text:
Talk:Metro New York

New Jersey and Connecticut articles
This region should only be for the towns in New York State as the other cities overlap with regions in their state. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:47, 4 March 2010 (EST)

 * I disagree. The hierarchical structure can be preserved just fine by having the CT and NJ regions' breadcrumbs direct up to their own states, rather than to this article. Removing towns and regions that are indisputably part of Metro New York decreases the value of this article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:41, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I didn't mean to remove them, just to fix the breadcrumbs of the cities to their respective states. Obviously they should be mentioned here, I just made them less apparent to fix the regional hierarchy. Before it listed New Haven as a part of the Mid-Atlantic and New York State, which is obviously incorrect. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:51, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Litchfield Hills
They were just added to this article, but I think on balance, they don't belong. Sure, Danbury is commutable (albeit a fairly long commute) to and from New York City, and so, for that matter, is Waterbury, but much of the rest of the area is 2 hours' drive from the city or longer, and in addition, it's an area of mostly small towns and countryside, especially in the northern part of the region, which borders on Massachusetts' Berkshire County. Would it be inappropriate to remove mention of the Litchfield Hills from this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It really wouldn't. Not only is it too far away from the city, it's mostly small towns, nothing like the rest of Metro New York. Why include it if it's nothing like any of the other regions in the article? Nick1372 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and will remove it now. If anyone feels strongly that the region should be reinserted, they should please make an argument here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bridgeport
I don't think Bridgeport is really in Metro New York. Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York–Newark Combined Statistical Area includes all of Fairfield County, CT (aka the Bridgeport–Stamford–Norwalk metro). Also, if we excised Bridgeport, we'd also have to take out New Haven.
 * That said, I see your point. I'm not sure how useful this region is to the traveler, but Peter thought it was weird to include only New York State destinations within it, so I guess the CSA seemed like a logical step up. Powers (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * New Haven is 2 hours' train ride and 75 miles from New York City. I don't think anyone really considers it part of the New York Metropolitan Area except some pencil-pushers in the government who aren't in touch with the reality on the ground. :-) And to be fair, Fairfield County is normally considered part of the metro area and Bridgeport is in Fairfield County, but as you said, it's really much closer to New Haven and quite a long commute to New York. However, New Haven is not in Fairfield County but in New Haven County, so it's not so arbitrary to distinguish between them.

 * Stamford is very much part of the metro area, though. When I had to take a 6:59 AM train to New Haven recently to go to a funeral, I noticed that a large number of people had reverse-commuted from New York to Stamford, because there are so many corporate headquarters there now. I'd definitely consider Norwalk part of the metro area, too, but past that, things get kind of fuzzy.

 * One final thing to consider, from Fairfield County, Connecticut:

 * The United States Office of Management and Budget has designated Fairfield County as the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area. The United States Census Bureau ranked the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area as the 57th most populous metropolitan statistical area of the United States as of July 1, 2012. The Office of Management and Budget has further designated the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area as a component of the more extensive New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area

 * So we could regard these cities, or some of them, as more their own area than the New York City metropolitan area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 * So what do you think? I still think it's senseless to consider New Haven part of the New York Metropolitan Area. Can we consider parts of CT past Norwalk or so to be outside the Metro area? I think if we consider New Haven part of the New York Metro area, we should probably also consider Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, Pennsylvania to be part of the Metro area, but I think they're much more exurban to New York than suburban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I would suggest advertising this more widely. User:Peterfitzgerald was the creator and definer of this region. I've never cared for the confusing overlap between this region and the surrounding states; it's the only region of New York state covering this land, but the other states all have other regions covering the same territory. I mean, logically, it makes sense to include certain non-NY parts of the NYC area as part of the same region, but logistically it's a nightmare.
 * I didn't realize Allentown was part of the NYC-Newark CSA. From a cultural point of view, it's much more closely tied to Philadelphia. And I suspect that folks in New Haven feel closer to Boston than to NYC (though I don't know that for sure). I think it's likely that using the CSA boundaries isn't the best from a traveller's perspective.
 * - Powers (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think people from New Haven feel closer to Boston. For example, Connecticut is traditionally divided more or less down the middle between Yankees and Red Sox fans. I think you'd find more Yankees fans in New Haven than Red Sox fans, though I could be wrong. However, it really is far enough from New York to have its own separate identity.

 * I agree on advertising this discussion more widely, but should we make a proposal or just advertise it as a discussion on how to revamp the definition of this region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"See" section
This section covers New York City only, which is pretty outrageous. It's shocking if you think about how long that must have been the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Breadcrumbs and article text contradicting each other
There seems to be the problem that the breadcrumbs indicate this to be a "normal" region that is contained within New York state yet the article itself mentions "regions" in three separate states. How do we solve this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The problem is that the New York Metro Area is the "Tri-State" region, which is an extra-region in a Wikivoyage context, but the breadcrumbs consider only the part of the area that's within New York state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, tri-state area rings a bell... Something about watching law and order did do me some good after all ;-). And I see the dilemma. So you say keep as is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think we can, but I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. User:AndreCarrotflower, User:PerryPlanet, User:LtPowers, User:Jim.henderson, et al., what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, what an odd situation. The text of the article would suggest that this is an extra-hierarchical region, but it is does actually fit into the hierarchy as part of the regional breakdown of New York state, where it doesn't for Connecticut and New Jersey. What I would recommend is to leave this article but tag it as an extra-hierarchical region to get it out of the breadcrumb system (because I think it would be useful to have this around, since "Metro New York/Greater Tri-State Area" is fairly widely used), then create a new region article for only those portions of Metro New York that are within New York state, which we can use to replace this article in the New York state region breakdown. Thoughts? PerryPlanet (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I fear that would result in a lot of overlap. In addition to that, I always though the state lines within metro New York are not all that important except for New Yorkers deriding those not living in New York. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Indeed. User:Peterfitzgerald was of the opinion that it was absurd to have an article covering only the NYS portions of the region -- which would just be Long Island, NYC, and a couple of counties north of the city. (His stated model for this was the Chicagoland article, which ([//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Chicagoland&diff=next&oldid=2743860 until April 2015]) explicitly overlapped with northwestern Indiana and southeastern Wisconsin.) I've never been happy with this solution, but I never had a better idea, either. Powers (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * To address Hobbitschuster's point on overlap: I think a bit of overlap is fine, as long as it's limited. I think everyone understands that there will be some overlap between coverage of a smaller region in a larger, parent region's article. It seems to me, the division of Metro New York into one extra-region article and one article that covers only the portion within New York State is probably the least bad solution, unless we can think of a less confusing name for the New York City area within New York state. Could we call it "Downstate" or "Downstate New York"? I think so. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a fine name for the article, but I have similar concerns to Peter. An article that covers Westchester and Suffolk counties but not northern NJ or southwest CT just seems odd. Is that a useful travel region? Or would we be creating it just for the sake of adhering to the state's administrative boundary? Powers (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be creating it, as it's already existed for some time. Metro New York is shown on the map of New York (state) as one of 9 first-order regions of the state. The map shows only Westchester, Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk Counties and New York City as part of this region. If we want to continue to use this as a region of the state, I agree that it makes little sense to call this region "Metro New York". For that reason, I suggest renaming it "Downstate New York" and keeping Metro New York in more or less its current form (though I argue above for excising the New Haven region from it) and redefining it as an extra-region.

 * If you don't want to continue to use this as a region of the state, what alternate suggestion would you make? To treat all these counties as not being breadcrumbed to New York (state)? To breadcrumb each of these counties separately, thus essentially creating 9 small new first-order regions of the state? Or something else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * We would be creating it. There is no current article that covers that covers all of and only Downstate NY. That appears to be what you're proposing; I'm questioning whether it's a useful travel region, or if the redesignated extra-hierarchical region Metro New York would end up being more frequently used and better developed. Powers (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Right now, there is a contradiction between the state map, listing Metro New York as a region of the state — and only of New York State — and this article, which treats Metro New York as an extra-region. I think my proposed solution is the best. Please give an alternate solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * By the way, looking at the great dearth of edits to this article, I don't think that there's too much risk of one being better developed than another, but which one people use more doesn't seem important to me. That's purely an issue of what people find most useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 * If your proposed Downstate NY article isn't going to be developed or used, then why bother creating it? Powers (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * It will be used somewhat because it will be linked from the New York (state) article. But if we really are basing all decisions on the number of people consulting regional articles, we're probably in trouble. And I can assure you, my proposed article will be much better developed than most region articles on this site — not least because I, probably you, and probably several other people with an interest in the New York area will edit it. So what do you say? I don't like having the current irregular situation continue indefinitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I know virtually nothing about downstate, but a region that includes White Plains but not Newark just strikes me as odd. And if, as you claim, the downstate article would be well developed, then it would have an awful lot of overlap with Metro New York. Powers (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * And therefore, your solution is to do nothing and maintain the existing contradiction? I find it very surprising that you prefer an irregular situation. I thought you cared greatly for regularity and adherence to site policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 * As I've said, I don't really have a better idea. I'm trying to tease out whether or not your idea is better, worse, or a lateral move. If it's not demonstrably better, then I don't see any reason to change, even if the current solution is unsatisfactory. Powers (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

2017
Would this work? Could we create Metro New York (New York) as a redirect to this page (while breadcrumbing the redirect to New York State), and then breadcrumb the New York State cities to the redirect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your suggested solution. However, I don't like the redundancy of "New York (New York)" in the title; I think that's confusing, and I still prefer the designation of "Downstate New York". But based on the above discussion, no-one but you and I so far have been willing to do anything to solve the inconsistency of having a region that is only in New York state but an article that also covers areas of New Jersey and Connecticut that are in the New York Metropolitan Area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Strictly speaking: It's not redundant. The "New York" in "Metro New York" refers to the city, and the "New York" in parentheses refers to the state. Still, I see your point about how it could be confusing. But I'm worried that it might be confusing for the redirect and the guide to have different titles.

