Wikivoyage

Talk:Asia/Archive 2003-2012

< Talk:Asia
Learn more about this page
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why'd you nix the 'pedia link? Seems to make sense to have it on thise page...(WT-en) Majnoona

Check the upper-right-hand part of the screen. See Project:links to Wikipedia. --(WT-en) Evan 16:21, 2 Dec 2003 (PST)
Well ok then. (WT-en) Majnoona

Hong Kong

I reverted an edit putting Hong Kong in the Countries section. Just so people understand. Hong Kong is not a country. It is not independent. It is a (self?) governing part of China, a territory, with officials elected by a college of electors appointed by the Chinese Government in Beijing. It was previously a British protectorate built on land leased from China. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:52, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

I've been to HK and China. Very different places. HK is widely classed as a country and there is immigration and customs between it and rest of China. JadeDragon (talk)
The HKSAR is certainly not a sovereign state as recognised by the UN or any other UN member. However, the way that Wikivoyage uses the word country is more similar to the Commonwealth English usage rather than the US English useage: the HKSAR is a distinctly outlined area of the globe where many of the residents feel that it is their country and where there are distinct advantages for the traveller in writing about differences such as currency, culture, cuisine, language, laws, immigration requirements, etc, etc, that may change at the "border". Besides having it's very own immigration regime, the HKSAR has a different currency, drives on the different side of the road, has a completely separate and distinct legal, telephone and postal system. In these respects it is more of a country in Wikivoyage terms than San Marino or Monaco. -- Alice✉ 04:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Myanmar/ Burma

Why go for Myanmar as the primary name instead of Burma? (WT-en) Yzerfontein 09:24, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)

- see Talk:Burma

Thanks, interesting discussion. This also explains China vs Peopel's Republic of China(WT-en) Yzerfontein 12:00, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)

Intineraries

I took out the list of intineraries here, which was incomplete, and replaced it with links to the Asia and Intercontinental sections of Project:Itineraries. Why maintain the same list in two places? At least one is bound to be wrong. (WT-en) Pashley

Taiwan & China

See Talk:East Asia#Taiwan & China. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:58, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Taiwan

Removed title renegade in reference to Taiwan. It is a subjective term (countries that recognize the ROC, for example, will not use it nor will the people of Taiwan) that provides little info that is of value to travelers (see Project:The traveller comes first), while at the same time is likely to incite edit wars (as is currently happening). (WT-en) WindHorse 01:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Taipei and everywhere else in Asia

Archived from the Pub:

Can someone tell me if Taipei and everywhere else in Asia show display street names in the local language and English? I think I've found the address for Taipei 101, but I have a hard time believing the Republic of China's addresses are displayed in English. If not, how does one go about deciphering the addresses from the local language to English, especially since a lot of travel guides display the addresses in English? -- (WT-en) Sapphire 18:42, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Most Asian countries have street signs in their own language along with a romanized version (I say romanized as opposed to English because rather than translating the word say for, say, road, it might just be transliterated i.e. Instead of the sign saying Ginza Road (a famous thoroughfare in Tokyo), the sign might read Ginza Dori - dori being the Japanese word for road. However, Taipei does not use this system, with all it streets signs baring the English suffix road, street, lane or alley). In less developed countries the use of romanized versions of street signs may be limited to the capital and used only on major thoroughfares, but in places like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and major Chinese cities etc, all streets signs have a romanized version. As for the world's tallest building, it is so famous in the region that a letter just addressed to Taipei 101 with no street, country or city would find its way with no trouble. Hope that answers your question. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:01, 9 February 2007 (EST)
Of course, in many Asian countries street addresses are next to useless, because street signage is woeful to nonexistent (eg. India, Indonesia) or because streets literally have no names (eg. Japan). For example, in India addresses tend to look like "Gurgaon, XYZ Colony, near IFFCO Chowk, behind MGF Plaza, opposite Maruti showroom", and in Japan they look like "Komaba 4-6-29-508" (my actual former address), where the numbers represent (in this case) district, block, building, apartment. Incidentally, there is no "Ginza-dori" in Tokyo, although there's a district called Ginza and it has a named street called Chuo-dori. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:05, 10 February 2007 (EST)
Sorry for the bad example, I'd forgotten that the official name for that street in Tokyo is Chuo-dori. I appreciate the correction. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:26, 10 February 2007 (EST)

China as a "quickly awakening giant"?

