text:
Talk:Baylor

vfd discussion
Archive from Project:Votes for deletion:

sleep?

 * Delete. There's a Baylor County in Texas, but I think it's more likely that we'd use that name. There's also a Baylor, Montana, according to the Getty Thesaurus, and I can find it on geonames.org, but I can't really find it with any other tools. Geonames comes up with a post office (historical) and a school (historical) close to the dot for the town, but as far as I can tell there's just a field there now. At best this could be a disambiguation; otherwise I say drop it. --12:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. To Waco, where the University is located. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:24, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Waco. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:07, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. I've changed my mind about three times on this one, but what harm can a redirect do? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:22, 4 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Baylor


text:
Talk:Bay of Islands

The stone store is NOT at Russell but at Keri Keri

 * Thanks! For future reference, you can edit the page yourself by clicking the link at the bottom of any article. Please Project:Plunge forward and contribute!

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

title: Talk:Bay of Islands


text:
Talk:Bay of Kotor

The Cities are described in the See section, no need to revert my edits everytime —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 85.94.99.223 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 July 2010

 * "Cities" section is actually a standard part of region articles like this one and if anything, it should not be duplicated at "see". Please see Project:Region article template for more info on what goes to which section in region articles.
 * By the way, I've already tried to briefly explain why I was reverting your edits in the edit summary of the first revert. – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:28, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Bay of Kotor


text:
Talk:Bay Shore

Combining headings; Wiki markup
I'm initiating a discussion about the changes made by Ibaman and how I should proceed from here as I'm not fond of edit warring and don't intend to engage in any in this community. I'm relatively new having made only a couple of changes previously. However, I was reading WikiVoyage over the weekend and I noticed that the Bay Shore article was seriously deficient and so I "plunged forward". I've been editing Wikipedia, off and on, for nine years, so I'm somewhat familiar with wiki markup. I have also read up on some of the style differences between Wikipedia and WikiVoyage; so I'm not unaware that WikiVoyage is intended to take a less formal tone.

Combining headings
In reading over material about WikiVoyage over the weekend, I noticed that for some articles, it was OK to combine section headings like "See and Do." My rationale for doing it in this article were two-fold.
 * 1) Sagtikos Manor, while like a historical museum ("See"), it's also a walking tour ("Do").
 * 2) The separate "See" and "Do" section were written like a narrative or an itinerary, which I had no intention of changing, other than changing the actual "sites" to listings to give more accurate information about those places.  Rather than disrupt the narrative, I thought it OK to combine the sections since there was no prohibition in doing so.

Wiki markup / Tables
My understanding of WV:MOS is that tables are discouraged (not forbidden) because the information presented within them can be dynamic. However, the two tables I created contain static information. Highway exits and bus routes in this area haven't changed in the 38 years that I've lived here. So, there shouldn't be much need to change either table;

It's my opinion that displaying route shields and exit information is better digested in a table than as bullet points, especially since a traveler would be seeing route shields as they move about.

I still intend to do more editing on this page; so I would appreciate some guidance.

--  Mikeylito  ► talk 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The usual thing to do is to give the basics in prose in "Get in" and then have a routebox at the bottom of the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 * And for bus routes, it's usual to give some general information and then link to the bus system's website, where people can see detailed schedules (one hopes) and route maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Still seeking advice on combining "See" and "Do"--  Mikeylito  ► talk 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 * It's fine to have a "See and do" section if that would best serve the traveler. However, it seems to me, there are different things to see and to do, so instead of combining the sections, it's probably best to concentrate on listifying each particular specific thing to see and to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Just for the record, I'm perfectly fine about these unusual wikiediting flourishes, even more as they are being properly discussed. Please keep it up plunging forward. Ibaman (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK! I appreciate everyone's response to this point.  I'm going to make a small request.  I have at least a day or two's worth of editing to put into this article including WV-research time.  I'm going to remove the clean-up box and re-combine the "See" and "Do" sections and finish my edits.  When I'm done, I'll come back here and let all the respondents know and you folks can "do your thing."  Please know I'm also considering the mobile view of what I'm doing which is yet another reason to combine those two sections.  Believe it or not, my only intent was to correct the misinformation I came upon in the first version I read.  I didn't realize there was so much work involved!  (laughing)  When all is said and done, I just want to end up with an article which will be useful to a traveler, especially one who might be unfamiliar with the area.--  Mikeylito  ► talk  16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's best to combine "See" and "Do"? I don't see why that's optimal in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally gave my reasoning here. It's my fault for getting that discussion misdirected.--  Mikeylito  ► talk  00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the narrative needed to be changed to listings, and I'm unconvinced combining the two sections is best, but go ahead. We can always separate them again if that seems best in the long run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Learn section
"Learn" is an optional section. If it's used, only institutions that have courses for non-matriculated students that last around 2 weeks or less should be listed, with information about what kinds of courses a short-term visitor could take. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Under that advisory, dropping Learn section--  Mikeylito  ► talk 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bay Shore


text:
Talk:Bazaruto Archipelago National Park

Link for reference
http://www.bazarutoarchipelago.com is a good site for info, and has some maps for reference for future map-makers... (WT-en) Cacahuate 07:38, 17 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Bazaruto Archipelago National Park


text:
Talk:Béjar

hola como estas, uy bien sharon

title: Talk:Béjar


text:
Talk:Băile Felix

This is a neighborhood in Oradea; I don't think we've got enough info on that city to start breaking out districts into their own articles. --(WT-en) Evan 12:09, 28 November 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Băile Felix


text:
Talk:BDSM travel

Umm...
Is this really a travel topic? And I can assure you that Singaporeans do not "think more highly of fetishists". (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:23, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't think any culture thinks "more highly" of fetishes. This doesn't seem like a legitimate travel topic to me, either. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe if it were about major BDSM destinations? But this "x country is tolerant, y country is intolerant" silliness (which I'd put on the same sophistication level as our usual respect sections) is definitely not deserving of an article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
 * I nominated it for deletion on the votes for deletion page, since that is basically what this discussion is about. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:39, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:BDSM travel


text:
Talk:Beaches(Los Angeles)

I'm really not liking this Beaches(Place) thing. Are we going to have Beaches(Ko Samui) and Beaches (Maine) and Mountains(Switerland) too? Why can't this be Los Angeles/Beaches (ie a district) or just have Los Angeles (Beachy District Name) and then link to it from a list of goo beaches in the LA area? (WT-en) Majnoona

 * So, I think you're under the mistaken assumption that the beaches near Los Angeles are all part of the city of Los Angeles. Some are; most are their own cities. I think the disconnect we're having is that Ron's using Los Angeles for the whole Los Angeles Basin (HEY... that might be a good name for the region!), while we're thinking of it as the city itself. The really crappy part is that Los Angeles is this totally octopus city -- it has little parts running all over Southern California. Some places that people think of as a "real" city are really just parts of Los Angeles! -- (WT-en) Evan 12:16, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

Umm, I really need to re familiarize myself with the conventions and current geographic breakdowns. (WT-en) Ron 11:46, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Let's try this: why don't we try to break down the geographical limits and regions within with a work page, say Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy? That way, we can work this stuff out, and then start making all the articles. Sound good? -- (WT-en) Evan 11:54, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

 * Sorry Ron, this is the real trickey part of doing a travel guide. I'm in Library school right now and geographical cataloging is a real pain! In case you havent seen this stuff there is the Project:Manual of style and Project:Geographical hierarchy pages. If you're interested, you might want to take a look at the talk pages for those as well so you can see how we got to where we are. In anycase, hope it doesn't scare you off! (WT-en) Majnoona

 * Hey, amiga! Do you want to hack on Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy before doing all the articles? This is complicated, and I've got a feeling that your and my knowledge of Southern California is kind of hazy at this point. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:12, 11 Nov 2003 (PST)

title: Talk:Beaches(Los Angeles)


text:
Talk:Beaches in Goa

So, this is another problematic page, in that it doesn't fit into our Project:geographical hierarchy, nor jibe with Project:What is an article?. I think each of these beaches should be its own page, or be included with the nearby village. --(WT-en) Evan 16:46, 29 Feb 2004 (EST)

 * Move them into the Goa article? I really don't think we need a dozen 2-liner beach articles. Really. -- (WT-en) Nils 10:42, 22 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Well, I think there's probably more than 2 lines to add for each article. --(WT-en) Evan 12:41, 22 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Indeed! having an overview of beaches in goa is a good idea for practical reasons, goa is small enough to allow one to move around in little time (compared to rest of India), and goan beaches can be as different as day and night. (WT-en) Izwalito 14 Jan 2005

This article should be split up, and without loud objections I'll do it later when I'm in the mood for some mind-numbing administrative tedium. The Beaches in Goa will be left as a region page (although suggestions for better names are welcome). (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:38, 9 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Let's revive this discussion, I think this article should be merged into Goa - Goa is known for its beaches, and they take up a significant portion of the state. Most of the beaches, provided you can sleep there, should be their own articles. Even if we divided Goa up into regions, I don't think that "Beaches" would be a very smart region, since it encompasses so much, and would practically replace the Goa article entirely.

 * So on the Goa page, I think we should stick to what we always do... list the large cities and towns under "Cities", and the most popular beaches under "Other destinations". – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I also just created North Goa and South Goa which, again, will make this article redundant... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Beaches in Goa


text:
Talk:Beacon Hill

vfd discussion

 * Delete. Apparently a district of Boston.  Should be moved (if it is actually a district) or merged. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 11:06, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:45, 30 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Boston or the correct district. (Do we have a policy for redirecting sites or attractions?) --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:00, 31 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Beacon Hill


text:
Talk:Bead shopping

Comments
OK, This article sees pretty regular contributions - could someone take the time to explain what exactly a bead is? I have no clue, and it's not properly explained in the into. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:19, 15 November 2008 (EST)

→ beads – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Related museums
Should this be expanded to mention museums that feature beadwork? Beadwork is pretty common at fiber-arts museums. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bead shopping


text:
Talk:Beasdale

I think this could be a good Get out for either Fort William or Mallaig.. or maybe a mention in both... (WT-en) Maj 17:23, 11 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Beasdale


text:
Talk:Beaune

Comments
I spent a week outside Beaune in 2007. I will add some content to the page.

(WT-en) Brhumphreys 14:08, 24 February 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Beaune


text:
Talk:Beauvais

Airport information
I've incorporated the gist of this into Paris so it's safe to delete the page. -- (WT-en) Mark 02:10, 12 March 2006 (EST)

vfd discussion

 * Delete. Not a destination... this airport information should be included in the Paris article. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:58, 12 March 2006 (EST)
 * I've not been there, but according to Wikipedia "Beauvais is a town and commune of northern France". If there are two Beauvais then this article should be about the town, and if there is only and it doesn't deserve an article then shouldn't it just become a redirect to the appropriate Paris article? -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:04, 12 March 2006 (EST)
 * Delete - When I created it, the article was called "Paris Beauvais Airport". Then someone else moved it to "Beauvais" which, as stated above, is the town and has nothing to do with the airport. The changes to the Paris site are good, so kill it. -- (WT-en) Matthew
 * Interesting problem... is there a hotel or something in Beauvais ? If so we probably should leave it, as an actual destination. Otherwise I suppose we should create an article for the north banlieue of Paris anyhow, and do a redirect. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:09, 12 March 2006 (EST)
 * Beauvais is 90 km from Paris, which is pretty darn far for a banlieue. I'd suggest keeping it as a small city, with appropriate linkage from Paris/by plane. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:31, 12 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep as a small city. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:31, 14 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Beauvais


text:
Talk:Bed and breakfasts

Bed and breakfasts
Not an article and has been carrying the copyvio banner for more than a year now --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep and rewrite. We have an article on hotels, and one on hostels. I think we gotta cover it. (I'll take a shot at it if you want... just let me know as I seldom get sucked onto this page. Shoulda blown out the copyvio stuff long ago. Shouldn't we have a place we keep track of these copyvios and their age? (WT-en) OldPine 20:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT) (Thanks for listening ;)
 * Hey if you are willing to tackle the article, I'll gladly withdraw my delete vote. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep if Old Pine is prepared to turn it into into a worthy travel topic. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:57, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Keep - Some may look at this as an "alternative", others may see it as "best choice available". In some rural areas, it may be "best choice available". I have stayed in a couple of them, with lady friends, in Holmes County. It was a good choice and it added much to the visit. If all do not want, or cannot participate in the activities, they have a pleasant place to sit it out. (WT-en) 2old 13:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, I've kind of stalled out on this, was hoping someone would jump on board. Article is just fair at this point I'd say. I've never actually stayed in a B&B. I still think it's an article that should be here--hopefully to be improved. (WT-en) OldPine 13:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep - I think its worthy of being around, and will get improved over time. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Proper noun
This article was moved with the claim that "bed and breakfast" is now a proper noun. I find the claim dubious at best. Wikipedia doesn't think so, and an ngram search seems to corroborate that. Most uses of "Bed and Breakfast" (capitalized) are within the names of specific bed-and-breakfasts, not as a generic term. This article should be moved back. LtPowers (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, like many native users of English has mixed feelings about this. Wikipedia's lead begins clearly enough with "A bed and breakfast (or B&B) is a small lodging establishment..." but then later the more nominative style is used: "In January 2003 Tourism Queensland conducted a review of current research to gain a better understanding of the Bed & Breakfast (B&B) market" and "Bed & Breakfasts provide mutual benefits for both the visitor and the operator". A sign that many native English speakers are unhappy with the lower case version, is the tendency to want to hyphenate "Bed-and-breakfasts are popular with many foreign travelers, mostly from Britain, Germany, Canada, France and Australia, who have grown up going to B and Bs in their own countries". In many British sources (which is where the term originated) there is a tendency to distinguish between Bed and Breakfasts (bricks and mortar) and those establishments using a bed and breakfast style of meal plan. The same dichotomy (but in reverse) is seen between those folks that write they are buying a new "Hoover"  (often actually a Dyson or Electrolux in the UK) to do the "hoovering".
 * This mixed usage was evident right from the very start of this (plagiarised?) article. However, the article was then completely re-written and the original editor of the new article clearly used the form that is clearer to non-native speakers in this original version. I do think that we should try and be consistent with the article prose and the article title. Additional authors used both upper case and lower case and did not really attempt to resolve the mixed case naming dichotomy.
 * On balance, I think it's clearer to non-native users of English to use title case - which is why I changed it.
 * It's also a bit more "symmetrical" with the usual BnB, B and B, B&B abbreviations where the lower case abbreviation is very rarely seen in the wild.
 * A lot of "academic" studies seem to use the upper case form - eg  As usual, it's no big deal and I don't have a problem with changing things back. I do think "proper noun" was the wrong way to express the reason for this change in an edit summary. -- A l i c e ✉  19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I´d also say let´s move it back. Even if it's a slightly contentious case, we should err on the side on non-capitalization since, well, that's the way we name stuff.Texugo (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you change it back, most of the prose in the article needs to be changed again - and you'll still have the problem with upper case being used in association names and casual editors re-introducing the (more natural to them) upper case form. I think there are more deserving candidates for a change to lower case, eg Grande Randonnée where French usage is actually to have ALL lower case! -- A l i c e ✉ 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Texugo. There is no reason to really think this is more of a proper noun, than motel, or caravan park.  And without clear evidence lower case is wrong, we should use lower case for the title.  The fact that there is a mix of usage throughout the site is hardly a concern, when that it shown to reflect the mix of usage everywhere else. --Inas (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 * It may be a regional thing; perhaps Australians are more likely to capitalize it? And no doubt the propensity is increased thanks to the commonness of the abbreviation.  Still, I think it's best to treat it the same as we would the words "motor hotel" or "trailer park" or "ski lodge".  LtPowers (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've conceded the point with the summary above (now substituted with appropriate text and code since the transcluded template on which the summary was based was drastically changed on 11 March 2013), but your examples are not apposite. I very rarely see the compound word "ski lodge" capitalised (except as part of an establishment's name). Bed and Breakfasts are in an usual position because of both the common (capitalised) abbreviations and the fact that many native English speakers are inherently uncomfortable with not making clear the distinction between a stereotyped phrase used as a noun and their normal sentence construction of "I paid a lot for my breakfast and bed at a very swanky Bed & Breakfast". -- A l i c e ✉ 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right. The capitalisation is an attempt to link the phrase, and I certainly don't think Bed and Breakfast is wrong, and I'd hate to see us set out to suddenly change it everywhere it is used.  In some cases we need some way of indicating that it is a specific type of establishment.  I know, for example, some UK hotels will sell "bed and breakfast", but they aren't "bed and breakfasts".  --Inas (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on lower case, but what about internet vs. Internet, then? OK, maybe this isn't the right thread for that. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Us pedantic wiki-gnomes need a safe hideaway to discuss these great affairs.
 * Perhaps the answer is to do as we do with different varieties of English spelling and just say: look, this is no big deal, there are really better things to spend our time arguing about (down the pub/Pub/traveller's pub/travellers pub/Travellers Pub/Traveller's Pub/Travellers' Pub;) if you are doing an edit, then try and ascertain what is the majority usage (unfortunately we can't use the strong national connection test here to resolve the different orthographies) and then try and keep the usage consistent throughout the same article. And that, I'm afraid, brings me full circle. I noticed that the major usage throughout was "Bed and Breakfast and thought it better that the title of the article reflect that equally valid usage.
 * Now I really would like to sort out AC, ac, A/C, a/c, air, air-con in listings, especially as the great Wi-Fi/WiFi debate has already been sorted. I guess this need for clear rules hang-up must be a peculiarly Singapore thing, surrounded as we are by our very flexible neighbours to the East and our little too rigid (unless you're a member of the right party) neighbours to the North... -- A l i c e ✉ 01:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality of websites?

