text:
Talk:O'Hare International Airport

Star nomination (slushed)
I'm nominating this one because I'd like to get some feedback on how an ideal airport article should be done. There are several at Guide throughout the site, but none above. This one has good photos and a sterling map by Peter, tons of up-to-date hotel listings, and a brachiosaurus. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:03, 10 November 2007 (EST)

 * I'm inclined to support, having not been there... the article looks nice, seems to cover it while keeping it to the point. One question... why is the airport map upside down? I find it confusing when up isn't north. But clearly not a big deal. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)

 * Support. Although I feel pretty satisfied with the article, I'd also really like to hear some criticism, as we haven't hashed out with a lot of clarity what we want from our airport articles. Should we try to put eat and buy listings on the airport map or would that be excessive? Anything else that people would want on their airport map? I flipped the map upside down because a) I think that's mostly the way you are facing once you arrive—entrance/baggage check in the foreground and gates in the back, and b) that's how all the other O'Hare maps are displayed. My feeling was that the airport is enough of a world unto itself where the average traveler forgets which way is north. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)

 * Fair enough. As for what I want from an airport article.... the basics. What I kinda like about this is that it's not overdone, and not trying too hard... I like the simplicity of the eat sections, etc... you're at an airport... there's not that much to be said... I don't think having the restaurants on the map are necessary, unless they're necessary due to complication or if they're spread widely throughout a large terminal... in most airports if you say that a place in in terminal one, once you're in terminal 1 it's usually pretty clear where the food is. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

 * Support. Looks quite thorough and complete. That said, it seems like there's a lot of stuff around the airport and it's not really clear on how to get there, so perhaps we could have an overall map of the area, just to orient people as to where all those hotels and outer parking lots are? Then you have that in addition to the principal airport map. Just a thought, doesn't change my vote of support. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)

 * That's a really good point actually, I hadn't thought of that... it isn't clear at all where the hotels are, the most that is said about many of them is their distance from the airport. Descriptions of how to get there should be made at the very least, and an area map would be an even better idea – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)

 * I thought about making an area map, but I'm not sure it would really add much value, as I'm pretty sure all the hotels operate shuttles directly from the area just outside baggage claim. But I'll try and double check on that, and you're definitely right that we should make it clear how one gets to the listed hotels. Similarly, all the outer parking lots have shuttles taking you directly to the terminals and are themselves well signed from the described "get in#by car" routes. Still and all, the completionist/perfectionist in me wants to see the O'Hare area mapped eventually—it's just last on my list of priorities for Chicago right now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:44, 18 November 2007 (EST)

 * Any more comments? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:13, 26 November 2007 (EST)

 * For some very weird reason I get an error everytime I try to view the page, saying that WT is experiencing a problem. Only that page. So I can't look at it... anyhow, did you fix the last issue we discussed and at least give a verbal sense of where the hotels are or how to get to them? I still think a map would be ideal, but at least the words should be there :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (EST)

 * Let me know if the directions I've added help clarify where the hotels are (see here). If not, we'll table the nomination until a map exists. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:10, 1 December 2007 (EST)

 * Tells me everything I think i'd ever want to know about the airport, would do well as a star (WT-en) Prof Jack 07:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I'll table the nomination for now until we have a map of the roads around there, and then it should be ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Airport accommodations
This service sounds useful, but maybe would be best for a more general article, like Tips for flying? The only thing that gives me pause in moving it is that it is based in Rosemont. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:58, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

Hotel listings
Nice list, but all listings for hotels outside of the airport must be deleted, or, better, moved to appropriate local guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I have done so. It seems like a shame—airport hotels are probably a lot more useful all in one list than scattered through guides to boring suburbs that no one reads (I'm exaggerating a bit). Especially if reading the guide on mobile or even worse if printed out. But I think this is unavoidable, given the no gaps/no overlap part of the Geographical hierarchy. --Peter Talk 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it is less than an ideal solution, but no matter which approach we take, it will be some kind of compromise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 * This is really disappointing to see, and though I know that everyone involved has good intentions, this is a clear case of a policy being prioritized over the traveler (who's supposed to come first, after all). As anyone with experience there knows, O'Hare is an eco-system unto itself, connected to Chicago by a long, thin strip (due to old land-grab issues). Probably half (or more) of the city's hotel room capacity is around O'Hare, in hotels with "Chicago O'Hare" in the name. Would anyone argue that a traveler is better served by having to open several unmapped, outline suburb articles to compare O'Hare hotels and rates...or by having the "O'Hare" hotels in the O'Hare article? If there's a "compromise" to be made, it's better to inconvenience a policy than a traveler. Gorilla Jones (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with that, it is not convenient to spread airport hotels over other articles. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * You guys may be right, but you need to propose a change of policy at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, since your argument could be made just as well for several other airport articles (Frankfurt Airport comes to mind). Have a look at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition for current policy and discussion. The basic difficulty, though, is whether to allow duplication of listings; if so, in what discrete situations; and at what distance from airports we would draw the line on listings, other than actually within the airport. I don't think we would do better adopting ad hoc, inconsistent policies on these questions, but if you think we would, please make the argument there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we're all in agreement that what makes most sense for travelers is to have a consolidated list on this article. The problem is in how to go about it. The reason we avoid duplicate listings (in general) is that it's too hard to keep them updated if they're in multiple articles. That would change if we had a listings database, though, and hopefully we will get that through Wikidata at some point. In the meantime, though, maybe we should just swallow our discomfort with duplicate listings in the case of airport articles? To Ikan Kekek's point about where to draw the line—in cases I'm familiar with, it's usually pretty obvious what is and what isn't an "airport hotel." I think we could leave that judgement to the discretion of our writers. --Peter Talk 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I really think we really need to discuss this at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, because when things were discussed there, it wasn't at all obvious. How many miles away from the airport do we draw the line, or should we include every hotel that has a shuttle from the airport? Also, I thought we disallowed duplicate listings in large part because double listings constitutes touting, much of the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion copied and continued at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition

Resumed discussion
The Quality Inn O'Hare Airport listing is an example of a dupe, as it's also in the Schiller Park guide. But at least it's 2 miles from the airport, whereas other listings are 5-6 miles from the airport, which strikes me as a bit far to be listed in a guide to an airport. So what do we do about the duplicated listings and just how far is too far to be an "airport hotel", for the purposes of a traveler? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Note resumed discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition. I also think that there was a pretty fair degree of consensus in Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition against allowing duplication of hotel listings from district or city articles to airport articles. I would suggest looking at Los Angeles International Airport as a clean counterexample to this article's sleep section, and I'd welcome resumed discussion in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

tdf
Now this is a Star nom, and because it is an international hub as well as being a North American hub, I'd like it to consistently use the 24 hr time format and not a mixture of AM/PM and am/pm and other time styles. A minor point I know, but it can be an example of best practice.

