text:
Talk:Sleep

Goal
This article should serve as a catch-all for travel topics that might fit under the "Sleep" heading of an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:52, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Merging in from Finding accommodation
WTDuck2, thanks for your help with merging from Finding accommodation. I have only one concern to share and discuss.

Currently many paragraphs appear both at the old and the new page. In theory, people may still contribute to Finding accommodation and we'll need to merge that changes into this page, Travel accommodation. How are we going to deal with this? Maybe we should remove the pieces from Finding accommodation that are already here, so we don't have duplication? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:53, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I moved the rest "as is", putting redirect from "Finding accommodation". Please help to sort out all the content into respective sections. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:16, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

cancelling a reservation
Currently we only give details on cancellations made before a first date of reservation.

What is usual policy for cancellations in the middle of stay? Let say, I made a reservation for one week, then only appeared for the first day and checked out and left on the 2nd day--does anyone practice any penalties for cases like this?

Same question about moving existing reservation to later days. Say, I booked a 3 days in a hotel for a middle of my stay in the country, but changed my plans on the first day of my original reservation period, deciding to come stay with them a week later. Is it typically "cancellation and new reservation", or how property owners typically deal with that? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:02, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Booking by e-mail
I think this might be a very naive question, but I've always booked my hotels (in Europe) via the web and it's only now I come to travel further afield (Latin America, FWIW) and use smaller hotels without fancy web sites that this has come up, and I realise I'm completely out of my depth... When you're booking by e-mail, what's the equivalent of giving the credit card details online to guarantee the reservation? Surely it's not acceptable to e-mail credit card details, is it? Can/should you do this by phone? Or is it common for smaller hotels not to require any credit card details until you physically show up? If someone could edit the section of the article on e-mail booking to clarify this I would be grateful, and I think it would improve the article... --(WT-en) zorn 22:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)

 * While I believe sending card details by email is not safe, I'm not very knowledgeable in internet security. Personally I frequently accept the risk and email card details (including CVC code) anyway. Another option is to fax a scan of the credit card, but I believe it's even less safe. The only alternative I am aware of is to send a money transfer to the hotel's bank account--at least in Europe this option is offered frequently if a hotel fails to process a given card for whatever reason. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:57, 31 December 2009 (EST)

 * I am reluctant to edit the article until I've had more actual experience, but I asked my credit card company what the rules were around giving the credit card number in circumstances like this and they said there were no hard and fast rules. They advised me to check the hotel out on the internet to ensure it was reputable but that otherwise it was OK to give the card details by phone, fax or e-mail. I am a bit surprised but if they say it's OK, I'm not too inclined to worry. I guess I'll just try to keep an eye on the online card statement, which is probably not a bad idea anyway. Once I've had a bit more practical experience I will update the article, unless someone who already knows about this beats me to it. --(WT-en) zorn 18:42, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Rename
Per Denis' suggestion elsewhere, I would like to rename this article to Sleep. This would conform to our usual more or less common practice of creating travel topics that mirror our section headers, a la Talk, Respect, etc. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)

 * On the contrary, arguably we should change our section headers to improve SEO. There have been multiple discussions; one is at Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition. Pashley (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gîtes
The word "Gîte" turns up in several Quebec articles, e.g. Gaspé_Park and Percé, and elsewhere. Arguably, it is a French word and should not be used here. However, travellers will have to deal with French names, so I'd say it should be.

WP has Gîte and we have partial explanations at Bed_and_breakfasts and France; the three do not entirely agree. This article does not mention them and we have no Gîte article.

Any volunteers to sort this out? Pashley (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 * It appears in dictionary.com. I think it's OK to keep, though it could be explained at its first appearance in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, foreign words should always be glossed at first mention. Foreign words has some information.  I do note that Wiktionary lists the word as part of English, complete with diacritic, though I doubt most non-Canadians would be familiar with it.  Powers (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The dictionary.com definition ("a furnished vacation home in France that is available for rental, especially in a rural setting") doesn't quite match the Canadian-language usage, where the many variants of "gîte" (gîte du passant, gîte et déjeuner) pretty much all infer bed and breakfast accommodation. It's a little like mixing Imperial gallons with US gallons — the same word means something else. K7L (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I see. My proposal, then, would be to give an explanation of these terms in Quebec. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I started an article at Gîte. Pashley (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Do you think a stub definition article is really the best solution? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "gîte" was used in old French to mean "the place where we stay, where we sleep", today it means "where travelers sleep". In Quebec, we say "gîte du passant" for "bed and breakfast". I don't know about France. If you see only "gîtes" in article on French Wikivoyage in Quebec, it most likely means "bed and breakfast", Gîte du Mont-Albert in Gaspé Park is a notable exception. For citation, just look at bbcanada.com which is a directory of bed of breakfast, the French version is gitescanada.com. Amqui (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Move back?
This was recently moved from Travel accommodation to Sleep. This may be in accordance with current conventions, perhaps even policy, but I think it is a mistake because "accommodation" is a much more likely search term.

I've argued at Travellers'_pub that we should be changing headings like Sleep and Eat for better SEO, so I see this as a retrograde step. Pashley (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I agree with you. This article is not about sleep, it's about places to sleep. An article about sleep would analyze what sleep is, its different stages, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

 * A good travel article about Sleep would also include sleeper trains, sleeping on long-distance flights, sleeping on airports when you're late for your connecting flight, rock-bottom accommodation, tips on how to keep yourself awake when driving...
 * Travel accommodation is a much better term. Let's move it back. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BORRRINGGGG. The redirect suffices for SEO purposes, and the current title matches Respect, Stay healthy, Stay safe, etc.  We should also move Food to Eat, restore Drink, move Travel activities to Do, move Shopping to Buy, and create See.  Powers (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with you. How would "See" be a logical article in a travel guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be an article that discusses attractions, obviously. Admittedly it'd primarily be an index to other travel topics.  Powers (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Powers here. "See" as an article has the same logic as it does as a section, and serves even to reinforce that association. I rather like the idea of having a complete set of topic/index pages which echo our main section headers. Texugo (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As an article title, "see" is too vague to be useful. See could be an attraction, but one could just as easily "see" the fall colours, an entire city or region, or make an appointment to "see" someone (such as an ophthalmologist). As an article section, the context makes it clear as a list of attractions, but as a page title? Dunno. K7L (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I see no reason at all to call "an article that discusses attractions, obviously" anything other than "Attractions", especially since that seems to me the most likely search term. Other likely terms like "sights" should be added as redirects, and specific types like "museums" might be either redirects or child articles. From an SEO viewpoint, I do not think "See" is likely to be at all common; I suppose people search for "what to see in ...", but we want them to find our destination articles, not a generic attractions article.

 * To me, then, words like See or Sleep are moderately awful as a section headers. They are utterly wrong as article titles. Pashley (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 * But "Accommodations" is utterly boring. At least "Sleep" matches our section header.  Powers (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Booking vs. not booking advice
I am noticing that a lot of pages are suggestion travelers not book accommodation in advance so accommodation owners will not have to pay commission. Booking in advance protects travelers against unscrupulous accommodation providers, and gives the option to leave reviews which is important to the community as a whole. It is also important to ensure the safety of travelers as it leaves information embassies/police/family can use to ascertain their whereabouts.

The number of times I have arrived without a booking only to find

A. the place is booked out, contrary to their booking.com/hostelworld/sitepage, and no assistance has been provided as "you didn't book"

B. there have been serious problems with the accommodation, and I was unable to warn others by leaving a review on popular sites

C. someone saw fit to cheat me, knowing without a booking I had little recourse

The only benefit I see in not booking is in very cheap countries where the commission a traveler pays is a considerable proportion of the overall price While the online commission giants make it harder for independent providers, they also make it easy to start up

Ultimately I do not believe the advice "not to book" is in the interests of travelers, and would like to seek consensus.

