text:
Talk:Hong Kong/Central

Map
The HK articles really need serious improvements. My contribution is to start making maps, here is a first draft for Central, any comments before starting to put in listing are most welcome, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 13:41, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Thank you for the map, it looks like it must have taken ages. I think it is excellent, and I do have some comments. The MTR is shown but you don't distinguish between existing lines and the new section up to Kennedy Town that is still under construction. The blue grey box appears to focus on Central? If so I would suggest that it needs to extend a bit further south to include some more tourist attractions - for example, Hong Kong Park. Whilst the grey box implies that there are places to see in the west when the reality is there is not much to see and many tourists would do better heading east towards Wanchai. I would crop the box to go as far as where you have written "Hollywood Road". I would consider including Star Street as part of the grey inset. Also, it might be good to include all the Central Ferry Piers in the grey box? (WT-en) Herngong 06:53, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Looks like a great map of Central. This is an overview map of the whole district, but it needs to be accompanied with a smaller map, as the blue box indicates. But I would make that other map smaller than the area of the blue box shows. Going from Arbuthnot Road in the west to just over Admiralty MTR station in the east should be fine. Maybe the map could extend a little bit southwards, like Herngong said, but to me, it is already fine this way as Hong Kong Park is already shown for a large part. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:09, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the comments, here is a first draft of the insert map before putting in listings, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 12:20, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

The new map is much more focussed. The only thing that is missing is The Star Ferry Pier - which is perhaps the number 1 tourist attraction in Central? (WT-en) Herngong 07:34, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

The whole sequence of maps looks great. There is a small typo - The Hong Kong- Macau Hellport". The new maps make me think that there are lots of good restaurants and bars that could be added. Maybe the people who criticise me the most will do this? (WT-en) Herngong 11:14, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I have just noticed a more fundamental naming issue. The map of "Central" is actually the west side of Hong Kong Island. Whilst the "central part of Central" is really just Central. It seems we need to think of a better name for the page? Central is the postcolonial name for Victoria, and it is a pretty small area around the MTR of the same name. (WT-en) Herngong 11:23, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

 * I agree that the name of the article is not perfect, but that was the consensus when we discussed this earlier. My original suggestion was Central and Western, which did not get any support though.  I do not have any strong feelings about the name of this article and am happy to support whatever can be agreed, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 12:13, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I do remember the discussion, but i think the excellent maps you have kindly produced have the effect of moving things along. I would agree with your suggestion of Central and Western, if only to avoid the absurdity of having "central Central" as a place. (WT-en) Herngong 05:30, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

 * I think "Central" is fine. It is common in Wikivoyage that districts cover a wider area. "Central" is more recognizable and snappier than "Central and Western", which I think just looks ugly. I also think maybe "Western" should become its own district later on. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:41, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

 * This has to be seen in connection with how we do it in Eastern Hong Kong Island and how we name the inset maps. The suggestion by Herngong supported by me is to rename the article Western Hong Kong Island and the inset map Central and Admiralty (to be in line with Eastern Hong Kong Island for the article and Wan Chai and Causeway Bay for the inset map).  Would that be acceptable? or what is your suggestion?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:45, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
 * The idea that 'western' will become its own district seems ambitious. Also, the number of tourist attractions on the western end of the island (as shown on the new map) are few and far between. It might be a very slow read.(WT-en) Herngong 06:15, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree, "Central and Western" looks ugly, and that is also what I want to avoid. Referring to "Central Central" is not so pretty. I agree that we rename the article Western Hong Kong Island and the inset map Central and Admiralty (to be in line with Eastern Hong Kong Island for the article and Wan Chai and Causeway Bay for the inset map. Please take a look at the Eastern Hong Kong Island article to get the idea being proposed. --(WT-en) Herngong 06:15, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Renaming to Central and Western District
This page clearly covers all of the Central and Western District of Hong Kong (中西區), not just the Central business district. The maps are of the Central and Western District (despite the label), the page explicitly says "Central in this guide means the administrative district of Central and Western", and this page is linked from the "Districts" section of Hong Kong ("Central" isn't a district, but "Central and Western" is). The current page title is confusing and misleading. It should be changed to Hong Kong/Central and Western District (to match Hong Kong/Eastern District and Hong Kong/Southern District). Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Hong Kong/Central


text:
Talk:Hong Kong/Eastern District

Are all prices in HKD? Or US Dollars?

