text:
Talk:United States of America/Respect and Warnings

Introduction
We have had some activity in the past few days where warnings and modifications to the United States of America about entry into this country and the dangers involved with starting political discussions with the TSA security/CBP at airports. I believe that talking about the issue here is much better then edit wars. The question is do we need a warning or mention of the dangers of discussing politics with security people upon entry to the USA? In my mind it may be useful and needed. Recient changes being made to the laws of the United States makes this more then just a danger of being detained and now there is the chance someone could be taken away and all their rights to a court hearing taken away. So, do we need a warning? If so, how should it be worded? We have to remember our goal is to help the traveler and not make a political statement. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:24, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I think some type of warning is pretty important. It would be negligent to omit. I'm not sure what the argument would be against some time of warning.. I think something along the lines of "Be mindful that aiport security is probably not the best venue for discussing politics..." and then some specifics about how Civil Liberties are a little "different" in airports. (WT-en) Maj 12:02, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * An argument against it is that it's not terribly specific to the US. It isn't incredibly bright to say, "These restrictions are idiotic, why can't I buy Bailey's at duty free any more, I'm not going to use it blow up the plane," when you're in line at Heathrow.  Anyway, I'm not terribly opposed to a (short) sentence in the "Get In" section telling people something like, "It's best not to discuss politics with airport security; they may overreact." Just don't over-do it.  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 12:47, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't see a real need for such a warning, for the reasons that Jonboy cites, but OTOH, it wouldn't hurt to have one if it's well crafted. The problem is that the previous "attempts" at such a thing (I'm being generous here) were not well crafted.  Maybe someone could research (at a lay level) the court cases dealing with "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," to take the standard example of a situation in which absolute freedom of speech doesn't apply (in the US or anywhere else).  An analogy between that and the border situation could then provide some small value.  Maybe. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:18, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

 * We do not need any type of warning box because the issues are so universal anyone already knows not to say "I want to kill (nationality inserted)" upon arrival into any country. Dan (If that's his real name) knows this and he has some tired beef with the U.S. and instead of contacting Senator Voinovich  and express his concerns in a civil manner he's decided to take U.S. foreign policy out on Wikivoyage.  Let's consider that Dan in the past has created ridiculous warning boxes to state "America is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan" (I know, that's somewhat tamer than he's put it).  There's no need for that type of warning box, because, well... everyone in the world knows about the wars!  Secondly, try flying into any country and say "Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden you are heros!" In Sudan or North Korea that may go somewhat unnoticed but in the rest of the world both people are viewed as threats to the current political structure and stability of many nations so you will be interrogated.  I don't know what the U.S. Border Control would do if someone yelled that at JFK airport, but I'd imagine that it would require sitting in a bland, windowless room for six hours before Sparky, the security agent came in with two rubber gloves on.  You'd receive the same warm welcome any where else in the world so if we're give in to outrageous politically driven vandalism let's be sure to slap any similar warning box to the top of the United Kingdom, Venezuela, Iraq,  China, Russia, and North Korea articles. --  (WT-en) Sapphire 13:56, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

I think this all sounds pretty hypothetical: I've never been asked about my politics at any border anywhere. When coming to the US, the INS is interested in one thing only: are you going to become an illegal alien, or do you have a legitimate reason to be there? Their questions are directed solely at this end, and terrorism has nothing to do with it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:17, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

 * What is being discussed is there a need to a warn someone entering the USA about making comments to the TSA agent such as "Do you think the US is correct to be in Iraq and killing all the people there?" or "Do you think it is good for people to own guns?" or "I love Osama!" and the likely results of such comments such as being detained, fined, being labeled as a terrorist or the additional new danger with recent US law being passed where the right to writ of habeas corpus has been suspended as part of the war on terror. I believe the anon Wikivoyageer(s) that were posting warnings were concerned about an elderly lady that was detained due to commnets made to a security agent and they were likely only interested in making a political statement. But, do to edit wars the page was protected for a period and I felt that we should discuss the issue. Thanks, we would be interested in your additional comments. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:50, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Yes, I saw the edit war and the discussion above, and I still think this is entirely hypothetical.     First of all, there are two things being confused here: when you enter the US, you're questioned by CBP, not TSA.  During this entry examination, you are being questioned by the agent, not the other way around; you're going to have issues if you talk back or do anything other than answer their questions in any country, not just the US.  And, as stated, they're not there to screen for terrorists (it's a bit late for that!), they're concerned about illegal immigration.

 * Now, any elderly ladies making political statements were most probably dealing with the TSA goons who inspect your carryons when flying out of an airport, not in. Any warnings related to this belong in "Get around", not "Get in". (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:41, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Thank you for the input. The TSA thing was my fault as I fly mostly domestic in the US. Thank you for clearing that. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:37, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

 * I feel very strongly feel that no warnings are needed in any section because of the universality of the problem. Tom are you referring to the PATRIOT Act?  The PATRIOT Act has very little to do about fools at the airport.  It's more concerned with obtaining records easier through the court created by the FISA Act in the '70s.  Anyhow, these types of warnings do not have any place within individual country articles because of its universality.  The only article that I would support having the information in is Tips for flying, but the information is already provided there:

 * From Tips for flying

 * Don't make jokes about bombs, weapons, or other security threats. There is no room for humor on this topic; rather than relying on their individual subjective judgment, security personnel are required to take any such joke as a serious statement. You will be checked more thoroughly, or even escorted off the premises in some cases. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 13:51, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

 * I was just trying to start a place where "reasonable" discussion can be had for all parties. To be honest I don't really care if there is a warning or not. I am not sure I understand your question about the PATRIOT Act, I have not refered to it, just the genenal issue at hand. If there is something that appears like I was refering to it, then I will clearly say I was not. If I have mis-stated the issue or issues then I am also sorry about that. I was hoping to get the discussion going and back out. There seems to have been a lot of tension that has been generated by this issue and it also appears the party or parties that stated the whole thing have not put in their comments as I was hoping they would. The only reason I started this page is because there was an implication I was in an "out of control" edit war and I just wanted to try and help with a solution and not be part of the problem. It looks like by creating this page all I have done is add fuel to a fire and made it worse. I can see you have very stong feelings about this. All I can say, is if I upset you by starting this page, then I am sorry. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:15, 8 October 2006 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Universal City

Headings
I updated the article a bit to use the standard headings. As to the question of whether Universal Studios is a "See" or a "Do", it's probably kind of up in the air, so (WT-en) Luvdapug, feel free to organize however you'd like. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 01:55, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * OK, thanks Wrh2; I think rollercoasters and such qualify the park as a do.
 * Can we add some pictures to this to make the article more appealing?

Featured destination?
What does this article need to be nominated at dotm? /Yvwv (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * looking at the listings, the article should be renamed "Universal City in 2017", but why would we feature it? Ground Zero (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Universal City


text:
Talk:University City (Missouri)

travel warnings
not sure does this deserve travel warnings(WT-en) WCLL HK 06:17, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:University City (Missouri)


text:
Talk:Unorganized Borough

This looks like a census area. It appears to be an area used to gather statistics and may not be a natural region. I am not sure how these census areas fit into the Wikivoyage geographical hierachy. Does someone who knows this part of Alaska have any ideas? - (WT-en) Huttite 07:23, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Unorganized Borough

 * Delete. Part of a well-intended attempt to create a region hierarchy for Alaska, but based on a very unintuitive scheme using names that only a bureaucrat could love.  Alaska has now been restructured (a bit loosely so far) using geography instead. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:15, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * While the policy and concept is sound, I'm concerned about a competing concept of not cluttering the regional pages. I've seen in a number of (random) places editors removing smaller cities from larger regions because if all the small articles were listed in the region, the region article would be full of them. Counties, while bureaucratic stand in that middle ground.  This, yet again, brings us to a discussion about tiny town articles - if we keep the tiny towns how won't they be orphans if we don't allow the large region articles to contain their mass?  I hate to keep trying to hijack VFD discussion into philosphical ones, but its very related in my mind... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:22, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Part of the solution is to stop trying to keep every worthless article created for a non-destination "town" as if they were actual contributions to Wikivoyage rather than random acts of chaos. But I digress.  If there are too many genuine destinations in a region to list them all, the region needs to be broken down further.  Counties are one way to do that, but they are very often poor regions from a travel perspective.  Look at a map of U.S. counties  and you can tell that most of them between the Colonies and the Rockies were drawn by some guy with a straightedge and no knowledge of the territority he's dividing up.  A city I used to live in had a county line drawn right through the middle of it, and there are a few counties in my state that don't have any cities in them (just a few tiny towns).  Alaskan boroughs are even worse. The fact that some guy in Juneau couldn't think of anything better than the name "Unorganized Borough" and used it for a collection of discontiguous tracts of land in various parts of the state, is all the more reason to ignore him and come up with something better. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:01, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep - Until we have a better way of organising all the places within the Unorganized Borough, a census area or other administrative division is probably the best way we have. Besides the term is used in Wikipedia, so we should maintain at least a redirect for such a place to the Wikivoyage article that covers the place listed in Wikipedia. Even if it is only a notional division or grouping - and seemingly worthless. In the future we can direct this to the divisions we do establish. Until we do, keep it. We should not be deleting redirect articles, unless there is never even going to be a redirect to a relevant article. Besides, many search engines love redirects. -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:05, 29 July 2006 (EDT)
 * We have a better way of organizing the random parcels of land called the Unorganized Borough: It's called a "geographical hierarchy". Places in Southeastern Alaska we put in Southeastern Alaska, places in Southwestern Alaska we put in Southeastern Alaska, etc.  This bizarre bureaucratic construct defies geography.  It's analagous to the non-geographic pseudo-region Island nations, which was created only because there was no other top-level container to put them in.  And what are you suggesting we redirect this to... Alaska?  It's literally all over the map: from the Aleutians to the Arctic to the Inside Passage!  The fact that there's a Wikipedia article for it has no bearing on whether it is – or ever could be – of value to the traveler, and your argument that we should maintain an article or redirect for every place-name for which Wikipedia has an article, seems like a rather sysiphean task on a rather slippery slope. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:12, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep, at least for now. Agree with Huttite.  Alaska is another place that doesn't fit the most common US hierarchical structure well; this shouldn't be deleted until there is clarity on what the best structure is (we don't have that yet) and what the most sensible synonyms/redirects are (ditto). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:48, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
 * What lack of clarity? Are you looking at the same state I am?  Since February 2004, Wikivoyage has had Alaska divided into five regions based on geography.  Roughly the same regions are also used by the state's travel industry association  (which I find a pretty persuasive confirmation).  The only question about this structure raised in the past 2.5 years has been whether they should have names like South-Central (Alaska) or Southcentral Alaska and little bit of restructuring within those regions. [[Image:UBAK.png|right|250px]] Granted, I am not an expert about Alaska, but in the week I spent there and in the time I spent researching it recently to figure out whether the Unorganized Borough fit into that hierarchy, I found nothing that argued that we should toss out that whole existing structure to accommodate the UB.  Nor has anyone actually proposed that we do so. This article was created in good faith under the assumption that we're supposed to follow government boundaries... but we're not.  We use them when/if they make sense from a travel perspective, and look to other resources for guidance when they don't.  And this "region" clearly does not make sense. Look at it: it overlaps with all five existing geographic regions, because it exists only as a bureaucratic construct (i.e. territory without a formal borough government), not in the real world. This isn't a question of following "the most common US hierarchical structure"; it's a question of following Wikivoyage policies.  And as for the let's-redirect-it reflex, there are no "sensible redirects" for this article.  If someone created an article Unincorporated Townships (Kansas), we'd delete it (I hope).  Why wouldn't we do that with this?  Under what overhaul of the Wikivoyage guidelines would this be a valid article? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:58, 6 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Preferably redirect to Alaska, although I wouldn't be opposed to deleting. Todd's right - this region is too all-over-the-place, and it overlaps with existing Wikivoyage regions for Alaska. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:42, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Okay, so what's the consensus here? I see one person who is adamantly opposed to keeping it, two who say keep, one who says "redirect, but delete OK," and one who -- I'm not sure what he says.  I believe the consensus is to keep; one person saying the same thing over and over does not a consensus make, no matter how forcefully he says it.  But we're overdue to resolve this. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:21, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Alaska doesn't have counties, they have boroughs, so I think if we delete these articles we may see them re-appear in the future. A redirect seems like a good compromise to me, but that's just repeating my previous opinion so having someone else chime in would be a good thing™. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:50, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Two people saying "Delete"/"Redirect", one person saying "Keep until we decide how to divide Alaska" (when there's an established structure that no one objects to), one person saying "Keep until we decide how to divide Alaska, and because I think we should have articles/redirects for every article in Wikipedia", and one person who created the article but has since said that he never liked it and only did it because he thought it was required... is not a consensus to keep.  I've continued my (admittedly rather annoyed) explanations in an effort to point out that your objections have long since been satisfied, and that the article has no value, hoping that maybe you'd find this information persuasive enough to effect a consensus.  If not... then we don't have one. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:02, 12 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirected to Alaska, then, so that we can get the miserable thing out of the way. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:17, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Unorganized Borough


text:
Talk:Upington

Upington has one of the longest runways in the world but it is NOT the biggest city in the Northern Cape Province. The capital, Kimberley, has that honour.

The runway was built by the apartheid regime for transport planes carrying supplies to South African troops stationed in Northern Namibia, and almost certainly and probably in secret to Unita, the forces that fought the government of Angola until the death of leader Jonas Savimbi.

Population
Just wondering, isn't Kimberley the biggest municipality population-wise in North Cape province? Lazarus1255 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Upington


text:
Talk:Upper Austria

Travel Information Upper Austria
A good source for information on Upper Austria is is this private Austria travel guide.

title: Talk:Upper Austria


text:
Talk:Upper Bavaria

Regions
We need sub-regions for Upper Bavaria as with 17 cities, the list has easily passed the maximum of 9. I don't know exactly what to do here though. Bavarian Alps is a logical sub-region, but how would we divide the other parts? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:29, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I would recommend to stick with the official so called Planungregionen . I think those actually make sense from a local's as well as a traveler's point of view.
 * Forgot to sign Tbp386 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I assume this would mean the following sub-regions:

 * Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt (region)
 * Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Neuburg-Schrobenhausen and Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm
 * Neuburg an der Donau, Schrobenhausen
 * München, Munich (region)
 * Munich, Dachau, Ebersberg, Erding, Freising, Fürstenfeldbruck, Landsberg am Lech, and Starnberg
 * Grafing, Moosburg an der Isar.
 * Ammersee,Andechs,Gilching,Munich Airport,
 * Oberland Oberland upper Bavaria
 * Bad Tölz-Wolfratshausen, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Miesbach and Weilheim-Schongau
 * Bad Tölz,Hausham, Murnau am Staffelsee, Penzberg, Peiting, Tegernsee, Rottach-Egern, Bad Wiessee, Gmund am Tegernsee, Weilheim, (Oberbayern), Wolfratshausen, Geretsried.
 * Bad Kohlgrub, Murnau, Mittenwald,Oberammergau,Rottach-Egern,Schongau (Germany),
 * Südostoberbayern, South-east upper Bavaria
 * Rosenheim, Altötting, Berchtesgadener Land, Mühldorf am Inn, Rosenheim and Traunstein
 * Altötting, Neuötting, Bad Aibling, Bad Reichenhall, Berchtesgaden, Burghausen, Freilassing, Traunreut, Trostberg, Waldkraiburg and Wasserburg am Inn.
 * Bad Reichenhall,Berchtesgaden National Park,Chiemsee,Prien am Chiemsee,

Traveler100 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Would that not make it too deep? i.e. Germany->Bavaria->Upper Bavaria->Südostoberbayern->Rosenheim ?
 * Additionally there a lot of potential red-linked articles above that probably exist in WV German, but have not yet been translated. I will be looking at that situation as a side-task, however they won't get translated in the short term. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest keeping as is for now. If the number of articles in this region increases then the above structure can be used. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article as it is requires loads of work, its lead doesn't even link to Bavaria. Creating a myriad of subregions out of a quite small subregion of a region is not the way to go, IMHO. I would focus on improving the quality of articles as they are and not create subregions containing mostly redlinks unlikely to be replaced by quality articles now given how much work the extant articles still need.
 * If you find the lists too long, why not simply divide it into "Smaller towns around Munich" and "Mountain resorts" (within the article, not as separate articles) - as a traveller, I would find it more useful than Plannungsregione or any other kind of geographic division I would need to learn and understand.

