text:
Talk:Quy Nhon

I merged Quy Nhon with Qui Nhon-- there were two different pages for the same city based on city-name spelling differences. All the Qui Nhon info has been added to this page. (WT-en) Baklavabaklava

Amazing article. Star nomination
This Quy Nhon article is incredible. My husband and I live in Asia and have been using lots of travel guides, including Wikivoyage artiles where they exist, during our trips around the region. This Quy Nhon article is the best guide we've found of all the resources we've used.

The article hooked us from the beginning. We hadn't planned to visit Quy Nhon (honestly, we'd barely heard of it), but when we found this article while browsing around, we were captivated. Not only did we change all our plans and go hundreds of miles out of our way to this city entirely because of this one article, but we ended up staying longer than we planned and skipped Nha Trang, which we already knew.

The article is fun, lively and very, very informative. The descriptions of the attractions where to go are spot-on. Not only do they give great information and directions for how to get there (really needed in many cases because there are no signs or other information!), but they also include several places that are so hidden that locals didn't even know. The most amazing discovery we made because of this guide was the huge empty beach on the peninsula; I've never been to a beach which is just empty sand for 10 miles straight and not one person anywhere. No way any traveler could find it without the help of this guide.

I'm not a history buff at all, but the history section is wonderful because it gave us the context to understand what we were seeing; without it, we would have been totally clueless and missed the deeper points behind different attractions. We researched Quy Nhon on our own, and there's very little information about it (at least in English) anywhere on the internet. It's crazy, but this Wikivoyage article is the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history!

The listings are spot-on. We slept, ate and drank in many places from the listings, and checked out many others. In every case, the descriptions were accurate, and details like prices and locations were perfectly accurate. It's very difficult for a guidebook to be both thorough, realistic and accurate, but this article achieved that feat.

The food sections are great. I love to explore local cuisine, and Quy Nhon was paradise. Even knowing Vietnam well, it still was outstanding. But there's no way we would have found these places, or known which local foods to try, if we hadn't had this guide.

I can't emphasize enough how little information there is about Quy Nhon. The only other English-language guides we found are very low quality. My guess is that the authors spent only a night in the city. It's not nice to say which guides, but even the big-name guides either have mistakes or have nothing. They only write of the beach restaurants and the easy-to-reach Champa sites. There's no information about the city itself, no description of places outside the center, no historical context, no local food guide, and definitely no information about hidden places. The Wikivoyage article is by far the best guide to the city that exists anywhere online or offline.

We'd really like to thank all the people who wrote this guide: User:VeeWin, User:Traveler100, User:Ikan Kekek, User:Seligne, User:Dragfyre, User:Texugo, User:Traveler100bot, User:Wrh2Bot and whoever else. (I just copied the first few names.)

We edited the guide a bit, just adding some seafood prices. But there's not much we can add to it: it's already extremely high quality. And that's why we were so perplexed that it has a "usable" guide status. "An adventurous person could use this article"...? It's true that perhaps you have to be adventurous just to go to Quy Nhon, but that belittles the article needlessly. It's an incredible article. I'm new on Wikivoyage and my opinion doesn't matter, but we decided that perhaps there are so few tourists who actually know Quy Nhon that the article has been overlooked, so we decided that - as someone who actually has used it in the city itself - we'd like to nominate the article for star status. Our recommendation counts for little, but the article stands on its own merit.

It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used. It has two wondefully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way: now THAT's effectiveness!). The grammar seems perfect to me. And the photos are incredible: very useful to get a feeling for the place, and extremely beautiful and artistic.

Thank you to everyone who put this together! :)

Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm a Wiki user but rarely a contributor. I don't think I've ever commented on a wiki discussion ever. But i clicked on this discussion because this guide deserves recognition, not only because it's excellent, but because it's excellent in a completely out-of-the-way place, in a highly entertaining and detailed way. I'm on the bus on the way to Quy Nhon now, and read every word. I've saved screenshots to my phone for easy access. And I'm already debating staying longer than the 2 nights I've planned, simply for the food. You can tell the authors are both knowledgeable and love this place. If nothing else, I'm glad to see the star nominations, to know that someone else appreciates this greatness. Pbaribeau (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm not a writer on Wikivoyage, but I just wanted to add another message in praise of this great article. Like the people above, we found this article while traveling through Vietnam, and then ended up changing our plans to go to Quy Nhon because of this guide. It's the best article we've seen on Wikivoyage, and one of the best guides for any city from any source, be it travel company, blogger, or wiki. The authors of this Wikivoyage article have incredibly detailed information for the traveler covering all needs, fascinating history, lots of local tidbits of color, wonderful hand-made maps, and mouth-watering descriptions of this hidden foodie paradise. There aren't many Western travelers in Quy Nhon, but the people we met there all mentioned that they were relying exclusively on this Wiki article for information. The user above labeled it "greatness", and I agree completely. Greatness indeed. Thank you! sara88p

Quy Nhon, Vietnam: Star Nomination
I'd like to nominate the article Quy Nhon for a star. I think it's an amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The prose is effective, well-written and easy to read, and the grammar seems very good to me. The photos are informative and quite beautiful.

Having just visited the city, I can confirm that the listings are spot-on. And the history section gives context which is unavailable elsewhere; it's the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history.

I posted more on the Quy Nhon talk page and the star nomination page. I also put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Nice article indeed. How about adding latitude/longitude to all listings? Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the two banners have low definition. You can see that the picture has been scaled up. Syced (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree: this is an excellent article. Ground Zero (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Star nomination
Amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The grammar seems very good to me.

The listings are spot-on; we visited many of the places listed, and in every case we saw, the descriptions were thorough, realistic and accurate, and details like prices and locations were perfect.

The history section is wonderful because it gave us the context to understand what we were seeing; without it, we would have been totally clueless and missed the deeper points behind different attractions. We researched Quy Nhon on our own, and there's very little information about it (at least in English) anywhere on the internet. It's crazy, but this Wikivoyage article is the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history!

And the photos are incredible: very useful to get a feeling for the place, and extremely beautiful and artistic.

The article is by far the best guide to the city that exists anywhere online or offline. My husband and I were perplexed that it has a "usable" guide status. "An adventurous person could use this article"...? It's true that perhaps you have to be adventurous just to go to Quy Nhon, but that belittles the article needlessly. I'm new on Wikivoyage (used it a lot, but not a writer) and my opinion doesn't matter, but we decided that perhaps there are so few tourists who actually know Quy Nhon that the article has been overlooked, so we decided that - as someone who actually has used it in the city itself - we'd like to nominate the article for star status. Our recommendation counts for little, but the article stands on its own merit.

I posted on the Quy Nhon talk page, the traveler pub, and put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * It sounds like a very interesting place & it is indeed a very good article.
 * However, I think it needs quite a bit of copy editing. Mostly minor stuff like eliminating  tags (just use a blank line), eliminating unnecessary blank lines, etc.
 * To me, the use of bold text seems seriously excessive; I'd eliminate at least 70% of it. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the use of bolded text is really excessive. And the formatting, particularly in the See section, can be rather clunky and awkward. However, other than that, I'm hard-pressed to think of any other real critiques of this guide. I really enjoyed reading this one for the in-depth look at a part of the world I know next to nothing about. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm glad to see maps included, but there are serious issues with their readability. I'm not sure whether this is enough to hold up a star nomination, but it's a serious problem, I think. Powers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Just speaking for my husband and myself, the maps are extremely useful. No issues with readability. We're in our 60s and sensitive about readability issues, but we had no problems. The maps are a godsend, because there are no tourist maps of the city (even from nicer hotels) and other sources on the internet have maps that aren't detailed or are just wrong. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm impressed. I cannot read the map legend for the city map at the size it is in the article. If I click on the map I can read the legend but still can't identify the numbers in the icons. Powers (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * For me, it's large and very easy to read all details. Unfortunately, my eyesight isn't impressive; I didn't do anything special, just clicked the map a few times and saved the big size 3008 x 2647. I can zoom in and see crisp detail on my smartphone. The listing numbers are very clear. My husband and I saved both the city and the region maps and used them non-stop on both our phones every day while there. The city map is very detailed, has every street, every site, every restaurant. A godsend in a city where there's no other reliable information. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 * There's certainly the bones of a Star article in here, but it needs work before it gets a support vote from me. The concerns pointed out by the others are well noted - especially the abundant boldface text, which is a real eyesore. Additionally, though I know I'm quite the one to talk about this, I find the History section to be overlong and encyclopedic. There's a fine line between, on the one hand, giving travellers a rich abundance of background information that gives them a feel for the place, and on the other hand weighing the article down with a tedious history lesson of dubious import to modern-day visitors. Additionally, the unnecessary row of empty space between many of the listings needs to be addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I can only speak for myself here, but I was actually surprisingly okay with the length of the History section here. I think it was because it's very focused, in spite of its length; it specifically deals with only three subjects, ties each one to what modern travelers will see, and leaves it there. But I agree that a little trimming back couldn't hurt. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * It is a good article, but it does need some technical edits before it would be a star. In addition to the comments above, the listings in Buy - Stores look wrong Big C dimensions don't make sense: "18,000 m² (19,000 ft²) building". Coopmart claims to be the only supermarket, but Big C is listed above. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * The area looks like a typo. I just looked it up and saw that 18,000 m2 is about 190,000 ft2, not 19,000. I changed it. I feel qualified to do that much of a change, at least. As for Coopmart being the only supermarket and not Big C, that's true as far as we saw in our visit. From what we saw, Big C is a big store outside the center with household products and bulk packages of dry food. Coopmart sells fresh food, meat, etc., in addition to household goods. For me, that makes Big C a hypermarket and Coopmart a supermarket. So I agree with the article's description.Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a history buff at all, and my eyes glazed over a little when I saw it, too. It's not a city like Singapore or Ho Chi Minh City, for example, where a traveller can easily find information if they want. With Quy Nhon, there's no other information in English anywhere on the internet. This Wikivoyage article isn't just the best source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history, it's the only source. Some people travel to a place and don't care about the historical context of where they are; that's their choice. But with no other information available, it seems that to delete the best and only source about a region would hurt those who want to understand the context of where they travel. I agree with PerryPlanet that the history it's good that it's tightly focused on 3 specific periods which are very relevant in understanding Quy Nhon today. For my husband and I as visitors there, I can confirm that the details from the history were very helpful as travellers and we would have been blind without it. The few other Western travellers we bumped into did in fact have no idea about what they were seeing or what they were doing, and they were very happy - and relieved - when we introduced them to this article. Also, the article is well written and easy to read, in my opinion, which helps a lot. I can't emphasize enough that nobody in the area speaks any English at all, there is no written English information of any value in the city or on the internet, and tourist sites have no English (they actually have almost no Vietnamese either). The Champa archaelogical sites have no information, no guides, nothing; without this article, you'd have no idea of the history and you'd leave just thinking that it's a nice pile of bricks (which is more or less the description of the few foreign travellers we met). There are so many connections in the city to the Tay Son rebellion and the martial arts fighters, for example the statues on the beach, many pictures hanging in buildings, cafes, paintings, names of streets, students practicing martial arts everywhere, but we would have missed it without this guide. With the Vietnam War, knowing that the beach where we strolled had massive camps of refugees who had to flee their homes just 50 years ago because of U.S. pacification gave a depth to our visit that made our trip much more worthwhile. Another example is that the nice beach hotels popular with foreigners are located among the southern cliffs which American warships attacked based on information Korean soldiers found about Viet Cong troops, but even the foreign managers living and working in those hotels had no idea. To me, that's not of dubious import or tedious; rather, it's the really interesting information that makes a travel guide valuable. It's very relevant to our experience as travellers today, it makes for a rich, fulfilling trip instead of just a drive-by, and it'd be a pity to cut it out. - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought a lot about the comments you all made about the length of the history. As members of the board of editors, you know better what's good for a travel article. So I can just give you my view that as a traveller who actually used this guide in the city, I'd suggest that the history is fabulous as it currently is.

 * Goodness, this is such an interesting discussion but could you tell me please, what is my role supposed to be here? As a traveller who has used Wikivoyage in many, many cities, I believe this article is as good as any of the star articles in Asia, and better than most of them. If the goal of a Wikivoyage article is to be the only guide necessary for a traveller, this article is it. That's why it seemed so odd to my husband and me that the article has a little sign thing that it's only "usable" for "adventurous travellers", so we just wanted to point it out and suggest it be starred. But I'm not on the board of editors like you folks, so I'm feeling a little out of my league and not qualified enough to try to improve it. Is this like a hearing where I'm now supposed to advocate on behalf of the article? If so, I'm probably not the best person. Maybe the people who wrote it are more qualified like AlasdairW, PerryPlanet, Pashley, VeeWin, Traveler100, Ikan Kekek, Seligne and Dragfyre, Wikivoyage anonymous user 14.183.106.38. I can only give you our point of view as a travelling couple that this is one of the best articles on Asia in Wikivoyage. Sincerely, - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi, Linda Beth 123. I'm not a major contributor to this article; I've just done a bit of copy editing and such. For example, I just deleted a bunch of unneeded "br" codes and other extra spaces. I think you've done a wonderful thing by pointing to this article, which looks excellent indeed! It's quite a content-laden article, so I don't think I'll have time to read it in full today or in the next few days, but I think that, in any case, the others' remarks about how it's short of "Star" status are a great thing, not a bad thing, because they point forward to how to make this article a Star, something that is much less likely to have happened in the near future if you had not made this nomination. One thing to keep in mind about Star status is that it means that an article is more than an excellent Guide article, but is nearly perfect in all respects. Pointing out ways in which readers consider this article to currently fall short of that extremely lofty standard shouldn't be seen as the least bit dismissive of you. It's wonderful that this Wikivoyage guide was so helpful to you and your husband in your travels! That, more than whether the article is or is not currently at Star status, is really the most important thing, and the level to which we should aspire for all articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with TripAdvisor; contributing there is a little more accessible for us common people than this here :-). The truth is that, at least in Asia, the TripAdvisor hotels overview and a quick scan of the listings is significantly better than Wikivoyage for a traveller to get a feel of where to sleep; in many cases, it's also better for restaurants and tourist sites. Even Wikivoyage's star articles in Asia just don't compare. This Quy Nhon article is one of the only places I've found where Wikivoyage surpasses TripAdvisor for both breadth of selection and depth of information about hotels, and in every other section outside hotels, it's obviously no comparison and the information in this Wikivoyage article makes it by far the best guide to the city. It convinced us to go hundreds of miles out of our way to visit, it guided us while we were there, and our travels are richer for it. That's why I pointed it out and nominated the article for a star, so hopefully others will find it, recognize its usefulness and have a more rewarding travel experience thanks to it. Ok, that's enough from me. I did what I could. Thanks again to all of you for your help. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ikan Kekek. I think the content of this article is fabulous, but it's over my head to discuss about br's and bolding. It already was tough to figure out what mdash means in the nomination checklist and to change every ndash/nbsp to mdash before nominating this article. Rating articles can create issues, but if you're going to do it, then travellers like me will believe that a rating of "usable" or "star" reflects the quality of the information; a "usable" rating on an article makes people believe it to be less trustworthy, a "star" rating more reliable. So it it seems that this - quality of content, information, reliability - should be the sine qua non of a star article, and that great content should be presented with smooth writing, informative and beautiful pictures, and good grammar. Beyond that, formatting certainly matters, but it's secondary and not the focus, don't you think? Some copy-editing can make a high-quality article fit whatever formatting standards you have, but no copy-editing can make low-quality content helpful.

