text:
Talk:Renting a car

recommend a good rental company
(Moved from the article contents)

could you recommend a good rental company ? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.8.79.165 (talk • contribs)

From Turkey / Elazığ
If you ar at Turkey I can recommend Elazığ Oto Kiralama. They good at what they doing.

naked facts
We do we need these naked facts? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:54, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
 * headquarter location (I removed it for now)
 * countries where the company operates
 * in which countries it operates via franchises?

 * Also, removed all links, lists of franchises and list of countries; all US-specific info (which should go to the respective article). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:15, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

driving license question
and what is with the drivin licence? in what countries can i use my german one. where do i need an international one? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 134.1.254.208 (talk • contribs)

when to choose local operators
I wonder how to choose whether do deal with local rental operator vs a major international company. What factors to consider; when locals are definitely better (and when vice versa)? Are there any common rules, same for every country? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:26, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Hotel delivery
Whenever I have had experience with a rental car delivery - they invariably take you back to the rental car office to complete the paperwork - I have never experienced where they just drop the car to you and get someone else to pick up the driver. Does this really happen anywhere? --(WT-en) inas 02:57, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

 * At least in Portugal, it's a common option--both to deviver a car to a hotel and complete all paperwork there, and to hand in the keys from car to a rental person in a hotel (while car is left at the parking lot nearest to the hotel), with no any paperwork after that at all. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:04, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

If you damage the car
Canadian media have been reporting a series of scams, by which a hire car company would take pre-existing damage (such as a minor chip in a windshield), falsely accuse the client of having caused the damage, then bill for inflated prices for "repairs" (the scheme operated through shell companies to conceal that the 'repair shop' that was billing $800+ for a windscreen and the hire-car franchisee were indeed the same company). Perhaps some sort of caution would be in order? K7L (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable photos
This article could use some photos to spruce it up, but the problem is that the topic lends itself to business photos, which are forbidden by our image policy. So what kinds of photos would be appropriate? I suppose photos of vehicles on highways? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 * When arriving at the airport, there is usually a set of car rental desks in the arrivals area. Would a shot of several business together in this manner be acceptable? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I believe so, but let's see what others think. It seems like this is the right context for such a photo, even if it might not be acceptable in another article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat US centric
This article is okay, but in some cases I see a slight US bias. Some things are different in places that are not the US, than they are in the US. For example in most places the smart money for all but the most time critical is to not rent a car at the airport, but rather go from the airport to town and rent one there. There will always be a premium for airport rental. And it is usually more expensive even after a short time than taking transit downtown. Furthermore, this article doesn't touch on carsharing (nor do we have an article on that), but it is getting more and more common (interestingly enough, especially in the US) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Is car sharing really of interest to the traveler? Unless you are resident then it isn't usually an option right? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Aren't there systems that are present in several cities and even across international borders? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I just know the ones in Australia (which are not suitable for tourists). If you know of car sharing systems that I can make use of when I visit the States then by all means write about them! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain Obvious?
Perhaps my bar for Captain Obvious is too high in many cases, but surely if you hold a driving license then isn't all of the following just completely obvious?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You need to choose a car to meet your needs.

 * If you can't drive a manual (stick-shift) check that your car will be automatic.
 * Check there is room for all the passengers and luggage you will be carrying. The car may not be the exact model you booked, and the boot space may vary.
 * If you are travelling on unsurfaced/gravel roads you may want to consider a car with high road clearance or 4-wheel drive.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Maybe not the first one. If you're from a country where practically all cars have automatic gearboxes (USA?) you may falsely assume that this is the case in Europe too. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Aren't there even some places where you can get a driver's license that legally requires you to take a automatic transmission car? And is it true that all electric cars are automatic transmission by default? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, in the UK you can take a driving test just for Automatic, and then you are restricted to just that type of car. There is also a significant premium in renting an Automatic car in Europe over its Manual counterpart, and for smaller cars Automatic may not even be possible.
 * Still this should be obvious to a driver, although if it needs to be made clear to North American drivers then I guess it is fine. Points 2 & 3 however should go in the obvious bucket... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Are there still car rentals where you simply can't get an automatic? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Is the 3rd point obvious? A lot of drivers might not have much experience in driving on dirt or gravel roads. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Gravel roads, like huge chunks of Trans-Labrador Highway between Goose Bay and the southeastern coast, can be hard on cars. Many hire car firms don't allow their vehicles to be taken off the paved road network, or insist that you're on your own (no roadside assistance) if you run into trouble on these roads. That might not be obvious to someone used to Toronto and twelve lanes of freeway. K7L (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I still hold that it should be obvious driving a normal car off road is ill advised, regardless of whether you rented or not. I remember renting a car in Adelaide and it being made clear that you would not be covered for driving on Kangaroo Island.
 * That said, if there truely are people who need this pointed out to them then I won't fight to change it. I just feel that it dilutes the important points contained within the article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * One thing is that nobody would drive a normal car off-road. Understanding beforehand that some roads at the destination are suitable only for some cars is a totally different matter (unless you are going to Africa, Iceland's interior or other places where this is obvious or pointed out in the destination article). An example would be Finland, where road standards are reasonably high (so the rental firm would not warn you), but a cheap lakeside cottage you might want to rent can be at the end of a challenging forest road. Asking for road clearance may spare you a few kilometres of walking. --LPfi (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
Policy says that we have a "slight preference" for American spelling, except for our "legacy idiosyncrasy" regarding the word "traveller". I recently changed the spelling of this article to the American variant, to make consistent throughout. Now User:K7L has changed the spelling to British in two instances, making it inconsistent again. I do not - contrary to popular believe - care all that much if one page or other is spelled in British English even if that runs contrary to policy, but can we please have spelling consistency? I am raising this here, in order to avoid an edit war. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The spelling "city centre" is perfectly good English and has been in the article since 2010. You're the one making the arbitrary changes to the original text. K7L (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I am not arguing that it is bad English (it is however bad "American"), I am arguing that if the rest of the article is spelled American, this should be too. And if you want to change the spelling of the whole thing to British English you should imho give a reason why. If I am not mistaken our policy as to spelling would suggest American spellings for every travel topic that is not explicitly only or in its majority about a country or countries that according to our definition use British spellings... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I doubt it. I think that a travel topic should just be in some consistent style of English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Which as of now it isn't. There are both British and American spellings all over the place. Just because an inconsistent spelling has been here since 2010 doesn't mean we are bound to keep it for ever and ever until the end of days Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * There's nothing wrong with the spelling that's been here since 2010; repeated attempts to force some other spelling are merely disruption. I also see no use for the term "kilometer", it's not American (as US vehicles still roll very much in miles) and it's not English (which retains the original "kilometre", just stripping the French accent form "kilomètre"). Nobody measures anything in "kilometers" (sic), anywhere. I also notice that you are following behind me and changing all of my new content from one spelling to another. You were doing it to the April 1 jokes, now you're doing it here. Why??? K7L (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Our spelling policy is wobbly to begin with, as it states a "preference for American English" except and than goes on to list a very incomplete list of places. This article did not at any point have one consistent spelling, if you indeed want to make it all spelled British (which doesn't make sense to me as this article is not in fact about Britain), go ahead and do so; consistently throughout the article. And your assertion as to nobody using "kilometers" is just plain wrong, as it is the scientific standard to use the metric system even in the US and the leading nation in science are the US after all. Furthermore German spells it "Kilometer" but that's neither here nor there. Did I mention that I am in favor of consistency? If you change the spelling of the whole page to British, I won't revert it, I promise. But I don't like some half-assed "centre" here "neighbor" there and some words just all over the place. Imagine if the prime minister of Canada were to issue a statement which meanders between British and American spelling. We would question his sanity and ability to lead more than we already do... Best wishes and no harm intended Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * "City centre" was consistently English for five years, until you started changing things arbitrarily. I don't see an issue that needed "fixing". K7L (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't have any preference for one type of English over another, but wouldn't we all agree that articles should be internally consistent in spelling, absent a really good reason otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I could be "internally consistent" with the English spellings, and still come back one edit later to find someone has forced the American spellings back in... even if American versions weren't what was originally there. I was seeing that constantly with the time travel joke, for instance, where the content was heavily British Empire but spelling kept being changed. Usually, unless there's some reason to favour or favor one version (such as an article about a place which actually speaks one or the other, like London/Westminster), spelling is left well enough alone - it might get looked at if an article is being heavily revised for a Star nomination, but not before. Renting a car isn't a place, the way Washington, DC or the "London theatre district" are, and there's no reason to force it to anything other than whatever the original contributor used. When I write validly that "most of the Renting a car vehicles are in the city centre" and the next edit is "you're doing it wrong" (when "centre" is a valid English word), my first reaction is "fine, go write the article yourself - I was only trying to contribute". K7L (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply that. But as other parts of the article were already in American English, I tried to make one the standard by default. And as I, my spellcheck and this very wiki all have varying degrees of preference for the American variety, I just thought that a good idea. And sorry for only replying just now, I did not have internet over the weekend; my old PC is slowly but surely going the way of all silicates... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Subheadings
Currently the subheadings of this article are rather long words, which makes the TOC in the banner messy. Any suggestions on how to improve that, without making the subheadings nonsensical? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps many of what are currently second-level (==) headings should be third-level (===) in order to keep the number of ToC entries reasonable? K7L (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AARP
I'm unsure about the edit replacing "groups like AA, AARP, AAA/CAA, ADAC..." with "automobile associations". As much as I don't speak American, the AARP is *not* an automobile association — it's the American Association of Retired Persons, a senior's organisation. AAA is the American Automobile Association. K7L (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with this replacement, since association acronyms may duplicate, and AARP means nothing by itself. If you follow South Park then the 'NAMBLA' episode might provide some context :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Furthermore it was overly focused on the Anglosphere and - with the exception of the aforementioned AARP - on the "legacy" automotive associations that are known for their political slant (either pro car or anti everything else depending on where you stand yourself) and while they are dominant in membership over their "green" counterparts (if only for the obvious reason that many environmentally conscious people don't own a car in the first place), we should not promote one over the other, as even a membership in the "obscure" ADFC (German cyclist's association) can get you discounts at some places. It might still be a good idea to rephrase somewhat. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Translate to Turkish
Why is Turkish version of this page (oto kiralama) is empty.
 * Presumably because noone has yet translated it. By all means plunge forward in the Turkish WV (if it exists) Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Returning a car - where?
The section Returning a car could be extended. it says "Normally you return the car to a rental office at your final point" and "If you return the car at another point than where you picked it up, make sure that the opening hours [...]".

But what "final points" and "other points" are usually available? I assume there might be no problem if your pick-up and final points are large cities in the same jurisdiction and the company is one of the big ones. Even then there might be more people going in one direction, and the companies might not like draining the one city.

What about hiring a car in Germany, driving to Nordkapp and flying home from there? Is such a scenario something that requires checking terms and prices from several companies, or is it completely unrealistic? There are similar less extreme scenarios.

–LPfi (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Renting a car


text:
Talk:Renting a motorhome in New Zealand

Maybe I don't get it, but does this really belong on Wikivoyage? I think with a little bit of manipulation this article would be better if it was on WikiHow. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 00:06, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I get it and I think it's a pretty good travel topic. It's a popular thing to do in NZ and there's a lot of stuff travellers would need to know ('specially if they aren't from Down Under). Maybe some of it is could be generalized in a topic article about renting motorhomes/RVs? (WT-en) Maj 11:24, 11 August 2006 (EDT)
 * You're completely right. I just realized what I was objecting to and it wasn't the article, but rather the title of the article.  When I clicked on the link I kind of expected the mundane details of how to rent a motorhome in NZ and that's why I suggested it belonged on wikiHow instead of here, but I can see it as a prefectly acceptable other way of seeing travel.  I'd suggest Traveling around New Zealand in a motorhome which reflects what the core of the article is about. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 13:44, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

Why was Wilderness Motorhomes removed from the list of companies? Seems like a legitimate link to me. I have added it back in until someone can give me a good reason as to why it should not be included.

"IMPORTANT - You are advised to check your credit card card company's insurance or to include this on your travel insurance good company with Travel Insurance is Walkabout Rentals website, no need to pay bond waiver insurance. travel Insurance is a fraction of the cost with so much more cover."

i'm sorry but this part (it's in the insurance section) is unintelligible to me. is it just me (i'm not a native english speaker) or is it actually written in broken english? (WT-en) Innocenzio 10:45, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

 * I think you are dead right. I have not got a clue what that means.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:47, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Banner
It was suggested by on Talk:Driving in New Zealand to reuse the old banner for this article, and I too think it'd be a great banner for this article. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I forgot about this one. I created both banners and prefer Banner 1, which is more NZ specific than the rather "anywhere" carpark in Banner 0. AlasdairW (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Renting a motorhome in New Zealand


text:
Talk:Republic of Ireland

I dunno, except for the mistake with the UK flag those changes looked a lot to me like an honest attempt to plunge-forward and get an article started. For instance note the way that the person had replaced the fact book with the country template (admittedly it should be the wiki format version). I think I'd rather see the anon users stuff fixed up with the wiki format version of the template and the correct flag, than to do a rollback to the CIA version. I figure we want to encourage folks who really are plunging forward. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:30, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
 * If I was too hasty I am sorry, but when I saw the page it was only a template and appeared to be vandalism. The user edited the page at the same time I rolled it back. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:37, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
 * I'm sure it's OK. Sometimes I think anon users (those who are not vandals) are a bit un-confident and should be given some room to make mistakes since we can always roll-back later. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:57, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
 * I note they came back later and made some good changes. I am going to add the full template to see if that will help them more. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:26, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland
Hi, just started on Ireland and Northern Ireland, and was wondering if 'Ireland', the name of the country in Europe referring to the 26 counties, could be changed to the 'Republic of Ireland', as 'Ireland' generally means the 32 counties and things could get a little confusing. Also, the first edit to the Ireland page wasn't me, the second one was me (when I was anonymous), in case there was some ambiguity. -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

 * I'm a little dubious about this. First, I'm a scaredy-cat about hotspot political issues like Ireland. But second, I'd worry that we'd then have two places to put information about the Republic: on Ireland, and on Republic of Ireland.

 * That all said, I think if we make Ireland a disambiguation page (rather than a page about the island), it'll probably be OK. Any other thoughts? --(WT-en) Evan 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

 * Disambiguation page sounds good -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:31, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)

 * Works for me -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

I just discovered this conversation. It was me who messed up the page in the first place and yes it was an honest attempt to start it and yes I went back in later, nervously, to continue. It's much easier now the correct template is there. I'll add more if I can. I've done some on the Cork page too -- ( anonfromCork)

 * anon: Don't worry about messing things up -- you did a great job getting this article active. Thanks for your work and help. --(WT-en) Evan 22:56, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

 * There is no such country as "Republic of Ireland", though it is sometimes wrongly described as such. The name of the country which is the subject of this article is "Ireland" and it happens to be a republic. It is not to be confused with "Northern Ireland", which is a part of the United Kingdom. The title of this page should be "Ireland", and the disambiguation page should distinguish between "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". --Lorcan 2 Aug 2005

 * You are strictly speaking correct, but the Republic of Ireland is the country's legal description as stated in the Republic of Ireland Act.

