text:
Talk:Denmark

Viking museum
Viking Museum: http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/default.asp?contentSection2 in Roskilde

Yes, that should definately go on WikiTravel. Maybe you should make a Roskilde page (the link does not work well, but that might just be temporarely) -- (WT-en) elgaard 11:34, 2004 Sep 7 (EDT)

Flag vandalism
I don't know if this is where I should put it but the Danish flag on the photo has been vandalized to represent the Canadian flag. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 202.7.176.134 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for pointing that out. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 18:50, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

Regions
Although the region list is geographically correct in identifying perhaps every named piece of land in Denmark, I believe a shorter list might be more useful. :) Furthermore, there's some overlap/duplication within the regions.  The following is inspired by (but not slavishly copied from) the official tourism site:

Any additional islands would be presumed "IsPartOf" the nearest larger body of land.
 * North Zealand
 * Copenhagen
 * Roskilde
 * Southeast Denmark
 * West Zealand
 * South Zealand
 * Lolland
 * Falster
 * Møn
 * Funen
 * Jutland
 * North Jutland
 * West Jutland
 * East Jutland
 * South Jutland
 * Bornholm

Traveling by Bike
(Swept in from the Pub)

Hi, I'm going to be traveling Europe, and I'll be doing it almost entirely by bike, so I was curious whether there are bike trails in various areas. If someone knows about bike trails for various areas, I think it'd be nice to see more of this, because I find it hard to find cycling path information for Europe. All the areas I've been reading so far didn't have much of anything about cycling, anyway (Norway, France, Italy).

134.84.99.96 21:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Denmark is recommendable for bikers. Drivers are used to bikes everywhere, thus its generally safe. Mayor Cities have biketrails along their roads and on trafikken.dk you can find guides to the biking routes across the country. - Maybe I should add this info to the page. This page (in Danish) has links to all of europe, btw (WT-en) Clcow 03:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Yes, please do. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:34, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Encouragement
If you ever need some encouragement for tedious work improving on this article, check the tweet below :o)

Image:Denmark_encouragement.png --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 18:49, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Great to see the work is appreciated, although you might want reconsider posting those tweets without the author's permission. For copyright reasons if nothing else.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:58, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Hi. I'm in need of some encouragement! :-) What did the notice say? The link is dead now. 86.52.48.140 23:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Look here Powers (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Regions
The present region of Zealand comprises both Zealand and a some other large islands. I would like to split out from this region at the top level the other islands and call that region Lolland-Falster. The reason for the need of the change is that we now do not have an article covering Zealand and only Zealand. Any objections?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 07:31, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with another structure, as long as we try to limit subsections as much as possible.... do you intend this as top level region? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 11:06, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Yes, so there will still only be two region levels, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 11:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Get in entry requirements
In case anyone wants to know the source of my edits to include information about the visa exemption for 'Annex II' nationals to work during their 90 day visa-free entry, see this European Union document -. 195.195.166.57 17:41, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

"Don't jump head first in shallow water"
Are you serious? Specific safety advice contains this? So apparently I can do this in other countries where I have so far not seen such a warning on Wikivoyage. Captain obvious methinks!

Bob

—The preceding comment was added by 89.241.158.224 (talk • contribs)

 * About as obvious as the Captain gets I think :). By the way, don't ever put your hand into the mouth of a rabid dog.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:41, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Haha! ya, blatant case of captain obvious, with all the work i've done on this article, it's amazing i didn't take notice before. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 23:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Outdated railway map
The current map is really outdated, at least four years old. Does anybody have a newer map (like the one embedded in the flash on the bottom of the page)? Or should I try to contact DSB asking if they can provide an up to date map? Anybody —The preceding comment was added by 188.177.33.226 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't forget that any map we use has to be free (as in speech), not just "free" (as in beer). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:26, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Level of detail/This is not wikipedia
The http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Denmark&diff=2102251&oldid=2093595 edit adds a lot of information to the Terrain and Culture sections that might be more Wikipedia style information than relevant for a travel guide. I'm not that experienced a Wikivoyager myself, so I'd like some other perspectives on this. Mads.bahrt (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be a bit excessive, but it's not to the point where I'd revert it wholesale. This would be a perfect opportunity go in and trim the new additions down to a more reasonable level.  LtPowers (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Denmark has no history
The history section is empty!

I'm not that knowledgable about Danish history, although the historical migration to England, the Vikings and .... (Lego?) probably merit a few paragraphs. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Also Sweden v. Denmark is the most common war in history according to some counts. Mostly they were fighting for Norway Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The Danes deserve special kudos for standing with their Jewish compatriots during World War II, although in the long history of Denmark, that probably merits just a line or so. But it's really sad to have an empty section like that. Didn't Schleswig-Holstein, or at least part of it, used to be part of Denmark? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I now wrote a bit. It is not balanced or well written, but a start. Hopefully somebody will rewrite it. --LPfi (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * To the Schleswig Holstein issue... (about which someone once said there are three people who understand it, one of them mad, one of them having forgotten all about it and one of them not caring in the least). If I understand it correctly, the Danish crown came into possession of Schleswig, Holstein and the Herzogtum Lauenburg through some dynastic rules back when those things still mattered. However, the rules for inheritance were different in the different territories and as the Danish king tried to change them for Holstein to ensure his realm would not be partitioned in future generations, Prussia pointed out that as part of the German confederation, Holstein had to follow its laws and its sovereign could not do as he pleased as could the king of Denmark in Denmark proper. Then there was an old obscure document promising Schleswig-Holstein to be "op eewig ungedeeld" (for ever un-separated) and Prussia used this to rile up nationalist sentiment. Long story short Denmark lost a war in 1864 that they had won in 1848 and the whole shebang comes under Austrian and Prussian administration and is integrated into the German Empire come 1871. However, in North - Schleswig a small majority is more Danish than German and those people finally manage to get back to Denmark through a 1918 (or was it 1919?) referendum. This was one of the reasons for the causeway between Sylt and the German mainland to be built as the main port for ships to Sylt had become Danish. To this day Schleswig contains a German minority on the Danish side and vice versa. Relations are pretty good for what I've heard. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Great job! I forgot to say. I added a few details. RhinoMind (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi. I do not object to furnishing out this section, but Wikipedia has plenty of information on the history of Denmark. And as this site has a focus on travel-stuff I can't see it is that important. If other people feels otherwise you could simply extract stuff from the Wikipedia page. Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Compare the article on Germany or the United States where much more history is covered and at least in the latter case lengthy debate and consensus building preceded the current edition. I personally tend to err on the side of too much history, but I am not sure whether the history subsection of this here article is the best it could possibly be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I think it is just great. Precise, short but still includes all the major highlights. RhinoMind (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom, state, realm ?
Hello. There has been some editing of the lede recently and how to present Denmark and what the term "Denmark" actually comprise.

Let me start out by pointing out that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are not mere "possessions" and especially not possessions of the Danish Crown. Denmark has no colonies; the Faeroe Islands and Greenland are both officially part of Rigsfællesskabet (The Danish Realm), they participate in the general elections, has similar educational structures, welfare system, Danish is an officially spoken language, same currency and a whole lot more. They are both effectively part of the country in most areas. But they have additional self-governing structures and abilities.

It is important to stress this in the lede and do it correctly. There is a head source of Rigsfællesskabet here: Rigsfællesskabet.

When talking about The Realm of Denmark, excluding the Faroe Islands and Greenland, it is usually referred to as "Denmark proper".

I myself introduced the more expansive definition of The Kingdom of Denmark, but I actually find it more appropriate to introduce the concept of The Realm of Denmark, as the defining term of what Denmark is. The Danish Crown has only very limited political abilities and does not own or control the land, except for a few historical possessions. The Realm of Denmark is an actual institution, and it is the governing body for the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Denmark proper.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I have done a little bit of editing, but F. Islands and Greenland still needs to be presented as something other than "possessions". Please comment below if needed. RhinoMind (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * As with anything on this wiki the operative question is (or should be) does it serve the voyager? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi there and thanks. Good point, and yes it might serve the voyager. At least if it is explained what consequences "The Danish Realm" have for him/her. Some interesting consequences that might be worth to point out:
 * Danish is taught in school and used as an official language in the Faroese Islands and Greenland, in particular in the administration.
 * It might be easier to travel to these two other "countries"/destinations because of a common administration. It might have consequences for visas, work permits, health insurance, travel insurance, and many other situations.
 * Danske Kroner is used as the currency in the whole realm.
 * It will explain that there is actually an institution that handles these issues. The traveller does not need an audience before the Queen of Denmark to pose questions.
 * other stuff ... (please help fill in)

 * I'm new to WikiVoyage (but not Wikipedia), so thanks for stating the point. RhinoMind (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Welcome! Just a word of caution: No need to go into too much detail; keep things practical. Length is sometimes an issue: Things that don't affect a traveler still might be interesting enough to be worth an off-hand comment, but we want to avoid encyclopedic detail — that's for Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hierarchy for Funen and Surrounding Islands
The article hierarchy below Funen and Surrounding Islands is confusing.

To make it more intuitive, I suggest this hierarchy:
 * Denmark
 * Funen (containing only the island of Funen)
 * Sydfynske Øhav (including Langeland and Ærø)
 * Langeland
 * Ærø
 * (other islands in Sydfynske Øhav)

The Funen and Surrounding Islands article would be merged to other articles. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Edit done. Please report errors. /Yvwv (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Currency notation
Just wondering which is more appropriate for Denmark: kr 100 or 100 kr? I see both being used, along with a bunch of other variations to confuse readers. Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 * In Scandinavia the currency notation pretty much always comes after the amount. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what WV:$ says, but I wanted to check. Ground Zero (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC
 * Well, in relation to currency exchange, the term DKK is used for Danish Kroner. I tried to stick with that in my own contributions but it was changed to kr (front and back) by other editors. Don't understand why? RhinoMind (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For some reason there is a general aversion towards ISO codes even where they are locally common (like CHF) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to regions and subregions

I think some of these region and subregion borders need serious work.

 * It doesn't make sense to have the South Funen Archipelago as a separate regions. I'm from Langeland and though "Sydfynske Øhav" is a common name for this area, no one here would count it as separate from Funen. It completely ignores the ties between Sydfyn (South Funen) and particularly Svendborg on one side and the islands on the other. In fact, much of northern Tåsinge is even suburbs of Svendborg. I suggest that the South Funen Archipelago region is merged back into Funen as a subregion, with the smaller islands merged with nearby areas (Lyø to Faaborg, Strynø to Langeland, Tåsinge to Svendborg, and Ærø staying intact).
 * My understanding is that splitting off the South Funen Archipelago was originally done because the archipelago and Funen proper (the island Funen without the archipelago) were subregions, and some people found it odd having Funen proper as a subregion of Funen. I completely understand why that seems odd, but to me a better solution would be splitting Funen proper into some smaller subregions. Maybe have Odense as its own subregion, split off Svendborg (incl. Tåsinge) and also Faaborg and Nyborg as South Funen subregion, and the rest of Funen (Assens, Kerteminde, Middelfart, and Nordfyn municipalities) as North Funen.
 * I understand why Lolland-Falster is listed as separate from Zealand, but I think it is too closely tied with South Zealand to not be a subregion of Zealand. And speaking of South Zealand, it's a bit confusing that Køge is separated from the rest of East Zealand, so I think that it should either be moved to the West Zealand subregion or be spun off as a new East Zealand subregion alongside the Lejre and Roskilde areas. Otherwise the subregions in Zealand are great. If merging Lolland-Falster into it makes Zealand too big, the Capital Region might be a good candidate for a region.
 * Jutland as one region strikes me as being way too big. My guess for why it's all one is because elevating the subregions might be too many regions. Although that would indeed be a lot of regions, I think it would be justified given Jutland's size. Jutland is something like two-thirds of Denmark's total area.
 * I think the current subregion borders in Jutland are terrible. We need to throw them out and begin from scratch, but I personally think that the NUTS 3 regions would be a good starting point. In Danish we distinguish between Sydjylland (literally meaning South Jutland), which is just the southern part of Jutland, and Sønderjylland, which is the southern part of Sydjylland and covers the northern part of the historic Duchy of Schleswig. I think Sønderjylland has enough of a history to warrant it becoming a region or subregion of its own separate from Sydjylland.
 * My suggestion would be to turn Sønderjylland (municipalities of Haderslev, Sønderborg, Tønder, and Aabenraa) into a separate region, do the same to the current North Jutland subregion, and have the rest of Jutland split between East Jutland (NUTS region plus Fredericia, Kolding, and Vejle municipalities) and West Jutland (NUTS region plus Billund, Esbjerg, Fanø, Varde, and Vejen municipalities). These proposed changes to Jutland might be a bit radical, so I also offer a less extreme suggestion: Redefine Jutland's subregions to coincide with NUTS regions, then split off South Jutland as a region with the subregions of South West Jutland, Sønderjylland, and the Triangle Region.

Of all these changes I propose, merging Lolland-Falster into Zealand is the one I feel is the worst, but I think all of these are mostly reasonable. I would appreciate any feedback, especially on my Lolland-Falster and Jutland proposals. - 212.130.152.24 09:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree that these are good, helpful and useful divisions. I have my doubts about the divisions around Copenhagen and surrounding countryside, though. Maybe it could be done in a better and more useful way.

 * About official administrative regions. These divisions are from 2007, and are purely administrative. They span and cuts across different cultural regions in a disorderly way. In my mind, we should use divisions that are helpful to travellers. Alternatively we could mention and shortly describe the five administrative regions, but to base the whole article on them, would not be very helpful. RhinoMind (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Official administrative regions
These are the regions Denmark uses for administrative purposes. I think if we use those as a basis, Bornholm should be split from the capital region. I'm also not 100% sure whether it makes sense to split Jutland some other way. Apparently tourism is different on the north sea coast as opposed to the other coast... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

National taxi services
There is a new trend of national taxi services appearing in Nordic countries. They have easy to use smartphone apps which make the order process clear, like Uber. They claim to have near-nationwide coverage or coverage of list of specific cities. What we should do regarding them? I think they would give additional advantage for Wikivoyage users compared to having only phone call numbers of local taxi companies, regarding that many Wikivoyage users do not have English as their first language, and may have trouble pronouncing local language street addresses. So should we include them if they say that they cover specific regions? --Vkem (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 * See Travellers' pub#National taxi services. I suggest we keep the discussion there, until it is down to national details. –LPfi (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Denmark


text:
Talk:Denpasar

Removed the large section on arriving by plane as this is already covered in the main Bali article and you do not actually arrive in Denpasar by plane. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:40, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Dotm candidate?
I'm kind of astonished by the idea that Denpasar is "off the beaten tourist track," as claimed in Denpasar, but this is a Guide-level article for the largest city in and capital of Bali, it's certainly a significant destination, and it should be considered for a Destination of the month nomination. My question would be whether the article is up to date. Would anyone with current or even dubiously recent experience or/and information about the city like to check the entries? Also, would anyone like to offer an opinion on the DotM-worthiness of the article before we actually nominate it for a front-page feature? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of high-quality articles for destinations on Bali... and that's why Bali itself has been featured as DoTM twice (Feb 2013, Mar 2010). Nusa Lembongan and Ubud on Bali have also been featured, all of them as DoTM. Therefore I would prefer to see something from other parts of Indonesia on the Main Page; Bunaken, Gili Air, Gili Meno, Gili Trawangan, Mount Rinjani, Prambanan, Semarang, Senggigi are all Guides even if some of them still lack custom banners. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So this article may have to wait its turn. But does it seem Dotm-worthy, otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost. The article is well written and tidy. Price levels could be useful in Eat and Sleep and POI coordinates and a dynamic map could also be added. Overall, the article seems a little short for a city of over 800,000 inhabitants. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Update?
In the "Get in/By road" section, we are warned that "[2012: Due to traffic, allow 1.5-2 hr to reach the airport from Ubud.]" Setting aside that this article isn't about the airport, it's 2021 now. I'll delete the sentence in brackets, but could someone who's been to Denpasar more recently than 2012 please update? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello, Ikan. I was there recently in 2019, but the traffic is becoming worse. If you're talking about going to the Airport from Ubud, basically the same, since all roads in Bali in general are mostly narrower than in Java island. Which update should it be for this page? I have less time for editing now due to my schedule but still can occasionally check once a week based on my watchlist.ibhi19 (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Denpasar


text:
Talk:Denton (Texas)

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

Comments
Is the music jam still happening on Saturdays99.155.50.61 23:34, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Denton (Texas)


text:
Talk:Denver

Untitled
Contrary to popular belief Denver is not "that high". While it is truly the "Mile High City" (as in 5280 feet above sea level) there are many, many locations in Colorado that are considerably higher in altitude (more than twice and some approaching three times higher than Denver). It is always good to acclimate yourself to altitude before undertaking strenuous travel (such as hiking, backpacking and skiing) and for that Denver is an excellent starting point.

---

Original text of Red Rocks Amphitheater was:

"Located in Morrison, Colorado, on the western edge of Denver, Red Rocks Amphitheater is a gorgeous outdoor concert venue with amazing natural beauty and providing a great view of Denver below. Its popularity has been aided (and no doubt the effect is mutual) by famous live recordings of concerts by popular bands U2 and Dave Mathews Band at this location. The acoustics are the best of any outdoor venue I've experienced, with crystal-clear vocals and sibilant sounds being audible from any seat, without harshness."

--(WT-en) Nils 20:38, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

---

Organization of the Drinks section. I've recently posted a few bars that I frequent, but am going to reorganize them. I didn't have time to put a description up yet, but will get to that later, when I have a chance. I'd like to reorganize them based on geography (as, frequently, a lot of people go to an 'area', instead of a particular bar in the downtown area. Maybe a street map type setup, with the bars located on a particular street visually represented, so that patrons can judge where they want to go based on the types and quantities of bars in a given area?

--(WT-en) rkausch 14:51, 25 Oct 2006 (EST)

Weather & the informal tone
after all, this is the city where the saying, "If you don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes," was coined). This is in the article, what is the source? Everyone says this about everywhere. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 209.144.55.6 (talk • contribs)

 * No source is necessary; in fact, it is Wikivoyage policy to never source—it's a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. It certainly sounds like a myth to me, but regardless, I think the expression applies well to Denver. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:23, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

 * As well as the expression applies to Denver, I think it's fair to question whether the myth of it originating here is true. We may not need encyclopedic proof, but I took it out because I think it strains credulity. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:11, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

" Outdoor Enthusiasts Rejoice"?
I have my doubts this section should exist. Outdoor recreation stuff should go under "Do". (WT-en) PerryPlanet 04:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't know, this is actually fairly useful information for a climate section, in that it tells travelers when to go. The rest of that huge climate section (a nightmare for avid skimmers like me) could, I think, be reduced to one paragraph and in such parsimonious form would be more helpful. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:24, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

dt dvr map
Hiya! I was just thinking/lookin' at the Downtown Denver map, which is beautiful, but I think it is missing some things that could be added:

 * Larimer Square - just highlight where the shopping takes place in a colour and label it.

 * Cherry Shopping Area - similar to the above.

 * Any missing hotels?

I know, a small list, but I may add more later. So yeah. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 19:23, 5 November 2008 (EST).

Clothing Boutique Listings
There were several listings added to this article today that are simply names of clothing boutiques and links to their web sites - without further information about why these links are here I'm not sure that this information improves the article and would suggest that we might be better off without them. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:27, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * Just to re-iterate the concerns above, Walgreens and Bath & Body Works probably aren't appropriate here. Without checking I'd guess there are probably a dozen WalGreens in Denver, and it's tough to imagine travelers going to Denver in order to visit Bath & Body Works... I'm not seeing how these listings improve the article, but others may feel differently. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 * Hey Ryan! I just added most of those and added basic info-I'll add the listing later or if someone else wants to.  No people aren't going to go to Denver just to see B&BW, but it may be something they stop in and see-there are a lot of savy fans of that store.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 20:16, 9 November 2008 (EST).
 * Also, don't generalize them all as boutiques. Some of them are regular stores.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 20:17, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * I removed three listings. There is a Walgreen's or similar store in every small town in the US and most cities over 100,000 have a Sally Beauty Supply and a Bath and Body Works. The point is not that some people like or don't like these stores. There is just simply no reason to recommend them and no point in mentioning them. They have no more to do with Denver than Wal-mart or McDonalds. I am personally not familiar with the other listings that were added, but if they are as common as the ones I removed, I'd like to see them blasted too. (WT-en) Texugo 23:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry I get it. I didn't think Sally Beauty Supply was  a chain.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST).

 * I've removed the newly added listings for now - many of them were somewhat questionable, and without descriptions there was no way for users to know anything aboutthe establishments without going to the web sites. If necessary the listings can be restored from the article history, but let's make sure that there are descriptions so that we are telling users why they should care about these establishments, rather than just giving a yellow pages style list. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

 * So they're back, with one sentence descriptions... I guess what I'm struggling with is why were these particular stores chosen? The descriptions aren't really giving me any sense of why these stores are listed as opposed to any of the thousands of others in Denver.  EE, are you particularly familiar with Denver, and thus chose these places for a reason?  What I'm concerned with is that anyone can Google stores in a large city and come up with a list of 20-30, but that makes us the yellow pages, not a travel guide.  Google is great for looking up things like major shopping malls, but it takes local knowledge to put together a list of individual businesses that will interest travelers or provide them with necessary services (by "necessary services" I'm thinking of destination-specific needs, such as the winter supply stores listed in an article like Ushuaia).  Apologies if you have lived in Denver, but if not then it just seems like we're throwing a random list of stores on the page and I'm still not sure that the article is better for having them there... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:58, 11 November 2008 (EST)

 * I've removed these again. If they must be revived let's first discuss on the talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)

 * Ryan, hey, I've never been to Denver. I really like the city so what I ended up doing is doing massive searches for fashionable stores in the core of Denver that had good reviews.  I didn't make them random-I made sure they looked fine, selled good stuff, and had good reviews.  all the ones I added met that.  A bunch of it was on Google but a bunch of it was on shopping mall websites (non chains) except a few, some I didn't know were a chain.  Appologies.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 14:10, 22 November 2008 (EST).
 * Also I made those listings myself, thank you for deleting them all. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 14:12, 22 November 2008 (EST).

 * You're welcome; please stop taking feedback so personally. One of the explicit non-goals of Wikivoyage, established when the site was founded, is to NOT be a yellow pages.  Adding ten stores to an article about a city that contains tens of thousands of businesses based solely on the fact that they sell expensive clothing and furniture does not seem like a way to improve the travel guide - as a traveler to Denver I would have no interest in these stores, but WOULD be interested in knowing about the major shopping districts and a small sample of truly unique or representative establishments.  That sentiment is not just my opinion, however - it is reflected in the Project:Huge city article template and Project:The traveler comes first guidelines that have been established over years of consensus-building among contributors.  Writing a travel guide does not mean capturing every single item that might be of interest to travelers, it means capturing the interesting and essential information into an organized format that is useful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:10, 22 November 2008 (EST)

 * You don't need to be an ass about it! I am not making it a yellow pages directory thanks.  Maybe you just aren't the average demographic for Denver, then, and, they aren't all expensive, quit being prejudice.  Those places are unique-Bath and Body Works, Sears, Barnes and Noble, Childrens Place, HMV, Target, Walmart, those are unoriginal.  I am not trying to get every little thing, but I am trying to get stuff that cateres to everyone.  Aye, you seem grumpy!  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 15:15, 22 November 2008 (EST).

 * I don't feel that he's being an ass at all. He has a legitimate point and was not rude in expressing it, nothing to do with "prejudice". I happen to agree with him. (WT-en) Texugo 02:42, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Districts
Any plans to district Denver? There's a huge drink list that would benefit from being broken up. The hotel list is long too—I'd go through and trim out about half of those, but if we plan to break the city into districts at some point, I suppose it would be better to hold on to them. For future reference, the city is broken into nicely defined official neighborhoods: wmc:File:Denveneighborhoods.gif --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:34, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Hmmm...I would say let's hold off on this for now. It seems that the majority of the See/Do and Drink listings, along with a healthy portion of the Eat and Sleep listings are in the downtown area, so breaking it down at this point might make some rather skewed articles in terms of a balance between See/Do, Eat, Sleep, etc. I mean, Albuquerque is longer than the Denver article, and that's a place which definitely shouldn't be broken down into districts at this point. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:31, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Bars on Colfax (re. Charlies)
I removed the homophobic language "Charlies is a gay bar, but not scary" (!!), and replaced it with factual information about its music and drink offerings.

Sleep listings
What's the best thing to do with the Yellow Pages-style mass of undescribed hotel listings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think the length is a problem for a city of this size, which probably should be districted anyway. Quality is a concern, though, so maybe we could dump a bunch of the more useless ones here for now? --Peter Talk 22:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree. I've been to Denver a couple of times, but I don't know which hotels are least useful to list. I'm tempted to delete all listings that have no description or rates, but that may go too far right now. The Albuquerque article, which was mentioned above, has descriptions for all hotels, so its "Sleep" section looks much better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Oh, by dump I mean right in this thread on the talk page, by the way. I think removing everything without rates or description is the way to go. --Peter Talk 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lively, probably inappropriate prose
It probably wouldn't be appropriate for our article, but here's an excerpt from an interview with local comedian Greg Baumhauer:
 * Denver is basically a truck stop with a couple of museums and a football team... Denver is where pioneers who just ate their families on the trail would stop to drink whiskey and go whoring.

That was said lovingly, but still I guess we couldn't put that up as the lede. At least that's the impression I got from having my Bum Island See listing removed ;) --Peter Talk 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

January 1st 2014 Marijuana Legalization
25 days from this writing, recreational marijuana shops will be legal under Colorado and Denver law. To prevent a possible edit war, let's start discussing the issue now. Questions needing to be answered:
 * Should we add a "Smoke" section after "Eat" and "Drink"?
 * Is it possibly irresponsible to add a section that suggests a traveler partake in a federally illegal activity, even though it is legal locally?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure we even need a special section for smoking marijuana on the Denver page when we already have one on the Colorado page, unless there's some significant difference between the Denver law and the Colorado law that would affect visitors. —The preceding comment was added by PerryPlanet (talk • contribs)
 * My thoughts are more along the line of the actual shops i.e. XYZ Marijuana shop, 123 Main Street, 8am-10pm, moderate prices, etc. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, you can just put them in Buy, perhaps in a sub-section if there's enough listings to justify it (I'd venture at least 4-5, but there's no specific number for these sorts of things). PerryPlanet (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 * As for the question of responsibility, I'd say this depends entirely on what the federal response will be. My impression was that growers and sellers would be more at risk of being apprehended by federal agents than some visitor possessing a joint. Unless significant risk is posed to visitors, I don't think it's irresponsible to mention methods to purchase it. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Did you mean January 1st 2014? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I changed it in the title. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Existng one is better, because it shows a unique view, while the proposed new one is just a non-descript city view that evokes little. Texugo (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll second Texugo's opinion. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, too. The new one is a good panorama, but the great building in it - the Capitol - is distant. A panorama that focused on the Capitol would likely get a different reaction from me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the existing banner. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Current banner Matroc (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Preparing for DotM nom
I like Denver, and this would be a nice article to feature on the front page, and one with a versatile "time to feature", given that Denver is pleasant in the summer and is also active during the winter skiing season.

So what needs improvement? Here's what I notice:

(1) A lot of the "Drink" listings need geo. (2) Listings should be thoroughly checked and updated.

Anything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I know little about Denver, but I have heard that there have been quite impressive investments in public transit of all sorts in recent years. We should definitely check how much of that is reflected by our coverage. Also, SEO edits can never harm. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I visited in 2007 and 2008. Excellent bus system, free shuttle bus for tourists in LoDo, really good light rail system that ran late (last train was after 2, I think), but more for travel to and from the suburbs than anything else. I wouldn't know what new developments there have been since my last visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Por ejemplo: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2017/01/30/rtd-to-open-the-r-line-through-aurora-in-february.html Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Denver Airport
Has just been created. If it is not a good idea to have this article, we can merge it back, but I'd give it about a year before we do that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Denver


text:
Talk:Denver Area

Cities List
The Cities section is completely anomalous with Wikivoyage template standards. I think we should pick the top 9 most populous municipalities and push the rest of the list down to the currently empty "See" section. How do we handle major metropolitan areas if they are not split by district? As for "Other Destinations," there are enough city/state/county/federal parks to fill this section of the article. (WT-en) WineCountryInn 13:13, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Let me amend my statement above to say we could list the 9 next most populous burbs in "Other Destinations." Do you want this, or individual listings for state parks in the Denver Area where you can camp? (WT-en) WineCountryInn 14:42, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Redlinking cities
Should they be linked and listed? Their sheer number might even indicate a need for yet another subdivsion, which I do not think would be a good idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Denver Area


text:
Talk:Departement

This doesn't need to be an article. The list of départements in a région should be on the page for that région (if it's even useful for travel), the explanation of what a département is should be in France, and what numbers go on French license plates isn't useful for travel, and if someone wants that he can look it up on Wikipedia.

I'm not even sure we need to list the départements. They're like counties, and we haven't needed to say what county each city is in. -(WT-en) phma 07:43, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Probably I will agree with you. I needed a départment in order to further subdivide the very large Régions. Only in that way can I get to the small villages and sights. The départment is just another way of reaching at your destination. It will depend on the user. Let's see what it grows into -(WT-en) aleene 15:30, 19 jan 2004

 * What about working out the regions on a Talk page like people have done for Southern California, New York (city) and Seattle? That way you can play with many different options for navigation. In any case, Departement is a pretty ambiguious name for an article, so it will need to be moved. (WT-en) Majnoona

We have list of American states and list of Brazilian states. I hate those articles, but I guess there'd be some parallelism in having a list of French departements. --(WT-en) Evan 11:08, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Should this article be renamed (Departement -> Département) - ?

title: Talk:Departement


text:
Talk:Dera Ghazi Khan

Factory
Add cement factory
 * erm, no, this is a travel guide (WT-en) Sertmann 06:59, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Stay safe?
I have the general sense that this is a dangerous area in terms of the risk of being caught up in fighting or bombings. Am I incorrect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right Ikan. Other than that, there are plenty of Pakistani articles needs their stay safe section to be updated or written, but unfortunately I won't be able to do it alone. --Saqib (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not trying to find extra work for you, Saqib! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know Ikan. I was just telling you. I would like to do them but its not an easy task. --Saqib (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Centre?
An unregistered user added what I interpret as that Dera Ghazi Khan means "centre of Pakistan" and something that I interpret as explaining that title. The name however seems to come from the person Ghazi Khan. The map in Wikipedia suggests the city is in the middle of Punjab, so it is unclear how "located at the junction of all four provinces of Pakistan" can be true, but that language has been here for some time. I now revert the last edits, as they are badly worded, but somebody should explain the background of that description. What are "the pull daat" and the "Pakistani chowk"? --LPfi (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dera Ghazi Khan


text:
Talk:Derry

I was a visitor to Derry in the very worst of the troubles. Everyone was so lovely to me and my traveling companion that we didn't grasp the gravity of the situation. Must be a culture of hospitality and kindness. I'm sure it's even nicer now that the trouble are largely over.--(WT-en) Beenthere 00:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Is the official name of this town Derry or Londonderry? On the maps I have seen it is down as "Londonderry (Derry)". Any Northern Irishmen available to elaborate? (WT-en) Sjc196 09:57, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Um, to say this is a can of words would be putting it mildly. Differing slants on the word 'official' could mean it could go either way, but the usual compromise is to call the city 'Derry' and the county 'Londonderry'. Hopefully everyone can live with this. From Norn Iron, (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 07:42, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the input! I assumed it would be sensitive...and as I realise that emotions run high in this part of the world I thought I'd leave it to someone who knows before just making wanton changes... (WT-en) Sjc196 09:57, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * "Official" doesn't matter, anyways. We use the most common English name, not the official name. --(WT-en) Evan 16:40, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

republicans know it as derry, loyalists know it as londonderry and it will be like this for a long time, im from derry/l'derry , whatever you call it

Buy section
In the "Buy" section, I have changed "in the British Isles" to "in the UK or Ireland". the former is too politically loaded and offensive from a Republican point of view.

"hotbed of criminality"
took this out because while I wouldn't necessarily advise foreigners not with locals to wander aimlessly round the 'Bog or the Creggan (or indeed the Fountain) at night, "hotbed of criminality" was a bit strong... drink fuelled agression fairly well covers the topic I think. maybe a reference about being careful round interface areas (places where different communities are beside each other)

Put the name dispute in a infobox
I think we could handle the naming dispute by putting an infobox (perhaps with the headline "what's in a name?") in the understand section. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare the solution used by Wikipedia - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute, a compromise solution was proposed and agreed in 2004 regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, and has been generally accepted as a convention for both article titles and in-article references since then. Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Do not deviate from this merely because the subject relates to a particular side of the political divide, but where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the entity; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, Londonderry railway station, North West Liberties of Londonderry, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to Derry). The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate." And see the post above from 2004 - "the usual compromise is to call the city 'Derry' and the county 'Londonderry'. Hopefully everyone can live with this." Alekksandr (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I stand corrected; Hobbitschuster has already made a reversion of my edit. Ibaman (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Derry


text:
Talk:Desert (California)

So, uh... do we want to split up the information on the desert region of California from info about camping in the desert in California? You don't actually have to pack in all your food to Palm Springs -- they have stores there, strangely enough. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:03, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

Yeah, I think you're right. Ill nix the appropriate section here and create a guide under desert camping. But this can then be broken up into car and pack types. (WT-en) Ron 11-9-03

 * Bonus! Just a hint: use four tildes ( ~ ) to get an automated signature and timestamp. See using talk pages for more stuff like that. -- (WT-en) Evan 14:14, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Will do, thanks (WT-en) Ron 16:38, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

Subdividing
I'm from the area. The "California Desert" is really large and generally divided into sections; Death Valley, Owens Valley, Mojave Desert (sometimes known as "high desert"), Palm Springs, Anza-Borrego, and Imperial Valley. These sections are well-separated geographically, usually by portions of mountain ranges or populated/agricultural areas, so they aren't really lumped into a single desert; I believe that technically they're different deserts (Deserts of the World?) as well. Some amount of would would be needed to accomplish this, and I'm willing to work at it if it's agreed.--(WT-en) Justfred 17:46, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Your proposed subdivision of the Desert (California) region looks reasonable to me (also from the area), but we'll need some clear way of determining what are the specific borders of each sub-region. For California we handled that problem by creating a map to make it clear what Wikivoyage considers the top-level regions of the state to be; this helps avoid arguments such as whether Santa Barbara is in Southern California or the Central Coast since we've got a map to refer to.  For Ohio we used counties as the regional dividers.  For the Bay Area there's a guideline that refers people to look at area codes to determine what the regional borders are.  Provided we can come up with an equally clear way of delimiting each of your proposed sub-regions I'd say go ahead with this breakdown. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:56, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Okay. I would suggest that no matter what, Mojave Desert is a minor desert (as is Anza-Borrego) so they'd deserve their own sections as long as there's enough there to discuss.  That is, Mojave Desert != and < California Desert.  Will have to consider what subregions that represents.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:01, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Is it okay to point Mojave back at Desert (California) instead of Mojave Desert|Desert (California) till this is resolved? Also I created the Mojave Desert article but didn't get far. There does need to be a deserts of the world - Atacama, Sonora, Gobi, etc. listing major and minor deserts; I can't seem to find one tho I know such a thing exists. I just found a fascinating article about the Altar which I live right next to but barely even knew about.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:15, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

 * I'd suggest that it might be worthwhile to work on the Mojave Desert article on its own and wait a bit for others to add any comments before making further changes; give it a few days, and barring further comment go ahead and plunge forward with Mojave.