Ummm ... I think the giant is fully awake now. 24.84.11.239 20:22, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Then go say so in the article. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 02:10, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Mongolia

I'm moving it to Central Asia. Well, I'M not, it was already there. I don't know how to make the Mongolia page reflect this, but I've done pretty much everything else. I'm the process of fixing the map as well.

Russia/Communist

What is that suppost to mean? Russia is not a communist country anymore and even if it was this is not what you would call a region.Also there should be a different picture than that of St. Basil in Moscow, because Moscow is still in the European part of Russia.

It was vandalism which was easily fixed. Plunge forward and see Project:How to handle unwanted edits. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:08, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Turkey on the Map

What's with Turkey in the map? Shouldn't it be in the Middle East? As far as I know the overwhelming majority of the country lies in Asia, and if you include the whole of Russia, not just Asian Russia, on the map... (WT-en) AHeneen 03:53, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

In travel terms Turkey is very much a European destination as far as I'm concerned, especially for Europeans. Politically, EU membership talks are progressing (albeit slowly), and historically Turkey takes up a surprisingly large space in the annals of European history[1][2]. And though it is overwhelmingly Muslim, It's extremely secular compared it southern neighbours. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 05:44, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
It's been discussed quite a bit, one of the conversations is here... As far as a hierarchy goes we only place it in one place officially.... meaning it's on one region map, and has one isin template. and then how it also ties in to other regions can be discussed on the Turkey and region pages as necessary – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 15:17, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't think that any of that is grounds for excluding Turkey from the continent in which it actually lies. The EU may at some point include countries in the Americas, will they also geographically be a part of Europe then? --66.158.114.2 09:57, 20 November 2010 (EST)
You're right that it's a bit weird that Russia and the countries in the Caucasus are colored on the map and Turkey is not, while all these countries are transcontinental (and a way larger part of Russia lies in Europe than is the case with Turkey). These countries should be treated equally, so maybe Turkey should be colored on the map as well, as its part of both continents. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)
I agree, and Turkey should be listed under "Regions" just like Russia is. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:13, 20 November 2010 (EST)

Cities

Just like the Europe article (see [3]), I added a top 9 of Asian cities based on popularity (see this list). I just wonder what to do with Hong Kong and Singapore -- maybe they shouldn't be included as they are administrated as countries on Wikivoyage? Then we'd have room for two more Asian cities. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:57, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Tough one. Singapore and Dubai can only get that many visitors due to the huge volume of folk transiting there. It is a bit of a downer seeing so many wonderful Asian cities not on the list, but Kuala Lumpur and Seoul making it. But, we can only be objective I guess. And no Indian cities at all makes me slightly suspicious of the numbers. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)
The cities list would look really weird without Hong Kong or Singapore on it. In general, I really like to get a good geographical spread of cities across the major regions, but that task is complicated by the size and density of Asia (Europe is a similar case), so I think it is a good idea to follow the same solution as we used there. Surprised to see Mecca below Dubai—there's a 21st century novelty! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:07, 15 December 2009 (EST)
This is the only region that has such important city-states (or, um, city-Special-Administrative-Regions?), so I'd see no reason to exclude Singapore or Hong Kong. On the other hand, the lack of any Indian city strikes me as a problem, particularly for the geographic diversity arguments used in more contentious debates.
I'd personally want to add Mumbai for that reason, and probably drop Mecca solely on the grounds that it's a restricted destination despite its huge numbers during the Hajj. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 15:04, 15 December 2009 (EST)
The danger is once we deviate from the list, we end up in the same discussions "the list" was trying to avoid. Though, I do agree that the lack of any Indian cities probably make the whole thing contentious any way.
But as far as I'm concerned the only cities that can convincingly be argued for promotion is probably Jerusalem and Mumbai --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Looking at the definitions used by the World Tourism Organisation to compile this list, I think I now better understand why it is skewed. The Indian cities no doubt suffer from poor official reporting of domestic visitor arrivals. I suspect the same is true for the vast cities of Manila and Jakarta. Dubai and Singapore will be hugely inflated by the number of business travellers who transit there.
All that being said though, I think the only really special case is Mecca which should be disqualified as the vast majority of world citizens are legally forbidden from visiting. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:39, 15 December 2009 (EST)
If we are striving for diversity, though, we would also need a Central Asian city on this list. In my opinion, Mecca, Seoul, and Kuala Lumpur are not essential to this list. Singapore doesn't necessarily strike me as a must, but there is obviously strong opposition to removing it, and I'm not strongly against having it anyway. I like Jerusalem replacing Mecca. It is of appeal to Muslims, as well as others (and everyone can enter, aside from Lebanese and anyone else banned from Israel, I believe). As stated above, there is no excuse for us not to have an Indian city. Why not swap Seoul for Mumbai? If we are striving for regional representation, then getting rid of Kuala Lumpur and adding what: Almaty? Kabul? I don't know what the representative city of Central Asia would be. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:20, 15 December 2009 (EST)
As far as Central Asia is concerned, I think the most visited cities are Almaty and Bishkek (both rather close together). Urumqi is also interesting, but would be a third destination in China on the list. However, I wouldn't mind skipping a Central Asian city in favor of Jerusalem...a sacred place for three of the world's largest religions and a very popular tourist destination, it should be a no-brainer. I don't mind Seoul staying, but KL is too close to Bangkok or Singapore to be listed. A couple of other major cities worthy of consideration (to replace KL) are Tehran, Kathmandu, Lhassa, Vladivostok, & Taipei. --forgot to sign: (WT-en) AHeneen 23:54, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I can only agree to what has been discussed. A city from India definitely should be in the list, and I also feel Jerusalem should be a part of it. Jerusalem could replace Mecca, as that city can only be visited by Muslims. I also agree with replacing Seoul and Kuala Lumpur, but obviously then we get rid of the whole idea of using statistics for this (which I don't mind, but I hope we can make a consensus then on what to include). I think we should include a city from Central Asia (but I really don't know which, I thought Samarkand was popular), and maybe Kathmandu or Tehran. I don't prefer Urumqi or Tibet, as then China would be listed twice. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 23:31, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Jerusalem and Mumbai have obvious reasons to be included, but I'm pretty opposed to dropping Mecca just because Wikivoyage's current base of regular contributors can't legally go there, and are pissed off about that (am I right that we have no Muslims working actively here?). And trading Mecca for Jerusalem would be quite an offense to intercultural political-religious-social sensibilities, no? 1.57 billion people mean to go here at some point in their lifetimes, and certainly not just as a transit—that's more than you can say of any other city in the world, I think. IMO it clearly belongs.
And re: geographical spread—it won't be possible to do that well for such a large, dense region, so I wouldn't worry about trying to cram in a little known Central Asian city like Tashkent or Almaty. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:02, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Oh, and Seoul is one of the world's top ten biggest metropolises by any measure—I definitely think it should stay. If dropping cities from the current list, I think KL and Singapore don't have great claims to fame. It might make sense to swap Beijing for Shanghai too, as it is the more interesting destination (and the capital). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

In the end it is probably not very important and as we did with Europe, I would stick with the stats. The stats are skewed I am sure but does it really matter? Same with Mecca. There are good reasons why it should not be listed here, not least of which is the vast majority of pilgrims who go there go do so on highly structured and monitored packages which are authorised and arranged by the Saudi Government. Travel advice is nigh-on useless. But again I am not sure this list matters that much and if anyone thinks that omitting Mecca will cause offence, then leave it there.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:20, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I agree with importing Beijing and flushing Shanghai. Beijing is more "Chinese" and just all-around better. I still don't think Mecca looks right. Although I used the inclusive argument to promote Jerusalem, I just don't see Mecca as much of a tourist destination, of course, I am not Muslim, so I guess I couldn't go. Although 1.5 billion people visit Mecca, in the English-speaking world, it is not at all popular (since this is the English Wikivoyage). Of course I am not suggesting Islam is exclusive to speakers of certain languages, but when you look at the distribution of Muslims in the English-speaking world, Nigeria is the only nation with a significant population of Muslims. [4]. The number in other English-speaking countries is somewhat neglible. It seems silly to list Mecca as one of the top 9 if most of the audience can't go. If the problem is simply that I suggested swapping Mecca for Jerusalem, I will instead pledge support for swapping Mecca for Mumbai and Kuala Lumpur for Jerusalem. :) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:26, 16 December 2009 (EST)
To add to the previous comment, I think it is more important that we add a Central Asian destination versus Middle Eastern, because the Middle East already has elevated status as a link on the Main Page. Mecca is a top city on that page. Currently, we've eliminated Central Asia from both categories.
Looking through the above comments, these are the cities being discussed for possibly adding:
These cities have been proposed to be taken off:
If we put a Central Asian city on the list (I don't really think we should, since they pale in comparison to the extreme importance of other world cities throughout the region), I would definitely put Tashkent over Almaty or Samarkand, which would be a better OD as [[Samarkand|Registan]]. Tashkent is the biggest city in the region by a full third (Almaty is second), and it's at the heart of a more interesting travel region and far more populous country than Kazakhstan. It's seven times bigger than provincial Samarkand. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Personally, I don't have a problem with the central Asian feature only being in the "Other destination" section, since it seems that everyone believes Registan may be worthy of a spot. It is definitely the most well-known site in the region. I'll strike Almaty. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:27, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Making a list for a gigantic continent like Asia will be really hard.
  • I agree with de-listing Kuala Lumpur, but I think Singapore should stay, as it is a major hub in Asia.
  • I agree to include Beijing instead of Shanghai, it's more interesting sight-wise (though Shanghai is business-wise the most important).
  • Seoul is the second-largest urban area in the world, I think it deserves it's place.
  • Mecca has been discussed often, I also think it's valid that it's excluded from the list.

