text:
Talk:Dushanbe

Recommend tracking down a good Chinese restaurant to add to the list
When I was in Tajikistan in 2007 there were a couple really good Chinese restaurants in the city, actual authentic places catering to Chinese businessmen in the area. The best one was up towards the north end of Rudaki, on the west side of the street by the entrance to a bazaar (Vodanasos Bazaar?), about a half-mile north of where Port Said is (for lack of a better reference point). If that or a similar Chinese restaurant is open, they'd be worth mentioning. The article could also use some mention of any of the better-quality osh houses in the city, or at least some sort of traditional Tajik restaurant. (WT-en) MatthewVanitas 17:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Somoni monument.JPG
 * ✅ with a de minimis photo at Wikidata. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 00:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dushanbe


text:
Talk:Dutch phrasebook

Untitled
http://nextens.uvt.nl/ has some open source dutch text to speech - might be good to link to it from here or perhaps even use it to create some audio samples to host here?

Eeep -- things are moving fast on the Phrasebook front, eh? I did a first pass at a phrasebook template -- comments welcome, of course. -- (WT-en) Evan 13:16, 16 Oct 2003 (PDT)
 * At first sight it looks pretty good. I'll see what comments I come up with after applying it to this phrasebook. I already have one question: what would be the best way to indicate sounds that don't occur in English, like the Dutch 'g' and 'ch' (the last one is the same as in Scottish 'loch')? (WT-en) D.D. 13:22, 16 Oct 2003 (PDT)

 * You know, I never did figure out how to do this. I always think of the "g" in Dutch as sounding most like someone saying "ech!" in disgust. Anyways, this article is coming along swimmingly -- I'm very happy with it. -- (WT-en) Evan 14:22, 2 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Thanks a lot Evan! I'll try to work on it during the next few days. It's not always easy to describe the pronunciation from an English speaker's point. I hope everything is "pronouncable" though ;-) (WT-en) D.D. 14:31, 2 Nov 2003 (PST)

One more request: When you get done, please give a brief editorial onceover to the phrasebook template and check to see which phrases were a pain, which were missing (like "one-way" and "round-trip" -- good catch), etc. I'll try and do it, too, but I know I'm going to miss some. -- (WT-en) Evan 15:01, 3 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * No problem, Evan. I'll do what I can. (WT-en) D.D. 09:03, 4 Nov 2003 (PST)

About beers and pints: I'm not sure if the English pint corresponds to the Dutch pintje. Isn't pint a certain amount of beer? Here in Flanders we generally call a normal glass of beer a pintje. BTW, Guaka, I'm so glad you translated orange juice as sinaasappelsap instead of the dreadful "Dutch" jus d'orange ;-) (WT-en) D.D. 22:31, 4 Nov 2003 (PST)

The Dutch say "sorry" same as we do? I expected "zorgig" - or does that mean "careful"? -(WT-en) phma

 * The Dutch and the Flemings do. Dutch is a language which easily accepts words from other languages. For example, we have verbs that we took almost literally from English: updaten, linken, saven, racen, ... It is probably right to say that we Flemings try to be a bit more "pure" than the Dutch. E.g. Aquaplaning in the Netherlands is watergladheid ("water slipperiness") in Flanders. The word zorgig does not exist in Dutch. But you weren't far of the mark because zorg means "care" ("careful" translates as voorzichtig). (WT-en) DhDh 13:10, 5 Dec 2003 (PST)

"Since many Dutch and Flemish people like to practice their foreign languages it is very difficult to learn more than the basics. You will notice that even after having reached a reasonable level people continue to respond in English after having started the conversation in Dutch." In Scandinavia we say that Dutch people don't like to speak English... I don't know if that is true. But to say that Dutch people prefer speaking English is not my experience... 9.mai 2006

"In Flanders it is much more common to use the polite form than in the Netherlands, where it is nowadays mostly reserved to address elderly people."

Is this correct? "U" might be used more often in Flemish than in Dutch, but this doesn't mean it's used as a formal way of saying "je, jij" (you). In most cases it is the accusative of "ge/gij" and has nothing to do with formal use.

Good night
Good night. in Dutch translates as Goedenacht. You can use it even to a night porter in the middle of his shift. Slaap lekker or more formal welterusten is Dutch for sleep well.--(WT-en) Rein N. 03:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Indonesia
I'm not sure if we should colour Indonesia on the map. Indonesia may have been a Dutch colony, but almost nobody speaks Dutch there these days. If you don't speak Indonesian, you'll generally have much better luck trying English than Dutch even though neither is widely spoken. The dog2 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. Indonesians who speak Dutch would be either people who already learned the language before 1949 and are still alive or people who moved to the Netherlands and then came back. I don't think we're talking about a large number of people at all. I'll bet more people living in the Netherlands speak Indonesian than people living in Indonesia speak Dutch. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "G"
I'm seeing "G" and "GH", but my brief experience in the Netherlands and with Dutch people is that the accurate sound is "kh" like "ch" in "loch," so that, for example, Gouda is "Khow-dah." We should be careful to avoid misleading readers. Your comments, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 * How the G sounds depends on the region. For the sake of simplification, there are three versions:
 * Sharp G:, between "Loch" and the gargling of water. If voiced correctly, there should be some tissue in the back of your throat vibrating while voicing the G. [[File:Nl-Gouda.ogg]]
 * Soft G:, 1:1 with CH in "Loch" (I can't find a proper sound file of this).
 * American G:, Like "Ghost" and your example of "Khow-dah", sounds more like a K than anything. [[File:De-Gouda.ogg]]
 * (1) is the norm for standard Dutch. (2) is the regional variant of North-Brabant, Limburg and Flanders. (3) is a way that I have only ever heard foreigners pronounce it. If any of these are wrong, it would be (3). (1) and (2) are both totally acceptable. Personally I have a lousy sharp G (minimal vibrations in the throat while voicing), which is more or less a mid-way between (1) and (2). I would approximate both (1) and (2) as "GH".
 * For the sake of readability and consistency, I think all instances of G in the approximations should be turned into GH. There might be an exception to the rule here or there, but I don't think it'll pose a problem. It would also stand out a bit as opposed to just "G", which can remind the reader subconsciously that the sound for a Dutch G is not what they know it as. Wauteurz (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first example sounds like "kh" to me, too. I realize it's not as sharp as it could be (Yiddish "ch" is sharper than the example, but my experience in Amsterdam was that Dutch "g" was pretty much just like Yiddish "ch"), but "gh" is a voiced "kh" that is used, for example, in Arabic. I don't think "gh" approximates either of the first 2 sounds. Also, "kh" does not sound like "k", except when we're talking about the Indian style of adding a "h" to the end of a consonant, which is not the default meaning of "kh" nor the sound I mean to indicate with "kh." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is that to me, representing the Dutch G with a "KH" would imply that there's a clicking sound of sorts in there, which there is not. The letter K is simply too associated with a click-sound for it to make sense. I think the same can be said for English speakers, but I'm not a native speaker so my perspective might be skewed on that front. Compare for example the pronunciations of "Ghost" and "Coast" in US-English. There isn't a lot of difference to set the two apart - both make or approximate a click.
 * I'm speculating here, but I think that to non-Dutch speakers, the difference between a "sharp G" and what I dubbed the "American G" is simply too faint in normal speech, though both are voiced completely differently in the mouth. There is definitely an over-exaggerated version of it, but you wouldn't over-exaggerate your pronunciation in normal conversation.  sits at the front of the mouth, against the teeth.   gets formed in the throat. To make this all a bit more confusing,   is also the sound used for the Dutch pronunciation of the letter K (and occasionally C as well). It doesn't help that English has no real counterpart to a sharp G, meaning that English speakers aren't going to be familiar with the sound. This without a doubt leads to misunderstandings with our audience in some cases.
 * I should note though, that at the end of the day the pronunciation doesn't matter a whole lot in practical use as a tourist. Most places that tourists visit speak English (near-)fluently, and especially in the larger cities (most notably Amsterdam), there are a surprising amount of places that don't even have staff that speak Dutch. No decent Dutchman is going to treat you worse if you mispronounce a sharp G as a "K". If anything, they'll be a bit flattered that you're attempting to speak the language of the place you're visiting. It think that the best that we can do, is to make it clear that this isn't a G as it is known in English. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no clicking sound in "kh", and you should not judge what a combination of letters looks like to a Dutch person as being the same reaction an English-speaker would have. Is there a clicking sound in "loch"? Also, the difference between "ghost" and "coast" is simply that the "gh" in "ghost," which is pronounced as if it were a hard "g", is voiced and the "c" in "coast" (=k) is not. As for arguments about the practicality of learning any Dutch, if you'd like to argue that this phrasebook should be deleted as unnecessary, go ahead, but I would disagree because in a long weekend I spent in Amsterdam, I met 5 people who spoke Dutch and little to know English. And besides, it's important for Americans to know how to pronounce "Gouda" correctly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 * This discussion has derailed a bit here. Here are the facts as I am presenting them to you:
 * I did not link a sound file for the "Ch in Loch"-version in my original comment because Wiktionary only lists the British English pronunciation, which sounds like "Lock". Therefore, yes, in British English, which I have been taught and have spoken since I was a little kid, there is a clicking sound in the word "Loch", or it is an accepted variant of the word's pronunciation. That clicking sound does not get used in the Scots pronunciation though, which is why I argue that a "Dutch G" sounds like the "-ch" in "Loch". Loch is after all a word that originates in Scots, and has been imported into English from Scots.
 * "GH" is in my opinion the best approximation of a "Dutch G". Personally, I see no acceptable alternatives to that, most certainly not letters or combinations of letters that might throw the reader off because they associate a different sound with that letter, such as a K. Something I might agree to is representing the sound with a letter that is not used in major languages, and is therefore largely independent of sound associations. For example: ×.
 * As for your last reply, I'll say nothing other than that a place is not frozen in time when you're not visiting it. Your user page says you last visited my country in 2013. I don't know if that's your most recent visit to my country, but a lot can change in almost a decade. I visit Amsterdam in specific a few times per year. As for people speaking languages in Amsterdam: I am not arguing that:
 * People in Amsterdam (and other major cities) don't speak Dutch.
 * People in Amsterdam (and other major cities) speak English fluently.
 * This phrasebook serves no purpose and should be deleted.
 * Based on my own experiences, I am saying that:
 * Businesses (mostly shops and restaurants) in city centres of several major cities employ expats, and sometimes only expats. Expats in the Netherlands have, generally speaking, a limited understanding of Dutch, which is not sufficient for them to have a full conversation in Dutch, but enough to understand the essence of what you're saying.
 * Learning Dutch is not a necessity for a stay in the Netherlands. There is a reason why we consistently rank at the top of the board when it comes to English proficiency. You might encounter people that don't speak English in a full enough capacity to talk to you, but there will in 98% of all those scenarios be someone nearby that is willing to fulfil the role of interpreter. In general, most people under the age of 60 and almost everyone between the age of 15 and 40 will speak English in a good enough capacity to understand you and talk back to you.
 * Learning Dutch is, because of English proficiency in the Netherlands, no more than a gesture of politeness when staying in the Netherlands, even if it's only a simple "Dankjewel".
 * The above however, is a discussion in and of itself, so let's put that to the side. If you want to have that argument with me, feel free, but not in this thread.
 * Other than that, I am not responding to anything else you said, because to me, it comes across as highly sarcastic. I am not here to feed trolls, and you putting words in my mouth definitely qualifies as taking the piss. That might well not be your intention, but it's how it comes across to me, and I am not having any of it. -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please believe me when I say that no sarcasm is intended, I'm sorry I was misunderstood to be sarcastic, and I apologize for unintentionally giving that misimpression. The Scottish pronunciation of "loch" is not similar to "lock". The relationship between kh and gh is the same as the relationship between k and hard g - the first (pair of) letter(s) is unvoiced and the second is voiced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're all good, don't worry. I think we're on the same page again. Just to be sure though, you're suggesting that we approximate the Dutch G's approximation with "KH", right? There's one problem with that, which is the ambiguity of the letter K that I brought up before. Sure, the Dutch G can sound like it to untrained ears, I get that, and I am not saying that it is wrong for non-natives to approximate the sound like that. People can catch on quite easily that you don't speak the language well, as there are other letters and letter combinations that you will trip over as well. Still, there will be people putting significant effort into their pronunciation, and you would be teaching them something close but inaccurate by using "KH". To give some examples of how this corrupts speech:
 * "Nog" (still, yet) → nokh → "Nok" (pitch (of a roof))
 * "Mag" (may) → makh → "Mak" (tame, domesticated)
 * "Gerecht" (dish / court of law) → KHUH-rekht → "Gerekt" (stretched)
 * "Graag" (please) → khraakh → "Kraak" (crack, break / breaking and entering)
 * "Geld" (money) → khelt → "Kelt" (Celt)
 * "Goedkoper" (cheaper) → khoot-KOWE-pur → "Koet-koper" (someone that buys coots)
 * "Licht" (light) / "Ligt" (lightweight, lying down) → likht → "Likt" ([is] licking)
 * Some of these are a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea. There are definitely accents that replace some G's with K's, but they're far from common or standard. A phrasebook on Dutch should strive to teach the pronunciation of standard Dutch as best as possible, not a local variation thereof. There are some instances of the G where this wouldn't prove a problem at all (mostly when closing a word, I think), but I think it's best practise to just avoid the ambiguity all-together and stick with "G" or "GH". -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, are you suggesting that Dutch people really pronounce "g" like an English "g" in "go" or "gh" in "ghost"? Because I believe either of this pseudo-transliterations will confuse English-speakers, whereas "kh" is much less likely to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not, no. I am saying that while "KH" might seem a natural approximation of the sound, it would in my opinion be better to represent it with "GH", since the G in itself is a closer sound, with the H adding some length to the sound. It's still not fully accurate, but interpreting "GH" as an equivalent to its usage in English, such as in "Ghost", wouldn't be right. I think the original intention of "GH" would have been because of elements of both letters. The G gives the general concept of the sound, the H gives it its length. If it isn't yet presented as such, it possibly should be.
 * Having learnt how to pronounce the Dutch G myself when I was a considerably younger person, I can tell you that I learnt to pronounce it by gargling water (or compare it to using mouthwash). When you remove the fluid involved, what you're left with is pretty much a Dutch G. I should say that that only goes for the 'northern' pronunciation though. I think the closest equivalent to a Flemish G would be the French word "Je", but I haven't had a lot of exposure to Flemish, just Brabantic and Limburgish dialects, so my perception might be skewed here.
 * Also, I finally stumbled across sound files that compare 'northern' Dutch and Flemish Dutch pronunciations of the word "Geeuw" (yawn), and I am pretty certain that you'll agree that the resemblance to "KH" is a lot less present.
 * I know the discussion has been had before, but would it be worthwhile to add a soundfile where we explain the pronunciation of the sounds? I think that omits a lot of the ambiguity that exists around representing this in text. If you can refer to a sound file, you can get away with having a not 100%-accurate representation, which, I'm sorry to say, isn't going to be achievable here. -- Wauteurz (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely on the sound files! And thanks for being patient with the discussion. I'm good with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Dutch phrasebook


text:
Talk:DzerkaliTur

Is Dzerkali big enough to deserve its own article, or should this be rolled into the nearest region? (Where?) (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:02, 7 December 2006 (EST) (feeling prostrate with fatigue and weary with excitements of the urban vanity)

title: Talk:DzerkaliTur


text:
Talk:Dzibilchaltún

Dzibilchaltún
An archaeological site. ~ 219.94.80.130 01:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * It is administered as the Parque Nacional de Dzibilchaltún, as the article says. Don't national parks in any country get articles. I would think that any state park in the United States, if it preserves a significant historical or cultural site, should have an article in a travel guide like this one, that can afford to be inclusive and have every noteworthy travel destination. (WT-en) HLM 02:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * The main test of whether a destination gets an article is can you sleep there?. I certainly don't know enough about the location to make such a call, but the article as it stands makes it seem as though you cannot.

 * Wikipedia places the site 10 miles from Mérida (Yucatan), making it a good See item for that destination.  If it proves too complex to fit in that article, it can be separated, but for now merge and redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I quote from Project:What_is_an_article?:
 * "Large archaeological sites such as Angkor Wat or Ephesus
 * ...but not individual ruins in or near modern cities."
 * A problem is that "large" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Neither this article nor the WP one shed much light on just how "large" this place is, but according to this article (which btw lists it as "in" Merida despite a distance of 17 km), this park's area is about 540 hectares -- about 2 square miles for us metrically-impaired folks.  Most, though not all, United States national monuments of comparable size are not treated as destinations, but are attractions within the article for a nearby city or region.  So here; Redirect to Mérida (Yucatan).  There is ample room for discussion on this; I've tried to "seed" a discussion at Talk:United_States_National_Parks, in the absence of an overall "Mexican National Parks" article (which maybe should be written). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Dzibilchaltún


text: Talk:Dzongkha phrasebook

title: Talk:Dzongkha phrasebook


text:
Talk:কাশগর

কাশগর
Delete. I don't think we should start have foreign script pages on en:. Only a redirect. -- (WT-en) DanielC 16:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see the harm of having a foreign-script page as long as it redirects to something in English. WTP?  And it may be useful to the reader who's more fluent with the language of that script than with English.  Redirect as the original author intended. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I concur with (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill (WT-en) Kiwiexile 21:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Me too, keep --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 08:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep - As long as they are redirected I don't see any harm --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

 * keep with redirect

title: Talk:কাশগর


text:
Talk:E11 European hiking trail

Please note:

This is not yet an article about E11 European long distance path, running from The Hague through The Netherlands, Germany and Poland to the Lithuanian border. I have reserved this space to be able to relocate an article from Wikipedia to WikiTravel, as it is considered too detailed and too much of a travel guide for an encyclopedia. It is to be expected that the article in Wikipedia will be severely reduced in length and detail.

As the article in its current form contains much information on the Polish part of the trail, that has not been published and can only be found in offices of hiking clubs in Kassel, Prague and Warsaw, keeping the complete article somewhere in Internet seems important. It appears to me that WikiTravel is the aptest site for this purpose as long as the European Ramblers Association does not publish its own trails in detail on its site.

Please join in the discussion about how a lengthy article about an itinerary (more specifically a hiking trail) should be structured. Up to now there are no good examples in WikiTravel; just stubs.

(WT-en) DrMennoWolters 05:12, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

 * Understood, but the "article" itself was deleted because you cannot have a personal statement in lieu of an article. Why don't you just plunge forward and create the article? I would also suggest you might want to copy the entire Wikipedia article to this talk page to serve as a reference in case it is deleted from Wikipedia, as you fear. And please sign posts only on talk pages like this one by typing 4 tildes (the "~" key) in a row before pressing "Enter." Welcome to Wikivoyage! (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:15, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:E11 European hiking trail


text:
Talk:E11 hiking trail

Please note: This article was first published in Wikipedia, but became criticized because it is too detailed and not encyclopedic. The author is now starting the process of creating a detailed description of the trail in Wikivoyage. The text in Wikipedia will soon be reduced and changed to meet the standards of an encyclopedia.

Since the article is almost as long as the itinerary (2528 kilometers ...), this process will take some weeks. Please do not delete the article in the meantime. Do not fear copyright problems: the article in Wikipedia is mostly the present author's work and must be thoroughly reduced and changed to meet Wikipedia standards.

(WT-en) DrMennoWolters 09:51, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

merger of Wikitravel and Wikipedia into Wikivoyage: welcome!
Originally, a detailed description of European hiking trail E11 was published (in Dutch and English) in Wikipedia. As the English text was criticised for being too much of a travel guide, it was moved to WikiTravel, which caused most of the links to townships to get lost. This will soon be solved by moving the text again, now to WikiVoyage. Once this is successfully done, the original English text in Wikipedia will then be reduced to a more encyclopaedic text. DrMennoWolters (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Why delete an article without any discussion?
Checking the state of affairs re "E11 hiking trail", I found that the lemma has been brought over from WikiTravel to WikiVoyage as it shoukld be, but was then deleted completely by you. Would it not have been more appropriate to discuss that first with me, the main author? DrMennoWolters (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I redirected (not deleted) the article, because it was a complete copyright violation from Wikipedia. You can revert back to the old state in the history, but it needs a lot of work and proper attribution should be given to the authors. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Before you delete an article of more than 60,000 words, you should at least:

1) inform the main or most recent author; and 2) carefully read the "talk" pages. Had you done that, you would have seen that Wikipedia editors refer the article to WikiVoyage, so that it is rather from Wikipedia and not from WikiVoyage that the article in its present form should be removed. However, the Wikipedia editors also indicate that they want a more encyclopedic article about E11 and not a complete deletion. So my intention is to restore the article in its present (WikiTravel) form in WikiVoyage and try to edit it in a more itinerary type of style (whatever that may be; there are no clear guidelines as yet), whilst I want to reduce the Wikipedia article to an encyclopedic one. There is one major obstacle to overcome in this process: the Wikipedia article is full of (often de-disambigued or otherwise checked) links to Wikipedia articles about townships, which fall dead when brought to WikiVoyage. In my opinion, we need a new tool that links a word in a WikiVoyage text to a Wikipedia article about this word. Another obstacle, by the way, is that Wikipedia contains a project Hiking Trails which might fit better in WikiVoyage, but such a discussion must still be held. So I beg you to exercise patience! DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll have some patience, that's fine :-) But it's a collaborative project, so don't be surprised when other users come in to change some things. In-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed, so those will have to be removed. --Globe-trotter (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Having just read the talk page DrMennoWolters refers to, I don't see anything that would remove the requirement that the Wikipedia article's authors be credited properly. One person may have composed the majority of the text, but there are other editors in the article history and they must be credited if the article is imported.  Alternatively, the article can be completely rewritten, as our style and purpose are considerably different from Wikipedia's.  LtPowers (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Or we could just import it, if special:import was turned on . Does anyone know who to bother about this? One thing about WT was that I at least knew who was ignoring me. --Peter Talk 03:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Is there consensus that in-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed? I at least disagree, because readers/walkers of the E11 might be interested in the 200 links to Wikipedia articles about the townships they pass. In a more encyclopedic version of the article as foreseen for Wikipedia, these links will no longer be there.

 * Yes, per External links, no secondary source links are allowed. --Peter Talk 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, if that is how the majority feels, then let the majority also copy the 200 descriptions of townships along E11 from Wikipedia to WikiVoyage, or better still make new descriptions of them for WikiVoyage. But I still do not understand why a direct link to Wikipedia's article about Berlin is forbidden if 50 of the 2500 kilometers of E11 are in Berlin. I think this strange rule should be reversed (WikiVoyage articles should normally contain links to Wikipedia articles about related but different topics. DrMennoWolters (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether we start with the WikiTravel or the Wikipedia article for this itinerary in WikiVoyage does not make much difference to me; in both cases I will have to put severe effort in editing both the encyclopedic contribution to Wikipedia and the descriptive itinerary in WikiVoyage. Just choose what you think best, provided you can solve the issue of the links to Wikipedia and also the proper relationship to the WikiProject Hiking Trails. DrMennoWolters (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm here because DrMennoWolters has been asking me for advice on my talk page at the English Wikipedia. Copying between Wikipedia to WikiVoyage is not a copyright violation if proper attribution is given, since all contributions to both sites are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3 and the GFDL. When a page is translated from a foreign-language Wikipedia into English, the attribution requirement is handled by a template on the article talk page, w:Template:Translated page. Does WikiVoyage have anything like that set up? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * We have Template:Wikipedia. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Let us be careful with the word translation in this specific case. I did not translate an existing article. 99 % of the Dutch text is from my hand (based on a stub), while others made valuable contributions like correcting typoes, adding links and especially replacing dablinks. After writing the Dutch text, I started writing the English text, of which also 99 % is of my hand, while others also made the same type of welcome and necessary contributions. I think that the Template:Wikipedia will serve well in this case.

