Talk:Gambia Voyage Tips and guide

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Gambia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

from main page:

To learn about the wildlife of The Gambia visit [1] for information on newly published (2009) photo-based field guides, including general fauna and flora, butterflies, spiders and other arachnids.

How come the "sleep" section only refers to high-priced luxury hostels? It seems that low-priced bed&breakfeasts are quite common in Gambia...

Gambia is absolutely tiny - no more than 30 miles wide in any part. It is though perhaps the least OtBP of all the West and Central African countries (thank the British package holiday industry!). As well as the obvious package deals, travellers and the ecologically-inclined take advantage of the very cheap charter flights (from Britain at least) for more adventurous exploits. But even given all that, I do not think the country needs travel regions. At the moment we follow the administrative split into 6 regions, but having been from one end of Gambia to the other, I can say that is not at all necessary. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:41, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I was looking at this earlier and was thinking there may be at least 2 regions...th coastal area where the Gambia River is wide and an upriver area. So there's really no difference?(WT-en) AHeneen 06:15, 27 January 2010 (EST)

It is small. The upriver areas do have some more wild stuff. But the major National Parks are actually in the western half, sort of middle river. The bucket-and-spade resorts are obviously all in the coastal bits. So you could at a pinch do a divide based on that, perhaps even into 3. I am though ever more wary of dividing these very small countries. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:25, 27 January 2010 (EST)

We only have 3 articles now, so subdividing it further doesnt seem to make any sense. And it is a small country. I wouldn't call it OTBP though, I see package deals to Gambia all over at the local travel agency here :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:24, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I said it was the least OtBP of all the West and Central African countries! And my proposal is not to sub-divide further but to have no regions at all. Least is the key word :). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:18, 28 January 2010 (EST)

It surprises me that Gambia is so popular for Brits. Is it really the most visited nation in the region? I would have thought Senegal, Ghana, and Nigeria would be the major destinations (Nigeria not being for tourists, though). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:21, 28 January 2010 (EST)

It would certainly not be the most visited country in the region. Nothing like, as it is absolutely tiny. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:18, 28 January 2010 (EST)

I was fully on board with having no regions... until I saw that the Western Gambia article is somewhat developed already. If for no reason than that it will make my content organization job easier, I'm now tempted to go with AHeneen's basic idea. That is: Western Gambia or perhaps Coastal Gambia and Upriver Gambia. The latter would be spare, but that's OK—while we don't have any content for it yet, there is potentially enough to fill a region article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:52, 21 February 2010 (EST)

It will not do any harm to organise in that way. On the other hand, it is also not necessary in my experience. I would not object either way really. Nobody visits the upriver bits on anything more than an organised day cruise, bar a very few intrepid souls wanting to get into interesting parts of Senegal, and the keen wildlife observers (obsessive birdwatchers mainly I seem to remember). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:38, 22 February 2010 (EST)

You can see the sum total of Upriver Gambia coverage in the sole blue link in that regional article: Janjanbureh. (And I'd note that Janjanbureh is already linked in Gambia#Cities.) For that, we don't need an entire regional structure. Is there any good reason not to do away with the regions? OK, yes, there are some nice things in the Western Gambia article, but can't they be merged into Gambia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I agree. Not a useful subdivision. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree and urge someone to g forward already as those kinds of discussions have a habit of dying down unresolved. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Add a warning box... Apparently there's some political instablity in Gambia right now.

I tried to use a concise wording, but would appreciate a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks alright to me. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the official name of the country "The Gambia"? The article should be a bit more consistent about this. --Fuaran buidhe (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

There has been a long discussion about this at the Wikipedia article on the Gambia. If you want to propose a change in Wikivoyage, I suggest you do it at Talk:Gambia. Ground Zero (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oddly, the Beeb raises this point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38675804 K7L (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

From what I heard on the news, the old President has finally relented and the newly elected President has been able to return to Gambia, giving hope to a return to normalcy in the foreseeable future. When will it be time to remove the Warningbox? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The UK has backed off its warning "Updated: 23 January 2017 - the Foreign and Commonwealth Office no longer advise against travel to The Gambia; the situation has stabilised and the possibility of a military intervention is no longer likely." None of the other four governments cited (AusNZ, CanUSA) have updated their warnings to reflect the current situation. Would downgrading this to a {{cautionbox}} break the links to the various western diplomatic corps sites at the bottom?

Then again, "the country remains deeply divided after a bitterly-contested presidential election" is the sort of pointless, vague statement which could just as easily award {{warningbox}} to another country which is now turning away peaceful protesters at its borders. K7L (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Warning box If some relevant state departments no longer hav ewarnings, then we probably shouldn't either. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I suggest moving this to The Gambia to match Wikipedia (w:Talk:The Gambia#Requested move 20 August 2021) and Commons (Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Gambia), this was discussed above a while ago but unlike Netherlands where "the" is an independent modifier it is actually part of the country's name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oppose – three things:

• Our article on Bahamas does not include a "the", and "the" is also part of the Bahamas' country name
• How many categories and links are we going to break by moving such a high-profile page?
• What's wrong with the current name? This is not Wikipedia, and we don't need to match our article name with Wikipedia's.

With that said, I do see some advantages in moving it. It helps distinguish us further with The Other Site, and may boost SEO rankings. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#"The", where the Gambia is specifically mentioned. Therefore the proposed move may require a policy change. Vidimian (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. But if we do that, Bronx has to be The Bronx. I was going to suggest a redirect, but we already have one, so we're covered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#"The" in this case (as with the Bronx and the Bahamas which should also be moved) "The" is a fixed part of the name so this example should be modified, as far as I can see the only category that would need to be moved is Category:Gambia and the links will still point to the correct title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• If we decide to use "the" in the names, they need to be alphabetized on the word after "the". I still oppose, but if we do move it, I'd suggest "Gambia, The" like a dictionary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Yes we would still sort under "Gambria, The" as standard namely {{DEFAULTSORT:Gambia, The}} like The Hague is sorted under "Hague". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Moving the category isn't as simple as moving it, as there will be many breadcrumbs underneath it which will then point to the redirect. One is already covered, while the other (Sydney/The Rocks) would be misleading if there were no "the". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Even if we don't move this article we should probably replace the Gambia example at Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#"The" with a different one as the guideline would contradict its self a bit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't contradict anything if we maintain the name as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because "The" is a fixed part of the name per the "Exceptions" part so the guideline says that "Gambia" should not have "The" in the article name yet it is a fixed part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply