This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The edit summary was too small to explain my changes here.

• Travelpleb changed "Slavery would soon become integral to the Southern economy, a sad fact that would cause tremendous upheaval in the years to come." to "Slavery would soon become integral to the Southern economy, and would cause tremendous upheaval in the years to come." This completely changes the meaning of the sentence (as well as being grammatically incorrect, setting off a dependent clause with a comma). It was not slavery itself that caused the upheaval; it was specifically slavery's role in the Southern economy (and culture, to be fair). I also don't see what's wrong with the word "sad", but I did not reinstate it.
• Travelpleb changed "General discount stores like Walmart, Target, and Kmart are ubiquitous. Many discount stores have either a small grocery section or a full supermarket; in fact, Walmart is the country's largest grocer, as well as being its largest retail chain." to "General discount stores like Walmart, Target, and Kmart are ubiquitous. Many discount stores have either a small grocery section or a full supermarket: Walmart is the country's largest grocer, as well as its largest retail chain!" The words "in fact" served to link the two sentences together. The colon doesn't do this as effectively, and I think the exclamation mark expresses more surprise than is warranted here. "In fact" is only often unnecessary; it is not a verboten phrase if its use is justified, as it is here. I changed it back.
• Travelpleb changed "(Note that in areas outside the South, a private backyard party with food cooked outdoors may be called a 'barbecue', but they are more accurately called 'cookouts', with grilled (rather than smoked) chicken, hamburgers, and hot dogs.)" to "Outside the South, the more international definition of 'barbecue' holds: a private backyard party where the likes of chicken, hamburgers, and hot dogs are grilled outdoors (rather than smoked)." This is just blatantly false, as if anything outside the south called "Barbecue" is going to be a cookout, period. I changed it back, omitting the grievously offensive "Note that" introduction.
• "The Visa Waiver Program grant visa-free entry to citizens...": I re-added back in the 90-day limit, which was not explicitly mentioned anywhere else.
• The problem with this edit is that it separates the discussion of "bold italics" and what they mean away from the list that actually contains the bold italics! That's poor writing practice; it leaves the reader wondering what the writer is referring to until several sentences later. Second of all, "Most states usually, but not always, also observe..." is redundant; I've eliminated unnecessary verbiage. I also noted that states have their own holidays when local and state offices may be closed.

I am rarely wedded to my precise choice of words, but changing the meaning entirely is a problem.

-- LtPowers (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I really don't understand this sequence of edits:

• [1]: For someone who is worried about conciseness, this seems unnecessarily wordy, and I'm not sure what aspects of the old wording Travelpleb is trying to avoid here. The verbiage about "definitions" and "the rest of the world takes to be" seems unnecessarily long. I also find puzzling the assertion that "cookout" is "not an international term" while "barbecue" is apparently widely understood. Regardless, "cookout" was, I think, well-defined in the previous version, so I don't see what improvement it offers to pull the definition out into a separate, short sentence.
• [2]: While the meaning of "dime" may not be immediately obvious, it seems odd to call it out in this way. We've already established that the 10-cent piece is called a "dime"; stating again that the "10-cent piece is called labeled 'one dime'" is redundant, isn't it?
• [3]: Again, here, I don't understand the huge advantage offered by the change; a nineteen character difference doesn't make the revised text particularly more concise, so it seems like the change was made just for the sake of making a change.

-- LtPowers (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "cookout" is not used outside the U.S. (and maybe Canada?) Elsewhere, the term "barbecue" describes a cookout and "cookout" is meaningless. Given this variety of definitions being used in different U.S. regions and by the likely readers of the article, careful wording is required. It is never my intention to sacrifice clarity for brevity. If you can reword this more concisely while making it unambiguous to any English speaker, please go ahead.

Knowing the names of most of the coins is not particularly important as they are simply labeled. A reader bombarded with information can happily let the names escape their attention and concentrate on other more important things, for example the 180 words devoted to gift cards. The emphasis on the dime brings attention to its esoteric, and not overly helpful, label.

Re slavery. The initial sentence is 21 words, the revision is 16. The 19 character difference is in a sentence of only 130. That's a significant difference. In its style, I'd also say it reads slightly better and certainly no worse.

