text:
Talk:Medical tourism

Medical tourism

 * Delete. Medical tourism is a reason for travel, not a way of travel.  It would be silly to have an "Ink toner travel" article that made suggestions about where on the planet you should go to make deals to get supplies of ink toner.  We shouldn't recommend places for non-emergency medical treatment.  Secondly, I think the entire issue of non-urgent medical treatment exceeds the scope of our goals.  Medical decisions can easily cost lives and we should not involve ourselves in this topic.  Given the serious amounts of money involved in this sub-industry, policing ourselves against touts (or even detecting which ones are touts) is just way more effort than it's worth.  Let's declare this subject Not Our Problem. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. I agree with Colin's statements above. I think this belongs in the same category as sex tourism and we should not carry detailed information about the topic. There are many other places on the web where people can find this kind of information if they really want. No need to have it here. --(WT-en) Nick 03:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. (WT-en) OldPine 07:07, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep This article is well balanced presenting both the possible benefits and drawbacks of medical tourism. It certainly doesn't "tout" anything.  What I think it could benefit from are some contributions from people who actually have travelled abroad for medical care -- someone who actually has underwent a procedure such as LASIK surgery, for example, could probably add some useful comments about how they made a decision to seek treatment overseas. Among the expat community getting medical care outside of one's home country is quite common.  Also I don't think this has anything to do with sex tourism so why make the comparison.(WT-en) SONORAMA 11:11, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Just to clarify -- I'm not saying the existing article touts. What I am saying is that if someone adds a clinic in Tijuana that sounds reasonable but is a tout, it will be too hard to detect the problem.  It's not like a Bar where one can visit it and immediately say this sucks and then delete it from Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Delete. Per Colin's reasoning, definitely agree – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:52, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

 * A Proposal Colin's doubts on the topic seem to be that anything medical-related is beyond the scope of Wikivoyage and the potential harm that could come if someone took bad advice from an article. In other words, the issue is not with the article itself, but rather with what potentially links to it.  I say "potentially" because as of right now the article has no links whatsoever.

 * So my proposal is this. Similar to Wikivoyage's policy against links to hotel aggregator booking sites, let's make a policy against recommending specific doctors or clinics in medical tourism articles.  Instead, appropriate links to provide might be: Links to the local-country medical association or credentialing body, links to hotels and inns that specialize in recuperative stays for medical tourism patients (such places do exist) and also links to US based international medical accreditors such as the Joint Commission International Medical tourism is a huge and growing trend, and since many travelers come to Wikivoyage first for information, it is important that we include information about this aspect of travel here. (WT-en) SONORAMA 20:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd be okay with the general discussion and medical association stuff. It wouldn't really work to link to hotels and inns since they tend to be associated with specific physicians that we really can't vouch for.  So in other words, I'd be okay with a policy where we never link to a medical service provider of any sort. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:49, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep I agree with User:(WT-en) Borndistinction as of course wikivoyage aims to be a guide, this article is very informative and useful to those choosing a destination for Medical Tourism. The article contains all that an individual would like to consider before travelling to the country for his/her treatment.

 * Keep. Well! Of course nowadays Medical tourism is so popular that most of the travel related websites do contain information about Medical tourism so why not wikivoyage too? Although the article needs to be plunge forward, this could be a very usable one. (WT-en) Barracuda 12:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. I agree with Colin: medical tourism is a big topic and definitely in scope, but we should keep it high-level, in the same way as we already do in the scuba diving articles: talk about the diving itself, not the operators (and certainly not the individual divemasters). However, large hospitals should still continue to be listed in city articles, the way we list them today. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:05, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep Obviously. (WT-en) Pashley 19:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep. Medical Tourism is huge these days and if Wikivoyage aspires to be the definitive online travel guide it is something we should be trying to cover. (WT-en) Jpatokal's point about keeping it high level is something I would agree with. (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep, seems to be a valid travel topic. Agree with keeping it high-level as mentioned above.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 21:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Quick question—don't we have a disclaimer somewhere absolving Wikivoyage & contributors from lawsuits deriving from harm arising from following Wikivoyage advice? I can't seem to find that anywhere. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I just happened across it in Copyleft, and remembered reading this query back here. Perhaps there should be a link titled Disclaimer on the Main Page that links to it? (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:53, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Sorry to have wandered off topic on the vfd page, but that seems like a good idea to me. I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Main Page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Keep but rework before writing more articles on this subject. I'm very hesitant with this article. Per our policies/practices on travel topics, I don't understand what the rationale would be for deleting it—it is a valid way of travel, like tourism, business, studying, and other forms of travel that Wikivoyage aims to serve. To respond to the above deletion arguments: 1) Colin's point about "reason" for travel and "way" of travel is well taken, and the existing article might not be the best format to go forward with this, but I'm also hesitant to rule out the subject altogether, since we aim to serve all travelers; 2) the gravity of medical decisions is a good reason to tread lightly on the subject, but I'm not convinced it's a sufficient reason to avoid the subject; 3) As I understand it, we somewhat riskily ruled out sex tourism for subjective reasons—we don't like it (I agree)—but I don't see a pressing moral reason to avoid talking about medical tourism. But like others have said, I'm very unsure that we could successfully provide reliable advice about which medical services to use, and this is a way more serious matter than which restaurants or hotels a traveler should patronize. I agree that, at least for the time being, we should keep this strictly to a "meta" discussion of the subject. I'm not convinced that we are yet doing a great job of even that, so lets try and nail that down before wading further into treacherous terrain.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, if we're keeping, can someone do the rework soon? I suspect as soon as that vfd tag is removed it will sit as-is for ages – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Later
Looks like Cacahuate was not far wrong. Checking history, five edits in 2010, four so far this year. Looking at the article, I'd say it still needs work. Any volunteers? (WT-en) Pashley 01:20, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Disclaimer
It was suggested above that this article might need a disclaimer to protect site & contributors from possible lawsuits. I've just added something, but am not at all certain I got it right, so I'd encourage anyone who can to improve it.

Is this something where we need an opinion, or even specific wording, from WMF legal? Pashley (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to drugs online
I removed a link for buying drugs online.

Such a link violates policy and I see no discussion on having this article as a special case. There is also no evidence in the article that this web site is more reputable than any that a web search would turn up.

We might suggest the option of buying drugs online from overseas where that is viable, but I suppose we are no experts on where to find reliable providers, and there are lots of unscrupulous ones around.

--LPfi (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Walking vendors
Do we promise too much?
 * "the same guys have items with obviously bogus Rolex and Rayban labels, so buying drugs from them may be quite risky, but they are cheap (under a dollar a pill if you bargain well) and they do work."

If they do work (i.e. are the real thing), where's the risk? Can we really promise they are not bogus too?

--LPfi (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Travel for abortion
I see that abortion is already mentioned on the topic of medical tourism, but is considered very insignificant, I think? In light of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning what has been considered, for the last 50 years, to be a constitutional right for American women to obtain abortion, it is obvious that the topic of travel to obtain an abortion will become much more important for many. Example: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/a-texas-teen-agers-abortion-odyssey

How does this impact wikivoyage? Just for starters:
 * Since abortion rights are now defined differently in each state in the United States, travel between states will increase for those seeking abortions
 * Border countries such as Canada and Mexico (and possibly other North & central American locations) will see a lot more demand for abortion services, with associated travel issues.

Anyone here interested in talking about this topic? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I made a bit of an edit. I suppose in Europe, a prime case would be Poles taking a trip to some neighboring country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Medical tourism


text:
Talk:Medicine Hat

This is a nice start! --(WT-en) Evan 15:25, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alberta Highway 3.svg

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) 03:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * CanaltaCentre.jpg

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

title: Talk:Medicine Hat


text:
Talk:Medicine Park

Copyvio
An anon user keeps on adding big chunks of http://www.medicinepark.com/ here. If you're the site owner, please let us know and it can stay -- otherwise we can't use the content. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:00, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Medicine Park


text:
Talk:Medina

Death Penalty
See Talk:Mecca. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Scams
I've visited Medina a few times recently, and thought it would be useful to add more information about some of the scams operating in the city. Most people come with very sincere intentions, and are quite naive about the fact there will be many here desperate to reach into your wallet. They sadly imagine a "holy" city will be free of corruption. So I've added some extra information about ways you can get conned. MuslamicRay (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is great, a real service to travellers! We usually consolidate warnings about different scams and other dangers to a person's wallet and person into a "Stay safe" section, just before "Go next", so if you have the chance, you can do that, or I or someone else may take care of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the "Stay safe" section, bulleted the 3 scam warnings and left brief pointers or summaries in the "Get in", "Get around" and "Buy" sections. See if it looks OK to you, and thanks again for those excellent contributions! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for consolidating. MuslamicRay (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding A Listing
I would like to inquire about adding a listing to the Sleep section in the article under "Outside city center zone". Since there is only one property I believe we could enrich the article. Please find below the text for it:

Valgetova (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Valgetova. There is already a listing for this hotel, and anyway, a Hilton seems worth listing, so I think the only thing is question is the description, which seems alright to me. Any objections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, only the description could be added, the rest is good. Thank you! Valgetova (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I'll wait till tomorrow to see if anyone else comments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Valgetova (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 * No-one has objected, so I will add the description accordingly, with maybe a very slight tweak. Thanks for doing things the right way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Valgetova (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Masjid al-Quba.jpg
 * Oh no! Not another one! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think File:Masjid Quba Mosque.jpg is a much better photo, though. Should we download that one and delete this one? Though it doesn't really matter much unless we put it visibly on the page. There's room if we want to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * idk. I've got that file downloaded if we need it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pedestrian View of Retractable Umbrellas.jpg

 * Speedy deletion challenged to inquire about the specific reason for it. I'll await the response of the nominator. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Sliding Domes for the Courtyard of the King Fahd Extension of the Prophet‘s Holy Mosque in Madinah.jpg
This file is now a red link in the article. Apparently, it was deleted without any notice here. What should we do about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I searched for the file on Commons and got no results. When I've searched for deleted files, I've previously always turned up a record of their deletion. What do you all think is going on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's the way you've written the apostrophe backward in "Prophet's". --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see that is correct. Strange. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the thumbnail in this edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 August 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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pedestrian View of Retractable Umbrellas.jpg

 * Deleted as a probable violation of a photographer's copyright. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Medina is open to non-Muslims?
It is? I had always understood that it was not. Is this something new? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I thought the same too. Perhaps may know. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I think it is, unlike Mecca, and has always been so, except the most central part that is considered holy in Islam. Wikipedia agrees: "Outside the haram, there are significant numbers of Non-Muslim migrant workers and expats." And this is a recently shared video of a non-Muslim travelling to Medina. Vidimian (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another confirmation from Wikipedia. Vidimian (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for the information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

My experience as a non-Muslim Korean
Hey, I just flew out of Medina after a 4 day visit. Thought a few people may find this helpful.

I'm a Korean American non-Muslim. I never encountered any problems with my religious status; nobody at the airport asked me my religion, was just like flying into any other city. I was always honest about being a non-Muslim (I was only asked if I was Muslim like 6 times total though, always in casual conversation, and people always had a neutral reaction. They were just happy I was there enjoying their city) and respected the rule about not entering the main mosque grounds, although I probably could have easily just walked in and looked around without incident. It is genuinely unguarded and people tend to assume the best of you. I was often assumed to be a Chinese or Central Asian Muslim though so I just blended in; maybe if you stick out (e.g. blonde and blue-eyed or aren't wearing long pants) people may call you out more.

Otherwise being a non-Muslim wasn't an issue. My biggest gripe with the trip was food - I struggled to find restaurants I liked, and I spent hours researching various review sites and wandering around. I didn't even enjoy a single meal in the city... I love Middle Eastern food too. I considered eating at fancy hotel restaurants but they were expensive ($50 USD) for still mid-looking food. Half my meals were fast food and convenience stores :/

If you like Islamic history, it's worth a visit, but if you're a non-Muslim, temper your expectations a bit IMO. I wish I had spent three days there instead of four, there wasn't quite as much to see as I expected. The things to see, other than the main mosques, were also not as significant of spectacles as I expected. They're obviously of spiritual importance to over a billion people, but to a secular person it was just an OK experience. Toobigtokale (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What an amazing experience! Thank you for sharing your insights with us. The information you've added will help a lot of travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Medina


text:
Talk:Mediterranean

Redirect
Why does this redirect to Europe? Many countries in the Middle East and North Africa also border the Mediterranean. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:38, 24 January 2010 (EST)

The Mediterranean is a sea bordering several countries countries and regions in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Regions

 * Balkans
 * Iberia
 * North Africa
 * Middle East

Countries
Twenty-one states have a coastline on the Mediterranean Sea. They are:

 * Albania
 * Algeria
 * Cyprus
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Croatia
 * Egypt
 * France
 * Israel
 * Italy
 * Greece
 * Lebanon
 * Libya
 * Malta
 * Monaco
 * Montenegro
 * Morocco
 * Slovenia
 * Spain
 * Syria
 * Tunisia
 * Turkey

Territories
Several other territories also border the Mediterranean Sea:

 * Ceuta and Melilla
 * Gibraltar
 * Palestinian Territories

Mediterranean

title: Talk:Mediterranean


text:
Talk:Mediterranean Europe

Moved from Project:votes for deletion by (WT-en) Evan

 * Mediterranean Europe. Made redundant by new Europe categories. All pages which linked to it now link somewhere else. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 18:32, 15 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Disagree - Page should REDIRECT to Europe or somewhere that is similarly relevant. It could be a disambiguation page if multiple pages are relevant. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Disagree - REDIRECT, not delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:01, 28 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Map Coloring
I've prepared (WT-en) alternative map coloring of Mediterranean Europe. Please comment if you like it. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 10:25, 12 Feb 2005 (EST)

 * Nobody commented... So, now revert if you dislike ;-) BTW. If still nobody care to comment I'll go forward and change coloring of another European region :-P --(WT-en) JanSlupski 20:17, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * I don't like it. There are way too many colors, it's hard to read and doesn't look professional. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:05, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

title-what countries
Shouldn't Serbia be removed from this category now that Montenegro is no longer part of Serbia and Montenegro?

I agree Serbía is hard to define as a Mediterranean country now that it is no longer part of a country with a Mediterranean coastline, the same goes for Macedonia as well. I personally know geography quite well and don't think of either as being Mediterranean.--84.153.71.221 12:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)

France?
Why isn't the South of France included in this page?

It is the same problem in wikipedia, where a lot of people doesn't accept (for ideological geopolical reason I think) the fact that France is a latin and mediterranean country, for no rational reasons they think that France should be arbitrary linked only with UK and Netherlands; (countries with which ones France doesn't share much in term of culture and language - only a little bit of common points in regions such as Nord-pas-de-calais, Normandy or Britanny who share some superficial similarities (such as climates and ambiance) with Wales (in the case of Britany), with Netherlands (in the case of Nord-pas-de-calais) and with England for Normandy. France, as a country with mediterranean coasts, of latin herency, whose culture is rooted in the mediterranean area share a lot of the common point that share Spain and Italy (even more in some cases). —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.6.12.114 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006

On the other hand, some countries like Serbia or Croatia could be excluded, since the mediterranean part is very limited, and because the culture and mopst of the people of this slavic country is not of mediterranean origin but rooted in the central-eastern Europe. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs) 2 September 2006

 * I'd say Nice and Marseilles were obviously Mediterranean. Dubrovnik certainly feels that way to a visitor. (WT-en) Pashley 02:25, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Change name?
I've just added a remark about Alexandria and other places which to me are also obviously Mediterranean, though mostly not European. Comment? I'd say we should scrap "Mediterranean Europe", especially if it does not fit current European hierarchy, replace it with a "Mediterranean region" article covering more. (WT-en) Pashley 02:25, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Macedonia
I rolled back the change of Macedonia to FYROM. Unless there's a really important reason for us to use this longer and clumsier name, I'd rather not. --(WT-en) Evan 17:36, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Sub-regions
It's bothered me that this region of a dozen nations and a half-dozen city states, stretching from the Atlantic to the Middle East isn't formally broken down into more specific sub-regions. We have the sub-regions of Iberia (which appears in the breadcrumbs) and the Balkans (which does not), but they aren't acknowledged here. What remains are Italy and its neighbors, and the the eastern countries... which I'm not sure what to call. Is the "Apennine Peninsula" too geo-geek a term for Italy and friends? Would it be insulting to Cyprus to call the eastern region "Aegean" (which is certainly what binds Greece and Turkey together)? Or do we include Greece in the Balkans and call Turkey and Cyprus the, er, "Asia Minor" region of Europe? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Agreed, this article should definitely include its subregions. "Aegean" may not be very accurate for Cyprus, but for once politics would work in our favor since this classification would firmly group the island with either Turkey or Greece, depending on how you prefer to interpret it. Besides we can argue that it has an "Aegean culture" ;) Wouldn't the Apennine Peninsula only include San Marino, Vatican City, and Italy? If so, the region page would necessarily run into content overlap with the Italy article, since the latter comprises 99% of the former's territory. I think we could do without a subregion for the Italian Peninsula and just note in the Italy article that it surrounds two independent city states, San Marino and the Vatican. In any rate, our current practice is to list all sovereign regions contained by a parent region (e.g., Saint Lucia is listed in North America as well as the Caribbean), so the Vatican and San Marino will still be linked. So I suppose that we will continue listing all the Mediterranean, European countries on this page regardless of what regions we also list. I'm not a huge fan of this practice though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Bump. With Kosovo and Montenegro added to the list, this region now covers 20 countries, which is way over the suggested limit of 9.  "Southeastern Europe" (everything east of Slovenia) seems one fairly obvious group, but how to label Italy, San Marino, Vatican, Spain, Andorra and Portugal? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

 * You might want to follow this discussion: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#2_proposals

 * (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:22, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

NOT FRANCE ??
Not a word about the most tourist mediterranean european region : the southern coast of France. Not a word about French riviera, where the most famous mediterranean spot lies: Nice, Monaco, Cannes, Saint Tropez

Not a word about Provence, Languedoc regions ? not a word about Marseille, the french oldest city, second biggest city of that country, the biggest mediterranean port, which construct itself as a euro-mediterranean capital ?

