text:
Talk:Golan Heights

I rolled back a change of one instance of "1981" in the text; if there's a reason to change it to 1967, let's do that throughout the text. If there's some sort of controversy or an idea that the 14 years' difference somehow validates the claim more than otherwise, let's drop the date exactly. Our job isn't to give information to a time-traveller visiting 1974. Let's not waste time arguing about history, but just give the traveller information necessary for visiting this part of the world. --(WT-en) Evan 23:25, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Listing under Israel
Not to be all political, but shouldn't it better to associate this location with Israel, since all the "get in" information describes ways to go there only from Israel. As a matter of fact, ALL information in this page is about Israel and with no way to access this place from Syria, there is no point in putting it under Middle East or Syria (which is how i arrived to this article in the first place) in the very least, separate it to Israeli side and Syrian side - they are very VERY distinct...

While on the matter it makes sense to break the link from the Syria page. Even if there were peace and an open border (which has never been), the article still fits under Israel

 * I rather agree. Dividing it like Dead Sea (Israel and the West Bank) and Dead Sea (Jordan) makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Ceever would like to change the hierarchy to fit this under Israel, however Golan_Heights makes it clear that 1/3 of the 'controlled' area is still in Syria (perhaps a relative term with regards to Syria, however Israel is not controlling it).
 * Does it not make sense to make this an extra-hieracical page and create seperate articles for Golan Heights (Israel) and Golan Heights (Syria) ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I think most people think of the Israeli controlled part of the Golan Heights when they hear the unqualified term. At any rate, this article seems to only deal with the Israeli controlled part, which means it should be breadcrumbed there. Now as for adding a disambiguation to the title, I am not sure whether that is necessary for the Israeli controlled part, but I don't think we should convert this guide into a disambig page - rather a new disambig page should be created, because as I said, this guide mostly deals with the Israeli controlled part. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that sounds right. And no civilians are likely to visit the Syrian-controlled (Al Qaeda-controlled?) part any time soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hobbitschuster : If you read what I was asking, it was for an extra-region, not a disambiguation. Just because the Syrian part is a bit of a no-go zone, doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered surely? It can be under Hauran in our extremely undeveloped Syria articles. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Well given that the two sides have next to nothing in common the extraregion would not contain much more than a disambig. And given that this article on the Israeli controlled part is rather developed, I suggest moving this (if need be) and creating the disambig/extraregion from scratch rather than cutting down here and then re-expanding over at Golan Heights (Israel). Also the current name is uncontroversial, but having it say (Israel) is bound to draw the sorts of folks who think calling the site of the Jewish Temple the site of the Jewish Temple somehow constitutes racism against Arabs or the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * We'll deal with them the same way we've dealt with nationalists on both sides of the Kashmiri conflict: By reiterating the neutral Wikivoyage policy of simply accepting all faits accomplis, regardless of our personal likes or dislikes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Politics aside, we still have an article that covers significant (undisputed) territory within Syria proper. Surely that is an extra-region scenario? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Let's create an extraregion article for the Golan Heights, referring both to the Israeli controlled side (which remains bread-crumbed under Israel, so travellers can actually find it) and to the Syrian side. With the extraregion article concentration on the information that lies outside of relevance for Israel travellers. Would that be a solution? Ceever (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's the whole solution. I think that the extraregion article has to point to both this article (edited to remove most of the info about the Syrian-controlled[?] side) and an article about the Syrian-controlled side, however brief it will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree. Ceever (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree too. The Golan Heights (Syria) page will be short, but what can you do. Ar2332 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I made the changes, which I hope are agreeable to everyone. It retains the predominant nature of Israeli control over the area, whilst acknowledging there is a Syrian region as well. There wasn't much content to merge over to the new Syria article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship
Not to start a political debate that is totally besides the point, but I have heard that people residing in the Golan Heights (in a similar situation to East Jerusalem) can apply for Israeli citizenship if they so chose, which is not the case for the West Bank or Gaza. Apparently many younger Druze are now taking advantage of that, some even giving up Syrian citizenship due to the recent political developments... Maybe (some of) this might be interesting background? If not, that's fine as well Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, this has been reported by Times of Israel, for example. It could be worth mentioning, but most of the Druses in the Israel-ruled part of the Golan are still Syrian citizens. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect that the current one is more representative of the region as a whole, but I like the playfulness of a skiing scene in the Middle East. If it's good enough for Hebvoy, then bring on the new one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We ended up choosing this banner for the Golan Heights article at Hebvoy as the ski resort of the Hermon mountain is definitely the most popular tourist attraction at the Golan Heights. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It doesn't look much different from other ski resorts, and I don't know if the current banner looks much different from other areas. I would certainly respect the views of Hebvoy users on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While Israeli readers would go to the Golan Heights principally for skiing, is the same true for foreign visitors. When I saw the heights from Jordan in October, skiing didn't occur to me. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * October is way too early for skiing, even in the Alps. If the choice is between the current amorphous "anywhere in the world" landscape, and the skiing image, I definitely pick the latter.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both images are kind of generic but the new banner is still more interesting overall. Gizza ( roam ) 04:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Ground Zero (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ground Zero. It seems the most colorful of the three banners. ויקיג'אנקי, what do you think of the new banner? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That banner is actually already used in the Golan Trail article - both on Engvoy and Hebvoy (should we use the same banners over several articles?). Either way, in my opinion it would still be preferable to use a banner that shows the most popular tourist destination in the Golan Heights, even though a picture that has a lot of snow is less colorful than the current suggested alternatives. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize it was already used. No, two articles shouldn't use the same pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're using #3 already, but I still prefer #2.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am against #2. The Hermon site in ski season is very unrepresentative of the Golan as a whole. Snow is almost never seen in the Golan except on the Hermon, and even the Hermon has no snow for more than half the year. As for visits, the ski site is very popular for a few months in winter, but the hiking trails are popular all year long. As the page says, "Hiking is the activity of choice in the Golan Heights." And the ski site is not really special as far as ski sites go, it is only popular because Israelis have no other domestic ski options. In short I think the banner should be some kind of green landscape, perhaps with a snowy Hermon in the background. Ar2332 (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Banner #3 SHB2000 (talk)  12:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * My preference is for the current banner, which reminds me of the Golan Heights. I visited in December several years ago and didn't see snow. And it makes sense to me that skiing would be more of an activity for Israelis than for international travelers. The third banner is lovely, but as noted above, it's already used. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Other destinations"
The other destinations are all identified as moshavim shitufiim, and thereby communities, so I think they don't belong in "Other destinations", but they could be given their own (sub)category, with a brief explanation of what a moshav shitufi is (much shorter than the short Wikipedia article about them, just a sentence or so). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * A subcategory of 'Cities', presumably? Perhaps a couple of See or Do listings could be copied into 'Other destinations' to keep that section alive.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * A subcategory would be the most normal thing to do. I don't think it's essential to have an "Other destinations" section, but I would think Mt. Hermon would be in one. and maybe some waterfalls and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure why this is in the page at all. We are talking about small residential communities of no particular interest to travelers, as far as I can tell. Some of them happen to contain attractions (like "Robotic dairy farm" in Avnei Eitan) but those attractions are already listed separately. Ar2332 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Endorsing" the annexation
Per this edit: which map is more detailed and useful for travelers? Whether we "endorse" the annexation is not an issue; we recognize Israeli control over most of the Golan in the interest of travelers and have a disclaimer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think both maps are useful in different ways. The static map is useful for highlighting the cities, but the dynamic for everything else. Re the annexation: agreed. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I would prefer a map where neither "Israel" nor "Syria" were written on the highlighted area. I didn't find such a map, and I am not going to make one. I assume we usually try to keep to internationally recognised borders, except for the practical issues. Thus we need to keep to facts on the ground for the Get in while I don't think we should tone down the controversy by having the map show the area as part of Israel. –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 * It's well established that we recognize well-established de facto borders everywhere, including the Line of Control in Kashmir and the Chinese control of Aksai Chin. For the purposes of WV:Be fair, the Israeli-controlled part of the Golan and all of Jerusalem are Israel, period. We add a disclaimer because in recognizing what is, we don't advocate for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think putting either country's name over the Golan is asking for unnecessary flamewars. We can use a map where neither name is over the Golan, and elsewhere in the article clarify that the Golan is in Israel for purposes of travel. Ar2332 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you feel the same way about Kashmir, parts of Guyana and everywhere else where there are competing claims? We have instead done our best to get rid of cross-hatching in maps of India and Pakistan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In Kashmir the country names are outside the region, and actual control is given for the subregions, in the subregion descriptions. I think that's a good solution. In the main maps in India and Pakistan the regions under actual control are included as regions and shown as such. No problem there either, I think. I don't see why we need to have "Israel" (or "Syria") written on Golan, instead of in the neighbouring regions of those countries – other than that we don't have a good such map, that I could find. In the same way we should avoid talking about the contested region as part of either country in the text, other than to the extent we need to do so to avoid awkward wording or to otherwise serve the traveller. –LPfi (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as we are consistent, I'm good with it. All I'm asking for is consistency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I had previously added exactly such a map ten years ago. Osiris (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support using that map, perhaps with some more of Syria cropped away and the legend moved accordingly (those modifications seem to be quite easy to do). The map is in jpeg format, which isn't ideal, but I assume the current map is just a recoded jpg (it seems based on the same jpg original, like the former map). As to the question of which map is most useful, I cannot see any relevant differences in the base map. Highlighting of highway 98 or of Majdal Shams seems unnecessary clutter in this context. –LPfi (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Osiris' map is better than one that misleadingly shows the name "Syria" over the Israeli-annexed part of the Golan Heights, which is opposed to Wikivoyage policy. I also object to the crosshatching over the Golan and Jerusalem in the map in the Israel article - again, not because I have an opinion about the rightness or wrongness of the Israeli annexation, but because it is inconsistent with how we treat every other country in the world. See India and Pakistan for two relevant examples. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Golan heights rel89A (cropped).jpg I cropped that map not to show so much of Syria. The name "Syria" was lost (hard to copy letters in a jpg without copying the background), but I assume it is known and thus implicit; better of course if somebody finds the font and adds the name. Would this map by OK? –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like Syria not being shown in the Syrian-controlled area. I think there's room for a 5-letter name on that map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please add it if you can. I don't have any convenient means of getting those letters from the cropped-off area or from somewhere else. –LPfi (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never tried to edit a map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a jpeg (no structure, just groups of pixels), so one cannot just change the position of the text, one has to cut out a piece of the photo and replace it with another, or overlay some part of the map with suitable pixels. I assume a text could be reasonably easily overlaid with Imagemagick (or Photoshop or whatever), if a suitable font is available in the program. I haven't worked with fonts, so I would probably choose one that isn't close to that of the other country names. –LPfi (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have Photoshop on this computer and have very basic Photoshop skills, and I haven't heard of Imagemagick. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just edited the photo to move the text, and then changed the page to refer to it. Ar2332 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Where to list Israeli settlements
I'd say, unambiguously, in "Cities"; see West Bank for an example. "Other destinations" are not for any kind of village or settlement, unless we're talking about something like a ski resort (so maybe Neve Ativ). But the thing is, unless we have articles for these settlements - or, for that matter, Ghajar - why do we want to list any of them? "Other destinations" is not a required section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to remove all the "Other destinations". They are places where people live, but not travel destinations. Ar2332 (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So that's two votes to remove the section. Except: Right now, there is only one blue-linked city. Should we merge Katzrin here, and therefore merely list cities as useful to travelers but not have articles for them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Katzrin is too big to merge. (I think this is one of many cases on Wikivoyage where a strict hierarchy based model does not work well, and where it should be permissible to put detailed entries on the region article if it has no subentries except for a small number of cities, but maybe that is a topic for another time.) Ar2332 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (To elaborate: currently we have 2 articles - Golan Heights and Katzrin - each of which is a coherent topic with a full set of information. If we did a strict hierarchy then there would be 3 articles - Golan Heights, Katzrin, and "Golan except for Katzrin" - the last of those is not a coherent topic, while the first would be mostly either empty or duplicate.) Ar2332 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's too big to merge, all listings on this page that are in Katzrin need to be moved there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should say, though, that I'm quite unconvinced. That is not a very long article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved a couple listings that should be on Katzrin. But now, thinking it over, I guess I am more amenable to merging the articles. Ar2332 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We could have separate sections of listings in this article for each village/settlement, wherever that's useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

