Talk:Taiwan

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Taiwan, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00.

Please show prices in this format: NT$100, and not not TWD 100, NTD 100 or 100圓.

Please use American spelling.

Wikivoyage or Wikipedia?[edit]

Much of the article contains general information that seems good for a Wikipedia entry, but I don't see how the information fits in a travel guide. For example: "It should be noted that the Taiwanese (who make up 84% of the Taiwan's population and are culturally Chinese) are to a large extent the descendents of immigrants from the mainland in recent centuries who intermarried with indigenous people. As a result, the genetic makeup of the Taiwanese is noticeably different from that of the mainlanders. In recent years there are also Vietnamese, Indonesian and Filipino migrant workers living harmoniously with other Asian minorities as well as Mainland Chinese immigrants. As for the 14 millions post 1949 immigrants, they come from every province and consist of many non-Han residents." It's not easy to see how that information is of particular use to travellers. I'm new to Wikivoyage (saw it on Slashdot); is there some standard for deciding what goes in the article and what doesn't? I read the Policies page and about all it said for content was that we write what's best for the traveller. If a traveller is dedicated enough to learn all the background about a place, they can go to Wikipedia. I would think that on this site they would want information that is focussed on what they should expect as a traveller. Readin (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't unusual for this kind of background to appear in some guides, but I'm sure this text can be made less encylopedic. --Inas (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Where to list foreign missions[edit]

It's been the practice on this site to list missions in the guide for the city where the missions are, not the country level. So I believe all the listings for foreign missions belong in Taipei#Cope, a section which currently doesn't exist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I wish I'd known before I doubled the number of foreign missions listed here. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the list of foreign mission to the new Cope section in the taipei guide. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pagebanner[edit]

Is it just me, or do you also see the pagebanner ending about 4 cm to the left of the right margin, with blank white space taking up the rest of the width? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The banner image c:File:DaZhongZhiZheng banner.jpg is only 1280px wide, which is shorter than the recommended minimum of 2100px. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
So this banner needs to be widened or replaced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to restore the default banner and wasn't able to get it to work in preview mode. Could someone please either restore the default banner, or better yet, insert a custom banner of suitable size and appearance? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please help? ויקיג'אנקי, do you happen to have a pagebanner for Taiwan? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching for a CC image of Taiwan is unnusually distracting. Anyhow I found the following panoramic view of the same building. Pity the building to each side are cut off, but what do you think? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


It's quite nice, even so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggested new alternative banner
I made an alternative banner in which the sides of both buildings aren't cut off... ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, ויקיג'אנקי. In this instance, I actually prefer the banner with the cut off buildings, because I don't like what the modern buildings on both sides do to the composition. But I think that if the banner could be cut off just past the sides of the National Theater and Concert Hall (which look traditional) without cutting off their tops, that would probably be even better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How about this version? We keep a little bit of the plaza with only the very tops of the spires cut (Previous version here) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed banner
I'm feeling differently now. The cutoffs are bothering me, and I'm now preferring ויקיג'אנקי's version. But if there were some way to crop the right and left sides of ויקיג'אנקי's version, or even the left side, which bothers me more (the right side has more forms, so it's more interesting to move the eye around it), that would really be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Alternative banner #3

Another alternative banner... ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this a possible view? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the image was distorted in some way, since the other views show those two buildings more nearly parallel to each other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It 'looks' distorted to me, as in some kind of panoramic technique. Looking at the original image it would only make sense if the parade through the middle got narrower in real life, and the Wikipedia article would suggest it doesn't. w:National_Theater_and_Concert_Hall,_Taipei Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It is 'real' (no Photoshop tricks), just probably taken from a closer spot with a different lens. I like it better. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If it is indeed a real view, I do find the composition best in this last banner, even though it, too, cuts off the buildings. However, this photo, which Andrewssi2 linked, gives me pause. You're really sure this is a possible view? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It can't be determine (from the image and its metadata) whether is was photoshop or a lens that made that effect, although I personally would hold that even if it was a lens then the effect nevertheless results in an 'altered' image that would not be seen in the same way by a real life visitor. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see that the problem is. It's a different perspective from the previous banners, shot from nearby, on the square itself rather than from an elevation further away. Yes, it's probably a wide-angle lens, but I don't see how that's problematic. If you stand in the position of the photographer, all that you see on the image is visible. It's a more striking image and thus for the purpose of a banner here I like the last one best. We constantly use image that will not be seen in the exact same way by a real life visitor, since eyes and lenses don't compare and we often cut out just the parts we like best. I think it's not about an exact view; it's about avoiding images that don't exist. However, this is a lot of discussion about pretty similar banners hehe.. so I'm good with whatever comes out. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I just don't agree that 'striking' is a more important attribute than 'how it will actually be seen' when informing travellers about a destination. All images are of course affected by the lens that the camera is using, however in this case it seems to me a stronger effect than usual. There are however no rules in WV on 'relative realism' in banners and so it is only my opinion.
On that basis alone I would chose ויקיג'אנקי's first banner over his second. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Formasa station in Kaohsiung
Just playing with banners tonight, and saw this great picture on Flickr. Now this banner is also distorted by a lens, but I think the result is somewhat striking. Any thoughts? Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's a situation in which I see three beautiful buildings in the other images, but as a picture, this one is superior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Shall we go ahead and change? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No-one has objected in 2 days. Unless someone does in the interim, I'd say go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

TWD, NTD, NT$ or $[edit]

