|
Archived discussions
|
Honorary consulates
[edit]
- "in general, do not include honorary consulates, unless the listing defines what services are provided to travellers."
Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Generally I am happy with this, but I would point out that honorary consulates can be useful to business travellers when they are not of use to a tourist. It may be worth keeping consulate listings in small unexpected places - if I am working in a small place for a few months I would be more likely to contact the consul for introductions than I would do in a city. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Market halls and food markets
[edit]As Legacy food markets recently was created, there is some confusion whether market halls, fish markets etc should go under Eat or Buy. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think they sometimes straddle the line, but I would usually lean towards "Buy", which is where I think most readers will expect to find them. To check, I searched for a few famous markets, and I found that La Boqueria, Findlay Market, and Phnom Penh's Central Market are all listed in the "Buy" sections of their articles. This project page already advises that farmers' markets should go in the "Buy" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Generally I would agree with "Buy", but it depends on the individual market. If you go to the market and eat there, or buy food that you eat within a few minutes of leaving the market, then "Eat" is better (many stalls sell hot food). If the market generally sells food that you take back and cook (or many clothes stalls) then "Buy". If the market is something that visitors will often just look at (the market selling fish in 10kg boxes) then "See". AlasdairW (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Alasdair. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Generally I would agree with "Buy", but it depends on the individual market. If you go to the market and eat there, or buy food that you eat within a few minutes of leaving the market, then "Eat" is better (many stalls sell hot food). If the market generally sells food that you take back and cook (or many clothes stalls) then "Buy". If the market is something that visitors will often just look at (the market selling fish in 10kg boxes) then "See". AlasdairW (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Convention Centers
[edit]If a traveller is visiting a city to attend a convention, it might be helpful to know where the convention center is located relative to other attractions, hotels, and restaurants. But I'm not sure where to put such a listing within a City article. Any ideas? Powers (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest putting it in "Do," as attending a convention is an activity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd also put it in "Do". --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't you get the location in the convention info? It may be bit awkward to see how the convention map relates to our OSM map, but you probably need to do that matching anyway. For cities where conventions are common, I suppose there are several such centres, and you also want their hotels etc. I am afraid there may be a lot of venues not interesting for other travellers that would qualify. Meetings for youth often use schools for accommodation, at least over here, would those qualify also? I suppose a dominating convention centre could be listed, but we should be careful not to overdo it. In some cases the convention centres more or less coincide with hotels, universities etc., and the convention centre name could be mentioned in that context, findable with a search. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've found that often convention centres (and the accommodation near it) give a good indication of whether there is good public transit nearby, which is why I generally advocate for including it – it's a good spot to stay at car-free (in most of the Anglosphere) even if you're not actually going there for the convention centre. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Larger convention centres are often used for public events in addition to business events. If these are regular, then they can be mentioned in the Do listing, and makes it more worthwhile giving the venue a listing. AlasdairW (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It just feels like a big gap on the map to me. (Check out Philadelphia/Center_City_East, for instance, and zoom in on the massive empty space that is the Convention Center. It's mentioned prominently in the lede, but nothing in the article proper!) We want folks to look at our maps, but then cross-reference information from the convention organizers? No, that doesn't make sense to me. I've tried looking for examples but I only know a few cities' convention centers. Philly I mentioned above. Toronto barely even mentions theirs, except in a listing for Fan Expo Canada (with no marker, address, or coordinates). New York City mentions Javits a few times but offers no address or location information. Buffalo does include a marker for it in the Downtown article but it's inline in a listing for an event; coordinates but no address or contact info. Powers (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Larger convention centres are often used for public events in addition to business events. If these are regular, then they can be mentioned in the Do listing, and makes it more worthwhile giving the venue a listing. AlasdairW (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've found that often convention centres (and the accommodation near it) give a good indication of whether there is good public transit nearby, which is why I generally advocate for including it – it's a good spot to stay at car-free (in most of the Anglosphere) even if you're not actually going there for the convention centre. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't you get the location in the convention info? It may be bit awkward to see how the convention map relates to our OSM map, but you probably need to do that matching anyway. For cities where conventions are common, I suppose there are several such centres, and you also want their hotels etc. I am afraid there may be a lot of venues not interesting for other travellers that would qualify. Meetings for youth often use schools for accommodation, at least over here, would those qualify also? I suppose a dominating convention centre could be listed, but we should be careful not to overdo it. In some cases the convention centres more or less coincide with hotels, universities etc., and the convention centre name could be mentioned in that context, findable with a search. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd also put it in "Do". --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Backcountry campgrounds - Do or Sleep?
[edit]I'm having fun cleaning up and filling in outdoors destinations in the Pacific Northwest. I was updating the information Mount Rainier National Park, where they issue Wilderness Permits for overnight stays in "backcountry" campgrounds - places that require a substantial (multi-hour) hike to get to, and provide no equipment or services beyond a flat patch of earth to pitch a tent. These are not "frontcountry" campgrounds that you can drive a car to, or otherwise get to easily.
Wilderness Backpacking is the cross of hiking (a clear Do) and camping (a clear Sleep). I put the permit information in Do, because I see the backcountry camping as an integral component of a longer hike, and not as a place to stay in between multiple activities. It's essentially a single Do activity that happens to span multiple days. Is this the best take? Gerode (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm thinking the campgrounds themselves are "Sleep"s, whereas the hiking is a "Do," but if it's treated all as a single activity, it's a "Do." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- In park articles, the permits fit nicely in Fees and permits, especially as I suppose they are uniform across (any one type of) campgrounds. I think, in most cases, that the campgrounds themselves belong in Sleep if they are common for many hikes – and descriptions of the types regardless – while if they are for specific hikes only, they should be handled as part of the hikes in Do. If some campgrouds are common, I think it is cleanest to put them all in Sleep. –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Parking spaces
[edit]Where to list parking spaces in a city article, and should they be moved to districts for huge cities? WV:STICK says that "parking" goes under the "Get around" section of a city article, but does it refer to a general advice on parking, or listings of individual parking spaces? Also, while listing parking spaces is unnecessary for most cities where cars can be parked anywhere, there are cities that are chock-full of "No Parking" signs (or districts with alleys too narrow for cars to enter), and we have to list parking spaces for such cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think "Get around" is typically the right section, both for individual parking lots and for general information about parking. Information about parking is usually part of information about how to get around a city by car. Exceptions include some articles where it's common to drive to the destination but move around within it on foot (San Marino, Disneyland); then it makes sense to put parking in "Get in". For advice about where to park for a specific POI, I would use the "directions" parameter of the listing.
- Individual parking spaces are rarely worth listing, but individual parking lots, or areas with lots of street parking, can certainly be worth mentioning in small towns or places with limited parking. Gambier comes to mind; I added a marker for the town's main visitor parking lot because many of the other parking spaces there have a two-hour limit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that "Get around" is the right place. Might also consider mentioning alternatives to driving, such as parking in an outlying suburb and using Metro or other transit services to get into the downtown area. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll use "Get around" to list parking spaces. Thanks for input. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Superstitions, lucky numbers, etc.
[edit]Several articles including China and Japan mention lucky/unlucky numbers and other superstitions that might be of relevance. In some cases this is tucked into a relevant subsection (such as Respect#Gifts), but in other cases it's shoehorned into Understand or Respect as an afterthought.
TBH, I'm torn whether it belongs in a guide at all. On the one hand, it doesn't generally affect a traveller except in certain situations (such as giving a gift, in which case it's obvious where to put such advice). On the other hand, it can be useful context for fitting in with locals or even just for understanding their culture (e.g. what it means when you see a lot of 8s in China or a lot of 777 in Las Vegas). Even if it does belong, what section makes the most sense for it? --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
See or do natural attractions?
[edit]The categories See and Do are in many cases overlapping. A principle has been that See lists attractions which can be casually visited (seeing the Manneken Pis in Brussels would be a quintessential example), while Do attractions (Activities) require active participation (such as gambling or ice skating); however, the categorization follows tradition more than a strict pattern. While Natural attractions are listed as see, outdoor life is listed as do, and many country and region articles list nature and outdoor destinations twice. As most natural attractions take some active participation beyond the vehicle transport (though driving or riding the bus to the Grand Canyon Village and walking up to the viewpoints would activate the pedometer less than walking through the Louvre in Paris). What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- To me, most natural attractions are places where I want to Do thingsː hike, camp, ride, paddle. I don't just want to snap a selfie with a volcano in the background, I want to get up close and hike to the top so I can see into the caldera. I think it's okay that the categories have some overlapː let the writer who adds it to a topic decide whether its more of a "See" or "Do". Most will make the right choice. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- If I am undecided between "see" or "do", I ask if any advance preparation is required. If I am going to hike, then I probably want to pack my boots; if I am going to the theatre, then I may need to book a seat before I leave home. If I am going to a museum, then I normally just turn up (I know some museums require bookings but most don't). AlasdairW (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have special rules (though I think the suggestions above are all very good). I think that if it's not intuitively obvious to you where this attraction belongs, then you should just pick one and not worry about it. The fact that you can't easily decide proves that no matter which one you choose, or what process you use to decide (flip a coin?), the result will not be bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- People who travel abroad are likely to encounter the cities with their architecture and monuments, before they venture into the outdoors, if they do it at all. Thereby, it makes sense to group natural attractions with outdoor life under the Do paragraph, at least in an article about a decently sized country. Consider Sweden#See; in which a very short paragraph on protected areas was recently added. /Yvwv (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not too recently. I now reverted the addition; it was directly followed by Nature in Do, which is the natural place to describe the protected areas in question. I agree that most natural attractions are better grouped with outdoor life in Do, especially as they mostly require a hike or a dedicated trip to reach. However, there are exceptions, such as a waterfall in the city itself, which would clearly qualify as a "see" (but if there is a Waterfalls subsection in Do, one might want to include it there). There might also be natural attractions that many visitors would pass by, and also those could be "see" listings, even when far from cities. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- err, that's a Brendan sock for the record. //shb (t | c | m) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not too recently. I now reverted the addition; it was directly followed by Nature in Do, which is the natural place to describe the protected areas in question. I agree that most natural attractions are better grouped with outdoor life in Do, especially as they mostly require a hike or a dedicated trip to reach. However, there are exceptions, such as a waterfall in the city itself, which would clearly qualify as a "see" (but if there is a Waterfalls subsection in Do, one might want to include it there). There might also be natural attractions that many visitors would pass by, and also those could be "see" listings, even when far from cities. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- People who travel abroad are likely to encounter the cities with their architecture and monuments, before they venture into the outdoors, if they do it at all. Thereby, it makes sense to group natural attractions with outdoor life under the Do paragraph, at least in an article about a decently sized country. Consider Sweden#See; in which a very short paragraph on protected areas was recently added. /Yvwv (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's not nearly as confusing as it sounds – if it's a lookout or a natural attraction itself (such as a waterfall), then it's a see; if it requires hiking, riding, driving or paddling, then it's a do. If something contains a mix of the two, it's not uncommon to combine the see and do sections. //shb (t | c | m) 21:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Whatamidoing: if the decision is hard, how you flip your coin probably isn't that important. I also don't think we should make the impression that there are fast rules about it. Often it matters how you treat similar attractions in the same article, such as the waterfall example in my reply to Yvwv above, how much content there is in the respective sections, or there may be other considerations not inherent in the attraction itself. The question may arise also in articles with much content, where you wouldn't combine the sections. Your rule of thumb is good, but editor judgement should have the last word. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do agree, it's not a big deal if it's misplaced; more often than not if it is, it's a sign to combine the two sections together. //shb (t | c | m) 10:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree on the latter. It is true for many rural areas, where most "see" attractions require some effort to reach, but where a similar problem arises for real cities, combining the sections would be an odd decision. See e.g. Rovaniemi, which has a short section on Natural attractions in See and more content in Do, beginning with Hiking and birdwatching. The content of the former could arguably be moved to Do, but the sights there are mostly by the roads you'd use anyway. The latter are much better covered in a separate Do than being mixed up with museums and churches. Both See and Do are long (two and four pages in my browser window). –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would argue that nature within cities tends to be rather the exception rather than the norm, at least on Wikivoyage. Not saying it's uncommon, but most of our natural attractions tend to be covered under park articles where it's much more common. Fir cities, yes I do agree that combining them isn't the best idea. //shb (t | c | m) 11:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with LPfi, and while most destinations will have more "See" than "Do" listings, there's nothing wrong with places that have significantly longer "Do" sections. There's no need to combine them. If you misplace a listing, another contributor can always put it where it belongs. It can also be discussed on the talk page, but it's better to have a misplaced listing than to have no listing because the contributor was too worried about misplacing it.
- When it comes to nature, I don't personally associate natural attractions with "Do", so I don't see a problem with putting a waterfall, a volcano, a river, a primeval forest, a 2000 year old tree, etc in the "See" section. I also think it's okay to give the sight a "See" listing and a hiking trail that goes to or past the sight a "Do" listing or if the place is an attraction but also has options for paragliding or other activities, giving those their own listings. In the Tottori article, the Sand Dunes themselves have a "See" listing (that is enough for most visitors) but a subheading under "Do" also lists all of the activities that you can participate in at the dunes. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would argue that nature within cities tends to be rather the exception rather than the norm, at least on Wikivoyage. Not saying it's uncommon, but most of our natural attractions tend to be covered under park articles where it's much more common. Fir cities, yes I do agree that combining them isn't the best idea. //shb (t | c | m) 11:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree on the latter. It is true for many rural areas, where most "see" attractions require some effort to reach, but where a similar problem arises for real cities, combining the sections would be an odd decision. See e.g. Rovaniemi, which has a short section on Natural attractions in See and more content in Do, beginning with Hiking and birdwatching. The content of the former could arguably be moved to Do, but the sights there are mostly by the roads you'd use anyway. The latter are much better covered in a separate Do than being mixed up with museums and churches. Both See and Do are long (two and four pages in my browser window). –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do agree, it's not a big deal if it's misplaced; more often than not if it is, it's a sign to combine the two sections together. //shb (t | c | m) 10:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Whatamidoing: if the decision is hard, how you flip your coin probably isn't that important. I also don't think we should make the impression that there are fast rules about it. Often it matters how you treat similar attractions in the same article, such as the waterfall example in my reply to Yvwv above, how much content there is in the respective sections, or there may be other considerations not inherent in the attraction itself. The question may arise also in articles with much content, where you wouldn't combine the sections. Your rule of thumb is good, but editor judgement should have the last word. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Yvwv, Mrkstvns, LPfi, SHB2000, ChubbyWimbus: I often wonder where to list the city parks in a big city before it gets districtified. As per my common sense, a city park will go under "See" if it needs minimal preparations to visit (spending long hours in the park is considered "minimal" here), and it will go under "Do" if it needs extensive preparations. In case of distrifications, it is better to consider see and do attractions together due to overlaps in the scope of both sections, something I did for Chennai. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it#P draws the line according to whether there are sports fields, beaches, riding trails or other activities, and I'd count anything that requires preparation (other than packing your picnic) as such. Of course, a park can have a sports field in addition to "see" things, and often you'd like to keep the parks together, so you need to use your judgement. –LPfi (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think LPfi nailed it. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification. Yes, city parks come under "Do" if they require extensive preparations, while mostly-ornamental parks like Eco Park in Kolkata come under "See" (although Eco Park has some activities, they don't require extensive preparations). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Gas station in remote places. Get in or Get around section?
[edit]I am writing an article for Fort McPherson. It is the only community with gas stations within a 3-hr drive. I consulted "Where you can stick it" and it says Put these types in the Get around - By car section of the City or Park page.
Does that sound right when most travellers are getting into the remote place to fuel up gas, not necessarily getting around the community itself? My gut feeling is to put it into Get in section as almost all traffic are transient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would still put it in "Get around," but if that's the main reason people stop there, it should also be mentioned in the lede. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Keeping standard info in standard sections is good, and the petrol station is relevant also for getting around locally. Having a mention in the lead covers the rest. You don't need the local petrol station to get in. –LPfi (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would also favour putting it in "Get around", making it clear that the town's main purpose is being a service town. //shb (t | c | m) 08:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Buy could also work, I remember seeing that in some articles about remote Australian towns. Possibly the way of thinking has been that one of the reasons to stop there is to Buy fuel.--Ypsilon (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Northwest_Territories#Get_around might also have something about gas in the region - ideally this would be a link to a definitive list of gas stations in the region, but could be a list of places (outside Yellowknife) that have gas stations. In Fort McPherson, the gas stations could have listings giving opening hours, lat/longs, details of shop or other facilities etc. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would also work – though for Australia it's largely due to service/gas stations also acting as that town's convenience store and essentials (like post). There's a bit more nuance to it but that delves way too much into economics/planning. //shb (t | c | m) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you all. I'll keep it in "Getting around" and add a point in the lead. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Buy could also work, I remember seeing that in some articles about remote Australian towns. Possibly the way of thinking has been that one of the reasons to stop there is to Buy fuel.--Ypsilon (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Naming "gas stations"
[edit]I don't want to hijack your thread, but I think a tangential issue could be calling these "gas stations" in the first place, since there are other types of general fueling stations that offer electricity, hydrogen, or natural gas (compressed or liquid). There are even stations that only have diesel and not petrol/gasoline. I think we should prefer a more generic term like "fueling station" to "gas station" for this reason and also list other vehicle fueling options as appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of honest, direct, simple communication. Inventing a new catch-all term is a bad idea when everyone in the world already knows what a gas station or petrol station is. Explaining any deviances, or availability of electric charging etc. would be appropriate, but I wouldn't try to guess what the next commonly used term will be as the world's energy technologies evolve. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is "fueling station" a new term? I think it's been around for several decades. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Koavf, Mrkstvns: We already have a lot of possible generic terms to use instead of gas/petrol station, like filling station, fuel provider/supplier, (re)fuel(ing) station, motor station, service station, and vehicle station. I think we should use "filling station" as the generic term, as it is widely used across different Wikimedia projects (except in Commons where "fueling station" is used). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Of the terms you cited, I think "service station" is best because it carries no association to a specific kind of energy. (You don't really "fuel" or "fill" an electric car, you "charge" it.) Just a thought.... Mrkstvns (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, with the minor caveat that in the U.S., we sometimes distinguish between gas stations where you can only get gas and service stations where you can also get some other services for your vehicle. I'm a non-driver, but I believe that service stations normally can do more than changing your oil, such as at least minor repairs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Which, to also be clear, were much more common in the mid-20th century, but the vast majority of x stations are just "get gas and maybe some snacks" or maybe a car wash, but rarely any basic mechanical servicing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Justin is correct that there are other fueling stations, but when it only sells gasoline and diesel, then "gas station" seems like a reasonable choice. There's a public charging place for electric cars near me. It's in the middle of a shopping center parking lot and I think it can charge 20 or more vehicles at a time. I wouldn't call that a gas station, but I'm not sure I'd call it any sort of fuel station. I'd probably call it a shopping center with some charging points.
- I share Ikan's perception that a "service station" offers vehicle repairs (at least changing tires and oil). A store full of junk food with fuel pumps outside is the common type in my area, and I would not call them "service stations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, with the minor caveat that in the U.S., we sometimes distinguish between gas stations where you can only get gas and service stations where you can also get some other services for your vehicle. I'm a non-driver, but I believe that service stations normally can do more than changing your oil, such as at least minor repairs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Of the terms you cited, I think "service station" is best because it carries no association to a specific kind of energy. (You don't really "fuel" or "fill" an electric car, you "charge" it.) Just a thought.... Mrkstvns (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we can use the term "gas station" (or "petrol station" in the Commonwealth) if the fuel station primarily sells gasoline (or petrol) and diesel. However, I prefer "fuel station" or "filling station" for most cases, and "charging station" for electric cars. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm with Mrkstvns and WhatamIdoing. For my example at Fort McPherson, it's definitely a textbook example of a gas station (sells gas & diesel, plus a convenience store with junk food and pop). In my view, "fuel station" is unclear and open to ambiguity. Is it to fuel up gas? Electricity for electric cars? Or hydrogen gas for fuel-cell cars? Charging station is exactly that, to "fuel" up electric cars. If a non-gas station (e.g. shopping centre, tourist attraction) has standalone electric charging facilities, I will call it a charging station. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)