text:
Talk:Texas

Get out - Cruise Ships
I think the cruise ships should not be listed here in the state section but in their specific ports, under that get out section. You could indicate which shipping lines operate out of which port, though. Also there should not be links to unwritten Cruise ship articles. It is easy to create links once an article is being written. -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:37, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)

Regions?
Uh, guys. Whomever named the regions and started the "South Texas Plains" page have got it wrong. Even the map is a little skewed... The Southern portion of Texas is called the "Rio Grande Valley" or "The Valley" by most folks.

 * Panhandle & South Plains
 * Heart O' Texas or Texas Heartland (west-central, San Angelo, etc.)
 * Hill Country (central, Ausin & San Antonio)
 * South Texas (sometimes including San Antonio...depends on who you talk to or which TV anchor is talking)
 * North Texas (The DF/W metroplex)
 * East Texas (including Houston on up to Beaumont and Texarkana)
 * West Texas (Midland-Odessa aka Permian Basin westward to El Paso)
 * Rio Grand Valley (Brownsville to Harlingen, Laredo and Del Rio are South Texas)
 * Gulf Coast (From Louisiana down to Brownsville - again which region any city belongs to is up to the which phone book, newspaper or TV news anchor is talking)

-- (WT-en) Mike 18:47, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * I believe the regions we're using come from the official Texas visitors guide. I agree that regions are kind of a fluid concept, but we do have to pick some scheme and stick with it. If you think yours is more reasonable and more Texans and visitors will understand it, please, plunge forward! --(WT-en) Evan 08:26, 26 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * I added it and yes I got it from the official Texas site. The region scheme is also used on several other Texas tourism sites so I didn't just arbatrarrly use it.(WT-en) Troy34 17:46, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Looking for Information
I'm going to be visiting Corpus Christi next april as part of the USBC National bowling tournament. This will bring approximately 65,000 people to Corpus Christi between February and June. What is there to see in the area and what is the best way to get around???

Any info would help.

Dallas number one?
I can not believe I even need to explain my self. I lived in Texas most of my life. Texas Monthly almost always lists San Antonio as the top destination. If you think it is the top destination please list your reasons below. Dallas is in the 10 ten maybe but not even in the top 5. --(WT-en) Texas Web Scout 13:51, 25 March 2006 (EST)
 * Dude, I'm not asking you to explain yourself (btw that's some ego you have), I simply suggested you add something instead of deleting a line you don't agree with and leaving the city by itself with nothing there. I got that line from the Texas tourism site, but if it's wrong fine. Personally I don't care where it ranks, I just couldn't think of anything better since Dallas has a Mayor that is apparently dead set on running any attractions out of town.''(WT-en) Troy34 18:01, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * I am sorry I did not mean to rude or to have a ego. I am just saying what most people from Texas know. Sorry you thought that I have had an attitude but I don't. -(WT-en) Texas Web Scout 13:00, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * You've lived in Texas most of your life, i've lived here all my life, and believe me I never heard that San Antonio was the most popular destination. But like i said, i don't really care where it ranks, I was just looking for filler. -- (WT-en) Troy34 15:38, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Another lifelong Texas resident here, and from what I know, San Antonio is far more popular as a tourism/vacation destination, whereas Dallas is more of a business destination. If I had to make a call, I'd say that San Antone is far more visited. You know, just to fan some year-old flames. :) (WT-en) Jordanmills 13:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I've never lived in Texas, so my credentials are right out there. In terms of overseas visitors, it's Houston.    Not that I'm helping provide filler, but I thought it was a pretty cool table.  (WT-en) Jonboy 15:47, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Thanks Johnboy. I'm not 100% certain but i think the Texas Monthy ranking only takes in to account Texas Travellers, not people from out of state. Nor do i think it takes into account Business travellers. I'm sure Houston would be #1 on all accounts. But we shouldn't worry about rankings on here anyway, each destination should stand on it's own merrit. - (WT-en) Troy34 00:47, 31 March 2006 (EST)
 * Living in Houston all my life, I can tell you that for US visitors it is rather dull, but for International visitors it's a different ball game. If you're from the states, San Antonio is the cliche tourist stop, but if you are lookig for more classy and undiscovered tresures, head to Dallas or Houston. 216.40.228.6 10:26, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Cities list
On request (I had actually glossed over the number the day before), I reduced the list of cities to policy limit of nine. Of course, I didn't have much standard to go by outside of listing the obligatory Houston, DFW, Austin, and SA, so I'm sure my method (where there is any) is quite subjective. Of course Texas is HUGE, and it will necessarily push the top limits of the list policy, but it's the policy. So I figured I could open up a discussion on how to improve on my initial pruning. Maybe we could list one or two from each region, then move the region section to after the cities section, and list about five representative cities from each region? Just a blind shot, but I feel shackled trying to represent my home state with such a small selection (then again, anybody might feel that way of their home). Any help? (WT-en) Jordanmills 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I think that looks pretty good... what you did is best... get it down to nine, even if it's not the perfect nine... and then people will eventually come along to talk about why x is there instead of y. I've been part of a few of these conversations, most notably for India... and if we can come to a consensus on 9 for that, then anything is possible! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 23:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Cities map
I'm thinking whoever made this map must be from Arlington. I can't really think of any special reason for it to be highlighted on this map. The inclusion of Fort Stockton and Fredericksburg is fairly iffy as well, as they are both tiny and the average Texan probably couldn't even tell you where they are. (WT-en) Texugo 23:14, 22 February 2008 (EST)
 * I'm guessing you're referring to one of my photos, since my stats link here (however, even if you aren't, this info is probably still valid). That "Arlington" is due to Yahoo Maps - apparently, there is an Arlington section of Corpus Christi. I noticed it myself, and was not able to determine how to change it without giving it a false location on the map. --(WT-en) Qnr 21:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * I was simply suggesting that it doesn't deserve to be on the map in the first place... (WT-en) Texugo 00:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Lead image
OK, Texas definitely needs a lead image. I'm certainly no expert, but here are a few suggestions from flickr: 1, 2, 3. Any other suggestions? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)

 * You're right. I could support number 2 perhaps but I'd like to see something a little more scenic, maybe Palo Duro Canyon or Big Bend. (WT-en) Texugo 01:52, 23 February 2008 (EST)

 * How about this one? I had some fun around Amarillo two weeks ago ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

 * Hey, and here are some nice ones of Big Bend. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:36, 23 February 2008 (EST)

 * Oh yeah? That's my home turf-- my hometown is about 50 miles east of Amarillo. Did you happen to get any info to spruce up the Palo Duro Canyon article? Anyway, of the nominations so far, I like the lighthouse one and the Big Bend one with the tree in the foreground. (WT-en) Texugo 05:53, 23 February 2008 (EST)

 * Unfortunately, my info on Palo Duro is bound to be pretty sparse—I only spent a half day there. But then again, the article is pretty empty, so I should be able to add something.

 * I'll suggest another photo of mine of Palo Duro that turned out pretty well. I'll abstain from actually picking the lead one, though, since my photos are in the running ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (EST)

 * Many of the suggestions are good, but my vote is for this one because the composition is outstanding, and the photo really communicates expansive!, and that, to me, is what Texas is all about. (WT-en) Texugo 03:41, 6 March 2008 (EST)

 * Sounds good, agreed that Texas is all about expansiveness, and done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:41, 7 March 2008 (EST)

GLBT?
Okay really? I think this section is unnecessary and mostly false.
 * I agree with the mostly false thing. I'll reduce and rework it. (WT-en) Texugo 22:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Subregions
To answer (WT-en) Jordanmill's question of how I came up with the sub-regions.. I feel confident that the subregions for the Panhandle, the Hill Country and Big Bend Country are accurate. I have personal knowledge of the areas, and I checked my own breakdown against anything I could find in Texas tourism websites, official and non-official, and there doesn't seem to be much of any alternative.

For the Prairies and Lakes region, where I lived for ten years, I didn't know what to do because people in that region themselves don't have any particular way of breaking up the region (Indeed, most people have never heard the term "Prairies and Lakes Region" either, but that's how the official breakdown goes). When talking about another part of the region people just say "it's over by Sulphur Springs" or "it's down by Bryan-College Station" or whatever. Given that, I resorted to geography, researching on a number of sites, mostly state park services site or sites on the subject at the UT website, and I found that geographically the area divides itself into roughly three equal bands running vaguely southwest to northeast: Cross Timbers, Blackland Prairie, and Post Oak Savannah. I had never heard of the last two of these either, but once I thought about it, each of those areas does have a distinct feel to it, and it seems as logical a way to divide it up as any, so I went with it.

For the Piney Woods section, the only one I'm sure should be there is Deep East Texas, though I'm not exactly sure how to define the boundaries of it. I took it to be vaguely the lower third of the region, then set out looking for ways to define the rest. Central Piney Woods seems logical enough, and I found a few documents referring to Tyler and Nacogdoches as being in Central East Texas or the Central Piney Woods. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses those terms or not, but we need to choose something. Then for the upper third I couldn't come up with anything usable except for "Ark-La-Tex", but didn't use that because technically that region includes portions of the three respective states, so I went with "Northeastern Texas" instead, for lack of better options.

For the Gulf Coast region, I knew that Brownsville area folk refer to their region as the Rio Grande Valley, so I put that first. Beyond that I had no clue. If you know of a better way to break it down, please propose something. I searched on a number of sites for any agreed upon way of breaking it down, and couldn't even find any definitive geographic way to break it down except this: Looking at a map, two thirds of the region have barrier islands, the other third, all east of Houston, has a landscape much more like the bayous of Louisiana, so I just went with that: Rio Grande Valley, South Barrier Coast, North Barrier Coast, Bayous. If you know of any better way to break down the Gulf Coast Region so that it covers everything with clear boundaries and no overlap, please suggest it.

