text:
Talk:Northern Territory

Permission
In regards to all Northern Territory information I have added, you may notice that some of the text I am adding appears in another website eg travelnt.com, that is because I am the original author. --Lex 11:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT) Please contact Ryan Campbell if you require confirmation.

Ryan Campbell Manager – Web and Digital Development Brand & Marketing Services Marketing Communications Tourism NT t: 61 8 8999 3919  :   f: 61 8 8999 3920 e: ryan.campbell@nt.gov.au

Regions
We now got the Red Centre and Top End regions. Do we even need these regions in the first place? NT only has a few cities, but does have some amazing national parks. I think they easily fit within one article though and no further sub-divisions. I suggest we get rid of Top End (it doesn't fit our regional scheme, as it includes parts of Queensland and Western Australia). But then, what to do with Red Centre? I think it's a bit of a strange article, can't we just merge it with Alice Springs? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 21:43, 22 December 2009 (EST)

 * I think a good regional structure could actually be really useful - because so much of what there is to see doesn't lie within normal city articles, and touring around regions is a popular thing to do.
 * Putting the whole thing in one region makes for a very large region. Uluru is closer to Adelaide than it is to Darwin, and more than a couple of days drive.
 * However, I agree that the current top-end and Red Centre regions are not a necessarily the most useful division. Red centre makes a really nice region I think.  So many people do the Alice/Uluru/McDonnell Ranges/Kings Canyon trip, and grouping those together makes sense - but I don't think the current article does it justice.  So does Darwin/Katherine and Kakadu make a good region.  Many people do that region in a trip.  The question is how you put a region around the rest of the area, which includes an awful lot of nothing.  --(WT-en) inas 22:04, 22 December 2009 (EST)

 * Top End and Red Centre do seem logical: one is lush tropical, while the other is red desert. And indeed, sights in these areas are often combined. We could include Tennant Creek in Red Centre, which would make it larger, but it's not like it can sustain its own region. The same logic applies to Arnhem Land: we could make it a whole region, but i'd rather just keep it a National Park article. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 19:10, 23 December 2009 (EST)

 * Or maybe the Tennant Creek Area could sustain it's own region? From north to south there's Runner Springs, Barkly Homestead, Tennant Creek, Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, Wauchope, Wycliffe Well and Aileron. It might be a bit comical to give those their own articles though, as most of them have sleeping facilities but are really small. But as I have been at them, I could give it a shot.

 * See the NT Regions Map here and here . I think this is good for us to copy (except that we should include full Arnhem Land, not just the east portion). That would make the regions:

 * Darwin (region)
 * Katherine (region) (which could be combined as Top End)
 * Arnhem Land (possibly also Top End)
 * Barkly Tableland
 * Red Centre.

 * We could also combine Darwin and Katherine into "Top End" (which sounds more logical), and maybe include Arnhem Land in that. If done that way, we'd have three or four regions, Top End, Barkly Tableland, Red Centre and possibly Arnhem Land. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 19:29, 23 December 2009 (EST)

 * Sounds good to me. 3 regions, using Barkly Tableland for the area between the Top End and Red Centre.  --(WT-en) inas 21:26, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Map
This was featured as DotM back in 2008 and hasn't been touched since than except few minor edits. This is one of our few region articles at guide status so I think it should need a proper WV-styled map and I'm ready to do it but I don't the boundaries of the sub-regions. Please let me know if anyone knows. Other then that, I think some of the section needs to be expanded as well. Is anyone up for it? --Saqib (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation
regarding this edit, per Capitalization:
 * "Political or geographical units such as cities, towns, and countries follow the same rules: as proper names they require capitals, but as generic words they do not.
 * Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 670,000.
 * Correct (generic): The city has a population of 670,000.
 * Correct (title): The City of Durban has a population of 670,000."

So we use "the Northern Territory ", but "the territory".

Wikivoyage follows the Manual of Style, and not the NT Tourism Authority manual of style. We don't work for NT Tourism. Ground Zero (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this might be a matter that should get more second opinions from Australian/connected-to-Australia contributors -- especially if we happen to have any Territory locals. My intuition is to say "the Territory" is a proper name a la the City, and this is the usage I see in both tourist contexts and seeing locals write amongst themselves. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have posted a note at Requests for comment. Australia has ten territories. Is "the Territory" always understood in Australia to mean NT, and not the ACT or any of the other eight territories? Ground Zero (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, yes (and the other eight territories are more like trivia questions than anything else). The ACT is the ACT (or indeed just Canberra -- a lot of people don't make the distinction in practice). "The Territory" would be understood to refer to the NT. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . Stumbled across this discussion after nine months. From my experience:
 * when using "the territory" alone, it usually means the northern territory. The other nine (or eight excluding the Aus Antarctic Territory) are pretty insignificant, with two others with the name territory, the Australian Capital Territory is mostly referred to as "Canberra" and Jervis Bay Territory is mostly referred to as "Booderee National Park" (a rare case where an entire territory is called a national park more than the name of the actual territory)
 * however, on the other hand, "the territory" is not capitalised. I've rarely seen "the Territory" before, except in some TV programs and ads although that's largely irrelevant. The only major universal exception is when using title case
 * the same applies for "federal territory"
 * In my opinion, this isn't a case of "which variety of English" is used, unlike in NZ articles where U.S. would be written as "US", and so it should probably not be capitalised. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To add some additional real-world sources: I originally gave as examples of "the Territory" in common usage this and this, which Ground Zero rejected as tourist marketing. I spot-checked three random articles on a variety of topics (one tourism, one human interest, and one COVID-19) at ABC News, a respectable state-run news organization, and found that all three (1, 2, 3) made use of "the Territory" as a proper name. Meanwhile, articles relating to the Australian Capital Territory (which was a slightly tougher search, as many of those articles were actually about national politics) universally refer to "the ACT" and save "the Territory" as a proper name for the NT (1, 2, 3). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No info about crime in the "Stay safe" section
I'd like a second opinion before adding it, but I think the higher crime rates in the Northern Territory should get a mention, and it should be mentioned in the territory article, not just the articles of Katherine and Tennant Creek. From this ABC article, "It is 30 times the national rate of the USA" and United_States_of_America has much more than what is currently here (which is nothing). It's also worth noting that Darwin is considered Australia's most dangerous city, and Crime in the Northern Territory seems to confirm that crime in the NT is much higher than the six states + Canberra. As the stay safe section currently has nothing about crime, I think it should be mentioned, but I'd like another opinion before adding it. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Ttcf. Add it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a bit on it, though it may need expansion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Crime
I've never been to the NT myself, but could you please have a look at the Crime section under Stay Safe? It looks kind of sensationalistic to me, so I have doubts about its accuracy. The dog2 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * The sad truth is that the Crime section is accurate (as much as I wish it was sensationalistic) – much of it is alcohol-fuelled, hence the recent alcohol restrictions implemented in the Red Centre after Albanese's recent visit to Alice Springs. I'll give a full response when I come back home, but many of the ABC's articles about the NT have either got to do with defence or crime. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I decided to rewrite the section. It's worth noting that crime is a hot political topic in the NT, hence the recent visits to Alice Springs by both PM Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton (though let's just say his visit was the classic "politician visit") about alcohol violence. I do hope this changes in the Red Centre after the recent alcohol restrictions, but the crime will still remain a hot topic for years to come. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have the time, you should probably add that information about crime to the Darwin and Alice Springs articles too. I'm against sensationalism, but if they actually have high crime rates, it behooves us to inform potential visitors about it. The dog2 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tennant Creek has no "Stay safe" section and probably should if it's a high-crime place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's surprising how little we cover on crime in northern Australia (i.e. the NT and FNQ), but that's probably because before Albo's recent visit (early this year), few Australians were aware of how bad crime gets up there. I'll add a bit about crime in all three articles soon. For some further reading about the comparison with the US, here's a good ABC article that highlights an ongoing issue throughout the Territory. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 02:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Alice Springs already has a section on crime, though. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I never felt particularly unsafe when I visited Cairns, but it might just be because I didn't stray beyond the main tourist areas. But yeah, if Far North Queensland has high crime rates, we should also mention it in that article. When I was there, I heard that alcoholism and drug abuse is a major problem among Aboriginal communities, similar to the problems Native Americans face. The dog2 (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but the difference between Queensland's and the NT's crime situation is Queensland's crime problem is worsening while the inverse is true in the NT (after the recent alcohol restrictions). I guess Cairns (and its immediate surroundings) is a bit of an exception, given it's a major tourist hotspot, but the differences are stark once you head north or west. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you can update the Far North Queensland article then? The dog2 (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Crime revisited
Revisiting the wording of this section - there is no debate that there is higher crime than (Australian) average in the NT, but I do take exception to the '30 time more than United States' since the comparison is truly meaningless. The US doesn't have a uniform crime rate and the types of crimes committed are often not comparable. Also the statistic - 30 times - has no reference either. Therefore do you really object to its removal? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I do have a source, from the ABC, which clearly states that "It is 30 times the national rate of the USA, a country notorious for gun violence." These aren't stats that I pulled out of nowhere and should be emphasised as the NT is a pocket of crime-haven in an otherwise safe country. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 05:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK... so it is somewhat more nuanced what you are trying to say - the murder rate of two specific (small) towns is 30 times the average of the United States. But again, the United States is a huge country of 300+ million, with large regional variations. If it is to give the visitor a frame of reference, then I still don't find the comparison helpful at all. Would you at least feel comfortable comparing to a city in the US with a known high murder rate? St Louis for example? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For which we don't have a solid source for. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, we do :) List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate - as you can see the variation in homicide rates in that country is massive.
 * Now Tennants Creek has a homicide rate of 59.6 (from the ABC article). St Louis actually has a slightly higher rate of 66.07 - now if you were to tell an American that Tennants Creek was similar in danger as St Louis then that would be realistic. Or you could say twice as dangerous as Kansas City (in the news yesterday). OR five times as dangerous as Miami. What do you think would be a good city? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar comparisons in other articles have been deleted as U.S.-centric. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'd prefer to go with the ABC's (somewhat generalized) figure over a niche US city. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly because that 30x stat is literally US centric - and unhelpful as well - I'm asking for a better way to do this? Andrewssi2 (talk) Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could compare to the Australian homicide rate - 0.82 - that would give you more than a 60 times multiplier? Does that fit perhaps? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the ABC (an organisation with far more experience than us) is putting that stat, you can safely assume they did so because they know what their readerbase can relate it with. But yeah, the Australian homicide rate works as well (I was initially resentful since we'd be technically using OR but with simple math but whatever). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm usually a fan of the ABC - but honestly that article did not work for me with the comparisons. As you've been contributing, there are very serious crime issues in the NT, but comparing it to gun crime in the US frankly felt like it was trivializing the story. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Crime - renting a car
@SHB2000 Question about this advice - "If you're renting a car, avoid choosing one that may attract vandals or thieves." - legitimately not sure what model/type of car I would look for to follow this advice. - Maybe a cheaper car like a Toyota Yaris might not attract vandals so much, but thieves probably target any new looking car? (and probably old ones as well). Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Perfectly summed up :-). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 02:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Territory


