text:
Talk:Grand Cayman

Redirect?
I'm seeking opinions on a plan here. I think Grand Cayman should be the main article rather than Georgetown. The other towns/villages on Grand Cayman seem to be too small to support an article and I think most folks that visit here will see the island as a destination in its entirety and, given time, "do" everything on the island. I suggest moving this article to a Grand Cayman article and then adding the "George Town" designations to addresses in the listings when appropriate". The two smaller islands probably deserve their own article... eventually. (WT-en) OldPine 20:50, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Speaking with the authoritative voice of someone who has never even been close to the area, I say "why not"? But more seriously, this has been adopted for quite a few other islands (eg. Tioman). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:46, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Should "seatbelt use is mandatory" be removed?
Under Get Around: By Vehicle, it says "seatbelt use is mandatory." Isn't that against WV:Obvious? Is there abnormally strict laws about seatbelt usage there? —The preceding comment was added by GCool1015 (talk • contribs)

 * In some countries and regions, seatbelt use isn't mandatory. So I'd say it's worth mentioning in the Cayman Islands article. But maybe not here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand Cayman


text:
Talk:Grande Cache

Spelling
The name of the town is spelled incorrectly in this article's title and throughout the text. I've fixed the errors in the text, but since I am an anonymous user I cannot correct the article title. Could someone please rename this article to the correct spelling -- "Grande Cache" ? --66.18.213.58 02:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Grande Cache


text:
Talk:Grande Randonnée

Template?
Is there a template we should use for the trails? I don't think the usual sleep/eat is as appropriate for hiking, not when you sleep in the woods and eat food you have brought.

I think we should have information on difficulty, length, hazards, suggested time, seasonal considerations, minimal gear needed and recomended gear, and so on. And suggestions? (WT-en) bcnstony 03:00, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I suppose there is some standard on telling about these on the GR trails. Could that be used? There is at least Packing for a week of hiking, Hiking in the Nordic countries, E11 hiking trail, Nordkalottleden and the Inca Trail. These are probably not good models, but can tell about expectations people from other countries may have, i.e. what you have to explain, and can give ideas on how to do it.

 * I think it would be good to have a template for GR trails, and a common discussion over here – also on e.g. getting food and sleeping in the woods, as those not accustomed to the GR trails don't know where and how you are supposed to do that.

 * –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hiking itineraries on WV in general begin with an Understand section giving a background about the route and its conditions, then a Prepare section (maybe a subsection of Understand) of what gear, permits and the like you'd need, a Walk or Go body describing the route point to point, Eat/Drink, Sleep with some general information, then Stay safe and perhaps a Go next and/or See also section. I think this basic structure should work for any hiking itinerary? Ypsilon (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I also think so, but it is hard to know what needs to be told to those not from the same hiking tradition. Also, some of this information is probably the same for most of the GR trails, so doesn't need to be repeated, if sufficient information is given here – give a link and concentrate on the specifics. Some information is needed for most GR trails but could be given in a standardised format (as in Finland: are there open wilderness huts or just lean-tos, we don't need to explain what those are in every itinerary). –LPfi (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Images
Here are a couple of images that I found nice, but there is already an image from GR 128, and no room for more images. They could be used somewhere, or similar images from other trails could be used.

–LPfi (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grande Randonnée


text:
Talk:Grand Island (Nebraska)

US Hwy 281 under construction in Grand Island
The section of northbound US Highway 281 is under construction as of May 25, 2010, with cones in the left southbound lane as well. Anyone who wants to add this can feel free to do so. -macfanofgi, Grand Island resident

 * Indeed anyone can, and that includes you—please plunge forward! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:07, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Grand Island (Nebraska)


text:
Talk:Grand Junction

Please add to this article
I have fleshed out the basics of this article, but it is far from complete and does not even begin to capture all there is to do in Grand Junction. if you are a local or an enthusiastic traveler, please add your two cents. If you do add a listing, please use the "add listing" form to get the formatting right. So plunge ahead and improve this article! Cheers (WT-en) WineCountryInn 23:23, 22 January 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Grand Junction


text:
Talk:Grand old hotels

Definition of grand old
Should we attempt to give a more concrete definition to "grand old"? I'd say 100 years old and still a five-star as rated by the government should be the minimum criteria. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:48, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

Maybe. I think that would knock out the Queens in Kandy, which one site I saw rated 3-star. (WT-en) Pashley 08:50, 16 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Yeah, some of the grand ol' are great just cause of their slight shabbiness! I'd hate to exclude them... and the age limit would exclude some of the 75-100 year olders like the Waldorf Astoria. Or maybe that's intentional? (WT-en) Majnoona 09:17, 16 April 2006 (EDT)
 * That's why I'm trying to find the proper limit to sort out the wheat from the chaff here, we don't want the list to become too huge... how about over 75 years old and must have been a 5-star? 202.156.2.43 11:10, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Have we decided to be on this list that the hotel has to have been five stars? The Cincinnatian Hotel is a grand hotel, however, I do not think it has ever been rated five stars. It's currently four stars. (WT-en) Sapphire 22:20, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

 * How about we drop the five star and just state "luxury hotel" instead. The hotel must be suitably grand to qualify... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I'd say it has to have once been the place to stay in the city, where "once" refers to some time before World War II and "the place" implies that there will usually be only one of these per city. (WT-en) Pashley 05:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I actually like Pashley's definition the best so far, but I'd like to add an (arbitrary) time limit too. Must have been opened before World War II? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

 * That would exclude the Grand Hotel in Taipei, which is currently on the list although its web site says it was opened in 1952. I'm not all sure it should be excluded, though. Anyone know it well enough to comment? (WT-en) Pashley 08:29, 21 February 2008 (EST)

 * I'd say keep the definition, but keep the Grand Hotel Taipei as a rare exception to the rule. It was built at the very start of the ROC's political life and most definitely serves the purpose of Taiwan's "grand old hotel." And I've been there, and can say the experience was marvelous. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:45, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Do we need countries?
What is the best format for location names here?

I would not make the country a link because it seems irrelevant here, so for example I'd have: Current format always makes the country a link.
 * Luxor, Egypt —

Also, I'd include country only if it seems likely the reader won't know it, so I'd have: because it seems silly to tell people Tokyo is in Japan, and unnecessarily controversial to say Taipei is in China. I want to keep the listings simple. Current format always has country.
 * Hong Kong —
 * Tokyo—
 * Taipei —

What do others think? (WT-en) Pashley 22:17, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I'd like to keep the countries for consistency. Not everybody knows where Taipei is ("it's the capital of Tailand, right?") (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

OK, I put some countries back in. But I still don't think they should be links. Anyone care to comment before I "fix" that? (WT-en) Pashley 05:18, 3 May 2006 (EDT) Jani and Andrew,

 * I do not now recall whether I unlinked the countries back then. Most are currently linked & I still want to unlink them. Any comments? Pashley (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 * No comment after many years or several days depending which question above you count from. I have started making the changes. Pashley (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Chichen Hotel Request
New Note to Jani and Andrew,

Seems to me that “the Wikivoyage vision is a project to create a complete, up-to-date, and reliable world-wide travel guide, with a destination guides and other articles written and edited by people from around the globe to share their ideas, values, and knowledge to enrich the context of the website.” Therefore, I see no reason why two persons feel the right to change or delete valuable contributions without justified criteria. Please re-read your own recently dated notes where you state the hotels included in the Grand Old Hotels must have been opened before WWII, not over 75 years old to qualify hereby re-copy.

I'd say it has to have once been the place to stay in the city, where "once" refers to some time before World War II and "the place" implies that there will usually be only one of these per city. Pashley 05:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT) I actually like Pashley's definition the best so far, but I'd like to add an (arbitrary) time limit too. Must have been opened before World War II? Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Now, you both email me that the hotels feature in this article need to be famous and over 75 years old to qualify: The Hacienda Chichen meets this new standard of yours; however a new requirement and criteria you both choose tomorrow may be the reason you delete or block other peoples inputs.

Thus, I politely request you respect and allow people’s valuable contributions to enrich the text of Wikivoyage information. Like you, we do have something of value to share that indeed qualifies the article’s intented information and data. Be advice that The Hacienda Chichen is a 16th Century Colonial  Landmark, of great importance in Mexico and Yucatan’s Spanish Conquest History. Spaniards built this feudal state complex, known as an Hacienda, with original Maya carved stones taken from Chichen Itza, the most important and powerful Maya site, as a sign to the Maya people that the Spanish Kings now had the power over the Maya civilization, political affairs and religion. (First “unique” historic data). Then, in the late 19th Century, the Hacienda Chichen became “the place to stay” for explores when visiting the Maya Temples of Chichen Itza. A few years later, the Hacienda Chichen became the headquaters of the Carnigie Institute’s Maya Expedition, under the direction of archaeologist S. Morley. By then, the Hacienda Chichen had become the place to stay for scholars, visitors and diplomatic personalities interested in the study and reconstroction efforts of the Maya temples. The Hacienda Chichen was bought in the early 1930s by Mexico’s Pioneer of Tourism, Mr. Fernando Barbachano Peon to converted in a hotel open to the general public. Today, The Hacienda Chichen has a serene elegance and unique ambiance reflecting the Colonial simple decor of Yucatan. Many original Maya Temples and Old Chichen (under current recostruction by INAH) archaeological site are part of this protected private property. Please visit the hotel’s website to read about the Geo-Tourism program stablished in the property, along with a strong commitment to reforest and protect a private Maya Jungle Reserve that houses many endanger endemic animal species, flora and the natural habitat to protect our Bird Refuge. If this information does not meet your criteria, I am sure it will find many Wikivoyage visitors' approval and recognition. So please let me know if you can kindly agree not to delete my contribution. After all Jani acknowledge that everybody is equal on Wikivoyage and to keep the talk in this page.... (Herre)

> Greetings, > > Yes, I saw your message. Basically, my view is that the list should be > limited to famous hotels that have been operating for a long time -- the > issue is, has Hacienda Chichen been operating *as a hotel* for 100 or > even 75 years? But everybody is equal on Wikivoyage, let's continue > this discussion on the Talk page... > > Cheers, > -jani

Kindly honor our request to return the text entered July 9th, 2006 for The Hacienda Chichen Resort, which according to your own expressed definition of grand old hotel criteria, the hotel is well qualified. Hacienda Chichen Resort is a 16th Century Colonial landmark, built during the Spanish Conquest of Mexico with ancient Maya temple stones from Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. The hotel is rated as a five star hotel by the government and many members of the Tourist Industry. You will find Hacienda Chichen Resort featured in many art books and magazines. Since travel websites can place incorrect star rating, do check and judge thoroughly our website and guests comments at www.haciendachichen.com Hacienda Chichen is not just and "old building" as you stated in your reverting note. The hotel deserves inclusion in this article; so kindly reconsider your position and honor our request to return the text entered July 9th, 2006. [User:Herre]

 * I'm sure it's a fine hotel and that it's in an old building. However, I think that a grand old hotel must have been in operation for a long time (75+ years), and I don't think Hacienda Chichen qualifies for this. Other opinions welcome. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Agreed, unless the Hacienda Chichen (Sorry for calling it "Chicken") has been in operation longer than 75 years I don't think it counts. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:07, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Herre, no one is trying to arbitrarily lock this hotel out of being featured here. The problem is that when this page was started, the people who created it had an intuitive understanding of the kind of hotels they were talking about, and assumed that other people would have the same understanding, so they didn't define it very carefully. What's happening now is that they're trying to explain the idea more clearly and precisely. Picking an age limit for it is just an attempt to help people understand what kind of place a "grand old hotel" would be. For one thing, being listed here as a "grand old hotel" isn't an honor or even an endorsement. Most of these places are (quite frankly) living on their past glory, priced higher than they deserve to be, and showing their age. What certain people find appealing about them is the nostalgia of what they (used to) represent: an era when the sun didn't set on the British Empire, the upper-class travelled the world on luxurious steamships, and there was really only one place in each major city of the world where a person of proper social standing (e.g. a Rockefeller, a Saxe-Coburg) would consider staying, where they could live in the manner to which they were accustomed back home, and they could count on someone at the bar knowing how to make a proper martini. Chichen Itza – in the jungle, far from any "important" trading port – is more the kind of place an explorer of that era – not an aristocrat or industrialist – would have visited. Your own description of the hotel's history backs that up: Andrew Carnegie didn't sleep here; his archaeologist did. (Note: This isn't an insult; the archaeologist is the kind of person I'd rather to meet at the hotel bar.) And it sounds like it'd be more appealing to people because it's a remote and exotic but classy tropical resort rather than being promoted as the Yucatan's version of an urban Victorian mansion like the Savoy. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:29, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Hmm. Actually, after reading Herre's detailed history, I would now be OK with keeping the hotel here.  True, it's not quite what we had in mind, but it certainly does seem to have a history and has been around for a while. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:24, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I actually started this page. The two hotels I was mainly thinking of were Raffles and the Winter Palace in Luxor, the latter mainly because of the archeologists who stayed there. The discovery of King Tut's tomb was first announced on the bulletin board in their lobby. As for Raffles, aristocrats and millionaires probably stayed there, but it is Kipling and Noel Coward that impress me. (WT-en) Pashley 22:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Cosmopolitan in Cairo
Does the Cosmopolitan (ex-Metropolitan, opened in 1928) really qualify as a grand old hotel? It's in horrible shape now and never seemed to be quite on a par with the Al Gezira Palace (=Marriott) or Mena Oberoi to begin with. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:09, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Athens and Brussels
I believe there's also a hotel from this category which are on a central square in Athens and Brussels, but I can't remember their names now. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:21, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Lotte
I just deleted this entry: It does not seem to me to belong here. Might be quite a nice hotel, maybe even grand, but not a grand old hotel. (WT-en) Pashley 22:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Seoul, South Korea - Lotte Hotel <-- opened 78/79 - does it qualify for this list? -->

 * The Westin Chosun, est. 1914, fits the bill better, methinks. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Re: Hotel Phonecia
Phonecia was glorious, but I've heard it's gone downhill a bit since Le Meridian sold it ... Can anyone say anything about this having experienced it both before and after? It would be sad to see it fall into ruin.

Additions
I believe there are two substantial omissions from your current list: The Imperial Hotel in Delhi and the Metropole in Hanoi. Both are glorious colonial era hotels with much character.

 * Well add them then!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:08, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Removed oak Bay Beach
I took this out:
 * Victoria - The Oak Bay Beach Hotel

Web search shows it is new. Pashley (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Exception?
The Hotel Ukraina in Moscow and the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal are not exactly that old. I have already removed the latter since it was only opened in 1958. However, I do recognise that it is historically significant for being Canada's last grand railway hotel, so if the consensus is to make an exception because of this, I'm happy to have it added back in. Similarly, the Hotel Ukraina was only opened in 1957, but I am aware of its history of being personally commissioned by Stalin as a luxury hotel for the capital, so it is also historically significant and iconic. So should we keep both these hotels off the list, or should we make exceptions for them like we did for the Grand Hotel Taipei? The dog2 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd keep both, the QE because we have a list of the railway hotels & this belongs on it. Pashley (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 * OK, sure. Go ahead and restore it then. Maybe we should add Tokyo's Hotel Okura to the list as an exception since it's a historically significant 1950s hotel. The dog2 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I restored the QE. Did not add Ukrainia or Okura since I don't know those regions. Pashley (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"Oldest continuously operating hotel"
Re: This claim about the Parker House Hotel in Boston, opened in 1855:

"The oldest continuously operating hotel in the USA"

The Beekman Arms in Rhinebeck, New York, claims to be the oldest operating inn in the U.S., and probably is the oldest continuously operating one, having been established in 1766. Do we really consider inns and hotels clearly different in kind? The Beekman Arms is basically a hotel with a restaurant in all but name. I think the claim about the Parker House Hotel should be edited. I also wonder whether the Beekman Arms and other classic inns with more than a few rooms (the Beekman has 23) do or don't belong in this article. I could see the argument for exclusion, as part of the grandness of a grand hotel is its size. But anyway, your views on "oldest"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 * It's almost a year and no-one has addressed this. I am going to delete the claim within 24 hours unless someone objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I added "Claims to be". Pashley (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I forgot all about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding markers, wikidata and maps
Would it be beneficial to add wikidata and perhaps maps to the hotels? In that way we could display them similar to port cities in the article Ferries in the Mediterranean (but perhaps a bit more structured).

A listing would look something like this:

 * Alexandria -

--Jonte-- (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Wikidata would be useful. Most of these hotels should have Wikipedia entries. But why does the link in the example, and the links in the listings in the article, go to the hotel's website? By instead linking the listing in the destination article, we avoid the need to update the link in two places as it changes (this page would mostly be forgotten, I think), and the traveller would get directly to our information on the hotel, including the updated external link:
 * –LPfi (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, to keep closer to the current format:
 * * Alexandria –
 * * Alexandria –

 * –LPfi (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree with LPfi. Many listings in this article currently link to the hotel web page, but it would be better to have them link to our listing in a destination article. If a grand old hotel is not listed there, it would be good to add a listing. Pashley (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I went through some sections, replacing the external link with one to the listing, sometimes amending the description. Finding the listing was sometimes difficult, as I had to guess in what district to find it, for towns I don't know. I gave up on one hotel (not listed? different name?) and made no try on Paris, where I assume there are several districts with grand old hotels.

 * This shows that we should do something about our advice on how to write articles on huge cities, and perhaps other types of articles. I have seen it before, with See and Do listings: the district isn't mentioned in the See or Do (in this case: Sleep) section, and the attraction isn't mentioned in the Districts sections. I think any attraction mentioned in the main article should have a link to the district where the listing is found, perhaps to the listing itself. Better district description would sometimes help, but that's not straight-forward and not a definitive solution.

