Talk:United States of America Voyage Tips and guide

The following line grossly misrepresents the issue it's trying to address but also seems to be an attempt to guilt the traveler into bearing crimes if the perpetrator is of certain backgrounds:

"Never alert the police to a person of color, mentally ill person or homeless person simply because they appear to need help or are creating a nuisance like being intoxicated in public. The police themselves are the main danger to them."

"Never" is a strong and absolutist term, which combined with the following sentence that suggests it's extremely likely that if you call the police on a black person or someone you deem to be mentally ill or homeless that they'll be killed by the police seems to put the blame and burden of bad policing on the traveler. The language is strong and manipulative, and I don't believe the examples do anything to change that. If we are saying that the police will shoot any non-white person (aka: "person of color"), homeless person, or mentally ill person if you direct them to them, even if it is to ask them to help them then we are saying they'll shoot them over essentially ANYTHING. Travelers should not be asked to avoid calling the police if there is a crime or they feel a situation has escalated to such a degree that they believe the police should be involved, regardless of what the person of interest looks like. We should not be asking the traveler to choose between enduring crimes or being responsible for murder, especially when it's not even remotely close to being true. It's unfair and goes directly against "the traveler comes first".

I suggest just removing the sentence entirely. As advice, it's irresponsible. As an attempt to address policing issues, it's ridiculous. The situation in the US is nowhere near bad enough to warrant a demand that travelers NEVER call the police. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

How about we replace "never" with "don't" and remove the second of the two sentences? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can soften it to "Consider whether it is necessary to alert the police if a person of color, mentally ill person or homeless person simply appears to need assistance or is creating a nuisance in a minor way, such as by being intoxicated in public, as police officers may lack the proper training and attitude to help, rather than harm such individuals." And then, sure, delete the second sentence. But this is a real issue that is good not to ignore, just as it would be good to warn travelers that giving money to child beggars in India risks enriching gang leaders who exploit them, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I prefer Ikan's choice of wording and would agree with replacing the current text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"The police may lack the proper training to help, rather than harm such individulas" - This is likely true for people who are severely mentally ill, which tends to include many homeless people, because there are real qualifications and training that are known to aid in assisting the mentally ill that the average person, including police officers, is definitely not equipped for.

With "people of color" (which should just say "black people", since that is what the issue is about in the US), this is not really the case. Although black people can be mentally ill or homeless, black people themselves don't have natural cognitive incapabilities. "Sensitivity/Bias training" exists, but there seems to be more evidence that it doesn't work than that it does, and many never bother to try and measure the effectiveness of their training at all, so the issue is not likely one that can be resolved with "training", but maybe this isn't worth trying to address.

I don't see this as akin the child beggers, because we're not asking the traveler to consider enduring a crime or potential crime against themselves or those around them with the children, while we are asking that in this case which is what makes me uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of making someone second guess themselves while a situation is escalating during a time when they could do something about it until it's too late and something bad happens. It's "don't do this thing that might make you FEEL good" vs "Don't do this thing that might keep you safe". Also, the idea that a crime may be too petty to call the police on one of the mentioned groups but not too petty to call them on someone who is white, Asian, a homeowner, etc isn't a great mindset to promote (although I recognize these may be factors when considering "is it worth it?" in people's minds), but maybe separating out black people to try and reconcile these things would just overcomplicate it and make it too wordy (that's how my attempts went, so I didn't post them).

Ikan Kekek's proposal is a clear improvement over the previous wording, so if no other proposals are made, I think I can support this as a replacement. I like it a lot for the mentally ill/homeless in particular, and the softening of the advice makes it read much more reasonably for black people and also doesn't seem to discourage black travelers from reporting crimes if they are victimized, which the original wording also did. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to tell you a real story. My girlfriend and I were waiting for the bus on 14th St. and 7th Ave. one night after midnight within the past two years, and there was a Black homeless man who was feeling suicidal and walking into the street in traffic. We tried to persuade him to get out of the street, but he was despondent. We thought of calling 911 and did not, because we realized he was exactly the kind of person who was most likely to be shot by the police, and we know it's hard if not impossible to prevent the 911 operator from sending the police in addition to an ambulance. So we didn't call 911, and he eventually got out of the street without being hit, but we continued to worry and feel bad about him. That's reality in American cities. How do you want to explain it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

That story illustrates your personal thought process and justification for your decision not to call 911, but there's no way to conclude that not calling 911 saved his life from being shot by police. It would be just as easy to conclude that he would have been fine or better off if you had called or that nothing would have changed for him regardless. It's a big jump to assume he was going to be killed. I don't say that as a judgment about the decision you made, but rather about us using it as a basis for constructing advice.

As I said, I like your wording overall. I've thought about adding a line to the affect of "if the situation becomes criminal or you or others are in danger, don't hesitate to call the police", but I think it reads awkwardly. Maybe just using your paragraph is best. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, but you understand my point: the fact that my girlfriend and I had to think about that is real. Don't misinterpret me as claiming infallible powers of prediction; it's just that it's worth considering how likely you are going to be to help someone or get them killed. Had he consented to having an ambulance called, we would have called one and stayed to make sure it came and took him away safely. This was a situation in which he did not consent and believed everyone wanted him dead. And how many times have you heard of suicide by cop? But the cop has to pull the trigger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do we really want such long region descriptions? Isn't less more? And does anyone want to tolerate a unilateral move of West Virginia to the Mid-Atlantic region? I would suggest that we should not tolerate unilateral changes, especially when they increase the length of this article. I also don't think we should call the Mid-Atlantic states "subtropical." That becomes meaningless when it refers to states with such northerly latitudes, whether or not today's still-common winter temperatures in the 20s and 30s become a thing of the past in a couple of decades. The world is warming. Are we going to call Greenland subtropical in a couple of decades because it's hotter than it used to be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also found the long descriptions and additions fairly meaningless, but I didn't revert the IPs edit to prevent myself being involved in this edit war (I did fix a bunch of its/it's issues, though). For one, though, any place that's around 40° north of the equator is not subtropical (which extends down to 35° from the equator at max); I also don't support any unilateral reregionalisations. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There might have been some improvements, but the IP demonstrated total disrespect for the rest of the community. If somebody wants to read the additions and tweaks to find some pearls, then by all means, go ahead, but there is too much bulk for me to be interested. For one, we try hard to keep this article from growing. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I feel the same way. No problem if anyone wants to reinsert some small subset of these edits in a piecemeal way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted today's edits. They included a lot of unnecessary detail and namedropping best left to the region articles. After the edits, the region descriptions were walls of text. If the IP user wants some of this to stay, they should make small carefully copy edited tweaks, wait for reactions and back off or try to build a consensus when reverted. –LPfi (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you were to ask me, this smells of block evasion also. That's why I changed protection on this page. Ibaman (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

