Talk:Africa

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Photo of witchdoctor[edit]

It's a great photo, but I thought our policies forbade portrait photos of identifiable people (as opposed to photos of sights which happen to have some people in them). What, anyway, is Commons' policy toward portrait photos without apparent evidence of a model release? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Image policy only requests that we not include snapshots of tourists posing in front of landmarks and the like. It also links to commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, which is the guideline for which you asked. LtPowers (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, LtPowers. So I guess the photo was judged to have been taken in a public place, and therefore not requiring that consent from the subject be documented. Is that how you would understand it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, though it's not clear whether that particular photo has been examined by the community at large... so it could just be a photo that no one's noticed should be deleted. The page I linked doesn't have information on Zimbabwe's privacy laws. LtPowers (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It was a Picture of the Day on Wikimedia Commons (8 Feb 2008) and on the French Wikipedia (21 Feb 2010). AHeneen (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw all of that, but I didn't see a model release or any other documentation of consent. It appears to be freely posed, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That seems to be enough for most, in the absence of specific information on Zimbabwean laws. LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph in History[edit]

The last pargraph in the history section is so unclear that I can't fix it.

The discovery of valuable natural resources such as oil, uranium, diamonds, and coltan, has produced numerous independence movements post-independence citing the taking value of resources from their land to benefit the entire country (notably tiny, oil-rich Cabinda in Angola). Fortunately, there are numerous examples in Africa where past conflict has made way for functional governments, offering some hope for the future of African self-government.

If anyone has an idea of what is is supposed to mean, please fix. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll handle it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Much better thanks. Now all it needs is a link to WP to explain coltan, but of course we can't do that... Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing it's a valuable natural resource is sufficient; if I want to read an encyclopedia article on the topic, I'll search an encyclopedia. LtPowers (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that is not a typo is also useful. I had never heard of it, and I think I am a bit better than average informed on geology and technology in general. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I inserted a brief explanation of coltan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to WP[edit]

In the Read section there is an in-line link to the article on Ibn Battuta on Wikipedia. My personal view is that this is a good thing, but my understanding of the policy is that it is not permitted. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Lagos instead of Luanda[edit]

I really think a Nigerian city should be on the list of "Cities", and Lagos in the obvious choice. Nigeria is one of the largest economies in Africa and is currently booming, despite corruption. Lagos is also the largest city in terms of administrative area. I'd probably say to remove Luanda, as it's not a hugely well-known city or common tourist destination, even if it is undergoing a recent renaissance. JamesA >talk 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nigeria is the most populous country on the continent. Yes, I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That would mean three West African cities and no Central African cities, though. It's kind of a shame already that we don't have a Sahel city, but the obvious choice of Bamako is kind of spoiled by the recent insanity there. Would you swap Accra out for Lagos? Accra is a pretty liveable place, and a good base for exploring the broader region, while Lagos is widely regarded as a hellhole that no one would ever want to go to. Any Lagosians I've met have assured me that anyone who isn't from the city itself (so they're including other Nigerians) will just be instantly assaulted and robbed if they try to walk down any old street... Do we take these things into consideration? We also leave off Kinshasa currently, which is in Central Africa and is getting to be almost as big as Lagos, but is reputed to be utterly miserable. --Peter Talk 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a difficult choice, and all the points you bring up are worthy ones. What we include on these sorts of lists does seem to come down to a few things:
  • Population - Lagos clearly takes the pie
  • Tourist appeal - Of course Lagos may not have much, but does any other of the contenders? This includes safety.
  • Logistics - Connecting flights, trains, embassies, international importance, etc
  • Geographical location - We don't want too many cities in West Africa.
And maybe I've missed some others, but could we use that sort of criteria to decide whether Lagos gets the cut, or is at least more relevant than some of the other cities on the list? JamesA >talk 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If we were making a list of 9 large and important African cities, then Lagos would be there, but I still hold my position from the previous discussion about this that a city known for nothing but crime and crumbling, unsafe buildings is not really a "Top 9" tourist destination. On our own West Africa article we describe this city as:

"the largest city in Nigeria and the second largest in the whole of Africa is a chaotic, violent, and generally terrifying, inhospitable place, an example of urban Africa at its worst." I don't believe "Africa at its worst" is really what we should be aiming for with our top 9 on the continental level. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is very convincing. Let's leave Lagos off this list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hold it: That description is not the same as the way the city is described in the Lagos article and, like common attitudes toward the Bronx among out-of-towners, may be dated. This is from Lagos#Stay safe:
"In general, Lagos has become a much safer place to visit than before, with the state spending huge budgets on security with police patrol cars, CCTV cameras. etc. But beware of deals or businesses that sound too good to be true (especially e-mails soliciting your help), and do not openly flaunt your possessions, especially in public places.
While it is rare for a tourist to be a victim of a violent crime, it is still wise to stay safe and be alert, especially during late night outings. Stick to crowded streets and make sure to go out in groups as against going out alone.
Lagosians are generally nice and friendly people, most of whom will readily offer directions to you if you are lost.
Lagos still has its fair share of odd people: street beggars(both the old and young), people with psychological disorders, etc. If someone approaches you for money, do what most Lagosians do: completely ignore them or continuing to walk at a brisk pace.
There are a few police officers who are corrupt and inefficient so it is best that you stick to the law and avoid going anywhere off the beaten path without a trusted guide, especially if it is a first visit."
And that's the entire section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
From the expats I've talked to who spend time there (most of my info is about a year out of date), it's a place where you don't get out of the car on the mainland, if you actually go there... and on the islands you still have to worry about organized gangs leading assaults upon your house/compound. Just offshore is one of the world's worst zones for piracy on the seas. The pollution and overcrowding are also supposed to be horrendous. It's known as one of the world's prime examples of a "failing megacity." The latest government reputedly is turning things around, but it's hard to imagine things have changed that much in just a couple years.
All the same, though, it is the biggest city in sub-Saharan Africa (possibly already the largest—the place is anarchic enough that estimates of the population have a range of about 6 million people), and Wikivoyage tells me it is slated to become the world's third largest urban area in the world by 2015, so it seems odd to leave it off. It's influence in African pop culture, particularly pop music, is also enormous. If putting it in, I'd say we should remove Dakar, despite the concerns above that Dakar is the only Francophone city on the list (that would change if we swap in Kinshasa).
Kinshasa, by the way, is the exact same question for our list. It's the number 2 example of a failing megacity in Africa, after Lagos, but were it not a hellhole, I'd say we should certainly replace Luanda with it as the rep for Central Africa. It is supposed to surpass Paris as the largest French speaking city in the world in less than a decade. Bamako is another similar case, but only because of the war—it was actually supposed to be pretty cool, and it's by far the biggest Sahelian city—and has been the fastest growing city in Africa for some time. --Peter Talk 13:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Kinshasa is much more of a failure than Lagos! But what constitutes as a failed mega-city, and would that mean it's unworthy of listing? Most mega-cities fail in planning, such as Dhaka, Karachi, Kolkata, Manila, etc. I generally agree with your observations but am still fairly indifferent about what should be removed/added. JamesA >talk 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(Indent) Should a failed city be considered unworthy of listing as a top 9 on the continental level? Not necessarily, but it's a strong argument against it from the get-go. When it's a failed city with little to do, no tourist infrastructure (or tourists for the most part), described as "unsafe" in the mildest terms, and considered to be a "hellhole" by most standards then I definitely don't think it needs to be there. Does population trump ALL of that? If so, then we need to also make room for the great tourist city of Mogadishu. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I think there are different extents to being a failed city. Lagos and Mogadishu are fairly different cities. Can Mogadishu even be called a city anymore, or is it more of a jumble of crumbling and collapsed buildings? JamesA >talk 03:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Lagos is, without a doubt, a notable city on the continent. The problem is whether it is noteworthy for this page. It's hard to talk about a city without having been there, but from all accounts I've ever read/seen, Lagos is one of the worst major cities on the continent. There's basically nothing there for tourists and even for business/NGO travelers, there is little of interest in the city. For tourists and most NGO workers, it is simply a dreaded-but-necessary waypoint at the beginning/end of a trip to connect to a flight or onward travel elsewhere in Nigeria or West Africa. Business travelers bode their time in secure locations. Really the only sight in the city is to experience how chaotic it is. Population shouldn't be a major consideration. To briefly quote Lonely Planet: "Lagos is chaos theory made flesh and concrete. It's the largest city in Africa, with wall-to-wall people, bumper-to-bumper cars, noise and pollution beyond belief, a crime rate out of control, and public utilities that are simply incapable of coping with the demands of the huge population. Elevated motorways ring the city, jammed with speed freaks and traffic jams...on top, and tin-and-cardboard shacks underneath." (Lonely Planet Africa, 11th ed., 2007)

However, an equally compelling reason to keep Lagos off the list is geographic diversity. West Africa is currently represented by two cities: Dakar & Accra. Dakar lies at the very heart and soul of francophone sub-Saharan Africa, which includes most of West and Central Africa. Accra is probably the most important city in West Africa for tourists...Ghana is a very friendly, easy destination for tourists to visit and is often called "Africa for beginners". Accra is perhaps the most important gateway city in West Africa. Both Dakar and Accra are about as equally important to business travelers as is Lagos. So, in my opinion, there is no compelling reason to add Lagos in place of either Dakar or Accra.

Now, of the remaining cities, the least compelling to keep on the list is Luanda. In all honesty, the only reason to keep Luanda on the list is geographic diversity...it is the only city or OD for Central Africa (while West Africa is represented by Dakar and Accra). Replacing Luanda with Lagos would leave Central Africa without a city or OD on the Africa page. Every other region is represented by at least one listing among the two lists. It's rather hard to think of a compelling listing from Central Africa for either list, but Luanda was chosen for its status as a fast-growing, important city for business travelers. For tourists, however, a destination in Cameroon would probably be more noteworthy...either Douala or Yaounde.

  • Luanda - The recent oil cash has led to a huge growth spurt. The city is increasingly important for business travelers. Not much in the way of tourists, though, who are discouraged by high costs (it has been named as the most expensive city for expats for several years), including a lack of affordable accommodation and hotel rooms in general (a few years ago, it was almost impossible to get a hotel room without booking 9-12 months in advance, but I think this has relented a bit). Visa requirements make it difficult to visit and there's little in the way of tourism infrastructure. It's a modestly-important transportation hub, as home of TAAG Angola Airlines and the opening soon of a large, modern airport.
  • Kinshasa - Kinshasa faces a lot of the same problems as Lagos...it's grimy and unsafe. Kinshasa is also difficult to visit thanks to visa restrictions. There is at least some tourism sights/destinations, to offset those concerns, so it stands on equal footing as Luanda, IMO, to be listed.
  • Libreville - Another important business destination. Gateway to Gabon, which has been growing in popularity with tourists. Not sure that there's a lot to do or see, but, like Luanda, it's centered around a nice, long sea-side promenade. Easier to visit (regarding visas & tourism facilities) than Luanda or Kinshasa.
  • Douala- A bit grimy, although less-so than Kinshasa or Lagos (and on second thought, that atmosphere is representative of the region). It has good transport links with the region. It is also sees a large volume of tourists as it is the gateway to western Cameroon, the most visited portion of Cameroon (the Ring Road, Mt Cameroon, beaches), which in turn is the most visited country in Central Africa. There's practically no tourist destinations, but its gateway status for tourism and volume of business travel make it worthy of being featured as the destination from Central Africa.

