Talk:Mogadishu

Left side of the road? I thought Somalia drives on the right side of the road? (they can't even agree on that!!!)--71.237.244.146 00:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Pointless commentary
So I'm not really the edit war type, can you stop re-adding the part about "you shouldn't even be here in the first place"? It's irrelevant to the article, this is a guide for those that are going or are there now. Advice in the "Stay safe" section about how to get around, etc safely is appropriate, silly comments in the "get out" section like yours, not so necessary. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


 * This is also an article for people who might be thinking of going there. I mean, let's face it, some people like the thrill of taking their life into their own hands. (WT-en) Grimlock 05:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Driving
Having read both articles, Mogadishu and Somalia, they seem to contradict each other. The Somalia page mentions that it is generally accepted that you drive on the left, the Mogadishu page disagrees with this and states that it is agreed that you drive on the right. Although fairly amusing I think it would be more useful if one could be chosen over the other. --(WT-en) Breenie 09:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Feel free to update as you see fit... better yet, maybe word it somehow that one should expect the left/right rule to be thrown to the wind, and be prepared for anything, since that sounds more like the case – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Black Hawk Down
Yes, it could definitely use a rewrite... btw, you have contacted Wikivoyage directly :) And you can be a part of it as much as anyone else, feel free to plunge forward and rewrite the section in a more balanced and accurate tone. But please don't delete it all together, there's the makings of an interesting understand section if the right person comes and tackles it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:15, 22 January 2009 (EST)

The discussion about the purpose of the movie and the deaths of U.S. soldiers was irrelevant to this article. The tone of the paragraph, describing the bodies of soldiers being dragged bordered on gloating and had no relevance regarding travel to Mogadishu. Accordingly, it was deleted.

Grammar nazi
A well meaning anonymous user changed my text about the Arba-Rucun Mosque from this:
 * Fortunate enough to have a relation to Islam, one of few things the city's warlords can agree on, this 1269 mosque has been more lucky than the neighbouring cathedral, and is one of very few buildings in the historic center which is not a ruin. It's said to have been built by a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

into this:
 * This building has been fortunate enough to have a relation to Islam, a religion the city's warlords can agree on. Therefore, the warlords have agreed to keep it maintained, one of the few things in the city holding such a status. Dating from 1269, the mosque has been more lucky than the neighbouring cathedral, and it is one of very few buildings in the historic center which is not a ruin. It's said to have been built by a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

When adding this I had been very careful to try keep in line with the general tone of the article, which I think is wonderful. Does anyone else find the new version dry and encyclopaedic? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 01:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Turkish Airlines to Mogadishu?
I am a Turk who visited Mogadishu in 2012, and am sure that Turkish Airlines do NOT fly from Istanbul to Mogadishu. There are multiple ways to go from Istanbul to Mogadishu, but none include a direct flight beween the two cities. One has to go from Istanbul to Nairobi via Turkish Airlines and then catch one of the local flights to Mogadishu there.

That being said, Turkish Airlines plans to commence direct flights between Istanbul and Mogadishu in maybe late March 2012. That all depends upon the safety of the aeroport which does not meet the international safety requirements yet. However, there is ongoing work as to increasing the safety of the aeroport. Once done, Turkish airlines will be able to fly to Mogadishu.


 * Just try the Turkish Airlines website. Seems there are flights most days. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Banner
The Mogadishu banner is very poor! I had a look at the source and the explanation is that someone and stretched.

A quick browse doesn't yield anything on wikimedia that might replace it (I think war scenes from 1992 are not that relevant for a banner)

Should we keep this bad banner or should we leave the default so that this article can be identified easily later for fixing? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say return to default, it's very bad. I can also try to crop another banner from the photo on the right but it is old as well (1993). Jjtkk (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bad banner, but I do think it's better than no banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the new banner is slightly better than the old one. It's quite understandable that there aren't a lot of great current photos of Mogadishu. Violence is down from its peak, but it is still quite an unsafe city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That picture is better, although the name of the original "File:K-4_Circle_outside_of_the_Bangladesh_Army_compound.JPEG" would suggest it was taken around 1992 when the UN troops were still trying to stabilize the country. I would say something a bit more recent would be great.
 * By the way, I disagree on the point that 'a bad banner is better than no banner'. If a page has no banner then it can be easily identified in a template search whereas a page with a bad banner has no chance for the same to happen. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, trying to find that perfect snapshot of Mogadishu is a pretty depressing exercise. Some CC images from Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/104819607@N08/10169198414/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/104819607@N08/10169196754/

Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I wasn't suggesting that in every case, a bad banner is better than no banner. Some banners might be so bad that it would be good to excise them, no matter what. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My (purely subjective) opinion was that the original banner was sufficiently bad so as to justify its removal. I guess the 'quality bar' is just a difference of opinion.
 * It is an interesting question though.. for some hard to reach locations (such as Mogadishu or areas of North Korea outside the capital) there is an understandable lack of quality CC licensed content to draw from. I do understand that we need to compromise quality at times. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That was why I was willing to accept a blurry pagebanner on this page, if that was the best we had. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Update the warning
The warning was last updated four years ago. Are there government sources we could cite as to a more recent appraisal? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * For stuff like this, you can always do a web search on "US State Department travel warning Somalia" and similar terms and read through the warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Updated with content from State's latest warning. Add links to other warning sites if you like (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, wherever). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

New banner
The current banner is really drab. How about one of these alternatives? One of these could also be used for the Somalia article, which has a somewhat drab banner too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite like option 2. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like 2, then 3. Good suggestions. Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2, and I hope Mogadishu can experience some peace and a decent standard of living in the foreseeable future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)