PS:The banner really looks great! (Pity that we don't have access to the secondary and tertiary headings in the horizontal Table of Contents. Are we going to implement drop down menus to give that necessary functionality later?) --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC) --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The local usage in the airport is AM/PM. On a related note, I would recommend against doing a repeat of your last star nomination disruption/hijacking with the goal of pushing your formatting "preferences" that have not been accepted in policy discussions, if you enjoy editing here. --Peter Talk 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing one of my points. Yes, we produce polished articles for the simple pleasure of doing so and admiring our handiwork. But that's not (overtly) intended to be the main purpose (even if it provides one of the main motivations for many). It's not just locals that will be a substantial audience for this article. There will be travellers for whom ORD is an international transit stop and, rather than have a mixture of time formats, it should have one time format that is consistently used throughout. My recommendation is the 24 hour format since that is the least ambiguous and most widely used throughout the world, but I don't necessarily expect that recommendation to be followed.
 * Now, so as not to ignore your other comments (in the same way that you have ignored mine): Being truthful, I don't enjoy editing here with your constant sniping and threats (veiled or otherwise), but it would be nice to produce a travel guide that meets our stated goals. Please learn
 * i) not to to take every comment as a personal criticism and then create unnecessary drama by scattering unfounded accusations
 * ii) to assess constructive criticism dispassionately, assessing the content of that criticism rather than focussing on the person that made the criticism.
 * For the record, I still maintain that this is good advice and I am unaware of any policy page here right now that forbids using this valid Wikimarkup - no more than there is a policy page that forbids the use of umlauts when German names are shown. Horses for courses.
 * Off topic Explanatory Note for those readers who may be baffled as to why PeterFitzgerald is referencing our La Macarena article: PeterFitzgerald firmly believes (probably sincerely) that Alice and I are the same person. This is despite our both denying this and despite us both requesting checkuser and personal visits to verify our passports and home circumstances. On this topic he's like a terrier with a bone. He won't let go and move on. Some folks will realise the philosophical difficulties with us trying to prove a negative, but in this case the proof is rather easy - just come and visit us and/or run a check user. PeterFitzgerald will now probably say that we hold the same views about image formatting and the 24 hour clock (and probably a lot of other matters as well). That is true - but then our views are (outside of North America) hardly minority views. I am a German man living in Glasgow (and Alice is not) so why would you expect us both to share your US-centric views, PeterFitzgerald? don't answer that rhetorical question instead Play the ball, not the player.
 * Please let's get back to constructive discussion.
 * Your phenomenal institutional memory and wide ranging overview of Wikivoyage discussions means that I would genuinely like you to answer my question above: "...Are we going to implement drop down menus to give that necessary functionality later?" --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a starnom, this will have to follow policy (to which you are free to propose changes), not your preferences. You know this, and have been warned by several admins that blocks will follow if you do not stop these types of edits. I'm giving you an honest, straightforward warning here, as an administrator: a clear majority of WV admins are just waiting for you to "break the camel's back" so they can go forward with a ban nomination.
 * To your question about ToC dropdown menus, it's unlikely in the visible future, because of concerns raised about them at Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition. Everyone is in favor of section ToCs, which hopefully will become a technical possibility in the future. --Peter Talk 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Star nomination (slushed again)
At the risk of saturating this page with nominations, I think this is ready now to be our first star airport (and therefore something that can be used as an airport article exemplar). It was slushed before (despite only getting support votes!) for lack of a map showing area hotels and routes to them, but that is now not a concern, as the hotels have all been moved to the appropriate town/city articles, per policy. --Peter Talk 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As I mentioned on the Airport Expedition talk page, I can't think of anything to complain about now and the new pictures really give the guide a nice, lively feel. Totally behind this one. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with one tiny comment: It strikes me as a bit awkward to describe a dinosaur skeleton and a fighter plane replica as "amenities", which to me suggests things like public bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, diaper changing stations, etc. Texugo (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed! That looks like a legacy of the template change—that was a see/do section. --Peter Talk 23:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be better under "Wait". LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It sure looks complete to me, and very well written and illustrated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it's still relevant, I no longer support until questions about what to list in the "Sleep" section are resolved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I like the article, but the Eat section rubs me the wrong way. I know Peter's no fan of chain restaurants, but this seems a bit too disdainful.  My wife and I ate at Macaroni Grill when we passed through in 2010 and I thought it was a pretty dang good meal for an airport.  LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't claim this article as my writing, sadly (just illustrations). (And it seems the intro was written before the Macaroni Grill was added by another user.) The Berghoff is genuinely worth seeking out, there's a Garrett's Popcorn that should now be added, and (the highly acclaimed Chicago Mexican chef) Rick Bayless has opened up a Mexican sandwich shop that is getting put in top five lists of airport restaurants worldwide. I think it's time for an update! --Peter Talk 05:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added Tortas Frontera and Garrett's, clarified Berghoff a bit, and altered the intro. Does it look better? You know Macaroni Grill better than I would, so please do fix that up if you have a better description in mind. Airport food has gotten exponentially better in the past decade—I would have never guessed that I'd be checking my smart phone while traveling to hunt down "top airport restaurants" in between flights! --Peter Talk 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it very well might be more oily than "standard Italian fare", I may not have the true Italian experience to counter that. But I don't think anyone goes to Macaroni Grill for authenticity.  =)  LtPowers (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 * O'Hare_International_Airport Peter: I'm a frequent flyer and i'm not a fan of US airports due to their complicated structure if you transfer between int'l and/or domestic flights. I think the section is a bit brief and maybe the flights section needs a table. From a travellers points i would find the article most helpful if i could easily understand how to transit. My only questions is in general, e.g. i arrive with Swiss and have a onward with United. Where do i need to go? Or if i arrive with US Airways and continue on United Express. Just a quick table to get an idea if air- or landside is possible? I stranded at the beauty once, so i know how polite but totally useless the ground staff at IAD is... jan (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I like the article and used O'Hare several times in the nineties but have not been back since and I am not a regular user of US airports. There is no details of transit arrangements, maybe just to say that there is no international transit without entering the country. Buy is very short - I would expect 5-10 lines on duty free alone. Add details of who can shop in Duty Free (international departures only?), how big the shops are and the range of products - are the shops in the various terminals clones or is one cheaper, bigger? How do airport prices compare with downtown? I am surprised that nearby makes no mention of places like Rosemont or Franklin Park. AlasdairW (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, questions about international transit... I've never actually taken an international flight through O'Hare. I'll see if I can figure these out. --Peter Talk 06:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this helps, but I took an international flight out of O'Hare and found it to be a miserable experience. Compared to the other terminals, Terminal 5 is a gray, soulless building with little ambient light, no decent food and no shops aside from a couple of Hudson newsstands and a single stand selling duty free items. Not even a proper shop, just a little stand. Other than to say a duty free shop exists, I don't think there's much else you can say. PerryPlanet (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perry, my experience with O'hell is similar but if you are not a regular in this airport, navigation is an issue (especially int'l-domestic). The airport is ranked sixth in the worst airports in the US which is of course not an offical source but a good indicator what travelers think. jan (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that as far as airports go, I find O'Hare to be a perfectly decent place to wait for a plane - as long as you stay in the domestic terminals. Plenty of food options and if you get bored there's things to look at, like the dino skeleton or the walkway with all the neon. If it had free wifi it would be ideal. But heaven have mercy on your soul if you enter Terminal 5. PerryPlanet (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a duty free sub-section to buy to describe the "somewhat limited" possibilities. This may be a bit of a negative review, but I think that some travelers will be expecting the supermarket scale duty free shops found elsewhere. Please alter this as necessary, especially if you have more recent experience of flying here. In researching this I also found some very limited free WIFI - a walled garden or rather walled flower pot that allows access to WP. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Support though shouldn't the Airline Lounges be added to "Wait"?Altaihunters (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not now — Lead section needs to be expanded. Listings in Drink section are without descriptions. Too many listings under Sleep's midrange section. --Saqib (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite yet — I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports and this article has a well written and balanced "Understand" section.

 * What does grate, as with so many of our destination articles, is the silly and inconsistent way that many of the images have fixed image widths that are either too tiny for those with large screens and fast connections and much too large for those struggling in the boondocks with narrow notebook screens. For the latter traveller, many of the headings are also messed up by poor image placement and absolute sizing. Where images can not be left as thumbnails of unspecified width, a move to relative sizing is now long overdue. -- A l i c e ✉ 10:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a policy change, and this is not the place to discuss policy changes -- only how the current article comports with current policy. Powers (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I beg to differ.
 * Our Prime Directive is that the traveller comes first and we already have a policy that we prefer thumbnails for a number of reasons. However much some folks huff and puff, I've yet to see the consensus, never mind a rationale for banning relative sizing - it's been used for many years by those who are knowledgeable about relative image sizing and wish to respect the preferences of our users. Star articles are supposed to showcase our best work and this article with its disparate fixed image widths simply doesn't. -- A l i c e ✉ 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that everyone would consider not pursuing this line of discussion here. If Alice would like to continue posting more about it here, that doesn't mean anyone else needs to reply, as this is a staple topic of hers that always has the same discussion. I also won't comment further about this tangent in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that discussion of relative image sizing does not belong here.

 * On the other hand, Alice does have a valid point; the current article has several different images sizes (five by my count), which looks odd and should be fixed. Pashley (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I do not think the current text covers international transit adequately. For one thing, it does not mention that having to go through customs & immigration to change planes is not just a local oddity; it is US gov't policy at all airports. It should link to Avoiding a transit of the United States.

 * I flew through O'Hare in late 2012, in from China, out to Canada. The experience was moderately awful with large crowds and long lines. There were different lines depending on passport. As a Canadian, I got about the same treatment as Americans but it still took over a hour to reach the passport-checker; I think it might be really awful for some nationalities. The actual staff I dealt with were fast, efficient and courteous, but there were nowhere near enough of them. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alice, I'm not suggesting to expand the "Understand" section. I'm fine with it. My concerns are with the lead section which barely have two lines. --Saqib (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that we both understand our respective concerns Saqib. However, that understanding still does not change my opinion that I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports. The lead sentences for this one are already in the Goldilocks zone; if you think differently, perhaps you could highlight what is missing and should be moved from the "Understand" section, from other sections or perhaps from the article entirely? -- A l i c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 05:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is ready, too because it's the longest airport article if you look at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson, New York LaGuardia, New York JFK apart from Chicago O'Hare. Also, There has been four supports, one not now, and one not quite yet. It is thorough. The first one was not quite yet, the second not now, and the rest support. The status just keeps getting better and better. I think it's time. --BadgerPacker
 * I see some complaints about the lede for this article. What could or should be added? Why, in this case, are two to-the-point sentences insufficient? As the "Understand" section makes clear, this is not an airport that merits someone rhapsodizing about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Not yet: I was ready to support this article for star status and was making edits to the Drink section based on comments above. Incorrect hours of operation were listed and there were no phone numbers provided. Furthermore, they did not use the proper listing template. Several other sections do not use the proper listing templates (which would be expected of a star article). I honestly don't think anything needs to be done to the lead, but there is definitely work to be done here. GeneralPericles (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this something easily fixable? I am trying to decide whether to slush it now or wait for a few days while it gets fixed. —Ravikiran (talk)

 * The sleep listings appear to be all over the place (there's a $95 hotel in the Splurge section, and I've found prices much lower than the ones quoted for some hotels). And I'm still not sure we want hotels as far as 5 miles away in the airport article. Powers (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 * OK so it looks like there are outstanding objections that haven't been addressed. This goes to the Slush pile for now. — Ravikiran (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:O'Hare International Airport


text:
Talk:Oahu

So, I'm pretty much dumb when it comes to Hawaii, but as far as I can tell, it's a smallish island. We've got a page started for Honolulu, and I'd think most of the restaurants/sights/hotels/etc. listed here should go to that page. Highlights should go here, of course, but the details should be in Honolulu. Unless, that is, the rest of the island is pretty much a suburb of Honolulu, so you can think of Oahu and Honolulu as identical. Any help, here? --(WT-en) Evan 13:57, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

Oahu != Honolulu. For example, The North Shore -- a popular tourist destination -- is definitely not part of Honolulu... I was thinking you could have a main Honolulu page, and then have several districts split out within Honolulu (highlighting places that have the most things to see / eat / play). You could highlight other areas of Oahu as a district of Oahu (e.g. Oahu/North Shore).

I think over time each of the pages that seem to be in danger of overlapping a lot (Hawaii/Oahu/Honolulu/Districts) will work themselves out. The Oahu page should be an overview of the island with links to the cities and districts within it. --(WT-en) Eureka 08:45, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Good! Let's do that. I refactored your region layout, by the way, to be more in the way we do things here. We tend to do flat lists, and have them point out to other lists. So, like, the United States of America has ~10 regions, and each of those has some states, and each state may have regions of its own, etc. We also "promote" things up the hierarchy if they're something everyone is going to be looking for, like New York in the USA. Anyways, I'm gonna start the other pages for a test. --(WT-en) Evan 10:15, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Oh, another thing: I wasn't sure if there's anyting on the South Shore besides Honolulu and environs, and I was pretty sure there's not anything in Central Oahu except Pearl City. If there is, let's add those as two more regions, and put Honolulu and Pearl City in there. Also, why doesn't Pearl City have a cool name like all the rest of the Hawaiian towns? --(WT-en) Evan 10:21, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

No. Central Oahu is Central Oahu -- Pearl City is on the edge -- so I'm going to change it to Central Oahu. --Eureka (timestamp)

Regions
Uh, it's been too long: what do you call the region between Diamond Head and Koko Head? Like for Kahala and Waialae and Hanauma Bay?

You call it... Kahala, Waialae, Hawai'i Kai etc. -Pat

Hawai'i Kai is probably what you are thinking.-Abnvette

Sleep section
Since Oahu has subregions, all sleep listings belong at least at that level, but only if there are no city articles to put them in. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:36, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Southern Oahu
Given that Southern Oahu is basically nothing but Honolulu, can we just redirect it into Honolulu? It's not doing much use as it's own page. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:52, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * Are there really no suburbs or outlying towns? If Honolulu really does occupy the entire region then changing the regional structure and creating a redirect makes sense, otherwise renaming "Southern Oahu" to something like "Greater Honolulu" (similar to Greater Phoenix and Greater Cleveland) might make more sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:49, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * Honolulu does have suburbs, but they all fall in (if using our Oahu districts map as the example) Central or Leeward Oahu - Southern Oahu, as defined by our map, is just Honolulu proper. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 16:57, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * In that case getting rid of the duplicate article seems like it makes sense. +1 from me. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:10, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * +Me too. It looks from the map that the boundaries of Southern Oahu and Honolulu basically are the same. On this topic, is there a reason why we don't have cities and ODs sections for this article? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:29, 19 February 2010 (EST)

 * Done and done. It seems like there is no good reason why there was no cities or ODs; going through the history, it looks like the article was just created that way. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:12, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Base-only bus
It may be unfair to both readers and the base security staff to leave readers with the impression that they may provide inadequate signage, as if to get some yucks out of stranded fools who daily become huddled masses at the base security perimeter just bcz sailors (on leave) look a lot like avg tourists. Could the warning be made more specific? --Jerzy (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Uh, is it clear enuf that that was my suggestion was to specify the likely sources of ambiguity and how absolute the term "no way" [other than, presumably, finding a way to get inside their fence and thus arrested] to get back where you intended to be? --Jerzy (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * If you want to make a warning more specific, either just do it or post the current language and your proposed new language here, if you think there's any likelihood your changes could be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Point Panic, Bodysurfing
I heard that Point Panic has a beach that is reserved entirely for bodysurfing. See, for example: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/5479040/new-rules-protect-bodysurfers-at-point-panic/ Is that policy still in place? Is it worth mentioning the location in the article? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The article for the entire island isn't normally a place for specific listings. I don't have time to look at the link now. Where in Oahu is Point Panic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The article doesn't even explain where it is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Oahu


text:
Talk:Oak Island

This seems to be a copyvio. Identical text at: I trashed a bunch of copyvio text. Someone who knows the area should probably rewrite it. (WT-en) Pashley 03:51, 14 November 2006 (EST)
 * http://realestateonoakisland.com/custom2.shtml
 * http://www.ncbeaches.com/BrunswickBeaches/OakIsland/

title: Talk:Oak Island


text:
Talk:Oakland

Having driven on the 580 over the actual repair several times in the last few days, I will try to remove the warning about the blown out road. xntj

"THERE!" Okay, Mark. Enough of my complaining you suggest? Good advice. Revise the article to reflect broader realities about Oakland? Another good bit of advice. So, I did. I added a rather prolix description as to the contrasts and contradictions of the city, which really doesn't give a locale by locale travelogue, but rather the contexts by which one can appreciate such places within the city. The next step requires adding in addresses, phone numbers, and Web sites of these following Oakland institutions and or attractions:

Hillside areas (Skyline, Montclair, etc.): Chabot Space and Science Center (largest observatory opened to the public); Joaquin Miller Park; Westminster Park; Shepard Canyon Park, Chabot Parklands, Oakland Zoo; Montclair Village restaurants of note: Italian Colors and Canvas

Lake Merritt area: Grand lake-grand avenue shopping district restaurants; Mezze's, Spettro

Piedmont Avenue (Restaurant Row): Bay Wolf (foodie fave and venerated contemporary of Berkeley's Chez Panisse); JoJo's (intimate bistro wins rave reviews)

Downtown/Old Oakland: Washington Inn, Verbana's, The Gingerbread House

Rockridge: Oliveto's, A Côté, Le Citron, Grasshopper

Jack London Sq/Loft district: Soizic; Yoshi's (premier Jazz club in the Bay Area, as well)

Oakland Symphony, Oakland Ballet; African-American Museum; Franklin Roosevelt yacht.

Hmm...there's a lot "There"...

A. Mason

I, too, was disappointed by the disparging, condescending, and not a little bit racist undercurrents of the article about Oakland. The writer claims, "I don't like making the point that high black population = high crime," but then goes on to describe a city that is utterly inferior to San Francisco in charm and economically depressed in contrast to San Jose. And, oh, by the way, Oakland has a large Black population. Even the commentary concerning Oakland's affluent areas referred to the beautiful neighborhoods of upper Rockridge and Montclair as but a "tinderbox" ---which begs the question: is San Francisco then but a "faultline?" I found that racial biases tainted the article. I do not charge that the author is openly or consciously racist, by any means, but the glaring condescension, selectivity of references regarding the African-American community, and his/her appallingly biased comparisons of Oakland with San Francisco and San Jose indicate clear, if unacknowledged leanings on the part of the author, of which I believe at least some are rooted in some racially constructed concepts common in American society.

Let me present the evidence: No doubt Oakland has real problems, but the city's Black population is not all marginalized and poor (or party to the city's "staggering" murder rate), not by any means. For example, Wiki Travel readers would have appreciated learning about the late Robert Maynard, the African-American publisher and owner of the  Oakland Tribune. During the 1980s and 1990s before his death to cancer, Maynard took a moribound journal and made it a pulitzer-prize winning newspaper, despite its financial struggles. The Oakland Tribune exists to this day as the major journal of record for the entire East Bay. And what of former Yale professor of literature and playright Ismeel Reed? The article's author mentions not a word. The actual case is that Oakland's African-American community has given much more to American culture than just "West Coast Rappers." Of this, the author says nothing.

Might I suggest the original author read very carefully "American Babylon: Race and the Stuggle for Post-War Oakland," or "Suburban Warriors: Origins of the New American Right," both of which give a detailed, social, economic, and historical analysis as to the origins of Oakland's urban problems (and for that matter, "booming" San Jose's "success"). Might this reader also suggest that the author also spend time in the Oakland retail neighborhoods of Piedmont Avenue, Rockridge, and Montclair Village. I suggest the original author visit such noted Oakland restaurants as the Bay Wolf, JoJo's, Le Citron, A Côté,and Canvas, all of which more than hold their own against their San Francisco and Berkeley counterparts; I propose said author take a walk through the residential neighborhoods of Rockridge, upper Rockridge, Montclair, upper Montclair, Oakmore, Redwood Heights, Skyline, Ridgemont, Crocker Highlands, and Haddon Hill. These areas boast gracious old homes, new and stunningly eccentric architectural experiments, many of which reach well over the million-dollar price tag. But what would capture the discerning observer's eye is that these affluent neighborhoods have a more ethnically diverse group of residents than one will find in these neighborhoods' counterparts in Piedmont or "charming" San Francisco and "booming" San Jose, for that matter. One can find considerable charm in the up and coming Laurel, Temescal, and Dimond, as well.

To sum up the affluent and relatively diverse hillside neighborhoods of Oakland as merely an "affluent tinderbox" not only denies the graciousness and diversity of these areas, but also reveals the author's clear bias. Again, I dont see him or her referring to San Francisco's affluent areas as "the affluent faultline," or San Jose's as "affluent souless sprawl." Language has power, but it not only conveys impressions of a place, people, and event, it also invariably reveals something of the author as well.

What is extraordinary to this reader is that Oakland, for all of its real problems, including high crime and poverty, has undergone renewal, population growth, and skyrocketing housing prices, all of which indicate a real Renaissance, a reversal of the "White flight" of the 1950s through the 1970s. The city boasts a rising rate of interracial marriage as well, far ahead of the rest of the nation. That is Oakland's story as well as its "real" urban problems. By contrast, I would note forcefully that San Francisco relegates a large segment of its poor African-American community to the hinterland of Hunter's Point, and San Jose's and Silicon Valley's gleaming "high-tech campuses" mean little to  the area's disaffected and disenfranchised Hispanic communities. "Do you know the way to San Jose," indeed. San Francisco and San Jose certainly have their share of "real" problems, but their larger dominant populations can literally afford either to isolate its "problem," on the one hand to the hinterland as San Francisco does, or ignore it altogether, as does San Jose. One suspects that Oakland, that proverbial "Other" of Bay Area cities, serves a useful purpose; it is the place upon which surrounding populations of supposedly "progressive" San Francisco (and Berkeley, for that matter) and "high-tech" San Jose can project their own fears, perceptions, and prejudices, without having to address any of their own issues––and similar problems.

Happily, the offending article has been edited, giving it more nuance and a great deal more accuracy. And I am glad that the edited article addresses the racial component, not only in regards to media and popular perceptions, but in the very article in question. Oakland deserves a more nuanced and factual account. So do Wiki travelers.

For the record, I'm "White," and I live in Manhattan, New York. However, I have lived and worked in both San Francisco and Oakland, California. The updated article about Oakland, California, reflects a more honest appraisal of the city, and certainly seems closer to the Oakland that I know, respect, and truth be told, have grown to love.

A.Mason

 * Hi A. I'm glad you've taken an interest in the Oakland article.  Please Plunge forward and fix it.  -- (WT-en) Mark 11:22, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)

I was taken aback by the extremely disparaging tone of this article. It needs some extensive rewriting, which I'll hopefully have time to contribute to in the near future. (WT-en) Aezram 13:55, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

I had a hard time describing Oakland's African-American culture. I don't like making the point that high black population -> high crime, but the plain fact is that there's a lot of poverty in Oakland, that race has something to do with that, and that there's consequent crime. I don't think it would be fair to travelers to gloss over this. I'd appreciate if someone could clean up my prose, though. -- (WT-en) Evan 15:14, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

TODO

 * Add The Mormon Temple in the "to see" section.
 * Add Lake Merrit and the bird sanctuary here
 * Add "The Crucible"
 * Add the ferry service to the "Get In" section.

 * Standard formatting has been implemented, as well as some listing clean up, so I've deleted the style warnings. There is a TC Transit fee that currently states "$0," so if anyone knows the fee, pls add. Also, the article is in dire need of a nice intro pic.(WT-en) Zepppep 14:03, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Author, were you a crime victim in Oakland?
While most of the articles in Wiki travel are amusing and informative, this one seems to accentuate the downsides of Oakland. Other far more crime-ridden cities are written about glowingly with crime as a mere afterthought. Check various crime rankings such as by Morgan Quitno and you will see that Oakland is not among the top 20 crime-ridden cities nationwide whereas other California cities are. Articles about problem-plagued cities such as Baltimore do not have their urban ills as the dominant theme.

You do mention the bright spots of Oakland, albeit in apologetic fashion. Why not reduce the San Francisco biased commentary? Otherwise, you should warn readers about the skyrocketing murders in San Francisco (90 and counting this year). Perhaps, the opening line on San Jose should read "Despite the stagnant local economy and high unemployment rate since the tech bust, ..."

You have achieved a good mix of fact and commentary in the vast majority of travel articles. Oakland is an unfortunate exception. Many people such as myself have lived in both San Francisco and Oakland, but choose to live in Oakland because of the superior weather, fantastic views and wonderful neighborhoods. I'm sure you have noticed that since 2001, real estate appreciation in Oakland has far outstripped that of San Francisco and San Jose.

Emphasize the attributes of Oakland in unapologetic fashion with crime discussed in the body of the article as done for every other city. If you were the victim of crime in Oakland, you have my sympathies. Please don't express this in the tone of your article.

Regards,

GC

 * If you dislike the way something is written, please plunge forward and edit it. Articles on this site are always a work-in-progress, and we very much want those who have additional information or differing points of view to add them. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:29, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I'll second that. I guess I was a bit terse with the earlier invitation to  plunge forward, but believe me: I'm being sincere.  I feel I just don't know nearly enough about Oakland to contribute even to the revision of the article.  Please any of you who have problems with it, feel free to do a re-write.  Thanks for your time. -- (WT-en) Mark 16:12, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)

Revisions made
Mark and Ryan,

Thanks for your openness. I have given the article a more upbeat tone and updated information throughout. My hope is that on summer days when fog has blanketed the otherwise lovely streets of San Francisco with an arctic chill, visitors may find opportunity to seek the warm and sunny confines of Oakland (I know I do) ...

GC

 * Cool! Thanks for doing the re-write.

 * Now... what I'd really like to see is some further coverage of some of the cool bars in Oakland as well as the neighborhoods. Eventually I'd like to see this article take the Project:Big city form.  GC, would you like to take it on? -- (WT-en) Mark 14:58, 5 Dec 2005 (EST)

Will do
Mark,

I'd be happy to update those areas and convert to the Big City form when needed.

GC

The "Understand" section
...needs to be cleaned up! The information ought to be organized and/or summarized. In-depth info of Oakland's history would be better placed in Oakland's Wikipedia article, which could be linked from this site if readers would like more information.

Should I try to begin this task?

(WT-en) Bloody rox 17:37, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Plunge forward! I agree that this section is way too involved, and if you can summarize the information that's relevant for the typical traveler to better understand Oakland, that'd be great. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:11, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

Too Much!!
The article is far far far to wordy - every large city is a "complex city of striking contrasts", infact many tourist boards use this as a marketting term (which is where I think this may have originated from) - this site is meant to enable travellers to get quick info and gain useful knowledge from entries, not encyclopedic knowledge!

This article would be great in another site, but is way to long for wikivoyage - it's just not fit-for-purpose

I have therefore made the bold step in chopping out most of the understand text - instead I suggest someone with more knowledge adds briefly to the neighbourhoods listings and expands here accordingly. Apologies - but compare this to other major cities and you will find it is far too long.

I also felt adding that it is recognised officially as the most ethnically diverse cities is far more informative using census data (pillaged from wikipedia!) - I certainly found it interesting that 150 languages are spoken and I felt that reflecting this in listing some if the annual events would empasise this.

Another suggestion would be perhaps a brief history section?

Also I suggest adding a section on the various annual events - as a visitor this information would interest me most, and certainly act as a draw.