 * That said, the "common usage" criterion tells me this page really should be at plain old Ireland, with a disclaimerbox pointing to Northern Ireland. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:56, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * I believe that Lorcan has stated it correctly. The Irish Constitution specifically states that, in English, the name of the country is "Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act refers only to the "description", not to the "name". In addition, the Constitution takes precedence over all laws so that if the Oireachtas had wanted to change the name of the country then a referendum to change the Constitution would have been required. As an Irish citizen may I state (with all due nervousness) that I often come across fellow citizens who object to "Republic of Ireland", some who don't mind it and no-one who prefers it. --BrianR 15 Sep 2005

I want to revisit this discussion. I feel the disambiguation page is redundant and this article should be moved to Ireland and move the disambiguation page to Ireland (Disambiguation). Everyone in the UK understands the relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland, as does everyone in Ireland. I'm sure the majority of Americans do too because I remember, even as a young child, watching video of the Catholics and Protestants clashing and became aware of the turmoil and history of Ireland. So I think a disambiguation of "Ireland" is just foolish as most English speakers will likely know Northern Ireland is independent of Ireland. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not overly familiar with the region on a personal level, so can not add voice to objections to one or the other based on local sentiments. However, I think that most people are aware that Ireland refers to the republic and Northern Ireland refers to the province. So, I think it is acceptable to drop the disambiguation in favor of having two unconnected articles simply called 'Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland'. (WT-en) WindHorse 03:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)...though on reflection, leaving the disambiguation is useful for travelers who wish to visit the island of Ireland. In addition, we have a disambiguation the two Koreas, where the lines of demarcation are far more clearly defined. Maybe the argument for maintaining the status quo is, perhaps, slightly in more compelling... (WT-en) WindHorse 03:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

 * There is a bit of a discussion of this issue from a different angle at Talk:Ireland. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

 * As a new wikivoyage user (and a citizen of Ireland), I have an interest in this conversation. Firstly, I also edit on wikipedia, and conversations on this topic can get *VERY* heated at times over there, so it's nice to see it kept on an even keel here!
 * I would say that there are merits on both sides of the arguement regarding having a disambiguation page or not. Personally, I expected there to be one when I came here, and I automatically searched for Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (perhaps that's my wikipedia training!).
 * Speaking as someone living here, I personally see the two jurisdictions as being distinct and different, and from that point of view, perhaps they should have two articles. However, this site is primarily for travellers and tourists, and I don't know whether they would view it as one country or two, particularly since the whole peace process, and decommissioning of arms by the IRA, Etc.   There is a border between the two jurisdictions, but it is largely un-manned, given that there is a common travel policy between Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it it's full title).
 * On balance if I had to express a preference for one article which covers Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or two separate articles, I think I'd plumb for one article, but make sure that the two jursidictions are treated with respect, or Northern Ireland could get 'lost'.
 * I don't know if this helps or hinders the conversation, but it's my 2c worth anyway! --(WT-en) The.Q 08:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

 * comment copied from Talk:Ireland to consolidate this discussion
 * From a traveler's perspective, there are no border controls, hence Ireland is one tourist destination. The two Congos and Koreas have border controls (to say the least) as well as serious differences in their cultures and social structures, whereas the "Irelands" simply do not. When I visited Ireland, I certainly didn't think of it in terms of the North and the South, I thought of it in terms of "Belfast area," "Dublin Area," "Dingle," etc. This reality is well represented by the fact that we actually have Northern Ireland listed as a region of Ulster. I think this is a good example of how Wikivoyage's policy of privileging sovereignty does not necessarily help the traveler. Regardless of what "country" you are in here, you are really just traveling around Ireland, the island. Why privilege politics over travel?

 * This is also a frustrating practice "for the editor" since I keep accidentally setting up links to places like Talk:Ireland. In fact, I would have forgotten about this whole thing if I hadn't just accidentally wound up here again. *note: just did this again today :(

 * I'd like to add that this change would be easy to implement now, as I am implementing the new top-level regions discussed below. A new scheme would actually elevate Northern Ireland's position in the Ireland hierarchy, as it is currently buried in Ulster. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Here, here! Let's do it.. and just to avoid politics we'll add the Template:Disclaimerbox, which is also used on Golan Heights and is semi-considered an Israeli territory, though the breadcrumb suggests it's a large area in the Middle East. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Usefulness of the Provinces
I've been working on adding information to the Ireland pages based on my recent trip which included 2 months in Ireland, and I found that using the four Provinces as a seperate page was kind of annoying, and not that useful from a travel guide point of view.

For one thing, aside from knowing that County Galway, where I spent most of my time, is in Connacht, and that Northern Ireland is most of Ulster, I have no real idea as to where the boundaries of the provinces are, so just seeing the four of them on the main page wasn't very helpful. And I've already been there.

The other problem I was having with the previous setup was that there was very little to say about each province except what counties and cities were within them, without repeating information that would be more useful on the pages for the counties and cities.

So what I did was move all the names of the counties into the regions list, using the provinces only as secondary headings. Of course the disadvantage is that this makes a 30 lines long list, which is a bit of a pain too.

Anyway, what I'm wondering is what people think of this, which way is better, and is there a better way to show users what parts of the country fall into which provinces without making such a long list? - (WT-en) Neil C 23:54, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * I think the main downside to what you did is that we try to keep divisions of a country or region down to about 7+/-2 parts. Take a look at Project:geographical hierarchy for some more details. I think having the 4 province pages is the better bet, even if they are really short. --(WT-en) Evan 02:42, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * I agree in theory. But I was also in Ireland this summer, and the new long format would have been much more useful.
 * -(WT-en) Elgaard

I looked through the geographical hierarchy and I can see where you're coming from. The problem in Ireland, more significant than just the short pages in between national and county levels, is that the regional names are rarely, if ever, used, and the names mean nothing to the uninitiated. This makes the Irish situation somewhat different from, for example, the US, where if you say "Mid-west," even if you don't know the country, there is still some geographic meaning.

I was actually hoping someone would have a third option, that would make the provincial breakdown more useful to the traveller without having to make a long list of counties. -(WT-en) Neil C 15:47, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Can you think of another way to group the counties into a smaller number of regions? Is there a more traditional or well-known high-level grouping than the provinces? If not, I think we should really leave the provinces in there. --(WT-en) Evan 16:50, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Irish hierarchy revisited

Well, I see this topic has fermented for a long time. I am sure there must be a better way to do the top-level regions for Ireland—currently we have a region (Ulster) within Ireland that overlaps the entirety of Northern Ireland, which is in a different country. Worst of all, it leads to a disambiguation page! I'll look into this some more. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 19:13, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Here's a map of a new regions proposal, based on the regions that the country itself promotes. I will allow some time for others to comment and, if no objections, I'll plunge forward with a new regional hierarchy for Ireland. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Oh wow! I forgot how nice my map was! Is it safe to say that I should plunge forward with this, as no one has objected? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Peter, this acutally looks good, IMHO! The map looks very good too :).  Are these the Fáilte Ireland (official tourist agency) regions?  That would probably be the best way to sort out the counties on a tourist website! I'd say, plunge forward --(WT-en) The.Q 08:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 * As I look at your map again, I think you may need to show the location of some of the main towns also, to give the traveller a good idea as to what's where! --(WT-en) The.Q 08:28, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Well, I finally got an endorsement and no one has opposed the new scheme over the past month, so I'm going to change over from the existing regional hierarchy to this one. I will make sure to transfer all existing content (to the extent that it is possible) and to avoid orphaning any cities. And yes these are the official Fáilte Ireland regions, with the one exception that I have not created a separate Dublin region. I think the official Dublin region fits just fine as a subregion of East Coast & Midlands. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk
"There are many Irish people who will hold visitors in higher esteem if they make the effort to learn and speak some basic Irish phrases, especially in tourist centres and pubs."

as an Irishman in all the times i have seen any foreign visitor attempt to speak Irish it has generally benn met with eith curious amusement or downright disdain (esp. Americans) the main reason for this is the low level of spoken irish in ireland so most irish people will be unable to understand even simple phrases if they are mispronunced (cead mile failte is the most frequently mangled expression), unless i can see some evidence that tourists are encouraged ot speak irish in the gaeltacht I would be in favour of deleting this passage as I and every other Irish person I know would consider any attempt by a tourist to speak irish generally a faux pas and would consider the above statement bad advice and liable in some extreem circumstances to cause trouble . any thoughts ,note I wont change this for some timee to give people time to respond.86.43.91.11 19:59, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Don't agree with above. You are giving a personal opinion and taking an extreme view regarding the Irish language. My experience is that visitors who attempt Irish are received with good manners and treated with respect. I think it is the same as somebody trying out a few French phrases in Paris. User:(WT-en) Ciaranc

Antirepublicanism
With the caveat of having no clue about the situation, I don't really see much of a rationale above for the current "Republic of Ireland", which seems to fly in the face of Wikivoyage's normal "most common name" convention and gets some objections on political grounds too. Would it be thoroughly unacceptable to move it to plain old "Ireland", which is already used on most other language versions and a huge slew of incoming links, and plop in a China/Israel style disclaimerbox that this article is about the bit where they use euros, and you need to mosy over to Northern Ireland for the pound-using bit? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I partly support that proposal as it would enable us to dispose of the present clunky and unWikivoyage-like title. However, there is the disadvantage of losing a disambiguation that offers a convenient link to both the south and north for people who are visiting the island of Ireland (irrespective of the political divisions). It might also be worth noting that we have maintained disambiguation pages for other articles with similar status: Korea Borneo and Timor. The main problem here is that Ireland is the name of both the country and the island, whereas the other places mentioned either have totally unrelated names or have the prefix of west and east... mmm (WT-en) WindHorse 08:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

 * The difference is that there are no countries called "Korea", "Borneo" or "Timor". Even Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia (Republic). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I also support this proposal, in conjunction with a removal of the disambiguation discussed above. A link to Northern Ireland in the regions section of Ireland would take care of travelers looking for that information; its description can and should mention that it is in a different country. My personal experience is that travelers are visiting the Emerald Isle, not "The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Home Country of Northern Ireland." And on Wikivoyage the politics do not come first. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:23, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree that practical considerations should overrule political ones and, as stated, many travelers who visit the Emerald Island are only interested in information about the whole geographical region, and are not concerned whether the part they are visiting is ruled from Dublin or London. However, by using the title Ireland to represent both political entities, I think we will inflame both republican and unionist sentiments and incite a constant edit war. Therefore, I wonder whether it would be better to preserve Ireland as the title for the island and have the following two disambiguations: 'Ireland (republic)' and 'Northern Ireland'. In this way, the title is Wikified, political sensitivities are respected and the Emerald Island retains a title that is convenient for travelers who are interested in scenery, not politics. In some ways, using Ireland as a title to represent the whole island without the political disambiguations is perhaps similar to using the title America to cover the US, Canada and Latin America and just mentioning in the article that the regions use different currencies. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

 * plus plus plus...another point for keeping the republic and north as separate articles is the visa regulations. For EU member states obviously no visas are required, and I'm sure that both counties have the same policy towards the US and Canada, but for other nationals it could be different. I know that for Bhutanese, a visa for France allows travel to Germany, but not to the UK. That requires a different application. It is many moons since I traveled on the Swansea to Cork ferry, and I have totally forgotten the regulations, but there is quite a possibility that there is a difference, as there is between France and the UK. Anyway, just an after thought... (WT-en) WindHorse 09:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Republic of Ireland


text:
Talk:North Macedonia

Cities
Per 7+2, there should be no more than 9 cities listed in the "City" section of a country or non-bottom-level region article. So which ones should they be? There are currently 10 listed. One needs to be removed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry, wasn't aware of this policy. Local hero (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Not a problem. But which 9 cities do you think should be listed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I think the 9 currently listed are the right ones. Local hero (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Good. I didn't see that the list had been reduced to 9. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Macedonia (country) ———> North Macedonia

 * Move Opened a discussion where ever this article should be moved to North Macedonia. Both countries Rep. Macedonia and Greece have ratified the prespa agreement that will put an end to the name dispute. The name change will go into effect on 8 February 2019 and a NATO protocol seems likely on that day, feel free to join the discussion. —The preceding comment was added by Ben2949 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I think I agree with this one, because no-one really disputes that both the country and the Greek region are parts of Macedonia, so I think the new name for the independent republic will take hold very quickly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Republic of North Macedonia--Traveler100 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * North Macedonia will be adopted quickly, and we don't need "Republic of". Ground Zero (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment: the same discussion is going on at Citizendium, where a user has made two public comments indicating that he will move the page to "North Macedonia" in the near future. So I'd agree with North Macedonia. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * North Macedonia. Would prefer North Makedonia if there were any chance of that becoming common usage. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 16:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much chance for that spelling in English. "Macedonia" is very well established for both the Greek region and the Slavic republic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say "North Macedonia" because everyone knows the word so well. "North Makedonia" should probably be a redirect, though. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So I support a move to "North Macedonia". Do we have consensus to move? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I am now going to do the page move. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated text
Considering the desire of the country  to change its name, and the sensitivities around the old name, and as this change has taken effect, I have updated the article, changing "Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" except where it is being used in a pre-2019 context. I have not changed "Macedonian" where it refers to language or the Macedonian Orthodox church because we don't know if these will change.

Is there any objection to moving the article now? Ground Zero (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Renaming was officially done on Tuesday, 12th. English and German Wikipedia, Commons and German Wikivoyage renamed their articles and categories today to North Macedonia. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The "sensitivities" around the name of this country have always been one of the world's more absurd examples of petty nationalism, but if North Macedonia is to be the new common English name, then I support the move.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * It's hard to know what the common name will be and, thus, my preference is to keep it at the current title until North Macedonia becomes more common (if that ever happens). From a traveller's perspective, however, is North Macedonia more appropriate since visitors will encounter "North Macedonia" on official signage in the country? So, I wouldn't object to changing the title either. Local hero (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I think the title should change but not most of the examples in the text, currently. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm for changing the country name, there's no reason we shouldn't use North Macedonia, redirects would be helpful --Billbarrelrider (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Interesting how we've moved so much faster with this than with Eswatini. I'm not opposing the move, just noting the difference, which I find surprising. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I think because all we're doing here is adding "North" before the name of the country, while with "Eswatini" it's a change to a totally different name. I see the reasoning. Also, there are many more comments at Talk:Swaziland than here — which, IMO, shows that we're not doing things differently in the case of Swaziland than we're doing in any other case. I don't see why it's an issue; if we decide not to move one page but move another, it doesn't mean that there's some sort of difference in how we are handling different cases. In the case of the Swaziland move discussion, there is no consensus, but there is consensus here. That is why there is a difference in how quickly action is being taken.
 * However, I'm glad you added a redirect from Eswatini to Swaziland — that should have been added a long time ago. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize that the consensus is different in the two discussions. That's what I find surprising. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Eswatini change has elements of the one of Cabo Verde, which are absent here. I do not have a firm opinion on this or Eswatini, but I think there are reasons to have different consensus when the cases differ. --LPfi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are two factors making this change easier, though it might possibly be too fast: (1) The main part of the name, "Macedonia", is well-established; (2) "North" is a simple English-language word. I think this is what LPfi may be alluding to. "Eswatini" or "eSwatini" are simply not English-language words, whereas "Swaziland" is easy for English-speakers to understand. I think that the apparently wide acceptance of the new name in English-speaking Southern Africa means that the change should be made sooner or later, but I'm not sure when. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explanation makes sense. Now I'll head over to Talk:Swaziland to participate in the discussion there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek about the reasons. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Region names
The discussion at Talk:Western Macedonia about renaming two of the country's regions hasn't had much participation. Please weigh in if you have any thoughts. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia renamed
On Tuesday, Macedonia (country) was officially renamed to North Macedonia. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a move discussion at Talk:Macedonia (country). I support the move. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the isPartOf categories for North Macedonia.