 * HKD. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:57, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can this page be renamed Wanchai and Causeway Bay?

 * We prefer short and snappy names, but it's fine to define it to cover both areas. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)

 * "Eastern Hong Kong Island" I think is a pretty boring name. I'd opt for Wan Chai and Causeway Bay as well. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 03:54, 24 December 2010 (EST)

The Metropark Hotel Wanchai does not belong under the listing of "splurge" hotels. At a given rate of HK$450 a night, it's a midrange hotel, and literally a fraction of the price of the other, honest-to-goodness splurge listings. (WT-en) Kirchherr 01:05, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Change of Name?
I can't remember why we picked "Hong Kong/Eastern Hong Kong Island" but on reflection I think that Wan Chai and causeway Bay is probably the better option. There are very few tourism attractions beyond these two place. I agree with Globe Trotter on this. Who can make the change ? (WT-en) Herngong 11:43, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Maps

Early drafts of maps are included here for comments, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 12:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Hi Claus, when I first saw the maps there was a certain wow factor. I do like the style of cartography. The names given on the maps really do work very well "Eastern Hong Kong Island" and "Wan Chai and Causeway Bay". This then brings the Admiralty question into focus. As you know, Admiralty is a major tourism hotspot and it is a bridge between Central and Wanchai. Ideally, we need to somehow match up these three key places so that tourists can navigate between each of them. (WT-en) Herngong 07:52, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

I would very much favour having "Eastern Hong Kong Island" being matched with "Western Hong Kong Island". Likewise, I am thinking that since Admiralty is a tourism hotspot with a strong cluster of big name hotels, we perhaps should do it justice??? So, instead of "Central Central", maybe we could have " Central and Admiralty" as the focus? What do others think? (WT-en) Herngong 07:59, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

One more thing, Happy Valley? I think it will appear on the inset map, just not sure from the early draft. (WT-en) Herngong 08:02, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Do I understand it correctly that you would like to change the name of Central to Western Hong Kong Island? I would be fine with that.  And you want to change the name of the inset map from Central Central to Central and Admiralty and then I guess extent the inset map a bit to cover all of Admiralty and in that way make it border the inset map for Wan Chai and Causeway Bay?  I also think that would be a good idea.  In relation to Happy Valley, it is not included in the inset map, I was not sure if it would have enough listings to warrant an inset, but if it does, I suggest to make a separate inset, or would you consider Happy Valley to be part of Wan Chai and Caseway Bay?, (WT-en) ClausHansen 09:22, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

The only major attraction at Happy Valley is the racecourse, but racing at Happy valley is something of an iconic feature when it comes to HK - so it is hard to ignore. I don't know the map solution, but tourists need to be able to find the short walk from Causeway Bay MTR to the Racecourse. As for the name issue, it seems that we both broadly agree. (WT-en) Herngong 08:57, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

If anybody has seen the new Legislative Council Building under construction on the harbour front, they will see that it is a monster of a building complex that will do much to shift attention eastwards from Central to Admiralty. Once the harbour front is pedestrianised between Central and Admiralty, we will see many more tourists heading this way. I would suggest we consider "Central and Admiralty" as the name for the inset map. However, I would be pleased to hear what others think on this tricky issue. (WT-en) Herngong 09:23, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Hong Kong/Eastern District


text:
Talk:Hong Kong/Lantau

Older Wikitravel Discussions
The Lantau page needs expanding and I would suggest that it should be merged with the Discovery Bay page.

Discovery Bay has its merits but, for tourists, this middle-class housing area is perhaps of less interest than its own special wikivoyage page suggests. Without wishing to offend the residents of DB, I would feel guilty about advising tourists to spend time in DB when there are some fantastic places to visit elsewhere on Lantau.
 * I agree with merging the DB page into this one, and redirecting the DB page. --(WT-en) Inas 20:06, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Mui Wo page
I don't know why we need a separate page for such a small place. We spent a lot of time before sorting out the HK pages and so many pages were merged.

We are struggling to get enough information into the Lantau page, so I would recommend that the Mui Wo stuff is kept on Lantau. What do others think?Herngong

 * Yes of course Mui Wo should be a part of Lantau. But I don't see a separate page for Mui Wo anywhere? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:57, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

Try http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Mui_Wo_%28Hong_Kong%29 (WT-en) Herngong 08:18, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Article structure
I suggest all Lantau information is kept on the Lantau page. Separate articles for destinations on Lantau are not required. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Banner
I noticed someone added a picture of Hong Kong island to the banner, which was then reversed by someone else. (not me) I have found the new banner picture from a quick search on WikiMedia. It is OK, however I feel that a panorama of the Buddha statue or Tai O village would be much better. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Empty discovery bay listings
Most of these listings have no description. I don't recall most of these when I last visited (the place is quite small) so they may have been shut by now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new banner is OK, but I find the current banner more beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I used to live on this island :) The proposed banner really just shows the Tian Tan Buddha statue, and the way it is shown doesn't distinguish it much from the thousands of other Buddha statues around Asia. I would be against a change to the proposed banner. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I really suffer seeing Buddha (and other statues and towers and buildings) having tops cut off. That's always best avoided. Keep. Danapit (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that bugs me, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I like the present one, as it shows Lantau as being somewhere relatively rural. AlasdairW (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Neutral Syced (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Maps
For what reason are two different maps of the island needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I thought that is quite standard? One dynamic map with all the listings and which is easy to update and one static map which can be read on printed version etc. Although the static maps looks a bit different than our usual ones. --Drat70 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not standard. Normally, if the static map is fine, it doesn't get replaced. 2 maps are not at all standard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 * While I came to check whether the new bridge has been mentioned already, I reckon this issue remains unresolved. Should we update the static map, or remove it? Ibaman (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hong Kong/Lantau


text:
Talk:Hong Kong/Outlying Islands

This is a really great article! Nicely done...

 * Do note that I have spent exactly one day on Lantau and zero on the other islands, so any additions or corrections are more than welcome =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:06, 22 May 2004 (EDT)

Split off Lantau?
With HK Disneyland now open and the Tung Chung cablecar/theme village coming next year, it's likely that tourism to Lantau will really start taking off, and Lantau should probably be split off into its own district article. Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:15, 12 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I agree with the split. Even before the arrival of Mickie and crew, Lantau offered an array of (natural) tourist attractions. Go for it - SZ

 * I deleted the Spice Island listing in the eat section as it had no description of it and researching the internet I could not find anything on it. I added reviews for the other restaurant listings instead.--(WT-en) MarinaK 21:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)MarinaK.

The intro blurb for the article
The introduction to this article seems to be wrong. I think most of what we formerly classed as the "outlying islands" are now (quite logically) covered in the New Territories article?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:02, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Yes, that's true. This article now covers the Islands District minus Lantau and the airport island. Peng Chau, Cheung Chau and Lamma are the most popular ones. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:37, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Proposal to convert to region
I've always been a bit bothered that all the information about the outlying islands is placed in one article. If a traveler wants to spend a day on Lantau then it is not likely they would (or even could) go to Llama island or any other island on the same day.

Additionally the Lantau and Lamma articles are actually well developed by now.

My proposal is simply to:

A) Change this article into a 'Region' template B) Move content and individual listings to the correct 'District' articles, each district representing an island. C) The extremely small islands without regular boat connections can be aggregated on their own article page (not this one)

Please let me know if you agree/disagree --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * On reflection, Lantau should not be part of this section at all. Administratively it is actually part of the New Territories, and the WV map on the Hong Kong article actually has it as a separate region which I believe is fine. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I went through, removed Lantau and created a couple of island articles. Considering the large number of islands, I feel we should leave the high level descriptions in the region for now. If any island gains some listings then we should create an article for it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hong Kong/Outlying Islands


text:
Talk:Hong Kong/Stanley

I think Stanley deserves its own page - it's a separate town, rather than simply a district of Hong Kong, and you have to specifically travel to it when visiting Hong Kong. Putting Stanley, Aberdeen and other separate locales into one big "Southern Hong Kong Island" article will make that article fairly unwieldy and confusing for anybody wanting to visit that part of Hong Kong. (WT-en) Angriest 20:09, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Hong Kong/Stanley


text:
Talk:Hong Kong Culinary Tour

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

vfd history
Great information and well written, but in the wrong place. I think this should be merged into Hong Kong and then deleted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:06, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Neutral. It's an awkward cross between an itinerary and listings as it stands, but it might still be salvageable... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:35, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Hmmm. Typically, I would be hostile toward this type of itinerary, but as I've never been to HK and if and when I do make I'd want to jump-in and try to get a full dose of culture shock.  Thus, I think there could possibly be a venue for this type of information.  I'll make an official vote after a couple more days as I see the article progress. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Im the original author. This was just a first draft, with the idea to add more places later, and some more details on each type of food (typical ingredients, level of spiciness, recommended dishes etc.). The idea was to give more than just a list of restaurants - actually a reason to try each one over a period of time. I'm out of town for the next couple of weeks though, so I wont be able to work on it further til then. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 219.79.208.116 (talk • contribs)

 * Seems less like an itinerary than a private 'Eat' section. It's capably written, but if the author has a vision for it beyond what's there - but doesn't intend to do anything on it for a few weeks - well, that's what a (WT-en) sandbox is for. Don't premiere itineraries until they're ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

 * If this is to become a full-fledged tour, e.g., "eat Japanese for lunch at one of these 3-4 places on Tuesday and Cantonese for dinner at this place, then on Wednesday...", I would have no objections to keeping the itinerary. I myself have plans for a one-day culinary tour itinerary of the US Northeast. As it stands, however, all this content could easily fit in the "What to eat" section of the main city article and the restaurants belong in district "eat" sections. I also agree with Gorilla that Itineraries really should be usable before they are published, as stub and outline itineraries almost never get filled out later. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:53, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

I've updated this now to a proper itinerary (at least for day 1). Please update your comments if you still want to delete it. If it stays, I'll carry on in the same format for itineraries for day 2 & 3.--219.79.208.116 10:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * It's looking very good! Keep. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Yes. Keep (WT-en) Pashley 22:28, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Outcome - Kept --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 07:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Update?
Prices are from 2007, and therefore, worthless. Perhaps some of the eateries mentioned in the article are out of business, too. If you are familiar with the culinary scene in Hong Kong, please update this article in any way you can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation
eat = "sick (without the ‘k’ sound)"

How do you say "sick" with the "k" sound? "Si'? That is not nearly clear enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I believe it's an unreleased k sound—in other words, the back of the tongue touches the soft palate at the end of the vowel, but there's no audible release afterwards. I've adjusted the article accordingly, but it might still be able to use some improvement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The vowel is actually wrong. It's closer to an "e" (Spanish and Italian pronunciation) sound than an "i" sound. The dog2 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hong Kong Culinary Tour


text:
Talk:Hong Kong Island

I'm not sure if anybody will read this, but what exactly is the difference between do and see

 * Have a look at Project:Huge city article template. In general, "See" is for attractions, while "Do" is for activities.  A famous market in Hong Kong would go under "See", while an organized tour of the city would go under "Do". -- (WT-en) Wrh2 02:08, 5 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Can we split this up? Too much to see and do for one article IMO. (WT-en) Hkpatv 04:07, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)

 * Go ahead and propose something. I don't think we (at this stage) need a separate article for every single bit of the Island though. 219.83.52.66 05:14, 22 Oct 2005 (EDT)

OK - looking at the "Official Districts" of HK Island we have: Hows about start with those initially? We can always sub-divide if necessary later.(WT-en) Hkpatv 05:14, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * Hong Kong/Central and Western — Lan Kwai Fong, Soho, The Peak, Sheung Wan, Kennedy Town
 * Hong Kong/Eastern — TaiKoo Shing, Quarry Bay, Sai Wan Ho
 * Hong Kong/Southern — Aberdeen, Stanley, Shek O
 * Hong Kong/Wan Chai — includes Causeway Bay, Happy Valley

The names are a bit dry but the split looks basically OK. Let's plug in the area names -- my first shot above. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:27, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * Yes, a bit dry, but can't think of anything better - any suggestions? Area names are fine - I guess missed some, but nothing important.(WT-en) Hkpatv 05:45, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * Renamed (removed Island) as per http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/touring/hkiidistricts/index.jhtml. I think the names look better.

title: Talk:Hong Kong Island


text:
Talk:Honolulu

"You'll want to get there early in the morning (by 8:00 am) to ensure you get in as they control the number of visitors per day in an effort to preserve the reef."

Can anyone confirm this? We just visited Hanauma Bay a couple weeks ago, on a weekend, and got in at 11AM with no problem. I know parking is an issue but I certainly don't think you need to get there by 8AM to get into the place. Their own website mentions nothing about limiting the number of visitors per day.

---

I'm not sure if I buy Honolulu being a Huge city. It's really not on the scale of say Mexico City or New York. That's not to say it doesn't have a lot going on, but I can only think of maybe a few districts it would need to be split into if we found ourselves with tons of information (we can only hope for this problem!). I think we're better off starting it as a large or medium city and then spliting out districts if the it gets way too long (more than 5-6 scrolling pages). Thoughts? (WT-en) Majnoona

 * I completely agree. Honolulu proper is only about 375,000 people. I doubt it's dense enough to need to be split into districts. Also, I have a question: we're seeing a lot of people dropping in templates without any further edits. I find it harder to edit an article when it's got all that template boilerplate in it. Does anyone have a suggestion for how to keep people from doing this? Some kind of instructions? I saw that (WT-en) Mark and (WT-en) Allegra were commenting out the template text, which is nice since only editors can see it... Still not sure about this. --(WT-en) Evan 12:32, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

Re: Hawaii / Honolulu / Districts. I think it'll work itself out. I just wanted to sort it out some before I unleash all the high school students on this site. :) I agree that the current template system is unwieldy -- and it's especially confusing for newcomers to your site.  At the very least, you might want to provide some more instruction on how to work with the templates.  Currently you're leaving people to figure it out for themselves.  --(WT-en) Eureka 09:00, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)

L'Uraku is no longer at the location mentioned in the article; instead the restaurant at this location is now called Elua and it is definitely not Japanese-European fusion.

---

On this same issue, do we really need a Honolulu/Downtown article? I'm fine with Waikiki, but Downtown doesn't have very much info with the exception of the See section. Why don't we merge Downtown into the main Honolulu article? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 16:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Districts
Is this guide fully districted? Should we have any listings remaining in the main article? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:13, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Given the various attempts to make districts for Honolulu, I'm now thinking that fully districting Honolulu would be a good idea for the future of this article. I've been thinking of some potential layouts; here's one proposal:
 * 1. Central Honolulu - covering Downtown and stretching east to the Ala Moana Center.
 * 2. Waikiki
 * 3. Makiki-Manoa - covering Makiki, Manoa, and perhaps Nu'uanu as well.
 * 4. Eastern Honolulu - everything east of Manoa and Diamond Head, including Kahala, Hawaiʻi Kai, and the Makapuʻu Point.
 * 5. Western Honolulu - everything west of Downtown, including Kalihi, Moanalua, the airport, and Pearl Harbor.
 * Any thoughts and/or suggestions? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:25, 4 January 2010 (EST)

 * I'm thinking of putting this layout into action in the next week or so, so does anyone want to offer their thoughts before I move forward? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

 * Seems like you know what you're doing, rather a full distrification that can be refined if a local steps up, than a confusing half arsed one. Though I'd personally like some sort of map ready when it's implemented. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:04, 9 January 2010 (EST)

 * How about a map ready before it's implemented? ;) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 20:47, 9 January 2010 (EST)
 * [[Image:Honolulu districts map.png|400px]]

title: Talk:Honolulu


text:
Talk:Honolulu/Makiki

Makiki
My hunch was that we should redirect this one to Honolulu, but a persistent user keeps turning it into a rather well developed article. Should this be a district of Honolulu? A separate city article? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)
 * Sources seem to differ as to whether it's a "neighborhood" in Honolulu or a "suburb" of Honolulu. Either way, I feel fairly strongly that the article shouldn't be deleted, although it might be renamed/redirected.  Let's do some research on this one; at the very least, Honolulu is probably big enough to merit some districting, and this could be a start. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)
 * Gentleman, I am a native of Honolulu and went to school for 13 years at Punahou (the same school that President-elect Obama attended from 1971 to 1979). That school happens to be located in Makiki which I can assure you is an old, established neighborhood--most definitely not a suburb by any stretch of the imagination. Makiki is in the heart of Honolulu, about a mile from downtown (West), two miles from Wakiki (South) and about two miles (east) of the University of Hawaii.  It is certainly not a separate city! You may want to consult a map.  Given that you do not live here, what you are not aware of is that Makiki is starting to generate a tremendous amount of interest and tourist traffic because of its association with Barack Obama, who was born in Kapiolani Hospital (in Makiki) and grew up a few blocks from the high school that we both graduated from. Frankly there was not a lot of interest in this neighborhood from outsiders until Obama burst on the scene. This is a very well researched piece.  What's more Makiki deserves the recognition. -- (WT-en) Ian Brizdle
 * Thanks to (WT-en) Ian Brizdle for the clarification. Although he has clarified the situation, I think he has made a case for incorporation of this article in the Honolulu article. Something like the Columbus, Ohio breakdown may be appropriate. Merge and Redirect into and to Honolulu. (WT-en) 2old 13:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)
 * With this background, I think the course of action is clear: Rename and move to Honolulu/Makiki (which will automatically generate the redirect) and modify the root Honolulu article to point to it as a district. The rudiments of a districting scheme for Honolulu are already taking shape anyway; may as well help it along.  (You fit 13 years at Punahou into the period from 1971 to 1979?  I'm impressed. :-) ) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

 * Sorry for the confusion, I graduated in '98 and attended Punahou since Kindergarten. Obama attended '71 to '79.  My error with the . -- (WT-en) Ian Brizdle

title: Talk:Honolulu/Makiki


text:
Talk:Honolulu/Waikiki

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

Comments

 * It's tough doing eat and drink here because so many places in Waikiki straddle them right down the middle. You can walk into dukes and sit down and order a three course meal or a mai-tai and they'll both be great. How to do define that? --(WT-en) N1ywb 08:15, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Aloha Stadium Swap Meet - Someone suggested moving this to Honolulu. It is really in Pearl City, or adjacent to it. I would suggest leaving it where it is so a visitor may find it. It is a great place to visit and to some (like me), one of the favorite attractions on the island. (WT-en) Workerbee 13:33, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Waikiki geography
This line in the Wiki is geographically incorrect. If anything, the Pacific is to the south.

Waikiki is the area of Honolulu bounded by the Ala Wai Canal to the north and east, the Diamond Head crater to the south and the Pacific Ocean to the west. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 132.3.45.68 (talk • contribs)

 * Plunge forward --(WT-en) inas 17:03, 14 December 2010 (EST)

Illegal to go on the beach after midnight
This sounds rather insane, but walking on the beach after midnight is an illegal activity. I have noted in the 'stay safe' section --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That does sound insane. Thanks for making a note of that, Andrew. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Honolulu/Waikiki


text:
Talk:Honshu

Honshu needs disambiguation?
My scripts just came across Honshu, which is a disambiguation page, even though Honshu is not an ambiguous word. According to my scripts, it is the only occurrence of this kind of situation on a big area. I think it should be an article, like it was some time ago, see the history. This article is probably seen by many people: via the breadcrumb navigation, most Japan articles have a link to it. What do you think? Cheers (WT-en) Nicolas1981 04:16, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
 * First of all, I think the Japan section should be much clearer that five of the regions are on one island, while the other main islands have only one region. As for the Honshu article itself, it should either be made a top-level region of Japan or made simply a redirect to the Japan article.  I suppose a third option could be to make it a pseudo-regional article that isn't technically in the hierarchy, like Great Lakes.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:40, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
 * That's the way it was before, but another user objected that it was confusing. And I think he was right: since Honshu covers the vast majority of Japan's population, main cities and sights, I don't see a need to artificially insert it into the hierarchy, just like we don't have a "Continental" division for US divisions outside AK/HI. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:58, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
 * 'Continental' isn't in the US breadcrumb trail, though, while Honshu is. I'd support taking Honshu out of the Japan trail, so that the region hierarchy agrees with the breadcrumb trail. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:56, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Done. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:38, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree with Gorilla Jones. Thanks Jpatokal! 123.230.9.151 01:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT) Forgot to login as usual (WT-en) Nicolas1981 01:22, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay, that's done, but Honshu is still listed as a disambiguation page. What should we do with that article? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:56, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Nothing, it's fine as it is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
 * As Nicolas pointed out, there's nothing ambiguous about the word "Honshu". (WT-en) LtPowers 14:36, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
 * The naming is stupid, but ambiguity is in fact not required for disambiguation: "Some geographical names can refer to several Wikivoyage articles, but not one of their own." See Project:Disambiguation pages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:15, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Honshu


text:
Talk:Hopen

Hopen
According to our Project:What is an article? policy, this shouldn't be an article as you cannot sleep there. According to Wikipedia there are cabins there for the weather team, but it is otherwise uninhabited and Svalbard states that it is uninhabited... Do we need to tighten up our guidelines or do we delete this? I'm not sure it's a great idea to delete this - if we do, we have to start deleting all wilderness articles... -- (WT-en) Tim 19:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep -- just read a bit further down to the exceptions section... we should keep this. -- (WT-en) Tim 19:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete -- I don't see how the exceptions section justifies this? It's uninhabited (except for the weather station), has no tourist facilities or sights of interest, and requires special permits and a custom Arctic expedition to get to.  Neither do the other similar islands in the archipelago: in the unlikely event that they start to spill out of the main Svalbard article, they should be lumped into Outer Islands (Svalbard) or some such. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. Not every splotch of land in the ocean is a destination.  Jani's solution seems correct. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Svalbard. We have (very brief) articles for some other rocks in the ocean with no public accommodations, but that's only because they're on the standard list of countries and territories (so people might go looking for articles about them), and they have no nearby landmasses (so they can't be easily included and redirected to anything). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Svalbard. An article that will never exceed outline status probably isn't worth keeping around, but at the same time a redirect keeps someone from recreating it in the future. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, you guys talked me into it. I've done the redirect and will close the books on this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Hopen


text:
Talk:Hopkinton (Massachusetts)

you are missing Hopkinton, RI...which is the link I followed to get here.
 * It now has its own page, thanks! (WT-en) OldPine 08:25, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Merger

 * The state park that is listed lies in Hopkinton and in Ashland. Merging the two makes sense after 16 years of this outline sitting here. Ground Zero (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hopkinton (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:Hordaland

If someone gets to read this I would like to know wheter is a city called Vindaas or not in Norway... I am trying to find out about the origin of my lastname which is Vindas and heard that there is a city called like that in Norway, espefically in a region or state called Hordaland... If you live in Norway or have any information regarding that city, do not hesitate to contact me, you can send me an email to the following email address vindas-92@hotmail.es

I appreciate any kind of help you guys can give

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Both beautiful, but I've gotta go with the original, because of the reflections. Could the new banner be used in a different article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The existing banner could be of any place. It shows mainly a boat and a reflection of some mountain which could be any mountain. The new banner shows an amazing iconic scenery which is unique only to Hordaland. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I'll respect any consensus that gets behind you on this, as I haven't visited Hordaland. However, I would observe that the reflections have particular shapes that probably can't be seen everywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Both are beautiful banners and I have no strong preference. The new banner has no source image; @ויקיג'אנקי, did you take the picture yourself? It's a stunning scene. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Check the file info again (I just created this banner. In many instances, such as this one, when I am working on many Wikivoyage things all at once, it takes me a couple of hours to get to writing the full correct derivative license of the Wikivoyage banners I create). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Has to be number two! Stunning. The first one looks like someone made a mistake uploading. – Hshook (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Danapit (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep original. #2 is very good, but Trolltunga has been hyped and after recent death and rescue operations there are doubts in Norway about the marketing of this place. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps process another fjord image, like the one from Sørfjorden with Folgefonna. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Trolltunga 2.jpg I actually like the current image a lot. The reflection gives it an almost artistic quality. I do think the image of Trolltunga is a fascinating one, but perhaps it's even more spectacular (and more correct) in its original form. I'd say keep the current banner, but perhaps we can include the source image of the new banner in the article? The fact that it's hyped or there's discussion about promotion shouldn't keep us from informing travellers, I think. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep the original. Why waste time creating a new banner when the original is so good? (This applies to most banner proposals by the way)
 * Erik den yngre's point about the recent death from rock in the proposed picture is somewhat relevant as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with JuliasTravels that WV should inform travellers, but information should be fair and realistic. Trolltunga is in fact not very representative for Hordaland county, and it is not very accessible. Trolltunga is not something the average tourist can expect to see. Fjords are the most typical for the county, in addition of course to the city of Bergen. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Banner 2 is the obvious choice, 1 is nice but 2 is much more iconic and breathtaking. Syced (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons mentioned above. #2 is certainly a great photo, but does not tell a fair and relevant story about Hordaland. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

sub-regions
Should Hardanger be merged into this region article? Or should other sub-region be created? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sunnhordland and Nordhordland would probably not be very useful as regions, but might be used as city articles covering their entire respective region. If we choose that solution it would make sense to use Hordaland as a bottom level region. That means that Hardanger should either be split up between smaller units which act as cities on their own right, or that we make Hardanger itself a city article and merge the city articles within it into the Hardanger article. The question is thus whether Odda, Eidfjord, Ulvik, Finse, Rosendal and Kvamskogen are best treated as one or several articles. As all of these except Odda are tiny villages with some 1,000 inhabitants each, I would probably vote for the merge option. MartinJacobson (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of listings in the Hardanger article that are close or even in towns that have articles. Maybe should sort out the articles then review again. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All listings moved to city (town or municipality) articles. Should the understand text of Hardanger and Sunnhordland be merged into Hordaland ?

I dont agree on the recent changes. Some of the changes for Hardanger does not make sense or are not informative for the traveller, so I put some of the highlights back where they belong, in the Hardanger article rather than in articles on this small villages. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Places like Kvamskogen probably dont need separate articles, Kvamskogen is a smallish ski resort with many holiday homes for citizens of Bergen. Hardanger should be kept as the key article inside Hordaland, along with Voss and Bergen. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hordaland is a county (intermediate administrative level), but will soon merge with Sogn og Fjordane to form a new county. The new county will be too large and villages too small as key articles. I suggest the following regions: Not sure if Sunnfjord and Nordhordland should have their own articles, as these districts are not very distinct or too small as destinations. Erik den yngre (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bergen and surroundings (Midhordland)
 * Voss
 * Hardanger
 * Sunnhordland
 * Sognefjorden
 * Nordfjord
 * As this discussion ended 3 years ago, is it time to remove the "Region Discussion" tag from the article? Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hordaland


text:
Talk:Southampton Parish

Redirect??
This is a bit weak for an article and though this is a world class beach, I'm not sure it deserves an article. I would like to set up an article for each parish. Then put this in Southampton Parish. (WT-en) OldPine 17:23, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, I think you are right. It is really called Horseshoe Bay and there are other places called Horseshoe Beach. This needs to be changed or redirected in my mind also. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 18:08, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Southampton Parish


text:
Talk:Horse-trekking in Andalucia, Spain

VFD Discussion

 * Merge and Delete - this is not a travel topic, rather in a spammy sort of advert that we delete regularly. Any content here worth keeping can be easily merged into Andalucia --(WT-en) inas 22:56, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Template:Merge added to the article -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:16, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Horse-trekking in Andalucia, Spain


text:
Talk:Horsham (West Sussex)

Horsham is also the site for Novartis-UK Affiliate of the Swiss based company Novartis AG. The R&D here focuses on Metabolic disorders, GI tract diseases and such. http://www.novartis.co.uk/index.shtml

 * Hmmm, I'm not sure how this information impacts travellers. (WT-en) Majnoona 19:09, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Horsham (West Sussex)


text:
Talk:Horsley Hills

Untitled
The pics are they copyrighted or are in free use? --71.254.96.142 00:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I checked a bunch of them, and they all look to be owned by the uploader, which makes them licensed as CC-by-SA 1.0. Regarding the map, I'm not sure whether the fact that it is a partial photograph makes it ok to relicense. I will put it up for a vfd. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:24, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Horsley Hills


text:
Talk:Horton Heath

It's not clear to me what the relationship is between Horton Heath and Eastleigh, so I put this in Hampshire and I'm hoping for the best. --(WT-en) Evan 10:34, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Horton Heath