An alternative would be adding a Central African OD...Mount Cameroon (Cameroon), Loango National Park (Gabon), Lope National Park (Gabon), Dzanga Sangha National Reserve (CAR; part of a group of adjacent protected areas...also incl: Lobéké National Park in Cameroon, Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in Congo-Brazzaville, and Dzanga-Ndoki National Park also in the CAR...perhaps a page could be created for the region?), or Virunga National Park (DRC). The least worthy OD listing would be Nairobi National Park, given nearby Serengeti/Maasai Mara National Parks & Mount Kilimanjaro being listed.

So, with regards to a listing from Central Africa, my choices would be: 1) Douala, 2) Kinshasa, 3) Libreville, & 4) Luanda, therefore suggesting we replace Luanda with Douala rather than Lagos. If anyone really feels strongly about Lagos, the alternative would be swapping one of the above listed parks for Nairobi NP in the OD list. AHeneen (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds pretty convincing to me. I guess we can leave Lagos out until they've cleaned it up or Nigeria etches itself up the tourist list. I've never heard of Douala, and I must say I am pretty switched on when it comes to cities and geography. We'd want the top 9 cities for such a large continent to be somewhat recognisable, but don't let that stop it if people disagree. I'd say go ahead and swap out Nairobi NP for a Central African destination. JamesA >talk 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There are currently ten other destinations so two will need to be removed if you're adding a Central African destination. LtPowers (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Nairobi NP had crept in quietly, but was not part of our list agreed upon above, so I have removed it. --Peter Talk 15:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, for the ODs, Virunga would be redundant with Volcanoes NP (which is a lot more important), and I think the Cameroonian ones are pretty obscure. For what it's worth, the only one I'd be willing to kill to go to (or be killed while going there?) would be Garamba National Park. This would be moot if Rwanda and Burundi were still in our Central Africa region, and they do look really weird to me in East Africa. --Peter Talk 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need to add an OD from Central Africa. Personally, of the cities, I'd prefer to stick with Luanda. While Cameroon seems to have a good reputation among the well-traveled in Africa, individual cities and sites don't seem to stand out and as JamesA proves above are not very well-known by the average person. As a country capital, those with basic geography knowledge will at least have heard of Luanda and Luanda does appear to have more to offer than most of the cities mentioned. African cities are admittedly mostly modern, so unlike Europe the historic and cultural attractions are mostly elsewhere, but Luanda at least has a few legitimate tourist spots. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. So that means no changes are required. I guess all of this has simply been a learning exercise for all. JamesA >talk 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Islands[edit]

Are these considered part of Africa? They are not apparent in the region secion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Mauritius is listed as in East Africa, but the map has a separate region for the Islands. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, & the Seychelles are all listed as part of East Africa in the region section, map (where only Madagascar is big enough to be seen in red, like rest of E. Africa), and on the East Africa page. There was some discussion about separating them in discussions above, but no action was taken. AHeneen (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Too much flight detail?[edit]

I noticed that the Africa#Get_in is extreemly long, detailing a lot of connections between main African cities and the rest of the world.

In comparison, Europe#Get_in is just a paragraph and South_America#Get_in give a paragraph to every continent.

The problem I have with this much detail is that invariably is it going to go out of date soon, and up to the date information should be kept at country level. Stating every African destination of Lufthansa is actually going to misinform the traveler whenever that airline add or removes routes.

Is it OK to merge this information down where required? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine. At the continent level it should be sufficient to make clear what the primary international airports are, but individual flight detail seems excessive. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the ammount of effort put into this, I put the content into a 'travel topic', which is still referenced from the section. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much South Africa?[edit]

I think that Africa#Cities and Africa#Other destinations is ridiculously heavily weighted toward South Africa. Granted SA is one of, if not the safest and easiest African country for tourists to visit, and Cape Town and Johannesburg are certainly among the largest and most important cities on the continent. But including both of them in the "Cities" subsection fails the test of geographic diversity - especially given that we have Kruger National Park as part of "Other destinations". Africa has no fewer than 52 countries, and I see in a comment thread above that there's a great deal of competition for representation on the "Cities" section, and how best to use it to reflect the identity of Africa as a whole. Given that, I think that in the case of Cape Town and Johannesburg we need to choose one or the other, not both. Thoughts? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though as a side point, I wasn't under the impression that South Africa was that safe. Don't they have a very high crime rate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - To answer your question re: safety: by comparison with developed countries, yes; by African standards, I suspect (though anyone who'd like to correct me is welcome to) that its place in the rankings is quite different. Anyway, I was referring more to the quality of tourist infrastructure than to crime. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As to the inevitable question of what we should replace the rejected South African city with, it's been noted in earlier discussions that the Sahel is the only region that's not represented at all on Africa#Cities. Bamako was floated as a possible contender; has the security situation in Mali stabilized enough that we're comfortable placing it on the list? If not, how about two-time former OtBP Niamey? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cape Town is one of the top destinations in the world for tourism, and while Johannesburg does have a few things to recommend it, it is not as popular as its neighbor to the west and thus would be my recommendation for removal if we're choosing between the two. Kruger National Park is a highlight of Africa for many people, and thus I'd suggest leaving it in the Other destinations list. Regarding safety, Cape Town and the Western Cape are very safe, Kruger is very safe, and parts of Johannesburg are fine (although other parts of Johannesburg are very much to be avoided). -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Ryan. Some weight needs to be given to the volume of tourist traffic South Africa sees by comparison to other African countries, so I'd be happy retaining Kruger along with Cape Town (and, for that matter, Cairo along with Valley of the Kings). But I think 3 out of 18 for South Africa is definitely overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

This article seems to be a little bit inconsistent as to whether to use British or American English. As some African countries have made British spelling more or less official, but in others there is hardly anyone speaking English, I can see the argument for either side. As I was already criticized elsewhere for inadvertently using the "wrong" spelling, I would like to have a consensus, before anybody moves forward and decolonizes or rather decolonises this article or rather its spelling. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, seems fairly obvious considering most of the English speaking countries were British colonies .... Similar to it making sense for American English to be used for South American articles considering the 'cultural influence there. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, "Cairo to Cape Town" used to be ruled by the British, so I'd say we should use the British variant in the Africa article. Though I really don't have a problem if someone would prefer the American variant.
Ps. luckily a certain hardcore fan of commonwealth spelling in all articles and some other "interesting" choices concerning formatting isn't around any longer. Otherwise Hobbit's talk page would be littered with messages in all caps. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I sure seem to have dodged a bullet there. In case you are wondering about my nickname: "Schuster" is the German term for shoemaker. Something a Hobbit won't need. I hope my edits are less of an exercise in futility than my name might suggest ;-). Anyway. If anybody would care to change all spellings to British in this article, as we seem to have agreed on? Or do we need some more debate? Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's most important to have consistency within the article, but if it's a choice between British/Commonwealth and US spellings, it's clear which one should win in this case, for the reasons mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

There are no pictures for much of the understand section which is already mostly text (some of it quite boring to people who are uniterested in history and politics). Do you have good suggestions for pictures? Also; is the text too contradictory in at the same time asserting that things aren't as bad as you might have heard and at the other time pointing out that in some places things are actually worse? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I see seven images in the Understand section. Is that not enough? Powers (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are absolutely enough images in that section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the rather lengthy climate (which should be rewritten for SEO purposes) and politics subsections. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to add a picture or two, I guess, but I don't know that it's necessary. Maybe move one from elsewhere in the article. Powers (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, please have a look at one of the comparison sites and if you have the time and are up to it reformulate our prose for SEO purposes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Powers on pictures. A few more could be added if you feel like doing so, or you could move them around for more nearly even distribution. I'd support your ideas on edits, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sprucing up blurbs[edit]

The blurbs (prior to my recent attempt at editing them) have not been edited since the migration and some of them are just - I have to say it - bad. I would very much welcome any attempt to make them better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks a lot for working on this. I made a few more edits. See what you think of them and please continue making improvements as the inspiration hits you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the blurbs for the "cities" and (some of) the "other destinations are another group of (potentially) low hanging fruits, but unfortunately I know next to nothing about those places... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to visit any part of Africa, so I'm not the ideal person to try to formulate good intros for those sections, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed region: East African islands[edit]

East Africa currently contains 16 countries and territories; a bit too many for one region. Six of those are islands in the Indian Ocean: Madagascar, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte, Mauritius and Réunion. They are distinct in geography and culture from continental East Africa; so the East African islands would be an appropriate region of Africa; Africa would then consist of seven regions, and East Africa would consist of ten countries/territories. /Yvwv (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I see good reasons to do this and none against it. You have my support. But ultimately the region article should be more than just an empty outline... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
My main objection would be that the islands Continental Section would be very small geographically, even if it did contain six countries. Powers (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not all that small. It would contain one of the world's largest islands. The rest of the islands are way smaller. But perhaps it can't be helped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be larger by land area than some of the regions of Europe Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That goes for population as well. /Yvwv (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Your points are well made. I'd say go ahead and make the change, but I don't think we have enough support for a consensus over one person's objection, depending on how strongly the objection is held. Do you still object, Powers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll add my voice on the "yes" side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like the proposal has enough support. The maps of Africa and East Africa need to be redone anyway, since Somaliland is now categorized as a country. /Yvwv (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested banner switch[edit]

Etosha National Park. Suggested banner for Africa.
Current banner for Africa. Suggested for East Africa.
Current banner for East Africa.

The banner for East Africa is a bit dull. I suggest that the current Africa banner is used for East Africa. I made a replacement banner for Africa based on a photo from Namibia, a country which deserves more recognition. /Yvwv (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I approve of your suggested banner substitution for Africa, but I find the photo of zebras drinking a lot more interesting than a photo of mere verdant landscape, so even though the quality of the photo could be better, I don't agree with your proposed substitution for East Africa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about replacing, although the Zebras don't completely work for me as a banner (as a normal picture it is a good shot) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I gotta admit I liked them the way they were when this discussion started. Powers (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(indent) Although I'm open to a new banner, I don't like the zebras drinking. I also don't care for the current banner with the zebras and ostriches. It's very white, which is unattractive. If they were in a green or even brown savanna, I think I'd like it better, but it just rubs me the wrong way being so white. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Which cities to list[edit]