Huge apologies again for any offense caused - I think it needed doing though

Apparent contradiction
I have a small complaint: The Stay Safe section emphasizes that Flats should be avoided "at all times," yet the Fruitvale district is raved about earlier in the article. I don't think I have to emphasize to anyone that Fruitvale is smack dab in the middle of the flatlands, and is relatively safe during the day. I'm a small white teenager who lives in the area and has never had any problems. I'm not denying that there aren't any, but painting everywhere in the flats as some kind of No-Go zone is just ig'nant. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.135.106.68 (talk • contribs)

 * Please plunge forward and improve the article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:11, 21 February 2010 (EST)

 * The Stay Safe section really sticks out, and smells of a lot of media hype about the city. I don't see that it really adds anything, and in fact detracts from the article tremendously, IMO. I've lived there for six years, and in the region for nearly 40. The city has some very rough spots, but what metropolis doesn't? It's a scare tactic. L. Challenger (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 * As Peter said above: plunge forward and improve the article! What is accomplished by complaining about something you could easily edit? You have more knowledge about what you know to be wrong with the article than anyone else reading this is likely to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I didn't know I had that much freedom here! I am used to documenting, discussing and then moving on with an edit - therefore, I will simply remove that section. L. Challenger (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, but eliminating the section is quite excessive. "Stay safe" is a standard subsection, and Oakland does have some safety issues. I will reinstate the section and make some general remarks as a placeholder. Let's discuss what is fair to put in the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Actually, the general remarks that are there look pretty fair, and they're accurate. The underlying issue for me is the concept of a "safe city" - it's been my experience that there's always parts of a city that are not all that safe, no matter where the city is. It really ticked me off to see that thing in its original state, probably influencing my decision to zap it more than it should. The reality of it is, there are parts of town that are dominantly residential and poor, making them unwise destinations for random tourists. I am planning to take the time and make sure these neighborhoods in particular are flagged as such - if you head there, mind your manners, and keep your wits about you, that sort of thing. L. Challenger (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I'll look for your edits. Let's be honest, though: A city like New York or even nearby cities like SF and Berkeley are less generally dicey than Oakland, aren't they? And I say that as someone who's stayed in West Oakland several times and never (yet, anyway!) been involved in any incident, and I've taken 10-to-15-minute walks back from the West Oakland BART stop quite a number of times after midnight. But I also know someone who was held up at gunpoint after parking on a side street near that station, and from what I understand (though you'd be in a position to correct any out-of-date knowledge on my part), crime seems to be a somewhat intractable problem to date in Oakland. I'd never discourage anyone from visiting or staying in Oakland and kind of look forward to whenever the next time is that I'll do it, but I don't think we want to whitewash the crime problem, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 * West Oakland's one of the rougher spots - but Fruitvale's a lot worse, despite the city in its infinite wisdom deciding to stick a very trendy little structure slap in the middle of it. There are places all over International that are *very* ghetto - block to block, street to street, it really varies. I'm not remotely saying that crime doesn't happen or that it should be whitewashed, by any means. I am saying that it's not one big citywide charlie foxtrot. Heh. L. Challenger (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I haven't hung out in Fruitvale, but we agree on your general point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictures
Can we add more pictures to this article as this being a large city yet it has very few pictures —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Ralphzztop (talk • contribs)

 * Please plunge forward! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Lake Merritt?
How can a travel article about Oakland completely neglect one of the city's biggest attractions? (except as a reference for locating a few other places)173.161.21.11 06:06, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Pleae go ahead and write about it.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:47, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Actually, I went ahead and added it up top, including the city's own info page on it, and how to get there. L. Challenger (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on online resources
I moved this from the Oakland article because per xl, there should be no external links section of any guide, but some of these links might be useful. I move the Oakland Public Library listing to "Do," but I think they should also have a listing in "Contact," because you can use their computer terminals. I'd love it if a knowledgeable person would insert that information into the "Contact" section. What do we do with Oakland Wiki? Should we link it somewhere in the article?

Online Resources
Oakland is home to numerous Oakland-centric online resource that can give you a feel for what is currently happening in the city. (This list is non-exhaustive--please contribute!)
 * Our Oakland: This blog is an active repository of upcoming public events.
 * Oakland Tribune: A major newspaper based in Oakland.
 * The newspaper includes a weekly local history column researched and written by Annalee Allen.
 * Oakland Wiki: Oakland has it's own hyperlocal wiki that residents contribute to. Topics include local history and neighborhood highlights.
 * Oakland North: This hyperlocal newspaper is based out of North Oakland, and is contributed to by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
 * Oakland Public Library: The Oakland Public Library hosts numerous public events that make use of their facilities and vast resources.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Neighborhoods
Upon looking at the neighborhoods listed for Eat, I am cringing, especially at the description of Fruitvale, which looks like something from a travel agency. The reality is, Fruitvale, West Oakland and arguably East Oakland are places that are not merely not for tourists, but are among the roughest parts of town. There are also neighborhoods simply not listed there, like Lake Merritt, not just Grand Lake, which is one part of it, and also Lakeshore which is nearby. Jack London is another space that deserves mention in a couple of places. I plan on adding these places one by one, descriptions and such, of course, but I thought it also merited discussion, especially dealing with the issue I opened with. L. Challenger (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and change the description of Fruitvale if you feel it's not accurate. I think it's fine to list places to eat in rough neighborhoods, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Legendary Palace
I am considering adding an image for Legendary Palace - it's an edifice that really represents Oakland Chinatown, and has even been used to that end by Wikipedia, for example. I am also mindful of the policies on adding images to WV articles, and would appreciate a second opinion before I do this. L. Challenger (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. It's an iconic image. If you're concerned about it being a business image, you can identify something like this: "an iconic building in Chinatown." But I don't think mentioning the name of the restaurant is a problem at all in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

1997 Census?
From "Understand": "According to the 1997 Census, Oakland is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United States..." What 1997 Census? Censuses are only decennial in the US: 2000, 2010, 2020, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is pretty dubious. I will look into the 2000 and 2010 census numbers to see if this is actually true or just a big bucket of hogwash :) L. Challenger (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks for making this a great article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2010 Census' numbers are pretty easy to find - and I don't know about it being the most diverse city or anything that abstract, but the mixture is a very wide one, according to their numbers. And! Thanks - I wanna do my best to make this page look enticing and be actually helpful to anyone that wants to visit! :-D

(From the 2010 census and American FactFinder at http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/10_DP/DPDP1/1600000US0653000 )

