text:
Talk:Somalia

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Somalia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:27, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Warning
Anyone mind if I reword the warning as follows? For some reason the current text sound a little off to me:

(WT-en) Maj 09:50, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Sounds better to me :)  (WT-en) Cacahuate 06:24, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

Present and future don't
Together, "the present and future" are plural, so we use the plural form, "don't", not "doesn't". I rolled back a change that turned it in the wrong direction. --(WT-en) Evan 15:08, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Safety in Somaliland
I have sources that Somaliland is safe for tourists

Here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7365002.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4491257.stm

And i am deleting that

 * Yeah, neither of your sources really say that or show that. In fact it's pretty hard to estimate safety for tourism in a place that tourists don't visit. I'm not worried about what you deleted though really, it's more stable than the rest of the country, and anyone heading there will already know what they doing – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

interesting article: http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/ —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 84.75.20.24 (talk • contribs)

 * conspiracy theories, oh yes —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 118.90.106.170 (talk • contribs)

Regions
I see that the current list of regions is incomplete. There are several way to go about dividing the country given the state of anarchy, but I've gone with geographic/historic divisions which roughly correspond with politics. There is a on WP that is updated to show control. Here's what I propose for the regions: I'm not sure about the exact location of a boundary between the Central & Southern regions, but a good guess would be the river with a straight line running from Jowhar to the coast (since it parallels the coast). Just a guess. (WT-en) AHeneen 23:19, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * Somaliland - a given, due to its de facto independence. There is a dispute over its eastern boundary, but I'd use the one shown on the map and include the blue area.
 * Puntland - historic region on the horn and autonomous
 * Central Somalia - not sure about a name, but this area seems to be distinct within the country as the Galmadud and Gedo regions
 * Southern Somalia - home to Islamists and the capital Mogadishu and where most of the civil war has taken place

 * Drawing a line is nearly impossible as clans, the federal government, Ethiopia and other forces keep winning and losing territory. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:47, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

 * I just went ahead and used an admin division boundary for the line between Central and Southern, and have now implemented this new hierarchy. Note that I didn't do away with the Gedo article, since it's pretty fully written. I left it as a subregion of Southern Somalia. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

"Do" section
These look like things to see or places to buy things, mostly in Mogadishu. I don't think that's what belongs in the "Do" section for a nation, but what should be here? Is there anything much that's even remotely safe to do in Somalia, not including the de facto independent country of Somaliland? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Over 4 years later, I haven't changed my mind. I will move the entire content of "Do" here if no-one replies within a couple of days or before the next time I come here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Most dangerous to "most safest"
What do you all think of this edit? Baardheere, I solicit your explanation, since you made the edit. Has safety in Khatumo drastically improved, with Wikivoyage not having kept pace with developments there? (If so, that wouldn't surprise me, but it needs to be documented on this talk page.)

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Somalia is shaped like the number seven"
It isn't if we consider Somaliland independent, which we do per Be fair and The traveller comes first. So I think we should remove that. Any counterarguments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Somaliland on the map
Somaliland is treated as part of Somalia on the map. That's inconsistent with Be fair. Would anyone like to fix the map, so that it shows a situation closer to actuality? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Some of the colors on the map also don't match the colors next to the region names. 11:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't think "be fair" or the traveller comes first guideline necessarily apply to Somaliland. There are many areas claimed by Somaliland which are entirely uncontrolled by Somaliland, even regions and cities in the heart of Somaliland such as Cayn and its main city buuhoodle. Even cities supposedly under de facto control such as Las Anod regularly have videos such as the following appear : https://twitter.com/KingYusufYusuff/status/1240628341025189888

 * The above video can be translated as "what we truly believe" and proceeds to sing the Somalia national anthem in las Anod, a supposed de facto SL city.Trunschlowetr (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this information. I note that the map in our article doesn't list Las Anod as part of Somaliland but instead as part of Khatumo. I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that the Somaliland government has control over Hargeisa and Berbera at least, and that traveling to those two cities is a very different proposition from traveling to, say, Mogadishu or Kismayo. Is that correct? How would you suggest we organize the articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly Buuhoodle and its environs (Buuhoodledistrict/Cayn) should never be termed Somaliland as it quite xenophobic to the concept - it even has a monument commemorating its anti-SL stance. Somaliland should be limited to the provinces of Waqooyi Galbeed and Togdheer (excluding Cayn), as all the others seem to have either a permanent or intermittent counter entities. At its most expansive, you could include western half of Sanaag province and eastern half of Awdal province and in Sool province, only Las Anod and places westwards of that. Trunschlowetr (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you do with the rest? Would you propose a different map, and if so, with which boundaries? I realize that may be a very difficult question if boundaries are in flux, with areas changing hands back and forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The most influential figures in the contested area is arguably tribal leaders, the most influential of whom (Jama Garad Ali) has recently reaffirmed his disassociation from Somaliland; however he has not suggested an alternative administration. As such the situation is quite complicated and possibly even deliberately ambiguous. Trunschlowetr (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the update. I'm not sure where this leaves this travel guide in terms of how we can best assist travelers in our coverage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

New banner
The current banner is kind of drab. What about these alternatives? —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I prefer #2, then #4, then #3. I guess #5 is a market, but it's really hard for me to tell where it is except somewhere in the Horn of Africa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing no other responses, I've edited the article to use option 2. I believe option 5 is an Eid al-Fitr celebration, but I agree that's not very obvious from the photo. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Unilateral edits not in keeping with the map
I'm very confused by some of the unilateral changes in this article. I appreciate the work of User:Dowrythubnuy, but before you change the contents of Somalia, you should make a proposal on this page, explaining your reasons for proposing the change, and also defining the borders so that the map can be edited if a consensus agrees with you. Unfortunately, we are going to have to revert your edits for now unless we can get quick agreement behind them and get the map changed. So please make a proposal before, keeping in mind that the prime directive of this site is the traveller comes first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 * OK, we'd better discuss the budding edit war by User:Mlekftrgh. What's the justification for this edit? Does it make the article more accurate for travelers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll request a CU to see whether these two accounts are the same person (per reason one of "Sock puppetry for the purpose of disruption". While socks aren't banned here, clearly they're using it to be disruptive which is against CheckUser. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. See SRCU SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The CU results have been completed by and these accounts ( + ) are linked to each other along with a range of other sock accounts such as, , , , , , , , and  found on sowiki (these are not registered locally). Will block  per "the secondary accounts will be permanently blocked from Wikivoyage" as this is clearly disruptive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we revert the edits of User:Dowrythubnuy and possibly the IP address that made one edit before that user and which I think is probably the same user? User:Dowrythubnuy, would you like to explain the reasons for your edits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for the second account, but at since I clear my cache I assumed it simpler to simply use another account. As for the edits, I thought it worthwhile to mention that areas on the opposite ends of the country also tends to rpoduce remoteness in allagiance to the central government of Mogadishu. I intended to clarify that as well as to pull back on the emphasis on central government region and the aforementioned remote regions by introducing details on middle areas. Alas, some of that's reverted but not a big deal.  Dowrythubnuy (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for participating in the discussion. So a big issue is that the new regional structure you created is not reflected on the map. So what I'd like to ask you to do is lay out a proposal, specifying the reasons for the regional structure you believe most helps travelers and lays out the boundaries between each of these regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 * The new regional structure is kinda fluid, so maybe a definitive border isn't the best solution. But its current existence is undisputed. Nonetheless, I didn't feel too strong about the edits, and as such, maybe you could wait for other's input. Dowrythubnuy (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 * For the sake of any travelers, there needs to be a map with whatever regional structure we're using, so we have to pick boundaries even if they're fluid. But why and how is your regional setup most useful for travelers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 * There isn't a singular regionals structure. It seems like 3, namely, a Faysal Falaalug-led militia typically using the name SSC (Sool, Sanaag Cayn), Khatumo and local Warsangeli sometimes named Maakhir. They typically are active in the region from Buuhoodle until Saaxdheer, from Fiqifuliye until Las Kohrey, and the Boocame region. But I probably can't help you further than that other than pointing you to google for maps bearing those names. Dowrythubnuy (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the borders are fluid because of ongoing conflict between militias, how much value is there for travellers in trying to keep up with these changes? I do not think that there will be any travellers who read Wikivoyage going there. It is interesting for "sofa tourism", but not actually useful. We could just indicate that the borders do not reflect current military control, and stick with traditional boundaries. Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Same. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How shall we follow up? The current lineup in Somalia has been the same for a long time; I've already traced it back at least as far as 2016, but the regions map does not reflect it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