In light of these edits. Are Luanda and Accra really more list-worthy than Nairobi Lagos? Open ended question. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Nairobi is a shoo-in, but the edits you linked to involve Lagos, not Nairobi. Powers (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a valid question. It looks like the last time this was discussed was in 2009. Time to revisit. The current list is:
  • Accra
  • Addis Ababa
  • Cairo
  • Cape Town
  • Dakar
  • Johannesburg
  • Luanda
  • Marrakech
  • Nairobi
Nairobi is already on the list, ad it should be. I agree that Luanda is an odd choice, but I think that Accra is well-visited enough to stay. Dar es Salaam or Tunis might be candidates to replace Luanda. I reverted the addition of Lagos because it was an addition without discussion or explanation. It is the largest city, but probably one that people avoid rather than seek to visit. Not very useful for trip planning. Ground Zero (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspoke above with regards to the city that was added... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would we add Lagos? Is is it a common travel destination for people who decide to visit Africa? Ground Zero (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Luanda is an odd choice. I think replacing it with Lagos would be reasonable—Lagos may not be the most appealing destination, but it is a huge, important, famous city, and it's one of the most visited in Africa (the third most visited after Johannesburg and Cape Town in 2016). I think Tunis or Dar es Salaam would be reasonable too—definitely better than Luanda. I guess the disadvantage to removing Luanda is that it's the only Portuguese-speaking city and the only representative of Central Africa on the list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Remember that we also cover business travel. Luanda probably has a bit of oil related business travel while Lagos probably has some business travel by mere virtue of its size. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Given the diversity of Africa, it is even harder to list the 'top 9 cities' than Europe.
That said, I do question why South Africa gets two cities in this list. In fairness we should choose one and redistribute the second elsewhere. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
While we do cover business travel, business travellers are more likely to know where they are going - they'd start with the Lagos and Luanda articles because that's where their contacts are. I speculate that someone reading the Africa article is more likely a leisure traveller who decides they want to go to Africa and lands here to get ideas. Ground Zero (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
There are reasons for each of these to be listed, the problem is that only 9 cities are allowed. Lagos is after all the most populous city in Africa, and per the link Granger posted above it receives a lot of visitors too, and Luanda is another important business center but more importantly the only city in the list currently from Central Africa. If Luanda is removed, Kinshasa could be another good representative for Central Africa.
Speaking of representation, we have nothing from Sahel on this list, Khartoum perhaps would be a good choice (and the East African Islands do not seem to have any really big cities apart from Antananarivo, and metropolises is not the first thing that springs to my mind from that part of the world). Finally, I do agree that we shouldn't have two cities from South Africa listed when there are just nine slots available for all of Africa. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with "most visited" is that 3 of the top 9 are in South Africa (Durban is #8.) If we can pick 9 cities for Europe and 9 for Asia, we should be able to do so for Africa. Ground Zero (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
How about replacing Johannesburg with Khartoum? That would give us a Sahel representative and avoid the problem of having two cities from South Africa. (If we're choosing between Johannesburg and Cape Town, my sense is that we should keep Cape Town, which I've heard is a great destination, whereas Johannesburg is supposed to be more dangerous and not as fun.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Before commenting further here, please read the "Lagos instead of Luanda" and "Too Much South Africa?" discussions above. The Lagos instead of Luanda is a somewhat lengthy discussion that should be read and understood and addressed as it already outlines consensus as well as discussing locations and issues with them that again should be addressed here if you choose to try and alter the list again. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

So what do people think about replacing Johannesburg with Khartoum? Or would Dar es Salaam or Tunis be better? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am very sympathetic to the argument against having two cities from South Africa, but Johannesburg I'd the most visited city on the continent. It seems very weird to be discussing dropping it for Khartoum, which is probably hardly visited at all. Ground Zero (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
How's the current situation in Sudan? Wasn't there an international arrest warrant for Omar al Bashir some time ago? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
While I am generally in support of diversifying the lists, the Sahel is a really hard sell here. None of the cities in the region are anywhere close to any of the current 9. It's an extremely ill-traveled part of the continent/world... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The Nile[edit]

I reading About african longest river Nile River . The staring of this river is ETHIOPIA not BURUNDI,,, pls post correct history . Mamesha (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You're partially right. According to the Wikipedia article for the Nile, the Blue Nile, one of the sources of the Nile starts in Ethiopia. The article furthermore says that the other source, the White Nile begins at Lake Victoria, which in turn is supplied from Kagera River starting in Burundi. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling again[edit]

I propose we use Websterian spelling for two reasons: number one, large chunks of Africa are not Anglophone and the standard for non Anglophone countries has been to use US spellings unless there is a reason otherwise. Number two Liberia is a former US colony which presumably uses US spellings Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, so one little former colony vs. a huge swath of former British colonies that are now members of the Commonwealth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There's also no reason to ignore the large chunks of Africa that are Anglophone in favour of the ones that aren't. The key to your point is "unless there is a reason otherwise". There is a reason for using Commonwealth spelling, so we use it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Even many nominally Anglophone countries have large non English speaking populations... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but the variety of English spoken by those who do speak it is of the Commonwealth strain. And on the other hand, you have a country like Nigeria, which has 15 million more English speakers than the UK, so it's not like English is a little-known foreign language among Africans. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
African Commonwealth countries make up about 43-44% of the continent's population. If you add to that African countries which aren't currently part of the Commonwealth but ex-British colonies (like Zimbabwe, the Sudans and Gambia) it goes to over half of the population of Africa. This doesn't even include Egypt, which was a British protectorate. Gizza (roam) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding[edit]

I think we should add the paga crocodile pond to the continental Page. Because where else will you find friendly Crocodiles.

Updating the Travel Advisory Map[edit]

I believe that the map of Africa with travel advisories from the French Foreign Agency from Dec 25 2012 should be updated to reflect more modern advisories. I don't think that it matters what country's State Department/Foreign Office/Etc. should be used as the source, but I, personally, find the map helpful in my country search, and I would rather use a more recent map than one from almost 6 years ago. The US State Department has some pretty good resources for this sort of thing, and I think the British or Canadian equivalents would also. I have no knowledge of the French Foreign Agency (if that's even the right name) or how its travel advisory section works, or of any other country's Foreign Department. Thanks. 47.153.29.188 05:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

East African Region[edit]

South Sudan should probably be part of East Africa, not Central Africa. It has more in common with that region, and is part of the w:East African Community.

Also, it may be worth splitting Ethiopia, Somalia, Somaliland, Eritrea, and Djibouti into a separate Horn of Africa region. These countries have a lot in common that isn't shared much with the rest of East Africa.