 * We could make the redirect Metro New York (New York State). I think our usual practice is to leave off the "State" (e.g. Huntington (New York)). But considering the potential for confusion, I think we can make an exception in this case. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Then again: The "redirected from" notice would help a lot with confusion. Downstate New York is an established and commonly used term (I think), and "Metro New York (New York State)" is a bit of a mouthful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 * That's my feeling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

2021
I still support this solution. Note this recent edit, which again points to the problem of having a tri-state area shoehorned into a breadcrumb hierarchy in which it doesn't belong. Can we please at long last fix this problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree. As written, Metro New York needs to be an extraregion, removed from the breadcrumb hierarchy. A new Downstate New York region can cover the NYS portions. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should put this thread (or a renamed one) on Requests for comment and see if we can get a consensus behind this proposal this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. FWIW, with a glance at the previous threads, I'd say you already had a consensus for the change, with just one user dragging his heels.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good solution to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe a consensus except for two people, but unfortunately one of them, User:(WT-en) Peter, is long gone. But I didn't think there had been enough participants in this thread until now. I'll give this until later this week to see whether there are any objections or alternate proposals. Thanks, guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was, perhaps, "dragging my feet" a little, but not out of opposition to the idea specifically. It was a combination of respect for Peter's professed opinion and a concern that we might be introducing a problem worse than the one we fix. At a few years' remove, however, the proposal seems most in line with our site organization, even if it leads to some redundancy. Powers (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Pashley (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, this definitely looks like a consensus now. I think we can start taking care of this, but I'm too tired tonight (symptoms of my 2nd Pfizer shot, which I had yesterday afternoon). Powers, I really appreciate your flexibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Side issue
Should Putnam County (New York) be moved from Mid-Hudson and Catskills to the proposed new Downstate New York article? It's way less densely populated than Westchester County, but whereas parts of Dutchess County are too far north for Metro-North, very rural and closer to Albany than to New York City, Putnam County is significantly closer to New York City and has two Metro-North lines that go through the county. If you look at the map at Mid-Hudson and Catskills and zoom out so you see both New York City and Albany, Putnam County looks distinctly south of center. I don't feel strongly about this side issue, though, and we could always come back to it later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering what's in Putnam County (New York), it sure looks like a mid-Hudson county. Powers (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't feel strongly about this; we could really go either way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metro New York


text:
Talk:Metropolitan Alabama

County list
I removed this list of counties because they are currently unused.(WT-en) Texugo 09:08, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Bibb
 * Calhoun
 * Chambers
 * Chilton
 * Clay
 * Cleburne
 * Coosa
 * Etowah
 * Fayette
 * Greene
 * Hale
 * Jefferson
 * Lamar
 * Perry
 * Pickens
 * Randolph
 * St. Clair
 * Shelby
 * Sumter
 * Talladega
 * Tallapoosa
 * Tuscaloosa
 * Walker

Appropriate name?
Is "Metropolitan" really the best title for Central Alabama? Most of it is definitely not "metropolitan". (WT-en) Texugo 09:10, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes, I think this article title would refer to something much more narrow than it does currently. Might as well rename it to Central Alabama. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:49, 14 March 2010 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Metropolitan Alabama


text:
Talk:Metropolitan area airport codes

Necessary?
Is there a need for a list like this? It would seem best to put these in the articles in question. About the only reason I can think of to keep this is that these can sometimes come in handy for Round the world flights optimizing... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:28, 27 February 2008 (EST)
 * If it didn't exist I doubt anyone would bother to write it. However, now it does exist and in a reasonably comprehensive form, I see no reason not to preserve and maintain it. Server space gets cheaper every year.
 * I can't see the utility in using multiple occurrences of the template, though and I will remove all but the first occurrence.  -- A l i c e ✉  08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Source
What is the source for the city code data? —The preceding comment was added by 85.241.16.153 (talk • contribs)

 * The Wikipedia article of each of those airports, I believe. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metropolitan area airport codes


text:
Talk:Metro Valley

This region contains the following counties:

 * Boone
 * Cabell
 * Kanawha
 * Lincoln
 * Logan
 * Mason
 * Mingo
 * Putnam
 * Wayne

(WT-en) Fastestdogever 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Red links
Is there a good reason to have some many red links in this article? Does that help anyone in any way? If you agree that it does not, should any of them be left in the article, and in that case, which ones? Or should they all be removed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metro Valley


text:
Talk:Metro Vancouver

Area covered by "Greater Vancouver" article
A set of edits today raises the question about what should be covered in the Greater Vancouver article, and what should be covered in the neighboring Fraser Valley and Sea to Sky articles. (The other division of the Lower Mainland region, Sunshine Coast (British Columbia), isn't at issue.) The edit implicitly changes the "Greater Vancouver" article's scope to be every city in the Metro Vancouver political organisation.

The following destinations were already part of the Fraser Valley region article, and this edit puts them in Greater Vancouver:
 * Langley (British Columbia) (meaning City of Langley and Township of Langley)
 * Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows

The following destinations were already part of the Sea to Sky region article, and this edit puts them in Greater Vancouver:
 * Lions Bay (mentioned by name but not linked in the Sea to Sky article, but the region covers Vancouver/North Shore to Pemberton (British Columbia) "and all points in between".

The following destinations were part of the Greater Vancouver area before and remain so:
 * Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam
 * Surrey (British Columbia), Delta (British Columbia), Richmond (British Columbia), White Rock
 * Vancouver/North Shore (meaning City of North Vancouver and District of North Vancouver and District of West Vancouver)
 * Anmore
 * not mentioned in the Greater Vancouver article, but implicitly part of it:
 * Bowen Island (the destination article says it's under Greater Vancouver)
 * Port Coquitlam, Port Moody (mentioned in Wikivoyage but no article exists; in Greater Vancouver because neighbouring Coquitlam is in the region)
 * Village of Belcarra (not mentioned at all in Wikivoyage previously; in Greater Vancouver because neighboring Anmore is in the region)

So, where should the Wikivoyage regional boundaries for Greater Vancouver be? I don't see that we've really had a discussion about this, either here or on Talk:Lower Mainland. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I support keeping the previous boundaries, i.e. the Greater Vancouver article covers less than the political boundaries of the Metro Vancouver. I say this because the traveller comes first. The first consideration in our article boundaries should be what will help the traveller.  The traveller doesn't care which village council sits on which board. They care that urban destinations like Vancouver are different from mostly-rural Fraser Valley. They grasp that once you get north of Vancouver/North Shore, you start the Sea to Sky region. Thus I think we should rewrite this article to say that "Greater Vancouver" in Wikivoyage is a named set of relatively dense urban and suburban cities, but it's a subset of political "Metro Vancouver". Langley (British Columbia), Maple Ridge, and Pitt Meadows stay with Fraser Valley. Lions Bay gets mentioned in Sea to Sky. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I want to reactivate this question. The renaming of the region article to Vancouver Metro has nudged me. If I don't hear dissenting opinion soon, I'm going to restore the previous scope of this region article, which will make it less than Metro Vancouver; and I'll rename it back to Greater Vancouver. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 22:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree the previous boundaries make more sense, although the placement of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Langley in our hierarchy probably doesn't matter too much to the average traveller. This may be a bit off-topic but would it make more sense to call the current Metro Vancouver/Greater Vancouver region "Vancouver" and rename the current Vancouver article "Vancouver (city)" (with appropriate edits to shift content around)? Vancouver's attractions are a bit dispersed so I find the current city article ends up acting like a regional article at times, particularly when it comes to See and Do.  Not sure if it will work any better than the current set up, but just a thought. (WT-en) Shaund 14:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I think you have a point. The Vancouver article really does behave like a region article. Part of the problem is that it attempts to cover more than the city of Vancouver -- it used to include Richmond and Burnaby as districts! Greater/Metro Vancouver covers Vancouver plus too much of the surroundings. Lower Mainland covers the right part of BC, but only subdivides into four regions. It could do more.  So I am starting to think we should eliminate the Metro/Greater Vancouver region article, and instead make Vancouver directly under Lower Mainland, along with a new region article for the Vancouver suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, etc.), and a North Van article promoted out of Vancouver/North_Shore. This makes the Lower Mainland the primary region article. That's the place where we can talk about how Pitt Meadows in the Fraser Valley relates to YVR in the Vancouver suburbs and the city of Vancouver itself. For most travellers' purposes, it eliminates a layer in the hierarchy. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I like the idea of eliminating a layer of the hierarchy. My only concern is whether users may end up not finding some common attractions that lie outside of Vancouver city itself (e.g. Grouse Mountain) because they arrive on the Vancouver page through the search box and don't realize they also need to view the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Suburb and/or North Shore pages. By comparison, when someone lands on the Chicago and Singapore pages everything just flows out from those top pages. I guess we could adapt the note that sits atop the Chicago page to explain the situation -- This is a huge article with several district pages. Nearby areas like the North Shore and Vancouver Suburbs also have commonly visited attractions, activities, accommodation, etc., consider printing them all -- or reference it in the Get out section. I could also be overthinking this, too! (WT-en) Shaund 11:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Thank you for your thoughts, (WT-en) Shaund. It's nice not to be doing this alone. Vancouver already follows the Project:Huge city article template; it has district articles just within the city limits. The way to tell a reader of the Vancouver article where to find Grouse Mountain is to mention it in the "Get out" section. I'm going to make a more specific and formal proposal in the Talk:Lower Mainland page. Watch there! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 * There is a regional district called Greater Vancouver, or Metro Vancouver, whatever you prefer. The travel guide has to reflect this, or it will confuse a lot of readers. Plus, you will have a never-ending discussion on what to include and what not. The geographic/governmental boundaries make sense and are easy to follow. If you mean something else than the regional district, you should not call it "Greater Vancouver". This name is a well-defined term. Using it for something else is wrong. If you want to explain some other region, you must use a different name for it. --Dirk —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Dirk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2008 July 8
 * Dirk, thank you for your comments. I agree with some of your arguments, but I disagree with others. Yes, there is a governmental body called "Metro Vancouver" (was "Greater Vancouver Regional District" or GVRD). Yes, if we mean a Wikivoyage region to have different boundaries than a governmental entity, we should use a clearly different name.  However, I do not think that Wikivoyage is required to follow governmental boundaries slavishly. We should follow boundaries that make sense for travellers. I also do not think that "Metro Vancouver" or the GVRD is a natural boundary for travellers or local residents.  I live here, and as I listen to people and read the papers, Vancouver is one place, Surrey and Richmond are another, and Lions Bay has more connection to Squamish and Whistler than to Vancouver. Yet their governments  all fall under Metro Vancouver. What I get from your arguments is that it was a mistake for Wiktravel to name its region article "Greater Vancouver" without using the governmental boundary in the past, and that it's a good idea to get rid of the Metro Vancouver region and adopt something named — and shaped — quite different. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

RFC: New Lower Mainland structure, drop Metro Vancouver region
Please see the proposal at Talk:Lower Mainland. It would restructure the Lower Mainland article hierarchy, eliminating this Metro Vancouver article and moving its contents elsewhere. Comments welcomed, but there not here please. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Metro Vancouver


text:
Talk:Mexican Riviera

So, I'm pretty sure "Mexican Riviera" is a tacky name attached to this area by foreign tour operators. If someone has a better name, or can subdivide this into a different region, please do so! -- (WT-en) Evan 15:22, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

Merge

 * Support, unless someone is willing to develop this article further. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've started merging the information.Selfie City (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the Mexican Riviera includes cities in the Pacific Coast (Mexico) region and the Northern Mexico and Baja California region's, so this isn't a good merger. I think it would be better to restore and develop the article,busing text from Wikipedia. I'll start, to illustrate what it could look like, and we can undo if it doesn't work. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Vfd discussion
There is nothing to merge and no sensible target for a redirect and as the term originates from tourist brochure speech, its status as a "real place" is tenuous at best. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article acknowledges its tourist industry origin, which shouldn't surprise. But as it seems to be being used, a redirect would make more sense for our travel guide than deletion. Or, better yet, an expansion. I'm busy the next couple of days, but maybe I'll try something after that. Ground Zero (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

+ It looks as though Pacific Coast (Mexico) might be a decent target for a redirect. Pashley (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a pargaraph there mentioning the "Mexican Riviera" term Pashley (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it could be kept, although it would be best as a travel topic, perhaps? Mind-changer: Merge with Pacific Coast. I can see where this is headed, and I can see that both articles are really the same, and I've started to merge any information on Mexican Riviera with the Pacific Coast article. Would this now be a consensus? Selfie City (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose - redirect to Pacific Coast (Mexico) as Pashley suggests. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) this nomination us now obsolete as I've expanded the article significantly on January 6. If anyone wants to proceed, this discussion should be started again as the article we have now is not the one we were discussing above. Ground Zero (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we remove this discussion if we're going to keep the article? Selfie City (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Kept per Ground Zero. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mexican Riviera


text:
Talk:Mexico

Regions, Chiapas
I'm very far from being an expert on tourism in Mexico, but wouldn't Chiapas better be placed in the Yucatán Peninsula? Part of it is geographically on the peninsula itself, so it's not a stretch. But more importantly, my understanding is that the tourism there is all about Mayan culture and ruins, placing it firmly in the Yucatán sphere, instead of the Pacific sphere. I'm about to map the region, so I'd like to get this figured out ;) --Peter Talk 05:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to go ahead and do this while I make the map, since I don't really expect anyone else to comment. It fits my own road trip travel itinerary, so it certainly will work for me! --Peter Talk 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now done this, and in the process learned a good deal more about travel in Chiapas. What I learned confirms my belief that it fits better in the Yucatán region. --Peter Talk 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Mexico?
This section currently has a warning box that is dated 2011 and refers to events in 2010. There are also other warnings outside the box. Does this need an update? Should the warning box be removed? Current warnings added? Pashley (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * It is a US State department travel advisory, the link for which no longer exists. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I believe this is the latest warning. Powers (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Beer section too long?
I shortened the following list in the drink section, mainly because it took up most of the screen to read and doesn't really provide much factual information (i.e. there is a beer that is 'fun to drink')

 * Corona (popular, but not necessarily as overwhelmingly popular in Mexico as many foreigners think)
 * Dos Equis (XX)
 * Modelo Especial (medium lager)
 * Negra Modelo (darker, flavorful ale)
 * Modelo Light (typical light Mexican beer - Corona, Pacifico and Tecate also have "light" versions.
 * Pacífico (Pilsner beer, one of the better lighter beers)
 * Tecate (perhaps the most common beer, especially in the north, light with a slight hoppy taste)
 * Indio (good amber, not commonly exported)
 * Bohemia (nice malty taste)
 * Carta Blanca (mass market beer)
 * Sol (very light, similar to Corona)
 * Superior (pretty common beer)
 * Victoria (A light Vienna-style beer, usually not exported)
 * Montejo
 * León (red Vienna-style beer)
 * Estrella
 * Corona "de Barril" or Barrillito (fun to drink)
 * Chamochelas
 * Modelo Chope (Draft beer only available in select bars & restaurants, comes in Light & Negra varieties, with the latter being a Munich dunkel.)

I think it would be fine to add any of these back to the page if something substantial could be written about them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Learn section overhaul
Most of the content in the learn section is not travel relevant. I've rationalized it to the more relevant parts.

The original content can be seen below --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The most important Universities in Mexico are as follows: UNAM, ranked 73rd worldwide, and the best in Latin America, which leads Mexico with 50% of Mexican scientific research, many of Mexico most illustrious people attended UNAM, including: Its main campus is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Murals in the main campus were painted by some of the most recognized artists in Mexican history, such as Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros.
 * 5 Mexican presidents,
 * All of the Mexican Nobel Laureates: Alfonso García Robles (Peace), Octavio Paz (Literature), and Mario Molina (Chemistry)
 * The World Wealthiest Person: Carlos Slim.

IPN (Instituto Politecnico Nacional), a leading institution on engineering and architecture programs, it's a Polytechnical school and Most Mexico's technological creations can be attributed to IPN Alumni. ITESM (Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey), located in Monterrey but with branch campuses in many other Mexican cities, too, it's a Private Research University. It surpassed IPN in some Engineering areas (Most notably Computer Science) some years ago and it's on par with UNAM. It has many exchange programs with universities across the world, and even double degree programs; Some of them include:
 * Double degree with Carnegie-Mellon University in M.S. in Information Technology.
 * Partnership with John Hopkins Medicine Program.
 * Summer Programs at Georgetown University, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Cambridge and Yale.
 * Double degree with UNC-Chapel Hill in M.B.A.
 * Exchange programs with over 200 universities abroad around 30 countries.

Anahuac (Universidad Anahuac), a prestigious private institution sponsored by the Legion of Christ, which also belongs to the Anahuac University Network with campuses in Mexico, Chile, Spain, Italy and United Sates, and the Anahuac Educational Consortium, the elite elementary to high school institutions of the Semper Altius network and Oak Academies. The main Campus of the Anahuac University is located on Huixquilucan, Mexico State. Education is based in high leadership, entrepreneurism and above all, the Human Values. Alumni include some of the highest ranked executives and company presidents of Mexico and Latin America, including the Slim family. Ranks as the number one institution in Mexico on the Professional Classification of International Universities ranking by the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris.

Ibero (Universidad Iberoamericana), is a Mexican private institution of higher education sponsored by the Society of Jesus. Its flagship campus is located in the Santa Fe district of Mexico City but there are others located in Guadalajara, León, Torreón, Puebla and Playas de Tijuana. among its alumni, is president Vicente Fox, Emilio Azcarraga Jean - President and Owner of Televisa the most important media network in Latin America, Carlos Guzmán Bofill - CEO of Hewlett-Packard México, Daniel Servitje - President and CEO of Bimbo, Guillermo Arriaga - Film screenwriter, Novelist, and Director (Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel), Alejandro González Iñárritu - Filmmaker (Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel).

ITAM (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México) is by far one of the best universities in Mexico. Founded by the businessman Raúl Baillères in 1946, it has a very specific focus in the Economics sector. With 14 programs, it has been awarded by several sources as having the best programs in Business Administration, Actuarial Science, Economics, International Relations and Public Accounting. It has the best MBA program in Latin America as well as the best Economics PhD in Mexico. Many public figures and government functionaries come from this prestigious university.

For graduate degrees and executive preparation:

The IPADE Business school currently ranks as the world's 7th best MBA programs outside the US, and the only one in Latin America, according to Forbes.

The EGADE Master Business School in Monterrey is ranked No.68 of MBA schools worldwide, the first in Latin America For many years it was considered a school exclusive for Affluent people, it aggressively seeks to open its doors to talented minds of all income levels through an amazingly rich scholarship program, funded by the periodic raffles of multi-million dollar, fully furnished mansions along with luxury cars and a big sum of money.

If one had to Compare them with American Universities:
 * UNAM would be the "Harvard" of Mexico, devoted to Humanities, Medicine and Law schools, as far as the reach of the institution but not as exclusive.
 * Anahuac would be like the "Princeton" of Mexico, home to both the wealthy and low profile elites, figuring in international rankings and with a great prestige result of its alumni, international programs and social awareness.
 * IBERO would be the "Yale" of Mexico, a private school, with amazing resources constantly ranking amongst the best in Latin America, and ranked as one of the best private universities in Mexico.
 * IPN, a school devoted to engineering and sciences, with many of its students developing patents, could be considered a school like "MIT", and in fact, they've won many competitions against them.
 * ITESM is located in a city with many industrial companies, the Alma mater of many entrepreneurs, with decent computer and engineering programs, regarded as an good private university, and with a business-oriented curriculum, somewhat similar to Stanford.
 * UDLAP The Universidad the las Americas at Puebla, would be the "Cornell-U" of Mexico.
 * ITAM The Instituto tecnológico Autonomo de Mexico would be the "Columbia" of Mexico
 * ULSA The Universidad La Salle would be the "Darthmouth College" of Mexico

Most of the government funded universities on mayor cities (state capital) have short courses on history, gastronomy and cultural subjects, most of them are almost free. Other places are the "Casa de la Cultura", (house of culture) this are historical buildings used for cultural related activities (music concerts, theater, paint and other exhibits, they also have "talleres" (workshops).

Most of them have programs for foreigners. Foreigners can take a course to learn Spanish, or even study a whole career. Also, there are some other courses where you can learn traditional Mexican activities such as handcrafts. The tuition at a public school is rarely over $200USD. Many excellent private universities exist in the larger cities (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, etc.) and provide good education.

There are Spanish language schools throughout Mexico. The city with the most schools is Cuernavaca, with more than 50 schools. Oaxaca, San Miguel de Allende and Guanajuato also offer a number of schools to choose from. Prices vary; however, most schools are very reasonably priced. Many schools can arrange homestays with local Mexican families.

Mexican revolution
Currently we have an empty headline about the Mexican revolution. I think it is tremendously important, but I don't know all that much apart from the fact that some guy named Pancho Villa and some guy named Zapato were involved and most of them had mustaches. Oh... and at some point the US tried to intervene. Or something. Could anybody with knowledge please write sth. on that era? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * It's only taken eight years to get around to this, but I've created a new article Mexican Revolution to fill this gap. It explains events of the time, major battle, major personalities, and identifies destinations where travelers can see and learn more. I'd welcome any additions or comments from folks who are knowledgable about the topic. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Spin off bus travel
As I mentioned on requested articles, the bus network in Mexico is probably one of the most extensive and "full service" in the world. Furthermore the get around by bus section is slowly but surely getting rather long. For a general idea how to spin off a section like that see the most recent effort at air travel in the US. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Newer "stay safe" information?
The map is now five years old. Has the security situation significantly improved / deteriorated? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The information is rather out of date, as is the map. I know nothing about producing maps; however when I have time I can take a stab at updating some of the safety information. –StellarD (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 * That'd be great. Maybe there is also some newer map in the relevant WP article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Are all "barrios" slums?
First of I am not a native speaker of Spanish and I have only been to Mexico for a handful of weeks, so it may well be that I lack the sufficient background, but in light of this edit I have to ask whether "barrio" has any connotations of being a bad neighborhood and if so whether they only exist in certain Spanish dialects or in American (mis)understanding of Spanish. If "barrio" indeed has negative connotations in English but not in Spanish, I don't think we should use it here without specifying its neutral nature in Spanish. Can anybody with more knowledge on this please weigh in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least not in Spanish Spanish or Rioplatense, I'm pretty sure (says a gringo who knows enough Spanish to order food at a restaurant or buy bus tickets ;)). However there are, as you know, fairly large differences between Spanish spoken on different continents so it's not impossible that "barrio" would have negative connotations in Mexico or elsewhere. User:StellarD maybe would have some idea? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that in Mexico a barrio is simply a neighborhood, often working or lower middle class, and that a barrio is not necessarily a slum. The somewhat negative connotation for English speakers likely comes from barrios in such places as Los Angeles, which have been historically associated with gang activity and other societal ills (which of course are not exclusive to Latin American neighborhoods). Even so, I think that connotation is not universal even in the US, as in some cities, like Tucson, barrios have been rehabilitated or restored, and are visited by tourists and diners looking for great Mexican restaurants.
 * Generally though I think the advice in the edit is sound – as a gringo or outsider it is definitely not advisable to enter the slums without a trusted local guide who knows the community. I would remove 'barrio' from the sentence and rephrase it to read: 'If you wish to visit one of the slums, you should only go as part of a guided tour with a reputable guide or tour company.' –StellarD (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Going to disagree. Slums may sometimes be dangerous but not always. Some slums may well be safer than other neighborhoods that are not so disadvantaged. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not all slums are dangerous. However, slums in Mexico can be very dangerous, and it can be very difficult for a nonresident to identify which are dangerous and which are not. Having personally been the victim of an armed robbery and attempted kidnapping in an area which was supposedly safe (in Oaxaca (city)), in broad daylight, near a slum, and having heard many many similar such stories from other cities in Mexico, it is definitely inadvisable for a gringo to simply wander off into any neighborhood which s/he finds interesting. Mexico City, Monterrey, Oaxaca, Acapulco, Mérida, etc. – these places are not like London or Singapore. Mexico is not only in the grips of horrible cartel wars, there is also a surge in drug use (in the slums) and intense poverty. A visitor walking into such an environment is a sitting duck, asking to be robbed and/or kidnapped. –StellarD (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Class?
So, I noticed this article is rated as an outline, but isn't it a bit more, you know, comprehensive? Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikivoyage. MediaKill13 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 * No worries, this aspect of WV is confusing :) The rules are found under Country_guide_status, and if you think that Mexico deserves a higher rating then just go ahead and suggest it here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to the rules Andrew just linked to, it's not enough that the Mexico article itself is comprehensive. Also all articles listed under the Mexico and Mexico need to be at least usable. By the way, per 7 2, a few "Other destinations" should be removed from the list, the maximum number allowed is nine. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Currency notation
There is a discussion about this at Wikivoyage_talk:Currency Ground Zero (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mexican visa
Hi, Embassy of Mexico in UAE confirmed me "If one irrespective of any nationality have a valid USA, Schengen, Japan, Canada, UK, North Ireland valid visa holder, there is no need to apply for a Mexican visa. I think this is really informative and should be added to this article. I am myself going to try since I don't have Mexican visa but I carry valid Japanese visa in my Pakistani passport. --Saqib (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think this is valid information and while you are at it, the visa information in many get in sections is liable to be outdated... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Regions - naming of Yucatan region
An unregistered editor has pointed out that Chiapas doesn't belong in the Yucatan Peninsula region. The Wikipedia article shows where the peninsula is, and it clearly doesn't include Chiapas or Villahermosa. After considering proposing to move it, I think it would make more sense to rename the region.

I've looked at other regional maps of Mexico, and it seems like there is no standard regional division of the country. Even the Tourism agency doesn't seem to use regions in its marketing. So we are on our own here. While Chiapas could be moved to Pacific Coast, Villahermosa really doesn't fit anywhere.

The region we have now has five states, which is a reasonable number -- moving two states out would make this region small.

If we rename the existing region instead of breaking it up, we would need to find a name: Other ideas? Ground Zero (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yucatan and Chiapas - descriptive, but Tabasco state isn't part of either
 * Yucatan, Chiapas and Tabasco - too long, I think
 * Southern Mexico - boring, but does the trick
 * How about Mexican Central America? It's a distinction used by Lonely Planet for which parts of Mexico to include in its "Central America on a shoestring" guide that has sent countless gringos on "Central America in two weeks" trips. And the border between "North America proper" and Central America in the geological sense is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which is thereabouts, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My immediate thought was Southern Mexico, but that's not really accurate (Cancún is further north than many states, including almost all of Central Mexico). In my mind and maybe it's just me, Chiapas regionally belongs with Oaxaca more than it does with any other state. Looking at the Spanish Wikiviajes article, Chiapas is with Oaxaca and Guerrero in Southwestern Mexico, which makes sense to me. Irn (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lonely Planet's Mexico guide puts Chiapas and Tabasco together in a chapter - there is no "Mexican Central America" chapter. Googling that phrase came up with no significant hits, so I don't think that's a good solution.
 * Wikiviajes would be a good model to follow, but it uses more regions, and would require a thorough restructuring of our Mexico articles, which would be a lot of work. I don't think it's the best use of our time. Renaming this region would be quick and easy. Maybe we should go with Yucatan, Chiapas and Tabasco and be done with it. Ground Zero (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the subdivision LP uses for its Mexico Guide, I am talking about its "Central America on a shoestring" guide, which includes part but not all of Mexico. And why would you call "Mexican Central America" a bad term? It is, geographically speaking, the part of the geological region "Central America" currently governed by the United Mexican States. Of course Central America is often understood to exclude Mexico, but that has historical and cultural reasons, not geological or geographical ones. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it a bad term. I don't think it's a good solution because it is a term that isn't used by anyone beyond one book published by another travel guide publisher. I assume they use it in their Central America guide to justify including those states in that guide. I don't think following what LP does is appropriate for Wikivoyage. If it were used by others, I'd be okay with it, but I couldn't find it bring used elsewhere.Ground Zero (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Yucatan, Tabasco, and Chiapas" could work, but it's misleading because it's not in parallel form. (Yucatan refers to the peninsula and not the state, but the other two are states.) It would have to be "Yucatan Peninsula plus Tabasco and Chiapas" (or something like that), which is clunky. I'm not very familiar with Wikivoyage, and especially its style, but I see nothing wrong with the fact that few or no other sources use "Mexican Central America". Is there a policy/guideline in that regard? As for restructuring in the style of Wikiviajes, if the only concern is that it's too much work/time, I should have the time to do that over the course of the next week or so, and I wouldn't mind taking that on. -- Irn (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Regions again
As it looks like no-one is willing to take on the task of restructuring the region's along the lines of Wikiviajes, I think we should revisit this

Our mis-named Yucatan Peninsula region covers what Wikiviajes calls Southeast Mexico and Chiapas state. I think on this basis, we should rename our region Southern Mexico. The fact that Cancún is further north than many states, including almost all of Central Mexico, does not seem to bother our Hispanophone colleagues at Wikiviajes, so I don't think it should bother us. Ground Zero (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 * But they define Southern Mexico differently than we do; their "Southwestern Mexico" extends to the state of Guerrero. I think without a change in districting, we could call this "Yucatan and the South", but not "Southern Mexico". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 * The problem with changing regions is not just the breadcrumb hierarchy, but also updating the maps, since there are nowadays few people on Wikivoyage who do the task. I would say, though, that we should look to Spanish Wikivoyage for the best information on Spanish speaking places. We could ask them, perhaps. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek: they don't define a Southern Mexico, though. I'm okay with "Yucatan and the South" if if means we can fix the error that we have now.
 * SelfieCity: good point. I don't have the skills to update maps. Ground Zero (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I just think that's a more logical name for this region if we keep it as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I have made a static map in the past, but generally I find it extremely time-consuming. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made this change. I hope that no one thinks I was too hasty in making this change because the discussion was only open for 15 months. Ground Zero (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism from Wikidata that I don't know how to fix, please help
Check out the quickbar at Mexico, according to that, Mexico's capital nowadays apparently involves someone's sister. What's more the link does bring you to Mexico City.

The data to the quickbar is to my understanding automatically sourced from Wikidata, but I'm unable to find that passage in the Wikidata file for Mexico, plus the capital parameter there accurately says Mexico City.

Do we have someone onboard familiar with Wikidata who could help? -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 * The vandalism was reverted four minutes after it was added. Just needed to do a cache purge here. ARR8 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

12-hour or 24-hour clock in Mexico?
My recollection is that the 24-hour clock is used. Any other opinions? Ground Zero (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Page banner
Does anyone else think that we could do so much better for Mexico than this page banner? Ground Zero (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Here is one alternative, that is not already in use elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Here's an approximate mockup. Looks more enticing than the bridge.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 * The current banner is pretty and should be used somewhere, but hell, yes on the substitution suggestion! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The current banner is of the Mezcala Bridge in Guerrero state. The Guerrero banner is a beautiful one, but I think I've seen that sunset before on a different tropical coast. Well, on just about every tropical coast I've visited. I would move that banner to Guerrero. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The current Guerrero banner is a sunset at Zihuatanejo, whose current banner is okay, but we could consider the sunset banner there instead of the black-and-white banner. Ground Zero (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's to serial demotions🍹🇲🇽 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Banner 2 says "México" to me more than the current one does. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Banner updated. Ground Zero (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

this article has outline status
what fits better? usable or guide status? Flightnavigator (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * It has more than enough content to be guide status, but it could use some serious clean-up work and some of the regional articles and state articles below it in the hierarchy are still rather sparse. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2022 (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) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Monterrey montage.jpg

 * It's a montage and we can't use it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse?
Someone added a paragraph about a total solar eclipse that will happen in 2024. It's also been added to quite a few destination pages. This seems irrelevant for a travel guide, or at least of extremely limited utility. I was thinking of removing it, but perhaps some of you find it interesting or useful. Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is so much to see in Mexico that I don't think a one-time event lasting a few minutes should be in the country article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely not one of the most important things to see in Mexico. I strongly support removing that. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of further comment, I've reverted the edit. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not reasonable and I've un-reverted. Totality covers a large tract of NW Mexico and it will have the best viewing chances. As the objection applies to all solar eclipses not just this one, I suggest we discuss on that talk page. Grahamsands (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how it's unreasonable? There was a 100% support as of 00:39 September 26 for removing it and until you butted in and objected it without a compelling argument against and 's arguments, then...  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If it covers northwestern Mexico, then the listing should be in the region/state articles for northwestern Mexico, and not in the national article. And, not accepting the views of other editors is disruptive behaviour. You should have re-opened the discussion and to see if other editors agree with you before reverting. Reverting over the will of other editors is not collaborative. Ground Zero (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also to, regarding " as the objection applies to all solar eclipses not just this one, I suggest we discuss on that talk page ", no, not exactly – whether to include a solar eclipse in an article is a case-by-case basis. Don't get me wrong, I'm an astronomy buff who's fascinated by solar eclipses, but this is way too fine-grained to go in a country article. As you say, this specific eclipse can only be seen from northwest Mexico, so it should only be mentioned in the relevant state articles (namely Sonora and Baja California). Stubbornly reverting other users' edits is not a constrictive way to move forward. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And look what I found: a mention of the solar eclipse in Northern Mexico. Grahamsands... SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 00:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now posted a starter for discussion on Solar Eclipses talk page, and apologies that I was not able to do so earlier. (As the trail shows, I hadn't been alerted to your discussion, and feel I was the one first reverted against.) The point is that there have been debates like this on other city pages, so it would be helpful to agree the principles in one place, within which to consider case by case. This one is about how far along the breadcrumb to mention the event, and the criterion suggested is impact on travel. I took the view that this event could impact on the whole of Mexico, for instance by travel congestion through Mex City. You might argue not, if for instance few will travel to such a crime-wracked region, or would route via the USA. Grahamsands (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Colectivos
The 'colectivo' transportation seems to pop up in articles about Mexico. Is it a concept known throughout the country? In that case it should be described in this article's Get around, instead of in individual city articles, or even listings, and used without explanation in others. –LPfi (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, colectivos are common in Mexico. They go by many names, including 'combis' and 'peseros'. They were described in this article's Get around section as "city buses" (a term I've never actually heard used to refer to them). I've changed the heading to "City buses / colectivos" and tried to clarify the language in it.  In individual cities where colectivos are popular, I would suggest providing some info on popular routes (e.g., "along Av. Constitucion from the main plaza to WalMart from 08:00 - 18:00 for 5 pesos"). Mrkstvns (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-reading it, I find it confusing so re-wrote it, separating info about City buses (such as Metrobus routes) from info about colectivos. I think it's better now but would appreciate having y'all review it and make any corrections/clarifications. Mrkstvns (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Travel warnings
I reverted an edit by someone (unregistered IP) who felt that the warning on visiting Mexico was no longer necessary, among other views. Because warnings on visiting Mexico still exist (see Canada and United States for example), I believe the warning box should remain as there is a vital risk to traveler safety. Wanted to ask editors for their opinions on this. JRHorse (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with reverting the deletion of warnings. These are valid warnings. Ground Zero (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I think reverting the warnings needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I do agree with JRHorse's decision to revert in this case because the incident in question is fairly recent, however, putting the warnings in place solely as a reaction to a recent media report is not useful in the long term. I would like to see some kind of guidance as to how long such a warning is relevant. This sunsetting guidance should not be based solely on official warnings such as those from the U.S. State Department, because those tend to be allowed to stagnate forever. For incidents that get media attention, like shootings of tourists, mass shootings, etc., I think a 6-month warning period might be warranted. What do y'all think? Also, does somebody know how to tag the safety warnings in such a way as to remove them after some period?  It sometimes seems like the warnings are quick to get put in place, but not so quick to get removed when they become obsolete. Be nice to make them easy to maintain.
 * Just to be clear: we're talking about the advisory at the top of the page, not the more detailed (and generally more useful) Stay safe section. Mrkstvns (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be more accurate and useful to change the word "most" in the warning to "some". The U.S. State Department guidance identifies 6 states with chronic safety issues related to drug cartel violence (and Tamaulipas, where the March shooting occurred, is one of them). "Most" of Mexico (the other 26 states) is quite safe for tourists, though of course, crime is never completely eliminated. Security is very good in most tourist areas (like beach resorts and Central Mexico). Mrkstvns (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a government warning about a place, it makes sense to include it. But I agree thst a lot of safety warnings are added because of a one-time event, and then lie there to rot away. It would be useful to be able to put a expiry date on such warnings so that they would be automatically removed, but that's probably adking too much. I went through all if the warning a while ago and removed a bunch of them, but it was tedious, and I may not do it again. Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I get frustrated when I see articles with embarrasingly outdated safety advisories. Kudos to Ground Zero for making the effort to stamp them out, but I can understand how thankless the job might be. I promise to be a little more proactive in removing them when I see them, but won't make any promises around systematically seeking 'em out. I'm much to lazy for that! ;-) Mrkstvns (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps at some point the warning notice can be rephrased accordingly. I agree with @Ground Zero; if there are warnings that potentially affect traveler safety, they should be noted at the head of the article. JRHorse (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a larger response below, but in regards to this comment my main issue is granularity. Mexico has a highly diverse security situation. If there is a warning for a specific state that should exist on top of the state's page, not on top of the country's page. Jamespfennell (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm the person who removed the warnings. I feel a top-of-page warning is completely disproportionate. The reason I removed the warning is because I feel it isn't reasonable and is possibly based on biases about Mexico that exist in the US (where I live). Mexico is a huge country of 100+ million people. The murder of 2 US of citizens months ago is something that can be mentioned in the "stay safe" section, but does not merit a top-of-page warning. If we are going to add such a warning to the Mexico page, should we add a similar top-of-page warning to the US page, in light of the frequent mass shootings here? If not, why? Why is Mexico being subject to special treatment? Jamespfennell

 * I'm going to give a more clear-headed argument for why this warning should be removed, and then disengage and let others decide. My previous interactions may have been too hot - sorry!

 * First, the safety situation in Mexico is highly diverse and region specific. Some states like Tamaulipas, where the shooting happened, have the same advisory level as Venezuela; others, like the states around Mexico City, have the same level as Italy. Creating a warning on the top of the _country_ page seems inaccurate and misleading in this context. This is especially true because most tourists aren't going to the very dangerous areas.

 * Second, the Mexico-US border zone is dangerous and warnings on top of articles about, say, Ciudad Juarez, are probably warranted. However even within this context, the shooting in Matamoros was highly unusual and probably isolated. In the aftermath of the shooting the cartel issued an "apology" and handed over 5 of their members to the police. This is not an incident that is likely to be repeated.

 * Finally, the reason I am commenting here is because the security situation in Mexico is basically a politicized issue in the US. I think it's a place where US-based folks like myself may be bringing our biases into play. This is why I mentioned the frequent shootings in the US: no one would put a US travel advisory based on those, but after one isolated incident in one of the most dangerous places in Mexico, suddenly the country's page has a top-of-page warning. It seems completely detached from the reality of visiting Mexico (which I did in March btw).

 * I'm going to disengage now, but I do ask that if the warning stays it needs to have a deadline (number of months after the shooting?). I think the warning itself is not warranted, but a permanent country-level warning for one incident in a one of the most dangerous parts of Mexico is definitely strange. Jamespfennell (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jamespfennel. You raise some valid points, though this isn't really the place to talk about whether the United States should have a safety advisory --- it probably should due to continuing problems of gun violence (10 times Canada's rate and 100 times Britain's) as well as chronic issues around racially motivated hate crimes. I suggest discussing this in the Discussion page for United States rather than here. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * To be clear, I'm not advocating that a safety advisory be added to the US page. I'm just pointing out that Mexico is being subject to special treatment here. Jamespfennell (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * There's already a warning box in Stay safe mentioning that there are high levels of crime and drug-related violence in certain states, do we need an additional one at the top of the article? Recently someone randomly shot at people and cars at a rally in Baja California (something that made it into the news even in Finland) and the news reports lets you understand that it might have something to do with criminals fighting each other, but still... Ypsilon (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * My feeling is that travel warnings from reasonably reputable official sources, should be mentioned, and that "Stay safe" is the section where some of the differences between different parts of the country and practical differences from some of the language in travel warnings is laid out. As for the U.S., the same standard should apply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ikan. Too many people seem to turn a blind eye toward the constant violence in the U.S. Whether it be from mass shootings, racial intolerance, or even police shooting at "bad guys" like they were wild west gunslingers. Several countries have issued travel warnings against the U.S. and I think it is entirely appropriate that if we are talking about warnings for Mexico, we also talk about similar warnings for U.S. travel. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, per Template:Warningbox, "If the danger is localized or avoidable, place it under "Stay safe"." After having a quick look at the travel advisories, I think "Stay safe" is where the warningbox belongs. Vidimian (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's OK with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
Proposing the following wording at the top of the article, either as a warning or caution box: "Mutliple governments warn against non-essential travel to certain parts of Mexico (or certain states in Mexico) due to high levels of criminal activity, including drug-related violence and kidnappings. See stay safe for more information."

Other international advisories recommending against non-essential travel can be added. JRHorse (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose because it is overstating the risk. (Although I like that you've cut the bit about one specific shooting---a more general warning is better, particularly since incidents in the past 2-3 years occurred in other states as well). I think a more accurate statement might be:
 * "Visitors should exercise increased caution in certain areas of Mexico due to ongoing problems of drug cartel violence. See stay safe for more information." Mrkstvns (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If drug cartel violence would be a better way to phrase it than criminal activity, then I'll support. JRHorse (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a short, straight-to-the-point statement has more credibility and is more suited for a country-level page. Mrkstvns (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my question was whether 'drug cartel violence ' should be preferred over 'criminal activity' in the message. JRHorse (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying that "several governments warn against non-essential travel to some states" is a factual statement. I trust the views of various governments over those of a few Wikivoyagers, no offence intended. I agree that refernce to a specific incident does not belong in the warning box. Ground Zero (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have add links for the UK, Canada and Australian government warnings, which essentially say this. Ground Zero (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the mention of several warnings is better left to the "Stay safe" section? That way the warning itself isn't full of fluff. Just a suggestion... Mrkstvns (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that several governments warning their citizens about travelling is the most important thing. The UK Home Office, Global Affairs Canada, and the Aussie Department of Foreign Affairs have far better information about what is happening in Mexico than we do. Ground Zero (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * a warning box at the top per Mrkstvns, support a warning box in "Stay safe". If this is specific to some states, it does not need to go at the very top of an article and can go in the "Stay safe" section instead. The states that do have such an issue (Colima, Guerrero, Michoacan, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas per the US govt) should have warning boxes at the top. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to please everyone, but it's been about a week since anyone commented on this discussion, so I'm taking a stab at updating the safety info. I agree with Ground Zero that warnings from other governments are important, and they are added to the existing U.S. warning in the Stay Safe section. On reconsideration, I think SHB2000 is right, that the warning box at the top is unnecessary. I've removed it and would prefer that additional safety concerns be addressed in the Stay Safe section, when appropriate, but that we refrain from reacting to sensationalist media stories. Thanks all for your comments! Mrkstvns (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree that warnings that apply to only parts of the country should go under Stay Safe instead of at the top of the article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Money Exchange
I just did the money exchange at the CUN airport and only got 15 pesos to the dollar and then got to Playa del Carmen and saw the money exchange rate there was 17 to the dollar. I'm not so sure that it's best to exchange at the airport as advised here. Lazarus1255 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Did you do the exchange after the customs, as the article advises? If so, we should probably change the text. –LPfi (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was like 30 steps past the customs, right after I had passed through the passport scanning process, and on the same (the 2nd) floor. But upon my departure yesterday, I did notice a different money exchange on the ground level adjacent to the check-in or ticketing counters with a far more agreeable exchange rate, so I guess the Wikivoyage information is accurate after all, thanks. Lazarus1255 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of inaccurate and outdated info in the Buy section. It could use a careful review and update. Mrkstvns (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mexico


text:
Talk:Mexico City

Discussion
This is such a great page. A great example of what Wikivoyage can be; nice job. -- (WT-en) Evan 09:43, 11 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Ditto! This looks, and reads, great! Really well done. (WT-en) Majnoona

