Kosi - also seven major tributaries, in eastern Nepal. The last major region to be conquered by the Shahs and colonized by the Khas.
 * others:
 * Mahakali - extreme western Nepal, west of Karnali basin. The main stem of this river is Nepal's western border with India.  Local people may be culturally and linguistically closer to adjacent Uttarakhand state of India than to most Nepalis.
 * Rapti and Babai - in mid-western Nepal between Karnali and Gandaki basins. A barrier to Khas expansion because of extensive rugged highlands and very limited rice-growing land north of the Mahabharat Range.  South of this range were dangerously malarial valleys.
 * Bagmati - between Gandaki and Kosi basins, includes the Kathmandu Valley with the capital and other historic cities.

Cities and Towns
Being familiar with tourist movements around Nepal, and what tourist want I find the Nepal page could do with some updating. May I suggest the following order, in relative order of popularity:

 * Kathmandu
 * Patan
 * Bhaktapur
 * Pokhara – The 'Gateway to the Annapurna'
 * Jiri – The 'Classic Gateway to Everest'
 * Lukla
 * Namche Bazaar
 * Nepalgunj
 * Biratnagar
 * Birgunj

 * I recommend including Jiri and Lukla over Namche Bazaar. They are major towns/entry-points on the Classic Everest Base Camp Trek and Everest Base Camp Trek, respectively. Jiri is referred to as the 'Zurich of Nepal' due to the efforts by the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) over the last fifty years. In addition, although tourist numbers have dropped by 80% in the last 8 years since the construction of the airport at Lukla, there is a revival along the route as airfare has increased and tourists are avoiding the heavily commercialised routes.

 * For travel and tourist purposes Nepalgunj, Birgunj and Biratnagar are informative but thats it, often described as the 'armpit' of Nepal! But as transport hubs they warrant inclusion. Although excluding them would allow for more relevant entries? A link to Lumbini is already sufficient in the Sacred sites section so I would remove Bhairahawa and Dharan although attractive is by no means a major city or tourist destination (it would come under the Kanchenjungha link in the Remote Arreas section?).

 * You make some good suggestions. However, on WT places are listed in alphabetical order (with the capital city on top), not by popularity. This saves a lot of arguments, as popularity is very subjective. Personally, I would say Namche is a far more popular place for tourists that either Jiri or Lukla. Basically the bus or plane arrives at these places from KTM, and trekkers immediately head out of town. Only on the return journey do they spend a night while waiting for transportation the next morning. To be frank, there is nothing in either town to attract tourists - just a row of newly constructed lodges. Namche, on the other hand, has several attractions. In addition, it is not unknown for trekkers to use Namche as a base and just do day trips to places like Tengboche or Khumjung etc. No body will stay in Lukla or Jiri longer that necessary. As for Bhairahawa or Dharan, I have no comment as I have not visited these towns. Please feel free to delete them if you can substantiate your reasons... Thanks again for your contributions. They were very helpful (WT-en) WindHorse 03:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Other Destinations
Khumbu or SoluKhumbu is a District of Nepal and is covered by the link to Everest Region above. Dhorpatan and Rara Tal are in the Far West, if we put them all under one link that would allow inclusion of more destinations, given that 9 is the max? May I suggest this order:

 * Annapurna - This link would include Manang, Muktinath, Mustang… and possibly Pokhara, Sirubari, Gorkha, and oter interesting places on the KTM-Pokhara route
 * Everest - Sagarmartha National Park, Everest Base Camp Trek (Lukla), Gokyo Ri, Classic Everest Base Camp Trek (Jiri), Jiri-Pike-Dudh Kunda-Renjo La Trek, 'Numbur Cheese Circuit'.
 * Langtang - Tamang Hertiage Trail
 * Chitwan - Safari and Chepang Heritage Trail
 * Lumbini - Birthplace of Lord Buddha
 * Around Kathmandu Valley - Nagarkot, Dhulikel, Helambu trek and Daman
 * Illam - The tea producing 'Darjeeling' of Nepal
 * Remote areas -Rowaling Himal, Gaurishankar trekking. Dhauligiri, Manaslu, Kanchenjunga, Dolpo, Mustang and Humla are in remote areas.