 * Agree in keeping the structure in the way that it is. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Boarische
I felt worth mentioning the Bavarian dialect spoken in these parts. I only kept it at high level, since although I understand there are many sub-variants of that dialect, the distinctions will be completely lost on visitors. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Munich suburbs
Have a look at Upper Bavaria. The area is obviously dominated by Munich and due to happenstance of history, several of its suburbs have not been annexed into Munich. Among those in the Landkreis Munich for which we have articles are Oberschleißheim, Ismaning and Garching. Now if you'd ask me, Munich would annex most of the Landkreis and be done with it, but we do not have the luxury of municipal boundaries doing us a favor. As a stopgap to avoid long lists, I have made a sub-heading in the Upper Bavaria article entitled "Munich suburbs", but the map alone should suffice to explain how hard it is to draw any kind of line. If we do end up splitting the Upper Bavaria region, we might end up with a discontinuous donut... So what say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * That sounds like Los Angeles, so maybe whatever we decided about LA would work there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * To make things worse, some places that directly border Munich are not even part of the Landkreis... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Upper Bavaria


text:
Talk:Upper Hunza

Hunza is one of the most beautiful places in the world its located in the northern areas of Pakistan, but now it should be considered separate state because people of hunza needs seprate and peacful place where they leave for many years.

title: Talk:Upper Hunza


text:
Talk:Upper Normandy

Image broken
The map image attached to this article seems to be broken, and I'm unable to fix it using either Firefox or Internet Explorer. The accented "é" in the image name seems to be the culprit -- it doesn't appear to have been created using a standard character set. Anyone have any ideas on how to resolve this? -- (WT-en) Wrh2 17:38, 23 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * That's weird.... It was displaying fine only yesterday when I edited the page.... I'm not sure that it is the accented character.... I just checked and the same image title root is used in Basse-Normandie, for example, which is still displaying properly... It's also working in the French Wikivoyage, which is the source of the images in the first place. A genuine mystery! (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 03:05, 24 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * I just looked at Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie again, using Firefox rather than Safari..... and the accented e seems to have been altered to an e followed by an accent..... Very strange, as that's not how it started life when I placed it there many months ago.... Nor does it reflect the image names lifted from the French Wikivoyage. We haven't done anything to change the Unicode encoding of the database recently, have we, that might have compromised such accented image titles? Anyone? (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 03:15, 24 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * Even weirder, I just checked the Image List in the Special Pages and it seems to be displaying just fine there.... I'm stumped. (WT-en) Paul James Cowie 03:23, 24 Jul 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Upper Normandy


text:
Talk:Upper Peninsula

Any other editors?
Is anyone else actively interested in working on this page? UP fan here, but not sure where to start to grow the page or if other people had ideas. User:(WT-en) Mjwise

I removed the conservative, blindingly white and disdain and fear comments as I found them not true. Regarding conservative, the UP has four state reps, 3 of which are democrats. The federal rep is Bart Stupak, and has been for many years, and he is a democrat as well. User:(WT-en) Chst

 * I'll be happy to help here. I was born and raised in the U.P. and can provide more informed viewpoint into what it is to be in the U.P. and what it is to be a Yooper.Mjz (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Upper Peninsula


text:
Talk:Uppsala

Usable, not Guide
Sorry, but lacking a "Do" section, this article doesn't really qualify as a Guide. It could be made into one fairly easily by addition of some things to "Do." -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Bus map
The local bus company has developed a new bus map of Uppsala which I think would be helpful to this article. I am however not sure how to make such maps accessible to Wikivoyage, as it does not seem to be available under any Creative Commons License. Since there are plenty of CC-licensed metro maps on Wikivoyage there must be some way to get a CC-licensed version of this map as well, but I am not sure how to make one. Is there anybody else who feel up to the task, or who might instruct me? Best, MartinJacobson (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Why don't you just provide this link in the "By bus" section of "Get around"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Perhaps that would be a good backup solution, but I think that it would be preferable to have a map-picture since the link might die eventually and therefore has to be constantly monitored, and since a link wouldn't help any offline travelers. MartinJacobson (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The bus routes might also change. I think there's a much better chance of the bus company updating their map than some volunteer editor doing it here. And besides, as you mention, there's a copyright issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (U)

 * I see your point, but maintain that an updated map is preferable to a link. For the time being I added a link in the "Get around/By bus" section, and will try my best to monitor it. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Uppsala star nomination
One of the best of the Wikivoyage articles is Uppsala. It's a star nomination with some support votes, but a couple more would be useful so we have a consensus strong enough to upgrade it. So if you haven't voted on it yet, just take a minute or two to give it your support if you think it's worthy of star status.

Thank you.

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uppsala


text:
Talk:Upton (Maine)

Comments
Haven't found any accomodations. Only attraction seems to be Grafton Notch State Park, the entrance to which is in neighboring Newry (pop. 344).

title: Talk:Upton (Maine)


text:
Talk:Urana

Comments
I created this page after a visit to this town as a stop on a tour of victoria and new south wales. I think i captured all the relevant information, and did so correctly, but i was only there for the night and might have missed something. 128.250.5.245 21:40, 26 July 2009 (EDT)afterDawn

Proposed alternate pagebanner
Here's a pagebanner that I think is better in my opinion, but we need to seek consensus first. The main difference is the welcome sign, which is more distinctive. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Dunno. I like the long shot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * iirc, that's not exactly in Urana, but some km away. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, there's probably no argument for it anymore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * well, then can I change it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like. Can the existing banner be used for anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For Overland travel between Brisbane and Melbourne. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urana


text:
Talk:Urbana

Should this be folded into Champaign-Urbana, or is there some difference I don't understand? -- (WT-en) Colin 20:54, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * I've just done the redirect to accomplish this. Please let me know if I missed something that needs doing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Urbana


text:
Talk:Urban camping

Um, can I ask what this is supposed to cover? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:24, 1 July 2006 (EDT)
 * It does seem fairly pointless. The only people I know of who camp in a city are people trying to score opening day tickets to the Reds or Bengals. I don't think homeless people count as "campers." -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 06:30, 1 July 2006 (EDT)
 * There are some cities with 'urban campgrounds' but they're generally just parks that happen to be in town. The only other thing I can think of is quasi-legal things like sleeping in golf courses, city parks, etc. I mean, sometimes you just dont find (or cant afford) a place to stay. I guess if we cover Hitchhiking than this is equally valid. I'll wait and see where it goes... (WT-en) Majnoona 14:02, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

I started this topic because someone I know inquired about using urban camping because he's on a tight budget, and I wanted to see if wikivoyage users had anything to add. ((WT-en) Lizz 22:56, 3 July 2006 (EDT))

 * Perhaps the best idea would be to first talk generally about camping anywhere in the general article and then discuss camping in an urban environment. I can think of a number of reasons why urban camping would be useful, including protest camps outside the local government building etc., lack of other affordable accomodation in town, waiting in the queue for tickets or the store sale. However, we do not have a useful general article yet, so I question having a specialist article. -- (WT-en) Huttite 02:36, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Redirect this to Camping - ?
Any objections? ~ 203.144.143.2 06:18, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

In Britain a form of urban camping involves many people stranded at airports, bus and train stations, largely to delays in traveling especially in night travel. This is a form of urban camping as it doesn't involve a tradition tent just a bench, floor or whatever can be found as temporary accommodation.

title: Talk:Urban camping


text:
Talk:Urban camping in Japan

In subsection "Park in Ueno (real name unknown)", The picture in Google street view reads "Yayoi Jidou Yuuen (弥生児童遊園, Yayoi children's park)".

Yoyogi
118.21.136.4 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)My ten cents that prove your article aint always reliable. Just today I was kicked out from Yoyogi by park security in 6 o clock in the morning.Worst then in States. So,urban camping in Japan isnt always the bliss
 * The article specifically tries to discourage readers from using Yoyogi park, warning that it closes at night. Texugo (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

VfD discussion
Copied from Votes for deletion/November 2020

''Unauthorized camping outside of a campground is not illegal, but it is a gray area activity. In some areas it is prohibited by ordinance. Let's assume that you are not welcomed by the locals. You may be questioned by the police or reported to them. This is not a recommended practice. Please go with that in mind.''

The first two lines of italicized text in the article, quoted above, make a pretty eloquent case for why its existence is a violation of our illegal activities policy. We're talking about an activity that, even in the absolute best-case scenario, is of dubious legality, is likely to lead to harassment from law enforcement, and is explicitly advised against by the article's own author.

An additional bad taste in the mouth is left by the fact that, according to a subsequent section of the article, urban camping in Japan is considered a nuisance or at best only grudgingly tolerated by locals, and is really only feasible thanks to a "foreigner factor" whereby locals assume unfamiliarity with Japanese custom on the part of foreign tourists and therefore let faux-pas slide. It seems to me like knowingly taking advantage of such a thing is a rather bad-faith way for a tourist to conduct him- or herself, and not something we at Wikivoyage should be seen as endorsing.