Not a word about Corsica, the fourth mediterranean island ?

excluding france of the mediterranean europe is a deep misconception. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

 * If you'd take a moment to look, you'll see we have articles about the French Riviera, including Nice, Cannes, Corsica, etc. The city-state of Monaco is even listed on this page.  It's just that most of France is not on the Mediterranean, so we included it in the Western Europe region instead.  It's simply a method of organizing the guide into a geographical hierarchy, not some misguided unawareness that these places exist. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:32, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Whether we have articles somewhere is not the point; the question is whether to include (at least parts of) France in Mediterranean Europe. The answer is "Naturellement!". I've added some text; please comment or edit. (WT-en) Pashley 03:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

 * That text was intended as a stopgap, the absolute minimum we could say about France here. Just to be clear, I'd like to see my text deleted and France added in the list of countries. I did not feel I could do that directly since the question is under discussion, so I did what I could. (WT-en) Pashley 03:57, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I think 82.224.59.166's remarks raise an important point. Anyone looking at a "Mediterranean Europe" page expects (rightly) to see France. Listing France does go against a small and, I would argue, misguided piece of Project:Geographical hierarchy. While we certainly have to make a choice about France's breadcrumb parent, it really does no harm to list it in both indexes Western Europe and Mediterranean Europe as this creates no significant content overlap. It does however do harm to leave it out of the Mediterranean article because readers less familiar with our practices will think it to be missing, making our guide look less professional—I can certainly see why someone just becoming acquainted with Wikivoyage would be shocked not to see France on this page. Can we please discuss this further at Project:Geographical hierarchy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

 * If we include France in this region, that adds yet another country to the list, making this an increasedly unwieldy region. It's a long way with a lot of stops in between (physically and culturally) from Portugal to Cyprus.  Sub-regions?  (See above.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Splitting up Europe is exercise in frustration, because as soon as you label a country as (say) Southern somebody will come yell that Molvania is definitely Western/Central/Eastern/Mediterranean/Balkan/not-Balkan/... if "Mediterranean Europe" is good enough for L***** P*****, it's good enough for me. (Just this once.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

 * That said, I wouldn't object to renaming Med. Europe as Southern Europe if it solves something -- which I doubt. (WT-en) Jpatokal 14:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I understand the objection of a too long list if we include France - but then, why including Serbia ?? Which is NOT at all a mediterranean country, and whose slavic culture is not much linked with it, but better among eastern European countries than with Spain for exemple. I think you should exclude Serbia and include France instead.

"It's just that most of France is not on the Mediterranean, so we include it in western Europe ". Can we say really that most of Spain is on the mediterranean ? it is forgetting that most of it is more continental or Atlantic. And what about Portugal, which is not at all on the mediterranean (having no shores on it, contrary to France), why is it listed in mediterranean Europe and not in western Europe ?? Portugal and Spain are Atlantic countries which are much more situated at west than France. Vigo, Santander, Santiago de compostella, Basque country, or even Castilla-Y-Leon or Madrid are not mediterranean either. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

 * Agreed, it is kind of silly to include Serbia and Portugal (and don't forget Macedonia and not-at-all-Mediterranean Andorra. Now if we didn't make such an exception for countries (by listing all contained countries on all parent regions throughout the hierarchy) and just listed countries or their immediate parent regions on this article, then everything would suddenly make sense. Serbia looks silly on the Mediterranean Europe article, but Balkans looks perfectly appropriate. Same with Andorra and Iberia. I'm not a fan of our practice of listing all countries in every single region page up the breadcrumb trail (does Macau really need to be listed in Asia?). I think we may be guilty of not taking our region articles seriously enough. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:05, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to add that Monaco is not situated between France and Italy, but inside the french départment of "Alpes maritimes". Italy stands some kilometers away from Monaco.

As I said above, I added an explanation of why France isn't there. It has just been deleted with a comment that self-reference, explaining the hierarchy in article text, will lead to chaos. That may well be correct, but I'd say it is better than leaving France entirely out of the article. To me it seems obvious we should just find a way to include France here, since it obviously belongs. If we can't manage that, then I'd say we need the explanation. (WT-en) Pashley 14:44, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with adding a mention of additional regions. I'd suggest have a pointer paragraph at the end of the regions section to other subregions which may be considered part of the region.   I'd druther France was not singled out for special treatment in this.  Could we combine it with the rather bizzare paragraph about "Historic Cities" into some kind of see also at the end of the regions section? - (WT-en) Colin 15:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Alphabetic or geographic order?
(WT-en) Peter just alphabetised the list of cities. While that is consistent with what others have done on other pages, my reaction is very strongly negative. Methinks they should obviously be listed in geographical order, in this case West-to-East or vice versa. What do others think? Is there a policy governing this? (WT-en) Pashley 03:23, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

 * The only place I have ever seen this practice discussed was here, and the general consensus of this brief discussion was that alphabetizing is the way to go. I see why you might prefer a geographical order. But I think I still prefer alphabetical lists—since it would be hard to determine geographical order for other regions that are not clearly lined up from east to west (or north to south), alphabetized lists will give us greater consistency across Wikivoyage and could easily be written up into policy pages. I'm certainly open to other arguments, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I appreciate Pashley's argument, but from the point of view of consistency I support the alphabetized system. If we change it here, then it opens the way for contributors to start listing cities on other articles geographically and, as Peter mentions, that would be very difficult to organize in many cases. Actually, there is a policy. It is something like, capital city on top (not relevant in this case) and other cities below in alphabetical order - though don't ask me where that policy is listed. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Cities
This ties in to discussions above about which countries to include and "Not France?". In general, I'd say the article is a bit muddled and needs sorting out. Not sure, how, though.

What on Earth are Belgrade, Lublijana and Lisbon doing on the list of major Mediterranean cities? Lisbon is at least a Mediterranean culture, but are the others? None of the three is geographically near the Med. Someone just deleted Izmir, but left those three. Are you joking? Izmir is on the Med and is the center of a major tourist area. And what about Marseille, Nice, Naples, ... or for that matter, Beirut and Alexandria?

If we are limiting it to nine, and I think we should, we need some discussion of which nine. (WT-en) Pashley 08:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I only removed Ismir because it was added most recently, there was no explaination and I personally do not know it. But I agree I should have removed Belgrade and Lublijana, too (just did it now!). As far as I can see nothing happened after the above dicussions. So maybe we should just do the sorting out, if someone does not like it he could revert... --(WT-en) Flip666 writeme! • 09:09, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Portugal
Since when was Portugal on the Mediterranean? It may have a Mediterranean climate but it's on the Atlantic! (WT-en) Rhys 03:26, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Mediterranean culture, too. But then, so does France which does have a coast on the Med and we do not include it. These have been discussed before; see above. I'd include both. (WT-en) Pashley 08:52, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

 * In the new regions of Europe Portugal is part of Iberia and the region Mediterranean Europe is n't in use anymore. --(WT-en) Rein N. 09:37, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

 * ...and I've just redirected it to Europe to make this clearer. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:09, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

France IS on the mediterranean (geographically) and IS of mediterranean culture as Italy, Spain or Portugal are (romance language, catholic religion, etc). The architecture of all the southern half is very similar to that of Italy, Spain or Portugal. the red-roman tiles that are emblematic of southern Europe are found as far as Vendée end southern Burgondy. Urban characteristics of cities (densily populated historical core) is also a characteristic found in most of France, not only in the south... France has much more in common with Spain or Italy than with UK and Netherlands. If Portugal is incuded in mediterranean Europe there is absolutly no reason that France is not! Portugal is even much more situated at west than France is... Portugal is not situated on the mediterranean...  and finally that is Portugal that is included in "mediterranean Europe"   and France only in "western Europe" while situed on the mediterranean and much more east than Portugal!...  if it is such those terms loose completly all their signification. Either Portugal and Spain have to be included in "western Europe" (since more western European than France), or either France has to be included in mediterranean Europe with Spain, and Portugal in "atlantic or 'western' Europe" only.
 * You have joined an old discussion. The region doesn't exist anymore on Wikivoyage.  --(WT-en) inas 06:12, 27 January 2011 (EST)

"Do" section
Assuming this article isn't going to be reverted to a redirect (which perhaps it should be), does anyone dissent from deleting all the contents of the "Do" section? Extra-hierarchical regions of this nature should have very brief descriptions and direct readers to more developed articles with more content. The entire Mediterranean area of Europe is much too big for it to make sense for there to be specific "Do"s. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Those were more of less my thoughts, tough I wasn't specifiably thinking of the Do section. Some of tease sections should defiantly go. Also pretty much anything that would become seriously out of date of left unmaintained should be left to the Europe article; we don't want to need to waste time and effort doing much maintenance of this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this a useful page?
This page had been redirected to Europe, I think on the basis that there is such a long Mediterranean coast that it's not very useful to have a page devoted to all the countries that have one. So why not turn this back into a redirect? What is gained, otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * This was redirected before we had extra-hierarchical regions, so I plunged froward and wend ahead with that method; being of limited usefulness is precisely the reason this is an EHR. It seamed to be that if a reader had bookmarked this page, or specifiably looks up "Mediterranean Europe", it would be better to present him with this page. Limited usefulness of a region seems like a week argument when a reader is specifiably requesting that region. I don't feel that strongly about this tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Why would it be better to present this page than to simply have the search term redirect to Europe? That's what's not clear to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Although now that you've pared this article, it seems pretty good to me, so I'm fine with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not really fine with this, even if we got rid of the very un-WV-like fruit-loop-colored lists. "Mediterranean Europe" might be a useful division if you're giving a lecture on the trade networks of sea-faring civilizations of antiquity, but from the traveller's perspective it is simply not a useful way to divide the continent, which was essentially the conclusion we arrived at when this was reduced from a real article to a redirect the first time 5 years ago. A simple redirect to Europe#Regions shows the reader all they need to know at a glance — that our coverage breaks down Mediterranean Europe into 5 regions. Texugo (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * As I said, that's precisely why this is an EHR. What's the point of sending the reader to the Europe guide when we have this "guide" about Mediterranean Europe specifiably? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As the one who basically came up with it, I am a big fan of the extra-hierarchical region idea. However, it was not meant to justify simple list articles for any and every way of slicing up the world - and we have always sought to avoid list articles. The extra-hierarchical region idea is meant for cases where there is plenty to be said about a given region - general information, relevant to the traveller, that applies uniquely to that full region and which cannot be reasonably covered elsewhere. In this case, however, there are no such shared cultural or logistical generalities among all these various countries; they simply happen to be on the same sea, and as such, all this article could ever be is a list article. It's no more useful than a "Pacific South America" or a "US Atlantic Seaboard" article would be - a simple glance at a map will tell you what you need to know about how our content is organized, so a redirect to such a map makes perfect sense. Texugo (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Reviving the discussion around this. Presently this page offers no information that is not found in Europe and seems to be be at most a list article. Can we merge? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 * There has been no further comment since February. I think User:Texugo summed it up nicely by saying: there are no such shared cultural or logistical generalities among all these various countries; they simply happen to be on the same sea
 * Any final objections before a merge? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Instead of a merge, I went for a disambiguation for now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't see any reason to have a disambig page for the whole body of water and a second separate disambig for the European portion thereof, so why not just redirect to Mediterranean Sea? Texugo (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I was unaware of that article. Redirecting. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mediterranean Europe


text:
Talk:Mediterranean Turkey

Major overhaul in subregional hierarchy
I'd like to propose a major overhaul in subregional hierarchy, mainly to avoid:
 * 1) The artificial divide of Lycia, which is a coherent travel region and is well-known by this name among international travellers. It’s now divided between Western Lycia and western half of Antalya Province.
 * 2) Overload of Antalya Province. It currently lists 10 cities (+3 red links) and 6 valid ODs. These will likely increase in the future. In addition, west and east coasts of Antalya Province don't have much in common—west is mountainous, and full of towns that are more of independent traveller destinations, while east mainly consists of flat coastal plains with large (or at least large-ish) towns or cities, resorts of which receive lots of tourists on package tours.
 * 3) Letting Mersin Province article go defunct. There were (and likely will be) several recent proposals by local politicians to Turkish Parliament to divide Mersin Province into two provinces (and sometimes three), one centred at Mersin, other at Silifke (and yet, another at Anamur). It is likely that these proposals will be accepted sooner or later, which means the article on province will be out of date. And western and eastern parts of the province are not similar really, just like in the case of Antalya Province—west is mountainous and largely off-the-beaten-path while east is largely agricultural and industrial, and much more populated plains.
 * 4) And finally, to avoid a needlessly convoluted subregional hierarchy of modern administrative provinces, historical, geographical, and cultural regions all thrown in—which the current hierarchy exactly is.

So, my proposal is as follows, from west to east:
 * Lycia — current Western Lycia in addition to western third of Antalya Province, i.e. up to north of Kemer
 * Lakes District — no changes.
 * Pamphylia — central and eastern two-thirds of Antalya Province, i.e. anywhere from south of Antalya to east of Gazipaşa (to the border between Antalya and Mersin Provinces, in other words). While Gazipaşa was historically (and is geographically) a part of Cilicia, the completion of an international airport there will make it one of the major gateways for resorts east of Antalya, and current transportation links are already oriented towards Pamphylia—the road to west is a wide and well-surfaced highway not far from motorway standards, while the road east (to Cilicia) is a winding and narrow mountain road.
 * Cilicia Trachea — this is a tough one. Cilicia Trachea translates "Rough Cilicia" or (according to my own interpretation) "Mountainous Cilicia", but that makes a weird name, so I propose to name this Cilician Mountains (although I am aware that it, in addition to mountains, has great beaches, too). Western/southern and central two-thirds of Mersin Province, i.e. all the way to east of Erdemli. I'd also like to propose here that Ermenek and its surrounding countryside, which roughly equals to southern "panhandle" of Karaman Province projecting towards Mediterranean Turkey to south, currently part of top-level region of Central Anatolia, be moved to Cilician Mountains (and thus Mediterranean Turkey in general). While Ermenek is not clearly "Mediterranean" (as it's far away from the coast), it is historically and geographically an inevitable part of Cilicia Trachea, and it has next to none in common with Central Anatolian steppes to north.
 * Cilician Plains — the current region in addition to eastern third of Mersin Province, i.e. counties of Mersin, Tarsus, and Çamlıyayla.
 * Hatay — the same with current Hatay Province (and currently a redirect to that), but I'd like to drop "province" from the name. It's really unnecessary as Hatay is only and only the name of the province itself, not its capital (unlike most other Turkish provinces), i.e. there is not a Hatay (city) or something.

I've uploaded the primitive map (sorry, I still cannot use Inkscape!) to right to show clearly what I meant (and am hoping that one of mapmakers would take an interest to produce one of Wikivoyage quality).

So far, my only hesitation is to use the historical names for regions. While Lycia and Cilician Plains are in quite common usage today (the latter a little less common than the former one), I’m not sure how people will react when they see "Cilician Mountains" or (since this is a huge tourism destination, especially) "Pamphylia". But I can’t come up with better names for these regions, and it sounds like a nice idea to go with historical names all the way east once you start with Lycia.

Other than the move of Ermenek from Central Anatolia, I'm not proposing any changes at all to borders of Mediterranean Turkey as a whole.

I am naturally volunteering for updating breadcrumbs, merging and dividing content between current articles, i.e. anything that needs to be done for implementing the hierarchy.

Anyone in favour? Anyone against? – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:41, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Given there is not any comments, I presume there are no objections as well, so I'm plunging forward with this. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:17, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Renaming some of the subregions
As I stated in the 2010 thread above, it is hard to find relevant names for some of the subregions. Some, such as Pamphylia, are long forgotten and used by almost no one except the historians, while others, e.g. Cilician Mountains, are not only bad translations from names that were out of use for centuries, but are also misleading—while that region is certainly mountainous, most of the destinations there are not over the mountains but on the coast. So, here is the list of my proposals for renamings: Vidimian (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lycia — no changes. This is a historic name but in wide usage among the traveller scene, especially in English. I'd like to tweak its eastern border though: While historically in the periphery of ancient Lycia, Kemer and nearby Beldibi are mass tourism resorts, whereas elsewhere in Lycia is better known for attracting independent, backpacker-type, alternative/"hippy" travellers. So they should better be moved to the eastern neighbouring region, currently named Pamphylia.
 * Pamphylia → Antalya Region. Pamphylia is a purely historic name, with no wide usage today. Since Antalya is the main hub of the region and its anchor city, I think the proposal is a fitting name. Note that it only partially overlaps with Antalya Province (wp), so we can't use that name.
 * Lakes District — no changes. A common name for the region. There was a separate discussion back in 2013 in which all the involved parties agreed to move it to a a new top-level region named Western Anatolia, but that article hasn't been started so far.
 * Cilician Mountains → Taşeli (wp). "Cilician Mountains" is a bad translation from its original ancient Greek name, which in turn has seen no usage for the last... millenium? It's also confusing and weird that the article mostly covers the coastline, and not the mountains behind it. While Taşeli is not a terribly popular name for the area (and how could it be, considering the region receives only a trickle of travellers), it at least has some currency. Note that while Gazipaşa (wp) is traditionally considered to be a part of Taşeli (and Cilicia Trachea), it's better to keep it together with Alanya in the western neighbouring region, due to the modern transportation connections which heavily link Gazipaşa with the towns to its west, so no changes in the regional borders.
 * Cilician Plains → Çukurova (currently a redirect to the present article name, which is why it's a blue link). English-only Google searches show a slight preference for Çukurova (360,000+ for "Çukurova" vs 220,000+ for "Cilician Plain" and 90,000+ for "Cilician Plains"), although they might be manipulated by the fact that "Çukurova" as a name is also shared by a university, a metropolitan district, and a business conglomerate, but those all are located in the region, anyway. Besides Wikipedia uses a version of this name (I honestly don't know why they chose to name their article "Chukurova", though). Again the 2013 discussion linked above ended in a consensus to move it to a yet-to-be-started Southern Turkey region, but this wasn't implemented so far.
 * Hatay — no changes. A common, and perhaps the only, name for the region. Same with the Cilician Plains in regard to the separate 2013 discussion.

 * I support the renaming. These are well researched and reasoned proposals. Gizza ( roam ) 22:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mediterranean Turkey


text:
Talk:Medjumbe

VFD Discussion
I don't know what I think about this one. It's a private island visitable only through the proprietary resort company, which I think makes it kind of like XChalet or some of those other resorts in the Mexican Carribean coast, destinations for which we have decided against allowing articles for. The See and Do options are already admittedly few, and any Get in, Get around, Eat, or Sleep sections are all going to end up being things provided by the same resort company (and indeed what is there now reads like touting). The only thing going for it is that it's an hour flight away from the next closest destination. I'm still leaning toward merging it into the Get out section of Pemba and making this a redirect to that section. What do you guys think?
 * Merge and Redirect (WT-en) Texugo 22:59, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. If the only way to get there is a one-hour flight and you can sleep there, it's a destination of its own, even if there isn't very much there.  See eg. Layang Layang. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Keep. Agree with (WT-en) Jpatokal. --(WT-en) inas 22:44, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Kept --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:34, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Medjumbe


text:
Talk:Megalithic temples of Malta

I hope this pages proves useful for people who want to know a little more about the Megalithic past of Malta and or the UNESCO World Heritage sites found there. I think the Itinerary set up is the correct one to use for this.(WT-en) Meltwaterfalls 12:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Merge to Malta?
I would suggest merging the content into Malta and leave this as a redirect. The article itself is short, and I doubt it will grow any longer in a near future. More importantly, it's not a proper itinerary, just a list. Also, the sites themselves are not described individually at all.

If you're not convinced yet, check out the articles for the listed sites. Hagar Qim and Mnajdra is a short one and has a merge tag. Two other sites are in "Go next" sections of major towns. The final two are redlinks. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Megalithic temples of Malta


text:
Talk:Melbourne

Districts
Melbourne is most certainly a huge city, so I will attempt to divide the city into proper districts, moving information to its respective district. There appears to have been some kind of effort already, but it could be improved on. The following is what I propose:
 * Central
 * Parkville/Carlton
 * St Kilda
 * South Yarra/Prahran/Toorak
 * Inner east (Fitzroy, Richmond, Collingwood, etc)
 * South Melbourne (Albert Park, etc)
 * Flemington (Ascot Vale, Kensington, etc)

Then, we move onto the suburbs:
 * East (Kew, Doncaster, Box Hill, Ringwood, etc)
 * North (Brunswick, Preston, Coburg, Tullamarine, etc)
 * West (Williamstown, Yarraville, Sunshine, Werribee, Melton, etc)
 * South-east (Brighton, Chadstone, Narre Warren, Cranbourne, Frankston, etc)

It is possible we could include these 2 districts within Melbourne:
 * Mornington Peninsula (anything south of Frankston)
 * The Dandenongs (anything east of Rowville)

So, it's only off the top of my head, but it's a basis. Any thoughts? If no one has anything to say, I might just plunge forward and do it myself. (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 05:18, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

 * I'd put a notice on the page saying districting is in progress, and give it a couple of weeks, as some people may not visit that regularly. After than, I'd say go ahead.  --(WT-en) Inas 20:49, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the tip. I've added the notice, and we'll see if anyone else wishes to contribute. My mapmaking skills are a disaster, so hopefully someone knows how to make a decent map around here. (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 04:18, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

 * Looks good JamesA - my suggestions are:
 * don't make the Mornington a subset of Melbourne. It should be a subdistrict of Victoria as it is a destination in its own right. The Dandenongs are arguable either way, so I'm not fussed.
 * I question whether Flemington needs its own article.
 * Does South Bank need its own article, separate to the city? It has enough destinations in its own right and is distinguishable even from "South Melbourne"
 * "Parkville/Carlton" might be better named "Inner North". (WT-en) JRG 09:13, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the comments, JRG. Great to have some feedback! I'd agree with Flemington not requiring its own article, but where does it belong? West Suburbs, North Suburbs, Inner north, Central? And Inner North is a much better name, and then we can chuck in North Melbourne. The Toorak area also needs its own name. I'm tempted to say "Wealthy inner suburbs", but that would be biased. :P Possibly "Stonnington", and expand it to include Malvern?
 * I was a little unsure of the Mornington Peninsula. Official sources say that coastal region down from Frankston to Portsea is part of the metropolitan area. But I wouldn't include places on the other side like Flinders and Hastings in Melbourne. A region of Victoria would probably be best.
 * As for Southbank, I feel that putting it on its own may not get it enough info. I know locally, it's regarded as a world of its own. But going by the Melbourne/Central article, there's not too much to say about Southbank. I guess if we listed many of the restaurants on the waterfront, got some shops from Crown and added attractions like the river tours and Eureka Skydeck, it could all add up. I'm happy to let it have its own district, and if it doesn't work, it can be merged later.
 * One last thing: should the large Suburbs articles be further divided into suburbs/councils? Eastern Suburbs is going to add up to be one huge article that isn't much use to the traveller, when it's talking about places that are dozens of kilometres apart. I think dividing them into their councils and moving articles like Melbourne/Werribee to Melbourne/Wyndham (including other places like the RAAF base at Point Cook) would work better. Okay, that's all I have to say. :) (WT-en)  J ames A    >talk 09:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

 * Hi everyone. I'm a Melburnian and I'm pretty used to the districts. Whilst I do agree with splitting up the districts, I do have to say that splitting them up so much will confuse tourists. Isn't this just a tourist guide? We should just show some inner city suburbs and a couple of highlights. Maybe change up a couple of places and move around a couple of things. But by keeping it central, you are showcasing the city's highlights and making sure people don't have to move around far to see all the cities highlights. Brisbane doesn't have districts. It doesn't require them. However, if you people say that Melbourne requires districts then maybe we should keep it to about 3 or 4. That way tourists don't have to hunt around so often to find the places they are looking for. Most people coming to Melbourne are just interested in our highlights. If you want to split up the districts so much, then go back to Wikipedia. At Wikivoyage it is better to just show the cities highlights. You people may have experience. But what point are you trying to show that so many districts is the way to go? Geez!Springyboy (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed on fewer districts is better... but what are the major changes between this proposed split and the existing one?  I'm not seeing a huge difference.  Also, without a map defining the boundaries, any set of districts (including the current one) will be kind of useless. Jpatokal (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments. I understand that international visitors to Melbourne rarely spend more than a few days, and only want to see the highlights. But Melbourne is geographically a huge city, and even when just considering the inner city, there are so many districts that are culturally unique and separate from each other. If we want to just mention the highlights, then that is what the "See" section is for on this Melbourne article. It should mention the most popular attractions for itinerary ideas, and the districts should have listings with contact info.
 * We also need to remember that a lot of Melbournians themselves may use this guide, when discovering things to do in the city. That's why I've created articles for the respective quarters of suburbs, which cover huge areas with many attractions, shops and eateries.
 * If you want to see what a large number of districts looks like, take a look at London or even the old districts format for Melbourne. There were 14 districts in the inner city, along with numerous articles for random suburbs strewn across the city. I've halved this into 7 districts. We can further reduce it to 5 by merging City Centre and Southbank, and possible St Kilda and South Melbourne, although I don't think that is necessary. By the way, Jpatokal, I've already implemented the districts as listed above so there are no further changes, unless you guys think there should be. I have a rough sketch of the map borders if you'd like the general idea. JamesA  >talk 10:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eat: Lentil as Anything
I am not affiliated with Lentil as Anything, but I think this is a great addition to the food section of Melbourne.

"Lentil as Anything is a unique not for profit community organisation. At our core are the pay as you feel restaurants where customers give what they feel the food is worth and have the opportunity to contribute towards a world where respect, generosity, trust, equality, freedom and kindness rule."

So basically there are three restaurants in the Abbotsford Convent, Footscray and St Kilda where the food has no price, so you pay how much you want or can. The foods they make are wordly (Italian, Indian, Morccan, etc.) and are vegetarian, with vegan, gluten-free, and dairy-free also available. The one in the Abbotsford Convent is the most popular one. Buffet dining, great atmosphere.

Here is their website for reference: http://lentilasanything.com/

I'd edit the page myself, but I rather have someone with English as their mother tongue for proper grammar to edit it.
 * Your English looks fine. You should do the edit yourself. Someone else can always edit your English if there's any improvement to be made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. As a Melbournian myself, I've also heard of Lentil as Anything and know it's a fantastic cause. I'm in the (slow) progress of updating all of the Melbourne district pages, so will get around to adding some good, well-known restaurants eventually. As it's in Abbotsford Convent, you should add the listing at Melbourne/Inner_east, maybe under a new header Abbotsford. I will get around to sorting that page out eventually, and will make sure Lentil as Anything is kept. All the best! JamesA  >talk 07:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Are districts finalized?
It is unclear to me from the talk page whether districts have been finalized or not. There are a lot of listing that need moving down to district level, so we should conclude this.

It would be good to hear from User:JamesA, although he has been dormant for a couple of months now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know it too. Melbourne is one of those cities with districts but without a district map. James who is a local and is a member of the map making expedition perhaps would like to make the map as well. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, it seems strange that Melbourne has had very little attention. I have lived there for a year, so I will plunge forward. Still happy for User:JamesA to jump in.
 * Just to be clear, I will assume the latest district discussion as final. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Apologies for being quite inactive as of late; unfortunately I cannot put as much time into the wiki as I used to, though I am certainly not retiring and may take up editing again at some point. Just to clarify, Andrewssi2 and ϒpsilon, yes, the districts have mostly been finalised. I did start planning a map but never got around to it. What I have on my computer is an early design plot which I used to plan the current districts layout. Here is the (hastily drawn) map: . Of course it is not perfect, but I used it to plan the inner districts. The suburbs I've not planned, but they're mostly unimportant, as there's little in the way of attractions that you'd bother visiting. In the final districts map, I'd highly recommend showing major streets with the district colours overlayed, so it is clear where the districts start and end. I'd also be happy to give a local's feedback on any map that is designed. Just send me an email so I can check it out here. James A ▪ talk 02:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Brunswick
I have just merged and redirected Brunswick (Victoria) to Melbourne/Brunswick as suggested, but this appears to need further merging with Melbourne/Inner north. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Brunswick is a bit out of the city, so would actually be more appropriate in Melbourne/Northern as one of the northern suburbs, north of Brunswick Rd. I'm still unsure what to do about suburbs like these, though, as an article mixing areas as diverse as Brunswick, Broadmeadows, Preston, Moonee Ponds, Hurstbridge and the airport is not going to be helpful at all (some of these places are more than an hour apart by car). Would be interested to hear others' opinions of what they've done with other huge cities ringed by suburbs. James A ▪ talk 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Can you or someone else either update or remove the merge tag on Melbourne/Moreland? That article was tagged for merging more than two years ago, I performed the merge in April 2015, and the merge was reverted in August 2015.  I have no insight into where or whether the article should be merged, but tagging an article for more than two years is excessive, so if it shouldn't be merged or it isn't clear where to merge it to the tag should be removed or replaced with districts discussion, otherwise I think the merge should be restored even if the redirect isn't perfect. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Ryan, thanks, Melbourne/Moreland is the new location of all info about Brunswick and surrounding areas. It would've done the area and travellers a great disservice by merging it into a huge region covering the northern suburbs, and didn't quite fit into the inner north. I've removed the merge tag. James A ▪ talk 01:11, 20 September 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) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The old one is striking and interesting, while the proposed new one is just yet another zoomed out cityscape that could be most anywhere. Texugo (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am much less sure. I think that skyline is itself interesting, and some of those buildings definitely are not anywhere else. To me, they're both good banners, but as I said in Talk:Bhutan, they're so different from each other that I have trouble deciding why and on what basis to pick one over the other. And if I'm not sure, I guess that means I don't think any change is necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Flinders street station is an iconic part of Melbourne. The proposed cityscape just shows a big city that could be anywhere. I would not change. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the old banner. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Astor Theatre
Do the recent changes to the ownership of the Astor Theatre and it's potential redevelopment need to be taken into account when recommending it as a "thing to do"? Ausjackal (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Finalised district format
After many years of sitting there idly, I've decided to remove Template:Districts discussion and can happily say that the district formatting is complete. I'd just like to explain the new format here so everyone understands where certain listings and suburbs should go:

For Central Melbourne:
 * Melbourne/City Centre - the CBD, Docklands, East Melbourne, Southbank (as far north as Victoria St/Pde, east to Hoddle St, south to Citylink but down to Domain Interchange, including Botanic Gardens)
 * Melbourne/St Kilda - St Kilda and surrounds, including Elwood
 * Melbourne/Inner south - Port Melbourne, Albert park, South Melbourne, Fishermans Bend, etc
 * Melbourne/Inner north - Carlton, Parkville, North Melbourne (not including Brunswick however, border described in the guide)
 * Melbourne/Inner east - Fitzroy, Richmond, Collingwood, Abbotsford, Clifton Hill (pretty much all of the City of Yarra east of Carlton and the CBD, far north as Brunswick Rd/Yarra River, but excluding East Melbourne/MCG area)
 * Melbourne/Stonnington - everything in the City of Stonnington boundaries

For Greater Melbourne, I've decided to do something different. Taking a leaf from Sydney's book, four major regions will be listed on the Melbourne page, those being the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western suburbs as current. However, these pages won't have guides, and in the brackets the local government areas will be listed, each of which will have it's on guide that describes all of the listings in that area. For example, Melbourne/Boroondara will describe everything in the City of Boroondara, including Kew, Hawthorn, Camberwell, Balwyn, etc. Werribee won't get its own guide, but Melbourne/Wyndham will. These guides will ensure coverage and completeness, but will probably be more aimed at local tourists rather than international visitors. Creating pages for Melbourne/Eastern just adds complexity and these pages will remain largely empty.

I will try and work on a regions map in the near future to clarify these new districts. Regards, James A ▪ talk 07:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Melbourne Cleanup, District and City Naming and Article Types
Hi JamesA, thanks for putting time into cleaning up Melbourne. It must be a lot of work and thanks for all the new articles.

However, I have some concerns about the article hierarchy under Melbourne. On the one hand, a lot of the articles concerning suburbs of Melbourne that does not seem to be inside Melbourne proper (judging from the writing, you are the expert here) have the template, and are named as "Melbourne/[Name of place]". But a lot of them do not have the template. According to Wikivoyage naming conventions, having the hierarchy in the name a la "Melbourne/[Name]" is typically reserved for Districts: Naming_conventions. I have some scripts that analyze names and types of articles, and as far as I can tell, the Melbourne article hierarchy is unique in this regard. I wonder if you could bring these into alignment with other article hierarchies?

As I see it, there are two ways to fix this:

 * 1) Mark all the articles with the name "Melbourne/[Name]" as district articles, much like how Sydney and greater Sydney is done. I was tempted to go ahead and change all those Melbourne sub-articles, and have actually done a few. As I went about doing that, I realize this is more structural than a few mis-labeled articles. Hence this talk topic. Since I have no knowledge whether it is accurate to call all those cities and regions "districts" of Melbourne, I do not want to continue my changes, and would rather defer to you to make decisions.
 * 2) Change some articles with the name "Melbourne/[Name]" to simply "[Name]", when those articles actually describe cities or regions that are outside of Melbourne proper. Then, you can mark them as  or  as appropriate, changing "outline" to whatever status they should be. Those articles can in turn be part of Victoria (state), or a new article describing the greater Melbourne metropolitan area or whatever the locals call it. A prime example is Chicagoland, which describes the vast area that people colloquially calls "Chicago" that includes a lot of towns and cities are not inside Chicago proper. This will likely be more involved, but it will give you more flexibility on applying the article types "region" and "city" to places outside Melbourne proper, not having to call them "districts" of Melbourne.

Thanks for your help. Best, Wiki9gel (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Can you point to those articles that do not belong in Melbourne proper?
 * I do see a lot of red links in the outer suburbs however, and given that those areas will have relatively little to see can I suggest merging them into larger areas where appropriate? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi guys. Thank you both for the feedback; I really appreciate it because discussion has been pretty low in the past! In terms of the varied terms/templates/labels used on the new articles, that probably happened because I moved a lot of the old articles into the new district format and didn't check their templates. To clarify, 'all articles in Category:Melbourne are districts of Melbourne per the new format, apart from Melbourne Airport (for obvious reasons) and Melbourne/Yarraville and Melbourne/Williamstown which need to be merged into Melbourne/Hobsons Bay at some point. So go ahead and continue your changes if you wish. All these suburban municipalities that are undoubtedly part of Melbourne proper, so it'd be inappropriate to create say a Greater Melbourne article with separate hierarchies.
 * On the second point, there are a few red links after changing the format just a day or two ago, so a few places don't have articles yet. You'd think the outer areas would have little to see, but conversely, it seems they have quite a bit actually and it wouldn't work to merge them. I'd say they all warrant their own articles, apart from maybe Melbourne/Knox, Melbourne/Maroondah, Melbourne/Whittlesea, Melbourne/Kingston and Melbourne/Cardinia where content will exist but may be patchy. Volunteering in the city's tourism centre now, I'm amazed how many people ask for attractions in the suburbs, and merging these areas into huge districts won't do them justice (like I originally had it with Northern suburbs, Southern, etc. After I've tried to fill out the articles, I'll take a second look and see if any could fairly be merged with their neighbours. Thanks again for the help guys. James A ▪ talk 08:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Are you working in the tourist office in Federation square? I guess you should know the subject then :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the one! We have a lot of paper and online material, but also opportunities for professional development which is useful for updating our guides. James A ▪ talk 10:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Great, I go past there a lot (my office is down St Kilda road) so will check it out again sometime. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fix southern suburbs?
Many of areas listed in the Southern suburbs are red linked, and I feel that does then a disservice. Specifically Melbourne/Frankston is a good article, but it is lost a bit between the relinks as well as being also listed as a suburb of Melbourne/Kingston (which is near empty).

Can we just create one article for Southern suburbs? It wouldn't stop someone coming along later and expanding on those districts properly. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 * We had one article for Southern suburbs before, and I felt it was doing travellers a great disservice in describing an area which takes about an hour driving from end to end, and merging destinations that are fairly popular in their own right, such as Frankston and Brighton (in Bayside, not Kingston as has been mistakenly done).

 * Maybe we can have a compromise for Melbourne's suburbs, where major destinations such as Frankston keep their own article, while other smaller places like Kingston are merged elsewhere. I know Melbourne's suburbs/councils quite well, so think the following should fit nicely:
 * Eastern suburbs
 * Boroondara
 * Manningham
 * Whitehorse/Monash
 * Knox/Maroondah
 * Northern suburbs
 * Nillumbik/Whittlesea
 * Banyule/Darebin
 * Moreland/Hume (unsure about this, Brunswick is pretty significant to deserve own article and shouldn't be grouped with Sunbury)
 * Southern suburbs
 * Bayside/Glen Eira
 * Cardinia/Casey
 * Kingston/Greater Dandenong (could possibly be merged into Cardinia/Casey if the article's are still pretty sparse)
 * Frankston
 * Western suburbs
 * Maribyrnong/Moonee Valley
 * Brimbank/Melton
 * Hobsons Bay
 * Wyndham

 * Does that sound more reasonable? James A ▪ talk 09:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Looks good. I'm not as expert as you so naturally I'll defer to your judgment.
 * Just one question, I feel Brighton ( Brighton,_Victoria ) needs to jump out rather than hidden under Bayside. Any ideas on that? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Maybe instead of naming it something generic like Bayside, we can name the article Melbourne/Brighton and Caulfield or something like that? I'd name it just Melbourne/Brighton, but that ignores the rest of the area and isn't particularly accurate. James A ▪ talk 11:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Sure, Melbourne/Brighton and Caulfield sounds good! Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there too many districts?
I don't know anything about Melbourne, so please say so if I am wrong, but given the rather large amount of "districts" listed under (cardinal direction) suburbs and the huge amount of outline districts that are part of Melbourne, maybe the districts should be reorganized or reduced in number? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I would say the 'Inner Melbourne' section is pretty good. The 'Greater Melbourne' section does seem a bit unwieldy, although the nature of a large sprawling city is that you will have a lot of sparse residential suburbs. My feeling is that they are better in this format than another 'sub dividing' region level below. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 * We've discussed this extensively above. The fact is, Australian cities are understood differently from cities in say North America or Europe, where the surrounding suburbs are higher in the hierarchy. In this case, a place is either in Melbourne or it's not in Melbourne: there's no real middle ground. I think it does travellers a great disservice by merging far-flung and completely different areas which have no relevance to each other apart from cardinal direction. If people really think there are too many districts, sure, they can be further merged. There's scope to merge Cranbourne/Pakenham with Dandenong, Nillumbik with Manningham, and possibly some others. But having guides such as Melbourne/West, Melbourne/East, etc would be completely useless to anyone.
 * Comparatively Chicago has 35 districts (excluding the greater metropolitan area of Chicagoland, which Melbourne does include), Paris has 21 districts (excluding les banlieues/suburbs) and Sydney has over 30. Melbourne has 20 now and will reach a maximum of 22 when the last 2 redlinked districts are created. Thanks for the input, guys! James A ▪ talk 02:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Two years on and there are still a bunch of districts ranked at outline. Is there just nothing in those districts or has it just not been listed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of the districts should be consolidated. It has been a long time since I've been in Melbourne though, so I don't really know how it should be done. There are some single outer suburbs with articles in their own right, and they don't do a good job at explaining why it is a destination in its own right (they seem to be average residential areas). To be frank, it looks like Chicago has too many districts too and Sydney, to a small extent. If there was any city that needed over 20 districts it would be Paris, having a much larger population and being the one of the most visited cities in the world. Gizza ( roam ) 00:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For a start can reflect the district list and map on the city page, single page for Western suburbs - Footscray, Flemington and surrounds, Sunshine and Melton, Hobsons Bay, Wyndham. Includes areas like Altona, Williamstown, Point Cook, Footscray in Maribyrnong, Werribee in Wyndham, Ascot Vale, Moonee Ponds, Caroline Springs, Sunshine, Melton, Keilor and Sydenham.--Traveler100 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ascot Vale and Moonee Ponds should definitely be merged together. They are adjacent single suburbs, a 5 minute drive or 1.8 km (1.1 miles) from each other. Even the Melbourne tourism website views Ascot Vale as part of the greater Moonee Ponds area . Note that Sydney is a larger city than Melbourne by metropolitan area, population and tourist numbers ] so it's reasonable to expect Sydney to have more district articles overall. Gizza ( roam ) 00:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hi,

I have built a website which is useful for Melbournians that is also extremely useful for travellers.

The site is http://www.burgersofmelbourne.com.au - it is a blog that showcases all of Melbourne's best burgers and would be a great resource for those looking to eat this type of food. It displays a live list of top rated burgers as well as a list of top milkshakes and gluten free options.

I tried to included the to do section on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Melbourne and it told me the link was spam.

Internally in the CBD page, I did see 2 burger joints displayed which is why I thought it would be a good idea to contribute to the whole state page.

Are you able to help?

I also tried to include a listing into the St Kilda area, which is La Roche - a well known restaurant for travellers which has great deals each day of the week, it kept saving but no confirmation which makes me believe it hasn;t been submitted.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

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

 * Thanks for your post. Please look at external links. We don't link to blogs or other travel guides, unless sometimes when they're official (such as being produced by the local Board of Tourism). If you'd like to contribute to this guide, the way you can do that is by sharing information here, not by linking to your blog, however good it may be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge?
There are many districts around Melbourne that could be moved into their related parts of the city (Western Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs, etc.) without us having to change the map. Since at least some of these are outlines it seems only sensible to merge them. Therefore, if I don't get any response about this within a few days, I will plunge forward and do this, since it would then fit the map and really doesn't seem to have any downsides. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 21:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Actually, I won't. It's too much work to do that. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 17:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created Melbourne/Western Suburbs by merging a number of suburbs. Needs a little bit of work to restructure as have just copied over content. I think this is a good sized article and removes a number of almost empty articles. Have not yet redirected the original pages would welcome feedback before making this move. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, there’s a static map in the Melbourne article that is a good guide for how to divide the districts. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 14:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ascot Vale, Moonee Ponds are listed under both Northern suburbs and Western suburbs, which should they be in?

 * I'm no Melbourne resident, but a quick Google Maps search puts them both in the northern side of the city and the western part. They're west of Melbourne Zoo but east of the Maribyrnong River. But looking at the static map and how far north they are compared to how far west of downtown they are, I think they belong in the North, barely. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 16:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I redirect some of the districts to Melbourne/Western suburbs where you've already merged but not redirected? --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait a little but you can if you think the new merge is good. But note need to move the entries for Ascot Vale and Moonee Ponds from Western suburbs to Northern suburbs. And redirect suggestion fixed. Need to create Northern suburbs first though. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've created Melbourne/Southern suburbs and I'm working on a merge there from those districts. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 17:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you've already merged Ascot Vale and Moonee Ponds to Western suburbs, we might as well leave them there. Moving all those listings would be a lot of work that's not necessary. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 17:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So I've now done Melbourne/Southern suburbs, it just needs organization and formatting. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 18:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started Melbourne/Eastern suburbs, but going off line for a few hours, so if anyone else want to complete it before I get back feel free. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

dynamic map

 * I made a dynamic map. Currently lacking the inner districts, which do not conform to government/Wikidata boundaries so I don't know how to do them. Ar2332 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved here as does not match current district map --Traveler100 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Melbourne district map
On Talk:Melbourne is a dynamic district map I have been working on for the city. The outer districts are shown on the map, since they correspond to official government districts (present in OpenStreetMap). However, the inner WV districts do not correspond to official districts - they have custom shapes, as shown on each of the district pages. Is there a way of adding these districts to the dynamic map, short of adding them to OSM as a special category of boundary? (Which OSM might not appreciate) Ar2332 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Check e.g. Madrid. Basically you can create the inner map using geojson-commons map, and use wikidata for the rest....How_to_use_dynamic_maps -- andree.sk  (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Myki Card.JPG