Sacred Sites

 * Kathmandu Valley - Perhaps we could put all the sacred sites in the Kathmandu Valley Together? Boudinath, Swayumunath, Pashupatinath, Durbar Square, Patan, Bhaktapur, Parping, Dakshinkali etc
 * Lumbini, of course is worthy of its own link or it could lead a 'Buddhist Sites' heading?
 * Pilgrimages: Muktinath, Gosaikund, Janaki Temple, Mankamana…
 * Sacred Lakes: Nepal has over 500 sacred lakes... Gokyo, Gosaikund, Jata Pokhari, Panch Pokhari, and more
 * Buddhist sites / Padmasambhava's sites: Parping, Haleshi, Thulo Sailung…
 * Hindu Sites: Janaki etc

Trekking
Can I suggest reviewing the layout of this section to reflect the following? (formatting/links to be fixed)

 * Annapurna Region treks
 * Annapurna Circuit: A 3-4 week trek around the Annapurna mountains.
 * Jonsom-Muktinath Trek: The last week of the Annapurna Circuit, done in the opposite direction. Known as the "Apple-Pie Trek" partly for crossing the apple growing region of Nepal.
 * Annapurna Sanctuary Trek
 * The Royal Trek

 * Everest Region treks
 * Everest Base Camp Trek: Stunning scenery, Wonderful people. See 'Regions' - Khumbu
 * Mera Peak Climbing: Enjoy panoramic views of Mt. Everest (8,848 m; 29,030 ft), Cho-Oyu (8,201 m; 26,910 ft), Lhotse (8,516 m; 27,940 ft), Makalu (8463 m; 27,770 ft), Kangchenjunga (8,586 m; 28,170 ft), Nuptse (7,855 m; 25,770 ft), and Chamlang (7,319 m; 24,010 ft).
 * Island Peak Trek in the Everest region takes in some of the most spectacular scenery in the Himalayas.
 * Gokyo Ri
 * Jiri-Pike-Dudh Kunda-Renjo La Trek,
 * 'Numbur Cheese Circuit'

 * Langtang and Helambu region treks
 * Langtang Trek
 * Tamang Heritage Trail
 * Helambu Langtang Trek: Relatively easy Trek from Kathmandu

Tourism is a dynamic sector of economy and accepting it as a vehicle of poverty reduction is a relatively new concept in Nepal. In the rural Nepal context, pro-poor tourism means expanding employment and small enterprise opportunities especially pro-Indigenous Peoples, youth and pro-women. Recent pro-poor initiaves in Nepal include the UNDP-TRPAP and ILO-EMPLED projects. According to the NTB rural tourism in Nepal focuses on "Village Trek" visits to indigenous people that “… will make tourists, experience rural life and Nepalese hospitality off the beaten path with all the beautiful scenery and cultural diversity of Nepal.”
 * Pro-Poor Rural Tourism

 * Jiri-Pike-Dudh Kunda-Renjo La Trek,
 * 'Numbur Cheese Circuit'
 * 'Indigenous Peoples Trail'
 * Tamang Heritage Trail
 * Chepang Heritage Trail

Ethno-tourism is an increasingly popular in Nepal. Ethno-tourism is a specialized type of cultural tourism and can be defined as any excursion which focuses on the works of humans rather than nature, and attempts to give the tourist an understanding of the lifestyles of local people.
 * 'Ethno-Tourism' or Cultural Treks

 * 'Numbur Cheese Trek' in the Everest Region
 * 'Indigenous Peoples Trail' in Ramechhap
 * 'Majhi Fishing Experience' on the 'Sun Koshi'
 * Helambu Trek in Langtang
 * Tamang Heritage Trail in Langtang
 * Chepang Heritage Trail in Chitwan

Social Responsible Trekking Companies: Can we review this section? Just because a tour operator has been in operation for 20 years or is run by a friendly Sherpa family (as much as I do love them) that does NOT make them 'socially responsible'. Operators are 'socially responsible' only if they promoting proper porter treatment and cultural and environmental sensitivity among their clients in line with MAST and the UN-WTO Sustainable Tourism Criteria

Can we make a separate heading for 'Other tour operators' to include Friendship Nepal Tours. Or even better can we exclude tour operators who are not openly committed to social responsibility and promoting policies on porters' rights and working conditions? This means deleting them, but I am happy to put it back in if they join MAST!