Similarly, for the South Texas Plains area, I am at a complete loss as far as region names which are in common parlance. I haven't even attempted to divide it up yet, though it's big enough I think it needs to be divided into at least three areas, probably something like Central, Upper Rio Grande, and Lower Rio Grande.

Again, any suggestions would be appreciated. If there is something you want to contest, or it have any comment or suggestion, let's begin on the discussion page of that respective region article, not here. Thanks! (WT-en) Texugo 00:05, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

(After which point, Jordanmills tried to revert all the work I've done over the last month without replying, sending everything back into the 7 mass macroregions of the state, and so began the following conversation, copied from our user talk pages):

 * Um, OK, look. This is NOT the way to deal with this. I have spent a GREAT deal of time trying to come up with a way to subdivide these regions, and I offered up a very lengthy explanation of the process on the Talk:Texas page. Why do you feel the need to revert all my hard work without suggesting something better or at least discussing?? I am offended honestly, and when I have time tomorrow it's all going back the way I had it. (WT-en) Texugo 12:05, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, you seriously need to stop reverting my region edits, especially if you're not going to discuss it. (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:09, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Excuse me?? I gave everyone a lengthy explanation of my breakdown of sub-regions here. I spent 3 or 4 weeks working on this, and the 7 macro-regions of Texas really need to be broken down because each is like the size of Pennsylvania and there are far too many towns to be covered in one region article. Before you go eliminating my subdivisions and going back to what we had before, it is you that need to discuss and suggest something better. (WT-en) Texugo 12:21, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Well now you finally talk. I tried to discuss it, and you weren't inclined to until I posted in the Travellers' pubThe subdivisions are arbitrary, oddly named, and comletely unknown.  It confuses locals, let alone travelers, and shouldn't be here. (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, before you ever started this revert business, I explained my scheme thoroughly (above). And I'm sorry but you know, I grew up on the High Plains. Everyone there knows what it is. Businesses are named after it, 806 area code phone book says it, news agencies and radio stations use the phrase regularly. Llano Estacado area, same thing. Edwards Plateau, Permian Basin too. Fact one is that the seven official regions need to be divided up somehow. If you don't like how I've done it so far, fine, suggest something better. But don't send the whole mess back to the drawing board without suggesting a better way.(WT-en) Texugo 12:34, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Hi, I came by in response to the request in the Traveller's Pub. First, I'm grateful to both (WT-en) Texugo and (WT-en) Jordanmills for their willingness to pay attention to the regional structure of Wikivoyage. It's big, difficult work, but very important. It looks like what's going on is that (WT-en) Texugo has a suggestion for how to improve the second-level regions for Texas, which he's been working on for a month.  It's a bit surprising for me not to see a month's worth of discussion here at Talk:Texas about the revision.  The first discussion I see is from April 5, and my understanding is that the edits and reverts in question happened between April 5 and 7.  When I did something similar (see Talk:Washington (state)), we came up with a complete description of changes on the Talk page, posted a notice of the proposal at Travellers' Pub, left it open for a couple of weeks for comment, and only then began the changes.  To give an idea of time scale, this project was proposed on May 28, 2007, started on June 9, 2007, and completed on September 17, 2007. Could I suggest that the two of you put the revisions on hold, and discuss the changes here (or in the 2nd-level region Talk pages) until you have consensus, and have given a couple of weeks for comments? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 13:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You're right about putting it on hold until we reach consensus. I've stopped my part, though a few of the queued edits will show up as happening after Texugo started to reply.  They should be long purged by now though. (WT-en) Jordanmills 13:10, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Sub-regions 2
Ok. What happened was that before March 6, there were no second level regions at all for Texas, only seven large official regions each about the size of Pennsylvania, far too large to hold everything they contain. So I plunged forward and began slowly subdividing piece-by-piece based not only on my personal experiences but also a great deal of web research on Texas sites beginning with the official tourism page, Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Texas Highways magazine, [TourTexas and TexasEscapes, and usually ending up with official regional and city tourism webpages and local newspaper sites. As explained above, some breakdowns are pretty cut-and-dried, ingrained in local parlance (e.g. [[High Plains]], Llano Estacado, Trans-Pecos, etc.), while others are rarely ever regionified by the locals (e.g. the Prairies and Lakes region, the South Texas Plains, etc.). However, we obviously need to choose some way to break each region down for organizational purposes, so I've done the best I can so far. This is basically how it stands so far: [[image:TXsubregions.png|center|600px]]

(WT-en) Texugo 22:05, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It's unnecesarily complicated, confusing, and mostly inaccurate. There's really no need to keep creating new topics on new discussion pages for it either.  (WT-en) Jordanmills 22:17, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Are you saying the seven large regions don't need to be broken down? I would implore you to be more specific and constructive in your criticism. What is complicated about it? Where do you get confused? What is inaccurate about it? I'm trying to make it as accurate and useful as possible. What do you suggest instead?? (WT-en) Texugo 22:21, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * That is, in part, exactly what I'm saying. I've already said it twice, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I suggest leaving it alone and not trying to enforce arbitrary naming systems. (WT-en) Jordanmills 01:46, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I like what you've done with West Texas and North Texas, and I think you're on the right track with the south and the Gulf Coast, but 'German Hill Country' seems off to me. I know about the German heritage, but that's not really descriptive of what's there - particularly with respect to Austin. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:15, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, you're right. German Hill Country proper wouldn't include Austin, yet the Austin area isn't really big enough to make its own subregion article, and I think it's too much on the edge of the region to call this "Capitol Region" or whatever. Maybe just "Central (Hill Country)" or something along those lines? (WT-en) Texugo 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the last thing (WT-en) Jordanmills wrote above: The 7 main regions are huge and contain too many articles to manage in one spot-- For example, the Panhandle already includes at least 46 destinations, and the Hill Country already has at least 38. When that becomes the case, it's time to subdivide, as is usual Wikivoyage protocol. How else do you propose to manage so many articles in a usable manner? (WT-en) Texugo 03:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

 * It is our well-established policy to subdivide regions when the cities lists grow too long (more than 9, actually). Jordan, if you disagree with that policy, you should contest the policy itself at Project:Geographical hierarchy. And while it is nice to have the Texas regional hierarchy documented here, it might be more useful to discuss individual top-level region subdivisions at each top-level region talk page (to keep the discussion focused on the naming, boundary lines, etc.).

 * My feeling on this is that the top-level regions did need to be broken down, and we're lucky to have had Texugo put some hard, thoughtful work into the subdivisions. For me these subdivisions seem more informative than confusing—that map alone tells a lot about the geo-travel nature of the state. I can't comment too much on the individual subdivisions, since my knowledge of Texas begins and ends on the High Plains. I'm sure some of these could be refined in terms of naming and borders, and German Hill Country could probably be renamed simply Central Texas, but I do think we should keep the discussion focused on specifics. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Does that count stub articles created specifically to fill out the "list"? At any rate, per the policy listed there, the seven major regions of the state ARE the subregions.  At any rate, the 7+-2 rule is for lists, and so the list only shows the most list-worthy of a much larger number.  If it grows too long, you cut items from the list, you don't create a new list next to the first.
 * Part of the problem is that what you're getting out of the sub-sub-regions is largely incorrect and asking for one by name will often get a local to direct you elsewhere. (WT-en) Jordanmills 16:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

 * First, lets please not make assumptions about intentions—assuming good faith is the basic cornerstone of all collaborative work on wikis. I'm pretty sure it's been at least general practice (and quite possibly enshrined in policy somewhere) that we encourage people to create new outline articles for valid destinations, in the hopes that that stub article will invite contributors to fill it out in the future. And per policy, the decision to subdivide regions like the Panhandle is clear-cut, given how large a territory it is, and how many linked destination articles had accumulated.

 * And I think you might have misunderstood some of the policy I linked, which I suppose in turn might benefit from some clarification edits. Per Project:Geographical hierarchy, all regions are subregions of some other region (with the exception of continent articles at the top). There's no distinction between a "region" and a "subregion" except in context. And the policy is clear on that next point: you do not cut items from lists (and thereby create orphan articles), you "sub-divide the group into subgroups, each of which has up to 7±2 things in it." Most states in the US have already been subdivided beyond the first cut of top-level regions, and I'd venture a new level of subregions was pretty overdue for Texas.