By the way, thanks for all your help. We're making good progress towards getting this guide into shape.Travelpleb (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in axing the info about entry requirements to Guam/CNMI/Am. Samoa. Any reason why this info shouldn't be kept on the U.S. page? The Guam-CNMI visa waiver program & Am. Samoa entry requirements belong on this page and especially worth highlighting is that (due to differing immigration/customs requirements) passengers must go through customs/immigration with traveling between Guam-CNMI and between Guam/CNMI & rest of U.S. (currently, just Guam-Hawaii flights). AHeneen (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly esoteric information of interest only to people specifically seeking out those territories. I think a brief note stating that the requirements are different, along with a link to the appropriate articles, is sufficient. This article is long enough as it is without having to incorporate (and duplicate) the Get In sections for Guam etc. LtPowers (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LtPowers on this. Well said. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is bugging me, but I don't know how to fix it succinctly:

Hospitals are either publicly or privately owned. 70% of all hospitals are non-profit (which does not mean they are low-cost!). Private hospitals are more highly regarded; in poorer inner-city areas, public hospitals are can be overcrowded and run-down. The public hospitals will generally be the regional centers for 24 hr emergency specialist treatment.

It seems to conflate public hospitals with "non-profit" status; while I believe all public hospitals are non-profit, some private hospitals are too. But I'm not sure how to convey this nuance.

-- LtPowers (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to use these statistics [4] to help.

If we consider only "Community Hospitals", we can say something like (and this is now contrary to what I found on Wikipedia):

"Around 20% of all hospitals are publicly owned and most of the remaining privately owned hospitals also do not operate for profit. While 80% of all hospitals are non-profit, don't expect low costs."

Travelpleb (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would tweak this a little: "Around 20% of all hospitals are publicly owned and most of the remaining privately owned hospitals are also designated as non-profit - but don't expect them to be cheap." It's an odd fact that just because a business is classes as "non-profit" doesn't mean it doesn't or can't make a profit. I do believe insurance companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield either are or recently were "non-profit," and that made them no less cut-throat than "for-profit" insurance companies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's worth noting the difference between for-profit & non-profit hospitals. A couple decades ago when for-profit hospitals began to emerge, they basically would charge the same or slightly less (to gain patients) than other, nearby hospitals while cutting costs on everything (ie. buying poor-quality gloves, surgical instruments, devices, etc that would break/tear/fail often). Today, however, the difference is not very clear. Because of health care laws and contracts with health insurance companies, the standards for care are similar and many for-profits are aggressively fixing flaws in their systems that lead to cost savings, but improved care (administration, facilities, etc). Also, many for-profit hospitals will care more about attracting patients (more money) and will spend capital on facilities (specialty centers for cancer, children, etc) or be more attentive to patient needs (nicer rooms, more services like social work...financial planning, counseling, etc.). On the other hand, there are a lot of non-profit hospitals which haven't worked as hard to tackle management issues (higher administrative costs), are as or even more aggressive with collecting debt, pay their upper management handsomely, and charge more than local public or for-profit hospitals for the same care. And unlike for-profits, they may not feel the same pressure to attract new patients and have less of a focus on reducing systematic costs & provide better care or facilities. Of course, there are many exceptions to this, but what I'm trying to get to is that there's not a night-and-day difference between the types, and it probably isn't even worth mentioning since it has almost no implications for a traveler. The only reason/place this might be worth mentioning is Medical tourism. Although this is a topic that fits within our goals and we can write about it, I think the overwhelming majority of people coming to the U.S. for medical treatment are more affluent and won't be looking to a travel guide wiki for information. AHeneen (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "non-profit" simply means that they aren't seeking a profit that gets shared with investors and doesn't necessarily mean that they don't seek surplus revenue or strive to provide cheaper services. A non-profit business, for example, might earn $1 million in revenue, have costs of $900,000 and use that surplus $100,000 to save for a rainy day, save for future expansions, put into research, or use to pay for charity work/services (eg. pay for items used when providing a service free-of-charge to needy persons). Amounts of surplus revenue and areas where it can be spent are limited by law. A for-profit that earns $1 million with costs of $900,000 would use the surplus for dividends to investors with a smaller amount devoted to research or charity. As stated above, a non-profit hospital might not be as keen on cutting administrative costs or, since they're usually older than for-profits, may be straddled with high pension costs, bad financing deals, older facilities that need more in repair/utility costs, or simply a bad location or reputation. Also, in the case of hospitals, insurance companies aren't going to pay much more for the services provided, so what they charge (for the most part) isn't too different. If you think about about, say, the National Geographic Society, they make a surplus (revenue - expenses) on things like their magazines, books, and some other commercial ventures, but that surplus is spent on promotion/preservation of the environment, history, and science rather than paying dividends to investors. AHeneen (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that it isn't of any real relevance to visitors that there are "for-profit" and "non-profit" hospitals, because the subtle differences between those categories won't have much effect on visitors. The only thing that could possibly be relevant is that public hospitals can't turn away emergency room patients, whereas private ones can stabilize them and then send them to public hospitals. But that's information visitors in an emergency are unlikely to be able to use, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the distinctions is necessary as U.S. health care is arcane and its mercenary reputation does leads to questions such as "If they can't swipe my credit card, will they leave me to die?" being asked not always with irony.