At best, this information might be condensed and merged into Japan; it certainly shouldn't stand alone as its own article.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Wait per comments below, but still maybe delete. Delete - bit of a shame, because it's quite a well-written and detailed article, but the above quote and the following speak for themselves: "First and foremost, keep in mind that if given freedom of choice, the Japanese would prefer to have their parks unoccupied by itinerant sleepers and sightseers who cannot afford a decent hotel room." But yeah, you go ahead and camp in the park anyway, and screw what them funny locals think...--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC), and modified 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment - I think it would be a more acceptable article if it focussed on camping in small towns and villages rather than cities. I have met people walking the 88 Temple Pilgrimage who have done it on nights when they couldn't stay at a temple - camping in or near a small non-tourist town is more likely to be accepted (as it might be elsewhere). The first two lines of italicized text were only added a couple of days ago, so it would be worth waiting. AlasdairW (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Wait This article has been online for a decade and the paragraph under discussion has only been added in the last few weeks. If the article has the potential to do harm to our reputation,it has already had plenty of opportunity to do it and waiting a bit has a good potential of maybe getting an article that is more workable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Wait The above article was written by me. I was going to suggest deleting it at first, too, but I've reconsidered. Misinformation may have been spread based on this article. It's easy to remove, but hard to correct the spread of incorrect information. Instead of deleting it, I think it would be better to state the correct information and let people know that there was an error in the information so far. A carbon copy of this page on the site Wikitravel, other articles in the magazine that quote wikivoyage. To teach you that those information is wrong, we think this page should be addressed in the edit, not deleted. However, it would be a page of cautions and warnings, with most of the current text removed, though. --コイコイ (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your work on this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment Is this article supposed to be the same as nojuku (sleeping outdoors)? If so, I would probably have to vote against deleting it, because legal or not, nojuku is a long-established practice in Japan, and we've been trying to move long-winded details out of Japan and into child articles. If this is about something other than nojuku, then I'm unclear what this article is about, and it would be hasty to take action without first understanding what the topic in question really is. --Bigpeteb (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep. I think it's become clearer what the article is about, and it seems useful to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Ikan Kekek and I think it is a will written article. AdamT777 (Talk) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's an improvement over before.--コイコイ (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be to keep.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urban camping in Japan


text:
Talk:Urbex

Beyond North America
I tried to get this article started, but I am extremely far from being anything of an expert on the matter—my experiences have been few, recent, and rather casual. The greatest weakness that I've contributed so far is to give the article a very strong North American (U.S. & Canada anyway) bias. It would be great to see the geographical scope of this article expanded. For example, I can only guess at the incredible Urbex opportunities in the FSU... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:32, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Yeah, there are some good photos here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I think we should tread very carefully with this topic and avoid posting any specific information. Three reasons:
 * Legality - Urbex mostly falls in a grey area (unless you are in Scotland, "right to wander" ahoy!) but is just as likely to be flat out illegal. Covering the latter is blatently against Wikivoyage's rules. The page as it stands is treading a thin line I feel...
 * Ethics and preservation - I raise the above mostly as an excuse to cover the main problem: I have seen the damage over-exposure has done to specific sites. Near where I used to live, one guy started maintaining a foreign-language website stating maps, transport directions, the LOT to some amazing sites made mostly amazing by the objects left behind. Naturally, after remaining in that state for years, it took only months for the location to be picked clean by vandals.
 * Scope - Urbex details are way beyond the wikivoyage scope as the level of upkeep required to log the rise and fall of specific sites exceeds that of logging every small bar in Tokyo. Better to have a good solid resource outlining some vaguerities, clearing up questions as to what urbex actually is, and hints on where to start looking than spreading it too thin. Part of the challenge of urbex is finding a site in the first place and pulling that aspect out of the equation will reduce any respect for the hobby. Teach a man to fish and all. - 06:44, 13 February 2011 (WT-en) Snave

American to British English?
There isn't any important reason to change the form of English to British English in a general travel topic article, correct? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one do not understand this comment. —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.95 (talk • contribs)
 * That's funny, because you're the one substituting "shops" for "stores" and "central" for "downtown", among other changes. (And still refusing to sign your posts on talk pages, I see.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it's funny. What is wrong with central and shops? I do not understand 'still refusing to sign your posts on talk pages, I see, —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.95 (talk • contribs)
 * How many times do you need to be asked to type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your posts on talk pages? You say "What is wrong with central and shops?" I reply "What was wrong with 'downtown' and 'stores' (and, arguably, 'subway') that impelled you to change those words?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand 'How many times do you need to be asked to type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your posts on talk pages?' But, Ill try to answer. it is once and by your question above. I will then follow up with my own question, what are you talking about?
 * As far as I know, "central" is valid in the American language. Central Square, New York is just north of Syracuse. K7L (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, and so is "shop". My point is, what was the need to change these words? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In so far as it's possible, they are more neutral as to the "flavour" of English?
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality for the general concept. 80.234.185.120 15:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, and what about this edit? The article has now been so thoroughly Anglicized that it should be completely in British English "to have a consistent variety" within the article? This is a worldwide travel topic, not something specific to Britain, Australia or any other country that uses mostly British spellings. I think many of the recent edits to this article were unnecessary and wrongheaded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly.
 * It's a significantly smaller set of countries that officially use US English.
 * However, I can't see anything so very wrong with the diff you provide. The only really problematic change that I can spot is swapping "subway" for "metro". However short of using the ugly construction of metro/subway or "underground mass transit system" I can't see any way round that. Hasn't the great "US or non-US English" debate been an interminable wrangle from almost day 1 of this project?
 * After all these years of nit-picking changes, personally I would ordain a switch to non-US English - if only on the grounds that might give us a significant boost to persuading Goodle that we are not an inferior derivative of Wikigravel. After all, there's not much point in crafting the most sparkling and consistent prose if nobody can ever find our articles to read them... 80.234.185.120 19:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr./Ms. IP, you are not a new user and know Wikivoyage policies very well. I would not "correct" British English if it were used for a worldwide travel guide, but "correcting" American words and spellings to British ones in a worldwide travel topic is against policy. You know that. We are not going to discuss your age-old conceits about SEO in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you clearly have an hatred for British people. That is your problem, but i will just note I am not British. I will also note it is insulting to class Australians as British. And I not understand various statements from you such as 'You know that. We are not going to discuss your age-old conceits about SEO in this thread' —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for making me laugh. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I don't see a joke. —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.51 (talk • contribs)

Considering deletion proposal
Unless this is substantially rewritten, I am going to propose deletion of this in line with the recent changes to the Illegal Activities policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reworded a bit; this is not an article about sneaking into hotel pools for free. K7L (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think this article needs a fundamental rethink. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a good reason to capitalize "urbex"? I doubt it. I can't see capitalizing "urban exploration". Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a proper noun, so shouldn't be capitalised.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I think, too. Yet it is capitalized a number of times in the middle of sentences. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This problem has been resolved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urbex


text:
Talk:Urdu phrasebook

This article seems to be a subset of the Hindi-Urdu phrasebook that it previously was directed to. Should it still redirect to the Hindi-Urdu phrasebook? -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:49, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * No. I think that having a joint phrasebook was a bad idea in the first place. Though the languages are almost the same, you'll mostly need one of the two, not both. The Hindi phrasebook should be created and the joint phrasebook should be a made a disambiguator.--(WT-en) Ravikiran 09:41, 10 Dec 2005 (EST)

Incomplete
This phrasebook is still incomplete, because there are no pronunciations for most phrases yet. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:32, 20 Dec 2005 (EST)

This is crap.. maybe i'm not familiar with the format for these things but i see a lot of phrases that are "transliterated" and the Urdu script reads something completely different.. its all over the site.. I myself am marginally familiar with the language but it seems that this page favors extreme Persian and Arabic vocabulary where more the more common usage seems to be the word that is held in common with Hindi. an example is "surkh" and "qarmaz" for "red", but no "laal". i'm no expert, but being this is a travel phrasebook i think "laal" would be more understood and common. Inconsistency example: under the "Problems" heading .. it says "Mujhe chor do" but the script to the right says.. something else. When i said this is "crap" i mean its a mess, but it will have to do until someone dedicated and knowledgeable can re-edit this thing, and that may take a while. no offense, its a good effort already, but i see there may be some problems with the attempt in separating the Hindi and Urdu travel things.. the vocabulary favor extremes in vocabulary origin, if that makes any sense.

sorry, the above long comment is mine. :)

Whoever desinged this page doesn't know very much about Urdu. If you don't know Urdu, please don't write an Urdu phrasebook. You would be better off writing a Persian one.

 * Please plunge forward and fix it then! The journey of a thousand miles begins with one click. (WT-en) Jpatokal 19:52, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Updates
I agree that the phrase book is not useful and is wrong. The biggest thing is that many of the English words are now commonly used in Urdu and you do not need to know the real Urdu translation. As a fact the original Urdu translation might not even know to Native speakers as well. An example of this is "minute". I have never in my life heard the original urdu word "daqeeqa" used for it. Its always minute in Urdu as well as English conversations. I have started re-doing it. Please check the Durations section. http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Urdu_phrasebook#Duration_.28.D9.85.D8.AF.D8.AA.29 (WT-en) Webkami 09:14, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Cleaned Up
I have cleaned up major sections, from start to 2.6.2 If anybody interested in cleaning up can cleanup from section 2.7 onwards..... (WT-en) Webkami 11:13, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Now all sections needing cleanup are marked with a notice. (WT-en) Webkami 11:45, 12 February 2007 (EST)

 * Hey there, good work! I'm removing the links section from the bottom since it's against our external links policy, and also the notices on the page about which requires cleanup, we don't really do that the way they do on Wikipedia... the best thing to do is create a "TO DO" section on this talk page (which I've done below) and list what needs doing... Thanks for the nice cleanup, looking forward to more! (WT-en) - Cacahuate 14:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

TO DO
The following sections need cleanup and translation into Urdu. Some text used there comes from the Persian phrasebook:
 * Lodging
 * Money
 * Eating
 * Shopping
 * Driving
 * Authority

