text:
Talk:Croatia

comment
Excuse me Burmesedays, I`m not a registered member of Wikivoyage. And I´m not quite shure if this is the right way to post my comment. You are right that most parts of Croatia are located on the Balkan-Peninsula. But I really do think that it is important to know for travelers, that this term has a negative connotation and almost anybody in Croatia will be offended. Furthermore croatian culture and traditions have gone through the same developments and epoches as for instance Austria. Of course there are different local influences. But the differences between croatian culture and for instance bulgarian culture standing for a typical Balkan country are enoumous. This starts with the traditional music, architecture and continues with old customs which are mainly affected by the catholic church. Ignoring these facts, or even worse arguing with croatian people about what they are, and what they have to be is not the best basis for a nice vacation. My suggestion would be to leave Croatia in the Balkans section, but also to mention that Croatia partly belongs to central Europe and that croatian people don`t consider themselves to be Balkan People. I know this is not Wikipedia, and I´m not trying to start an edit-war. But this is essential.

Greetings Tom
 * Croatia is Central Europe. Tourist talking about Balkans to Croatians could easily be considered offensive, at least misinformed. Wikivoyage should introduce them correctly that Croatia is CE and Mediterranean because of its culture and history and that Croatians consider themselfs that way, not Balkans. Vrkach (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Croatia is geographically both Mediterranean country and bordering between Balkans and Central Europe, but as Croatia is politically and culturally part of Central Europe, its citizens usually prefer that definition. Some users here are evidently eager to point that out as Balkan connections in past didn't bring any luck to Croatian citizens. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome, Speedy! I already edited the "Respect" section a few days ago, to mention that Croatians prefer for the country not to be referred to as "Balkan." But there is a problem: The breadcrumb trail of Croatia was changed from Balkans to Central Europe without a consensus, and the regional articles still reflect the previous consensus. These kinds of changes really shouldn't take place without a consensus, which has not been achieved so far in Talk:Central Europe. Perhaps you'd like to take part in that discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yacht charter listings
I'm inclined to delete all of them because: (a) They are fodder for touting and edit warring, as you can see in this article's history; (b) listings with no contact information are really just link bait, and the full listings should be in relevant city articles, anyway.

Does anyone object? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 * P.S. These listings are in "Get around/By boat." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to add commercial listing since this page already is doing so - if we are not allowed nobody should be - please delete all charter company listing and links —The preceding comment was added by Maritim-alpha (talk • contribs)

 * I'm inclined to agree. have you changed your mind about this since 2015? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * No, I still think we should delete all these listings on the same basis that we decided years ago that it was too difficult and time-consuming to try to decide which guided tour companies were worthy of listing and which were not, especially in articles like Florence, which used to have dozens of tour listings on it once upon a time. But for the record, Maritim-alpha, your listing violated the don't tout guidelines, which you should read, so you're not in a strong position to argue that you are an innocent bystander in this business. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The linked website was kind of off-putting as well.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Immigrant crisis
Hello everyone...

Already few times in Poland, Austria and Slovakia I heard comments about immigrants passing trough Croatia. Since Croatian government has very well organised transfer for immigrants, it is highly unlikely any tourist will spot them, unless they are searching for them.

Since there are some people who even canceled their trips to Croatia because of rumours about "immigrants sleeping on the beaches", maybe can be written few words about it, making it clear there is no truth in such rumours?

Opinion? To which section to put it? Or ignore it?Hrbackpacker (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Although we do want to present destinations in the best possible light, I don't think we want to draw particular attention to the refugees crossing Europe unless it is a safety issue ( I don't believe residents or visitors are in particular danger from refugees at all, even with some of the highly publicised events in the news).
 * Suggesting that your holiday in Croatia will not be spoiled by refugees is not really a sentiment I would like to see on Wikivoyage. Others may have a different opinion. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I agree that we want to present destinations in the best possible light. Our standards are be fair and don't tout (though touting a destination justifiably is different from promoting a business self-interestedly). I think that no more than a couple of sentences something like this would be OK:

 * "Like other countries in the region, Croatia is currently a transit point for asylum-seekers from Syria, Iraq and other countries who are on their way to northern Europe, but this is unlikely to have any effect on people travelling to Croatia for business or pleasure." Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek, and it seems to be right to add such sentence. My point was to draw attention on false rumours and write a line or two about real situation. Since Croatian police and army are transfering immigrants from one border to another, unless someone intentionally go into migrant centers (which are actually closed to public), there are not even possibility to spot some in Croatia.

Hrbackpacker (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Opatija in Istria???
I see that Opatija is here considered as part of Istria. Maybe geographically it is part of Istria (actually it is on border of peninsula), but since it is part of Primorsko-goranski municipality with Rijeka, and even on map of Croatia you have here location of Opatija should be part of it, I think it should be changed.

Otherwise we need to put whole Slovenian coastline, Muggia in Italy and so on as part of Istria.

Especially since it is always part of Rijeka and Kvarner tourist brochures, not Istrian ones. It will confuse people.

--Hrbackpacker (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia says it is in Primorje-Gorski_Kotar_County, that seems to match our Kvarner article. Does moving there work for you? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think it is correct. (And Wikipedia is right).

--Hrbackpacker (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Currency notation
Our guides use a variety of currency notations, which can confusing for readers. Which is the most common way that prices are shown in Croatia? 100kn, 100 kn, 100 Kn, 100 kuna, HRK100 or something else? Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well let's hope it's €1 soon... ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in Croatia at the same time Montenegro declared independence, which looking at WP happened way back in 2006, so my experience is hardly recent. However, I remember primarily 100 kn, with 100 kuna also being used. A Google Images search for "croatian menu" confirms my memory for the 100 kn format.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thunder. My experience in Croatia is even less recent as I was spending Yugoslav dinars. Since this discussion has been open for almost three months, I think we can close it with your recommendation of using the 100 kn format. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

9 "Cities"
Per 7+2, there should be no more than 9 cities in the "Cities" sections of articles for countries and non-bottom-level destinations. Here's the current list:

 * Zagreb - the capital and largest city
 * Dubrovnik - historic coastal city and UNESCO World Heritage site
 * Split - ancient port city with Roman ruins
 * Pula - biggest town in Istria with the Roman amphitheater (commonly called Arena)
 * Osijek - capital of Slavonia and an important city
 * Karlovac - a city in close proximity to Zagreb, unique by its 6-point star city-center and location at the junctions of four different rivers
 * Sisak - largest river port, city on three rivers and a city that has stopped the spread of the Turks in Europe in 1593, formerly Siscia
 * Slavonski Brod - a once important star-fort on the Ottoman defensive line
 * Rijeka - Croatia's largest and main port
 * Varaždin - Croatia's former Baroque capital
 * Zadar - biggest city of north-central Dalmatia with rich history

These are 11 cities. Which ones are least visited or otherwise least important? I'll point out that Karlovac was just added, so the natural thing to do would be to revert that edit, but since that would have still left 10 cities, I thought a discussion was better. (Also, after we delete 2 cities, the rest should be alphabetized after Zagreb.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Oops, I acted before seeing this. Still, Karlovac is gone for now but can be re-added if someone were to make a case for it over one of the others. Personally, I think Slavonski Brod is the obvious tenth wheel to go. Not only have I as a former tourist in Croatia never heard of it (unlike all the others, including Karlovac), its article is a particularly poor outline. But further to that, the obvious "untouchables" are Zagreb, Dubrovnik, Split, Pula, Osijek, Zadar and Rijeka. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Any other opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 * It doesn't look like it. Do we even have to keep nine in the list? The four that aren't part of the 'must keep' group of seven (so Karlovac, Varaždin, Slavonski Brod and Sisak) are all outline articles that maybe shouldn't be linked directly from the national level. It may seem drastic to cut them all out, but other than that it seems like we're just going to do a random "eeny meeny miney moe... bad luck Slavonski Brod, you're off the team." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 * No, there's no requirement to list 9 cities, only between 5 and 9, from what I remember from other discussions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 * 7 2 is the official policy. In bottom level regions (immediately above cities, parks etc.) you can add as many as needed (to prevent articles from becoming orphaned). ϒpsilon (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 * So for the country level, we could just have seven. If nobody has a better idea or a different opinion soon, I think that would be the best move for Croatia. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 * The normal minimum number is 5, not 7. From 7+2: lists should contain 5 to 9 items. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Split Collage.jpg
 * This is one we can easily lose. It's only the marker image for Split in the Cities list, and as a montage wouldn't be allowed in the body of our articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's used via Wikidata so it doesn't affect us. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Croatia


text:
Talk:Croatia/Off topic discussion archive

Hello, Im a Croat - Serbian language is similar to Croatian but not identical. They were closely related though distinct languages anyways, and they got even more similar cuz through the XX. century we lived in a common state, and there is some history of pan-southern-slavenian ideas in these areas, as well, many would say, centralist opression of individual national identities... So, the language that was a mix of serbian and croatian elements, that existed by decree, was called 'serbo-croatian or croato-serbian'. Usually it was called serbo-croatian in serbia, and croato-serbian in croatia, but the combined phrase was used too. After the disintegration of yugoslavia and the war, nobody declares the language to be serbo-croatian. The language did change, at least officially, but mostly only slightly. Frankly, here linguists have many ideas and linguistic it totaly politicised, but ppl mostly ignore all that anyways...

Using the term serbo-croatian for the language of croatia however would offend many, most Croats, though its a fact that we can understand Serbs allmost perfectly, and for instance, dont need translations for watching Serbian movies..

Btw, train reliability varies significantly from region to region, but, the trains are quite old, often pretty slow and often late. Think they are relatively good in the northen parts though, but pretty bad on the south..

aryah 83.131.132.218 14:03, 22 March 2006 (EST)

That is not true. Serbo-Croatian language is one language linguistically. For political reasons, Croatians have declared it their distinct language, so have Bosnians, Montenegrins etc. However, linguistically, there are dialects in Croatia much more distinct than language spoken in Belgrade/Zagreb. The difference is like that between American and British English, if not smaller.

No, it is not true that croatian and serbian is the same language. They are pretty similar and based on similar linguistic rules, but had different ways of developing. They are also based on two different culturological worlds: Serbia belongs to eastern rite, orthodox church, and everything else, and Croatia belongs to the West, western rite and so on. The tradition and the culture are different. Therefore, naming serbo-croatian same language is false, because one observes only "technical" linguistic similarities. This unique linguistic similarity can be compared to the similarity American E.- British E., but the situation here is quite different. Differences between serbian and croatian are from middle ages, which is not the same for english. Also, the similarity of languages was politically forced in 19th and 20th century because of political reasons. (pavor)

Spare me your nationalist clichés; those are getting old and NOTHING good will come out of them. Serbo-Croatian is ONE language; in fact it is the ONLY Slavic language written in both Latin and Cyrillic alphabet. If you want to talk about another language, compare Serbo-Croatian with, let us say, Russian or Polish, now THOSE are similar, yet different, languages. "Politically forced"?; You know the Serbo-Croats (or Croato-Serbs; makes no difference) and the other Southern Slavs (except Bulgars) actually volunteered to create Yugoslavia in 1918 and in 1945?

WARNING - POLICE BRUTALITY IN CROATIA Hi,

You seem to be reporting only the good and nice stuff about Croatia. I'd like to report something very different about Croatia. You probably are not going publish this but I'll send it anyway just in case - because it should be made public as a fair warning to everyone planning to visit Croatia.

Incident 1. A friend of mine was on vacation in Croatia and one eveing after a nice dinner at the hotel restaurant he went for a swim in the evening sea. He jumped in naked and when he was getting back on the beach he was confronted by the police and brutally beaten on the spot - with guns, kicked and taken to a police station. It did not matter telling them he was a turist and stayed in the hotel nearby. He was held 28 hours at the police station and beaten several times again and again. He was forced to kiss the boots of the policemen and had to pay a huge fine. Afterwards he was let go with a warning that many have died there so he better shut up.

Incident 2. Another incident reported by a couple who had a small road accidendt and scratched someones car. The police took them in a had beaten them brutally - the man as well as the woman. They punched into her breatsts with AK47s and she had to sit down with her legs spread and they were kicking her in between the legs. They had to pay a huge fine and were let go. They were told by the embassy to make no complaints just to leave the country as soon as possible. The embassy told them that this kind of incidents happen all the time as often as several times a week and nothing could be done about that. They had their experiences with croatian police

The police in Croatia is heavilly armed and because of the tense situation with Albania/Kosovo they have a licence to use them as they consider appropriate - and you know where that leads to. The brutality and corruption of the Croation police is well known and those are also Croatians. So there are not only nice people in Croatia.

Also the situation with land mines is a huge problem. They claim that its all ok but would you trust them? With all the turist euros at stake they will say anything to you. There is many areas where the land mines are still in place as some unfortunate turist from Netherlands had to find out - he was lucky to lose his leg only.

I would not recommend to anyone spending a vacatioan in that country because you might end up returning from your vacation in a body bag.

 * I think you have some problems that you need to resolve elsewhere. This is Wikivoyage not Wikipedia or some political forum.

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


text:
Talk:Cross country skiing

Alternatives to deleting
I started to put this up for VFD, then reconsidered, on the grounds that it might be a potential travel topic in much the same way as Alpine skiing or Scuba diving are. However, I have doubts as to whether this topic could ever produce as viable an article as those two, for a number of reasons, chiefly the anarchic, go-it-alone nature of XC. So what's the right way to proceed? Options I can see are:
 * Try to develop it as a travel topic;
 * Merge content into a trailer on the Alpine skiing article;
 * Try to find some way to refer this article to WikiOutdoors, with which we are trying to craft a collaboration (note that I recently created an article there on XC skiing at Bandelier National Monument);
 * Just delete the durn thing.

Discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:27, 6 January 2007 (EST)

 * I think it could be a stand-alone travel topic in the spirit of Wilderness backpacking. I am not sure, however, how well we should try to cover such topics. Should this be just an introduction giving some ideas of what cross country skiing is about (which it is now), with mainly some pointers to good resources added, should it list destinations etc. (like Scuba diving) or should it grow to cover everything a cross country skier needs to know? --LPfi (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

3 meter long skis?
The article mentions 3 m long skis for deep and loose snow. I cant imagine that is feasible for BC or XC skiing. My skis are some 210 cm, and I am a big man. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, those may be extreme. What is BC or XC? 210 cm sounds like normal skis of my childhood (have your skis raised and you can touch the top with your fingers, that used to be the measure when choosing skis). I had some friends that often went backcountry skiing in Finnish Lapland, and my 210 cm skis looked really short in that company. Most of northern Finnish Lapland is rolling fell heath, mires and sparse fell birch forest. You do not have to turn sharply very often, so not sinking deep in powder snow is much more important than easy maneuvers. I suppose the typical terrain in Norway (except Finnsmarksvidda) gives you quite different concerns – and nowadays going downhill is probably important but for a small minority also in Finland. --LPfi (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 * BC is "back-country" or what a Norwegian would call "fjell" or "tur" (tour) as opposed to skiing in groomed tracks. Skating skis are only slightly longer than the person (some 5-10 cm), classic a bit more perhaps 15-20 cm. My 210 cm skis are fine for both (I am 198 cm cm and 100 kg). I cant imagine that 300 cm skis are fine for "ski hiking" in varied terrain, perhaps OK for downhill/alpine slopes. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Berninabahn zwischen Lagalb und Ospizio Bernina im Winter.jpg

title: Talk:Cross country skiing


text:
Talk:Crossing borders on budget

Best place for this?
The specific info here seems useful - but surely people are going to be looking for the information on how to cheaply cross specific borders in the Get in section of the appropriate country articles, and not here? --(WT-en) inas 19:23, 7 January 2010 (EST)
 * Your argument seems reasonable. But on the other hand, as each piece of information is common to two countries, it would be necessary to keep a duplicate of the same text in both articles. Plus, sometimes the information could fit in even within an article about a particular place, if that lies next to a border, such as Bratislava. Any ideas on how to solve this out? Perhaps providing a link "for information on how to cross the border cheaply, see...", or including the same information in several articles by means of a template? (WT-en) Blahma 02:45, 8 January 2010 (EST)
 * I don't think it is a hassle to duplicate this info in two countries. Since we are still trying to support printed guides, providing a link, even if an internal one, seems fussy.  --(WT-en) inas 16:38, 8 January 2010 (EST)

 * Support Inas here, linking to these sections from GetIns of respective articles should be a minimal measure. Moving country-specific sections to respective articles seems even better idea. What about using wikimedia templates for dealing with the duplication? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:14, 19 January 2010 (EST)

 * That's not an approved use of templates, largely because they're too confusing for newbies to change. Also, crossing from X to Y is not always the same as crossing from Y to X. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:56, 19 January 2010 (EST)

 * The duplication would be very small anyway. Templates would not be required.  The info should still be moved though.  --(WT-en) inas 23:24, 19 January 2010 (EST)

 * Jani, but how is it very different from Template:Schengen, for example? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:45, 20 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Crossing borders on budget


text:
Talk:Cross Plains

Hello, Could someone create a page for Cross Plains, Texas? This small town, 44 miles SE of Abilene, was the home of Robert E. Howard, best known as the creator of Conan the Barbarian. There is a small Howard Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard_Museum) and an annual "Barbarian Days" celebration in January. See http://www.rehfoundation.org/ Might be a worthwhile short entry. I've never been there but if ever I'm driving I-20 across Texas I might just stop by!

