Français
ItalianoLatest comment: 3 months ago by Sbb1413 in topic Lemma
The correct URL for the Sound and Light Show is very difficult to find using Google. The one that was in this page until today (October 6, 2008) was not no longer correct. http://www.soundandlight.com.eg/Default.aspx does not take you directly to the Giza Pyramids Sound and Light but uclose enough; the use of asp makes it difficult to determine what a direct URL would be.
infobox
[edit]can the infobox in 'do' section be right-aligned and text wrapped? Not my arena... (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:54, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Hey it's only 4 years later...not in the most elegant manner, but I fixed the alignment issue in the show-times box. I wonder how up to date the info is...? (WT-en) Bbb0777 21:42, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
Lemma
[edit]The lemma Cairo/Giza makes no sense because Giza is a separated town which is a governorate capital, too. It is not a part of the town of Cairo. You should name it simply Giza. --RolandUnger (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Giza is not part of Cairo city, but it's part of Cairo metropolitan area. I think it would be confusing to the traveler if they were separated. Maybe we should add a note on relevant pages that they are part of the Cairo *metropolitan area* not municipality? Ar2332 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- The readers will be confused about Cairo/Giza if they will learn that they are in Giza and not in Cairo -- at least if they are looking for administration. Of course there is a metropolitan area named Greater Cairo. But it consists of about 18 (!) cities and a lot of villages as you can learn it from voy:de:Groß-Kairo. It makes no sense to have Cairo/6th of October City and Cairo/Shubra el-Kheima and so on. We should strictly divide between the city of Cairo situated only on the Nile east bank and the metropolitan area. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree - let's wait for other people to weigh in. Ar2332 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, here's the first phrase of the article: "Giza (الجيزة el-Gīza) is a city located to the west of the Egyptian capital Cairo". I haven't yet been to Egypt, but I'm wondering how similar the situation is to Los Angeles, where we cover a bunch of separate cities that are nevertheless usually considered part of L.A. because they are in L.A. County. For example, Santa Monica is quite visibly separate, with distinct-looking buses and police cars. But the thing is, the article for Santa Monica, though breadcrumbed to Westside (Los Angeles County), which is in turn breadcrumbed to Los Angeles, is not called Los Angeles/Santa Monica, but simply Santa Monica. So what would be the problem in titling this article simply Giza, removing the "Cairo/" portion of any other Greater Cairo municipalities and keeping the breadcrumbing and everything else as is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Ikan's suggestion.Ar2332 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Roland, but I am also in favour of keeping it a part of Cairo. I reckon most people would stay in the centre of Cairo when visiting the Pyramids. With two cities to take care about, travellers will get the impression they have to plan an additional trip to the Pyramids besides Cairo. But actually when you are in Cairo, it is very easy to board a local train from Ramses Station and after 10-20 min get off at Giza Station for the Pyramids. Furthermore, the Cairo article reads like there are some trains with a final stop in Giza, as to the alternative station Ramses. Ceever (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- And the City of London is a single square mile -- everything else is Greater London. But we call the other parts "London/West End", etc., because that's how travellers see them. The municipal administrative arrangements are of no concern to the overwhelming majority of travellers. When I booked my hotel in Dokki in order to be close to downtown Cairo and its sights, I had no idea that administratively it was in Giza city, and it made no difference to me during my stay. I walked across a couple of bridges, hailed a Careem, or hopped on the metro to see the sights of Cairo. There is a short pedestrian bridge from Coptic Cairo to Gezira Island for Pete's sake. Gezira is also in Giza city. Travellers see Giza as a suburb of Cairo because it is one, so let's help them out by keeping Cairo in the articles' names. Ground Zero (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Roland, but I am also in favour of keeping it a part of Cairo. I reckon most people would stay in the centre of Cairo when visiting the Pyramids. With two cities to take care about, travellers will get the impression they have to plan an additional trip to the Pyramids besides Cairo. But actually when you are in Cairo, it is very easy to board a local train from Ramses Station and after 10-20 min get off at Giza Station for the Pyramids. Furthermore, the Cairo article reads like there are some trains with a final stop in Giza, as to the alternative station Ramses. Ceever (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Ikan's suggestion.Ar2332 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, here's the first phrase of the article: "Giza (الجيزة el-Gīza) is a city located to the west of the Egyptian capital Cairo". I haven't yet been to Egypt, but I'm wondering how similar the situation is to Los Angeles, where we cover a bunch of separate cities that are nevertheless usually considered part of L.A. because they are in L.A. County. For example, Santa Monica is quite visibly separate, with distinct-looking buses and police cars. But the thing is, the article for Santa Monica, though breadcrumbed to Westside (Los Angeles County), which is in turn breadcrumbed to Los Angeles, is not called Los Angeles/Santa Monica, but simply Santa Monica. So what would be the problem in titling this article simply Giza, removing the "Cairo/" portion of any other Greater Cairo municipalities and keeping the breadcrumbing and everything else as is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree - let's wait for other people to weigh in. Ar2332 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- The readers will be confused about Cairo/Giza if they will learn that they are in Giza and not in Cairo -- at least if they are looking for administration. Of course there is a metropolitan area named Greater Cairo. But it consists of about 18 (!) cities and a lot of villages as you can learn it from voy:de:Groß-Kairo. It makes no sense to have Cairo/6th of October City and Cairo/Shubra el-Kheima and so on. We should strictly divide between the city of Cairo situated only on the Nile east bank and the metropolitan area. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @RolandUnger, Ar2332, Ikan Kekek, Ceever, Ground Zero: The discussion is 6 years old, but I'm sharing my insights regarding this issue. Although I've never travelled outside India, I know that Cairo and Giza are separate cities at opposite sides of the Nile. Not only that, but when one thinks of Giza, the Ancient Egypt will come to their mind, but when they think of Cairo, the Islamic Egypt will come to their mind. There are many Indian analogues to the Cairo-Giza situation, like Kolkata-Howrah (covered separately) and Mumbai-Navi Mumbai (covered separately). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For Los Angeles, I don't know why certain otherwise distinct tourist destinations with separate administrations are breadcrumbed under Los Angeles. If I divide California into counties and cities, I would have a separate LA County article, under which would come the City of LA, with surrounding cities being covered separately (except the ones enclaved within the City of LA). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because no-one except for officials considers L.A. anything but L.A. County, and also because the City of L.A. has an odd shape that doesn't really have much to do with the interests of visitors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing my confusion with LA. So, what about Giza? I think it can be treated as a separate city, just like how Howrah is treated as a separate city from Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't been to Egypt, but Giza is mainly across the Nile from Cairo, so I can see how your analogy could be apt. I suggested a compromise above, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you're trying to copy the three-way division of New York City into boroughs and then districts, I think there's no need to deviate from the usual "city/district" naming convention for districts. And since Giza is a separate city with its own tourist significance (the Pyramids), I can see the need to describe it as a separate city. The Cairo/Dokki and Mohandiseen district can be merged into Giza once Giza becomes a WV city, because Dokki and Mohandiseen are at the Giza side. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cairo and Giza are different cites as I stated it six years ago, and Giza isn't a suburb of Cairo. Both cities are dived by the Nile river and are the capitals of two different governorates. It is not uncommon in Egypt to have one settlement one the one bank of the Nile river or a canal, and another and different one on the other bank. Cairo/Giza is completely wrong because Giza isn't a quarter of Cairo, and that's why Giza should be separated from Cairo. At the German Wikivoyage both Cairo and Giza are separated; and there is a separate page on Greater Cairo which is the metropolitan area. Nobody is telling about any pyramids of Cairo nor the islamic town of Giza because they are not existent. This is an additional cause to make the separation. By the way, Luxor, Karnak and the Theban west bank are separate cities and regions, too. Luxor is only on the east bank, the west bank (and Karnak) do not belong to the city of Luxor. At least, readers of Cairo/Giza think that the authors have no idea of the geography of Egypt. Wikivoyage should not spread wrong information. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Wikivoyage, we are not concerned with municipal boundaries, but with what makes most sense for travellers. The municipal organization is explained in the lead paragraphs of geese articles. Giza being a "separate city" is not a valid argument. Merging Dokki and Mohandiseen into Giza because they are municipally part of Giza would make a very large article in which it would more difficult for readers to find information. I would strongly oppose that. If you want to promote reorganizing or re-naming things, please do not argue on the basis of municipal boundaries, but on the basis of what is useful for travellers. As far as the argument that "Giza isn't a quarter of Cairo", it is officially defined as part of the Greater Cairo economic region, just as all of the parts of London that are not yet City of London are part of Greater London. Similarly, w:Luxor is commonly used to describe the east and west banks, so it is not "wrong information "; it is what people call the area, despite what the municipal bureaucrats say. Ground Zero (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- "In Wikivoyage, we are not concerned with municipal boundaries, but with what makes most sense for travellers. In Wikivoyage, we are not concerned with municipal boundaries, but with what makes most sense for travellers. The municipal organization is explained in the lead paragraphs of geese articles. Giza being a "separate city" is not a valid argument."
- @Ground Zero: To most travellers, Giza is a separate tourist destination with the Pyramids. I'm not arguing with exact municipal boundaries to follow, but with the very fact that commoners consider Cairo and Giza as twin cities rather than Cairo on both sides, despite being parts of the Greater Cairo region. Same for Kolkata and Howrah, both parts of the Greater Kolkata region.
- "Merging Dokki and Mohandiseen into Giza because they are municipally part of Giza would make a very large article in which it would more difficult for readers to find information. I would strongly oppose that. If you want to promote reorganizing or re-naming things, please do not argue on the basis of municipal boundaries, but on the basis of what is useful for travellers."
- If merging that district into Giza is problematic, then keep it as a separate district but put it under Giza. Again, this is not on the basis on municipal boundaries, but to make a distinction between Cairo and Giza sides of the Nile for travellers.
- "As far as the argument that "Giza isn't a quarter of Cairo", it is officially defined as part of the Greater Cairo economic region, just as all of the parts of London that are not yet City of London are part of Greater London."
- Howrah is also a part of the Kolkata metropolitan area, but that does not promote the people (at least locals) to call that area "a part of Kolkata". However, some northern, eastern, and southern suburbs are called "parts of Kolkata", and the separation between the city and the suburbs is not obvious, unlike Howrah which is separated from Kolkata by the Hooghly River. Same thing for the twin cities Cairo and Giza, separated by the Nile.
- The City of London is an enclave within Greater London and travellers would get through this area to visit other parts of London, so it makes sense to include the enclave under London. It is a different scenario as the entire city proper is surrounded by another, unlike Kolkata-Howrah or Cairo-Giza where the two city propers are at different sides of a river. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Wikivoyage, we are not concerned with municipal boundaries, but with what makes most sense for travellers. The municipal organization is explained in the lead paragraphs of geese articles. Giza being a "separate city" is not a valid argument. Merging Dokki and Mohandiseen into Giza because they are municipally part of Giza would make a very large article in which it would more difficult for readers to find information. I would strongly oppose that. If you want to promote reorganizing or re-naming things, please do not argue on the basis of municipal boundaries, but on the basis of what is useful for travellers. As far as the argument that "Giza isn't a quarter of Cairo", it is officially defined as part of the Greater Cairo economic region, just as all of the parts of London that are not yet City of London are part of Greater London. Similarly, w:Luxor is commonly used to describe the east and west banks, so it is not "wrong information "; it is what people call the area, despite what the municipal bureaucrats say. Ground Zero (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cairo and Giza are different cites as I stated it six years ago, and Giza isn't a suburb of Cairo. Both cities are dived by the Nile river and are the capitals of two different governorates. It is not uncommon in Egypt to have one settlement one the one bank of the Nile river or a canal, and another and different one on the other bank. Cairo/Giza is completely wrong because Giza isn't a quarter of Cairo, and that's why Giza should be separated from Cairo. At the German Wikivoyage both Cairo and Giza are separated; and there is a separate page on Greater Cairo which is the metropolitan area. Nobody is telling about any pyramids of Cairo nor the islamic town of Giza because they are not existent. This is an additional cause to make the separation. By the way, Luxor, Karnak and the Theban west bank are separate cities and regions, too. Luxor is only on the east bank, the west bank (and Karnak) do not belong to the city of Luxor. At least, readers of Cairo/Giza think that the authors have no idea of the geography of Egypt. Wikivoyage should not spread wrong information. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you're trying to copy the three-way division of New York City into boroughs and then districts, I think there's no need to deviate from the usual "city/district" naming convention for districts. And since Giza is a separate city with its own tourist significance (the Pyramids), I can see the need to describe it as a separate city. The Cairo/Dokki and Mohandiseen district can be merged into Giza once Giza becomes a WV city, because Dokki and Mohandiseen are at the Giza side. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't been to Egypt, but Giza is mainly across the Nile from Cairo, so I can see how your analogy could be apt. I suggested a compromise above, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing my confusion with LA. So, what about Giza? I think it can be treated as a separate city, just like how Howrah is treated as a separate city from Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because no-one except for officials considers L.A. anything but L.A. County, and also because the City of L.A. has an odd shape that doesn't really have much to do with the interests of visitors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For Los Angeles, I don't know why certain otherwise distinct tourist destinations with separate administrations are breadcrumbed under Los Angeles. If I divide California into counties and cities, I would have a separate LA County article, under which would come the City of LA, with surrounding cities being covered separately (except the ones enclaved within the City of LA). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with the claims that "To most travellers, Giza is a separate tourist destination ... commoners consider Cairo and Giza as twin cities". Do you have evidence of that?
Lonely Planet, Fodor's, and Frommer's websites all list Giza as being a part of Cairo. They share an airport, and two of the Cairo Metro system's three lines cross into Giza, and the new Line 4 will too. I visited Cairo only for five days or so, and stayed on the other side of the river. We usually just walked across the bridge. In my view, we were visiting Cairo. It is now about five years later that I learn that I should say that we visited the "Greater Cairo region" to be technically accurate, but in my memory it's Cairo. Ground Zero (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage is split between the two approaches:
- Giza: German, French, Dutch, Polish, Swedish, Hebrew
- Cairo/Giza: English, Chinese, Portuguese, Bengali
- Ground Zero (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The same thing is applicable for Howrah in relation to Kolkata.
- Many tourist websites list the attractions in Howrah (especially Belur Math and Botanic Garden) under Kolkata, unless the websites specifically discuss about Howrah.
- Both Howrah and Kolkata are served by the same airport (CCU) and railway station (HWH, though there are other two main stations within Kolkata proper).
- Line 2 of the Kolkata Metro has been expended to Howrah last year, and there are proposals to have metro lines there.
- I have visited Kolkata a few times by train or car. Both of these cases, I just have to cross one of the four bridges to get to Kolkata.
- However, in my view, I have entered Howrah first before entering Kolkata. I don't know why you thought both sides of the Nile as Cairo, but I thought one side of the Hooghly as Kolkata and the other side as Howrah.
- So, while it might not be wrong to consider Giza as a district of Cairo, I need to see whether it is possible to consider Howrah as a district of Kolkata. The Kolkata article once had a listing of "Howrah" as a district, but I had then removed it since Howrah is a separate city article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Turns out, there's a Wikitravel-era discussions on the districtification of Kolkata at Talk:Kolkata/Archive (2006–2020)#District break-up. The proposer of the districts says, "No. Howrah is a separate city and is in the Howrah district. The city of Calcutta lies within the N. 24 Parganas, S. 24 Parganas and Calcutta Minicipal districts. Howrah should have a separate article. It's also on the other side of the river, to the west. There's no denying the fact that it is part of the Cal Megapolis, but that stretches till the harbor and as far as Kaharagpur [sic] (over 100km w. of Howrah). We can make that a sub-region of West Bengal and Howrah can fall within it." This one opinion leads to Howrah being a separate city article rather than a district of Kolkata. But like what some users have done with Giza, this user also uses bureaucratic arguments for a separate city instead of considering the reality. Actually, depending on whom you ask, the city of Kolkata may be restricted to the Kolkata district of West Bengal, or may be expanded to other nearby districts if suburbs are included. Indeed, we have included a couple of suburbs in the Kolkata article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of Kolkata, so I won't comment on that issue. I do have some knowledge of Cairo. In a world a diverse as ours, we cannot expect to have consistency between cities. I don't have a problem with Kolkata and Cairo being treated differently. As I noted above, for tourism purposes, Giza is treated as being an adjunct of Cairo by other travel sites. How a city is treated for tourism purposes is the appropriate basis for determining how Wikivoyage treats it, and is not a "bureaucratic argument". Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ground Zero: Well, I won't debate further regarding this, especially as I have visited Kolkata but not Cairo. Once I'll be able to know more about Egypt and its culture, I'll revisit this discussion. Since there are only a handful of people here with the knowledge of Kolkata (most notably Rangan Datta), I'll plunge forward and see what I can do with Howrah. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of Kolkata, so I won't comment on that issue. I do have some knowledge of Cairo. In a world a diverse as ours, we cannot expect to have consistency between cities. I don't have a problem with Kolkata and Cairo being treated differently. As I noted above, for tourism purposes, Giza is treated as being an adjunct of Cairo by other travel sites. How a city is treated for tourism purposes is the appropriate basis for determining how Wikivoyage treats it, and is not a "bureaucratic argument". Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Turns out, there's a Wikitravel-era discussions on the districtification of Kolkata at Talk:Kolkata/Archive (2006–2020)#District break-up. The proposer of the districts says, "No. Howrah is a separate city and is in the Howrah district. The city of Calcutta lies within the N. 24 Parganas, S. 24 Parganas and Calcutta Minicipal districts. Howrah should have a separate article. It's also on the other side of the river, to the west. There's no denying the fact that it is part of the Cal Megapolis, but that stretches till the harbor and as far as Kaharagpur [sic] (over 100km w. of Howrah). We can make that a sub-region of West Bengal and Howrah can fall within it." This one opinion leads to Howrah being a separate city article rather than a district of Kolkata. But like what some users have done with Giza, this user also uses bureaucratic arguments for a separate city instead of considering the reality. Actually, depending on whom you ask, the city of Kolkata may be restricted to the Kolkata district of West Bengal, or may be expanded to other nearby districts if suburbs are included. Indeed, we have included a couple of suburbs in the Kolkata article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Explore the world
United states
New York
Japan
Tokyo
Singapore
Singapore