(WT-en) - Cacahuate 14:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Ex links
For reference, here's the external links I removed from the page:

 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/other/guide/urdu/steps.shtml
 * http://www.phrasebase.com/learn/urdu.php
 * http://www.urduword.com/

(WT-en) - Cacahuate 14:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks
Thanks for your words and help. Sorry didnt realise about the external link and message box policy. Will keep in mind.... (WT-en) Webkami 03:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Lodging Done
Please note that I have tried my best to help create a phrasebook that will be usefull. One should note that this is not a dictionary/literature and we do not have to translate everything word by word. Thing is that some English words are in use in Urdu and it is much easier to speak this گلابی اردو (Pink Urdu: a term used for Urdu that is not pure and includes many English words). Hope that helps. (WT-en) Webkami 04:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

thanks much
nice work, guy

Potemkin pronunciation guide
Despite the vast quantity of information in this section, there actually is no pronunciation guide. Transliteration is necessary, but its even more necessary to know what those transliterations sound like. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:14, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Star phrasebook
I would like to see this phrasebook at star level so please let me know of any comments and suggestions you have for improving this phrasebook. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Phrasebook status: "The phrasebook template is complete and correct. It has a map identifying places where this language is officially recognized and/or commonly spoken. The format either matches the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule." Complete and correct? I guess that's up to you because I don't think any other Voyager knows any Urdu. Map? Do you know any good map maker? :). Manual of Style? I don't see any major errors.
 * One thing to do: at Writing time and date it says "Give some examples how to write clock times and dates if it differs from English". If there are special ways of writing time and date that visitors may encounter in timetables etc., please add them. If not, remove the section.
 * Otherwise, usually I've added a 6-8 photos to phrasebooks I've edited because large white areas are just boring. And a banner would also be good to have. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for comment YPSI. --Saqib (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * YPSI. How can I make sure that the translations in Roman Urdu can be pronounced correctly by someone who don't knows Urdu language? Can you try a few sentence please and let me know if you found difficulty in pronunciation. --Saqib (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...hard to say. One thing I would come to think of is that the stress maybe should be marked with capital letters if stress is something that is important when speaking Urdu (example).
 * It would maybe be good to have a native English speaker to have a look at the pronunciations, maybe Pashley. I need to concentrate a bit extra to think "via" English. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hope Pashley and some other editors will get involve. I'll also invite some Pakistani Wikipedians too. Btw, I've brought together Urdu alphabets and consonants at once place. Hope the long table on right will be easy to understand and looks not too complex. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hindi & Urdu
I rewrote that paragraph & my work needs checking.

Do we need a visual? The same phrase in Urdu & Hindi script plus a romanisation and perhaps IPA or translation? Pashley (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Do we have the organisation right?
 * At one point there was a single Hindi-Urdu phrasebook. I'd say that was definitely a mistake since the two are written entirely differently so trying to deal with both in one place would be silly. Also, some might find it politically offensive.
 * Currently Hindustani redirects to Hindi. Should it be a disambig instead, explaining that "Hindustani" is a mostly obsolete term that includes both Hindi & Urdu? Pashley (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Latter you said writing system of Hindi and Urdu are different so trying to deal with both in one place would be silly but aforesaid "Do we need a visual? The same phrase in Urdu & Hindi script…". what it is? And yes let's make Hindustani a disambiguation page. Btw, I need you help and advice regarding romanisation pronunciation about which I talked above. --Saqib (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I created a disambig page for Hindustani. The visual might be useful there, but is not needed either here or in the Hindi article. Pashley (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Formality levels
There is an old joke that English was invented so Norman soldiers could chat up Saxon barmaids. Certainly there was a time when the nobles spoke French, church & scholars used Latin, and the common people spoke Anglo-Saxon. In modern English you get informal "I broke my arm" from A-S but a doctor's "He fractured his tibia" uses Latin-derived names.

It looks as though Urdu might have something similar: court Persian, religious Arabic & something very close to Hindi for the commoners. Do we need more explanation of this? Which forms does the phrasebook use? Certainly in a general English course or phrasebook, one would want "broke" (despite the odd grammar from A-S) rather than the formal "fracture". Is there a similar concern for Urdu? Have we done it right? Pashley (talk)
 * Good point! I've used simple vocabulary here as less formalised Urdu is now a days widely used along with plenty of English vocabulary, however as for politeness, Urdu reflect a three to four tiered system of politeness and I've mostly used "Polite and formal tiered system of politeness" in this phrasebook. During your visit to South Asia, you must heard Paani which means "water". It is less formalised Urdu and widely used whereas formal word for "water" is Aab but it is least used and hardly known to majority of Urdu speakers. --Saqib (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think every traveller learns nimbu pani (lime water), but we also get "Punjab" explained as "five rivers". Pashley (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, nimbu pani in India or limbu paani in Pakistan for Lemonade however the formal word for Lemonade in Urdu is Sa-kan-jee but it is less known among commoners. Yes, panj is a Paunjabi-language word means "Five" and ab means "water" as I said above (aab) so "Punjab" becomes "five water" or "five river" due to fact five rivers run through Punjab region. --Saqib (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Table use of "alphabets"
We currently have a table with "Urdu alphabets" as the title and "alphabets" as a column title. That needs to change.

An alphabet is the whole set; for example we can say Urdu uses the Arabic alphabet or the English alphabet is 'abcdef...xyz'. You only get "alphabets" when there are multiple sets.

The individual parts can be called letters, characters, symbols or glyphs. I am not sure which is correct here; I'd use "glyphs", but I'm guessing. Pashley (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that part up-to you so please feel free to change it. Also please feel free to change the titles of columns. --Saqib (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I made some changes, but I am not absolutely certain my usage is correct. Others please check. Pashley (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've wrote above, I brought together Urdu letters and consonants at once place in that table. Hope the long table is easy to understand and looks not too complex. Right? And don't you think we should mention "consonants" as well somewhere in the title of the table? --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * We could title that one "Urdu consonants", or just "Consonants" since vowels are in a different table. But is alif a consonant? Does it need a separate explanation outside both tables? Its own table? Pashley (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alif is consonant. Why you think its need a separate explanation outside both tables? --Saqib (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, "English Name" column can be removed as it seems not very useful, to make some space. --Saqib (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urdu phrasebook


text:
Talk:Urfa

I stayed at the lizbon guesthouse and had a very positiv experience. The former nomadic family ıs runnıng the guesthouse for the last 12 years. I can highly recomend the place where you can find out much about kurdish culter and how it changed over the last 60 years. The lovely owners are very helpful and more than happy to help you out with tours, informations or just having a chat. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 85.104.247.250 (talk • contribs)

The above highly suspicious recommendation was written using a Turkish keyboard and includes letters only found on Turkish computers.Don't let yourself be fooled into believing that this is genuine. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 188.56.97.255 (talk • contribs)

Urfa Harran and Gobeklitepe Tours
I had a tour from ura and it was great. I want to recomend to everybody. I didint stay the night at urfa cause it was very hot so i just pass to Kahta, and stayed in a Wooden and perfect aircontion Hotel, i want to advice every body who want to see urfa and Nemrut.

The Tour was like That : First visit Sanliurfa, visit Abrahams Cave and the Pools of Holy Carp surrounding it, than walk around oriental covered bazaar.Then drive Harran a village of Spellbinding Mud-Birck "beehive" houses mentioned in the book of genesis where Abraham spend last years of his life.Visit the ruins of Harran including city walls, oldest islamic university and the castle dated to eighteen century, drive to Kahta on the way visit Ataturk Dam. - Spend the night in Kahta Kommagene Hotel -2. Day : Wake up 2.00 am for sun rise tour to Nemrut Mountain. -Departure From Kahta at 02:00 am Route : Start from Kahta directly go to Nemrut mountain;watch sun rise, visit the statues ,East Terace , West Terace , and than line up go to Arsemia (old castle ) , New castle ( Eski Kahta Kalesi ) , Roman Bridge (Cendere Köprüsü ) , Black bird Tumulus ( Karakus Tepesi ) and than back to Adiyaman Kahta. - So our tour finish in Kahta, After that we will help you to take a bus from Kahta where ever you want.

I took that tour from Kommagene Hotel and Tour  company. The tour was great and i want to advice this people everybody who want to see urfa and Nemrut.Their phone number is +905322003856 and e-mail is : admin@nemruttours.info. They usually help for everything even bus tickets.

I hope everybody will enjoy Their trip.

