Talk:Santorini

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links[edit]

The following external links (as well as others) were removed in accordance with Project:External links, but they may be useful for data mining:



-- (WT-en) Ryan 16:36, 5 June 2006 (EDT); (WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:21, 14 December 2006 (EST)

http://www.gtp.gr/ is referenced under "Get in" Ferries section. It appears to be a travel guide. (WT-en) OldPine 20:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

www.santorini.gr[edit]

  • Municipality of Santorini Official Web Site [1]

I just removed the above from Santorini#Sleep - seems to be a commercial site belonging to Microsan Web Services.

This belongs not any more to Microsan - It belongs to The Municipality of Thira. So I added this to the external links.

Panorama Hotel[edit]

User:PhilippInfo, I already moved info on Panorama Hotel to Fira which it's definitely a better place (and I'm sure it's mandated somewhere in Wikivoyage guidelines). Let's keep town-specific places in Sleep of respective town, not on a region level. What do you think? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 00:24, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Okie dokie. Thanks! --(WT-en) PhilippInfo 09:04, 14 December 2006 (EST)
Then I delete Panorama Hotel in Santorini#Sleep as it's already in Fira. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:41, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Reverted changes by 85.74.90.236[edit]

  1. I removed links to santorini-island.org from the article, but added it to the list of external links on the talk page that can be useful for research.
  2. I removed "Iama wine Store or Cava Ursula" from "Buy" section as it looks like advertisement and no reasons for highlighting it against other wine stores/wineries is given.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:27, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Cities[edit]

First of all I'd like to stress out that Santorini island has actually no cities. All these mentioned in that category are villages! In case you agree we i recommend we change the title. Secondly, Thirasia is not a city/village. It is the island oposite of Santorini, which only village is also called Thirasia. Any ideas on where this should be added would be really useful. Thank you! (WT-en) Unique 05:58, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I made first step renaming cities to villages; please plunge forward and edit what you feel still appropriate. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:16, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Sleep[edit]

I've checked out Fanari Villas website and it does not seem to be open during winter time. If you think that it would be useful, i may search later for Santorini Hotels that remain open during winter. (WT-en) Unique 03:38, 9 January 2007 (EST)

(WT-en) Unique , you are right, right now they look like closed after 31/10. However, back in 2001 they definitely worked in early November. I have just removed it from exceptions.
Yes, I believe having winter-open hotels on this page can help someone. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:54, 9 January 2007 (EST)
I plan on going to Santorini for my honeymoon, which is in December and I am having problems finding a hotel that is open. I think it would be incredibly beneficial. Thanks!:

what sutsukaki is[edit]

I wonder why definition for sutsukaki was changed from

slices of tomatoes fried in batter

to

slices of fried meat balls?

It is definitely non-meat dish, and has nothing to do with meat balls. For now I restored the original definition, but I am open for discussion. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is old, but I saw it and thought I'd reply. I think the above exchange confuses two common Greek dishes: 1) tsatsiki, a cucumber-yougurt sauce, and 2) soutzoukakia (spelled also in a variety of other ways,) which are "meatballs" (actually they're usually shaped like lozenges) floured, fried briefly, and then put into a rich tomato sauce. (WT-en) Sailsetter 19:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, my case is that I believe that the battered slices of tomatoes I tried were really called sutsukaki--but I may be wrong. However, I couldn't find any name for a Greek dish dealing with battered tomatoes--nor even any fact that such Greek dish exists. However, I leave it as it is, in a hope that some day we'll see an expert here at Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:17, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

GetIn: preference to air[edit]

Sailsetter, would you comment the removal of this piece?

> The fastest and most comfortable way is by air.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:18, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I was revising that section to add information about the airport and transfers, and I decided to leave that sentence out for specific and general reasons. Specifically, it's a subjective judgement and not always true. I've travelled to Santorini a number of times over many years by air and by boat from various other places, and I don't think that travelling there by air is clearly more comfortable than by boat. (In fact, it's not even necessarily faster, depending on where you're coming from.) More generally, I don't think Wikivoyage should encourage one reasonable alternative over another. It's fine to point out the various advantages and disadvantages of one means of travel to a destination as opposed to another, but the quoted sentence amounts to saying, "Going by air is better than going by boat." It's not; it's one preference which may be right for one person but not for another. (WT-en) Sailsetter 18:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

