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

Hot chocolate "for kids" or not?[edit]

Given that an IP address seems to disagree with the pre-existing text calling (certain kinds of) hot chocolate a "drink for kids", I think we should have this debate here. imho the more sweet ones made with pre-mixed "kaba" powder are considered for kids whereas more bitter ones are not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for posting a similar thread below without seeing this first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milk chocolate in Europe[edit]

It's called "kinder Schokolade" in Germany and is to my understanding really considered to be for children who find the full taste of real dark chocolate as yet too strong. Similarly, in Italy, I recall the chocolate in hot cocoa being dark, though maybe not as bitter as in Germany. I don't really understand this edit, which states that "hot chocolate is popular with both adults and children", a fact not under dispute. Is milk chocolate generally eaten by adults in Europe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ikan, I started a very similar topic above. Mind if we combine the two? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) In Britain, Ireland and France it is eaten by adults. And Belgian / Swiss chocolate boxes available everywhere and aimed at adults usually have a mix of milk and dark flavours. For other countries I'm not so sure, but I know there are popular *dark* chocolate wafer biscuits aimed at children in countries like Poland and Slovakia. So milk=children, dark=adults is certainly a false binary for the continent as a whole. But if it's true in certain countries, I wouldn't know. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Finland and elsewhere in the Nordic countries milk chocolate is (for eating) regarded as normal chocolate, and dark chocolate with proportionally more cocoa regarded as something more exclusive/more expensive. Hot chocolate is in general drunk with milk and sugar, and I'd say it's more of a children's beverage — adults do drink it but generally prefer coffee or tea as their hot drink of choice. ϒψιλον (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so that section should be edited accordingly, to take into account Europe's diversity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do some visitors assume that all Europeans are white?[edit]

It has been said that visitors to Europe make the assumption that European countries are racially homogenous, and that all non-white people are visitors or recent immigrants. In fact, many European countries have had visible minorities for generations, and in some cases since time immemorial. This could lead to embarrassement. Is this an issue to bring up in the Europe#Respect section? Or is it WV:OBVIOUS? /Yvwv (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started Respect#Racial and national identity for generalized information. /Yvwv (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently there were more black people (by percentage) in Roman Eboacorum than in modern day York Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never heard of this assumption before, though that's not to say it doesn't exist, and it's not like I've met a bunch of tourists from other continents. It might be good to get the opinions of non-Europeans - as in, based on the people around them, does that attitude exist? - as again I suspect that few or no Wikivoyagers will have such a prejudice.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't consciously noticed this assumption before, myself, but if it does exist I would guess it's an assumption that some less educated people who have a stereotypical picture of Europeans. I think some of the less educated, less traveled, Americans have a very stereotypical view of Europe, usually from the knowledge of, say, London and Paris. However, I would hope that the more educated people, in the U.S. and elsewhere, know better, and since we quite probably have an educated audience, it is probably unnecessary to include such information. But, there is no harm in mentioning it, IMO.
Another reason why people in the U.S. may hold that assumption is that the U.S. is so diverse compared to most countries, and when compared to the U.S., Europe may seem very white. It's like if, just make a guess, 70% of America is white compared to 90-95% of Europe being white (although that is probably a high estimate). But even 95% is not the same as 100%. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the assumption does exist. If it's likely to cause offense in some way, it's probably worth including in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose a Swede or Frenchman could be offended by being treated as an immigrant or tourist in their own country. There is a warning to that effect in Sweden#Respect (although this aspect is covered only implicitly). --LPfi (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This summer, a famous African-American rapper was detained in Sweden, suspected for a crime. A late-night comedy show in the United States made a feature of the case, where they said that the rapper wouldn't easily escape in Sweden since he would stand out by being black. Apparently, the prejudice of an all-white Europe seems to survive in the United States. /Yvwv (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It very much depends on where in Europe you travel to; western or eastern Europe and city or countryside. Places like London or Paris, mentioned earlier, are at least as diverse as the United States, and on the other extreme, on the countryside in the former Eastern Bloc, there are very few non-white persons. Ypsilon (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last dictatorship?[edit]

Belarus may be unique, but it's not unique in being a European dictatorship. Russia is clearly also a dictatorship, as its elections are a farce and its government and covert agents have often murdered dissidents at home and abroad, and Transnistria, which should be enumerated among the Balkan countries (I'll add it unless someone wants to argue why not), is also a dictatorship. There are at least a couple of other European countries that have rather authoritarian governments and systems; Hungary and Poland come to mind, though there's been a lot of push-back from Polish citizens demonstrating in the streets. So should we strike out that description, and if so, what should we substitute for it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, replace it. What is there about Belarus that's appealing to travellers? Surely we can come up with a better selling point than the fact that it's a dictatorship. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea what's appealing about Belarus. It could be sold as the largest remaining Soviet-style country or something, because even that isn't unique when we consider Transnistria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone have any more thoughts about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it could be changed to '...has been described as "Europe's last remaining dictatorship"' (it looks like it's a quote) if it needs to be there, but I'd also suggest take it out. Transnistria's weird, you don't really get the whole "Soviet feel" which some travellers are looking for ...Belarus seems more of a working Soviet microcosm (culturally, politically). I suspect its inaccessibility is also part of the appeal for western travellers. Perhaps replace it with something along those linesPresumingEb (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How inaccessible is it? Don't they encourage tourism? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe they're encouraging it but it's still quite closed... coming from former soviet states it's easy but for a lot of Europeans at least, I know the visa's a headache compared to other countries in the region

-Eben PresumingEb (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so how about "Belarus, sometimes called 'Europe's last dictatorship', is the largest remaining Soviet-style country in the world"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good PresumingEb (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll put that in. Of course, if anyone can improve it, I'd encourage them to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20 beautiful European cities with hardly any tourists[edit]

Possibly some inspiration for future European OtBPs? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny, I notice Sarajevo on the list. Aren't we just featuring that city either now or soon? Yes, it looks like an interesting list to use. Our articles must be up to guide status, of course, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Best restaurant"[edit]

In light of this shouldn't we cite who gave that designation? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I could come up with my own list, but that doesn't mean anyone should care about my choices. Ground Zero (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, cited in text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say just delete the claim. Are the people compiling the list at all credible? I have no reason to think so. Pashley (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the anonymous contributor. There is occasionally the appropriate article where "the best restaurant is..." is actually helpful to the reader, but for the whole world, even the most experienced traveler/critic would have a difficult task to name the "best" restaurant. This word should be limited to low-level destination articles where there is a clear winner, and even then it's controversial to make these kinds of claims because it could be seen as an unfair judgment upon other quality restaurants. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have some similar stuff, like this at Ninoy_Aquino_International_Airport#Understand:
Terminal 1 was judged the world's worst airport terminal by the "Sleeping in Airports" website (although some say the brouhaha over the terminal was a result of Filipinos overhyping everything), and passenger opinion of NAIA as a whole is poor, from Filipinos and foreigners. In August 2013, an on-line survey by a hotel booking company rated NAIA as the worst airport in Asia, below airports in Vientiane, Yangon and Phnom Penh and a very long way behind the best, Singapore.
I'd say that might be toned down, but should be kept. Pashley (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but there are far fewer airports around the world than restaurants. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From W:Noma (restaurant):

These things change all the time and are subjective to each publication. To me, it seems extreme to mention any one restaurant at the continental level.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I just saw this, but I put the link to the guide which gave them that designation. They're actually pretty well-established and second only to the Michelin Guide when it comes to authority. Of course, it's subjective and I often don't agree with a lot of their rankings (I've had bad meals at restaurants that were featured in both with 3 Michelin stars, and conversely, I've had amazing meals at cheap local street food stalls), but I think it passes the notability test to warrant a mention. The dog2 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donetsk and Luhansk[edit]

We now have the articles Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. The names have for some time been used (in those forms) in the warning boxes of the Donetsk and Luhansk articles. Bonehilda created the articles yesterday, added them to Europe and adjusted the breadcrumbs.

I wonder whether we want to have those articles and, if so, whether they should have those names. My impression is that those areas are very unstable in that e.g. the borders are changing depending on military success, and in that the declared constitutions and elections, and thereby the leadership and administration, are challenged. Calling the territories "republics" can be interpreted as us recognising the administrations.

We do of course want to cover also this region, but I think Eastern Ukraine could be developed to also describe the conflict, how to Get in to the contested territories etc. We do describe unrecognised countries such as Transnistria as countries – but in these, although you can question their independence, the administration has control over the territory and the borders are stable. To my understanding that is not the case in Eastern Ukraine.

LPfi (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been discussed a few times, without coming to a resolution. These articles should not have been created without a consensus, but now that they are there, I am inclined toward keeping them, and treating them the way we treat Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Abkhazia . The reality is that they exist, and have done so for 7 years now. Travellers who decide to go there will have to deal with them. These articles are appropriate places to deal with immigration rules, history of the conflict, and security issues. We should have appropriate disclaimers indicating that this does not mean that Wikivoyage recognises the republics. Like Transnistria where the borders were established in battle and locked in by ceasefire, the borders here are now de facto limits of the countries. I think we should keep them within the Ukraine breadcrumbing for the time-being, although at some point we move them out of that as we have done for the four others listed above. Ground Zero (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ground Zero completely, except that if they call themselves independent, since they are not in fact under the control of the Ukrainian government and military, they should no longer be breadcrumbed to Ukraine. Also, I think the articles indeed should have been created, but that's moot now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonehilda is a sockpuppet of a vandal and has been blocked by me. If consensus is that these self-declared states need articles, then may I suggest you delete the versions created by the sockpuppet and start from scratch? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If our policy is to delete all their work, we could delete the articles, as they don't contain all that much information, anyway, but I do think these self-declared states should have articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen heated dispute on a couple different projects over whether "articles which should exist, but were written by socks" should be deleted or not under (the local equivalent to) WV:DENY. One interesting position I've seen is that keeping the articles is the DENY stance -- that is, deleting them only to recreate them is going out of your way to pay attention to the LTA, while rewriting them with the content of bona fide contributors is simply incorporating them into the project and taking them out of the LTA's hands. Not a statement in any direction, but food for thought. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an interesting point of view, and I see what you mean. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think embracing that view would make life easier, especially in the cases where contributions by a banned user and others have got mixed up.
For the articles at hand, I think blanking or deleting them and starting from scratch will be a better course than expanding them in their current state. There are a lot of questionable phrases and untrustworthy information (did the user just guess at the state of affairs?), and I cannot see any valuable content.
Whether we should have those articles and whether to breadcrumb them from Ukraine or Europe depends on whether they are stable entities. If their borders are changing we should keep changing the breadcrumb trail of other articles accordingly – unless we keep them in Eastern Ukraine regardless of current borders. The Minsk II protocol and the talks about conquering more land seem to me to show that the situation is indeed not stable. Does somebody have good information about the situation?
LPfi (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stability is relative. Nagorno-Karabakh turned out not to be stable, but it seemed to be for some time. And those are the ways of nations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. But a region that declares independence during a war and talks about ignoring any ceasefire agreements or suggests readiness to rejoin the mother country if suitable terms are negotiated. I don't know the real situation, but it does not look like a frozen conflict with an established outbreaker republic. Where is the line between these "republics" and any warlord declaring independence of the territory they control for the moment? We don't write country articles for those, or areas controlled by different parties in Syria or Afghanistan. It may be that Donetsk and Luhansk are well-established enough, but I don't know and nobody (but Bonehilda) has said they are.
There is no problem describing immigration rules, history of the conflict and security issues of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine. With unstable borders and ongoing fighting we have to handle the conflict there in some way anyway. Breaking out the two as "countries" could be justified if we can give advice for travelers going there, other than to stay away and follow advice for war zones if they do enter. Do we even know how to Get in?
LPfi (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the main reason for not changing our articles where a situation is unstable is that we can't realistically keep up with changes. This situation has been with us for 7 years now, and there is no reason to think that it will change. There is no reason to think that Putin will let Ukraine re-take the territories, so the only possible change would be Russia annexing them, and there is no sign of that happening.

I think the articles should exist, and it is discouraging to reiterate that they were created by an LTA. I'd support re-writing and just living with the idea that he initiated something that we were going to do anyway. Re-writing without regard to the sensitivities of the original author frees editors to be more comprehensive in their editing.

@Arseny1992: visited there in 2017, according to a previous discussion at Talk:Eastern Ukraine. Their comments would be very helpful here. That would be a better place for this discussion. Would anyone object to me moving the discussion there? Ground Zero (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have largely rewritten the articles to eliminate the LTA's contributions. Ground Zero (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Do you know that entering from Ukraine is impossible? The Quora link above (2015?) said otherwise. as did Arseny1992 after their visit (2017). Or did you just leave it as it was? I would not trust that author to actually know about the situation. –LPfi (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left that it as it sounded reasonable. I will correct it now. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Entering from Ukraine is possible, and is the only legal way of getting in and out to Ukraine (also similar provisions for entry and exit Crimea), and is still mostly goes by the notes I left here earlier (obtain permit from Ukraine SBU and have it approved, use designated border checkpoints, although that media site I posted haven't been updated in about a year, so check for updated border maps for border zone safety elsewhere). The situation is more or less stable self-proclaimed independence (although the republics are in talks to rejoin Ukraine, this haven't processed far than just talks, so the situation is currently the same as it has been for a few years already). The entry provisions that were on the now defunct page at SBU site were temporary and are now replaced by proper provisions in the Ukrainian legislation.
Described entry and exit provisions is normally possible during normal days. The current provisions of requirements to have medical insurance, periodical total closure of borders from time to time, and requirements to self-isolate or go to observation for two weeks at each side, is the result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and should be in a corresponding COVID-19 infobox. --Arseny1992 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphabetical order[edit]

@Ground Zero, LPfi, Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: I recently changed this list into alphabetical order. Can someone check this? 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ground Zero: Thank you. I'll revert it anyway just in case though. Feel free to revert it back. 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ground Zero: Sorry for the trouble. I see you reverted it back. If you think that is the best thing to do, keep it that way. 16:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab spring and right-wing populists[edit]

I have a problem with this paragraph, added by The dog2:

Since the start of the Arab Spring, there has been a huge influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees fleeing war in their countries into Europe. This huge influx of immigrants has led to widespread discontent and a huge backlash, resulting in the rise of far-right extremist parties, with such formerly fringe parties now forming the main oppositions or in some cases, even the governments in various countries.

For one, there is the chronology: the huge influx was in 2015, not at the start of the Arab Spring, and right-wing populists were well established by that time. True, their influence has increased since, but I also do not believe in the immigration being the reason. E.g. in Finland, the True Finns had to accept the 2015 immigration, and although they (and their coalition partners) made their best to strip immigrants of their rights to proper asylum processes, what their supporters saw was them allowing the immigrants to come and stay.

I think the rise of these parties has little to do with de facto immigration, and everything with the failure of the neo-liberal and capitalist (in contrast to market economy) politics of the established parties (where a large share of the population feel being left in the cold), and their rhetoric of there being no choice.

However, I do not dare to write my impression as such in the article, as it would be seen as political rant, and I may have missed key developments in some of the countries. I might make a try later, but I'd prefer others to at least comment.

LPfi (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your distinction between capitalism and a market economy. How are those not identical? But as for the reasons behind the increased popularity of racist right-wing populism, it's partly due to people feeling left out of the economy and powerless and wanting an authoritarian leader to identify with and it's partly due to bigotry, racism and xenophobia - it's not an either/or. Though it would be interesting to see the results of sophisticated polling in Europe, because in the U.S., a very large-scale study showed racial animus by whites to be the strongest correlation with whether someone voted for Trump in 2016 or not, though I think this was less true in 2020, when under the special circumstances of the COVID pandemic, there was a notable rise in Hispanic and Asian-American support for Trump, while white support declined, especially among the more highly educated (keeping things in perspective, though, a majority of whites voted for the Republican presidential candidate as has been true every election starting with 1968, and a majority of Hispanics and Asians voted for Biden). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, it is out of scope for a history section of a continental article. Any process that began less than a decade ago and is yet to be concluded, belongs to current events rather than history. In my opinion, the history section is bloated altogether, and most of the text should go in European history or in sub-articles. /Yvwv (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, do you think we should remove the paragraph altogether?
(On capitalism: the free market works best when all actors are small, but economic power tends to concentrate and the politicians tend to ally with the big. There are advantages with big businesses, but if they are left alone they make up the rules themselves and the market becomes free only to them. This has been seen e.g. in the EU-mandated calls for bids, where all small businesses get outcompeted – a low or lost bid means bankruptcy for them, while the big ones can bide their time.)
The xenophobia is something the populist try to strengthen and use. There is little factual connection between immigration and the problems populist voters see. Immigrants take jobs the poor used to have and live where they used to live, but mostly they take jobs the local workers are not prepared to do any more, as the politicians have allowed salaries and working conditions to deteriorate. The working class shares interests with the immigrants, but the populists split and conquer – and they don't need factual immigration to sell their story.
LPfi (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) My impression was that all Western countries (not counting Russia and its allies) except the United States have social-democratic governments, with free education and healthcare for all citziens, and generous unemployment benefits (It is often said that the Conservatives in the UK and Canada, or the Coalition in Australia, are to the left of the Democrats in the US). And the rise of figures like Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Matteo Salvini, and parties like the Swedish Democrats and AfD were because of a backlash against immigration, thanks to the huge influx of Arab refugees fleeing the civil wars that resulted form the Arab Spring. But correct me if I have made any mistakes here. I don't think it would be incorrect to describe Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban as a neo-Nazi, and if a neo-Nazi can be elected the head of government, it's probably enough evidence to say that far-right extremism has become a popular ideology in Europe. In fact, I consider it a miracle that the UKIP and BNP haven't enjoyed that same surge in support in the UK.
And on a tangent here, Trump actually increased his support among black voters, women and LGBT voters too, not just Asian-American and Latino voters. So interestingly, it was a swing in straight white male voters that handed the election to Biden. And Trump actually won the Latino vote outright in Texas and Florida. The dog2 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you using preliminary figures from the U.S. or revised figures? It looks to me like you are oversimplifying things in Europe, though. And Orban hasn't been the most extreme right-wing figure in Hungary for most of his time in office. Anyway, I think Yvwv's point about covering events in the last 10 years as minimally as possible in an article about a continent with thousands of years of history makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, those figures were from the exit polls. I don't know if they have been revised to show new figures. And of course, it is by necessity a simplification. Each European country's politics is different, and we can't possibly give detailed coverage to European politics in a travel guide. And one thing I will say though is that the Islamophobic stuff that you hear from Geert Wilders or Matteo Salvini will put Trump to shame. The dog2 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exit polls are notoriously unreliable. Yeah, I'm definitely aware of the anti-Islam and anti-immigrant statements by European politicians, and not only on the far right. But I'm not in support of oversimplification; instead, we can choose simply to cover the last x-number of years as little as possible. I think it might be relevant to state that refugees from upheavals in various Muslim-majority countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last x-number of years have made several European countries more diverse and that there has been a backlash to immigration and a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in many European countries, but more than that in an article that covers an entire continent is not needed. The increase in diversity is something visitors might experience and like, as there are more Syrian restaurants in Germany than there used to be, for example, so it probably bears a mention for that reason alone, but it doesn't require much virtual ink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say Ikan has it exactly right here. 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So does someone care to write a draft about what they have in mind to replace that paragraph? The dog2 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dunno, is this still too long? 70 words and 448 characters vs. the current 88 words and 517 characters:
Since 2015, many refugees from upheavals in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries have arrived in Europe. The governments of Germany and Sweden officially accepted them, but there has also been a rise in anti-Muslim and xenophobic sentiment in many European countries. Partly due to xenophobia toward Polish workers, the United Kingdom voted by referendum to leave the EU in 2016; it left on 31 January 2020. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is much more complicated; I'd leave out Germany and Sweden accepting them: Sweden closed its border to Denmark (which had been more or less non-existent since the Öresund bridge!) to avoid getting more of them, and Angela Merkel had difficulties keeping to her refugee friendly politics. On the other hand, Finland's prime minister, with True Finns in his government, offered his own house to asylum seekers. I think the xenophobic sentiments are tightly coupled to the rise of the populists, not necessarily the other way round. –LPfi (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does Brexit need a 'cause', when currently all that is stated is the facts of the vote and the departure? If you're looking to cut down the paragraph, there's seven words you can ditch.
I kind of agree with Yvwv's point with regard to this being a history section, but do think that as an online guide under constant revision, we should talk about current/recent events where they pertain to travel. Even paper travel guides manage that in their overview sections.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose I should make a try (64 words, 435 bytes – and as separate paragraph it shouldn't be much shorter; the closing of borders may be important to mention, and the "Arab Spring" may be a term a politically interested traveller should be aware of):
In the 2000s, populist far-right parties have challenged the established parties in the EU, and there has been a rise in anti-Muslim and xenophobic sentiment in many European countries. This has partly coincided with the Arab Spring and many refugees from upheavals in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries arriving in Europe, with the "immigration crises" in 2015 closing Schengen borders.
LPfi (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[outdent] I think it is good for travellers to be aware of recent developments, so that they are not totally lost in discussions about politics. Of course, we cannot cover that in any depth, but a short mention of some issues is warranted. I think the continent history section is the most appropriate place for the issues we are discussing. –LPfi (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine with LPfi's way of covering it. And just to be clear, I'm not blaming the West's socio-economic problems on immigrants. I'm just saying that an influx of immigrants has caused a lot of resentment, which triggered the rise of far-right parties. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the resentment was justified. And besides, I'm sure we all know that politicians use scapegoats to cover up their own incompetence all the time. The dog2 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my knowledge, the Brexit referendum results had a lot to do with animus against workers from other European countries, especially Poland, some of whom were assaulted, but I won't insist on mentioning that and I'm fine with LPfi's version. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

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]