I have been to Mexico City and its environs several times in the past year -- '07 and '08 -- and will be adding things (including photos I have taken) as I have the time. (WT-en) Tangulo 14:17, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Restaurant reorganization
I will start the Restaurant section reorganization today. The restaurants will be moved to their respective districts. If anyone has any comment or suggestion please shout. (WT-en) Fabz 03 Jul 2007

Additions 2007
During the past few months I have been adding significant content to this page, since the city has a lot to offer. I intend to reorganize the restaurants section into the districts in the coming weeks since the page looks too big nowadays. (WT-en) Fabz 12:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The last few months have seen some serious changes in how Wikivoyage deals with huge cities like Mexico City (see Project:huge city article template for details. I took the liberty of trying to bring this article in line with those changes. The page doesn't flow as well as it used to, but that can be fixed. I think the big thing is to make sure that the districts of Mexico City are organized correctly (I don't think we can handle 250 of them!), and to keep moving stuff out to the district pages. And, of course, to keep adding info! -- (WT-en) Evan 09:37, 27 Nov 2003 (PST)

No worries about having 250 districts, most of the areas you've split things up into now consist of more than one Colonia anyway, and a lot of the Colonias have absolutely zero interesting things in them, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm guessing we can end up with between 10-25 district pages for Mexico City, and have pretty much everything covered. I don't mind the changes you've done, really, although I want to go over everything and edit for that structuring scheme. (WT-en) JZ 18:39, 28 Nov 2003 (CST)

I largely want to commend you for this extensive work. I spent more or less 6 years out of 9 (from 93 to 02) in Mexico City. Near the end of this time I found myself going frequently to the parks( Los Dinamos, Desierto de Los Leones, and the big park that covers the area around "Pico de Aguila" Summit) that are up in the moutains to escape the city. These are wonderful places for rejuvenating from the caos of Mexico City. There is peace and quite, and a natural beauty that makes one curious to have known Mexico City maybe as recently as 40 years ago( before the largely uncontrolled urbanization). I would also like to recommend the towns of San Bartolo ?Xicomulco and San Pedro in the Delegation of Milpa Alta( extreme southeast, beyond Xochimilco); especially if you have a car. These are in my opinion the best examples of conserving that small-town feel near Mexico City. San Bartolo and the surrounding countryside are a little Jewel.

I want to put in a vote for the subway system( Metro) in Mexico City. It is absolutely wonderful. You raise the spector of crime( pick-pocketing) on the Metro. I´m sure it happens, but in all of my years of using the system, cero problemas. And as you stated, if something is not within easy walking distance of a Metro Station, there are taxis. I would on occasion, as an indulgence, just hail a taxi and go to my destination; slightly more of a concern for problems( use taxis that have a fixed base if you are preoccupied with this) then in the Metro but a certain luxury at a relatively low price. Before I left Mexico City, I came to HATE "peseros". Peseros serve their purpose, but I would caution people to look to other alternatives before taking them. They take off, they stop, they jostle from side to side. Sometimes on occasion they have drivers that look like adolescents, sometimes they have to yell out an obscenity at someone who is parked three lanes out into a four-lane street( ? triple parked). All the while, the people are packed in like sardines. I have experienced worse transportation in other parts, but I don´t actively search it out.

In nightlife, you mention dancing, but you fail to mention Cumbia and Norteñas. These two styles are predominant among average Mexicans. Any "popular" dance is going to be dominated by any of the various styles of music( Tex-mex, Columbian, Andean) that employs cumbia rythems with a healthy dose of Norteñas sprinkled in. Even the dance clubs that feature "Tropical" are going to play ALOT of Cumbia.

Restaurants
This discussion is for the now-deleted Mexico City Restaurants page:

I like how this /Restaurants is looking. One suggestion-- add links back to the main article at the top, but otherwise I think this is what we should suggest for other content-heavy cities like Prague.

 * I agree with the link back, but could we somehow get the software to do that, I wonder? Ideally, all subpags should have a link to the parent page, so it might be easier to get the software to do it automatically... --(WT-en) JZ

 * That was my first thought to, but I don't know how much we can control something like that. (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Well, it's PHP, it should be fairly trivial to add (I'm saying that without having hacked the MediaWiki software, but I have installed and tweaked it before). Let's hold off on it and see if we can add it in the software instead. --(WT-en) JZ

 * I'm pretty sure that sub-pages should normally have a link back; see User:(WT-en) Evan/TODO for an example. I'm not sure what's going on here -- I'll investigate. -- (WT-en) Evan 14:02, 5 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Is there a wiki-language way to add anchors to individual restaurants (or any other piece of text, for that matter)? I'd like to link to the restaurants here from external websites. -- (WT-en) Federico 2003/09/08

 * I think you're going to have to link to the whole restaurant page. Wikivoyage isn't really geared towards highlighting specific businesses. Check out the Project:Goals and non-goals page for more info. Thanks! (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Oh, it was just for linking to stuff from my web log; things like, "I went to such and such restaurant" with links to the description in Wikivoyage. In the future this may be useful if people want to write travelogues with links to the references they grabbed from Wikivoyage.  -- (WT-en) Federico

So, we've kinda decided to break up huge cities by district rather than by restaurants, sights, etc. I moved some of the restaurants on this page to the appropriate district page, when I could figure it out. A lot of these are still on here, though. Folks familiar with them should start moving them to the district pages, if possible. Eventually I'd like to delete this page. -- (WT-en) Evan 09:43, 27 Nov 2003 (PST)

"Rich French Past"
Outside of the battle of Puebla, between Mexican and French forces, what exactly constitutes Puebla's "Rich french past"?--66.25.118.156 23:35, 6 November 2006 (EST)

If nobody can explain this "rich french past" to me in a few days, I intend to remove it. It's plain ridiculous.--24.175.148.214 20:16, 13 November 2006 (EST)

The CIty has no rich french past, it was invaded by the french. It has certain architectural influences brought by France by President Porfirio Diaz in the late XIX and XX century. This text has been deleted.(WT-en) Fabz 12:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism
I just did several reverts to deal with vandalism in this article, but am not sure I got it all. Some of the nonsense seems to have been there a while so that a straight revert/rollback wasn't catching it. Please let me know if I missed something. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:08, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Mexico City/Polanco
I found that article on the list of orphaned pages; it exists but nothing links to it. Checking the Mexico City article, I find it lists Polanco as a district, and gives a link to an article with quite a different title, but containing a description of Polanco. Can someone who knows the area\please sort this out? (WT-en) Pashley 08:33, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * I just moved everything on the Miguel Hidalgo page over to the Polanco page last night. There's some more info on what I did and why on the Polanco talk page. (WT-en) psychofish 22:25, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Night Clubs and recent changes
Hello. I am visiting Mexico at the moment and have done so many times, and I believe this article is very well written and informative. There's some things missing though. First of all, the top rated night clubs at the moment in the city other than the Bulldog Cafe are the Night, the Txhai (both in the San Angel zone) the Velvet (in South Insurgentes avenue) and the Mansion (Colonia Juarez). Also, it mentions that only brown dressed policemen can pull a car over. This is no longer true as a recent law reform now enables any police car to pull you over.

Cheers(WT-en) Vicious 02:36, 26 March 2008 (EDT)!

 * I'm not at all familiar with Mexican law or the police, but I did copyedit the section yesterday and left that in. I'm not all that comfortable editing the meaning of the text if I don't actually know what it is I'm saying, but if you do, feel free to change it yourself! that is the point of wikivoyage! (WT-en) psychofish 22:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Unsure of proper template
Hi. I'm working on Mexico City, and this appears underneath Buy- Mexico City is a huge city, so all individual listings should be moved to the appropriate district articles. Please help sort them out if you are familiar with this city.

I'm assuming that it is appearing in the article because the tag is wrong, but I'm unsure how to fix it. Can someone please fix it so that it only appears within the edits? Many thanks. --(WT-en) MarinaK 16:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

Flu in Mexico City
According to major news services, there have been fears of an outbreak of a serious strain of flu in Mexico City. I recommend a warning box be place on the main Mexico City article. See this page for details.

74.11.209.25 13:14, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Is Tepito really that dangerous in the daytime?
I went there in the afternoon and it seemed fine. Cops walking around, no drugs out in the open. Kids running around, a normal market... people just buying and selling stuff. Despite Tepito's reputation, I can't imagine you would be in very much danger as long as you're not messing with drugs and as long as you aren't being stupid.