 * –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that using for all hotels is not such a good idea. After marker 99 all markers have 99. We should use colors, with these possibilities:
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 * That's a problem when the number of listings is great, which probably wasn't anticipated. I think the number of listings is about 200, so 3–5 colours would be enough. Is there anything that could be told by the colours, or should we just use different colours by continent? What about age? –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about colors by continent. It is easy to implement by search/replace operations. FredTC (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the simplest way. Perhaps that should be implemented right away, with more elaborate schemes considered later, if somebody has a good idea and wants to spend the time needed. I'd like similar colours, for a more harmonious map, especially as the colours in this case serves no real purpose. Also, if one wants to have some listings stand out later, then it is easier if other listings are more neutral. We could use blue, royalblue and steelblue for Europe, Africa and Asia, teal for the Americas (most listings are in the United States and Canada anyway, so little is gained by two colours) and mediumaquamarine for Oceania. –LPfi (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My suggestion:
 * --FredTC (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty cool idea, but the colors aren't as easily differentiated as I might hope they'd be. The teal for North America and steelblue for Oceania look particularly close when I see the map with pins for Cuba and Australia. Mrkstvns (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using the remark by LPfi: "I'd like similar colours" for the suggestion above. However, the colors for N-America, S-America and Oceania are still quite stark contrasting with the gray, grey and silver for Europe, Africa and Asia. Would it be wrong (or even not allowed) to use wrong "type=" values that all result in the color of type=silver? In that case I would suggest "type=asia", "type=euro", etc. for such wrong "type=" values, what would make the wiki-code easy to understand when editing. Example: --FredTC (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My new suggestion:
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * --FredTC (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty cool idea, but the colors aren't as easily differentiated as I might hope they'd be. The teal for North America and steelblue for Oceania look particularly close when I see the map with pins for Cuba and Australia. Mrkstvns (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using the remark by LPfi: "I'd like similar colours" for the suggestion above. However, the colors for N-America, S-America and Oceania are still quite stark contrasting with the gray, grey and silver for Europe, Africa and Asia. Would it be wrong (or even not allowed) to use wrong "type=" values that all result in the color of type=silver? In that case I would suggest "type=asia", "type=euro", etc. for such wrong "type=" values, what would make the wiki-code easy to understand when editing. Example: --FredTC (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My new suggestion:
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:FredTC's last suggestion has been implemented & is mostly fine, but it seems likely to run into problems soon.
 * There are now over 90 numbered listings for Africa&Europe, plus enough that do not yet have numbers to push it over 99 if they get numbers. I think we need to make Africa a different colour immediately.
 * The Americas have over 50 numbered listings now & there are over 30 in the US that are likely to get numbers when someone gets around to formatting those listings. This may not become a problem, but I suggest we give the two continents different colours just to be safe.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I'd be happier with more distinct colours. Using both grey & gray seems crazy, though related colours for nearby continents would make sense. Perhaps gray & silver for Europe & Asia? Royal blue & steel blue for the two Americas? Something distinct from those -- red, green, black or purple -- for Africa & Oceania? Pashley (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * My idea is that we don't need colors, but solve the problem of not having marker numbers >99. Do we really have users who would say: "Oh look, that part of the map has all markers with the color 'Royal blue', so that must be North America"? I would be happier with having more names for the #808080 color (now used for do, gray and grey), like gray1, gray2 ... gray9, which would make all markers in this article the same color. --FredTC (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the time being, we could change Africa from "grey" to "gray", to avoid the 99-problem that is close to come now. --FredTC (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Use marker and not listing?
After using the edit listing dialog, the wikicode is reformatted. The compact single line hotel listing then becomes a multi line listing in the wiki-source. This does not happen if we use the marker template for the listings. Should we switch to using marker? --FredTC (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the multi-line listing a problem? The listing editor tries to format the listings in the standard way, to make them easily editable. Is this an exception, where we want a more compact format? Should we have two types of listings, where one is compact and the other not? Is the marker format the one to go for in the former cases? –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is no problem for me, but I was thinking about mobile editors who have to scroll through up to 8x the amount of text lines. --FredTC (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that should be handled by a more general discussion. For me, finding the right field in the compact listings, often with fields in non-standard order, is difficult. One solution to limit scrolling is to have subsections by country as needed to keep the lists short. Is a nine-bullet list hard to handle on mobile? –LPfi (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is no problem for me (I never edit mobile). Having a === header for each country would limit the number of listings one sees in mobile edit, but that would not work for Canada and the US as it is now. Maybe a ==== header per state/province? I guess a nine-bullet list with each listing having 8 lines of text must be OK for mobile editors. FredTC (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 * As I see it, we are making lists of these hotels, so we should obviously use the listing template which is designed for that. The marker template is designed for a different case, when something is mentioned in text but needs geo tagging so it will be marked on the map. Pashley (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I prefer the use of listing templates, but I have seen many edits where a marker was used where I expected a listing. So I had the impression that it is common practice to use both in the same list. It also happens often that a is changed into a text containing a marker. And because I saw this way of editing, I thought that to prevent one listing that occupies just one line of text in wiki-sourcecode become eight lines of text, the use of markers could be better to maintain the list. --FredTC (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Chain names
The companies that own these hotels prepend their names so it's "Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park London", "Sofitel Winter Palace", "Fairmont Chateau Laurier", etc. No doubt corporate marketers think that is a fine idea & it might be useful to travellers who have a loyalty card or just prefer a particular chain. WP is not entirely consistent, but often has the longer name as its article title. In speech, though, it is the "Hyde Park Hotel" or the "Winter Palace" & most people in Ottawa would just say "the Chateau".

Which names should we use as titles for listings? I'd say "Hyde Park Hotel", "Winter Palace", "Chateau Laurier", etc. The longer names can be used as alt= text, if at all. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think we should ignore the chain names, unless they were used from the start (or if that's the name people use nowadays). We might mention the scheme somewhere in Understand, for readers not to get confused, but there is seldom any need for the chain name for recognising the Grand Hotel of some city. Those with loyalty cards should be told the chain in the content field of the main listing (in the destination article). –LPfi (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The content field seems like a good place. The focus of the articles is the historic nature of the hotels, not the current branding. Ground Zero (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Double links
In a listing like this: In this example there is an internal link at "name=" and an external link by using "url=". In that case the external link does not show up (could Pashley also have a look at this?). FredTC (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think that is OK. The visible link is the one we want, to the listing in the destination article. There is no reason to delete the external link here, though it is not displayed; it is likely worth checking that the linked listing includes it.
 * Modifying the software to display both links would be possible, but I am not sure it is necessary & it certainly does not seem urgent. Pashley (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the following modification of the listing gives a better result.
 * I think modifying the software to display both, makes it hard to use in mobile view, unless a clickable symbol like [[file:Internet-web-browser.svg|23px]] would be used for access to the linked website. --FredTC (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think modifying the software to display both, makes it hard to use in mobile view, unless a clickable symbol like [[file:Internet-web-browser.svg|23px]] would be used for access to the linked website. --FredTC (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think it was last year that the listing template was revamped, and the URL was no more shown for names with an internal link. There were some doubts about that but no protests. Do we need both links here? The website is available via the full listing in the destination article, and we probably want our readers to check what we have to say before they go to the hotel's site. The only problem I see (on desktop, at least) is that a need of updating the address might not be obvious for those who have watchlisted this article but not the destination one. –LPfi (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the current situation is fine; the important internal link is shown & we need not care that the external link is not. It belongs in the linked listing rather than here.
 * FredTC writes "I think the following modification of the listing gives a better result." I disagree rather vehemently. That hides the important link under directions= where I doubt many users will find it. Pashley (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I could not find statistics, but my guess is that 99% of the cases where the resulting text of a name= is clickable, you go to the website of that object and not to another Wikivoyage article. So, I think it is quite confusing for the average user that in the list in this article the links do not go to the website of the hotel. --FredTC (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * That has to do with the decision to keep the full listings in lowest-level destination articles. When people want to know more about the hotel they click the hotel name; the question is whether we want them to go to the hotel website or to our listing, and I think we want the latter. If the name links to the listing, as it does here, they might get surprised, but they won't get confused. If they want to, they can then click the name in the destination article to reach the hotel site. Linking a hotel with the link text "Hong Kong", on the other hand, is indeed confusing and obscure. We could have both links here, as we did before, but there was a conscious decision to restrict what we show in articles like this. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I have been changing many of these to the format that makes the name a link to a listing in the destination article. The job is nowhere near done & I'm bored with it. Would anyone else care to pitch in? Some people have already, but it needs a lot of work. Pashley (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hotel Indonesia
I'm inclined to delete the listing here since Jakarta/Central says it was built for the 1962 Olympics. Other opinions? Is there another Jakarta hotel that might replace it here? Pashley (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember my parents and I stayed in a luxurious Dutch colonial hotel in Pematangsiantar in 1976. I don't remember the name and wonder if it's still there. By the way, we used to stay in the Hotel Majestic in Kuala Lumpur. It was closed in 1983 but was refurbished and reopened in 2012. I'm surprised it's not listed at Kuala Lumpur/Brickfields and Bangsar, and wouldn't it be appropriate to list it here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the photos on this page, the Hotel Majestic looks pretty different from the colonial-era hotel I stayed at in the mid 70s, so we shouldn't list it here. But it should be listed in that KL district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is listed here & links to Kuala_Lumpur/Botanical_Garden. Pashley (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. Since it's directly across the street from the old railway station, I would have expected it to be in the same article as the one about that station. I see I was confused by KL Sentral being mentioned correctly as the main railway station in Kuala Lumpur, whereas the old main railway station is not mentioned in that section. It looks like that station is covered in Kuala Lumpur/Old City Centre. Shall we add a mention of it in Kuala Lumpur? I'll try to remember to add a bit of history to the listing for the Hotel Majestic, as it played important roles in Malaysian history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. The dog2 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Trademarks and traditional names
Some of these hotels have a traditional names, as well as an international chain name. Do we need a policy for which name to use? A similar issue appears with sponsor-named stadiums. See Wikivoyage talk:Trademarks for a policy proposal. /Yvwv (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 * See also above. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Reykjavík Grand?
Hotel Reykjavík Grand can be considered for inclusion, but historic information is difficult to find. The hotel is certainly younger than World War II; but we could make an exception if it has proven legacy as a prestige hotel. Is there more to know about the hotel? /Yvwv (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Prague, Grand Hotel
Grand_old_hotels lists "Grand Hotel Bohemia" & closest match in Prague articles is Prague/Old_Town_and_Josefov. Are those the same hotel? Pashley (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hotel Indonesia, photographed at dusk; December 2014.jpg