LGBT death penalty no more?
Here the mention on the death penalty for homosexual acts was removed. Has that risk went away? "Homosexual acts (for both sexes) are illegal in Somalia" is not a risk to life and limb that warrants a warning box, but the death penalty is, and it should certainly be mentioned. If it has been lifted, that should be told in the running text. –LPfi (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The warning was long, overly detailed, and somewhat hysterical. i don't think that whoever write it was a reliable source. None of the government warnings I read mentioned the death penalty. On further research, it appears that the death penalty has been applied in areas controlled by al-Shabab. Under federal law, homosexual acts are punishable with up the 3 years imprisonment. I don't consider Wikivoyage to be a reliable source for information like this, so I don't think we have evidence that the death penalty has been "lifted" by the federal government. It doesn't ever seem to have been a law. Ground Zero (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Somalia


text:
Talk:Somaliland

I rolled back a change deleting the "Understand" section; I think the deleter disagreed with the text, but we need that section per the Project:region article template. --(WT-en) Evan 07:40, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Regions

 * Awdal
 * Saaxil
 * Sanaag
 * Sool
 * Togdheer
 * Woqooyi Galbeed

I have moved the above administrative regions out of the article, as I do not believe they are needed at this time. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
 * They've been restored. --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

US or Commonwealth English?
Could we standardise on one or the other?

My suggestion would be non-US because of the British colonial history and the number of folks of Somaliland extraction currently being "educated" in Glasgow and London. --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Per "United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries: British English;" at wv:spelling, British English should be the preferred. Although Somaliland is not part of the Commonwealth, it probably would be if it was a recognised nation. That policy should probably be changed to say "...most Commonwealth countries and former British colonies". James A ▪ talk 14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll begin to make the relevant changes here, James, but it might be better (to avoid the usual "Punch and Judy" drama with Globetrotter and Peterfitzgerald) if you changed the policy page. (Congratulations on finally getting rid of those misleading footnote style numbers previously mandated by policy!) --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Official" ?
Should we link? --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 * ✅. Doesn't look like the "Tourism" link works on their website yet; must be still under construction. Impressive website for a tiny little unrecognised state. Some states in Africa can't even get a webpage that looks like it's from the '90s online. James A ▪ talk 14:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the "Tourism" link had worked, I would just have added the link and I'm happy that you have added it now, James. The Northern coast really is fantastic according to Alice's reports. --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cross-hatching on the map
Unfortunately, User:Peterfitzgerald, who created the map, is no longer here. Does anyone know why there is cross-hatching on the map? Are those areas of conflict or claimed by Puntland or something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Partial answer in the "Stay Safe" section of the Sool guide:

 * 'Most of the Sool region is highly disputed between three separate administrations: the Somaliland government, the autonomous Puntland government and a new Khatumo State organised by local leaders to provide stability. The areas of ownership vary widely and does result in occasional confrontations.' Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorize as a country?
Somaliland is functionally an independent country, with a border control system on its own.

Wikivoyage should reflect this condition, by categorization of Somaliland as a country, instead of a region. Compare Palestinian territories, Transnistria and Taiwan; for which international recognition does not seem to matter. /Yvwv (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I couldn't agree more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing
Granger, can you please stop pointlessly edit warring? For the matter, you edit warring because you don't agree with how things should be written is against Plunge forward and is not the way of how a wiki works. I quote your edit summary: the old phrasing is fine, the other version adds words without adding substance In my opinion, that's not a valid reason to revert a perfectly fine edit that had no issues until you came along because you weren't happy with how it sounded. It may have sounded like it has a little more words, but the former version (which is current because of your pointless edit warring) only sounds more dreary, and less enjoyable and without a tight prose.

Would like more opinions on which version is better (pasted below).

Current
 * It is not possible to enter from Somalia, so don't even try.

My version
 * It is not possible to enter from Somalia, so don't even think of trying unless you want to get yourself up into serious trouble.

-- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Your version is literally incorrect as written – a traveller will not get in trouble for thinking about entering Somaliland. The existing text is perfectly clear, and I think the proposed version sounds a little silly, like the reader is being unnecessarily beaten over the head with the advice. I'm not sure what makes you say your version has "a tight prose" – to me "tight prose" means concise and clear without unnecessary verbiage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will side with Granger in this dispute as there is no punishment for thing about it but feel “don’t even attempt to” sounds the best. Tai123.123 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why can’t we write merely “It is not possible to enter from Somalia”? Any other information seems unnecessary if it is impossible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current version is better than SHB2000's version. SelfieCity's version is better still, for exactly the reason they give.
 * It's good that SHB2000 brought this to the Talk page, but the claim that Granger was edit warring is not appropriate. Nurg (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also with 's version and I like that version more than both my or the current.
 * But to Granger's atrocious behaviour. Typically, and this has been standard practice on nearly every single wiki, not just Wikivoyage. If someone makes an edit, and someone else is not happy with that version, the other user who is not happy with that version is meant to start the discussion on the talk page, not the user who made the original edit and such a recent example is at Metric and Imperial equivalents.
 * However, in this case, when I made the edit, Granger should have been the one who should have started the discussion, not me since they were the user who wasn't happy in this case, but instead they edit warred with me and insisted I were the one who needed to start the discussion. If this entire thing sounds harsh as, I'm sorry, but sucks that Granger couldn't follow standard practice, but instead insist other users do that when they don't agree with something and also defy standard practice.
 * To the claim that Granger was edit warring, I stand up for what I said. The definition from w:en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring
 * "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute."
 * This was obviously what was going on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get into a debate about who should have done what, but Plunge forward says "While everyone is encouraged to plunge forward, if someone else undoes your change you can view the article's history and there will usually be an explanation in the edit summary to indicate why the change was undone. If you still don't understand, ask for clarification on the article's talk page." After you plunged forward with your edit and I reverted it the first time, best practice would have been for you to take the disagreement to the talk page then instead of reinstating your edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed the main point. Reread my comment again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand you being irritated at what happened - all of us who edit wikis experience that.

 * The process you describe where someone makes an edit, and someone else who disagrees with it starts a discussion, is an excellent process. However, it is not the sole and standard practice. A common process on Wikipedia is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The BOLD-then-discuss cycle you outline is good, but not the only accepted way. The edits in question involved 3 reverts in total, but each with an edit summary, so discussion was occurring via edit summaries. The number of reverts did not reach or breach Wikipedia's bright-line edit-war rule of no more than three reverts by one editor. You quoted WP but perhaps you overlooked the next sentence:

 * "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle."

 * Irritating though it may have been to you, Granger's actions did not amount to edit warring. It was just part and parcel of the normal rubbing along that we all have to do in a co-operative free-for-all where different opinions arise and need to be negotiated.

 * In August you said that I initiated an edit war with you. I asked that we just talk it through, without allegations of edit wars, as we want to keep Wikivoyage fun. You graciously apologised, explaining why you over-reacted, which I was very happy to accept. Perhaps you are over-reacting here for a similar reason. You are a very prolific editor and I worry that you are overdoing it and getting under stress. People can end up burning out even when doing things they love. To repeat the advice I gave in August, "Look after yourself and take a break if things get too heavy". Nurg (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Erigavo.jpg
 * Not visible on any Wikivoyage page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Somaliland


text:
Talk:Somerset (disambiguation)

Moved so the title would reflect the disambiguation.

title: Talk:Somerset (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Somerset (England)

Bristol is not in Somerset. It has been a county in its own right since 1373 CE. how to promote it to a section under West Country? (WT-en) Jezhotwells 16:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Somerset (England)


text:
Talk:Somerville

I seem to have accidently hit revert when removing this well-meaning extlink:
 * A collection of menus for restaurants in the vicinity of Tufts University, including many from Davis Square and other parts of Somerville.

I meant to hand-revert it with an explaination: We want to have info directly here rather than relying on other online resources. This encourages us to have a complete guide here, avoids duplication of effort that DMOZ already provides, and also makes us a complete guide even when printed on dead trees. See Project:External links for further guidance on what to link to and not link to. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:02, 6 May 2005 (EDT)

More of the same:

 * Davis Square Somerville: Restaurants, Bars and Stores
 * Teele Square Somerville: Restaurants, Bars and Stores

-- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:39, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * Many more links to boston squares . com now; I'll prune. (WT-en) FreplySpang 14:03, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Another excellent site
http://www.surfacecity.net/boston.php?subject=neighborhoods&city=Somerville&doc_id=301 -- (WT-en) Beland 02:35, 1 March 2006 (EST)

Possible vandalism
In January, an IP which was involved in vandalism elsewhere removed from the Understand section:

"Once a somewhat blighted inner suburb derisively referred to as "Slummerville", Somerville has really come of its own in the last decade when the MBTA Red Line was extended, in particular the uber-hip Davis Square."