--Willthewanderer (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not booking ahead is something I do not do and would not recommend. maybe that is based on where I am travelling and the quality I am looking for. Can you link to some examples of this advice? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Twenty years ago I would often travel without booking ahead. I usually tried to arrive in town about lunchtime, so that I had plenty of time to look around, and when occasionally several hotels were full I could move on to another town. In those days booking ahead would have meant a phone call - international calls were expensive, there were language problems and I wanted to see the place rather than booking a hotel that the rats were checking out of.
 * However nowadays I almost always book ahead - the only regular exception is a small remote hostel which does not take bookings. I almost always book direct with the hotel or hostel, and I am still able to leave online reviews if I want. This change has mainly come due to the increased ease of making online bookings, and these days I tend to buy cheaper advance tickets for trains and buses, and so the whole trip needs to be planed. The main advantage is the time saved during the trip (not wandering around looking for a bed) and being able to give family my plans. A drawback is that I can less easily change my plans in response to the weather or local events. AlasdairW (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Occasionally I will book multiple hotels for the same as long as the cancellation policy is no charge and can be same day (usually by 16:00) or in some cases day before. Then can still be flexible. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that booking accommodation in advance is likely in the traveller's best interest in the majority of cases, and by all means we should remove such language in particular cases where we know it to be inaccurate, but I would be against establishing an across-the-board policy on that basis. There are exceptions to every rule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Willthewanderer, could you please provide a couple of examples of pages that say people shouldn't reserve hotel rooms in advance? I still haven't read even tenth of our 28,103 articles, but I don't recall ever seeing this advice before.  (If someone has scruples about commission fees, then they are usually trivial to avoid:  just phone the hotel and book directly.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I come across the advice from time to time, this is one I last saw on the Tbilisi articles "sleep section" "Check out prices on the usual suspect websites and turn up on site stating the price – hostel owners will happily give you the online rate, so they can skip the fee the pay on such websites"

It seems clearly like the advice is in the interest of the hostel owner, not the traveler on a number of occasions I find that the "walk in price" aka. not making a booking is significantly more expensive than booking online as owners try to cash in on disorganized tourists. 178.134.74.57. 10:12, 2 February 2018

Individual cottages and AirBnB-style units
Do we want this sort of listing, where the space for rent is one lone cottage by an individual on AirBnB or similar sites? We have Listings but that seems to be aimed more at restricting local rental agencies (middlemen) and landlords/landladies of long-term occupancy apartments from listing here. I've de-touted this a bit, but I'm nost sure how AirBnB fits with our rental listings policy. K7L (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 * When there are few alternatives, then yes. When the cottage is particularly notable (e.g., "stay at Famous Author's house"), then yes.  But in this case, where a few hotels exist?  I wouldn't want a dozen such listings, but there's probably little harm from having one or two.  I could go along with either decision.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems for non-married?
Reading Motels I remember a sign in the Black Forest about men and women not allowed to share a tent, "unless married for the purpose", and Sex segregation. These hint that you might have problems if you are travelling in a mixed-sex group unless you have documentation on being a family in the legal sense, whatever that means for the accommodation business.

Is this a real-world problem? I have never been asked to show documentation on being married to my wife (who kept her maiden name), but then I haven't been in all places. Looking like a family or married couple probably helps in not needing to show documents, but are you supposed to carry such somewhere? What about a group of four adults who want to have that four-person room without being all male or all female (or two twins, when the lone man/woman doesn't seem to be married to any of the others)?

–LPfi (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * There were two Italians on our tour of Iran. Male and female, not a couple. They were never questioned or hassled about sharing a room. Other countries may differ. Ground Zero (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I suppose those who look like married couples or families usually don't have problems. But if somebody starts suspecting (or get to know) they aren't married, will it be a problem then? It might also vary depending on how confident the personnel are nobody will find out. –LPfi (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Sleep


text:
Talk:Activities

Goal
This article is a first pass at creating a catch-all article for travel topics that correspond to the "Do" article heading (as discussed on Talk:Travel topics). The idea is that activities should be listed on this article first, and only when the information becomes "large and complex" (per the Project:What is an article? standard) should a separate article be considered. I've copied information from some of the stub articles such as Snowmobiling and ATV Riding back to this article and made the existing articles into redirects to emphasize the point that only when we have enough information to warrant a separate article should one be created.

The headings used in this article aren't great and could be improved ("Winter activities", "Sports", etc), and it would be nice to have a bit more of a general overview for some of the existing topic articles, but otherwise I think this is a good way to provide people with a forum to include information about their favorite travel activity without the need to create a new article for each one. In the future I would envision a further breakdown as more travel topic activities are added, but for now this level of granularity seems like enough.

Unless people object I'd like to plunge forward and create more of the general articles described in Talk:Travel topics, but I'll let this one simmer for a bit so that everyone has an opportunity to speak up they see any problem or is opposed to this idea. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:50, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

 * It seems basically a good idea, but shouldn't there be a link to it in Travel topics? Currently there's a section in that article that largely duplicates this. This is more detailed and better written, worth keeping, but how does it fit into the overall structure? articles now have a tag pointng to that article. Should there be one that points here instead? (WT-en) Pashley 21:57, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

 * There actually already is a link from Travel topics - it's heading 1.11 in my browser. I'm not really sure how best to avoid duplication between the two indexes and was kind of hoping that others might have ideas and implement them; thus far I've just listed complete articles on the Travel topics page, and included a brief overview for some of those topics in this page.  As to the hierarchy for travel topics, the  should still be used I suppose, and I've been using isin: topic as a way to set up a hierarchy.

Snowmobiling
I wonder whether it's a specific example of Quad bikes?

I enjoyed Quad Bikes in winter in Estonia, and my experience fits into the current description of Snowmobiling.

Should we cross-link them, or even make one a subsection in another? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:26, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Travel activities

 * Posted in User talk:Yvwv.

I see that you have made some structural changes, moving material from Travel activities to Sports and Winter sports. I copied and added a little more, but your intention is not very clear (are some of these just intended as indexes or disambiguation pages, how much summaries, suggestions for missing topics should there be, are biking and horseback riding sports etc.). If you are going to continue the work I should perhaps wait for a while to see the result, but a note at a suitable talk page would be nice. --LPfi (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The hierarchy of travel topics is rather new, so there are no policies. However, as winter sports is more detailed than sport, which is much more detailed than travel activities, winter sports could contain a short description of snowmobiling, snowboarding etc, and sports could contain a very short description of each. In travel activities there would not be room for much more than a list of sports. /Yvwv (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Set out to become "a catch-all article for travel topics that correspond to the "Do" article heading", which sound like a good idea, I do think this article should have at least short lists, possibly with a one-liner explanation, even for topics that are further discussed in "sub-articles". Just skipping sports all together feels like cutting this general article short. Also, I don't think Geocaching should be taken out and put in sports. Especially if you're not exactly familiar with geocaching, you might not look for it there, and it's arguably a game rather than a sport to many people (including me). JuliasTravels (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy
I am still quite confused about the intended hierarchy. Hiking in the Nordic countries is PartOf Hiking. Hiking is PartOf Travel activities, but not mentioned here. Wilderness backpacking is directly PartOf Travel activities and listed as See also under Camping: Backpacking, together with Cross country skiing, which is PartOf Winter sports, which is PartOf Sport. Under Sports on this page, there are links to Sports and Winter sports.

I am unfamiliar with the breadcrumb system used here, so sorting things out is a bit difficult. I think e.g. cross country skiing should be seen as both a way of backpacking/hiking and a winter sport. If we want a true tree, See also sections will of course do, but they should be there.

Anyway, we should have one hierarchy, for this page, for breadcrumbs and for listings in the summary articles, so that people can learn it, see what branches they have studied and easily know if they find orphan articles. For the same reasons, we should use the real article titles in breadcrumbs and in listings.

Is somebody working on this? I do not want to disturb somebody's mental map by reorganising these things, but somebody has to tidy up. Does anybody have a mental map of the present or an intended structure.

--LPfi (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * It seems nobody is working on the hierarchy, with still is very messy, with a complicated deep subheading/breadcrumb structure and duplicated content without cross-links to more complete versions. Unless somebody makes this work I think we must more or less revert to the pre 2013 structure. --LPfi (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Hm. The earlier versions are not very good either. I think the biggest problem is sorting out things like Hiking, which could be Get around, Sleep, See or Do. Even here as a Do, few hikers regard the activity a sport. Other topics, such as horseback riding, biking or orienteering, have the same problem. They can be about travelling to be a spectator, to do the sport or just to get around. With a five-level heading structure, users are certain to go afoul at some level, and having only the first level in the TOC makes that even worse.