Additions being identified as touting
Hi Yesterday Wrh2 (I think) removed both my listings from the Urfa page, simply becasue two listings were deemed touting. I get where you are coming from, but I am legitimatly representing a home stay operation in Sanliurfa and the Abraham Path Initiative (non-profit walking route created by Harvard University). I created and represent Yuvacali Village Home Stays, which I do on a voluntary basis, and which has been listed on Wikivoyage since its inception. I took over as International Respresentative for the AP Initiative in Urfa about 6 months ago. I have two separate websites and two separate email addresses, and I am involved in two, non-profit sustainable outfits. How is that deemed touting? One is accommodation only, and one is an activity (i.e. 'walk the Path'. Of course, if they are removed again, I will get another member of the API team to post Abraham's Path, and then that will not be deemed as touting... Thoughts, please

 * In general, providing information about one's own organizations is deemed touting ;) But, that is not prohibited. Project:Don't tout does not allow more than one listing per business, though. More importantly, we have a really strict policy regarding tours, as Wikivoyage is intended to be a primary resource to encourage independent travel (i.e., Wikivoyage should be the only guide a traveler needs, and the information on how to get around to interesting places should be written here). I tried to clean things up at least a little bit in the sleep section, and added a note that Yuvacali Village Home Stays can arrange treks throughout the area, and your email is there, so I think that should take care of both your concerns and the usual Wikivoyage policy concerns. (No one has a problem with what you're doing in Turkey, us janitors just try our best to uphold the site's policies.)  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:44, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Gobleki Tepe article
Built 6,000 Years Before Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe Is The Oldest Temple In The World Pashley (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urfa


text:
Talk:Uroševac

This is town real name per wikipedia all other relevant sources. --(WT-en) Blurey 18:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Uroševac


text:
Talk:Uros Islands

Nice CC licences picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uros3.jpg --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Move to Uros Islands
So far as I can tell, they're called the "Uros Islands": Wikipedia, Google search. I'd move it, but don't have rights to move over the existing (more than one edit) redirect. Any help/feedback would be appreciated. Brycehughes (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * per Brycehughes. "Uros" is also the name in Spanish. Ground Zero (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Spanish article is Islas flotantes de los uros, the "floating islands of the Uros". Uros is plural for the Uro or Uru people. I don't see any convincing evidence on "Uros Islands" being the name. Isn't the common practice in English to use the ethnicity in singular in such names? Of course, just taking the end of "Islas flotantes ..." results in Uros, and then Uros island, but this seems to be just out of sloppiness. –LPfi (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that the common name in English is the Uros Islands or Uros Floating Islands, regardless of whether it's technically correct (about which you might be right, I don't know). Brycehughes (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying doing a search on "Uro Islands". The results come up overwhelmingly as "Uros Islands" aside from Wikivoyage, Wikitravel, and something called Mapcarta. BBC, Peruhop, TripAdvisor, and others use "Uros Islands"  Ground Zero (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the article, and fixed links from other articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uros Islands


text:
Talk:Urubamba

Eco-tourism hikes in Chicon, near Urubamba
Just northeast of Urubamaba is a small community named Chicon that runs a business leading tourists on hikes. Haku Trek offers three different guided tours of the Chicón valley. Tourists can choose to hike to a gorgeous waterfall through a wide Andean meadow, walk through the spectacular Polylepis forests which only grow at the world's highest altitudes, or take an overnight hike to the pristine Chicón glacier. Local guides lead hikers along the trail as they indicate rare, native plants and animals and teach about the unique history and culture of Chicón. You can also stay in the Eco-Lodge at the base of the three trails. Here hikers can spend the night at a comfortable, convenient location before or after their hikes, while enjoying traditional Peruvian food and experiencing the rich culture of the Sacred Valley. All employees of Haku Trek are native members of the San Isidro de Chicón community. Haku Trek partners with the NGO ProPeru as part of a larger eco-tourism project whose goal is to promote environmentally sustainable economic development in the Sacred Valley

Go to Haku Trek's website for more information, www.hakutrek.com. You can email Haku Trek at hakutrek@hotmail.com, or you can call them at (51 84) 9613001. You won't regret it.

title: Talk:Urubamba


text:
Talk:Uruguay

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Uruguay/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Regions
I am regionalising Uruguay along the lines of the socio-economic and geographic regions that Wikipedia use. A few adjustments to improve the logic for travellers. That means all the departments will be redirected to four new regional aticles (they are either red linked or empty anyway). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:58, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 * Rio de la Plata: includes Greater Montevideo which is much too small to be a separate travel region, plus Canelones, San Jose, Colonia, Soriano and Rio Negro)
 * Atlantic Coast (Uruguay) - Maldonado and Rocha
 * Northern Interior (Uruguay) - the rest north of the Rio Negro and dam lakes
 * Central Interior (Uruguay) - the rest south of the Rio Negro and dam lakes.

 * This looks very sensible to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:33, 21 January 2010 (EST)

 * This regionalisation has no sense. This was based on a scheme from English Wikipedia article whose section has none references about this "socio-economic and geographic" regions. Rio Negro department, for example, doesn't even touch the Rio de la Plata. Traditionally, Uruguay was divided in North and South of the Rio Negro. However, if you look at this example "Montevideo COMM Enciclopedia Geografica del Uruguay", this page describes 5 regions: North-west (Artigas, Salto, Paysandú, Río Negro), North (Rivera, Tacuarembó), East (Cerro Largo, Treinta y Tres, Lavalleja, Rocha, Maldonado), South (Durazno, Flores, Florida, San José, Canelones, Montevideo), and South-west (Soriano, Colonia). Moreover, the official website of Uruguay's Ministry of Tourism describes here 5 regions: Metropolitan (Montevideo and Canelones departments), Center-South, East (the same of Montevideo COMM), North, and the "Corridor of the Colorful Birds" (something like the Montevideo COMM's North region). If there is consensus, I will proceed to change this into the uruguayan government tourism regions. --Zerabat (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * pinged some users to review this proposal. --Zerabat (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with Uruguay so I cant really comment if the existing regions or the new regions make more sense or not. I do note that

 * * Wikipedia divides into four regions, but only as part of the description and there are no specific Wikipedia articles for each 'high level' region
 * * The government tourism web site looks good, and obviously they put much effort into defining their 4 regions
 * * If you really want to do this, then it will require significant effort to draw a new map and reorganize the articles underneath. I would urge that you consider the amount of work for you in the first instance
 * Can you start recreating the map in the first instance and place it here on the talk page? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know Uruguay and have no opinion about this, except that if you want to do the work, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know Uruguay and have no opinion about this, except that if you want to do the work, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have roughly edited the original SVG image (which have a misconfigured canvas) and here it is. I also fixed some routes and paths that were wrongly delineated. Maybe would need some minor fixes in the borders and adaptation to support other languages according to c:Commons:Translation possible/Learn more. What do you think? --Zerabat (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've traveled to a few parts of Uruguay, but I'm not any kind of expert. I think it probably makes sense to make the metropolitan area its own region. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on the other aspects of the proposal, but I trust that the Ministry of Tourism has divided the country up in a logical way, so I would support the change. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice there's a slight difference between your proposed regions and the Ministry of Tourism regions, though: the Ministry of Tourism puts part of Artigas Department in the Northern Region, whereas you have all of it in the Pájaros Pintados Region. I've never been to the city of Artigas, but since it's on the border with Brazil, I would guess that it probably has more in common with Rivera than with Salto. So that might be worth thinking about, but like I said, I'm not that knowledgeable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the map with the change requested. --Zerabat (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way... I must admit (i should not but by matters of clearifying) that i did not deeply read the precedent, but since you talk about Regions of Uruguay... the quick answer is that there is none (none but the whole country, if any), the official response is in way of coming and is that that, is in way of coming as regionalization is recently in the way of being propposed, and I must admit that you made a much better work than that the authorities are doing, the official prtopossal segregates Montevideo from Colonia del Sacramento in South and Riverside respectively which in my opinion is an option much much worse than yours, if for me I would accept your propposed Regions better that the official ones, but on the corpse of the matter the official propposal includes five regions: South, Center, East, Northeast and Riverside, shame that is not you that make the decissions (sham,e that i cant use my wikipedia account here)...--167.57.67.209 02:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly I should say that you don't have to feel ashamed because you can use your Wikipedia account here and in every Wikimedia project. Secondly, I am the proposer of the new regionalisation, based on those traced by the Uruguay's Ministry of Tourism (MoT). As I said above, the current regionalisation has no sense nor justification. It was based on what was interpreted by the proposer what was supposedly said in an English Wikipedia page years ago (that page could be Geography of Uruguay (rev. 334022163)) about "socio-economic and geographic regions", while the departamentos were arbitrarily assigned to one or other region. and this regionalisation wasn't done with tourism in mind. Moreover, Uruguay's MoT made a tourist regionalisation with tourism in mind, something we could use and take advantage of, as it was made by experts. --Zerabat (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Several months later, I've now travelled much more extensively in Uruguay, and I'm not sure I like the proposed regions. So I think the current regionalization seems better. In particular, the wide variety of destinations in the East Region and the small number of cities in the Northern Region and Metropolitan Region seem like real problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The current Atlantic Coast is a very coherent region, basically consisting of popular beach towns plus a couple of closely associated places (Chuy and Rocha). The proposed East Region combines these with some inland departments that are very different. I don't know how we would write a coherent traveller-oriented region article that includes departments as varied as Maldonado, Rocha, Lavalleja, Treinta y Tres, and Cerro Largo.
 * The current Northern Interior also seems like a coherent region to me. Even though I kind of encouraged dividing up Artigas Department, I no longer think it's a good idea, and more broadly, from what I understand, the cities of Salto, Rivera, Artigas, Bella Unión, and Tacuarembó have enough connections and features in common that it seems like they belong in the same region. The proposed Northern Region would also be pretty small for a Wikivoyage region—only three city articles, or four at most if we decided to put all of Artigas Department in the region.
 * The current Rio de la Plata region combines some pretty different destinations, but there's something nice about having one region for Montevideo, Colonia, and Fray Bentos (historically very important port cities, and probably the only three cities in the country with significant well-known historic districts). The proposed Pájaros Pintados Region also combines pretty different destinations, though it has the unifying feature of ties to Argentina. But I think it probably makes more sense to put Colonia in the same region as Montevideo.
 * The current Central Interior is admittedly a bit of a miscellaneous grab-bag (at least it seems like it to me). I haven't really spent any time in San José Department, so I'm not sure if the proposed South Central Region is better or not.
 * The proposed Metropolitan Region seems coherent to me, but if we create it now it will be a region with only one city, which is really too small of a region. Maybe we should create it someday, if articles are created for the suburbs of Montevideo and beaches in Canelones Department, but not yet.