Now Macedonia (Greece) and cities in the lost sub-regions need to be fixed. There are a good number of city articles still under East Macedonia, Central Macedonia and West Macedonia.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also need to look at links on other pages to to Macedonia and link to North Macedonia. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Some other cleanup is in order as well. Some of our maps need to be updated with the new name: File:Macedonia regions map.png, File:Europe regions minimal cities.png, File:Balkans regions map.png, File:Greece WV region map EN.png, File:Albania Regions map.png, File:Kosovo Regions map.png, File:Serbia Regions map.png, and File:Bulgaria Cultural Regions Map.png, at least. We should also think about renaming Western Macedonia and Eastern Macedonia – should they be moved to Western North Macedonia and Eastern North Macedonia? See Talk:Western Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Central Macedonia needs a rethink and discussion as a number of subregions and their city articles left without a parent region. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have the technical know-how to deal with the maps listed above? I think all that is required is to edit the source SVG files (available on Commons) to change the text from "Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" and then convert them to new PNGs. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the North Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece maps to reflect the new name. I'll work on the remaining ones over the next few days. -Shaundd (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see that these are almost all finished – thanks! It seems the only one remaining is File:Europe regions minimal cities.png. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done that one, see the original svg. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks! Then I think the cleanup from the North Macedonia move is finally finished! Thanks to everyone who participated. Next, on to Eswatini... —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can work on Eswatini/Swaziland, too. It'll probably be this weekend though before I can get to it. -Shaundd (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also Cabo Verde and Timor-Leste. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I checked a couple of East Timor maps and they look like they're already good. For Eswatini, the following maps need to be updated: File:Swaziland Regions map.png, File:Map-Africa-Regions-Islands.png, File:Southern Africa new map.png, File:South Africa-Regions map.png, and File:Mozambique regions.png. For Cape Verde, File:Cabo Verde regions map.png is the only map I can find where the name in the map doesn't match the name of our article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eswatini maps are updated now. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Demonym and language
The people of North Macedonia are called "Macedonians", and its language, the Slavic one, is called "Macedonian". See here. Ground Zero (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I assume you mean as opposed to the name "North Macedonians." What concerns me with the linked article, though, is that saying "between 60,000-600,000 people turned out to protest" is so broad that it really doesn't tell us much, except that a lot of people came. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Macedonia


text:
Talk:Republic of the Congo

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Republic of the Congo/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 02:44, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Regions
Unless others have a better idea, I'm planning to use the regions as defined by the ministry of tourism and improvise from there if necessary. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:33, 25 January 2010 (EST)

 * Is that the right link? I don't see anything breaking the Congo into regions. I've even searched that website and couldn't find any regions (other than a list of the political regions). (WT-en) AHeneen 00:50, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Oops, here's the correct link (scroll down for the regions). I've found several other sources too, and will post a bit more here tomorrow.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:54, 26 January 2010 (EST)

And here it is. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Kinshasa has a larger capital star than Brazzaville? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:13, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Well, I did put Brazzaville on top ;) I try to scale the city/capital icons to represent how big the cities actually are, and Kinshasa is just under seven times bigger than Brazzaville. Of course, it's essentially one city, but that would be hard to show here.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:37, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Superb map. I genuinely think we are creating something quite special and unique with these African maps. To be picky, I would definitely suggest showing equal sized stars for Brazzaville and Kinshasa. With the latter showing as larger, it implies that it is the capital of the country being mapped. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:51, 26 January 2010 (EST)

 * Point taken, but I don't want to abandon the principle of showing the size of cities on the map—showing which are towns, which are cities, and which are really huge f-ing cities is one of the more useful things we can do, I think. How is this instead? I've reduced the opacity of the city icons outside the RoC (and adjusted the size of the Brazzaville icon just a tad). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:43, 27 January 2010 (EST)
 * Ah. I did not realise that we differentiated size of capital cities. I must bear that in mind as my own maps do not. It's a good point. Yes. the opacity reduction helps. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:25, 27 January 2010 (EST)

 * Nice map. I had a hard time trying to find info about Congo's regions, but these regions look fine to me.

Regions, again
13 years later, and the Congo has only 8 articles split among 6 regions. The region articles add little value. I think it makes sense to remove the region structure from the country article, and direct readers directly to the city and park articles. The region articles should be preserved so that they can be reactivated if we get more city and park articles down the road. Ground Zero (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Sure, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * . The listings in some region articles should also be cleaned up, too. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up Coast and Mayombe which had almost 100 per cent of its content copied verbatim from Pointe-Noire. Five more to go. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * + Congolese Plateau. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all. It appears that had copy-pasted many of the listings from the city articles into the region articles (likely to game the Explore Africa points system). I've reverted all of them and given the user a warning, but it looks like we might have to check this user's other edits.  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SHB! Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Done. The content of the region pages has been commented out below the redirect tag so that it can be easily restored if our coverage of Rep. Congo is expanded. Ground Zero (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointe noire city.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Poto poto.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nabemba.jpg

title: Talk:Republic of the Congo


text:
Talk:Reserva de la Biósfera Calakmul

Flora and fauna
Maybe a student in environmental sciences who really knows the common English names of these species could work on this:

 * Species in danger of extinction include the saraguato monkey, the spider monkey, viejo de monte, ocelot, tigrillo, jaguar, tapir, pato real, zopilote rey, and two species of eagle. Threatened species include a half dozen mammals, such as el puercoesp�n, gris�n, jaguarundi, oso hormiguero; two dozen birds such as the Tucan, the green Parrot, the Yucatan Parrot, the loro ramonero (loro means parrot, but I'm not sure what this one is?), hocofais�n y varias especies de aves rapaces; algunos reptiles, como la salamanquesa, boa, y varias especies de snakes; y algunas plantas como el chech�n blanco, guayac�n negro y el granadillo.

This was from a public educational site in Spanish, with no copyright indicated. (WT-en) HLM 01:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Calakmul, Campeche.jpg

Expansion and re-write
I've significantly expanded this article to include extensive info about the archaeological site (which is the main reason travelers come to this place). I've also reviewed and edited info about the biosphere reserve including its species, geology etc. As always, knowledgable travelers can likely improve it. Mrkstvns (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reserva de la Biósfera Calakmul


text:
Talk:Respect

 * See also: Talk:Respect/Archive

Treatment of women
Prompted by the New Year incidents in Köln (and domestic discussion), I wonder whether a section about respect for women is needed (here or in more regionally specific articles).

On one hand I understand that touching (as in shaking hands) or looking at women may be a sensitive issue in some parts of the world – I might do a faux pas or be too cautious to the point of insult when visiting e.g. an Arab country. On the other hand, I suppose many people could have difficulties in handling western women – they should be treated as equals, OK, but how and when are you allowed to show an erotic interest?

With little experience of "the other side", I do not know how far you get by common sense and just showing respect. I suppose there are things we should point out.

--LPfi (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes to all. I don't think we should direct this to potential rapists - they aren't going to be deterred by any written instructions we could provide. But people who are sincere but culturally different from the inhabitants of foreign countries where they are traveling should be carefully but clearly instructed on things to be sensitive to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Officer"
The sentence "And remember: The first name of any police officer is 'officer'." was changed to "The given name [...]".

I suppose the sentence is intended to mean one should use the title when addressing a police officer, but the wording is very unclear. Why would I use the first or given name when addressing a stranger in a formal way? And is "officer" the title to use? I suppose I should say "yes, officer", "no, officer", "excuse me, officer" in the USA, but I am not sure a Finnish policeman would understand why he or she is called an officer. Is this title used in all English speaking countries?