 * No FoP in Indonesia. Do we want this photo? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Probably. It's a good photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * The photo is not actually used on our page, only as it says above "or its Wikidata item". If it were used here, there are many other photos we could replace it with.
 * I want to oppose deletion anyway, but cannot find good grounds to. Pashley (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 * We can host it locally, but I don't see how it can be hosted at Commons. The current law was enacted before the photo was taken. I haven't studied the law and there may be some specific reason to allow it, but I doubt. –LPfi (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We now use File:Bunderan Hotel Indonesia Jakarta.JPG (showing the "Hotel Indonesia roundabout" according to the caption) in Jakarta/Central. That image is probably safe, as the hotel isn't the main focus. There could be more images in the section, but hardly two showing the same hotel. –LPfi (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * LPfi, haven't we recently had this discussion? You are one of at least two admins who have been confused about how Wikivoyage treats fair use. Please reread Non-free content as soon as possible so that you don't make statements like this again. The whole point of fair use is that when it's important to do so, we host photos locally that are OK except that commercial freedom of panorama is not allowed, and we include a warning on the file page that commercial use is not allowed and if done, anyway, is at the sole risk of the user. If our policy were different, we would not be able to show any individual buildings in articles for modern cities like Abu Dhabi that have no freedom of panorama and would not be able to show landmark copyrighted public art in countries like the U.S., such as the Bean in Chicago! And Pashley, et al.: this photo is used in the Jakarta article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, I am confused. Didn't I say we can host it? We can because of fair use rules. But to be able to do that it has to be in use, this article has plenty of images and the destination article (Jakarta/Central) already has another image of this hotel. I didn't check Jakarta. OK, it's there, and then fine, we can host it (I already downloaded it to be able to upload it locally without bothering the Commons folks). I checked the deletion discussion but trusted the Commons page on Indonesian FoP (raising objections for one or two others of the nominated images). So what have I done wrong or not been doing? –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I misread your post. You are right: Commons cannot host these photos because Indonesia has a form of freedom of panorama that excludes commercial use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Ah, I said the other image is "safe". Was that the issue? It wasn't very relevant, because of the fair use provision; I just said it as a parenthetic comment, which it seems I should have kept unsaid or clarified.
 * [addition] So it was easy to misread my comment, and you now understood me correctly.
 * –LPfi (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's probably where I got confused about your views on fair use here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Rebuilt Tokyo hotels
Of the three great hotels of Tokyo The Imperial Hotel and Hotel Okura are said to have been rebuilt (1970 and 2019) and Hotel New Otani to have been built 1964. They seem to be grand, but are they old grand hotels? Are they just made to "feel the same", which usually is an overstatement at best. If a grand old hotel is demolished and replaced with a new one, under what circumstances is the new one in scope? Do these hotels have the appeal of old grand hotels: "old fashioned fittings, the lack of the latest amenities, and a certain graceful agedness" (as we tell in the lead)? It seems unlikely for a hotel built 2019 (and as unlikely for those of the 1960s and 1970s, I think, as that was a time when the future was in focus, at least over here). –LPfi (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone back to Hotel Okura since they rebuilt it, the original building did evoke a feel to being transported back to the days of Japan's Postwar economic boom. It would have been one of the places to stay for celebrities back in those days. The dog2 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? The dog2 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the hidden text, hotels built past World War II would only be included as cases of exception. How renowned is the concept of the "Three Great Hotels"? Do these hotels have a prestige and reputation beyond any business hotel? Tokyo already has a couple of other hotels which clear the age limit. /Yvwv (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with the New Ohtani, but the Imperial Hotel and the Hotel Okura have a certain level of prestige attached to them that other hotels in Tokyo don't, much like the Grand Hotel in Taipei. You guys are familiar with Japan, so any thoughts on this? The dog2 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Otani was built for the 1964 Olympics if I recall correctly, and has been noted for hosting many different heads of state since its opening. However, timewise it definitely does not have as long as a history as the other two. I am not sure if the New Otani really belongs on this list. It would probably be better to list the hotels in Japan's Top 3, though I'm not sure whether or not that would be considered touting. Otherwise I'd remove the New Otani from Grand Old Hotels and leave the other two, perhaps referencing something to the likes of "two of the top three." JRHorse (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the first place, Western-style hotels were newcomers to Japan - ryokan is the traditional lodging, some of which date back to the 8th century. So "relatively grand and old in the area" is enough, I think. --Hnishy63 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)"
 * Due to earthquakes and WW2 bombing there are very few structures in Tokyo older than 100 years, but the gosanke (Imperial, Okura and New Otani) are indisputably Tokyo's grand old hotels just the same. It's also worth noting that while the building of the New Otani is comparatively new, it incorporates a 400-year-old garden from the samurai estate it's built on. Jpatokal (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Frank Lloyd Wright's Imperial Hotel was very famous, but the new hotel seems quite modern. If none of Japan's hotels actually meet the criteria to be considered true Grand Old Hotels, we don't have to force it. We could just state that Japan once had a few Grand Old Hotels but they were destroyed and the current versions are relatively modern (and include the garden information that JPatokal mentions above). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Imperial Hotel is Japan's oldest and grandest hotel, period, no forcing needed. I also don't think we need to fixate on the age of the physical building, it's much more about the continuity and importance of the hotel. Jpatokal (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Imperial Hotel is definitely not Japan's oldest hotel, but I think the descriptions there now read fine. My comment about "not forcing it" was in response to the concerns about age as part of the criteria for listings. If everyone accepts "continuity and importance" as the criteria rather than age, then there isn't much to question. The current descriptions also list the ages of the curren buildings for anyone whom age might matter. Seems alright to me, but if it conflicts with the criteria in the hidden text, it might be worth making the "continuity and importance" part clearer there. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam war hotels
Do you think the Rex Hotel and Caravelle Hotel in Ho Chi Minh City should be listed? They are not colonial hotels like the Majestic or the Continental, but both played important roles during the Vietnam War. The Rex was where the U.S. military held their daily press briefings, while the Caravelle housed the local bureaus of major American news channels, and the embassies of Australia and New Zealand. The dog2 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I had the same thought, but I'd say no: they're famous, but neither grand nor old. Probably worth an infobox in the HCMC Sleep section though. Jpatokal (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 * And have you been to the Hotel Grand Saigon recently? Would it be grand enough to be included on this list? Also, I was thinking if the Dalat Palace Hotel in Da Lat qualifies for listing. I don't know how grand it is today. The dog2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 * They would be good as entries to the Indochina Wars article. /Yvwv (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand old hotels


text:
Talk:Grand Rapids

Add Stella's lounge and the viceroy to the bar section; awesome music and atmosphere. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 75.129.118.97 (talk • contribs)

 * I would encourage you to add it yourself, as Wikivoyage is intended for any and all to edit! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:40, 25 December 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Grand Rapids


text:
Talk:Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Thanks for the start!
Thanks to the anonymous Wikivoyageer who got this started; you beat me to it! Two recommendations:

 * Please go ahead and create a user account, so you can take credit for all the work you've done;
 * Note that there is a template for park articles like this one. I've reformatted your work to use this template, which contains a couple more headings to fill in; please plunge forward and fill stuff in for the other headings.

Nice start, anyway! -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:35, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)

WikiOutdoors, maybe?
This article strikes me as a terrific candidate for Cooperating with WikiOutdoors. I have very little experience of the trails in this monument, but if there's anyone working on this article with more experience, please consider joining WikiOutdoors and filling in some trail info there; it's a better fit there than here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:33, 14 July 2007 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Grand Teton National Park

I've just begun a Grand Teton article, and I'm not sure where to put some addtional info about where the park is. The park is south of Yellowstone National Park and north of Jackson, Wyoming. Should that go with the overview at the top of the article, or under the "Get in" section?

Incidentally, the software seems to lose track of a user's identity if he or she uses the "back" button on the browser. I had begun this article but the software attributes my original contribution to "Anonymous user(s) of Wikivoyage". It's not that big a deal, but it is a surprise.

 * Thanks for starting this! There is an unofficial National Park Template that may help you out, or you can look at some other park articles (eg. Denali National Park, Death Valley National Park) as guides.  Normally you want enough information in the opening paragraph that someone can easily get a sense of where a place is located, but not so much that the opening paragraph becaomes driving directions.

 * As to the software losing track of logged-in users, that is currently everyone's favorite bug. Hopefully it will get fixed soon. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:02, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Fees/Permits section
I added a bit about how the entrance stations are quite a way inside the park, and how that allows you to see parts of the park for free. I'm not fully satisfied with how it's worded, but I hope the idea is clear enough.

I don't want to make it sound like I'm encouraging people to sneak into the park, but people should also know that they can go to the airport or travel U.S. 26 without having to pay an extra $20. -- (WT-en) Mikito 09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Entrance fees have been raised in Teton/Yellowstone. Source: http://www.nps.gov/grte/pphtml/fees.html. Article corrected on 09:08, 16 May 2006 (PDT)

History
Well, I've put up a section on the legal battles which led to the creation of Grand Teton National Park. These are the same conflicts which I alluded to in the "Sleep" section of the article. Boy, it's hard to condense this story from a 3 page single-spaced PDF from the National Park Service.

I think it would be good to put something about the geological history of the park. I could do it, but if anyone else wants to do it, they're welcome to the task. -- (WT-en) Mikito 00:49, 22 Jun 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Grand Teton National Park


text:
Talk:Grand Traverse Bay Area

Great idea for a region page, Todd... this will definitely keep me from pulling my hair out when I redistribute the stuff that's currently in Traverse City. Thanks! -- (WT-en) Haem85 21:45, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
 * The principle of organizing things so they make sense to the traveler tends to dovetail nicely with keeping things easy for the editor as well. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:37, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Doesn't it just? :) I love it when things work out. (But I don't know if I would've thought of this one! :) ) -- (WT-en) Haem85 23:33, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Grand Traverse Bay Area


text:
Talk:Grand Turk

"See & Do"

Many write-ups here read like commercial copy. Can someone who's knowledgeable revise? Thanks, Hennejohn (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand Turk


text:
Talk:Grantchester

Appendix: Rupert Brooke's Grantchester (1912)
The Old Vicarage, Grantchester

(Cafe des Westens, Berlin, May 1912)

Just now the lilac is in bloom,

All before my little room;

And in my flower-beds, I think,

Smile the carnation and the pink;

And down the borders, well I know,

The poppy and the pansy blow. ..

Oh! there the chestnuts, summer through,

Beside the river make for you

A tunnel of green gloom, and sleep

Deeply above; and green and deep

The stream mysterious glides beneath,

Green as a dream and deep as death.

-- Oh, damn! I know it! and I know

How the May fields all golden show,

And when the day is young and sweet,

Gild gloriously the bare feet

That run to bathe. ..

Du lieber Gott!

Here am I, sweating, sick, and hot,

And there the shadowed waters fresh

Lean up to embrace the naked flesh.

Temperamentvoll German Jews

Drink beer around; -- and there the dews

Are soft beneath a morn of gold.

Here tulips bloom as they are told;

Unkempt about those hedges blows

An English unofficial rose;

And there the unregulated sun

Slopes down to rest when day is done,

And wakes a vague unpunctual star,

A slippered Hesper; and there are

Meads towards Haslingfield and Coton

Where das Betreten's not verboten.

εἴθε γενοἰμην. . . would I were

In Grantchester, in Grantchester! --

Some, it may be, can get in touch

With Nature there, or Earth, or such.

And clever modern men have seen

A Faun a-peeping through the green,

And felt the Classics were not dead,

To glimpse a Naiad's reedy head,

Or hear the Goat-foot piping low:. ..

But these are things I do not know.

I only know that you may lie

Day long and watch the Cambridge sky,

And, flower-lulled in sleepy grass,

Hear the cool lapse of hours pass,

Until the centuries blend and blur

In Grantchester, in Grantchester. . ..

Still in the dawnlit waters cool

His ghostly Lordship swims his pool,

And tries the strokes, essays the tricks,

Long learnt on Hellespont, or Styx.

Dan Chaucer hears his river still

Chatter beneath a phantom mill.

Tennyson notes, with studious eye,

How Cambridge waters hurry by. ..

And in that garden, black and white,

Creep whispers through the grass all night;

And spectral dance, before the dawn,

A hundred Vicars down the lawn;

Curates, long dust, will come and go

On lissom, clerical, printless toe;

And oft between the boughs is seen

The sly shade of a Rural Dean. ..

Till, at a shiver in the skies,

Vanishing with Satanic cries,

The prim ecclesiastic rout

Leaves but a startled sleeper-out,

Grey heavens, the first bird's drowsy calls,

The falling house that never falls.

God! I will pack, and take a train,

And get me to England once again!

For England's the one land, I know,

Where men with Splendid Hearts may go;

And Cambridgeshire, of all England,

The shire for Men who Understand;

And of that district I prefer

The lovely hamlet Grantchester.

For Cambridge people rarely smile,

Being urban, squat, and packed with guile;

And Royston men in the far South

Are black and fierce and strange of mouth;

At Over they fling oaths at one,

And worse than oaths at Trumpington,

And Ditton girls are mean and dirty,

And there's none in Harston under thirty,

And folks in Shelford and those parts

Have twisted lips and twisted hearts,

And Barton men make Cockney rhymes,

And Coton's full of nameless crimes,

And things are done you'd not believe

At Madingley on Christmas Eve.

Strong men have run for miles and miles,

When one from Cherry Hinton smiles;

Strong men have blanched, and shot their wives,

Rather than send them to St. Ives;

Strong men have cried like babes, bydam,

To hear what happened at Babraham.

But Grantchester! ah, Grantchester!

There's peace and holy quiet there,

Great clouds along pacific skies,

And men and women with straight eyes,

Lithe children lovelier than a dream,

A bosky wood, a slumbrous stream,

And little kindly winds that creep

Round twilight corners, half asleep.

In Grantchester their skins are white;

They bathe by day, they bathe by night;

The women there do all they ought;

The men observe the Rules of Thought.

They love the Good; they worship Truth;

They laugh uproariously in youth;

(And when they get to feeling old,

They up and shoot themselves, I'm told) . ..

Ah God! to see the branches stir

Across the moon at Grantchester!

To smell the thrilling-sweet and rotten

Unforgettable, unforgotten

River-smell, and hear the breeze

Sobbing in the little trees.

Say, do the elm-clumps greatly stand

Still guardians of that holy land?

The chestnuts shade, in reverend dream,

The yet unacademic stream?

Is dawn a secret shy and cold

Anadyomene, silver-gold?

And sunset still a golden sea

From Haslingfield to Madingley?

And after, ere the night is born,

Do hares come out about the corn?

Oh, is the water sweet and cool,

Gentle and brown, above the pool?

And laughs the immortal river still

Under the mill, under the mill?

Say, is there Beauty yet to find?

And Certainty? and Quiet kind?

Deep meadows yet, for to forget

The lies, and truths, and pain? . . . oh! yet

Stands the Church clock at ten to three?

And is there honey still for tea?

 * moved from article - probably not something someone want to print out when they travel here.(WT-en) Fastestdogever 14:44, 24 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Grantchester


text:
Talk:Grantham (Leicestershire)

Grantham is

(a) not in Leicestershire (b) not a village (c) not the home of Belvoir Castle (that, as the name suggests, would be the village of Belvoir, although it's outside the village itself)

Otherwise, perfect ;-)

 * Content moved and redirected to Grantham(WT-en) Chris1515 17:25, 6 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Grantham (Leicestershire)


text:
Talk:Grantham (Lincolnshire)

Since there is only one Grantham in Wikivoyage, I have moved the content and redirected to Grantham. This replaces the redirect in the other direction. (WT-en) Chris1515 17:29, 6 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Grantham (Lincolnshire)


text:
Talk:Grantown-on-Spey

Which is correct - "Grantown on Spey" or "Grantown-on-Spey"? ~ 203.144.143.4 08:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Dulnain Bridge is rated "usable" yet is thin on content. There's accommodation but the only sight is, um, some rocks? (And not even brightly painted like at Millport.) I propose it merges into Grantown on Spey which is only 3 miles east - this page could also cover Nethy Bridge and Cromdale. Aviemore could cover Boat of Garten and Broomhill, which keeps the steam railway on one page. Grahamsands (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ✅ 3 June 2020.

title: Talk:Grantown-on-Spey


text:
Talk:Grants

Page move
Should this be moved to Grants? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It could be. The state name was added as a disambiguation hedge against the several other US towns called "Grant" -- but the need for the disambiguator isn't clear, as none of those towns are called GrantS with an "S" at the end.  Feel free, but please sort out the resulting redirects if you do. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:03, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Grants


text:
Talk:Grants Pass

Removing rental listings
The Sleep section includes a number of rental listings. Per Project:Accommodation_listings, they don't belong here unless we get a consensus they belong. I've removed them from the article, and listed them below. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 22:09, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Angels Rest Vacation Rentals, 305 NE 6th St, 541-476-7400.
 * Hughes Vacation Rentals, 899 SE Gladiola and all around Grants Pass, Tina 541-660-5673,

Sleep, undifferentiated list not so helpful
The Sleep section now has an exhaustive list of lodgings, with minimal contact info and no guidance about features, quality, and price range. The intro says, "There are many different hotels and motels located through-out Grants Pass, as well as motorhome and RV parks; they have been listed below, for easy accessing. " This gives a traveller very little help making a choice. As the style guide says, "Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not the yellow pages. A long undifferentiated list of hotels is only marginally useful to the traveler.". I'm adding subheads by price range, and putting the current listings under Unclassified for now. I encourage everyone to flesh out these unclassified listings, and move them to the right price section, or to delete them. I'm laving the RV Parks section for now. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 22:09, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Grants Pass


text:
Talk:Graubünden

Do we really need to include all the sub regions on this page? Maybe just one or two well known ones instead? For example

 * Region -- including the popular ski resort area of Subregion and isolated but scenic otherSubRegion

 * I think we shouldn't. It is distroying the page. -- (WT-en) bujatt 18:34, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree. I think that all the Engadine sub-regions (Upper/Lower) should be moved to the engadine page.(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:43, 25 February 2009 (EST) Further on the topic, I have a map here yet has no labels, which can be found courtesy of Wikipedia.

Reshuffle the regions
I think this article needs a reshuffle of the subregions. As it is, the regions are defined by the districts, with the exception of Maloja and Inn which are combined into Engadin. Now I'm not sure whether this division makes sense, as there are some divisions which might be quite arbitrary to the traveler. For instance Laax and Flims are just next to each other and share a common ski area, but are in different regions. Furthermore some regions, such as Imboden or Landquart don't really have that much to offer to a tourist. For those reasons I suggest we reorganise the regions. I am not quite sure what the best way to do so would be, so if anyone has inputs on this, please give your inputs. I think something like the following would make sense:

 * Engadin as it is (including Maloja and Inn) but with the addition of Bernina
 * One region 'Bündner Oberland' including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart
 * One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula and Moesa
 * Prättigau/Davos as it is

This is not ideal because Moesa and Plessur are a bit out of place. Another option would be:

 * Engadin as it is minus the Italian speaking part
 * One region 'Bündner Oberland' including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart
 * Prättigau/Davos as it is
 * One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula
 * One region encompassing all the Italian speaking valleys: Moesa and Plessur and the ITalian speaking part of Engadin

While this solves the problem above, it is still quite arbitrary to group the Italian valleys together, so personally I'd think the first one makes more sense.

Any inputs on this? Drat70 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I've thought about this some more and I think the following will be a good solution:
 * Engadin as it is (including Maloja and Inn) but with the addition of Bernina - this one really makes sense. IT will then include three small valleys connected to the main one via passes, each of which really don't make sense as a region of their own.
 * One region including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart. I would like to call this 'Surselva and Rhine valley' - This makes sense as it is the main Rhine valley up until where the Vorderhein and Hinterrhein meet up. The Vorderrhein valley is the Surselva and the Hinterrhein valley has its own region. This is going to include mostly what's inside the Surselva article plus Flims and Chur. In the future there might be space for an article for Arosa.
 * One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula and Moesa. For the English name I suggest 'Central Graubünden'
 * Prättigau currently doesn't exist yet, but is probably important enough to deserve its own region. Would include Davos and a potential new article on Klosters
 * I started making the changes for the Engadin region, however I'll give it another week or so before implementing the changes for the other regions in case somebody has another suggestion. Drat70 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * This is now done. I didn't create any additional regions other than the existing Surselva and an expanded Drat70 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Graubünden


text:
Talk:Graz

Discusion page for Graz. American Institute of Music Studies - hey is this SPAM or what??

Arnold Schwarzenegger museum open
I found this interesting article here. I want to share that.

title: Talk:Graz


text:
Talk:Great Barrier Reef

Destination
Is this a destination article according to Project:What is an article?. It's hard to tell from the existing content what's intended to go in it. Will it include the islands of the reef? The reef itself doesn't get an entire article if it's only about what's underwater. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 00:56, 29 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * I think it should be basically a region article, oriented on sites on the reef and how to get there. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:14, 29 Nov 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Great Barrier Reef


text:
Talk:Great Britain

Why is United Kingdom a "See also"? Shouldn't all this information be on United Kingdom? -- (WT-en) Evan 10:35, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Technically speaking, Great Britain is the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Ireland is the island containing the republic with the same name and Northern Ireland. So, the United Kingdom and Great Britain are not really the same. In fact, the exact name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. AFAIK, the other islands are not part of Great Britain, certainly not Faeroer. The question is, how do we want to handle these - sometimes subtle - differences in Wikivoyage. (WT-en) D.D. 10:53, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * OK, so, that's pretty technical. I'd think that that could just be a little note on the United Kingdom page, though, couldn't it? And a redirect to United Kingdom for Great Britain? -- (WT-en) Evan 11:02, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Alrighty, but you are dealing with the Irish here. (WT-en) Majnoona

 * OK, well, at this point, we had Great Britain, the British Isles, and the United Kingdom. I guess I just thought that was too many other places to have info. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:54, 6 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Well, I thought it was more along the lines of the List of American States and United States and North America. In otherwords, a point of entry, not an info page. I guess the whole content pages/navigational pages issue is only going to get more confusing. (WT-en) Majnoona

title: Talk:Great Britain


text:
Talk:Greater Boston

Cities/towns
We have tried to allocate all cities and towns in Massachusetts to a region. Thus if one is added somewhere, one needs to be removed from another. Boundaries are not clear in many regions. Wikipedia had Greater Boston extending to the New Hampshire border and to the west out to Worcester. We don't want to have towns in two of our regions however. We are defining Greater Boston roughly by the arc of the old Rt. 128. If you want a change, let's discuss it here. (WT-en) OldPine 21:13, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

There are way too many cities listed. To pare it down to 9, I would go with Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, Brookline, Revere, Salem, Newton, and Medford.71.162.75.102 01:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those cities have to be linked from some region article. Unless this region is further subdivided, they all need to be listed here.  LtPowers (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you handle this type of edit?
I imagine this IP editor (with no other edits) lives in the area and deleted this bit of text they didn't like. I get it. Perhaps I could have been more tactful in wording things, but I would argue the sentence in question is more "unflattering" than "irrevalent".

I guess the question is how do you deal with telling folks your honest opinion, even if that opinion happens to be unflattering? And how do you do it w/o edit warring to boot? This one edit isn't a big deal, but asking in a big picture way. Thanks for any advice you have! --ButteBag (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I'd revert it with an edit summary and invite the IP user to discuss the fairness of the point on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wait a week or so, the IP will probably not notice what you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is more unflattering than "irrelevant". I try to give travellers reasons to go somewhere, rather than reasons to not go there. If I can't find anything positive to say, I tend to say nothing. So I don't blame the IP editor for deleting it. By the way, I find it a bit surprising that an area with no attractions beyond its parks should warrant six sub-articles. Maybe really there is more to see than commuters stuck in traffic jams - if not, maybe some of the articles should be merged. But I don't know the area myself. Nurg (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, Ikan with the most reasonable approach! Thank you! Nurg I totally agree, but since WV covers the entire world, I feel like we do need to make a few critical comments here and there. And yes, I would also prefer to merge all 6 articles together. However, WV consensus currently prefers having multiple low information articles, not fewer pages with higher information density. I believe it's just me, you, and (maybe?) User:Ground Zero who think this way. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for covering more than one town in a single article. I'd suggest for you to make a proposal in the Greater Boston article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Boston


text:
Talk:Greater Manchester

See Talk:Manchester for an initial discussion about the organisation of Greater Manchester. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:10, 12 Jan 2006 (EST)

See also Talk:Manchester for a proposal to merge several of the small outlying towns. Grahamsands (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No views for or against, so I redirected Littleborough to Rochdale and Marple to Stockport. Others follow. Grahamsands (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Manchester


text:
Talk:Greater Middle East

Redirect
I don't see any value-added to having this extra-hierarchical region, which would only stand to duplicate content found at Asia and Middle East. If others disagree, please comment here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:33, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

 * The whole idea of a "Greater Middle East" is that it includes regions outside of the Middle East, like North Africa, Central Asia, the Caucasus and parts of South Asia. This diverse amount of regions makes it hard to redirect somewhere though :-) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:21, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

 * If it's going to be a redirect, the best place I can see to point it is the "Cultural geography" section of the Middle East article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Middle East


text:
Talk:Greater Poland

Naming confusion
Is this really a subregion of Wielkopolskie Voivodship?? Seems to me that "Greater Poland" in the past was a region even bigger than this voivodship (leading to a hierarchy-breaking inclusion of places like Biskupin in this article), and in the present usually refers to Wielkopolskie Voivodship itself, since it is a literal translation. Sapphire? (WT-en) Texugo 01:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

 * Łódź is not a part of Greater Poland present Województwo Łódzkie (Łódź Voivodship) covers some cities that historically had been part of Greater Poland but Łódź always been a part of Central Poland (WT-en) JakubPiotr

Merge
You were involved in the discussion that is cited as justification for this merge tag. It's one of our few remaining articles tagged for merging, but I'm not quite sure what information needs to be merged since the current article is about a historic region and it isn't really clear what overlaps with Poland (the cited merge target) and what should go elsewhere. If any of you have ideas, can you move the important bits or at least delete any unimportant bits? It would be nice to bring the total number of articles tagged for merging down to zero. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the merge discussion, I don't have in-depth knowledge about this part of Poland. Sorry. --Alexander (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can safely redirect to Wielkopolskie. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is this discussion you are referring to, then I say it again more than one year later: I would not object removing any extra layers in our structure of Poland. PrinceGloria likely knows best what should be done. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my question isn't whether this should be redirected elsewhere, but a request to help with merging since I'm not familiar with Poland. I assume the cities and other destination lists can probably just be deleted, but should any of the "Understand" information be moved to another article?  Does the "Get in" and "Get around" info belong in another article?  To this point I've performed more than 100 merges, but for this particular article I'm just not clear how to proceed and would appreciate any assistance from anyone who knows the area and can move the info from this article to the appropriate merge target. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand User:PrinceGloria above correctly, this article should be turned into a redirect to Wielkopolskie and anything of value be merged there. Wielkopolska seems to translate to Greater Poland, and a look at the maps in both articles shows that they mostly overlap. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can safely just copy sections from here to Wielkopolskie which are missing there. If there are any deficiencies in Wielkopolskie in general, I will cover them whenever I feel like editing Wielkopolskie anyway - e.g. when somebody volunteers to create a region map :D PrinceGloria (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've copied most of the content into Wielkopolskie, leaving out a few bits that were already present, skipping "Get in" (the target article already had a decent "Get in" section), and leaving out portions of the old article that were just lists of cities. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Poland


text:
Talk:Greater Toronto Area

Regions & Cities
We really like to keep the "Regions" and "Cities" seperate. That is the standard per our Project:Manual of Style and Project:Region article template. They way to do this would be to list all the regions, some of the larger cities on this page and this list all the cities and towns on the region page. Thanks for all the work by Anon user 218.111.21.95, keep up the good work. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 19:16, 10 March 2006 (EST)

 * As the edit said: "temporary link edits / section merger" - the reason being the region articles didn't exist, the purpose being to create the region articles and disambiguate all the cities and towns and everything else along the way, then move it all to where it's supposed to be (having said that - I'm beginning to think that a "regions & cities" index is an extremely useful thing to have at this level).

 * See... this poor hillbilly from the Ozarks needs to read first. BTW Toronto is one of my favorite places. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 19:41, 10 March 2006 (EST)

Shouldn't the Regional Municipalities be moved to titles like "York Region" or "Peel Region"? The current article titles (eg York (Ontario)) miss the mark for me. BTW, I am a Wikipedian who started looking into Wikivoyage only yesterday, and I live in York Region. --(WT-en) Hollandlanding 11:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Greater Toronto Area


text:
Talk:Greater Upper Nile

Football Stadium Under Construction
Maiwut's going to have a football stadium, read all about it here.

title: Talk:Greater Upper Nile


text:
Talk:Greater Wellington

POPULATION?

Porirua Region?
As someone who lives in the Greater Wellington region and travels through Porirua everyday, I would not class Porirua as being 1 single city, but as a region including Porirua City, as well as other settlements like Plimmerton/Mana/Paremata and Pukerua Bay. I am not sure how this change would be implemented, but someone with experience on Wikivoyage should change this and then editors with personal experience there can flesh out the pages with content. GeorgmentO (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greater Wellington


text:
Talk:Great Lakes

I think most of this is covered under the East Coast or the Midwest, so it's actually not needed. -- (WT-en) Evan 11:05, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

I dont think it hurts to have it. We arent going to avoid having overlap here and there, but if it really bugs you, we could move it over into an itinerary.(WT-en) Majnoona

 * I agree with Maj. Overlaps are unavoidable sometimes. As long as we don't have to write the same things twice, I don't think it's a problem, really. (WT-en) D.D. 11:35, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

From a travel POV, this title is wrong. Almost no one visits the Great Lakes as a tourist destination and stays within the USA exclusively. The many attractions (including casinos) in Canada, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Windsor, Ontario and Toronto, Ontario are pretty common destinations for anyone coming for the first time. Also the Canadian $ is much lower.

Also, if you get a good look at Detroit, Michigan or Buffalo, New York or Niagara Falls, New York, it's really not hard to see why someone would spend more time North of the Lakes than South... no insult, it's just true, sadly.

 * Actually, this is quite right. Think of the Alps which cover France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, and perhaps some more countries. The same goes for the Himalaya, the Pyrenees, the Andes (and these are just mountain chains). Shouldn't we have regions overlapping countries? (WT-en) D.D. 12:31, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * Of course. The Alps is the example of such an exception in the geographical hierarchy. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:40, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * Absolutely. Also for tourists it's more relevant to talk about cultural areas like "Dixie" than about "South", since the latter is technically a direction on a map, and could apply to say Arizona, whereas Dixie clearly does not.  See "Nine Nations of North America" for a good analysis of where the cultural borders really are.  The analysis is from 1981 but it seems to get more true all the time.  Countries are really just an annoyance for many travellers, and in some regions like the EU, they are almost irrelevant given the Euro and lack of border controls.

 * It's true that within the EU minimal border controls exist, and the Euro is the currency from Finland to Portugal, but I wouldn't dare say culturally speaking Finland and Portugal are pretty much the same. Are we talking about cultural, economic, political regions, or regions otherwise defined? (WT-en) D.D. 12:38, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * I think in 2003 it's a little premature to say that the country you're in is irrelevant to travelers. That all said, this article was started because we were trying to break down the United States of America into some easy-to-swallow chunks. I added the Great Lakes as one of the regions of the US, but then later realized that what I was thinking of -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota -- were normally considered part of the Midwest (I can pull up citations from "Fargo" and "Prairie Home Companion" to prove it if need be). By the time I'd erased "Great Lakes" from the USA page, Maj had already written this one. I think it's unnecessary, but Maj and DD are arguing for it. I dunno, seems like a scrapper to me. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:40, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * After some more thinking, I would only scrap the '(United States of America)' part of the title. This could be some kind of disambiguation page or list of all the US states and Canadian provinces that border the Great Lakes. It could also contain some general information which is specific for this region. Does this sound like anything sensible? (WT-en) D.D. 12:51, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * Another possibility is listing the Lakes themselves, eh? -- (WT-en) Evan 12:57, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * Of course! For fishermen, boat enthousiasts, surfers, divers, ... They can be travellers too :-) (WT-en) D.D. 13:01, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * I think we've got ourselves another way of seeing travel -- from the point of view of bodies of water, rather than from land. Interesting stuff! -- (WT-en) Evan 13:20, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

Sleep
I removed the sleep section, since Great Lakes is a region & they should be listed on the city pages -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * The Barn Cottage Arcadia. 5 Bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake. Open Year Round.
 * School House Cottage Arcadia. 4 Bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake. Includes water trampoline.  Open Year Round.
 * Farm House Cottage Arcadia, 4 Bedroom home made to resemble a farm.  Open Year Round.
 * Long Lake Landing Honor.  4 Bedroom home on Long Lake.  Open Year Round.
 * The Beach House Frankfort. 4 Bedroom home on Upper Herring Lake with sandy beach. Open Year Round.
 * Cedar Lake Lodge Traverse City.  4 Bedroom home on Cedar Lake.  Includes free use of pontoon boat.  Open Year Round.
 * Suf Cottage Harbor Springs. 4 Bedroom home on Lake Michigan in "Tunnel of Trees". Open Year Round.