Swept in from the pub

In one article, Taiwan the notation of the Taiwan currency is TWD is given in the Quickbar and 6 other places. NTD is used 6 times. NT$ is used 22 times. Just $ is used 24 times. Should this be standardized to one notation only, or is the present situation no problem? --FredTC (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WV:$ says "Prices should be generally listed with the currency notation that travellers will encounter when they arrive at the destination in question. Travellers should be able to assume that symbols used for multiple currencies (like $ or £ or ¥) apply to the local currency." So we should use "$", or "NT$" if clarification is needed. There would be no reason to use TWD or NTD. Ground Zero (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is The bare peso symbol really the locally common way of designating it? If yes, that should be used (unless there is need to avoid ambiguity) if not, whatever is locally prevalent should be used. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been to Taiwan yet, but Wikipedi says: "The currency code is TWD, and its common abbreviation is NT$." Taiwan Tourism Bureau uses NT$. So does the China Post newspaper from Taipei. Ground Zero (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
c:Category:Price tags in Taiwan shows both "NT$" and "$" alone. Powers (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Get around/By metro section[edit]

You cannot get around Taiwan by metro, only around 3 metropolitan areas. I don't think this section should be in this article. If you disagree, please explain why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The train map[edit]

The map for THSR speaks of stations "planned for 2012-2015". I know that this is a problem over at commons, but if one of our editors knows more on the issue, maybe someone else could help (re)drawing the map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Chlorine in water[edit]

In the "Stay healthy/Water" section:

"However, it is advised that drinking water be boiled in order to eliminate residual chlorine and bacteria."

I didn't think that boiling water eliminated chlorine. Does it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it gets rid of some of the chlorine, but you do have to boil it for quite a while. The dog2 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

City list[edit]

I noticed that someone put New Taipei in the city list. Although it is administratively separate, New Taipei is for all intents and purposes part of the Taipei metropolitan area. Therefore, I actually think we should not list it as a separate city, and instead treat it as suburban Taipei. In its place, I suggest we add Taichung, which is a major city in Taiwan that is currently not on the list. The dog2 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

IIRC New Taipei is currently treated as its own city with its own districts by WV. I think this might be an area to look into to make the hierarchy easier and more voyager friendly... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, I still think that Taichung is more important to list than New Taipei. Regardless of administrative divisions, from a practical perspective, New Taipei is suburban Taipei, while Taichung is a separate major city. The dog2 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen a response, so if there are no objections in 24 hours, I'll make the switch. The dog2 (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I support adding Taichung instead. Gizza (roam) 01:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rationalising "Regions" section[edit]

It seems there is some inconsistency in the 'Regions' section of this page. There are administrative districts interspersed with national parks and sites of interest. I suggest these be rationalised to include only the administrative districts and leave the sites of note to the subsection below. For example, I don't feel 'Sun Moon Lake' should be explicitly mentioned under Central Taiwan. This is already present in the subsection below. What does everybody else think? Kdm852 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point there. I agree that it can be deleted, and we can just mention the counties and cities without mentioning Taroko Gorge or Sun Moon Lake since they will be listed under the specific counties, and we already list them under "Other Destinations". Speaking of which, I noticed Jiufen in the city list. While I have been there and it is a beautiful place to visit, I don't think it belongs in the city list since it really is a small town. I was thinking of listing Taitung instead. We only have one city that is not on the west coast, so I think it will be good to have another east coast city other than Hualien, of which Taitung will be the natural option. The dog2 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed about Jiufen. I think it's an interesting enough place to be mentioned in "Other Destinations", but it's definitely not a city, in my experience. I also agree that Taitung should be on the city list; it's quite small, but also fairly unique in Taiwan, and feels enough like a 'city' to qualify (by my reckoning). If we wanted to deliberately put more east-coast cities, we could consider Yilan. Maybe also Magong if we wanted to include the outlying islands? Kdm852 (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Quick word of caution: Just because a place is judged to be too small a city or town to be listed in “Cities”, that doesn’t make it an “Other destination”. The answer to “other than what?” is “other than cities”, and in Wikivoyage classification, towns and villages are “cities”, whereas parks, islands and mountains are not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, but I do think we should tweak the city list a little in the name of regional balance. Keelung, Jiufen and Taipei are all in the Taipei metropolitan area, and the former two are commonly visited as day trips from Taipei. There's probably a good reason why we don't list Yokohama in the city list of the Japan article even though it is technically Japan's second largest city after Tokyo (and I will be starting a discussion about tweaking that list too at some point in the near future). As for the outlying islands, I would prefer a city on Kinmen or Matsu, but I don't think Jincheng, Beigan or Nangan there are of the importance of Magong. Unfortunately, I've never been to those areas, so I'll need someone who has been there to comment. The dog2 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
So to move this forward, should I just swap Keelung (or Jiufen) for Taitung? Both Keelung and Jiufen are easy day trips from Taipei, and I think they are best listed in the Taipei article under "Go next". This will help with regional balance, since having 3 towns/cities in the Taipei metropolitan area is overkill in my opinion. The dog2 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not getting any response, so if nobody objects in the next 24 hours, I'll swap Keelung for Taitung. The dog2 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

ATMs[edit]

I'm puzzled by Taiwan#ATMs. It says "Taiwan has abundant 24-hour ATMs to withdraw cash using the Plus or Cirrus systems." but then "However, it seems ATMs do not consequently give out cash." What is this supposed to mean? Is "consequently" an error for "consistently"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)