Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 2013-2018

Egregious POVs

Just came over to look- but are POVs welcome here? Railway are 'good value for money' is hardly factual- visitors need to be told that their pricing defies logic are in the main are too expensive for general use. Point out the the Sevenoaks 3200UKP annual ticket that would cost 700UKP in Spain and France- point out thatif you are too old for a Student Card, wait until you are sixty before you travel. Point out that London to Newcastle costs more than London to Edinburgh (though you can then leave the train at Newcastle)- that a ticket from Warrington to Manchester is about 5UKP but for the equivalent distance in the southeast it can be 24UKP.

A lot of work to be done here--ClemRutter (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Our POV is the traveler's point of view. If the information is important for a traveler to know, we want to include it (in a way that fits both our tone and our goals). LtPowers (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. As a constant traveller (sic) with operational fluency in 3 languages, who constantly hosts youngsters from Francophone, Hispanophone countries and Germany- I would be inclined to tell the truth and strip out happy clappy travel mag bloat (as stated ingoals) . The UK rail network is over priced and rips off the inexperienced. Railway are 'good value for money' is hardly factual- visitors need to be told that their pricing defies logic are in the main are too expensive for general use. I am just commenting, as I think VOG: is a great idea but needs to avoid rubbish POVs or it quickly will become ridiculed. I haven't got time to join in as there is so much to do on eng:wiki and commons:, but I can be reached at w:en:User:ClemRutter. Do you want us to drop a {{POV}} when we come across some nonsense- or leave it a few months while it beds down. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we're fairly hands-on here, so we don't have a lot of cleanup templates. We definitely don't have one for POV, because unlike Wikipedia, we encourage editors to take a specific point of view. In fact, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up POV, because it appears you simply disagree with some of the advice currently in the article. Clearly, at some point, someone thought the rail system was indeed a good value; in such a situation, we try to arrive at a consensus wording that would satisfy both those who find value in the pricing scheme and those who believe it's a ripoff. LtPowers (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting the Wikipedia-esque POV discussion aside, claiming rail travel is good value at all in the United Kingdom is simply not true. It isn't, compared to other European nations, so do we agree that the wording should be changed? --SU FC 20:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is affordable, especially if you know the 'tricks of the trade' (booking well in advance, travelling off-peak, using websites such as the Train Line etc, comparing prices on National Rail Enquiries), but there is no way it can be described as good-value for money. It should be stressed that trains are generally quite reliable but that major delays are frequent and hellish to endure and that there are overcrowding problems at peak times. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Leading photo

Am I the only one who thinks that the 'leading image' (of the Houses of Parliament) is a bit unimaginative and bland? Yes, the palace of Westminster is probably the most easily recognisable image of the UK worldwide, and potentially one of the most well-known symbols of anywhere. But I have to admit that I really like the choice on the American page (Mt Rushmore) which is as symbolic of the United States as, say, the Statue of liberty or the Hollywood sign, but somehow a less obvious and more refreshing choice. The leading image of Spain is a wonderful aerial shot of Toledo, a city which I suspect many know little about, but which provides the perfect introduction image for its country's guide.

Would it be out of the question to suggest that this page adopts an equally stunning, but slightly less stereotypical (and perhaps not London-based) landmark, as long as there was a really great photo to use. For example, a cracking photo of Stonehenge looking very mysterious or perhaps one of Britain's more impressive landscapes / castles would be more exciting and unique than the current photo.

Any thoughts on this issue, guys? Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What about a contrasting banner - that might work well? I thought Glastonbury Tor might be a good candidate for this page... :) --Nick (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If there's a decent and suitable photo on the Commons or you can take and upload one yourself, go for it and we can see what it looks like on the page! There are certainly some very pretty pics of the Tor on Google Images.

File:BalmoralCastle1900.jpg? LtPowers (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about using a painting from so long ago. I have had a look on the commons for Stonehenge and there's nothing there that's really leading image material. What about this rather nice photo of Windsor Castle looking down the Long Walk at sunset? And for a banner, possibly something like File:Bath Royal Crescent 2.jpg? Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do like both of those photos and agree that an antique etching is perhaps not the way to go. However, I'm coming round to the thought that the Houses of Parliament should remain the leading photo (but not the banner image). Many people's first thought of the UK is of London and its icons, so it's worthwhile keeping if only to immediately show the traveller where they are. I too, however, would be keen to use the banner to showcase more of this 'green and pleasant land'. --Nick (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a painting (or an antique etching); it's a photograph, colored by the photochrom lithograph process. Have the surroundings changed so much in the last 113 years? Anyway, it doesn't have to be that image; I was thinking mainly of Balmoral Castle in general. That Windsor Castle photo is nice too. LtPowers (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry Powers, my spidey senses are failing me today. :) I've plunged forward and tried a banner with part of Hadrian's Wall to try and get some contrast with the urban scene of parliament. Balmoral is a lovely spot, although I do quite like the idea of using a landscape photo for a real contrast. --Nick (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I really like that new page banner. Very simple and beautiful. And it is much better having a rural scene in the nabber if we're going to keep the main image as it is, or at least keep it depicting a building. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Size, colour & file type of locator image

This edit changed the red and relatively large locator image (of svg file type) that had been on this article for more than 4 months with an inferior, smaller and green (png file type) image.

Can anyone convert the better svg image to a png image, since I understand that a few ancient and sub-standard browsers have difficulty displaying svg images? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank. Although I can't help you with the conversion, I have to say I think the old location map was better because it showed the reader where in Europe the UK is. The current map only shows bits of neighbouring countries and it may not be immediately obvious to non-Europeans on what part of the continent Britain is located. Because of this map, personally I don't think it necessary to have the main image depict the UK any larger. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The goal of that little image is to show readers where the UK is located for those who are unfamiliar. Also, the green is a kind of "house style" that is used on all country pages. If we want to use a different style image, it should be discussed first and then be changed on all country pages in a similar style. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I simply think this map does a better and clearer job of showing the location of the UK, both within Europe and the world. Red, since Victorian times at least, has also been traditionally associated with Britain on maps rather than "Muslim" or "Irish" green. I do appreciate that this a highly subjective judgement though. Why does Wikipedia prefer the svg type? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we aren't going to start customizing the color per country, so it's red for everyone or green for everyone, nationalist loyalties aside. However, my main objection to the red theme is that the projection looks very strange to me, compressed north-south compared to east-west. LtPowers (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed briefly here. I also dislike the red colourful SVGs, but would prefer to see a monochrome-styled SVG. Either way, maybe this should be discussed later, as some are now proposing removing locator maps and quickbars completely. James A ▪ talk 13:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the discussion on removing them completely? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bottom of that page. James A ▪ talk 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

tuppence and thruppence

Seriously, does anyone in the UK still refer to 'tuppence' and 'thruppence'? (Perhaps older people in Yorskshire) Also there isn't really much you can buy anymore for 2p or 3p so I therefore believe this is redundant information. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have heard "tuppence" used to mean 'a cost that is very cheap' (in a similar way to "pittance" --> "How much did that cost you?" / "Ah, tuppence / pittance; it was really cheap") but no it isn't often you hear anyone use "tuppence" or "thruppence" (or as my Liverpudlian grandad would say "thrippence") to refer to actual denominations of money. Even so-called 'penny sweets' cost at least 5p nowadays, so it's hard to see what occasions would arise where a traveller is exposed to such language, apart from the example I illustrated above. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I do occasionally say "tuppence", usually metaphorically, but have heard it also refer to the 2p coin. Thruppence makes me think of the 3d coin which disappeared with decimalisation in the 1970s, and I have not heard it for a while. As these things are only heard occasionally, and would be explained if necessary to a traveller, I don't see any harm in removing them. AlasdairW (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the comments! (The collaborative approach seems to slipping somewhat in recent edits in WV) I'll remove these terms. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Petrol Stations

Just to preempt an edit war, I have used the word 'petrol station' to describe a place where one can purchase and fill gasoline for a car. I have placed an alternative tag to indicate that it has the same meaning as 'Gas station' (in the US) and 'Filling station' (in Australia/NZ). The biggest chain (Esso, part of Exxon) refers to them as Petrol Stations. http://www.essofuelfinder.com/en-gb/locator Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope "edit war" is an overly dramatic name from what I hope will be a friendly and collegiate exchange of views, Andrew.

No native speaker of any of the varieties of English is likely to be confused or puzzled by either petrol station, gas station or filling station.

However, my personal preference is for "filling station" since

i) gas station is a tad US oriented (although all people who've been in the UK for any length of time, understand most Americanisms)

ii) many filling stations in the UK don't just pump petrol, but diesel and LPG as well. --118.93.239.53 05:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No dramatist intended. Just we went from Fuel->Petrol->Filling in quick succession.

Although everyone has preferences, I would still go with 'Petrol Station' since that is the foremost term that you would actually use in the United Kingdom. I'm from a remote part of that country and you'd probably get blank stares when asking for a filling or gas station.

Just to address the second point, I often drive diesel cars in the UK and still head to the petrol station. It is just a general term rather than a description of services provided. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the <abbr> tag is a good way to go, Andrew, but, just to cure my curiosity, what's the "remote part" of the UK where you think "you'd probably get blank stares when asking for a filling or gas station", please? --118.93.239.53 05:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't identify my own region, however I did visit the west coast of Wales this year and believe this to be a similar case. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting

I am concerned to see a large section on voting in the UK below. since WV is a guide for travelers rather than expatriates, can we remove this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to be British to vote in the UK! British, Irish, EU and qualifying Commonwealth citizens aged 18 or over can register to vote in UK elections in the electorate where they reside with a 'considerable degree of permanence'. This means that those who, for example, go to the UK to study or spend their gap year can register to vote, but not those who visit the UK on a short holiday. A 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen' is a national of a Commonwealth country/territory (including Fiji, Zimbabwe, the whole of Cyprus and British Nationals (Overseas) from Hong Kong) who has any type of leave to enter or remain in the UK on the date of his/her electoral registration application. Students are specifically permitted to register to vote at both their home and term-time addresses. British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote in all UK elections, whilst other EU citizens can vote in all elections except for UK Parliamentary elections. You can still register to vote in the UK even if you are already registered to vote in another country. You may be unable to open a bank account or apply for a mobile phone contract if you are not on the electoral roll. Register to vote at the Electoral Commission's website.

My first reaction would be to agree, but there are a hell of a lot of travellers that do use the UK as a base for two or three year trips - I'm particularly thinking of youngsters from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa on their OE's here... --118.93.239.53 05:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also kind of interesting. Do you feel that the article is getting too long? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do feel the article is getting too long (and that some contributors are dedicated to continually feeding non relevant trivia). Also this section does cross the line between information relevant to the traveler and is targeted squarely at UK residents. If however it is considered of value then I won't push for its deletion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree the infobox contents are interesting, and the sort of detail that would enrich the cultural understanding of an overseas visitor to the UK. However, I would support eliminating the bullets about student votes, opening a bank account or signing up for a mobile phone contract (which you can't do without a UK bank account or credit card anyway), and the Electoral Commission weblink. You don't have to be on the electoral roll to open a bank account, but you do have to prove residency with a photo ID, tenancy agreement and/or utility bill, so the issue is not really relevant to travellers. Jnich99 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What about for overseas students, for whom Wikivoyage specifically caters in the 'study' section? It seems likely that any student (from one of the qualifying countries) who spends any longer than a single semester in the UK would be eligible to vote here. With that in mind, I'd support keeping the infobox and specifically information catering to students. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Learn section does not cater to long-term students. It is supposed to contain only short courses (typically no longer than 3 months, max) that are available to any traveller (i.e. without need for a formal admissions process, etc.), things a traveller might do without actually settling. I think the infobox is an interesting bit of trivia, but could probably be distilled down to a sentence or possible two, with a link to the official site for more info. Texugo (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Texugo, although the contents of the 'learn' section of this page and that of the United States would appear to contradict you. What's more, I've struggled to find any official guidance on what exactly goes in the 'learn' section beyond the following. If you know of a page that gives more helpful information, I'd be interested in reading it. However, as I'm aware this is now going off-topic, I am happy for this discussion to be moved elsewhere if it's something anybody wants to discuss further.

Returning to the topic at hand, I would now be happy to see all but the most basic details removed and the appropriate external links provided. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically inaccurate revert

this edit changed

Eventually the United Kingdom agreed to grant self-government as the Irish Free State in 1922, with six of the northern counties without an overwhelmingly Catholic majority remaining part of the UK as Northern Ireland. The Irish Free State eventually severed all ties as the Republic of Ireland in 1949
(for which the edit summary was " the Free State was granted full legislative independence by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Last vestiges of monarchy removed on Easter Monday, 18 April 1949 by Act No. 22 of 1948")
to

Eventually the United Kingdom agreed to grant self-government as the Irish Free State in 1922, with the (largely Protestant) counties that today comprise Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. The Irish Free state eventually became independent as the Republic of Ireland in 1949.

In a travel guide, the historical detail is not so important, but I do believe that it should be accurate.

Few historians, if any would think that the Irish Free State was not truly independent in all but the formal and largely symbolic monarchical links by 1931. If it was not independent (to the same degree that the Philippines is ïndependent from the US today), why do you think that neutral Ireland was refuelling German U-boats during the whole period of the UK's death struggle with Germany 1939-1945? --118.93.239.53 03:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually regretting my original edit now. I agree that Ireland was de-facto independent by 1931, although I'd recommend reading some of Frank's contributions to Talk:Northern_Ireland#Citizenship to see how messy this can become for the sake of complete accuracy. (That incident led to ban nominations and indirectly the resignation of some admins)

I believe that WV is actually not the best place to write this information. Ideally we could link to the relevant section in Wikipedia, although this is currently against policy. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree - but until that policy changes we're lumbered with having potted history versions in the country level articles. That being so, I also don't think the later version in red above gives sufficient weight to the historical fact that, at the time of the partition, most of County Fermanagh, County Tyrone, South Londonderry, South Armagh and South Down, and the City of Derry were largely nationalist rather than "largely Protestant". --118.93nzp (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the second set of words could be slightly refined by removing "independent as", giving "The Irish Free state eventually became the Republic of Ireland in 1949." This removes the suggestion that the big change was in 1949. AlasdairW (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you are among those few users who fail to distinguish between a reversion and a change. Please, if the original text is incorrect, feel free to fix it, but try to address the objections I laid out as well. LtPowers (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

British or American quotation marks

The inconsistency in punctuation in this article bugs me. I'd be happy to go through and fix it, but I just read Wikivoyage:Spelling and aside from saying it should use "British English", it doesn't say anything about punctuation. I'm told single quotes are more common in British English, but it seems many are just as comfortable with double quotes.

As soon as someone can clarify this for me, I'll get to work fixing it up. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware double quotes are reserved for direct quotations, e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question" said Hamlet. A single quote's use seems a bit more ambiguous but it kind of means 'what are known as'. So for example, I think the line "The Isle of Man and the various Channel Islands are "crown dependencies", governing themselves..." (from the lead) should have 'crown dependencies' in single quotes. Those are my rules anyway, I don't know if an English grammarian could maybe correct me; but it seems I know French grammar better than I know that of my native language. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny. I guess I'm not aware of current British practice. When I went to two years of primary school in Malaysia, we were taught to always use inverted commas (single quotes) for quotations, with double quotes reserved for quotes within quotes (US practice is precisely the reverse). This instruction was undoubtedly a continuation of British practice from before Malaysian independence in 1957 (I was in Malaysia from 1975-77). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As a British person, I'm not too familiar with the single quote usage. Perhaps it is something that fell out of use some time ago? Looking at the lead article from today's Guardian newspaper (A British newspaper with an international audience):

One 2010 presentation referring to the agency's efforts against GRXs went on to note that "diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO [modus operandi] of using smartphones" and added the agency had "exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year".

I'd say double quotes are really fine. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As a Brit, I've always learnt that quotation marks should be used in the way that Ikan describes, although they are steadily becoming largely interchangeable. Personally (and I don't really know why) I tend to use single marks for written sources and double for others. We probably shouldn't get too bogged down in this, but if we can come up with a simple conclusion, it's probably worth deciding on. --Nick ^talk 20:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think, then, this is one of those cases where we should be consistent across the site. Just use double quotation marks for everything, or perhaps everything except short words qua words (though we tend to use italics for those instead). Powers ^(talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we could do a lot worse than to follow the Economist's style guide: http://www.economist.com/style-guide/inverted-commas-quotation-marks

This style guide has at least three advantages:

1) it's available on-line without payment or subscription

2) it's well written and reasonably comprehensive

3) although the Economist began in Britain, it is widely sold and read in North America and by the educated elite in many other parts of the world and tends to be quite modern and up-to-date in its outlook... --118.93.237.66 04:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems like quite a good guide. For any instances when we currently use single marks, for example when the name for a local food or custom is written (e.g. "The little wooden ball used in the game of 'pétanque', called the 'cochonnet', should be used as a target for the larger 'boules'."), the word should be italicised instead (i.e. "The little wooded ball used in the game of pétanque, called the cochonnet, should be used as a target for the larger boules.") --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"mL" is our standard abbreviation for millilitre(s)

to avoid a perceived confusion with the figure 1 (one) and the lower case l (el) - although I do appreciate it is less commonly seen in the UK.

This convention is according to Wikivoyage:Units#Fluid_volume where it states: "(In order to avoid confusion with the numeral 1 and letter l, L is always capitalized when used as an abbreviation for litre.)" --210.246.47.134 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Book reference in Respect?

An anonymous user removed the following text without explanation:

"For more details on unwritten rules concerning greetings, addressing others, small talk ,etc, read Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour by Kate Fox."

It was returned (rightly) by the ever vigilant User:118.93nzp.

I'm not completely sure on the policy for referencing books, although I rarely see this happening elsewhere on WV. I even believe we discourage media references (such as films and books). Additionally I don't think a traveler browsing this page is going to spend time hunting down this book on Amazon. Thoughts? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Some books about a destination can be recommended in a Read section, but using one as a reference to avoid putting the content in our own guide is no better than linking to an external site. Powers ^(talk) 17:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those who approve of Tim's Big Idea: an interconnected web of knowledge worldwide. I do think there is a level of detail beyond which the majority of travellers will not be interested. If we really think the print version is important, then it's better to signal where further information can be found and whether that's in an on-line hyperlink to Wikipedia or giving a recommendation to trot down to the local library or book store is a judgement call. I've edited our article to use the usual markup for an ISBN. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually UK isn't the only country article with book tips. I've stumbled upon it on many occasions in Asian articles like: China#Books, South_Korea#Books, India#Suggested_reading, Japan#Further_reading, Philippines#Books - probably there are a few more of them. I don't think book tips are that useful - we could definitely do without them, but of course if people want to have them here for tradition's sake it doesn't do any harm to keep them either. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Read is our standard section header name, and it's a subsection of Understand; those should all be changed (I got China). Powers ^(talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually China used to have a long list of books that were for the most part historical (up to WW2) and a massive list of films (again all historical). It was agreed to cut them down.

I view the 'Read' section as throw back to the printed Lonely Planet books that did contain such sections. (Anyway if you are visiting a book store then why not refer to other dead tree references?) I'm not against having a Read section as such, just don't really want to encourage long lists of peoples favorite literature. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You can check out Chicago#Literature or Walt Disney World#Read for examples of good Read sections. (Never mind that Chicago's section is titled wrong. I think it was put in before we standardized on Read and no one picked it up.) Powers ^(talk) 18:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Food pictures

I extend my thanks to User:Simon Peter Hughes for the fine contributions to the article he's made recently. I absolutely think having pictures of regional delicacies is a great idea.

However, I am slightly concerned by how they look as a whole. Six yellowish foodstuffs in a row looks slightly unappealing, and (in my personal view) doesn't do much to dispel the notion that British food is bland and crap. I know our traditional cuisine isn't the most colourful, but perhaps we can come up with at least one differently-coloured mealǃ

Just in general terms, the curry photo looks to me of a much better quality than, say, the deep fried Mars bar, so I am not sold on the all of the images' quality.

Any thoughts on this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

They are awfully yellow aren't they? And I think the deep-fried Mars bar photo looks pretty disgusting, to be honest. The curry pic is definitely the best of the bunch. Choosing some more colorful foods would be an improvement, I'd say, but I am not knowledgeable on the subject. Texugo (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Trust the Scottish to take a chocolate bar, dunk it in batter and then decide it's worthy of being part of their national cuisine :) The Mars bar will no doubt be of interest to the traveller, for sheer quirkiness, but having a photo of it is probably going too farǃ Perhaps smoked salmon or breakfast kippers would be a better choice to represent Scotland's less gluttonous side.

I notice the Wales page has a rather nice-looking picture of Welsh cakes, shame they got there first. Roast lamb is a very Welsh meal, so a photo of that, along with an assortment of (different colouredǃ) vegetables would be a good replacement. And since Stilton is a blue cheese, an image of that may look better than the homogenous block of Wensleydale.

Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mars bar photo added to Scotland#Eat!

Something with more vegetables would not hurt and I agree we should have something representing each of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and maybe also the Channel Islands etc. On the other hand I'd really like to keep a photo of fish and chips - the current one or another (better?) one.

Looking at the list of dishes mentioned in the article, most of them are yellow, or brown (I think) and I cannot come to think of other dishes from Britain. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the fish and chips picture with a more colorful and (I think) more appealing picture with mushy peas to lend some more color. Never been to the UK, but my parents just got back from their first trip to Scotland and England, and their main impression of the food seemed to be that everything comes with mushy peas. Texugo (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the cheese picture to Blue Stilton, which is slightly less bland looking. I did wonder about changing it to Sage Derby which is green and white, but it is not a cheese which I see often. I think that the deep fried mars bar could be removed, as only a few chip shops in Scotland sell it (and maybe the text could also go). AlasdairW (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes, AlasdairW. That's a definite improvement --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the pictures do look better now. I was disappointed to find that Wikimedia Commons didn't have a picture that showed a variety of different British cheeses. That would have been more colourful. I suppose not including any pictures with vegetables was my personal prejudice! At least the pictures I added to the French version of this article don't look quite so bland, I think. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bien au contraire, ils me semblent goûteux ː) Nice to know you approve of our changes here too, Simonǃ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential Scottish Independance

There will be a vote on Scottish Independence on September 18th, and it is looking to be a close run thing.

In the event of a 'Yes' vote, I foresee a lot of (probably anonymous IP addresses) coming here to change the region right away.

Since a vote for independence will not actually result in independence straight away (it will take a couple of years of negotiations and planning), can I propose to keep the region hierarchy of the United Kingdom until such time that Scotland is officially no longer part of the United Kingdom?

I think this is the most accurate way of doing things from a traveller's perspective Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Obviously, a note should be added to the Scotland and United Kingdom articles in case of a vote for independence, but the hierarchy shouldn't be changed until independence is actually attained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In the event of a 'Yes' vote, the provisional date for independence is 24 March 2016, but the date might be changed as negotiations proceed. We should not make major changes to Scotland or United Kingdom straight away. AlasdairW (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"I foresee a lot of (probably anonymous IP addresses) coming here to change the region right away." - Perhaps an edit notice, like those ones that say "don't add more than 9 cities here (or else)", would be in order. Just a simple thing outlining the 'wait until independence day' position we appear to be agreeing on at the moment.

Thanks to Andrewssi2 for thinking ahead. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, the hierarchy should not be changed until things actually change for the traveller on the ground, with regard to the effective authority dealing with visas/customs/etc. Texugo (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the above. This seems a very sensible way to deal with a potentially contentious issue. In the event of a 'yes' vote, we can decide on how to deal with the split in greater detail. --Nick ^talk 01:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Lead

Hello, Wikivoyagers! You will see that I have moved all the information about the formation of the United Kingdom and its context within the British Isles that was in the lead to a new section at the top of 'Understand'. My reasoning? Simply it is my belief that such a long-winded explanation does nothing to quickly 'sell' the UK as a destination for tourism and so does not belong in the lead. Being aware that this decision might be unpopular, I decided to plunge forward regardless in full knowledge that you are all free to protest and revert if necessary.

On a related note, I do think there should be more content in the article's lead but it should be of the "Hey, come see what we've got going on in Britain!" variety rather than a lecture about our confusing geographical and administrative structure. I plan to write the additions to the lead myself, which I will happily post the draft of here before publishing, should you guys desire it. Have a fabulous evening / day, wherever you are --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My version - please comment

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the United Kingdom or the UK) is a constitutional monarchy comprising most of the British Isles. It is a political union of four nations: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, each of which has something unique and exciting to offer the traveller while remaining undeniably British.

The UK is a diverse patchwork of native and immigrant cultures, possessing both a fascinating history and dynamic modern offerings. This is a country known for its eccentric and subversive popular culture, its creation of five major sports (golf, rugby, cricket, lawn tennis and, of course, football) and for having a music scene that is arguably the best in the world. Witness thousands of years of history, wherever you are. Stone circles, castles, thatched cottages and palaces; in these islands the past is truly on display.

The capital and largest city is London, a truly global metropolis like no other, and the country’s other cities are equally charming and inviting. To understand their sheer diversity, compare genteel Oxford with brooding Edinburgh, sports-mad Cardiff or newly thriving Belfast, while remembering these are but the tip of the iceberg. Although Britannia no longer rules the waves, it continues to be hugely influential in the wider world and welcomes over 30 million visitors to its shores each year.

Whether you wish to walk in the steps of giants in Antrim, to immerse yourself in Celtic culture at Eisteddfod, to pound the streets of an English urban jungle, to climb, ski or snowboard Cairngorms-style or simply to dream of having tea with the Queen, there is something for everyone in the United Kingdom."

Your thoughts, criticisms and suggestions are welcome and encouraged. If there are no comments after 24 hours I'll go ahead and publish. Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing colour coded region maps

After discussion of the West Country region map, it became apparent that most of the maps in the UK are basically using different shades of the same colour.

existing west country map

This isn't great because it is hard for people with colour blindness or poor eyesight to map region to region description.

My eyesight is fine and even I couldn't easily tell what belonged to what.

If we fix this it should be for every map in the UK. Does anyone object to changing the current convention of using shade variations of the same colour? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ireland and Northern Ireland are deliberately all-green for obvious reasons. =) I admit I like the single-color aesthetic and would hate to lose it, but I acknowledge concerns about usability for those with poor color vision. I personally had no problem matching the colors (and do note that the regions are labeled on the maps) but I understand not everyone can say the same. Powers ^(talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What happens if these are sent to a monochrome printer? K7L (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the current scheme lends itself better to greyscale print output? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have objections to changing the colours of the maps. I like the style of the maps but the use of dark saturated colours makes it hard to read and see the details at times. Although if we're trying to make the maps more useable for readers with poor eyesight or colour blindness, I think making sure each region is labeled and has distinctive borders, and ensuring text has sufficient contrast with its background (along the lines of the WCAG guidelines), will do more to enhance usability. From the little I know of colour blindness, I think our colour-coded maps will be difficult to read whether drawn with our standard template or in the style of the UK maps. -Shaundd (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that the argument for replacing shades with colours is not quite as clear cut as I had thought. I guess that is why it always good to ask for comment :)

That said, I'm not sure where to take the discussion now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think someone could update the colours on the map to make it more readable, although it would look out of style compared to the other UK maps. The East Midlands map is particularly bad, too.

I've been tinkering with map design in most of the maps I've drawn in the past year or so (in part) to work on ideas to improve their readability for readers who have poorer eyesight (it's why they're not strictly Wikivoyage standard). I don't have a final proposal yet but at some point I plan to raise it at Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition. -Shaundd (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Get around by car

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for putting 'by car' (which must be the second most popular way for visitors to get around after the train) right at the bottom of the section. I think the reason given by User:Vadp was to reduce clutter, but I don't see that it's made much difference. Wouldn't it make more logical sense to order the section from most to least used form of transport, just like 'Get In' is? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

By car section here is a rather bulk of text which was located amidst the ways of public transportation. For a traveler who uses a public transportation it is easier to assess all the options if they listed in a contiguous sequence. By no means a car is disregarded as an option for a traveler, it's just quite a different thing. Perhaps this section is too large, esp. taking into account that there is a special page dedicated to this matter: Driving in the UK. Would it be better to move it just before By bicycle? BTW for the same reason By train section perhaps is too verbose as well. --Vadp (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, your logic does make a kind of sense. It might be good if some other editors could wade in on this. One thing I would say is that a lot of good articles' longest sections are get in and get around. And it's still silly to have 'by plane' at the top. Very few people use internal flights except for reaching connecting flights at other UK airports (usually Heathrow or Manchester). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it probably makes sense to put By car near the bottom of the section, as it is an obvious means of getting around. Somebody who knows nothing about the country should be told about the other options (which they might not have considered) first. I agree that By car and By train should be trimmed as there are topics that cover the details. By car should probably come before By motorcycle. The section also might benefit from a paragraph at the start summarising the options, relative costs and pros & cons. I see no objection to by plane being near the top, as it is something to think about before you book your flight to the UK, because BA domestic flights don't cost much when added to a long haul flight ticket. AlasdairW (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, I hadn't thought about it like that. Thinking of other ways to get around the huge walls of text that make up the get in and get around sections, is there any scope for having tables contents for very long sections like this one? Or at least in the summary of transport options, have each option linked to the relevant subsection. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed "By car" now follows public transportation, then "By motorcycle", then "By bike". BTW these 3 ones could be considered as one class: private means of transportation. This way the rest ones — "By plane", "By train", etc. — would make another class. Incidentally taxies in this way could be counted as a public albeit personal mean of transportation. As to the ordering then we'd say that "By plane" is relatively larger scale transportation, while "By foot" is a smaller scale transportation — hence the order of subsections there. How is about that? --Vadp (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, Vadp ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait: There's an inflexible standard order of transportation methods in our guides? I've never heard there was. Where was this discussed, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem if there is some compulsory order established already. Still, I think there is some sense in my reasoning --Vadp (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"'Get in' sections should have a subsection for each of the major modes of transportation used to get to the destination, in order by prominence." Of course, I wrote that text myself, and I don't remember where I got the notion from. But it came from somewhere, even if it was just my perception of current practice. Powers ^(talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I got it from the article templates. For example, here's Wikivoyage:Big city article template: "Try to order the sections from the most common and convenient to the rarest and most inconvenient." Powers ^(talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense and serves the traveller well. Vadp, sorry for misreading what you wrote above. You meant that you had already discussed the order used in this article in particular. And whatever all of you agreed on is fine with me! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] Tangentially related: Are we using "By coach" here, uniquely, because Brits don't say "bus"? You don't at all? I thought that people took double-decker buses, not double-decker coaches, in London. "Coach" is only for long-distance bus? (By the way, in another instance of being "divided by a common language: If we Americans use the word "coach" at all for any form of transportation, we would probably mean a train car.) I'm under the impression that "By bus" is in fact a site-wide standard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be reasonable to some extent to follow native parlance. At least a reader would learn what does it mean there, so "in the field" no-one would expect to see a train car. As a matter of curiosity, in OSM they do make some distinction between buses and coaches. --Vadp (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW Which one would be correct: "By tube", "By underground", "By subway" or "By metro"? -- Vadp (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In London "By tube" or more formally "By underground", in Glasgow "By subway" and in Tyne and Wear (Newcastle) "By metro". If talking about all the networks together "By underground" might be best, adding "and tram" if necessary. AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For this article, I wouldn't have thought local rapid transit systems would be relevant, as they aid you getting around a particular city, rather than the country. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Re "coach", it's most often used in America as a description of a class of service on airlines or trains. But its UK usage is reflected in the fairly common American term "motorcoach", which refers to the type of bus normally contracted by large groups traveling together. Powers ^(talk) 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

To me a "coach" suggests a more comfortable vehicle than a "bus". Long distance services like National Express and Citylink use the term coach, and tend to have vehicles with reclining seats and luggage is stowed underneath. Usually you can book a seat on a coach. A "bus" is used on shorter stopping services, like in a city and usually cannot be reserved, but you may be able to stand on a bus if it is full (many coaches are not certified for standing). To some extent the terms are used interchangeably, particularly referring to a coach as a bus. (Trains have carriages.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Coaches are usually for long distance travel, the term originating from the horsedrawn stagecoaches which were the earliest form of mass transit. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I'm wondering now whether we should divide up the articles that have "By bus" and "By coach" sections on the basis of the relative prevalence of American and British English throughout the world. One issue is that I think all English speakers will understand "By bus", but "By coach" might not be clear to some English speakers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters that much. I only changed it here because I was doing something else in the section, and having a (UK English: coach) qualifier seemed somewhat absurd. Getting around countries will always be done by what Britons call a coach, whereas getting around regions and cities would be most likely done by what we call a bus (i.e. local services). There shouldn't be too much overlap. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If only one article is at issue, I'm not concerned about that. After all, whoever plans to go to the United Kingdom needs to be familiar with some basic British terms, anyway. However, there's been at least one user who's been "correcting" bus to coach in articles about places like Thai cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well in that situation, why should there be a preference for either term? After all, Thailand is not English-speaking, it doesn't matter what variety of English is used as long as it's consistent. But if the terminology is causing confusion, there's no reason why a (UK English: coach) qualifier couldn't be used to aid understanding --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why Thailand would favor one form of English over another has been a very long discussion. On the whole, I agree with you, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As I knew it would be :) But since I wasn't there, I just decided to say what I really believed --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Get around by train

I've squeezed a bit this section for the sake of better readability, as more info available at Rail travel in Great Britain --Vadp (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistency of usage

Swept in from the pub

Hi

I have just watched the change at [1] and tried taking in the explanation, with an as open understanding and appreciation of the complaint as possible...

Then I check back with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles, which I read a couple of times in case I am not missing something

Then when one checks United Kingdom it would appear that UK and GB are in many cases interchanged without much system to it...

Then I check back with the Rail Article in question itself to look at usage:

• Title: GB
• First Para: UK
• Second Para: Britain
• Third Para: UK
• Fourth Para: -
• Fifth Para: GB
• Sixth Para: B
• Seventh Para: GB
• Eighth Para: B

I am of the opinion we should in Wikivoyage have a sense that we are providing a consistent usage of terminology and appropriate words, and am wondering if what I preceive as a very mixed message, is in actual fact one, or am I missing something?

As an Australian wikipedian first (in Australia various terminologies are fast changing due to non-english speakers as travellers or new citizens doing quite amazing things to some usages that change, literally in front of us as we watch/listen), I am aware that non english speakers might have something entrenched in their specific language of origin have a specific skewed version of whether GB or UK works in their specific context, fair enough, but for a general appreciation of where we come from, as a baseline - do we go for some usage inclination that might not be the usually accepted, or do we concede it is too hard and have a hat note, or disclaimer of some sort? I know that on wp:en we have editors who would proceed to turn this specific issue into a Tolstoyan novel that takes 1gb space over the two terms - I am hoping we can keep this one short and sweet.

Are they freely interchangable terms/acronyms or should they be considered separate, or is one editors version of what the rail travel article should be ok as it is? Thanks for any clarity from anyone JarrahTree (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

They are indeed different. Great Britain refers to the island (so just England, Scotland and Wales), while the United Kingdom is the country (the above plus Northern Island). If the article is named Rail Travel in Great Britain now, then all the terminology within should be changed to match that. James A ▪ talk 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The difference James notes is correct, though "Britain" (and to a lesser extent "Great Britain") is frequently used as a synonym for the UK as a whole in everyday speech. British politicians in particular seem to always refer to "Britain", and only rarely to "the United Kingdom", unless ina more formal context. So I would say the "United Kingdom", "UK" and "Britain" are all fine to use for the country, while "Great Britain" should only be used to talk about the island, or when talking about history, the country which existed in the 18th century. The country's official tourist site should also be noted: it's called "Visit Britain" and it's long-standing slogan refers to "GREAT Britain". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Airports

Hi guys, just a little explanation over what I've been doing with the airports list.

I have moved the 'big 3' (Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester) to the top, followed by an alphabetical list of the other major airports (going by the top 15 here), which has involved the 'promotion' of Aberdeen, Belfast Intl, East Midlands, Glasgow Intl and Liverpool, and the demotion of Southend. I've also brought Cardiff into the main list so all four nations are represented, and removed the Channel Islands and Isle of Man airports because those destinations are covered elsewhere.

The 'minor airports' list is now looking a bit of a mess. Three ways of dealing with this problem are: alphabetising it completely, sorting the airports by region, or removing the list altogether. I favour the latter two options over alphabetising. In truth, I question the need to have lots of regional airports on a country-level article, especially when most of those airports mainly cater for British holidaymakers heading to the Med, but if consensus is that they remain, it might be better to have one bullet point per region (so e.g. Leeds Bradford, Robin Hood and Humberside would be grouped together as Yorkshire airports).

What do you think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say let's remove the smaller airports. Also, the section of larger airports could perhaps be turned into something like Germany#By_plane. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

An improvement. I would say if there is no scheduled international flights to the airport (exclude the chartered holiday flights) then the airport should only be listed on the local region page not the country page. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Related topic. East Midlands Airport has been treated the same as Hahn airport, basically the dominate part of the article on the nearby town. Do you want to link to the Wikivoyage article on Castle Donington rather than straight to the external airport page?

I actually just got rid of the Castle Donington link, because I didn't pay close attention to the contents of that article! By all means reinstate it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Germany article looks like a good model to follow. Overally, I think prose is preferable to bulleted lists.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's do this!

I've finally got around to rewriting this section, almost from scratch. In the above conversation we wanted there to be fewer airports and for the section to employ prose instead of lists, and I have done just that, leaning heavily on the Germany article for inspiration. So basically, the number of airports mentioned has been cut drastically, and most information specific to only one airport has been taken out. If any of you guys are still interested in this topic, have a read and let us know what you think. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Coinage

I've just added a note to the "money" section to point out that the new £1 will be introduced in March 2017 (1.4 billion of them currently being minted!), and the old coins will be withdrawn after 6 months, as a gentle hint to visitors not to hang on to their old coins. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Arwel Parry (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Found this site on MSA's

http://www.motorwayservices.info/ Thought I'd post on the talk page first. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, ShakespeareFan00. May I ask, what application of that website do you envisage for Wikivoyage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I was wonderinf if it was reasonable to link it, given it sees to give reviews.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid. What not to link to does not explicitly mention review sites, but as you can see, links to any form of third-party sites are in general frowned upon. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Thanks. Based on personal experience though, some Motorway services are ones to avoid as the article mentions :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Having just spent some time driving around the UK what I would have appreciated would have been something like the Interstate 5 article for Motorways like the M1, M11, M3 and M4. Not just short reviews of service stations but recommended inns, supermarkets and food stops just off motorway junctions. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

An article was created on the M5 motorway, but that was deleted. The article probably did get off to a bad start with construction detail etc, but it could have been kept for the service station listings. See Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2013. Although we can't link to it, is is worth mentioning w:List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom, as many service stations have WP articles. AlasdairW (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 and Traveler100 make good points. Perhaps we could make a version of that website on here without overly relying on reviews but just putting useful and interests points of call along a motorway. Could they not follow an itinerary template?

Slightly less 'radical', would it not be at least worth mentioning - perhaps on Driving in the UK - a few of the service stations that are considered the 'best' (by whatever criteria used on the site) as featured on the review site found by ShakespeareFan00? Perhaps those that offer a slightly better experience than the awful average. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Like Tebay, run by Westmorland , and which is a GEM, and about the onyl MSA in the UK that has a Farm Shop, Operators site here- http://www.tebayservices.com/ :XD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a thick question, what's a "GEM" (I assume MSA is a services) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

GEM in this context is a British expression meaning " a site or service that is worth remembering about".ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so a "gem". I was looking at it as G.E.M, but thanks. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new article about food on the go? (aka Transport catering) of which Motorway Service areas are just one aspect. I will consider adding to a page if people have one, but my experience of "transport catering" is somewhat old.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thought would be for someone that's UK based to consider looking over the reports a publication "Which?" did into Motorway Services a while back, but given your comments previously, I appreicate this site works differently from Wikipedia. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are only 3 service stations worth mentioning: Tebay, Gloucester (also run by Westmorland) and Killington Lake (better than usual services in a very nice setting). Otherwise they provide free toilets, expensive petrol (compared to supermarkets) and standard fast food. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There actually is an article about motorway service stations; Truck stops. Also, the Driving in the UK article can be a good place to put general information about this topic, and if there are only a few places worth mentioning they can probably be mentioned there too. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Will the Brexit have travel consequences?

Swept in from the pub

Now I don't want to start a political debate here, but I think it is fair to say that the Brexit came as a surprise to many. If I read the news correctly, it could well take as much as two years until the UK actually legally leaves the EU and Britain never having been a member of Schengen or the Euro already reduces the impact on things we cover in our articles somewhat, but what other consequences will there be? Does the Brexit mean duty free shops on both sides of the Channel Tunnel? Will there be a different border regime? What about the "work" section of the United Kingdom article? I hope that within the next weeks and months we can get answers and integrate them into our articles to keep the coverage up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

All good questions, but we are in unchartered waters and nobody knows what the outcome will be at the end.

There is currently free movement of EU citizens into non-Schengen countries such as the UK, and that is something that could potentially change (i.e. more formal passport controls than there are today). Quite likely there won't be a UK to 'get in' to anymore, but rather an independent England physically surrounded by EU countries. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The most immediate effect for travellers is on the exchange rate. According to the BBC (link may only work for UK readers) the pound was worth US$1.50 just after the polls closed last night (10pm) when commentators were predicting a "remain" vote, then fell sharply after that reaching a low of $1.33 at 5.28am. I expect that there will be further unpredictable (to the traveller) swings over the coming months. The movements may be increased by political uncertainty (another referendum in Scotland?, new Prime Minister etc). It will probably be more than 2 years before the UK actually leaves the EU (there is a 2 year period for negotiations, which starts when formal notice is served). AlasdairW (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

For now I guess we could only put up a box warning of increased incidence of Boris in the media and perhaps advisory to travellers that his is not a hairstyle normally found acceptable in most circumstances in the UK. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"If approached by a Boris in the wild, identifiable by its manic behavior and shaggy blonde covering, drop to a fetal position and cover your head until the Boris tires and retreats to a safe distance." PerryPlanet (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Americans will still want to travel to the UK because the Boris bouffant is not as bad as the Donald 'do. Nurg (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So considering it is a cheaper time to visit the UK how about a new Collaboration of the Month: Wikivoyage:England Expedition or Wikivoyage:Wales Expedition? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Along the lines of "get there before it becomes impossible"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand what this is about, it is a dislike of controls from Brussels and uncontrolled unskilled immigration. Many people from EU counties visit non EU countries, UK will become one more on this list. And anyway there is already passport control into mainland UK no matter where you come from. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is/was open and has been for some time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

yes it is, that's why I said mainland. But that may have to change, will have to see what is negotiated. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So to ask again, how was travel from Dublin to Belfast, from Dublin to London and from Belfast to London treated until now and how may it be treated if and when the UK (including Northern Ireland) leaves the EU? What if due to some convoluted reasons the UK leaves but decides to treat the land border different from its sea borders? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The UK and RI have had a separate arrangement on simplified border procedures and common ones for those arriving from the mainland longer than many of the current European treaties, essentially ever since Ireland became an independent country. Moreover, British and Irish citizens are not treated as foreigners in either country - it was first a legacy of the previous legal arrangements pertaining to both being parts of the same country, and later actually expressly legalized. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So in essence the two countries had what could - for lack of a better term - be described as a "mini Schengen" that is of course separate and mutually exclusive to the Schengen treaty and different in some details. However, given that one of the main driving forces behind the leave campaign seems to have been to get rid of EU rules for free movement of people, it may become more difficult to move from Ireland (EU) to Northern Ireland (soon not to be EU) and work there for example. As of June 1st Irish people could work in London just like English people, right? I cannot even imagine what happens if that changes, not least because of the sheer amount of people possibly affected by this and the very delicate situation in Northern Ireland that seems to have been pacified at least in part due to the EU membership of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think in the coming months and years you're going to see this decision spiral out in a number of confusing and unexpected ways, given the dense tangle of negotiations and regulations that were put in place over the years of the UK's membership in the EU, all of which now have to be unraveled and renegotiated. All we can do now as Wikivoyagers is to keep an eye on developments and update our content as necessary. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talking about nationality

Advice is given about not conflating Scots, Welsh, et al. with English in both "Understand" and "Respect". Shouldn't one section suffice for covering this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of duplications like that. The history section in 'Understand' vs the history section in 'See', for instance. They are supposed to cover different aspects of history (general overview in 'Understand', historical sites to visit in 'See'), but in actuality those lines are blurred. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps more than ever before, national fault lines are part of the new reality of post-Brexit Britain. I would say it is worth mentioning (although not at length) in both sections. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point, but can it be done in such a way as to avoid redundancy? One way would be to take a purely declarative tone in "Understand" and a cautionary tone in "Respect", in that conflating Britons of non-English nationality with English people could cause offence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If I had to pick a section then I think 'Understand' :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It might just be because I'm young, but I think the whole "you'll offend someone if you say they're English when they're really Welsh" is way overblown, not just here, but in many travel sites and guidebooks. Of course some nationalists are touchy about these issues, but we do in the main know that the differences aren't always widely understood abroad, and I can't see many people taking offence at the ignorance of a visitor. Unless the visitor is familiar with different accents or there's a really obvious clothing clue like a kilt, how are they supposed to know, at a glance, which country a British person is from? Much more likely than getting upset is anyone who cares enough to correct the visitor will do just that, and be happy to answer any further questions.

I'd also be cautious at changing too much content based on Brexit, as things are going to go on changing (in an agonisingly slow, plodding way) for years to come, and we're still no nearer to knowing what the likely outcome will be, other than things won't be the same as they were. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, no Brexit related information was being advocated for here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the entire "Referring to nationality" section should be moved or incorporated into the Respect section. Powers ^(talk) 02:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Get around

Looking over this section, I'm thinking that parts of it are overly detailed, especially given that we have separate articles for Rail travel in Britain and Driving in the UK. Much of the 'by plane' subsection seems especially redundant, given that it's just a list of airlines and the (probably outdated) airports they serve, though crucially doesn't give any routes. So needless to say, I would like to cut some of the content down, while making sure any crucial information is present either here or in a more suitable article. But of course I'd like to check if there's any support for me to do so, or indeed if anyone wants to oppose me. Hope everyone is having a wonderful Christmas / Hanukkah / solstice / non-denominationally-appropriate-winter-holiday / carrying on with work as normal, look forward to reading your opinions :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Getting around the UK by plane is possible, but not a standard option like in the US and this list of airlines as you say is not helpful at all.

And can we also remove the 'Planning your trip' section? It is rather confusing. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps 'by plane' should be demoted, at least putting it after 'By train' and 'By car'. It makes sense in larger countries, but unless a traveller is going from London to somewhere remote in Scotland, it's difficult to see who in their right mind would opt for a mode of transport that requires you to turn up 3 hours before you depart.

I think I wrote a lot of that 'Planning your trip' section, a couple of years ago. What would you say is confusing about it? It's not a standard Wikivoyage subsection, certainly. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say 'planning your trip' is confusing because that is the same as the purpose of 'Get around'. It may be the intention to create an itinerary perhaps, but that isn't jumping out at me. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

So, in other words, the content is fine, it's just the name you don't like? Or have I misunderstood you? There's nothing there which can't be written in to the relevant subsection, as it's just information about buying maps, using Traveline, that sort of thing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually it just looks like the heirarchy is confused. Presently it is:

* Get Around

** Planning your Trip

*** By public transport

*** By bike

*** When driving

** By Plane

** (all subsequent sections as per standard)

.

So when glancing at this section it looks like the first sections are public transport, by bike and 'when driving'. It would be far less confusing to have it at the end, and not use third level sections underneath it at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Right you are, that makes more sense than the current setup. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

TT, I now see that you are ahead of me on this issue. I agree with you here. Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom#Government

Is the "You don't have to be British to vote in the UK!" really appropriate for a travel guide? I'm a big fan of democracy (it's one of my favourite things along with sleeping in, eating sushi, and not having a broken ankle), but when planning a trip, does a traveller really ask, "Gee, I wonder if I can vote while I'm visiting the UK?". Can I remove it, please? Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we also cover long(er) term travel such as studying abroad so there is a judgment call. Also, we do go into some detail on e.g. US politics. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how about a much shorter version of what is there now with the link to the external site for more info? I lived in the UK for five months, and it didn't occur to me to try to vote, as much as I love that democracy thing. If I had known I could vote, maybe I would have tried, but I doubt it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to be British to vote in the UK! British, Irish, other EU and qualifying Commonwealth citizens aged 18 or over can register to vote in UK elections in the electorate where they reside with a "considerable degree of permanence". This means that those who, for example, go to the UK to study or spend their gap year can register to vote, but not those who visit the UK on a short holiday. Get more information and register to vote at the Electoral Commission's website.

I see that this issues was raised by @Andrewssi2: a couple of years ago, but the discussion got sidetracked. I think my compromise proposal is reasonable. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You have my support. Good work on 'get around'. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of outside the scope of 'travel advice' and more to do with 'residency advice'. I actually don't recall the outcome of the earlier discussion :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

countryside access

Hi, I added a section here. If it contains too much detail for this overview page and you want to shorten the section and move the table to another page and link to it, then that's fine by me. NB I am about to link to this section from Stonehenge, so if you do anything to break that link then please can you fix it there. Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that we do need something on this, but probably not the detail of the table (and map symbols are on the map legends). I expect that most visitors to England will only use footpaths or bridleways that are marked with signposts. I would be inclined to simply remove the table and replace it with a couple of sentences. It also needs something about Northern Ireland. AlasdairW (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no Walking in the United Kingdom article, but if there were, we could provide that table, which I think is quite useful, and links to the many excellent walk articles that are listed under the UK in Hiking. Ground Zero (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have plunged ahead, or whatever it is we are encouraged to do, and created this article. I have also fixed the link in the Stonehenge article. Ground Zero (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Quirky British Traditions

Wondering if it's worth a new page along the "only in the UK" a bit "weird" traditions (I can't think of a good title but something indicating the Eccentric British Traditions.

for example: Abingdon#Understand Bun Throwing The town has a fairly unique historic tradition of Bun Throwing dating back over 400 years. In practice it is a bit of a cross between a ceremony and a "bun fight". Held when the Town Council votes to hold one and generally to celebrate a royal occasion. There have been two held in recent years, one to celebrate the 2011 Royal Wedding and another in 2012 to mark the Royal Jubilee. Councillors in full ceremonial robes chuck around 4000 currant buns from the top of County Hall down at the chanting crowds filling the market place below.

for example: High Wycombe#Understand Mayor Weighing Each May the town has an unusual ceremony known as Mayor Making. A tradition dating back to 1678, the town holds a public weighing of the Mayor, the intention being to see in they have put on weight ie. to see if they are getting fat at rate payers' expense. In the interests of confidentiality the actual weight is not revealed but the gain or loss of weight is and is announced by the town crier.

The sort of things that are maybe not worth a special trip but if one happens to be in the area or maybe a short detour are worth "experiencing" and would be a shame to miss (Councillors in full regalia throwing buns to the "masses" ...).

Maybe Organised geographically, maybe a "by date".

I'm only aware of a few but these "strange" events are fairly widespread and the page would be built-up over time.

If people think it worthwhile, would it be an article of a "destination" and presumably linked to from the United Kingdom. PsamatheM (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea as a Travel topic, how about the title Quintessentially British or Very British. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the word "festivals", "events", "traditions" or something similar (a noun) needs to be in the article title. "Offbeat British events" or something like that, perhaps. And yes, a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This does raise the risk of creating a long list stye article, given that every village and town in the UK does claim to do something unique. I guess if it was done like an itinerary of eccentric events through the year it could work well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well; It's been three months, why don't we go ahead and create it (in userspace if need be) and see what comes of it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Stay Safe, Animals

I was intending to add section along these lines, it's mostly distillation of points elsewhere but what I recall from memory as being UK specfic.

Animals

British culture has a strong attachment to certain animals, so whilst there aren't many dangerous animals in the United Kingdom outside of Zoos and safari-parks, local residents may have strong views that also need to be taken into account.

In some urban areas aggressive dogs may be encountered, although the rabies risk is much reduced owing to tight quarantine controls at UK ports. The UK has been rabies free for more than a century and the tight controls are intended to keep it that way.

Gulls and Geese have been noted as potential avian aggressors.

Most livestock breeds in the UK are relatively docile, although a roused bull should be avoided if at all possible, and care should be taken to avoid "worrying" sheep. If you have a dog with you keep it on a leash, and under close control. Some farmers and landowners may refuse access to some areas or locations, if your pet may cause distress to livestock, they are fully entitled to do so.

In some parts of the UK, deer are common place, but reasonably shy, such that you are probably more of a threat to them then they are to you. Deer are however a concern worth bearing in mind if driving on some minor roads, and in woodland

If you are unlucky enough to hit dogs, livestock, horses, deer or other wildlife when on the roads or otherwise there is a legal requirement to report it to both the owner and authorities as soon as possible, even if the collision was a genuine accident.

The UK mainland only has one mildly venomous snake the Common Adder (which has a large head and slit pupils), typically they have zig-zag markings being black on grey (male) and dark brown against brown (female), other colors have however been noted. Whilst adders are not that venomous, medical attention should still be sought if bitten.

Native spiders and insect species are not generally dangerously venemous, but some bee and wasp stings can cause intense discomfort, and all are a concern for those with allergy reactions. In remoter parts of the UK, tiny biting insects may be encountered, although these rarely carry any diseases of concern. "

This seems a bit long, and I'd welcome some help in trimming it to something appropriate for the article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to argue with as such, but frankly a lot of this applies wherever you go in the world. The (un)interesting thing about the UK is that is really lacks many dangerous animals, compared to (for example) Australia which is full of them.

I would even say that dangerous animals in the UK are domestic cows (death by stampede), bats (occasional carriers of rabies) and swans (have been known to kill when aggravated). snakes and insects pose practically no threat at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree; most of this seems like common sense. Powers ^(talk) 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Page banner

Current banner.

Suggested banner.

While the motif for the banner is great, we could look at another source image. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the current banner is a much better-looking, and seemingly higher-quality photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current banner, as the brighter colours are more inviting. I am not totally opposed to a change, but I think that it should be a view of a different scene. AlasdairW (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Channel Islands and the Isle of Man not part of the UK.

Do we need that "Not a part of the UK" at the start of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Maybe in some strict technical sense, they're not part of the UK. But I think it's clear that they're islands of the UK, and not some neighboring country like France or Ireland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand, this is important to the Manx and the Islanders, so it is something visitors should know do that they don't cause offence. I haven't been to either place, so I would defer to anyone with local knowledge. Ground Zero (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Iirc there are also some things of relevance to travelers that are different. Like VAT tax rates or the general speed limit on highways (iirc Isle of Man is the only European territory besides Germany to allow cars to drive as recklessly fast as they want, humans be damned) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, friends. I've re-jigged the whole sub-section, adding a short explanatory sentence at the top. Hopefully this makes it clear. Nice to be back on WV, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That looks much better! Now the section reads like it's informing travelers of potentially relevant legal issues. And it lists the Overseas Territories.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"travel warning"

When travelling to the UK, you may be asked to hand over the passwords of all your data devices (mobile phone, laptop, etc.) by the border police. If you refuse, you may go to jail. As of today, a british human-rights activist has been convicted to jail on probation and a € 700 fine simply for refusing to hand over his passwords to police at Heathrow airport in November 2016. [2],[3],[4] --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the case in many counties. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I think this needs to be noted in "Stay safe". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Traveler100 . This can happen to you almost anywhere, and the chances of it happening as you transiting in Heathrow is still pretty low.

Wikivoyage shouldn't be a list of every potentially bad thing (however remote) that can happen to you in any country. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's something that can land you in jail and that you might not expect, it should be mentioned. And just how low are the chances of this happening, if they can do something that much at variance with traditional British principles of probable cause and privacy in one's personal effects to a British citizen? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Schedule 7" (the legal provision under which the arrest mentioned was made) has never been completely aligned with the British legal system. Travellers to the US and Israel also have similar risks to entry for not providing passwords, although I understand that for both those countries deportation is more likely than arrest. I still 'feel' that this is unlikely to happen to the average traveler.

I'm actually surprised however this isn't cover on Wikivoyage at all. Even Business_travel doesn't seem to cover, so might be a good topic for a travel article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The risk is mentioned in Border crossing#Digital & social media, but yes, it should be told in Business travel, articles concerning smart phones and laptops, and perhaps in Travel basics, as it certainly will not be expected by novice travellers. --LPfi (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Do keep a sense of proportion. Most travellers are not carrying sensitive documentation of human rights abuse that must be kept away from the CIA at all costs. 'Novice travelers' may want to keep their Facebook secure (and more power to them I guess) but if they do reveal their password in a random check then it isn't end of the world.

Ultimately the message is a simple "don't carry anything (physical or digital) across any border if you really don't want it checked". Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this should be mentioned in the UK article. The fact that you can be sent to jail and not just deported seems like a big deal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. We're at the point where laws supposedly created against "terrorism" are being used indescriminately to target everything from Icesave to the Guardian newspaper. K7L (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrewssi2, on "sense of proportion": If there were a penalty of 10 years in prison for double parking and it was rarely but sometimes enforced, I don't think you would disagree with including that information in "Stay safe". So how is this different? Note the fact mentioned at the beginning of this thread, and also note that to date, imprisonment for refusing to divulge your passwords to police without a warrant is uncommon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This information should definitely be included in the article (and in any other country article, where such incredible laws exist). In addition to reasons given above, here's another: We also mention that carrying more than €10,000 in cash needs to be declared, even though this arguably rarely applies to most travelers. And please don't just be happy with handing over passwords to your accounts to anyone -- why do you protect your account with a password in the first place? Xsobev (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

One could answer "to protect myself from criminals". But any corporate data security policy, every Internet banking contract and even any contract with an Internet service provider explicitly forbids giving the passwords to anybody, including to themselves (for publicly employed this may be in the law, not only in contracts), and requires you to immediately inform them if somebody might have got the passwords. Authorities requesting passwords may or may not be regarded as force majeure, but the obligation to immediately invalidate the password is hardly avoided. You can of course ignore policies, contracts and law, but if you do and confidential information leaks, or there is an intrusion, do you have peace of mind? And is this something in accordance with rule of law? Is this common practice, or just something done in extreme countries like those of EU, the USA and North Korea? :-( --LPfi (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - if people were being routinely imprisoned for not providing their passwords then I would agree. As far as I can tell they are not. It seems more common to go to prison for hitting someone with a bike in the UK than this scenario.

There are likely thousands of offences in the UK, some going back a thousand years (seriously) that you can potentially be arrested for. I don't support listing them all, only the ones that the traveler is likely to encounter. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's where we strongly disagree. I think the ones that should be listed are the ones that either are themselves not obvious or for which the penalties are greater than one would expect. But you don't seem to like my analogy about double-parking... Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

One problem is these things hitting only occasionally, so that most people feel it is a theoretical risk, while it is a real problem for some people. This is a general problem with usually not enforced absurd laws: people do not protest because they think the laws will never be used without reason, but authorities can use them arbitrarily against anybody they wish. By not taking them seriously we do not serve those possibly targeted. --LPfi (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that we need to remember that this sentence was imposed on a british human-rights activist. So we don't know if a traveller would simply have been deported. Also some activists want to push the limits and have a test case in court. We don't know whether he could simply have entered the password to unlock the phone without revealing what it is, which seems to be fairly similar to unlocking a suitcase to allow customs to inspect it. Also note that he did not go to jail. From [5] linked above "Rabbani avoided a possible three-month jail term and was instead handed a 12-month conditional discharge and told he must pay court costs of £620 ($835)." He only has to pay the costs (not a fine) of £620, unless he commits another offence within 12 months. (see w:Discharge (sentence)) I think that we should avoid giving a warning of this unless other cases are reported. AlasdairW (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

He did not go to jail, but now has an entry on his criminal record, and his phone and laptop seized for further investigation (both according to the linked article). You're right that he is a British citizen, but as a traveler it seems important to know that you will be deported if you don't hand over your passwords, so that you can avoid bringing laptops and phones with you in the first place. Xsobev (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

To my earlier objection, I really feel this is an edge case scenario, and I guess it is a difference of opinion whether this needs highlighting or not. I still think not, but won't object to a short mention of this. —The preceding comment was added by Andrewssi2 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 October 2017

Regions where alcohol is taboo?

Hi all. In a recent edit, ShakespeareFan00 wrote: "Despite the tolerance noted above, in some regions of the UK, you may encounter regions where alcohol is less favourably considered by locals, due to a strong temperance tradition in those areas."

I don't know the entire country inside out of course, but I can't think of anywhere where that would be the case. The obvious places with "strong temperance traditions" would be rural Wales and Yorkshire, however I don't recall any particular taboo around alcohol consumption in those areas in recent years. If there are some places that are as described, it would be better to name them, rather than just leaving it as "some regions", which doesn't help anyone. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rural Wales and parts of Scotland, certainly, but my experience would be getting on for 20 years ago..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for Scotland, but as far as Wales goes, it's outdated in my experience. However, your modified wording looks about right. Thanks, and have a nice bonfire night :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.. see below ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

40+ years ago there were some "dry" towns in Scotland where no alcohol was sold, but that does not apply anywhere these days. In some of the Outer Hebrides there is still some temperance and buying alcohol is difficult on a Sunday. Harris is possibly the only place where a pub has been converted into a church. However this is very much an exception which can be covered in the region guides.AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You you will probably find much more abstinence from alcohol in the sizeable Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities in the UK, although they don't generally regard it as taboo for the wider society. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Bonfire Night

Worth writing a section for future years? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly worth mentioning (in 'understand' perhaps, or 'do'?) if not already.

Just as an explanation for others, it's one of these "widely-observed but not-official" (no day off work!) holidays that may be of interest to travellers for its cultural / historical value, but doesn't have the disruptive impact on non-observers of an actual national holiday. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Will consider it, Lewes Bonfire (which is it's own tradition) is mentioned in that article specfically.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that fireworks on 5 November (and a week or so around then) should be mentioned as a Do activity. It is disruptive to any travellers with dogs, and causes some other local disruption - road closures etc. AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Food safety issues? Seems obvsious common sense applies, but should UK specfic advice be included?

This article has a fairly long Eat section and also a lengthy one on 'Stay Healthy'. In my experience, food outlets (and drinks outlets) in the UK take great pride in not giving their customers 'unsafe' food or drink ( as opposed to it merely being "off"), to the extent that other than regular inspections a visit from the "Health Inspector" is a very rare occurrence. However, should this article (or another more appropriate) one include some UK specific advice on how to handle the exceptionally rare situations where things go wrong?

I'd like opinions on how appropriate advice could be added if appropriate.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any UK-specific advice for this issue. A passing mention in the 'Eat' section of the UK's generally very high food safety standards would suffice, in my opinion, but if you can think of anything else, I'd say just add it and other editors will surely make their opinions known if they think what you've written could be tweaked. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Master list for pubs in the UK?

Swept in from the pub

Hello all, new Wikivoyager here (Wikipedian for a while).

Would it be feasible to make a huge master list of all the pubs in Britain, so that city/town pages can have a more complete list to reference? I'm suggesting this because I've noticed that many articles only list a couple of places in the eat and drink sections, when there are often several not included.

SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Such a list would be out of date almost as soon as it was written, as we don't have remotely enough manpower on this site to monitor when existing pubs close down and new ones open. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage: goals and non-goals and ttcf would make me think that's not a wise use of our resources. But maybe I am misunderstanding the proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not the aim of Wikivoyage to be a Yellow Pages listing all businesses in a town. What is desired is a small list of recommended places to go if you are visiting the town. Pubs with character and good quality beer and food is what would be welcome. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikivoyage :-) My gut says that would be completely unfeasible and also unnecessary, because there are literally tense of thousands of pubs in Britain, they change names, they close down forever, and sometimes new ones open. A good chunk of "all of the pubs in Britain" aren't worth listing to begin with, as WV:the traveller comes first and WV:avoid negative reviews pretty much stops us from adding in places that are merely average quality unless there's nothing better for a similar price around. Remember, this is Wikivoyage, not Wikipub ;-)

That said, if you need guidance on which pubs to add to specific articles, I highly recommend looking no further than [Whatpub], which is a pub search engine (yes! what a future we live in!) devised by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) to list only the 30,000 or so good real ale pubs around the country and cut out all the chain lager plastic menu places. You can search for pubs by postcode, geographic place name, or nearest station, so this is probably the kind of tool you're looking for. Let me know what you think! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes one of my go to web sites :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, even if we could keep up such a list (which probably even English speaking Wikipedia couldn't), imagine how "useful" our readers would find a such a list of a million pubs. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, good points, and I hadn't come across that website. SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Scores on the Doors website lists the 0.5M places in the UK that have food hygiene certificates, which should all pubs that serve food. It also lists a load of places that are of no interest: factory canteens, prisons and schools. I find that it useful for checking if a place we have listed is still open, or finding if there is anywhere to eat in a small village. AlasdairW (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for pubs in a particular county, then search the local council's website for a listed of licensed premises in their area. Results vary between councils, but some have a simple list e.g. the 600 places that can sell alcohol in Argyll and Bute. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Pennine wildfires?

Swept in from the pub

Should there be a cautionbox on a relevant article? Some media coverage has suggested their may be a risk of them given the somewhat warm summer the UK is having? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've used warningboxes occasionally if a major wildfire was actually burning (for instance, Fort McMurray when the town was evacuated, or on the Oregon Trail - a featured travel topic at a time when the south shore of the Columbia River was ablaze) but a mere "risk of them" is less serious and could be mentioned in the body text without any bright yellow boxes. K7L (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.. As you may be aware from media coverage the UK is having an unusually warm summer, and there has already been a wildfire at Saddleworth Moor nr Manchester. I would hope the generic advice on wildfires is Captain obvious to most Wikivoyagers though ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)