However, it's not worth spilling too much ink over.

So, to convey succinctly that:

• Hospitals nominally come in three flavors (public, private for profit, and private non-prfit)
• Private non-profit hospitals are nearly indistinguishable from for-profit hospitals
• No, you won't be left to die if you can't contribute positively to the hospital's accounting ledger

I suggest the second paragraph should become:

Around 20% of hospitals are publicly owned. The private hospitals are more highly regarded, and most of them are nominally non-profit making. In poorer inner-city areas, public hospitals can be overcrowded and run-down. While 80% of all hospitals are classified as non-profit, don't expect low costs! The public hospitals will generally be the regional centers for 24 hr emergency specialist treatment. Any hospital, public or private, cannot refuse to treat any life-threatening emergency case.

This also leads nicely into the following paragraph about emergency care.Travelpleb (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I'm still concerned that readers will conflate the 20% and 80% and think they're opposite parts of a whole. I don't think the exact percentages are important; how about this?

America has a mix of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals, but costs and standards of care are comparable, and the difference is invisible to most patients. Likewise, some hospitals are privately owned, while others are owned by the public, but the differences are minimal. Public hospitals in inner-city areas are likely to be more crowded and less well maintained, but they are also, in many cases, the primary regional trauma centers. Public or private, for-profit or not, all hospitals must treat any life-threatening emergency case, regardless of ability to pay.

Still a bit awkward, but I'm not feeling eloquent today. LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not include "nominally non-profit making" in any descriptions of hospitals, because I don't think the arcane status of "non-profit" is meaningful to visitors; rather, it's just confusing, in my opinion. Let's just say that public hospitals will often admit patients who have no medical insurance, while private hospitals are more likely to stabilize emergency cases and then send them to public hospitals if they need to be admitted. Or do you disagree with this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Trauma" is medical jargon that may not always be clear. In common parlence, aren't its phsychological connotations more commonly inferred? And when used in "primary regional trauma center" it's jargon overload. "Regional centers for 24 hr emergency specialist treatment", while longer, explains the reality more clearly... maybe we can drop "specialist", it doesn't really add anything.

Clarifying the distribution of hospital types may also be helpful and if we can do it clearly and concisely it would aid the reader's understanding of U.S. health care. (Who knows that only 20% of hospitals are profit making? The stereotype is way out of kilter with the reality and it's our job to fight disinformation.) While useful emphasis is gained through the repetition of the message that a lack of money won't let you be left to bleed to death on the curbside, re-using the phrasology "regardless of ability to pay" (used in the subsequent paragraph) is a bit weak in style.

So, considering everything. Let's try this:

To the patient, America's public (20%), private profit making (20%), and private non-profit making (60%) hospitals are generally indistinguishable. Inner city public hospitals may be more crowded and less well maintained, but as whole both costs and service levels are consistently high in all types. No hospital can refuse a life-threatening emergency case. Private hospitals may only stabilize such patients before sending them to a nearby public hospital, which will generally act as the regional center for 24 hr emergency treatment.