 * With the information you provided, I made a start at an article. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:38, 22 February 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Cross Plains


text:
Talk:Cruise Lines

Discussion
Travel operators should be listed on the appropriate destination page(s). - (WT-en) Huttite 17:31, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * This is a vacation of its own it is a lot different then going to on a airliner or train, these are cities within them self's. User:(WT-en) Texaswebscout

 * I think that cruse ships meet our rule of thumb for Project:What is an article?. I'm going to vote against deleting these.  I'd like to add that it seems a tad bit agressive to me to blank the page when adding a VFD. -- (WT-en) Mark 17:41, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

I also don't think each Cruise Company should be assigned an article. That's one heck of a slippery slope. Instead, I'd like to slot cruises in according to Webgeer's proposal as an itinery. So one article for Cruises which suggests regional cruises like Alaska Cruises which in turns lists and/or compares the possible carriers and other considerations in Cruising (like which stopovers you might want to ensure your cruise contains). -- (WT-en) Colin 18:17, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Perhaps we have a difference in concept, or terminology.
 * This is a vacation of its own it is a lot different then going to on a airliner or train, these are cities within them self's.
 * Only some ships are like this. Really, most of them are just big floating hotels. I do not think they are a city, or they would have at least a thousand people living on board permanently as workers and residents conducting their own businesses and lives, not just being the crew servicing the ship and passengers or else the transient tourists.
 * There are a whole lot of smaller travel operators who will offer you a Cruise. In reality most of them are more like a tour-bus on water and the trip lasts a few hours. If we are not careful we will find every one of them listed on this page.
 * Then there are a few long distance train journeys, like the Oriental Express, that almost fall into the Hotel category, where you can eat and sleep on board. (Perhaps 1 star hotels.)
 * I do think the page is wrongly named, and a Travel topics article would be better called Cruises or Cruising, or even Taking a Cruise. I think there is a real need for a lot of articles about Travelling by water, ranging all the way from Ocean Liners to Yachts. (BTW: This morning I discoverd you can spend 10 months sail boat racing around the world on an ocean going yacht. The Global Challenge yacht are arriving in Wellington today, 3 nautical miles apart, after sailing (racing across) the Southern Ocean.) - -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:00, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * We already have a long distance train article btw. I agree that more than just specific regional cruises pages could fit into a hypothetical Cruising travel topic. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:05, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * I think Cruising is an ambiguous title, perhaps its my Newzilid but to me Cruising also indicates some (undesirable) activities other than travelling on a boat, or ship. Sailing is just as ambiguous, though I would prefer to call Cruising as Going Sailing. This may be because some of my English terminology dates from the days when people spent six months in a leaky boat getting to New Zealand - the boat had sails - but you could call some of them cruise ships. Also I understand that some of these ships will (again) be wind powered. Can we avoid using Cruising as an article title? -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:24, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * Maybe this disagreement is the result of a cultural difference? I get the feeling that cruise ships in North America might be really different from what you think of a cruise down under.  They are in fact floating cities with thousands of crew more-or-less perminently onboard.  They usually don't go anywhere particular, rather they just steam around a particular body of water for a while.  There is no final destination, rather ship itself is the destination:  The cruise ends exactly at the same port where it began.  There was a long-running television show about these things called "Love Boat" if you don't believe me. -- (WT-en) Mark 01:09, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * I have seen the "Love Boat" on TV and these ships do ply New Zealand waters, so I think I am familiar with the concept. However, I would see these vessels as being an Attraction rather than a Destination in themselves. I do not think they each really warrant a separate article, like destination might, though I do think a general article is definitely warranted.

 * If we do start writing articles about specific ships, where do we stop? There are 3-5 ferries that cross Cook Strait several times every day, two of them capable of carrying up to about a thousand passengers each trip. They each have a movie theatre, bar, restaurant, electronic games room and are a tourist attraction too, as they cruise the scenic Marlborough Sounds for a few hours. Do each of these vessels warrant an article? I would think more tourists use them each year than any one cruise ship, or even a fleet of cruise ships. What about doing articles on aircraft types? Buses? Taxis? How far do we go? I think the line should be drawn higher than the individual vessel or fleet. Certainly write about the general subject though. -- (WT-en) Huttite 02:21, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

Blanking the page when VFD
I blanked the page for 2 reasons. I know I was agressive in this case, but I felt it justified. I also wanted to stop further work on these pages, so we could discuss what we are doing going down this path. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:33, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * 1) This page was linked to the Main Page.
 * 2) This page only contained a link to another page of links. There was no content.
 * I believe that you acted in good faith, but I think the user who created those pages did as well. That said, as far as I know the only reason to blank something which is under discussion would be the presence of a copyright violation.  Other things we can work out.

 * For what it's worth I actually agree with you that these cruise ships really are probably attractions within their main port-of-call, but I also think that it makes sense to have some kind of aggregation of the things as well (with a geographical hierarchy) simply because there are travellers who's main interest is to go on a cruise, and who would be best served by a page listing the main cruise ports-of-call which we know about. Make sense? -- (WT-en) Mark 03:25, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

Vfd Discussion

 * Cruise Lines and Carnival Cruises - Articles that can only be apout specific travel operators. Would be far better listed in specific destination pages of the embarking port(s). -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:04, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * Delete. I'm not comfortable doing this on a per-company basis.  That doesn't seem like a useful way of presenting the information to the user compared to other alternatives. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:21, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * Delete Carnival Cruises but keep Cruise Lines for now as an experiment to see if it works out. I'm not optimistic that Carnival Elation is useful, but I'm willing to let it sit for a year or two to prove it.  In the meantime, we can leave Cruise Lines as an introduction to the topic and as an index to individual cruises. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * DO NOT Delete, it does not make sense to hide cruise ship information back on city pages. When someone wants to go on a cruise they do not care where it leaves out of. Cruise ships are there own city with 3000 people on each one. If you want to make this a well rounded travel site you have to include cruise lines. Just like any other city.
 * Cruise ships are really only large floating hotels - at a pinch I would agree its a resort. I now think we may need a new - water based - hierachy for these ones. Currently we do not write about Bodies of water as destinations but more as places to See and Do, etc. Cruise Lines and Cruise Ships could also be listed on regional and continental articles, in a Get around section under By boat, as they serve as a way to travel around (not over) the land in the region. Few Cruise Liners travel all around the world, most stick to a particular area or region, or ocean.
 * I think that is not a bad idea, some cruise ships are just attractions, and they do not go anywhere. I think the best thing to do is to add a section for cruise ships, then under that have the destinations and what cruise ships go there. All most every ship has many bars, many places to eat, ect. Also we could talk about the different rooms, because there are not very many hotels around that have 2000+ rooms.