having a region article with only one city article doesn't work very well. I agree with IK's suggestion to merge Katzrin into the GH article with listings broken up by sub-headings by location, Ground Zero (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Golan Heights


text:
Talk:Gold Country

Map
See the California Department of Tourism for an approximate map of this region. Note however that Wikivoyage includes Sacramento in the Sacramento Valley region. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:49, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Gold Country


text:
Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

Is this an article?
So, I don't think this needs to be its own article. Why wouldn't this be under San Francisco? -- (WT-en) Evan 15:15, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

It's not completely in SF. It's too long to be part of a major article.

I dont think it's too long at all. And it's all in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd rather not make people have to click around so much to find the sites for a destination. Maybe a good rule-of-thumb is that a destination should have at least two of the three "see, eat, sleep" to stand alone. (WT-en) Majnoona

Have to agree with Maj and Evan. Although many cities right now have just a bulleted list with little explanation under "See", I think it makes sense to have short descriptions, especially of major sites. Furthermore, the information about Golden Gate Park can be split out in a separate "bullet". Besides, the San Francisco article is not unweildy right now. Even something like Alcatraz I would leave under San Francisco. An example of what I think goes under the "see" site is my description of Stanley Park in Vancouver. And there, a couple of extra sentences still wouldn't make it too long. We can always split major sites out later if any particular city article gets too unweildy. That's probably easier than deleting articles. -- (WT-en) CL 22:13, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

I have to agree with Ctylemay's agreement ;-). I dont think anyone should worry about things getting too long before their written. There's quite a few long articles out there now, and they all look really great and read well. So maybe, when in doubt leave it in? Should we add something to the style guide, or is this covered somewhere? (WT-en) Majnoona

 * I think this is probably something we need to deal with in the Project:Large city article template, eh? Maybe with sub articles, like San Francisco/Golden Gate Bridge? Or San Francisco/See? -- (WT-en) Evan 07:23, 9 Oct 2003 (PDT)

The question is, are you trying to write a book-style article with EVERYTHING on one massively long page... or are you trying to create a website with interlinks where you simply click from one page to the next as you go along. I made it seperate mainly as a place to put the photos I took, and I figured that 'destinations' and 'tourist atractions' were going to get their own pages. I think that the 'demonstration' city articles are far too big and unwieldy already... it's not so bad when you're reading them, but they're a real pain to edit, because I can't find the bits I want in the mass of data. But if you want to put the kitchen sink into one article then go ahead. I've been too busy to do any work on the travel wiki lately, and it's probably going to continue... (WT-en) KJ 04:16, 14 Oct 2003 (PDT)

 * Two things: yes, we definitely have a problem organizing large cities. One of our goals, and one of my visions for Wikivoyage, is being able to have pages that print out really easily, so you can just put a guide for a city or a travel destination in your backpack, or pocket, or some kind of binder, and carry it around with you. I'd like to keep all the info on a destination together, so that we can use them together. But the unwieldiness is also an issue.

 * Second, if you turn on the option to Show links for editing individual sections in your user preferences, it's a lot easier to edit larger pages. Not that that helps all the organizational problems with big destinations, but it's a start. -- (WT-en) Evan 07:05, 14 Oct 2003 (PDT)

(Second) vfd discussion

 * Delete. This one was created & deleted back before Project:What is an article had been decided on, and now re-created by User:(WT-en) Traveler2006.  Might be worth a redirect to San Francisco just to prevent people from re-creating in the future? -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:00, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. I am going to go ahead and redirect this to San Francisco, if there is disagreement we can change it. --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:04, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:47, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:45, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:51, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golden Gate Bridge


text:
Talk:Golden Horseshoe

See & do sections
Listings belong in articles—the sections as they are currently written should be replaced by prose. It's fine to link to city articles & their listings in-prose, however. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Split up Golden Horseshoe?
See Talk:Ontario for a suggestion to remove the Golden Horseshoe from the geographic hierarchy. /Yvwv (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Golden Horseshoe


text:
Talk:Golden Ring

Why style
Because it looks to me that it should be an itinerary. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:41, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Three years later, agreed. We had a discussion about this at ru:Обсуждение:Золотое кольцо, and decided to make some shifts in the hierarchy, mostly because the Central Russian hierarchy made little sense—treating, as it did, the Golden Ring as a region rather than an itinerary.

 * I'm not going to try and write this itinerary, since I'm not at all an expert, but I'll try to convert it into a template more suited to touring the sights. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:48, 28 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Golden Ring


text:
Talk:Golden Spike National Historic Site

Golden Spike National Historic Site
More a single site or monument than a park, I think. Does not appear to have any accommodation options. Previous text was copyvio wikipedia.
 * Delete - This site can adequately be covered in the region article or nearest city article.(WT-en) Texugo 00:07, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. - (WT-en) OldPine 15:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Utah. I've gone ahead and done the redirect, but will leave this vfd here for a bit longer in case anyone disagree. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect. It would be good to keep the redirect page, for the sake of those who've heard of the NHS and want to visit it, but don't know what town to use as a base of operations.  The answer, btw, is Brigham City, which is not hopelessly small -- population over 15,000 -- and certainly qualifies as a destination.  The redirect should be amended to point to this article iff it gets created. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:13, 14 November 2007 (EST)


text:
Talk:Golden Temple

Golden Temple
Not an article. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 15:22, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Delete. Agree. --(WT-en) OldPine 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Amritsar. This is a famous site; people might know of it but not know the city. Treat it like Taj Mahal with a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 20:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect to Amritsar – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:58, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Redirect. It's reasonable for people to look for an article by this name, even though it's not exactly a destination/you-can-sleep-there, so help them navigate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:00, 15 November 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Golden Temple


text:
Talk:Golden Triangle (Thailand)

Is this a region? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:51, 19 August 2006 (EDT)

 * The term can be used in two senses: either it's a virtual point in the middle of the Mekong where three countries meet (the sense used by the tourist industry), or it's the whole area around them covering all three countries (the sense used when talking about opium production). I'm not really sure what template applies, but I suppose Park is as good as any.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:16, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

 * How much of a destination is this though? Can you sleep there? Should it maybe be listed in Get out of the nearest town in Thailand where it's accessed from? Is it generally just a daytrip? I'm going to move this at least and disamb it, we should probably have a Golden Triangle (India) itinerary soon, I just don't want to write it ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golden Triangle (Thailand)


text:
Talk:Golf

This article appears to have a problem with its Table of contents links.