Travelpleb (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, except that so-called "non-profits" don't necessarily make no profit, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any non-profit organization (charity, church, foundation etc.) is allowed to make money, it's just not allowed to pay dividends to its owners and is bound by various rules. So this distinction isn't unique to "nongovernment Not-for-Profit Community Hospitals" (as they seem to be officially called) and, while being informative is our goal, I think we're going beyond usefulness by exploring the details of U.S. charity laws in the "Health care" section of the U.S.A. article. Plus if they're officially called "not-for-profit" I'm happy to use such a description (just in two words rather than three). I've plunged and changed the article.Travelpleb (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "By phone" section says "Telephone numbers are generally listed as 10 digits" and then refers to the area code as the "first three digits". This is true in many cases in the real world, but almost all of our U.S. phone number listings here on Wikivoyage are eleven digits, not ten, and the area code is digits 2-4. This has the potential to be confusing, but I'm not sure how to reword it without going back to the previous long-winded phrasing. LtPowers (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is OK. If a visitor needs information specific to a particular town or city, that should be covered in article for that town or city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about information specific to a town or city; I'm saying that we're contradicting ourselves. We say that numbers are "generally listed as 10 digits", then turn around and list phone numbers ourselves in eleven. Since we write numbers as "1-NPA-NXX-XXXX", the "first three digits" are not the area code, which is also misleading. LtPowers (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My solution:

Telephone numbers are generally listed as 10 digits (except on Wikivoyage, where the first digit is the number 1, the prefix that is used before the 3-digit area code; see below for more information).

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about my recent edit? Better? AHeneen (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this:

Phone numbers on Wikivoyage guides are hyphened to separate the minimum digits which can dialed, for example +1 798 555-0100 can be dialed locally as just 555-0100 while +1-321-555-0100 must be dialed completely.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only realized that a month or so ago as I took the time to browse and re-acquaint myself with the MoS. From Wikivoyage:Phone numbers: "Our formatting method may differ from that seen most in the country concerned. We prefer to use hyphens to only indicate the (con-joined) abbreviated part of the whole telephone number that can be utilised for local dialling." And from the United States section: "A seven-digit local American number is formatted as: +1 808 959-5000 Some metro areas have multiple, overlapping area codes; these overlays require ten digits for a local call. These are indicated by hyphens in the format: +1 617-555-5555" That's not to say that all numbers on U.S. pages follow the MoS, but how else can this be explained? AHeneen (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, AHeneen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-structured this section so that the first two paragraphs give enough information to be useable in just about all cases. The reader can then neglect the subsequent details or gain a fuller picture if they choose.

• About the North American Numbering plan, I read that calls between such countries can be dialed using only the 11-digit national pattern? See: [5]. Is this right?
• I'm not sure how helpful this information is to travelers:

Phone subscribers are entitled to freely transfer, with some restrictions, their phone number between a mobile or landline and retain their mobile phone number when moving to a different area code.

so I removed it.

• I can see no need for the elaborate algebraic explanations of saying that phone numbers sometimes have the area code in brackets. Many countries follow similar practices of sometimes putting area codes in brackets, so going as far to explain this at length seems unnecessary. Knowing that the area code is the three digits that comes after the initial "1" will equip the reader sufficiently to be able to identify the area code regardless of the inconsistent use of punctuation.
• I'm also almost certain that in this guide and in every real situation (except perhaps a directory), the hyphenation of numbers will be haphazard. The statement about Wikivoyage's hyphenation now reflects this uncertainty. While it's a good listing policy, it may be hubris to state boldly that we always follow it. (To test this, the first number listed in the NYC article (Amtrak) did not comply. It does now though!)
• Are Maryland and West Virginia, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, & San Francisco the only areas that do not allow shortened dialing? If not, how much missing? If the examples covers all or nearly all cases, then it would be good to include them. If this gives a largely incomplete picture, it may not be worth mentioning examples at all.

Travelpleb (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The information about number migration is only useful to travelers in indicating that a person with a particular area code may live in an entirely different area of the country.
• We do not always follow the ideal hyphenation practice; in fact, I'm not even positive that it had widespread consensus.
  • Originally, our manual of style requested that the optional portion of a phone number should be placed in italics. But when we started using our custom listing code, that became impossible; the code didn't recognize MediaWiki formatting codes within the listing fields. We sort-of migrated to using hyphenation to distinguish required portions from optional, but a) it was never widely adopted, except by those in agreement with the format, and b) it's not clear whether the meaning of the hyphenation scheme is clear to readers.
• I'm certain that list is woefully incomplete; AFAIK, the vast majority of city-based area codes that have split have used an overlay to do so, which is what requires the 10-digit dialing.

-- LtPowers (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the place to discuss surrendering an optimistic hyphanation policy to the chaos of reality? Even mentioning it in the article may render more confusion than clarity when it actually comes to the dialing of listed numbers.

Also, another case of potentially unhelpful examples: are Texas and Georgia the only areas that do not allow 11-digit dialing for local numbers? Travelpleb (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage talk:Phone numbers has the history, and would be the place to discuss phone formats. I agree we don't want to detail our editorial practices on a content page; if our format isn't intuitive, that's our problem, not the readers'. LtPowers (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we handle this:

Wikivoyage lists numbers in the full 11-digit format; the hyphenation should denote the minimum digits which can dialed, for example +1 798 555-0100 can be dialed locally as just 555-0100 while +1-321-555-0100 must be dialed completely.

which is perhaps still too optimistic a description of the bulk of the listed number and so misleading. I'd be in favor of not mentioning that hyphenation may mean something because, for the most part, it doesn't.Travelpleb (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. LtPowers (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re About the North American Numbering plan, I read that calls between such countries can be dialed using only the 11-digit national pattern? that's almost correct. There are some rare instances where the US is a local call from Canada (or even has Canadian numbers), but I'm not sure if they're even worth mentioning as they're minuscule villages on the border. Definitely on a landline 011 +1... as an attempt to dial "overseas" from Windsor to Détroit will fail, likely without even waiting for the rest of the number. Windsor is long distance to Détroit, so +1-313-NXX-XXXX in the same format as a domestic long-distance call. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:E97 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admission that the Second World War in Asia saw fighting much before 1939 does makes us look terribly erudite and progressive; however, conflating all Japanese expansionist activity into one continuous effort called World War II - which started in something like the 1890s (the annexation of Taiwan) or the 1910s (Korea) - makes us look like suckers.

Wikipedia says that the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) is what we could consider WWII. This conflict started with the Japanese full-scale attack on China proper (not Manchuria). It does not even consider Japan's 1931 expansion into Manchuria to be part of the same conflagration.

I think we should be a little less eccentric in our definition of WWII and go with the 1937 date.Travelpleb (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you spent more time writing that response than the topic deserved. =) The History section is probably too long as it is; we can remove pointless details like you mentioned, but we must be careful not to turn it into a simple recitation of facts. It still needs to tell a story. LtPowers (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is 1437 words long. Of which:

• 127 are on Native Americans
• 149 are given to the activities of Europeans pre-revolution
• 70 describe the revolution
  • a further 63 describe the constitution and the establishment of DC
• 99 describe the Louisiana Purchase and westward expansion
• 96 are on the War of 1812
• 112 outline the U.S. erosion Spain and Mexico.
• 154 are devoted to the Civil War.
• 59 describe what is essentially overseas empire building

Then follows some rather fleshy accounts of nineteenth industrialization (79 words), World War I and the Depression (117 words), WWII and the Cold War (116 words), and the road network and 20th century culture (150 words). Squeezed in among such lofty topics as "major chain stores" and "American consumer culture" is 37 words about bra burning and I have a dream (although King himself or his enduring rhetoric are not specificly mentioned.)

How long do we want this section to be and how should its content be allocated?

Italy, arguably the mothership of Western history, has a History section 968 words long; France has 1112 words. 586 words are devoted to Britain's history (about 100 words less than to its cycle paths). In Switzerland... they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Unfortunately the Switzerland article doesn't yet have a history section to which we could add Orson Welles' insights. Everything from Charlemagne to the Berlin Wall is told in 904 words. Somehow someone's written 818 words on Australia.

Given all that, I think maybe 900-1,000 words is reasonable.

I'm not sure how these words should be allocated. Any thoughts?Travelpleb (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shortening of the content is getting a bit excessive and that diatribe is unnecessary. Lonely Planet Britain...17 pages of history (not counting a few boxes detailing stories). Tahhiti & French Polynesia (Open Road Publishing)...22 pages of history (larger front than LP, though). Bradt Seychelles...6 pages (not counting boxes). Rough Guide to Romania...14 pages (not counting boxes). The point is: a history section is a key part of a decent travel guide and it doesn't need to be 2-3 short paragraphs! The history section can be long without being too encyclopedic. Just because no one has taken the time to write a comprehensive history section for the cited European countries doesn't mean the history section on the U.S. page should be shorter in comparison. Can we move along to more productive tasks instead of mutilating the U.S. page for sake of brevity! Having quality, comprehensive content is every bit as important (probably a little more important) as keeping things concise. The version we have is nice. Anyone else agree? AHeneen (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the changes as a whole, I think Ryan (Wrh2) summed up the consensus in his 10 August 2011 post in the discussion above:

the US article is one of the longest articles on Wikivoyage, and it tends to stray from information for travelers into general information about the US, so we are constantly pruning it down to try to keep things relevant to travel.

Back in October 2011 the article was around 210,000 bytes. It then bulged to 257,000 bytes before this year's "mutilation". There has been a joint effort in restructuring and tightening the wording so that, despite losing words, the article has gained useful content. The restructuring is also making it far easier to navigate. Please say which of the recent changes you think make the guide less easy to use and we can work together to make an improvement.

About the History secion sepcifically: there are several mentions on this talk page of the History section being too long.

Lonely Planet guides' history sections using amazingly consice paragraph constructions. Their tight but not terse style is one that I hope to emulate here.Travelpleb (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concise is good; we just have to be careful. It's very hard to write comprehensively and with good style while still being brief. LtPowers (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against being concise...but if we're creating a travel guide and competing against the likes of Lonely Planet, Fodor's, Frommers, Moon, etc, then there should be plenty of content. I don't have any guides covering the entire U.S., but for a large country, it's common to have 50 pages of background/practical info about a country...the U.S. page should be very long if we aim to have quality, comprehensive information. Limiting the page to a certain size or amount of content seems like a bad idea. Because of the very nature of the country—size, annual visitors, and the fact that there are a huge number of English-speaking domestic & foreign tourists—this page should be 500,000 bytes! The page can be long, but if the content is organized & tidy, then navigating the page shouldn't be an issue. AHeneen (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half a megabyte of data seems like an awfully specific number. How did you arrive at that figure? LtPowers (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it to be precise...just a figure to represent that the page should be much longer. AHeneen (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why you think it should double in size. It's difficult to compare our USA article to books because we have a lot of content in regional and state articles. Is it just the History section that you think should be longer? What would you like to see added? LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I certainly believe that there should be well over 500KB about the United States of America, all of it need not be here. It can (and a lot of it should) be delegated to subpages. The History section, however, is one thing that I wouldn't delegate Purplebackpack89 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unaware of this discussion, I made some good-faith additions to the history section. Yes, I made it longer, and jiggered the ratios somewhat (for example, nothing I added was about Native Americans). Here's the thing: I believe we either need to have it long enough to get it right (and there were places where it was grossly oversimplified and had to be lengthened to get it right; one example was saying that the Declaration of Independence caused the American Revolution; in reality the French and Indian War and a series of British reactions to it caused both of them; another is that our history section seems to end at 1970) or just jettison it altogether. I don't see a history section being the equivalent of 2-3 pages long as a particular problem, provided that it is balanced out by other sections being at least as long. Purplebackpack89 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)A history major; primarly author of w:simple:History of the United States[reply]
• As for the United States article digressing, I don't see that as a problem at all. This article doesn't and shouldn't contain most of the things you'd find in a standard guidebook article. Accommodations, dining, and most attractions should be delegated to articles on smaller places. When you look at the the digressions (if you want to call them that, I'd call them "contextualizations" instead) in the context of the United States and its sub-articles (which take up <1MB of text), they seem much smaller indeed Purplebackpack89 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• One more thing: in regards to the "well, France and Italy are a lot shorter", I think that they are wrongsized and therefore a poor example Purplebackpack89 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digressions make the article difficult to use. Being informative is fairly easy, but presenting information accessibly and not losing it in a wandering jumble is a challenge this article in particular faces.