District lines
The lines for Melbourne/Stonnington look to me to be drawn in the wrong place, apparently with the intent of including Chadstone under Stonnington, despite the fact it's much further out and lacks cultural or transit links with the region. Should this be modified? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Street Art
interesting photos Pashley (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Melbourne


text:
Talk:Melbourne/Albert Park

Missing information??
I may be wrong, but has the majority of information for Albert Park gone missing? I've worked on this article before and don't remember it being a stub. Can someone please clarify this? Thanks. --(WT-en) MarinaK 03:56, 5 August 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

title: Talk:Melbourne/Albert Park


text:
Talk:Melbourne/Archive 1

Walking tour
So, I'm really pretty unhappy with this walking tour stuff. Can we please break it down to the attraction listings format? It might be useful to do an itinerary like An afternoon in Melbourne on foot, or A walking tour of Melbourne's Central Business District, but I don't think this belongs in the main article. --(WT-en) Evan 10:00, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * I agree with the principle of what Evan said. A walking tour is really an itinerary. The only thing I'd change is the title -- something like Melbourne walking tours, Walks in Melbourne or Melbourne on foot. Such an article could act as a container for several walking tours. (WT-en) DhDh 11:03, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Actually, Walks in ... might be suited for national parks and the like too, eg. Walks in Kakadu National Park. And this makes me think of having articles like Treks in the Himalaya... (WT-en) DhDh 11:07, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * So, I screwed up cos I plunged in before reading attraction listings. Then I read attraction listings and came back and changed the page. Now I discover that I caused unhappiness. I'm really pretty sorry. Hopefully though the article is better now and people are only a bit unhappy with it, but I had better check it again. :-/ (WT-en) Nurg 19:42, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Sorry to make it sound so harsh! Don't take "unhappy" the wrong way. My only unhappiness is to see good work that needs to get changed.

 * To tell you the truth, I really liked the walking tour, but I think it's best for travellers to have articles in consistent format. It's more painful when the work is good than when it's slapdash. Anyways, I'd love to see the walking tour turned into its own article. --(WT-en) Evan 20:28, 26 Dec 2003 (PST)

If anyone wants to make this itinerary, the place to find the original is User:(WT-en) Nurg's revision of 08:49, 26 Dec 2003. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:50, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)

Rail/public transport link
I have deleted "catch public transport" because a. the link isn't working and b.  VicTrip seems to be the main public transport site. 202.154.157.115 21:10, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

 * The actual public transport site for Melbourne is [Metlink]. Victrip is good for around Victoria, however in Melbourne the public transport system is known as, and run by, Metlink.

Nepean Highway
I thought the Nepean Hwy went from Melbourne to Mornington Peninsula rather than Sydney. Isn't Princes Hwy the coastal hwy to Sydney?

That travel guide link
Hmmm.. I went to that site, and it doesn't look all that bad. I know that I'd rather have its author contributing the actual info to Wikivoyage, but what if I go to a bar because the link is on Wikivoyage, and then make a writeup about the bar. On the Geneva page we've left a well meaning but very poorly designed page in the links for some time just in case there's something useful in there (also cause I wanted the guy to think about contributing.) -- (WT-en) Mark 17:00, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Well, according to Project:external links, we normally just link to primary sources -- official Web sites for destinations, attractions, restaurants, bars, etc.

 * Wikivoyage is not a Web directory or link farm. It's a travel guide. I'm not convinced there's a good reason to link to another travel guide from ours. --(WT-en) Evan 18:30, 17 Mar 2004 (EST)

Huge city
I've listed Melbourne as needing attention because it looks like it's ready to be split into districts. There's already a bunch of sections that are beginning to get district headings: See and Sleep have sort of unofficially been split into districts by their headings. However, I don't know Melbourne well enough to do a split which is: sensible, not too fine-grained (say, 4-8 districts, rather than 30); and comprehensive. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 22:45, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)

My Travels
Hi folks,

I'd like to offer words and pictures from a few days' travels around Melbourne to Wikivoyage. If there's anything good in there (or in anything else I've put on my site) that fills a hole in Wikivoyage, grab it, or give me a shout and I'll rustle something up. You can use all of my Travel stuff under the WikiTravel Creative Commons licence. --(WT-en) Iain 13:16, 2 Mar 2005 (EST)

Chapel St
"While there is some reasonable food on Chapel St, South Yarra, travellers who are not into pretentious phallic symbolism may wish to avoid the place while the local automotive parade is taking place on Friday and Saturday nights (there are more genuine phallic cars in Williamstown on a Sunday afternoon). The clothes here are overpriced." Whilst I concede that this particular quote is both hilariously worded and absolutely true, I don't think it is appropriate for this page.

 * Are you aware of our 3-step procedure? 1) Click edit tab. 2) Change the item. 3) Click "save page". --(WT-en) Evan 17:22, 13 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * Yes I am, thank you. However, I wanted a concensus before I deleted it outright. Thanks for the great welcome.

 * It's an interesting question about WikiTravel's tone. To be honest I kind of like the phrasing; I think it's friendly, informative and offers insight into local culture. Personally, I really appreciate when guidebooks provide a glimpse into the rites and rituals of a city I'm travelling through. My only gripe is that it makes reference to shopping (which should be in the Buy section) and doesn't spell out any of Chapel Streets virtues, of which even its ardent critics admit there are some. How about: "Eclectic Chapel Street has a wide selection of restaurants and cafes and offers the chance to observe Melbourne's 'beautiful people' at play. Be warned, though, Friday and Saturday nights can turn into a logjam as phallic symbolism takes over and a parade of techno-blaring customised cars perform the young Melbournian ritual of 'Chap-lapping'." (WT-en) Allyak 01:58, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Melbourne/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Melbourne/Carlton

Comments
Is anyone else having a problem editing the Drink section? Every time I click "Edit", it takes me to the "By Tram" section. (WT-en) Kaci 15:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Whoa, that's very weird. I'm going to take a harder look at this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:37, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * What's more, the ToC isn't displaying any of the subsections beyond the "Eat" section. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:41, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Aha! Got it—a missing tag was the culprit. I'm surprised that such a small error in the listing code would cause so many problems in the article, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:44, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Melbourne/Carlton


text:
Talk:Melbourne/CBD

How about calling this just Melbourne/City? Would be a lot shorter to type out. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:35, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * Well, I considered this, for precisely the same reason..... "City of Melbourne", however, is the official designation within the city for the Melbourne CBD area and its associated municipal administration.... (compare London/City of London, for the same phenomenon). So thought best to go with that. I'm sure we can take care of any confusion with an appropriate redirect or two... (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 17:29, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)

long urls
3 4 5 and 6 even more long urls not good. Thank you for looking into this.

(WT-en) LebronJames23 23:23, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Tags needed
In the various sections, we can avoid manually making lists and doing formatting by using <see>, <do>, and <eat>, among other things. This will allow the page to render properly on mobile devices and on third party software that grabs its data listings from here. --(WT-en) Orcrist 23:06, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

Immigration Bias?
"It is interesting to learn of the racist attitudes that influenced past immigration policy only to realise that the Australian government still has a very contentious policy towards refugees and asylum seekers." Perhaps this should be removed as a political statement. Maybe change to, "It is interesting to compare previous attitudes towards immigration with present ones". Unchartered (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed, that does seem too overtly political. AHeneen (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Changed. Unchartered (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eat section
The eat section is quite sad right now for Australia's culinary capital. Before I start going crazy adding amazing restaurants, would it be better to organise restaurants by price (Budget/Mid-range/Splurge) or cuisine (Indian/Australian/Chinese/etc)? What is the usual standard on Wikivoyage? James A ▪ talk 12:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename to Melbourne/CBD
There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia to move the name from Melbourne city centre to Melbourne central business district. For the most part, you're just as likely to hear "downtown" used as the use of "City centre" or "City center". From my personal experience, "City centre" is only used on street signs when it comes to parking lots only because the sign would probably end up being too short.

And back to the main point, this place is actually called "Melbourne CBD", not "Melbourne City Centre" nor "Downtown Melbourne". I'm not sure why we followed Wikipedia on this one, but can may we move it to the proper name. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 * "I'm not sure why we followed Wikipedia on this one" — I'm confused by this statement because isn't WP also proposing a move to the full spelling of "CBD"? Regardless, this seems to be a reasonable page move, and I'd support it unless there's consensus against a pagemove either here or WP. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP has to use something per w:WP:COMMONNAME, but even then, CBD is used more. I was going to propose to move it to Melbourne CBD, but I've largely lost interest in WP. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the move ended up happening. If there's no one to oppose in the upcoming few days, I may as well move it SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While I generally don't like acronyms in article titles, as a district article of a city, it makes more sense, especially as I'm sure no-one ever says "Central business district". Ground Zero (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah as far as I know, CBD is only really used in the Asia-Pacific region (more specifically SE Asia and Oceania). Never seen it in Europe or North America. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move.
 * --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC) (In English-speaking Europe, "CBD" and its long form is a specialist term used by geographers, city planners, possibly economists etc, to refer to a main financial or commercial quarter, which isn't necessarily the same thing as the "city centre", but the term is not in common usage at all.)
 * Interesting. Probably why I've never heard of it SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Metro Tunnel
Should we write a sentence or two about the Metro Tunnel, which is about to open in 2025? I presume there'll be disruptions/detours until it opens, but would like some confirmation before adding it. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Melbourne/CBD