 * Okay; I guess what got me into this was the opening on Mojave where it says,

 * Mojave is a city in Kern County in the Mojave Desert

 * ...instead of just

 * Mojave is a city in Kern County in the California Desert

 * ...since they're not the same (and openings usually reference regions); I tend to dislike misleading references.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:54, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

 * It sounds like your Mojave Desert article will be similar to the Lake Tahoe article, which is one of the only sub-regions created for the Sierra Nevada - the Sierra Nevada isn't further sub-divided because most of the area in that region is remote and sub-regions weren't necessary. In this case, I'm not sure that a sub-region such as "Joshua Tree/Twentynine Palms" would offer any benefit beyond what the Joshua Tree National Park article offers; we could consider using larger sub-regions, or just forget about sub-regions altogether.  Hopefully others will have some additional insight. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:38, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Agree, I wouldn't turn it into subregions. Areas aren't the same as regions; some areas need articles, others don't.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:54, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern art display.JPG

title: Talk:Desert (California)


text: Talk:De Smet

title: Talk:De Smet


text:
Talk:Des Moines

Restaurants in the Get Out section
If those suburbs can be considered districts of Des Moines then I'd create them as such. We typically do not list restaurants in the Get Out section. Either they should be placed in the appropriate district or town article, or they are close enough to put them back in the main article. (WT-en) Texugo 04:23, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

Royal Mile
Definitely not serving beers found no where else in Iowa. Most of their beers come from John's Grocery in Iowa City. In my experience the best selection of beer in the state can be found at The Sanctuary, also in Iowa City. Mile does have a great selection for Des Moines, though, especially upstairs.

 * OK, strike "no where else" with "unlikely to find." I've been to John's in Iowa City, and while I respect it, I wouldn't necessarily paint DSM as some inferior beer haven. It's all about "your" experience, unknown commenter, and I think most WT'ers are interested in traveling and find out what theirs is. (I also worked quite a bit on the Iowa City article, cleaning it up and what not, and feel free to plunge forward here or there with any insights you might have which would be good for site visitors to know.)(WT-en) Zepppep 19:08, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Restaurant out of business
Stella's closed for the third time in several years.
 * Used to be downtown but the new 'burb spot is bigger. The whole place says "fun" and make sure you get one of their milkshakes made with Iowa's own, Blue Bunny Ice Cream (poured on top of your head for an extra quarter).  Vintage car nights.

Locations...
Do we really need an exhaustive list of locations of chain restaurants? Take a look at Be-Bops, Tasty Tacos, and Jethro's. I would just say "various locations" or maybe list the original (or most central) location and say "and others". Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * See WV:Boring. Should we mention them at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Des Moines


text:
Talk:Detroit

Dearborn's location
Dearborn is on the southwest side of Detroit, not the north as given in the beginning of the Understand section. (It is, however, a wonderful place to eat.)

Detroit's mansions
All the places given for mansions in the Understand section are outside of Detroit proper. There are many beautiful mansions within the city in Palmer Park, Boston Edison, Arden Park and Indian Village, to name a few.

Ford's first assembly line
Was not in Detroit, it was in Highland Park, which is surrounded by Detroit. http://www.ford.com/en/heritage/history/default.htm You cannot visit the building, but you can drive by it on Woodward Ave.

Get in - air
Windsor's airport is closer to the northern suburbs (and much of Detroit) than Metro Airport. Nearby airports are Flint Bishop, Toledo and Lansing.

Get in - car - street layout
Detroit is a grid on a wagon wheel because of the Great Fire. http://forums.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=205&category=locations

Eat
Eat section completely leaves out the Lebanese restaurants in Warrendale and Dearborn, Hamtramck's Polish restaurants, Jacoby's downtown, Sinbad's, etc. It also includes chains (why on earth would anyone come to Detroit and eat in a P.F. Chang's?) The Roostertail (next to Sinbad's) is only open these days for parties.

None of the Detroit area restaurants liked by the foodies on eGullet are here. Nor is any idea of price given (restaurants listed are on the expensive side).

 * Thanks for the feedback, but please plunge forward and edit the page yourself! (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:24, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

Districts
Detroit certainly has some districts that I think deserve separate mentioning and description (e.g. Downtown, Midtown, New Center, Corktown, Greektown, etc - Hamtramck and Highland Park also, even though they are not municipally part of the city). We should at least get a map together of where these districts are to start with. --(WT-en) Locano 16:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)

 * Seems like this article is about ready to district-fy. It's a lot of work, though. You'll need to come up with a list of proposed districts - I recommend starting low, and continuing to subdivide them as they fill up. Cleveland has three, which are nicely done, but there are others that have too many, and the useful information gets spread too thin for travelers to use. On Chicago, we started with about half of the ones we currently have. There's some useful discussion here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 02:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

 * Ah, thank you for your guidance. I definitely didn't realize how much work this might be.  No time to start like the present!  --(WT-en) Locano 20:48, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Proposed Districts
In the interest if district-ifying Detroit, here is the list of districts that I am thinking of creating.

 * Downtown - central business district, including Greektown, Foxtown, and the Riverfront - bordered by I-75, M-10, I-375, and the Detroit River
 * Midtown - cultural center
 * New Center
 * Corktown - Corktown area, plus Mexicantown
 * Eastern Market
 * Hamtramck and Highland Park

Under the suggestion of this talk page, first the information will be divided into districts on the Detroit page, and as the section gains more information it can be split into its own article. Comments, suggestions? --(WT-en) Locano 21:18, 18 November 2007 (EST)

 * Doesn't seem excessive, and no objections have been raised - plunge forward! (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 12:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)

 * Since it seems that User:(WT-en) Locano is no longer active, I guess I will start working on the district pages. (WT-en) Local hero 14:10, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Feel free... do you think that Locano's proposal above is a reasonable breakdown, keeping in mind that we don't want too many districts for most cities? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:52, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I think its a great proposal, except Midtown and the New Center could probably be made into one page, since they are very similar places and both terms are often used to describe the area north of Downtown. (WT-en) Local hero 15:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

The districts for the Detroit area need to be treated as metro districts. People don't travel by municipal boundary. They don't care where the dividing line is when they travel. There are too many significant sites scattered within municipal boundaries which are within minutes of one another for the Detroit area. The districs then need to include metro southwest, metro east, and metro northwest. That's the way its handled by every major travel guide for Detroit. 12.110.178.25 12:37, 27 December 2008 (EST)

 * This travel guide is supposed to be about the City of Detroit. That's what people expect to find when they come to this travel guide. Other cities in the region that have attractions can be listed in the "Get out" section. --(WT-en) Local  hero  14:15, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * You both have a very good point. I think the mentality of American cities is if they live in one of these suburbs to just say "We live in Oklahoma City" or "We live in the suburbs of Boston" kind if thing.  I think if there is very little way people traveling will think it is a city on it's own then it should be apart of the city itself.  Stuff like that could never happen in Canada, as we over emphasize the fact if we live in a suburb just outside the city, eg Edmonton and then Sherwood Park.  So you will probably get the vibe of it being a different city, or people thinking it, despite it being in the same metropolitan area.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 14:23, 27 December 2008 (EST).

The term 'Detroit' does refer to the greater Detroit area. The Detroit Pistons play in Auburn Hills, the Detroit Zoo is in Royal Oak for example. Grosse Pointe is within a few blocks of the city limit. People don't travel or book hotels in a vacuum. Major destinations in detroit bill hail themselves from the Detroit area. The official convention and visitors bureau for the area is called Visit Detroit and its doenn't confine itself to the city limits. It was only proposed to make the districts, when the content reached a high level, and that content included the key points of the metro area. Those trodding into the topic obviously gave no respect to that or to the work of others. The districts should be treated as Metro Northwest, Metro Southwest, and Metro East, and probably should be renamed as such if some going to quibble about it. Travelers have a common understanding of it as the Detroit area. (WT-en) Thomas Paine1776 14:54, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * It's not about understanding the concept, Thomas, we all very well know what you are talking about. Anyways, you make very valid points to include metro Detroit into this, but Local hero has been doing a lot of work so maybe he should givean opinion.  I personally don't know.  On one hand it may feel very very very very odd because you will get the feeling "Oh gosh this isn't really Detroit" and thinking "What if they [people using the website] think the same??" that would be a big mixup because they wouldnt know and potentially find us unreliable.  Of course, that is an extreme.  I guess we are looking at, Do Detroiters think Grosse Pointe as in Detroit or just in Metro Detroit?  If they think it apart of Detroit, then I believe we should go with the metro thing.  Again, the format it is in now is fine because it is the formal boundaries.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST).

 * Yes, the term does often refer to the entire area. But, it seems confusing that we would include attractions not within the city of Detroit in the Detroit travel guides. The "Get out" could handle all attractions outside the city limits. I did give respect to other people's work. I would never delete all that stuff, I simply moved it to the articles where it belonged. After all, those articles exist for a reason. --(WT-en) Local   hero  15:04, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * Good point, cant we say in "Get out" Detroit Pistons are a ____________ and play in Auborn Hills _________ from the city. That way it's still in the article but leads users to the article.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 15:06, 27 December 2008 (EST).

The 'get out' section in travel guides means way out of the area, not within the Detroit area. I would go along with Ann Arbor being in the get out section, so let's be reasonable. But the tri-county area should be fair game for the 'Detroit area' from a travelers perpective. From a travelers perspective, its a the 'Detroit area'. Having a Northwest side, Southwest, and East side as a travel districts which includes predominantly residential neighborhoods makes no sense whatsoever as some are attempting to limit it, since these areas don't necessarily contain hotels or even restaurants per se, they have families living in them. The districts for travel and tourism for Detroit are more properly Downtown, Midtown, Metro Southwest, Metro East, and Metro Northwest, and Hamtramck/Highland Park can stay if you want since they are an oddity. The way its being limited here is not really proper for the Detroit area, and makes navigation difficult for the user.(WT-en) Thomas Paine1776 15:12, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * The get out section can be for a place 2 metres from the city or 20 kilometres. It doesn't matter.  It is just what you make with it.  In Edmonton there is a few metro area listings.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 15:17, 27 December 2008 (EST).

 * Not sure what your're suggesting. Would go along with Windsor being in the 'get out' section (although it could be a district itself) but Belle Isle, Grosse Pointe, Dearborn, Royal Oak, and Southfield aren't getting out of the Detroit area, they are just getting away from the downtown proper. The tri-county area is predominantly considered the Detroit area for travelers, and focal points are key tourist area districts for Downtown, Midtown-New Center, Metro Southwest, Metro East, and Metro Northwest, and Hamtramck/Highland Park. Its makes for a better travel guide to have a Metro Northwest district article to give the overview for what's in the local municipal cities for example. This makes it more user friendly. (WT-en) Thomas Paine1776 15:24, 27 December 2008 (EST)

 * Getting out doesn't mean leaving the area, it means leaving the city/district. For example, Dearborn would go in the "Get out" section of Southwest Side, Grosse Pointe would go in the same section of the East Side article, and Royal Oak and Southfield would go in the Northwest Side "Get out" section (Belle Isle is already in the East Side article). We cannot assume that travellers consider Detroit to be all of the tri-county area. You do have a good point about there not being many hotels in the Southwest, East, and Northwest Sides. So, we could say "There are few hotels in [insert district name here]. Neighboring [insert neighboring suburb name here] has a wide variety of hotels within a close proximity to this area". I would even be okay with listing hotels outside the city in these district articles. Only hotels though (and maybe restaurants). --(WT-en) Local  hero  18:07, 27 December, 2008 (EST)

 * Including information on areas outside of the city limits within the Detroit article is a straightforwardly bad idea. It's difficult enough as it is to keep content organized on the site, and to direct readers to the information they are looking for. The appropriate place to highlight attractions outside of Detroit from this article is the "Get out" section. This is standard across the entire site, and ignoring that standard for one article would be a bad way to organize our content. Well developed prose in a Metro Detroit article could also help direct visitors to the appropriate suburbs to see important attractions. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)

District merge
First, a bunch of relevant districts discussion can be found here. Second, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to write about for either the Northwest or the West sides (especially the latter). Perhaps it would make sense to combine them into one "West Side" article? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd be okay with the two being merged. There just isn't much to see in the West Side. --(WT-en) Local  hero  19:16, 25 March 2009 (EST)

The situation in Detroit
Okay, so a lot of what I've read suggests that Detroit is not in good shape. I realize the point of a travel guide is to paint a positive picture of the location, but wouldn't it be useful under Understand to let people know that there are some problems there? For example, I would want to know whether crime was a problem there, and if there were neighborhoods that were safe/unsafe. Potential visitors who aren't aware of the situation in Detroit might go there and then be a bit disappointed.76.99.107.22 08:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I think a brief mention of crime and less brief treatment of Detroit's difficulties connected to the downward slide at GM is appropriate in the understand section, but the vast majority of crime information belongs in the dedicated "Stay safe" section. "Understand" should be pretty limited to background, history, and a little travel-related boosterism. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:06, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Detroit is a great city and its seen trememdous progress and redevelopment in the past decade. Detroit is in very good shape, nearly all of its freeways have been recently upgraded and revamped, its airport is one of the nation's newest. Its hotels are some of the nation's best. Its also a safe city, just as safe as any other major city.  The city is a fun travel destination with some of America's best attractions. Economic issues and the gas crisis are affecting the whole country. Side issues and auto company problems are not relevant to a travel guide.  —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 12.110.178.25 (talk • contribs)

 * Agreed that Detroit is a great city and a fun travel destination (especially for music!), but disagreed that it is just as safe as any other major city, and that the auto industry's problems are irrelevant. The auto industry is central to Detroit's history, and to ignore it and it's recent history would be a serious omission in background information. It would also be a basic omission in sightseeing information—one of the highlights of my last mini-vacation there was seeing all of GM's new models. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:02, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Detroit has low crime in areas frequented by tourists. It's just as safe as any major city. I travel to several of them. Detoit's crime has declined drastically from three decades ago. Even areas of higher crime emanate from certain limited locations which are not tourist areas anyway. Detroit has much larger and vibrant crowds for events and in its downtown than many other cities. An example is the unbelievably large size of weekend suburban crowds at Tri-Centennial State Park on the Riverfront. Agree of course, that the auto industry is central to Detroit's history. The auto industry has seen a rough year, however, the outlook is positive with restructurings and cost savings which are yet to be reflected. Locally produced vehicles, such as the G6, the Malibu, and Cadillac are generally adding shifts. Company's quarterly business cycles/fuel spikes (which are subsiding) and accounting write downs are side issues and not really important for a travel guide. Indications are that Detroit automakers view their own circumstances much more favorably going forward than outsiders know yet.  Manufacturing in Michigan itself rose 6 percent from 2001 to 2006. New business grads I know there, are receiving multiple job offers in their field. Even middle income folks I know there are well off and have plenty of work. Financial firms in Michigan are not affected by the credit crunch as are those New York, Texas, Florida, and California.  Most of the complaints come from those who were doing fantastic but are lately just very well off.  Educators, which are plentiful in Michigan, are the second highest paid in the nation after California which has a higher cost of living. Further, the region has recently received committments for 4,800 new jobs from new investments, including and $11 billion joint venture from K-DOW chemical. The region has a healthy number of current job openings in a variety of fields and the midwest in general typically has a higher percent of its population employed than other parts of the country. Detroit Casinos are seeing gains while their counterparts in other cities are not.  The economic impact of the current War has affected tourism nationwide, and moreso in areas like Tampa, Miami, Orlando/Disney and Las Vegas. Comparatively, Detroit's travel industry has faired reasonably well during the period and even seen gains.12.110.178.25 11:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Detroiters out there?
Local hero has been working so hard on Detroit article(s) and I was wondering if anyone else lived in the metro area to help edit. All help appreciated! I myself will try and help a little bit (though never been). Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Do¿
Is the do section really necessary, in that, it's lengthliness? It's quite long. If it isn't only keep the necessary ones, if it is district it because it looks so boring to look at. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:30, 22 November 2008 (EST).

Warning box
I really am confused about this article. The key defining characteristic of Detroit is that half of the houses and two thirds of the commercial buildings are abandoned. People strip aluminum siding and yank out plumbing fixtures to buy heroin, guns and drugs are rampant everywhere, and real unemployment rates are likely close to 50%. Detroit is the closest thing we have in this country to the mid-19th Century Five Points in New York -- except it's an entire city's worth. This article seems to have been written in some fantasy land where Detroit's just like any other major city with minor problems. That simply isn't the case -- Detroit is a festering pit of despair from which anyone with half an intellect flees at the first opportunity. Having grown up there, I know this first hand -- there were more abandoned houses on my block than occupied houses, and the situation has only gotten worse in the last few years. I'm at a loss as to why 90% of this article isn't dedicated to how Detroit is a terrible place that nobody should ever go to. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.249.180.221 (talk • contribs)

 * 90% of the article is not dedicated to Detroit bashing because that would not be helpful to travelers visiting the city. More, and sophisticated, information in the stay safe section on which sections of the city are either more or less safe would be welcome. The warning box you are adding is totally over the top (I'm pretty sure you already realize that) and is borderline vandalism. Please do not edit war—if this continues I will protect the article. If you would like to rant about bad experiences you have had in Detroit, there are plenty of other forums in which it would be appropriate to do so.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:27, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

 * It's not Detroit bashing -- I grew up there, like I said. People really, truly, legitimately need to be warned away from visiting the place. I'm not going to get into an edit war because obviously that's not appropriate behavior on a wiki site, but the fact remains that this article is delusional. There's a ten block area around the RenCen that's decent, and everyplace else is an absolute nightmare, but this article is somehow totally counterfactual. And, ok, yeah, the warning box is probably over the top the way I put it in, since that was just a cut and paste, but warning boxes certainly are necessary here. I live in New York City now, and it would be entirely appropriate to put a tag on places like East New York or Bushwick that they're actively dangerous, and that non-essential travel should be avoided at all costs, while other areas of the city are obviously much safer. It's the same with all parts of Detroit other than the immediate downtown, and it bothers me that somebody with a "homer" attitude (Local Hero) has decided to make this page his own delusion rather than the realistic warning that people need. Someone could get killed reading this page and thinking it's an accurate portrayal of the city. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.249.180.221 (talk • contribs)

 * And, just so we're clear, I'm not some lunatic intent on vandalizing a legitimate article. But the article that currently exists is so overwhelmingly biased and inaccurate (and created almost entirely by one individual who obviously loves his city and wishes to make everyone ignore its obvious, overt flaws) that something really needs to be done about it. Helpful information to travelers would involve places to stay in the Northern Suburbs when you absolutely have to visit on business, and a stern warning not to ever go there otherwise. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just honest. 71.249.180.221 19:39, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Your view of visiting the city still does seem a bit extreme to me, no doubt based on some bad personal experiences, but all interested parties can work that out and come to a more mutually acceptable solution. Personally, I felt very safe Dowtown, Midtown, and parts of the East Side—that said, I am definitely not a representative sample of tourists! I've written a lot about sections of Chicago that most people would not feel comfortable visiting, which may or may not have good examples of how to write a useful stay safe section (e.g., Chicago/Far West Side, Chicago/Chatham-South Shore). Stay safe sections in Detroit's district articles would especially be useful, as safety can vary block to block around significant attractions (like the Heidelberg Project in East Side), and I'd encourage you to get them started. (Just try to tone it down a bit ;) ). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I don't know where to start! Your words are incredibly offensive and untrue. I currently live in Detroit and I have yet to be attacked, much less killed. I have yet to receive an award for putting my life on the line each day I live here. I acknowledge that many parts of Detroit are unsafe, but nothing compared to a war zone. I obviously made this article to favor Detroit. I see it fair as all other coverage of the city seems to make it seem as dead, worthless excuse for a city that should just be forgotten. But then again, I haven't got half the intellect of you since I decided to stay in Detroit. Your statistics are completely off. I have to question when the last time was that you were here? A lot has changed in the past decade. If everyone in this world was as ignorant as you, then Detroit wouldn't have hosted the Super Bowl, the MLB All-Star game, or continue to host the auto show every year. We're also hosting the NCAA Final Four soon. And, just so we're clear, I do believe you are some lunatic intent on vandalizing a legitimate article.(WT-en) Local hero 19:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * My words may be offensive to somebody who obviously loves the city, but I'm being realistic here and trying not to be biased or a homer. I've inserted the following paragraph in the "stay safe" section, with citations: "Detroit is the single most dangerous city in America [44]. While the immediate downtown area of Detroit is largely just as safe as the downtown area of any other major American city, most other parts of the city are among the most unsafe areas in the the United States. The overall crime rate in Detroit is more than double the national average; the violent crime rate is nearly five times the national average; and the murder rate in Detroit is nearly seven times the national average [45]. If you must travel to Detroit, it is highly recommended that you stay close the downtown / riverfront area, and that you not travel to other parts of the city alone or (especially) at night." That still gives people the general idea and knowledge that it's not all roses and sunshine like you claim, but it's not so obtrusive as to bother or offend you with your pro-Detroit agenda. 71.249.180.221 12:52, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

 * By the way -- are you the same guy who's made all the Detroit - related articles on Wikipedia unnaturally slanted towards a pro-"Detroit is safe" bias? I've noticed that there, and a lot of people have commented on it. 71.249.180.221 12:56, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I do not mind at all that you want to include warnings to people about the city's dangerous parts. But dude, a warning box? That's why I took offense. I'm fine with the paragraph you inserted, except for the first and especially the last sentence. I know its not all roses and sunshine, and I don't have a pro-Detroit agenda either. I am telling people what their is to see, do, and eat in my city. I don't edit on the Detroit articles much on Wikipedia, but it did get featured article status. (WT-en) Local hero 15:53, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
 * About your paragraph, no one can make a claim Detroit is the most dangerous city in America. That's an opinion. I took out the last sentence of your paragraph because anywhere a tourist would stay would almost surely be in downtown or midtown. I also took out other parts that are mentioned in other parts of the same section. (WT-en) Local hero 16:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Well, I mean, the comment about Detroit being the most dangerous city was cited with a quote from an MSNBC article -- pretty reputable source -- with the headline "Detroit Named Nation's Most Dangerous City" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21870766/), based on a statistical analysis of crime data. And I find it curious that you'd say that the areas tourists are most likely to visit would be safe -- the area I grew up in, around Ryan and Outer Drive, is nowhere near the worst area of the city, and it's pretty damned unsafe by most any other city's standards. Other than the casinos and sports venues -- granted, in the pretty much only relatively decent area of town -- I would imagine most people visiting Detroit are doing it either on business or meeting friends and family, and so a relatively high percentage of visitors would be going to less savory areas of town (compared with other cities that actually attract tourists). 71.249.180.221 12:29, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I tend towards thinking that calling a place "the most dangerous city in the country" is too unsophisticated (not to mention sensational). City of what size? Per what definition of dangerous? What crimes are included in this analysis? What weights are they given? It's worth noting, too, that pretty much the entire article you linked was devoted to criticism of the analysis, by the FBI, American Council of Mayors, American Society of Criminology, etc.

 * In any rate, as I suggested earlier, I would strongly encourage you to work on providing sophisticated stay safe information for the district articles. That is going to be a good deal more productive than making sweeping statements about the city, much of which the average traveler will not see. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:35, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

I think the first goal of this web site is to give useful advice, as objectively as possible. This article is so disingenuous about safety its laughable. I travel a lot and live in the area. I'd happily let my mom travel around London, Berlin, Tokyo etc. But Peter would you want your mom randomly traveling around in Detroit? Really? I personally know some business associates that have come over clueless and have been victims of crime. I think tourists from other countries, especially people with English as a second language, should be properly warned that many parts of Detroit are not safe for them. Detroit is not Disney Land. Sadly, Detroit consistently ranks near the top in murder rates for large cities over 100,000. See http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html. I'm all for promoting Detroit, and economic development, but realize you could be responsible for people getting hurt by not telling them the facts, and warning them to use common sense and take adequate precautions.

 * Actually, my mother has done a lot of volunteer work in the South Bronx, so that might not be a good example... But would it be helpful for me to rephrase my last comment? Rather than rant on the talk page, please make the effort to write practical "stay safe" information to the district articles, a la Chicago/Chatham-South Shore or Chicago/Far_West_Side? No one is contesting that Detroit is an unusually violent city—this is a question of where and how to present useful, usable information, like which attractions are in especially violent neighborhoods. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:12, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Understand
It seems some of this info. might be better suited to Wikipedia, as it's a bit long. (WT-en) Zepppep 20:48, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Long understand sections are fine, we're not only meant to be a big list. As long as they are not too encyclopedic, and the info is broadly relevant as is (mostly) the case here, it's a keepers. Though it could use some sharpening up. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 20:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Work
Poorly organized. Instead of listing 50 different companies, perhaps talk about major industries in general, provide a gov't employment, or talk about some of the more famous companies and trends. Anyone else agree? [[User:(WT-en) Zepppep|Ze
 * I fully concur, in any case that work section is meant for short term/volunteer/seasonal employment relevant to travelers, like apple picking and what not. In any case I doubt Detroit is the place to apply for employment at the moment. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 20:52, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Urbex
Detroit has some wonderful urban exploration opportunities, which might be worth exploring in the "See" section. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 64.252.4.100 (talk • contribs)

 * If you have suggestions, by all means, please add them to the appropriate district articles. Just be careful to not give information on how to do anything explicitly illegal (WT is generally OK with legal gray areas). We're always just waiting for a knowledgeable contributor to come, plunge forward, and add what they know! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:02, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

I would love to, but I'm not a native and I live quite far from Detroit. I think someone more intimately familiar should do it. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 64.252.4.100 (talk • contribs)

Safety
The following was added recently, but doesn't fit WT formatting and could be incorporated into the "Stay Safe" section by someone knowledgeable about Detroit.

 * Quick note here from native Detroiter: the above paragraph is painting a too-positive image of Detroit as "below the national average" in crime. This is very misleading! I know Detroiters, and have lived there for 30 years: Detroit, both downtown and also in the outlying suburbs around 8 Mile Road, for example and south of 8 mile is extremely dangerous. Do not casually drive in the suburbs of Detroit! You risk the very real possibility of getting car jacked, shot, or robbed. Detroit is easily one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, easily surpassing East L.A. for example in terms of violent crime. Don't drive around and get lost in the Greenfield/Fenkel area. Do not drive around and ask for directions from the natives. If they realize you are from out of town and a tourist with money you will be robbed. I am not kidding, this is serious shit! I have known natives who have been cut up badly and had their brother killed--simply for looking at someone the wrong way in a Detroit bar. Do not ride a bike in Detroit! You will be knocked off your bike and robbed. I am not exaggerating, I am not kidding. If you visit Detroit, stay in the main downtown, peopled and policed areas. If you drive north on Woodward from downtown in a nice car at night you are taking serious risks--especially if you pull over at a gas station, fast food joint, or convenience mart: you will be robbed most likely. Now that I've said this, please DO visit Detroit and patronize this place which is really, really struggling. The downtown main venues like the Fox Theatre are most excellent venues for taking in a show, or the legendary St Andrews theater. If you are going to see a major music performer you will have absolutely no problems, there is safety in numbers. The primary way tourists and even Detroiters get into trouble in Detroit is by wandering off course into side streets around 4 mile, 5 mile, 6 mile, 7 mile roads. Please bear in mind Detroit is a vast, sprawling megalopolis. It is quite similar to Los Angeles in that you will need a car to get around. There is no public transportation (that's safe to use). Even the downtown Greyhound bus station is sketchy! Be careful and you'll have a great time in the Motor City.

(WT-en) AHeneen 17:23, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Removed
I removed this, since it is demonstrably false:

(Detroit is the only place in the continental US where you have to go south to enter Canada)

Maine to Nova Scotia? This is an example of where this is not true.

 * Just out of curiosity, which ME-NS border crossing are you referring to? --Peter Talk 21:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Joe Louis Arena
I'm having trouble discerning what district Joe Louis Arena is in. It seems like it should be Downtown, but the way the map is drawn appears to put it in the Southwest Side. LtPowers (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

redlinks in the get in section
I cannot determine whether they redlink due to being in the wrong format (city, state / province instead of city (other geographical unit) ) or whether they redlink because they are too small for their own article. In either case this high amount of redlinks (especially redlinks without any further explanation) in such small a space is highly frustrating in my humble opinion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Detroit


text:
Talk:Detroit/Downtown

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

Districts
As this arose here, do we want, as a community, want a list of the nearby places in the district? See the understand section I believe. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:18, 23 December 2008 (EST).

Make Q-Line and people mover show up on the map?
Can we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Detroit/Downtown


text:
Talk:Detroit/Hamtramck-Highland Park

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

They're part of Detroit?
Aren't these places apart of Detroit anyways? I look at addresses and it says DETROIT, MI for the places labelled this. I just bring it up because i heard they are seperate cities. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:11, 7 December 2008 (EST).

 * Yes, Hamtramck and Highland Park are two small separate cities, but they are completely surrounded by the City of Detroit. --(WT-en) Local  hero  13:36, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Polish Art Center
I went to the Polish Art Center with my mother here in Hamtramck. The occasion was for Christmas. --(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 06:07, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Detroit/Hamtramck-Highland Park


text:
Talk:Detroit/Southwest Side

metro Southwest
This section should be treated as metro Southwest. The Henry Ford museum is within miniutes for example. No sensible travel guide would exclude key sites within miniutes from the "Southwest."(WT-en) Thomas Paine1776 14:45, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * Put it in the "Get out" section. --(WT-en) Local  hero  14:47, 27 December 2008 (EST)
 * Ditto - or provide further reason as to why it should include metro. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 14:48, 27 December 2008 (EST).

title: Talk:Detroit/Southwest Side


text:
Talk:Detroit Lake

vfd discussion

 * If this is worth an exception to Project:Bodies of water then keep, else merge it to whereever it should be merged and redirect. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 21:45, 14 March 2006 (EST)
 * It turns out that Detroit Lake is in Oregon, but what is it? --(WT-en) Ravikiran 22:02, 14 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Detroit Lake State Recreation Area. It's apparently a large state park in Oregon with camping, boating, etc. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:39, 14 March 2006 (EST)
 * A separate Detroit Lake State Recreation Area article was created, so I've made this a redirect to that article to avoid getting duplicate edits. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:44, 17 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect, as Ryan suggests. Whoever is writing these Oregon park articles (which I think are generally welcome) would do well to note that there is a template that is applicable, would help defend the articles, and will save a lot of rewriting later. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:48, 16 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Detroit Lake


text:
Talk:Detroit Lake Campground

Detroit Lake Campground

 * Delete. Not an article.  The info is good and can probably be used elsewhere -- there is a Detroit Lake State Recreation Area. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:04, 8 March 2006 (EST)
 * Replying to myself, (WT-en) Frudocks has created an article for Detroit Lake which contains the same text and I assume is meant to be about the recreation area. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:26, 10 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Detroit Lake Campground


text:
Talk:Devils Tower National Monument

Preferred terminology
How do the Indigenous peoples of the U.S. prefer to be described? Native American? American Indian? Something else? Is "Indians" still used, as it is in this article? Natives? Ground Zero (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I am not Native, but on DailyKos, there's been a lot of discussion of this, and what the Native folks including long-time activists like Meteor Blades say is that all of the above are fine. I had thought that "Indian" without "American" before it would be offensive, but no, it isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just want to make sure we're not offending. Ground Zero (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which we definitely should avoid doing. It's interesting how different the U.S. and Canada are in this respect. I like the Canadian expression, "First Nations", but "Indian Country" is used by Native Americans and others without any offense here in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Devils Tower National Monument


text:
Talk:Devon

The intro states that Devon has a north and south coast, so I have started articles for north and south Devon. A few of the places most important to travelers (no more than nine) can stay on the main Devon page. Others should be moved to their respective regional articles. WindHorse 10:54, 17 October 2006 (EDT)

Banner worries
Once again, I'd like a second opinion on a couple of banners - do you prefer the current occupant or the one below? --Nick talk 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Breaking this region up
We have 38 articles listed under this region. Are there any logical ways of dividing this into subregions to make navigation easier for readers?

Here is a proposal for five subregions, using the administrative boundaries, but grouping districts to have a reasonable number of towns in each: Proposed subregions for Wikivoyage: Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) North Devon
 * 2) Torridge
 * 3) Mid Devon
 * 4) East Devon
 * 5) Exeter
 * 6) West Devon
 * 7) Teignbridge
 * 8) Plymouth
 * 9) South Hams
 * 10) Torbay
 * Northern Devon, to include 1. North Devon and 2. Torridge
 * Mid and West Devon, to include 3. Mid Devon and 6. West Devon
 * Eastern Devon, to include 4. East Devon and 5. Exeter
 * South Central Devon, to include 7. Teignbridge and 10. Torbay
 * Southwest Devon, to include 8. Plymouth and 9. South Hams

 * Thanks for starting this. I feel bad for nitpicking, because I haven't got the bandwidth to offer a full alternative proposal with definite boundaries or help with the implementation (so busy trying to move to your country), but splitting up Dartmoor as you've done doesn't make sense. Apart from Dartmoor and (to a much lesser extent) Exeter, Devon's tourism interest lies in its coasts, so I'd have four coastal regions and just one for the bulk of the inland.
 * IMO, a more traveller-focused split would involve:
 * North Devon - as per you
 * East Devon - Everything to the east of Exeter
 * Devon Riviera - Dawlish to the Dart Estuary
 * Inland Devon - Exeter, Dartmoor and surrounds
 * South Devon - Dart Estuary to Plymouth
 * ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Too many articles under this one page atm. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I too have a few ideas on how to break the county up for purposes of WikiVoyage: It is my view that each of these six areas has its own distinctive characteristics - two cities, a national park and three areas each of which are a collection of market towns. Moreover, the first three already exist. Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exeter - Ancient city and county town
 * Plymouth - Largest city in Devon
 * Dartmoor National Park - The National Park plus the towns that border the park
 * East Devon - Area to the east of Exeter
 * North Devon - Area to the north of Dartmoor
 * English Riviera - Area bounded by Dartmoor to the north, the River Exe to the north-east, Plymouth to the west and the sea to the south.
 * I appreciate the views of those who know Devon better. One of the issues with not using administrative districts is that it becomes very difficult to make a map. I don't have map skills, but have done so in the past where there are districts available in Wikidata. Once we deviate from those, we'll need someone else to create a map. ( knows better about maps.)
 * I won't be able to work on this until March, but I figure that we need some time to decide on the right approach. Ground Zero (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can get the mapshapes from Wikidata or if I have a base layer, I can create a map. Unfortunately, I'm not that skilled in mapmaking so I can't really draw maps based on a rough boundary without significantly messing it up (my success rate of doing this is 0%). Sorry about that. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of producing a first draft of a map to show the regions. It needs some work - the six regions need to be numbered and other additions made (such as main roads if appropriate). The main reason that I chose a relief map for the background is that Dartmoor is clearly shown. Before I spend too much time on upgrades, how does this look as a first draft? Martinvl (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any objections if I start splitting the article using the attached map? Martinvl (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should go ahead. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a static map in the Wikivoyage style. Though very basic, that allows us to add a normal regionlist. I've done the categories/ispartof for North Devon as well. The region categories probably need to fixed in the other subregions as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did the regionalisation end up going ahead? If so, the tag should be removed. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WHich tag are uyou talking about? Martinvl (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * regions discussion -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Devon