Don't know if this was discussed before; apologies if so. ARR8 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ll have to take a look at a map including the region or a world globe in the near future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I've checked and I agree with you. South Sudan around the same longitude as Uganda, and Uganda is breadcrumbed as part of East Africa. Not so sure about the Horn of Africa, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Being the same latitude or longitude isn't a good basis for switching regions like this. For instance, it would be bizarre to put California in South (United States of America). Not saying I agree or disagree with changing the breadcrumbs for South Sudan—I don't know much about the country—just saying that its longitude probably shouldn't figure into the discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Article on cultural attractions in sub-Saharan Africa[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I understand that WV is not the place for political debates, and this might have a bit of a social justice tone to it, but after watching some documentaries and reading some articles, I think it's worth considering an article about this. When people think of Africa, they tend to think of Safaris, wild animals and "primitive" hunter gatherer societies, but the fact is that there were great civilisations in sub-Saharan Africa that built great cities. The Great Zimbabwe and Timbuktu are some of the best known, but I feel that perhaps with an article dedicated to that, we can properly showcase the sheer cultural diversity within Africa, and challenge some very widely held stereotypes of Africa. Some other sites I can think of including are the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela in Ethiopia, the ruins of Aksum, also in Ethiopia, the Nubian pyramids of Meroe in Sudan, the ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania, and the Dahomey Royal Palaces of Abomey in Benin.

I understand we should not use WV for political campaigning, but I feel that we should also be fair here and do our part to challenge inaccurate stereotypes. Everyone knows about the great civilisations of Asia, Europe and the Americas, so it's time we give the African civilisations the credit that they deserve. The dog2 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

All of these sound like valid travel topics to me. However, I think that it is a good idea to create separate travel topic articles for them, rather than to create one single article for all these African cultural attractions. Lumping them together would just enforce the idea of sub-Saharan Africa as one homogeneous block. A while ago I nominated an effort to upgrade Africa to usable status as a COTM. The nomination was eventually slushed (and not without good reason) but I think that it is also a good place to start if want to improve our coverage of Africa.
And for the record, I don't mind political motivations behind editing. If someone wanted to improve the coverage of their home country out of chauvinistic emotions of national pride, that would be fine be me as long as the edits were fair and helpful to travelers. MartinJacobson (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the dog that this is desirable, and with Martin that a single article would not do each civilisation justice. I suggest starting with a civilisation you know about, and go from there.
Tangentially, I have thought for some time that having both the pagebanner and lead image of Africa depict wildlife be part of the same problem, but as of yet have not found a suitable replacement candidate for one or the other.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, we would ideally have separate articles for each civilisation. Unfortunately, I'm not a historian, and I only know of the existence of these great civilisations and some of their most notable achievements, and I don't have enough knowledge to write about each of them in-depth. Perhaps we can have "African civilisations" as a landing page, and different civilisations getting their own articles that are listed on this landing page. In the same vein, I would not mind having a "pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas" article, and individual articles for the Inca, Maya, Aztec, Olmec and other civilisations listed under that.
Speaking of which, perhaps we can have a picture of Timbuktu replacing either the page banner or lead image of the Africa article. While of course there were many civilisations in Africa, and the Mali Empire by no means representative of all of Africa, Timbuktu is definitely impressive and built in a unique style that cannot be found outside sub-Saharan Africa. The dog2 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, a landing page along the same lines as European history would be appropriate, and might encourage users to expand content on places they know about in new articles. I confess total ignorance on this subject. How many African / Africa-based contributors do we have? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Peter and DocWoKav.
Timbuktu is a nice idea, but it's also rapidly disappearing under sand and inaccessible to tourists due to being in the middle of a war zone.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"African civilizations" would include Egypt, Carthage, Nubia and Ethiopia, just saying. Also, it's presumably non-Africans who hold the mentioned stereotypes, not people in general, something to keep in mind. Coverage of ancient African civilizations is a worthy goal. We could probably facilitate this with an "Ancient African Civilizations" Expedition, to list each civilization and the points of interest associated with it. I am not an expert, either, but getting the information down will make coverage of individual archeological and historical sites and possible articles about particular civilizations easier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In any case, sub-Saharan Africa typically also includes Nubia and Ethiopia as well, but yes, an "African Civilisations" page should most certainly include the Egyptians and Carthage. Moreover, the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula was actually initiated by Berbers, who are indigenous to what is today the Maghreb region of North Africa. And while presumably most Africans do not hold those stereotypes, you may be surprised to find out that such stereotypes of sub-Saharan Africa are widespread even among African-Americans.
But anyway, I would most certainly be in favour of an "Ancient African Civilizations" expedition, if we have enough people with expertise in the subject matter. And on a personal note, it's unfortunate that the achievements of African civilisations have been obscured for so long due to formerly widely-held racist pseudoscientific notions that black people were somehow genetically inferior to other races, so hopefully, by going on this expedition, we here can do our part as a community to reverse some of this damage. And course, many of these civilisations left behind relics of their existence, so it most certainly fits in our scope of being a travel guide too, as you can actually go to Africa to visit some of these sites. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I really don't see an issue here. I think whoever can and wants to add travel topics about civilizations should go ahead and add them. If we created 20 travel topics on African historical groups I wouldn't mind. If you want to write articles about African history go ahead and add all you know — I don't intend to get in the way. Also, one more thing: someone said that the American civilizations were well covered, and I would at least partially object to this. While the coverage of Native American peoples is good, the coverage of the history of the South Americans is still only mediocre at best, despite the work me, Granger, and others have put into it. So while we improve African history coverage we could see what we could do with South America too. But I say, let the work go ahead! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, to add: while my knowledge on this topic, particularly outside of Egyptian history, is very limited, if there are other things I could do I would be willing to help out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I had suggested a few articles relating to African history on WV:Requested articles, namely Nubia, the Iron-Age Nok culture in West Africa and Kerma (ancient Nubian site). I also suggested the 9000-year-old Kuk Swamp archeological site in Papua New Guinea, which although obviously not in Africa, is similarly from a neglected part of the world. Not many people know that the New Guineans were among the world's oldest farmers and were the first to domesticate sugar cane and bananas. I haven't gotten around to starting any of these articles yet. While I have some knowledge of these topics along with other topics relating to non-European ancient history and culture, it's not enough to make a full-fledged article from scratch in a short space of time. The Trail of Ibn Battuta would be a great pan-continental itinerary too (as great an explorer as Marco Polo was) and there have been English-language travel documentaries replicating Ibn Battuta's journey from Morocco to China and everywhere in between so it shouldn't be too hard to write. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, which reminds me, if we are going to write travel topics we need some travel topic ideas first. Do we already have an article on Egyptian history? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Historical travel will tell you which articles we already have in this space in terms of travel topics (specific historic sites will be destinations of course) and there are some history articles that are directly in Category:Cultural attractions. Ancient Egypt exists but it's quite weak. The more I think about it, the more I believe that our coverage of history overall is underwhelming. The good news is that it can only improve from here. Gizza (roam) 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think our Roman Empire article is overwhelming, but otherwise you are probably right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also agree that we do not have the best coverage of pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas. Even the three widely known ones, the Aztecs, Mayas and Incas do not have their own articles, so there is certainly room for expansion there.
With regards to Africa, I think we can start with an "African Civilisations" page and list all the ones we know. People who know any of those well can then use that as a landing page to create articles about each individual civilisation. We have lumped the cultures of North America and South America respectively in the same way, even though these cultures are different and speak different languages. The dog2 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, in the Americas I would say the Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs were the civilizations we ought to highlight for tourists, since they left behind such amazing pyramids and other remmants of what was once a fascinating culture. Instead it seems that these groups are taking the back seat. I'm not sure what our coverage is like for Chinese and Indian history, but those are also notable. I think most of European coverage is good enough for now, but even there there are some low points and improving that could be done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Europe apart from the Russian Empire and Cold War Europe has room for improvement. We should probably have articles on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Bulgarian Empires (spanned many modern-day countries). Gizza (roam) 03:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a Chinese Empire article, and it is OK, though admittedly not as well developed as the one about the Roman Empire. And likewise, we have articles about ancient Japan and Korea that could probably be improved on. We don't have an article on Southeast Asian empires, the most important ones I can think of being the Srivijaya and Majapahit, and while smaller, the Malacca Sultanate certainly was significant. And of course, there were so many others like the Vietnamese, Khmer, Siamese, Mon, Rakhine and Burmese kingdoms. There's also no article about Indian history, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one given how rich Indian history is. For one thing, there were the great empires of the Mauryas, Guptas and Cholas, and there is the Indus Valley Civilisation (in modern-day Pakistan) that dates back even earlier than the Mauryas. The dog2 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And if I remember rightly there isn't an article at all for the Holy Roman Empire. Since historical articles make good travel topics, it would be great if they were better. I just did some work on the Ancient Egypt article a little while ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly it would be good to improve our coverage of historic sites in sub-Saharan Africa. I would suggest starting by putting this content in Africa#History and Africa#Historical civilizations (or in region/country/other lower-level articles). Individual travel topics like Nubia can be created too if someone knows enough to write them. I'm skeptical that something as broad as "African civilizations" would be useful as a travel topic separate from the Africa article, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Africa and its historic civilizations don't need to be thought of any differently than any others. I don't see why adding African civilizations as opposed to Asian or European needs to be "political" or have a political/advocacy slant nor do I see why you felt the need to petition here for an article when you know you can create an article for any African civilization that you want to dedicate your time to. I don't support creating articles for the purpose you outline, though. We don't need a patronizing article to "dispel myths" about anyplace. We need travel topics to provide information that is valuable to travelers not weird articles whose purpose is to argue that Africa has "just as good culture as Europe/Asia", "is actually better and more cultured if you think about it like this", or whatever weird social justice hang-up you are trying to appeal to. If we have an article on the Axumite Kingdom, for example, it should be because we have something worthwhile to showcase to travelers on the topic with a variety of places to go to experience the historic sites/events/culture and learn more not because we feel embarrassed on behalf of the nation of Ethiopia because the remnants of its horrible famine still occupy minds when they think about the country or because we want to pat ourselves on the back for "making them look good". Let's stick to travel and let the travelers decide for themselves what they care about/like/dislike/etc like we do with every other place. Most people who are interested in African travel DO in fact seek out places of historic and cultural interests. First thoughts are not final thoughts.