 * Linda Beth 123, I'd actually be really interested to see some specific criticisms of other articles about Asia that have "Star" status but aren't so helpful. That's important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I wrote much of the current version of this article. I was thrilled to see that it's actually helped people enjoy the area. It's an honour that the article is being considered for a star. Please let me know all your suggestions for improvement: I'll do all the work necessary so that Quy Nhơn can become the first star article from Vietnam.
 * Bolding (Pashley, PerryPlanet, AndreCarrotflower): My fault for too much bolding. I was following wv:bold and this comment by LtPowers that readers should be able to skim and get the ideas without reading each and every word. I overdid it. I'm sorry. Actually, I'm happy to take much of it out: it's awkward to write in a way which creates good, self-contained highlighted clips but is still smooth prose when reading the full text. Please let me know how the current version does in striking a balance between highlighting important points but not being overwhelming.
 * Maps (LtPowers, Linda Beth 123): I think I understand why Linda Beth sees the details, but Lt. Powers doesn't. Linda Beth mentioned that she clicked several times and downloaded, so I'm assuming she went through to the originals. The original region map is 2,000 x 1,393, and the city map 3,008 x 2,647; all details are visible on both. But the previews default to 800 x 557 and 681 x 599, respectively, and it's fuzzy, especially the city map, so I see Lt. Powers's concern. I tried uploading different sizes myself to Wikimedia Commons, and per wv guidelines both maps are fully-editable SVGs with all information organized into category folders, but I wasn't able to control the wv default preview size. I'm happy to do whatever's necessary to improve it, but I'm unsure what would work. What do you suggest?
 * Big C, Coopmart (AlasdairW): Nice catch. It was a typo: 18,000m² is about 190,000 ft², not 19,000. Thanks. Coopmart is the only supermarket in the city, but Big C is listed above Coopmart because of alphabetical order. Please let me know how you'd suggest I improve it.
 * History (AndreCarrotflower): I think this comes down to each person's philosophy of—and reason for—travel, as well as the specifics of each place. Here's what I think in this case. First, as Linda Beth 123 points out, there is no real information in English about Quy Nhơn and the region, and what exists is often wrong. In the city, no one speaks English. Moreover, some of the details of the history are de facto censored in Vietnam itself, from the 11th-century Champa and their modern descendants up to the war in the 1960s-70s. So for both language and political reasons, travellers won't find much information on the internet or in the city itself. Second, the focus is exclusively on the three periods where Quy Nhơn played a critical role in important parts of Vietnam's history; it's not a complete history of those periods but is just limited specifically to Quy Nhơn's role. And as Perry Planet points out and Linda Beth 123 personally confirmed, each history is closely tied to what modern travellers will experience during their visit today. Finally, there's the issue of who actually visits Quy Nhơn. Many foreign tourists, particularly those staying in the city itself and not the southern bays, fall into one of three groups: archaelogical buffs, Vietnamese-Americans visiting family, and visitors who were connected to the 1960s-70s war (either people who served in Quy Nhơn themselves or their family). The history in wv can't—and shouldn't— be complete enough for someone deeply interested in a particular topic, but given the scarcity of other information, I tried to make it broadly informative for each of those groups of possible readers, as well as for travellers who (presumably like Linda Beth 123) simply want to understand better the historical context of what they see and have no other source available anywhere. Please let me know what you think and how you'd suggest to improve it. - VeeWin (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see such in-depth discussion and responses here. Thank you to User:VeeWin and User:Linda Beth 123 for their attention and thoughtfulness. Regarding the maps, yes, my original complaint was about viewing the map in the article. We generally prefer maps to be minimally readable without clicking through to an enlarged version; this allows the web page to be printed with usable maps, among other benefits. The amount of information in the city map is enormous, so I admit it may not be possible to make it totally readable on-screen. It would at a minimum require editing the map image to make the icons bigger, but the text probably needs to be bigger too. Unfortunately, there's so much text in the legend that this could quickly snowball to the point where half the image is legend. I will admit it's a tricky balancing act. I was wondering if anyone had any other thoughts about the readability of the map relative to star status. Powers (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment about map resolution, LtPowers. The region map seems fine, but regarding your comments on the city map, I'm a little confused now. I followed the guidelines on wv's Maps page, specifically this guideline to make a width of 3,008 pixels. It recommends an exact resolution of 3,008 x 1,709, or 3,008 x 3,418 for "really big maps that are more square than rectangular... and can then be printed as two pages." I took the 3,008 as the fixed requirement and built the map around that. However, when I tried at 3,008 x 3,418, there was a lot of unnecessary height: it's an odd-shaped peninsula and doesn't need such height. So I cropped out rice paddies, etc., to show only the city which travellers would experience, and that's how it came to the current dimensions of 3,008 x 2,647. I'd guess most travellers today would just download it on their phones and use it as a guide while walking around, so I tried it on a few phones—both good ones and cheap ones—and at this resolution, all the details are very clear and easy to read even on bad phones. Given wv's emphasis on printing, I printed the map out on paper as well per the Maps guidance, and it seems good to me... For comparison, I looked just now at several star articles. Small towns and regional overviews are visible for the same reason the Quy Nhơn region map is visible: there's less detail to show. But city street maps which cover more than a small area aren't visible to me except at higher original resolutions. For example, Ann Arbor has a map which can't be read at all at the width of 350px in the article. I tried printing the web page just now, and it's completely unusable; even street outlines can barely be seen. It default previews to 800 x 502, at which size it's still illegible even on my high-resolution laptop. At the largest non-original resolution of 1,280 x 804, it's still completely unreadable; in comparison, at the largest non-original size of 1,164 x 1,024, the Quy Nhơn city map listings are readable clearly, and numbers can be read although they're small. The Ann Arbor map isn't usable on laptop, phone or print until I get up to its original resolution of 4,000 × 2,511, which is much wider than the 3,008 guideline on Maps. As another comparison, picking a star map of a city in Asia, Ubud, its map is sized at 600px in the article itself. At that width, it's not really legible on my high-resolution laptop, and is illegible on my phone. I just tried printing, and it can't be read and is unusable. The default preview is only slightly bigger at 681x599, and is similar: very hard to read on laptop, impossible on the phone. At 1,162 x 1,024, it's legible but tough to read the numbers on my phone, and unclear when printed on my setup. It's only when moving up to the original resolution of 3,412 x 3,008 that the Ubud map becomes crisp and easy to read... I thought static maps are encouraged, and in this case of Quy Nhơn it seemed particularly relevant given incorrect information in maps from other sources. It would be a shame to have just had a low-detail region map, so I made both the region map and the city map, and I tried to follow the guidelines. I'd be happy to improve it in any ways you would suggest, but I'm a little unclear about what to do now, so please let me know what you think. VeeWin (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping others might chime in; it could be that my concern is overblown. The Ann Arbor map is indeed totally unreadable. It was one of our first Star articles, dating back to 2007. There were concerns expressed about the map at that point, but I'm not clear on whether they were ever resolved. Powers (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just used this article after spending 5 days in Quy Nhon, aug 2018 wish I had found it earlier but will get the most out of the next few days here. It is accurate informative and I read it end to end. So many poor guides, references and travel info on the web. this article smashes them As a user I vote for star status. Thank you

 * "Just" needs coordinates on listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose. This article is overwhelming: the pictures, the diagrams, the maps, the text, the listings, everything. As a result, it looses the reader-friendliness that an article should have. Is there really this much to say about the place? My vote would be to slush, considering the discussion that took place above and the article itself. It's not a terrible article, just that it's too overwhelming to be reader-friendly. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Comment. Basically, are the any objections to slushing this one? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 17:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 * You know what? No-one is supporting this (excluding the nominator). The only time the word "support" is mentioned is when someone says that they are not willing to support the article in its current state. So I'm going to go ahead and slush. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT! There are lots of comments on this talk page from people who love this article. In the real world, we were in the city, and the few travelers we met there all were using this guide and loved it. In fact, many of them - including us - decided to go to this out-of-the-way city just because of this article. I left a longer opinion below. But I think there is a lot of SUPPORT for this article as a star! - AndreFrom1991 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Result: slushed. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 18:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Great Article! Praise, stars, support!
This is a phenomenal article. It deserves praise, attention, stars, and any other commendations possible. I think the demotion from star status is a pity and reflects a fundamental difference in perspective about travel and the purpose of a guide.

My partner and I just finished a trip through SE Asia for 4 months using many guidebooks and online blogs. This Quy Nhon article in Wikivoayge is by far the best article from any source about any city in any country we visited. The information is very precise. The listings are accurate. The map is perfect. And most importantly, the information about the city is both broad and deep, covering history, culture, food, and sites. We literally walked street to street with this article as our guide, and the insight into so many aspects of Quy Nhon life made it the best part of our entire Asian trip. The details in this article helped us dive deep into the history, the people, and the culture, rather than just floating on the surface of the standard trivialities of travel guides and blogs.

Quy Nhon is out of the way and a bit difficult to reach from the typical tourist path. But like other travelers who have written on this page, we decided to go to Quy Nhon entirely because of this article. The article really is THAT good. And we aren't the only ones: in the city, we met several other couples who also went to Quy Nhon only because they read this article.