Replace banner?

Much like Talk:Paraguay - I find Uruguay's current banner to be not great, and also an inefficient PNG format. I couldn't find many great options on commons, but created these three. Any comments? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I've added a variation of option 2 (option 2b), which I think works a little better than option 2 in the article with the menu covering up the bottom of it. Of the five, my favorite is option 2b, followed by option 3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, let's go for your suggestion. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Beberages
There is also cheaper alcohol than whiskey on the traditional blends being grappa and caña, you can add this to redaction if you want to.--167.57.67.209 03:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Workshop tomorrow
Tomorrow I'm planning to do a workshop with a group of 5-10 Uruguayan teachers-in-training where I'll show them how to edit the English Wikivoyage and they'll add some information to some of our articles about Uruguay. They speak good English, and I'll keep a close eye on their edits to make sure they follow wiaa and other guidelines. I think this will be a good way to make some improvements to our coverage of Uruguay and possibly even attract some potential long-term contributors. I just want to leave this message as a heads-up not to be surprised when a few new accounts suddenly start editing articles about Uruguay at the same time tomorrow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great! You might want to post in the Travellers' pub, which I think more people monitor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point—I've moved this discussion to the pub. (It was originally at Talk:Uruguay.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why here rather than Uruguay? Alternately, is it only here and not there as well? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'm working with these teachers-in-training once a week, partly to help them practice their English, and the activity I've planned for this week is the Wikivoyage workshop. Doing it on es.voy wouldn't accomplish the goal of helping them practice English. But in terms of encouraging them to continue contributing in the future, it would be great if they want to do that on es.voy too, and I'll mention that possibility to them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Not sure if your students can help, but Montevideo (capital city) is presently one very long article. Great if you could take a look at districts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * We just finished the workshop. I think it produced some useful content, and some of the students said they plan to continue improving the articles in the next few days! This evening when I get home I'll clean up the new articles and contributions. Next week I'll show them how to add pictures.
 * With respect to districts in Montevideo, I wonder if it might be better to leave it as one article for now - though Montevideo looks spread out on a map, the attractions are mostly concentrated around the Ciudad Vieja and Parque Rodó/Punta Carretas areas. The article doesn't look too much longer than Albuquerque, which is a star article. But I'd welcome other opinions - if the consensus is that it should be split, I'll discuss it with the students and see what districts they (and I) think would be useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I would like if you also would have mentioned that also there is a Spanish language version of Wikivoyage in which they also could contribute the same content in their own language, so at the same time two projects would be gaining. --Zerabat (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I did mention that, and I very much hope they'll contribute to the Spanish Wikivoyage too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I hope so, but at the moment no one of these users joined eswikivoyage neither did a single edit since this workshop was hold, what is a pity. --Zerabat (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For the records: currency denotation
Hi there

I just noted that sometimes AM and PM is used in the Uruguayan article. However, the times (t)here are quoted in 24 hr format and I had just confirmation buy a local that this is official.

Hence, I would like to make it official that we are consequently using the 00:00-23:59 format for Uruguay, and I will go ahead converting any left AM and PM to this version of time.

If there are no objections.

Cheers, André —The preceding comment was added by Ceever (talk • contribs)

 * Currency? Time is money? :)
 * Jokes aside, they indeed use the 24 h system in Uruguay, just like pretty much anywhere else outside the anglosphere so go ahead and change it. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree, times should be given in 24-hour format in all Uruguay articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click antel->mantel? (omit) context: are prominently posted and always username: antel antel password: wifi. Dedicado WiFi hotspots
 * Not a typo. It refers to "ANTEL", a government-owned telecommunications company providing access to telephony, mobile carrier and internet connections, among other services. --Onwa (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uruguay


text:
Talk:Urumqi

I deleted the following from the article as it seems more relevant as Get in info for Bishkek or Almaty, and less so for those wanting to visit Urumqi and should not be its own subsection title: (WT-en) Zepppep 13:50, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Infos for Cyclists
How to get to Bishkek. Many Cyclist decide not to ride to Bishkek because of shortage of time. There are two options :

Flight with China Southern: About 300$, you have to book through an chinese agency, price for bicycle is about 40Yuan per kilogram. You'll get the kyrgyzvisa on arrival at the airport.

Sleeperbus to Almaty: Price 400/420Yuan per bed, bicycle 100Yuan. Takes 24-30h.

Why are the prices in Yen?
The prices throughout this have the Japanese Yen symbol, yet the country is China. Makes no sense. —The preceding comment was added by 219.142.208.198 (talk • contribs)

 * Project:Currency recommends ¥ symbol for Chinese currency, which incidentally is the same symbol used for Japanese yen. So, as this article is about a location in China, it's highly likely that the symbol refers to Chinese renminbi/yuan than anything else. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:30, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Vine Coffeehouse?
So I went to "65 Minzhu Rd" and all I found was a brick wall. Are you sure this address is correct? Does this cafe even exist anymore? Divzero (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In all likelihood, someone added the listing years ago. Please delete any such listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And when you do, please write "closed" in your edit summary, so that no-one is confused about why you deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Texas Cafe
I found the Texas Cafe, but it was closed. The (ex?) owner came and greeted me, an American man. He appeared a bit upset, and told me that the cafe was undergoing a management change, and "you won't see us around here anymore, we're getting out of dodge". I inquired at another foreign run cafe, and apparently there may have been a dispute with a local investor that went badly. So anyway, this cafe is closed as of 2013-11-21, and when it re-opens I don't know if it will have it's old charm (since from what I could tell it won't be US-run anymore). I added a note to the entry, but left it on the guide for now. Divzero (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I am sorry but the pronunciation advice does not help me... is the U to be pronounced like the German "Ü"? Or more like English "o" in "do"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The IPA at the Wikipedia page, w:%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi, makes it clear that the IPA "Y" is "like the German Ü". -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:07, 24 November

 * Unfortunately WV has thus far not used - to my knowledge - a consistent system of spelling hint rules. Hence my confusion. There are some reservations with regards to a global implementation of IPA symbols, but I guess in this case it cannot do much harm, can it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 * One thing's for damn sure: "Y-RYM-chee" is as clear as mud! I'd read the first "y" as a consonant and the second as like "i" in "rim". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Yet it still sits there unchanged, despite my and 's protestations... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I tried! --ButteBag (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * That's not really better than what was there before. Why don't we just use IPA? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Because most readers don't know IPA. Some will even think it's a class of beers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * They don't have to necessarily know it to be able to glean some rough meaning from it. And IPAs can be quite interesting (if a bit bitter at times) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 * :-) But in all seriousness, we can simply give the Pinyin spelling and refer people to the Mandarin phrasebook, or describe the first "u" as trying to pronounce "oo" with the mouth in an "ee" position. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Or we could refer to Dutch, German and French which have sounds that aren't too far off the mark. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urumqi


text:
Talk:Usa

Shouldn't this be the article for the city of Usa in Japan rather than an acronym redirect to the United States? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 05:54, 14 December 2011 (EST)

 * Hmmmm. I use this redirect all the time for navigation... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:34, 14 December 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:Usa


text:
Talk:User

Err, what is this supposed to be...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:14, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * First revision suggests it was an attempt at a template of some kind (WT-en) Hypatia 08:21, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:User


text:
Talk:U.S. Highway 1

vfd discussion
I vote keep...this was an important highway in its day and deserves recognition as a "destination" in and of itself. —The preceding comment was added by 64.61.36.2 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 May 2011
 * Delete. Is a road really a destination? Doesn't seem famous enough to be an Itinerary. (WT-en) DanielC 08:07, 28 February 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I am thinking keep this for now. Not much there yet, but we do have Route 66. I agree this may not be exactly the same thing, but this could grow. (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:35, 28 February 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. This one is actually a good candidate for a Route-66-like "destination" that I could see as an eventual CotM.  It would have to expand beyond just the Florida waypoints, but that can be done; don't confuse "what is" with "what could be." -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:57, 28 February 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. Seems like a possible itinerary. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:57, 14 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I like it for an article, but geez, Mile 0 is at Key West, so it's all backwards, right? (WT-en) OldPine 20:00, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Question on this: Does anyone know the last time this venerable route was driven end to end and by whom? —The preceding comment was added by 64.61.36.2 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 May 2011

 * I agree, and the fact that some people would choose to drive a section of this road (such as my then-girlfriend and I did from New York to Providence in 1996) is a sufficient reason to keep it. However, the vfd discussion is 6 years old and was apparently resolved at that time in favor of keeping the article. —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2011
 * Obviously this is a keep; it may be road, but it travels in the historic parts of America, from modern to Revolutionary War and in between. Donny (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Go next" section
On the face of it, it doesn't make sense to me to include cities the highway goes through in "Go next", which is supposed to cover places outside the destination (or in this case, itinerary). I'm not even sure we need a "Go next" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I may have started it, and I thought it meant cities on the highway as a place to go for a day, but if that's your take. Donny (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The cities belong in "Drive" or a similar section. Some relevant Guide itinerary articles that could be used as examples of good route coverage are Route 66, Natchez Trace Parkway and Dalton Highway. Route 66 is the most similar in character, probably, but actually, none is really fully analogous, given that Route 66 has been retired, and Route 1 goes through numerous big cities, unlike Natchez Trace Parkway and Dalton Highway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Never knew that. Would side-trips from the highway count in "Go Next"? Like other highways? I mean, I know that a lot are not listed, but how about that? Or nearby cities accessed from the highway's main cities? Like Yonkers from the Bronx, or Wilmington, Delaware from Philadelphia? Would those be good in the section or just forget it? Donny (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could have a "Go next" section for side trips, if you or anyone else feels it's useful. If you'd like to suggest side trips, go ahead and put them in "Go next". Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll go through with it. Donny (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've included several more complete Wikivoyage itineraries to the "Go next" section of this article, that may be of an interest to travelers as a number of the places identified in the other articles are along US Highway 1. Could the US 66 or the I 5/I-10 articles serve as "templates" to restructure this article? Shall the cities listed under the "Go next" section of this article be "clipped & pasted" under the state names, under "Drive"? Anyone150 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's tell people what to expect
I gave it a try, but I haven't traveled on long stretches north of New Rochelle nor really much in New Jersey since the 90s, and even then, it was only the stretch from Philadelphia to Boston that I had experienced. But I think it's important to distinguish between the lovely stretches east of New Haven that go through one village after another, passing each one's village green; sections between New Rochelle and the Bronx that are full of trucks, lack residential development or streetfront stores and would be very unpleasant and perhaps dangerous to walk or bike; sections in New Jersey where it's a city street; and sections between New Brunswick and Philadelphia which are not picturesque but present a car-centric series of strip malls and so forth. Telling people what major cities the road connects is a relatively minor part of what we should be doing, as there are much faster ways to get between many of them than to take this road. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 * An alternate for car travel would be Interstate 95 which runs more or less the same route as US Highway 1 between Houlton, Maine and Miami, Florida. From Houlton US 1 continues another 100 miles north towards Ft Kent. In the south end of I-95 in Miami, US 1 serves as a physical continuation of I-95, from south of downtown Miami towards Key West via Florida City, Homestead, Key Largo, etc. US 1 closely parallels I-95 for most parts of the way except in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia (between Jacksonville and Richmond); and in Maine where they are furthest apart. I-95 is also the New Jersey Turnpike through New Jersey. But for the most part they go through the same states along the eastern seaboard. So with that said the mention of I-95 as well as other parallel US Highways (US 1-9, 9, 17, 301, etc) could be included. Not sure how to do it without cluttering to much as the roads closely parallel each other in a densely populated part of the country but at least this article can be coupled with I-95 to solve the issues of "there are mouch faster ways to get between many of them..." you wrote in the above, which it does in real life, particularly between Boston and Washington DC or all the way down to Richmond VA. The Interstate highways were mainly built to replace or supersede a US Highway (like I-5 replaces US Hwy 99) or a series of US and state Highways (like Interstates 10, 15, 40, 44 & 55 bypass and parallel US Route 66 between Chicago and Los Angeles), between 1960s to 1990s in phases and even into today where I-69 is being completed in phases between Michigan and Texas. Anyone150 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 * The reason to drive on Route 1 is that I-95 is boring and also a toll road in some places, whereas Route 1 often goes through downtowns. Even the car-centric landscapes of yesteryear that one sees in stretches in New Jersey have a smaller but still present degree of interest for some people. But different portions of the route present different experiences, so that's important to describe in an itinerary article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:U.S. Highway 1


text:
Talk:US Interstate 80

Hmm, I'm not sure if this falls under Project:What's an article-- sure it's an important route in America, but it's not quite the classic itinirary that Route 66 is-- in fact, if you want an interesting roadtrip, you probably want to stay off 80... thoughts? (WT-en) Majnoona 21:03, 31 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Agree. I can't think of a reason for this article.  I80 travels from Atlantic to Pacific, but it misses so much that is interesting... I'd select a totally different cross-US route myself.  I80 is pretty low on the priority list of interesting routes that could use an article. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:US Interstate 80


text:
Talk:USS Arizona National Memorial

Pearl Harbor?
Two worries about this article: first, I think the name "Pearl Harbor" would be far more recognizable/common, and second, the level of detail is a little extreme for a travel guide. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:27, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

 * (moved from User talk:(WT-en) Jpatokal)

 * Pearl Harbor actually refers either to the body of water or the military base down the road. Pearl Harbor as a location would be the same as saying Tokyo Bay. Its not Tokyo Bay but Tokyo while Pearl Harbor is no more or less than Honolulu. (WT-en) Celticevergreen 04:46, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

 * PS - feel free to edit the content down (WT-en) Celticevergreen 04:47, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Not an article?
I'm afraid I don't see this as a Wikivoyage article. (It doesn't pass the "Can you sleep there?" test.) The Arizona memorial is not a destination, it's an attraction: a place one visits during one's time in Honolulu. In fact, it's already listed as such in Honolulu. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:38, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

If you think so then ok. I would consider this to be the second reason most people visit Oahu after the beach but you are right, you can't sleep there. Most peole would consider this a museum anyways. (WT-en) Celticevergreen 12:16, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

 * It isn't a question of whether it's important or not; clearly it is and I hope to get to it someday. But providing detailed information about individual attractions is simply beyond the scope of this guide.  I'm sorry to turn such a well-written article into a redirect, and I've copied a little of the information from it into the Honolulu listing. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:57, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:USS Arizona National Memorial


text:
Talk:U.S. Virgin Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Virgin Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

I'm having a hard time doing the Virgin Islands)(US) and British Virgin Islands as two articles... it's kinda like Lake Tahoe. I'm not sure many people really visit one with out drifting into the other. And pretty much everything is the same, they use USD in the BVIs for example... anyone have big issues with me pulling them together? Obviously the islands and towns will get their own articles which will mention which country they belong to... (WT-en) Majnoona 22:39, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)

I don't know if that's the solution, though I've no objection. I don't know the area. However, it seems odd to have "Virgin Islands" mean only the US part, with a link to "Virgin Islands archipelago" that leads nowhere. Methinks doing something to tie it together would be good. (WT-en) Pashley 19:30, 15 September 2006 (EDT)

I have no object to pulling them together. In either case, "Virgin Islands" should be "US Virgin Islands". That is their name after all.

-- U.S. Virgin Islands should not be combined with British VI. They are not the same. USD is not used exclusively in BVI, and they are most definitely two separate nations. Even though you can see Jost Van Dyke and Tortola from St. Thomas and St. John (respectively), you need a passport to get on that ferry. The people and customs are often quite a lot alike, even insofar as USVI laws differ from Continental US. Certainly many segments can be shared or used for both, but they should be separated.

--

Link for "Buy" takes aspring contributor to empty entry entitled "See", which is not seen in article. Edits to "Buy" are needed (entry is almost identical to that for St. Croix), but cannot be made with confidence until link is corrected. John Henne  hennejj@aol.com

 * This, unfortunately, is likely to be as a result of a caching problem with the wiki software we are running. Refresh your browser, and the links should be fine again.  --(WT-en) inas 00:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Disambiguation
As mentioned above, I think this article should be moved to U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands is a transnational region encompassing both the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, so it seems jarring to have this article only cover the former. Any objections to a move & disambiguation? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:05, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Agreed, it should be a disambiguation. Which should also include the Spanish Virgin Islands. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:01, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

discussion continued at Talk:Virgin Islands

title: Talk:U.S. Virgin Islands