text:
Talk:Northern Territory/Hierarchy

This is a starting point to work from to form a hierarchical division of Western Australia. It is largely based on these sites: Top End, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Central Australia and no attempt has been made to see if all the places really deserve an article of their own. Feel free to adapt, add or delete, preferably with some explanation. (WT-en) DhDh 13:55, 22 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Northern Territory
 * Central Australia
 * Alice Springs
 * East MacDonnells
 * Arltunga Historical Reserve
 * Plenty Highway
 * Ruby Gap Nature Park
 * Sandover Highway
 * Trephina Gorge
 * Simpson Desert
 * Chambers Pillar
 * Ewaninga Rock Carvings
 * Rainbow Valley
 * Tanami Desert
 * Tanami Track
 * Uluru
 * Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
 * Watarrka National Park
 * West MacDonnells
 * Finke Gorge National Park
 * Hermannsburg
 * Larapinta Trail
 * Mereenie Loop Road
 * Tnorala
 * West MacDonnell Ranges National Park
 * Katherine (region)
 * Borroloola-Gulf
 * Barranyi National Park
 * Borroloola
 * Cape Crawford
 * Daly
 * Douglas Daly
 * Douglas Hot Springs
 * Butterfly Gorge Nature Park
 * Katherine
 * Cutta Cutta Caves Nature Park
 * Flora River Nature Park
 * Nitmiluk National Park
 * Larrimah-Dunmurra
 * Daly Waters
 * Larrimah
 * Mataranka-Roper
 * Elsey National Park
 * Roper River
 * Mataranka
 * Pine Creek (region)
 * Pine Creek
 * Umbrawarra Gorge
 * Victoria Highway
 * Victoria River (region)
 * Gregory National Park
 * Keep River National Park
 * Timber Creek
 * Victoria River Crossing
 * Stuart Highway
 * Tennant Creek (region)
 * Barkly Highway
 * North Tennant Creek (region)
 * Banka Banka Station
 * Elliott
 * Newcastle Waters
 * Renner Springs
 * South Tennant Creek (region)
 * Barrow Creek
 * Davenport Range National Park
 * Devils Marbles (Karlu Karlu)
 * Wauchope
 * Wycliffe Well
 * Top End
 * Darwin
 * Darwin (region)
 * Arnhem Land
 * Cobourg Peninsula
 * Garig Gunak Barlu National Park
 * Gove Peninsula
 * Nhulunbuy
 * Groote Eylandt
 * Kakadu National Park
 * Litchfield National Park
 * Mary River (region)
 * Mary River National Park
 * Tiwi Islands
 * Bathurst Island
 * Melville Island

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

title: Talk:Northern Territory/Hierarchy


text:
Talk:Northern Territory by two-wheel drive vehicle

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

Comments
155.205.201.11 01:01, 24 May 2010 (EDT) TeeDee - this is a work in progress. Feel free to add, but Ill be working on this over time!

 * Can we at least quickly add some information which isn't already available elsewhere? The government stuff, and the Get In stuff all exists in other articles.  People can already read all about how to Get in to Darwin and Uluru. Can we add some unique content here, which justifies its existence?   --(WT-en) inas 02:01, 24 May 2010 (EDT)


text:
Talk:North Florida

Do all of these counties need to be disambiguated? If so, I think the format should be Place (Florida), not Place County. I'll fix the ones I know need it (ie Lafayette and Nassua) (WT-en) Majnoona 15:30, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Hi Maj - there was some discussion about this on Project:Article naming conventions. As far as I'm aware all articles that have been created for US counties use "County" in the name, such as "Alachua County".  If there is more than one then the disambiguator is generally added, such as "Cook County (Illinois)".  There will probably be a few exceptions (see Talk:Mendocino for one) but otherwise I think that the agreement has been Place County. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:46, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks! I saw that conversation just after I posted the above (then had to run off and play with a baby ;-) I think I've got them right on the article page now... (WT-en) Majnoona 15:55, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

Park listing in "Do"
There should be no detailed listings in a region article. I added a "movetocity" template, but does this park merit its own park article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Florida


text:
Talk:North Holland

Tram's and Metro
Amsterdam is the only city in North-Holland that has tram's or a metro. The bus is the public transport elsewhare. --(WT-en) Rein N. 03:29, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Central North-Holland?
Anyone knows a better region name? I thought of Greater Amsterdam, but then it sounds like it's a big urban area. Which it's not, as it's mostly rural with typical Dutch villages.

On the other hand, it's always seen as a sort of Greater Amsterdam region, like in the Amsterdam COROP-region as well as in the Amsterdam administrative cooperation region. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:49, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Amsterdam Area? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:30, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Dutch/English Region Names
Are we supposed to translate the regions or not? Like:

 * Gooi en Vechtstreek or Gooi and Vecht Region?
 * Waterland en Zaanstreek or Waterland and Zaan Region?

and in South-Holland, on the border with North-Holland:

 * Bollenstreek or Bulb Region?
 * Groene Hart or Green Heart?

(WT-en) Globe-trotter 14:01, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:North Holland


text:
Talk:North Island

Cities
I trimmed the number of cities listed here to nine, but also took out some of the regional cities and replaced them with smaller towns/villages that travellers will visit. So, places like Whangarei, Wanganui and Palmerston North were cut and Paihia, Taupo and Waitomo added. If you disagree or think other places should be added/dropped, please discuss here. -- (WT-en) Shaund 00:36, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Given that they appear under the "Cities" heading, I think Paihia and Waitomo are too big a stretch. (Taupo may strictly be a town, but it's sometimes thought of as a city, so I don't object to it being listed here.) How about we cover the Bay of Islands and Waitomo Caves under "Other destinations" instead? --Avenue (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm not sure why I included Paihia when the Bay of Islands was already included as an "Other destination". I didn't think too clearly on that one. I'm OK with moving Waitomo to Other destinations as well since it's the caves that are the attraction.
 * The Cities section isn't reserved for just cities and towns though -- it's meant to include any urban or semi-urban settlement. The region template description of the Cities section would seem to allow for villages the size of Paihia and Waitomo. -Shaundd (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've moved Waitomo down to Other destinations, and merged the Paihia description into the Bay of Islands listing too (although not mentioning Paihia itself).
 * I take your point about the Cities section potentially including smaller urban settlements. I just feel that those two items are better covered later. --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Regions
The regions here are a mess, and there is considerable overlap. Would someone familiar with the area please try to sort this out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:21, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I think that a big part of this problem is that New Zealand regions are defined in different ways by different agencies. Each agency seems to have their own way of splitting up New Zealand, for their own purposes. These are based on the geographic areas served by those various agencies. - (WT-en) Huttite 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

 * For example :
 * Local Government NZ has the following regional names in the North Island : Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, Manawatu - Wanganui, Wellington.