title: Talk:Great Lakes


text:
Talk:Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park

This has not any immediate impact on the Kruger Park, it this affect the borders into the other countries. (WT-en) Flagman 01:44, 16 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park


text:
Talk:Great North Region

Name
This is actually known as the "Great North Woods" region, and signs indicating so are also posted in French - "Grands Bois Du Nord" - see http://www.flickr.com/photos/sikaranista/5069075359/ for example. —The preceding comment was added by 50.75.166.85 (talk • contribs)
 * It appears you are correct; the user who established the regions likely omitted the word accidentally and no one has noticed until now. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:08, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Dixville Notch
Dixville Notch is an unincorporated village within Dixville Township. Dixville seems to be a community that is hard to figure a placement for. There isn't really a community to see here just an Old historic Grand Hotel that's falling apart, and Dixville Notch State Park. I've been thinking that maybe Dixville Township or Dixville Notch State Park would be better placed in the Other Destinations Sub Heading as opposed Dixville Notch in the cities category. I don't know if anyone else has thoughts on this I felt like it was something to discuss first before just making that change. Shadar86 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For a bit more clarification The village almost actually lost it's status to vote early due to it's almost non existence as a community by having only 4 people living in it at the time. The current owner of the Balsams changed his residency so the village could have the required 5 residents to keep the early voting tradition a thing. Shadar86 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great North Region


text:
Talk:South West Coast (Victoria)

Just wondering if we can just convert the disambiguation page for Great Ocean Road as the only page for the Great Ocean Road, using the contents from both the Great Ocean Road (region) and Great Ocean Road (itinerary) pages. The two pages can then either be deleted or redirected. I believe the Great Ocean Road should use an itinerary template. (WT-en) Slleong 00:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with you I think (not being familiar with the area), looking it over it seems like it would make a better itinerary, and isn't really much of a region, in the sense that we usually do regions. I vote for the merge – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Banner
Given that a very similar banner is used on the Victoria (state) page, would it be a wise idea to replace this banner with this one? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, that looks good. AlasdairW (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Move to South-West Coast?
Reflects Australian spelling and the spelling that is used in the electoral district. Writing "south-west" as two words is not Australian spelling (except in South East Queensland) and South-West Coast with the dash also reflects our policy to use the most common name. Any other comments before I move the article? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:South West Coast (Victoria)


text:
Talk:Great Ocean Road (itinerary)

Just wondering if we can just convert the disambiguation page for Great Ocean Road as the only page for the Great Ocean Road, using the contents from both the Great Ocean Road (region) and Great Ocean Road (itinerary) pages. The two pages can then either be deleted or redirected. I believe the Great Ocean Road should use an itinerary template. (WT-en) Slleong 00:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Great Ocean Road (itinerary)


text:
Talk:Great Ocean Road (region)

I slapped the style template on this as it needs to be reformatted into an itinerary as it does not look like a region. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:58, 19 February 2007 (EST)

 * Just wondering if we can just convert the disambiguation page for Great Ocean Road as the only page for the Great Ocean Road, using the contents from both the Great Ocean Road (region) and Great Ocean Road (itinerary) pages. The two pages can then either be deleted or redirected. I believe the Great Ocean Road should use an itinerary template. (WT-en) Slleong 00:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

 * In this context, the Great Ocean Road is a name for the general region. So it probably makes sense to keep it separate. -- Simon Russell 21:53, 16 December 2008

 * In that case, I say we merge the stub itinerary content into this article. Barring any objections, I'll do so tomorrow. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Great Ocean Road (region)


text:
Talk:Great Plains

Is "Great Plains" used for the Canadian prairie at all? If not, can we move this article to Great Plains? --(WT-en) Evan 14:47, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * Done. what's four years, more or less?  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Added Lead Photo
Added an iconic bison (buffalo), a symbol of the vast herds that used to roam the prairies. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 14:54, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Conflicts
Added attractions previously and they were removed for some reason. What are qualifications for this page for see, do on a regional context? The purpose is to add overall information for travelers, not to pigeon hole them in individual communities. —The preceding comment was added by 98.16.143.35 (talk • contribs).

 * The "See" and "Do" sections on a region article -- especially one covering a region as large as this one -- should give an overview of the types of attractions that one might find, with pointers to appropriate destination articles. To avoid duplication as much as possible, we try to have actual detailed listings for attractions in only one place.  For example, rather than having a "See" listing for Wall Drug in this article, we should have a paragraph that discusses tourist traps with wording such as "One of the premier examples is Wall Drug in Wall, South Dakota."  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

 * I was the one who moved the listings, for the reasons outlined by LtPowers. The listings are still in travel guides - see Grand Island (Nebraska) for example - but they have been moved to the city articles.  See New Mexico for a good example of how "See" and "Do" information is usually presented for large regions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Alternative banner
I suggest as an alternative banner:

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative for me. Ground Zero (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Alternative. Also, the current banner is used on Nebraska Panhandle. Per policy at Banners, a custom banner should be used on only one article.JakeOregon (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discovering this. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As it's a duplicate banner, I've changed the banner to the alternative. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Plains


text:
Talk:Great Sand Dunes National Park

SR 77 is in arizona not colorado. dont try to look for this road when lost!!!

 * Good catch. It was a typo; now fixed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:09, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Great Sand Dunes National Park


text:
Talk:Great Smoky Mountains National Park

There are many contreversies in this article about "highest points in the east" this should be revised -- —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 64.8.152.188 (talk • contribs)

 * Please, plunge forward and make the changes you think are necessary. Or, if you don't feel comfortable with making the changes, please outline them here on the talk page. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 15:05, 5 February 2007 (EST)


text:
Talk:Great Wall of China

How long did it take to build the great wall of china???
 * In total around 1400 years or so, but they were not working on it fulltime --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:43, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Travel topic
Seeing this isn't a geographical destination per se, I think it is most likely a travel topic? Not sure.. --(WT-en) inas 05:50, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

 * The region tag is certainly wrong; I do not think it would even qualify as Disambiguation_pages and treating it as a normal region is just ludicrous. The current article looks like a travel topic to me; it could be rewritten as an itinerary, but that would be a fair bit of work. Pashley (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC).

Some external sources
I used this article to try to navigate to and around Mutianyu and found it pretty deficient. I've just overhauled the Mutianyu section; it could use some additional copyediting, but I've put enough into it for now.

I wanted to record some external sources that helped me immensely after this article led me astray for future reference in subsequent edits:

 (plus a good map at ) A Google map with the North Street bus stop: A Google map with the Huairou bus station: A Google map with the Dongzhimen OUTER bus terminal: Some forum discussions on the buses out to the wall:

Cluth (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot for contributing. Please add whatever you can to ameliorate the article, so that future travelers (perhaps even myself someday?) can use it. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting to Mutianyu from Beijing
In my recent edits, I tried to make option 1 and especially option 2 more understandable by rearranging and removing duplicate information (partly also by looking at older edits of this page). It would be great if someone with local knowledge could verify and update everything in these sections. Especially prices, bus numbers (checking if and when they are running), bus stop locations (best with geo coordinates, and their names in Chinese) would be very useful. Thanks a lot, Xsobev (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving Beijing-related information to Beijing/Rural Beijing?
How about moving all the information that is related to the Great Wall sections near Beijing to the Beijing/Rural Beijing district page. And leaving here only a pointer to that district, and the most important sights/facts? This is probably a more appropriate place to cover that section of the Great Wall. It would also keep all the Beijing-related information on one page, which makes it much easier to maintain. Any opinions on that? Xsobev (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Map of the Great Wall of China.jpg

Extra hierarchal region?
Couldn't this be turned into an itinerary? It bothers me given that this is linked on the Asia article but yet this is an extra hierarchal region. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I noticed also made a comment about this in "I do not think it would even qualify as Wikivoyage:Disambiguation_pages#Extra-hierarchical_regions and treating it as a normal region is just ludicrous. The current article looks like a travel topic to me; it could be rewritten as an itinerary, but that would be a fair bit of work.". I agree, this is definitely not an extra region. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Wall of China


text:
Talk:Great Yarmouth

Anonymous commentary
The article's original content, someone more motivated than I can perhaps work some of this back into the main article:

OH DEAR..... WHAT CAN ONE SAY ?

Drove in and the first thing I noticed was the boarded up Hotels, guest houses and amusement arcades this was early Sept ! While there may have been justification for the place when the work force of the midlands decamped here in the middle of the last century for their weeks holiday....there is no absolutely no reason to travel here ...IMHO.. other than to say you have been maybe ?

The wind was blowing straight of the north sea from scandinavia ! At the south end is a decaying dock / port area and a car park by the beach saying no campers, no coaches, no overnight parking and no swimming or you would be fined ..... you would need to have escaped from an institution to consider any of these !

There were three drab and decaying "fun " parks lots of flashing lights peopled very sparsely by family groups of a rotunned nature with a liking for body painting and peroxide mainly shouting and arguing with one another.

Now I really do try and find something nice to say and here it is in the middle of the boarded and derilict industrial units we found the Norfolk Monument almost identical (but smaller just) and predating Nelsons collumn in London... Nelson being Norfolks third greatest son after Delia Smith and Alan Partridge. Worth a look and just being restored with what they say is simmilar stone from Scotland...you will find NO attractive angle to photograph it though!

Please can anyone put me right on this place ...I feel suicide is infinately preferable to banishment to Great Yarmouth  !

CU....CD

scams section
excuse me, who deleted the section called scams? and why? i see no reason why it can't stay Billycop32 (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Yarmouth