A certain user who once claimed to be moderate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

• sent you an email about this. Ibaman (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This page reads like it was written by someone trying desperately to make the US look as boring and unappealing as possible, with the least amount of description given to its massive and diverse regions and, most inexcusable, a factually wrong climatic summarization of the country that the administrator of this page keeps re-instating inexplicably. A country like Canada, with much larger regions of empty, flat land, gets these lush, long descriptions, and we get almost nothing? The kind of cursory sentences used to sum up our regions might befit a country like Australia, which has massive states consisting of flat and almost entirely unpopulated land - they are utterly inadequate for a country like the US, which often has diverse culture, climate, geography, and settlement patterns across individual states, let alone entire regions.

One example - describing the plains states as "flatter than a pancake" and giving no other description of the region is wildly inadequate - the region contains Badlands National Park, Black Hills National Forest (decidedly not "flatter than a pancake" areas of the region), carved mountain-side monuments like Mount Rushmore National Memorial and the Crazy Horse Memorial, the tourist town of Deadwood, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and other attractions, principally wildlife and storm-chasing tours.

Because the Great Plains regional article is itself sparse, we would do better to focus on selling the region more in this page's description of the region. Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic article is just a bit too sparse to justify the equally sparse description here.

The brevity also is a massive disservice to a number of other regions as well - Texas, for instance. I'm unsure of what this regional description is supposed to be selling about the state - it sounds remarkably boring. Is that the intention? Is this article intended to be an anti-American hit-piece designed to repel people from the US?

Other examples - why the hell would you highlight "endless freeways" when writing a description for Los Angeles? You have GOT to be kidding me. A world famous megacity known for so many things, and THAT is what you chose to write in your brief description of it? This has got to be changed.

Then the climate issue: describing the climate of the country as "temperate" is wildly non-descript and it is not accurate - the north of the country has a continental climate, the south a subtropical one. The west has a complex mix of climatic conditions not mentioned here. The cold of the country is exaggerated in the climate section. The north or northeast does not have "mild summers", it has warm to hot summers. Why this wasn't changed immediately I don't know.

And then having the audacity to gatekeep an article so hard over stuff that is basically wrong, in a factual sense, is infuriating.

--Ironictyn98 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If there are weak descriptions in the region articles, that should be fixed there. No use name-dropping attractions that are not widely known except by those who know where they are anyway. The edits made the region descriptions walls of text, which doesn't help sell the regions.

There is a screenful of text describing the nuances of that "temperate". Don't argue with such false statements. And again: accept that there is a consensus on that this article is too long. If you want to improve region descriptions, do so without making them significantly longer.

–LPfi (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let me get this straight: because you're alleging attractions might not be widely known, that, to you, is justification to not mention them, or to not sell the region as well as you possibly can by mentioning them? That is a terrible form of reasoning. You seriously think there's no need mentioning important geography and sites of a region to entice travelers to that region? Are you kidding?

The Badlands are a fairly well known national park. The Black Hills are a significant mountain range in the region, and are home to such famous monuments as Mount Rushmore. To claim there's no use "name dropping" these attractions is ridiculous.

And they did not make them "walls of text" - what your descriptions do is the opposite of selling the regions. Fighting against length to this extent is silly and reductive.

And there is no description of that "temperate" climate, which is not temperate in the first place. A continental climate is a temperate zone climate, but it's climatic conditions are not temperate, they are extreme. The same goes for the humid subtropical zone. The climate is described poorly.

Also, including mention of "freeways" in LA's description is backhanded and silly. That needs to be deleted.

This is not your personal project. Ironictyn98 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

• this is a community. No article is a personal project. This article is not meant to become yours. There is consensus this article is too long and wordy. Unilateral, undiscussed changes will not fly. Peopose your changes and debate and gather consensus, this is the Wikivoyage way. Ibaman (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Like he said, if there are deficiencies in region articles, those should be addressed by discussions on the talk pages of the region articles. As for this article, if you really want to have a chance to persuade a consensus about anything, I think you are best off focusing on each change separately, or at any rate by proposing specific changes in language for our consideration, than by trying to rubbish the whole article and supposing that would cause the rest of the users to give you a blank check to make every change you want. Of course, if you are a banned user block-evading, all of this discussion is a complete waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The yellow Covid banner at the top of this page is vastly oversized, overwhelming, and disproportionate to the nature of the thing at this point. Seems reasonable for there to be such a banner, but this one screams: "CRISIS!!" Maybe its size can be reduced a bit. Keystone18 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lots of new text has been added recently], mostly by User:Tuyuhun plus some by User:The dog2. I haven't read through it carefully, but keeping in mind that this article has a tendency to get longer and longer and this text was added without discussion, against a consensus of requiring discussion leading to consensus to add significant content, which Tuyuhun presumably didn't know about before I posted to their user talk page but The dog2 did, I think the question of whether it was really important to add all of this text at the country level ought to be discussed. If it's not really needed, should we keep any of it or just revert to the status quo ante? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to have a discussion about this. I think RV and caravan camping should be mentioned in some form because it is indeed a popular way to visit America's national parks. We don't have RVs or caravans in Singapore, just to give you the foreigner's perspective here. The first time I ever saw one in person was when I went to Australia. Many people from Asia won't be familiar with the concept of travelling with a RV or caravan, with China perhaps being the exception since RVs have seen a explosion in popularity in China in the past 4 years or so. The dog2 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm also happy to discuss this. I added more to the section on "Historical Attractions" - specifically on non-British European history/sites in the U.S. and on Native American sites because the prior status of that section was both quite empty and overly favored British colonial history in the U.S.. I'm perfectly fine with some/all of it being reversed if that's what the consensus forms, but I do feel that the section would benefit from at least some mention of historical sites not pertaining to British colonial history. Otherwise the section looks too skeletal.