What about phrasing like the following?
Getting in from Athens by air is faster and not prone to sea sickness, although in season air tickets sell out well before most of the ferries.
--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:55, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't object to that. My concern is that Wikivoyage shouldn't use wording that might make some travelers feel that their choices are being criticized, like boat vs. plane. (WT-en) Sailsetter 14:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Implemented in the article. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:56, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Link to santorini.net[edit]

The link at the beginning of the article to http://www.santorini.net/ is incorrect, as this is not the official website for the Municipality of Thira (Santorini), but rather a website run by the Heliotopos Group. The link should be changed to http://www.santorini.gr/index.php?/en/ which is the official website of the Municipality of Thira

I have done this, but feel free to make such changes yourself in the future! If you leave an edit summary like "this is not the official link..." then everyone will understand why you are doing it. --Peter Talk 05:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style, length and detail issues in this region article[edit]

I posted this to User talk:213.151.81.74, but I think it is better discussed here:

The point of dividing region articles into articles for individual islands and cities or towns within them is precisely that there's no need to duplicate information. If you look at Wikivoyage:Region article template, you'll see an emphasis on using sections like "See" as summaries. I consider Santorini#See too long now for Wikivoyage style, with too many attractions mentioned, and definitely too many images, per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images. In particular, having images alternate between left and right one after the other is not Wikivoyage-style. With rare exceptions, we keep our thumbnails on the right, and it's also recommended to distribute them more or less evenly throughout an article.

A star region article you can look at as a model and for inspiration is Bali, and there are also star city articles for cities with the Wikivoyage:Huge city article template, which have constituent districts with their own articles and are therefore somewhat analogous to regions vis-a-vis cities within them: Buffalo, Chicago, Copenhagen, San Francisco, Singapore (also a country, of course), and Washington, D.C.. There's a much longer list at Category:Guide articles, which are not star-level but still good articles to emulate or be inspired by. They run the gamut in terms of category, but some are region articles, huge city articles or country articles, none of which are bottom-level articles in terms of this site's Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation structure, and they are therefore relevant to look at in relation to Santorini.

So what needs to be done is to reduce the number of attractions mentioned in "See" and "Do" (especially as much of what's in "Do" is really "See" material). I also don't like the long list of airlines and originating cities; long lists are not user-friendly and Wikivoyagers aren't expected to maintain such a large amount of information, so a summary and a link to the airport's website would likely be a lot more useful. The list of beaches is not too long, but the following lines at the end should not be in it: 

   Walk along the caldera from Fira to Oia
   Climb to see Ancient Thira, or more ambitiously, the monastery, for an amazing view of the ocean, beaches, and island from up high.
   Horseback riding in Exo Gonia
   Scuba diving and snorkelling. Even non-qualified divers can dive up to 14 metres down on a wreck next to the volcano.
   Caldera Cruise and Oia Sunset
   Plan your wedding in Santorini
   Caldera Yachting

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of all left justifications, but bunching lots of images in one section (such as "See") violates Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images. These thumbnails need to be distributed more evenly, so they're not all in a row with empty space elsewhere in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The images are now all pretty acceptably spaced, I think, but please don't add more of them, and we may have to remove one or two after the text of "See" is edited down some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the See or Do sections are too long or too detailed, because they serve the purpose of giving the reader an overview of what there is to see/do and where it is to see/do. From the traveller's perspective, one would read the article (and generally any region article on Wikivoyage) from either of 2 perspectives:
  • You've heard about Santorini from family/friends/colleagues or read about it in a newspaper, and are curious if it's a travel destination that could interest you. In that case, you want to know which attractions there are that align with your personal interests or those of your travel party. The See section does exactly that: it lists the most important attractions in a summary text illustrated with pictures that takes just a few minutes to read through and form an opinion. Hence the emphasis on the importance of pictures: a picture says more than a thousand words.
  • You've won a trip to Santorini with a lottery, as a gift, or found a cheap last-minute flight from your local airport. In that case, you want to plan your journey and need to know where the attractions you want to visit are on a map, to book accommodation in the vicinity and prioritise. It's impossible to see/do everything there is to see/do, so having a map with markers indicating which towns/cities are closest to the attractions that interest you is important.
The Bali article you linked is a rather poor example of a travel guide: it somewhat achieves the first perspective, but completely misses the second one. For example, its See section mentions 9 temples, but none of them are marked on the interactive map. That's useless for the traveller trying to plan the practicalities of a trip. If they are indeed such a formidable attraction that half of the See section is devoted to them, then they should have interactive map markers so that it is easy to see where they are, to plan a round trip with transportation and accommodation accordingly.
The Santorini article on the other hand does this really well: it shows the location of the top attractions and sights in each category on an interactive map, which makes planning a trip much easier — and that should be the goal of a travel guide. I don't want to have to click open any of the dozens of town/city articles to figure out if there is something worthwhile seeing or not; the region article has to tell me that.
I appreciate the time you took to explain that from your perspective, but my reaction is that while you are doing wonderful work, you are not yet familiar with Wikivoyage style. Region articles are not supposed to have listings on them, nor does it make sense for the interactive maps on them to show attractions that can be seen on maps in articles that cover cities or other destinations included in the "Cities" or "Other destinations" sections (and, more specifically, in articles linked in the prose descriptions of attractions) or to mention thirty-three sights. I assure you, there are scores and scores (probably hundreds or even thousands) of great sights in Bali, which is much larger than Santorini and one of the most famous islands in the world, but covering them all in the article for the entire island would take a book-length monograph and ill-suit the traveller, so the coverage focuses on a few of the absolutely most famous sights and otherwise offers information that's more generally applicable. The sights highlighted in the Bali article are pipe-linked or mentioned as being in "Name of City" with the name of the city linked for the convenience of readers who want to read more about them in the guides to the cities in question, and their geocoordinates are not given at that level in the breadcrumb hierarchy, so as not to clutter the dynamic map with anything but the locations of mentioned cities and other destinations; in any case, the static map is much better, anyway, and preferable as the primary map type for region articles. Again, that article is star-class. If you think you are doing things more correctly than a star-class article, I can only urge you again to rethink that. You are free to argue at Wikivoyage talk:Article status that your way is the better way, but unless you can convince a consensus of that, you should expect someone else to eventually edit this article to resemble star-class articles or at least conform to the Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists guidelines that can be summarized as "lists should be no longer than 9 in each section of a region article", even if you don't. I don't intend to take that on now and will give you some latitude, but this is not ultimately up to me, as Wikis are collectively-edited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're largely on the same wavelength, because the added content does not have any listings (only markers), and each section does not exceed the 9 item rule of thumb. I've read the guidelines and applied them where practical and/or of interest to readers. What I like to achieve, however, is maximising the advantages and opportunities offered by a digital and therefore interactive travel guide such as Wikivoyage. For example you mentioned static maps. What's the point of those, anno 2022? If I wanted a static map I could just as well screenshot OSM directly. Static maps were definitely useful a decade ago when internet connectivity was scarce in most parts of the world and an off-line solution was important to compete with the likes of LonelyPlanet etc. But nowadays, even the barren rocks in the Mediterranean Sea that Santorini is have full 5G coverage and free wifi in every restaurant, bar, and hotel.
A dynamic map with markers for all the relevant POIs is far more useful here because it gives me Lat/long coordinates that can be tapped into a satnav to reach the next museum, restaurant, or train station. And I want the most important POIs on one map, not scattered across a dozen mini maps in each town/city article. All of the star attractions (sadly en-voy doesn't have the star function that ru-voy has) should be on the dynamic region map, whereas town/city article maps should also have markers for non-star attractions and POIs such as restaurants, hotels, and local transportation.
The way we travel has changed, and Wikivoyage is exceptionally well positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities. I'm happy to follow consensus, but so far you're the only one who seems to disagree with my article writing style. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.214.224 (talk • contribs)
You could also say that no-one has supported you. The fact that no-one else has so far commented in this subthread proves nothing. I don't understand what the point of having city articles for constituent cities on Santorini is in your conception of what this article should be and do. Can you explain that, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, disagree with this writing style, too. It reminds me of the Saint_Petersburg/North article, which is likely to never go Guide because of TOO MUCH DETAIL; the reading gets too boring for the needs of a travel guide. The WV:Tone policy must be followed, and it advises BREVITY, not overwhelming detail. Let's leave this to Wikipedia where it belongs. Ibaman (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, couldn't agree with you more. Though it is a difficult balance because after all this is a travel guide which means it is supposed to guide travellers to and around destinations. A page with just a list of attractions is not a guide; rather, a guide should explain where/what there is to see and also why a visitor would be interested in it. In other words, what makes an attraction worth seeing, what makes it unique? As you pointed out yourself, St. Petersburg has endless architectural highlights that are interesting, but which ones stand out and are worthy of a detour? The St Petersburg/North article is not a travel guide because it epically fails at guiding, it's just a list of POIs with little or no information about them. As an analogy, think of a tour guide: if they are showing you around a city, then having them just point at buildings left and right would be really boring. Instead you would expect them to tell you about the history, use, and anecdotes or fun facts that set them apart from any other POIs in the city. The same logic applies here. Long lists without additional information surely score on brevity, but they are really boring and not useful at all, as illustrated by the St Petersburg/North example you linked.