Should that be restored ?

-- (WT-en) Beardo 19:56, 5 May 2006 (EDT)

MOBA
The museum of bad art website says it's in Dedham. What gives? (WT-en) OldPine 07:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

 * They have a second exhibit space in the Somerville Theatre. Which is noted in the "About Us" section on their home page. (WT-en) Lentower 19:07, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Ah, good deal. I'd like to get the address and phone into the listing. (WT-en) OldPine 21:42, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Move page
I think this page should be moved to Somerville(Massachusetts) bilecause there is another town named Somerville in New Jersey.2601:85:C000:8EA0:4DB2:9383:65D5:FE4F 00:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Somerville


text:
Talk:Sondrio

Comments
The disambiguation rules suggest that Sondrio should be a disambiguation page rather than a city article, but then Sondrio (Province) is probably misnamed and should really be called Sondrio Province, so I am going to assume that this article is about the city. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:52, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Sondrio


text:
Talk:Sondrio (province)

Move
I moved this page from Sub-Regions Of Sondrio to here because working out the Sub-Regions Of Sondrio is a discussion function. As Sub-Regions of ... pages do not follow the guidelines Project:What is an article? and Project:Article naming conventions, meaning we don't write about them as a separate article and don't have pages with that sort of name, anyway. Consequently, I have put it here instead. As there is no destination or region that is called Sub-Regions Of Sondrio, the listing of sub-regions should happen in the Sondrio (Province) article. Mind you I can understand why this sort of page might be created, given the long list. - (WT-en) Huttite 07:28, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Can I make a suggestion as to the districts of Sondrio. I think that each major valley has its own identity and therefore region. So maybe this :
 * Bormio valley
 * Tirano- Lake Como section of Bormio valley
 * Chiavenna/Via Spluga

It also seems that Lombardy is lacking any real regions, or at least a list of them, so this could just be part of the problem.

Comments. Thanks! --(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 12:07, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Sub-Regions Of Sondrio

 * Albaredo per San Marco
 * Albosaggia
 * Andalo Valtellino
 * Aprica
 * Ardenno

 * Bema
 * Berbenno di Valtellina
 * Bianzone
 * Bormio
 * Buglio in Monte

 * Caiolo
 * Campodolcino
 * Caspoggio
 * Castello dell'Acqua
 * Castione Andevenno
 * Cedrasco
 * Cercino
 * Chiavenna
 * Chiesa in Valmalenco
 * Chiuro
 * Cino
 * Civo
 * Colorina
 * Cosio Valtellino

 * Dazio
 * Delebio
 * Dubino

 * Faedo Valtellino
 * Forcola
 * Fusine

 * Gerola Alta
 * Gordona
 * Grosio
 * Grosotto

 * Lanzada
 * Livigno
 * Lovero

 * Madesimo
 * Mantello
 * Mazzo di Valtellina
 * Mello
 * Menarola
 * Mese
 * Montagna in Valtellina
 * Morbegno

 * Novate Mezzola

 * Pedesina
 * Piantedo
 * Piateda
 * Piuro
 * Poggiridenti
 * Ponte in Valtellina
 * Postalesio
 * Prata Camportaccio

 * Rasura
 * Rogolo

 * Samolaco
 * San Giacomo Filippo
 * Sernio
 * Sondalo
 * Sondrio
 * Spriana

 * Talamona
 * Tartano
 * Teglio
 * Tirano
 * Torre di Santa Maria
 * Tovo di Sant'Agata
 * Traona
 * Tresivio

 * Val Masino
 * Valdidentro
 * Valdisotto
 * Valfurva
 * Verceia
 * Vervio
 * Villa di Chiavenna
 * Villa di Tirano

title: Talk:Sondrio (province)


text:
Talk:Songkhla

TAT Listings
I moved some listings from TAT to Talk:Songkhla/Listings, so the Talk page stays clean as well. Also Texugo's hotel listings are there. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:36, 6 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Songkhla


text:
Talk:Songkhla/Listings

=Hotel listings= I imported these from the province article. They need to be sorted into Budget, Mid-range and Splurge listings and properly formatted.
 * Amsterdam Guesthouse (อัมสเตอร์ดัมเกสท์เฮ้าส์) 15/3 Rong Mueang Road (Tel: 0 7431 4890), 7 rooms: 180-200 baht
 * Ao Sai Resort (อ่าวทรายรีสอร์��) Tambon Ko Yo (Tel: 0 7445 0131), 5 rooms: 200-400 baht
 * B.P. Samila Beach Hotel and Resort (บีพีสมิหลาบีช) 8 Ratchadamnoen Road (Tel: 0 7444 0222 Fax: 074440442), 208 rooms: 1,150-16,000 baht E-mail: b.p.suwarat@hotmail.com
 * Charn Hotel (ชาญ) 469 Sai Buri Road (Tel: 0 7431 1903, 0 7431 2248), 24 rooms: 200-300 baht
 * City Hotel (ซิตี้) 533/1 Sai Buri Road (Tel: 0 7432 2364-5), 67 rooms: 290-490 baht
 * Green World Palace (กรีนเวิลด์พาเลส) 99 Samakkhisuk 2 Road (Tel: 0 7443 7900-8 Fax: 0 7443 7899), 92 rooms: 590-2,800 baht
 * Ko Yo Resort (เกาะยอรีสอร์ท) 30 Tambon Ko Yo (Tel: 0 7445 0301, 0 7445 0398), 12 rooms: 400 baht
 * Lake Inn (เลคอินน์) 301-3 Nakhonnok Road (Tel: 0 7432 1441-2, 0 7432 5050 Fax: 0 7443 7275 E-mail: lakeinn@hotmail.com), 79 rooms: 390-590 baht
 * Narai Hotel (นารายณ์) 14 Chai Khao Road Tambon Bo Yang (Tel: 0 7431 1078), 13 rooms: 100-150 baht
 * Orchid Hotel (ออร์คิด) 99/44 Mu 2 Kanchanawanit Road (Tel: 0 7432 2811-2, 0 7432 2821-3), 55 rooms: 160-300 baht
 * Pavilion Songkhla Hotel (พาวิลเลี่ยนสงขลา) 17/1 Platha Road (Tel: 0 7431 1355, 0 7444 1850-9 Fax: 0 7432 3716), 179 rooms: 750-6,000 baht
 * Por Thong Resort (ป.ทองรีสอร์ท) Tambon Ko Yo, 5 rooms: 200-400 baht
 * Queen Hotel (ควีนส์) 20 Sai Buri Road (Tel: 0 7431 1138, 0 7431 3072), 22 rooms: 300-500 baht
 * Ratchamangkhla Pavilion Resort (ราชมังคลาพาวิลเลียนรีสอร์ท) 1 Ratchadamnoen Nok Road, Tambon Bo Yang (Tel: 0 7448 7222 Bangkok Office Tel: 0 2652 6970-2, 0 2207 0703-5), 34 rooms: 1,400-2,600 baht
 * Royal Crown Hotel (รอยัลคราวน์) 38 Sai Ngam Road (Tel: 0 7431 2174, 0 7431 1918, 0 7431 1025-9 Fax: 0 7432 1027), 52 rooms: 400-870 baht
 * S.P Hotel (เอสพี) 3/9 Soi 2, Sai Buri Road (Tel: 0 7431 3414), 9 rooms: 170-200 baht
 * Songkhla Hotel (สงขลาโฮเต็ล) 68/70 Wichianchom Road (Tel: 0 7431 3505), 17 rooms: 140-280 baht
 * Songkhla Palace (สงขลาพาเลส) 160 Kanchanawanit Road (Tel: 0 7444 3013, 0 7444 3025 Fax: 0 7444 2030), 40 rooms: 450-500 baht
 * Suksomboon 1 (สุขสมบูรณ์ 1) 40 Phetkhiri Road (Tel: 0 7431 1049, 0 7444 0821-2), 28 rooms: 180-300 baht
 * Suksomboon 2 (สุขสมบูรณ์ 2) 18 Sai Buri Road (Tel: 0 7431 1149, 0 7432 3808-9 Fax: 0 7432 1406), 53 rooms: 150-500 baht
 * Top Club (ท็อปคลับ) 425/5 Kanchanawanit Road (Tel: 0 7444 7431-3), 38 rooms: 160-300 baht
 * Viva Hotel (วีว่า) 547/2 Nakhonnok Road (Tel: 0 7432 1033-6 Fax: 0 7443 7403), 80 rooms: 500-1,400 baht