In smaller cities of Vietnam, the language barrier is enormous. Even basic information is hard to get, and as for detailed knowledge of the history and culture of a place, forget about it. Most guides in English, particularly for smaller cities, don't give much more than basic information (I include most Wikivoyage articles in that category). In the case of Quy Nhon, information in English in both online and printed guides is often wrong (as this article itself points out). This guide is so vastly superior to anything else available that it's like an oasis of knowledge in a desert of murkiness.

We only noticed now this Talk page. We're happy to see that others have praised this article, and I joined WV just to add to the praise here. But we're quite surprised and disappointed to see that the article had a star nomination revoked for lack of support.

There's a fundamental difference in perspective reflected in the debate on this page. Should a travel article be quick and short, a fast taste of the place which highlights the important sites, with some key travel logistics and a bit of history? Or should a travel article delve deeper into the history of the place, its culture, its food, its people?

More broadly, it's a question of travel style. Some travelers go quickly, trying to "do" the important cities, "hit" the main tourist sites, "see" the highlights in a whirlwind of activities. Other travelers go more slowly, even if only in attitude if not time, with a focus of learning more deeply about the history, culture, food, and people of a place, savoring the depth of details rather than the breadth of a wide-ranging active travel experience.

I'm obviously biased in favor of slow travel exploring the depth of the place. This article is a shining example of a tool for this type of traveler. With this article, a traveler can truly get to know Quy Nhon and the people of Central Vietnam on a level not possible from any other guide. So I and all the other travelers who praise this article appreciate it for this.

But for those who just want the highlights, this article covers everything necessary. Perhaps it's frustrating to skim through the article to find something specific you want as a traveler. But the organization of the article and each section makes it easy to find any information that you need, even if you don't want to read all the details. For me, the sections of this article are the perfect length: not too long that it becomes tedious to read, but not too short that it doesn't have enough detail to be meaty and informative.

It's a wonderful article. We understood the city, its culture, its history, and its people, so much more than we ever could have otherwise. That's the highest praise we could have for a travel guide: it not only helped us perfectly with the logistics of travel, but it made the life of my partner and me richer and deeper as we truly got to know a place where we can't speak with the people.

The article deserves praise, attention, views... and for sure, a star!

- AndreFrom1991 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quy Nhon


text:
Talk:Ras al Khaimah

Pre-2011 discussions
should we add link to Hotels in Ras Al Khaimmah to the Page ? 80.227.132.42
 * No. See the external links policy. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I suggest to add link to RAKpedia (www.rakpedia.com). It is a non-profit website created as an extensive guide for Ras al Khaimah (RAK). cultural information, sightseeing tours, shopping, restaurants, hotels, or even hints how to settle down in Ras Al Khaimah (WT-en) Dpsobczyk 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST).

Move
I propose to move Ra's al Khaymah to Ras Al Khaimah. Rationale: the website in the opening line is spelt this way; WikiData and Wikipedia spell it this way. Even some of the spelling in the article is as Ras Al Khaimah. I think it's sensible to move this. Thoughts? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I just made a mess, it seems :) Please, admins (?), can you sort it out? Cheers :) Remove Ras_al_Khaimah2, move this page to Ras Al Khaimah... -- andree 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not seeing a mess. What's the issue you're seeing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the idea is that "Ras Al Khaimah" is the article, and the others redirect to it, plis remove the "...2" article. It can be done by copying stuff over manually, but that'd drop the history of MoN's hard work :-) -- andree 21:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. I've deleted that redirect, since its history showed that it never had any content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek, cool, and now if you could move this page (Ras al Khaymah) to 'Ras al Khaimah'? Basically do a switcheroo. Or just remove Ras Al Khaimah and we can do the rest... -- andree 06:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move! -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also thanks from me! Shall be doing some work on this page. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Ikan Kekek, I think the "al" in "Ras al Khaimah" should be capitalised per Wikipedia, no? Brycehughes (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why. Wikipedia says the name means "the headland of the tent", and al meaning "of" agrees with my understanding of the word. In English "of" isn't capitalised in most names, and "al" is uncapitalised in all Arab people's names that I know. –LPfi (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See wikidata:Q2126436 for the spelling in a number of Wikipedias; only a few capitalise the "al" (en, it, az). –LPfi (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think "al" should be capitalized. Would you capitalize "Lake Of The Woods"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I'll update the text then. Brycehughes (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ras al Khaimah


text:
Talk:Raahe

 * * Try to find Pillu-Erkki, he is the local pirate. Usually hangs around in Kävelykatu, shouting out obscenities to random people. He's also a master guitar player, or would be if his guitar would be in tune (if it ever was?).
 * * Locate Tyyskän Jallu - the local shaman. He'll tell you everything you need to know about.

I'm presuming "Pussy-Eric" and "Booze Tyyskä" are meant as bad jokes, but if these two characters are actually tourist attractions then do correct me. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:19, 11 December 2006 (EST)

They really do exist.

title: Talk:Raahe


text:
Talk:Rabat (Malta)

Transferred from Malta page: A rebuilt Roman villa in Rabat just outside the south wall of Mdina features mosaics and sculpture from the original house excavated on the site, along with artifacts and displays relating the the Roman, Byzantine and Arab periods, from the 3rd century B.C. through the 10th century A.D.

 * This is mostly likely referring to the "Roman Museum", which is already listed? (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:08, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Yes it is.

title: Talk:Rabat (Malta)


text:
Talk:Rabaul

Comments
Could someone who knows Rabaul please check the information on the page? Most of the hotel websites are out of date and it is difficult to know what is open and what isn't. Thanks. (WT-en) Shep 13:25, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

General Yamamoto?
The famous one was Isoroku Yamamoto, the admiral who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, but our current text talks about General Yamamoto. I have not corrected it since for all I know there was also a general, but if so that needs to be explained. Pashley (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rabaul


text:
Talk:Radda In Chianti

Err, what's this? (Radda_In_Chianti_IT in Italian) (WT-en) Maj 08:22, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Radda In Chianti


text:
Talk:Rafsanjan

rafsanjan is green gold city

title: Talk:Rafsanjan


text:
Talk:Raigad

Comments
which is nearest good hotel 2 stay, nr raigad fort. which is the nearest railway stn?

title: Talk:Raigad


text:
Talk:Raigad fort

Destination?
This is a copyvio from Wikipedia, and it's probably not a destination either. But where should it go? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Raigad fort


text:
Talk:Rai Leh

If anyone could help me figure out how to create a table of contents I'd...uh...write more about Railay. :-) - JC

I'm still struggling with the very most basic Wiki tidbits so take this with a grain of salt, but I think the table of contents appears automatically once you've got enough sections (ie the "==I'm a Section==" things). Four seemed to be the magic number on a page I was editing earlier. (WT-en) Ryan 19:54 (PST)

 * Correct. But if you want the list of standard sections, check out Project:Article templates. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

 * I have also taken the liberty of moving the article to the somewhat more standard (?) Rai Leh, see Project:Romanization. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

Ton Sai?
Should Ton Sai Beach be listed here, or under a separate page? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:56, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * Here, its part of the Rai Lay peninsula. James
 * Separate page. Same peninsula, different beach.  Ton Sai has enough visitors, accommodation and restaurants to warrant it's own page IMHO. (WT-en) Johnycanal 23:40, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Breadcrumb navigation
Now it is working. Before you press 'save page' you have to chant "wiki" 21 times!!! (WT-en) WindHorse 18 Feb 06

 * Thanks. I'd seen a possible "fix" mentioned, took me a while to find it.
 * - use http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Rai_Leh (as opposed to http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Rai_Leh)

image
Image:Rai lay beach west.jpg Rai Lay Beach (West)

i don't see the image just a heads up. cheers. --(WT-en) Varajou89 06:10, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I deleted it, thanks for notifying. Next time just plunge forward yourself! --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:57, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Tattoo scam story
I think, for the purposes of this guide, the tattoo scam section is a little bit of overkill. One should be careful of such practices anywhere in the world, so devoting half of the article on this beautiful peninsula to one guy's personal bad experience is questionable. If there are no objections I can rewrite this as a more general warning and make it a lot shorter!

title: Talk:Rai Leh


text:
Talk:Rail travel in Canada

Does anyone know whether American Orient Express offers tours in Canada? Looking at its website I only saw offerings in the United States. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:23, 23 January 2007 (EST)
 * I'm guessing that since it (or whatever it's called now) has gone out of business, the answer is "no". I'm removing it.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

"Tour Operators" section
Please explain why this does not violate Activity listings. I'm very tempted to zap the entire section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

 * And, absent any further discussion, I just zapped the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

News on rail travel in Canada
So If I am informed correctly, the not so new anymore government of Justin Trudeau has announced to invest in rail on all levels, and apparently it is taking some concrete shape, if this article is to be trusted. It does not look like something happening immediately, but we should perhaps be on the lookout for changes to come. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Tipping
Since you guys are Canadians, are you expected to tip the food servers and sleeping car attendents on the VIA Rail and the Rocky Mountaineer? If so, I think this information, as well as how much you are expected to tip, should be included in this article. Canada might be slightly different, but from what I've read, in the U.S., the Amtrak severs and sleeping car attendants do expect tips. The dog2 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gavent taken Via except on short journeys, and I have not taken the Rocky Mountaineer, so I can't help out here. Maybe TripAdvisor can help?This would be useful information. Ground Zero (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rail travel in Canada


text:
Talk:Rail travel in Europe

see also: Talk:Rail travel in Europe/Archive

Linking format
Links in this article are neither internally consistent in format nor consistent with current external links guidelines. It will be a big job to clean them up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I still see naked links. That's not the format that's standard on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Passenger rights
The issue arose elsewhere, but it is of course relevant here. The European Union has passed a law guaranteeing a certain set of rights for all train passengers in all EU member states. All passenger rail companies have to comply with said regulation and its effects can be read (in all official EU languages) here. We might wish to include (some of) these rights into the text of this article. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Northernmost
The northernmost passenger service in Scandinavia is Kiruna-Narvik line (just outside map), while on the Russian side there is a passenger service from St Petersburg to Murmansk on the Barents ocean - at more than 68 degrees North this is possibly the northernmost rail service in the world? --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe the line to Murmansk is the northernmost passenger railway in the world. There is one further north in Siberia to Norilsk, but it apparently is for freight only. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Rail timetables change in Europe in a week
Are there any major changes to travel time we might have to mention (besides routes like Erfurt-Dresden or Frankfurt-Dresden now taking one hour less) in some of our guides? Or on our coverage on rail travel? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 * What is the question? If travel times significantly change then by all means update them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I know of one major change (namely the Erfurt - Leipzig line being opened in Germany) but there may well be other changes like new services or the withdrawal of services we currently mention, e.g. night trains... I think I will try and update the articles mentioning the upgrades to the line (the second phase, cutting Berlin - Munich travel time from six to four hours is planned for December 2017) and I was asking whether you were aware of any other major changes to rail travel in Europe Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I remember the 6 hour ICE journey from Munich to Berlin! Good that it will be down to 4. I guess you could start with Rail_travel_in_Europe although it is a bit of a mess right now... Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The uninspired long list at the end of the article
Does the list of railway companies really help the voyager? Because the way I see it, it's just a pointless - probably outdated - list that is impossible to verify and get useful information from. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The main place for railway company details is the get around section of country articles. However I have just looked a couple of smaller countries and did not find any links. I think that a compromise might be to keep the links where there is only a single operator, and change the long lists to links to the country articles. The single operators are unlikely to change in a hurry, as they are often state owned. AlasdairW (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think the list looks godawful and doesn't belong here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing information
I noticed we had quite many images of alpine or snowy landscapes in the article. Exotic and nice, but not necessarily representative. I put in one little more urban one, and a few interiors (what I happened to find, there are certainly better ones). But where is the place for the one of a dining coach? Or bikes? Or the playing department (not yet uploaded, it seems)? I cannot find the word "child(ren)" in the article! I think these are aspects of rail travel that are quite well handled in Europe, at least in some of the countries. Does anybody know the general situation? Anyway sections about these aspects should be added. --LPfi (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 * some information is also very likely outdated Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Safety
Do you really need to be in well-lit areas in the night? In the same car as the conductor? Locals travel in all apartments, and I haven't heard of any problems. People "routinely take laptops on high speed trains" – don't they take the laptops with them whenever on business travel? And reporting suspicious characters to the conductor? You could of course, but is it common to do so? Wouldn't it be better to just state that the conductor takes care of any problems you might have, at least giving advice. –LPfi (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Trains don't normally have carriages that are more or less well-lit than each other. I think keeping an eye on your luggage when travelling is common sense, and doesn't need to be stated. Reporting to the conductor may be as well, but perhaps less so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Less so, and not necessarily good advice. If you witness a theft, isn't it common sense to report it? And if somebody is just suspicious, reporting them might lead to trouble – and I think the locals can take care of that if needed. I think that knowing the conductor is the one to contact if needed is enough. And keeping to people and well-lit areas when you feel unsafe should be stated in Travel basics or Stay safe. –LPfi (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure "all cars are well lit" is true for trains in mid-income countries at all times... At any rate the information that one should pull the emergency brake if one deems it necessary before looking for a conductor is germane, given the importance following such advice could have had in the Eschede train disaster... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify, I don't claim that all carriages are well lit, but rather that all carriages on a single train are going to be lit the same, except in case of malfunction. Ergo, it's not usually possible to move to a "better lit" carriage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested task
If somebody would like to edit, here's a suggestion:

The brand Thalys does not exist anymore. It has merged with Eurostar. So everything that was Thalys before belongs now to Eurostar.

So search "Thalys" via the Wikivoyage search box and replace/merge everything regarding that brand name to/with Eurostar. 80.187.75.63 18:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OP, please plunge forward as you see fit! -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like 57 articles still mention this name. I updated one but left the old name in ("Eurostar (formerly Thalys)") in case it might be useful to readers who were looking for the old name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Expensive seat reservations?
Per this edit: Which countries charge lots of money to reserve seats on long-distance trains? We took trains in and between Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Austria in the last 2 months while on Eurail passes, and I don't remember ever having to pay more than 8 euros per seat (maybe 9?), which is not very expensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I have the impression that French TGVs charge enough that it affects the usability of the Interrail ticket. European rail passes says "… supplements, particularly in Spain, Italy and France, which makes rail passes for these countries rarely worthwhile (see Infobox)". The infobox cites €20 as typical for TGV if I read it correctly. –LPfi (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * doesn't sound hugely expensive at least compared to UK train prices. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 08:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what reservations cost in Italy from Rome to Florence, but the entire trip, including reserved seats cost for 2 people, was €45.80 (ergo €22.90/person), and we did not use a Eurail day for that because it seemed too cheap to be worthwhile (in the end, we had one day remaining that we didn't use, but we didn't know our trip would end up like that). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You paid for the flexibility, which probably was alright.
 * €20 isn't much for Paris–Lyon, but if you mainly take short rides and already paid for the Interrail ticket, then it is quite frustrating, at least if you are on a tight budget. Paying €40 extra per travel day more or less doubles your travel costs (depending on country etc.). In most cases the Interrail is a bargain, but not always.
 * –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the problem is specific to France, that should be stated, but what are the fares for the routes you're talking about? If you're saving, say €200 for the tickets but paying €40 for seat reservations, is that useless? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said it is a problem for those taking the train for short legs. Anyway, I don't know how common high supplemental costs are. I know them only from France, and the rail pass article seems to note only a few other countries, with moderate seat fees. I think we should tell the reader to check such fees on their own, knowing that there are scenarios where the passes aren't worthwhile. Just a note; details are best left for the pass article (as always: put things that are likely to change in one place only, in the most specific article). –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rail travel in Europe


text:
Talk:Rail travel in India

Merge
Is it really necessary to split this out from the main India article? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:06, 21 December 2006 (EST)

 * And the stuff about future monorails etc belongs on Wikipedia, not here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:38, 23 December 2006 (EST)

 * There is an article Rail Travel in Europe, so I suppose we should let this one be. and the stuff 'bout future monorails should come. After all, once it's completed, wikivoyagers might use it themselves. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:16, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Vfd?
So, I'm going to nominate this for deletion unless somebody can come up with a compelling argument to the contrary. Right now this has serious overlap with the main India article and looks more like a Wikipedia article on "Trains in India" than an actual guide for travellers. (For the record, I don't much like Rail travel in Europe either, and think Japan is a better model to copy.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, but please MoS-ify and merge into India -- (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 08:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so now what?
This article has continued to take shape, and looks quite good... BUT... as Jani brought up forever ago, it probably didn't need to be stripped out of the India article in the first place... this is precisely what India is meant to be. If ever there were a candidate for separate article, India's trains would probably make a good case... but I still don't think it's so unmanageably large that it can't fit on the main India page, after trimming a couple of unnecessary fluff sections like "zones", "stations in the metros" and "famous stations". – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:18, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Yes! I think this article provides pretty detailed info on the topic and the overlap with the main article has been considerably reduced. Besides, this article has grown pretty large and fitting it into the main article would make the main article even more lengthy and cumbersome than it already is. I'm removing the 'merge' tag from this article. If you decide to replace it, please post here stating your reason for doing so. (WT-en) SBC-YPR 09:09, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Also, this article, being large and complex, meets the criteria for 'exceptions' on the guidelines page. Finally, as Upamanyu has already stated, there is an article on Rail travel in Europe, and others for Canada and North America, so I don't see why there shouldn't be one about rail travel in India. I rest my case. :) (WT-en) SBC-YPR 09:39, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

 * You seemed to have missed the subsequent comments above :)   Firstly, that's not how the merge tag works, quite the opposite actually... it says right on it "do not remove until discussing on talk page", so let's finish discussing first... that notice allows other users to see that there's a discussion and paticipate. Anyway, back to the article... the "large and unruly" policy is for "attractions, sites and events"... we shouldn't necessarily be stripping out sections like "get in" etc into separate articles, those are core parts of a country article. I agree that this is a lot of info, but we've got other countries with large sections, and they work fine... see Japan. I agree with Jani that the Europe one isn't great either... but it's also a slightly different beast in that it covers quite a few countries rather than just one... but I still don't love it, and the fact that it exists is irrelevant to whether or not this one does IMO – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 23:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

 * I vote for keeping it as a separate article. Rail travel in India is complex enough to warrant an article in its own right. Books have been written on the subject!--(WT-en) Wandering 10:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

 * The only reason it should be split out from the main India article is if there's too much valid info to fit there, and that isn't the case – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:38, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I vote for keeping it to, it's an excellent article, and I sorta feel that it would be a shame stripping the article down again after all the work to make it fit with the main article, would unappreciative of all the hard work put into this. (WT-en) Sertmann 20:08, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

 * A lot of work, yes, but our guides should still be tight, focused, and written well, and this article needs some serious condensing (aside from the issue of where the info belongs). At some point I'll take a stab at it, and we'll assess after it's condensed and rewritten if it really justifies a separate article :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Decision time?
Stumbled across this article while browsing the list of documents for merging and can't help but feel it's got a bit lost in the system somewhere - no comments in over 6 months. So... I quite like the article. As it states, India has the world's 3rd largest network, and seems to be a good way of seeing the country. Seems to be a lot of useful informtion out there, and the article is rated as Guide, so it can't be all that bad!

It looks like work has been done over time to improve the article, especially when compared to its state in December 2006 when the merge was first brought up. So can we perhaps say 14 days to generate a consensus and decide once and for all? (WT-en) Nrms 05:29, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Kathgodam photo
The picture of a train crossing over a large viaduct. This is NOT an Indian Railways train. Looks like Santa Fe freight trains which run in the USA. User:(WT-en) Qmsarge 11:30, 19 January 2007 (IST)

 * It is. Kathgodam, Nainital. A narrow gorge train run by NR.

I took the photo myself. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 06:01, 19 January 2007 (EST)

 * And a nice photo it is :) I concur, the mountain narrow gauge trains look different than most you see in the rest of the country. Is this a cargo train Upamanyu? (WT-en) Cacahuate 06:30, 19 January 2007 (EST)

 * Yeah, it is probably a freight train. how did you guess?? And you're right, the narrow gauge mountain trains are v different from the standard Broad Guage trains.(WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 05:10, 21 January 2007 (EST)

 * well, mostly cause it ain't blue! yikes, just got off one this morning, feel like i live on those blue things... anyhoo... take care. (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 12:34, 21 January 2007 (EST)

 * Actually, the photograph was taken in Canada by David R. Spencer. See WikiPedia:Image:Eastbound over SCB.jpg.  I've removed it and tagged it for deletion as a probable copyvio.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 13:20, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Online booking FAQ
Could someone who has booked online recently come up with a FAQ? I haven't made an online booking ever, so can't do it, but hear that there are numerous issues (where to send the ticket, credit card issues, stand on one leg when pressing a key,...)--(WT-en) Wandering 17:41, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Like it now? :) (WT-en) SBC-YPR 13:59, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Select your bank and give the details of your card (PIN number etc.). It would be nice to add some instructions on how to pay with a VISA card? I don't have a indian bank.

 * I would actually like to condense that whole explanation into a sentence or two, we don't need a step by step, most of that is common sense that you would use when booking any sort of airline ticket, etc online. Paying with credit card is straightfoward, there's an option on the website when you click on payment – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:46, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

External link removal

 * Information Articles on Indian Railways

I removed the above link. It seems to just cover info that we would want here at Wikivoyage. Accordingly I believe it should be removed under Project:External links. It was also placed under a newly created "External link" header - which are banned here. -(WT-en) OldPine 08:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Status of this article
This article is classed as a Guide. I can't tell by skipping through it how close it is to being appropriate for a Featured Travel Topic nomination. But I'd be interested in your opinion of what should be done before it's nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is another one that I've had my eyes on for FTT for the winter season 2015-16 (though it probably needs a month or two distance from Amritsar or other cities that might possibly get featured). It doesn't look like there's very much needed until it can be featured. 3-5 more pictures is a must. I was looking for Stay safe, but noted that those issues are already (sufficiently?) mentioned in the article, under "General information". ϒpsilon (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

First photo on article
The first photo on this article shows the BHOPAL SHATABDI, and claims its the fastest train in India; which is not true anymore as of 2016. The Gatimaan Express (New Delhi-Agra) holds that post now. —The preceding comment was added by 203.99.211.18 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for the info. Is it the second-fastest now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained edit
Listen, I have no dog in this fight, but neither this revert nor this edit were explained. How timely are Indian trains? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 * DaGizza, any comments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 * That was an accidental revert sorry. Must've been a slip of the fingers (wasn't aware I clicked on revert). I don't believe I'm informed enough to make a general comment on the timeliness of all Indian trains. When I have travelled on them, there were no delays but it's only been a few times.  Gizza ( roam ) 00:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't know, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

PNR websites
It seems websites for checking PNR status are touting here. Do we want to list other sites in addition to the official ones? In that case, I'd appreciate some comment on why, and probably we should list the ones we choose in one place, and otherwise link to the official sites.

An addition of pnrupdate.com was reverted as the editor was touting. We now say you should buy tickets at irctc.co.in and check booking status at pnr-status.info. In another section we say you should check status at indianrail.gov.in. In a third section we say "Checking PNR status through online is the most popular way to check your PNR status. Following are some renowned websites where you can check your PNR status." and link railwayenquiry.net and indianrail.gov.in (said to be the official one).

I hope somebody who knows the system could tidy up the quite long section "Ticketing", and do something about the links to make it easier to differentiate between touting and good edits.

–LPfi (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Swarna Jayanti Rajdhani exp.jpg
 * Tejas Coaches.jpg

 * Uploads by unreliable user, likely to be deleted, unlikely to be own works. If we want them to be kept or to upload them locally, the cases should be checked more carefully. –LPfi (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rail travel in India


text:
Talk:Rail travel in North America

Other options
While this certainly looks like it's going to be an interesting article, I think I have some issues about using district style sub articles for the different train lines-- can we investigate other ways of doing this? (WT-en) Majnoona 15:51, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * Didn't even realize I was doing it. No prob consider it changed.

-(WT-en) Sapphire 20:16, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Cleanup
So I tried applying the attraction listing style to the routes and I think it works okay. There's a lot of inconsitency in describing the cities along the route, and we should make a standard format. How about:
 * Train Route, . Lima to London, via Stanley, Madrid, and Paris.  13 hours. A bus connection to Asni is available at the Gibraltar station.

and just mention the major stops along the way, and only mention transfers when they go to a nearby major destination from a non-intuitive station (e.g. San Francisco is a short bus trip from Emeryville station)?

Also, sometimes we mention the region (state or province) for a city, and sometimes we don't. Any opinions on which way we should go with this? Should large, obvious cities (New York) have their state ommitted? -- (WT-en) Colin 09:49, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * Thanks. After transfering to everything from the sub pages to the main page it was a little messy. I figured most of the time people would know where the larger cities were (state wise), but I think to play it on the safe side all cities should have state following it. - (WT-en) Sapphire 23:25, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * We probably should avoid using two-digit postal codes for states since they are meaningless to most non-Americans. Actually, many of them are meaningless to me... like which one is MI (Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, arghhh) (WT-en) Colin
 * Oh, yeah. I didn't even think non-Americans wouldn't know the two letter system. Good insight. - (WT-en) Sapphire

ISIC discount
Dearest (WT-en) Padraic;

I noticed your edit in the discount section. Which is: ISIC is the only accepted form of student ID for VIA Rail and usually brings a 35% discount. I only mention this, because I'm not positive that this is the only student id needed to get a discount. I'm not an expert on VIA Rail and only found about it while doing research for the article, so maybe my comments are completely unfounded, but if you have a Canadian ID that shows you are under 18 can you also get a student discount? I thought I read that, but I'm not positive. If you can check this out it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:04, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * You are correct. Proof of age also works. However, I wrote it the way I did because this is just that - proof of age - not proof of student status. But you're right that this needs to be more clear. I shall amend. (WT-en) Padraic 11:56, 17 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Mexico
Anyone know of any passenger rail companies in Mexico? 71.72.212.152 18:13, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Information for later -

 * http://www.chepe.com.mx/ing_html/index.html

 * http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/linksworld/

Mexico and Central America
Added a note on those two, as they are often referred to as parts of North America too. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:32, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

Star
I changed the rating, because the article seems to have reached its potential. The article contains vital information such as (WT-en) Sapphire 08:36, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Links to rail companies
 * Photographs of a couple destinations
 * Routes
 * Ticketing information
 * Stay safe informatio
 * Pass information

It's definitely a good article, but I still have a problem with the issue I raised in the VfD discussion for Tips for rail travel about the repeated content between that article, this article, and Rail travel in Europe. Copying the same text to three pages means that anyone who wants to edit it - or watch over it for bad edits - has to do that in three places... and odds are they won't, in which case they may even end up contradicting each other. What's wrong with having continent-specific information on their own pages and keeping the general information and universal "tips" on another? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:56, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * It's a very good article, but we haven't actually really decided yet how to rate "travel topic" type articles like this one, as the usual criteria of places to sleep and detailed maps kinda go out the window. I'd prefer to hold off on any ratings until this is sorted out on Project:Article status. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:09, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Like the other Wikivoyagers above, I still find it difficult to apply article rating to travel topics. My vision of a star article is one that could be printed out and perfectly replace a LP or Frommer's in someone's backpack. I recognize that a lot of effort has been put into this article but I wouldn't say it's reached star quality yet as it still leaves a lot of room for improvement. For instance, instead of just the links to rail companies, we could have a review of each company, what are the trains and stations like, a summary of the company's operation, some comparative prices or any other relevant details. Also, a full rail map of North America would be useful, maybe some timetables too. What about connections from the US to Mexico, which is also in North America but where there is no relevant train travel? Anyway, these are just a few suggestions. Please don't take my words as criticism but I think that if we rate this article as usable or guide, we can expect to get more people working on it to eventually reach a quite complete article. Finally, congratulations for your work on this article. Cheers, (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:16, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * First, you and I are in agreement as to what makes a "star", except also I think a "star" should follow our Manual of style very closely -- that is, it should be an integrated part of Wikivoyage and an example for other articles.

 * Second, I think that Mexico does have non-trivial rail travel (I'm thinking of the Copper Canyon's great railroad, for instance) and that should either be integrated here or left out.

 * Lastly, I think we might want to divide this page into Rail travel in the United States and Rail travel in Canada, with the common stuff kept at Rail travel in North America. It seems like we've got one big page with two topics. --(WT-en) Evan 09:47, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Hmm. Seems I forgot to hit "Save page." (Again. 4th time today) I removed the status because of Jpatokal's comment. I didn't even think that a consensus still hadn't been reached regarding travel topic ratings. Regarding copying information from the Tips article. I did copy some of the information, however, I did so in a very fine combed manner. I also added  information that was not listed in the Tips article and that only applied to North American train passengers. The problem with Tips is that is that's kind of unorganized. It covers information for British, Dutch, and Indian trains in the same paragraph and in some instances it covers information that could only be used for travelers in China. I would be supportive of the Tips article if it was broken into regions and the "tips" were seperated into the respective regional sections.

As for Ricardo's idea about the map of the rail network. I tried to do this, however, I gave up, because I became frustrated while trying to make a map using the Mapmaking Expedition. Could anyone do this? (WT-en) Sapphire 09:35, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I can take a stab at a routes overview map for North America. (Amtrak and VIA both have maps on their sites to use as reference, and yes there's rail travel in Mexico as well.)  I'd like to see "Rail travel in *" articles focused on describing the rail systems in these places (routes, fares, trains, procedures, local issues, etc).  Travelers familiar with rail travel elsewhere don't need us to tell them not to run on the train, but they do need that kind of "guide" information.  Tips for rail travel should be more of a first-timer's introduction (and I agree that it needs work), with the applicable "Rail travel in *" as the next thing for them to read. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:16, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I was unable to find any real information on rail travel in Mexico. I found one link which I added into the section above this one. I also checked with NARP for more info, however, the site listed there seems to have been neglected and is useless. That's why I made the appeal above for information about Mexico's rail system. I'm still looking and will added that info when I find something reliable. (WT-en) Sapphire 10:44, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

Breaking up?
So instead of having three overlapping and (to varying degrees) redundant articles, we now have five (Europe, US, Canada, North America, tips) with Mexico yet to come. Frankly, I didn't see that great a need to split between the U.S. and Canada; moving the "how to find a seat on a train" suggestions to the "tips" article would have brought the North America article down to a reasonable size. (Plus American Orient Express and one of the rail passes apply to both countries.) Any chance we can work out a consensus about how to handle this before putting too much more work into it? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:31, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * The reason North America was broken up is for the reason Evan cited as seeing this turn into various articles. "It seems like we've got one big page with two topics." I also cite Evan from an email he replied to "I could see it becoming an organizing page for Rail travel in Canada, Rail travel in the United States, and Rail travel in Mexico, possibly with other pan-continental information (like the North America pass, for example)."
 * Additionally, the reason I'm hostile towards Tips is because it isn't as user friendly as Rail travel in the United States or Rail travel in Canada, where the person using this information will know that the information provided in the US article know that the information is reliable for the rail travel in US. The problem with Tips is that it does offer some very good information, however, some (not all) of the information is useless to riders in Canada or the US, but the same information is useful to someone who is traveling in the UK. (WT-en) Sapphire 12:49, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't want to do this without getting input from others, but if we arranged the tips in the Tips article into regions like ===Tips for North America=== or ===Tips for Asia=== the Tips article would be much more user friendly. We would be able to eliminate this information from the US and Canada articles, merge both articles into North America, again (North America would be a much more reasonable size than it was previously), add any information from Mexico in. Would that be an appealing compromise to everyone? Change the format of Tips and in place delete US and Canada a move everything back to North America? (WT-en) Sapphire 12:57, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I don't think the US and Canadian rail systems are different enough, distinct enough, or complex enough to require separate pages. Sure they could be separated, but they'd end up including a lot of the same information (a shared railway, the shared railpass, commentary about common attributes like long travel time, spotty coverage, the tourism niche, etc.), which would require all future editors to know that they have to update both pages when any shared info changes, or they find a better way to phrase something, etc.
 * The fact that the "tips" articles isn't well written (yet) is no reason to delete it, and an article with helpful hints for new rail travelers - applicable on trains almost anywhere - is a worthwhile feature. Rather than reorganize it geographically, why not move any geographically-specific tips to the geo-specific articles (just like we do with geo-specific tips about anything else) and leave the main "tips" article as a generic one? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:57, 5 April 2006 (EDT)

Sapphire and I have been discussing how to approach this material, and we seem to have reached a consensus (at least between the two of us, and there seems to be support for it in the VfD discussion) to keep Tips for rail travel as a general guide, with more specific routes-and-ticketing info (without all the general "tips") in region-specific articles. The one unsettled question is whether to keep North America together or have a separate page for each country with the common info in a North America article. Because of the similarity between rail travel in the U.S. and Canada, because there's a rail service and a railpass that applies to both countries, and because I'm a border-dweller who'd consider them concurrently as possible travel destinations, I'm inclined to keep them together. The alternative would mean either fragmenting or duplicating info between three or four pages, which I as a traveler would find frustrating. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:14, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
 * A related question (which I'll also bring up in Talk:Japan) is whether it'd make sense to spin the fairly lengthy "By rail" section there into its own Rail travel in Japan article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:27, 7 April 2006 (EDT)
 * My main concern is that we might be slowly leaving our geographical hierarchy behind and leaning towards other ways of seeing travel, which are much harder to organize. I'm keen on the idea of having the country articles as complete as possible and splitting them when they get too big. Articles such as this one should preferably cover aspects of international travel, so that we do not duplicate information unecessarily. Please note also that our article on North America includes the Caribbean and Central America too. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:52, 11 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I've commented on Talk:Travel topics about the general issue of topic articles and geographic hierarchy. As for the Carribean and Central America, they haven't come up in this conversation or article simply because there's no rail travel to speak of in those areas, and if it exists in some locale, it's easily covered in the correspondng article. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:16, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

vfd discussion

 * Since Bus travel in Israel is forbidden, this article is also not allowed. --(WT-en) Daniel575 30 May 2006
 * Childish retaliatory VFD by someone unwilling to work within consensus. Keep. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:06, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a well developed article. Wait out the 14 day process before removing VFD though. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:03, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:14, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. This article was listed here as a retaliation for the vfd of the Egged Travels article, which is definitely not a reason for deletion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:52, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. As they say on Wikipedia, "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point". -- (WT-en) Colin 23:13, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:27, 30 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. This pages are very helpful
 * Keep. I return to this page again and again. No reason why it should be up for debate.

title: Talk:Rail travel in North America


text:
Talk:Rail travel in Great Britain

Page created
Hello, thanks for the clicking the discussion. I have taken the step of creating this page because I have received a number of comments from Hospitality Club visitors and a number of questions from Wikivoyagers about my area of knoweledge - the UK's train system. I feel it is worthy of its own topic page because of the confusion caused by different (and often competing) train companies. Please allow me to start this stub and welcome your contributions before it is considered for deletion or relocation. Thanks (WT-en) Jamesbrownontheroad 05:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

 * Ah, the good old British rail network... The number of hours I spend on it :) Will do my best to help with this page as I agree it can be confusing! (WT-en) Nrms 05:38, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Page rating
Although I've been one of the dominant contributors to this page, I hope that the rating of "guide" is accurate. I'd appreciate other user's input, especially if you feel that rating is not accurate. I've tried to follow the Wikivoyage rating guide for travel topics. (WT-en) Jamesbrownontheroad 12:27, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 * It seems to me that this is at guide-status; it's a very complete and well-written article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 * I enjoyed reading the article, and it is very comprehensive. One suggestion for improvement - are the wikilinks to the London airport stations, the best things to link to, I would probably expect to click on them and get a link to the airport info? --(WT-en) Inas 16:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

 * Great article - the rail network in this country can be confusing enough for those of us that live here! Well done. (WT-en) Tarr3n 04:00, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Split tickets
In this edit my change was reverted. The original author proposes that you can actually purchase split tickets on one train to obtain a cheaper price, as long as the train stops at that station. The text then goes onto say there is a risk in missing the second train - but there is no second train involved in the strategy. --Inas (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Is this the edit you're referring to: where I corrected two external link formats and tried to make things clearer?
 * I rejected your new wording because it gave a probably false hope to folks that they might be able to rescue the situation with a "train manager" and I thought the phrase "...this strategy carries risk if you book the two tickets separate tickets on separate trains, and one of them runs late causing you to miss the other..." less than clear.

 * I also did not understand either the previous (or my current) wording to mean: " i think the person proposing the split ticket strategy is saying to buy them for the one train - therefore no risk." as you stated in your edit summary. A "Split ticket strategy" means that you buy more than one ticket for more than one ticketed (but connecting) journey for one - or more than one - train, doesn't it? If I'm wrong just change things the way you want it, Inas. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Two points. Firstly, the whole discussion in the previous para about the train stopping at the station you buy a ticket to only makes sense for a single train, so although the strategy may be valid for two trains, the current text doesn't say that.  Secondly, even in the case of two trains, the experience of people posting on the interwebs is that the train manager will allow boarding in the case of a delayed service causing a missed connection.  I haven't seen a contrary account. --Inas (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of result you get on a wiki; yes, the example given in the previous paragraphs speaks about a one train example of relatively short distance. However, longer journeys may require two or more separate trains. My personal experience is of the sadistic delight taken by ticket inspectors when they fleece you while muttering all the while "that's the risk you take when you try and buck the system". Anyway, hopefully the wording is clearer now. --W. Franke-mailtalk 03:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I booked a single train trip which involves two train companies it gives me two entirely different tickets on the booking, even though it is one reservation. I just ended up in much the same situation as this, missing the train due to delay and catching the next one.  After speaking with the train manager he accepted the advance purchase non-refundable ticket for the previous train, "just because today is a day with a 'y' in it".  I'm not familiar enough with UK trains to really make a point of this.  Of course, rules are rules, and if you game the system or buy a non-refundable ticket then you take your chances, and we have to make this clear. However, dropping a hint that it seems to be very much at the discretion of the train manager, who in my one and only experience, and in the experience of others may be willing to oblige if you look sufficiently humble and smile?  --Inas (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rolling stock
Can I suggest that the rolling stock section is shortened (with links to Wikipedia?) as most of the info here is quite specialist and not necessarily of use to travellers. —The preceding comment was added by Crookesmoor (talk • contribs)

 * I think I do agree - it's a bit extensive perhaps. Please feel free to cut it down as you see fit! --Nick talk 15:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Sure, but without any separate links to Wikipedia articles. How much to link to Wikipedia is still under debate on this site, but to date, all we've achieved consensus on is a single link at the end of the article on the same topic as the Wikivoyage article, which appears in the sidebar on the left side of the page under "Related sites." Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be called "Rail travel in Great Britain"?
Since it only covers England, Scotland and Wales? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. The only possible issue I can think of, is whether it woud complicate and confuse the distinction between the UK, GB and the individual nations for someone unfamiliar with the country. --Nick talk 23:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick. Yes, I thought that might be an issue too, but it may just be a question of having confidence in the intelligence of our readers. The paragraph starting in "This guide does not cover rail travel in Northern Ireland..." could be cut down and bumped up to the top in Italics. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good solution - I'm all for this :) --Nick talk 00:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FTT?
Now this article is already rated as "guide", but it seems to me that compared to some other articles featured as FTT it still has a lot of bullet points and a bit of a lack of direction... What do you think? What should still be done before featuring? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one has been on my list of possible FTT candidates for a while. It does have a lot of bullet points, as you said. There's a great deal of information in the article, so probably everything relevant is covered. I haven't read it in detail, so I can't tell how logically arranged (ie. user friendly) the article is as of now. Also, the article needs to be up to date as per when it will go live. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Traveller's Fare" (or) Should this article mention options for in station/on train catering?
I was wondering if this article should have a section on which train operators still have dining cars and proper meals options instead of the pre-pack sandwich "shop" option, which seems to be more common with more recent passenger rolling stock.

Some mid to long distance services used to have a refreshments trolley, if they didn't have a full buffet car. Not sure if this still the case...

Options in stations vary considerably, but I don't think there are any formalised "Station Buffet" now run by TOC's directly.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * None of the main UK train operators have dining cars with waiter service. The last one was on the East Coast line which was withdrawn about 5 years ago. Larger long distance trains (LNER, Virgin Cross country etc) have buffet cars with limited hot food, hot and cold drinks and a range of sandwiches. The Caledonian Sleeper has a lounge car (bar). Medium distance trains usually have a trolley with sandwiches and hot drinks. First class tickets often include some at seat food or drink - on a 2 hour Virgin journey I got a beer and a bowl of soup.
 * Stations generally have one or more bland fast food outlets, the Pumpkin chain is common. However there are some rural stations that have good local cafes which attract people who aren't catching a train. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Any objections to me adapting the above for a paragraph in the page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Of course not. It's a good proposal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Go ahead - one small correction - Cross country now have a trolley, not a buffet car. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rail travel in Great Britain