What needs to be done to make St Petersburg/North a useful travel guide, is adding information that tells travellers why they could want to visit these attractions. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't think of 2 or 3 sentences to write as a description for an attraction, it's probably not worth listing in the first place. Then, once every POI has a map marker (can't visit something if you don't know where it is!) and a description of a few lines, the article can be split in sensible sub-divisions (for example neighbourhoods), and only the star attractions are discussed in the St Petersburg/North article itself. The subdivision ideally should be guided by locals who know the city well.
As a reference, I used the excellent example of Tenerife (an island comparable in size and scope) to write the See section of Santorini. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.214.234 (talk • contribs)
You need markers for attractions in city articles, yes. Why do we need them here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question that deserves a proper answer. In region articles, POI markers are essential for planning a journey. Markers for star attractions in region articles show which areas are the most of interest to the visitor (i.e. where star attractions are concentrated). This makes it much easier for the traveller to prioritise where to go within the time they have available.
The Tenerife reference example illustrates this really well: the interactive map clearly shows that all of the star attractions on that island are in the northern half. It is immediately obvious that booking a flight to Tenerife Norte airport is much more convenient than flying to Tenerife Sur. If I had to pick a few towns or cities to spend one or two nights, the map shows which are the closest to star attractions, without having to delve down into every town/city article individually.
Generally, think of it like this: city/town article interactive map markers are important for navigation, they provide the coordinates to tap into a satnav to get from one attraction to the next on the ground. Region article interactive map markers are important for planning, they indicate locations of POIs to facilitate booking accommodation and transport prior to travel. Does that answer your question? —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.213.34 (talk • contribs)
It explains your viewpoint but does not conform to the style of this site, and perhaps we will need to address the Tenerife article, too, but note that it has only 9 markers in its "See" section, which conforms to the 7+2 guidelines for non-bottom-level region articles, not 33. Regardless of your viewpoint, that is going to have to be trimmed per site policy, and it would be nice if you picked 9, but if you refuse to do so, others will have to take action. And please sign your posts by putting 4 tildes in a row at the end of each one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the 7+2 rule, and it has been applied consistently throughout the Santorini article. Here is what the rule says:
(...) most lists should contain between five and nine items. When they exceed that length it is time to consider breaking them up or pruning them. This may involve breaking the list into groups within the article (...)
and that's exactly what has been done here: POIs have been broken up into groups, each of the groups/categories satisfies the 7+2 rule, and there is no mention of maximum number of categories/groups there can be. The 33 POIs are therefore compliant to the 7+2 rule, and there is no need to trim it down. That is, of course, if you consider this a list in the first place: it's not a conventional bulleted list of listings but merely map markers in a text, so one could argue that the 7+2 rule doesn't apply at all here.
It's clear that you don't like the writing style, but I have the impression you're just trying to make up reasons why it should be changed. Feel free to start a discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Avoid_long_lists if you think the scope of the rule should be expanded to include map markers. But, as long as there is no consensus to do so, then the current See section of the Santorini article satisfies the site policy. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.213.230 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't work that way. You want a change, so it's up to you to propose it and gather the necessary consensus. YOU must start this blurb at Wikivoyage_talk:Avoid_long_lists if you think the scope of the rule should be changed. And I, for one, don't want this rule changed. It messes up too much and makes for clumsy, ugly style. Ibaman (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much to say in this, but I adjust the map's show parameter so that the see markers won't be shown in the map until this thing gets resolved. This is not a policy where I particularly am knowledgeable about, but I've never seen see markers being used in region articles and I don't think it is done on any language Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, 82.132.213.230, if this were a bottom-level article and there were some reason it had been decided that dividing it up was not useful to travelers, dividing the 33 points of interest into different subsections would make sense, but this is not a bottom-level article, so a strict interpretation of the 7+2 policy applies. That's the whole point! If we need to have 33 sights mentioned with markers here, can you explain how we can justify applying the 7+2 rule strictly in any section of articles for continents? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone who knows Santorini give an opinion about which 9 sights we should cover? It's not good to leave this article as it is indefinitely, and I'd rather not remove a bunch of stuff randomly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite exactly which line(s) in the 7+2 policy supposedly restrict the number of map markers in any article to an absolute number of 9? User:Ikan Kekek, the fact that no one else in the Wikivoyage community picks up on your crusade here should be a strong indication that you stand alone in your interpretation of the policy. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.213.153 (talk • contribs)
What do you think this is, a court of law? This is a wiki. The consensus is against you in this thread. Also read Wikivoyage talk:Region article template#Do we need a rule limiting the use of markers in non-bottom-level articles? and feel free to participate. Because you are an IP user, there's no way to ping you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So which sights should be mentioned (without markers) in this article? We need someone else who knows Santorini and is willing to cooperate with site guidelines and recognize the collegial nature of a wiki to help. What's our other alternative? Also, 82.132.213.153, please sign your edits to talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of it. 02:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It appears the advantages of the implemented approach far outweigh the disadvantages, regardless of policy. I assume you have realised by now that there is indeed no policy prohibiting markers in See sections, and also no policy restricting 30+ points of interest as long as they are neatly divided in categories — which is the case here. User: Ikan Kekek, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what is written in the applicable project policies first before arguing your case here, in the interest of avoiding further embarrassment.
I had a look at the other thread you linked, and have nothing more to add to the beautiful summary by User:Andree.sk: "if someone wants to make a really good guide, I imagine it should look exactly like this". The style of Santorini does not work for every region article, but it is what serves the traveller best when planning a visit to Santorini. And that is what matters most. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.213.72 (talk • contribs)

No, on a Wiki, what matters most is collegiality and consensus, not "I'll do things the way I think best and policies and guidelines don't apply to me", which is what you are saying. And cherrypicking the minority opinion in a discussion thread is not good faith. I will put you on notice that unless something else is suggested, I plan on removing all "See" markers and reducing the specifically mentioned sights to 9 or so as soon after 24 hours as I have the time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "See" markers are now hidden on the region map, which I think is a good solution, but the remaining question is how many attractions should be mentioned in "See". Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I still think 9 is the default unless we have a collegial process that might agree on another number. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I hid the markers, only for it to be reverted by the IP a few hours later. I later the reverted the IP's edit until we can come to a conclusion in this thread. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, edit warring is a good way to get yourself blocked. People who contribute here are required to agree to follow existing rules and guidelines and consensuses that are arrived at or leave. You obviously care about travellers, so it would be much better if you would stop trying to act like this is your personal website where you can dictate new policy and guidelines singlehandedly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my first effort at reducing the length, detail and number of mentioned sights and markers in the "See" section. It already looks better, but I'd love for someone else to do some more summarizing. IP user, I certainly hope you don't try to edit war about this, as that will produce no good results for you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The next step could be to get rid of all the markers, while maintaining the links. There seemed to be a fair deal of agreement on the linked thread for doing that. Any opinions? I think the numbers in prose are a bit ugly compared to just blue links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The links are to the entries in the respective city article. I think adding a link to the city article in parenthesis after each such attraction link ("Ancient Akrotiri (Akrotiri)"), would make it easier to see what's where, which was the original rationale for the markers. In some cases the city is mentioned and linked in the prose; an alternative would be to always mention and link the article in that way. The example Akrotiri might seem funny, but it is not at all self-evident that an ancient city is best visited from its modern namesake. –LPfi (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are you good with the numbers, though? Also, what do you think about the number of mentioned attractions now? It's better but still seems high to me, but I'm not sure what else to remove. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The markers need to be tweaked to be useful, and if you click the attraction link you get to the city page, which has markers anyway – and gives context on what to look for on the map. I tried a few marker links on this page and they were useless: to begin understanding what I was seeing I had to zoom out enough to see the island contours, and then I'd zoom in again to see the attraction's surroundings. It might be possible to make them useful, but I don't know how, and such experiments should probably be left to a sandbox page, and probably for some special-case article, where such markers would be more useful than generally. –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll remove the markers and substitute links later, if no-one else does so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look how clean the map is now! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monolithos[edit]

I removed the bullet for Monolithos on Thira:

  • Monolithos — long beach with shallow water that is well suited for families with children, and a few good taverns for their dads.

The article (a stub, now deleted, mentioning only the beach) was created by a user who was blocked as block-evading. The earlier article by the same name was for a place on Rhodes, and likewise, the en-wp article is about that village. I don't doubt that the place and beach exist (the name is on OSM), but do we know anything about them? The beach could be added to Beaches if it is good, and to the nearest bluelinked town if we know anything about it. There might be an interesting village there, but until we know that, I don't think we should mention it among the "cities".

–LPfi (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santorini&oldid=4558630"