(WT-en) Texugo 03:01, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

=Eat=

Moved some clutter Eat listings to here to clean up:

 * Bua Kaeo Seafood (���ัวแก้วซีฟู้ด) 20 Ratchadamnoen Road Tel: 0 7431 4816
 * Bun Riam (บุญเรียม) Ratchadamnoen Road, Leam Son On Tel: 0 7431 1484
 * Ladda (ลัดดา) 1 Wichianchom Road Tel: 0 7431 3111
 * Krua Wanlop (ครัววัลลภ) Laem Son On Tel: 0 7431 2421
 * Tae Photchana (แต้โภชนา) Nang Ngam Road Tel: 0 7431 1505
 * Royal Crown Bakery Hotel Sri Suda Road

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:34, 6 February 2010 (EST)

=Province listings=

Understand
Songkhla is a southern border province, adjacent to the State of Kedah (Sai Buri), Malaysia. It is an important port and coastal province of Thailand since the old days with Amphoe Hat Yai as the southern center of commerce, transportation and rapid economic growth. The province is ideal for tourism because of its two distinct characteristics: the old buildings of Amphoe Mueang Songkhla, and the developed Amphoe Hat Yai, separated by only about 30 kilometers.

The old part of Songkhla is located at the present-day Amphoe Sathing Phra. Indians, Persians, and Arabs came to trade and called the place “Singhla”. The name came from two islands with the shape of crouching lions at the mouth of Songkhla lagoon. The islands are presently called Ko Nu and Ko Maeo.

By plane
Thai Airways International operates daily flights between Bangkok and Hat Yai. For more information, call 1566, 0 2280 0060, 0 2628 2000 (Bangkok Office) or 0 7424 5851-2 (Hat Yai Office) or visit www.thaiair.com.

Hat Yai International Airport  (HDY) has daily flights to/from Bangkok (BKK) and several other airports in the region - see Hat Yai | Airport for more information.

By car
From Bangkok, take Highway 4 to Prachuap Khiri Khan, Chumphon, Surat Thani, Nakhon Si Thammarat,Trang-Phatthalung, and Songkhla, a total distance of 950km.

By bus
There are daily buses from Bangkok to Songkhla and Hat Yai. The journey takes about 13 hours. Air-conditioned buses, varying in 3 types, depart from Bangkok’s Southern Bus Terminal at the following times:

Bangkok-Hat Yai
 * VIP Bus -	4:30PM, 5:30PM and 6PM
 * Standard 1 Bus – 7AM, 4PM, 5:30PM, 6PM, 6.15PM, 6:30PM, 7PM, 8PM and 8:20PM
 * Standard 2 Bus – 7AM and 9:45PM

Bangkok-Songkhla The schedule may be changed. Please check a current schedule and further information from the Southern Bus Terminal at tel: 0 2435 1199-200. For Hat Yai, call the Transport Co., Ltd. (Bo Kho So) at tel: 0 7423 2789, 0 7423 2404, Piya Tour 0 7442 8972, Thai Doen Rot 0 7442 9525.
 * Standard 1 Bus – 5PM, 6.:45PM and 7:30PM
 * Standard 2 Bus – 8AM and 4:30PM

From Hat Yai Bus Terminal, there are buses to other provinces in the south. Pho Thong Transportation Co., Ltd. 0 7431 1126 provides buses from Songkhla to Hat Yai. Ranot Transportation Co., Ltd. 0 7431 1523 operates buses from Songkhla to Nakhon Si Thammarat.

By train
The State Railway of Thailand provides daily rapid and express train services from Bangkok to Hat Yai. The trains depart from Bangkok’s Hualamphong Railway Station at 12:25PM, 2:20PM, 2:45PM, 3:50PM and 10:50PM Travelling time is about 17 hours. For further information call 1690, 0 2223 7020, 0 2223 7030 or Hat Yai Railway Station at 0 7424 3705, 0 7423 8005 or visit www.srt.or.th.

See

 * Wat Matchimawat, in Songkhla. The most important wat in Songkhla. It is about 400 years old. This temple also has the Phattharasin Museum that houses various artifacts gathered from Songkhla, Sathing Phra, Ranot, and elsewhere.
 * The Songkhla National Museum in Songkhla is an interesting museum which has been converted into a museum with exhibits on local archeology, history, and folk art and culture.
 * Samila Beach - This peninsula near Songkhla is well-known for its white sandy beach, shady pine groves, and the statue of a mermaid that is Songkhla’s symbol.
 * Songkhla Zoo - An open zoo, on the Songkhla-Chana Highway which was established for the preservation of Thai wildlife and to return them to the wild. The various animals have been grouped separately, such camels, birds, red gaur, tigers, crocodiles, and others.
 * Songkhla Lake, in Songkhla. The only natural lake in Thailand. The island of Ko Yo is an important tourist attraction, with the Institute for Southern Thai Studies and various leisure activities.
 * Wat Hat Yai Nai, in Hat Yai is the site of the third largest reclining Buddha in the world - revered by both Thai and foreign tourists alike.
 * Ton Nga Chang Waterfall near Hat Yai. This seven-level waterfall is one of the beautiful in the south.

 * Khao Nam Khang National Park (อุทยานแห่งชาติเขาน้ำค้าง) has lush forest cover. There are two waterfalls within this park: Ton Dat Fa and Ton Lat Fa.  Tourists can take two routes to the park: from Amphoe Sadao for 26 kilometers or from Amphoe Na Thawi on the Na Thawi-Ban Prakop Road for 31 kilometers.  Please call Amphoe Na Thawi Office for more information at 0 7437 1010.
 * Khao Nam Khang Historic Tunnel (อุโมงค์ประวัติศาสตร์เขาน้ำค้าง) is situated in Khao Nam Khang, Mu 1, Tambon Khlong Kwang, about four kilometers from the Park Office. This tunnel was once known as the Piyamit Village 5, run by the Communist insurgents.  After almost 40 years of fighting with the Thai Government, the Communist Party terminated the fight and became part of Thai Development Participants in 1987.  It is the largest and longest man-made tunnel in Thailand, completed in two years with three separate corridors and three levels deep.  It could accommodate about 200 persons with several rooms such as conference room, sick bay, radio transmission room, kitchen, firing range, and others.

Amphoe Singhanakhon

 * Chedi Phi Nong Yot Khao Daeng (เจดีย์พี���น้องยอดเขาแดง) consists of two stupas:
 * Chedi Ong Dam (The Black Chedi), is situated at the top Khao Daeng, Tambon Khao Daeng. It was built by Chao Phraya Phra Khlang (Dit Bunnak) and Somdet Chao Phraya Borom Maha Phrayurawong to commemorate the victory over the Sai Buri Revolt in B.E. 2373.

 * Chedi Ong Khao (The White Chedi) was built by Phraya Si Phiphat (That Bunnak) and Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Phichaiyat to commemorate the victory over Sai Buri, Pattani, Penang, and Malayan Revolts. After the victory, Phraya Si Phipat remained in Songkhla for two years and built this Chedi to accompany the first one, then returned to Bangkok.

Amphoe Krasae Sin

 * Wat Ek Choeng Sae (วัดเอกเชิงแส) is in Tambon Choeng Sae. Its old name was Wat Ek.  It has the revered coral Buddha image that had been covered with plaster.  The image is 70 centimetres wide at the lap and 120 centimetres tall. Tel : 0 7439 9075
 * Laem Khwai Rap Wildlife Protection Unit (หน่วยพิทักษ์สัตว์ป่าแหลมควายราบ) is located at Tambon Ko Yai. The Office is at the Songkhla Lake and can be reached by boat from Khu Khut Waterfowl Park or by a road from Amphoe Khrasae Sin.  There are a large number of waterfowls around the Unit and can be seen without having to travel by boat into the Lake, especially in the morning and evening when the birds are out searching for food.
 * Sacred Pond at Wat Laem Bo Tho (บ่อน้ำศักดิ์สิทธิ์วัดแหลมบ่อท่อ) is situated at Mu 4, Tambon Ko Yai, about seven kilometers from the District Office. It was said that a monk named Phra Sin Narai and a layman named Khun Wichai Phromsat built this pond on their way from India to Ayutthaya.  This sacred pond has clean freshwater all year round.