As Mumbai should be included, there's only one place left. I think Jerusalem could make for a good fit, also in the Middle East and important to three religions. Tehran could also be a nice addition. Kathmandu would be great, but we have to make choices, so I'd choose not to list it. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 03:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)

OK, I made some additions to the list:
(WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:39, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Other Destinations

In the idea of plunging forward, I also added a "Other Destinations" list. Yet, I'm not really satisfied yet -- there's two listings of Indonesia, and I'm not sure about Registan as Samarkand might qualify as "city". Also, I might be missing some important ones. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 13:56, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Ha! This one is certainly more tricky. Penang should be dropped since it is a city, and I'd recommend dropping Registan, as it is on the Silk Road, which is already listed. I'd keep Borobudur over Bali, if only because the latter is a region, and thus a bit further from what we try to present in OD lists (although still permissible).

I'd definitely recommend adding Mount Fuji. Other suggestions: Mount Everest, Lake Baikal, Trans-Siberian Railway, Persepolis. An outside suggestion would be Band-e Amir, which is obviously far less visited, but which would give us a more impressive geographical spread. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:29, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I was afraid Silk Road might be an itinerary instead of a destination. I added Mount Everest, Mount Fuji and Band-e Amir, I think the list now is very geographically spread. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 16:29, 15 December 2009 (EST)
There is not one important nature conservation type destination listed. Lake Baikal might do the trick but Sundarbans National Park even more so. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:58, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Even with Borobudur on the list, it does seem odd for Bali not to be there. It's definitely one of the number one "Other destinations" of Asia. Mount Fuji could be dropped easily enough to add Bali OR Sundarbans National Park. I'm also surprised the Dead Sea is not listed. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:26, 15 December 2009 (EST)
That was my motivation for having both Borobudur and Bali listed, also as I feel there should be a kind of beach/island in the list. And Bali has excellent coverage on Wikivoyage. The Silk Road now makes an appearance in the itinerary list. Now I got a list of nine, but [Sundarbans National Park] is still not included... Which one has to go, I cannot pick but now Indonesia is listed twice again. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 23:45, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I don't like Mount Fuji on the list...too close to Tokyo in the cities list. Silk Road and Peter's suggestion Trans-Siberian Railway are itineraries (and it wouldn't be a bad idea to add a list of itineraries to the article)...not to mention the fact that they both span 2 continents. Plus, the Silk Road is very vague and covers a large swathe of Asia. Samarkand is a nice destination in Central Asia (especially if a CA city is not in the cities list), a major destination on the Silk Road, and more accessible and safe than Band-e Amir; it's a good candidate to replace Silk Road Sundarbans National Park, Persepolis, and Lake Baikal are good suggestions. The Karakoram Highway (the scenic, highest border crossing in the world), Khyber Pass (the legendary gateway to the Indian subcontinent, although rather dangerous in recent years), Issyk Kul (a second great destination in CA), & Palmyra (since it's a bit difficult for Americans to visit Persepolis). (WT-en) AHeneen 23:51, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I am not sure that "too close to a somewhere in the cities list" is a valid argument. Especially as we now have both Bali and Borobudur in this list and they are, relatively speaking, on top of each other. Mount Fuji surely has to stay. I would lose either Silk Road (not a destination at all) or Bali (sadly) and add Sundarbans National Park. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:37, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Three things: 1) I prefer Baikal to Sundarbans in the name of geographical spread. 2) Listing itineraries is a bit of a fudge, but the length of the Silk Road surely disqualifies it no more than the Great Wall? It's also a nice way to include Central Asia, which lacks any exceptional non-city destinations (Samarkand is very much a city; Issyk Kul is kul and all, but it's not on the same playing field as other mentions here). If we do rule out Silk Road, but want a Central Asian OD, I say go for [[Samarkand|Registan]] or Band-e Amir. Hmm, or maybe Darvaza Flaming Crater [5]. 3) I still think either Bali or Borobudur should be left out, again, in the name of geographical spread.
The itineraries are actually already listed on the page, so if there is something better than the Silk Road, I'd support swapping it. I like Samarkand. It's famous enough that it wouldn't be fudging it to put it in there. If we don't want two Indonesian destinations, then what about having Bali and not Borobudur? They are both strong candidates, but Bali must be the more well-known. It's one of the top honeymoon destinations in the world. Some Wikivoyagers may have been conceived there :o
Actually, the Darvaza Flaming Crater is cool enough for the list. I still don't necessarily see Mount Fuji as essential, though. I guess it is the most photographed mountain in the world, but I do like the idea of adding a national park. I like the above suggestion of Persepolis, I still think the Dead Sea is good, and I don't know if anyone mentioned Ha Long Bay, but it's extremely famous.

OK so I'll get rid of Borobudur, as we already have Bali in the list from the same country, and we already have plenty of other human-made archaeological structures in the list. Now I have to make a choice between:

That's... a pretty hard choice. I think there's a case to make for the Darvaza Flaming Crater. It's absolutely unique, and good for geographical spread as it's in Central Asia. Samarkand also is in Central Asia, but it's another human-made structure. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:53, 22 December 2009 (EST)

If we use the Flaming Crater, then we need to give it an article or create an article for the city it is in or near. It's not much of an "other destination" if it just brings up a country article. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:57, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Do we need these? See here – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:11, 22 December 2009 (EST)

So, which one in the list shall we choose? Indonesia is still featured twice in the list. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:45, 13 January 2010 (EST)
Well, it seemed that the Darvaza Flaming Crater had support, but as I mentioned, we would need to create a page for the nearest city and place the info there first. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:54, 13 January 2010 (EST)
Lake Baikal gets my vote. And I would still put Borobudur ahead of Bali. It is better example of an OD (and needs the publicity far more). Bali is a top level region of a country. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:03, 14 January 2010 (EST)
I like Ha Long Bay much more than Lake Baikal, but I think I'm biased, since despite Russia's presence in Asia, I associate it all with Europe. I still like the geographic spread Darvaza gives us. Lake Baikal technically represents a region that is not on here, but Russia is already double-dipping with listings in Europe. I think Darvaza is more important for the geographic representation. Although Bali is a region, people definitely think about it as a destination. As far as Bali vs Borobudur, I kind of think the fact that Borobudur needs more publicity still makes the case for Bali a bit stronger at the top level, but both are top Asia destinations, so I wouldn't mind either way the decision goes. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:55, 14 January 2010 (EST)
My favouring Lake Baikal has a lot to do with my old broken record point - Wikivoyage is generally weak in its coverage (and understanding) of sites of great importance for nature conservation. As Sundarbans will not make it, then I would like Lake Baikal to fly the flag in that respect and as a site of real importance. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:08, 14 January 2010 (EST)
I agree that the natural sites are important. I would support the Sundarbans (or maybe Baikal) over Mount Fuji, but I fear that's a losing battle... Maybe Petra could go. The Dead Sea is listed from that region and is much more famous. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:25, 14 January 2010 (EST)

"Create a page for the nearest city [to Darvaza]"—hahaha! Being as it is in the center of the middle of nowhere in Turkmenistan, the nearest human settlement is about 250km away, so our policy might fail us there. Better to give it its own subsection of "see" or "do" in the appropriate region article, which doesn't exist yet. I actually suggested the Door to Hell mostly as a joke—while ridiculously awesome, it's so unknown and off the beaten path that I don't think it belongs on the Asia page, no matter how much as I'd love more people to know about it. Lake Baikal on the other hand, I think would be a great feature (in addition to reasons listed above) precisely because it is in Russia. Baikal is well over 2,000 km from Europe, so I actually think it might be useful to list it here to remind people of that fact. And while we wouldn't have a CA destination, we'd at least have an FSU destination. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:00, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I also like Lake Baikal, only problem is that we wouldn't have any destination in Central Asia, as there is also no Central Asian city in the city list. I think we should have at least one listing from Central Asia. But I'm all for Lake Baikal, and agree that we need a great site of natural importance. And I also agree with maybe scrapping Mount Fuji. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:33, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Right, but you could make the same argument for omitting any destination for Russia, which after all, covers more than one fourth the total territory of the continent. And furthermore, it's not too hard to make the argument that Buryatia, which borders the Baikal on the east, is both culturally and geographically part of Central Asia. (And I'd still say that if we want a Central Asian OD, it would be forcing it to omit the main reason people go there—the Silk Road.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:55, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Yes, I completely agree, Lake Baikal is a good one for the "Russia and the Caucasus" subgroup, but it would still be nice to also have a destination from Central Asia, maybe by scrapping Mount Fuji. Maybe we could put a Central Asian city in the city list, though we already did such hard work to come to this city list, I really have no idea which city we could let go. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Back to [[Samarkand|Registan]] then? That would at least represent the important Silk Road. I'd be fine with dropping Mt Fuji for that. Japan is already on the cities list, and we already have one mountain on the OD list. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:51, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Haven't got a clue about central Asia, though I think it should be represented. But I'm fine with dropping Fujisan, haven't done the trek myself, but that's only because everyone has been telling me not to bother --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Registan sounds great, I agree with dropping Mt. Fuji for it. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:20, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Wow! For some reason, I thought Mount Fuji had overwhelming support. I think this is the best way to do it. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:36, 15 January 2010 (EST)


Missing Country/Territory

Why are the P.T. not on the map of Asia. They are in the middle east. The Pal. Territories should be on the map! —The preceding comment was added by 125.84.82.119 (talk • contribs)

Too small to see at that scale, as with Qatar, Singapore, etc. Tough to label everyone when your map has to scale to fit China and Russia on it. It does appear on regional maps and below. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 03:40, 8 March 2010 (EST)

I'm thinking that will be interpreted as bias... Not exactly a very sound argument?? So you have to be a big country/territory to make the map?? That is just unprofessional..

not bias at all. How on earth can you show such a tiny speck on a continent map? A key tenet of drawing a map is scale.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:05, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Besides, the Pal Territories are in the regions list. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:33, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
P.T. was indeed on the map, just not labeled. The bias is pretty clearly against small countries in crowded parts of the map, as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Singapore were all unlabeled. I've now added them, but if others think this makes the map look too crowded, I'll revert to the previous version. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:43, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
The Middle East has its own section on the Main Page where the territories are all listed anyways. The original poster seems like a politically-charged troll, but the map looks fine! (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:55, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
As much as I dislike appeasing the trolls who scour the internet looking for such non-existent issues instead of contributing constructively, yes, the map looks fine :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:02, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Map of Asia with South Sudan

The map of Asia's regions and countries could use an update, particularly with the countries of Africa with newly independent South Sudan. —(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 06:06, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Nothing's stopping you. But realistically, there are many more important map tasks to be done, considering Sudan isn't part of Asia. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:37, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Fixed. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:37, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Jakarta

Please consider to insert it in Cities Section.

  • Jakarta — old and modern city and culture, Dutch Sunda Kelapa Port which still operates until now with Pinisi wooden sailing ship serving cargo across Indonesian archipelago and now Jakarta replaces Singapore as shopping destination with many Malaysian tourists. (WT-en) Gsarwa 01:30, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for your suggestion! In order to add Jakarta, we would have to remove some other city; Singapore would be the primary candidate due to geographic and other similarities between the two cities. Are you suggesting we replace Singapore with Jakarta, or do you think some other city would be a better omission? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:44, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for your consideration. It is difficult to mention which one should be inserted to Cities Section, if we don't know the criterias. But if we say, St. Petersburg is the city in Europe should be considered, may be many people will agree, although Moscow has more tourists than St. Petersburg. It is different with Bali Island (including Denpasar city and surrounding) which 2 or 3 decades ago is more famous than Indonesia country, but now Jakarta (and sorroundings) attracts more tourists than Bali. Based on tourist number Malaysia has about 15 mio tourists per year and city of Singapore about 8 mio tourists and a whole Indonesia just about 7 mio tourists, but Singapore as a hub has very short lenght of stay which only 2 or 3 days. Based on cheapest cities by CNNGO, Hanoi, Bangkok, Beijing, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta is the ten cheapest cities for tourists in the world. Based on uniqueness Beijing with the Great Wall might be cannot comparable and also Jerusalem as religions sacred sites. Hong Kong is still shopping paradise and Dubai Airport Duty Frees is still the biggest in sales value in the world. I don't know about Mumbai, Seoul and Tokyo, but I hope it is valuable and affordable, if we visit them.(WT-en) Gsarwa 12:23, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia/Archive_2003-2012&oldid=4942899"
Return to "Asia/Archive 2003-2012" page.