--LPfi (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In Germany one would usually not address police with any name, first or second - or, for that matter, any title. The Vocative use of "Sie" makes the need to know someone's name somewhat redundant in superficial encounters. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 * As the "formal you" is used in some specific languages (and not English) it is more appropriate for a phrasebook than an etiquette article. /Yvwv (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not quite sure I follow. Why should we keep "the first name of any police officer is officer" which applies to one country and not keep the mention of "formal you" which applies to many, many contexts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 * The "formal you" should certainly be kept. I think Yvwv meant that there is no "Sie" solution for all languages and that it is unnecessary to include the specific example. In some languages with a formal form, some kind of title may still be needed. (And the "formal you" issue can be quite convoluted, as it was in Sweden until they finally gave up with it in the 60s–70s.) --LPfi (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hitler
"Many visitors to Germany have found it strange that virtually nobody sees any positive or defensible aspects of the regime of Adolf Hitler" - Do they? Who? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like some bullshit by a troll, and it should be deleted right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I can only speak from experience as a German abroad and it does happen that people seem to think "good aspects of Hitler" are somehow a discussable subject with their German interlocutors Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Please feel free to add a more reasonably phrased remark about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I'll admit that as a kid, I thought that Germans would have a positive view of Hitler, while Israelis would have a negative view. So it's certainly possible for an ignorant foreigner to expect that. The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I hope few adult Europeans would. But considering how little I know about Korean history (or West African, or ...), I suppose I am not in a position to demand such knowledge from visitors from elsewhere. --LPfi (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As this is advice about "Respect", it should be re-phrased along the lines of what visitors shouldn't discuss, rather than what they find strange. Ground Zero (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Isn't the point of this article to be universal? Country- or even continent-specific advice shouldn't even be here. I'd say the same about the Nicaragua passage in the same section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the example is fine. The point is to illustrate how locals' views may not match visitors' expectations or assumptions. A concrete example helps drive the point home better than just an abstract generalization. The dog2's anecdote demonstrates that this example isn't as far-fetched as those of us from Europe and North America might assume. Maybe "some" would be better than "many". —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The dog2's anecdote is what he believed as a child. Children are innocent, but they're also ignorant of pretty much everything outside of their bubble. Some of my views from childhood are too embarrassing to even repeat. But we should assume our readers are critically-thinking adults, and also maybe kids who want to learn about the world.
 * It's universal advice to avoid discussing politics and religion when travelling. If we absolutely must have an example (we mustn't), then we can do better than the putrid low-hanging fruit that is Hitler.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, avoid expressing any opinion that can be interpreted as anything other than glowing when talking about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey. Or another example, avoid expressing your thoughts on politicians who widely polarise opinion (e.g. Ronald Reagan, General de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher...) I don't we need these in this article, but they're alternatives to invoking Godwin's Law.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're behind the times on Turkey, as the enemies of Ataturk are now in power there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Turkey's political developments. It remains illegal to "insult Turkey", and that includes disrespecting Atatürk, on par with denigrating the flag. Do you know whose portrait President Erdoğan stand before when making speeches? His government may dismantle the Father's legacy and distance themselves from his politics, but they continue to laud the man himself. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe using Hitler as an example is in bad taste. And certainly, there are many other examples you can think of. One we could perhaps use in place of Hitler is the view of Israel by Arab Christians. Westerners may expect Arab Christians to be very pro-Israel, but you'll be surprised. Most Arab Christians in fact have a negative view of Israel, which is especially true of Palestinian Christians, and there's actually quite a bit of bad blood between the Palestinian Christians and American Evangelical Christians. The dog2 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, do we need these examples? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's far too simplifying to say "Arab Christians" have this or that opinion of Israel. After all, there is After Saturday comes Sunday that points out that the Christians in the region don't have much to gain with aggressive Muslim nationalism ascendant. Or the numerous Christian groups in the Lebanese Civil War aligned with Israel. Or the fact that people are no hivemind and of course Arab citizens of Israel who run the gamut, but whose majority (Christian or Muslim or Atheist) prefer being citizens of Israel... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Titles
"There are also certain modes of address that are use for certain office holders. Here we list some of the more common ones: [...]
 * Your Holiness — the Pope"

Should be perhaps instead advice people to research the relevant titles if they are invited to some of these people or to somewhere where one might meet them? I assume that even the Pope would forgive the blunder of calling him just Mr Franciscus or whatever if you pop into him on the metro – and if you go to meet him, there is much more you should know on how to behave ("How do you do, Your Holiness, nice to meet you. How are you?", grabbing his hand to shake it – then you could as well say Mr Franciscus).

–LPfi (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess these are more commonly used in their third person form. Like if you are giving a formal speech and need to refer to the Pope, you will refer to him as "His Holiness, the Pope". The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Yeah, on the same basis that we don't cover language used only by or to royalty in Malay (beta is "I/me" for sultans; patik is "I/me" for a subject before the sultan), I would completely nuke the list of forms of address for officials. Those who need to know these things shouldn't expect them in a travel guide. We can mention the preferred form of address for the Pope in the Vatican article, although this pope is quite low on pomp, and we can mention the preferred form of address for clergy members where relevant in articles about particular religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Some of these aren't as uncommon as you'd think. I have had dinner with Singapore's ambassador to the U.S., and I am just a nobody. And I also had dinner with Singapore's high commissioner to Australia when I was living in Australia. I'm pretty sure an American living in Singapore will have opportunities to meet the U.S. ambassador too. And if you need to go to Court, you have to address the judge as "Your Honour". The dog2 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * If you want to mention titles of ambassadors and judges, OK, but not kings, presidents, prime ministers or the Pope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Even with those, the titles depend on the language you are using (and local culture). If you meet your ambassador and aren't from an Anglophone country, you won't use English, and even as English-speaking probably not if you go to court in Senegal. You probably know how to behave in front of your compatriots, so this would need to cover meeting non-compatriots abroad. If I am going to court abroad, I hope I get advice on how to address the judge besides a million other things I might do the wrong way. I think saying Mr Judge is my smallest problem at that point – and I hope I don't get sentenced for saying so. –LPfi (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 * The "royal protocol" stuff is of low practical utility, as these situations are usually managed by people who will inform the involved individuals what the expectations are. For example, if you are meeting a king, an attendant will tell you what the relevant norms of etiquette are. I support removing the list. Twsabin (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Armed guards
I am not convinced about the advice in Armed guards (formerly Use common sense):
 * "if [the building with an armed guard] is the one you specifically want to enter (a police station or a town hall, for example), treat that as probably not being the proper entrance (maybe it's on the other side)."

I assume police stations in say Iraq are indeed guarded by heavily armed guards and I don't understand why the heavily armed guard wouldn't be at the main entrance. Could we give some appropriate advice for that situation?

title: Talk:Respect


text:
Talk:Retiring abroad

Initial comments
I started this with text from the deleted retirement in Thailand article. Discussion there indicated this article might be a good idea. I've already deleted some text from the old article & more needs to go.

It needs much more, notably a list of countries that have a retirement visa available, with links to gov't sites with details. Australia, Indonesia & Thailand do. Others? (WT-en) Pashley 21:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

 * I've now deleted most of the old article's text. What is left is a bunch of stuff under the heading "complications", basically anything that looked to me like it might be useful as a reminder of things that need to be covered. It all needs rewriting in this context.
 * I won't be doing more work on this soon. Others are encouraged to jump in. (WT-en) Pashley 00:59, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Made first pass on a rewrite. It still needs other contributors. (WT-en) Pashley 02:44, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Very nice work Pashley. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:31, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Contributions wanted
This is now about as far as I can take it. So far, I'm the only writer. It has been bumped to Guide status, but it is not actually complete. In particular, the list of countries with retirement visa programs has gaps of two types. One is that I almost certainly have not found all the possibilities, for either investment visas or retirement visas. Can anyone add some?

The other problem is that for several countries I found travel agents offering visa services but was unable to find a primary source, government site. I've added those countries to the list but without primary source links. Finding the gov't sites should be relatively easy; just Google for "retirement visa" plus something like "site:.gov.bz". The latter part restricts the search to government domains. Unfortunately, I cannot do much of that because I am in China and the Great Firewall is currently sabotaging Google. Volunteers? (WT-en) Pashley 00:37, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

 * Except for the above, I think it is done. (WT-en) Pashley 03:23, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

 * I changed the text for the investment visas so it now says these are just examples, with enough money you can go almost anywhere. The retirement visa list is still incomplete, though, and that's a problem. (WT-en) Pashley 02:45, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

I have filled in as many gaps as I can, but it is still incomplete. Both types of gap mentioned above still exist. In particular, I speak neither Spanish nor Portuguese so there are a lot of gaps in Latin America & some links that are there may be wrong.

Help! Pashley (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Several links were found to be dead. I fixed one but deleted two others, Mexico & Honduras. Those join several other Spanish-speaking countries where we've never had a link (see last paragraph above). Any volunteers to fix that? Pashley (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Colonial remnants?
Are the few remaining overseas territories of colonial powers easy to retire in? Can a Briton go to Gibraltar without a visa, an American to Puerto Rico, or a Frenchman to French Polynesia? (WT-en) Pashley

 * What about former territories? Do Britons get special treatment in Malta or Americans in the Philippines? Are there some where resentment of the colonial past would be problem for a possible retiree? (WT-en) Pashley

 * I added text to cover this. (WT-en) Pashley 21:24, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Information_sources
The section on Retiring_abroad is now fairly large.

Is it too large? Providing a web? directory is explicitly not a goal of the project. Are we on a slippery slope here? I'd say no, but other opinions are needed.

Should it become an independent article? Some of the information it gives would be useful not only to retirees, but to anyone planning to reside abroad, so links from Teaching English or Working abroad might make sense. Parts of it might even be useful in choosing a vacation destination, so it might get links from all over the place. Does this mean it should be in a standalone article, easier to link to? Again I'd say no, but other opinions are needed. Pashley (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is too large and I also think this is a case where an exception to our "non-goals" is warranted.
 * One of the reasons we don't like non-primary external links is to encourage writers to actually put the information in new, originally written text here. As one of our most enduring and loyal editors (you've certainly proved your stamina trying to staunch the flow of spam over at Wikitravel.org) having (this ordinarily too large) sources section is not going to endanger your participation and I'm sure you'll be around to weed out any spammy or out of date links that anyone inserts. (If you do cease your personal interest in this article, that opinion would change, of course.)
 * Another reason that the external links are appropriate here is that many of them contain dense statistical information or data (like prices, for example) that change on a frequent (and sometimes daily) basis, and it wouldn't be a good use of anyone's time to simply re-locate the data here (there might even be intellectual property issues, too).
 * I would also say that there might be a case here for an exception to our link display policy - all those little numbers are both ugly and confusing to a casual reader who might not instantly realise that the displayed sequential numbers are of no significance whatever.
 * Finally, as long as the section title doesn't change (or you could create a shortcut such as REDS - retirement external data sources), linking is still easy and would be better than creating a more easily found spammer's delight stand alone article. -- A l i c e ✉ 19:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic need for reassurance
I inserted a paragraph about Polish visas and linked to Poland and to a list of links to the province offices that issue long-term visas. The surrounding text didn't go into great detail, so I tried to keep it short and sweet with links to more info in case Poland was of particular interest to the reader. Please let me know if you see how how I could have done better. Jimmu (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pashley's obviously the best judge of that, but it seems just right to me - after all the data may change rapidly and you can't get a more authoritative source than the government website. Keep up the good work! -- A l i c e ✉ 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me. Pashley (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Retiring abroad
Could this be our first star travel topic? Teaching English has been nominated and slushed; as far as I know no others have even been nominated.

It is not entirely complete — see the talk page for comment on that — but I think it is at least close to star level. Of course I'm the only author so far, so I cannot really judge. Comments here or contributions could fairly easily get it the last bit of the way, I think. (WT-en) Pashley 02:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Query. Really like this article and would love to see it as a Star. Are there though any criteria for travel topic status?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:01, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Link at top of this page takes you to Project:Travel_topic_status. (WT-en) Pashley 02:47, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Ah yes :). That will teach me for not looking. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:49, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Also Burmesedays, it may be useful to keep in mind as you read the stated goal within the article: "This article covers moving abroad to retire."

 * Are there any countries where you simply cannot retire in even if you want to or that you absoultely have to move to/become a citizen to live in? I tried looking up Uzbekistan, Kenya and Senegal, for example, and couldn't find any information on how to retire in these countries. Perhaps they have investor's visas, but maybe not.

 * The article is also highly centralized around retiring to Asia, which I know is the most common, but some geographical diversity in examples and pictures would be good. There are plenty of amazing coastal cities in Africa, for example, that have the same sort of exotic appeals that may attract someone to Thailand or the Caribbean, but it's difficult to know what/how much information applies for areas outside of Asia. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Yep I am sure that is the case. I suspect finding the information (if it exists at all) for most African countries would be a bit of a nightmare. :::This is a very worthy topic, and one I am quite close to as I have assisted a number of retirees in understanding what is involved in acquiring a retirement residency visa in Indonesia. I think Pashley has done an excellent job with the structure of the article, it is certainly well written, and as far as I can tell, it seems complete. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:43, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Not the first Star travel topic. Chicago skyline guide has that distinction, and there are 5 others related to Scuba Diving around Cape Town. See Project:Star article
 * South Africa has quite a number of Europeans who have retired here. Mostly Germans and Britons, who take advantage of the good exchange rate to enjoy the milder climate. Many are what is locally known as "Swallows", as they tend to go north for the winter, and so don't actually stay here permanently. However some do, though permanent is never certain while one is still alive. I have no idea what the arrangements are, as I am local, so retiring here would be a natural progression for me, requiring no special procedures. The information must be available somewhere. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 08:55, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

This one has been hanging out there a long time. I would like to propose that it is promoted to star. --(WT-en) burmesedays 12:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Support (Pashley's a "star" editor, too). -- A l i c e ✉ 04:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's high time this one joins our star articles. --Peter Talk 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, who gets to close this nomination and promote it to Star status, then?-- A l i c e ✉ 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no outstanding criticisms that have not been dealt with and there does not seem to be any remaining opposition to promoting this topic to STAR status, so I will do just that in 2 days if nobody objects! -- A l i c e ✉  19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * There are some open questions; see Talk:Retiring_abroad. I do not think these should block the nomination, but that needs more opinions. Pashley (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I have now fixed nearly all of them. Pashley (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done!
 * I have some comments about the horizontal style of ToC but they will have to wait until I have a faster Internet connection, Sandy. -- A l i c e ✉ 00:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede
This got overlooked in the star nomination, but the lede to this article is currently quite weak:

It is moderately common for people to retire to countries other than where they spent their working life.

Yawn. It's wishy-washy and doesn't serve to hook the reader into reading on. Could we spice this up, and evoke the romance of adventure and/or beautiful beaches and climate in one's latter years? --Peter Talk 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The next paragraph did mention climate etc. and the photo suggested that too. I'm not entirely convinced there was much of a problem.

 * Originally, though, what you quote was just the first sentence of a longer lede that did mention reasons to go. I've now moved it back to that format and reworded a bit. I think it is an improvement. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I also think it's an improvement. It still would be nice to throw in a more spicy line or two up front, though. It really stuck out as dryly informational when added to Star articles, where most entries feature especially creative/lively writing (by our standards). Retiring abroad is kind of an exciting prospect, and I don't think that is currently captured in the intro. The more prosaic reasons could follow using a transition like, "Of course, there are also more prosaic, sensible reasons to retire abroad..." --Peter Talk 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I took a crack at that. Maybe others can do better? Pashley (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the recent change was a big improvement, and have updated the star articles page accordingly . --Peter Talk 03:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Review needed
I sent the link of this article to a friend who is considering a number of south american countries - and he has noted there is little information about the issue of residency (costs, requirements, etc)

anyone with any ideas as to whether more needs to be put in that is country specific to the issue (or not) ? sats (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 * It does need more info in that region. See above . Pashley (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Banner
Any preferences? I like the first one best. Danapit (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, I prefer it too. Some of the others are too similar to the photo in the lead section or are not the full 2100*300 size that I think we need. I'll insert that one. Pashley (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I read on a discussion that exact size doesn't matter, important is the ratio 7:1. If you happen to like another one, I can also resize it, no problem. Danapit (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I added one more. Not very colorful, but I quite like it. I have some doubts about the license of the current one, although I took it from Commons... Danapit (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I like all of these a lot, and have a hunch that some that are not being used here could probably be used in some other travel topic. --Peter Talk 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks Peter (I like your SPB banners a lot). Here another version of the last one. Danapit (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes. Some of these may well be useful elsewhere. I just dropped the second one into Belize; it is not ideal there, though, because all of the beach part gets covered by the linked section names. Pashley (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Borrowing one of those for senior travel. /Yvwv (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Links
I have changed many links from footnote style ("[1]" etc.) to front links in accordance with recent policy changes. See Wikivoyage_talk:External_links.

However, some pose a problem so I have not touched those yet. We currently have several dozen links under Retiring_abroad and in the following section that look like this: What should we do with those? Just turning them into front links is not ideal because it loses the link to our article on the country. We could add some other text to get, for example: However, that seems a bit odd, especially if "visa info" gets repeated 20 times.
 * Australia
 * Australia visa info

Anyone got a better idea? Pashley (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the footnote-style links in this context. On the other hand, I don't know if the internal links are necessary either.  LtPowers (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What if you used the name of the government department whose website the link goes to? Or perhaps there is enough variety in the official visa names that you could use that. Just clicking through a few I see "Assured Income Visa", "Retirement Visa", "Dream Home Visa", etc.. Texugo (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I took Texugo's suggestion & there are now no footnote-style links left.
 * Some of the problems mentioned at are still present, though. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Taxation and privacy
Some New Zealand banks have a problem because NZ has privacy laws that make it illegal for them to provide info on US citizens in NZ that the US gov't is demanding. The NZ gov't is considering adding an exception to their laws to accommodate the US.

