From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion about Europe hierarchy (that is, why some countries are in some regions) should take place in Talk:Europe/Hierarchy.

Archived discussions

Length of the history section[edit]

[heading inserted]

Provided that we have an article European history with sub-articles such as Prehistoric Europe, Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, Early modern Europe and so on, this article does not need an elaborate history section. In my opinion, it should be cut down to a brief text with the essentials (in particular when it comes to the 21st century), with links to sub-articles. /Yvwv (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems European history is mostly a straight copy from the history section, with minor additions and minor tweaks. That duplication is certainly not ideal, but I notice United States of America#History is about the same length as the part of the history section here covering the same time. North America#History more or less refers to North American history, which is mostly a disambig. I suppose we cannot compare to Asia, the history of which is much more heterogeneous. So it seems we don't have a precedent on how much background to give here – how much do we want to give? –LPfi (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The longer the history section gets, the more likely it is to contain bias and falsehood. That is a greater issue in a high-visibility article such as Europe than the more specialized article European history. I say that we should cut down the history section of this article. /Yvwv (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Ground Zero (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+2 for cutting down the history section. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cut it down somewhat (by 6 KB – a third?). One should check that anything added after the history article was copied away is added there, but perhaps not before the version here has stabilised. –LPfi (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned before, the history gets too far into current events. In my opinion, it should be very brief on everything past 2010, as it gets difficult to put the last decade into perspective. /Yvwv (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, the recent history is the most important part for visitors to understand the feelings of locals and recent developments. Perhaps it should be somewhere other than in history, but I think it is important for visitors to know about the tension between Russia and the countries west of the Iron Curtain (also before 2014), the rising of populism, and the immigration crisis of 2015–2016. It is much more important for most travellers than the Merovingian dynasty, the effects of gunpowder on the wars of the early modern period, or the fate of the Austro-Hungarian empire. –LPfi (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also do not need to put things in perspective, that's Wikipedia's mission. That the migration crisis is a thousand times more severe in Africa than in Europe isn't the issue, the issue is that politicians in Europe, and the people, believe we had a crisis. The visitor might know the facts, and judge the European reaction on that basis, but they need to know that this might be a field where to tread lightly. –LPfi (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) That's a good point. Maybe I was too hasty in removing the recent information from that section. But for descriptions of ongoing tensions and political trends, I think I would look in other sections rather than "History". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Label change proposal[edit]

Does anybody mind if I change the link label of "Britain and Ireland" to be more inclusive of the places it covers? Neither Guernsey, the Isle of Man or Jersey are in either 'Britain' (whether that means the sovereign country of the United Kingdom or the island of Great Britain which contains England, Scotland and Wales) or Ireland. I propose to change it to "British Isles" which is the traditional, historical (it dates back to well before either of the the sovereign states of the UK or Ireland were ever created, to the days when the main countries on the islands were England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales - none of which used the name "Britain" until they were united centuries later) and common name in the English literature for the collection of islands which contain all the places listed. DeFacto (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"British Isles" is a term that is very disliked in Ireland. What about Celtic Archipelago? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Hobbitschuster: that's very obscure - 1090 hits on a simple Google search, compared to 17,500,000 for "British Isles". And as I said above, it's not a political name anyway, it's the geographic name that has been used for these islands since long before any of the countries on them was named after them, and it includes the island of Ireland in a totally neutral way. DeFacto (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obscure is better than offensive. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I'm not sure what you think is offensive about it - it is geographically accurate. Is it more offensive than suggesting that Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey (or England, Scotland, Wales or the UK for that matter) are in a non-existent place called 'Britain' or in Ireland? DeFacto (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask 100 people on the street in Dublin or Galway. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Galway :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
shoot Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hobbitschuster or 100 people on the streets of Saint Helier, Saint Peter Port, Douglas, London, Edinburgh or Cardiff about suggesting that they are all in a place called 'Britain'? DeFacto (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I mind. I've already outlined the steps to take with this: go to Talk:Britain and Ireland, start a discussion about changing that article's title, and build a consensus. Please and thank you. The maps, the cuisine article, and various other pages that you're attempting to modify can all be changed following this consensus.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @ThunderingTyphoons!: that could come later, if we settle on this name (or any other geographically correct name) for this index article, which is currently geographically a disgrace. DeFacto (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's geographically incorrect about "Celtic Archipelago"? Or indeed about "Northeast Atlantic Archipelago" to be very geographic... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: nothing, other than they are very unfamiliar and obscure, and could possibly fail the tcf test. DeFacto (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: Obscure is better than offensive. cf. the Washington American Football Team... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I don't know anything about the 'Washington American Football Team', but I do agree that "obscure is better than offensive", but suspect obscure would be less likely to meet the "tcf" test. Mind you, with the current highly offensive and totally inaccurate title having been accepted, at some stage, it seems that neither offensiveness nor quality is necessarily a determining factor here. DeFacto (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's offensive about the current name? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: the two most common meanings of the ambiguous word "Britain" are the sovereign state of the United Kingdom (the UK) or the island of Great Britain. Given that neither Guernsey, Jersey nor the Isle of Man are part of the UK and neither are on the island of Great Britain, then they are totally excluded. To them that's similar to what saying that Ireland (the state) is part of the UK would be to those living there. It's worse if we assume that ""Britain and Ireland" means the two big islands in the archipelago: Great Britain and Ireland, and why shouldn't it? Then we exclude not only the independent islands already mentioned, but much of the landmass of Scotland too, it being on a far flung array of other big offshore islands such as the Hebrides, the Shetlands and Orkney and thousands of smaller islands. Do you understand that now? DeFacto (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DeFacto: Whether held here (or more accurately on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy) or on Talk:Britain and Ireland, it's the same process. You make your argument for changing the page title, other people state their opinions and arguments, we reach a consensus, and if the proposal wins then we change things such as the label on the map of European regions.
Herr Hobbit, as a part-Celt , I don't think you're being serious, but if so pob lwc getting those ideas approved :D :-/ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I'm not sure whether we need to change the page title yet, it depends on whether we can agree a suitable name for the entry in the list here first. Let's wait and see. We have a choice of three neutral titles for now. DeFacto (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the absence of a consensus to change the title (good luck with that), it simply stays as-is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I'm not sure I understand that - Wiki links can have piped names, is that different here? DeFacto (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict, yay) @DeFacto: No, the page title must come first, because the list here is simply a list of pages. In the same way, we wouldn't change the Istanbul entry in the 'Cities' list to read "Constantinople", without first moving the page Istanbul to Constantinople.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: surely we don't need to rename the page, we can just add link label here - like this: neutral and accurate name - can't we? DeFacto (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we either change the name or keep it. We don't freelance alternative piped names because a non-consensus of one or two individuals prefer a different name. This has come up a lot in names of Indian cities. As long as spellings like Bangalore and Mangalore are used most often in English, anyone piping [[Bangalore|Bengaluru]] or [[Mangalore|Mangaluru]] will be reverted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: is that an official across-the-board Wikivoyage 'policy', or personal opinion? DeFacto (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does "British Isles and Ireland" work, even though Ireland is traditionally considered one of the British Isles? Are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands included in the British Isles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Really, how many travellers will appreciate the difference? "Britain and Ireland" is commonly used in the travel industry and in everyday speech. The fact that legally it doesn't include Guernsey, Jersey and Man is primarily of interest to constitutional scholars, not to travellers. I do not expect that the residents of those islands would be offended (or aware of Wikivoyage). I don't think that we need to create new terminology to accommodate one contributor whose main contributions seems to be fuss over legalistic minutiae. Ground Zero (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with GZ here. SHB2000 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with GZ. Previous discussion is at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#British_Isles.
My opinion is that the only options worth discussing are moving it back to British Isles (which probably won't fly, unfortunately) or keeping the current title. Arbitrary constructions like "Celtic Archipelago" are nonsense; for one thing many inhabitants are of non-Celtic ancestry. Pashley (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero: this isn't about legal definitions, it is about the most common name used - supported by geography and tradition. The British Isles were named thus sometime during the middle ages (the two largest islands in the archipelago had been named "great Britain" - now Great Britain, and "little Britain" - now Ireland, by the Greeks prior to 150 AD). The names predate, by several centuries, the creation of either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. DeFacto (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the "British Isles" Archipelago does not include the Channel Islands. Ground Zero (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ground Zero: yes, and we're not claiming it is in the archipelago, we're saying it is commonly included in that classification. Did you read the rest of that article where it confirms that? Try some other Wikipedia artlicles: w:Channel Islands says "The islands were the only part of the British Isles to be occupied by the German Army during World War II", w:Jersey says "It is the largest and southernmost of the Channel Islands and part of the British Isles" and w:Guernsey says "The oldest pillar box still in use in the British Isles can be found in Union Street, St Peter Port". DeFacto (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: "British Isles and Ireland" is better than "Britain and Island Ireland", at least it is inclusive of all the places covered. An analogy would be to rename North America to "North America and Canada". And yes, "British Isles" includes the Isle of Man and generally includes the Channel Islands too, even though the Channel Islands aren't geographically in the archipelago - they are just off the coast of Normandy - analogous, perhaps, to Hawaii's position relative to North America. DeFacto (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britain and Island? SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: oops! Thanks, I fixed it. DeFacto (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hawaii is not a good analogy. It's in the middle of the Pacific. And even if you consider Central America not to be part of North America, Mexico is definitely part of North America. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I was using that to illustrate the point that some places are grouped in defiance of their physical geographical location - like Hawaii with respect to the US and the Channel Islands with respect to the British Isles. Did you like my other analogy: "North America and Canada"? DeFacto (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it makes no sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: let me try and explain it then. It's with respect to your question about using "British Isles and Ireland". As Ireland is one of the British Isles, then "and Ireland", is, effectively, just including Ireland for a second time. Just as "North America and Canada" would include Canada twice. Does it make any more sense now?
Like I said before though, that's still better than totally excluding some of the islands that are included in the article, as the current title of "Britain and Ireland" does. That's analogous to (are you ready for another one?) renaming the "North America" article to "America and Canada", relying on the fact that "America" is often used as a synonym for the US, but unaware of the fact that it doesn't cover any of the smaller countries in North America. DeFacto (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then "Britain and Ireland" is probably better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: because it totally excludes all the smaller islands covered in the article, or why? DeFacto (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that alternative doesn't strictly make sense, anyway, the existing title is simpler. I don't care greatly about this, though, and would go along with any reasonable consensus. I'm fine in the first place with "UK and Ireland" - which also technically excludes and includes things we don't want to exclude or include here, but that can be easily dealt with in "Understand". It's only in the cuisine article that I think it probably makes more sense to distinguish between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain than who rules which part of Ireland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: ok, that makes sense. It's a shame we can't just follow the Wikivoyage policy on article names, and simply use "British Isles", as it is a totally apolitical geographic term almost universally used by the world's geographers to describe the subject here, and as that name predates the existence of any of today's political units that now inhabit these islands, it is a more flexible way of prioritising the geography over the politics involved on the islands. That policy says: "articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries". DeFacto (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We actually do have a very similar policy. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. I think the policies on Wikivoyage and Wikipedia are really meant to be the same, but in some defense of not subsuming Ireland under "British Isles": an encyclopedia uses accepted geographic terms, period, but a travel guide has to give some respect to local sensitivities, as a traveller would be ill advised to insult the locals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: it was that Wikivoyage policy that I was referring too, and linked to. I had spent ages looking for guidance on naming, knowing that Wikipedia is keen on using "common names", and was surprised when I found it that it is similar here. I think the politics could be left to the prose and not used to manufacture artificial terminology to use for article names. DeFacto (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with "British Isles" is it's not in anything even approaching common use in Ireland, but is in fact rejected as a form of linguistic colonialism. I agree that it's not supposed to be a political term, nor is it used as such by the majority of the English-speaking world, but the fact is it has become one for the Irish. And as the second most-populous English-speaking country of the region, I do think the practice in Ireland should hold some weight when it comes to this decision. Whether it should hold more weight than the non-political use of the term employed elsewhere is a question to be addressed.
I will also note that (despite the great deal of time and attention these debates have taken up in the past couple of days) there doesn't seem to be any great appetite to change the region name from most of the participants in this discussion so far, and that I am of the same view. The name "Britain and Ireland" hasn't been a problem all these years, and isn't really a problem now except (and forgive and correct me if others feel the same) in the opinion of user:DeFacto.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the "Little" counterpart to "Great" Britain is the Brittany region of France which is of course notable for its celtic population... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed. The link is even more obvious in French - Bretagne/Grande-Bretagne, and the ethnonym Bretons which is used both for the modern people of Brittany and the ancient Britons from whom the Bretons are partially descended. Ireland was called Scotia (Latin) and Hibernia (Greek) in the literate classical world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Jamie here. And yes, places like the Pitcairn Islands are part of Britain but does anyone care, like it's only got a population of 49. Same amount of people who can somehow fit in an ordinary Australian double storey house. (Not enough for Europe and User:Ikan Kekek would definitely agree for east coast US). And no offence to DeFacto but this isn't enwiki, so we don't have to be precise here; hence why this wasn't a problem until now. (I think this discussion is longer than the user ban of ArticCynda) SHB2000 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: do you also know that Ptolemy, prior to 150 AD, used the name "Little Britain" for the island that we now know as Ireland. That was to distinguish it from 'Great Britain', the larger island to the east of it.[1] DeFacto (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I see it, British Isles is obviously the correct term, normal in English. The oldest discussion I find is at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy/Archive#The_British_Isles where one of the site's founders wrote:
we're not going to bowdlerize the geographical hierarchy just so two countries who don't like each other don't get mentioned on the same page. This isn't kindergarten -- it's a travel guide.
I'd say he was entirely correct. Any Irish objections should be ignored for the same reasons we ignore Arabs who want to rename the Persian Gulf and would laugh at an Englishman who objected to "Irish Sea".
That said, a long later discussion (Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#British_Isles) reached consensus on Britain and Ireland. I can accept that consensus (with a redirect at British Isles & the term mentioned in the lede) but would object strenuously to any change other than a move back to British Isles. Pashley (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view, alternatives like "British Isles and Ireland", "Celtic Archipelago" & "Northeast Atlantic Archipelago" are not even worth discussing. Pashley (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian in Ukraine[edit]

I think I'd like to solicit comments from people who are familiar with the former Soviet Union, since I'm not that familiar with the situation in Europe myself. What I do know is your choice of language can often have political connotations, even if you don't intend it that way. For instance, in Hong Kong, many people find it offensive if you speak to them in Mandarin because they associate the language with China. And I've met Sri Lankan Tamils who get very upset if you address them in Sinahala because of ethnic tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamils. And even many of the Indian Tamils don't like to speak Hindi. I won't be surprised if a similar situation exists in Europe, particularly since it's no secret that the Soviet era isn't exactly fondly remembered by many people in the more Western-aligned former Soviet countries. I know that many Ukrainians spoke Russian as a second language prior to the Russian annexation of Crimea, and Russia supporting the independence movements in Donetsk and Lugansk, but I'm not sure if the situation has now changed among the ethnic Ukrainians, who might refuse to speak Russian as a political statement given the tensions between Russia and Ukraine right now. Of course, it's also true that language is not always tied up in politics; you won't offend a Taiwanese by speaking Mandarin, or a Russian by speaking English for instance, but it would be good to know what the actual situation is in the case of Ukraine. The dog2 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those who studied Russian before the occupation still know it, the native speakers do, Russian is a touchy subject in any post east-of-the Iron Curtain-country, and travellers should realise it is even more so when there is a proxy war with Russia going on. Thus I don't think we have to do anything about this here for the moment. Of course somebody who knows the situation could adjust Ukraine#Talk, and remove the mention of Ukraine here if warranted. –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having to study a language doesn't necessarily mean people are willing to speak it. In Hong Kong for instance, Mandarin has been compulsory in all schools since the handover back to China in 1997, but many young people refuse to learn Mandarin as a matter of principle because they associate the language with China, whose rule they greatly resent. If you speak Mandarin in Hong Kong, unless you are Taiwanese, people might interpret that to mean that you support China, and you could face hostility from the locals because of that, so it's generally better to speak English instead.
Anyway, in this article, I wrote the part on Russian before the annexation of Crimea and the start of the separatist movements in Donetsk and Lugansk. Before the start of the conflict, the Ukrainian government was more or less aligned with Russia, and everyone would have learnt Russian as a second language in school. But right now, it's not inconceivable that some Ukrainians will refuse to speak Russian as a matter of principle even if they are able to do so given the conflict, so that paragraph needs to be updated to reflect the current situation. The dog2 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may well be right that the article needs to be updated, but this should only be done with facts rather than supposition based on experiences halfway across the world. As LPfi wrote, there's no rush to make any changes until someone who knows can do so. I guess that's why you posted here, so someone with knowledge will eventually see it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Blue Lagoon from "Other Destinations"[edit]

The blue lagoon is an artificial hot spring in Iceland, somewhat of a tourist trap between the airport and Reykjavik. It is a for-profit business with no historical, cultural, nor natural significance. While many find it enjoyable, I hardly would expect this should make the shortlist of 9 destinations within Europe. I think it is inappropriate to include it in this list, and propose that it is removed.-- 14:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should replace it with a Nordic destination. Some candidates are Hardangervidda, Jotunheimen, Lofoten, Svalbard, Faroe Islands and Gotland. /Yvwv (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of those the two first are national parks, the rest regions. Svalbard is guide, Gotland, Hardangervidda and Lofoten usable, the rest outlines (like Blue Lagoon). I think we should list outstanding destinations and rather work on the article than prefer a lesser destination with better article, but having to choose an outline is quite embarrassing. I also think we should prefer special destinations that are typical in some way for some aspect of the continent, rather that those that represent only themselves. Svalbard is a very special place, but it is not representative of Europe, and Gotland is neither that obviously special nor that representative. I think that from the list I'd prefer Hardangervidda or Lofoten. –LPfi (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Svalbard is quite fascinating to me, but that's only because I come from a land where we get super excited when we see snow and I'm quite interested in the seed vault. But on a less biased perspective, the waterfall in Hardangervidda is quite a place like no other (went there 2018) and a google search of Lofoten just looks stunning. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have Alps and Mallorca as precedent for regions of significant size, but a national park is a more distinct location, and would be preferrable. It seems as we could settle on Hardangervidda. It is accessible for a typical traveller, and a great representative for the Nordic countries. /Yvwv (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do places need to be "representative" (whatever that means)? Hardangervidda's "highland plateau" with "a 9000-strong wild reindeer herd" sound really representative of Europe... The best article and most interesting destination out of the suggested possibilities is obviously Svalbard. Lofoten is a worse article (and doesn't seem to know whether it's a region or a rural area/city), but is a justly famous landscape. When there's only nine items or fewer, we need to list places that most people have heard of.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say either Svalbard or the Faroe Islands as they are the most famous. The 9 cities and other destinations are usually selected on how popular or well known they are among travellers, not whether the article is an outline or star (it's easier to make obscure places guides and stars because there is less to write about). To me, Svalbard is representative of a particular aspect of Europe. Being the northernmost continent, you would expect to see a destination in the polar regions. Gizza (roam) 13:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally I agree, but would the Faroe Islands not be excluded by virtue of being in the country list?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Svalbard is a good candidate for inclusion. It is a place that it might not occur to many people to visit, it is very unique within Europe, and also globally very special. Definitely a travel opportunity worth highlighting.--ProtonGhost (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lapland as a whole would be another good article to represent the Nordic countries if it only wouldn't be a disambiguation page. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lofoten +1. Odda might be another option, if only because it is the site of Trolltunga, perhaps one of the most iconic natural sights in Scandinavia (could be linked as [[Odda|Trolltunga]] if we are not okay with listing a rural area article as an other destination). Vidimian (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A rural area is not a city, so I think by definition, it could be an "Other destination". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With "representative" I did not mean "typical to the region". A representative venue is one that adds to the diverse appeal of the destination list. International fame should not be a factor for inclusion; neither the Curonian Spit nor Plitvice National Park are well-known outside Europe, but they still deserve to be on the list. I would be happy to replace the Blue Lagoon with any place mentioned in this thread. We could also go for a natural formation on Iceland, such as Mývatn. /Yvwv (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I probably agree about the Curonian Spit not being well-known, but Plitvice is well-known outside Europe, if not by name then certainly from pictures that look like they've been photoshopped. International fame certainly is a criterion, per Wikivoyage:Continent_article_template#Other_destinations: Pick especially famous destinations that deserve a mention. It can be tedious for travelers to traverse through a lot of articles to find these destinations, that's why we list them here for quick navigation. Quite frankly, I don't know what Curonian Spit (very poor outline) is even doing in this list. As if it's remotely in the same league as the likes of Stonehenge, the Alps or the Cinque Terre.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think Gotland sounds like a pretty good choice. It has a decent level of name recognition, and I've heard it's a great destination. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could drop Blue Lagoon and Curonian Spit for Hardangervidda and Gotland. Both are in the Nordic countries, but very different. /Yvwv (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the lack of response over the past few days; have been away. Gotland is a good choice (medieval week looks amazing), but I still doubt the name-recognition value of Handangervidda. Sticking to Norway, Svalbard is both more famous worldwide and a better-developed article, the one drawback being its relative isolation--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More cities under "Cities"[edit]

Please add more cities under the Cities section as there are many major cities that should be mentioned.--2603:8081:1600:DD6B:EC54:DCEB:52F8:4F96 22:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not the way it works. Please read 7+2. Also have a look at section headers, as the section header is "Cities" and never "Major cities". Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) We have a rule called 7+2 stating that the maximum number of city articles in a list of a region such as this is nine. To find more cities go to the country or region articles. Or do you propose replacing one of the cities currently on the list with a city you think is more important? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are lots of major cities in Europe, and lots of interesting cities, easily dozens. In such a long list it is not easy to find the city one is interested in. Therefore we keep lists short. Usually you know what part of the continent you are interested in, and you find more cities in the linked articles about the continental sections or individual countries. –LPfi (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really the best answer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, have you read 7+2? If that were the case for North America, there'd be about 50 cities listed there. I already feel like 32 is a lot, let alone every major city in Europe. (which would be at least 50 as well) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're confusing the issue, in that New England (New South Wales) is currently a bottom-level region, so every city with an article in that region has to be listed in that region article. That said, I think that region should be subdivided. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm well aware of it. I just used a bottom level just to show how bad it looks with long lists, even if 7+2 wasn't a guideline. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you're aware of it, but I hope it's not too confusing to User:2603:8081:1600:DD6B:EC54:DCEB:52F8:4F96. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Even if, this subthread should help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Eastern Europe" or "East Slavic nations"?[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:East Slavic nations. Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we want the article? When Eastern Europe was discussed earlier this month, ChubbyWimbus wrote "Eastern Europe only has 3 countries (and two disputed territories) on our map. I don't think there is any value in making that into an article. It's like making France and Monaco an article. It's pointless." and nobody seemed to disagree. As name, Eastern Europe is problematic as it bears the Cold War baggage, but East Slavic nations ignore all the non-Slavic inhabitants of the area. I also don't know whether Russia can be called a nation. If not, not all nations in the area are Slavic. –LPfi (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russians may form a nation within Russia, but Russia itself certainly isn't a nation state, as it's a federation home to dozens of ethnic groups. I agree that this region doesn't work that well in a travel guide, and that the two obvious names for it are both flawed for different reasons.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Talk:Eastern Europe. Caucasians (Armenians, Georgians) also claim to be from Eastern Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with TT that both possible titles are flawed, and would question whether the inclusion of this article is a good idea to our existing region structure. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guide or usable?[edit]

I have made just made this article guide. I think it meets the critirea for Guide status. Now, how are you thinking about it, wikivoyagers? Should it keep guide status or gain back usable status. DhrGabriel (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)DhrGabriel 14:43 UTCReply[reply]

I believe for guide status we would need all the continental section articles (Balkans, Baltic states, etc.) to be usable status or better, per Wikivoyage:Region article status. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that we'd need all these articles to become usable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hardly. We need to get the country articles to usable, but that only requires their (and Europe's) major cities and other destinations to be usable. For their regions it is enough that there is a valid regional structure. However, getting the 7±2 cities and other destinations of each country to usable is hard enough. –LPfi (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scaling down Covid box?[edit]

Most European countries have lifted their domestic pandemic restrictions, and pandemic-related protests don't seem to be a thing anymore. Many countries have immigration restrictions though. This should be reflected in the info box. /Yvwv (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving the Schengen Area by plane[edit]

I've noticed that in many Schengen Area airports, most of the facilities (restaurants, shops, prayer rooms etc) are in the shared area after security, which all passengers go through regardless of destination, but before passport control, which only those passengers leaving Schengen go through. Often, the non-Schengen waiting areas have few facilities besides toilets and one or two shops.

This is hardly a life or death issue, but it's still a factor to bear in mind: if you're expecting a long wait for your flight, you don't want to go through passport control too early and leave yourself with nothing to do on the other side; equally, you don't want to get carried away in duty free/the airport pub and forget to leave yourself enough time to clear passport control before you can even start walking to your gate.

Presumably, this is less of an issue in very large intercontinental hubs like Frankfurt or Paris CDG (those of you who have flown long-haul from somewhere like that, please confirm?), but it's definitely noticeable in even major airports that primarily serve intra-European flights; examples I've experienced are Barcelona and Berlin.

Do you think this is worth mentioning, and if so in which article? Here on Europe, on Travelling around the Schengen Area, or on another page? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could think there is a similar problem in the USA. I there? Perhaps also in other large countries, with much internal flying. If so, it would perhaps best be best discussed in some travel topic on flying, with a shorter notice in the above mentioned articles. One should also check that it is mentioned in individual airport articles (and relevant sections for airports affected that don't have their own articles). –LPfi (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience this isn't a big problem in the US – international terminals there usually have restaurants, shops, and other amenities. And there's no separate passport control for international departures, so sometimes domestic and international flights use the same waiting area. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it is not the case that only international departures must go through passport control? If so, the shared waiting area must be before passport control, with the international gates on the other side. Obviously, this doesn't apply for international-only terminals, but what about where int'l and domestic flights leave from the same terminal?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, passengers don't go through passport control when departing the US by plane. Your ID will be checked at security, and sometimes also when getting on the plane, but there is no passport control step with a separate waiting area. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. I think the same is true here, actually. In that case, this might be Schengen-specific info that should go in one or more Europe articles as originally proposed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But tax-free sales would be in that separate waiting area, wouldn't they? And on sterile transit you'd not leave it. The latter doesn't exist in the USA, but it does in most countries, doesn't it? What about tax-free purchases in the USA? –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are duty-free shops in American airports, though I would recommend avoiding them. When I book international flights, my experience is that I first need to show my passport at the airline's checkin area, then go through security. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having to go through passport control when you leave on an international flight is the norm in most countries. The United States, United Kingdom and Canada are unusual in this regard. I've only been to Europe twice, but I remember at Reykjavik, the area after passport control was quite barebones, and most of the shops were in the area post-security but before passport control. Madrid's airport is a lot bigger, so at least in Terminal 4, there were quite a few shops after passport control, but not as many as in the area prior to passport control. However, non-Schengen flights leave from the Satellite Terminal of Terminal 4, which is where passport control is located, and it takes a long time to get there, so they usually recommend that you do not stay too long in the Schengen flights areas, particularly if you want to claim a sales tax refund. The dog2 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The banner[edit]

How come that every other continent has landscapes and animals as their banner while Europe has THIS? How does it embody destinations in Europe? I think there's more fitting banners. I sell eggs (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Europe is the cradle of Western civilisation. No landscape or animal could be a symbol of Europe in the same manner. You see traces of Ancient Greece at more or less any destination on this continent. One could argue that other continents should have cultural sights as banner, but you don't have that one culture: Asian Russia, Central Asia, China and India don't share one, and we have indigenous America and Australia on one hand and the Western countries now occupying those continents on the other. –LPfi (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with LPfi. Nothing but the current banner will ever do a good job as representing Europe overall. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But still, I mean this is a travel wiki. I get the thought, but there's so many cool sights, including ancient greek ones that we could put up instead. I sell eggs (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the discussion about how the current banner came to be, please see Talk:Europe/Archive 2013-2018#Page banner.
Come to think of it, isn't a fresco in the Vatican a sight as well? Vidimian (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't we stop referring to Donetsk and Luhansk as breakaway states? As of late September, Russia annexed those regions. So it is either Ukrainian or Russian territory-- Not independent breakaways. Wikipedia already reverted their changes to pre-war days and removed Donetsk/Luhansk as unrecognized states Marathonian (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed; it's why these two oblasts are now covered under Eastern Ukraine. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Europe and Eastern Europe articles list these as separate. I think we should remove them Marathonian (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I didn't realise that. I agree with removing both those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Removed from Europe article. I did not change Eastern_Europe#Countries_and_territories; I'm not certain what should be said there & it would need a change to the map.
If "these two oblasts are now covered under Eastern Ukraine", the question arises of whether & when we should change to covering them under Russia instead (or as well?). Pashley (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As they are war zones and not places that anyone should be visiting, I think we can just go with the internationally recognized status, note the dispute (and war), and revisit the issue when there is a settlement of some sort that ends the fighting. Ground Zero (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with our decision to go with the internationally recognised status. If Russia controlled the claimed areas, their borders were stable and a civil administration were established for them, then we might want to accept the facts on the ground, but we shouldn't be changing our hierarchy according to the last advances or retreats by fighting parties. The LPR and DPR are no more, and thus what remains is a war zone partly occupied by a foreign army. –LPfi (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]