RACE

Total population	390,724	100.0

One Race	368,847	94.4

White	134,925	34.5

Black or African American	109,471	28.0

American Indian and Alaska Native	3,040	0.8

Asian	65,811	16.8

Asian Indian	2,114	0.5

Chinese	34,083	8.7

Filipino	6,070	1.6

Japanese	2,031	0.5

Korean	2,446	0.6

Vietnamese	8,766	2.2

Other Asian [1]	10,301	2.6

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	2,222	0.6

Native Hawaiian	168	0.0

Guamanian or Chamorro	142	0.0

Samoan	238	0.1

Other Pacific Islander [2]	1,674	0.4

Some Other Race	53,378	13.7

Two or More Races	21,877	5.6

White; American Indian and Alaska Native [3]	1,598	0.4

White; Asian [3]	4,574	1.2

White; Black or African American [3]	3,750	1.0

White; Some Other Race [3]	3,690	0.9

L. Challenger (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See section
I am planning to Plunge Forward with this section - I know this city's got better sights than just an old railway station and an early 20th century yacht. The Mormon Temple is among the sights that needs to be added. I am also not sure that Sixteenth Street Station is even accessible to the public any longer, will have to check. L. Challenger (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been doing a fantastic job with this article! I look forward to the new content you'll put in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Doing my best - got a 19th century mansion and an aerial view from behind the Mormon Temple there now, and I've still got a thing or three to add there. L. Challenger (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been helping out too :) Thanks Challenger. I'm doing mainly food/booze, and will be adding an Uptown section for the food/booze sections. SarahStierch (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Get In needs work
To be perfectly frank about it, the section for Get In is a mess - repetition, services in the wrong sections, not much organization going on there. My first thought is to collate the mess - air services are easy, since there's the one big airport, train service for Amtrak and BART, then AC Transit and shuttle services and the like under By bus, and so on. I plan on plunging forward, of course, but I thought it important and helpful to actually keep running notes on the creative process I have for the article, and to welcome feedback. L. Challenger (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, cleaned it up quite a bit today... It was bugging me. L. Challenger (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Future plans
Alright, I know I'm the chatterbox of the moment - so I will ask - do we want to keep Oakland as a Guide - or do we want to really climb the hill, break things up, build them up, do neighborhoods, map, the whole nine yards? I don't think it will be easy, there's a lot of data and discussion that will need to happen. And I really want feedback on this idea. L. Challenger (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great question. While not all neighborhoods need a guide, there are benefits of really building it out, just a few thoughts:
 * We can build out neighborhoods we know that really shine, and make it also a functional guide for those of us who live here - Piedmont Ave (my hood!), Downtown, Uptown, the Hills, North Oakland/Rockridge, Temescal, JLS, etc, these are areas that we really could build on if we wanted to and really make great functional guides.
 * A map would be really great, including common transportation routes perhaps
 * What else are you thinking about? SarahStierch (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you hit the exact points I was thinking of - making neighborhood pages and building them into at least guides. I cannot fault your choice of neighborhoods, either - Though the main page lists Fruitvale, East Oakland and West Oakland, I really don't remotely think of any of them as being very tourist-friendly at all. And the other big thing on my mind is a map - one that does show the prospective visitor just where all the neighborhoods are. Ultimately, I want the city of Oakland to have the very best Wikivoyage page we can possibly manage. L. Challenger (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For dividing up cities, we require a more planned approach than on, say, Wikipedia--we'll need a comprehensive districts breakdown. Districts often amalgamate various neighborhoods (see Chicago or Kyoto for good examples). The scheme must leave no gaps and contain no overlap. A principal goal in the division is to wind up with districts that support good articles (see Chicago/Loop or Chicago/Southwest Side for good examples of complete, star district guides). Oakland is pretty small, relatively speaking, so I think it would be OK to leave it as is (other star guides that we chose to not split up include Hiroshima and Ann Arbor), but certainly wouldn't want to discourage you if you are ready to really build up the content. It's best to aim for less districts rather than more, but it's not necessary to force things. Anyway, I don't know a thing about the city, but would be quite happy to help with a map once boundaries are defined. --Peter Talk 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles you supplied, comparing them - it begs the question - is there enough in each of these districts to merit a complete guide? Downtown, Rockridge, Piedmont Ave (My neck of the woods too), and so on - there are a lot of shops and pleasant atmosphere, but a District article is practically an entire city guide unto itself. Sure, if we combined Rockridge, Piedmont Ave, Temescal and Rockridge into one big North Oakland district, sure, we could do it. But, the more I look at this, I think something more like was done with Ann Arbor, each of these neighborhoods being illustrated as destinations rather than entire articles. It certainly would not take too much to reorganize Eat by price range, certainly. And thank you, Peter and Sarah, very much indeed - glad I am not the only oen chattering on about this city. L. Challenger (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization Station
I am going to change the way the data on the page is organized, without removing anything - starting with Eat, then See and Do. I have gathered all of the existing restaurant listings (Including checking their information and URLs and such whenever possible; glad I did, caught a closed restaurant and removed it) and organized them by price. I am going to use the information about the neighborhoods under a completely new section - Neighborhoods, similar to the one San Francisco has, since it seems very appropriate, as Oakland is very much the same way, though not nearly so populous. If I got the pricerange wrong for any restaurant, I apologize in advance - there are a LOT of them, and I did my best, but I'm no more immune to mistakes than anyone else. L. Challenger (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Next, I want to tackle the Buy section, separating by type of store - wanting to emphasize music stores since there are a lot of them, but the trouble is, my experience of music stores in Oakland is very limited - I admit, when I look for music, I am either in Berkeley, San Francisco or poking around Amazon.com. Also - for the Neighborhoods - I am not sure how to add East or West Oakland there, or if I should, since tourist attractions there are pretty limited, and South Oakland is dominantly residential. As always, I welcome feedback and suggestions. L. Challenger (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * If a neighborhood doesn't have many tourist attractions, it's OK to just describe it as a residential district that has limited tourist attractions. West Oakland, though, does have some nice old houses, so that could be mentioned. In terms of your question about "Buy," I think it's quite alright that you don't know absolutely everything about your city! You can always create the subsections and leave more detail work for someone else to do later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Alright, I have things about how they look the best organized for Buy and Eat and Drink, though a couple of areas are ones I don't have a lot of experience with - I know there are a lot of teahouses and coffeeshops in Oakland, but I've only been to a specific few. Also - for Buy, I have a section for Art and Gifts - this is a category that's completely outside of my experience, but I thought would be good to have. Next, I come to Sleep. The list of hotels there is a short one, and I'll do my best to arrange it and add the handful that I know of firsthand, but the section looks like it may wind up a modest one by comparison. And once more into See - I would love more attractions listed there, and I have some vague ideas about how to reorganize it, but I am of a mind that it needs to be a bit longer than it is before that. L. Challenger (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am planning on reorganizing the Understand section, as well as Get In and Get Around - I think I may integrate the Neighborhoods section with Understand, and expand it so we really get a look at the city, and a nice broad one. I am thinking about just dropping the Art and Gifts section of Buy... since I haven't got a clue what would even go in there. Heh. Also going to really go into just how much the arts are a part of Oakland's culture, be they performing or graphic or otherwise, nightclubs, theaters, Djs, music, history - I think all should mesh nicely. And as always! Feedback feedback feedback! :-) L. Challenger (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

MOCHA
Note that MOCHA is going to be moving later this year (2013) so that the address will need to be corrected once the move is completed. L. Challenger (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated the address - the move began back on May 18 L. Challenger (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cinco de Mayo
This used to be an absolutely huge event associated with Fruitvale - allegedly the largest in northern California, but it's fallen on hard financial times and has been canceled every year since 2011. I hope hope HOPE that it does return, since a listing about cultural diversity in Oakland IMHO is incomplete without it, to say the least. L. Challenger (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Resources/Stay Safe
So, apparently, we now have this gigantic pile of information added by a new editor, concerning crime and criminal statistics in Oakland, all from one source, all just sort of splattered over the Stay Safe section. I am very dubious about its inclusion. L. Challenger (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Reverted it - it's not the first time I've seen someone try to splash that sort of stuff on Oakland's page, either. L. Challenger (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Zachary's
It previously said "No one will dispute that Zachary's has the best ...". This is flatly false: I am an example of such a person. I toned down the language to something that may be accurate; I'd recommend someone with more word savvy tweeking it.

 * I changed the listing for Zachary's, made it considerably less ad-like. L. Challenger (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Eat Section
I am considering re-grouping the restaurants by neighborhood - since there really are a LOT of listings there, and filling out stuff that is in different neighborhoods would not be very difficult. L. Challenger (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but keep the price categories clear, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely - Going to be organizing them by location, and also by budget level. L. Challenger (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to combine the listings for Grand Lake and Lakeshore - they're side by side neighborhoods L. Challenger (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"The city was rated by Rand McNally as having the best weather in the country."
"The city was rated by Rand McNally as having the best weather in the country." has a prominent place in the introduction. To an non-American such as myself it means nothing. To an American, does it still make any sense? (This appears to be a technology company). Even if the weather is awesome to someone, I'm sure it isn't objectively the best. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 * I might just go ahead and remove - going once... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Who or what is Rand McNally? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Not sure. In any case I think it got in there as a joke, so I'll remove. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Get Around
I am doing some modifications to this section, planning to expand to include a little about the freeways that are in-town (done), as well as car and ride sharing services alike. It will take some time, since it requires a little bit of inquiry and research, and making sure all of the info's up to date. L. Challenger (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Implemented. L. Challenger (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I-580 and I-880 are the main interstates in the area, with I-880 close to the San Francisco Bay and I-580 a little farther inland. Is that information in the article now? --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 02:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I've done some work, but really needs to happen is a significant shortening of the Understand section. I'll get to work on that at some point when I can. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 02:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Next. I am going to add a bit concerning bike sharing. Ford in particular has several stations throughout the city - I'm not 100% sure where to add it, but it may be it's own header, something like By Bike, and a note concerning the various tracked bike shops as well, since they're already listed. L. Challenger (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea to me—it looks like it can go in Oakland. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Added. There's really not much for choices for bike sharing in Oakland just yet, but what I know of and could find out, I shared - GoBike's really REALLY limited in what you can do with their bikes, that said. L. Challenger (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I am considering adding a note concerning traffic information available to the public for Oakland, though the range of it extends far beyond the city - 511 and the associated website and services through it. It can be a single header under Get Around or just a sentence or two added to the lead for that section. Not sure yet. L. Challenger (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Districtify?
Should this article be districtified? --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 14:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggestion's come up a few times - the trouble is, if you do it like say San Francisco, you risk ending up with a bunch of small articles with minimal information. There are some that are definitely well-rounded enough for a full district article, like Lakeshore/Grand Lake and Uptown and West Oakland - but places like Adams Point and Piedmont Ave are smaller by comparison, though each has their own identity. I found it a tough call the first time the idea was mentioned, all the way back in 2013. L. Challenger (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

BSK and Bocanova
These are two restaurants that are currently on hiatus until their new location is built - Brown Sugar Kitchen from West Oakland and Bocanova from Jack London Square - I'll be keeping an eye open for news, since they're supposed to move in sometime in coming months. L. Challenger (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As of this writing, there has been no update whatsoever on Bocanova - the new location for Brown Sugar Kitchen has been under construction for over a year. L. Challenger (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bocanova seems to have folded permanently. BSK's new location looks nearly finished. L. Challenger (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As of this writing, BSK folded back in 2022, Bocanova's open for business. L. Challenger (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Piedmont
Listing for Piedmont, CA is going to wind up redirected here, to Oakland - there simply isn't enough there for it to merit its own page. L. Challenger (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden State Warriors
Come the 2019 season, the Warriors are moving to Chase Arena in San Francisco - the move will mean moving their listing from here to there, of course. L. Challenger (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Raiders
With the planned departure of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas, that will mean an element transplant as it was with the Warriors - but the Recreation/Film section's going to need to be reorganized, since the Raiders have a standalone section and pic. It also doesn't help matters that the team (as of this writing) is in legal limbo for the 2019 season. L. Challenger (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A recent report says that the Raiders are going to spend the 2019 season in San Francisco? I am going to wait for confirmation before moving things around - the situation with Oakland, the Raiders and the NFL is downright bizarre. L. Challenger (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the best thing to do, currently. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * San Francisco is a no-go. The most recent talks have been between a joint movement from Tucson, AZ and Birmingham, AL. The bizarre continues. L. Challenger (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's possible that they won't find a place at all in the end? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it really wouldn't surprise me at all. L. Challenger (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Probably, then, it just makes sense to wait until some sort of decision is made (or, at least, something happens). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, as of yesterday afternoon - there is a deal on the table between Oakland and the Raiders for 2019, with the option to continue into 2020 if the new stadium isn't finished this year. It looks like the lunacy's nearing its end at last. L. Challenger (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Parks and Websites
The City of Oakland used to maintain pages with information concerning many of the parks and parks with event spaces, particularly Redwood Regional and Morcom Rose Garden, but the information appears to have been removed and the domains associated with that particular service simplified and centralized. I will dig into what I can find, to see if any or all information can be updated, or if it's all just going to get deleted. L. Challenger (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of Redwood Regional Park, I think the East Bay Regional Parks District should have a website for them. Yes, try the Redwood Regional Park page on the EBRPD website. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated - thanks for the assist! L. Challenger (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure; any EBRPD park has a website under the East Bay Parks web domain. See also the full list of their parks and links to information. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Of religious sites and locations
Thus far, I've avoided the inclusion of any of Oakland's various and often-amazing religious institutions with the exception of the Mormon Temple - specifically because to list them all would add an entire new list and category for its own sake. I had the Temple listed originally because it was just as much a public park as a place of worship. It also commands one of the most breathtaking views in the entire East Bay, along the lines of the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, for similar reasons, and the photograph available from there on Wikimedia seemed too pretty to avoid. L. Challenger (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Decoding the intro
The current intro is written in terms that Americans may understand, but others will not. "Visitors to the city notice that Oakland reflects its diversity" -- can't we just say that Oakland is historically more black and noticeably poorer than SF? Jpatokal (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 * When I was in Oakland early this year, I was confused what that meant (though I was only there for a few hours). Feel free to go ahead and change the wording. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Diversity" is not a code word for "Black" (or "poor") here – per census results, Oakland is genuinely racially diverse. And according to one analysis it is among the most culturally diverse cities in the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, Oakland is a famous city for Black history, which probably merits mention in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * San Francisco is also quite diverse, but the difference is that SF is 5% black (and 34% Asian), while Oakland is 23.8% (43.9% as recently as 1990) and 16.1% respectively. So when comparing the two, what stands out is Oakland's black population & heritage. Jpatokal (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics
According to many reliable news sources, Oakland is losing yet another professional sports team to Las Vegas. Their lease is apparently up at the end of 2024 - and current projections have them actually playing in LV by 2028, so it's something to be mindful of, in the long term. L. Challenger (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oakland


text:
Talk:Oakley

I think this is our 12,000th article. --(WT-en) Evan 11:44, 17 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Oakley


text:
Talk:Oakville (Ontario)

Any ideas as to how long the commute to toronto is during the rush hour (both ways). Also, any ideas how the drive to toronto is on the weekend (i.e., non-work day)? Finally, any idea how long the commute would be to Burlington during the week/rush hour. I know you can mapquest or google map the times, but I am looking for rush hour times and weekend information specifically....

title: Talk:Oakville (Ontario)


text:
Talk:Oatley

A discussion of climate is out of place here. The climate is not significantly different enough from the rest of Sydney to warrant a separate discussion for this suburb. Anybody disagree?--(WT-en) Inas 18:25, 11 January 2007 (EST) We should target making the Sydney area as good as the Chicago area. This article should be a redicect to the region. I will start to relocate any useful information here, with a view to redirecting this. --(WT-en) Inas 00:25, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Oatley


text:
Talk:Oaxaca (city)

The original content of this page was:
 * Buy the chocolate

But should that go into Buy or Eat or should it not be mentioned? -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:54, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

Under "Eat", someone should put El Mirador - good food, good service, good prices. I can't remember the name of the highway it's on, however.

Safety
What is the current public/tourist safety situation?

title: Talk:Oaxaca (city)


text:
Talk:Obama

Hooray for Obama
I wonder if there is anything to see here... (WT-en) Texugo 01:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

 * I believe the Yes We Can Did Cafe over on Biden street is quite tasty... nowhere to sleep though, the only hotel is currently undergoing a Palinectomy– (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * イエス・ウイー・キャン！　イエス・ウイー・キャン！　(WT-en) Texugo 02:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

 * Toooootally – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:50, 20 November 2008 (EST)

 * Wait, what? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:50, 20 November 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Obama


text:
Talk:Oberlin

I removed this link from the page, but it might be useful for doing some research: http://www.lanierbb.com/oberlin-ohio-bed-breakfast.html. --(WT-en) Evan 07:55, 7 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Oberlin


text:
Talk:Obihiro

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Listing buses and car rental agencies

 * Just listing a place name and phone number is better than nothing, but if possible, it would be better to have a more detailed description of each place. That way, people can actually find the places. --(WT-en) Orcrist 03:14, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Obihiro in addresses
The word Obihiro appears in many addresses. This is necessary because of the address system - not as bad as New York, New York! - which is ambiguous if the city name is left out. Not all the addresses given are in the city. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 06:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * The addresses are not ambigious, because this article is called "Obihiro". The town name only needs to be listed if the place is not in Obihiro. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:49, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Obviously I hope you will respect my view on this. After all I live here. If you remove 'Obihiro" from the address then it will be necessary to append most of the entries with a sentence saying This place is in the centre of the city or That place is outside the city. This might not be necessary for Hoboken, New Jersey, but the Japanese address system is not one that is immediately intelligible to the foreign visitor. It's not one that is 'readable'. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 09:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Sorry, I genuinely don't understand the issue here. Virtually all listings already seem to be in 帯広市, and the one that is 30 min away by car is already listed as such. And yes, you should provide directions of how to get there ("across the street from the railway station", etc), although obviously the ideal would be to draw a map. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Very few people understand non-linear Japanese addresses so you aren't the only one. Directions and maps are indeed a good idea. Please don't hesitate to make any practical suggestions about improving the formatting of this article! Regards. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 01:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I've lived in Japan for four years and wrote most of the Wikipedia article on Japanese addresses, so I'd like to think I do understand them a bit. ;) The issue isn't that, though, but whether we need to repeat the word "Obihiro" for every single listing in Obihiro, and be it Japanese, American or Martian addressing, I don't think it adds any value to the traveller. If they're in Obihiro, and they're looking at a map of Obihiro and a listing in the Obihiro article, what's the possibility of confusion? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:44, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * The article on the Japanese address system doesn't cover Hokkaido, . . . . This issue wouldn't come up for logistical reasons for, say, Tokyo. Obihiro people always include Obihiro (or not) in the address, because of the way that the (relatively small) city is laid out and the way it interacts with surrounding areas. That indicates that it isn't superfluous.

 * I see you also changed 'takes two and a half hours' into '2:30' - an extreme abreviation which would also be confusing for many people. Are abbreviations a special interest of yours? -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 05:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * As a matter of fact they are, because my current project is making printed guidebooks, where space matters more than it does online... But I see you've added "hours", which is good.

 * But please explain to me one more time why travelers need "Obihiro" in addresses, because this just isn't sinking into my dense, little skull. Are there cases where eg. "Nishi 13, Minami 9" could refer to two different places, one in Obihiro and the other nearby but not in Obihiro?  What is the potential for confusion if it's not listed?

 * OK, one more time then. Visitors cannot distinguish places with short addresses like Midorigaoka or Nishi 1, Minami 5, or Nakasatsunai or Memurocho. They won't know whether they are in town or out. Half addresses will not be intelligible. That's why full addresses are used here - by the Japanese. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 12:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * OK, now I understand — thanks for your perseverance. I still think, though, that for an article called Obihiro travellers will assume any listings are in Obihiro.  If it's not, then address should be glossed with directions/driving time to emphasize the fact. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:15, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * And as you were asking for formatting suggestions, one thing that would be Really Nice(tm) is using the listing tags instead ( etc, see the editing box) .  They're a little harder to deal with (at least until Evan gets the neat-o GUI editor up), but they ensure that formatting is purrfect. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree formatting could obviate some problems. It's not ideal at present. I tried to use the listing tags when I started but gave up on them. If you can give me some example code perhaps I can make it work? The other Hokkaido pages don't seem to be using any. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 12:18, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Hi Kleinzach, I commend you on your efforts in creating this article. It's looking really good. However, I fully agree with Jpatokal that we do not need the name of the town at the end of each address. If the attraction/accommodation etc is not in the downtown, then the name of the suburb will suffice. That is standard for all articles in Japan, and it has not caused any confusion so far. So, for the sake of standardization and maintaining harmony among editors, would you consider removing them? Please give it some thought. Thanks. I appreciate it. Incidentally, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Finally, did you ever sort out the article credit issue? Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 07:54, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

The short answer is no. Full addresses are essential in this article, otherwise it will not be clear which places are in the city and which are not. Full addresses would not be essential for many other places in Japan. Better formating - which would be a good thing anyway - could obviate this problem (possibly using tables) but at the moment I can't see how this can be done. I looked for templates when I started the page and couldn't find any. I'm open to any practical suggestions.

This page is an experiment - if it is a success I will develop it and start some other ones. As a Wikipedian I am used to the software, but I am concerned whether it is possible to work within existing WikiTravel style restrictions. On Wikipedia there are mechanisms for improving not just the articles but also editing practice. Is there a similar flexibility here? -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 11:46, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * My apologies, but I still don't understand. On all the Japanese articles the addresses do not contain the name of the town at the end of each line. Yet, it is totally clear where the attractions are located. Why is Obihiro different? If, as you say, the places are not in the city, then shouldn't they be on a different article? I guess the final the decision on this will come down to a consensus, and at the moment I admit that I am not convinced of the benefit adding the name of the town to the address. Sorry about that. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:03, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I'm sorry you didn't answer my question about flexibility, but I will answer yours about Obihiro.

 * You write "Why is Obihiro different? If, as you say, the places are not in the city, then shouldn't they be on a different article?" My answer: Obihiro is a small city in the middle of an important agricultural area called Tokachi. Tokachi deserves it's own article. What should be in the Obihiro article and what should be in the Tokachi article? This can only really be resolved after the Tokachi article has been written (if it is written) but I'd suggest the criteria should be practical and based on the needs of the visitor. For example it would be practical to include the airport in the Obihiro article rather than leave it to the Tokachi one. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 13:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Well, flexibility about policy and guideline changes at Wikivoyage depends fully on the persuasiveness of the argument for the proposed change. Unlike at Wikipedia, decisions about changes are made fully by consensus, rather than voting or any other mechanism. So, if you can convince just about everyone that a change makes sense, we will make it. But I must say, I don't think you have been very persuasive thus far on this particular issue—I too don't understand your rationale. Perhaps you could explain more fully what makes Obihiro exceptional? Or why perhaps all of Japan should constitute exceptions? The standard practice is to leave out city/town names in the addresses of listings and to include any other necessary (like the name of a nearby village) in the directions section of the listings template. So if a restaurant is somewhere else in Tokachi, but listed in this article, we normally would just note the name of the village in the directions="" section. This method has worked just fine (IMHO) for, well, just about every article I have seen, but I'm certainly open to arguments that Obihiro is an exception, I just remain to be persuaded ;) In any rate, I certainly do hope you stick around, because you are doing an excellent job! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:47, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Whoops, yes, sorry I did forget to answer your question about flexibility. Mea Culpa. However, Peter has done so, and in a more clear and succinct way that I would have done. Anyway, from what you state, I think that the name of the town could be left for the time being, but removed once the Tokachi article is written. What do you think? However, if the consensus flows in the direction of removing the name of the city on addresses for attractions within the city itself and instead using the name of villages as a means to distinguish the two, then that's fine with me too and I'll support that motion. As for the airport, if it basically serves Obihiro, then, yes, I agree. It should be in the Obihiro article. That is common for most places, especially large cities where the international airport is often out in boonies. Anyway, thanks for explanation. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:13, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Obihiro itself is out in the boonies. :P I've created Tokachi, but I think it's best to list the airport under Obihiro and just do a pointer from the region page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

 * In that case, maybe the name of airport should be changed to Inakapoi Kuku. Ha Ha. By the way, Jpatokal, how do you feel about leaving the name of the town in the addresses until the attractions in the outer villages are transfered to the Tokaichi aricle? I do not have a strong feeling either way, but it seems like a good temporary solution. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't like putting attractions in region pages, because they're unlikely to be found there. I still think the correct solution is to nuke the Obihiros and just make it very clear if something is not in town. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:12, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, I'd forgotten that Tokachi was a sub-prefecture. So, I rephrase my question. How do people feel about leaving the name of the town in the addresses until the attractions/accommodation in the outer towns/villages are transfered to the their appropriate articles? This would be a temporary solution only, and made clear that it is as such. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:04, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

I am no longer developing this article so I have deleted my earlier comments. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 05:14, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Once again I am deleting my own comments (nobody else's). (WT-en) Jpatokal should not revert them. They were not contributions to WikiTravel for publication. They were comments. -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 06:39, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't quite think you quite understand this Creative Commons thing. You agreed to license your comments under CC when you hit the "Save page" link, so they can be published by Wikivoyage, the New York Times, Myanmar's military junta, child molesters and, yes, even little old me, whether you like it or not.  We usually respect a user's wishes out of common courtesy, but a one-sided discussion without your side sounds rather strange, so I'm not going to agree to deleting it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Thank you, (WT-en) Jpatokal, for not pretending to respect common courtesy! Actually the Creative Commons 'thing' applies to article pages, not to talk ones - even if sites like these are badly set up and don't distinguish properly between between kinds of pages. Creative Commons shouldn't be used to deny users the right to edit their comments - or on occasion to delete them (which is form of editing).

 * Since I'm quitting WikiTravel and you're determined to haunt this page (and the rest of WikiTravel) like an evil incubus, there is little point in my re-removing my comments, however let me remind you: I have not given you, (WT-en) Jpatokal, or anybody else on WikiTravel, permission to reproduce any of my written work for commercial purposes -- (WT-en) Kleinzach 09:14, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

 * You're welcome. When you hit the Edit button on any page, article or talk, you were told in no uncertain terms that "All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0" and "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!".  So, yes, you have given that permission, and as you appear to have a history of thousands of edits on Wikipedia (whose content can also be used commercially), I'm a little surprised you're even claiming something to the contrary.

 * Incidentally, being called an "evil incubus" is kinda neat, but "servile spine-waddling trull with your tattle-footed bizzardry" still gets the top spot in my all-time top list of insults. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Obihiro


text:
Talk:Oświęcim

Oświęcim is 43,000 city, so I believe that redirecting it to Auschwitz article may be confusing. That's why I deleted redirect, and adding city template. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 23:05, 22 Jan 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Oświęcim


text:
Talk:Ocala National Forest

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
I found some official text from the "State of Florida." Products of Florida State Government are considered Public Domain. I preserved the original text in the initial page creation. Probably needs to be edited/reorganized. (WT-en) Gamweb 17:35, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Links
Some links as reference points:
 * http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/recreation/index_oca.shtml
 * http://www.ocalacc.com/ocala_florida/templates/tourism.aspx?articleid=19&zoneid=8
 * http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/crossflorida/trails/ocala_nat_forest.htm
 * http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/eastcentral/trails/ocala_nat_forest.htm
 * http://www.ocalamarion.com/ocala_national_forest.html

Images
Images for reference:
 * http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Category:Ocala_National_Forest
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ocala_National_Forest

title: Talk:Ocala National Forest


text:
Talk:Ocean city, nj

Ocean city, nj

 * Delete - destination already covered under Ocean City, no new/usable information here, article name does not follow naming convention, nothing linking here--(WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect - Redirects are cheap and search engines like them. Combine info to Ocean City and then create a redirect. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Is this the same town as Ocean City? I came across a similarly titled Ocean City (New Jersey) yesterday, and this info should be combined with that one. This Ocean City is in Maryland! -- (WT-en) Tim 19:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Ocean City (New Jersey). If someone deletes it instead, I won't be outraged -- this is a pretty marginal redirect. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ocean city, nj