Do

 * Bull Fight (กีฬาชนโค) is the famous local favorite sport since the time of Phraya Mueang, in the Srivijaya Period. After the harvest, owners would bring their bulls to fight as a gesture of solidarity and festivity.  Two bulls would fight each other in each round lasting between 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the bull’s conditions.  Today each district has its own bull fighting ring with monthly fights on either Saturday or Sunday.  Fighting schedules are agreed upon by various district rings.
 * Khao Java Birds (นกเขาชวา) is the favourite domesticated bird in the south. The famous bird-culture area is Amphoe Chana, about 40km from Amphoe Hat Yai, on Highway 408.  Bird singing contests are usually held annually from January to July.  Singing birds are judged by their tone, voice, beat, loudness, and continuation.  The winners are highly priced.
 * Shooting for sport (กีฬายิงป���น) in Songkhla can be carried out at two shooting ranges that are open to the public, as follows.
 * Ruchirawong Range (สนามยิงปืนรุจิรวงศ์) is in Amphoe Hat Yai, across from the Hat Yai District Police Office, and is open daily. Please call for more information at 0 7424 3311.

 * 'Songkhla Royal Navy Range (สนามยิงปืนราชนาวีสงขลา) is located within the Songkhla Navy Base, on Chalatat Road (on the coast). For more information please call 0 7431 1451-5.

 * Thai Boxing (มวยไทย) in Songkhla is held either at the Songkhla Navy Base boxing ring at 0 7431 1451-5 on Wednesday nights, or at the Hat Yai boxing ring at 0 7423 2682.
 * Golf (กอล์ฟ) can be enjoyed at various courses, as follows.
 * Hat Yai Exclusive, with 18 holes, is located at Ban Wang Pha, Tambon Thung Sao, Amphoe Rattaphum. Please call 0 7423 4921 or 0 7424 3179
 * Hat Yai Country Club, with 9 holes, is located at Ban Phru, Amphoe Hat Yai. Please call 0 7423 2582 or 0 7434 3121.
 * Kho Hong Golf Course, with 9 holes, is located at Senanarong Army Camp, Royal Thai Army Region 4. Please call 0 7421 1500-3, extension 549.
 * Thong Yai Golf Course, with 9 holes, is located at Samila Beach, Amphoe Mueang Songkhla. Please call 0 7432 3761.
 * Southern Hill Golf and Country Club, with 18 holes, is located at Tambon Thung Lung, Amphoe Hat Yai. Please call  0 7434 3560-3.

Buy

 * Shrimp and fish crackers are one of the local products of Songkhla. They are delicious and inexpensive.  There are also nam budu, cashew nuts, and dried crystal shrimp that can be purchased from any stalls on Nakhon Nai Road in the city.
 * Nang Talung (shadow puppet) is the south’s folk art that is shown to the general public in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Phatthalung, Trang, and Songkhla. A temporary platform is usually built for the performance.  The puppets, cut from animal hide, are placed against the rear of a white screen in front of a bright light so the audience can see their shadows.  The story is told by narrators.  The puppets can be purchased from souvenir stores.
 * Ko Yo Hand-woven Fabric is another folk product of Songkhla, produced mainly from Ko Yo, Amphoe Mueang Songkhla. The sturdy hand-woven fabric has intricate designs such as Lai Rat Chawat, and Lai Luk Kaeo and can be purchased from stores on Nakhon Nai and Nang Ngam Roads.

Festivals

 * Songkran Festival (ประเพณีสงกรานต์) is held on April 13. In Hat Yai the festival is held around Niphat Uthit 1, 2, and 3 Roads, from morning till evening.  Malaysians and Singaporeans often join in the festivities with their Thai hosts.

 * Thai Goods and Produce Promotion Fair (เทศกาลส่งเสริมสินค้าและผล��ม้ไทย) is usually held in the middle of July when fruits are at their peaks. The fair boasts large selection of the best agricultural products from all southern provinces both for display and for sale.
 * Tham Bun Duean Sip (งานเทศกาลทำบุญเดือนสิบ) is another southern tradition that is held on the full moon of the tenth lunar month. This festival grew from the belief that during the new moon phase in the tenth month, the souls of the deceased relatives and friends, especially those not yet reborn would be released to meet the living relatives.  So the living would prepare foods to offer them to the monks in their names.  In Sathing Phra this festivity is different than in other districts whereby tall gold figures are paraded as the “proxy” for the deceased who were respected by the villagers.
 * Lak Phra and Tak Bat Thewo (giving alms, งานประเพณีลากพระและตักบาตรเทโว) is held on the new moon in the eleventh lunar month, around October of every year in Amphoe Mueang Songkhla. The festivity would start one day before the actual day to wrap a large cloth around the top of the Chedi on Khao Tang Kuan.  In the morning of the festival day, alms are offered to monks (tak bat thewo) at the foot of the hill.  Several hundred monks would walk down from Khao Tang Kuan to receive the offerings.  Late in the morning monks travelling by boat from other temples in Songkhla would proceed along the waterfront so the Buddhist can offer alms and pull their boats along.  Such acts are considered highly merited.  The monks’ boats would congregate at the lotus pond to participate in the boat decoration contest.  On the festival ground there are also art and culture performances.

Sleep
Amphoe Singhanakhon
 * Haad Kaew Resort (หาดแก้วรีสอร์ท) 163/1 Km. 5 Tambon Ching Ko (Tel: 0 7433 1058-66 Fax: 0 7433 1220), 143 rooms: 899-1,771 baht
 * Khao Khiew Hotel (เขาเขียว) 139/11 Mu 1 Tha Phae-Ko Yo Road (Tel: 0 7433 1669-70, 0 7433 1669), 26 rooms: 190-350 baht

Amphoe Chana
 * Watcharakon Guesthouse (วัชรากรเกสท์เฮ้าส์) Chana-Pattani Road (Tel: 0 7437 8376, 0 1969 1009), 9 rooms: 180-400 baht

Stay safe
In 2004, long-simmering resentment in the southern-most Muslim-majority provinces burst into violence in Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala provinces. All are off the beaten tourist trail, although the eastern rail line from Hat Yai to Sungai Kolok (gateway to Malaysia's east coast) passes through the area and has been disrupted several times by attacks.

Hat Yai (Thailand's largest city after Bangkok and its Nonthaburi suburbs) has also been hit by a series of related bombings, however the main cross-border rail line connecting Hat Yai and Butterworth (on the west coast) has not been affected, and none of the islands or the west coast beaches have been targeted.

In September 2006, three foreigners were killed in bombings in Hat Yai. Some rebel groups have threatened foreigners, but while targets have included hotels, karaoke lounges and shopping malls, westerners have not been singled out for attacks.

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Songkhla/Listings


text:
Talk:Songpan

Be very careful about picking a horse. We were assigned an unexperienced young horse during our trip to ice mountain. And because of that, my husband fall down the horse back and has a big horse step on his chest. It's very close to the heart and spleen. The guide assigned to us does not even care for his injure at all, and ignored our request to change horse from the beginning. After the fall, we managed work to the camping place, and with great pain, stay there for a whole night. There's no doctor or medicine or anything alike. The next morning, we insisted change the horse, borrowed a horse from another guide, went back to Songpan and ended our trip abruptly. My husband is very luck to not having any big problem except soft tissue injuries which keep him in pain for about a month now. And we also broke the camera during the fall. My advice, if you definitely want to go there, avoid rush time like May 1-7 and Oct 1-7, choose your horse carefully!! And remember to bring enough medicine. There is no cell signal on the mountain. According to my observation, ankle injuries are common, make sure you wear comfortable shoes, and prepare to throw them away afterwards. jooey from Shanghai

title: Talk:Songpan


text:
Talk:Sonoma

Moved Mosaic Listing to Forestville
I have take the Mosaic listing out of the Sonoma guide. It is a fantastic restaurant in Forestville but it does not belong here, as Forestville is about 45min-an hour way from the town of Sonoma.

Future sources

 * https://www.sonomamag.com/local-small-town-named-one-of-the-best-in-california/ -- John Broughton  14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.sonomamag.com/best-restaurants-in-sonoma/ -- John Broughton 17:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ram's Gate Winery
Ram’s Gate Winery, Sonoma: Feel as though you’re in a mountain lodge while taking in the Carneros views. There are multiple tasting experiences and spaces to enjoy by appointment ($40-$160; some are seasonal and many offer food pairings), and each space is warmed by a roaring fireplace. 28700 Arnold Drive, Sonoma, 707-721-8700, ramsgatewinery.com [Sonoma magazine, 2/2023] -- John Broughton 18:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sonoma


text:
Talk:Sospel

Untitled
Hello Sospel! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Project:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.

title: Talk:Sospel


text:
Talk:Sossusvlei

Afrikaans translation of vlei
The Afrikaans word vlei best translates to marsh or wetlands in English. Afrikaans for the English word valley is vallei. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:04, 6 January 2007 (EST)

 * Could you write something about the translation of "Sossus"? I found several totally different explainations in the internet. Thank You! --(WT-en) Flip666 15:37, 6 January 2007 (EST)

 * As far as I know, "Sossus" is not an Afrikaans word (I grew up Afrikaans speaking, but mostly speak English these days). It might be a bushman name or from one of the other languages indigenous to that area. I'll see if I can find any additional info when I am back in Johannesburg next week. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:46, 7 January 2007 (EST)

 * Only reliable reference I could find to the meaning of the word sossus is from a very old (around 1985) Southern African AA travel guide I still have. It states that sossus is a bushman word meaning place where the water gathers. So in effect Sossusvlei will translate to marsh marsh in English. (WT-en) NJR_ZA

title: Talk:Sossusvlei


text:
Talk:Soulard

did some research and came across its st louis oldest neighborhood and chance of a redirecting? --(WT-en) 3beetfarm 14:48, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Soulard


text:
Talk:Sounkyo Onsen

OTBP?
I think this is not terribly far from becoming an "Off The Beaten Path" nominee. The photos are good, the information reasonable, and the diversity that it would bring to OTBP is an asset. Any chance of getting some of the upper-end stuff added for completeness, and some expansion of Eat and Drink? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:36, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

 * The only problem is that the place is a dump. Daisetsuzan National Park as a whole would be good, but that article isn't even close to up to snuff.  I'd spring for Iya Valley instead (and will go nominate it now). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:38, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Sounkyo Onsen


text:
Talk:South (United States of America)

Rebel flag is a political statement
If you think it isn't, see how many black Southerners fly it to show their regional and cultural identification with the South. I realize that many whites, in the North as well as the South, think they are the arbiters of whether the things they say and do are racist, so sure, many white Southerners who fly the rebel flag or have the stars and bars on their bumpers would deny they are racists, but let's not pretend so hard. I changed the wording, not to what I actually believe, but to a phrasing that's a little less of a pretense that it's all just regional pride. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 * It might be difficult to really say. Totally and completely aside from skin-color, is the regular American flag just a national flag, or is it a political statement in support of the ideals of the rebels in the Revolutionary War (No taxation without representation, secession from the British Empire, etc)? Probably Both, and it's probably much the same with the Southern flag.

 * The difference is few Americans would oppose to the Rebells in the Revolutionary War, whereas many Southerners would oppose the Rebells in the Civil War. For most Americans there's no need to separate the political aspects of the regular American flag from the cultural identification aspects; that's not the case with the Southern flag. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Considering that the purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve for all time and extend slavery into new territories, we know what their flag represents, and if some whites pretend it's just cultural, ask some Southern blacks how they feel about the Rebel flag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The slavery thing just makes it thornier, as if it weren't thorny enough already. I'm not taking sides here, but they would probably say that the Southern flag no more represents slavery because of the civil war, then the American flag represents stealing Indian land because in the Revolution, the Rebels purpose in the revolution was (in part) to settle beyond the appellation mountains, which the Brits weren't letting them do, or something along those lines. Point is, allot of them, right or wrong, honestly just don't see it that way. According to this "28% of Americans say that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, while 59% of Americans say the flag is more a symbol of Southern pride"

 * As for the "Very few Southerners remain loyal to any secessionism or slave-holding ideology today", my impression is that, while support for slavery is practically zilch, at least a large minority of Southerners would support the Rebels in the Civil War, and not see that much difference beaten them and the Rebells in the Revolution, again not taking sides, just saying how some Southerns would see it. I'm not the best person to ask about what southerners think tough, Northern Virgina is culturally more Northern then Southern, but This says "roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners." To say "Very few Southerners remain loyal to any secessionist [..] today" could be misleading, it doesn't distinguish between present day support of present-day secessionism from present-day support of historic secessionism. To take the Revolution as an example, one can certainly believe that the 13 colonies were right to declare independence from the British Empire in 1776, while simultaneously bereaving that they would be wrong to declare independence from the United States in 2014, indeed that's the viewpoint of most Americans. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * On a related note, this sentence is misleading: "Kentucky and West Virginia [...] did hold slaves at the time of the Civil War, but Kentucky never completely seceded, and West Virginia seceded from Virginia in 1863 in order to rejoin the Union [...] while Missouri, also a slave state in 1861, remained part of the Union though with much conflict"

 * Missouri, Kentucky, and Virgina each had two state governments, one Unionist and one Confederate, both claiming to be the legitimate state government. It wasn't that Kentucky "never completely seceded", it was that two organizations, both claiming to be the Kentucky state government, disagreed on if Kentucky seceded. The West Virginia part is especially misleading: First of all it was the Unionist State government of Virginia that crated West Virginia, not West Virginia that declared independence from Virginia. Secondly to say West Virgina "rejoin[ed] the Union" implies it ever left. The Confederate state government and it's supporters of course believed that Virgina left the Union, but as far as the Unionist state government and it's supporters were concerned Virgina was a Union state. Similar stories with the other states (minus the state splinting in two), Unionist government says it's a Union state, the Confederate government says it's a Confederate state. I'm focusing on Virgina because I'm a Virginian, but this just seems very disrespectful of the unionist Virginians. I'm not asking we explain all of this, but the present-state oversimplifies things to the point of not just being mesasleading, but being downright disrespectful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * You make a lot of good points. We don't want to get too detailed about history, but some of the text in the article should be rephrased for accuracy's sake. The thing about settling beyond the Appalachians was a dispute that was ended long before the Civil War, though. Anything beyond the original 13 Colonies, Vermont (previously part of New York), Maine (previously part of Massachusetts) and Florida (previously a Spanish colony) is over the Appalachians, including most of the Southern states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Here's the Wikipedia article about the Appalachian-line, but my point wasn't to debate the flag per sy, my point was simply to give an example of how it is that some Southerners (rightly or wrongly) don't see it that way. My main point is, there isn't universal agreement on allot of things, whether it's the flag, or whether the border states (minus Maryland and Delaware) were Union of Confederate, and we shouldn't pretend there is or take one side and present it as fact. All we can really say about the the status of border states is that there was disagreement on if they were Union or Confederate, and all we can realty say about the flag is that a person who flies it doesn't necessarily mean it as anything other then just the flag of the South. This applies especially to the border states thing tough, sense there were soldiers from the border states fighting on both sides, and they deserve our respect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Right. The dispute between the British mother country and the colonists about settlement across the Appalachians predated the Civil War by about 100 years, given the title of the article you cite. But as for all the other points you're making, please plunge forward and make some changes of wording in relevant articles to reflect them. If someone ends up disagreeing with your wording, it can always be discussed, but the discussion would probably be a good one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * You could debate weather that 80 years or so between the two wars makes much moral diffidence with the Indian land thing, but that really isn't my point. My point is simply that there is honest disagreement about the flag among people who are neither prejudiced against Black people, nor the South. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Ah, I partly misread your first sentence, I worded that last post more strongly then I otherwise would have. By presenting that link I didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing that the wars were about a century apart. I was actually trying to show that the line wasn't quite in the same place as the Appalachians themselves (Maine and most of present-day Vermont were east of the line). I didn't want to dedicate a post to saying that because it was beside my point, and not that relevant to this guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Segregation de-facto vs de-jure
The reason I said "de-facto" was that, by my understanding, the Supreme Court at first ruled that Segregation was constitutional on the basis of Septate but Equal, but reversed it's original ruling because the "Equal" part was never taken seriously. My understanding is that the races were de-jure equal (albeit septate), but de-facto not so much (to put is mildly). Segregation is not my strong suit, so maybe there's just something I'm missing here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Put simply the law, at the constitutional level no less, required equality (de-jure), but the law-enforcers didn't care and made things unequal (de-facto). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * That's not quite accurate. We've since come to realize, for instance, that separate is inherently unequal.  Powers (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * That too of course, but that's beside my point. By my understanding, ever sense that first ruling the races were supposed to be treated equality, even if the "not septate" came in the later ruling. The government obviously did not take that first ruling (and its de-jure equality) seriously, but that didn't magically mean that that black people weren't entitled to equal protection under the law. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Point is Black people are not second-class citizens, that first ruling (by my understanding) recognized that, and any attempt by politicians or law-enforcement to treat black people as second-class citizens was and is illegitimate. Doesn't mean it didn't happen all the time, but that by no means makes it legitimate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * "Separate but equal" was a legal fiction in violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment, designed to justify the otherwise illegal oppression of black people (and at the same time, the Court held that minimum wage and maximum hours laws violated the "due process under the law" for corporations). The guiding principle of this site is be fair, and pretending that Jim Crow laws didn't create de jure inequality is not being fair and not something I think anyone should dignify at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, as I said the "equal" part was never taken seriously, that's more or less why the "separate" part had to go to be 14th amendment-complyment (don't misunderstand me, I wouldn't be any fan of segregation even if it truly were equal). I think we're just defining "de-jure" differently, because otherwise I'm not seeing where we disagree. The way I see it, any law, interpretation of a law, or actions of law-enforcement, that deprives black people, or any other group, of the right to equal perception is illegitimate; de-fecto not de-jure. Especially sense that first ruling recognized that the "equal" was required, even if it didn't do away with the "separate". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The way I see it would be calling it "de jure" that would be unfair and dignifying segregation, but again, I think the only reason we disagree on that is that we have different definitions of "de jure" and "de facto". The reason I added the "de facto" in the first place was that without it the guide came too close to comfort to saying that Black people's status as 2nd-class citizens was legal, and as you said it was "in violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment". Making Black people 2nd-class citizens wasn't otherwise illegal, it was illegal period, regardless of any fiction used to try to justify it. Put simply leaving out the "de facto" felt like it was almost dignifying segregation. You're probably not the only person who would misunderstand the "de facto" to have the complete opposite of its intended meaning tough, so probably best to leave it out. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, there is one other area we disagreed on. I was giving the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they intended to uphold the Constitution, and that it was the politicians who treated the "equal" part as legal fiction. You weren't giving them the Court the benefit of the doubt. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * No, I give them no more benefit of doubt than Mr. Plessy and his association of New Orleans Creoles did in 1896, when they were utterly convinced they would win in court and shocked beyond measure that the Court, which had been taken over by Democratic appointees and made a purely political/racist decision, ruled against them. De jure means by law. De facto would mean that segregation was done by individuals but without the support of laws, arrests by police, and imprisonment by court orders. The fact that the court adopted a pretense of "separate but equal" is no more relevant than whatever rationalizations the National Party in South Africa used to justify Apartheid. We had no less apartheid in the South and much of the rest of the US 60 years ago than they had in South Africa. And yes, I certainly think the Court was violating the intent of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court determines what the law is, for better and for worse, so it was they, and not Mr. Plessy and his supporters, who carried the day until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

 * I should say, I understand your argument perfectly and hope I don't sound disrespectful toward you, because that isn't my intent at all. Instead, my intent is to disrespect the completely discredited rationalization the Supreme Court made in their now long-overturned 1896 decision. Recognizing that it was a legal decision does not legitimize it, in my view; it just acknowledges a reality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Whether the Court intended to uphold the Constitution aside, the problem here is we have three "levels" but only two terms (de-facto and de-jury) to describe those three states: legitimate-law; illegitimate-law (meaning laws that are unconstitutional in this case), abuse of law-enforcement authority, and the like; and actions by individuals outside the government. The lesson here is be careful with your terms when covering things briefly, as our history sections do. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * What the Supreme Court says the law is, the law is, period. There's no ambiguity there. People can dissent and say they're violating the Constitution, but they are the ones who have the power to enforce their interpretation, period. So that's de jure. It was wrong, but it was de jure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * No disrespect taken, but I think you misunderstood part of my position. I don't believe that Wikivoyage should show our personal interpretation of the Constitution rather then that of the of the Supreme Court; that's not what I was trying to do. We may have much more tolerance of original research and lack of sourcing then Wikipedia, but that's taking it way too far. It also wouldn't usually make scene to, in historical contexts, show the court's present-day interpretation rather then the interpretation they had at the time; I wasn't trying to do that either.

 * What I was trying to say was: even by (my understanding of) the Separate but Equal interpretation the court had at the time, making black people second-class citizens is a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It doesn't matter why the court interpreted the clause the way they did (we can't be expected to read their minds), it doesn't even matter if the only reason they interpreted it that way was to provide an excuse for Separate and Unequal. That was their interpretation, that's what matters, yet the politicians (and some police) refused to take the "Equal" part seriously. Ignoring the "Equal" part was blatantly illegal and illegitimate (de-fecto not de-jure); as you said "[w]hat the Supreme Court says the law is, the law is", and the Supreme Court (whatever their reasons) said "Equal".

 * This is just for the record sense we both agree that the "de-facto" should be left out. I just don't want someone reading this and then thinking that I would go inserting my personal opinion where it isn't warranted, or something. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 * You think that we should take a Supreme Court decision with mind-reelingly warped rationalizations that was written by racists literally. I don't. We will not agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Awful banner
This has got to be one of the worst and least representative banners out there. A gray, hazy, smoggy city from a distance does not give any idea of what this region has to offer. I almost think the default banner would be better since it at least doesn't give a negative impression. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better banner here? Texugo (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a specific one, off-hand, but some ideas that come to mind are an antebellum plantation mansion in a state like Louisiana, antebellum city houses in places like Charleston, SC or Savannah, GA, or perhaps a scene with Spanish moss or/and magnolia trees. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly difficult to find. =(  Powers (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes me look like I'm just lazy to look for one, but I just came across this again, and found the banner so awful, and then was surprised to see that I'd already started this conversation. Really, it's awful. The default banner is better than this. At least it's not misleading people to think that the whole South of the US is some weird smoggy mess. Changing this now. Texugo (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the weird smoggy thing from wikidata. Let's find something reasonable. Texugo (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New banner is up! ϒpsilon (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Loads better. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and states' rights
I hate to quibble but while [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_%28United_States_of_America%29&diff=2723249&oldid=2721229 this edit] is an improvement over [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_(United_States_of_America)&diff=prev&oldid=2721229 the text I removed], I think it still overstates the case. It seems to me that the only reason the Southern states were interested in states' rights was because they wanted the autonomy to continue taking advantage of their slave-based economy. Powers (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is true that that American Civil War was fought mostly about slavery, it wasn't fought only about slavery. The South was opposed to a lot more of what the Whig/Republican Lincoln represented than just free soil.  If you look at the classic example of state's rights, Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine, you find that it was written not in response to slavery, but to a high tariff.   The South was also opposed to the North foisting industrialization on them. Pur ple back pack  89    23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just can't agree. The nullification issue, for instance, simmered for many years before the Civil War, but it was purely a political issue. The only thing that precipitated actual hostilities was the election of Lincoln, whose Republican Party threatened to disallow the expansion of slavery. Powers (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Powers, I think that point of view oversimplifies things. BTW, have you seen this clip from the Simpsons?  It summarizes our dichotomy. Pur ple back pack  89    18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Simplification is good when it comes to giving brief overviews. The inclusion of mere political differences like the tariff issue obscures the real reason why shots were fired. It wasn't because of tariffs; it's because the South feared for the continuance of their very way of life. Powers (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Powers, but I won't make a Federal case of it. People can always do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well nobody in the South was crying "states rights" when they forced the Northern free states to catch their fugitive slaves for them. And I don't hear to many people clamoring for states rights now when it comes to gay marriage or legal hemp/marijuana/pot/whatever you wanna call it. That being said: Why was the tariff important in the first place? The Northern states wanted to protect their young industry from cheap British imports, whereas the South - lacking any kind of industry - wanted cheap British industrial products in exchange for their slave produced cotton. Thus the tariff issue is in many ways related to the slavery issue and ceased to be an issue after 1865. And it is also worth noting, that the vast majority of people in the North weren't against slavery for moral reasons, or because they thought slaves were equal to free white citizens (although some abolitionists may well have thought so), but because of economic and political reasons (thanks to the 3/5s compromise a Southern white voter had more representation than a northern white voter - ironically this became even worse after the slaves gained their freedom but lost their voting rights thanks to Jim Crow). And I think it is fair to say that the very term "states rights" is loaded and kind of dog whistle politics, as many white southern racists know it to mean either segregation or slavery, depending on the time period. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I would certainly support a consensus on this basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm going to lose this one, ain't I? Though I would take issue with your "no state's rights anymore", Hobbitschuster.  There have been attempts in conservative states recently to nullify court rulings on gay marriage. Pur ple back pack  89    15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Southern conservatives have previously supported Federal laws and constitutional amendments to outlaw same-sex marriage and abortion nationwide, when they thought they could get enough support for them. The retreat to "states' rights" on these questions is tactical and not principled, with very few exceptions (probably including Ron Paul). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Both worthwhile banners. The new one is hampered by haze, though, and doesn't strike me as a great composition, beyond the steamboat, which itself is cut off at the top. Keeping in mind that these banners represent entirely different views of what the South is, I vote to retain the current image, which is of a beautiful, restful rural scene. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't think the new banner is a significant improvement. I like the current one better. Danapit (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Different views of the south, but the original is so much nicer as a picture. I could imagine a different shot of a steamboat as a banner, but really not this grey and cutoff image. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of the second better, but before winning it would need a more lively picture, so current for now. Syced (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

down up and other directions
I think somewhere in the "by bus" section there are a lot of mentions of down and horizontal as directions. Should we change that to North South and other more geographic terms? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

New title?
The title looks very awkward, with four bracketed words. Shall we call the article southern United States instead? /Yvwv (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The South (notice the "magical capitals") is not the same as the southern US - the latter would include states like California that never seceded, because they are undoubtedly in the south in a geographical sense. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we're using pure directions, this would be "Southeastern United States", but that really wouldn't be so instructive for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the American South? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "American South" is an improvement on the current title. "Southeastern United States" is becoming more common in Florida with reference to the state and its neighbors, but Florida, of course, isn't within our South region! I don't see why The South couldn't be the title of the region, as I'm not sure the use of the definite article is common when referring to the direction or a region to the south of another. I think anyone searching "The South" is probably looking for the southern United States.
 * I can't say I've heard California be described as being in the "southern United States," so I don't rule that out as a title, but my favorite would be The South, followed by Southern United States, followed by American South, followed by the current title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "The South" seems best. If we do that, though, I think Gambia has to be The Gambia. So I say, let's make both of those changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it could potentially be confusing for people not from the U.S. "The South" may refer to the south of England for someone from there, or perhaps southern Vietnam to someone from there. The dog2 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. So then Southern U.S.. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. That could also be ambiguous since California is geographically southern, but definitely does not fall under the "Southern" cultural umbrella. As unwieldy as it is, I think keeping the status quo may be the best compromise to avoid all these potential ambiguities. The dog2 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the least bit ambiguous. Southern California is not the South, and how is Southern U.S. more ambiguous than South (United States of America)? It's not; it's just shorter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're absolutely sure that "Southern United States" would not be taken to mean California, then I won't object to changing it to that name. The dog2 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be more likely to than the current name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose any title that simply just said "South" or "The South" – South is a cardinal point that could be almost anywhere that is, well, south. Most non-US readers wouldn't immediately associate the term "South" with this region, or only be able to with some context. I'm sorry to break it to you SelfieCity, but in regards to I think anyone searching "The South" is probably looking for the southern United States., without mention of the US in its name in some form is a blatant example of ethnocentrism, because your statement is only true in the United States. Also, as a continuation of The dog2's point, when I was in India, when most referred to "the south", they often referred to South India, which has a way larger population than the American South.
 * As for what this should be renamed to, I would prefer "American South" to prevent any ambiguity. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Southern U.S." is more specific, if you're concerned about people being confused. Someone might think "American South" means South America, I suppose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For a bit of a perspective from someone who's not from the US, most people outside the US would either call it the "US South" or the "American South" hence my suggestions. The reason I'm not a fan of "Southern US" or "Southern U.S." is because as HS mentioned, it can also refer to California and some other states that we do not categorize as part of the South. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought. "Southern U.S." could in theory just be a more generic term referring to the southern half of the contiguous U.S., in which case it would include California, but exclude some of the more northern states of the South like Kentucky or Virginia. On the other hand, if you say "American South" or "U.S. South", I know exactly what it refers to. As for the potential ambiguity of "American South", I think a English speaker will know exactly what that refers to given the most common English usage of the term "American", but I can understand the concern that it would be confusing to Spanish or Portuguese speakers. The dog2 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Southern United States seems like the best bet from the above discussion, if we don't want The South for the stated reasons. I've never heard of California being put in the Southern United States bracket, nor Arizona or Nevada. These states are in the West - they might be in the southern half of the country if you drew a line through the middle from east to west, but that doesn't make them part of the Southern region which is widely understood to include the Deep South, plus surrounding states. We don't have to do things like WP does them, but their terminology frequently indicates common usage, and WP's article for Southern United States includes roughly the same states included in this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrasings "American South" and "U.S. South" don't feel idiomatic to me, or I think to other Americans, but "Southern U.S." does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "American South" is idiomatic, though to my ear it has a slightly literary or old-timey feel. "Southern U.S." is also idiomatic but sounds vaguely bureaucratic to me. I agree that "U.S. South" is not very idiomatic. I think either "American South" or "Southern United States" would make a good title for this article; my slight preference is "American South". —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Y'all
I'd like to discuss these points:

''It is used frequently in casual conversation, but is usually excluded from formal speech. Though you might hear the word frequently, it is best to be careful if you attempt using it when visiting as you may appear mildly condescending toward the locals.''

What types of formal speech is it "usually excluded from"? I didn't think it was, as Southern politicians and preachers use it. Who doesn't use it in what situation, and what would they substitute for it? Also, I think what's condescending is to imitate the accent. I'm a New Yorker and after spending a summer in Greensboro many years ago, I adopted "you all" as part of my everyday speech, but I don't say it in any accent other than my usual fairly mild New York accent. I doubt I've offended anyone by saying "How are you all doin'?" or "What do you all want to do?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about formal speech, but as for visitors using the word "y'all", I agree that that seems unlikely to cause offense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It might sound unusual to hear someone with, say, a British accent use "y'all", but it would be completely acceptable. It would only cause offense if you deliberately say it in a way that's meant to sound mocking, but you can do that with almost anything.
 * I think we can just omit the comment about "formal speech". Saying that it's used in casual conversation already implies that it's less suitable for formal speech. Omitting that leaves it deliberately vague, which I think is accurate; there are times when it might be acceptable and times when it might not. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Cool. I'll make the edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Spanish
In light of this edit, to make it short, "vosotros" does not exist in Latin American Spanish. It may be understood, but it sounds about as quaint as "thou" does to modern English speakers and it is indeed virtually only found in the bible or texts from Spain. If addressing a group, Latin American Spanish always uses "ustedes". Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Not quite so, Hobbit. In Uruguay and Argentina, "vosotros" is used a lot. For reference, I'll copy here from the "Rioplatense Spanish" article in Wikipedia: "One of the features of the Argentine and Uruguayan speaking style is the voseo: the usage of the pronoun vos for the second person singular, instead of tú. In other Spanish-speaking regions where voseo is used, such as in Chile and Colombia, the use of voseo has at times been considered a nonstandard lower speaking style; whereas in Argentina and Uruguay it is standard." When studying Spanish in Brazil, this topic is not lightly emphasized. Ibaman (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vos" and "vosotros", though etymologically related, are different words, with different meanings, different verb conjugations, and different possessive and object pronouns. What Hobbitschuster said is correct. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "vos" is second person singular. "Vosotros" is second person plural. They are to each other as "thou" is to "y'all". Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about Spanish. If it's really important to make the distinction, we can use "in Spain". Using parentheses feels weird to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I wanted to say in some way that vosotros only exists in certain dialects of Spanish... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? This article is not for teaching people Spanish. If the example is too problematic, remove it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we change "vosotros" to "vosotros"/"ustedes"? That would cover both Iberian and Latin American Spanish. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ustedes is also the polite plural form although in Latin America the distinction has been lost in the plural (not in the singular though) Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. Since modern English doesn't have a T-V distinction, I think it won't hurt to gloss over that bit of complexity in this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:South (United States of America)