Regions revisited
There has been a lot of discussion on Nepal's regions, and now I'm trying to get a map of it. But it isn't easy: many regions have been called before, but there is still no clarity on them whatsoever. Could anyone help out in this matter? I try not to use government regions, but travel regions instead. We have the elevation system (which goes north-south) and the river basin system (which goes east-west), and it's pretty hard to combine both systems in a regional division as they overlap.

Now i got nine (!) elevation regions from south to north:

 * Outer Terai
 * Siwalik Range
 * Inner Terai

 * Mahabharat Range
 * Middle Hills
 * Valleys

 * Lekhs
 * Himalaya
 * Trans-Himalaya

Then I got five river-basins, west to east:

 * Karnali (with Seti and Behri) (large basin)
 * Rapti and Babai (small basin, can combine with gandaki)
 * Gandaki (large basin)
 * Bagmati (Kathmandu Valley) (small basin, though important)
 * Koshi (large basin)

I can combine the elevation regions to three regions (Terai, Midlands and Himalayas). But then what about the river-basins? We could make it Karnali, Gandaki, Bagmati and Koshi, but these regions overlap with the elevation regions. How could we combine this? We need to come to around 6-8 top-level regions all spread over the country, making use of all these geographic elements. I hope someone with better knowledge of the country can help out. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:55, 1 January 2010 (EST)

 * No replies unfortunately, but i've done a lot of reading, and got to the following region scheme (based off the elevation regions):

 * Kathmandu Valley
 * Himalayas
 * Middle Hills
 * Western Tarai
 * Eastern Tarai

I followed the mountain ranges as they give an indication to the traveller what kind of landscape to expect in the area (and thus what to do there). Also, these geographic boundaries have led to cultural boundaries as well, so the traveller can more easily grasp the historical, cultural and ethnic differences of Nepal. I split the Tarai range up, simply because there are a lot of towns there. I considered a similar split for the Middle Hills, but there is not much to do in the "Eastern Middle Hills", so instead I chose to take the Kathmandu Valley out of there (as it's a major tourist destination by itself). Of course changes can still be made, so I'm always open for comments.

The map:

—(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:00, 2 January 2010 (EST)

 * That's a really pretty map. I'd recommend waiting a good week at least to see if any other contributors know enough about the country to add advice. If no, then plunge forward and add it to the article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Tours
Whilst accepting that Nepal is just the sort of destination where we do need some tour listings, there is a long list here, all in violation of WT policy on tours - no addresses etc. This needs looking at by someone familiar with the country.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:54, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

"Understand" section
What do you make of it?

Some reactions from me:

The "Elevation Zones" subsection is a good idea, but would it be easier to read if we separated the demographic information into additional little paragraphs or something?

I'm loathe to delete the interesting information in the "History" section, but I think it should be made more clearly chronological, and I'm wondering whether some of the specifically regional sub-histories, if you like, could be put into region articles. Also, there's a whole lot of history since the 18th century that's very important for visitors to know about. For example, the relationship between the British and now Indians and the Gurkha soldiers, the relationships between Nepal and British India/independent India and Tibet/China, the Maoist insurgency, the peace treaty in 2006, the abolition of the monarchy and somewhat fitful but still active transition from absolute monarchy to multiparty constitutional democracy, the adoption of a new constitution yesterday, the opposition to it by regional ethnic minorities in the southern part of the country.

The "Caste, Ethnicity, Religion and languages" section is interesting, so I'd be reluctant to delete it, but I think it should have more internal links: For example, I just linked Tarai. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

New remarks about "Other destinations"
The "Other" in "Other destinations" refers to their not being cities (but, rather, national parks, wildlife preserves, important mountains or mountain ranges, archeological sites and so forth), and the word "city" is understood on this site to encompass all forms of human communities, including small towns and villages. So what do we do with these listings?

 * Daman — tiny village in the mountains offering panoramic views of the Himalayas; especially stunning at sunrise and sunset

Tiny it may be, but is it an "Other destination"? Not by a strict reading of Wikivoyage guidelines.

 * Nagarkot — a hill station one hour from Kathmandu offering excellent views of the Himalayan Range

Hill stations are still towns.

I haven't gone through the rest of the listings with a fine-toothed comb to see whether they, too, may be villages or towns, but at least their descriptions emphasize something other than that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Currency notation
What is the correct notation for Nepalese rupees? I've seen, for example:
 * NPR2000 Trekking_in_Nepal
 * ₨300 Annapurna_Sanctuary
 * ₨.2000 Annapurna_Sanctuary Note: This is the unicode "₨"
 * N₨1500 Annapurna_Sanctuary
 * N₨.110 Annapurna_Sanctuary
 * Rs500 Chitwan_National_Park Note these are the characters "R" and "s" rather than the unicode "₨"
 * Rs 2500 Chitwan_National_Park

Muddyhikers (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one do you think is most commonly seen in Nepal? The Wikipedia article on the Nepalese rupee uses "Rs.". It seems unnecessary to specify Unicode characters when plain text is clear (and easier to type). Ground Zero (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I spent the day actually paying attention to what the locals use in Kathmandu and it seems like it is about as random as the existing wikivoyage notation. I've seen:
 * No symbols (on menus especially)
 * NRS. 1,250
 * RS 500
 * RS: 1350
 * RS-5000
 * Rs. 3,500
 * Rs9650

The most common seems to be "Rs" (or "RS") followed by some symbol (./-/:) then a space and then the price. It may make the most sense to use "Rs. " which is relatively common and has the added advantage of matching the official wikipedia notation. Muddyhikers (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Thank you for doing the research and reporting back. It's very cool that you're in Nepal. Ground Zero (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So something like Rs. 100? Sounds good to me. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What about रू, though? I'm seeing that on the Wikipedia page. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this as part of any English-based signage. That's not to say that it isn't used in signs written in Nepali. Muddyhikers (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I support Rs. 100 (with space). Cheers Ceever (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

12-hour or 24-hour clock?
Which is more commonly used? Ground Zero (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nepal


text:
Talk:Nepal Trekking

Namaste. Trekking is a popular reason for traveling to Nepal, I think it deserves its own page.... clickety-click... and here it is. I hope that it is useful, I shall try to add some more info on the various other trekking related pages. I'm new here so feedback welcomed --(WT-en) Oliphant 17:14, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Looks good to me! The only thing that immediately comes to mind is, well, more please. And maybe some good pictures. ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Pictures - and guides
Someone asked for pictures - I have several on my photoblog, http://picasaweb.google.com/DavidRitchie43

Several postings here and elsewhere suggest you don't need to hire a guide even for a long trek. That is true if you have prior experience in the region and speak at least a little of the language - but in my own experience the guide greatly added to the trip - knowledge of local cultures and cuisines (If you want mountain hiking with a Big Mac or a plate of lasagna every night go to Yellowstone - or the Swiss Alps. If you want to be in Nepal, then eat Nepalese food.  It's part of the experience, and it is actually quite good.)  Also I noticed most of the people I met on the trail who went without guides ended up asking frequently for advice - usually from a guide who was there because someone else was paying him. I would also recommend against going with a large group - I noticed that people in groups larger than about 4 or 5 had little contact with local cultures (or with other trekkers). I went alone with just a guide and porter (didn't really need the porter, but he was nice to have along). It worked out great and I had a fabulous hike, but I missed having a buddy to share experiences with - I'd suggest a group of 2 or 3, with one guide and maybe one porter.

Also note that the guidebooks, including the one I took along, Lonely Planet, may be out of date with respect to prices and other details, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I would recommend my own guide highly - Raj Nepal, www.rajnepal.com, e-mail raj_18nepal@yahoo.com. Very knowledgable and competent, good companion. If you'd like to consider getting away from the hordes of Europeans and Australians ask Raj about alternatives to the "big three" most popular treks - next time I go to Nepal that's what I plan to do.