Bullfights
Mexico City has the biggest bullring in the world and it has one of the best bullfighting season where top matadors from spain, france, portugal, colombia and mexico fight every year, please include an article about it

Basilica
This page and its links are really excellent. However, until now, there were no details regarding the Basílica de Guadalupe, which happens to be one of Mexico City's greatest tourist draws. If a page cannot be dedicated to it, at least a section would be good. I've just added a slew of information under the Basílica bullet point found under the "See" section, but I think this info ought to be moved to a more appropriate space, if said space cannot be created. I needed this information a couple of days ago and could not find it on here; after travelling there, I decided to add it. Thanks!

(WT-en) Gryphon922 00:34, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Reorganizing, Colonia San Rafaeil
It has been a long time since I did some ordering to the page. Will relocate thew wording of the San Rafael neighborhood to the Centro to maintain a main structure of the page. Will remove the bird deads in the pollution section, is irrelevant, will do more cleaning and add a few new things.

Metro rechargeable smart card
I added a bit about the Tarjeta DF rechargeable smart card that is now available for the Metro. I'm not an expert, though, perhaps a DF native can add more details? 189.135.28.87 04:20, 14 March 2013 (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) 02:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here also, the existing image has character, while the zoomed out cityscape evokes little and could be almost anywhere. Texugo (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's hazy. I'll vote for the street scene with the taxis in this instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The taxis are far more interesting. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a different banner showing Chichen Itza or Machu Picchu etc.? Matroc (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Machu Picchu is in Peru and Chichen Itza is in Yucatán. That would be like showing a picture of Venezuela or the Grand Canyon for the New York guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Contributor User:Johnnysast would like to replace the exisiting banner with a skyline.
 * For the same reasons as above I would be against this. 'slice of life' is always more compelling than yet another cityscape. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 * That picture needs to be turned into a pagebanner before I can really judge it. In this form, it's not usable as a pagebanner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The street scene with the green and white bocho taxis may be charming, but it has nothing to do with Mexico City in 2018. The city announced that it would not renew licences for them in  early 2012. They are gone now, replaced by pink-and-white Nissan sedans.

I'm working on a phone for the next couple of months, and lack the technical skills to handle banners. If someone else can bring the article up to to date, I'd urge them to do so. Ground Zero (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello! I am late to the party but I also noticed the main banner could be improved. Many of the district banners are also (IMHO) not so great, so hopefully some of these can get reused there. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for taking this on. You have some great banners there. My choice would be (in order), 1 Aztec dancers, 2 Museo Soumaya, or 3 Huichol texture. I will ping some other editors for their comments.      Ground Zero (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I have yet to visit Mexico, my preferences are for the Aztec calendar, the Huichol texture and the Aztec dancers - about equally for those three - and then the Palacio de Belles Artes and finally the alternative banner by ויקיג'אנקי. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huichol texture - Aztec Dancers - or skyline. If any good pictures available of murals by Diego Rivera or Aztec Mural (University of Mexico building?) -- Other voyage wikis use the older taxis banner or a skyline. Something that represents heritage or history of Mexico City. -- Matroc (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon review, I might go with: #1 Huichol texture: How can you symbolize DF in a single image? Keep it abstract, vibrant, and LOUD. #2 Aztec Dancers: This picture is just cool (love that you can see that guys eye just lookin'.) #3 Bellas Artes: This image is more subdued, but the colors are pleasing and the formal symmetry works for an important destination like Mexico City. --ButteBag (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a summary the voting so far where numbers indicate the preference, and an X indicates a vote with no preference ondicated.: Can you vote on the top two choices by putting your names beside? Two of us have already indicated our preference. Ground Zero (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huichol texture 3 X X 1
 * Aztec Dancers 1 X X 2
 * Museo Soumaya 2
 * skyline X
 * Bellas Artes 3
 * Aztec calendar X

 * Huichol texture: ButteBag, Matroc
 * Aztec Dancers: Ground Zero,

 * I already said what my top 3 choices were, and that I like them about equally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the banner to the Huichol textile. Thanks again to ButteBag for this. I've also put the Museo Soumaya banner on Mexico City/Polanco to replace a dull skyline shot. Ground Zero (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Distinctly Mexican, but Huichol designs would be more characteristic of Nayarit or Jalisco --- not Mexico City. I think the Soumaya texture is pretty cool (and definitely says "Mexico City"...) Mrkstvns (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mexico city
It appears is going to be Wikimania for 2015. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for information and congratulations to Wikimedia México for winning the bid to host Wikimania 2015 in the City of Palace, Mexico City. We'll definitely look into preparing a special guidebook for attractions and things to do near the venue of the Wikimania 2015 (similar to Wikimania 2014 London Guidebook) when times comes. --Saqib (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Earthquakes" and "Air pollution"
These are currently subheadings of "Understand". I think briefly touching on them in "Understand" makes sense, but how do you feel about moving the details to "Stay safe", with an option to possibly create a separate "Stay healthy" section and include the air pollution information there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When just adding a link to earthquakes, I wondered why I couldn't find this section in Stay safe, where I assumed it would be. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support Ikan Kekek's proposal. –StellarD (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My edit. Please edit further in any way that would improve the article, in your opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Rollback on article
My rollback today was a figure slip. The WiFi here is awful, so I thank User:Hobbitschuster for fixing my mistake before I could get to it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mexico City


text:
Talk:Mexico City/Centro

I reverted some additions of Wikipedia links per Project:links to Wikipedia. They were added back in. Is there a reason to believe that these links belong here despite the guideline? If not, I'll remove them again. --(WT-en) Evan 21:51, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Deletion
I deleted this review:

 * Tepito Eje 1 Norte. Working hours Monday thru Sunday 9AM to 4PM. Established even before the Spanish arrived to Mexico, this is a poor worker's neighborhood with a huge street market considered one of the largest in the world. It's a bad idea going there, this is Mexico City's black market where you can buy anything on your mind from counterfeit sneakers, pirate DVD movies and smuggled electronics to narcotics and weapons. On the literate side of things there's a huge second-hand book market with no less than 150 stalls, some with second-hand soft cover novels in english. The safest way to reach Tepito is by Metro. Line B (dark green) Tepito or Lagunilla Stations will take you straight to the heart of Tepito, but again: it's not a safe place to consider visiting, is too dangerous.

It sounds like we should not encourage people to travel to such a dangerous place. --(WT-en) MarinaK 21:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

I second the deletion, though a travel warning wouldn't hurt. It is a very dangerous area.

Banner
I don't believe the current banner effectively represents the historic center of Mexico City, and would like to replace it. Any thoughts or objections? –StellarD (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The Zocalo banner we have now is a perfectly good banner, but then there's this really cool one that did. Is it time for a change? Ground Zero (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Sure, we could do dancers on this page and the huichol texture on the main one? Sounds good to me! --ButteBag (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Star?
What does this article need to get promoted to Star?

It's now got content in all sections and the total size is 80K, but as I read it, I see 2 areas I'd like to improve:
 * find some good recommendations for "Budget" restaurants
 * go through all the "See" listings: many haven't been verified since 2017 and prices/hours are likely to have changed

Are there other things that could improve it? Does the grammar seem okay and in compliance with the Manual of Style? Advice would be welcome... Mrkstvns (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mexico City/Centro


text:
Talk:Mexico City/Chapultepec

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chapultepec Castle garden.jpg
 * Chapultepec Castle interior.jpg

Chapultepec Amusement Park
It shut down in Oct 2019 after a pretty horrific accident but is supposedly being sold to another company like Six Flags, etc (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Feria_de_Chapultepec). Should we remove it or just wait and see what happens? I guess some people still go to look at the derelict park as a sort of attraction. Lazarus1255 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I've removed the entry from the page because the city did not find a buyer for the park and has been dismantling the rides. Looks like Feria de Chapultepec is permanently dead. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mexico City/Chapultepec


text:
Talk:Mexico City/Polanco

Page moved
Hopefully I am not stepping on any toes here but for some reason even though the name "Polanco" is used in reference to this area, it is linked on wikivoyage under the name "Miguel Hidalgo" - the official name of the delegation that Polanco is in, but otherwise not too helpful for travelers. Since someone has already created an orphan Polanco page, preventing me from moving the article, I am instead copying the contents of the entire page as well as the talk page, and setting up a redirect on the Miguel Hidalgo page. (WT-en) psychofish 20:10, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Buy
''I'm pasting this list here for reference, but I think some sort of descriptive sentence like "many designer boutiques-- from Armani to Zara-- can be found in Masaryk" is more useful than a yellowpages of store names... ''' (WT-en) Maj 22:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Designer & Fashion Boutiques in Masaryk

 * Adolfo Dominguez
 * Armani
 * Burberry
 * Chanel
 * Coach
 * Corneliani
 * Dior
 * El Santo
 * Fendi
 * Diesel Jeans
 * Hermes
 * Hugo Boss
 * Etro
 * Escada
 * Kipling
 * Lacoste
 * Louis Vuitton
 * Massimo Dutti
 * Max Mara
 * Pal Zileri
 * Prada
 * Salvatore Ferragamo'
 * Zara

title: Talk:Mexico City/Polanco