 * With respect to the present text in Wikipedia, it is considered too long, too detailed and too much of a travel guide by Wikipedia editors who suggest it should rather be placed in WikiVoyage. So there should be no problem in copying large parts of the text in Wikipedia to WikiVoyage, where they must then be adjusted to the requirements of the WikiVoyage style. After copying the text to WikiVoyage, the text in Wikipedia must than be made much shorter and more encyclopedic according to the Wikipedia requirements. Considering the time these operations will take, editors should accept that for some periods both Wikipedia and WikiVoyage contain about the same text.

 * Before I start the re-editing of the article both in WikiVoyage and in Wikipedia, I want to hear explicitly if there is consensus about this. DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Experimental?
I'm not sure if this really warrants an experimental tag—it seems like a pretty straightforward itinerary to me. It still will need a certain amount of content within a year to escape deletion, but that's a separate issue, and looks like it won't be an issue anyway. --Peter Talk 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * This article started out a bit unusually if you look at the history, but has morphed into more of a standard itinerary, so removing the tag seems fine now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Today large parts of this article were copied from Wikipedia
Today large parts of this article were copied from Wikipedia to form the basis of the present article in WikiVoyage, which will be edited in itinerary style. The article about E11 in Wikipedia will now be reduced and made more encyclopedic. DrMennoWolters (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Update
The article is now rewritten in a style that hopefully fits the requirements of an itinerary in WikiVoyage, and pictures have been added (with the exception of the 300 km from Ketrzyn to the end, which I plan to walk in June 2013 and to describe later this year). My next step will be to re-edit the original article in E11_European_long_distance_path so that it becomes acceptable for the encyclopedia and differs clearly from the present one.

Ramblers and others are invited to correct, update and add to the present text, for example with your special tips for lodgings, restaurants and sites along the trail. Administrators are invited to judge the present article. DrMennoWolters (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 * As Globe-trotter said above "In-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed, so those will have to be removed." Policy here is to have one link to the corresponding WP article, done with a special tag down at the end, which then appears as a link in the left-hand panel. The rest should go.

 * There are also many reference links. Most of them should go; the others need to be reformatted. e.g. the first one should become just . We want WV guides to work right when printed out to carry on a trip, and this format is what the printing software expects.

 * Overall, though, this is an excellent start on a useful topic. Good work; please continue. Pashley (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you!

 * There should be no in-line references to the WP article now, except for the one where I explain how the two articles differ and how the one in WP might be used on top of this one. If any other in-line reference to WP is found, that is a mistake and must be repaired.

 * Suggestions how to reduce the number of references without bringing their contents into the main text, are welcome. 41.190.88.202 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I like it. The problems that I see are all a matter of adjusting the style and formatting to fit in with the Wikivoyage Manual of Style. Some of the red links will have to go. I really wish we had some way of allowing links to Wikipedia, as this article is a fine example of where they could be useful. I suggest that the references be listed in a "Read" section where appropriate. I can make no comment on the completeness of the article, but it looks closer to 'guide' than 'usable' to me.
 * The article needs a better map. If necessary there are several people on Wikivoyage who might be willing to help if the basic data is supplied. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, a link to Google Earth would be great, but that is far beyond my talents. It would also consume a lot of time, unless those who walk E11, provide a GPS track that can be linked to Google Earth (even without that link, GPS data are more than welcome). Copying existing paper maps with E11 or the underlying regional trails on them, would create copyright problems. Anyway, the article provides ISBN and website codes with which one can acquire any map needed. DrMennoWolters (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Guide
I see this is a Guide. Is it a good article to nominate for Featured Travel Topic? I haven't read through the article with a fine-toothed comb. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite a nice and informative article, but IMO there are too many redlinks. Some coords and a plotted route would be nice to have too, sadly the new version of the dynamic map doesn't allow routes to be displayed. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So a static map is needed for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The older but better geo map at top of the page will display the route. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, User:Traveler100. Side note: drawing a static map for a route of thousands of kilometers with the accuracy needed for hikers is out of question. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

2019 edits
I've added 300 and freaking 79 coordinates to the article since yesterday and my fingers almost hurt :P. A couple of years since the last comments, thanks to someone working with the dynamic map things, the route now shows up in the dynamic map too, but there are gaps in Poland. For those sections, readers can toggle on and off the "hiking" layer. Beware that further west, when turned on, the hiking layer is going to display a ton of other hiking routes and symbols almost covering the whole map.

Also there are some parts where the text and the route in the dynamic map doesn't correspond 100%. But I guess long distance hikers aren't so strict about sticking exactly to the path.

For hamlets, villages and towns that aren't on the route, but at some distance off it, I've put the marker representing it on the route where there is a junction going to that place. ϒψιλον (talk ) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks
This article currently contains entirely too many redlinks. It may not be desirable to create them all as articles and having them redirect is not always the most elegant solution, so what should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with redlinks. If you're certain a particular destination should never have an article, then you can remove the link here (as long as the article in which the location is covered is linked elsewhere in this article). Powers (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Page views
Just out of interest, does anyone know why there was a huge, sudden spike in page views for E11 hiking trail on 18 March? (see here)? 162 on that day, compared to about 8-10 on most other days. No real reason in asking, just curiosity. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have long since ceased taking those pageview numbers for gospel truth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the news, and there's no matching spike at the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's currently on the main page under 'Discover', but that wouldn't have affected as far back as the 18th March. It could just be as simple as a couple of people sharing the article on social media, and loads of their friends being interested. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LAW3.png

 * It seems the uploader hasn't been active in the last years, so the map probably needs to be deleted as requested. Does OSM have these trails on their maps? I think a static map specifically made for this article could be better than the one now to be deleted. The map will remain on the website of Wandelnet, so can be consulted also after deletion from Commons. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:E11 hiking trail


text:
Talk:朗伊爾城

Are we going start doing this really? I mean it's fine if Wikipedia Chinese wants to link here, but I don't think we need to start making redirects for Chinese titles. Thoughts?(WT-en) Texugo 04:38, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I think this makes little sense. We do redirects for accentless spellings and a few well-known non-English names, but I can't imagine that people are going to be search or link in the English Wikivoyage using non-Roman alphabets.  - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:41, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Well, I can see maybe Chinese names of destinations in China or Greek/Russian names for places in Greece or Russia, but Chinese names for destinations in Norway are pretty unnecessary, I think. (WT-en) Texugo 10:50, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:朗伊爾城


text:
Talk:邦咯岛

Does anyone know what this article title means? Should we redirect to the correct location? --(WT-en) Evan 13:29, 24 November 2006 (EST)
 * Looks like it's a synonym for Pangkor, which see; that page links to this one. I'm taking the liberty of a redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:45, 24 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:邦咯岛


text:
Talk:E9 European Coast Path

I plan to start walking this path in 2006 hopefully. I'm going to fly to Warsaw and then get a train to the Eblag and a ferry across to the start of the path. I'm hoping to reach Gdansk on the first section, which i think is about 125KM, any advice, tips and maps would be much appreciated and I will be weblogging the whole trip for future reference and link to it from here.

Cheers

seankenny@gmail.com

___________

hmm, quite possibly not many people visit this page, but I am at long last off. Flight booked to Gdansk for Aug 23rd! I'm quite nervous about this. I thought the walk started in Piaski on the Vistula Spit, but apparently starts in Barniewo, so I can walk first day to Frombork to the Copernicus museum. I'll blog it all I hope.

___________

Update 2010

Amazing that there is no development on this page, I first edited it in 2004! It's 2010 now and I'm heading back for my third trip to Poland to carry on this great walk. Follow it on [ http://irvken.net/blog/?p=278 | http://irvken.net/blog]

Not a travel topic
I'm removing the "this is a travel topic" template as the path is more like an itinerary instead. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 13:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

VfD nomination
See Votes for deletion/January 2024. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:E9 European Coast Path


text:
Talk:Eacu

What is this list? It sure doesn't look like an article, but what IS it? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:05, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Votes for Deletion discussion

 * Delete. I don't know what this numbered list of African cities is supposed to be, but I do know that it's not an article.

 * Redirect to East Africa. It stands for East African Customs Union. I'm not sure if it is a topic really of interest to travel, at least until they establish a single tourist visa, but I don't really know much about it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:52, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Any more input? What shall we do with the odd numbered list of cities? Delete that and just redirect the page? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I'd say so, but would feel more comfortable if we wait for another vote, or for the nominator to change the initial vote to redirect. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:27, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Redirect to East Africa. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Eacu


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles/Earth

Haw! You got me there... (WT-en) Maj 09:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahaha!! Good stuff, will this page be archived somewhere for future reference? 89.240.163.95 18:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

 * You bet. See Project:joke articles - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Anna Nicole Smith
The joke about Anna Nicole was funny when it was written. Leaving it there after her and her son is in very poor taste. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 208.66.146.49 (talk • contribs)

 * It's a bit outdated, I removed it :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:30, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Aliens in audiences?
What? What are the joke articles for? The fictional audiences of living beings from outer space!? AAAAAAAGH! (By AAAAAAAGH, I mean that it's funny & misleading.) - (WT-en) CurvyEthyl 22:32, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't think that's really nice
Sorry but I really didn't find it funny... I'm surfing the web and somewhere find this wiki about travel and stuff, so I think 'I want to travel around the world' but I don't know where to start, or even where should I go (maybe one stop per country? What is a country? There's big confusion to what some countries consider others as countries or separatist terrorists. I don't want to be jailed for trying to get to some separatist terrorist place (in the eyes of who claims sovereignty over there, at least)! Maybe some stops per continent? Euroafroasia? America (no north/south)? What about all those non continental Pacific countries? Should I go to Antarctica? Not that I'm saying you should have full travel plans this for me, but just info on world travel would surely help a lot.). So, again, I come to this site because I heard it has good info on travel, and type "World", what do I get? Some not funny joke? Okay, so what does a guy who has just came in here thinks? "Screw these guys, they aren't serious. I'll look for info elsewhere. Once I decide where I want to go, *maybe* I'll come here for tips on specific places. But then again, wherever I find good info on world travel probably has good info on specific places too, so I don't think I need to come back here. Won't even bother bookmarking." Sorry to be blunt, but that's just how I felt, and probably others.

tl;dr First time here, came looking for useful info on World travel, found stupid joke. Won't come again. —The preceding comment was added by 189.123.133.159 (talk • contribs)

 * You'll be missed! --Peter Talk 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

HHTGTG
Came here looking for "mostly harmless", guess this is an earlier edition :) Xaosflux (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * or a later one.. --Inas (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles/Earth


text:
Talk:East

Phrasing
I'm confused by this change; isn't it important to establish context? "The East" doesn't always refer to Asia -- certainly not in Australia, for instance. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:17, 22 January 2012 (EST)

VFD
Deleted per Votes_for_deletion/July_2021 Pashley (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:East


text:
Talk:East Africa

Other destinations
There were none listed. I have added a full compliment of nine with descriptions. Very much open to discussion of course.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:53, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Somaliland
The regions map and list needs to be updated with Somaliland as a separate country. Although not internationally recognised, from the traveller's perspective, they will need Somaliland currency, visas and will deal with their government. Per policy, Somaliland should be separated. JamesA  >talk 15:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur.
 * Perhaps South Sudan too, given its candidature for membership of the regional political grouping? --61.29.8.41 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Africa's First Electric Railway
Extra! Extra! A newly constructed railway now links Ethiopia and Djibouti. Read all about it! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Banner suggestion
Following the banner switch for Africa (see Talk:Africa) we could consider a new banner for this region. /Yvwv (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Arusha.jpg

title: Talk:East Africa


text:
Talk:East Asia

See section too long?
I noticed there were a lot of line items in the 'See' section.

The template for regions doesn't give any guidance. I guess this is because Region can be used for both large areas (East Asia) and smaller areas (Texas), Can we cut this down a bit? I don't think China and Japan should have so many. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * What do you think the top sights are in East Asia? Playing Pachinko is not a sight, but Mt. Fuji probably should be there and isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Personally I think See sections in anything above countries (and why not countries too?) should be written in running text rather than bulleted points. That way we can mention more sights and it's also visually more pleasant. Have a look at South America. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I do agree on that style point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cities" and "Other destinations" aren't arrenged alphabetically
The sections "Cities" and "Other destinations" should be arranged alphabetically. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 * If you have the time, go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yungang Grottoes
Yungang Grottoes is currently a redirect to Datong City. Therefore, we should replace it with any other notable destination in East Asia. I recommend either DMZ (Korea) or Hainan. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The DMZ is already represented by Panmunjeom, I'd go for Hainan. The unusual-looking hills around Guilin would be another possible replacement. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * UlaanBaatar-2009.jpg
 * Needs to be locally uploaded. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in any of the 3 en.voy articles it's said to be in. The list is:
 * Central Mongolia
 * East Asia
 * Mongolia
 * If it's not visible anywhere, we don't need to upload it locally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong identity
Do we really need to go into details about Hong Kong (and Taiwan):
 * The Chinese are Chinese, the Japanese are Japanese and the Koreans are Korean. [...] On the other hand, despite their Chinese heritage, many Hongkongers and Taiwanese, especially the youth, reject the "Chinese" identity and instead consider themselves to be a separate people, often emphasising their British and Japanese colonial heritage respectively instead.

There are certainly other groups whose relations to the majority of their country and their ethnic mates abroad is complicated. I think the last sentence in the quoted paragraph can be left to the respective country articles. If needed we can say that not everybody with Chinese heritage identify as Chinese, but I think that's more a thing for Respect: don't assume people have a straight-forward relation to their country or to related ethnicities.

–LPfi (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 * There are many ethnic Korean Chinese, and Chinese and Koreans are (or at least if they aren't, which I think they are, until recently were) the largest minorities in Japan and don't always have an easy time becoming citizens even if they are 3rd-generation Japanese-born people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 * The opening of the paragraph was softened by sentences I left out in my quote, as that was not what I tried to discuss. But yes, we might want to add something about such non-straight-forwardness – keeping it general. –LPfi (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can remove everything after "emphasise the unique aspects of their cultures." The claims about Hong Kong and Taiwan strike me as questionable generalizations (Hongkongers and Taiwanese vary in how they identify), and in any case it's an unnecessary level of detail for this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree. We should add other things to Respect. I think the level of formality and respect for elderly and authorities may be something to point out for people like me, from the Nordic countries. There may also be things about eating habits (I've understood there are things you should and shouldn't do with your chop sticks), and certainly some other things to watch out for. Details can go elsewhere, but easy ways to commit a faux-pas should be pointed out unless they are very local. –LPfi (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * It's true that there are many Hongkongers and Taiwanese identify as Chinese, and that was the majority until well into the 1990s. But today, the young people overwhelmingly reject the "Chinese" identity and desire independence from China. Those who still have a sense of Chinese identity are mostly middled aged to elderly. Like I mentioned, when Japan defeated China for the gold in the table tennis mixed doubles at the Olympics, the Taiwanese were celebrating wildly and writing things like "thank you Japan for defeating those vile Chinese for us". It is an undisputed fact that the young Taiwanese identify more with Japan than with China, even though their ancestors may have come from China, and they speak dialects of Chinese rather than Japanese. And for Americans here, there are so many Taiwanese living in the U.S. Just go to any prestigious university and ask the Taiwanese students. There are of course exceptions but they overwhelmingly vehemently reject any notion of being "Chinese", and are very adamant that they are Taiwanese and Taiwanese only. Likewise, just talking to the Hongkongers living in the West. They wave British flags and sing the British national anthems, and identify more with Britain than China. And yes, there are a minority who identify as Chinese, but the Hongkongers studying in British and American universities overwhelmingly desire independence from China, and feel offended when people address them in Mandarin. When some of the got assaulted by racists because of COVID, their response was usually "Why are you targeting me. I'm not Chinese. I'm a Hongkonger.". And just look at the Twitter feed of Frances Hui. She actually mentioned that she was offended that "Hongkonger" is not listed as an ethnicity in forms asking for demographic information, and she emphatically does not want to identify as "Chinese".

 * And yes, there is a complication regarding the ethnic Koreans from China. They are in fact heavily discriminated against in South Korea, and South Koreans often refer to them as the "penis race". The South Koreans are still very outraged about China nominating the Goguryeo tombs are world heritage sites, because they consider that to be Korean history, and are of the view that China has no right to claim it as part of their history. Also, there was a dispute because China registered Sichuan-style preserved vegetables (pao cai) with the ISO, but because the Chinese word "pao cai" is also used to refer to kimchi (Chinese people know that they are not the same thing, though China also claims kimchi as a traditional dish of their ethnic Korean minority), South Koreans see that as an appropriation of Korean culture and are still deeply angered by it. In addition, there is still deep anger in South Korea about the fact that an ethnic Korean from China wore a hanbok at the opening ceremony of the recent Winter Olympics, because in the South Korean view, hanbok is a Korean and not a Chinese outfit and China has no right to claim it (although South Koreans will on the other sense feel a deep sense of pride when a Korean-American wears a hanbok). So in short, South Koreans also have a deep aversion to any kind of association with China, and they are fiercely protective of Korean people's status as a separate people from the Chinese. While in the U.S. it's common to refer to all these people as part of one "Asian" race, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans most certainly do not consider themsleves to be the same race, and to suggest that they are the same race is certainly offensive here. The dog2 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem a lot of people fail to understand the difference between race and ethnicity. STW932 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the first place, these things are social constructs. Although ancestry is a biological variable. The dog2 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a soapbox
Recent edits gave shown that it is time for The dog2 to stop using this article, and Wikivoyage generally, as a soapbox for their opinions, especially given their history of adding statements that are false. If The dog2 is not willing to focus on travel content, they should find another forum for their opinions on culture, politics, and history. Ground Zero (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Asia


text:
Talk:East Bay

Name?
Can we move this to just "East Bay"? Nothing's in that spot, and this current name sounds strange. And East Bay is pretty much the official/most common name for it. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:04, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
 * All good reasons to move it. Done. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:33, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Docentship, reorganization
So, I am going to be Docent for this region - and I notice several omissions and things that can really use an update on this page in particular - which I will attend to before diffing into the individual city listings :-) L. Challenger (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I actually wrote a lot of this article fairly recently, so I'm surprised it needs updating — what exactly looks out of date? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Regions
Currently we divide the East Bay into subregions along county lines, but I don't think this is the most useful division for travellers. The real divide in the East Bay, as described in the "Understand" section, is between the chain of dense cities along the bay from Richmond down to Fremont, and the quieter suburbs east of the hills. It seems to me Richmond and Oakland have more in common with each other than either has with Danville or Pleasanton, and vice versa. This reflects the geography of the area: the hills form a physical divide, whereas the county line is mostly irrelevant from a traveller's perspective. Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Richmond form a pretty continuous stretch of urbanization, while Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, and Pleasanton form a pretty continuous stretch of suburbs.

I propose a different region division: the Inner East Bay, consisting of everything along the bay from Richmond down to Fremont, and the Outer East Bay, with everything east of the hills. This would allow us to write more informative region articles, as there are more travel-relevant generalizations that can be made about the inner East Bay and the outer East Bay than about Alameda County and Contra Costa County.

What do others think? Pinging editors who are familiar with the East Bay: User:SelfieCity, User:Challenger l, User:Wrh2. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * It looks much better than the current divisions; I remember not finding the county boundaries useful when I was last visiting here in 2022. Are you able to draw the exact boundaries using geojson.io? -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 02:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here's a rough boundary line drawn using geojson – the boundary mostly goes through sparse or uninhabited hills, so it could be adjusted to one side or another here or there. I'm not sure what would be the easiest way to combine this line with the boundaries of the East Bay as a whole, in order to display the two subregions on a map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically, you'd use the polygon tool to draw the boundary (e.g. see Canberra/Civic), and then use Renek78's mapmask-geojson converter tool for the individual mapshapes for each article. It does take some time, but the result pays off. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 03:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've managed to use the county boundaries from Wikimedia Commons to fill in the gaps. The results are at User:Mx. Granger/East Bay subregions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks great! SHB2000  (t | c | m) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Using counties has the advantage of being very clear in terms of where to put things, whereas an Inner vs Outer split leaves more gray area. I wouldn't have strong feelings either way since the East Bay isn't a touristy area and most people will be searching by city anyhow, but I'd lean towards continuing to use counties simply because I don't think anyone visiting will find it much more difficult to find what they're looking for, someone visiting one city is mostly likely to hop over to a neighboring city (for example, if you're staying in Lafayette you'll probably visit Berkeley), and it makes organization easier.  But again, no strong feelings if you want to change it around. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's true that using counties avoids any ambiguity about where things go – I suppose that's always a reason in favor of using official boundaries when making subregions. But in this case, all the other considerations that I can think of point in favor of a dividing line along the hills. I agree it won't meaningfully affect readers' ability to find a city they're looking for (as you say, most visitors to this region will be searching by city, and many probably won't look at the East Bay subregion articles at all), but I think the proposal would give us region articles that are more meaningful and informative for any readers who do browse by region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We have two users in favor, and the only one against says they don't feel strongly. I think this is enough support to proceed, and I'll plan to do that sometime in the next few weeks unless there are any other objections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd say go ahead. This discussion has been up for half a month. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 01:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also support this proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done the reorganization. There are still a bunch of loose ends to tie up which I'll work on later this week, and over the coming weeks I'll try to expand the new region articles with more information. If you notice anything I've missed, please change it as needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how to handle the maps. Should I copy and paste the lists of coordinates from User:Mx. Granger/East Bay subregions? That seems like a lot of wikitext to add to an article. Is it possible to put the coordinates in a centralized location (maybe the Commons data namespace?) and use them from there? Or could someone use them to create static maps? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Bay


text:
Talk:East Berbice-Corentyne

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

Communities
Wikipedia gives this list of place names (including name variants) some will be destinations and others are attractions:

 * Adventure
 * Albion
 * Alness (Alnes)
 * Ankerville - Port Mourant
 * Barakara (Barakara Mission)
 * Belvedere
 * Betsy Ground
 * Bloomfield
 * Brandwagt-Sari
 * Bound Yard - Port Mourant
 * Brighton
 * Bush Lot (Bush Lot Village)
 * Canefield
 * Chesney
 * Clifton Settlement - Port Mourant
 * Corriverton
 * Crabwood Creek
 * Cumberland
 * Dukestown
 * East Canje
 * Epira (Epira Mission, Espera)
 * Friendship (Friendship Village, Corentyne)
 * Free Yard - Port Mourant
 * Fyrish (Fyrish Village)
 * Gangaram
 * Goldspie
 * Goed Bananen Land
 * Good Hope
 * Haswell - Port Mourant
 * Hogsty
 * Islington
 * Java
 * Joanna
 * Johns Settlement - Port Mourant
 * Karaudanawa
 * Kumaka
 * Lancaster (Lancaster Village)
 * Leeds
 * Letter Kenny
 * Lesbeholden
 * Limlair
 * Macaw
 * Manchester
 * Mara
 * Mibikuri
 * Miss Phoebe North And South- Port Mourant
 * Moleson Creek
 * New Amsterdam
 * New Forest
 * New Ground Village
 * New Hampshire
 * Number Forty-Three
 * Number Forty-five
 * Number Forty-six
 * Number Forty-seven
 * Number Fort-Eight
 * Number Sixty-one
 * Number Sixty-two
 * Number Sixty-three
 * Number Sixty-Four
 * Number Sixty-six
 * Number Sixty-seven
 * Number Sixty-eight
 * Number Sixty-nine
 * Number Seventy
 * Number 80
 * Nurney
 * Orealla (Oreala, Orealla Mission)
 * Port Mourant (Port Mourant Village)
 * Portuguese Quarters - Port Mourant
 * Princetown
 * Providence Place
 * Reliance
 * Rising (Rising Sun)
 * Rose Hall
 * Rose Hall Village
 * Scottsburg
 * Skeldon (Skeldon Place)
 * Smythfield
 * Springlands (Springlands Place)
 * Stanleytown
 * Tain Settlement - Port Mourant
 * Tain Resource - Port Mourant
 * Tarlogie (Tarlogie Farm)
 * Train Line Dam - Port Mourant
 * Ulverston
 * Ward Village
 * Wel te Vreeden
 * West Canje
 * Whim
 * Yakusari
 * Hackstyle

 * - (WT-en) Huttite 06:43, 4 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:East Berbice-Corentyne


text:
Talk:Eastbourne

Bus stop
Bus stop near pier —The preceding comment was added by 81.178.77.136 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 January 2006

"Usable"
This is not a "usable" grade article until it has some full listings in eat and sleep sections (read the designation at page bottom). --(WT-en) OldPine 21:29, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Banner
Should the banner be changed now? (As the pier hasn't looked like that since the fire about two years ago). I was thinking maybe change it to a picture that shows more of Eastbourne, like
 * File:Eastbourne Panorama, England - May 2009.jpg

Or They're not the right size/ratio at the moment, but they could be cropped to the right size if wanted.  Seagull123  Φ  17:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Eastbourne Panorama, England - May 2009 - crop.jpg
 * Gone ahead and changed banner to File:Eastbourne (England) banner Panorama.jpg.  Seagull123  Φ  21:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastbourne


text:
Talk:East Cape

Understand Topic

This section is somewhat true but it only offers the reader one aspect of this region (which is mainly negative). I am not an expert on the east coast region but I know it has played a significant part in new zealands history (maori land wars etc) and is a significant part of Maori culture today. I have made some points below that could be expanded apon.

 * Stating the demographics of the region the and the prevalence of Maori culture in comparison to the rest of New Zealand.
 * Stating the regions impact on New Zealands history with a breif summery.
 * Options (if there are any) for a tourist/visitor to experience Maori culture on the East Coast as it is could be more rewarding than the Rotorua type experience. - sam_22b

''Ok I have changed the content of the Understand Topic. I will be adding more content to the rest of the page soon. Im hoping to get enough quality information on this page to get in into the "see" section for the New Zealand or North Island page.'' - sam_22b

title: Talk:East Cape


text:
Talk:East Central Florida

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

Comments
This article is starting to shape up now. Can someone give me a brief explanation what to put in "Other Destinations" vs. "See" or "Do." Some kind of rule-of-thumb. Natural attractions vs. man-made ones? (WT-en) Gamweb 13:05, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Regions
The current region hierarchy uses generic terms such as "east," "west," followed by counties. This is partially inevitable in a region without mountain ranges, deserts, etc., but it could be improved with some changes to region designations and names. For East Central Florida, I propose the following:

 * Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County become Greater Orlando. The counties would then become Greater Orlando's sub-regions.
 * Brevard County is renamed Space Coast.

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I think having a Greater Orlando region makes sense, assuming visitors will probably understand "Greater Orlando" (even if its fuzzy) more than county names. Have you thought of going one step further and trying to avoid subregions in Greater Orlando? I saw there were a large number of markers but many were red-linked, so maybe it could work. Portland (Oregon) is an example.
 * "Space Coast" sounds better than another county name to me... I say go for it if it's commonly used. -Shaundd (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I’ll try creating it in userspace first and see how it goes with/without subregions. That could definitely work quite well. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 12:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Following some edits I've realized another region that should be included in Greater Orlando. The west side of Volusia County — including the cities of DeLand and Deltona — could be moved to Greater Orlando, while the Volusia County article would be renamed Fun Coast. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense after reading through the WP article on Greater Orlando. I'm OK with "Fun Coast" -- it's a bit marketing-y, but there doesn't seem to be another name for the Daytona Beach area so let's go with it.-Shaundd (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a particularly popular name but probably the best possible option currently. By the way are you familiar with the way hidden categories work? (Such as usable cities in city articles, etc.) --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing I would say is that, if we do split Volusia County between Greater Orlando and the Fun Coast, we would need to create a dynamic map in East Central Florida showing the new boundaries for the regions (unless we can split Volusia County on a dynamic map). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Selfie City, sorry for not replying, things got busy. Did you mean we would need to create a static map if part of Volusia County is included in Greater Orlando? That's true, or a custom mapshape could be created, but that's just as much trouble as a static map. I don't know the area well but I think the breakdown and Greater Orlando article look good as-is. The only thought I have is whether it's possible to group / add subheadings to the list of 15 cities to help provide some context? -Shaundd (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it's probably best to leave things as they are for now, since the Volusia County article is well-developed and altering it would be bound to negatively impact it, at least in the short term. Definitely we could add subheadings; whether we go by county or not, I'm not sure. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Central Florida


text:
Talk:East Coast (Malaysia)

I have never been to Redang Island and heard so many good things around. Btw, i am fr Penang. What is the best way to get to Redang fr Penang and what are my options?

More cities?
Perhaps Cameron Highlands, Kuala Besut for the Perhentian islands, Jerantut as the gateway to Taman Negara, maybe Pekan? Any other cities in Pahang? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Last group of Orang Asli?
Re: this edit: what happened to all the other Orang Asli peoples in the Peninsula? There are no more Orang Laut, Semai, Semelai, Jakun, Jah Hut, Orang Melayu Asli, Orang Laut, Temiar, etc., etc.? What happened to them? I suspect this is inaccurate phrasing and meant to say something else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I reworded it – I was falling asleep while I was writing this last night, but thanks for picking up this. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Static map
After years of lacking a static map, I spent the last three hours trying to make one. It's not the best – it certainly wouldn't be a QI, unlike the map I made for SEQ or GTA, per se, but part of this had to do with the insane amount of roads and expressways near KL as well as mountainous roads up the highlands (which I've omitted). But apart from that, is there anything that's needed but is not present on the map? Any other feedback would also be welcome. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Also, using "K. [name of city]" was done solely to save space. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 * It's fine and helpful. No need to include every road. However, you could add the railroad, the road from Kelantan to Perak and the rest of the coastal highway that goes down to Johor (eventually to Mersing and Johor Bahru). You could also try to show the Cameron Highlands. But really, it's whatever you can do, and what you put up is already good and praiseworthy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't think about including AH18 earlier (the coastal road), but now that you've brought it up, I think it would indeed be a useful addition. As for the railway, I tried finding an open-source map of the railway, but couldn't. Anyway, I'm off to add AH18 :-). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and ✅. Now time to do Highway 4. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ that too. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Coast (Malaysia)


text:
Talk:East England

Moved to East Anglia. East Anglia is a more specific region than East England, and the page was clearly talking about East Anglia, not eastern england (which would include eg. Kent, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Northumberland. (WT-en) Chris j wood 16:30, 1 Jul 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:East England


text:
Talk:Easter Island

70.113.25.94 made minor edits to the writeup for punctuation and spelling. Great work by original author.

2010 July 11th Eclipse
Does anyone have information on how the eclipse in two years is going to affect reservations and travel to Easter Island. The island is directly in the path of totality and I have read that Lan is refusing to take reservations at this point (even though travel sites are already promising booking space). Since Lan is the only way to get there if they choose to close their own airport to other air traffic, this may be an issue.

Better picture
There got to be a better picture of Moai on easter island. The picture there isn't of great quality. Just a suggestion.

More Tours
I added the only tour company that i know is doing good, respectful tours. There's got to be more than one, though! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Mossybon (talk • contribs)

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) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorize with Chile?
Easter Island is part of Chile, has the same immigration system as Chile, and has more flights from Chile than any other country. Therefore, it should be categorized as part of Chile. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * On the face of it, that seems sensible. Just like Hawaii is part of Polynesia but a region (and state) of the U.S. But let's see what other people say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The Hawaiian example is really relevant. Ibaman (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The large majority of travellers will arrive in Easter Island from Chile, do this is a logical categorization. Ground Zero (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Improvements
I think this article is a diamond in the rough. It has some really useful text. Maybe we can figure out what improvements are needed. One thing I noticed is that moai and ahu are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I'm guessing not is the right choice, but the first instance of each could be italicized. I think I saw "guavas" capitalized, too, which is obviously incorrect format.

Otherwise, it would be good for whatever wasn't updated in January to be updated, with untemplated listings listified to the extent possible.

Anything else you notice that needs work? This would be a very cool article to feature someday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New moai discovered
New moai statue found in Easter Island volcano crater: "A really unique discovery" --Ypsilon (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Easter Island


text:
Talk:Eastern Arizona

Content and sub-regions
I created this page in response to the recent discussion on Talk:Arizona regarding the state's regional structure. My thought is that it could be used for content not fitting smoothly into the Mogollon Rim and Southeast Arizona sub-regions -- for example, St. Johns. However, most content (Payson, Show Low, Chiricahua National Monument, etc.) should reside in one of the sub-regions. Opinions? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Eastern Arizona


text:
Talk:Eastern Cambodia

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

Sub-regionalisation

 * Earlier discussion took place on my talk page - (WT-en) Huttite 10:07, 3 January 2010 (EST)

OK, before I start an edit war, I want to wikilink all the regions in Eastern Cambodia, even if they do not exist yet. My policy basis for doing this is my interpretation of Project:Manual of style, in particular, Project:Geographical hierarchy, Project:Region article template and Project:Internal links. In essence, the geographical hierarchy calls for regions within regions; the regional article template calls for those regions to be linked, if the section is included, or omit the section entirely; and the internal linking policy calls for it to be done where practical.

However, (WT-en) Burmesedays " would fundamentally disagree there. (WT-en) Burmesedays really does not see how creating a whole bunch of red-linked articles (especially regions) is to anybody's benefit. For Cambodia for example this would mean creating 26 red-linked 2nd level regional articles that some day might be created (very unlikely). The existing four regional articles are already unloved and have no content other than what [was] put into them when the country was regionalised. And how does anyone decide which "cities we want to exist"?"

 * So under what circumstances and criteria should these regions be linked, (or not)?
 * And should this be limited to Cambodia or be a general policy?

I would like to have a consensus before proceeding. -- (WT-en) Huttite 10:07, 3 January 2010 (EST)

 * I would dispute that Wikivoyage hierachy says we should do this. The wording clearly says that regions may contain more regions and in any case levels of the hierachy can be skipped if they do not make sense.

 * Onto this this particular case, I repeat from huttite's talk page: There may be a time when we have too many cities for the four Cambodia region articles, but we are far from that at the moment. If further regionalised, Eastern Cambodia for example, would have four provincial articles with only four cities between them! That means we would have created 5 regional articles to house 4 cities. Sen Monorom's correct home in the structure is as part of Eastern Cambodia. The other reason not to do this based simply on provinces is that the provinces themselves are split in some cases. For example, you will see if you look closely that Kratie Province to the east of the Mekong River is in Eastern Cambodia, and to the west of the river it is in Mekong Lowlands and Central Plains. Sometimes geography is much much appropriate than political lines when regionalising.

 * I think a bit of common sense is required and some basic knowledge of the country and region being dealt with. Where would we stop? The four provinces that make up the existing Eastern Cambodia region contain further administrative districts (about 20 in total), which contain further adminsitrative communes (countless), until finally we get to what the traveller is actually interested in - a destination. All of that structure is completely unnecessary when the existing Country -> Region -> City works perfectly well and is, by no stretch of the imagination, over-burdened with detail. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:43, 3 January 2010 (EST)

 * I think the provinces section should be dropped, and replaced by some prose in the intro or understand section explaining what provinces are covered. And all provinces should be created as redirects to the relevant regions. As long as the cities list are this short, I just don't see a reason to create them --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:41, 3 January 2010 (EST)

 * Very sensible Stefan. When I created these regional articles, the provinces list went in for reference purposes only. If they are in prose format, same effect. Some already have re-directs and it is an easy job to complete and makes perfect sense for the traveller. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:45, 3 January 2010 (EST)

 * I concur with Stefan. The most relevant policy discussion on this topic is at Project:Geographical hierarchy, and the general consensus that emerged from that discussion and the practices following was that as a general rule, the fewer empty region pages the better, and that new regional subdivisions should not be created unless there is a content reason to do so. That generally means that we have well over nine cities in the region and we expect much more to be created. Here we only have four, so I think our choice is clear per policy & practice.

 * On a slightly different note, yes, Project:Plunge forward is site policy, but the one "exception" we have generally followed to that rule is for dealing with structural changes. Based on widespread practice & the wording at Project:Geographical hierarchy, "Dividing geographical units is something of a dark art. Use caution, consensus, and collaboration when possible", it has become convention to always discuss changes to the hierarchy before implementing them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:09, 3 January 2010 (EST)

 * I am happy with provinces being redirects to the regions that contain them. I am also happy with prose explaining the regions in terms of provinces covered.
 * The only reason I did originally plunge forward and create province articles was because the region section contained a list of province names that were unlinked and there was no explanation for them not being linked. In that situation, I had presumed that the future intention was to create regional articles about the provinces, so wikilinked them. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion Project:Geographical hierarchy because the consensus was not clearly summarised on the geographical hierarchy policy page. Sorry about that. - (WT-en) Huttite 23:02, 4 January 2010 (EST)

 * Many thanks huttite. I will make sure that each province redirects to its region and also construct the required prose. I also think that folks should bookmark this page, as there is useful discussion and clarifcation here should similar cases emerge in the future. I know for example that North Korea is structured in the same way and probably requires the same treatment. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:17, 4 January 2010 (EST)

 * Actually in the case of Thailand, I am trying to get rid of the provinces as they are way too small to be appropriate travel regions (most of these provinces only have 1 city listed). I think in many cases provinces are not the way to go (also see Nepal, which has ridiculous provinces from a travel perspective). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:14, 5 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Eastern Cambodia


text:
Talk:Eastern Cape

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

Comments
We're never going to open pages about other nature reserves? Is it? (WT-en) Babbelas 17:13, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Eastern Cape