 * Which links? The first one I tried worked for me, so do several others. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:59, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

Scope
OK, I'm a little worried by this article-- I'm not sure we really want to have a complete list of the world's golf courses here, especially unlike (say) Scuba diving golf can be practiced pretty much anywhere on the planet. Any way to limit the scope a little? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * I guess the issues here are fairly similar to Scuba, and the direction we should take will likely be the same. I imagined golf courses would be added until one region has enough to split into its own page - similar to Scuba diving in Australia.  One thing I want to make sure we avoid is listing only the prestigious/expensive/big name golf courses in region - when I travel I prefer the more local ones.  However I guess the other direction, listing details about all golf courses, whilst I personally would find it useful, may fall under the Slippery Slope category.(WT-en) Hkpatv 04:32, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * But while places for scuba diving are destinations (full article), golf courses are attractions (single line item in an article), which is why I don't want to see them listed here... (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:51, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but I suppose the closest analogy would be between an individual dive sites, ie the reef or wreck, for example Racha Noi and a golf course, say Blue Canyon Country Club. I think that there should be a place to put details about both of these attractions in wikiTravel, but neither of them would fit into a City style article (could be played or dived based in any nearby town and you wouldn't want to overload the main article with stuff not of interest to most users).  I would think that the most appropriate place for them would be in Diving in Phuket and Golfing in Phuket(WT-en) Hkpatv 04:49, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * I would be fine with either article you propose (if there really is so much info that it overloads the main article). But the topic of discussion now is what to do with the plain old "Golf" page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:58, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * Sorry for the slow response - I have moved some of the articles to their own pages - England/New Zealand/China which I guess makes more sense. The scope of this page will be reduced significantly.(WT-en) Hkpatv 02:55, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

Organisation
This section does need some reorganisation- I've made a start- but want to start a debate.

It seems sensible that each country entry lists their 3 most prestigious courses as a start with brief details. Is three the right number? Should it be more, should it be less? Surely we should have the same number for each country. We should then be looking at developing specic guides to each country as has been started for England for example, which can go into further depth.

There may then be a need for some of those countries with lots of golf courses to have further articles, on sub-units. The obvious example being the United States, due to its vastness. However even small countries with a disproportionate number of golf courses per head of population would probably need subdivision, e.g. Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

I would suggest on a countrywide site to perhaps say name the top half dozen couses in the area.

For deciding the countries we use for dividing the world and countries up within this golf article, rather than using political entitities, we use the countries recognised by the golf authorities- this would mainly affect the British Isles. So I don't see the point in seperate "Golf in Northern Ireland" and "Golf in the Republic", if sub division of Irleand is needed use the Provinces which the Golfing authorities use, and it would seem sensible from an ease of organisation perspective. Similarly there's no need for a "Golf in the UK" article either, that would be covered by articles on the three mainland countries plus the parts of the Ireland article relavant to Northern Ireland.

Golf packing list VFD discussion
Recently an article called "Golf packing list" was created (as a two-line stub), and subsequently deleted, following the usual VFD procedure. Although the vote was to delete, there seems to be some feeling that the Golf article itself might usefully incorporate a packing list. The discussion is given below for reference purposes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Golf packing list

 * Delete. We don't want list for every sport. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete or redirect to Golf. (WT-en) Pashley 19:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete or redirect to Golf....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 19:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd prefer a redirect to Golf; that article doesn't currently have anything like a packing list, but it probably should. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Factual Tweak
If changed slightly some of the stuff on the Governing Body of Golf. The "Royal and Ancient", is no longer a golfing governing body, it separated off the Governing Body functions into a separate organisation called the "R&A" in recent years. Of course may people always used to refer to the "Royal and Ancient" by the abbreviated form as the "R&A", however now they are separate organisations. The "Royal and Ancient" of course remains a very important organisation in the game of course, since of course it includes the famour "Old Course", but no longer has any role in the governance of the organisation (except of course as any other golf club has).

Also golf is governed jointly by the USGA and the R&A. (So I have re-edited the reference to the "R&A" being "the" governing body of golf). Both organisation have exclusive competence in certain matters within their territories- (remember the USGA doesn't just cover the USA, it covers certain other countries and territories), when it comes to the rules of golf both organisations jointly agree these to apply on a global level- so that you don't have differences between "American" and "Rest of the world" rules.

This article should discuss the ecological impact
I am no golfing expert, but I know that the driving and the putting and the wooding and the ironing can be quite harmful to the local environment when taken out of its original Alba. Golf courses in arid areas seem to be particularly egregious cases Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but it seems more of an encyclopedic topic than one related to travel. Powers (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't pretty much all travel activities have an ecological impact? I'm not sure how you would compare golfing in New Mexico against flying London to Paris on a Boeing 737 to scuba diving on the Great Barrier reef.
 * That said perhaps it would be good to add an 'eco' section to all activity articles... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Golf


text:
Talk:Golf in Australia

isIn?
I'm not sure that this page should be marked isin: Australia : it's not a place or destination, it's a travel topic. I have asked for clarification on Project:Breadcrumb navigation. (WT-en) Hypatia 04:33, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golf in Australia


text:
Talk:Golf in China

Hmmm, interesting article, but I'd rather see some general informtion about playing in China rather thn just a list of places... but keep plunging ahead! (WT-en) Majnoona 15:41, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

Greater China
OK, I'm going to object loudly to this name. Hong Kong is a part of China and I think "Golf in China" is perfectly neutral and sufficiently unambiguous. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:30, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

 * No major problems changing it back - seemed like a good idea at the time - from here in HK, I think of China as across the border, but I can see your point. Go ahead if you feel is justified without waiting for other opinions, otherwise I will do it myself in a few days if no-one else wants to chip in.(WT-en) Hkpatv 21:30, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golf in China


text:
Talk:Golf in New Zealand

redirect to New Zealand|Do|Golf - ?
This has been an almost completely blank page for nearly 2 years. Any objections to redirecting it? Golf content can be moved back to here if/when there's too much for the New Zealand &/or Golf pages. ~ 203.144.143.4 11:51, 25 December 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Golf in New Zealand


text:
Talk:Golf in Thailand

VFD Discussion
I'm trying to clean up Thailand, and also one travel topic I really don't like. Just look at it-- it's a gigantic link dump of golf facilities from TAT, the Tourist Authority of Thailand. No one is ever going to clean up this mess and make it into something usable, so I suggest we delete it. In case others feel it's necessary, I could also move the listings to the Talk pages of the cities for future reference. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:27, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * Awful. Empty and redirect to Thailand. The only information I would keep is the golf course association contact details. Put it in the country article along with a short para about playing golf in Thailand.
 * Thailand Golf Courses Association (TGCA) 96 Moo 3 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, Kwang Taladbangkhen, Laksi, Bangkok 10210 (Tel: 0 2266 5234 Fax: 0 2552 3783, 0 2973 4606) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:46, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * I now wrote a paragraph about Golf in the Do-section of the Thailand article. Also placed the listing there. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:49, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:42, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golf in Thailand


text:
Talk:Golmud

The page says 14 hours to Lhasa by train but 30-42 by bus. I can easily believe the bus is slower, but a factor of two or three to one seems high. Are those numbers accurate? (WT-en) Pashley 03:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Verified using timetables on http://www.seat61.com/China.htm which gets its info from an english translation of the main chinese timetable brochure printed by the ministry of Railways by duncan peattie, an expat in Tokyo, Japan. (WT-en) Celticevergreen 00:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Golmud


text:
Talk:Gondwana Rainforests of Australia

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

Change name of page
It appears that the name of this region changed in 2007 from Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves to Gondwana Rainforests of Australia.

Current Australian govt websites show the name as "Gondwana Rainforests of Australia".

The UNESCO World Hiritage site says: "name changed 2007 from Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia)".

The wikivoyage page for Queensland also notes the name change. (WT-en) Bill Ellett 22:16, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:20, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

In need of placement into appropriate groups
The following list was placed in the article as 'unfinished'. Probably best to keep them here for now --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Limpinwood Nature Reserve
 * Numinbah Nature Reserve
 * Mt Hyland Nature Reserve
 * Mt Seaview Nature Reserve
 * Banda Banda Flora Reserve
 * Mount Chinghee National Park
 * Mount Mistake National Park (part of)
 * Turtle Rock Environmental Park
 * Telemon Environmental Park
 * Gilbert State Forest
 * Emu Vale State Forest
 * Gambubal State Forest
 * Teviot State Forest
 * Killarney State Forest
 * Burnett Creek State Forest
 * Cronan Creek State Forest
 * 'Palen Creel' State Forest
 * Rabbitt Board Paddock Reserves
 * Prison Purposes Land
 * Wilsons Peak Flora Reserve
 * Amaroo Flora Reserve
 * Fenwicks Scrub Flora Reserve
 * Kerripit Beech Flora Reserve

Change from travel topic to Extra Region?
This article refers to a non-contiguous areas in Eastern Australia. Any objections to change to an extraregion? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gondwana Rainforests of Australia


text:
Talk:Gongju

Images pending upload.

Names of Attractions
...are taken from local signage over pamphlets as it is more recent and far, far better written. Similarly, when multiple names exist, the (romanised or translated) one chosen was the one used on the more up-to-date Korean tourist information.

title: Talk:Gongju


text:
Talk:Gopalganj

Does anyone have a clue what this is? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:31, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
 * It has something to do with Dhaka, but I'm a bit unclear as to what exactly it is. I have a hunch that it may be an Bangladesh's parlimentary district. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 18:45, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Gopalganj


text:
Talk:Goregaon (Raigad)

Pre-formatted tables
I'm removing these and putting them here because this kind of table breaks the formatting, is possibly too detailed and difficult to maintain (train times), or is simply the wrong format for such information (see the hotels table).(WT-en) Texugo 20:50, 12 May 2010 (EDT) FROM  TO  Train No Train Name            Departure  Arrival   Runs on Dadar Goregaon Road  KR3  RATNAGIRI PASS  15:35       20:07   M T W TH F S SU

Panvel Goregaon Road KR5 DIVA SWV PASS   07:05       09:49   M T W TH F S SU

Dadar Mangaon      0103  MANDOVI EXPRESS 06:55       10:36   M T W TH F S SU

Panvel Mangaon     0103  MANDOVI EXPRESS  08:30      10:36   M T W TH F S SU

FROM   -     TO         DEPARTURE  ARRIVAL   TYPE    KMS   FARE,Rs Mumbaicentral - Dapoli      09:15  13:15       Semi  144  120 Kapapred - Pajpandhari      15:00  19:00       Semi  144  120 Parel - Dapoli              22:55  02:10       Semi  156  130 Mumbaicentral - Bhopan      23:20  03:20   Ordinary  144  94 Mumbaicentral - Umbarghar   23:20  03:20       Semi  144  120 Mumbaicentral - Mandangad   23:30  02:55   Ordinary  144  94 Borivali - Uttambar         06:15  11:00   Ordinary  180  117 Borivali - Shrivardhan      06:45  12:00   Ordinary  180  150 Borivali - Dapoli           20:15  00:35   Ordinary  180  117 Borivali - Dapoli           21:00  01:25       Semi  180  150 Mumbaicentral - Devali      01:00  05:15   Ordinary  162  105 Mumbaicentral - Shrivardhan 06:45  11:30   Ordinary  162  105 Mumbaicentral - Shrivardhan 08:30  13:00   Ordinary  162  105 Mumbaicentral - Dapoli      08:45  13:15       Semi  156  130 Kapapred - Pajpandhari      14:30  19:00       Semi  156  130 Mumbaicentral - Bagmandla   14:45  19:15       Semi  162  135 Mumbaicentral - Bagmandla   22:15  01:55   Ordinary  162  105 Mumbaicentral - Mandangad   23:00  02:55   Ordinary  156  101 Mumbaicentral - Bhopan      23:30  03:20   Ordinary  156  101 Mumbaicentral - Umbarghar   23:30  03:20       Semi  156  130 Paral - Gujarkond           00:30  04:20   Ordinary  156  101 Mumbaicentral - Devali      01:20  05:15   Ordinary  156  101 Mumbaicentral - Dapoli      09:00  13:15       Semi  150  125 Kapapred - Pajpandhari      14:45  19:00       Semi  150  125 Mumbaicentral - Mandangad   23:15  02:55   Ordinary  150  98 Mumbaicentral - Bhopan      23:45  03:20   Ordinary  150  98 Mumbaicentral - Umbarghar   23:45  03:20       Semi  150  125

Name and Address           No of     Office to be contacted for Reservation  Rest House Suites						 Phone No. Govt. Rest House, Goregaon 		 Executive Engineer, P.W.Division, Tal. Mangaon, Dist. Raigad      4        Mahad,Phone 02145-222167. 02140-250239

Govt. Rest House, Ambet 		 Executive Engineer, P.W.Division, Tal. Mhasale, Dist. Raigad      5        Mahad,Phone 02145-222167. 02149-223025

Resthouse Charges: Private Persons (Ordinary Suites) Rs.200/- Per Suite per day Private persons (A.C.Suites)     Rs.300/- Per Suite per day

Formatting
Do etc all messed up. I tried re-editing in a programming editor. It worked in a sandbox but something is still messing it up here. Puzzled. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) SawadaKenji (talk • contribs)

 * Missing right bracket on a tag immediately preceding. It's fixed now.  —-- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:05, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Goregaon (Raigad)


text:
Talk:Goreme

I'm moving this page to Göreme because: (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:11, 6 November 2006 (EST)
 * 1) The use of diacritics is allowed
 * 2) The ö form is the only one used by both Wikipedia and the Getty Thesaurus

title: Talk:Goreme


text:
Talk:Gori

Looting in Gori?
I'm skeptical, and haven't seen these reports (and I'm something of a Georgian security specialist). There's not really anything to loot there, aside from the Stalin Museum. And that would be a weird thing to loot. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:22, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Off topic, but bombing the grocery store in such a poor city is seriously messed up. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:22, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi all...sorry I haven't been on in a long time. I'm no longer in Gori, but my contacts in and out of the city tell me that things are considerably better than in August. I move to take down the warning, or soften it, perhaps warning the traveler to be aware of the news and there may be potential for isolated violence. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Cuttino 23:10, 13 January 2009 (EST)

 * Hey, you've been missed! Do you have any idea of how much the war made this information outdated? Store closures, stuff like that? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 3 February 2009 (EST)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stalin monument gori.jpg

title: Talk:Gori


text:
Talk:Goring and Streatley

There are several other eating, drinking and sleeping establishments in Goring and Streatley, but I don't know them particularly well. If you do, pray tell.

Adding Banner
Adding banner if no one objects

title: Talk:Goring and Streatley


text:
Talk:Gorkhi-Terelj National Park

Bus times from Ulaanbaatar
Please, someone with good knowledge check the bus times from UB. We read here and on several other places that there's a bus at 11:00 from opposite of Narantuul hotel, but there seems to be no such bus. We waited half an hour and also our hostel staff told us that there's only the bus at 16:00. I've removed the 11:00, but I assume for the way back the times may also be wrong. --(WT-en) Hannob 00:42, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

I've edited the times, time and price as if it was in August 2013. --Maur

title: Talk:Gorkhi-Terelj National Park


text:
Talk:Gorodovikovsky district

Gorodovikovsky district

 * Delete - too small, contains only one town. I don't think Kalmykia needs any subregions since it only has one city and a few towns that anyone might actually visit. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kalmykia (WT-en) WindHorse 23:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect. If it's a real place, but is covered in another article, a redirect is the best solution. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Still delete. This is a real place, but so obscure and small a place that no one would conceivably search for it. I believe that this district and the following are good examples of very minor politically bounded regions of no use to the traveler; if I understand the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Votes for deletion, I think they are just clutter. Moreover, I think it wise to discourage the creation of tiny Russian district pages (akin to US counties, but usually less populated) below the current hierarchical schematic — at least until there is much more content to spread about. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 00:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Err, saying a place is "of no use to the traveler" is saying a lot. There are different kinds of travellers including UN administrators and other NGO types, plus writers, academics, etc, who may have reasons to go somewhere that we can't even imagine. I think if there's a place to stay, then it's a destination. Otherwise it gets a subsection of the closest place to stay... (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

 * The real question is, is there somebody now who is going to contribute this content. While Kalmykia is as big as half the states in the United States, and larger than most countries in Europe, it doesn't do any good to have stubs sitting around for years with nobody working on them. When somebody comes along who wants to turn this into an article, that's the time to make it an article. (WT-en) HLM 03:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I disagree: stubs are invitations to contribute that may get someone, who wouldn't start a new article, involved. It's not like we're going to run out of space ;-) and they are marked as outlines. (WT-en) Maj 11:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Actually, we had a resident of Kalmykia (I believe) doing some great work on the Kalmykia articles, but he/she unsurprisingly did not add anything to these district pages. I have yet to get to the region, but have studied it a great deal and would really like to see a great guide on wikivoyage for it. But I still think these districts should go—there is only one small town in each that anyone would conceivably visit, which can easily be covered by the main Kalmykia article and by individual articles for the towns of note. If we were writing an encyclopedia, I would certainly support Kalmyk district articles, but I think they are unhelpful for the traveller.  --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 09:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Kalmykia. No harm in it, although I doubt if many people will get to the main article via this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Gorodovikovsky district


text:
Talk:Gorumara National Park

More information, please
Those visiting Gorumara National Park may please put in more information, eg. Hotels at Lataguri with their telephone numbers, and other information they deem suitable for future visitors. This site needs constant updating. -- (WT-en) P.K.Niyogi 12:03, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

Protection
See Talk:Mandarmani --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:58, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

"Package Tours" section
Are tours necessary for visiting this park? If possible, I'd like to delete this section per tour, but if the tours really are necessary, somehow, we will have to patrol them to prevent touting and booking services from advertising. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 13:01, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

 * They look questionable to me, so I'd suggest removing them and if someone argues for their re-inclusion they can always be put back if appropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:09, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

 * OK, I will. Thanks for your advice. All the best, (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 13:20, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Gorumara National Park


text:
Talk:Lower Central Coast

What about bus service from Sidney airport to Gosford???
An anon contributor really wants to know about the bus service from Sidney airport to Gosford. Someone please help him... — (WT-en) Ravikiran 04:01, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Y'know, I don't think he's trying hard enough, but one more question mark might be enough to make me google it... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:16, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Rename to Lower Central Coast
Can we rename it to lower central coast? This also has listings in Wondabyne and Woy Woy which aren't part of Gosford. SHB2000 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since no one has replied, I'm changing it to Lower Central Coast. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first paragraphs of the article still refer primarily to Gosford. I think it would be good to expand the description to match the title. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will change it soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lower Central Coast


text:
Talk:Gosport

So, I changed "harbour" to "harbor" here. We use American spelling on Wikivoyage; see Project:spelling for why. I think "Portsmouth Harbour" would stay, though. It's so complicated! --(WT-en) Evan 16:08, 14 Apr 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Gosport


text:
Talk:Gothenburg

I would like to see the source of the claim that 60% of all Swedes would like to live in Gothenburg. How credible is the source - is it a simple online poll? If so I don't think it belongs here. /Jake73

An aspect of using restaurants in Gothenburg I found disturbing was the fact that we were not allowed in many of them, unless we handed over our jackets. When we came out these were handed back to us with a request for 15 Krona per person. We actually walked out without paying. After a couple of days spent in othe Swedish Cities in which this did not occur. We returned to Gothenburg.

We tried again. Several refused us entry because we failed to hand over our outer garments. We did later find a excellent place to enjoy a good meal where this did not occur. What happens in the summer, when outer garments would not be worn I wonder, are customers required to start undressing to hand over other garments?!

 * This is common practice in most Scandinavian nightclubs/fancy restaurants and should probably be noted in the main country page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:50, 12 March 2006 (EST)

I'm living in Gothenburg now. There is an idea, maybe just a rumor, that the coat check business is run by the Hell's Angels, or Banditos, the orginized crime groups here in Sweden. The idea is that they intimidate the bar owners into letting them run the coat check bussiness, and they don't give the bar a cut.

 * That might have happened in some cases, but not as a universal practice. The rumor has spread through crime fiction. /Yvwv (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding last change (in splurge) and the rollback. I can see why linking might be a problem, but in what way is mentioning Apple's recommendation different from mentioning Guide Rouge Stars?

NPOV
Is this statement not a bit non-NPOV: "Gothenburg has a reputation of being a friendly place, even more welcoming than the Swedish capital."?

This should be rephrased, it sounds like it was written by a lokal and does not meet wiki-quality.

 * There is no requirement for a NPOV, only that editors be fair. However, if as a wikivoyager is sounds like it is adding no value to the desination article, feel free to plunge forward and fix it.  --(WT-en) Inas 19:39, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Working-class history
I would say that traditionally G.has been a liberal, shipping and business oriented city. Many of the institutions in G. have an origin of private donations e.g. museums, hospitals, and Chalmers university of technology. But this is not a history furnished in the long lived labour rule. The working-class culture I would now regard as evident. /Living in G.

Cope
I have moved the religious services section from "Stay safe" to "Cope" as this is more in line with the norm for other articles.

(WT-en) Globentrekker 17:18, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Districts?
Gothenburg is big enough for districts. Where should the borders be drawn? A suggestion: What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gothenburg/Inner Gothenburg, corresponding to Inre Göteborg borough
 * Gothenburg/Eastern Gothenburg, including Örgryte, Härlanda, Östra Göteborg and Angered, as well as eastern suburbs
 * Gothenburg/Majorna and Linné, corresponding to Majorna och Linné borough
 * Gothenburg/Hisingen
 * Gothenburg/Southern and Western Gothenburg

Hey, just getting in on this. I think it sounds good to divide it, although it will be quite some work to fill out all the districts I think. I'm not native of the city, just live here so I don't know it all that well. Where should the border between Inner G. and Southern and Western G. be drawn you think? I also think that a district for the archipelago would be great, since its actually one of the better attractions of the city, what do you think? Egestrand (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The border of Linné to the South is at Slottskogsvallen, that is: Högsbo is considered to be out of bounds.
 * Southern Archipelago sounds great, that is a place that could be considered a separate destination. We would need one for Northern archipelago too, even though I personally don´t mind putting them together, sometimes people here a bit strict on the administrative borders and Northern archipelago is in another kommun./Johan Jönsson (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Gothenburg needs to be districtified now. Sure, it's a fairly large city but this is not the reason why city articles are split into districts. It's because there are "too many" sights and restaurants and hotels and so on for one single article — for cases when the article gets so long that it's unwieldy. As for now Gothenburg does not have that "problem". Also, as Egestrand said above, there might be difficulties finding stuff to fill those districts with and this is another sign that districtification isn't necessary. As a side note, the official district division is often useful to some extent but we very often need to merge them (e.g. bedroom suburbs seldom have much of anything of interest for visitors). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a native I doubt districts are needed. However the proposal as such makes sense. V29 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing the discussion dead for 10 months, I will remove the banner advising of it for now. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I think so, marginally, because this new banner is a bigger panorama with a nicer sky and more greenery. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone should take another shoot from Ramberget with even more of a panoramoic view V29 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Here is another alternative banner. What do you say? /Yvwv (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The original banner is much nicer to me and more reminiscent how Gothenburg really feels. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?
Gothenburg, Nebraska, Gothenburg Archipelago, maybe others. See Gothenburg (disambiguation) Pashley (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The city in Sweden is much more famous than the town in Nebraska or the archipelago, so I think it should stay at this title. Since we don't have an article about the town in Nebraska, I'm not sure we need a disambiguation page. Maybe it would be worth adding a hatnote for the archipelago, I don't know. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gothenburg


text:
Talk:Goulburn

"It is recommended not to drink straight tap water". I have just been drinking it straight for 2 days with no ill effect. When I asked the info centre whether this recommendation was correct, I got an emphatic "No". Will remove this section. (WT-en) Nurg 04:07, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Goulburn


text:
Talk:Gour (West Bengal)

Photographs
Please add photgraphs to this article. -- (WT-en) P.K.Niyogi 23:51, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Malda listings
Malda listings should belong to Malda, not here. Otherwise both articles should be merged as Wikivoyage should not have overlapping travel guides. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that moving the Malda listings to that article would be the best approach. Since you are a local expert, would you be able to do that? Ground Zero (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Rescope the guide to cover only Gour
The number of see listings in this guide is too much. However, splitting the page into Gour and Pandua may not be a good solution. Therefore, I propose to rename the page to Gour (West Bengal) to rescope the guide to cover Gour only. Pandua listings can be moved to Malda instead, which has far fewer see listings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Now I'll implement the proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gour (West Bengal)


text:
Talk:Gower Peninsula

As the Gower Peninsula is a suburb of the city of Swansea, full details regarding the area are listed under Swansea. - Anon user.

 * That may be the case. However, Gower and the Gower Peninsula appear to be destinations. It may be appropriate to move the information that is currently in Swansea that relates to Gower or the Gower Peninsula to their own articles. -- (WT-en) Huttite 20:59, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * Gower and the Gower Penisular are the same place. The city of Swansea stands on the peninsular, so while untwinning the two is feasible, I wonder whether is is useful, given that the city is small with a population of only 250,000 - Anon user.

 * Small is a relative term. I consider a city of a quarter of a million to be a large, and potentially huge, city. However, that is beside the point. Wikivoyage article templates come in different flavours. I see the article about Gower Peninsula being a regional article. That is it covers a geographic area or feature. However, Swansea is definitely a large city article, and discusses a community rather than simply land. There is lots of detail and a lot of things being omitted, and that indicates it could be come a huge city article, with district articles about various suburbs or districts in Swansea, such as Swansea/Gower. Although the City of Swansea may be the territorial authority that administers the Gower Peninsula, as its administrative territory covers that same geographic area, I am not certain that the community known as Swansea is the same thing. Apart from the articles here, I have little concept of what sort of city Swansea really is, as I have never been there. But the way the article reads, I am imagining a fairly rural geographic area, with green hills and a city that is made up of lots of little communities nestled in bays and valleys along the coastline of the peninsula and a city that spreads over some hillsides as well as a central downtown area near the port. If Swansea really is the same as the Gower Peninsula then there would be suburbs of houses on every hillside and it would not be an Area of Natural Beauty, because it wouldn't be Natural or Beautiful. I see the article about the Swansea urban area as being smaller and separate from the article about the Area of Natural Beauty known as the Gower Peninsula and separate again from the suburb of Swansea known as Gower. At this time the three articles may be the same, but over time they may diverge and evolve. -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:24, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * I'm impressed. For someone who has never visited Swansea, your description of the relationship between Swansea and Gower is pretty close. However, I think that it needs to be clarified that 'Gower' and 'the Gower Peninsular' are exactly the same. The former title is just an abbreviation for the latter. They are not two seperate places. The city of Swansea consists of the original mediaeval town, which as you correctly guessed is near the port, and suburbs that spread out over hills and around the bays of the small peninsular. Historically, the suburbs on the peninsular were villages, but in recent times they have taken on the role as commuter or second home communities, and are therefore more connected to the city proper - somewhat like the relationship between Miramar or Evans Bay and Wellington. However, I have no problem dividing up the city and fitting it into a huge city template, if you think that is the way to go. Though, as the urban area offers the greater amount of attractions (eateries, galleries, hotels etc.), and with Swansea Bay itself being a popular tourist destination, I personally think the article about 'Swansea' (urban area) will be longer than that on 'Swansea/Gower', but that remains to be seen. Yes, as you rightly state, size is relative. I live in Asia, where a city of quarter of a million hardly makes it on to a regional map. However, I notice that you are a resident of 'Lord of the Rings' country, and there a city of that size would certainly be a place of prominence. Thanks for all you imput - lots to chew on.