Most of what was proposed is already in the Africa#Historical civilizations, including briefly mentioning that it is fruitful to dig deeper than just wildlife. I wrote that section and remain the primary author (little has been changed since I wrote it). If you have nothing more to add, then just add what you want to that section. Beyond that, I agree with Granger that it's better to create an article for a specific African civilization/empire. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In any case, judging from how this discussion has gone, how about we launch an expedition on historical travel, so we can improve all our history articles. It seems that information is sorely lacking in the vast majority of them. Indian and Southeast Asian history are also very much undercovered, so I am convinced that we should expand the scope beyond just African history and expand our history articles in general.
And please, I am not trying to advocate for any civilisation being portrayed as better than others. Every civilisation has its own achievements and shortcomings, and sub-Saharan African civilisations are no different. Of course, all ancient civilisations, including European ones, will be considered barbaric by our modern-day moral standards. Sure, as a conservative American, you believe that the U.S. is the greatest civilisation that ever existed in the history of mankind, and you are free to believe that. But all I'm saying is that we should represent all peoples accurately, and it is most certainly true that most non-Africans think that sub-Saharan Africa was comprised only of hunter gatherer societies and no cities prior to the arrival of Europeans, which is just inaccurate. If anything, I was the one who added most of the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade in the Atlantic slave trade article, so if you think I'm trying to promote black power, pan-Africanism or some other specifically pro-black ideology, please look through my edit history before you come to that conclusion. The dog2 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I find the views of ChubbyWimbus and The dog2 in these recent comments good and well stated. I myself am not too crazy on creating a general article for African civilizations but I would not oppose such an article being created. I like the history expedition idea as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The dog2 Just to clarify, I said nothing about "black power" or "pro-black ideology". I was responding specifically to your claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa and advocate on behalf of the continent to make it look good and prove it has cultural sites, cities, and other things that developed countries in Europe/Asia/the Americas have. I resent the insinuation that my comment was meant to protect "American exceptionalism". I didn't mention the US at all and my reference of Europe/Asia was because those regions currently have the most articles of the type you brought up (ancient civilizations). I'm baffled about where the "black power", "pro-black ideology", etc line is even coming from. I don't know if you think I was accusing you of that or if you are trying to insinuate that I'm racist (in which case, I also strongly resent) or both, but I wasn't even thinking about race in my response. I thought I was clear when I said create TRAVEL articles not propaganda. I even repeated that African articles should be written like any other article. I've always wished we had more well-written, guide-status African articles and I've contributed to many African articles but I don't have the travel experience to make the kind of headway required to get any featured.
Also, I don't think it's fair to our contributors to make claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa. Your stated issues are with what you believe to be the societal perceptions of Africa, but saying we need to be "more fair" to Africa suggests that we are not being completely "fair" to it now and/or that there is an issue with our contributors as we relate to Africa and Africa-related content which I find to be untrue on both accounts. Even concerning the stereotypes you mention, any user who cares about Africa can easily find from our current content that it has cities and cultural sites, including old/ancient ones. Users who don't care, won't look, and that has to be okay, because we aren't trying to propagandize. I don't see any evidence that Africa is being treated unfairly or even that other users treat it differently than you do, and everyone has been supportive of the idea to create these articles. The only issues brought up were just to be specific rather than broad and that it needs to be a travel article and not propaganda so please be careful with making accusations against the community when it seems all you really want to say is "I wish we had some historic articles from African kingdoms, but I don't know enough to create any myself. Anyone know enough about any of them to start one." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the two of you are fighting over what is basically a misunderstanding. I don't think thedog2 ever insinuated that you were a racist and I think thedog2 was actually saying he was opposed to the "black power" ideaology. While I agree with ChubbyWimbus that we shoudn't think of ourselves as racists just because a region's article coverage is poor, that doesn't mean that we can't make that region's article coverage better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologise if I misunderstood ChubbyWimbus's intentions, but I think I was misunderstood too. I was never proposing the creation of a social justice article, and I never said anything about WV being unfair to Africa or black people. But I don't think I'm wrong for saying that the stereotype of Africa that most people in the Western world have is an inaccurate one, and it is most certainly true that the reason for the prevalence of such a stereotype is because of the legacy of formerly widely-held racist ideologies, even if those ideologies themselves are no longer widespread today. In a similar vein, what they teach you in American schools about the Atlantic slave trade, specifically the story of white people going to Africa and kidnapping the black Africans in order to enslave them and ship across the Atlantic, is a gross oversimplification of the actual history, and that is why I added all the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade and Native American slave ownership to the article. If there is a very widely held misconception about something, I don't think it's wrong to briefly mention that in our articles and give a brief overview of why that is a misconception. In any case, the article I was originally proposing was more about listing the different civilisations of Africa, and perhaps a map of where those civilisations were located, as well as sites concerned with those civilisations that tourist can visit today. I'm pretty sure that fits in with our goal of being a travel guide.
And anyway, seeing how these other civilisations also suffer from a lack of coverage, I might also create articles about ancient India, Southeast Asian civilisations and pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas if nobody has any objection. The dog2 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really like to see those articles get created. History is closely related to travel, so we ought to have good coverage in that field. I know a fair amount of history, although not so good regionally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't see anyone objecting to those except for some mean-spirited non-reason, so please go ahead, Dog. Our articles skew towards the urban and the "first world" because that's what most of us know best*, and any attempts to redress that are welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
the historic civilization articles have potential to be among our richest articles, so it's great if someone can create a good article. The dog2, the way you brought up the topic made me weary that your intent was to create an article with "dispelling myths about Africa" as the primary focus and purpose of the article. What you state above in your clarification about the slave trade edits to me is just a standard corrective edit which is what we all do and should do whenever we see inaccuracies. If that's all you meant to say, then there is obviously no issue. No one wants to knowingly promote incorrect accounts no matter what it's about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic cities and sites[edit]

On a somewhat related issue, we don't seem to have a consistent classification for historic and archeological sites. Not talking about ancient cities that are still inhabited like Rome and Athens but cities and sites that now in ruins. Persepolis, Pompeii, Teotihuacan, Luxor and Mohenjo-daro are "cities" while Troy, Tikal and Tiwanaku are "parks". As many of the articles that will be potentially be created from this expedition will be archeological sites, the way they are classified should be settled. Gizza (roam) 00:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this should be our rule: a city with ruins that is also a living town (like Pompeii) should be classified as a city. Those that are solely ruins, as I assume Great Zimbabwe and Troy are, should be parks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I think Pompeii is still inhabited, just that part of it isn't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Pompei is a sizable suburb of Naples. The excavated area is a discrete section of town. Pompei and Pompei-Scavi are two different stops on the Circumvesuviana train. Pompei-Scavi is just outside the excavated area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Then it sounds like a city article IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
In fact it is, though quite understandably, the article focuses on the excavations. Similarly, see Herculaneum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

So I've created two travel topics in this field, one for Nubia and another for Churches of Ethiopia. Please expand these, since they are just outlines at the moment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside of Africa the historical travel articles for South Asian history and the Khmer Empire have also been created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, some of the articles that will be referred to by these topics should be beefed up a bit. I just added coordinates for all the city/listing markers for Ethiopia and its Regions as an example. Adjusted some markers and maps. So please consider developing those articles further as well since some are sparse -- Matroc (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for responding late, but the reason I can't expand these travel topics is that I don't know much about these topics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also created African-American history, which needs to be expanded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)