Talk:Second homes

why no understand section?

Why does this article not have an understand section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Because no-one has added yet? :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I could've bet money on someone replying something like this... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

similar but different - dacha / Schrebergarten

Those tend to have some sort of hut not intended for extended stays and are usually closer to the primary residence. Should they be mentioned? Or are they outside of scope? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think they should. One might want to compare that option to that of a summer cottage. And I've understood datchas can be quite a trip from the ordinary home (while other summer cottages can be near). --LPfi (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

All of the above, and I would have suggested including timeshares, too, except that they have their own article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Second home" section for each country article

I started the Sweden#Vacation homes section with some brief information. Most country articles could use a description of the vacation home market. /Yvwv (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See also Norway#Sleep. /Yvwv (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that the country article is the place for this. If we are to have country specific information, I think that it would be better to put it here, in a country section. The tax situation for second home will be of no interest to most visitors to a country, and some second homes information could just confuse a traveller looking to rent a villa for one week. AlasdairW (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I think the information now in the linked sections does no harm, and serves an Understand function without burdening that section. Expanding them to be useful for those intending to buy would fall under the policy handling long-time rentals, and should indeed be handled here if at all. --LPfi (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically illegal

[moved from User talk:Ground Zero]

I reverted your removal of "technically" from "technically illegal" in the section on Dachas in Second homes. I think that "technically" suggests that ignoring this law is unlikely to cause big issues and that many people ignore it. If I knew more about Dachas I might change it to say that the law is often ignored. However, thanks for your hard work improving the wording in so many articles. AlasdairW (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: In that case, why not say "Some of those expansions may be illegal, but there is likely little consequence of breaking this law", instead of leaving it to the reader to guess what is meant? I don't think we put the readers first when we obscure the meaning. Ground Zero (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is "illegal" and there is "illegal". In some cases stuff may in theory be against some law, but nobody ever gave a damn. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And for the same reason that we discourage the use of "air quotes", we should write what we mean, rather than hint at it. Ground Zero (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made the change I proposed above. Ground Zero (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: please see Wikivoyage:Edit war: "to a consensus. This is what talk pages are for. Explain your position, and explain why you made the change. Say that you're trying to find a way out of the edit war."

Are you willing to "consider a neutral compromise" on this, i.e., use wording other than what I've proposed in order to explain what is meant here? I'm open to other wording. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For another opinion, I think "technically illegal" is fine. While the words taken individually may be clarified, "technically illegal" together is a set phrase with a specific meaning that is widely understood on its own, similar to the meaning spelled out above. I don't think there's much obscurity here for native English speakers. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree—I don't think "technically illegal" is ambiguous, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Are we are only writing for native English-speakers? Or do we think that as the biggest Wikivoyage, we probably attract non-native speakers, too? Given the prevalence on non-natives amongst our contributors, I think we probably have them amongst our readers. Since Wikivoyage is not paper, what is the disadvantage to explaining what we mean? I'm all in favour of deleting filler words that don't add meaning or that repeat what's already been said, but I don't think that's the case here. Ground Zero (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but, while I agree we shouldn't use slang or overly-regional turns of phrase, we can't spell out the meaning of every idiomatic expression or set phrase. If a non-native speaker feels comfortable enough with their level of English to read a travel guide in the language, then they shouldn't be surprised at seeing such an expression, or be averse to looking up what it means. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to do so in this case? Is the article too long or unreadable? Given that it is a topic article, rather than a destination article, I don't think length is an issue. Ground Zero (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got me there. I, personally, don't feel too strongly about this particular instance, as long as we don't make a habit of it. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

[outdent]
We should clarify, but we should avoid specific wording when we do not have the needed information. Writing "little consequence of breaking this law" is problematic when there is no one law and the situation may differ between countries. In this specific context I suppose no one is paying attention to the law for now, but if the government decides they dislike foreign ownership, such "technically illegal" things may be just what they need to fine you and force you out of the property. (I suppose it is typical for less democratic societies to have a lot of ridiculous laws nobody obeys but anybody can be charged for not obeying, perhaps with a twist making it seem you really did something wrong.) --LPfi (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate, I think the "technically illegal" wording is short, concise, unambiguous and better than the wording Ground Zero replaced it with. I'm not sure we got consensus on that yet, but I have yet to hear a convincing counter-argument. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless somebody knows more details about the legal details of dachas, I think that "technically illegal" is a good succinct term. Length is not an issue here, but I think that if we get into the legal details of building an extension, even to a holiday home, we are moving away from writing about travel. AlasdairW (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

LPfi and AlasdairW point out that we don't have much information on the what the laws are. I interpreted "technically illegal" as I understand the phrase, but they seem to think it means something else. Yet Hobbitschuster says it's unambiguous. This discussion has proven the contrary. We should not use ambiguous terms especially when it comes to legal matters.

User:Hobbitschuster: As I wrote above, I am willing to discuss other wording. Would you be willing to consider other wording to find a neutral compromise? Or will you only accept your preferred wording? Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I confused the matters by presenting a second issue. I think something being technically illegal implies nobody cares, but often also that you make yourself vulnerable would somebody mighty enough want to catch you. In any case a clearer wording would be the best way out. --LPfi (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I argue that the current wording is less clear than "technically illegal". Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It is clear to you, but the point is to make it clear to our readers. How about we modify your wording above: "it is illegal, but no one gives a damn about that law". Would that be an acceptable compromise for you (and others)? Ground Zero (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to say that, instead say "It is illegal, but the law is not enforced to date", or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with that version too. Ground Zero (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)