 * The tourism industry tend to divide the North Island up this way : Northland, Auckland, Coromandel, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Rotorua, Eastland, Taupo, Ruapehu, Taranaki, Hawke's Bay, Wanganui, Manawatu, Wairarapa, Wellington.

 * Central government uses a range of definitions for regions. Perhaps the most relevant is that Statistics New Zealand collect tourism statistics, on behalf of the Ministry of Tourism, for these North Island regions : Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay-Gisborne, Taranaki-Wanganui-Manawatu, Wellington.

Suggested regions
Is this regional breakdown better? - (WT-en) Huttite 19:42, 18 October 2009 (EDT) :

 * Northland
 * Auckland (Region or greater metropolitan area - i.e. the Auckland "supercity".)
 * Waikato (Including the Coromandel.)
 * Bay of Plenty (Including Rotorua, Taupo in the northern part of the Central North Island.)
 * Eastern North Island (Including East Coast, Eastland or Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Tararua or northern Wairarapa.)
 * Western North Island (Including - Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu and Horowhenua and Ruapehu in the southern part of the Central North Island.)
 * Wellington (Region or greater metropolitan area, which includes the Wairarapa.)

___

 * I think these regions are generally OK, my only big concern is getting rid of and splitting the Central North Island region. Lake Taupo and Tongariro/Ruapehu are fairly major tourist destinations from what I recall when I lived there, and they have more in common with each other (geographically, reasons for why tourists would go there) than they would with Bay of Plenty and the other regions in the proposed Western North Island. I'd prefer to keep them in one region and maybe rename it to Lake Taupo-Tongariro or Lake Taupo-Ruapehu.

 * A lesser concern is the "Eastern North Island" name. Hawke's Bay is another common tourist destination, so, given that we use local names pretty much everywhere else, I'd prefer to give it the same prominence in the region name.  Maybe Hawkes Bay-East Coast, or something like that.

 * Building on Huttite's proposed regions, I'd prefer to see the following (I've included subregions as well to try to give more definition):

 * Northland
 * Promote the sub-subregions up one level so they link directly to Northland (I don't think there are enough subregions to warrant two layers). This will produce:
 * Bay of Islands
 * Hokianga
 * Far Far North (can we just call it "Far North"?)
 * a new subregion to cover the southern part of Northland, Waipara-Whangarei or another suitable name

 * Auckland Region
 * The Auckland supercity. How it's organized needs to be sorted out, but that can be discussed on its Talk page.

 * Waikato-Coromandel
 * (note - the region name is different so we don't end up with a Waikato subregion underneath a Waikato main region.
 * Waikato
 * Coromandel Peninsula
 * King Country - picks up Waitomo, Otorohanga, Te Kuiti and Taumarunui

 * Bay of Plenty
 * The existing region with no subregions (although if we get sufficient articles some day East and West subregions could be done). Lake Taupo and the Volcanic Plateau pages should not link here.

 * Central North Island (or Lake Taupo-Tongariro)
 * The existing region with no subregions. The Lake Taupo and Volcanic Plateau pages should be redirected here.  We may want to merge Mount Ruapehu with Tongariro National Park as well (it's mostly part of the park).  You could also make a case to include Rotorua in this region rather than Bay of Plenty, but I'm not fussed either way.

 * Hawke's Bay-East Coast (or Eastern North Island)
 * East Cape (or Eastland) - I think we should include Gisborne in here as well
 * Hawke's Bay
 * Tararua - southern part of Hawkes Bay / northern Wairarapa

 * Wellington Region
 * Wellington
 * Kapiti Coast
 * Hutt Valley
 * Wairarapa

 * Taranaki
 * The existing region with no sub-regions.

 * Wanganui-Manawatu
 * This would be an amalgamation of the Wanganui (region), Manawatu and Horowhenua regions. Other than Manawatu there aren't many cities/towns in the area, so I don't think we need subregions (Howowhenua is pretty small and can easily be included in Manawatu, while Wanganui is quite distinct and covers a lot of area but is sparsely inhabited).

 * Alternatively, Taranaki and Wanganui-Manawatu could also be combined into one region (Southwestern North Island) with those two articles as subregions (or don't amalgamate Wanganui (region) and Manawatu and put all them with Taranaki under SW North Island).

 * This leaves eight or nine regions. I'll upload a map that shows most of the top level regions and some of the subregions.  It doesn't correspond to what I proposed exactly, but it should be close enough to give an idea of how things fit together. - (WT-en) Shaund 19:53, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

 * On further reflection, I agree with Huttite's regions... but not some of the names so much. Proposed names, region map and subregions are below. - (WT-en) Shaund 01:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 * As suggested above, Lake Taupo and Volcanic Plateau content has been merged into Central North Island. However I made the Lake Taupo redirect to Taupo. Nurg (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As suggested above, Mount Ruapehu has been merged into Tongariro National Park. Nurg (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Regions re-summarized
Here are the proposed regions:

Let me know if you have any thoughts. If I don't hear any objections, I'll implement later in the month. -(WT-en) Shaund 01:22, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * What exactly is wrong with them as they are in the article now? They look pretty good to me. (I have just removed Kapiti which was added just a few months ago.) Nurg (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2012 (CEST)

 * I concur - apart from some boundary issues, particularly around the Coromandel.
 * I've floated the TOC right and moved and reduced some of the images to avoid text in the regions spilling over onto the (proposed) map on standard width screens. --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:55, 1 October 2012 (CEST)

 * The issue with the regions is there's quite a few of them (about 12 or 13) and there seems to be some overlap. Having lived in NZ, I understand why most of the regions are listed there, but I'm not sure if giving a list of 13 regions is the best way to break it down for the traveller. I know Lonely Planet has quite a few regions, and when I first moved to NZ I found it a bit difficult to wade my way through them until I knew the country better. That said, I survived and found my way around NZ just fine with LP's many regions, so it may not be a bad thing. Part of the reason I haven't implemented the proposed structure above is because I'm not convinced it's any more helpful to the traveller than what we have now.
 * At the very least, I question the need for Horowhenua and Wairarapa as regions. Neither have a lot of attractions from what I recall and both could easily be part of other regions -- Horowhenua in Manawatu (Horowhenua only has two destinations listed and one of them is also listed in Manawatu) and most of Wairarapa is part of Greater Wellington according to Wikipedia. It also makes no sense (to me) to have Horowhenua and Wairarapa as regions at this level but not the Coromandel. -Shaund (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

 * I'm not sure which is better, many or fewer regions. In the map with fewer regions, I feel the loss of the Central North Island the most. Taupo and Tongariro have very different attractions, but I think they belong together, based on proximity if nothing else. --Avenue (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shaund's last comment makes very good sense so I have added Horowhenua to the Manawatu article and delisted Horowhenua and Wairarapa from this article. Nurg (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In which region does Rotorua fall -- Central North Island or Bay of Plenty? I know, administratively, it's considered part of BoP. From a traveller's perspective though, Rotorua and Taupo seem a more natural pairing than Rotorua and Tauranga. -Shaundd (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has always been considered part of BOP. Nurg (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I really think we need to junk the daft (and outmoded) 7+2 rule in Wikivoyage and get back to putting the traveller's perspective first. This inane rule is just not appropriate for many countries and touring areas and especially for New Zealand. New Zealand naturally divides into two super regions: the North Island (including twiddly bits lying far north of the Cook Strait like the Kermadecs and Three Kings) and the "rest", that we should probably call South Island although it will include Stewart, Chatham and the sub-antarctic islands. If we could get back to a natural 9-14 region split in the North Island, then we wouldn't have all this to-ing and fro-ing! -- A l i c e ✉ 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor attractions in this high level article
I took the current See listings out because they are all covered in the articles for the specific localities. Someone else added them back in referring to Region_article_template#See. But that page says "This is for an overview of the types of attractions as well as the principal attractions in the region." These listings do not provide an overview. Nor are they the principal attractions in the North Island. All but one are minor attractions in a small remote area of the North Island and were put here by User:(WT-en)_Tramp, the business owner of one of the attractions, who put the same listings in numerous articles. I still think they should be taken out of this article. Nurg (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't know those were touting. Jjtk (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Maori name
While it is quite true that Aotearoa was originally a name for the NI, these days it is well established as the Maori name for NZ, with Te Ika a Māui being used for the NI. Nurg (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'll change it. --Avenue (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Languages and useages continually change and evolve so I have added a longer paragraph at the end of the lead with the two common names and translations.
 * Many South Island iwi are not in favour of the recent changes in nomenclature, but recognise that these changes may become irresistible in the same way an arriving Nigerian visitor to the US is now misleadingly hailed as an "African American" by politically correct immigration officials when presenting his dark green ECOWAS passport! -- A l i c e ✉  21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regions map
I've posted a regions map based on the 11 regions listed on the article page. It's generally based on the gov't region boundaries with a few exceptions: Let me know if you see anything missing or needs changing. Cheers. -Shaundd (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Central North Island doesn't officially exist so I drew it to include Lake Taupo,Tongariro NP and all thesurrounding roads.
 * It looks like Taumarunui is officially in the Wanganui-Manawatu region. I put it in Waikato with Te Kuiti and the rest of the King Country.
 * Included the Mahia Peninsula with Gisborne rather than Hawkes Bay - I think this makes more sense from a traveller's perspective.
 * Thanks for all your hard work and the magnificent result, Shaundd!
 * I hope we'll be in a position very shortly to ask you to do an encore when we've reached a consensus at Talk:South_Island in a few days... -- A l i c e ✉ 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Island


text:
Talk:North Kingstown

Too much detail?
As a prospective visitor, I'd like to know what's particularly notable or interesting in this locality. I'm getting lost in the details. Could someone who knows the place well please consider pruning the inessential details? For example, should Rite Aid be listed? If this level of detail IS needed, maybe North Kingstown needs to be divided into separate district articles. But it seems to me, the "Buy" section is very ripe for pruning; I'm less sure about "See" and "Do" and would like to defer to someone else's expertise. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:26, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Not familiar with it, but there is at least some clean-up and organization I can do to help. Let's see here... (WT-en) texugo 09:10, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Well, I at least organized the See and Do sections a little so you can actually see what there is. The Buy section looked especially intimidating because the Eat header was missing. Trimmed out a couple of dubitable listings. The Buy section is still a little long, and the Eat section needs to be split into price brackets and then perhaps it'll be alright. I don't think this city is big enough to actually be districtified, but it may be worth considering making Wickford a separate article (and ignoring the fact that it's technically part of North Kingstown). Except for the Buy section, however, I'm not sure how many of the listings in each section are in Wickford and how many are in North Kingstown proper... (WT-en) texugo 09:47, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

 * You did a great job dividing things into sub-sections. Thanks! (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 09:51, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Ridiculously, I made the above changes and suggestions without even checking to see that there is already a Wickford article treated as a separate destination, just as I suggested. Gonna be moving some stuff there.(WT-en) texugo 22:33, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Barbers and tattoo parlors
I'm going to argue that there is no way we need to list more than one barber shop for a town under 30,000 people-- I left one in the article because it sounds quaint and interesting, but I'm axing the more normal, modern-sounding one. I'll also argue that unless North Kingstown is known up and down the eastern seaboard as the town to go to for a tattoo, or unless getting a tattoo is the thing everyone does when they come here, we don't need to list a tattoo parlor either. It's just not useful for the average traveller. Listings are below. Please don't add these back into the article.

 * Sky's the Limit is located on Post Road right next door to Deangelo's sandwich shop. Sky's specialize in the latest cuts for boys and men in a warm and friendly atmosphere. They have plasma TVs, videogame consoles and a relaxed environment that will keep you entertained before and while you are getting your cut. Call to make an appointment or just stop by and wait until your next. With many established barbers around town, Sky's offers up to date styles and talented barbers that enjoy pleasing others. $10.00-$15.00.
 * This local tattoo parlor is recognized as one of the best in Rhode Island. This parlor offers piercings and tattoos, and the staff is friendly, knowledgable and experts in both areas. Although there work tends to be expensive, it is to no surprise that they do a great job. Appointments and walk-in's are both welcome, but calling ahead assures you no wait. Hours are flexible and the parlor stays open as late as 10 pm. If you visit there website, in depth information is available concerning treatments of piercings and new inkings, as well as safety tips. You can also view pictures of the artists work. You can find this parlor tucked in the plaza a little after the YMCA on the right hand side of Post Rd.

(WT-en) texugo 23:19, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:North Kingstown


text:
Talk:North Korea

Marijuana
http://www.nknews.org/2013/01/struggle-is-the-enemy-weed-is-the-remedy-the-truth-about-marijuana-in-north-korea/ -- A l i c e ✉ 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this really significant to the traveller? --Inas (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For some it will be. I don't smoke myself - or drink coffee or tea, but I know some travellers can't do without a fix of their recreational drug of choice. It's now included very briefly with this edit.
 * I included this section on this discussion page because we don't use references here at WV and I thought some future editors might be sceptical. -- A l i c e ✉ 08:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning Box
I believe that a warning box ought to be included, mentioning that North Korean officials are likely to be significantly more skeptical of visitors amidst the rising tensions that these past months have entailed. 86.148.179.236 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I added one. Pashley (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * According to a usually reliable Hong Kong newspaper all tours have been cancelled. Pashley (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 * It is difficult to cover this. There isn't an official source of information that would list the state of tours. Also a tour today could easily be cancelled for good tomorrow --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Tours seem to be running again. Reworded caution boxes accordingly Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Juche be listed as a religion?
Wikipedia states: "Political scientist Han S. Park in his book Juche: The Politics of Unconventional Wisdom (2002) and theologian Thomas J. Belke in Juche: A Christian Study of North Korea's State Religion (1999) have both likened Juche to a religious movement.[29]". I believe it is relevant to list that Juche is religion is North Korea. Please discuss here if you believe otherwise.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 * No

--The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, but do you have any objection to the current phrasing in the article, and if so, what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

disagree! that's like including pancasila or baathism as religion. personally, i do agree that some will say that juche is like a cult and they will include it in to religion. however, you can't say that someone is leaving, for example, islamism or chritianity or hinduism or buddhism to adhere pancasila or juche. you can stay as a believer judaism religious system and still can be agree or disagree with pancasila or juche. plenty of north koreans are buddhists or practicing and beliefing korean local religion. cc @ikan Kekek: @The History Wizard of Cambridge: @Andrewssi2: - Ustad abu gosok (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a warning headline?
Every once in a while, someone thinks that the North Korea article needs a massive warning as the first thing people see.

My understanding is that this should only happen when there is a clear and present danger when traveling to a country. Occasionally we need this for North Korea whenever it looks like hostilities may break out, however currently it appears that tour groups are running fine with only an incident involving a elderly ex-service American being briefly detained a couple of weeks ago. (and of course the long running Kenneth Bae case)

So the question is whether a prominent warning needs to be at the top of the page rather than in 'Stay safe' where I believe it belongs in 'normal' times? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * No objections. There isn't any war there and traveler's will probably be very safe if they just "behave". ϒpsilon (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Obviously visiting North Korea is not a typical travel experience, however the article does address this in quite some depth. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * It does, but really, don't we want to immediately ward off the kind of person from visiting North Korea who would need to read this article in the first place to know not to misbehave? What if they didn't take the time to read the whole thing? "Stay safe? I'll be fine I'm awesome, I've been to Thailand already and this will be something to brag about that none of my friends have done!" Those kind of people. Maybe just a one or two sentence thing? 173.17.92.242 17:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Maybe we could expand the Tourist travel to North Korea is only possible as part of a guided tour. Independent travel is not permitted. If you are not prepared to accept limitations on your movements and behaviour then you should not travel to the DPRK at the present time. part. The article already has five warning boxes. There are other countries where you also could get yourself a ticket to prison by just saying something "wrong" (Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Belarus, Iran, Cuba et al) and their article don't have a ton of warnings. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, you will need a visa which is relatively hard to get (BTW true for most of the above countries as well), move around with a guide everywhere you go, and I would imagine that anyone who is following the world news should basically know "what kind of place" NK is. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I understand not wanting to clutter the article with warning notices everywhere. Another sentence in that part seems appropriate since "limitations on movements and behavior" just doesn't really convey the gravity of the situation. North Korea is kind of an extreme example. 173.17.92.242 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to capsulize it in one or two more sentences there. You're of course welcome to improve it. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thailand is a good example actually.. it has a high violent crime rate and is currently undergoing serious civil strife. There are however no significant warnings in the article itself. ϒpsilon's expanded text in the title for North Korea seems to make clear the issue up front. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Has Thailand a high violent crime rate? That would be compared to other Asian countries, right? When I think of places where the local pistol & Kalashnikov club is roaming the streets collecting donations some Eastern European and African countries and most of Latin America comes to my mind... ϒpsilon (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Certainly any war zone article, especially a dangerous place like Walt Disney World, is going to have the big red warning. Technically, North Korea is legally still at war — even if it's often a cold war — and bad things can happen. The only reason I can see to change the existing warnings is if two say the same thing (like the "United States advises its citizens against travel" bit) they could be combined as one. K7L (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 * There is probably something to be said in keeping the warnings separate. The State Department warning to American citizens is actually specific to the situation between North Korea and the United States (i.e. the lack of diplomatic relations). Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Tourism to NK has taken off (with 4k-6k Western visitors per year according to WP), with very few incidents recorded. Hence, I propose the warning box to be removed, since that suggests the risks related to a NK visit are not greater than a visit to most other countries. ArticCynda (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 * 4k-6k? I'm sure there are many fine European cathedrals which get that number of voyagers or more in a day. That's hardly having "taken off"... and even one incident of the sort which are being reported for DPRK is one too many. K7L (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that every incident is one too many, but my point is that it's not unsafe enough — in my opinion — to justify a warning box if thousands of travelers visit the place without issues at all. 4k-6k is indeed less than the number of visitors that visit the Eiffel Tower each day, but would one incident there suddenly cause the Eiffel Tower to deserve a warning box? And what about the Alps, where 300 people day per year in winter sport related accidents? Virtually every Austrian mountain town needs a warning box if you consider zero incidents as the treshold for a dangerous destination.
 * A visit to NK is not 100% safe, but there is no such thing as a 100% safe destination. That doesn't mean each and every country needs a warning box though. Some people will manage to break the local laws and get arrested in just about any country, not only in NK. ArticCynda (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Have we already forgotten the Warmbier incident? I think we should make it clear that while crime is the last of the worries of the Western visitor to North Korea, the regime making an "example" of you for supposed or actual misdeeds or saying the wrong thing is a serious risk. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that is one (overhyped) incident on a total of 4k-6k people visiting the country annually without any incidents whatsoever. ArticCynda (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is one of multiple incidents. Our duty is to the voyager, not to the DPRK administration. If there's a danger, we say so. K7L (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It's important to keep in mind that an "incident" in Paris might mean your wallet gets stolen, whereas an incident in North Korea might mean torture and hard labor in a prison camp (or even death). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that travelers should be adequately warned about risks, but in this case it seems that such risk is exaggerated. No tourists were killed in the DPRK (please state your source for that, Granger), and according to Wikipedia, only 2 tourists got into trouble (excluding South Koreans, who are obviously met with hostility, and Americans, who tend to get themselves into trouble wherever they go, and are also met with hostility due to their/their government aggressive nature).
 * It also causes inconsistencies:
 * There is a far greater risk of injury when touring through Algeria (particularly close to borders with Libya and Mali) or Colombia than going on a guided tour through the DPRK, yet neither Algeria nor Colombia has a warning headline on WV.
 * There is indeed a risk of being detained for political reasons in the DPRK, but there is a much greater risk of ending up in a prison or labor camp in Belarus or USA, where opponents are routinely locked behind bars without a trial. Neither of those countries has a warning headline on WV either, though.
 * It appears to me that, based on the facts, the risk associated with a guided tour in the DPRK is very low as long as you stick to local laws (which you should in every guest country). ArticCynda (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tourists have been killed in the DPRK. See Kumgangsan for one. Otto Warmbier is a more recent example (though strictly speaking he died in the US, having been released from North Korea in a coma). I also don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily exclude Americans and South Koreans from consideration the way you seem to be suggesting. Travellers are travellers, even if they come from a country the North Korean government doesn't like—if they're going to be met with such severe hostility, it's essential that we highlight that in the article. As for the relative risk of being locked up in different countries, I would be very interested to see estimates of what fraction of tourists are imprisoned without trial in Belarus, in the US, and in North Korea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm not sure the warning needs to be at the top of the page. The advice for American, South Korean, Malaysian, and Canadian citizens in the "Get in" section, together with a good "Stay safe" section, might be enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Difficulties regarding Japanese citizens"
I'll say! Some were kidnapped decades ago and remain captive. Should that be mentioned in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, they were typically kidnapped from Japan itself (or from Europe whilst visiting there). To my knowledge North Korea has not kidnapped any visitors to North Korea who come for tourism, and hasn't engaged in kidnapping South Koreans or Japanese since the 1980's.
 * A lesser known problem are Japanese citizens of Korean decent who were encouraged to settle in North Korea. Once there they found themselves completely unable to leave again. It isn't so straightforward as a 'normal' kidnap since those people made a conscious decision to go live in North Korea in the first instance.
 * I guess your reference to the kidnapped Japanese citizens might be relevant in the history section, but probably less so for today's immigration purposes. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * That sounds reasonable. It probably should be mentioned, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * those people made a conscious decision to go live in North Korea? No. Those people made a conscious decision to go live in Korea. They weren't informed by the Japanese that they were being shipped to the North (instead of repatriated to some other part of Korea) until after it was too late. K7L (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Maybe you are thinking about the repatriation of Korean workers by Japan directly after the war? This is different.
 * Many Japanese of Korean descent identify with North Korea, even to this day (Known as 'Chongryon'). From the 1950's many were encouraged by their communities and the North Korean government to move to North Korea and join the socialist paradise there as part of the homecoming movement. They were certainly aware that they were going to North Korea.
 * Needless to say most regretted that decision.
 * Zainichi_Korean Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of general interest is also the policy of repatriation of Koreans to North Korea by Japan itself. Zainichi_Korean
 * It should be noted that also in this case the people who agreed to go knew they were going to North Korea, which made sense at the time since it was more prosperous than South Korea was. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hundreds of high quality North Korean images available for use
Uri Tours has released several hundred high quality images from North Korea under CC-BY-SA, and these are now available for usage on our project. I encourage Wikivoyage editors to take advantage of these fantastic images as many could be put into use on this project. Russavia (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Great! Decent pictures of North Korea are rather hard to get hold of (for obvious reasons) and the CC requirement makes it again harder still.
 * Of particular interest are the pictures of the new Masik ski resort near Wonsan. I'll try and add some of those later today. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting these and bringing them to our attention, Russavia. -- A l i c e ✉ 01:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The North Korean Won and its curious exchange rate
So apparently not even the internet can agree as to the "official" exchange rate of North Korean Won... Compare this to that - This difference is anything but trivial and if it were possible to exchange any currencies at two different rates, people would get stinkingly rich off of arbitrage... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that regular visitors can't actually get hold of North Korean Won at all, this isn't really an issue. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 * So maybe we should not mention any rates at all? Official or otherwise? There really is no general rule on this, anyway...Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm only seeing the 'Currency in North Korea' infobox and 'Buy'. I'm interested as a visitor to know how North Koreans use money, even if I myself have no real prospect of using the local currency. As a side note, you can very likely get hold of this currency in China, specifically around Dandong. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Have a look at the very first paragraph of the "buy" section... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I did... and? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The North Korean Won is described both ₩130=$1 and ₩1315=€1. Given that euros and US dollars are about of equal value, either of the values has to be wrong. Looking at six different currency sites (w:North_Korean_won, scroll down a bit), there are in general two different values you get; either about ₩140 or ₩990 for €1. Confusing. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Sure it is confusing because the exchange rate for North Korean ₩ is inherently confusing :)
 * The article should emphasis that A) exchange rates are of little or no practical use to the traveler and B) if you really want to unofficially get hold of North Korean currency then all sorts of exchange rates are available, none of which can be easily predicted. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Spelling
Should the default spelling for North Korea be American or British English? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * British. They hate Americans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 * This was discussed before by user Alice that concluded 'British', but I can't find reference to this on the archive Talk:North_Korea/Archive_2003-2012.
 * I believe that like China, the North Koreans have a preference for 'International English' but defining in stone which minor variant of English they use probably isn't that high on their agenda right now. Alice claimed that British English spelling was used on official documentation, although it wouldn't surprise me a great deal to see American spellings used in the country as well. Wikivoyage seems to care more about this issue than most countries themselves :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Well nor for nothing, but spelling can be Serious Business... I personally only want it to be resolved in a clear way that avoids edit wars. Even though I personally prefer Websterian spellings as they are marginally more phonetic and hence logical. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting travelogue
Sorry for touting, but I think this might be interesting reading (and watching). Normally foreigners are not allowed to take one step on North Korean soil without being accompanied by a guide. Also, virtually everyone can enter only by plane flying to Pyongyang, or coming in from Beijing to Pyongyang on a nonstop train. This is of course also the reason why much of the country is made up of Next-to-impossible destinations (in other words places where they don't bring tourists to).

However, some Austrians managed to enter the country "through the backdoor" on the railway from Russia into the extreme northeast of the country and onwards to Pyongyang (and traveling without a guide). Here is a half-hour video of their trip and here's the very interesting reading. As a curious side note, the North Korea article at WT is also linked to (however, the travelogue is from 2008 when we still were at WT).