 * As of now, the main headings are more or less Sleep, Drink and eat, Do (sports), See and do (other). This more or less works for Dining and Drinking (except for agritourism), but not for the other groups (whaling a sport, come on!).

 * What about
 * Ways of getting around: biking, cross-country skiing, Sea kayaking, cruising etc. I'd include horseback riding & al, as going somewhere to watch horse sports or to take riding lessons is not much different from going somewhere for other reasons (and to watch or get lessons is probably not that much different from at home). Some of these may include special accommodation (such as while cruising), but accommodation is not the point. They should be linked from Transportation, although I think they are odd enough ways of transport to be regarded activities.
 * Nuclear tourism, Science tourism, Military tourism etc., which seem to be about visiting sites and museums around a certain theme. These articles seem to have quite much content (although they may have a bias). Are these all See topics? Should they be under Cultural attractions (some are already)?
 * Wildlife watching (whaling, birding & al) is typically in the Do section, as there is seldom wildlife by your hotel. I think these articles belong in a section of their own here.
 * Urban backpacking and Car camping should probably be under Sleep: they are about accommodation options that are available more or less regardless of destination and reason for the travel.
 * Dining and drinking is quite a clear subgroup, but are they activities? Even Water! Having culinary topics under Eat and drink and the rest under Stay healthy would be logical.
 * I think we should not make a difference between sports and e.g. beachcombing. Separating water, winter and other activities is tempting, but I am not sure we should, or can we do it if the separation is only in this "Other" group?

 * --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Destinations
I'm wary of the 'destinations' category in most articles here. At best it might be well developed but really inconsistent such as the scuba diving section which is missing huge areas. Or even golf which has a gross over abundance of info on some areas and nothing in others. I don't really have any solutions for this other than I think most articles would be better off without it. --Lumpytrout (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dining and drinking?
I doubt these belong in an "activities" page, with the possible exception of touring a vineyard or similar establishment. Food belongs in eat as fast food is "eat" and not "do", for instance. K7L (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Food topics have been under activities, concerns and cultural attractions. As there are more of them now than when the structure was first set up I suggest that it becomes a top level. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If any attempt is being made to match these to the stock top-level article sections (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep...) "travel activities" aligns with "do", attractions with "see" and the food and beverage topics with eat and drink. Not sure why attractions redirects to a project or policy page? K7L (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree! Let's put food and beverages into the eat and drink categories, where they imho belong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to Activities?
As mentioned in Travellers' pub the words travel and travellers are overused, especially in article names. We could consider moving the name of some topics and concepts to names without words derived from travel. /Yvwv (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That, and "tips for..." are superfluous, much like "It should be noted that..." K7L (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And how would this help someone searching the internet for web sites on activities while travelling as opposed to activities at home or work? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * If the left third or more of the new banner weren't in dark shadow, it would be a better composition and I would support a change. As it is, I'm undecided and will be interested in what others think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I guess the question is why the change? The first banner shows a good travel activity and the proposed banner also shows a perfectly good travel activity. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Is there currently an article on either of the depicted activities? If yes, we can use the corresponding banner for that and the other one here. If not, we should "reserve" it for that use ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well hiking and canoeing are both articles referenced but the original I think is better for a title on the left hand side being a good light blue rather than the large black area of the proposal. (I know you create a lot of new banners for pages that do not have any, please keep up that good work rather than distracting everyone with proposals to change something that is already OK.) --Traveler100 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current banner is almost perfect for the reason mentioned by Traveler100. No need to replace it. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Nothing wrong with the current on. No need to change. Danapit (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Proposed Syced (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current banner is great, no need to replace. There's clearly no consensus to change here, so I guess we'll stick with status quo. Hopefully we can find another article to use the canoeing one, as that is nice too. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting this to "usable"
I know this is primarily a "catch-all" article, but am I the only one to think it is badly written? I think getting this to usable would mostly require some copy editing, do you agree? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree. I'm also inclined to say some of the destination lists are a bit too arbitrary. I can see the benefit of listing a number of popular destinations for a specific activity, by means of examples. It makes the list less dry. However, having 4 Indian destinations listed for birding and none in Africa is very unbalanced. Also the structure of the headers is messy; that same wildlife watching section links to itself twice, for example. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Move to Activities or Do?
Many topic titles include the word "travel". It is superfluous, and seems to be an artifact from The Other Site. Should this page be renamed to Activities or Do? /Yvwv (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only superfluous if you are already on this site, not if you are looking for information on a search engine page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, "travel" should be in the title of every article on this site. I'm finding your argument a little dubious. Please explain further. And by the way, I'd favor Activities over Do for an article. "Do" is fine as a section of an article but weird as the title of an entire article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if someone types in the name of a city then they are looking for the type of information provided on this site. However entering activities could be for a number of reasons home, work, political, ... It is easy for us who work on this site to start looking at the world from a wiki travel point of view. We however need to look at things from the point of view of how an outsider would see the page from search engine results. To get this site discoverable it is important to have key words not just in the article content but also in the title of the page.
 * This is a travel guide. If they're looking to get into politics, they've stumbled on the wrong site. However, once they're here, they might enjoy it and hang around, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you are already on this site that I totally see that the title looks superfluous, but I am talking about looking at the name of the page for people who are not aware of Wilivoyage and are searching for information from Google or Yahoo or other search machine. Why would anyone or a search indexing spider think an article titled activity or do has anything to do with travel? Think looking from the outside in. I do not think it will ever be anywhere near the top of search results if I type in political activity in a search engine. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Traveler100 might be right. Personally, I also think "travel activities" just sounds better than "activities", even when you're on the site already. For me, good titles are not about deleting every word that's not strictly needed for understanding. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And it feels like a cumbersome, awkward phrase to me, so that undoubtedly affects my feelings about using it for an article title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it should be changed, preferably to Do to match Sleep, Respect, etc. (Weird is good; embrace weird!) But Activities would be at least be an improvement.  The page title already includes the word "Travel", as every mainspace page does.  Powers (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like if we're going to use "Do" as the name of an article, we should next use "Be" (and possibly follow it up with "Do-Be-Do"). "Do" is a mystical title, not one that denotes or imparts any information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any complaints by people confused by its use as a section heading in our articles. Powers (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Using "Do" as a heading in articles isn't as clear as it could be, but in context it isn't hard to figure out. Using "Do" as an article title seems a step too far to me - unique branding is good, but first and foremost we should ensure that our article titles are sensible for the site's users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to Activities, which at least isn't worse than Travel activities. /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really do not think this was a good move, but if you think there is consensus guess I can live with it. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yvwv I have cleaned up the categories after your move, again. There are however a few other articles that need to have their breadcrumbs updated. Haciendas of Ecuador ,Salsa dancing in Latin America, Science tourism, Spas, UFOs, Urban sketching, Winter in the Nordic countries. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to this move, I agree with Ryan entirely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"See also"
What do you all think should be there? Everything conceivable? Here's what's there now:

 * Cultural attractions; experiencing mankind's heritage
 * Hitchhiking
 * Itineraries
 * Natural attractions
 * Navigation
 * Next-to-impossible destinations
 * Preparation
 * Concerns
 * Stay safe
 * Sleep
 * Around the world overland

"Concerns" are general, not specifically related to activities, or only some of them are.

"Natural attractions" are not an activity.

"Preparation" is general, but I could see the argument to include it.

"Stay safe" is only partly about activities.

"Sleep" is rather more an inactive state than an activity, except for sleepwalkers.

So what do you think? Every time anyone deletes some of these, someone else comes around to re-add things, with the likely result that we'll eventually get a totally indiscriminate, disorganized list of everything. Don't we instead need a curated list with some criteria? Which criteria would you propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Things that are activities should not be in this section, they should be listed higher up on this page. Cultural and Natural attractions could maybe stay as they're other big reason for travel. Hitchhiking and Navigation should be removed, Itineraries probably too. Next-to-impossible destinations I'm not so sure about (getting to and staying at such places certainly involves a lot of activity...). Activities almost always require some Preparation so that one could be included. Concerns has very little to do with activities, so it can be deleted. Stay safe is a good idea to keep, most activities listed here includes some risk. Sleep should be removed as should Around the world overland. This would leave: Cultural attractions, Natural attractions, Preparation and Stay safe. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd be fine with that, but I still think we should try to come up with some kind of test for what should be in this section and why, because my experience is that anything that can be (re-)added will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I would include only items that someone might be looking for under "Activities", or that they are likely to want to read next.  Powers (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes to most of the above. The main things not to add are those that obviously are found elsewhere in our hierarchy: How to get in or around, where and how to sleep and eat, where to go (next). Things in those that are activities in their own right, such as horse back riding or wine tasting, should be linked higher up. There are border line things treated as sights, that is why cultural and natural attractions are included now, but I think we should link Attractions instead.

 * Preparation and Stay safe are in the main Travel topics. The risks in the individual activities are usually (and should) be handled in the individual articles. Preparation is less obvious, especially as it is not a standard section. I'd say Stay safe could be kept, just as a reminder of an important issue, and Preparation (have we got consensus on changing from imperative to substantives?) because it is obscure. But both are on the slippery slope. Perhaps Attractions should be the only link in this section.

 * --LPfi (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 * "Prepare", "Understand" and "Go" are standard sections... for itinerary. K7L (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 * By definition, anything in "See also" is found elsewhere in our hierarchy. Powers (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, but that a topic has been considered, or where it is to be found, is not necessarily obvious. --LPfi (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is what you meant, I think you have a misplaced modifier (specifically, "obviously") in your previous comment. Powers (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Unusual travel activities...
Posted this a while back - https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub&oldid=2888733#.27Fantasy.27_activities_for_the_traveller

And never got any feedback :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I think these "unusual activities" should be added case-by-case in the relevant geographical article. Make sure the activity is always available, for instance getting in a movie production as an extra is interesting if the opportunity is available most of the time and not too difficult to get into. Cheers! :-) Syced (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Already added a comment about the British "shoot" in recreational shooting for example, but some of the other things might need the assistance of other contributors, Like for example

(and so on)... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * how much Silverstone costs to do a lap on and so on?
 * Do classy US hotels do the full Afternoon tea, at a price?
 * Do you need an insurance waiver for a rodeo weekend?

Escape rooms (again)
It may be time to get an actual policy position on escape rooms as one was added to and removed from the Portland (Oregon) article recently. I really have no made up opinion either way, but it would be nice to have clarity to avoid this discussion popping up every couple of months. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Unless I'm misunderstanding, Escape Rooms aren't any different from other attractions and thus shouldn't need a special policy. In the case of the edit you cited, I reverted that addition to the Portland article because it wasn't for a specific Escape Room business, but was instead a generic description of Escape Rooms with a link to an Escape Room directory website, and it was cut & pasted to a dozen articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for dangerous activities
When looking at the Next-to-impossible destinations article, I started thinking of one thing. Many travel topics, such as itineraries, culinary and cultural topics, phrasebooks, transport systems etc do not require any prior experience with the topic, and pretty much everything a complete newbie needs to get started can (and should) be covered in Understand (just as with any destination article).

Not so when it comes to some dangerous activities. For articles like surfing or rock climbing, I think the point is to to show readers already familiar with the activities where you can perform them, and newbies where they can watch or learn said activities. On the other hand, providing newbies with enough information to get into trouble would be out of the scope of WV and IMHO pretty damn irresponsible. I was wondering if there are any guidelines for how much/how detailed information you are allowed to add about performing potentially dangerous activities? --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I think the present guidelines say we should have complete guides, which, as you say, is nonsensical for activities requiring advanced skill and training.

 * On the other hand, many activities can require more or less skill depending on your ambitions. I think the dangers of snorkelling or hiking can be kept on a reasonable level with some advice and common sense, while diving into submerged caves or backpacking across Greenland is dangerous even for well-prepared experts. Any advice given to help newbies tackle difficulties can be used to get into greater danger. I think we should give any advice we think is useful for those for which Wikivoyage still can be seen as a meaningful resource for such advice. For the latter activities there is no reason for us to go into specifics, we should rather keep to giving general descriptions, telling about getting in and pointing out some non-obvious dangers.

 * In activities like hiking some advice helps people get out on the trail, and to manage problems that could be dangerous, which is fine – but it is easy to exceed your limits. Just a pointer can get people to do reckless things. An example is the Trolltunga cliff, where many people do walk in T-shirts, but some get in serious trouble when caught in darkness, rain and mud on the return, often having underestimated the sheer toughness of the climb. Basic outdoor skills and common sense would help many return on their own, or at least avoid going late or in bad weather. Providing advice and pointers for acquiring the "common" sense is well in scope, as is educating more seasoned hikers on specifics of some region. The line before providing newbies the means to get into trouble is drawn in the water, or indeed non-existent – any advice will help some people risk their lives.

 * --LPfi (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Outline status?
Could this be updated to usable? Selfie City (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I do not think so, without much work. There is no good overview or even a thought-out structure. I think one should start by thinking about the hierarchy, as discussed in many of the sections sections above. --LPfi (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Okay. I'll consider getting to work on it in the near future. Selfie City (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Activities


text:
Talk:Travel Blog

Travel Blog

 * I don't think this contributes anything. Also, an external links magnet.  Delete.  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:06, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete in current form. It's mostly encyclopaedic and link-farmy with a smattering of lukewarm opinions about keeping in touch and the like. Do we have non-platitudes to offer on this subject? I don't. It's just as hard as writing an article about "how to write emails home". (WT-en) Hypatia 08:26, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Merge with Travel writing (which could also contain a section on writing other personal travel accounts) (WT-en) Hypatia 17:24, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete As Perry Mason used to say, "Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Also bogus. (WT-en) OldPine 16:34, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Delete. I don't see much potential here except as a definition, and a mere definition doesn't fit the project. (WT-en) SHC 18:18, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

 * We really need to offer this information for travellers. I don't think Wikivoyage is the appropriate place, but WikiHow offers a great platform for this type of article.  In fact they have this article - Keep-a-Travel-Blog.  Maybe interwiki links to WikiHow would be appropriate and add a link in the Travel writing article that Jani started a few days ago. -- Sapphire
 * Keep, or perhaps redirect to Travel writing if that article covers the ground. Having personal travel journals here is an explicit non-goal, but many travellers want to keep these and some will find them useful for planning, so we should have some links to them. However, being a web index is also a non-goal, so better to link to things like Wikihow. (WT-en) Pashley 19:28, 7 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I actually intended Travel writing to cover commercial travel writing, ie. the kind where you get paid. But I could see a section on just-for-fun blogging in there too. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:51, 14 October 2006 (EDT)
 * This is the solution I'd prefer: redirect this to Travel writing, with an appropriate section added to that article. Who will bell (or should I say blog) the cat? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:18, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Related issues are under discussion at wts:Wikivoyage_Shared:Travellers%27_pub (Spanish and French versions have a place for personal accounts. Should everyone? Should Spanish & French ones go?) and Pub (someone asking where travelogues go). I think we need a generic solution. However, I agree we don't want such accounts on Wikivoyage, or at the very least, not in the main namespace. Maybe having a page like this to link out to them is the best solution. It seems silly to ignore them completely; in one sense they are very much a "primary source". Just linking to World66 and suggesting people blog there does not seem to be a complete solution; there are so many other blogs already. (WT-en) Pashley 02:34, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
 * This isn't a personal account itself though... it's an article about travel blogs, not a travel blog itself. (WT-en) Hypatia 17:22, 8 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to the newly created Project:Writers' Expedition, which isn't a perfect solution but is one that seems reasonable for now . Redirect wherever, I was just trying to find an alternative since Jani didn't like the Travel writing suggestion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:57, 19 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I think that Travel writing is the better place for the redirect, but a clear consensus seems to be emerging to keep the thing, so we can figure out the best redirect at leisure. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:42, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Rather than redirecting or deleting is it possible to keep this and make an article of it? I don't think we should really merge it with travel writing and there's likely to be enough information about the topic that it could stand on it's own.  My biggest concern about letting it stand on its own is how many hundreds of links it may attract.  I think Jani did a great job on Travel writing by giving an example of a service rather than making a list of do-it-yourself book publishers.  I think we could do the same with this, and use a similar layout that Jani created for the writing article. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 16:02, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
 * So where do we stand on this? There are several comments about redirecting, several about keeping, and at least two clear deletes.   Given the lack of any consensus I suspect a redirect is a good temporary solution - so would anyone be opposed to redirecting to Travel writing? -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:32, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
 * The deed is done, but I'm not sure the last word has been spoken on this one; please continue the conversation on the appropriate talk page (this discussion has been copied there). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:16, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Travel Blog


text:
Talk:Travel Guide Agra

Merge
The following is the conversation that took place about this article when it was nominated for deletion:

''Delete. Copyvio (GNU FDL). See wikipedia:Travel Guide Agra, which is also an AfD. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)''
 * Actually, the person who wrote it on WP copied it here after it was prodded there, saying that the content is better suited to Wikivoyage. So as such, we can assume that he is licensing it under cc-by-sa (or does not really care either way.) Of course, it is not according to our format, but it contains useful information. So it should be reformatted, moved to Agra and then redirected. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 07:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * OK. But I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining the difference between CC-SA 1.0 and GFDL. Moving this to Talk:Agra would probably be the best thing to do. We could then edit the stuff and merge it into appropriate sections of the article. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 09:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Incorporating the info into the Agra article and either deleting or redirecting this is OK; this is short enough to make that easy.
 * However, there is another alternative. This could be expanded into an itinerary, perhaps "One day in Agra" or some such. See One day in Tokyo or Two_days_in_Mumbai for examples of the sort of thing. A visit to Agra is a very common trip, enough to justify having an itinerary for it. Anyone want to do the work of expanding it into that? Perhaps the original writer? (WT-en) Pashley 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article was kept per consensus, so now let's figure out which direction to take with it – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect
I've merged the contents of this article, such as they are, with Agra. If there are no objections, I'll redirect this topic to Agra.--(WT-en) Wandering 15:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Travel Guide Agra


text:
Talk:Travel Guides

Err, is this an article and can this possibly have useful content? (WT-en) Jpatokal 16:36, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I don't think we need to write a guide AND be the arbiter of which other guides are recommendable. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:40, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Travel Guides


text:
Talk:Travel health

Goal
This article is a first pass at creating a catch-all article for travel topics that correspond to the "Stay healthy" article heading (as discussed on Talk:Travel topics). The idea is that topics about travel health should be listed on this article first, and only when the information becomes "large and complex" (per the Project:What is an article? standard) should a separate article be considered. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:45, 24 August 2006 (EDT)

Something's missing
Coming from an arctic country, I do miss an article on the dangers of really, really cold weather. (WT-en) Riggwelter 00:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Would also suggest "DVT" (deep vein thrombosis)...cited in numerous sources as an infrequent but serious malady on long flights. Am totally unqualified to draft it. (WT-en) John Henne 8 July 2011

Rename
Rename to Stay healthy - with a redirect from here, of course? --(WT-en) inas 21:42, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Please do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Travelling while pregnant
It has been hinted that the article could include info on travelling while pregnant. Nurg (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What about "Stay healthy"?
I started that article before I realized this one existed. It seems to me, they should be merged, but I do like the "Stay healthy" title, since it's also a subsection of some articles, by analogy with the Stay safe article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would definitely support a merge to Stay healthy. Texugo (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travel health


text:
Talk:Travel insurance

Odd redirect
Err, I'm not sure I get why this was redirected the way it was. There's a couple of different types of travel insurance (health, cancellation, etc)... While I could go either way on having Travel insurance as a travel topic, I dont think redirecting to Tips for flying is as helpful as it might be. (WT-en) Maj 18:32, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

 * There was no content -- it was just a sentence plus spam. Anyone who wants to write the article is free to.  I just think the redirect to an article that has some travel insurance content is more useful than an empty template. So when you or anyone else wants to plunge forward on this, yay! -- (WT-en) Colin 18:36, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

 * Coolio, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something! (WT-en) Maj 18:50, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

New page
Well we have content now. Some points I'd like it to cover: (WT-en) Hypatia 23:06, 4 October 2006 (EDT)
 * 1) More on extensions. What happens if the worst eventuates, and you are badly ill or hurt in the last few days of coverage and can't get home due to being hospitalised? Knowing insurers, you or your family are now screwed, but it would be nice to have a decent write-up.
 * 2) Long-term travel: many policies limit extensions to 12 months coverage maximum.
 * 3) More on dangerous travel.

Providers links are very useful to me
For those (like me) looking for providers of travel insurances, check this old version. (WT-en) Guaka 05:08, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Not only is such a list highly unmaintainable, but insurers are highly local -- your American or even Canadian links are not very useful to us travellers based in, say, Finland, Singapore, India or Japan. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:42, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Guide?
Do you all think this article already effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions or what would still be missing? Obviously the article could also use a couple of photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No objections? Everything I can think of concerning travel insurances is in the article, so I'll upgrade it to guide now. If anyone feels strongly this article shouldn't have guide status, feel free to demote it (or, of course, fix the problem instead :)). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Banner picture is clearly reversed
The banner picture is clearly reversed left to right, as the letters on the tail of the copter are backwards. Nurg (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

URL with further discussion
I removed a link to Consumer Reports as that advice should be here, by policy. I did not check we cover all the points, so therefore copying the URL to here. --LPfi (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Travel insurance in a pandemic
An interesting piece about different types of travel insurance and how they worked out for people when COVID-19 forced them to change their plans: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/travel/travel-insurance-pandemic.html. Some of this information might be worth incorporating into the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 * @Mx. Granger, Thanks for posting the link to this article. Problem is this source is paywalled. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Here is an archived copy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Travel insurance when traveling between Canada & the USA
Residents of Canada can obtain travel insurance from banks at a reasonable cost when traveling from Canada to the USA. A policy covering a year of travel (for short stints across the border) is quite inexpensive. Don't know if the reverse is true? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 * BTW: I just checked enwp to see if there is mention of this topic, and I would like to report that the article here is much more comprehensive IMIO. I also discovered that a ref there in the pre-existing conditions article (I think?) used Invetopedia (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/09/covering-medical-costs.asp) as a source of information. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travel insurance


text:
Talk:Travellers' diarrhea

Misleading title?
I thought food poisoning means getting sick from a buildup of bacterial toxins in improperly-stored food rather than from the bacteria themselves. The other possibility is catching dysentery, typhoid, cholera etc. from contaminated food or water might be called fecal-oral contamination(WT-en) LADave 04:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I have a sneaky suspicion that most travellers who find themselves expelling liquids from both ends aren't too concerned about the exact nomenclature — and, as the article already states, it's both a) not very easy and b) too late to figure out what caused the problem. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Treatment differs greatly. If you have food poisoning, you want to neutralize or eliminate the toxins and then possibly treat their aftereffects. You shouldn't be taking antibiotics and in a way, vomiting and diarrhea are your friends provided you avoid dehydration. You should not be taking antibiotics.

If you are sick from fecal-oral contamination you usually need medicine that will kill off the specific organisms, or antibiotics to help your body do that. Diarrhea can be serious enough to warrant rehydration therapy.

Also knowing what whether you have food poisoning or an infection tells you what to do in the future. Food poisoning: eat freshly-cooked food and avoid spoiled ingredients. Infection: improve bathroom sanitation, boil or treat water, avoid salads and unpeeled fruit, exclude flies, get your cook tested and treated. (WT-en) LADave 06:13, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * What if we change the article to "Traveller's tummy issues" or "Common gastro-intestinal problems"? We've managed to get along this far without using the word "fecal" in a article title and I'd love to continue the tradition ;-) (WT-en) Maj 08:43, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * Excuse me for asking the obvious, but just how is a traveler supposed to know if he has food poisoning, or fecal-oral contamination, or any of a dozen conditions that cause similar symptoms? The article should concentrate on a) how to avoid getting sick, b) how to treat basic cases, and c) how to recognize the non-basic cases — eg. anything that's not just food poisoning — and that need professional medical care.

 * All that said, I wouldn't be averse to renaming this, as, say "Travellers' diarrhea" or something along those lines. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 * While we are into name changing, Tropical diseases is also in need of a more appropriate title or splitting. At the moment the article includes information on such ailments as influenza, HIV, diarrhea etc etc. I'll raise the issue on the TD Talk page. (WT-en) WindHorse 12:09, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I moved it. LA Dave is correct; this should have been done long ago. (WT-en) Pashley 06:24, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Saudi champagne
Why would soda water be any better than ordinary water? I wouldn't really recommend anything carbonated if you're feeling sick... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:51, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Soda water has salts, apple juice has sugars, so the mix approximates rehydration mixture. Also, it tastes good. (WT-en) Pashley 06:24, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Move to Diarrhea?
As mentioned in Travellers' pub the words travel and traveller are overused, especially in article names. We could consider moving the name of some topics and concepts to names without words derived from travel. /Yvwv (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensible idea. I would support moving to that destination. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case however, travellers' diarrhoea is a well established term – we are not just adding a redundant clarification (note that we link to that term in Wikipedia, not to Diarrhea). Diarrhoea in general is probably not in scope here other than as side comments, and we do not want to give the impression this is a not-in-scope article or that theory about diarrhoea in general is welcome. We might remove some redundant "travellers'", but let's do that when a specific one feels redundant. --LPfi (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I oppose a move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also oppose; "traveler's diarrhea" is a specific term, not a frivolous use of the word "traveler". --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support moving the article, for SEO reasons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ducoral
Ducoral (an oral cholera vaccine effective also against ETEC coli infections) is now mentioned in two places in this article (at "Prevent" and at Complications: "Cholera"), in addition to two places in Infectious diseases (at "Cholera" and at "E. coli diarrheal diseases").

Why use the brand name? Aren't other brands also effective? Can't we leave discussion on cholera prevention and treatment to Infectious diseases? Is this a major point when choosing cholera vaccine (to be discussed in that context). Is the vaccine worthwhile also where cholera vaccination is unnecessary?

–LPfi (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Should we merge the entire Complications section here into Infectious diseases? Leave only a short statement here that diarrhea may be a symptom of something more serious & advice on when seeing a doctor is necessary. Pashley (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that would be a good move. –LPfi (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Food poisoning
This article was originally called "food poisoning" and was moved to its current title over a decade ago. Some of the discussion is above at. I think the original title was misleading & the move was correct.

But should the article be expanded to include discussion of actual food poisoning? Pashley (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Not a doctor, so I had to first read Foodborne illness (the proper term for what's colloquially called "food poisoning") and Travelers' diarrhea and do a bit of internet research. On the one hand, yes, they're distinct medical conditions, which you can tell apart from the primary symptom: food poisoning is vomiting which may come with diarrhea, while travelers' diarrhea is diarrhea that's typically not associated with vomiting. The causes may be different: food poisoning can be caused from infection by bacteria, viruses, or parasites or by ingesting toxins even after the organism that produced them has been killed, whereas travelers' diarrhea is pretty much exclusively from infection. And continuing along that distinction, I would also say that food poisoning is caused by an abnormal contamination of the food which is likely to affect most individuals who eat it, whereas travelers' diarrhea is caused by normal contamination of the food which long-term residents have built up an immunity to.
 * The same advice for treatment applies to both food poisoning and travelers' diarrhea: expel whatever your body wants to expel, clean up, and rehydrate. And no matter what caused it, you should always pay attention to the symptoms in case it ends up being something worse, which I think is maybe more of a concern for travelers' diarrhea than food poisoning.
 * I agree with you: calling this page Travellers' diarrhea was entirely appropriate, as it's the most relevant topic for travel. (In fact the WT version of this page shows up quite high in some searches for "travelers diarrhea".) And I definitely have to agree with the original response brought up in :
 * most travellers who find themselves expelling liquids from both ends aren't too concerned about the exact nomenclature — and, as the article already states, it's both a) not very easy and b) too late to figure out what caused the problem.
 * I support your proposal, and think it would be fine to cover food poisoning in this article, except I think we pretty much already do. Other than the differences between "food poisoning" and "travelers' diarrhea" that I just described (which I'm not sure is interesting or relevant to travellers), what else would we add specifically about food poisoning that we don't already cover? --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dairy products
Eat says "Avoid dairy products and oily food." Eating food containing lactobacteria, such as yoghurt, is often recommended to restore a balanced intestinal flora. Is this bad advice, or should we specify what should be avoided or recommended? (To be useful, the food has to contain live bacteria; in many products the culture has been killed in later processing.) –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I've heard the advice to eat yogurt too. According to Wikipedia, the scientific evidence is mixed: "One 2007 review found that probiotics may be safe and effective for prevention of TD, while another review found no benefit. A 2009 review confirmed that more study is needed, as the evidence to date is mixed." —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * edited. Pashley (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Yogurt is not the only useful product, there are similar and totally different products from other regions, similarly made as a bacteria culture. Also, yogurt with pre-added jam etc. is heated and the culture thus destroyed. The advice should thus be more specific. Why are diary products advised against? Because they spoil easily? Because cheese is hard to digest? –LPfi (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that they're only helpful if it's probiotic, meaning it contains live cultures. --Bigpeteb (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting research
Not near clinical use yet, but perhaps worth watching: Stopping the sickness: Protein may be key to blocking a nauseating bacterium Pashley (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Counterpart
Is there a page about "Travellers' constipation" ? Veracious (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I experienced this in La Coruña because all the prepared food for sale, including salads, was so oily, but I don't know that phrase to be a common one, as opposed to "travellers' diarrhea," which is common because of reactions to unfamiliar microbes in the water or food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travellers' diarrhea


text:
Talk:Travelling alone

get out there. see the world.

Merge tag
This article has one, but I am about to remove it. Discussion at Talk:Singles_travel. Pashley (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Related article
Any inspiration in this Travel & Leisure magazine article Best Countries for Solo Travelers? Pashley (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Why women are drawn to solo travel and how the tourism industry is responding
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-women-are-drawn-to-solo-travel-and-how-the-tourism-industry-is-responding —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travelling alone


text:
Talk:Cold weather

Initial comments
Good start.

Standard safety advice for people whose cars break down in Canadian prairie winters is stay in the car, but it is fairly common for people to try to make it to town or wherever on foot and freeze to death en route.

There's also a whole lot of packing advice we might include here, different for auto, foot, snowmobile, ... travel. What emergency supplies do you need? A sleeping bag and high-energy food. What else?

The article does not mention keeping dry, which can be really important. (WT-en) Pashley 11:10, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Promote to Guide?
I think this now meets the criteria for Guide status. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Rereading, and looking at sections I had not checked before, it may not be quite there but it is certainly close. Volunteers to improve it? Pashley (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I will do it now. Can't come to think of anything missing. Cold weather can probably also be a good Ftt next winter or just before. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On not breaking a leg
Another danger in cold weather, not currently mentioned in the article, is getting injured by slipping on ice or packed snow. Should we add that? Where? Arguably, it is a third risk to be listed with frostbite & hypothermia, but it is a different sort of risk, so perhaps should be treated elsewhere rather than listed with them. It certainly affects choice of boots, so could be mentioned under Clothing, but is that enough?

What about other risks in (some) cold terrain, like avalanche or falling into a crevasse? Ideally mountaineering would cover those & this article could just link there, but currently it is just a redirect. Would anyone care to fix that? Pashley (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I added a new sections for these. Not well written, feel free to improve or undo. Mountaineering should indeed cover some of the risk, but I think they should be mentioned here also, at least when they are encountered when not going for real adventures. --LPfi (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I notice my English is seriously lacking in this field. What would you call slip preventers meant to be attached to the shoe (Swedish: halkskydd)? There are many different products, also discreet ones for use in town.

 * About falling ice and snow: I think big icicles falling even a few metres are easily able to kill if hitting right. There is a second risk. Snow on the roof will melt partly in warmer weather, forming ice at the bottom. When these pieces come down, often heavy enough to kill if coming from high roofs, they have motion out from the building and will often fall where careful pedestrians walk to avoid the icicles. I do not know how much we should write on this subject, but the wordings should at least suggest both risks.

 * --LPfi (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent improvements
I have two questions about the recent improvements: LPfi (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "A warm jumpsuit" is mentioned as the best solution (to falling snow? keeping warm?). What cloth is this and why is it especially good? Some clarification is probably needed in the article.
 * A paragraph about layered clothing and underwear was [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_weather&diff=2916616&oldid=2916596 removed]. Was it considered bad advice or irrelevant? Or simply meant to be moved and then forgotten?

 * A third one: the wind chill diagram. It is marked as own work, without pointers to any data source. Is it correct? For what people in what circumstances? I think having "danger of frostbite" starting at -20°C in 12 m/s is quite an underestimate, at least given normal tourists. I would be weary in 5 m/s at that temperature (I would not get frostbitten, but I would not trust my guests not to be, if left alone). --LPfi (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Det är ju halare som är "jumpsuit" på engelska ("overall" är annars hängselbyxor). A jumpsuit keeps the warmth better than a combination of a jacket and pants, as there are less opportunities for the heat to escape. Of course it also gives better protection from snow.
 * I did't know I removed the paragraph, and it was certainly not my intention. It's back now.
 * Concerning the windchill diagram, I do think we should have one in the article. This is the only diagram available on Commons that's both in English and in metric units and the diagram is used in the English Wikipedia article too. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * As a native (American) English speaker, I don't know what a "jumpsuit" is. Perhaps an image of one could be included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * w:Jumpsuit, is according to WP "a common term for any one-piece garment with sleeves and legs" and I don't know any better name for it. There's also a thing called w:boilersuit which looks the same, is that term familiar to you? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Changed to one-piece garment. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know any of those terms, but "one-piece garment" is clear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the term is "snowsuit" (or "snowmobile suit") for a winter-insulated one-piece garment. A "jumpsuit" could be many things (such as an orange one-piece jail inmate uniform) that aren't particularly warm nor weatherproof. K7L (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I get your points, so maybe "snowsuit" is the best term, but what's more important is that a clear photo of the type of garment in question is on the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wind chill

 * I agree we should have a wind chill diagram, but there should either be a reliable source (with enough info), or it should agree with our experiences. Giving false impressions on when you should consider frostbite a risk is outright dangerous. If the diagram is about an average well dressed healthy adult, we need to state that – our prime concern is the inexperienced, susceptible and badly clothed tourist. --LPfi (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Is this diagram better? In that one the wind speed is given in km/h instead of the normal (?) m/s, though. The rest of the diagrams in c:Category:Wind chill all seem to have some issues. Don't know how exact the charts with the imperial units are, but in most parts of the world where it gets seriously cold the metric system is used. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I think using km/h is confusing – it says little to many readers (although the maths is simple). It says it uses "the new formula" on en-wp, so we have at least some information on what it tells. I like the first graph better, were it not for the explicitly stated frostbite risks (which depend too much on the person) and my feeling there might be some miscalculations in it. Is there somebody here who has experience in editing SVG? I think making a new diagram would not be too difficult. --LPfi (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

[indent reset] New table is up, with the wind speed in m/s and without any commentary on the frostbite risk. I used the Canadian formula mentioned at w:Wind_chill in Open Office calc to calculate the wind chill values. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Section headers
This article does not use headers like "get around" for transportation. Is that a problem? I know travel topics are more free form than destination articles, but I wanted to bring it up nonetheless. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Renaming that one section would not work, as other sections are also named by another logic. I think it is unnecessary to try to squeeze this article into the standard format. Using standard headings would require a rewrite. --LPfi (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Importance of headwear
I happened to watch an episode of Game of Thrones, where people would be outdoors with hair wet of falling snow. Did it not occur to the director that getting your hair wet is one of the last things to do in cold weather – and that those fur-wearing people should know it? Perhaps we need to point it out very clearly to our readers? (I have the same problem watching scenes were actors pretending to be in a severe Canadian winter behave like on a cold day in Italy.) --LPfi (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well having all actors bundled up in covering clothing makes it hard to distinguish the main characters... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And even if it's not snowing, it's a bad idea to be in a cold environment with a bare head. The Clothing section already covers (no pun intended) that, but feel free to expand it if you think it needs to be stressed even more. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * What we currently have is (after a section on footwear):
 * Also pay attention to the head; it needs plenty of insulation and good protection from wind. The circulation system is adapted to keep the brain warm, even at the expense of other organs; roughly a third of the blood supply goes to the brain. An unprotected head may not feel cold since the scalp has few nerve endings, but it can quickly drain the body of heat. There is also a risk of frostbite of the ears, which can be very painful. ...
 * I doubt that needs expansion, but we might adjust things somehow to emphasize the point that head, hands & feet absolutely must be protected to avoid extreme discomfort and perhaps serious injury. I'm not sure what adjustments would work. Pashley (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Normal winter clothing
This paragraph was added to the description of normal winter clothing ("in Finland it can be quite nice indoors even if it's -30°C outdoors, probably not if it drops below freezing e.g. in India"):
 * If cold weather is common and expected in your destination, indoor spaces are likely equipped with adequate heating and properly insulated. On the other hand, if the weather is much colder than what is normal there (and the buildings are built for), in the worst case indoor can be about as cold as outdoor.

Yes, it is "quite nice" indoors, but that means 18–24°C in normal homes, possibly with an icy draft across the floor, while our visitor from "a mild or tropical climate" may be used to warmer indoor temperatures. I think long trousers, long-sleeved shirts, undershirt and wool socks are quite normal dressing and if your host is climate aware you might need also the suit jacket or sweater. Taking them off is easy. I also suspect that people from the tropics may feel chilly when dressed like the host, and in any case it is easier to remove the extra than getting more clothes, so the description will not make anybody miserable.

The paragraph could be useful elsewhere, perhaps in Understand, but I think the paragraph complicates the description unnecessarily when inserted here.

--LPfi (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I didn't delete any of the clothing advice, though. It's probably true that people from warmer countries do need more clothing than locals even indoors, even if rooms might be warmer here than at home where they might keep air conditioning running 24/7 to keep the indoor temperatures low, so that people can escape the heat and humidity on the outside.
 * Nevertheless, I think it can come as a bad surprise even (especially?) for us who are used to cold outdoor temperatures, to go somewhere where the houses have single windows, "walls of paper", and ridiculously weak heating etc. which can be the case already as far north as London. So we should mention that too, somewhere. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 20:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It really depends on where those "normal" homes are. In Eastern Europe it is normal to wear layers of clothers or freeze indoors in the winter. Philaweb (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cold weather


text:
Talk:Travelling with children

Word
sewarryats - someone has to be kidding surely - that is not an english word? sats (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 * It was introduced in [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Travelling_with_children&diff=1474935&oldid=1474934 this edit] and seems to refer to a document needed in Russia. It should probably be moved to the "Documents" section, but more information on this kind of document is needed. --LPfi (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Skycouch?
A reference to the 'Skycouch' has been added by User:Lcmortensen. Described thus:

Another option if you're flying Air New Zealand (and shortly China Airlines) is the Skycouch: a row of three economy seats which can convert into a flat "couch" by raising the legrests and retracting the armrests.

I am trying to think why this would be of practical benefit to traveling with children? Is it because it is easier to book the seats together in advance? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Did you miss the second sentence? I've modified it slightly since.
 * It costs extra, and is not available on all aircraft models and flights, but it does give more room for children to lay down than buying regular economy seats.
 * Lcmortensen (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is a little clearer thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles
I'm interested to create the following:

 * 1) Auckland with Children
 * 2) Sydney with Children
 * 3) Shanghai with Children
 * 4) South Korea with Children
 * 5) Hong Kong with Children

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Plunge forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 * If you have stuff to add to such articles, by all means, go ahead and do it! ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting this from the mess it currently is to a guide level article
This article is potentially a good and important one. Now I am a youngest child and have no children of my own, so my personal experience on the subject is rather limited, but surely we can do better than the meandering sometimes self contradictory mess written in several different styles and dialects of English this article currently is. How about we get this ready for FTT before the year ends? What concrete points besides better flow and consistency would you think important? Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking it would be a good FTT for next summer holidays, if we could get it up to guide. Still want to work on it? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm a few years late to this discussion, but I just read the whole article, and it strikes me as a well written article with a lot of good content and no glaringly obvious content gaps. So, I'm wondering, what DOES this article need to boost it to a guide level article? I'd love to jump in and write some more content, if it's useful, but I'm not sure the article really needs a lot more.  Any thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pressure adjustment
A link from Pressure adjustment to Flight and health was added. In which article should the issue as related to children be handled? Now that other article (in Common issues) just says that children scream and goes on giving advice for adults, which is confusing and feels awkward. Either we should have a paragraph about it there or clearly tell here the advice we have and that there isn't much you can do (so that people do not have expectations when following the link).

Do we have any advice regarding infants? I think I read somewhere at this site (probably here, but I cannot find it) that breastfeeding helps, but I have no experience. Other tips?

--LPfi (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I can't speak with authority here, but I've heard that giving them a pacifier will help. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't have experience either, but I asked my mom, who has lots of experience flying on planes with infants, and she advises having them nurse to help with the pressure changes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think nursing (or at least giving them a bottle of formula) can help. When my daughter was small, she'd often have problems dealing with the pressure. I don't know for sure if or why it would help, but I used to set her in my lap and cup my hands over her ears. Mrkstvns (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Talking with strangers
In Toilets it says (about small children using the toilet alone) that "sensible precautions to take might include reminding your child not to talk to strangers". I am used to hear that children should be told that, but is it sensible advice?

In the toilet case it is probably a girl in the women's room, with the dad waiting outside (or a boy with his mum). If there are any problems, isn't it wise of the girl to ask for help from anybody close by, instead of trying to make contact with the parent outside? What risks are there, really?

In this article the advice is "Teach children who you would like them to approach. Consider whether you would like them to approach someone in uniform, which is something most children will recognise", which I find unproblematic. Still there is the question about whom you should teach your children to approach. Here in Finland I suppose nearly any adult would help a child who has gone astray, and I cannot believe the risk of the nearest person being a child molester or some such is anything to worry about (the child trusting the first person may actually lessen the risk the molester enters the scene).

Talking with strangers may be dangerous when they seek out the child themselves and suggests odd things, such as following them away from the public space. In any situation where the child is looking for somebody to approach I think the risk is minimal, at least over here. There are places where there is a real risk of kidnappings etc., but even then, I am not sure a child not seeking help from people around helps.

--LPfi (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

YPTA
I removed the sentence "Sometimes this separate category is called 'YPTA' for 'young person traveling alone'" as it was in a paragraph about accompanied children and children not accepted. Neither case seems to match the definition. Please insert it where it belongs. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What does this mean (a few paragraphs later)?
 * "Generally a child must be over 5 to be accepted as an unaccompanied minor. Some airlines require all children under 12 to travel this way."

Interpreted literally that means children aren't allowed to travel with their parents. What is the intended meaning? I assume there is confusion about a child travelling alone and a child taken care of by the airline, but this needs clearer wording.

Reading between the lines, I assume we have "unaccompanied minors" taken care of by the airline and unaccompanied minors not taken care of by the airline and called YPTAs instead. This is very confusing, so needs to be phrased carefully. I cannot make sense of the presented age limits, as they seem to mix up the two.

–LPfi (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Most-loved places for expat families
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20230207-the-five-countries-expat-families-love Some discussion like this can be incorporated into the guide. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Presumably it would go in Working abroad. Pashley (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As well as the individual countries or Travelling with children, etc. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a reference to the relevant sections is enough in Travelling with children (which doesn't talk about living abroad). Working abroad should be read by most people contemplating moving abroad for a longer time, including those with children or planning to get children.
 * Where in Working abroad should we handle it? A quick skim through Working abroad didn't reveal anything about choosing country (we have a lot of discussion on that in Studying abroad and Retiring abroad). Family considerations are not covered in any depth in those articles and they suit this article better - so add a section? Some info should be added to Prepare subsections such as Social security, and Expat life could be expanded to cover families.
 * How much should we tell in the country articles? I added a sentence or two to the second paragraph of Finland (Finland was the fifth country on the BBC list). Is that enough and reasonable? I hesitated a little as there is a lot of talk here currently about our education system's problems, youth violence on the rise etc., but I assume a quick walk in a suitable part of New York would be enough to convince me we live in Heaven (even though people seem not to leave infants in their pram in the street anymore when going grocery shopping, as was common twenty years ago). I'd like to paint a more nuanced picture, but that would require several paragraphs.
 * LPfi (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I flew to Japan with my baby. Here's what I learned about traveling with young kids
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/05/1196978785/traveling-with-babies-and-toddlers-tips-tricks —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travelling with children


text:
Talk:Travel with pets

Traveling with pets
Archived from the Pub:

I like to travel with my dog (Šelma ), but there is almost no info on that topic. I have some ideas: I have started to write something like that in Czech republic article. What do you think about it?(WT-en) Multimotyl 22:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Pet restrictions in counries (guarantees, pet passports, vaccination)
 * Pet restrictions/prices on trains, buses, ...
 * Pet safety (potential diseases like rabies or canina distemper, approarch of locals, ...)

 * Not something I would personally find useful, but I think it's a good idea all the same. I think we should stick to basic info rather than try to get into to much detail about it. Your info on travelling by train with a pet in the Czech Republic is a good example of this. Maybe a subsection of "Cope" would be the relevant place for it, rather than having a wee bit about pets in "Get In", another in "Get Around" and another in "Stay Safe", which I can see might happen? (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Seems like a great idea to me. - (WT-en) Alingelb 07:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 * Great, hope someone writes something about UK. I feel confused about their policy even after consultation with my vet.

 * I actually think it would be a great idea and it is often overlooked, but very important. Maybe not a large section, but some basic information so people know what do with their pets.  It would be very very helpful.  Also, adorable pup.  (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 18:22, 23 December 2008 (EST).

 * Add to Travel topics. Probably very important for those people who have a working animal because they are differently-abled, depend on the animal for their employment or are a sports person/animal team. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Travel vs travelling
We have a range of travel topics starting with "travelling with"... or comparable. See for example Travelling with children, Travelling around the Schengen Area or Travelling during Ramadan. It seems better to make one choice for the wording, Travel or Travelling, and use it consistently, so I'm not sure we should rename this article without looking at the whole group. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 * We have articles with "travel" in the title as well. Why I do agree that consistency is a good idea, maybe this issue should be raised in the pub instead... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think we have many of those. As far as I can see, only Travel in developing countries, which seems to have been renamed from Tips to travel in developing countries recently, probably without realising the apparent status quo preference for the full verb. Now I don't have a strong preference, but I'll put a pointer in the pub, so we might gain a consensus for either wording. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think travel is better as a) it is more likely to be searched for and b) it avoids the whole mess of how to spell travel(l)ing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference, but would suggest "Travel" in order to avoid British vs. American spelling debates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Travelling" is more dynamic and active in nature. "Travel" feels more static and encyclopedic. We historically have used the double 'l', so there shouldn't be any debates, and of course redirects from the alternative spelling should be created. We can use redirects to capture anyone searching for "travel" as well. Powers (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick Google search for "travelling with children" and "travel with children", results are pretty well mixed, but with a bias towards "travelling" over "travel". The former search has 7 results with "travelling" (okay, technically one is "flying") and 2 with "travel". The latter has 6 results with "travelling" and 3 with "travel". Most are the same pages; Google and other search engines are smart enough to recognize alternate phrasings. Incidentally, I feel there's a bit of a language difference; American English tends to prefer "travelling", while British English prefers "travel". (Hence, sites like Lonely Planet and Eurostar always use "travel".) Since most of our other pages already use "travelling" in the title, and scrolling through more of these Google results "travelling" seems to be more commonly used than "travel", I'd vote to use "travelling". --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be a (ever so slight) SEO benefit in using "travel" as that other site surely uses "travelling", but I am no expert on those things. As an aside, American English prefers the spelling traveling Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer just "travel" because it's short and sharp and avoid the spelling issues. Also we don't say "Seeing", "Eating" and "Drinking" but just "See", "Eat" and "Drink". Simplicity is best. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are totally different contexts. In the title "travel with children", most people will interpret 'travel' as a noun. Powers (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

- Just a quick aside... The "historical" "we" that has used the double "l" in "travelling" was back at that other side... Which still uses it this way. This should not be an argument for either side (except maybe SEO), but I just wanted to mention it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The historical "we" is us. Not you, maybe, but those of us who changed hosts. Powers (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I think this kind of changes should not be made without a discussion. Personal preferences for catchier titles or possible SEO benefits are not reason enough for page moves. Moving back by personal preference or believed benefit is just as justified and I do not like a situation where pages are moved back and forth, nor a situation where pages land where somebody bold enough wants them, regardless of the general opinion. I prefer travelling, but foremost I dislike the way the move was done. --LPfi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travel with pets


text:
Talk:Travel Networking

Merge?
Is this sufficiently distinct from Hospitality exchange or Home exchange, or should it be redirected to one of them? As it is, the article sounds like a promo piece for the one linked website, not really a travel topic as such. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 19:53, 8 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Travel Networking