 * Clearly, you have some good local knowledge of Texan travel-geography—I think Texugo is off to a great start on the second cut of Texas regions, but I'd encourage you to add your knowledge and suggest specific revisions where you see specific inaccuracies. Mere general assertions that it is confusing or inaccurate doesn't help us refine or improve the guide, and certainly won't help us reach a consensus. For that, we'll need detailed arguments on specifics. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It looks like I missed the 7+-2 bit there. I always understood it to only apply to lists.  But do you really want me to go to each sub-sub-region and discuss the merits of its existance?  Especially when the person that made the changes seemed to create a bunch of empty stubs to justify it.  I would think that the person trying to enforce the changes is the one that should be justifying it.  Also, I didn't orphan the articles, I was careful to return them to their regions. (WT-en) Jordanmills 22:39, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Again, please assume good faith. Under such a (very reasonable) assumption of good faith, Texugo was merely trying to best organize content, present and future, and expanding our coverage of Texas. If your objection is to the existence of these regional subdivisions, that is against current policy, and you would need to create a consensus to get that changed. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything worthwhile about Texas, but I do know a bit about Wikivoyage and breaking a US State into traveller-focussed regions. I agree with (WT-en) Peter that 1. 'There's no distinction between a "region" and a "subregion" except in context', 2. ' you do not cut items... you "sub-divide..."', and 3. 'I'd venture a new level of subregions was pretty overdue for Texas.' It looks to me like some regions, e.g. Texas Panhandle had more than enough of content, so it's a good time for subdivision. Other regions, like Piney Woods and South Texas Plains, haven't overwhelmed the top level article yet. It might be OK for now to put a proposal in the Talk pages about what next-level region to use when the time comes, but don't enact a subdivision now. I continue to applaud both User:(WT-en) Texugo and User:(WT-en) Jordanmills for your contributions of energy and knowledge to Wikivoyage's structure. Texugo, you were right to Project:Plunge forward. And wow, that's a nicely-illustrated map of Texas regions there. I think each of you had an opportunity to communicate a little bit more before taking wide-spread action. I hope all the Texas experts can come up with a consensus on region names and boundaries, because this subdivision looks like it will make the Texas coverage more manageable for travellers, and that's what it's all about. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 20:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * About the 2. ' you do not cut items... you "sub-divide...", look above at "cities list". I think you're misunderstanding me.  I'm not talking about cutting articles or content, I'm talking about about the 7+-2 rule applying to lists. (WT-en) Jordanmills 22:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Nope, this policy is about dividing geographic units, per the section title, and as the article title would suggest. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

 * I thought I said it above, but I either was unaware of or misunderstood the policy. I realize that you're entirely right about it.  (WT-en) Jordanmills 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Can we agree that, at least in the cases where the destinations already overwhelm the top-level region, it would be easier to work with what I've already done, changing if necessary, than it is to send it all back to the drawing board and wait for consensus? For example, I can agree that we ought to change "German Hill Country" to something else, at which time the sorting work I've already done is still valid, and I can simply search for "German Hill Country" and change the descriptions of everything that comes up. The other approach is what Jordanmills has already started to do just now, which is revert all the descriptions back to the parent region and blank the previous subregions from the parent region article, without even suggesting an alternative. In this case the sorting work will have to be done over from scratch. I'd really like to preserve all the infrastructure and interlinking I've done so far-- I certainly don't mind it being changed later if a better idea comes along, but I see no reason for already-formed subdivisions to be blanked to go back to an overcrowded region article that doesn't even link to half the destinations. In this particular case nobody has even voiced any specific problem with the other two subregion that were blanked. (WT-en) Texugo 04:07, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You should have sought consensus before making sweeping changes into your own personal system. It's going to be better (read a lot less confusing for a the traveler) to have a slightly longer list of children than it is to have an arbitrary and unique system of subdivisions that will just wind up getting them lost, at least until we all (or most) agree on something.  (WT-en) Jordanmills 16:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

 * Just in case I wasn't clear before, I don't think its appropriate to revert the existing order, and further changes should be made only after discussing them. We discuss when there is controversy per Project:Consensus. The massive revert of all the work Texugo did (which was fully in line with policy) was inappropriate, and definitely should not continue. The absence of objections was enough to justify the work Texugo was doing, and moreover, I myself urged him along with the project.

 * What's more, Jordan, you also have yet to make any objections to the work Texugo has done—insofar far as I understand, your objection is that you contend that the 7 top-level Texas divisions should not be subdivided. That is not an objection to the work Texugo has done, that is an objection to our policy. Thus it would be appropriate to challenge the Project:Geographical hierarchy policy at Project:Geographical hierarchy, since that position is in opposition to policy. If the problem is with the existing regional structure, and not with the general policy of regional hierarchies, you should provide specific critiques of and suggestions for that structure, and keep these critiques confined to talk pages for the meantime, since there clearly is a controversy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

 * I thought I was clear about a few points. 1, the names are inaccurate (either refer to a different location, or are inaccurately drawn), 2, the subdivisions are unnecessary (the list was padded with stubs for locations of dubious travel merit), 3, while you cite "plunge ahead", you don't cite the corralary that has the next user correcting or removing incorrect information.  The required changes affect several or many regions, and I think that discussing them on Talk:Texas is appropriate. (WT-en) Jordanmills 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 * (WT-en) Jordanmills, could you be specific about your objections to Texugo's proposed second-level regions? Which specific second-level regions should have different boundaries? Different names? In the first half-week of comment, I see a consensus for defining second-level regions in the abstract, so it looks like the biggest remaining issue is where to draw the boundaries and what to name the regions. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Sounds to me like there's a whole of lot puffery going on about "policies" and a whole lot of lack of understanding of the state itself or what best serves a traveler. (WT-en) Texugo did indeed do an admirable job here and I bow to his diligence and research. Unfortunately though, at the most fundamental level, (WT-en) Jordanmills is basically correct. Although I doubt there's much inaccuracy in what Texugo did, Jordan's initial observation that it's complicated and unnecessary is spot on RIGHT. It's untrue that the 7 basic regions were *EVER* too large or complex. I also disagree that leaving them as-is is contrary to "policy", because it's simply not true that they were too big (some of them look more sparsely populated than west Texas, and just because you can create 46 links to essentially nothing doesn't mean there's a problem with the organization). Sub-dividing the 7 basic (and widely used in the real, non-wiki, world) regions is just NOT a good idea --- and that's just plain old common sense talking, no B.S. about arbitrary limits set by a mindless "policy" that might make sense in some contexts, but certainly not others. -(WT-en) Mrkstvns 11:15, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Have you actually looked at the articles? Very very few of them are actually just stubs-- there is a lot of content to be organized here. Subdivision is the Wikivoyage way to deal with the problem, and it was long overdue. (WT-en) Texugo 00:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course I looked at the articles. Have *YOU* actually thought about what makes sense from a HUMAN traveler perspective?? No human being on earth will find your organization helpful or natural. Consider that the state is COMMONLY divided into those exact 7 categories (they work fairly well and reflect the natural divisions in the state). -(WT-en) Mrkstvns 10:22, 26 April 2008 (CDT)
 * (WT-en) Mrkstvns, I'm really glad to see another knowledgeable Texan contributing here. But could I suggest that your tone is a little unfriendly, even disrespectful, towards Texugo? Wikivoyage works better when we all assume good faith. Assume that Texugo has indeed thought about "what makes sense from a human traveller perspective". Take a bit more time to look at what he's proposing — maybe you are misunderstanding it?  For instance, do you see that he's proposing sub-divisions of the existing top seven categories?  i.e. the Texas article continues to have 7 regions, but the existing Hill Country region should consist of three subdivisions (1, 2, 3) instead of piling all 38 destinations  in the Hill Country article? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 00:26, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Break down the 7 categories if you feel a reorg is needed, but leave 7 good, solid, intuitive natural categories at the state level. And do it because it reflects intelligent information architecture and good reader-centric writing --- not for some lame "wikivoyage way" excuse. The latter can only lead you to a bad travel guide that's ugly, unnatural, unusable, and an outright embarrassment to the writers who contribute to it. (As I already see in some areas of the site, unfortunately.) -(WT-en) Mrkstvns 10:22, 26 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Those seven levels are completely intact and agreed upon, no question. From the state article, those are the only 7 subdivisions you can see. We're talking about the next level down in the hierarchy. With this further subdivision, once you click on the Panhandle article, you see that it has been broken down for you in an organized way, rather than having a flat alphabetical list of like 50 places spread out over an area the size of Pennsylvania. Perhaps you thought that I was hoping to put the above complete breakdown into the state article, which was not my intent at all. I only put the complete list of sub-sub-regions above for discussion purposes, and you seem to basically support the work done there, no? (WT-en) Texugo 14:10, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Subregions 3
Mmmkay, I realize the discussion is already over and the work has already been done, but I do have a suggestion... I agree that the sub-dividing of regions was needed and, in large part, I think is well done and accurate to my knowledge. But I do question the need to rigidly apply the sub-dividing rules to each region. For example - I like what was done with the Big Bend Country region. Although it's large, there are less destinations overall, so each sub-region encompasses a larger area. The South Texas Plains is an even better example of this. Now - I'm wondering about East Texas, though. Despite the sub-regions being geographically correct, I wonder if there was really a need to break it down to the level that it is. East Texas has destinations, but probably more on the level of Big Bend Country (if not South Texas Plains), number-wise. Also, although I understand the Gulf Coast->Bayous sub-region is placed where it is (and that would be consistency), I wonder if it also would be more at home in some sort of East Texas super-section, as it too, does not have a great deal of destinations. Just thinking out loud! (WT-en) Army of me 01:17, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

LGBT people are "generally" tolerated in Texas?
Texas is "generally" tolerant of LGBT persons? Is this a joke? Texas is the most homophobic state in the USA. When a gay man was brutally attacked and raped in Dallas, the police officers responded to the situation by saying it was his "lifestyle choice" that resulted in it. Cut the b/s, stop the lies, and state the truth. Texas is NOT a safe place for LGBT persons. 67.159.45.54
 * Meh, it depends on where you are. Houston, for example (where I live), has a well-known LGBT-friendly (or perhaps even "-dominant") community centered around Montrose. I imagine that much of Austin would be LGBT tolerant and all the large cities have gay-friendly areas as far as I know (just like in most other states). Outside of those areas, I would actually agree with whoever said LGBT people are "generally" tolerated throughout Texas, especially in big cities - as long as they're not in people's faces about being LGBT (unfortunately, that's just the way it is), but I'd argue that's still true in much of America. I believe the case you are referring to was a statement by a judge from 1988... there are undoubtedly still homophobes (the back-roads of East Texas, for example, I'd be more careful), but all-in-all, I think you'll find attitudes have come a long way. To say Texas "is the most homophobic state in the USA" is a gross exaggeration; it's at least as tolerant as any other Southern state, if not a bit more. Just my two cents. (WT-en) Army of me 18:50, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree as well. Even Dallas has a vibrant gay scene centered around Oak Lawn. Just because a crime was committed by some individuals doesn't characterize the whole state. (WT-en) Texugo 23:13, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree with the two previous posters. The large cities of Texas are exquisitely safe for LGBT people. I've lived in Texas most of life - I'm a native Texan - and I feel safer as a gay man in Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and Houston than I did during the few times I visited New York City. In fact, New York City is currently experiencing a crippling wave of homophobic crime: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gay-bashing-attacks-rise-city-article-1.1430370.

THIS WHOLE SECTION IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND SHOULD BE DELETED. IT IS BASED ON UNFOUNDED STEREOTYPE AND FEAR MONGERING. TEXAS HAS HUGE VIBRANT GAY COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THE STATE. —The preceding comment was added by 2602:306:806c:d150:51ad:cff:ad0b:277a (talk • contribs)

 * (1) Are you trying to yell? (2) The first post in this thread presents the opposite picture. Granted, it was posted 10 or more years ago, but considering that violence against gays can happen anywhere, "generally tolerated" is probably accurate, unless you think "generally accepted" is truly the case, and if you do, mention how they are received throughout rural Texas as well as in cities. I don't presume to take a personal position, as I'm neither gay nor have I yet visited any part of Texas, but I don't find that SHOUTING makes your statement more convincing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have never even been to Texas, how do you have the right to say anything about the LGBTQ situation here? Again, this entire article is ludicrous and should be deleted entirely. The original poster of the article doesn't even speak properly, example: "In those areas, most people tolerates vigilante attacks", That should be singular, Tolerate, not plural Tolerates. Secondly, this is a hugely presumptuous statement, example: "The LGBT situation in Texas is very tense given the fact that the majority of the population is conservative". This is just absolutely ridiculous given that cities such as Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, have huge liberal populations and even in the last elections, the city of Dallas, the democrats had more votes by a slight majority. Not to mention that two of the most popular governors of the 20th Century, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Anne Richards were Democrats and liberal. In the last 20 years, there have been more notorious headlines out of California in regards LGBTQ violence, yet when I read the wiki voyage article on California, I don't see warnings on acceptance there. Until you have visited Texas, you have no basis to agree or assume if any word choice is proper or correct.

 * (1) Welcome to Wikivoyage. (2) Sign your posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes in a row at the end of each post. (3) I have the right to ask questions, and you have the right to give answers. (4) If an an article contains inaccuracies, the solution is not to delete the article - that's vandalism - but to edit the article accordingly. Go ahead and edit the article to reflect your best knowledge, but know that someone else could edit it later. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Let's revisit this. I just made this edit after this edit (a troll?) was made. Is it in fact true that "Much of Texas is not LGBT friendly", and if "it's strongly recommended that you stay out of certain areas of Texas if you are LGBT especially in the rural areas outside of the major metropolitan areas", which areas should LGBT folks consider avoiding? All rural areas? Everyplace outside of major metropolitan areas? And if "The LGBT situation in Texas is very tense given the fact that the majority of the population is conservative", well, TX is a lot less conservative than it used to be, given that a Democratic candidate almost beat the incumbent Senator Cruz in 2018 while flipping 2 U.S. House seats and 11 State Legislative seats, and opinion polls show that the state's other U.S. Senate seat and the presidential election may be in play in 2020. So what is it that is of practical importance to tell LGBT travellers to Texas? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Official tourism link
In this edit, the link to http://www.TravelTex.com was removed. The site is currently down, but I can only imagine that that's a temporary situation. Does anyone know how long it's been down? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:42, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Speed limits
"By car ... Speed limits are very strictly enforced in rural areas of the state; Texas state troopers will pull you over for an infraction as small as five miles per hour over the speed limit, as traffic fines are often an important source of income for many smaller towns. ... The rural speed limit in Texas is generally 70 MPH, though it increases to 80 MPH on Interstates 10 and 20 in the sparsely populated far western portion of the state."

I was going to say that Texas law was changed so that fine money goes to the state, but apparently the local community still gets some: http://m.lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-08-02/driver-so-mad-about-speeding-ticket-he-shells-out-3700-billboard-mocking

Some toll roads also support 85mph: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/sh-130-toll-road-files-bankruptcy/ 72.178.93.28 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative banners
Let's see if I ever get one of my suggested banners onto a page... :)

The current banner is a good concept but it looks abstract to me. Nothing's clear. So here are few alternatives I suggest:

I was hoping to get some good city scenes, but I couldn't find any. How are these, though? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't I prefer any of the new suggestions to the current banner, which is IMO pretty good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 * None of the above really jumps out at me. I did a quick look, and I made the following banner which shows the Austin skyline. Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't prefer that one to the current banner, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good try, but I don't think that one captures the Texas atmosphere. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The current banner shows a Marriott hotel and the flag of Texas. Blech. Any of these is better, although the cows and the skyline could be anywhere. The one of the Alamo at night is my first choice as it should the most distinct, followed by the landscape. Ground Zero (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 * at first sight, I would go with the banner with the view of the city. But it might be a little too common. The cows won't show much culture, so... Im gonna go with the 3rd alternative banner.  Arep   Ticous                                                    02:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Things are now even, 2-2, with two in support of the current and two supporting alternative #3. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, a closer look reveals that there was only one vote for the current banner, so I will change to alternative #3. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

To user Ikan Kekek, you stated above that you have never even been to Texas, how can even presume to have an opinion on which banner is best?

 * How it strikes me as a viewer. And you don't have to have yet seen the Alamo in person to know it's iconic. But why don't you express a view on which banner you like best and why? (And when you do, sign your post.) Thanks, and enjoy improving this travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Texas


text:
Talk:Thailand

Banner
I wonder if perhaps we should consider a new banner here. I'm thinking perhaps something that represents Thai culture, like perhaps shots from the Grand Palace in Bangkok. The dog2 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Is there any photo suggestions that you have? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * This one can be cropped into a nice banner (needs a -0.2 rotation). --FredTC (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Done. I tried looking in my personal photo collection of the Grand Palace but it seems I don't have many good photos of it. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could make a banner of a row of Buddhas like this one in Ayutthaya The dog2 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Done – that works too. Haven't been to Ayutthaya yet, but this banner makes me want to :-) -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the banner form Ayutthaya is a good one. Let's see what others say. The dog2 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be sharper and better lit, but it is better than Banner 1. Was there a Banner 0 before? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

City list swap
I was thinking if maybe we should substitute Surat Thani for a major city in southern Thailand. You can fly directly into Ko Samui, so there is actually no need to fly to Surat Thani to catch a boat to Ko Samui. I think maybe Hat Yai should be in the city list instead. Or we could have Pattani if we want a city that can be considered the centre of Malay culture in Thailand, though it might not be safe to visit now due to the separatist insurgency. In any case, Hat Yai also has a large Malay community, so you can experience some aspects of Malay culture in Hat Yai too. Just walk around the streets of Hat Yai and you will see many Malay vendors selling food. The dog2 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are strong warnings not to go to Hat Yai. So, I think having it in that list could encourage travelers to go to a dangerous place. --FredTC (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Hat Yai is not an active warzone. Before the pandemic, plenty of Malaysian and Singaporean tourists were visiting Hat Yai, and there were regular commercial flights between Singapore and Hat Yai. You can do a Google search, and you'll find so many blog posts written by Malaysians and Singaporeans about their trips to Hat Yai. So in this case, I think the warnings from Western governments are way overblown. As far as terrorism goes, there might be one every few years, so while it may be less safe than Bangkok (which also had a terrorist attack, albeit in that case by Uyghur separatists who targeted the Erawan Shrine because of its popularity with Chinese tourists), it is really no more dangerous than the likes of London or Paris. The dog2 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll agree with the addition of Hat Yai as it’s the second largest city in Thailand and receives tourism from Malaysians crossing the border Tai123.123 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the risk is very small that you can get troubles in Hat Yai. But the problem is that if you get troubles, your embassy might not help you, and that your insurance will not cover costs that are the result of those troubles. So, if you want to draw attention to Hat Yai by replacing Surat Thani by it, it should be combined with a warning. --FredTC (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have a warning on the Hat Yai city page, so I think that should suffice. Surat Thani doesn't seem to have much of interest to travellers compared to Hat Yai. If Hat Yai was a warzone, I highly doubt there would be regular commerical flights from Singapore. And you get many tourists from Penang because it's only 4 hours or so away by road. The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Telephone booths
There's a picture of a telephone booth from 2009 in the article. Are those things still around in Thailand today? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The picture in the article shows a type of booth that I could not find anywhere anymore. There was a period, some 6-8 years ago, that they started appearing at places that did not have a booth before, and they did not contain a phone. The only function they had, was a place to attach commercial posters (and probably there was also a problem to store them in storage of the phone company). Now there are still boots of a different type, less space consuming, but I did not test whether or not they are connected. --FredTC (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If booths of the type shown in the article no longer exist or are extremely uncommon in Thailand today, we need to delete the thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to find an alternative but did not find one. So: yes, delete. --FredTC (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice: Wide-area warning issued for Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand
In recent months, there is a surge of human trafficking reported in Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand, where travellers (mainly Taiwanese travellers, Chinese travellers were more common pre-COVID) were tricked by fake job offers, travelled to and abducted in these countries, and forced to work for criminal syndicates like slaves. In response to the trend, I have issued warnings for articles of Cambodia (particularly Sihanoukville), Myanmar (particularly Northern Myanmar) and Thailand.

References (all in Chinese):
 * 柬埔寨人口販賣事件, the article recording the surge on Chinese Wikipedia.
 * Travel warning (highest level) for Cambodia, issued by Taiwanese MFA.
 * Information page by the Taiwanese MFA.
 * News report by Taiwanese investigative journalist The Reporter, covering the background of the surge and involvement of local Taiwanese gangs.
 * News report by Hong Kong newspaper am730.
 * News report by Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao, illustrating the death of a victim.
 * News report by Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao highlighting Hong Kong travellers have also fallen into victim, luckily most of them are successfully rescued.
 * News report (in English) by The Diplomat, illustrating the seriousness of the trend.

Please check if there are problems of over-bolding or other grammatical problems, and feel free to add more on advices if necessary.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you, that's a good addition (the warnings are in 'Work', for anyone else interested). If you haven't already done so, it might be a good idea to add these to zh.wikivoyage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems horrendous and frightful should definitely be mentioned. Thanks for adding them . Agree with tt! that it might be a good idea to add this to zh.voy. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep on my sentry work, just like how I made my first warning on COVID for Wuhan (sigh it's almost 2 years and the pandemic still doesn't come to an end...). Will follow up on Chinese Wikivoyage.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While the entire Chinese Wikivoyage is mostly empty (that's why I'm more focused in here), I've also ✅ with the warnings at there: see 柬埔寨, 泰国, 緬甸 and 西哈努克. Perhaps after there are no further comments, this thread should be swept to the corresponding article talk pages.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 * We do have some cautionary info at Working_abroad, Common_scams and Volunteer_travel. I wonder if those need to be expanded or if some links should be added either in this article or in those.
 * Certainly variations on the problem are fairly widespread. In my own travels I've encountered:

 * Filipinas trapped in exploitive jobs in Saudi Arabia (1980s, not sure if it still happens). She cannot leave the country without an exit visa and getting that requires the boss's signature. He says she's a lazy bitch & he's not signing. She says he beat or raped her, often both. My advice would be don't go anywhere where you'd need an exit visa to leave.
 * An agency charging Chinese nurses large up-front fees for placements in Canada on domestic servant visas taking care of disabled people, mostly Alzheimer's patients. Salary might have sounded good to a Chinese, but it was much less than you'd get working at McDonald's and hours were much longer.
 * Things I've only heard about include an Indian diplomat in the US mistreating domestic help (Devyani Khobragade incident), Fujian girls being smuggled to Taipei being thrown overboard when the Taiwan Coast Guard caught the boats, Snakehead gangs importing prostitutes to the US. Pashley (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here pickers of wild berries are imported from e.g. south-east Asia. They often have to take loans for the journey. The buyers of the berries arrange visa, travel, accommodation, intro, transport to the woods etc., but usually do not employ them. One year the harvest was weak and the pickers couldn't pay the loans. Volunteers helped them go to court to claim employment, but the pickers couldn't afford to stay during the multiple-year process, so they settled at terms they could live with. The berry-pickers are still not regarded employees, but to get visas for their labour, the buyers now need to guarantee a minimum income (and there are more eyes on lodgings, rents etc.). We have also had a number of outright illegal arrangements, mainly in other trades. The common denominator seems to be loans and threat of being expelled from the country for illegal work, in the cases where it isn't about direct slavery. For those who have an income at home, the risk of being expelled isn't a reason to remain in slavery, but if you have family you cannot feed without the foreign income ... The criminals may also threaten you and your family in your country of origin, especially if the justice is weak there. –LPfi (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I support these warnings. Last night I added caution boxes to Tachileik and Myawaddy  on the same issue. And it is not just targetting individuals who speak Chinese. Malaysian and Indonesian were also targetted by the same group of fraudsters. This merits posting in English to reach as wide audience as possible. I do not think this is the typical "run of the mills" employment scams since those commons scams only want your money. The current scam hold you hostage and force you to work for them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I appreciate these kinds of warnings. They are important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: It seems that not only aspirant workers are falling victim, criminals are also targeting the average travellers. Some may recruit workers in local front companies and traffic victims en masse using company tours, others may use individualized vacation invitation to lure them to these countries (see this report by HK TV Channel i-Cable), all followed up by abduction. I genuinely don't know when will the criminals resort to random abduction if the situation worsens. Given by such worrying scenario, I have raised the warnings to the top of all these articles. Please advice if this is appropriate or they should be send back to stay safe, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also thanks to for leaving proper warning, have upgraded these warnings to warningboxbased on the template's usage guidelines.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I read that Laos may also be one of the destinations. I propose adding the same warning to Laos. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The warningbox at the top of the article should be very brief. Most of the information could be in Work (not necessarily in a warning box), that relevant also for those not intending to find work in Stay safe. Some of this should probably be in Working abroad and Common scams. –LPfi (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for 's and your opinion. I have send these warnings back to "Work" and "Stay safe" (if work is not yet created). Though do you think a very brief warning on the top with link to the more detailed warning is OK?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The warning starts with: Telecommunication fraud, illegal remote gambling are rampant in parts of Thailand and its neighbours, Myanmar and Cambodia. How does this relate to te rest of the info in the warning box? --FredTC (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the warning for Thailand? I make special remark on Cambodia and Myanmar, because Thailand is a major transit hub for human traffickers to transit victims from their country to their bases in Cambodia and Myanmar, though criminal bases do exist in Thailand (like the notorious "KK園區", not sure what's its English name). The remainder of the warning focus on common methods used by human traffickers and ways to avoid them. If you have concerns about coherence, please make your point clearer, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the "Telecommunication fraud, illegal remote gambling" -part of the text. FredTC (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For that part I tried to lay down the context and background. After all, criminals don't traffic and abduct victims for no reason, they do these because they need to recruit manpower for them.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

45 days without visa?
I did get information that from 1 October 2022 till 31 March 2023 you may stay not 30 days, but 45 days without having a visa. Does anyone have info that confirms this? FredTC (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Counterfeit 1,000 baht notes
@Jpatokal: with this edit you rephrased part of the section about money matters. The warning about counterfeit 1,000 baht notes lacks some explanation, I think. Do you have information in which situation you will receive 1,000 baht banknotes? The biggest banknote is 1,000 baht, so you cannot get them as change from a bigger banknote. Are ATM's or banks giving them? Right now I only can imagine that you can get them when a deposit is returned to you. --FredTC (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That's right, it's very unlikely that you would get one from a bank or ATM, which means that tourists are quite unlikely to run into this issue. Fraudulent money chargers might be a risk, but while I've heard plenty of horror stories about Bali, I've never heard of this being an issue in Thailand. (YMMV.) Jpatokal (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Demographics
The section is interesting, but there are a couple of contradictory-seeming statements. The first one is relatively simple to solve, as Indians are obviously not the second largest ethnic group in Thailand. But it doesn't seem possible to square Malays being 7-10% of the population with Theravada Buddhism being adhered to by 95% of the population. Also, per Ethnic groups in Thailand, there are 1.2 million Khmer in Thailand, though it's unclear how up-to-date the figures in that article are (c. 1997? Perhaps 2011?), and we might want to mention that Isaan people are Lao (more information at Isan people) but that Laos are a type of Tai [sic!] people who speak a language in the Tai family related to Thai. It all depends how much detail we consider relevant for travelers who don't prefer to just read Wikipedia for such content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 * No-one has a comment? User:Roovinn, User:The dog2, User:WhatamIdoing, User:Othello95 or anyone else, any input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at three websites and got three wildly different answers.
 * You could ask for help at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. If the question catches someone's eye, then they might track down a reliable source.  w:en:Ethnic groups in Thailand and w:en:Demographics of Thailand#Ethnic groups both need to be updated (and to match each other). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could update without using percentages? I don't think I'm going to dig that deep to research this at this point, though I may indeed ask for comments from that reference desk, and thanks for the suggestion! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would solve a lot of problems, including ongoing maintenance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's my attempt. Not to come down hard on anyone personally, but we really need to avoid ignorant, offensive, ethnocentric remarks like this: "Generally isolated from modern society, each hill tribe adheres to a unique set of customs and values, some of which are considered too rustic for the modern world." Isolated? Come on, now! Hardly anyone can be isolated from governments and capitalism anymore. And considered by whom? Not Wikivoyage. We need to be better than this. My mother was an anthropologist, and the community we lived in could have been ignorantly described in similar terms and indeed Terengganu villagers in nearby villages and other rural Malays were described in just such terms by other ostensible scholars. Those who did so jumped to false conclusions about those rural people instead of listening, finding out how to ask the right questions, and thereby learning their wisdom and understanding truths about how they lived. My mother did listen and learn, because she did not come in with an ethnocentric, urban snob attitude and was humble, cooperative, hard-working and patient and refused to jump to conclusions without double-checking everything with the people she worked with, who were her sources. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not expert on Thai demographics but yeah, based purely on the figures provided, it is not possible for Indians to be the second largest ethnic group when they are outnumbered almost 5 times by Malays. And yeah, I agree that we need to describe the hill tribes in a less prejudiced way, but there are still isolated populations that reject all contact with the outside world by choice. Perhaps the most famous example are the Sentinelese in India. They kill all outsiders who approach Great Sentinel Island where they live, and now the Indian government has made it illegal to approach the island. The dog2 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, true about the Sentinelese, and when it's true, we do and should note it, but it's so uncommon today, and most peoples do not have the power to keep to themselves, as witness how native peoples in Amazonia have suffered. Plus no-one can avoid the effects of global warming, and that's why a native people in Colombia who had rejected contact with outsiders for thousands of years came out and shared their experience of living in harmony with nature and their warnings to others. And even the Sentinelese, to my understanding, are hostile to outsiders in large part precisely because they had experience with contact and it hurt them, for example by giving them a disease that killed many of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (North Sentinel Island, not Great Sentinel Island FTR). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thai Indians
Where did you get the information that most Thai Indians are Punjabis. Wikipedia says they're mostly South Indians, and the famous Hindu temples in Bangkok are Tamil. The dog2 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello there, and thank you for your question!
 * Here's a preview from a book (perhaps the only book out there) that highlights that bit of information:
 * Sikhs form the majority of Thai Indians, and a lot of them follow traditional Punjabi customs.
 * Interestingly, many Hindus from Punjab (Pakistani side) migrated to Thailand many years ago and they form the majority of Hindus living in the country. Not surprised at that fact, honestly.
 * As for the famous Hindu temples, I believe you're referring to this one, right? Roovinn (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the main one. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Unrecognized religions
Is there any practical significance of a religion such as Judaism not being officially recognized? If so, and if it's worth explaining, we should explain it. If not, it seems to me that we needn't mention it at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 * No, I don't see a point – this isn't an enclyclopedia. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't know how regulation religion works in Thailand, but to my knowledge, anti-Semitism isn't really a thing, and Chabad has a presence in Thailand, so Jews can practise their religion without any issues. If this is anything do go by, in Singapore, your religion has to be recognised by the government in order to be represented at interfaith events (though unlike in Thailand, Judaism is officially recognised in Singapore), so if I had a make a guess, it might be something similar. The dog2 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 * So no real practical significance. I will remove the remark. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

English
I'm not shure how to tell this in English (which is not my native language) but I miss some practical tips about the usage of English in Thailand. I give an example: 3 girls came in a simple restaurant that had (among other things) cheese sandwich, ham sandwich and vegetable sandwich on the menu. One ordered a cheese sandwich, the second ordered a ham sandwich and the third said "and I want a veggie one". When they served the order, the third girl did not get a vegetable sandwich but something else, something that sounds like veggie one (fet chi wan), and she said I did not order that. I told her yes you ordered fet chi wan, and that is what you got. So, the staff of the restaurant did probably not speak any English and only had learned how the menu items sound in English and know what then order to the kitchen. So it can be important for the traveler to know that one should order only what is written in the menu and not some kind of synonym for it. FredTC (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Thailand


text:
Talk:Thailand/Regions

Far Northern Thailand
First we need a regional scheme for this, so do not merge the ones explicitly stated

Andaman Coast
--(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)

 * GT has been doing a great job here with little help. We need to get a buzz going. This is like a secret CoTM! --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:08, 5 February 2010 (EST)

 * Yeah, the moving for London went a lot better, maybe because it didn't involve such a vast area. Even though it takes long, I think we've been making good progress. When the whole moving process is done, I'd like to work more on getting some important destinations to usable status. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:52, 5 February 2010 (EST)

 * What a task this is.... How the hell was the TAT dump allowed to happen in the first place? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:26, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * I am wondering the same sometimes... Once this is cleaned out, we should not accept this happening again. Probably the largest task I've ever done here. Even after all these provinces and the capitals are sorted out, we still have many other islands and destinations that need cleaning, such as Ko Chang, Ko Lanta, etc... --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:32, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * YAY! Done :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:10, 14 February 2010 (EST)

Clean up cities from TAT listings
Now we're almost done with the new regional scheme, its time to remove the clutter from the city pages. I already did it with the capitals of the provinces, but many other tourist destinations are still a mess. I suggest we move the TAT listings to a sub-page of the Talk page, such as done here. Recognizing TAT listings that have to be removed is not that hard: generally it's completely unformatted and the title is always accompanied with the Thai alphabetized version in brackets. Like this:

Sun Hiang (ซุ่นเฮียง) 21 Chonkasem Road Tel: 0 7728 1367, 0 7727 2180 (seafood) Takiang (ตะเกียง) 38/15 Surat Thani-Phunphin Road Tel: 0 7728 3932-3 (Thai food) Tapi Seafood (ตาปี ซีฟู้ด) 30 Mu 3 Paknam Tapi Road Tel: 0 7728 2115 (seafood)

Move it to the Talk page, and Thailand will look a lot better. I picked out a list of notable cities that I find especially important for Thailand:

 * Northern Thailand: Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai , Mae Sai , Pai , Sukhothai
 * Isaan: Nakhon Ratchasima, Khao Yai National Park
 * Central Plains: Ayutthaya, Cha-am, Hua Hin, Kanchanaburi , Lopburi
 * Eastern Thailand: Ko Chang, Ko Samet, Pattaya
 * Southern Thailand-Andaman Coast: Ao Nang, Khao Sok National Park , Ko Lanta, Ko Lipe, Ko Phi Phi, Ko Tarutao , Rai Leh , Krabi , Phuket, Phuket Town, Similan Islands
 * Southern Thailand-Gulf Coast: Hat Yai, Ko Pha Ngan, Ko Samui, Ko Tao, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Surat Thani , Songkhla

These are the most important ones, but it's my plan to have un-TATified all Thailand pages by the end of the month. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:12, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * OK, all the TAT listings from every destination in Thailand is cleaned up, except for:
 * East-Central:
 * Hua Hin
 * Ko Chang
 * Ko Samet
 * Pattaya
 * South-Andaman:
 * Ko Lanta
 * Ko Lipe
 * Ko Phi Phi
 * Phuket
 * Phuket Town
 * South-Gulf:
 * Hat Yai
 * Ko Pha Ngan
 * Ko Samui
 * Ko Tao
 * Nakhon Si Thammarat
 * Also the beaches attached to these destinations (featured in separate articles) still require clean-up. These are by far the most popular destinations in Thailand and also the hardest ones to clean up, so any help is appreciated! --:(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:01, 15 February 2010 (EST)
 * Hat Yai
 * Ko Pha Ngan
 * Ko Samui
 * Ko Tao
 * Nakhon Si Thammarat
 * Also the beaches attached to these destinations (featured in separate articles) still require clean-up. These are by far the most popular destinations in Thailand and also the hardest ones to clean up, so any help is appreciated! --:(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:01, 15 February 2010 (EST)
 * Also the beaches attached to these destinations (featured in separate articles) still require clean-up. These are by far the most popular destinations in Thailand and also the hardest ones to clean up, so any help is appreciated! --:(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:01, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Very impressive
Great stuff all round with the Thailand/Bangkok CotM, and nearly all from you Globe-trotter. Sorry that after helping a bit early, on my own effort petered out. Huge kudos is due to you for tackling this with so much energy.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:07, 2 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Thailand/Regions


text:
Talk:Thai phrasebook

Nice start! It might be worthwhile to look at the Project:Phrasebook template to fill out the rest of the page. --(WT-en) Evan 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Khop khun maak khrap for the additions, 24.19.111.204, but could you also document the system of tones you are using? The romanizations you are using also appear to be a little non-standard, Wikivoyage prefers RTGS (with long vowels marked). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:12, 12 Feb 2005 (EST)

Alignment to RTGS
This article was quite inconsistent in style and method of romanisation.

I have aligned it to RTGS, the Royal Thai General System of Transcription. However I have kept a few deviations to avoid known drawbacks:
 * use j for จ (instead of ch)
 * use double aa, ii, uu for long vowels (but not ee, oo, because too confusing for English speakers)
 * no measure for อ versus โ (article intro said ou for โ, but it was not used; too late I saw that the majority of โ had oh)

For style I used the convention (was a slight majority already):
 * no initial capital in pronunciation
 * no dot after pronunciation

I have corrected a few errors as well, but have not filled in the gaps. I did not double check all yet, so minor flaws may still exist.

−Woodstone 82.171.189.187 17:11, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * Excellent work! I was hoping somebody would do this.  Please keep plunging forward, and just document your 'standard' both on the phrasebook page and Project:Romanization. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:16, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Translation
I'm a Thai and speak Thai as the main language. I've translated some of them and fixed some transliteration. Also, I fixed something to fit Thai culture. Thank you for your translation, they're 90%+ correct. That's cool if you aren't a Thai. Excellent for you all --(WT-en) Wap 07:03, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * Thank you for your help! Please help us fix more, we want to be 100% correct. =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:27, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Tsunami phrasebook
It's been a year now and I think this stuff is becoming rather less useful for the average traveller -- I'll archive it here for posterity until somebody figures out something better to do. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:43, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

Tsunami Relief Work

 * NGO, private organization, private institution : องค์กรเอกชน (ong-kòn ekkachon)
 * tsunami : สึนามิ (suenaami)
 * missing person : คน หาย (khon hăai)
 * victim, casualty : ผู้ประสบภัย (phuu prà-sòp phai)
 * injured [V] : บาดเจ็บ (bàat jèp)
 * seriously injured [V] : บาดเจ็บสาหัส (bàat jèp săa-hàt)
 * injured persons : ผู้เสียหาย (phuu sĭa hăai)
 * volunteer : อาสาสมัคร (aa-săa sà-màk)
 * rehabilitate, restore : ฟื้นฟูสภาพ (fuen fuu sà-phàap)
 * help, aid, assist : ช่วย (chûai)
 * translator, interpreter : ผู้แปล (phuu plae)
 * Teacher : คุณครู (khun khru)
 * Doctor : หมอ (mo)
 * Nurse : พยาบาล (phá-yaa-baan)
 * Engineer : นายช่าง (nai châang)
 * Boss : นายจ้าง (naai jaang)
 * Help Thai People : ช่วย คนไทย (chûai khon Thai)
 * Lost : หลงทาง (löng' thaang )
 * Journalist : นักข่าว (nak khao)
 * “Can I take your photo?” : ขอ ถ่ายรูป คุณ ได้ไหม ครับ (kho tàai-ruup [khun'] dâi' mäi', khráp' (males))
 * Photograph, take photograph : ถ่ายรูป (thàai-ruup)

Construction

 * do, make, build, work, create : ทำ (tham)
 * create, produce, build, make : สร้าง (sâang)
 * technician, mechanic, engineer, craftsman : ช่าง (châang)
 * Tool : เครื่อง (khrueang)
 * hammer : ค้อน (khón)
 * hammer, nail, pound, drive, knock [V] : ตอก (tòk)
 * cut, cut off, cut out, break off [V] : ตัด (tàt)
 * nail [N] : ตะปู  (tà-puu)
 * measuring tools : เครื่องมือวัด (khrueang mue wát )
 * ladder, stepladder, stair : กระได (kràdai)
 * door : ประตู (prà-tuu)
 * window : หน้าต่าง (nâa tàang)
 * bolt, latch, lock [N] : กลอน (klon)
 * building, house : โรง (rong)

Growing "Learning more" section
Does anyone agree with me that this is a Project:External links section that needs to be removed. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel)

 * I think some of those links are genuinely useful (eg. Lexitron), but I agree that most of them are dross. I think we should just list down the criteria for all phrasebooks and pare 'em with a heavy hand. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:22, 24 November 2006 (EST)

 * I recently posed the question should (all) the "Learning more" sections be removed? here: Project:Phrasebook template ~ 61.91.191.2 04:14, 31 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Thai phrasebook


text:
Talk:Thale

Guide status
I took a look over this article per the request at Project:Requests for comment, and it definitely seems to merit guide status. One clear spot for improvement, though, would be to try to add price ranges for all the eat listings. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:30, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Dead links
I just demoted this article from guide to usable due to the huge number of dead links. What should we do about them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Listings to be integrated from WP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harzer_Hexenstieg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teufelsmauer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode_Gorge Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thale


text:
Talk:Thames

This might be of some use: BBH Backpacker Hostels - Coromandel/Thames. (previously in External links) (WT-en) Jelse 02:28, 30 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Thames


text:
Talk:Tham Nong Pafa Cave

VFD discussion
It is obviously an attraction and not an article. It is not even an especially important attraction and should be deleted according to policy. I guess a merge and re-direct to Tha Khaek would be OK though.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:23, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Merge and redirect to Tha Khaek. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Result: Merge notice added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Tham Nong Pafa Cave


text:
Talk:Thane

Where is Thane? I have said it is a city in India, near Bombay. Because the place is mentioned in the Bombay/Mumbai article. There is no other reference on Wikivoyage. So it needs to be linked from a relevant regional page or be a district of Bombay. -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:05, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * I've added some content which makes it clearer.
 * Thane is a county of Maharashtra (I'll link to it from there.) It is administratively different from Bombay.
 * The headquarters of Thane county is Thane city, which is practically a suburb of Bombay
 * But Thane county is also a tourist destination in its own right, especially for trekkers and nature lovers. If you are writing about it, no one will think of it as a part of Bombay.
 * Thane county also contains other small industrial cities (which are also in a sense commuter suburbs of Bombay) which are not very important from a tourist's point of view, but nonetheless are big enough to merit entries of their own
 * So I chose to use the small city template to write about Thane. I've linked to as-yet non-existent pages for cities inside the county, but made an exception for Thane city, because I don't think there is enough material for separate articles for Thane (district) and Thane (city). If someone proves me wrong in the future, we can disambiguate it.

 * In the really distant future, the whole of Thane district will become a part of the huge conurbation that Bombay is becoming. At that time, we will have to recast the whole thing completely anyway.

 * (WT-en) Sunray Traveller 11:02, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * P.S. How do I indent to indicate that this is an answer?

Scratchpad
This is a place where I will be putting links to format and put into the main Thane article. Others can help, both with new links and with the formatting -- (WT-en) Sunray Traveller 04:08, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 * Nature Trails India - Do (trekking etc.) and sleep.

 * Hotels Mumbai Scrape some hotels listing from Thane. It is probably a violation of policy to place a link?

 * Yeoor hills.

 * Thane Talav Pali

 * Masunda Lake

 * Upvan

Question
if you are on a day trip from navi mumbai to thane what should be the bus fare to & fro. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 221.128.186.32 (talk • contribs)
 * Ans - Under Rs. 10 each way. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:09, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Kalwa merger
Before I started editing about Kolkata and surroundings, I was a very mad contributor. I didn't know the process of merging articles here unilaterally merged Kalwa to Thane (pronounced THAH-neh). pointed out my mistake and had put forward a merger proposal; I haven't looked at the proposal since then. Now, after having reformed myself as a valuable contributor, I'm surprised that the Kalwa article is still there. Can I know what happened to the proposal? I still think Kalwa should be merged to Thane, with another reason being WV:WIAA. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Go ahead as you wish – I'll also admit that I used to be much more of a hasty contributor back then. As a suggestion, one you merge the article, an orientation section in "Understand" outlining the suburbs might help, but keep in mind that's completely optional. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thane


text:
Talk:The Abbey of San Galgano

So, this article doesn't match our Project:article naming conventions; it doesn't match our article templates; and I'm not sure it even meets our requirements for Project:What is an article?. On top of that, it had some link-back requirements that aren't compatible with our Project:copyleft.

Do we need an article about this abbey, or can it be safely deleted? --(WT-en) Evan 11:33, 5 January 2007 (EST)

 * Shrink into a listing in Monticiano, which appears to be the nearest settlement. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:45, 5 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:The Abbey of San Galgano


text:
Talk:The Colony

I removed this sentence: ''The Colony has the "5 Star" Sports Complex, is the flagship of the many sports fields in The Colony that non-residents and/or non-members cannot use. '' If travelers can't use it, probably shouldn't be listed here. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, really thanks
The difference between these two revisions has me laughing out loud. The finest piece of amusement I have experienced from Wikivoyage. I thank you :) :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:19, 8 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:The Colony


text:
Talk:The Communist buildings

What to do with this?
This is obviously not an article, but it's still kinda fascinating. Shorten a bit and move to Romania? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)
 * At one time it was part of the Iaşi article, and all sorts of Iaşi references are still strewn across this one. I almost merged it back in there and deleted, but your idea is better.  Looks like an infobox to me. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:37, 8 November 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:The Communist buildings


text:
Talk:The Golden Triangle (India)

Do we need this?
I was about to work on turning this into an itinerary.... but I'm not sure it needs its own article.... We can talk on the main India page about what the Golden Triangle is and the cities that comprise it.... and actually info on the cities should be at their own respective articles.... and those articles will already cover how to get between these cities, since they're obvious next destinations. Creating this article seems like it would be repeating information that should already be found elsewhere – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:01, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Over 7 years later, I think this should be a very brief article that's essentially a disambig page, not an itinerary. Basically, I'd leave the lede and delete everything else. However, if there's a useful reason to keep the rest of this article, it needs updating and copy editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Golden Triangle (India)
Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this really an itinerary? I feel like it's an extra-region and should remain in existence, with suitable edits, as an extra-region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Keep The Golden Triangle is a well known itinerary for foreign tourists in India and often aimed at first time visitors so I feel it is iconic enough to keep despite being unedited for over a year, I’m against it being a region as there is a set start and end point (Delhi) and it is often done by train. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also most luxury trains in India run this route Tai123.123 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Keep Pashley (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tai123.123. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Omit "the" from article name
The definite article is not generally part of the proper noun and this article lowercases the article while capitalising the "Golden Triangle" part. Thus, I want to omit "the" from article name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * No big deal, but on the face of it, that makes sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Naming conventions. Vidimian (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * per WV:THE. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Golden Triangle (India)


text:
Talk:The Hague

Article name
Project:Article naming conventions says no "The" in article names. Why is this an exception, and rather embarassingly linked in from Project:Article naming conventions at that? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:42, 1 May 2005 (EDT)

 * I think you're asking, "Why is it The Hague but the French Alps?", right? I think it's a tough thing to explain and delineate, but perhaps the most telling reason is that "The" in "The Hague" is actually part of the name. We leave it capitalized, in English, even in the middle of a sentence -- unlike the French Alps or the Lakes Region.

 * There used to be more place names that worked like this in English ("The Ukraine" and "The Lebanon" being the two that spring to mind), so "The Hague" is becoming more and more of an anachronism. But it's still, by far, the most common English name for this place. It's an exception, but practically a unique one. If you want to unlink it from the naming conventions, I have no problem with that. --(WT-en) Evan 11:02, 1 May 2005 (EDT)

 * I guess the title The Hague accords with the convention of using the most common English name. The title 'Hague' alone is rarely if ever used as the name of the city, either colloquialy or officially.

 * "The" is a fixed part of the name The Hague. It's not like you can just add it or leave it out if you wish. Just "Hague" is never used (in English and Dutch alike). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:16, 8 February 2010 (EST)

 * Why "The Hague"? Because the Dutch name "Den Haag" name has the article too. (WT-en) Salix2 15:15, 20 November 2010 (EST)

 * Per Project:Naming conventions, we use English names, and "The Hague" is the English name of this city. Den Haag is a redirect to this page, and should stay that way. On the other hand, Dutch Wikivoyage, naturally, uses Den Haag. – (WT-en) Vidimian 16:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

 * He meant to explain that "The" should be in "The Hague", as in Dutch "Den" is used and not just "Haag". --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:39, 20 November 2010 (EST)

 * Oops, I thought he/she was asking why this is named "The Hague", and thought by "article", he/she meant a Wikivoyage article—I have totally overlooked article the grammatical feature! – (WT-en) Vidimian 18:35, 20 November 2010 (EST)

External link
This link was removed as it is not in compliance with Project:External links, but may be helpful for research:

 * Haagse Historie Website by Chris Schram with an extremely detailed and comprehensive account of the architecture and history of many many buildings, sites and areas across the city. The English section is not as extensive as the Dutch section; but it may be worth browsing the Dutch section just for its photos. In the Dutch section, follow the link names 'Alfabetische Index' to get to an index of all topics covered on the website.

Errors
-May 2008
 * lots of spelling errors removed/changed, hopefully not many added. Please be more careful when adding information...
 * Is this article still considered an Outline? It covers most of the notable things in the city pretty well.

Districts of The Hague
The districtifying process of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are in process, I also think it's time for The Hague to become districtified. It'll probably be the last city of the Netherlands that needs districts. I suggest the following districts scheme:

 * The Hague/Center (including Haagse Hout)
 * The Hague/Scheveningen (currently Scheveningen)
 * The Hague/Kijkduin (Loosduinen and Segbroek)
 * The Hague/Laak (including Leidschenveen-Ypenburg).
 * The Hague/Escamp

A few things, maybe native The Hagueans (if that's a word :P) could help me out. I am not really sure where to place Haagse Hout, maybe it could also be included in Laak or Scheveningen. And I also wonder, maybe Loosduinen-Segbroek is a better name for Kijkduin (but Kijkduin Beach is the most prominent feature of the district, and most travelers will go there, that's why I thought maybe thats a good name for the district).

Also: maybe Center could be subdivided into a few districts as well? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:07, 8 February 2010 (EST)

 * I know absolutely nothing of The Hague, but it doesn't seem to me as if there is enough content in this article right now to require districtification. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:30, 9 February 2010 (EST)

 * You're right that maybe it is a bit little. Oh well, then still it's good for future reference. But don't forget that Scheveningen is also an integral part of The Hague. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:26, 10 February 2010 (EST)

 * I am a native to The Hague, Most points of interest are in the centre, in Scheveningen or between those aria's. I think that only Scheveningen has the touristic attraction to draw visitors longer than a few hours away from the city center. Scheveningen was before 1900 a place to go for kings and nobility. Now a days on hot summer days thousands travel the roads of The Hague by bus, car of tram to Scheveningen for a day at the beach. They are not interested at all to the city. The number of Horeca enterprises - (ho)tel, (re)staurants, (ca)fe's - is huge in Scheveningen. Plus the souvenir shops who depend on tourism. In the summer, about April to September, there are even more, the Strandtenten at the beach.
 * Kijkduin has the beach, a hotel, a bungalow park, a dozen restaurants, some shops, a ship for children to play on and a small replica lighthouse. It draws local interest in comparison to Scheveningen.
 * Around The Hague there are some towns bordering the city. Crossing a park and a sign traveling to the east you enter Rijswijk or Leidschendam-Voorburg and accessible by city transport.
 * Wassennaar to the north-east and Westland in the south-west are a little farther, but they are still close and accessible by local transport. Wateringen, a part of Westland is very close.
 * There is not many accommodations available in the districts Centre, Scheveningen and Kijkduin.

 * My thought is: Rename Scheveningen to The Hague/Scheveningen and leave the rest as is.

 * greatings --(WT-en) Rein N. 07:28, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Thanks for your additions to the discussion. I agree that Scheveningen (after the Center) is the most important district of The Hague. But having 2 districts is a bit weird, as like other cities we'll need to get to a full districts division that encompasses the whole city. I agree with you though that The Hague shouldn't have too many districts.

 * What I think is very important, is the two sides of The Hague: on the one hand it has a snobby and wealthy side (the north) and a much poorer working class side (the south). This also has a geographical implication: the rich live on sand dunes grounds, while the poorer neighborhoods are built on quagmire grounds. I think this should be reflected in our district structure, while not adding too much districts. Generally I'd say the Laan van Meerdervoort is the divisive line between these, but the richer area could be made somewhat larger as well. The southern part is generally a poorer and working class area, and parts of it are multicultural (includes Schilderswijk, Transvaal, Laakkwartier, Escamp). I don't know a good name for that area though as it encompasses a large area and there are lots of different neighborhoods. So I propose a different way of making the neighborhoods, merging the poorer areas in one district (as I agree with you that not a lot of foreign visitors will go there, though there might be some expats who stay in The Hague for a longer time. But we have to cover the whole city).

 * Old Center
 * Statenkwartier (area between Center and Scheveningen that includes the richer areas of the city, such as Statenkwartier, Archipel and Duinoord. Many embassies, villas, etc.)
 * Scheveningen
 * Kijkduin (I know this is a very local beach, but it has a much different atmosphere from Scheveningen. I mean this area not as just the dunes, but also the richer part of Southwest The Hague built on sand grounds. If you know a better name, let me know)
 * South of Laan van Meerdervoort (poorer working class areas such as Schilderswijk, Transvaal, Laakkwartier, Groente en Fruitmarkt and everything south of Laan van Meerdervoort.)

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:35, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

Updates Needed
Under Events/Prinsjesdag, it reads,

"On this day, large crowds are drawn by the traditional journey that Queen Beatrix makes from her palace at Noordeinde to the Knight's Hall at the Binnenhof. She makes her trip in the Gouden Koets (Golden Carriage), a gift from the people of Amsterdam to her grandmother Wilhelmina from 1903. The carriage is used only for this special occasion. In the Knight's Hall, the Queen then performs her duty as the formal head of state by reading out the Troonrede (Throne Speech) to the gathered chambers of the parliament."

Beatrix has not been Queen since 2013.

2001:B011:7805:2A9A:90EA:3DA8:29C8:F332 01:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Signed
 * I changed it. There is also a temporary replacement of the Golden Carriage. --FredTC (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Hague


text:
Talk:The Historic County of Lancashire

From the anon
I think its only right that there should be an article mentioning the Historic Boundaries of Lancashire,after all they still exist and so ive made 1.i have mentioned all the towns,villages and cities in the historic county palatine and abit about the county.please do not add anything to the page or article unless it is something of use such as history of the towns,villages and cities.do not try and delete it as it is a very useful and important article.there are too many wiki sites not realising the historic counties,and it needs to stop.the rest of the world knows about the historic counties wiki now its about time you started to know,get used to it they exist.have done and always will.as well as The Historic county of Lancashire page,i will be creating more historic county pages about historic counties in northern england as well as the rest of britain such as cumberland,yorkshire,cheshire and westmorland.If you have any pictures of towns within The Lancashire county palatine please feel free to put them on as i will be most grateful. —The preceding comment was added by 82.24.71.211 (talk • contribs)

 * Anon, speaking as a Lancastrian by birth, I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. This is WikiTRAVEL; not WikiPEDIA. The Historic Counties don't really have any relevance to a traveller. If it does, they probably already know about it. If you're going to start doing historic counties for one area, you need to do it everywhere; but I really fail to see the relevance of saying that Gateshead was part of the historic County Durham. In fact, the counties have changed so much over the years that you really can't do it in a simplistic way. (WT-en) Nrms 07:43, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Does this make sense?
I don't know England well so I've stayed away from most of these "historic county" edits, but many of them have made the regional breakdown somewhat confusing, added poor grammar (see the comment above) and in my opinion worsened the quality of the respective articles. In the US there generally wouldn't be a valid travel reason to (for example) state that every town in Southern California was a part of a former Spanish American state or Native American tribal boundary, but I don't know if things are different for some reason with the UK so hopefully someone can provide some insight.

In any case, I think this may need some discussion before further changes are made as the changes being made currently seem to be somewhat controversial. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:55, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * It makes no sense at all for a contemporary travel guide. Neil makes the point well above as a native Lancastrian. These edits are of no use whatsoever to a traveler, and are in any case over-simplistic.  It is a complete can of worms (some English towns have for example been in more than two counties historically), and frankly, completely irrelevant. How far in history should this go back? Bath for example could be: part of Somerset (twice! removed once and then came back), the now defunt county of Avon and for that matter, the Kingdom of the West Saxons.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:09, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Historic County of Lancashire


text:
Talk:The Jazz Track

Awesome idea!
This is an awesome idea! I hope it does well! --(WT-en) Evan 23:44, 11 December 2006 (EST)

 * I second that notion! Putting this one on the to do list... --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 22:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Formating and Question?
I agree with Evan, this is awesome, but I did some formatting to get it in line with our Manual of Style. Also a couple of questions? You start in Boston and drive to New York, but you don't do anything in Boston. Do you plan to add activities in Boston? If not, why not start in New York? Also, this appears to be a driving trip, but the last day you fly back to Boston, what do you do with the car? Keep up the good work on this and thanks for your contribution. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:35, 30 December 2006 (EST)
 * Okay, I see the car rental now. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 22:00, 30 December 2006 (EST)

 * It's an itinerary. I'm going to make some changes to reflect this.  I also think the Boston part of the trip seems a little odd.  I'd drop it for more time in Chicago.  -- (WT-en) Mark 16:43, 30 December 2006 (EST)

OK, thank you for the help. We will probably add some Boston jazz-related places (like Berklee school of music, where many modern jazz musicians developed their styles). -- (WT-en) Davidgmiguez 09:37, 28 January 2007 (EST)

 * This is an interesting itinerary that needs some people to adopt it (more than one, I think). As a jazz musician, I can help somewhat, but there's no way I can do it by myself. I don't know if any of the original WT-en users are still reading here. I'd love it if this could be turned into something good and featured on the main page someday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Chicago
I'm thinking that the chicago visit should include a Wednesday, so as to coincide with the Empty Bottle jazz nights. Of course there's also festivals.

The Velvet lounge is very central to the AACM scene, so it's kindof a must-see. -- (WT-en) Mark 16:50, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Chicago - The Empty Bottle
I've been living elswhere for about 7 years now, so I think I'm a little out of touch. Has the Empty Bottle scene moved over to the Hideout? I notice that they're running a roughly weekly thing called the, anyhow if one of you could investigate I think it would help us bring the article up to date. Thanks! -- (WT-en) Mark 14:57, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 * The Empty Bottle only does occasional jazz shows now, and there has been a move to the Hideout. Good catch. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:46, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:The Jazz Track