For a similar reason I added information to the "Museums and Galleries" section because it was heavily NYC/East Coast focused. As someone who has lived in every region of the U.S. except the East Coast, the section before edits felt like it was only focused on the history of the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. I also updated the section discussing marijuana since Minnesota legalized the recreational use of it this week (the week of June 5, 2023).

Tuyuhun (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

From the link you mention, as a non-American who's visited the country several times:

1. "Mainland Chinese" is more succinct and clear than PRC.
2. The immigration information seems kind of important.
3. Highways linking towns – yes, I think this kind of information for exploring more valuable destinations off the beaten path is kind of valuable. It's a bit too niche to go in driving in the United States, IMO.
4. Interstates are to federal standards, but I'm confused about the road signs bit. The US isn't Canada for each province to have their own speed limit sign, per se.
5. Personally, I'd say keep the semi-truck information. Constantly having to pass trucks are annoying, especially if you're unaware a road is full of trucks, aren't they?
6. What Tuyuhun mentioned re historic sites.
7. About marijuana/DUI – I'm not sure about that.

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again admitting that I haven't read the new text in full, is there any way it could be summarized much more briefly? The problem is that the longer this article gets, the less user-friendly it is to read, and lots of information could be covered only at the multi-state region, state, sub-state region or city/park level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If some driving information is too niche for Driving in the United States, then it is very much too niche to mention here – is it any use for those not driving? I moved it and some other sentences to there. –LPfi (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the information about Interstate highways would be better in driving in the United States where it will be available to those doing driving holidays. I agree with Ikan Kekek that making this a huge article about everything about the USA renders it less useful for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think there now is just one sentence on Interstates here. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:SHB2000 that we should still include a sentence (however brief) on semi-trucks on the highways. These trucks are massive (especially when compared to their European and Asian counterparts) and provide their own set of dangers to consider when driving with them. Those of us who have grown up in the U.S. are used to them, but for someone traveling from a foreign country these trucks might be an unexpected and perhaps unwelcome surprise. Tuyuhun (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I would say the part on semi-trucks should be in the Driving in the United States article. Just so you guys know, Australia has even bigger trucks called "road trains". And unlike the U.S., Australia's freeway network is very limited, so in Australia, you will need to overtake them by pulling into the side of the road with oncoming traffic. On the U.S. Interstates, overtaking the big trucks is relatively easy. The dog2 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

About RV/caravan camping: first of all, to Americans, caravans are led by camels and go through the Sahara. But wouldn't the United States national parks article be the most logical place to put ways to visit national parks? I don't see the likelihood of visitors renting an RV to visit the nation's cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

About attractions: my feeling is, make sure the ones we mention here are reasonably balanced between the regions and between different interests, but remember that this is meant to only lay out some highlights and give readers a sense of the range of types of things to see and do. Adding more points of interest is problematic. To be fair, the See and Do sections don't look too long to me now, but we have to keep in mind the length of the whole article. I'm going to trim some things, as for example, I see a reference to the United States Virgin Islands, which are not covered in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that you won't want to rent a RV to tour the major American cities, but that is definitely a popular way to visit the national parks and state parks, or even just rural areas in general. It's the same in Australia and Canada. Renting a RV to visit Sydney or Toronto doesn't make sense, but renting RVs to tour their national parks and other wilderness areas is popular. The dog2 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which is why it makes sense to put in the national parks article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

But as The dog2 mentioned, RV touring is also a popular way to explore state parks and other wilderness areas, too (and not just national parks). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

How about farming it out to Driving in the United States, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, we could farm out the details to that article. But we should have at least a brief statement that touring wilderness areas such as national parks and state parks by RV is a popular American pastime. The dog2 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Given that this article is about the whole country, I believe it's primarily designed for visitors from other countries. How common is it for tourists from abroad to rent an RV? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added a short paragraph on cars being a common choice for visiting national parks. I assume that is good to know for those that did not intend to drive before reading this article. I don't know how common a choice RVs are among visitors from abroad, but I suppose they are worth considering if you are going to do the country away from cities. –LPfi (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, the purpose of this article is to inform foreign visitors to the U.S., so even if it is common for American domestic tourists but not foreigners to travel to wilderness areas in RVs, we should let foreigners know that this is an option. I know many Canadians drive their RVs across the border to tour the natural attractions in the U.S. And I'd presume a good number of Australians and New Zealanders would want to rent RVs to tour the U.S. given that RV culture is strong in those countries too. It will be less common for someone from Asia given that to my knowledge, China is the only Asian country where RVs are a thing, but I know some more adventurous types who drove from Las Vegas to Whistler in rented RVs via Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Glacier national parks for their university graduation trips. The dog2 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the last 18 months, this article has grown by more than 10%. That is rapid growth. Is it because the article was lacking information that travellers need to know to visit the United States? Or because editors like adding what they know to a high-profile article? Are we willing to let this article become longer and longer indefinitely? Or should we try to cut it back by moving text to related region and travel topic articles? Ground Zero (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I thought there was an agreement in practice that the article wasn't going to be expanded any further, but maybe it is time to rethink that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I thought so too, but it is hard to impose that on new editors. Experienced editors should respect that, but don't. Ground Zero (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If one finds something important missing, it doesn't feel right to just not include it. The right thing to do is to check for things to move out, things to remove and ways to get the text shorter without harming the article, but you don't always have time for that. Whether something really is important to include, well, if it is more than a sentence or so, it should be discussed. And if one has added things, then one should return to the article to mend it, if not right away, then soon afterwards. –LPfi (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Possibly buy, eat, and drink section could be partially moved to their own travel topic articles? A summary of the most important points could be included here, but the detailed information could be moved to the travel topics with a "main article" wikilink. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see an obvious way to shorten Buy or Drink by moving away things. Much of the content should be here, and what should ideally be moved away isn't enough for creating a good article. Eat, however, already has its own article(s), and the section here is much longer than it needs to be. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I agree with that point of view. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone de-encyclopified the American cuisine article yet? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've started trimming, and have cut the article down to the length it was on June 5. If anyone objects to the minor edits I gave made, I ask that if they are going to restore any of it, please make other cuts instead of just adding stuff back in. Ground Zero (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, good edits. I would have kept the Erie Canal in, but I guess I agree that it's not essential to mention at the country level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

We should avoid trying to include every detail about the United States of America in this article if we want it to be useful for travellers. The units of measure used in doctor's offices, for example. Do travellers really need a warning about the fact that doctors offices use metric, which most visitors to the U.S. are familiar with? After a lot of work, I have managed to cut it back to the size it was in September 2022. That's less than 10 months of expansion of this article. Some editors are resisting even these minor cuts. Ground Zero (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, we don't, and I appreciate your work on this article. I don't know about deleting any mention of Planned Parenthood, though. Is there some spinoff article about healthcare in the U.S. where we can put that and other information? I think there isn't, and the U.S. has a weird enough health (non-)system that people in most other developed countries could really use some information, but we don't want it to become too long here. The risk in such a spinoff article, just as in this one, is to go off on tangents that aren't really travel-related, but I think an article like that should mention what kind of traveler's health insurance visitors should consider getting, to avoid being billed outlandish amounts if something bad happens to them while they're in the U.S., or failing that, what other resources they can use in certain situations to limit their costs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Birth control and STIs seems to be very specific forms of health care to mention in an article about the whole country. Is there other text that you think we could do without, or maybe health care in the USA could be explored in more detailed in Working in the United States and linked from here? Ground Zero (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll revert edits like this one that just add extra text for the sake of it. If a change like this is really important to a contributor, they can find other less important text to remove. Frankly, it just comes across as page-lengthening tinkering, not an improvement. Ground Zero (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I stated above, but I guess not clearly enough to be unambiguous, I think that healthcare in the U.S. is such a weird (non-)system that it should be summarized in its own article, as it's relevant not only to people who work or go to school here but also tourists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that putting the details in the Working article with links from the Studying and main articles ensures that the information is where it is most likely needed, i.e., for workers, and easily accessible from the other articles for students and visitors. I'm fine with a separate article, though. That would leave more room for it to expand and provide more in-depth coverage. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to contribute to such an article, though. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be an article that User:Doc James could really help start and keep accurate, if he so chooses. Doc, any interest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Being Canadian I do not have a clear understanding of the working of the US healthcare system. All I know is it is the one country in the world were I would strongly recommend healthcare insurance. Other countries the actual cost of paying out of pocket is generally not a big deal. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn't realize you were Canadian. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was a great New Yorker cartoon years ago. A man and a woman are talking at a cocktail party, as people in New Yorker cartoons do. She says to him, "You seem very familiar, but somehow strange. Are you Canadian?" Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's hilarious! Maybe not quite a propos, but I tended to forget that the Canadians who were my graduate school mates were foreign students, until they mentioned having to discuss something at the Foreign Students Office. Of course I know Canada is a different country and knew they were from Canada, but they didn't feel foreign to me; does that make any sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

My experience recently with crossing the border into Canada by land is that Canadian immigration reported my entry to the U.S. government, which then used that to generate the record that I had left the country. I believe this is now standard practice when you enter Canada by land from the U.S. So even though U.S. CBP's web-site says that you should save evidence that you left the country prior to the expiry of your maximum allowed stay, it might not actually be necessary. I don't know how it works at the Mexican border since I have never been to Mexico. Do people think that is worth mentioning? The dog2 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re Special:Diff/4684789: The dog2, no, it certainly isn't "very different" from a global perspective. Both the US South and Northeast may have significant regional identities, but to a non-American, two "very different cultures" would be like comparing the cultures of Morocco and Sudan or Chukotka to Kazakhstan. I realize US (and Australian) media tends to overemphasize the differences between the two, but let's not be a US-defaultist/US-centric travel guide and fall into that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: I also want to point out that it's hardly unique for one country to have many different cultures within its borders. For instance, a Russian from Moscow travelling to Chechnya will often say that it is just as if he is travelling to a different country. I guess it can be subjective as to what "very different" means, but when I visited Louisiana, I noticed that the local food was so distinctive, that it hardly resembles international stereotypes of what "American food" is. For instance, the conventional wisdom we have in Singapore is that white people don't eat spicy food, but the moment you step off the plane in Louisiana, that myth will be shattered, whereas if you go to California or New York, that myth largely holds true. You could in fact make an argument that New York is culturally closer to Ontario (a province of Canada) than to Louisiana. The dog2 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of course. And it's also geographically much closer to Ontario than to Louisiana. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, on California, you think white Californians don't routinely eat spicy food in taquerias and elsewhere? Moreover, if you go to a diner or many other types of Californian restaurants, you'll find huevos rancheros, chorizo omelets with salsa and black beans on the side and other types of spicy Cal-Mex food along with fare like eggs over easy that you'd see at diners in any other part of the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMO Cal-Mex isn't usually as spicy as Tex-Mex, but it's much spicier than anything in the upper Midwest ("where butter is a spice"). The Indian restaurants are also an option for people who like spicy food.

OTOH the food I'd expect in a restaurant that says it serves "California cuisine" is something focused on beautiful, seasonal vegetables, prepared with minimal spices, so that the original flavor shines through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I used to live in Malaysia, where food is usually very spicy (and my friends know me as someone who eats whole chilis), and I've certainly had some very robustly spiced Cal-Mex food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'm not familiar with Cal-Mex, but taquerias are usually considered to be Mexican rather than American restaurants. There are very good taquerias in Chicago since there is a huge Mexican community, and you can certainly get good, authentic Mexican chorizos, but they're typically considered to serve Mexican rather than traditional American food. Of course, these days, with less segregation than in the 1950s and increasing multi-culturalism, most younger white Chicagoans would be familiar with spicy food thanks to the local Mexican community.The dog2 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cal-Mex=California Mexican. It's a local cuisine and completely mainstream in California, as per my remark that typical diners and luncheonettes in California that are not taquerias and don't particularly serve the Mexican community very commonly have some Cal-Mex dishes on the menu, and salsa is a very standard condiment that is often on tables or brought out for diners along with ketchup and such. Remember that California used to be part of Mexico, which is not true of Chicago, though that city has a large Mexican community and great Mexican restaurants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

By phone states:

"You should know the primary area code for where you're staying, as signs and advertisements may not always include it"

I have the impression that Connect sections of U.S. destinations not always tell the area code.

The level in the hierarchy covered by one or a couple of area codes vary, which may be the reason I often haven't seen them. However, a foreigner cannot easily guess what level is the relevant one. Would it make sense to ensure that the state articles say something about this, and that the actual code is told at the relevant level (some redundancy hardly hurts either).

One can of course guess the area code from listings, but that guessing easily gets awkward for a stranger – for Finnish articles I have tried to group digits so that the (varying-length) prefix is obvious, and noted that this requires quite some knowledge on how the local systems work. I have failed when trying to do the same for some Asian and African articles.

–LPfi (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even for Americans it's not always easy to guess the relevant level of the hierarchy. An area code might cover a whole state or only part of a city, or anything in between. Guessing the area code based on listings should be easier in the US than in Finland, though, because it's always exactly 3 digits here. I agree it wouldn't hurt for more articles to mention the local area code. I also wonder if the advice you quoted is becoming dated – I feel like signs that don't include the area code have become rare compared to when I was little, though it's possible they're more common in parts of the country where a single area code still covers a large area. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is it really still true that many signs and advertisements don't include the area code? That would be a mistake, because ever since cellphones became prevalent, any area code could be used in any part of the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think cell phones, and especially the practice of keeping your old cell number when you move to a new area, have changed this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems we have agreement that this advice is outdated, so I've adjusted the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can we please stop edit warring about this? People have the right to express their opinions about this conflict in the U.S. They should be respectful, as is true anywhere. We don't need to tell people they should shut up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm just going to put this out here, but there is a dispute on whether the U.S. is the world's third or fourth largest country, presuming we only count the 50 states and D.C. for the U.S., and exclude Hong Kong and Macau for China. If you only count the undisputed territory, then the U.S. is bigger than China, but if you count the territory that each country has effective control of, then China is bigger than the U.S. That's why when I wrote the lede, I merely stated that the U.S. is "about the same size as China" so as not to take sides in China's territorial disputes. The dog2 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• ttcf: how does this affect the traveller? DOES IT MATTER TO THE TRAVELLER? Digress your reasons why. Ibaman (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The lede was changed to say it's the "fourth largest country by area". That would be a source of controversy. You could potentially offend Indian, Filipino and Vietnamese readers by saying that because this implies that the disputed territories that these countries claim but China controls are part of China. On the other hand, if we say the U.S. is the third largest, we might offend Chinese readers because that is saying that China's claims on the disputed territories are illegitimate. I'd say it's best we don't take sides on this dispute, and just say it's "about the same size as China" because that is accurate. The dog2 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The United States of America is a large country"...? That's what we're doing? Why do we need boring factoids in the lede sentence anyway? Brycehughes (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll happily to take that out. I was just trying to get rid of the size comparisons to Russia and China, which I don't believe we're appropriate for a travel article lead paragraph. Ground Zero (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

100% agree. Brycehughes (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. The US is only larger than China if you include territorial waters which is not included under any other country's area. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there's any controversy about what position the U.S. is in, "one of the biggest countries in the world" gets the point across amply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or is that obvious? I think our readers probably know done tijbfs about the U.S. before they read our article. I also took out that the U.S. is in North America because I think our readers will know that. I think the lead paragraph should tell someone why they might want to travel to a place, rather than on telling them facts that they probably already know. Ground Zero (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm also fine with leaving it out altogether. American atlases typically say the U.S. is bigger, while Chinese atlases typically say China is bigger. It's not that important for travel anyway, and we should just steer clear of the controversy. Both are very big countries and that's all travellers need to know. The dog2 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict:] Even if you've seen figures comparing land areas and distances, it's psychologically a very different experience to travel cross-country and to compare that to being able to see clear across even large islands like the Big Island of Hawaii and Java or small countries like Israel from the air. It's hardly unknown for Europeans to think they could travel cross-country by plane, train or car in a week, because they think it's like traveling to adjacent countries in Europe, not between Lisbon and Moscow or something. Maybe what would get the point across better would be to say that it takes about 5 1/2-6 hours to fly from the East Coast to the West Coast and an hour less the other way, that a train trip would take about 4 days, and that at least a week should be allowed for driving, or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we can probably cover some of that under "Get Around". And for that matter, it's an 11-hour flight from Boston to Honolulu. That's longer than the flight time from Singapore to New Zealand. The dog2 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think Hawaii is an exception here, but we should state that it will take a long time to travel between Boston and LA, for instance (and FTR, I agree with Ikan's wording). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've taken a stab at it in the Get Around section. Please edit as necessary. The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

w:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area says China is slightly larger, with or without counting territorial waters, but see their note 6 for complications. The interesting point is that Canada, the US & China are all about the same size -- within 10% of each other at 9.some million km² -- not even close to 1st place Russia (over 15 million) and well ahead of 5th place Brazil (~8.5).

None of that matters much to a traveller, though. Ikan's wording is fine. Pashley (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been removing some stuff that, while true, is either repetitive or not particularly germane to travel. This article should not attempt to cover everything there is to know about the United States but should give the reader a brief introduction to the most important things to know about travelling in the U.S. Ground Zero (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Through these edits, and some by User:Brycehughes, this article has been shortened just to where is was on February 13. Alas, I expect that the continual tinkering to add just a few words here, a comparison to another country there, and some detail that one editor thinks is terribly important in another place, will expand this inexorably toward being a jumble of random information instead of a useful, curated travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

About that: I'm very glad a lot of things have been removed or summarized to shorten the article, but I think some of the removed holidays, as shown in these edits, are unfortunate, because I don't think the point is only when businesses are closed. It's important for travelers to know about Mother's Day because it's the worst possible day of the year to eat out. Halloween deserves a mention for parties as well as whichever businesses (not many?) close that day, as it can be easy for foreigners to go to some or simply dress up and barhop. The preexisting text on New Year's Eve was good and not too long, and I'd add that watching out for drunk drivers on that day in particular is a good idea. July 4 cookouts should be mentioned, because again, a visitor might well be invited to one. Black Friday probably deserves mention on a similar basis to Mother's Day: That it's the most important day not to shop. Do you disagree that the things I want to put back or add are useful to travelers? I'd want to keep them as brief as possible (for example, it might not be essential to say that on Mother's Day, most restaurants charge a more expensive, boring prix fixe meal and that you are likely to see clueless behavior by patrons who hardly ever eat out, but saying that it's a great night to avoid a restaurant meal could be helpful). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's just too long. It sounds like there's enough worthwhile information to split it out into a separate article. Brycehughes (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A separate article about American holidays? My first thought was no, but on second thought, maybe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I went through the same thought process. It could actually be pretty interesting though. Potentially quite detailed as well – capturing regional holidays, minority-religion holidays, etc. Brycehughes (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, sure, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lazy initial split at Holidays of the United States just to get the ball rolling. Brycehughes (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this split makes sense. A country subtopic article like that makes sense when the topic is of special interest to some subset of travellers but not others (Driving in the United States is relevant to people driving, but not to people travelling without a car; American cuisine is of interest to foodies, but other travellers can just rely on the summary in the country article). In those cases the split is helpful as it allows readers to easily choose whether to read or ignore information based on whether it's relevant to them. Are some travellers holiday aficionados who will take a special interest in the new article? I doubt it, so how is the split helpful? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a nice metric for creating new subtopic articles, but I'm not sure it should be the sole metric. If there is so much useful information on a particular topic that fitting that information into a parent article would bloat the parent article, then I think that is a another reason why we might create a new subtopic article. Brycehughes (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, I think the answer is yes. Some travellers love a celebration and a party. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And some know their arrival and departure dates and can see from the summary that there are no (national) holidays at that time. If there happens to be a regional one where they are going to stay, I hope the region article gives them a pointer. –LPfi (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me, too much information about holidays that's now in Holidays of the United States remains duplicated in this article. What should we delete? I'd like to say that the most important holidays in terms of how they affect travelers are Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving, followed by July 4th, Labor Day and Memorial Day, instead of leaving the entire list of Federal holidays plus another short paragraph. Meanwhile, I'll try summarizing some of the text that's currently before that list of holidays. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think having the complete list of federal holidays here is useful, avoiding the need to check Holidays of the United States if you travel at other times and aren't looking forward to celebrating some minor holiday. I don't see much to cut down on (after your edit), without everybody needing to check it for possible closures. –LPfi (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The holidays where it is mostly government offices and banks that are closed could be handled in a paragraph, rather than in the billeted list as they have minimal impact on travellers. I can't remember the last time I went into a bank or government office another country. Ground Zero (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind that post offices are government offices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many government offices and banks close on Martin Luther King Jr. Day (third Monday in January), Presidents' Day (third Monday in February), Juneteenth (19 June), Columbus Day (second Monday in October), Veterans Day (11 November). Some other establishments may close on these holidays.

Well to reopen this discussion, I think we have the worst of both worlds currently. The section in the main article is too abbreviated to be useful to travellers, while the subarticle is too lengthy to be easily understood. (And why in the world is it not organized by date?) I know some folks have been opposed to the comprehensive list here for some time, but the current situation seems untenable to me. Powers ^(talk) 21:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Powers, how would you like to change things here? For the other article, please comment at Talk:Holidays of the United States#Organization. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I got the ball rolling on that talk page, so please comment there, but also please comment here on what you'd like to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that the text in this article is right for this article, which is already very long. Ground Zero (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's too focused on the federal holidays. It's true that travelers may have to deal with federal closures due to visa issues, but I think it's far more important for travelers to know about the effect celebrations may have on crowds (be it on the roads, on mass transit, or at hotels and restaurants). And really the lack of any cultural context here is stark. If this section must provide only an overview, it should be an overview of events that travelers may want to celebrate, and those that they may want to avoid. Not just a list of Official Federal Holidays. Powers ^(talk) 02:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to post a draft of your preferred version of the subsection here? That would be helpful for discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well my preferred version is the full section that used to be in the article, but that's been deemed too long. I don't have time right now to write out a whole alternative in-between option, I'm afraid. Maybe next week. Powers ^(talk) 23:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

LtPowers, are there any parts of the article that you would shorten, or do you only want to make one of the longest articles in Wikivoyage even longer by repeating text that is already in a branch article? Ground Zero (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

With a quick scan, I'd say the Tipping and Connect:By phone sections could be pared. But overall I don't feel the article is too long for a country with the size and diversity of the USA. We should minimize the amount of essential information that is in subarticles. Powers ^(talk) 02:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where we disagree is on whether stuff like detailed descriptions of holidays are "essential". If this article were to cover the size and diversity of the USA in detail, it would be unusable. Subarticles are an integral part of the design and structure of Wikivoyage to facilitate finding information. Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't agree that the descriptions previously in the article were "detailed". They very briefly explained the essentials that a traveller would need to know about what to expect. Powers ^(talk) 19:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you call a local number from a landline phone using the full eleven-digit number (without that affecting the price of the call)? If so, we can get rid of the paragraph on when you can use ten digits and the separate paragraphs on mobile phones and landlines, and just state that you can sometimes omit the trunk prefix and area code (why would you leave out just the former? does it even work from a traditional phone?), but that the full number always works. –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a mess of rules for land lines. For simplicity, I edited it to say always include the "1" prefix for domestic land line calls. (I can't remember the last time I used a land line for anything other than calling hotel reception.) Brycehughes (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I worded it even simpler. Did I understand correctly, that dialling the eleven-digit number from a landline phone will always work, as will dialling the ten-digit number from a mobile phone (as long as you make the call from inside the USA)? –LPfi (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that's right AFAIK. The only tweak I'd make would be to have the mobile phone info first, since who cares about landlines nowadays, but it's minor. (Also from my experience the 10-digit number works on a U.S. mobile line even outside the United States, but I don't know if that experience is universal and I guess it's irrelevant to this article anyway.) Brycehughes (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

For dialing with a US SIM card outside the US, it depends on the carrier. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume that's symmetrical: whether 10-digit calling within the USA works with a foreign SIM might depend on carrier, which is essential for this article. Should we recommend always using the international form of numbers with mobile phones? This should also be discussed in Mobile phones, see Talk:Mobile phones#Phone numbers and Talk:Mobile phones#Domestic phone numbers with foreign phone. –LPfi (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is in "Stay safe":

"Illegal immigration and drug smuggling make the Mexican border undesirable to visit[...]"

Undesirable how? I understand that border towns on the U.S. side tend to be safe. Is that not so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are places along the border that see a lot of human trafficking and drug smuggling (e.g. deserts in Arizona and New Mexico) that make them unsafe. It would be undesirable to be hiking in a deserted area and run into drug smugglers or their lookouts. I agree that border towns tend to be safe. Mrkstvns might be able to add some context. Brycehughes (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume most people who want to visit the border will do it in a popular border town, especially San Diego or El Paso, so if the sentence quoted is talking about remote desert areas, I think it's misleading. I would suggest removing the sentence altogether and covering this in region and city articles where appropriate. This article has a perennial length problem as it is. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This is very misleading and not true from my experience in San Diego. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So unless anyone feels inspired to rework the wording, let's delete it within 2 days if there's no objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd say keep it, but modify it to something like "Some areas along the Mexican border are unsafe due to human trafficking and drug smuggling, although border towns and cities are safe." I'm usually a deletionist for these sorts of things but information about borders is quite relevant to travel. Brycehughes (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can say "some remote areas on the Mexican border" to make it clear that this does not apply to border towns or official border crossings. The dog2 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's alright with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fine to me too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is remarkably un-specific. Temperate means anything between the poles and the tropics. Why not actually reference Koppen climates? The US has mostly a humid subtropical climate in the southeast, a humid continental climate in the northeast...

I'd also change the geographical pictures of the US to distinguish the climate and geography of the regions better. For instance, instead of a slightly misleading photo of North Georgia that makes it look like it has the same climate and environment as New England, why not include a picture of a mountainous, autumnal landscape from Vermont, juxtaposed with a green, lush mountainous shot of Georgia instead? Or include a picture of the subtropical maritime forest of the South (as seen on Tybee Island, or in the South Carolina Lowcountry instead?

--76.157.42.81 03:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

New threads should be at the bottom of the page. That said, this is the actual statement at the beginning of the "Climate" subsection:

"Although much of the U.S. has a temperate climate, there is also a wide variety from Arctic tundra in Alaska to the tropical weather in Hawaii and South Florida. The Great Plains are dry, flat and grassy, turning into desert in the Far West and Mediterranean along the California coast." And your problem with that is? As far as pictures are concerned, climate is not the main point of them. And "why not actually reference Koppen climates?" Because they're encyclopedic and not subject matter for a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much of your latest edits to region and state articles look good to me, though. Thanks. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Koppen climates are a good measure but only for rainfall. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not accurate, as is already mentioned in the same paragraph. It's just an unnecessary quotation. It's a collection of prairies and steppe-land. A degree of flatness is already implied in "Great Plains". Dedicating a whole sentence to calling it flat tells us little about the region.

--76.157.42.81 03:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it not accurate? I do remember reading a paper that actually did mathematical calculations to prove that Kansas was flatter than the average pancake. Besides, it's a fun saying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I remember watching this Julian O'Shea video which delved more into that study – technically, for a place to be less flatter than a pancake, it'd need to have a mountain greater than 9,000 m (30,000 ft), so pretty much the entire world qualifies as being flatter than a pancake. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, really? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that depends on how large a pancake you have, but even a 8000-m mountain is just 8 km high, and the plains are probably more than 80 km away from its peak. A 10% thickness difference isn't much on a pancake. It is just that we see vertical differences as significant, without relating them to distance. On the other hand, the pancake analogy is to be though of in relation to something like a mountain profile shown in an encyclopedia, with different scales on height and width. –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heck, the earth as a whole is smoother than a standard billiard ball. Powers ^(talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue is this passage which I had originally inserted into the article several years ago to introduce readers to immigration inspection in the United States:

"All U.S. commercial ports of entry (airports and seaports) are designed to funnel all arriving passengers regardless of final destination into a "federal inspection area" manned by officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a bureau of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."

On 29 August 2024, User:The dog2 deleted that text without warning, but failed to revise all subsequent paragraphs which refer to CBP. Because User:The dog2 deleted the only point in the article where the term "CBP" was defined, the result is that there are currently 18 subsequent references to CBP in the article which are unexplained. By definition, most people reading this article are going to be foreigners unfamiliar with the alphabet soup of U.S. federal government agencies. User:The dog2 failed to revise the references to CBP to either (1) define the acronym at first use or (2) avoid it altogether. The result was to leave large portions of this article in a nonsensical and incoherent state, because it repeatedly refers to an undefined term, CBP.

Furthermore, the entire point of the sentence was to (1) introduce readers to the idea of mandatory immigration inspection and (2) who does it. On 3 October 2024 I reverted the 29 August edit and pointed out that User:The dog2 had left large portions of the article in a nonsensical state by referring to an undefined term with which most readers would not be familiar.

The same day, User:The dog2 reverted my revert with the following edit summary: "Please take it to the talk page. "Immigration" is standard across the world. And being funneled into an inspection area is standard across the world when you are arriving on an international flight."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

First, that fails to respond to the issue of how the 29 August deletion left the term "CBP" undefined, resulting in an unexplained acronym and in turn, writing that is very hard for non-Americans to follow unless they already know about CBP. The agency is rarely depicted in American movies and television shows. It is much more obscure than the FBI and the CIA.

Second, most countries use "passport control" as the standard English term (e.g., Schengen Area airports), not "immigration". Indeed, this article repeatedly referred to "passport control" (apparently because we have so many British English contributors on Wikivoyage) until I revised it today to focus on "immigration inspection" as the standard term in American English and to only mention passport control in passing to explain that it is the foreign term.

Third, being funneled into an inspection area is not standard across the world. Anyone who has traveled through airport hubs in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Central America, or South America (I have vacationed twice on six continents) would know that hubs outside of the United States rarely require mandatory immigration and customs inspection. Some hubs do require a security screening for passengers with connecting flights, but they don't insist on admitting all passengers to their home territories. The United States is the outlier on this issue by always insisting that anyone who enters a port of entry must be formally admitted to its territory, even if they are merely in transit, will not leave the airport, and will depart on another flight within a few hours. We have an article on Avoiding travel through the United States for this very reason.

Anyone who regularly follows travel forums on Tripadvisor, Skytrax Airline Reviews, FlyerTalk, Reddit, etc. (as I have for a decade) would be aware that the U.S. law requiring such inspections and admission is a major cause of stress, worry, and concern for travelers. It is especially unpleasant for people from the majority of countries which are not Visa Waiver Program countries, because they either have to attempt to qualify for a transit visa or seek alternate routes through other hubs outside of the United States. Those alternate routes are often more expensive and/or inconvenient compared to flights through the United States. The gigantic size of the U.S. domestic market (compared to the other aviation markets in the Americas) means more traffic, more competition, more flights, and more affordable tickets. Numerous airports in the Americas are optimized to serve U.S.-bound flights first and everyone else second.

Any objections before I revert User:The dog2's revert? Coolcaesar (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to spell out CBP in full in the first line, I don't object to that. And "immigration" is not an exclusively American term. Singapore, Australia, Malaysia and Hong Kong all use "immigration" to label the counters where you get your passport checked.

We already mention that travellers need to clear immigration just to connect between two international flights in the U.S. in the "By plane" section. That is indeed unusual and I never deleted that line. But I do not know of any country that makes it optional for you to pass through immigration and customs when you try to enter on an international flight. The dog2 (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, as to your last point, that is not what the sentence at issue is trying to distinguish the United States from.

To read it that way, it sounds like you are reading way too much into the words "all arriving passengers". "Arriving" isn't the same thing as "entering". No native adult English speaker would read it that way. "Arriving" in this context simply refers to everyone getting off an airplane or ship. "Entering" means the ones who actually enter a country as opposed to merely transiting through.

I think that's the point of misunderstanding here: it sounds like you incorrectly parsed the sentence as presenting the United States in contradistinction to something that it's actually not trying to distinguish.

The point of the sentence is to describe as concisely as possible what shocks many foreigners when they come into an U.S. airport for the first time: they are diverted into a mysterious network of walkways, deliberately isolated by design from the rest of the airport terminal, that runs to a single destination: a federal inspection area. They have no choice.

This is in contrast to many hub airports outside of the United States, where one emerges from the gate directly into the terminal (as is the case for U.S. domestic flights). And then one has a choice to stay in the sterile area or exit the airport, and it is when one exits the airport that one must go through immigration and customs inspection.

I am aware that roughly the same point is made in a different way in the "By plane" section. But I don't see any problem with introducing the point in this section in the way in which it will actually appear to travelers from a practical perspective: they step off the airplane or ship and they have no choice because they are all funneled to immigration regardless of final destination. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to move it from "By plane" to an appropriate earlier section that's fine by me. I just want to avoid excessive repetition in the article.

But this thing where you say you are funneled into "a mysterious network of walkways" is hardly unique to the U.S. That is standard practice across many countries for international arrivals. The only countries I have been to where you exit the aircraft into the departure area after arriving on an international flight are Singapore and Malaysia. I've made flight connections in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the UK and all these places funnel you into the international arrival corridor that leads to immigration when you get off the plane. If you have a connecting international flight, there's a security check area that allows you to go straight to the departure area without passing through immigration. The dog2 (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

https://www.afar.com/magazine/incredible-places-to-visit-in-the-u-s

Sadly, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands were excluded. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, those aren't really states and people living in the lower 48 would have to book a long, and very expensive, flight to get to those places. As a traveler in the USA, I prefer the article's focus on places that *really are* in the USA. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

They're not states, but to fly to Hawaii from anywhere is long and expensive. I think the Virgin Islands are a lot closer to Florida and quite a few other states than Hawaii is to California. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

https://www.wildsam.com/stories/best-road-hotels-in-america-motor-lodges

As an American, these are definitely the sort of place you foreigners want to stay if you come here to visit and want an authentic Americana-style experience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This would make up a great travel topic, provided that we respect copyright. As in Haunted Stockholm tour, a compilation article based on a main source should have text written from scratch, as well as omitting some entries from the source, adding entries absent from the source. /Yvwv (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to know why this page had to be semi-protected, it's because an IP user with a dynamic IP address and an axe to grind insists on fighting a petty edit war over what kinds of food are common in the U.S. Americans are familiar with Greek food because Greeks are a well-established community, having lived here in sizable numbers for over 100 years and being very visible as the owners of many diners. Middle Eastern food is known as such in the U.S., whereas it's generally called Arab - and where applicable, Israeli - food in Europe. Turkish food definitely exists here, and it has some popularity in cities like New York, but it's just not as visible as such in this country. That's not pro-Greek or anti-Turkish, it's just the truth, and it's a very minor point in regard to the U.S. So to the edit-warring IP user: if you want to continue making things harder and less enjoyable for others, keep on trying to edit war and making us continue semi-protecting this page. The better choice is for you to give up your non-travel-related edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surely this warrants a ban nomination at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations because a) the IP refuses to listen to you or anyone; b) continually edit wars under multiple IP addresses (meaning blocks are useless); and c) has not engaged in productive discussion. I'd happily support a siteban for that IP. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How would a user ban be different from blocking them on sight? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It entrenches this in consensus and may help with any future global ban if this behavior escalates cross-wiki to an extreme end. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume this is a long-time problem editor, probably already blocked forever on at least some projects. If so, there is enough information on them already, except on their new IP addresses, which may not be theirs any more. I don't think a ban proposal is worth the time that it would take away from other work. They've shown problematic behaviour, but enough for a ban? I don't think so. I don't even know what an IP user ban would mean in practice, and there would need to be a long discussion on that. –LPfi (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have just reverted two edits about Greek / Turkish restaurants in United Kingdom. AlasdairW (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply