Talk:Cairns

Wow, first talk (but what about the nightlife)

Would it be a natural extension to list the nightlife in Cairns? (No, I'm not talking about the bugs and critters either).

That's what the "Drink" section tries to do, but it sure could use some expansion! (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:22, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Ironically, I heard Gilligan goes ****ing off on saturday nights. I'm not swearing for no reason, that was quite literally the expression used by the local I was talking to and it probably quite aptly describes it too!

Here's a question - why are the hotel listings in Cairns not listed in the way usually listed on WikiTravel? (i.e., Hotel names hyperlinked to their official websites instead of the website listed separately after the contact information)? (WT-en) PhilippInfo 10:03AM (Phil time) Apr 23 2007

Because somebody didn't read the Manual of Style. Plunge forward and fix it, ideally to use the <sleep> tags! (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Lack of Fluoride a Heads Up for Travellers?

As of February 2010, fluoride is no longer added to the water supply of Cairns. More details here. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't see how it effects travellers in the slightest? --Inas (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Read my userpage if desired, Inas. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Banner

The palm trees are an icon of Australia's most visited city in the tropics (for tourism), while the lagoon could look like any other lagoon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Banner 0

Banner 1

Banner 2

Both suggestions look better than the original, I think. 1 has more of a character, but I didn't really like the crop of the building much. So I guess 2, 1, 0 to me. Vidimian (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

1 is more conventionally pretty but less interesting than 2, so I go for 2, as well. I like the sign on the right. 2, 1, 0, just like Vidimian. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Uluru as a go next destination, really?

Sure, there may be direct flights, but how feasible of a destination is this? I can see some travellers wanting to visit all the major Australian sites without having to transit in so many places, but couldn't the same rationale be applied for the Big Five? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Are you saying it's too little of a destination or too much of a destination to be an "Other destination"? And which are the Big Five? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, no, I got it: Cairns is really far from Uluru. No, don't list it in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Go next should be for places that are "reasonably close" and not 1000+ km away (well, except for places like the Easter Island or Utqiagvik where there's nothing nearby). --Ypsilon (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If we remove Uluru here, we should probably also remove it from Sydney#Go next and possibly Adelaide#Go next. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Go next should list "reasonably close" destinations. I mean... from Sydney you could fly to Tokyo, LA, Singapore, London or even my home city with a change of planes but we shouldn't list all of them... Ypsilon (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: The "Big Five" refers to the five mainland state capitals of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"If we remove Uluru here, we should probably also remove it from Sydney#Go next and possibly Adelaide#Go next." Indeed, we should, and Alice Springs doesn't seem like a reasonable "Go next" from Adelaide, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed per discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)