 * I have noticed two violations on this page

Self catering

Gower Edge Self Catering, Killan Road, Dunvant, Swansea. SA2 7TH, ☎ +44 1608 674467, e-mail: enquiries-gower-edge@live.co.uk. Spacious detached property which sleeps 8 in comfort. Wales Tourist Board 4*. Children and pets welcome. £390-874. edit Self Catering Accommodation Agencies

Home from Home, 101 Newton Road, Mumbles, Swansea SA3 4BN, ☎ +44 1792 360624, fax: +44 1792 361626, e-mail: enquiries@homefromhome.com. They offer a range of holiday cottages and apartments in Mumbles, Gower, Swansea Marina and other areas of south west Wales.

These two listings also appear on the Gower peninsula page.Dwtmill (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for those. You mean also on the Swansea page, but I got it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gower Peninsula


text:
Talk:Gozo

Just to pre-empt any queries about claims to the oldest standing structure in the world some dates for you:

 * Stonehenge 2500 BC, not bad
 * Step pyramid of Djozer (oldest pyramid) 2700 BC, better
 * Newgrange temple (Ireland) 3200 BC, getting there
 * Ggantija temple 3600 BC, rather obscure but a clear winner...

'' I think that's Gozo all over. Such a small and obscure island, but you'll be surprised just what a history and heritage it has! (WT-en) Coldsun2006 07:23, 18 March 2006 (EST)

Stay safe
I took away the reference to there being 'apparently just one policeman on the island who just takes care of traffic offenses'. This is not true, this probably refers to Comino where there is indeed just one policeman. On Gozo there is certainly still crime, but little of the kind that disturbs tourists. But if there is a serious crime it can sometimes seem as if there is an 'omerta' for everyone; locals are sometimes reluctant to cooperate in this still very insular, tightly knit society where everything from the 'mainland', including the authorities are seen as suspect.(WT-en) PeterW 06:45, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Gozo as a rambling island
One of the points that is missing in here is the mentioning of walking and rambling on the island of Gozo especially in Autumn, Winter and Spring. I know on this site you are super sensitive about links but at www.gozo.us We are trying to raise awareness of the beauty of Gozo and making sure that Gozo does not turn into a concrete jungle like Malta. Unlike Malta, Gozo depends heavily on Tourism especially Agro Tourism. How can you guys explain to Wiki Travel users what is special about this island?

(WT-en) Johnmizzi 08:28, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Gozo cities
Hi I was very pleased to find a topic about my tiny homeland :).. However I was wondering about Xlendi and Marsalforn, these are summer residence areas, basically deserted during the other three seasons, would that qualify them as cities? And what about Imgarr? It is not even a village, it is only the name of the local harbor and it forms part of the village of Ghajnsielem.

As a Gozitan, born and bred on the island I can confirm that we only have one city here, that of Victoria, or as we refer to it, Rabat, all the other villages are classified as such... With a total population of 28000 people, Gozo could not really have two cities! Even Rabat with it's 6000 inhabitants could scarcely be classified as a city itself, but it is the capital of the island.

Keep up the good work :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozo --(WT-en) G-girl 16:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

"Get out

There are typically Maltese plans to spoil a large part of the island by building a wholly unnecessary international airport which would stretch across a good part of this rather small island."

writing that the plans are "typically maltese" as frankly a typically gozitan thing to say....secondly there are no plans for an international airport, just a landing strip for light aircraft, which yes would still be very damaging anyway...still i think it has no place here since it doesn't rly help anyone travelling out of gozo (coz it doesn't exist heh)

title: Talk:Gozo


text:
Talk:Graaff-Reinet

Valley of Desolation
I moved it into here, first because it's not as complex as the Grand Canyon and secondly it's firmly associated with a nearby town, unlike the Grand Canyon (just do a Google search). -- (WT-en) Nic 04:31, 21 May 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Graaff-Reinet


text:
Talk:Grampians

Unique?
Uh, isn't there also a mountain range called the Grampians in Scotland? Might "Grampians (Australia)" be better here? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * There is also a Grampians mountain range in New Zealand. When somebody wants to write an article about more than one of those places we can move the page and disambiguate. I think that Grampians (Victoria) is the prefered name, according to the Project:Article naming conventions.

 * Besides, I just had to do exactly that with Ararat (Victoria) because "Ararat" was occupied by another region, which I will move shortly. -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:10, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

Merge with Grampians National Park
Consideration should be given to merging this with Grampians National Park. I'm not sure which title should be kept. (WT-en) Nurg 05:32, 10 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Grampians


text:
Talk:Grampians National Park

Consideration should be given to merging this with Grampians. I'm not sure which title should be kept. (WT-en) Nurg 05:30, 10 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Grampians National Park


text:
Talk:Granada (Nicaragua)

Does anyone have a source for Nicaragua being the "safest country in Central America"? (WT-en) Lukeasrodgers 17:52, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Possible misunderstanding
Judging by this edit, there seems to be a bit of confusion going on. Unfortunately I am currently in no position to check for myself, but it appears that what the original text was trying to say is that the hostel in question has the occasional movie night where non-guests are/were also welcome. The IP editor seems to have mistaken the ambiguous wording as saying "there is a cinema in Granada" and as far as I know there is none, but a hostel having movie nights is not the same as a cinema. Unfortunately I know of no easy way to resolve this issue, but I wanted to point it out nontheless. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Are these kosher? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Granada (Nicaragua)


text:
Talk:Granada

 * See also: Talk:Granada/Archive

To Guide
This article contains a lot of information. What would make it a Guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't this be at Granada (Spain) due to the other towns of that name being similarly prominent? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Granada


text:
Talk:Grand Canyon

North and South?
I think we need to have a North Rim (Grand Canyon) and South Rim (Grand Canyon). These two areas are hundreds of miles apart by car and have vastly different lodging options and directions. Cramming them both together on this page is making it kinda unreadable. --(WT-en) Evan 15:09, 1 Feb 2004 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree. Maybe keep this page to give an overview and the pros and cons of each rim to help travelers deciding which rim to go to. Does Flagstaff really have an international airport? (WT-en) Nurg 02:01, 16 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * It does have an airport. Just not an international airport (AFAICT).  Most of the time the definition of "international airport" in the US just means that they could potentially serve international flights. I think it may have something to do with having a Customs Office in the facility.  Looking at the page again I agree that it really should be busted into the two rims. -- (WT-en) Yosemite 05:11, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

Since both rims are within Grand Canyon National Park, I think it would be better to keep them united on one page. Also, 80% of visitors go to the South Rim. Splitting into two pages will cause more confusion than it is worth. I think we should concentrate on making the Grand Canyon page a "star" page before we go off and try and split it. Just my two cents. (WT-en) Findbgs 16:59, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * I would agree at the moment, especially with the comment that a breakup would cause more confusion than clarity. The article doesn't seem (to me) to currently be that unwieldy, although if it grows enough to be confusing then a breakup into North, South, and the Indian reservation might be warranted. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:37, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * The Havasupai reservation isn't referred to as a separate rim, but we're starting to see a lot of questions come up about "GC West" or the "West Rim", as the Hualapai have named it. They are getting a lot of publicity these days. Between the aggresive GC West tour sales in Las Vegas, and their under construction glass bottom walkway, should it be added as a "rim"?(WT-en) Gcmaven 21:56, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I've updated the intro paragraph to make it clear that this article includes the Havasupai Indian Reservation and the Hualapai Indian Reservation. While typically on Wikivoyage we've handled national parks with their own articles, this article has for many years included the Indian reservations since they don't fit well elsewhere, and are actually a part of the geological canyon although not a part of the park. That said, with a more prominent mention in the opening paragraph for these reservations it's probably worth watching this article to ensure that no one tries to extend it further to include the Navajo Nation - that reservation includes land near the canyon, but it's a far larger entity and best kept separate. Similarly, any information about Lake Mead should be placed in its own article to avoid confusion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:08, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

In a region, or stand-alone?
Preparatory to doing some other work on Arizona, I have set up some regions for the state. Following the usual hierarchical structure that results, it would be normal to change the GC "isIn" entry to be North (Arizona), which is the region that more or less contains it. However, GC is such an obvious destination and so closely associated with Arizona as a whole (not to mention so plain old big) that I'm not sure that that's the way to produce an optimally useful article. Opinions? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:11, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * My understanding is that isIn always specifies the smallest region that fully contains the article, so in this case North (Arizona). -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:04, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Part of my reason for asking is that I'm not entirely sure that North (Arizona) does "fully contain" the Canyon, unless it is declared to do so by fiat (i.e., the boundaries are drawn so as to contain it). Anyway, since the Canyon will obviously still be mentioned in the top-level Arizona page, might as well set up the isIn for North AZ unless someone sees a compelling reason not to.  National parks are difficult critters to fit into the hierarchy that's evolving here! -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:55, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

Tours
Thanks to User:(WT-en) Gcmaven for all of your recent work on the Grand Canyon article. One question though -- why keep Open Road Tours but remove Angels Gate tours? It seems like it might be helpful to provide a simple list of tour companies offering trips to the Canyon. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:09, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * My reasoning was that it seems to me that the "bus" sections are for commercial type transportation, like a regional bus service. Open Roads has a daily scheduled, transportation only service, which is the closest to a bus that grand canyon has. But I didn't think it fair to list just one of the hundreds of companies that operate tours. To try to be fair, I also took off the part that said Open Roads also provides guided tours.
 * (WT-en) Gcmaven 15:34, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * Makes sense - at some point it might be worth compiling a short list of some of the more prominent / better tour companies so that people who like that sort of thing have some references, but that task can be left to people who have actually been on tours. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:56, 30 March 2006 (EST)

 * I went ahead and put Angels Gate back in for a couple of reasons. They provide transportation to the canyon fro their tours, but they also provide transportation for hikers and backpackers and are relevant in the category.  Especially since there is such a lack of public transportation in the area.  I agree that it may be a good idea to start a "tour company" section also. (WT-en) Findbgs 01:33, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

 * You also removed other "get in" info and a competing hiker bus, so I reverted your change. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:17, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I started a section for guided tours and moved the entry into it. Should the educational institute also be moved as much of the education behaves a lot like a tour? -- (WT-en) Colin 02:30, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Hi Colin, I didn't remove a hiking company, just put it back into a more relevant category. GCFI website states:  "GCFI is an educational program whose mission is to help educate park visitors about the cultural and natural history of the Grand Canyon."  They are a non-profit that works with the NPS, and as such their charter does not allow them to use the word "tour" or "guide" in thier offerings.  At least it didn't when I worked for them. (I realize that the front page of their website says "guided educational tours" but this was likely a web copy edit that won't get past Park Service approval.  Click on the "class" link and you will see that they even use the word "tuition" instead of "prices" - "instructors" instead of "guides").  The emphasis here is educational.  I think it is a mistake to add them into a "guide" catagory.

 * I like the addition of the tour company section; however, I went and placed it in the "get in" section.  I think it is more relevant there.  Especially, since this is one of the few ways to actually "get in" to the park.  It is my feeling that the Grand Canyon Railway is also a guided tour and may be better placed under this category.

 * Furthermore, I deleted Transcanyon from the "get in" area. Since they provide North to South rim transport they are definately more of a "get around" organization.  Finally, I changed the Open Road link to directly link to the Grand Canyon Shuttle schedule. (WT-en) Findbgs 17:54, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

Grand Canyon Railway
I removed some of the Grand Canyon Railway links, because it is really more of a tour than a transportaion to the canyon. I would appreciate comments on where to classify the canyon railway. Should we put it under guided tours, or is it really bonified transportation to the canyon? (WT-en) Findbgs 01:29, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I apologize if I'm not putting this comment in the proper place. It's starting to get a little confusing, but here goes: Angel's Gate doesn't provide transportation. They do not indicate that you can purchase a ticket to be taken to the park and dropped off, you can only buy a tour. Grand Canyon Railway, on the other hand, does sell tickets for a seat on the train for just transportation to the canyon. Regarding the transcanyon shuttle, it is one of the only ways to get transportation to the north rim, even if they only depart from the south(WT-en) Gcmaven 18:18, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I greatly appreciate your comments on the train. However, my question for you is this:  Is the train really just transportation?  Can you really just buy a ticket for the transportation?  My experience with the train is that you are bombarded with cowboy actors, musicians, and other entertainment.  There is no train car that is solely for "transportation" without the additional song and dance that accompanies an organized tour.  For example, if you take the train from the canyon to Williams, there is no way to avoid the staged "train robbery" on the way back.  It is my feeling that the train is much more similar to a guided tour than to a mode of transportation.  I would like to see a few more comments in this regard before placing the train into the guided tour category.  I realize that historically it was transportation, but these days it's more of a guided tour.(WT-en) Findbgs 01:49, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * It probably wouldn't be the end of the world to have a mention of it in both places! It sounds like it is presented as a "tour" with entertainment, so maybe the full listing could go there, but a mention of the possibility of using it as transportation (as long as you don't mind a train robbery along the way...) should also appear in that section. Glad to see this article coming along btw... keep up the good work! (WT-en) Majnoona 21:39, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Hey, sometimes on a bus you have an entertaining driver! If you fly, you might have a choice of coach, business, or first class. It's a way to get here. You can even purchase a one way ticket. And from some of the review on tripadvisor, it isn't very entertaining! Just my two cents.(WT-en) Gcmaven 21:56, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Grand Canyon Field Institute

 * The NPS website list GCFI as their only recommended "back country guide service". So they are considered by NPS to be guides.(WT-en) Gcmaven 18:18, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

 * While this is currently accurate of the official national park website, you may remember that the "back country guide service" page used to list ALL of the back country offitters that operate in the park. Once Rebecca Rhea took over as the concessions cheif, she decided to remove most of the outfitters pending review.  GCFI is a non-profit educational institute.  It is also a "partner" with GCNP.  As such it belongs in educational classes section.  It is not a hiking outfitter, and they have no guides.  For clarification on this issue you should read the GCFI website. (WT-en) Findbgs 01:40, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
 * To some one looking for a guided hike in the park, this is a guide service. Why should their "non-profit" status make them unmentionable? And they do use the word "guide" on their website. We're listing multiple river companies and river organizations-so why not do the same for hikers?(WT-en) Gcmaven 21:07, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
 * I appreciate your input, and have researched the mattter further. I both spoke with the GCFI and researched their website.  They don't use the word "guide" or "tour", the park won't let them.  The terms that they use are "instructor" instead of "guide".  Instead of a "tour", they use the word "class".  And you don't pay for a "tour", you pay "tuition".  Occasionally, on their website they use verbage such as "guided educational tours", but this is likely a copy edit by a web designer or a wordsmith.  To say that this is evidence that they use the word "guide" is taking the word out of context.  A GCFI representative emailed me the following information describing the organization:  "GCFI has been working closely with the National Park Service (NPS) to provide educational opportunities that complement the park’s own interpretive efforts. Each GCFI class is reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of NPS resource managers to ensure that it meets the educational goals of the park."  I think it is pretty clear that this organization is not a tour company or guide service.  It is not that it shouldn't be listed.  It is simply that it doesn't need to be spammed all over the page.  It is correctly place where it should be under educational classes. (WT-en) Findbgs 16:57, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

 * And they also do custom hikes. If Angel's Gate can be linked twice, why not GCFI? And why present Angel's Gate as the only option for a guided trip into the canyon? And a guide service and an outfitter are two different things. Yes, some companies do both, but it isn't a requirement. Oh, for the good old days when "grand canyon guides" was in the depot! (WT-en) Gcmaven 17:05, 31 August 2006 (EDT) --New NPS website http://home.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/guided-hikes.htm. (WT-en) Gcmaven 22:40, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

 * I tire of rehashing this arguement. The new NPS site desribes GCFI as offering "guided hikes that are educational in nature".  They also describe the offerings as "multi-day learning events".  I understand your bias (see edit in the cars section below).  However, GCFI is clearly offering educational programs.  Regarding Angel's Gate, they are only mentioned once in the "DO" section.  Since the ranger walks are rim based, I added a "rim walk" edit to the "Ranger Program" section below hiking.  I have guided both for GCFI and Grand Canyon TRAIL Guides that was in the depot.  I am not sure if you were aware that the trail guide company that you refer to was owned by Canyoneers, Inc.  This is one of the "outside" tour companies that you seem to dislike so.  (WT-en) Findbgs 22:05, 9 September 2006 (EDT)

Air Tours
I changed the link for air tours to the Chamber of Commerce site, because it is more up to date. For instance, the info pages list Airstar, but it's Maverick, etc.(WT-en) Gcmaven 21:12, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I don't think this link is really relevant to air tour companies, but I didn't want to revert all or your changes. I think you have some good things to add, but perhaps we should put a couple of links directly to the air tour operators themselves.  I couldn't find a list of the air tour operators anywhere on the chamber site.  (WT-en) Findbgs 17:50, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

 * It's on the "adventures" page. But we are only supposed to link to a main page. (WT-en) Gcmaven 18:14, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Let's pick one or two air tour operators, and clean it up a little. I don't know the best one's so I will defer to your opinion.(WT-en) Findbgs 23:45, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Sorry I haven't been back for a while. I'm not a huge fan of the airtours, so wouldn't really care to pick one over another. Even the chamber list is just those that joined the chamber. There are a lot of companies based in Las Vegas that also do flyovers. Maybe someone else could pick? (WT-en) Gcmaven 20:56, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

 * I just picked a couple that sounded good, and am happy to defer to a more expert source. I am however having a problem with a las vegas booking agent that keeps spamming his page into this listing.  (WT-en) Findbgs 01:01, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Flora and Fauna
I moved the bird watching from "to do" into F&F. I was going to work on this section today, but ran out of time. Once we finish that section, and get the landscape section completed, AND get the external links into MOS. I think we might be ready for star recommendation. (WT-en) Findbgs 23:49, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Does the Mule refer to the Mules, or is it Mule Deer? I edited it to read Mule Deer, no Whitetail here. (WT-en) Gcmaven 21:00, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Thanks for the additions to the section. That was fabulous. I"ve been meaning to break out the field guide, and do some writing. Thanks for the additions.  I will check on the white tail;  I thought they were there.  But it wouldnt be the first time i was wrong.  I corrected some grammar, and added a few things.  I also broke the paragraphs up a little to make it easier on the web user's speed reading tempo.  (WT-en) Findbgs 00:59, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Star?
Couldn't sleep so I made all the changes that I thought were necessary. What else should we do to bring it up to Star status? (WT-en) Findbgs 03:01, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

 * These are mostly subjective critiques off the top of my head: The biggest issue is that we should probably have a more useful map - (see Isle Royale National Park or Paris for examples).  Also, there are a lot of links not formatted according to Project:External links.  Other issues are just my own personal feeling that the article could be more useful if cleaned up: the "Do" section could be expanded a bit - my personal opinion is that it would be more useful if laid out like Yosemite National Park so that there is room to list trail descriptions and such.  I'm not sure that "Favorites" is a useful heading under "Buy".  The "Backcountry" section doesn't read very well and could provide more info.  Stuff like that - it's close! -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:22, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Tour companies
Recently this article has had a lot of "tour company" links show up. That's not a problem, but according to Project:External links these "companies" must be actual companies that offer tours, and not booking services or travel agencies. One of several reasons for this policy is that while we want reviews like "Canyon tours offers trips tailored to adventure seekers" or "South Rim Expeditions focuses on family trips", it's less useful to say "Arizona Travel Agency is one of dozens of agencies that can help you find a tour". Below is a note from (WT-en) Findbgs about a few companies that should not be listed, including:

 * airlasvegas.com
 * Western River

 * I'm very familiar with the river companies. I was a guide for 15 years in the 70's.  I eliminated Western River, because right now ALL of the river companies can be accessed from the grand canyon river outfitters association link.  AZ canyon tours seemed to get a little aggressive with their postings, but they are a bonified tour company (i checked with the park).  I went ahead and placed their listing in the correct spot w/standard format.  The problem I have with 72.193.215.69 is that they keep placing their travel agent link for air tours, and I keep changing it back.  I know they are a travel agent, but the edits are just going back and forth.  I am happy to check the page once a week, and make any corrections.  But I don't want to overstep my bounds either.  Please let me know the best way to proceed.  I'd like to see this article achieve star status, and I think that we are close. (WT-en) Findbgs 11:51, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

-- (WT-en) Ryan 12:14, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Car
I edited the warning box for two reasons - 1) They really have improved the wait times at the south gate, in addition to making a second prepaid lane, they will often direct traffic when it gets busy, which really helps. 2) The tour part! There are no special parking privileges in the National Park. There are a few outside daytour companies (and one in particular) that claim they have permits to access more places than an individual visitor, but it's not so. And they never mention that they're excluded from using the West Rim Drive when it's closed to private traffic March through November. They use these scare tactics to separate visitor's from their hard earned dollars. The park is a bargain! $25 to get in for a car load of people, and lots of free ranger programs to enhance your visit. Because of the lack of affordable public or commercial transportation to the park, these tour companies are great for people that don't or can't drive themselves to the park. But for anyone else, you could probably buy a telescope and some cold cuts to bring with you for less than it costs to put your family on one of these tours. They don't even give you a break on their fee if you're already here and paid your park entrance fee. The only viewpoint that requires a permit is Shoshone Point, and anyone can apply for that permit. There is a fee. It does have a locked gate, but unfortunately a lot of people park in front of the locked gate and walk out to the point without permission. NPS rarely if ever pays attention or fines anyone. (sorry I haven't had time to help with this lately!) (WT-en) Gcmaven 16:16, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

GCMaven, I understand that you are biased against "outside" tour companies. I also understand that you work for XANTERRA, a company that offers competing tours inside the park. However, when you make edits here please try and refine your bias. You have some great information to add. As a former river guide, and "outside" hiking and tour guide I have certain biases as well. But when I post here, I try to put those biases aside. (WT-en) Findbgs 21:48, 9 September 2006 (EDT)

I think your edits to the warning box were fine. I went ahead and simplified it a little more. The park will likely continue to make small changes to the entry station until the final record of decision is issued for the South Rim Visitor Transportaion Plan. This likely will not occur until sometime in 2007, then the plan requires funding and implementation. Until that time, delays at the South Rim Entry Station will likely occur during the busy months. (WT-en) Findbgs 21:48, 9 September 2006 (EDT)

Hualapai Section Added
Due to growing news coverage about the "Grand Canyon Skywalk", I added a Hualapai Indian Reservation section below the Havasupai. It seems that many are confused about the location of the skywalk, and assume it to be part of the National Park. I thought it best to create a new section so as to differentiate the two. (WT-en) Findbgs 14:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Better map?
I'm considering a trip to the canyon, and after reading through this article with the map open alongside I couldn't find a lot of the places mentionned. Perhaps the map can be edited to add some of them? Since it's already fairly cluttered, symbols with a legend at the bottom would be even better. Perhaps a map of the area (for the "getting to" section) and a separate map of the canyon with landmarks. Well that's all assuming someone has the time/skills/will to draw the map :) 70.81.26.125 19:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT) (sorry no login, first-time visitor)

 * Hmm, unfortunately that is not an editable map; a new one would have to be created. Your suggestions seem quite sound, but I'm wary of tackling this one myself, just since I don't know the area all that well. If you are interested in making a map yourself, check out Project:How to draw a map. It's a time consuming process, but actually much less difficult than it seems, and very rewarding! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:21, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Not editable, do you mean because of copyright issues? The image links to a page saying it is public domain, but does that include editing? If you mean not editable as in not easily editable, well I could give it a try. Otherwise, the link you provided mentions sat imagery, is it possible to take a Google map screenshot and edit it?

 * Also, it looks more and more like we'll be going (camping/hiking) early october. If there's photos needed or things to verify I'd be glad to help. Maybe in exchange people can answer this :) They don't recommend going down into the canyon and back out in a day, but I'm likely a bit late for backcountry permits. My only option would be the Phantom lodge thingy? If I want to start on the south rim and go camp on the north rim, and then back south then I would need to sleep at Phantom Lodge both ways (eg. 4 days total?) 70.81.26.125 21:43, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Not editable in that it has no accompanying svg base file. Google maps are off-limits as their images and software are tightly wrapped up in copyrights, but you can make maps based on traces of screenshots (I believe the sat imagery is still under some sort of copyright) taken with NASA WorldWind (similar to google earth). The program I use for making traces and from them maps is Inkscape, which is linked in that article above. If you do try this out, I'll be glad to help you figure things out; you can contact me more easily on my talk page. Sorry I can't help with the hiking plans, I've never hiked in the area, unfortunately. I do know southern Utah like the back of my hand though, in case you are heading up that way ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:27, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Changes to lede with respect to portions of the canyon located within Indian nations
I made the following changes to the lede:
 * Change "the southwestern end" to "parts of the southwestern end"
 * Reason: part of the southwestern end is located in GCNP (including the westernmost part of the canyon, as well as all of the Colorado River)

 * Change "(also known as Grand Canyon West)" to "(which includes the development known as Grand Canyon West)"
 * Reason: Grand Canyon West is just one small part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, which also includes cites such as Peach Springs, and many miles of the canyon along the Colorado River.

 * Add sentence referring to that portion of the canyon located within the borders of the Navajo Nation. Change "All of the sections of the canyon offer amenities for visitors..." to "Except for the Navajo Nation portion, all sections of the canyon offer amenities for visitors...".
 * Reason: The Navajo Nation contains part of the southeastern canyon. However, there are not yet any tourist facilities in this section (although there's a big to-do about a potential development). --Traveling Man (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Listing accommodations outside the park
Is it a good idea to include a listing for Jacob Lake Campground, which is described as being 45 miles north of the North Rim? How far is it from the park's limits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Jacob Lake Campground can be a useful backup when the campgrounds in the park itself are all full, most of which need to be reserved far in advance. I think ideally this listing, along with Jacob Lake Inn and Gift Shop, should be in a separate article for the Kaibab Plateau. –StellarD (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. So I'll take no action and hope someone creates that article eventually. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek, StellarD: ✅. See Kaibab Plateau. I've created it although I've never been to the north rim before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Havasupai Indian Reservation -- changes in fees/policy
I have updated fees, and policy, for the Havasupai Indian Reservation. There is no longer an official web site. The best sources are: a "secret" Facebook page (Backpacking Havasu Falls) which is monitored by tribe members; and an individual's web site at http://backpackinghavasufalls.blogspot.com/.

I have also briefly noted the insane difficulty of getting a permit. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update -- as of 2 Feb 2017, there is a new official Havasupai web site -- http://theofficialhavasupaitribe.com/ . —The preceding comment was added by Traveling Man (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Grand Canyon