 * Don't delete Cruise Lines, but do delete Carnival Cruises. I think a geographical hierachy would be better for these than a company based hierachy.  In fact perhaps these really should be mainly attractions in the ship's home port-of-call, but still it seems to make a useful travel topic, no? -- (WT-en) Mark 01:43, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * It seems like people do not mind having information about cruise ships, we are just debating where to put it? If that is the case I think that we should start with putting cruise ship links on the debarkation port, then as they become more popular then we can add a separate hierarchy. Because whether you want cruise ships or not on this site, you have to admit that all travel needs to be covered.
 * I think that it makes sense to create iteneraries for the different cruises Alaska cruise, Carribean cruise, Mediteraniun cruise etc... I think it generally fits quite well with an itenerary type of structure. (what you have to understand about doing that kind of cruise, what are the different starting locations, what are the ports of call etc... I think the cruise lines articles should be deleted.  I have every intention of writing an Alaska cruise itenerary article when I have some time... -- (WT-en) Webgeer 18:47, 28 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * Delete Carnival Cruises, keep Cruise Lines. If the amount of cruise information ever grows too large then we can debate how to handle it, but for now a single page is more than sufficient.  Can a few more users add their vote so this issue can be resolved? -- (WT-en) Wrh2 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 * Delete Carnival Cruises, move Cruise Lines to Cruises, or Ocean Cruises (are there any lake cruises) I would suggest Cruising, but that has other conotations. An article on the subject of cruises could have a section on Cruise Lines, if that section became large enought it may be justified to have a spearate article.  But lets start with the most general article. Now who is going to write a real article? -- (WT-en) Webgeer 18:15, 22 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Okay - Who is the parent?
So now that the discussion has been made, and the article saved, what article is the parent of this article? As it stands it might as well be an orphan as I doubt there is much traffic here. I only found it because I was trolling the Short Pages list.

Anybody listening? :) -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 12:02, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Merge
In the past there has been some discussion about the possibility of merging this article with Cruise ships. As is, this article is useless. I think it would make much more sense to add another header to Cruise ships about the various lines and a quick overview of what to expect. I'm willing to reconsider especially if we can come up with a plan of attack for this article. I suggest adding ideas about how this article could be improved by adding your suggestion to the list below: -- (WT-en) Sapphire 00:52, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Intercontinental cruise lines
 * Budget cruise lines

title: Talk:Cruise Lines


text:
Talk:Cruise ships

Cruise Lines
It would probably be worthwhile to try and merge these two topics somehow. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:07, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Eh, they're both big topics, and not quite the same topic... I sort of see this one as another Discount airlines in Europe and Cruises similar to Tips for flying. It's going to be trickey, but it will be very useful if done right. (WT-en) Majnoona 15:13, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Just to follow up, there are plenty of people who book travel with a specific boat, regardless of where it will be or who are looking for boats in an area-- neither of these things are going to be covered in other guides. Booking and going on a cruise is really a different sort of travel -- I know cause I'm trying to book on for my birthday right now! It's a whole weird world unto itself... (WT-en) Majnoona 15:15, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Hmmm... I plunged into the fray here, perhaps without understanding intent, and certainly not knowing about the Cruise Lines article. Also I created and redirected Cruising as I thought the intent was to cover the whole subject. A list of Lines and possibly Intineraries could be a useful thing. There probably needs to be a general article on cruising. That's what I thought Cruise ships was. It's kind of a large subject however as generalizations do not cover the premium or smaller ship options. (WT-en) OldPine 15:36, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Agreed that they're not quite the same, but currently the Cruise Lines article contains a list of one cruise ship. I realize that we don't really have any standards for travel topics other than the "it could be a valid topic for travelers" test, but the standard for geographic articles is to only split things up when the article becomes "large and complex".  In this case it seems like it might be more useful to combine the two, and then we can always split them at a later date if needed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:55, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I started this article for the simple reason that I'm being (willingly) dragged on another cruise with my parents and sisters' families in December, and figured it would be useful to explain a bit about them to those who don't know what to expect (as I didn't before my family insisted I join them) and provide enough basic - and objective - info to help people decide if they'd enjoy one. I didn't realize Cruise Lines existed because nothing in the main article space links to it. I can see that getting included in this article, but I don't think it needs to be. I'm not familiar enough with the cruise industry as a whole to know how difficult it would be to maintain such an index. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:02, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Maintaining that would be a bit much I guess. I'm not sure such specifics are necessary and wouldn't add them here. More useful might be a general description of itineraries and a list of cruise lines with contact info. (WT-en) OldPine 16:12, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I just took a look at the cruise ship listed on Cruise Lines and I'd have to call that experiment a success... in demonstrating that individual cruise ships don't make good subjects for articles. There really isn't much more (and in many ways less) to be found there than I could get from the primary source of Carnival.com.  A list like you describe of operators and itineraries might be more maintainable, but also no better than available from primary sources. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:03, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Well, we at least have to list the primary sources don't we? As in the Alaska article? I can certainly do without the itinerary listing. (WT-en) OldPine 18:49, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Agree, organized lists useful. Have questions about a few entries that appear to be third party cruise or tour packagers, especially a few for "Small ship cruise options".  Allowed?   Regards,  Hennejohn (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No corrections or explanations thus far. Quick examination of a few linked web sites would lead one to believe (1) the sub-section has been entitled "...options" to facilitate entries not or only loosely related to the main article; (2) more tours than cruises are offered in some; and (3) some linked sites appear to be third-party packagers of trips rather than providers.  If no informed explanations can be offered to the contrary by mid-April, will delete those of concern.  Hennejohn (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Listings for resellers and middlemen are normally shoot-on-sight. No need to wait to remove them, plunge forward. K7L (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudos
I just have to say again what a useful and timely article this is! Thanks to all contributing... (WT-en) Majnoona 23:43, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Dining
The article's eat section now says that ships will "may rotate scheduled dining between different restaurants, to provide more variety during the cruise". Is that correct? I have not seen that. My original text meant to refer to Norwegian's practice on several ship, of having the choice of multiple restaurants. I believe they have one with no fixed or "traditional" service at all. (Although on any of these "freestyle" ships one can usually request and get the same table and time for each night.) (WT-en) OldPine 16:52, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Disney does it. One night you eat in the animation-art-themed restaurant, the next in the jacket-suggested dining room, the next in the Caribbean-island place, and I assume you keep rotating for longer cruises.  All with a fixed seating time, and your wait staff follow you around, so it's traditional except for the change of scenery and menu. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:56, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Cruise Itineraries, Lines, and Ships
I think Cruise Itineraries and Cruise Lines/Ships would be super additions to wikivoyage. I've seen one or two articles started, but they've been attacked for not being geographies.

I submit:
 * Itinerary info is very helpfful-- and many are almost standardized, such as in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Galapagos.
 * Cruise Ships, some with capacities of 4,000 people, can be as complex as small towns; decisions abound-- where to eat, what shore excursions to do, which deck to book.

Wikivoyagers could shed a lot of light.

68.4.102.159 16:33, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

 * There are some "typical" cruise itineraries in certain parts of the world, but even within a single cruise line there's variation, with one cruise stopping in Mazatlan, but another going directly from Cabo San Lucas to Pto Vallarta. The best we could do would be to list ports that are likely to be included.  I've looked at offerings for, say, the Caribbean, and the itineraries were literally all over the map.
 * Meanwhile, I really don't see that many decisions to make once onboard. Even on the biggest boats (the last one I was on carried almost 3,000, the one I'll be on next was briefly the record holder) there are only a few restaurants; if you're on the ship for seven days, you're probably going to try them all (or avoid the ones you obviously wouldn't like)... and on the under-1000-passenger ships, you may not have any choice at all.  Info about which deck to sleep on is analagous to suggesting which floor of a hotel to ask for.  I hear the "a cruise ship is a floating city" metaphor a lot, but a better analogy is a theme park, because it's just tourists... and employees all working for the same management.  Even Skagway has residents who don't work for the tourism industry (and those who do are often competing with each other), but the only non-employee I've seen living on a cruise ship was Captain Steubing's daughter Vicki.
 * The shore excursions are perhaps a different matter, because they're not done by cruise line employees, but they are selected by the cruise line, and Wikivoyage's primary role – of informing people what their options are – is also already done by them. All we could add is "hated it"/"loved it".  Which is why I keep coming back to the question of what we can do that the cruise lines don't already do better?  I'm happy to support an article that does that, but all the guide I feel I need for my upcoming cruise is the primary source of their web site, and the Wikivoyage articles for the ports we'll be visiting. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:07, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I think there's some powerful argument there. Still, I think that one thing that we can do better than cruise lines might be formatting. I have often been frustrated by trying to scope out shore excursions where I had to access the descriptions one at a time. Similarly, the ability to quickly determine what lines went where might save one from bouncing around to the cruise line sites. On the other hand, I have no powerful urge to see these articles created. (WT-en) OldPine 22:06, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

 * A good starting point would just be to list the biggest operators and where they sail. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:31, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

I accept many of the limits noted above, such as the points about variances in itineraries and about limited numbers of restaurants; but does that make moot writing port descriptions and shore excursions organized by cruising region? Since when does raw popularity or singular ownership structure make a travel destination less worthy? The Vatican suffers from both! So does the U.S. Capitol Mall, Orlando, and most of China. :-) 68.4.102.159 10:04, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Hi, I just recently came back from a cruise of the Western Mediterranean, and multiple times while I was on the cruise, I was thinking to myself that when I got back, I should start a wiki for cruise ship passengers. (Then I came back I found Wikivoyage.)  The reason why I wanted to start a wiki for information on a cruise ship is because I have very often found times when the cruise lines profit from a cruiser's ignorance --- or put more positively, knowledge is power, and if you know more about various options you can save a heck of a lot of money.

For example, in some ports of call, particular for cruises going to in Alaska and in the Caribbean, it is not really worthwhile to book shore excursions on board the ship, because the moment you get off the ship, there are plenty of opportunities to purchase equivalent tours, usually for half of what it will cost if you buy it on board the ship. In other places, particularly at the European ports, you are much better off booking a shore excursion from the boat since there aren't those alternatives, and very often the port where the ship docks is quite far from where most of the interesting tourist attractions are located. (For example, Civitavecchia is a good 90-120 minutes from Rome. On my most recent cruise, we only had 13 hours at port, and once you include the overhead of getting to the train station, catching a train, and allowing for train schedules, you have very little time in Roam to actually see any of the many attractions.  You're better off either taking a shore excursion, or just accept the fact that you can't see Rome in a day, much less 6 hours, and just stay on the boat and enjoy the on-board amenities.)

I'd also love to see a series of articles about various ports of calls, and recommendations about what can be done given the limited time a cruise ship is normally is docked; information about where to find Internet cafe's so you don't have to pay the 65 cents a minute to use the on-board wireless service, etc.

I'd like to contribute articles about this, as well as descriptions of various cruise ships that I've been on, since I think a wiki is a much better way of finding information that spending hours and hours searching through web forums such as those found on CruiseCritic for various tidbits of information. And while I could set up my own wiki (I've created other special-purpose wiki's before, such as the Linux Real-Time Wiki), it seems like it might make more sense to put the cruise-specific topics here on Wikivoyage. But when I arrived here, I see a discussion to delete an entry describing a specific Cruise Ship (the Carnival freedom) and a merge in process to merge Cruise_Lines into a single Cruise_ships article. So it's not clear whether or not a series of articles that provide a larger amount of detail about cruising would be welcome or not at Wikivoyage. How can I find out what would be considered welcome additions and what would not be? (WT-en) Tytso 18:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)

 * My recollection on the consensus about this is that we would try to cover cruise ship excursion information in the articles about the port. This could be accomplished in detail in the "See" or "Do" sections or possibly in the "Get in" section with a subsection "By ship" or maybe "By cruise ship", indicating the relative availability of tours competing with the ship tours, and even listing tour operators and contact info.
 * My personal feeling is there isn't that much to be gained by providing articles for each ship here. I feel that Cruise Critic covers that in an easily accessible way, but usually feel that I don't gain tremendous insight from those articles. As I mentioned in some other discussion (somewhere) I can see usefulness at a very detailed level of information (such as how noisy a particular room is), but I think that might be a little too fine a level for Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) OldPine 21:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Suggestions/Observations
Generally agree with above discussions of cruiselines, ships and cruising regions. Separate articles could well be referenced by this article.

Levels of detail
 * Some care about detail in this article appears needed, e.g.,:
 * The list of "Major cruise lines" needs introductory context (if to be developed), appears quite incomplete, and some lines listed do not even consider themselves "major".
 * Does this topic need to be developed in/on this page? Would we not better reference quality web sites whose primary purpose is to track and describe them?
 * While the numbers/names of cruise-lines remains fairly stable (since settling from the impact of "9-11")...
 * Several "lines" listed as articles lead to blank pages.
 * Many new ships have come "on-line", with more pending. A nearly equal number of old ones have been retired by the major lines to lesser known lines.
 * Just a meaningful list of lines/ships with basic features of each could be challenging.
 * Several web-sites are largely dedicated to providing only that.
 * Surely, our readers deserve better. Do the rules allow us to enter links to cruise-line and third-party commercial cruise web sites for readers to consult instead?
 * Itineraries (i.e., of specific ships in given seasons) might not be wise...highly dynamic from season to season. But cruising regions and their features, benefits, idiosyncracies and servicing ports might be quite useful for readers.
 * Concur that many ports/cities are already addressed in wiki articles of varying detail. Surely those articles that need it could be improved for cruisers, with encouragement to create needed new ones.

Loyalty Programs:
 * Include a section about cruise line loyalty programs. Most of the major cruise lines offer loyalty programs; some of those perks are very lavish (such as free cruises, gifts, cocktail hour, etc.) It might be of interest to those reading about cruises.

Main Article Title:
 * Having made many recent content additions...nearly all within the existing outline...the article seems to deserve a title such as Ocean Cruising. But because I focus primarily on content, not advanced page management, I have little confidence I could  make such a change, even if permitted.
 * Believe this article deserves another parallel article with a title such as River/Barge Cruising...unfortunately, I have no experience there.

Also note that nearly all other posts to this discussion are dated 2007 or earlier. Reason?

Regards, hennejohn  1030 EST 30 Jan 2011

 * Regarding several comments above about external links, it is fine to link to the web site for the cruise operator, but links to third party guides would go against Project:External links. Also, I'd agree that cruising regions would be a better focus than cruising itineraries, although I have extremely limited knowledge on this topic so can't really add much value to the overall discussion.

 * As to why most discussion stopped in 2007, I believe it was because there was a big push to figure out how to handle cruise lines and cruise ships, with no consensus ever reached, and I suspect many people sort of burned out on the topic as a result. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:10, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Corrections and Question.
 * Have "corrected" entries in this article that had links to what may be "improper" web sites.
 * Have noted parallel article "Packing for Cruise" needs more development, especially to address idiosyncracies of some regions of the world.
 * For Europe, have noticed that articles from the Rick Steves web site would be highly useful, e.g.,
 * Believe site only markets materials produced by the author...with no profit-based references to third-party marketers.
 * Would such be an allowed link?
 * User:(WT-en) Hennejohn\hennejohn 8Feb2011 4:40 PM EST

Carnival Conquest
Article about a cruise ship. Does not meet Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hmmmm. Just found this: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article%3F -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, input on the more general question - and hopefully a consensus - is needed. This question has come up before and was never really resolved, and it's coming up again. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival freedom
Ibid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Keep. Cruises are a popular form of travel and this provides an unbiased opinion of one cruise ship 216.99.2.9 15:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

 * The question is whether that's enough to be the topic of an entire article. We don't have separate articles of that sort for hotels, for example.  Please join the discussion linked to above. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival Elation
Ditto. ~ 219.94.80.130 02:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT) This is the most famous verdict by great man Grewal

Demographics
The article talks a bit about demographics... age, family-oriented, etc.... but the advice basically amounts to "do your own research".

I'd like to see more specific help on how to find a cruise that fits the demographic you want, specific regarding: --(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:56, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Age
 * Family/children
 * Gay-targeted or gay-friendly
 * Other specific targets (party/drinking cruises, singles cruises, etc.)

I echo BigPeteB's frustration...I drafted that demographic discussion. Unfortunately, every web-site giving good information I know of also aggressively offers or links to third-party sellers of cruises, etc., and so violates Wikivoyage content rules. Can anyone suggest some that don't? (In self-defense, with just a few of the right keywords in a decent search engine, most of the sites I know of will pop-up...some quite good.  If your browser supports the "World of Trust" add-on, many sites will also be flagged for how well they respect your privacy.)  Regards  --(WT-en) Hennejohn 12:32, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Discounts?
I stumbled on Booking a cruise at a deep discount. If that is accurate, it is certainly something we should cover. Pashley (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Another stumble: CDC list of disease outbreaks. Should we link to it? Pashley (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-vandalism reverted?
I don't understand why LtPowers reverted this edit. Everything seems perfectly reasonable, and the editor linked to the relevant WV policies in the edit summary. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * There have been concerns raised with an editor who has been repeatedly pushing personal preferences related to image sizing despite concerns raised by others, and at this point most such edits end up being reverted - see User talk:118.93.67.66 for one discussion on the subject. Feel free to restore whatever portions of that edit that are helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Query Prompt
Have just noticed that entry of "Cruise" or "Cruise Lines" in the search box results in an auto-prompt for "Cruise Lines"...that then reaches only this article by re-direct. If we have an article "Cruise Lines", it should be prompted as well as this one, and thereby reached. If "...Lines" has been deleted, then the auto-prompt is invalid. Can someone more skilled with the site's operation correct this? Hennejohn (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There used to be a separate article Cruise Lines, but that never had more than a couple of sentences of content, so in 2010 it was merged with this article. The normal practice is then to make the old article redirect to the merged one. This helps people following an old link, but does have the drawback that people typing Cruise into the search box gets an auto-prompt for the redirect. It would be great if the auto-prompt could ignore redirect articles, but I doubt that is possible. AlasdairW (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we don't want that, as it kind of defeats the point of the redirects. The problem, such as it is, isn't that "Cruise Lines" is appearing as a suggestion; it's that "Cruise ships" isn't -- not until you type the "s".  Powers (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)==

Cruise Lines
Thanks to Ipsilon & others, many good edits have improved this article. We still need to improve the current lists of "Cruise Lines" wherever they appear, e.g.,:
 * "Major lines" primarily covers those offered by U.S. travel/cruise agents/web sites. Many lines based in Europe and Asia seem appropriate for addition.  Am unable to help with specifics...have only seen their ships on various trips.
 * Hurtigruten is actually a quality ferry service; it's use and limits are described in the linked article.
 * Some entries in "Small ship...options" link to third party sellers.

Will also be working to improve other portions...for content and readability. Hennejohn (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I've mostly cleaned up and rearranged the article. I'm not very knowledgeable about cruises, but do agree European and Asian cruise lines should also be mentioned.
 * Hurtigruten is much similar to Baltic Sea ferries. Both are different enough from e.g. Caribbean cruises not to be described here, on the other hand they are not that different, therefore I think it's useful to link to their articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Good points...forgot about Baltic ferries. HELP!!!  Did minor editing just 2 hours ago, and whole article has been truncated...ending at discussion of passports.  Do note that refresh symbol for in-complete re-transmission of article never goes away.  FIX???  Hennejohn (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has recovered, thanks. Hennejohn (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Weddings at sea?
I'm a bit unsure about:
 * The Captain: He or she is called the ship's master for a reason, with total operational command of the vessel and when and where it goes. And yes, through recent changes to law, many can now officiate at weddings, as can accredited, "resident" or pre-certified clergy.

Which jurisdictions are recognising this without requiring some additional credential? suggests Japan (only if the couple are Japanese citizens) and Bermuda, although the ship might need to fly the flag of those countries. and seems to infer the US doesn't recognise "sea captain" as officiant but anything from judge to mayor to themonastery.org (Universal Life Church, which ordains its entire 20-million person flock) is recognised by most US states (each has its own requirements, adding to the confusion). has neither US nor UK recognising "captain" on its own as an officiant (although ship's chaplain would qualify). also appears sceptical, although tying the knot on a ship in port using a local officiant in that community is another workaround as an alternative to enlisting a captain as also a notary (where applicable) or minister of some obscure denomination (where recognised). There`s also the detail that the captain is supposed to be busy getting the boat to its destination. Certainly "wedding at sea" would be valid as wedding travel, with substantial advance planning, but the willingness of governments to recognise the credential "sea captain" alone without another civil or religious title conferring officiant status should not be taken for granted. —The preceding comment was added by 2001:5c0:1000:a::1d (talk • contribs)

 * uses Bermuda, captain as official under that country's registry. Malta may also be an option. These seem to be the exception, not the rule. See Sea captain. K7L (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hidden duty in Europe?
The article states
 * "take care with [...] hidden duty or tax such as Europe's VAT not reflected in "final" prices — that can be 17-25%"

I suppose "Europe" here refers to EU/EEA, and I have the impression that VAT here always is included in announced prices. Are there exceptions with some businesses specifically cruises passengers may visit? Then this could be clarified, otherwise there may be some misunderstanding.

--LPfi (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * In the UK VAT is almost always included in shop prices (and I think it is the same in other countries). The exception is shops selling goods which are usually bought by other businesses, so a plumbing supplier may quote prices without VAT. I don't expect that anybody on cruise would visit such a place. It may be worth making the warning more general by removing the "such as". I also wonder if "Europe's VAT" suggests a uniform tax across the EU when member states decide the rate and which goods it applies to. AlasdairW (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * WTF? In the USA and apparently Canada too, sales tax isn't included in the price but I've never seen that anywhere in Europe. Ever. If I really stretch my imagination, on EU airports there are sometimes different prices on e.g. alcohol for those who fly to destinations within the EU or outside, but even then both prices are listed. And if you're shopping tax free you will still pay the tax but get it refunded at the border. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Have little knowledge of EU laws/regulations about imposing or refunding VAT. My entry was focused only on on-board shopping aboard a cruise that starts and ends in EU without visiting a port "outside".  We encountered it once...Amsterdam to Barcelona 2011; staff warned shoppers; we chose to make few purchases.  Topic has been extensively discussed on Cruise Critic and similar sites.  On a repo from Barcelona to U.S., many folks counted on refunds at Madeira because it was last EU port; it had no necessary office or official.  For cruisers, hope someone can clarify all this better than I.  Regards,     Hennejohn (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Permission to come aboard
Hello :-)

What is the consensus about articles on cruise lines? In particular, I have been working on User:Commander Keane/P&O Cruises Australia and would like to know if it is ok to move it to "mainspace" at P&O Cruises Australia?

I have seen that Disney Cruise Line has been up for deletion previously.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Just a question... Could it be called just Australian cruises ? I'm not sure an article about a specific company follows policy (although Disneyland does exist) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Disneyland has an article because it's not only a physical place but quite a complex attraction. Site policy, to my knowledge, has been that individual cruise lines, like individual airlines, don't get full articles to themselves. However, several different topics are linked at Boat travel. For example, there is Cruise ships, which includes a pretty long list of linked names of "Major cruise lines, large vessel". There is also a Cruising the Baltic Sea topic which might be a useful model. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, I don't understand why Disney Cruise Line hasn't been merged and redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 * It was agreed to use it as a test case for cruise-line articles. I still don't understand the animosity toward them.  Powers (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheaper than a nursing home?
It seems to me we might discuss the claim that a series of cruises are cheaper & better than nursing home care, here or perhaps in Retiring abroad. Web search turns up many articles on the topic, including one at the urban legends reference site Snopes. Pashley (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Frommer's link
This link, for "A 2015 article provides some particulars for select cruise lines" clearly violates external links. But is the article so great and so helpful to travellers that we should consider it an exception? I ask you; I haven't read it as of yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The article has the headline "Is it Worth it to Buy a Cruise Line Drink Package?", but fails to answer the question. It is just a comparison table of drinks packages between cruise lines, but makes no attempt to compare buying a package with buying drinks individually - it does not say how many glasses of wine I would need to drink each day to break even. Policies aside, it is probably not worth keeping. AlasdairW (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for giving your opinion. Does anyone disagree with removing the link? If so, please express your opinion soon. I will probably delete it later tonight or tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Deleted accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing removed
Discussion? Deleted Found item in list of "small cruise ship companies"...appears to actually be a world-wide tour company. No reason to think it's less than a reputable firm, but not relevant to the list. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Adventure Life – worldwide

Highly critical article
Don't bother with cruise ships, "a dirty, harmful industry". Pashley (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

COVID outbreak
48 test positive for Covid on world's biggest cruise ship Pashley (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I see nothing about COVID in the article & although I do not think we need a panic-inducing warning, I do think we need something. Is the threat now negligible (my guess is yes)? Is vaccination required for passengers (I'd say it should be)? Pashley (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 * What of other health risks? e.g. 2023 is the year of getting sick on a cruise Pashley (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the events of 2020 are sufficiently recent that they should be mentioned as background. Although the chance of ports turning cruise ships with infections aboard away has greatly reduced, it not zero; and travellers are likely to meet passengers and crew whose trips in 2020 were disrupted. Vaccination may be required on some cruise lines departing from some ports - checking on a couple of cruise line websites it is currently required for cruises to Australia, but not elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cruise ships are common locations for GI and respiratory outbreaks. This has been an ongoing occurrence long before COVID, now we have the same outbreaks plus COVID. Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Big new ship
World's largest cruise ship that's 5 times larger than the Titanic set to make its debut Pashley (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes. It seems we have built the largest cruise ship in the world a few times during the last decades, including Freedom of the Seas and Oasis of the Seas, also for the Royal Caribbean. But you shouldn't really trust those news stories; I doubt the ship sailed to the "open ocean" for the initial round of sea trials – the open Atlantic is far from here, beyond the British Isles, so trials where either in the archipelago off Turku or in the open Baltic Sea, even that some 60 M from the yard. (And they talk about January 2024 – are they that badly in need of visibility?) –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cruise ships


text:
Talk:Cruising (disambiguation)

See discussion at Talk:Cruising on small craft

title: Talk:Cruising (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Cruising on small craft

Name
I'm pretty sure the proper name for this activity is just... Cruising. As opposed to "going on a cruise." The only other appropriate use of "cruising" that I know of is trawling for sex partners, which actually... could be a travel topic! I know the argument was made that travelers unfamiliar with the transcendence, perfection, and bliss of cruising might be confused, but the article already has at the top:

 * This article is about travel by small craft, including both motor and sail powered vessels, where the vessel is owned or chartered by the travellers, and may be operated by the travellers. It does not include travel by large vessels, where the traveller is merely a paying passenger, and the operation and organisation is provided by the vessel's owners or operators; for that, see Cruise ships.

Shouldn't that be sufficient? Can we move this back to Cruising over the disambiguation, and maybe have a pseudo-disambiguation/topic for all By boat travel? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

 * Sounds right to me. Pashley (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Isn't a paying passenger on a small vessel, Gilligan's Island style, going on "a three-hour cruise"? Hardly the same animal as the White Star or Cunard liners (which were floating hotels), but also not the same as cruising on small craft where the travellers are operating an owned or rented vessel themselves. K7L (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge?
Should material from Hitchhiking boats be merged in here? Pashley (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think not. This is largely intended for the ones owning or chartering the boat, while the other one is for people crewing. The hichhiker should of course ideally be familiar with most points here, and for some people the two are alternatives, but I think links are enough. --LPfi (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Expedition
There is now a Cruising Expedition. Pashley (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of useful text and ideas?
When I first joined Wikipedia, the article Cruising (maritime) was really in a style that might suit Wikivoyage. I have had a look for the best version before it was mostly deleted and 'encyclopedised' in 2005. This version is the best I can find in the old style. I'm not sure what to do with that text - a sub-article here? Take sections and add them to this article? I felt it was a great shame when all that text disappeared from Wikipedia, but this could be a great new life for that knowledge here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, that's great stuff! Let's first move it to a sub-article here, and then work on merging content. --Peter Talk 20:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks and hi, Peter. I've imported it complete as Cruising (maritime). It needs more work. --Nigelj (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Cruising (maritime)
Although Cruising (maritime) is a larger article, the name is more ambiguous (may be confused with travel on Cruise ships). The topic of the two articles is the same. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I see that was probably the original intention, so go ahead. I will probably be off-line for the next week. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I pasted the sections to this article. I think this was the cleanest solution history-wise (and because this article has the Wikivoyage structure). I will make some small adjustments right now, but the material needs more work, e.g. because this article should be also about shorter cruises. --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything useful here?
I stumbled on this "seafarer's trust" article while searching for something else. Does it have anything useful? Pashley (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Late for the party
I feel kind of lame that I just stumbled upon this section, I've been working on articles such as Lakebay, Fox Island, Oak Harbor, Gig Harbor etc etc and trying to be aware of boating info, only to now realize how much was already in WV and I'm just now finding it. Looking forward to going through all of this and seeing how others have been adding info. Lumpytrout (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also started a section under sea kayaking which is listed under travel activities and should probably be integrated over here instead somehow. Lumpytrout (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Shared sailing
Coboat an 82-foot sailing catamaran going round-the-world and mainly carrying "digital nomads", people who work from a laptop while travelling.

I think this might go somewhere in this article, but not sure where. Pashley (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I added something at Working_abroad. Not sure if she should also be mentioned here and/or in Cruise ships. Pashley (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's now a Digital nomad article which mentions this boat & another doing something similar. Pashley (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Bullet points
Just skimming the article, it does include a lot of bullet points. Is this a style we should try to avoid? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The long lists of bullet points are more or less checklists. Writing them in normal prose will just make them harder to read. Perhaps, still, we could try to cut them down a little. There is some discussion in the lists, which could be moved out of them, to have the points themselves more concise. --LPfi (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To Guide and FTT
This one too could be a nice FTT for sometime in 2018. There's a lot of information in the article, is there anything relevant missing that prevents it from guide status? Even as I don't know anything about the topic itself (well, I've been on rowing boats in small lakes a few times but it probably doesn't count :P), there are a few things that does strike my eye; the listiness that was mentioned above, the short Do and Eat sections and a general lack of photos. --ϒpsilon (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 * There is some work to do. The article was originally about long time cruising. It is now more general, but the origins show through and some other aspects are just hastily mentioned. I think we need some more yachters to get it into good shape. --LPfi (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Boating?
Boating is a shorter and more descriptive name. As a bonus, it makes Wikivoyage more distinct from The Other Site. /Yvwv (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Not a good idea in my opinion. To me "boating" suggests small boats and day trips. I'd say the title should be just "cruising" as originally suggested at above. "Cruising on small craft" was a compromise to avoid confusion with cruise ships. That's OK too. Pashley (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I'd say this should obviously be moved back or moved to "cruising" since "boating" includes things like pottering about with an outboard motor on a local lake which this article does not (& should not) cover. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree. This might mean that we need a Boating outline, joining the outlines on canoeing and kayaking. And we need not do anything with this article to distinguish us from the other site: the version imported is totally different, with most content here from Wikipedia. --LPfi (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * User:Yvwv: I see you moved it only three days after making the suggestion above. IMHO that was too soon, and a mistake.
 * I am strongly inclined to move it back. Objections? Other comments? Pashley (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Also Wikidata associations have been changed in line with the name change (by users over there). Those should be checked, unless we want to change the scope of the article, which there seems to be little support for. --LPfi (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Cruising on small craft has a much more specific scope than boating. The original intention of this topic was cruising on small craft which implies traveling from place to place by boat, carrying supplies with you, and possibly living on board or camping on beaches. The full scope of "boating" includes pottering around in canoes and kayaks, river rafting, paddleboarding, dinghy and ocean yacht racing, powerboat racing, fishing from boats and a whole bunch of other things which are not cruising on small craft. So, unless the intention is to radically change the scope of the topic, Boating is not a more descriptive name for cruising on small craft, it is a name of a different topic, of which Cruising on small craft is a subtopic. If the topic is to remain as originally intended, "Cruising on small craft", "Cruising on boats", or "Small boat cruising" are as concise and accurate descriptions as possible. Small craft has a wider size range implication than small boats, as boat generally implies smallish to start with. Just Cruising has too many alternative meanings, many of them having nothing to do with boats. (look them up if you want to know what I mean.) I would consider Cruising on boats acceptable as an alternative, though as a boating person I still lean a little towards small craft. Changing titles just to be different from WT is not sufficient reason when it confuses the issue. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * With this taken into account, cruising on small craft and boating would probably be two different articles. /Yvwv (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, If someone is willing to create a suitable article on boating in general it is a valid travel topic. A lot of people travel to do boating activities. It should probably be a top level topic article and link to a whole range of boating activities, of which cruising in small craft is just one. There should be a summary section for each of the sub-topics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus, so I have moved the article back to "cruising on small craft". For now Boating is a redirect; perhaps someone could create a real article there? Pashley (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Something to add?
Everything you need to know before going to Yacht Week in Croatia Pashley (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Taxes & "flags of convenience"
Why Does Betsy DeVos’s Family Yacht Fly a Foreign Flag?

Should our article discuss tax issues? Where to register a yacht? Does anyone here know enough to cover this? Is there a good link we could provide instead? Pashley (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Sure. As you said, it would be good to cover if someone knows (or researches) enough to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes. But the implications vary. Over here I pay no taxes for my boat, and few yachters hire crew, or are subject to the "over 300 gross tons" regulations. I do not know what countries have reciprocal arrangements with EU like those described in the article, but without them, I'd have to get my boat out of EU at least every few years to avoid importing it. And before Schengen I'd not been entitled to cruise between Nordic countries without customs clearance (which is a big deal if you want to cruise where the wind blows instead of following customs routes).

 * In short: there may be advantages, but you have to study your situation carefully to avoid the traps. I suppose foreign flags are mostly for those who have an army of lawyers at hand already and who can save some millions by avoiding use taxes and hiring cheap crew.

 * --LPfi (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2018 (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) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like both but I like the alternative more. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 14:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Both are good banners, but in the second one the boat gets covered up by the text—I think it works better in the Hebrew Wikivoyage's right-to-left format. I prefer the current banner. The alternative could possibly be used in Eastern Panama or some other related article, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, good point. But is there a way to move the text to the right side of the banner, similar to the right aligned TOC function? --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 16:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I prefer the current one. The new one looks good on Hebrew WV, but wouldn't work as well here. AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the alternative one is great for R2L languages, but I would still go with the current b/c the title will conflict with the main focal point of the image. --ButteBag (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just flip the blue image? There doesn't appear to be any words or such that would give away that the image was flipped. I think both a good images and I wouldn't be opposed to changing or keeping the original. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But by creating a mirror image you've actually changed the scenery. Maybe it would be okay here, but I'm not sure. --Comment by Selfie City  (talk about my contributions ) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A mirror image of the boat would show incorrect navigation lights and other small details that would irritate an experienced sailor but most of us wouldn't notice. AlasdairW (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't want to irritate sailors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added the alternative to Eastern Panama for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'm glad you found a good use for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sailing redirect
Sailing shouldn't be redirected here as it isn't necessarily small craft.--Darrelljon (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sail starting a comeback?
Swedes to build wind-powered transatlantic cargo ship (yes, it’s a sailboat) Pashley (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Outdated info?
Cruising_on_small_craft includes a cost estimate that starts "In 2002 ...". What about now?

Are other things out-of-date? Pashley (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Inflation in the EU was close to zero until recently (from about then?) and the euro/US$ rates haven't changed that much, so I assume changes due to expectations are more significant than changes due to prices. And I assume there is some difference in price levels across the globe, so the figure cannot be reliable. I think a bigger issue is whether anybody cruises the oceans with a 28-foot boat – what are the costs with a 36-foot one ("the smallest reasonable size for typical cruisers")?

 * The bulk of the article was written long ago. I assume it hasn't been updated systematically. Do we have experienced sailors around?

 * –LPfi (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cruising on small craft


text:
Talk:Cruising the Baltic Sea

I've removed the vfd template, as there was no consensus. See Project:Votes for deletion/October 2009 -- (WT-en) Eiland 08:14, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

Cruising the Baltic Sea

 * Delete. I don't see any reason to split this type of information out from our destination guides. Also, much of the article appears to be a copyright violation . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Hmm, but we don't really have an article on the Baltic Sea. That title currently redirects to Baltic States, which you linked, but the sea borders other countries as well.  Of course, if it's a copyvio...  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep, for time being. I actually told the user to try his hand at creating this instead of his original attempt at "Baltic Sea", which is clearly a no-no. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:15, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

 * There is no copyright violation although some of the stuff was research elsewhere the sentences are my own. Baltic states is only 3 small states and the cruises seldom stop at any of them. The current redirect to baltic states from baltic sea actually makes no sense in my estimation since it is based only one the word being the same so far as I can tell. Baltic states is only a minor destination of three countries and have very little tourist value while the Baltic Seas cruises are quite popular and getting more so. You guys can, of course, do whatever you want. My intent is to provide a resource that can be used to springboard into other articles on the site and easy reference for a person going on the cruise. Of course there are many cruises and they don't all hit the same ports so the general nature is to provide references to all possible ports for the user. --(WT-en) DaleDe 01:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Just for the record, the two times I have checked, I get exact matches for copyrighted text (this last time: "sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter"). My personal experience has been that cruises on the Baltic Sea that do not feature stops in the Baltic States rarely refer to the sea's name at all. Whenever I've seen "Baltic Cruises" or something of that sort, there is at least a stop in Riga. But my point above is really about content—there's no overwhelming amount of travel content that needs to be split out of the guides.

 * All that said, I disagree with Jani—I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have a Baltic Sea region article. But the copyvio text has to go. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Perfectly acceptable doesn't (to me) convey the gist of Project:Bodies of water. While I know there have been numerous discussions on this, so far the policy still reads that a destination guide (which includes a region guide, in my understanding) on a body of water is not acceptable.   --(WT-en) inas 02:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * That would contradict my reading of Project:Bodies_of_water. The point of that policy is that we don't create articles to write about the bodies of water, and that is not what Dale has set out to do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:52, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I've been reading it as we don't make articles about bodies of water unless that's the natural name for the region in which they are located. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * This is beside the point -- in this particular case, it's quite obvious that "Baltic Sea" is not a sensible or necessary region grouping, since a) the countries around are dissimilar (compare, say, Kaliningrad and Denmark) and b) all the countries around it are already slotted in elsewhere.

 * However, I do agree with the original creator that the Baltic Sea is much larger than the three Baltic states, and that many cruises on that body of water don't even visit them. Eg. of the 7 cruises listed at  (#1 hit on Google for "baltic sea cruises"), only two actually stop in any of the Baltics. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:13, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep, it would be a sub page for all neighbourhoodpages of Northern Europe so I dont see the problem of joining all that into one page (this) and linking it from the get in, get around, do sections. -- (WT-en) Eiland 14:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I'm removing the tag from the page as there doesn't seem to be consensus. -- (WT-en) Eiland 06:54, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

High-contrast page banner
I increased the contrast of the page banner. Better? /Yvwv (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At first glance, much. But I see some significant moire striping on the right side of the image. Powers (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like the striping is there in the original, too. So the lightened image is no worse. Powers (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cruising the Baltic Sea


text:
Talk:Crumlin

Help with Crumlin
I'm not putting this on VfD because, for all I know, Crumlin is a real place. However, this article is an obvious joke. So would someone who knows either delete the article if there is no place called Crumlin or edit the article suitably? Thanks so much. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:25, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah, a real place. I just stripped it back to an outline and fixed the IsPartOf. (WT-en) texugo 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Thanks. :-) (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Crumlin


text:
Talk:Crystal Beach

Sleep
I looked for a sleep destination but have found none closest is North Palm Harbor, Florida. Maybe someone else can come up with something like a lodging place or something... (WT-en) Gullsofpeace 10:54, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Crystal Beach


text:
Talk:Crystal Coast

Wow! This is a nice guide-- Evan and I want to hit the Outer Banks on our next road trip (last one was Montreal->Austin->New Orleans->NYC).

One point about redirects, Seashores, ect, you may want to take a look at Project:What is an article? since it's not just a matter of how much info there is that determines what gets its own page... I noticed there's not a Sleep section here, is there going to be one? (WT-en) Majnoona 16:55, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Ah, I see, that's helpful to know - so presumably there shouldn't be a separate page on the seashore at all (since I don't believe there are any hotels on those particular islands). Is there a better way to handle that situation than a redirect? Something like Cape Lookout National Seashore instead?

 * I hadn't put a "sleep" section on the main page because it would all be redundant info that's (hopefully soon!) given in the individual city pages; but I can add one pretty easily, if it ought to be there. Thanks for the compliments, and you'll definitely enjoy the OBX! -- (WT-en) Haem85 12:26, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Crystal Coast