It is possible that this & similar things elsewhere should be covered in our Taxation section. However, it is a complex area so hard to do well and it is not clear if it belongs in a travel guide. I am not about to attempt it, largely because I would find it hard to be objective. To me, it is horrifying that the NZ gov't would even bother to discuss this rather than telling the US to get very thoroughly stuffed. Pashley (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ecuador
According to website internationalliving.com, Ecuador is the best country to retire to. It also lists another 'top 25' countries. Maybe useful for this article?

http://www.traveller.com.au/ecuador-tops-list-of-the-25-best-countries-for-retirement-in-2015-12huwi?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Outbrain_cpc

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The section Retiring_abroad includes links to that site and at least one "ten best" list. Should we add more lists? There are quite a lot out there; I linked to several toward the end of the discuusion at Destination_of_the_month_candidates. Should they all be here?

 * Ecuador, especially Cuenca (Ecuador), is certainly a popular destination. In Retiring_abroad/Table it shows as one of the cheaper destinations and the only country where prostitution, homosexuality and cannabis are all legal. Pashley (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I wasn't suggesting another 'Top X' list. I just did a search for Ecuador in the article and only saw two minor references. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I added a new section Retiring_abroad that includes a list. I also moved some existing text into that section which makes the intro shorter & I think much cleaner/punchier. Comments? Additions to my first-cut list? Pashley (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Special cases
Two things that might be added at Retiring_abroad: Does anyone know enough detail to add these? Pashley (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Taiwanese in China. I've met some Taiwanese retirees there, but do not know details.
 * Jews going to Israel.

Excessive use of quotes
As brought up on Travellers' pub, this article has a lot of quotes. Most of them deal with travel in general; hardly any of them are specific to the travel topic. Should we move them to articles where they are more appropriate? /Yvwv (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm biased since I inserted most of them; to me nearly all are appropriate & should stay where they are.

 * The two exceptions are in the sections Retiring_abroad and Retiring_abroad. I'd say those should be replaced with more appropriate quotes, but I do not have any candidates. Pashley (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles that look relevant
8 countries where you could retire on $150,000 Pashley (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

13 things people should do to save for an international retirement, according to Americans who retired abroad Pashley (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Needs review
I wrote most of this over 5 years ago. Now there are quite a few dead links & others may be outdated; e.g. the first link I tested under Retiring_abroad led to a Newsweek article from 2010. The article is rated star but may no longer deserve the rating.

I do not currently have the time for a thorough review & probably am not the best person to do it anyway. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Bump!. It still needs review & there are now far too many dead links for a star article.
 * For related issues, see &  below. Pashley (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Also, it arguably has far too many WP links and other external links, especially in Retiring_abroad. I inserted most of those & do not see them as problematic, but this also needs review. Pashley (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 * See also above. Pashley (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems still to be great advice; most things haven't changed that radically. I cannot say anything though about the information sources and possible new issues. –LPfi (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing that strikes me, is the excessive usage of epigraphic quotes. Most of them are generalized, and have little to do with the subject. It has been customary that a lengthy article has two or at maximum three quotes. Some of them can be relocated to travel topics where they are more illustrative. /Yvwv (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Great idea for an article here
I have been around WV on and off for few months, but only discovered this article now. I just started working my way through it, and expect it will take me a while to read it all.

I am curious about one particular paragraph: For most people, it will be more sensible to take things slowly, rather than diving straight into a partly unknown culture. For example, instead of selling your home to move abroad, you might rent it out while you discover how a new country suits you.

I am curious because several provinces in Canada, and in particular British Columbia have recent legislation that may have unpleasant consequences for people who rent out their homes, especially those who are no longer considered residents. I did some research on this topic a few years ago for an article I developed on one of the wikipedias, and I remember finding out other jurisdictions with similar sentiments.

Just wondering if anyone here has had experience with this. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that would be important to mention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Part of it is covered under Retiring_abroad:
 * ... take a Canadian who has $20,000 a year of income from renting out a house in Canada, but lives elsewhere. If he or she lives in a country such as the US which has a tax agreement with Canada, then the Canadian government takes a flat 15% of the Canadian income, $3000 in this case. On the US tax return, he or she reports the $20,000 as income and deducts the $3000 from the US tax due as tax already paid. If he or she lives in a country which has no tax agreement with Canada, then the Canadian government takes a flat 25%.
 * If you can improve that, or add text on other problems, please do.
 * It might also be worth adding material on destination countries that restrict ownership of property; e.g. in the Philippines, a foreigner cannot own land but can own a condo. Some people get around that with a 99-year lease. Others buy land in the name of a Filipina wife or girlfriend, but that can be problematic if you split up. Pashley (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Italics
If we want quotes to be in italics, we should change the template rather than insert local formatting. Now one out of eight quotes in this article is in italics. Is there some special reason that quote should be and not the others, and not those in other articles? I suppose all the quotes here use quote, so adjustments are easy (but should be discussed on the template talk, as it is not clear that everyone would agree on it). That's more or less the reason we are using a template. –LPfi (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll revert it/ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 * See Template talk:Quote. Arguably we should just scrap the template as unnecessary. If we keep it, we must make it format decently. Pashley (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sea levels
NASA predicts record flooding a few years hence. I do not think we need to say anything about this yet, but keep it in mind. Eventually, perhaps add a comment at Retiring_abroad or anywhere else that discusses buying property. Pashley (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I added a paragraph in Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * And I did the same at the end of Second homes. –LPfi (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Would this also have to be mentioned in any low level lying countries where people move to retire? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, on the Florida coast many people buy property in vulnerable areas with flood risk, particularly near the Intracoastal Waterway. I’d always be concerned about rising sea levels (won’t be there in 30 years?) and flooding from hurricanes, but fortunately as soon as you get off the island the elevation is several feet higher. Bad property risk on the beach but on the other hand I think it’s the wrong image for us to advise people where to live; our readers might not see it as our business. So I’m 50/50 on this. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikivoyage gives all kinds of warnings and cautions without being legally responsible for the specifics. This is another good example. It would be much weirder to ignore the clear threat, nay guarantee of flooding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want those warnings in country articles. People who want our advice when buying property should read Retiring abroad and Second homes. If they are made aware of the flooding risk in general, they should be able to check it locally by themselves – they can do it for a specific neighbourhood, which we cannot. –LPfi (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we add by destination, we’ll have thousands of articles with sea level rise warnings, because thousands of travel destinations are by the beach. Putting the information in the retiring abroad articles and places already underwater would be the best idea in my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Old articles
I just deleted this:
 * More general magazines also have material: for example Forbes has a survey of expat-friendly countries and Newsweek has an article on the best countries to live in.

Both links still work, but both articles are over 10 years old. Does anyone think it is worth searching for current articles? Or just restoring these? Pashley (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Thank you for getting rid of those. Many other external links here need to go per External_links. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes. I added most of them; it seemed like a good idea at the time & nobody objected when the article was nominated for & promoted to star status. Now I agree that many should go. Pashley (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * OK, probably just best to delete what you deleted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

EU and retiring across borders
The article now states that citizens of the EU/EEA/etc. countries is allowed to stay in any of the others indefinitely with only a valid ID card. Is this true? Mostly yes, but for staying more than a limited time, you must have a valid rationale, such as a job. Retiring is allowed, but I think there are some conditions, such as having enough of an income. These should be checked. –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited the bullet. You need to register your right of residence if you are to stay more than three months. That right may come from studies, work, family ties etc., but none of these is relevant for an arbitrary person retiring abroad. They have to show sufficient funds. If you have a good pension, that should be enough, but if you don't, then you may have a problem. I didn't check what social security you get; you should mostly be able to cover your costs yourself. –LPfi (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Retiring abroad


text:
Talk:Réunion

Banner
These were some banners that were cropped for Réunion National Park but can be used here too. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 * These are excellent but I prefer the current banner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Réunion