Talk:Uruguay Voyage Tips and guide

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

I am regionalising Uruguay along the lines of the socio-economic and geographic regions that Wikipedia use. A few adjustments to improve the logic for travellers. That means all the departments will be redirected to four new regional aticles (they are either red linked or empty anyway).

• Rio de la Plata: includes Greater Montevideo which is much too small to be a separate travel region, plus Canelones, San Jose, Colonia, Soriano and Rio Negro)
• Atlantic Coast (Uruguay) - Maldonado and Rocha
• Northern Interior (Uruguay) - the rest north of the Rio Negro and dam lakes
• Central Interior (Uruguay) - the rest south of the Rio Negro and dam lakes.

--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:58, 20 January 2010 (EST)

This looks very sensible to me. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:33, 21 January 2010 (EST)

This regionalisation has no sense. This was based on a scheme from English Wikipedia article whose section has none references about this "socio-economic and geographic" regions. Rio Negro department, for example, doesn't even touch the Rio de la Plata. Traditionally, Uruguay was divided in North and South of the Rio Negro. However, if you look at this example "Montevideo COMM Enciclopedia Geografica del Uruguay", this page describes 5 regions: North-west (Artigas, Salto, Paysandú, Río Negro), North (Rivera, Tacuarembó), East (Cerro Largo, Treinta y Tres, Lavalleja, Rocha, Maldonado), South (Durazno, Flores, Florida, San José, Canelones, Montevideo), and South-west (Soriano, Colonia). Moreover, the official website of Uruguay's Ministry of Tourism describes here 5 regions: Metropolitan (Montevideo and Canelones departments), Center-South, East (the same of Montevideo COMM), North, and the "Corridor of the Colorful Birds" (something like the Montevideo COMM's North region). If there is consensus, I will proceed to change this into the uruguayan government tourism regions. --Zerabat (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Peterfitzgerald, Ypsilon, Andrewssi2, Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger: pinged some users to review this proposal. --Zerabat (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with Uruguay so I cant really comment if the existing regions or the new regions make more sense or not. I do note that

* Wikipedia divides into four regions, but only as part of the description and there are no specific Wikipedia articles for each 'high level' region

* The government tourism web site looks good, and obviously they put much effort into defining their 4 regions

* If you really want to do this, then it will require significant effort to draw a new map and reorganize the articles underneath. I would urge that you consider the amount of work for you in the first instance

.

Can you start recreating the map in the first instance and place it here on the talk page? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know Uruguay and have no opinion about this, except that if you want to do the work, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have roughly edited the original SVG image (which have a misconfigured canvas) and here it is. I also fixed some routes and paths that were wrongly delineated. Maybe would need some minor fixes in the borders and adaptation to support other languages according to c:Commons:Translation possible/Learn more#Multiple translations within one SVG file. What do you think? --Zerabat (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Zerabat: I've traveled to a few parts of Uruguay, but I'm not any kind of expert. I think it probably makes sense to make the metropolitan area its own region. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on the other aspects of the proposal, but I trust that the Ministry of Tourism has divided the country up in a logical way, so I would support the change. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I notice there's a slight difference between your proposed regions and the Ministry of Tourism regions, though: the Ministry of Tourism puts part of Artigas Department in the Northern Region, whereas you have all of it in the Pájaros Pintados Region. I've never been to the city of Artigas, but since it's on the border with Brazil, I would guess that it probably has more in common with Rivera than with Salto. So that might be worth thinking about, but like I said, I'm not that knowledgeable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. Granger: I have fixed the map with the change requested. --Zerabat (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me! —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

By the way... I must admit (i should not but by matters of clearifying) that i did not deeply read the precedent, but since you talk about Regions of Uruguay... the quick answer is that there is none (none but the whole country, if any), the official response is in way of coming and is that that, is in way of coming as regionalization is recently in the way of being propposed, and I must admit that you made a much better work than that the authorities are doing, the official prtopossal segregates Montevideo from Colonia del Sacramento in South and Riverside respectively which in my opinion is an option much much worse than yours, if for me I would accept your propposed Regions better that the official ones, but on the corpse of the matter the official propposal includes five regions: South, Center, East, Northeast and Riverside, shame that is not you that make the decissions (sham,e that i cant use my wikipedia account here)...--167.57.67.209 02:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@167.57.67.209: Firstly I should say that you don't have to feel ashamed because you can use your Wikipedia account here and in every Wikimedia project. Secondly, I am the proposer of the new regionalisation, based on those traced by the Uruguay's Ministry of Tourism (MoT). As I said above, the current regionalisation has no sense nor justification. It was based on what was interpreted by the proposer what was supposedly said in an English Wikipedia page years ago (that page could be Geography of Uruguay (rev. 334022163)) about "socio-economic and geographic regions", while the departamentos were arbitrarily assigned to one or other region. and this regionalisation wasn't done with tourism in mind. Moreover, Uruguay's MoT made a tourist regionalisation with tourism in mind, something we could use and take advantage of, as it was made by experts. --Zerabat (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Several months later, I've now travelled much more extensively in Uruguay, and I'm not sure I like the proposed regions.

• The current Atlantic Coast is a very coherent region, basically consisting of popular beach towns plus a couple of closely associated places (Chuy and Rocha). The proposed East Region combines these with some inland departments that are very different. I don't know how we would write a coherent traveller-oriented region article that includes departments as varied as Maldonado, Rocha, Lavalleja, Treinta y Tres, and Cerro Largo.
• The current Northern Interior also seems like a coherent region to me. Even though I kind of encouraged dividing up Artigas Department, I no longer think it's a good idea, and more broadly, from what I understand, the cities of Salto, Rivera, Artigas, Bella Unión, and Tacuarembó have enough connections and features in common that it seems like they belong in the same region. The proposed Northern Region would also be pretty small for a Wikivoyage region—only three city articles, or four at most if we decided to put all of Artigas Department in the region.
• The current Rio de la Plata region combines some pretty different destinations, but there's something nice about having one region for Montevideo, Colonia, and Fray Bentos (historically very important port cities, and probably the only three cities in the country with significant well-known historic districts). The proposed Pájaros Pintados Region also combines pretty different destinations, though it has the unifying feature of ties to Argentina. But I think it probably makes more sense to put Colonia in the same region as Montevideo.
• The current Central Interior is admittedly a bit of a miscellaneous grab-bag (at least it seems like it to me). I haven't really spent any time in San José Department, so I'm not sure if the proposed South Central Region is better or not.
• The proposed Metropolitan Region seems coherent to me, but if we create it now it will be a region with only one city, which is really too small of a region. Maybe we should create it someday, if articles are created for the suburbs of Montevideo and beaches in Canelones Department, but not yet.

So I think the current regionalization seems better. In particular, the wide variety of destinations in the East Region and the small number of cities in the Northern Region and Metropolitan Region seem like real problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Much like Talk:Paraguay#New_Banner - I find Uruguay's current banner to be not great, and also an inefficient PNG format. I couldn't find many great options on commons, but created these three. Any comments? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I've added a variation of option 2 (option 2b), which I think works a little better than option 2 in the article with the menu covering up the bottom of it. Of the five, my favorite is option 2b, followed by option 3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's go for your suggestion. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is also cheaper alcohol than whiskey on the traditional blends being grappa and caña, you can add this to redaction if you want to.--167.57.67.209 03:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Tomorrow I'm planning to do a workshop with a group of 5-10 Uruguayan teachers-in-training where I'll show them how to edit the English Wikivoyage and they'll add some information to some of our articles about Uruguay. They speak good English, and I'll keep a close eye on their edits to make sure they follow wiaa and other guidelines. I think this will be a good way to make some improvements to our coverage of Uruguay and possibly even attract some potential long-term contributors. I just want to leave this message as a heads-up not to be surprised when a few new accounts suddenly start editing articles about Uruguay at the same time tomorrow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's great! You might want to post in the Travellers' pub, which I think more people monitor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good point—I've moved this discussion to the pub. (It was originally at Talk:Uruguay.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mx. Granger: Why here rather than voy:es:Uruguay? Alternately, is it only here and not there as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good question. I'm working with these teachers-in-training once a week, partly to help them practice their English, and the activity I've planned for this week is the Wikivoyage workshop. Doing it on es.voy wouldn't accomplish the goal of helping them practice English. But in terms of encouraging them to continue contributing in the future, it would be great if they want to do that on es.voy too, and I'll mention that possibility to them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if your students can help, but Montevideo (capital city) is presently one very long article. Great if you could take a look at districts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

We just finished the workshop. I think it produced some useful content, and some of the students said they plan to continue improving the articles in the next few days! This evening when I get home I'll clean up the new articles and contributions. Next week I'll show them how to add pictures.

With respect to districts in Montevideo, I wonder if it might be better to leave it as one article for now - though Montevideo looks spread out on a map, the attractions are mostly concentrated around the Ciudad Vieja and Parque Rodó/Punta Carretas areas. The article doesn't look too much longer than Albuquerque, which is a star article. But I'd welcome other opinions - if the consensus is that it should be split, I'll discuss it with the students and see what districts they (and I) think would be useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would like if you also would have mentioned that also there is a Spanish language version of Wikivoyage in which they also could contribute the same content in their own language, so at the same time two projects would be gaining. --Zerabat (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did mention that, and I very much hope they'll contribute to the Spanish Wikivoyage too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hope so, but at the moment no one of these users joined eswikivoyage neither did a single edit since this workshop was hold, what is a pity. --Zerabat (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there

I just noted that sometimes AM and PM is used in the Uruguayan article. However, the times (t)here are quoted in 24 hr format and I had just confirmation buy a local that this is official.

Hence, I would like to make it official that we are consequently using the 00:00-23:59 format for Uruguay, and I will go ahead converting any left AM and PM to this version of time.

If there are no objections.

Cheers, André —The preceding comment was added by Ceever (talk • contribs)

Currency? Time is money? :)

Jokes aside, they indeed use the 24 h system in Uruguay, just like pretty much anywhere else outside the anglosphere so go ahead and change it. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, times should be given in 24-hour format in all Uruguay articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

from Wikivoyage:Correct typos in one click antel->mantel? (omit) context: ~~~ are prominently posted and always username: antel
antel password: wifi. Dedicado WiFi hotspots ~~~

Not a typo. It refers to "ANTEL", a government-owned telecommunications company providing access to telephony, mobile carrier and internet connections, among other services. --Onwa (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply