Talk:Honeymoon travel
Lists of destinations
[edit]I'm a little wary of creating arbitrary lists of destinations. How exactly is a honeymoon any different from any other vacation? It looks like this is just going to attract the same "perfect for business and leisure travel" and "ideal for short stays and getaways" spam where every destination claims itself "ideal" for some particular group of travellers (or every group of travellers) for no specified reason.
Maldives doesn't belong on a list of wedding destinations if its government refuses to recognise marriages between non-Muslims, for instance. Marketers attempt to camouflage this by marketing this place as somewhere to "renew your vows," but there was an incident a few years back where what was sold to a couple as a traditional wedding in the local native language turned out to contain statements like "your marriage is invalid, your children are bastards and have blemishes" which were only spotted after the couple posted video to the web. K7L (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted Maldives per your comment, but while your concern is warranted, I find it odd to ask "how is a honeymoon different from any other vacation," when I believe everyone knows the answer. And I don't think you'd win the argument that honeymoons are a form of travel that is beyond the scope of this site. You might have a better argument on lists, but at least a few typical destinations should be mentioned, if not given bulleted listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed honeymoons were out-of-scope (immigration, on the other hand, would be) but a destination claiming to be "romantic" has become such a cliché that it would seem that every destination would attempt to put itself on this list. Every promoter wants to solicit money from business travellers, leisure travellers, honeymoon travellers, travellers with ill-behaved kids, basically every category of traveller likely to hand them a charge card and tell them to help themselves, each listed one by one. That leaves the question of which destinations to include and which to leave out. Is there any specific set of characteristics (other than a destination being expensive) that merit its inclusion or exclusion on this page? K7L (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tradition, to mention an obvious one. For example, Venice has been a honeymoon destination for centuries, I feel confident in saying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed honeymoons were out-of-scope (immigration, on the other hand, would be) but a destination claiming to be "romantic" has become such a cliché that it would seem that every destination would attempt to put itself on this list. Every promoter wants to solicit money from business travellers, leisure travellers, honeymoon travellers, travellers with ill-behaved kids, basically every category of traveller likely to hand them a charge card and tell them to help themselves, each listed one by one. That leaves the question of which destinations to include and which to leave out. Is there any specific set of characteristics (other than a destination being expensive) that merit its inclusion or exclusion on this page? K7L (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. Why does this article have two different destination lists? At first I thought that one was for weddings and one for honeymoons. However, the text doesn't say that. I do agree with the idea of limiting the lists to traditional wedding & honeymoon destinations, as every destination would love to be listed.Country Wife (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to join the sections or change the heading of some section to honeymoon travel, but it seems only the first section is about weddings and the rest about honeymoons. Most of the cited reasons for wedding abroad (money, relatives, legislation) seem to suggest other destinations and other considerations than those for honeymoons (romantic destination for lone couple). Is there enough common ground to have these as one article? There seems to be none in the article at the moment. --LPfi (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)