 *  Firstly, it is a fair rule of thumb to state that a website reflects its business: exhibiting the qualities likely to be found in the bed and breakfast or hotel. On their website you should expect to see: a website availability calendar with easy online reservations, a toll-free telephone service, and ample easy-to-navigate information. A little “reading between the lines” will tell you a great deal and help you make the right quality choices for your vacation or break to ensure that your expectations are fully met.

Dunno about this one. There are some pretty bad motels with good websites that selectively omit many of the property's faults; conversely, some good B&B hosts might not be web-savvy at all. The image that comes to mind is a grandmother in a country kitchen baking fresh bread - potentially a great B&B host, but no more likely than anyone else to be a good webmaster. K7L (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is a pretty odd statement. I'd support striking it altogether. Texugo (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

AirBnB?
I'm a little unsure about these... do we list rooms in private homes, or only "official" B&B's which are government-registered as licensed businesses and listed in the official guidebooks? 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:945 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't list individual private homes, IMO. Linking to Airbnb might be appropriate in limited cases (such as is done at Alhambra (California)). Powers (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd say we should not list them at all, based on articles like this one which claims over 70% of listings in Barcelona are illegal. For similar reasons, I would oppose any listing of Uber or other such ride-sharing services. Pashley (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Hospitality exchange, ride sharing and home exchange are perfectly legitimate global travel topics. If we need to explain what an AirBnB does, we should do so once, there, and mention hospitality exchange and home exchange as alternatives on this page. If we start adding "AirBnB is available in Alhambra (California)" and the like to every city in which these operate, that could become spammy quickly - if they accept listings from anywhere, that opens Special:Allpages to "AirBnB is available in Aachen, Aaiha, Aakirkeby, Aalborg, Aalst, Aamby Valley City, Aarau, Aarhus"... clear out to Zwolle. Individual rooms are likely not worth listing, unless they're open on a semi-permanent basis. With complete freedom of entry and exit, many rooms are here today, gone tomorrow or vice-versa. There are currently three individual AirBnB rooms listed in WV destination pages, in Verona, Dehradun and Shangrila. Two of the three links are broken and fall back to the main city listing. The one working listing contains info already available from other sources.
 * Certainly, I don't agree with suppressing all mention of AirBnB just because some hôteliers want it gone for purely anti-competitive reasons, the same way we don't remove all mention of Internet telephony just because the régime in a few countries may be prone to block it to protect a badly-overpriced national telephone monopoly. Link it once. Just once. K7L (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with K7L. The availability of rooms offered on AirBnB emerge and disappear at an entirely different rate than regular hotels, so it's very likely that the information we provide for individual destinations is outdated. The service should definitely be mentioned in a travel topic such as Sleep. In the same way, Uber should not be listed in all articles but it'd certainly be a good idea to tell people something about it in the taxicabs article. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Negro vs. African-American
This edit changed the historical definition of US (1930s-1960s) "tourist home" from:
 * private homes which often opened their doors to Negro travellers in an era of racial segregation where widespread discrimination left a limited number of other options.

to:
 * private homes which often opened their doors to African-American travellers in an era of racial segregation where widespread discrimination left a limited number of other options.

In the era in question, the terminology would have been "Negro" (at best). Its replacement with the more politically-correct "African-American" is a neologism which originated after the 1960s civil rights movement and long after the US federal government had moved to end racial discrimination in interstate commerce. No one was labelling US-born members of the domestic black populace as "African-American" in 1930. K7L (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary (or desirable) to restrict ourselves to historic terminology when writing from a modern perspective. This isn't a direct quotation, so strictly adhering to era-appropriate language seems odd to me.  Powers (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bed and breakfasts


text:
Talk:Bedminster

Please advise where this should be added on the Bristol article. (WT-en) WindHorse 08:47, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * If this is a suburb of Bristol, shouldn't this be a district of Bristol if we districtise and just redirect to Bristol if we don't? — (WT-en) Ravikiran 09:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

 * Bristol hasn't been spit into districts, so I was wondering if it could still somehow be placed on the article so we could keep the template. Yeah, maybe just redirect is the best option at the moment. (WT-en) WindHorse 09:29, 26 February 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Bedminster


text:
Talk:Bedugul

Jatiluwih road
I wish this article was this developed when I went there this summer! Awesome map, only one minor issue: the road to Jatiluwih is missing, while that is a spectacular tourist road (I drove it and it's even featured as "Best of Bali" in the Lonely Planet) (WT-en) Globe-trotter 17:56, 6 November 2009 (EST)
 * For some reason this was the most enjoyable to produce of the Bali maps. It is a lovely road I agree. This map does not quite cover that far south though (an issue of keeping the proportions of the map correct for WTP purposes). I did though make sure the Jati Luwih road is on the regional map, so you could use that one :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:53, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Do section
As a rule, overview information belongs in paragraph, prose form, not in list form. Bali Treetop Adventure Park is the only listing, and thus should remain a bulleted item, but the rest should be converted to conventional prose. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:14, 6 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Bedugul


text:
Talk:Beer (Devon)

I put a disambiguator on this place name, since it's very probably we'll have an article on beer some time in the future. --(WT-en) Evan 07:59, 14 Aug 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Beer (Devon)


text:
Talk:Beerwah

Get in and get around is quite literally the same thing. You can get in by bus or train. There are stuff all stops in beerwah for public transport. Maybe it'd be best to combine this section?

