From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Guide status?[edit]

Has this, or any other continent article, reached guide status yet? Selfie City (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No. And it won't ever, because the requirements for that are basically unmeetable, what with the requirement for subdivisions to have a certain status.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The main difficulty is that all of the immediate subregions and the listed cities and other destinations have to be usable status or better. That means that to get Asia to guide status, we'd need to get Central Asia, Middle East, Russia, Caucasus, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Lake Baikal to usable status, which in turn depends on getting the most important of their listed cities and other destinations to usable status. I think that's hard but maybe not impossible. It might be a little easier for Europe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the requirements for the linked cities/regions, I think a lot of the sections within this article are still not at guide level. We don't have a model continental article, but many don't yet even have a basic overview. A lot of the above mentioned "See" section additions were never added, the "Do" section remains a bulleted list, "Eat" and "Sleep" are really bare, The "History" section has not been expanded since the discussion about its shortcomings as well, etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Switch this banner with the one at Tibet[edit]

I think the one at Tibet is a better example of Asia than the current banner here, and I think a swap would be a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, because that banner is specifically and pointedly a picture of the Potala, whereas this one is just mountains and could be in various places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with Ikan. Asia is too large and diverse to represent with one just easily identifiable location. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan as well.
We might consider a better banner for Asia, but it is hard to find something that can represent such a large & diverse continent well. I think the Potala banner is excellent for Tibet. Pashley (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be at all possible to have a carousel-like banner for continents, like the main page. I'm sure it's a terrible thought for many reasons, but it would at least make it easier to give a somewhat more balanced representation. As nice as the mountain banner is, it hardly screams "Asia" to most travellers, I think... Chinese lanterns, a colourful bowl of bibimbap or Thai curry, a temple or an overcrowded Indonesian or Indian street, plus some mountains or steppe would do the trick so much better. Sigh... I miss Asia ;-)) JuliasTravels (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would be open to create an exception for having montage banners for Continent level articles only. Just because no single image will ever work for Asia or any other continent. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How's this? I just did it in my sandbox:

Of course, based on the Main page. We couldn't use two of these banners at the moment, of course, but you get the idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to say no to such a dynamic banner, mainly because any dynamic element is going to be confusing (Dynamics maps are not confusing because they need user interaction to change). What I was hoping was for a static banner made up of different images (montage). Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think one image is enough. I don't think we should be so concerned about representing everything that we represent nothing. I'd like the Potala Palace picture to stay in Tibet, but I don't like the current banner. It doesn't say "Asia" to me. Personally, I think something recognizably Buddhist (or something culturally Chinese) would represent Asia best. Chinese lanterns mentioned above, a statue (or rock carving) of Buddha (possibly a Hindu one), A temple complex (also mentioned above)... I think something from East or Southeast Asia are what feel most like "Asia" and "Asian travel" to most people. I don't really Wikipedia's montages. There is plenty of space within the article to showcase parts of Asia or cultural elements not referenced in the banner and indeed the pictures within the article right now feature a wide range of countries/sites. Just to add, a Chinese/Buddhist banner would enhance the "Asian" feel with the Taj Mahal there as the lede picture. These are two of the most influential cultures in the region. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in Asia, and while China is the most populous country, India is almost as populous and more Asians live outside of both countries. I think a rice farm might be best to represent Asia in a way that could be in any of numerous countries. I think it's not a great idea to have a religious element to a representation of such a vast and varied continent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Rice terraces could possibly work. "Chinese" doesn't have to be Buddhist (or even a picture FROM China. The Chinese sphere of influence is more what I am thinking, although obviously China itself has the most of that as well), but there is no doubt that Buddhism has impacted Asia in pretty much every part EXCEPT the Middle East and has also produced a lot of what appeals to travelers considering "Asia" as a destination. I don't think people planning trips to Islamic Asia (predominantly the Middle East) actually think or say "I'm going to ASIA". That region tends to be more specified if it is the target destination. I don't see the number of Muslims being meaningful anyway. As I said, we HAVE to forego the idea that every country/culture can be represented in one picture. Rice terraces don't represent the Middle East any better than Buddhist temples, after all. If the concern is about "offending Muslims", I think that's a fabricated issue. I don't think most Muslims would see a sprawling temple or an ancient Buddhist carving/statue as "false" representations of the continent when that is a large draw (and Muslim travelers don't seem to have issues with visiting Buddhist temples themselves when traveling in East/Southeast Asia. Indeed they tend to have the same or similar images as anyone else), and I don't think we should be concerned with trying to appeal to any radicals who would demand Buddhist erasure. But again, I don't think Buddhist imagery or temples are the ONLY options. I do think they are AMONG the best options to represent the continent AND the sort of thing that is most appealing/intriguing to travelers fantasizing about "Asia" as a destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I lived in Malaysia and took a couple of 2-week trips to Indonesia. As of 2010, Indonesia was the most populous Muslim country in the world. India was second (just the Muslim population of it), Pakistan third, Bangladesh fourth. You seem to conflate "Muslim" with "Middle Eastern". Stop. And in no way was I associating Chinese with Buddhist; I have also been to China twice and know very well that many religions and non-belief are represented there. You made that association - "I think something recognizably Buddhist (or something culturally Chinese) would represent Asia best" - and I pushed back, because what's best, as I said, is to represent Asia with a picture that is not identifiably from a single country, nor a single religion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the banner was changed in 2017. Se Talk:Asia/Archive_2012-2017#New_page_banner. /Yvwv (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If we are thinking about using a rice patty, here's a potential candidate based on a brief search. Personally, I'd prefer it to the current banner since I think it's more visually interesting (but that's just my subjective opinion).
Pana Banaue Rice Terraces.jpg
Sdkb (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The current banner is dull and uninspired, but the lighting in the proposed banner here kind of washes out the picture a bit. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The dimensions of the new banner appear to be wrong - too wide from high to low. Fix it by eliminating the overexposed parts on top and then we'll have more to talk about and a possible winner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rice terraces[edit]

Current banner (Mount Everest)
Proposal 1 (Rice terraces)

How's this? I like the concept a lot better. I think the rice terraces say "Asia" much more than the mountains, which, unless you're familiar with the shape of Mount Everest, just say "mountains". —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about which subject matter is most appropriate, but with only these two choices, I do like the 2nd banner better, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I just realized no one ever did anything about this. Does anyone disagree with the proposed banner? If not, I'll try to implement it in the next few days. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

West Asia[edit]

An uncommon term for "Middle East", in my experience. Should we keep it in the article in parentheses or revert to the status quo ante of not including "West Asia"? Also a note to the new user who added it: We discuss things on this Wiki on talk pages, as I already stated. We don't edit war here, and people who edit war get their posting privileges blocked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That's understandable. But not every single edit ever made has to be talked about, just in case you didn't know. And also, your experience is not the same as others. Just because you haven't or have rarely heard of the term doesn't mean others haven't. What's key is that the term exists and it is being used by geographers to this day. Don't play the new user card. Once upon a time you were one. Also, information is integral, regardless of whether the user is new or not, as long as the manuals haven't been erred, this situation is up to an admin to decide. Please clear this up administrators. Let's leave it at that until they reply. --TerrierChicken (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Strangely, the Middle East as described on this page does not include Egypt, while Middle East does. My opinion on this is largely based on whether Egypt is included, since it is part of Africa, not Asia. Either way, this should probably be resolved so that the two match. Additionally, I wouldn't support a parenthetical note of West Asia, which doesn't really match the style of the region list, and would prefer it written in the text. ARR8 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec) @TerrierChicken: You are not displaying behavior conducive to wiki editing. You have had the way this site works explained to you, and you are dictating that it should work another way. You have been given leeway and you are abusing it. You are seeking appeals to authority while insulting the most senior admin of this site.
No one here is against the idea that the articles should have accurate information, but the systems we have work and they are in place for a reason. For one think, I happen not to think your information is all that accurate. For another, we are a travel guide, not an encyclopedia - we can miss some minor trivia. ARR8 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@TerrierChicken: I don't know why you're worried about it. In my opinion, it doesn't matter much what the article says exactly, as long as the clearest word about the region is "Middle East". I mean, really, it's two words, "west" and "Asia". Could those two words really be important enough for an argument? In my opinion, I'm fine with one of three options:
Middle East (West Asia) — a region of Asia ...
Middle East — also known as West Asia, ...
Middle East — a region of Asia...
--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Terri, my advice would be to not worry about what exactly the text says. I've semi-protected the page until 7:00 UTC (it's around 2:30 UTC right now) to prevent further edit warring, and hopefully we can quickly come to a decision here and move on. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Terri, admins don't resolve things here. We have some powers, including the ability to block vandals, spambots and other problem users when necessary, but we do not determine consensus. I'd be fine with the prose description of Middle East including the text "also known as West Asia". So that would produce:
Also known as West Asia, this region was home of the first civilizations in the world's history, and the land where the three Abrahamic religions were revealed. It is now one of the fastest growing regions of the world with increasing development and a rich heritage.
Does that satisfy you? Everyone else OK with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(Parenthetically, there are more senior admins on this site. A number of folks who were already admins years before I was given a mop are still here.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with that phrasing, also I'm finding it contentious now whether the region actually is known much as West Asia.
And, regarding admins - the user group logs on WV start at 2013. In retrospect, I should have realized some users would have gotten their admin bit on the old site, and would all show up as 2013. ARR8 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I support using prose in the way that is suggested. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Calm down, those conversations have ended quite the while ago. Why are you bringing them up again? You have already made a mention in the Asia talk page, where you even talked about "let the admin decide" at that point. You guys have basically fanned this further, when you know that there was no need. Well, that's a dumb thing to say as a justification. That's like saying, it's only two words "east" and "Asia" but this applies the same ruling as FE which has the country and border inclusion too. Also, even though it's a talk page, ARR8 simply did not need to get involved and I disagree with what ARR8 had to say; but he was not a part of our original talk. What I find rude of you is that you have contradicted yourself SelfieCity, by first saying that you would not be open to adding it back again and now here you are. We could say that for a lot of information on the page before I added anything, but that is a separate topic. So just stop here. Drop everything, take a chill pill and let this talk thread go. Let it simply go and there won't be any problems because I was long gone by your first message on the other talk thread. (P.S. I wrote this after SelfieCity wrote after ARR8) --TerrierChicken (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any idea what discussions or consensus are on a Wiki. You don't have sole control of the discussion of any topic, but your attitude sure looks likely to get yourself banned pretty quickly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Pal, I don't think you understand how consensus works. If only people "involved" in the "original" conversation commented, you'd never have enough support to make this change.
I'm not really sure why I'm explaining this, and I'm going to change my inclination. I oppose any change to the current phrasing. I believe this user is a troll and only here to cause arguments, and, if not, certainly has an ax to grind. ARR8 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Terri, you're making this more complicated than it has to be by being annoyed at such a minor thing. ARR8 absolutely has a right to enter this discussion and express an opinion. If you continue to be unreasonable, we will have to take further action. If you want to pull back on what you've said, I'm absolutely fine with you doing that, and I'm willing to forgive you. But the farther you go with this, the less likely forgiveness becomes. (all three of us wrote basically the same idea at the same time) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing to opposing. See w:Western Asia:
Western Asia, West Asia, Southwestern Asia or Southwest Asia is the westernmost subregion of Asia. The concept is in limited use, as it significantly overlaps with the Middle East (or the Near East), the main difference usually being the exclusion of the majority of Egypt (which would be counted as part of North Africa) and the inclusion of the Caucasus. The term is sometimes used for the purposes of grouping countries in statistics. The total population of Western Asia is an estimated 300 million as of 2015. Although the term "Western Asia" is mostly used as a convenient division of contemporary sovereign states into a manageable number of world regions for statistical purposes, it is sometimes used instead of the more geopolitical term "Middle East".
Wikivoyage's Middle East doesn't include the Caucasus and is properly a geopolitical term. And "Southwest Asia" is a more accurate term, and the one I've heard before, but really, who cares? We see where the region is on the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Changing to oppose. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a extra-hierarchical region article for Western Asia, FWIW. Some parts of the Middle East are not part of Western Asia, and vice versa, so they're not exactly the same thing. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

North Asia[edit]

There has been a suggestion to include North Asia as a region of Asia, including the Urals, Siberia and the Russian Far East, which would still be described as parts of Russia. /Yvwv (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Asian Russia is more recognisable & definitely should be the article name. A redirect from North Asia strikes me as silly but tolerable. Pashley (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Asian Russia pseudo-region[edit]

I created the Asian Russia pseudo-region to sort Urals, Siberia and Russian Far East with Asia. User:Traveler100 just rolled it back. More opinions on the matter are requested. /Yvwv (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

When you say "pseudo-region", do you mean extra-hierarchical region? I see no problem with creating that as a soft redirect (like Mediterranean Sea), but it would be nice to know what Traveler100's objection was.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Yvwv categorized the eastern part of Russia under Asian Russia (a redirect to Russia), rather than under Russia where these regions used to be categorized, and that was rolled back. Normally articles can't be categorized under redirects or extraregions, but I think Russian regions could be an exception. It does look silly when Vladivostok or Chukotka is "part of Europe". Ypsilon (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree a little silly that such locations are under Europe, but placing them under a redirect will cause a number of file management issues, they are not visible from top level categories. I think the best solution is a new top level, giving Eurasia the same status as Europe and Asia and adding Russia, Turkey and possibly Caucasus under this new continent article. This way sub-regions of a country are not split between two different breadcrumb threads. Thoughts? --Traveler100 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Could work. Ypsilon (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The term Eurasia is usually understood as the whole of Europe and Asia. I have yet to see it defined as consisting of Russia and Turkey, with or without the Caucasus. /Yvwv (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with Yvwv, and using Eurasia to mean something other than it normally means is confusing. Why can't we just have an extraregion ("Asian Russia" or what have you) that sits under Asia, that links to the existing hierarchical regions which are under Russia, and therefore Europe? Or alternatively, treat all of Russia as part of Asia, since the vast majority of the land at least is Asian, moving it over as part of the regional reorganisation taking place at Talk:Europe. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it is important that Russia is handled as part of Europe. Too many people over here talk sloppily about Europe when what they mean is the EU. I do not want to be part of that. Showing a breadcrumb trail directly from Russia (etc.) to Eurasia while the other regions would go via Europe or Asia could be possible (or have the extraregion, although I do not quite get how it would work). I do not know how that would interfere with our region descriptions in those articles. --LPfi (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
There never will be a perfect solution, personally would keep as is; one clear breadcrumb path for each region and country and a few redirects, extraregions and double listings in articles. Alternative would be a "Eurasia border countries" top region, but I think we will just be wasting contributors time discussing the topic.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agreed with Traveler; we could all live with the status quo, couldn't we? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

If we decide not to have an article for "Asian Russia," I don't think Asian Russia should redirect to Russia. I think Siberia would be a better redirect target. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Now I looked at that article, I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't have a problem with an article for Asian Russia, but I think we should keep our current region structure and make Asian Russia a extra region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Russia in its entirety directly under Asia doesn't really sound logical to me either. On the other hand most of Russia isn't in Europe and indeed far away from Europe (the country reaches past the antimeridian), so even if the status quo is OK, it would be "nice" to find a way to divide it up some way (for instance the Asian Russia solution Yvwv implemented). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Excluded Russia as part of Caucasus[edit]

While the map shows that Russia is part of Caucasus (purple), it is not mentioned in article. Therefore, I have plunged forward and altered its colour to light grey to show that it is not part of Caucasus (purple), yet it is part of Asia. Feel free to revert it if you think it is inappropiate. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-altered the colour since the Asian Russia is mentioned in the article. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me; at any rate, the map looks better now. I assume (but can't be bothered to check) that Russia and the Caucasus used to be one region under Asia.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible solutions of the Siberia problem[edit]

I see that Siberia is ultimately breadcrumbed with Europe instead of Asia, while we say that Siberia is part of Asia. In order to fix this problem, I propose two solutions:

  1. Alter the image of the continents of the Destinations page to render the entire Russia as part of Europe.
  2. Make Eurasia an in-hierarchy region and group Asia, Europe and Russia separately under Eurasia.

Although the second one will be more convinient for travellers, the first one will have fewer hassles to deal. Besides, the seven-continent model is more widespread than the six-continent model. What do you think? --Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs solving, but if it is, then your first solution seems a lot simpler than messing with the hierarchy. Russia breadcrumbs under Europe because most of the population lives in the west of the country.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a problem, but we haven't found any good solution, as you can see from earlier discussions on this page. Changes similar to what you suggest have been proposed before and deemed unsatisfactory.
Your first proposed solution does not address the stated problem: we should still say that Siberia is in Asia, because it is. Changing the image in Destinations would give the impression that we are totally confused about geography, which is not a good thing for a travel guide. But if you click Siberia on the current map, you will still have Asian Russia listed as one of the regions and get to the right country article.
Your second solution would mean that Russia is found neither in Europe nor Asia, except in the way it is now handled in Asia. I think that does not fix the real problem. And, as I said in an earlier discussion: It is important that Russia is not treated as not being in Europe; the Europe=EU thinking is too widespread to be ignored.
LPfi (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)