Dave

title: Talk:Nepal Trekking


text:
Talk:Nesso

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

Sleeping in Nesso
How come there's no section that mentions any place to sleep? I wish that there's a section like that. - (WT-en) CurvyEthyl 17:22, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Nesso


text:
Talk:Netherlands

Eighty Years War, independence and whatnot
this edit makes it seem even more than the old wording that the Eighty Years War ended in 1581 with the "independence" of the Netherlands. It didn't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Mind explaining what it did lead to? Depending on how I interpret the above, you're either worrying about a small detail that to the layman is not at all that important or you're defying every Dutch history textbook printed. The Eighty Years' War led to the peace of Munster, which dictated sovereignty for the Dutch Republic. Dutch independence is a result of defeating the Habsburgs. The only thing I can think of as being a problem would be the fact that the Dutch Republic (a direct predecessor of the modernday Kingdom of the Netherlands) fought the war and was since occupied by France, a subject of France and integrated into France before the Congress of Vienna, making the two a different country alltogether. Again, I'm not all that sure what the issue is here, so if you'd be so free to explain, perhaps we can find a better wording. Wauteurz (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I'll leave it up to you guys who know more than nothing about Dutch history (that's me, unfortunately), but just so we're clear a discussion of when or how the war ended does not belong in the lede. If it's impossible to sum up the historical situation in a way we can all agree on without using the travel guide-unfriendly terms de facto and de jure, then it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The Eighty Years War ended in 1648. The text makes it seem it ended in 1581. And it is rather hard to talk about Dutch independence with the arbitrary limit of not being able to mention when it occurred in fact and when other European powers (especially Spain) accepted it as having legally occurred. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The sentence doesn't state that the war ended when Dutch independence was achieved, it just says that the result we're most concerned with in the lede (the Netherlands becoming independent) occurred in 1581 as a result of the war. You can talk about the difference between de facto independence and recognition in the Understand section, but it is too much detail for the lede. Imagine if the lede to the United States contained the following: "Ever since becoming de facto independent in 1776 (though not recognized de jure by Great Britain until the Treaty of Paris 1783), the USA has been one awesome country." It's too much detail for the lede. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I've dug up some of my history notes and 1581 isn't even considered to be the start of Dutch independence at all - 1588, the year in which the Dutch rebels decided to start a new country without a monarch, is. Up until 1588, the rebels looked to other nations to borrow royal families of theirs, amongst which were France and England. NLwiki agrees with me on this, stating:
 * In 1588 werd, op basis van de Deductie Van Vrancken, besloten de soevereiniteit niet meer aan een vorst te laten, maar aan de Staten. Hiermee was de Republiek een feit.
 * Or in English:
 * Justified with the "Deductie van Vrancken", 1588 saw the decision to not leave sovereignty to any monarch, but to the states themselves. This meant that the Republic was a fact.
 * 1581 did see the declaration of the "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe", which did no more than declare that the Dutch provinces no longer wanted Philips II of Habsburg as their monarch. From that point on the rebellion is a fact, but the Republic isn't yet. The Provinces became a protectorate of the English in 1585, but this didn't last. The protectorate was off the table by december of 1587. Not long after the claim to independence without a monarch (i.e., the establishment of the Dutch Republic) followed. Since the independence from any monarch is a key to the Dutch Republic's political system, this is seen as the moment the Republic declared independence. All in all, it may be worthwhile to dedicate an article to the Eighty Years' War, whether or not it is included in the one already existing for the Thirty Years' War isn't something I mind any outcome of. As for the exact date: The English and many other countries and cultures see 1581 as the year of independence, while in the Netherlands (and most likely the rest of the Low Countries), 1588 is that year. 1648 is not an option regardless, since the Twelve Years' Truce (1609-1621) could not have been established between the Habsburgs and Dutch Republic if there was no Dutch Republic yet according to the Habsburgs. It is simply impossible to sign a truce or any document with another country without acknowledging their existence. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You can have a truce without formal recognition. North and South Korea have that situation currently. Many of the Arab Israeli Wars ended in that situation historically. In 1648 it was formally recognized that the Netherlands were not subject to the HRE (at the same time the last theoretical vestige of Swiss suzerainty to the HRE was also done away with) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So we did. I still think that de facto is awkward wording for this travel and for the lede especially. Why don't we change it to "... that led to the country's independence from Spain in 1588," per Wauteurz's comment of 10 March 2019 above?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dutch independence as outlined above was a gradual process. We can all agree that by 1648 all components were in place and that some components were in place as early as 1581. I still don't understand what's so evil about the words "de facto"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's legalese and, as we all know, lawyers are evil. De facto also implies that it wasn't really independent, and sounds rather snotty for a fun travel guide.
 * Alternatively, if the history was so complicated, we can avoid giving a definite date in the lede, and just leave it at "...that led to the country's independence from Spain, the Netherlands became..." which, all humour aside, flows better and is more readily understandable for a casual reader.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The problem here is that it is indeed not a straight-forward case. Looking across the articles for the Dutch Republic on several language versions of Wikipedia in search of a year to pinpoint, we get 1581 out of the French and German Wikipedia, 1588 out of the Dutch and English Wikipedia, or even "starting in 1568" according to the West Frisian Wikipedia. These are either the Deductie Van Vrancken (1588, Dutch Republic decides to not want to look abroad for overlords any more); the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (1581, Dutch Republic denounces Spanish overlordship, removing Philip II's power); or the first invasion of Van Oranje or the Battle of Heiligerlee (1568), which historically is seen as the start of the Eighty Years' War.
 * 1588 is what I have been taught as being the year the Dutch Republic gained independence, though there is a fair argument to say that it was 1581 as well. It depends on whether you want to define "independence" in this case as independence from Spain or as independence from any overlord. I'm fine with leaving out a date myself, though there is another option, based on the two most potential points to draw this line: "...that led to the country's independence from Spain in the 1580s...". The irony is that even the Netherlands can't make up its mind either: 1588 is what we teach in schools as being the year we gained independence, but the 1581 Plakkaat van Verlatinghe is seen as our declaration of independence. There really is no right or wrong in choosing between these two, but choosing 1648 is only ever just technically correct. The Peace of Munster never served to give the Dutch Republic independence, so it shouldn't be considered if you ask me.
 * Personally, I still stand by 1588, since it seems to be the most accepted year, but even then: The Dutch article for the Deductie Van Vrancken still reads as follows:
 * De Deductie is echter niet het geboortebewijs van deze Republiek. Het woord "republiek" komt in het document maar één keer voor (als Venetië genoemt wordt).
 * The Deduction is, however, not the birth certificate of this Republic. The word "republic" itself is only used once in the document (when Venice is named).
 * The document leaves this on neutral ground, leaving leadership under a prince still as a viable option. As for when the Dutch Republic did become a republic, that's yet another one of these cases where the line is very vague, but it does not matter here. At the end of the day, both 1581 and 1588 aren't ever fully to be considered a point of when independence started, because there is no such point. It's a gradual process, meaning that if you want to pinpoint a year, you need to draw a line. The year of independence can only be de facto. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wauteurz, for explaining the history to us. If there is dispute about "independence", then let's avoid the word. The Canada article does not address independence, because it is the wrong word to use to describe what happened in 1867, which is cited as the founding of the country. After that, we can discuss a bunch of dates up to 1982. But we still share a head of state with 14 other countries including islands in the Pacific, Caribbean, and off the coast of France. A travel guide history section is not a good place to explore historical controversies. Qualifying the term with a Latin phrase and then not explaining it doesnt help readers' understanding. Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I both agree and disagree with what Ground Zero wrote above: Yes, there is no true "date of independence", and yes, it can be argued that different years can be seen as the one in which the Dutch Republic gained its independence. However, this isn't controversial in the slightest for as far as I know. It might be with some fanatics, but both 1581 and 1588 are perfectly fine years to draw the line. The Plakkaat van Verlatinghe and Deductie van Vrancken are tied together quite a bit, and are named in one breath most of the time. In any case, we're not exploring historical controversies here. To me, a controversy is something that lives among the people that it concerns. This is not the case. This vagueness isn't something that keeps people up at night whatsoever, or that causes divides between groups of people.
 * At this point I am considering whether it might be better to change the entire paragraph for as much as it concerns independence. Which, I should add, is not a term we use in Dutch to describe our "independence". Independence usually only gets mentioned when we speak of the country after the Peace of Munster. Anywho, here's an attempt at rewriting the paragraph in question:
 * Starting in 1566, the Dutch populace started revolting against its Spanish overlordship. This Dutch Revolt initially sought to remove Spanish religious influences, as the Spanish king Philip II forced Catholicism upon the Low Countries, which increasingly were becoming Calvinist Protestant. This, as well as a wish for more self-governance, which the Low Countries had under Philip's predecessor, eventually led to prominents such as William of Orange stepping up to the stage to lead the revolt into a new phase. This new phase started with the 1581 Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (Act of Renouncement), in which the Dutch justified Philip II being unfit to govern the Low Countries. During the preceding years, modern-day Wallonia had split itself off with the 1579 Union of Atrecht, wishing to remain Catholic under Spanish overlordship. This in itself was a response to the Union of Utrecht, which unified the Netherlands and Flanders in their desire to depart from Spanish rule. Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, putting the future of the country in its own hands, making the 1580s the time in which the Dutch Republic would find its inception. The Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster. This period is now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw). During this period, many colonies were founded or conquered, including the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and New Netherland (which at its height extended along the East Coast of today's United States, from Rhode Island to the Eastern Shore of Maryland); the latter was traded with the British for Suriname in 1667.
 * Again, this is a suggestion, but I am starting tot think that rewriting is the way to go here. Someone else might want to work this out into sentences that are a bit easier to read, as I am not that great at that, but I'd like to know what the rest of you think about it. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems very long-winded and academic for the introduction to a general-interest travel guide to the Netherlands.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wauteurz. I am happy to defer to your knowledge of the subject. I think it reads pretty well, but make two suggestions:
 * 1. Replace "prominents" by "prominent people" -- i haven't seen "prominent" used as a noun in English
 * 2. "Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, putting the future of the country in its own hands, making the 1580s the time in which the Dutch Republic would find its inception." This is a bit difficult to follow (for a travel guide-level of English). How about this: "Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, and put the future of the country in its own hands. The Dutch Republic thus was born in the 1580s."
 * In response to TT's comment, it would be less academic if the references to Plakkaat van Verlatinghe and Deductie van Vrancken were removed as they won't mean anything to most English readers. Ground Zero (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just think the paragraph as a whole is too wordy and there are too many details which don't help to introduce me to the country as a travel destination or make me want to visit. I've attempted a much shorter redraft; the details can go in Understand#History or in some historical travel topic:

In 1566, the Dutch people started revolting against the Spanish overlordship, initially to reduce Catholic religious influence in a largely Protestant country, but increasingly driven by a wish for more self-governance. By 1581, the Dutch judged Philip II unfit to govern as overlord, and seven years later stopped their search for a new overlord altogether, putting the future of the country in its own hands. The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster. This period is now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw) during which many colonies were founded or conquered, including the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and New Netherland (on the East Coast of today's United States); the latter was traded with the British for Suriname in 1667.

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * First off, I take no offence on my concept being called too wordy, long-winded or academic. I am well-aware that that is how I tend to write, and simply I find it difficult to make it more comprehensive when working down from sources that are written in a similar way. That's exactly why I threw it out there for others to work off of.
 * The only point I have about what you've written is that I personally would interpret "The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster." as meaning that the Peace of Münster ended the Dutch Golden Age. It didn't - the Dutch Golden Age ends with the Rampjaar (Year of Disasters), which is 1672. I'm not completely sure whether that's my English failing me or the sentence being a bit off, but outside of that, it looks great to me. Thank you! -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I was unsure about that too. Specifically, I couldn't tell whether the Golden Age and the Eighty Years War were considered synonyms for the same period of time, or whether they simply overlapped. From your last comment, it sounds like the latter? In which case, how about:

 * The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence. This led to an era now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw), during which many colonies were founded or conquered...

 * ? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, sounds good! If you'd ask me, the Peace of Münster is still notable enough to name as being the end of the Eighty Years' War, but I guess it's not essential either. To clarify: Yes, the Eighty Years' War (I added "for independence" as that's what it led to, though it was never the goal going in), lasted 80 years (1568 - 1648), with a ceasefire (Twaalfjarig Bestand / Twelve Years' Truce) between 1609 and 1621. The Golden Age starts either with the founding of the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie) in 1602 or with the start of the Twelve Years' Truce (again, the vague line here isn't important, as the start is a gradual process), and has an indisputable end with 1672 and the start of the Franco-Dutch war. I should also point out that the term "Golden Age" is disputed in modern times, as it only ever was "Golden" in the west (Holland, Zeeland and to a lesser extend Utrecht). The east of the country saw nothing of the prosperity, being only ruined as the battlefield of the Eighty Years' War moved outside of Holland to drive the Spanish forces out, devastating what we class here as the northern, eastern and southern regions. But yes, the Eighty Years' War led to the Golden Age, but the Golden Age did not hinge on the war for its continuation. If anything, the war coming to an end only allowed for trade to flourish even more. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * If there's one thing studying history has taught me, it's that so-called "golden ages" are never as wonderful as claimed, and usually have a lesser-known, but chilling, human cost. But as a well-known and easily understandable term, it serves its purpose in our article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 * To indulge this tangent a bit further, the Spanish "Siglo de Oro" ("golden century") which actually lasted the better part of two centuries is perhaps the most obvious of such "golden ages" that have the seed of their end entrenched into their beginning - namely 1492 the year in which Spain did three things of momentous importance for its further history: It ended Muslim rule over Granada, it expelled all Jews and Muslims (who did not convert) which gave rise to the Inquisition becoming much more powerful (the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews or Muslims but most definitely over Christians who "lapsed" to their former faiths) and of course last but not least, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. To bring at least a tenuous connection to the Netherlands back into this tangent, the biggest part of the silver Spain would rob from the Americas which did not end up in Asia (Europe had a massive trade imbalance with Asia basically for the entire existence of the Silk Road until the Europeans could just rob stuff at gunpoint) was spent on ultimately lost wars in the Low Countries... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

NL representation and reality
Dear @ThunderingTyphoons! seeing you revert me (and making a comment like that) I find it problematic that you do not assume good faith here...but as you are both English native speaker and sysop here, I as a novice will not argue against you that current form is more problematic...

However NL is much more than picturesque rural country and that my life and work in 4 different cities of NL over multiple years thought me that there is more complexity to the relations that Dutch have towards drugs and prostitution then majority acceptance. I leave this here as a voiced objection in hope others will also find this naive image of a contemporary country like The Netherlands is. --Zblace (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Zblace, did you read Netherlands? Is the last sentence in that subsection of "Stay safe" not sufficient? If you feel anything needs to be added about Dutch attitudes toward prostitution, you could add it in the following subsection. Or more relevantly, you could move the last sentence on drugs in "Stay safe" to the "Respect" section and make a brief statement about Dutch attitudes toward recreational drug use and prostitution there. My take on what Thundering did was to keep the lede of the article more brief and readable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ikan Kekek my take was different and goes beyond attitude towards drugs...painting NL in 2022 as a porcelain plate wonderland is neither good aestetic taste nor ethical to people who actually visit it. --Zblace (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean; could you clarify with specifics? But why would it not be OK for you to briefly add what you find lacking, as I suggested above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Destination of the month?
Does this article need anything more to run for DOTM? /Yvwv (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * @Yvwv: Nothing that is a must, I suppose. I'd say that navigation by thumb should be revisited, as it's nowadays a very uncommon practise, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the designated hitch hiking spots in the Netherlands are gone, with Uber and the likes taking its place. There seem to be a few formerly dead links in the article that need to be verified, but other than that, there isn't anything that I can see.
 * I would like to say though, that as SHB2000 pointed out, there are a lot of sub-usuable articles for the Netherlands, including all but one of the provinces (that one being North Holland, unsurprisingly). I'd argue that having those provinces at least at usable status is a must-have for it to be featured. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Netherlands


text:
Talk:Netherlands Antilles

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Netherlands Antilles/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:49, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Netherlands Antilles


text:
Talk:Nettigere Guruvayurappan Temple Bangalore

Merge?
OK, so I've done a little tidying of the article as it had big pictures and all the headers were (broken) links.

However, I'm not sure that it qualifies as an article in its own right - there are many other temples listed under Bangalore that don't have their own pages. Also, the only pages that link here are Guruvayoorappan, Nettigere Guruvayoorappan Temple and the mis-spelt Nettigere Guruvayurappan Temple Bngalore.

So time to open a discussion and see what people think we should do.

(WT-en) Nrms 02:48, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I completely support merging. This is an attraction in Bangalore, not a destination separate from the city. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:56, 6 October 2011 (EDT)