Shopping could list the major shopping centre near the shell servo?

I do believe that this page should be either linked or copied for transport info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerwah_railway_station%2C_Queensland

title: Talk:Beerwah


text:
Talk:Begging

First, I'm not sure there's much separating beggars in Europe from their counterparts elsewhere, and second, I'm pretty sure that image violates Project:Privacy rights.

That said, this is a worthwhile topic, more so in countries where (unlike Europe) you're likely to find yourself facing a dirty but doe-eyed toddler who will likely starve and/or get beaten if you don't fork up a few cents. Barring loud objections I'll move this over to Begging. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:58, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)

I think this is an interesting issue, but I'm not sure about how it's being addressed here. Begging is a pretty complex social problem, I'm not sure it can be summed up with "Church sitters" and "Ground dwellers" (those terms seem a bit disrespectfull too-- I mean, these are people we're talking about). I'm also not sure how it "helps to identify them." Maybe a more general article about the complexity of the issue and some links to non-profits or something? (WT-en) Majnoona 18:24, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I agree with (WT-en) Majnoona. The way the topic is handled here is quite disrespectful. I'm not sure if it's necessary to have an own page for this topic. This belongs rather to the Understand sections of countries and cities. (WT-en) Kaykay 6 Apr 2005

title: Talk:Begging


text:
Talk:Beihai

how is the weather year around?

title: Talk:Beihai


text:
Talk:Beijing

Page banner
I wonder if this banner depicting 17 arch bridge on lake Kunming can fit to any of the district articles? --Danapit (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 * It's in Beijing/Haidian now... --Danapit (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Different, but not necessarily better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm currently in the PRC, so cannot see any of these due to blocking. I would however suggest seeing if this would be better placed in the district of [Dongcheng] Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I prefer it to the current banner. For one thing, the current one has prominent slogans in Chinese characters which most readers will not understand. Pashley (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Why is that a problem? Part of the experience of being in China is seeing lots of signs in Chinese! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * It would terrible to not expect everything to be written in Chinese here in China ;)
 * FYI, Berlin has the words "Dem Deutschen Volke" which I'm guess most people also can't read. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I think I also prefer the current one. This new one is a good banner in itself, and would be great for Dongcheng, but it doesn't generally call out "Bejing" to me as much. I also like the bright red colours of the one we have, they jump out. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Another proposal?
I took this picture a week and a half ago from my hotel rooftop with this sort of thing in mind. To me it captures Beijing ... the old China and the new, in one image. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The quality is much better than the current banner. My feedback would be that the Forbidden City is a recognizable symbol of Beijing, whereas your photo could be almost any Chinese city. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, just thought I'd ask. Shame on Beijing's planners for not making their city's skylines as distinctive as Shanghai's. Or Shenzhen's FTM. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It's a very good banner and I like it, but I don't feel impelled to sub it for the current banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is why we ask these things. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How about using this as the banner for China, then? As I said, it was meant to capture a sense of old and new, and if it "could be almost any Chinese city", it would be better there. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * With only roofs in the foreground, there isn't much to focus on, so I don't really think it better than the current China banner, which is more visually interesting. What area of Beijing did you take this photo from? More than half of the Beijing district articles have no custom banner... Texugo (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As should be clear from my comments and the angle of the photo, I was in the Dongcheng district, not far from the Forbidden City. I was asked before I went if I could take a better (i.e., non-smoggy) version of the current Dongcheng banner of one of the FC's courtyards (see above), which I did; however, it will require some stitching. However ... I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a separate Forbidden City article. I mean, it's a large World Heritage Site with a lot to describe, certainly more than our present graf can do justice to. If we have separate articles for other WHSes, like say Petra, Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu, as well as the Great Wall, I don't see why we couldn't have a separate Forbidden City article, which the current Dongcheng banner would better serve. Should that come to pass, I have other photos of hutongs and such that might make equally effective banners for Dongcheng. I have some pics of boats on the lake in Beihai Park with the Chinese Ministry of Defense buildings in the back that could easily be cropped into a banner for Xicheng (in fact I took it with that in mind). And some pics of the Olympic buildings (such as, yes, the Bird's Nest) that would probably suffice for Chaoyang. Beyond that, I'm no help. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually do somewhat like the idea of this being the banner for China, but I agree that there are many more arresting scenes that could be used for such a banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Forbidden City does make some sense as a separate district. After all, it is a specific area of Beijing, and not a very small area, at that. Another precedent you can consider is the Central Park article. City parks don't usually get their own district, but Central Park is really considered its own area, as a large park that separates the West and East Sides of Manhattan, and there's plenty to cover in an article about the park, which actually is not yet exhaustive (the Northern Woods deserve coverage, when I or someone else gets the chance). So my feeling is, go ahead and create a separate Forbidden City article, either in article space or in your userspace and then moved to article space when it's ready. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Although physically the Forbidden city is very large, I don't recall seeing very much in terms of individual things to visit there. (There are the individual bed chambers of the aristocracy, a garden at the back) Did I miss something, or is it perhaps not worth to have this as a separate article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remind me not to travel with you :-). When, perchance, did you visit? There are a lot of things to see at the FC—I devoted most of a Sunday to it, with a trip to Beihai Park afterwards. The Lonely Planet guidebook I carried with me devotes eight pages to it. National Geographic Traveller has a five-page section in a guidebook devoted to both Beijing and Shanghai. Fodor's Beijing seems to have a separate section as well. The DK guide to Beijing and Shanghai has five pages (see 62–7). If our erstwhile competitors think it's worth that much of their space, we should certainly at least reconsider whether one measly graf is enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I was there in Winter last year. I think that being a large exposed area in -5 temperatures probably didn't encourage me to linger. Also I had business meetings to fit my visits around.
 * Look forward to see what such an article filled with content would look like! Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The notion of a separate article for the Forbidden City strikes me as excellent if someone wants to do the work. We do something a bit similar at Shanghai/Old_City. Pashley (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will probably start it when I've gotten the Dongcheng article updated and expanded to what could well be a DoM candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Organisational idea
Hello Everyone, I want to create a more detail detail precincts in every district mentionned in Beijing page as well as to create a precinct which is very famous to put it as whole page like for Forbidden City, greatwall, ... etc to keep famous precinct more independant and get the relevant information quickly. What do you think? is it a good proposal —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * What do you mean by a "precinct"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A precinct is a space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building, or by an arbitrary and imaginary line drawn around it.

Like for example Dongcheng District, we have: Wangfujing, Dongzhimen, Chongwen, Yonghegong, Gulou & Tiananmen which are the main famous precincts within this District.

So why not create a template listing in the Districts at the top of the page of every districts and then we will create a single independant precinct information like what alaready available for Chongwen or Forbiiden City or Greatwall.

it's going to give more relevant and clear information than gathering all information in one district !! —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages like this one by typing 4 tildes (the ~ key) in a row at the end of your message.

 * The questions you need to answer in order to argue for your proposal are: (1) Does it better serve the traveller to have separate articles for all those precincts? And (2) do you plan on putting up enough content to make all such articles sufficiently detailed and interesting for the reader? I've been to Beijing twice but don't know the city well enough to express an opinion about this. However, I'll note that some really huge mega-cities like Karachi are not districted at all (meaning that there is only one article for the cities in question), because it was determined that that would best serve the traveller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I came to Beijing 03 months ago and can know the city perfectly. I want to do same job as Wikitravel if you may see their Beijing page and their districts to understand my idea.

Yes, I can do it but I will still need someone to add informations in every single precinct to make it stronger. but sill can do it. —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * Again, please sign your posts on talk pages. Also, please don't start work on these precinct articles (unless you'd like to do so in your own userspace) unless you attain a consensus in favor of that here. I'd counsel waiting at least several days for more comments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

ok ok, but what do you mean by Again, please sign your posts on talk pages ??????? I'm already sign in using my user slimimp007 !!! —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * You are not signing. Just type tilda (~) 4 times at the end of your message. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for transparency, I take it that you are user Salimtb007 on WT who created the precinct articles there? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes Salimtb007 is me, I've created both as one is for French page and the other one is for English page ~Salim —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * My opinion is that although large, the second level Beijing articles are quite good as they stand. Splitting them further into third level articles will make the subject of Beijing too dificult to navigate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, so this is all in the wrong place, but I hope to have some changes too. Sorry, I've been so busy lately to do something myself. I guess because WT doesn't have many editors, if Slim has been working on his own but not had the chance to discuss in the talk pages, and never had to sign anything. But at least he is trying to do the right thing, by discussing first. Nevertheless these Beijing articles are too long. The city is too big. Administrative districts like Dongcheng are a poor way to understand Beijing. Several proposals are being discussed, but this idea needs more work. Slim, please have a read of the whole page and listen to my proposal, and read some other opinions. Then write your proposal in a new topic: click "New Topic". Write one paragraph only. Travelmite (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * No-one is overemphasizing whether he's signing or not, but it would be nice if he would sign correctly even once, by using ~ (without the "nowiki").

 * So back to the proposal, please. How many separate district articles do you think Beijing should be divided into, for the sake of Wikivoyage readers/travellers? Would anyone like to propose a complete list, indicating which of the proposed new articles is likely to be well covered in all of the more or less essential sections (Understand, Get in, Get around, See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep) in short order? I think that's an important consideration, because I don't see how it would well-serve the traveller to have loads of more or less empty articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * The precinct articles on WT don't appear to be empty (at least the ones I looked at). I guess the question is do we really want to go to the third level here? For example Tokyo, Shanghai and Seoul are similar sized cities (of equal importance) and they are of a good quality with two levels.
 * There are presently 6 second level articles for central Beijing. I would rather split some of those up rather than create these third level articles underneath. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I guess he is gone now. My proposal is at the bottom of this talk page. Travelmite (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

List of universities
User:118.93nzp asked the following in an editing summary: "Do we really need this long list of tertiary institutions in a travel guide?" My answer would be "No, we don't." It's appropriate to mention the most famous universities in prose in the article for the entire city, then give regular listings for them as appropriate in district articles. A list this long is not appropriate, in my opinion. Another city with a whole bunch of universities, some of them famous, is New York. The New York City article, overall, is less than ideal, but New York City might be a useful section to compare to the overly listy "Learn" section of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Here is the full list below. I have retained just Peking University and Tsinghua Universities for now.
 * I'd suggest this is good material for a 'Study in China' article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * User:Pashley has a good sense of academia in China, so perhaps he can comment? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Being a yellow pages is explicitly not one of our goals, see Goals and non-goals, so we clearly should not have this long list. One thing I notice above is that the last few entries, from Mandarin House on, are not universities but language schools. They quite emphatically do not belong on the same list. Perhaps on a separate list for Mandarin learners, but are these places any good? Pashley (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks Pashley, I noticed some were language schools and move few to their own section earlier. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Do we want to have more than two universities on this list? If so, then I would consider adding Renmin, Beijing Normal, and Beihang Universities. Those seem to top a lot of rankings in the various source I've seen online. Edge3 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Edge3, yes we can certainly include more universities on the list! I actually copy and pasted the list into this discussion for that precise purpose.
 * However I would disagree with your rationale. I don't think it should be a list of the 'top universities in Beijing' which sounds encyclopaedic, but rather the 'top universities for travelers in Beijing' which would use different criteria. Peking University may be the most awesome highest rated in China, but if not many foreigners are able to attend its courses then it may be less relevant than a less rated institution that has a large number of Chinese language courses for foreigners.
 * I don't actually have first hand knowledge of this subject, so I won't make any suggestions as to which institutions to use. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd certainly keep Beida (Peking U) and Tsinghua; they are large, prestigious & very well-known. I'd add the Foreign Languages U, since it seems most likely to employ foreigners, but arguably the link to it that is already at China is enough. Beyond that, I do not know. Pashley (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I also agree with keeping Peking and Tsinghua. In addition to their high rankings and prestige, their campuses are often visited (either for sightseeing or for classes). I also suggest adding Renmin University. Locals and foreigners gather here every Friday evening to speak English (see English Corner).

 * Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting removing Peking University but rather saying 'prestige' is not the overriding criterion. Additionally, if an institution is visited for sightseeing purposes, then it should be listed under 'See' and not 'Learn'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The district-level page (Beijing/Haidian) already encourages people to visit the university campuses for sightseeing purposes. Does that affect whether the same universities should be mentioned in Beijing's "Learn" section? Edge3 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm unaware of any policy or discussion around this point. I think there is no harm in mentioning the university as part of a suggested itinerary in 'See' in the city level article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Empty Embassy Listings
There are many embassies with no information at all! It seems to be a default list, since Beijing doesn't have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. I am removing them until someone can fill in some details: Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Sensible decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * the Bahamas
 * 🇧🇩 Bangladesh
 * 🇧🇧 Barbados
 * 🇧🇾 Belarus
 * 🇧🇿 Belize
 * 🇧🇯 Benin
 * 🇧🇴 Bolivia
 * 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * 🇧🇼 Botswana
 * Brunei
 * 🇧🇫 Burkina Faso
 * 🇧🇮 Burundi
 * 🇰🇭 Cambodia
 * 🇨🇲 Cameroon
 * 🇨🇻 Cape Verde
 * the Central African Republic
 * 🇹🇩 Chad

 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * the Republic of the Congo
 * the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * 🇨🇷 Costa Rica
 * Cote d'Ivoire
 * 🇭🇷 Croatia

 * 🇩🇰 Denmark
 * 🇩🇯 Djibouti
 * 🇩🇲 Dominica
 * 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic
 * East Timor
 * 🇪🇨 Ecuador
 * 🇪🇬 Egypt
 * 🇸🇻 El Salvador
 * 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea
 * 🇪🇷 Eritrea

 * 🇪🇹 Ethiopia
 * 🇫🇯 Fiji
 * 🇫🇯 Fiji

 * 🇬🇦 Gabon
 * 🇬🇲 Gambia

 * 🇬🇭 Ghana

 * 🇬🇩 Grenada
 * 🇬🇹 Guatemala
 * 🇬🇳 Guinea
 * 🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau
 * 🇬🇾 Guyana
 * 🇭🇹 Haiti
 * the Vatican City
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras
 * 🇭🇺 Hungary

 * 🇯🇲 Jamaica
 * 🇯🇵 Japan
 * 🇯🇴 Jordan

 * Laos
 * 🇱🇻 Latvia

 * 🇱🇸 Lesotho
 * 🇱🇷 Liberia
 * 🇱🇮 Liechtenstein

 * 🇲🇬 Madagascar
 * 🇲🇼 Malawi

 * 🇲🇱 Mali
 * 🇲🇹 Malta
 * the Marshall Islands
 * 🇲🇷 Mauritania
 * 🇲🇺 Mauritius

 * the Federated States of Micronesia
 * 🇲🇩 Moldova
 * 🇲🇳 Mongolia
 * 🇲🇪 Montenegro
 * 🇲🇦 Morocco
 * 🇲🇿 Mozambique
 * 🇲🇲 Myanmar
 * 🇳🇦 Namibia

 * 🇳🇿 New Zealand
 * 🇳🇮 Nicaragua
 * 🇳🇪 Niger

 * 🇴🇲 Oman

 * 🇵🇼 Palau
 * 🇵🇦 Panama
 * 🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea
 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay
 * 🇵🇪 Peru

 * 🇶🇦 Qatar

 * 🇷🇼 Rwanda
 * 🇱🇨 Saint Lucia
 * 🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia
 * 🇸🇳 Senegal

 * 🇸🇱 Sierra Leone

 * 🇿🇦 South Africa

 * 🇰🇳 Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * 🇸🇩 Sudan
 * 🇸🇷 Suriname
 * 🇸🇿 Swaziland

 * Syria
 * 🇹🇯 Tajikistan
 * 🇹🇿 Tanzania

 * 🇹🇬 Togo
 * 🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago
 * 🇹🇳 Tunisia
 * 🇹🇲 Turkmenistan
 * 🇺🇬 Uganda

 * 🇺🇾 Uruguay
 * 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela

 * 🇾🇪 Yemen
 * 🇿🇲 Zambia
 * 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe
 * 🇰🇪 Kenya

Chongwen and Xuanwu districts
They were merged into Dongcheng and Xicheng in 2010. I think we should merge them as well - it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate. IonutBizau (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It is a detrimental and confusing arrangement. After seven months there is no objection to this proposal. These sections need to be fixed immediately. Travelmite (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It should be noted that users 凡人丶 attempted to make this urgent change, but was undone because he did not realise the consequences. Help the new users. There is no disagreement that this should be fixed. M.R.Forrester also wrote "Xuanwu and Chongwen no longer exist" in the history. Do please do not undo this change without discussion. Travelmite (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi there! First I want to tell you what you just did. The destination articles you just put out of sight (yes, luckily non-admins aren't able to delete articles) contain travel information that travellers now have a harder time finding. Precisely this and nothing else is what your and 凡人丶's "urgent changes" accomplished. Congratulations!
 * So, what has happened to the districts? Probably local bureaucrats in Beijing have changed the district borders. Then, please say so. But this doesn't mean that the sights, restaurants, bars, hotels etc. located in the areas formerly known as Chongwen and Xuanwu have vanished into thin air, does it!? (Besides, Wikivoyage articles do not always follow official districts, their borders and their changes to 100%).
 * So, here's the proper procedure for deleting a district article:
 * Explain what you're going to do on the talk page and why.
 * Put Template:Merge and Template:Merge from on the top of the affected articles (articles that should be deleted and )
 * Wait for a few days or preferably a week
 * Move the content of the article that are to be thrown in the oven to new articles
 * Put the Template:Delete on articles that should be deleted — an admin will delete them in a few hours
 * I'd help out with moving article content but unfortunately I'm not familiar with Beijing and can't read Chinese. But apparently you're familiar with the city.
 * BTW I would recommend you to revert your edit yourself. Thank you. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * All that's changed is the table layout that surrounds the four articles and properly colour-coded to match the adjoining map. Links to the articles of the former districts have not been deleted. The information in the former district articles are not out of sight, and they have been handled as per the wikivoyage style. The former district article is not deleted, it is not orphaned and it is readily available to all users. When making changes like this, transitional arrangements are required to make the article accurate, until the operation can be fully completed. A key concern was that nobody has acted for several years. I am not sure the former districts need to be merged, because Beijing also sub-districts. Instead of merging, Dongcheng District itself (1.5 million people) may need to broken into sub-districts or tourist precincts. On the other hand, Chongwen and Xuanwu are not even used as location terms any more, but a name change may be more appropriate. Travelmite (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oops, I just looked at the diffs and saw that districts had been removed from the list, just like the edit by 凡人丶 and thought it looked like vandalism.
 * If Chongwen and Xuanwu are really not used as location terms, then the names of the articles should probably be changed to something more useful (in the case we keep the current district article structure). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Options for correcting districts of Beijing
Dongcheng is the main tourist area of Beijing. The majority of major tourist sites are here. The four existing articles of Dongcheng District, Xuanwu, Chongwen and Xicheng District are based on obsolete boundaries. A safe, temporary fix is now in place to avoid confusion, but how to go forward?
 * 1. Merge Chongwen article into Dongcheng, and Xuanwu into Xicheng.
 * 2. Break Dongcheng and Chongwen into north, central and south parts. Chongwen and Xuanwu would be the south part.
 * 3. Break Dongcheng and Xicheng into smaller but more familiar zones, such as Houhai, Xidan, Gulou, Wangfujing and Yonghegong.
 * 4. Merge Xuanwu into Xicheng, but break down Dongcheng into parts
 * 5. Alternative points of view welcome

 * My preference is (3). Beijing is a megacity bigger than most countries, and more history too. Districts are administrative and not famous. This site should organised to be helpful to the tourist. Travelmite (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Articles should indeed be helpful to visitors, even if it means they aren't following administrative division exactly. As I said, you probably know more about Beijing than I do (so far it's just on my travel wishlist), but I think User:Daniel Case, User:Ikan Kekek, User:Pashley, User:Andrewssi2 can help? However we need to be careful not to make too many district articles, otherwise there might not be enough content. Eventually the static district maps need to be updated. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I am more worried about having too much content for some districts - especially Chaoyang and Dongcheng. Travelmite (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I am concerned about changing to fit 'official boundaries' because they change all the time in China and often local people are not sure what the new boundries are!
 * However it would be good to change Beijing/Dongcheng specifically. Not only is there too much content to help the traveler select their itinerary, but also a bit unrealistic to walk from the north of the district to the south part. (Map zoom 12 is required)
 * Although I don't want to 'kick the can down the road', I think User:Daniel_Case 's view would be valuable considering he spent a lot of time there documenting for WV. (I only go to Beijing for business) Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, everyone. I've been to Beijing twice but lack expertise on its districts, so I'll simply give you my blessing to alter the districtification of the city in whichever way is most helpful to travelers. I realize the question is what way is most helpful, but I'll have to defer to others, though when I have access to a computer again, not this dumb phone, I'd love to see a map and explanation of what you come up with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot about User:PalaceGuard008, who also has been contributing to the Beijing articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pings; sorry it took me a while to get over here. I'm flattered by the idea that I spent "lots of time" in Beijing—it was less than a week, honestly, and certainly not all of it in Dongcheng (though I did have that page in mind when I was there). Yes, it's not ideal to walk from the north of Dongcheng to the south (by which I mean the old border with Chongwen) but that could be said of so many of our other district articles in other cities. I'm not sure that there's any rule that they have to be walkable. I agree there's an awful lot in there, though. Perhaps, if we wished to trim it some more, we could look at what we've done with the similar Huangpu District in Shanghai, another area that receives the bulk of a city's tourist traffic (mainly to one area, in its case the Bund) and also has a lot of its own attractions and is equally densely developed. We've pulled French Concession and Old City out from it—it's still a pretty long page, but it would be a lot longer without those subareas (And I bet we could get away with pulling East Nanjing Road and the Bund out, too. Or just the former). Perhaps we could pull Nanluogoxiang out (including the Drim and Bell Towers area)? It is a popular nightlife destination and could easily support its own page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks Daniel. You are right that there is no requirement that the area must be walkable, I just found the district sizes in a comparable Chinese city (Shanghai) tend to be walkable.
 * I guess the current districts in Shanghai do work well, mostly because User:Pashley put a lot of effort into the task, and did actually carve out tourist areas in the manner that you described. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Huangpu district is a little over 20 km2, which makes it larger than the town I live in. I can walk around portions of it, especially downtown (less than a click away) and I have sometimes walked to a park that's a full mile (1.6 km) away. And there are other portions of it that I've walked to on occasion. But I would only consider the whole town "walkable" if your plan was to spend all day doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Drum and Bell Towers area" is Gulou. With a density of 20,000/km2 yes all popular districts should be walkable. Sofar, no dispute about splitting Dongcheng, Xichang and Chaoyang into smaller, manageable areas? That's option (3) from my original list at the top of this section. Travelmite (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see splitting out say, Gulou and some other discreet areas (like Wangfuxing maybe?) but still not splitting up the whole district as there are no other intuitive areas (unless you know the subdistrict boundaries?) Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Use the subway lines as borders? Or just group blocks from the grided road system. It seems easy to do. 199.168.113.204 17:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter seems like a better idea ... they are much more intuitive (the subway lines generally follow major roads anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * How would using roads as borders be intuitive, since only a taxi driver knows what road you're on? Actually, it almost does make sense to split Dongcheng by subway lines. Then you can walk from place to place. I'd suggest line 2, line 6, line 1 and line 7 to split it horizontally into five parts, then split between 2 & 6 with line 5. That would make: Ditan (nth-2), Gulou (2-6 west), Dongzhimen (2-6 east), Wangfujing (6-1), Chongwenmen (1-7) and Tiantan (7-sth). But, it's not perfect. I would keep the immediate area around Forbidden City and Tian'anmen Square separate again. So that breaks Dongcheng into seven areas. Travelmite (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't have a problem knowing what road I was on when I was walking around ... They do have signs. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Streets seem more intuitive borders to me as well, and in practice they indeed run along the main street routes for large parts anyway. As a traveller, you may need to determine roughly which district you're heading for (and for major sights that's usually enough) but in the end you'll be looking for streets if you're heading to a restaurant or hotel. Signs are useful, but frankly... nowadays there's also google maps on your smart phone :-) In terms of huge Asian cities, I've found Beijing to be one of the easier to navigate. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This "streets" vs "subway" debate is a non-issue. It's actually "streets" vs "streets+subway". If you follow the subway lines, then you know where you are going with both a street map AND a subway map, the latter being simpler to understand, as few people will easily see the difference between DongzhimenWaiDajae and DongzhimentNeiDaijie. Once you are already walking, the streets are obviously useful for navigation, but this guide will mostly used in advance of walking. It's for planning and preparing your trip. I put forward a plan for seven sub-districts to break-up Dongcheng. What do you think? Travelmite (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long to respond, but I looked this over and thought about it a bit. I like it. I like it a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary from organisational idea above
Hello Everyone, I want to create a more detail detail precincts in every district mentioned in Beijing page as well as to create a precinct which is very famous to put it as whole page like for Forbidden City, greatwall, ... etc to keep famous precinct more independent and get the relevant information quickly. A precinct is a space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building, or by an arbitrary and imaginary line drawn around it. Like for example Dongcheng District, we have: Wangfujing, Dongzhimen, Chongwen, Yonghegong, Gulou & Tiananmen which are the main famous precincts within this District. So why not create a template listing in the Districts at the top of the page of every districts and then we will create a single independent precinct information like what already available for Chongwen or Forbidden City or Greatwall. It's going to give more relevant and clear information than gathering all information in one district !! —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * Just for transparency, I take it that you are user Salimtb007 on WT who created the precinct articles there? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes Salimtb007 is me, I've created both as one is for French page and the other one is for English page ~Salim —The preceding comment was added by Slimimp007 (talk • contribs)

 * My opinion is that although large, the second level Beijing articles are quite good as they stand. Splitting them further into third level articles will make the subject of Beijing too dificult to navigate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 * [Yes] these Beijing articles are too long. The city is too big. Administrative districts like Dongcheng are a poor way to understand Beijing. Several proposals are being discussed, but this idea needs more work Travelmite (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * So back to the proposal, please. How many separate district articles do you think Beijing should be divided into, for the sake of Wikivoyage readers/travellers? Would anyone like to propose a complete list, indicating which of the proposed new articles is likely to be well covered in all of the more or less essential sections (Understand, Get in, Get around, See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep) in short order? I think that's an important consideration, because I don't see how it would well-serve the traveller to have loads of more or less empty articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * The precinct articles on WT don't appear to be empty (at least the ones I looked at). I guess the question is do we really want to go to the third level here? For example Tokyo, Shanghai and Seoul are similar sized cities (of equal importance) and they are of a good quality with two levels. There are presently 6 second level articles for central Beijing. I would rather split some of those up rather than create these third level articles underneath. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 * My proposal is already written. I felt we had an agreement about it. I have copied the comments from above. Beijing is a far more complex city than Shanghai, Tokyo and Seoul, especially from a historical perspective. It's the Districts of Dongcheng is the main tourist district and needs to be broken down into 7 sections (see diagram). Chaoyang is the whole East of Beijing, and only 20% deserves to be broken down into smaller parts (Sanlitun, CBD, Olympic Park, 798 Art Zone, Lido, Airport). Travelmite (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, If nobody objects I am ready to Merge Xuanwu into Xicheng. That will solve half the problem. Ar2332 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Ar2332 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re Dongcheng, I suggest dividing into the following articles, from south to north: 1 - Chongwen (the old district, i.e. everything south of Line 2), 2 - "Central Dongcheng" (Wangfujing and Tiananmen), 3 - Forbidden City, 4 - Gulou, 5 - "Dongzhimen and Ditan". Thoughts? I think Ditan and Tiantan do not have enough info to justify their own articles. Ar2332 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Beijing 2022 Olympics
I have created an article for the 2022 winter Olympics: Beijing 2022 --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-smog measures
environmental police Pashley (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map
Below is the list with all Wikidata items for the districts of Beijing. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future. --Renek78 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps, districting
A change was just made in the districting. Was this discussed? Normally, changes in districting are always discussed, but the last discussion I see about districting is from 2018. I would solicit comments from User:Muzzleflash on why the new districting is better.

That said, if we like the new districting, the static map needs to be changed accordingly, but I don't know why there's also a dynamic map and would probably be acting completely according to policy if I deleted it, but I'll give the floor to anyone who wants to argue for why we should make an exception for this districted city and have two maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings on this but I would recommend placing Mentougou under Rural Beijing. My reason for the change. Mentougou is the most thinly populated and mountainous of the districts of Beijing so it just seemed accurate to group it with the other districts referred to as Rural Beijing. Muzzleflash (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Other opinions? I'm not familiar with that part of Beijing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It didn't look like anyone was going to change the district map so I changed back the district order. Now another problem. I can't figure out what went wrong with the part of the code for Tongzhou. Muzzleflash (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think no-one else saw this discussion. I really should have posted to Requests for comment. You could. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One way or the other I didn't think it was a big deal. I added in the description for Western and Southern Outer Suburbs that some of the areas were rural mountains which I think takes care of any misleading impression referring to Mentougou as a suburb could create. But unfortunately I've altered the code in some way that Tongzhou doesn't render properly. "region3name=Tongzhou District (通州区; Tōngzhōuqū)" Do you know how to fix it? Muzzleflash (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, figured it out. Muzzleflash (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

List of expressways and highways
I'm looking at ways to cut down the size of this lengthy article to make it more readable. I see a long list of national highways. I don't think this is helpful and takes up a lot of space. I propose deleting from page. Muzzleflash (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The list of bus destinations could go, too, or at least be limited to blue link destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beijing


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Past events/Beijing 2008

Would this be a good time to visit China?

I'll put some notes on this page, especially for disability access. The Paralympics will also be in Beijing in September 2008, and access is more than spotty!

--(WT-en) Liz Henry 01:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Archive?
What do we do with this now that the 2008 Olympics are over? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Beijing/Chaoyang

Comments
Mix night club - went here on a Monday night, but were practically the only Americans in the place. However, it was crowded (in a good way) with many beautiful people. Drinks start at 30 yuan for beers, and more for mixed drinks. The club is large with several different dance floors. The music is all American hip-hop (in English) which surprised me as many people claimed to not speak English. Seems like more of a club for locals, but it might be different on the weekends.

The Beijing Dream Hostel no longer exists. I recommend to delete the entry. 1) They moved a few hundred meters, without updating their website. 2) It's very hard to find because it's written something like "Chinese Metallurgic Association" outside, nothing about a hostel and nothing in English. 3) The rooms start at 280 yuan (!), they no longer have the youth hostel typical dormitories. 4) No longer "free DVDs" and so on, like mentioned on their outdated website. -Cedric, a swiss Beijing visitor, 2010-09-09

 * Done, and thank you for mentioning this, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 10:35, 9 September 2010 (EDT)

East Apartments: Serviced Apartment Hotel
A few comments to my latest edits on the above Please consider this before changing it back, and please argue, why you disagree (WT-en) ClausHansen 08:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)
 * The address I put in earlier was taken from the official web page, why should we not use that? (so far, I have not changed it back). At least, we should tell which no. ring road it is on (in case, no three, which I have put bakck in)
 * Being located in CBD is stated in 'Directions' and does not need to be stated more than once. The part about why it is convenient to be in CBD is touting and has been deleted (else, the same sentence could be put in for all hotels in CBD)
 * Internet access is usually described as 'internet' and should not be called 'high speed wifi' unless these apartments' internet access is something else than in most other hotels
 * I have deleted the first word 'rates' under prices as this goes without saying and in all other listings are omitted

Yashow closure
Yashow is closed, but not sure if it's permanent. The listing is here, incase it comes back.

title: Talk:Beijing/Chaoyang


text:
Talk:Beiras

Beiras
The following anonymous message was left on my talk page.
 * Is it possible that Beira Alta, Beira Baixa, & Beira Litoral should be merged into Beiras - and that Beiras doesn't need any sub-regions (for now at least) - ? ~ 203.144.143.4 03:12, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Does anyone have any opinion on this? Should we simplify the hierarchy by removing the the Beira subregions? — (WT-en) NJR_ZATalk  Monday,  29, 2024 SAST

title: Talk:Beiras


text:
Talk:Beirut

last entry was false alarm - hotel talal still exists. Yes, it does (update, August 2010)...

Out of respect for this wonderful community I won't delete and edit right away, but I want to seriously question some phrases. "It is strongly discouraged to visit Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, unless you are with someone who lives in or is familiar with the camps. Camps vary in size and appearance (the camps in Beirut are like slums, but some rural camps can resemble more open villages) and hostility, but you should bear in mind that Palestinians, who have no civil or political rights in Lebanon and are barred from most professions, will generally feel no reason not to be as open and civil to you as a Lebanese person might be" under "Stay safe". And in particular the last part about Palestinians not feeling the need to be open and civil. Firstly, it's a very insulting phrase towards Palestinians, as they generally tend to be very open and civil. Also the refugees in Lebanon. And secondly, who writes it like that? If someone had a personal encounter with Palestinians in a refugee camp in Beirut, and felt it wasn't very nice, that's okay of course. No society consists of only saints. But I don't feel it's accurate to characterize Palestinians as any less civil or open than anyone else. Not Lebanese, American or Portuguese people. And for the record: staying in a refugee camp is for the most part completely safe. Don't let the upper-class Lebanese fool you. But yes, I would bring a local with me. Both for logistics and he'll know what to do. Tourists won't usually be spending a lot of time in a camp either way.

"Avoid talking about politics and religion, even if asked, for this might lead to trouble. Say you don't know the situation if your comments are wanted. Avoid any governmental or military convoys that may be passing by. Lebanese people have adapted to all those situations", also under "Stay safe". This is, at best, too generic. But for the most part it's just bullshit. Who should you not talk to about these subjects? The police? They won't ask these questions. Military? Same thing with them. Hizbollah? Maybe the only ones you might want to turn it down a notch towards. But: I was personally questioned by Hizbollah for six hours (due to taking pictures in Dahiyeh), and I didn't experience any problems when elaborating on my knowledge of the political state of Lebanon and its sectarianism. Of course, don't get hostile (where would you ever advice someone differently?), but apart from that there shouldn't be any problems regarding this matter and Hizbollah. And as for the rest of the Lebanese citizens? Talk as much crap - including politics and religion - as you feel fit. They absolutely do not mind. This section should be removed in my opinion. Maybe just a small note on staying calm if questioned by Hizbollah (but this has of course nothing to do with either religion or politics...).

The two above-mentioned sections should be changed. In general I feel that it is important to broaden one's view. Speaking about anything with Lebanese is one way of doing that. Another, better, way is to go to a Palestinian camp. Tourists of the Downtown area need that. And it's great fun. Therefore it's important not to make generic (and unfair) statements about a whole group of people of Beirut (tens of thousands).

I see there isn't a lot of activity on the discussion page, so I won't wait too long before editing myself. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 91.151.237.39 (talk • contribs)

 * Stay Safe sections are second only to Respect in accumulating unnecessarily obvious advice, although I think most travelers would have more concerns than you did over six hours of questioning! If you think the article can be improved by shortening or rewriting, please plunge forward.  — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 16:02, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I did just that, plunged forward. Thanks for the advice!

warning box
I just removed an added warning box, which stated that Beirut is safe. While plenty of travellers may well visit the city without problems, I just checked some major government warnings and they are still in place. US, UK, CANADA warn against all non-essential travel to Lebanon, and especially for the southern suburbs of Beirut. A warning should therefore stay in place, although we might add something to indicate that it's mostly the unpredictable situation than any actual violence going on (and thus, visitors might well encounter no issues). JuliasTravels (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, please go ahead and add such remarks as warranted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge?
Almost all of the districts here are at outline status. Some merging seems necessary to me. However, the static map is so bad that it's hard to really tell the orientation of the districts. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets see if can get a better distribution. (Can switch on boundaries on the map)--Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Current districts: Proposal 1
 * Beirut/Ain El Mraiseh - small but acceptable content size
 * Beirut/Ashrafieh - good content size
 * Beirut/Downtown - reasonable content size
 * Beirut/Hamra - good content size
 * Beirut/Jnah - insufficient content
 * Beirut/Ras Beirut - insufficient content but should be able to expand if redefine boundary
 * Beirut/Rawcheh - some content
 * Beirut/Verdun - almost enough content
 * Ramlet El Baida - nothing
 * West Beirut
 * Ras Beirut and Dar Mreisse
 * Beirut/Ras Beirut, part of Beirut/Ain El Mraiseh, part of Beirut/Hamra, Beirut/Rawcheh
 * Central Beirut
 * Minet el Hosen, Zkak el Blat, Bashoura, Saifi and Port
 * Beirut/Downtown, part of Beirut/Ain El Mraiseh, part of Beirut/Hamra
 * South Beirut
 * Moussaitbeh, Mazraa
 * Beirut/Jnah, Beirut/Verdun, Ramlet El Baida
 * East Beirut
 * Medawar, Rmeil, Ashrafieh
 * Beirut/Ashrafieh

Sorry that I missed this. Yes, this looks better on the map. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 * This article is still on a list of articles with active district discussions. It looks to me like the district divisions were considerably simplified in 2019. Is there anything still left to decide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beirut


text:
Talk:Beirut/Manara

Comments
This page was at one stage nominated for deletion, the ensuing discussion follows:

VFD Discussion
Completely blank stub, not linked to from Beirut ~ 203.144.143.4 02:24, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete Wikipedia lists a Manara in Israel by the Lebanese border, but nothing for Beirut. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:53, 16 January 2008 (EST)
 * Keep and template. Seems to be a valid district (see map and google search). According to the map Beirut/Downtown refers to it correctly. --(WT-en) Nick 15:52, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Outcome: Kept and templated --(WT-en) Nick

VfD
''This file was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2013 but was kept. The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.''

 * Speedy keep - No deletion rationale, part of a holistic districting scheme. Texugo (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it is listed in the city's district structure. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * keep -- Andyrom75 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per my arguments above re: redirecting district articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: Speedily kept. Per Deletion policy, a clear consensus has been reached including the nominator himself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beirut/Manara