Ps. if you are a train fan you likely will find that Youtube channel very interesting. For example our Moscow to Urumqi can be seen on video, with the difference that the guys travel all the way to Tibet... ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Probably worth mentioning that there is a distinction between Chinese nationals and other foreigners (i.e. Chinese citizens have some access to visas and non-guided travel that other foreigners do not)
 * I often wondered about getting into North Korea from the Russian side. The border city of Rason is a free trade zone that encourages Chinese gamblers, but I wasn't able to find much about it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo in the map?
Is there an error in the map? The dark green northwestern region seems to be labeled "Pyongyang", but the link in the "Regions" section makes it look like it should be labeled "Pyongan". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 * A typo I guess :) (Although the name Pyongyang is partially derived from Pyongan province). I can fix later when I have access to software that can edit SVG files. You can also fix yourself if you like. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 * ✅ —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Read section
There are a few first hand books about life in North Korea ('Nothing to Envy' that is listed is a collection of stories from people who left the country).

That said, most books listed here are about the infamous concentration camps that are still operated there. Although an important subject, it isn't something any traveler is going to get exposed to. Should we replace some of these books with subjects more around general life in this country? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I think that's a good idea. I would suggest replacing one of them (maybe The Aquariums of Pyongyang, which I read and found less interesting than Escape from Camp 14) with Suki Kim's Without You There Is No Us, a fascinating piece of investigative journalism about teaching English as a foreigner in Pyongyang. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and made the change I suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Great! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think any of us know the answers, and it may be hard to figure out. Given the difficult of getting any reliable information about North Korea, I'd be fine with either picking a standard (which we can change it later if it turns out to be wrong) or simply not bothering to try to standardize time formats and spelling right now.
 * For currency, I'd include the usual warnings for each one, something like this:
 * Please show prices in the currency in which they appear, e.g. US$100 and not $100, 100 dollars, or USD 100; ¥100 and not CN¥100 or 100 yuan; ₩100 and not NK₩100 or 100 won.
 * That said, which formats should we use? If we're okay assuming ₩ means North Korean won and not South Korean won, and ¥ means Chinese yuan and not Japanese yen, can we not also assume $ means US dollars and not any other dollars? Or perhaps we do need to be more explicit and use "CN¥" or something. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Godd suggestions. I've revised the proposal. I think it is safe to assume that S Korean won would not be accepted in DPRK. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"And independent travel" vs. "As independent travel"
In this edit, someone changed a word based on grammar. However, I'm not so sure about the edit, especially as that user has since been globally locked. The words carry somewhat different meanings and perhaps this could be addressed. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming this information is still accurate, in my interpretation these both amount to the same thing:
 * "Tourists may only travel to North Korea as part of a guided tour. Independent travel is not permitted." (The meaning with "and" joining the two clauses.)
 * "Tourists may only travel to North Korea as part of a guided tour because independent travel is not permitted." (The meaning with "as" joining the two clauses.)
 * The change to "as" does perhaps imply a cause-and-effect relationship more than using "and", but I don't think the particulars of that detail are worth quibbling over. The important information that travellers care about is still there and still (presumably) correct. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection
mentioned on Talk:United States of America that the protection here should be lifted, since there was no consensus for the indef protection. I however, in my opinion, would oppose that because of the high media attention NK gets, but may we now have a formal consensus now? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose indef protection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose protection Tai123.123 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would add a recommendation of some kind to not travel
Besides the obvious issues of propaganda and the sheer danger of going to North Korea I'd like to talk about something else: Money. Not only does tourism make up a solid amount of state income, no it is a legal and easy way for NK to launder it's money and get western currency which is VITAL for NK. I think people should be made aware of that. I sell eggs (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 * And because of the propaganda that you've been fed, I suggest reading Be fair, because the DPRK is not alone in relying on tourism for a stable state income. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The income alone wasn't my point. My point is that tourism is a legal way for NK to get hands on western currency I sell eggs (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things that the U.S. government does that I am opposed to. Should we discourage travellers from visiting the U.S. then? As a travel guide, it is not up to us to discourage travellers from travelling to a place on political grounds. The only time we discourage travellers form visiting any place is if there are serious safety issues with regard to doing so. Otherwise, we just provide the facts and let travellers make up their own minds. The dog2 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you guys. The point I sell eggs brings up is addressed in a general way in Responsible travel. We could probably edit it to make the point that not only authoritarian countries but countries with governments that engage in behavior that is offensive to a traveler could be reasons to avoid traveling to the countries in question, but naming names goes beyond the purview of this site and could give rise to unnecessary arguments. Each country should be described fairly, and then it is up to each reader to decide whether to travel there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Are flights actually available? - Feb 2024
I saw some updates by @ Jpatokal suggesting that flights have resumed. It is really hard to find any current flight data in and out of FNJ airport, with the official Air Koryo website not showing current information. Vladivostok airport however is showing a scheduled flight today, but Beijing (BJS) airport doesn't seem to have anything. Do we have a reliable source of current flights?

Additionally, the text doesn't make temporal sense: "depart at 11:30 every Tuesday and Saturday, and return from Pyongyang at 09:00 on the same days" - that can't be correct. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I updated the section claiming Air China is flying, since AFAICT they are not, but didn't touch the Air Koryo bits, which all appear to be pre-COVID.
 * Air Koryo's website claims to offer flights but I'm not seeing them on the usual suspects like Google Flights, Flightconnections or Flightaware. It's all a bit of moot point since tourism doesn't "really" appear to have resumed yet. Jpatokal (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, although I suspect there are scheduled flights. I think that perhaps you can't book Air Koryo tickets directly (only through an approved travel agency), and hence it is hard to look this info up online. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page banner
The current page banner is really weak for a country article.

Banner 1: Here is a better one that represents the propaganda side of what people travel to DPRK for: It is already in use on the Baekdu Mountains article, so we would have to find a new banner for that. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I prefer the new banner or a potential banner of the unopened, as the latter symbolically represents the country on a micro-scale. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is fitting a picture of a very tall building into a 7:1 format. We'd need a picture taken from very, very far away. Ground Zero (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Banner 2: Here is one that I made from a picture of the Pyongyang War Museum: Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I think the Pyongyang War Museum is better than the original banner but I still favour banner 1. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Banner 2 seems most interesting to me. I guess my order of preference is 2, 1, 0. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ – banner replaced with banner 2 (as 1 is already used on Baekdu Mountains). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Korea


text:
Talk:North Miami Beach

Rename/Move this Article
Technically, North Miami Beach is an actual city in the Miami-Dade County, but not actually on the beach and is therefore not terribly interesting for tourists. In fact until I started looking at editing this I had this confused with the area known as "North Beach" in Miami Beach, and I suspect most people do as well. I would recommend that we completely rename this article to Miami/North Beach (following the pattern for South Beach). --(WT-en) psychofish 17:02, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Does this area refer to North Beach (the northern portion of the island) or North Miami Beach  (the municipality north of Miami at the mainland)?? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:45, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I think the article was started to refer to North Miami Beach the municipality, but I and others have thought that it was actually referring to North Beach the neighborhood. I would argue that the latter is more important for travelers than the former. (WT-en) psychofish 12:27, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:North Miami Beach


text:
Talk:Norfolk Coast

This page should be merged into the Norfolk article. This article has very little content and that which it does have could easily help augment the Norfolk article which is hardly overflowing with content. The Norfolk article would benefit from more focused attention rather than having attention split away to South and North Norfolk. (WT-en) Travelpleb 11:26, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

??? Destinations on "Coast Road" section
The many towns and villages listed in the Coast Road section: many are too small to have their own destination page at any time in the foreseeable future. So should the red internal links be changed to just be straight text (rather than red links)?

Also, in the interests of space, should such lists be changed to single line comma separated (where they will display using much less screen space. I'm hesitant being unsure if there is good reason (e.g. site policy) for their being displayed as a vertical list and with all the non-existant page links. PsamatheM (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, change red links to text and make a single comma separated line. --Traveler100 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done PsamatheM (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ready to be changed "Usable" ?
The East and Drink sections are a bit redundant as these are covered by individual "City" (towns and villages) destination pages PsamatheM (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done PsamatheM (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Norfolk Coast


text:
Talk:North Platte

Too many listings
I went through this page & removed several of the eat listings that were chains/fast food. One of the Non-Goals of Wikivoyage is:

 * Produce a Yellow Pages of restaurants, hotels, or bars for a city. City guides should certainly include information for travel-related companies, but these should be kept at a useful number. Think of a friend from out of town asking you where they should go -- you wouldn't list all 200 possibilities, but 5-10 options for a particular type, budget, or part of town.

If you're familiar with the area, please do remove the restaurants that just aren't that good, or, better yet, add some information to those that you love so travelers have more to go on than just the name. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 01:36, 7 May 2007 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mural 0618 (cropped).jpg

 * Not visible, so it doesn't really matter than murals are not covered under freedom of panorama in the U.S. However, the article should have some images, though not this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no FoP for murals in the US, then we can't host it locally either. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that follows. We can use a single photo of a mural in an article as fair use when it's very important to do so, but we don't need to do so in this article and I'm not suggesting for us to do so in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Platte


text:
Talk:North Pole

I always thought that 90°N was the geographic north pole. This would make more sense, as the magnetic pole is constantly shifting, but I'm not feeling I'm educated enough on the matter to make such a change. -(WT-en) Neil 22:04, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I love the "Get out" section. : Most visitors to the North Pole head south. 66.57.218.7 14:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

+1 :) --(WT-en) Sleepyhead 10:09, 3 January 2010 (EST)
 * I love it as well :D 129.242.226.52 07:28, 10 January 2010 (EST)

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) 04:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I thought polar bears didn't actually live that far north. Is that incorrect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan, I think they don't. Can the newly suggested banner be used for Islands of the Arctic Ocean instead? I just noticed that the North Pole banner is used for that article, as well, for some reason. Danapit (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this credible source, they do live in the north, though unclear whether as far north as the North Pole (which isn't on continental land). Either way, I'd agree with Danapit about keeping the original and using the new banner on the islands article. James A ▪ talk 12:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bears so up north is suspicious. On the other hand, I don't think we should start using old maps of destinations, especially if this old map is not in a library of the destination. Current but hoping for a better one, I will take one next time I go haha Syced (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current banner. According to its source image, that's taken a couple of hundred kilometres from the North Pole. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Joke
Is this a joke article? --Jd52102 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it look like one to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've backed off slightly on the Santa silliness, as we have Santa Claus and North Pole (disambiguation) now to list Santa's Village theme parks in various southern towns. We don't need to link Bracebridge and the like here as they're in the Santa Claus or Christmas and New Year travel articles. They're also nowhere near the Pole. K7L (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Polarflug
I removed this listing because it looks like these tours have now ended. If anyone wants to check in future then details below Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Deutsche Polarflug. North Pole sightseeing flights, starting in May 2007, 11-hour sightseeing flights departing from Germany in an Airbus 330, cruising over Norway and Svalbard, riding low over special sights, and getting all the way up to the North Pole.  Most passengers switch during the flight between center-section seats to pairs of outer-section seats, giving everyone in this class a window or next-to-window seat for half of the flight; a small number of tickets are center-section or outer-section only.  Informative in-flight programming.  €555–1190 economy, call for first-class.

title: Talk:North Pole


text:
Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia

Page Banner
What about changing the current banner into the following one?
 * Rapsfeld banner.jpg

PS Although the current one is very nice as well. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 * That's really a pick-em. Can both banners be used somewhere on this site? That's the ideal solution in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 * That's a brilliant banner, but doesn't strike me as NRW. I do believe the NRW banner should reflect the heavily urbanized character of the region - and have some Rhine in it. But I was thinking exactly the same - the current banner could be used as the Ruhr one, replacing what is essentially a slightly less nice version of itself. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. Some featured pics I believe would make a nice banner:
 * File:Emscherkunst Tanzender Strommast Zauberlehrling 04 Crop.jpg
 * File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2013 -- 1-4.jpg
 * File:Münster, WestLotto -- 2013 -- 1-3.jpg
 * File:Münster, LVM, -Villa Kunterbunt- -- 2013 -- 1-2.jpg
 * File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpg
 * File:Innenhafen Duisburg Blaue Stunde 2014.jpg
 * File:Senden, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal -- 2014 -- 2991.jpg

Reform Regions
The regions that this article is subdivided into are for the most part half empty outlines with many of the only containing a handful of destinations. It may be wise to change their layout Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I find all of the regions viable, but lacking content. We need to fill them in! Can we focus on Hesse this week though? PrinceGloria (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Regions the third
I have nominated Münsterland for deletion given its current state. With few exceptions other regions of NRW are in hardly a better state. Can consolidating regions into a lower number help? If so, how? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The vfd will not stick, and seems strange. Considering that there is currently insufficient content to make most of the regions useful, and considering that there aren't many interested editors, a good proposal to consolidate into larger chunks could be more fruitful, yes. I do agree that, from a traveller's perspective, the division into fairly small regions was premature, but it will take someone with knowledge of the are to come up with a better division for now. I only know the Eifel well, and I must say it's a very logical region to have, as it is often considered a tourist destination, just like that. I've spent quite a few weekends "in the Eifel". It would be easy enough to fill that article if anyone was interested. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As it now stands (all region articles are rated outline unless otherwise noted):
 * Bergisches Land - nothing but the cities in the region article, 5 cities listed
 * Cologne Lowland - fleshed out somewhat, 7 cities, 1 other destination (Middle Rhine Valley)
 * Eifel (North Rhine-Westphalia) four cities listed, plus one redlink, one other destination (Eifel National Park), barely fleshed out
 * Lower Rhine six cities listed, hardly more than the bare lead and the list of cities
 * Münsterland Three cities listed, no information besides that present
 * Ruhr fleshed out quite well (though containing a bunch of dead links) 9 cities listed - seems like it should be kept and expanded despite its current outline rating
 * Sauerland-Siegerland five listed cities plus three redlinks; Westerwald listed as an "other destination" not fleshed out at all
 * Teutoburg Forest four cities listed plus one redlink, Weser Uplands listed as an "other destination". Not fleshed out at all.

 * I have not looked at the city articles themselves, but I know many city articles for Germany are or have historically been in no good state whatsoever. Only two region articles are fleshed out (Ruhr to an appreciable degree, Cologne Lowland only by comparison to the other bare outlines). Eifel arguably also contains a bit of information, but it being apparently spread over four pages (Eifel, two articles by state and Eifel National Park) does not do it much good. The other regions contain not much more than one paragraph of information between them. There may be good reasons against a new regional division, but the quality of the current region articles is not one of them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 * No-one is contesting that the current state of the articles is poor. It's easy enough to list issues, but what are you proposing in terms of regions? Or are you proposing to not have any regions for North Rhine-Westphalia? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Possibly some of the regions could be merged into bigger ones. Maybe the three "Eastern" regions (Münsterland, Sauerland Siegerland and Teutoburg Forest) in one category and three western regions (Cologne Lowlands, Lower Rhine, Bergisches Land) in another. Eifel appears to be a special case that is extremely awkwardly handled in the current setup (what with there being four "Eifel" articles) and maybe having one article for the parts of Eifel regardless of federal state makes more sense. I don't know. It is just rather obvious to me that the current setup does not in fact work. Maybe because it is too fine-grained, maybe because we are all lazy, maybe because there is nobody from NRW on en-WV or for myriad other reasons. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "maybe having one article for the parts of Eifel regardless of federal state makes more sense", excuse me but it was split on your request. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what that talk page comment was about. Clearly one region being a child of more than one region violates the geographical hierarchy, unless it is an extraregion. Extraregions however cannot be part of the normal regional makeup. I have not patent solution, but a similar problem exists for Harz which covers territory in more than one federal state and was at some point part of their regional hierarchy. I don't know the patent solution for this problem, that seems particularly prevalent for Germany, but having one region show up as the child region and in the regional makeup of two regions clearly is not the solution either. Nor is having four articles covering "Eifel" - confusion is bound to arise with both authors and readers. You tell me how to solve this. I do not know. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 * This "issue" is not new, nor is it a German one. It simply comes with the extraregions. We also have multiple articles under different regular regions and even countries for the Pyrenees, Kashmir and a bunch of other extraregions. I'm not so sure the current setup doesn't "work" in principle. The main issue seems to be that no-one has spent time to fill the articles, yet. That doesn't mean the setup is destined to fail. If you think it would make more sense to develop the Eifel extraregion article and perhaps just link from the relevant state articles, that would probably be acceptable, since the Eifel is fairly small.
 * As for the region division, user:PrinceGloria should probably also weigh in, as he indicated the current division seemed right. For a region with as many inhabitants as all of the Netherlands, and a large touristic scene, I do agree that the current setup should be fine. If we don't expect anyone to work on the regions any time soon, however, I'm open to to a consolidation. So, your suggestion then is something like "Eastern North Rhine-Westphalia", "Western North Rhine-Westphalia", and "Ruhr"? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides Ruhr, Cologne and Düsseldorf, NRW is not actually all that urban (by European standards, that is). You rightfully point out that Eifel is indeed a rather popular tourist destination and our coverage could be improved (And I'd like you to weigh in on how to divide it up other than the current four articles), but the other regions? I am not so sure. We also have to take into account that domestic tourists or people who speak German well are more likely to use de-WV for Germany at any rate, so our audience focus should to a certain degree be on foreign tourists that are rather unlikely to care about small hamlets and will probably not care either about too fine-grained regional distinctions. And the consolidation proposal is probably the most radical thing that could work in the direction of less regions, if one or two fusions are a better way, by all means we should do that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I have now deleted or commented out all "other destinations" mentioned above with the exception of Eifel National Park (Which I am frankly unsure what to do about) as they are defined (as per their "ispartof") as child regions of other states, so I did not quite see how they can be "other destinations" within one region and a child of a totally unrelated region. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I believe the subregions of NRW are OK, but simply underdeveloped. I would suggest trying to improve them slowly - I understand your ultimate goal, Hobbitschuster, is to have Germany attain the highest possible article status, but I do not find this that important and neither would I want to bend over backwords over formalities just to enable the achievement of that goal. If you'd like to propose a timeline for work on subregions of NRW needing help, I am happy to help in due course, as long as the timeline and scope is realistic. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I wasn't aware of the star ambitions. Keep in mind that for Germany to be star, North Rhine-Westphalia would have to be guide, but the regions under it would only have to be usable. That means that for the listed regions, only the most important destinations need to be at usable status. That alone shouldn't be a reason to change the regions. However, I do agree with Hobbitschuster that the regions are so poorly developed that they are more of a hindrance than a help for travellers. I'd say there are two short term solutions. One, is to consolidate the regions, and come back to the current division when there is ample information in the consolidated articles (in general, today, we try to only create a regions layer when there is too much information in the existing structure). Another option is to simplify the current region templates. Remember that long discussion last year about simplifying regions where it makes sense, to keep the breadcrumb hierarchy but push back the many empty headers? While the overall opinion wasn't unanimous (with one person opposing), there surely was consensus support. I don't know the region well enough, but it could make sense to get rid of some of the unused headers for now. Do we need, for example, stay safe and eat sections for all these regions? I mean; are the local difference large enough from a traveller's perspective to make it worth writing and reading ten individual sections just for North Rhine-Westphalia? There's no objection at all to inserting some of them if there's information to fill them with. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Frankly a starnom for Germany wasn't on my mind. Why it would be nice to have, it's not exactly the number one priority. At any rate, the Germany article mentions that Germany is a rather diverse country and that even within the 16 states there are big regional contrasts. Now a user might click on the biggest state by population and find (relatively prominently displayed) our region articles which (with one exception) contain very close to nothing. Now maybe there is something in the German articles which we could translate, but in my experience de-WV and en-WV don't necessarily gel all that well oftentimes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the current regions are quite handy and convincing. They just have to be filled. While having just three regions (North Rhine, Westphalia and Ruhr) may have some merits, they would be huge and unhandy. For example, Rheine and Siegen (both in Westphalia) are 200 km apart – it would be tough to make general statements about, say, how to get into Westphalia that would be valid for the whole region. Actually I have re-modeled the regions at de-WV based on the current regional division at en-WV, because I found this division really sensible. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Very well. I suppose we'll just stick with them, then. I do suggest we remove most of the empty headers. I've been reading up a bit, but I don't think there's really enough regional cuisine for, say, Bergisches Land to warrant a section. I think it's far more interesting to have an Eat-section with some comparisons in the North Rhine-Westphalia article and some local delicacies in the city articles. Same for drink, but correct me if I'm wrong. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some notable differences when it comes to preference of beer types, i. e. Kölsch in the Cologne area, Alt in the Lower Rhine region, Pils in most of Westphalia (South Westphalia is home to three of the best-selling Pils brands of Germany). Tourists might get into awkward situations when ordering a certain beer style in the respectively "wrong" region. --RJFF (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would propose just one modification: moving Sauerland-Siegerland to South Westphalia – it is a little shorter and moreover some parts of South Westphalia belong to neither Sauerland nor Siegerland. --RJFF (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Sure, but we can perfectly well explain that in the Drink-section of the North-Rhine Westphalia article. Then you can actually discuss the differences between the underlying regions. I don't think it's reason enough to have separate drink sections in all 10 region articles. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which cities should be listed
As User:RJFF recently added two cities (Dortmund and Essen if I am not mistaken), bringing the total to 11 (two above the allowed limit for non-bottom-level regions) we should probably have the debate which 9 or less cities to list. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Dortmund is the state's third-most populous city, Essen was the European Capital of Culture. Both should be listed at any rate. I would rather strike Gelsenkirchen and Duisburg as they don't stand out from the other Ruhr cities that much. --RJFF (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I am with User:RJFF on that, besides Essen and Dortmund are larger than Duisburg by population, not to mention Gelsenkirchen, which is not even marked on our regional map. I'd consider bending the rules to keep Duisburg listed though. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I would have no objection to bending the rule for Duisburg (the rule isn't that strict anyway). I agree Essen and Dortmund need to be on the list. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but the rule is hard and fast. Just look at the Asia article where someone always tries to add Tehran. If two or more cities are equally (un)deserving, we can list only eight, but I am vehemently opposed to listing more than ten places in the "cities" subsection of any non bottom level region. If you want to change policy, we can discuss that at the appropriate place, but this rule has served us well and we should not make exceptions willy-nilly. Imho either Münster Aachen Paderborn or Wuppertal could be cut from the current list, but Aachen is probably prominent enough due to the association with Charlemagne and Wuppertal has the Schwebebahn and Friedrich Engels going for it. At any rate; more than nine subregions may make sense and hence such exceptions are acceptable  (as are four subregions), but more than nine cities are only permissible in bottom level regions which NRW is not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I won't express an opinion about which 9 cities should be listed, but I certainly disagree with making this non-bottom-level region a unique exception to that rule. Think about how much controversy there's been about which 9 cities should be listed in the India article. No, no exception here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, to have a reasonably diverse distribution of cities across subregions, I'd propose removing Essen and keeping Paderborn. Despite the whole European Capital of Culture thing 6 years ago, I still feel that Duisburg is decisively more interesting than Essen. That said, our Paderborn guide is in a sorry state, and Bielefeld is both a slightly better guide as of now and a larger city. As Teutoburg Forest is a region with predominantly domestic tourism, perhaps locals can decide. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 * It's probably a question of taste, but I think Essen is very interesting, think of Zeche Zollverein (which is pretty much the symbolic landmark of the whole Ruhr district), the Folkwang Museum (one of the most well-known art exhibitions in all of Germany), the design museum, lots of art galleries. If there is one Ruhr city with the highest concentration in points of interest, it's probably Essen. Moreover, our Essen article is much better developed than the one on Duisburg. Alternatively, I could accept removing Wuppertal. The Schwebebahn, zoo and botanical garden are actually the only major attractions I can think of. Do they warrant listing Wuppertal as one of nine top cities in a region that has dozens of cities? The article's state is not too convincing, either. Münster and Paderborn should not be removed, at least for reasons of regional balance. There are only two Westphalian cities (outside the Ruhr region) on the list, while the Rhineland is rather overrepresented with five cities listed. Cologne, Düsseldorf, Aachen, Essen, Dortmund and Münster are must-haves, in my opinion. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Not too familiar with this corner of Germany but I'd say Düsseldorf, Cologne, Aachen, Essen and Münster should be on the list, probably Wuppertal and Bonn too. Then the two remaining regions Teutoburg forest and Sauerland-Siegerland could be represented by one city each. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, Wuppertal can hardly hold a candle to e.g. Cologne or Bonn, but I'd say we need one city from Bergisches Land... I am not that familiar with Essen, perhaps it is indeed the cultural hotspot you portray it to be, but then I am not sure about Dortmund, which seems large but pedestrian to me. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic Map
Only some of the regions are colored, and it seems the "Ruhr" region is bigger in the dynamic map than the static map. What's up with that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ruhr is bigger in the dynamic map because it shows the official boundary whereas WV doesn't follow the "official" Ruhr boundary. In an earlier region discussion, now archived, there was a decision to exclude Wesel from the Ruhr region for WV purposes and include it in the Lower Rhine region.
 * Re only some regions being coloured, regions are only coloured if there is a corresponding region in Openstreetmap and OSM has been linked to Wikidata. Looking at the earlier region discussion, it looks like a number of the regions don't follow administrative boundaries so the regions won't exist in OSM or they won't match our regions. Someone will need to create a dataset for our custom regions before they'll properly show. Unfortunately, dynamic maps don't deal with these situations very well right now. I'd prefer to not display any regional mapshapes in a situation like this (because they're incomplete and/or inaccurate), but I'm not sure everyone would agree. -Shaundd (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a crutch that might work is going down to the Landkreis or Gemeinde level and aggregating them, if that makes sense... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the static map is a good one, should the dynamic be removed, at least until in a better state? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but could somebody maybe do the drawing in their sandbox? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Hobbitschuster, going down to the Landkreis or Gemeinde level should work as long as they are loaded into OSM and linked to Wikidata. -Shaundd (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they should be, at least I have found that mapframe usually works for German destinations... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia


text:
Talk:North Savonia

Full listings to be moved to city articles

 * Located in Varkaus it's the only Mechanical Music Museum in Finland.

 * Only brewery museum open for public. Here you can find history of beer and explore different stages of brewing.

 * Relax in a spa-hotel in Leppävirta.

 * attached to the spa, there is also an indoor skiing arena. You can ski all year round in world's biggest cave skiing arena.

—The preceding comment was added by ClausHansen (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2010

 * The two first mentioned are listed in the articles. Leppävirta is still a redlink. –LPfi (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Savonia