Your additions to the history section are mostly useful. I've tried to integrate them concisely into the text.

This history story has to end somewhere. We are telling a story here, not just reciting facts, and the story should have a some sort of conclusion. I think the story of the evolution of the U.S.A. into what it is today is told quite well at this level of detail (although, yes, the ending could benefit from a re-write). However, great detail on the late twentieth century would be less a story of how the U.S. became what it is and more a description of what it did after it became what it is. And this would detract from the narrative.Travelpleb (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Rewind sounds) So what you seem to be saying is that the U.S. became what it is at some point before right now? I don't think you can pick any one date where you can definitively say when the United States "became" what it was, and then anything else doesn't matter. I think you're arguing it ends in the 1960s. Consider the six following developments in America since then:

1. Civil rights for blacks became a decided issue in the 1960s, what about civil rights for gays?
2. Big government in the form of the Great Society was at its apex in the 1960s, what about the Reagan Revolution?
3. The U.S. was at its peak of industrial production in the 1960s, what about post-industrialization?
4. In 1960, most immigrants came to the United States from Europe; Latinos were a marginal demographic. Now, Latinos are an important demographic, and most of our immigrants come from Asia or Latin America
5. In the 1960s, most of our foreign policy was geared toward the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and Vietnam. Now, our foreign policy focuses on the Middle East and China
6. Look at technology and media. In the 1960s, a computer was the size of house, a cell phone the size of a suitcase, and people still listened to records, used payphones, and watched Cronkite every night. Now, we have the Internet, smartphones, iPods, and hundreds of cable channels. The conversation we're having couldn't have happened in 1960s

Sure, the history section has to end somewhere, but the somewhere should be relatively close to the present day; probably no earlier than the election of Obama the first time amidst the meltdown. By the way, the six points I've made above could be a blueprint for writing U.S. History 1960-present Purplebackpack89 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be dismissive... well maybe I do, but post-1945 pax-Americana has held up fairly well, America remains the world's biggest economy, technology has advanced globally continuously since forever- it's not just a U.S. 20th century thing, the ephemera of fashion and music tastes is largely inconsequential, the Reagan revolution has none of the guns and massacring of the Texan Revolution, rights for gays is not quite as exciting as rights for blacks-they still got to go to school and vote. It's mainly just the same incremental developments that have occurred throughout the west with none of the fun stuff. I think it would detract rather than add to the story so far.Travelpleb (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected a couple of howlers in the history section-- in the American Indian section there was confusion between the Cherokee and the Mississippian cultures, who were the actual Mound Builders that practically vanished ahead of the white settlement. I also corrected the impression that the Native Americans have nearly disappeared; hardly the case, especially in the West. It seems to be a common, but unfortunate, theme in American writing. Also, the War of 1812 had nothing to do with wanting to go after the British Loyalists in Canada-- it was more about the US wanting to assert itself against British hegemony on the high seas. More minor edits were made to ensure Washington was known mostly as a military leader before he became president; the wording made it seem he was the primary political leader as well. I clarified the status of pre-civil rights era blacks.

Actually, I like the history section on the whole, though. It's very hard to be brief, but I think the main points are there.PhilD86 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this section on and editing it. I appreciate the corrections that you've made, but I have some comments about a few points. I know we Americans tended to be taught in school that the War of 1812 was over British impressment of US sailors, but the US also tried to grab Canada, right? And I don't agree with your take on the status of black Americans in the Jim Crow era. For the century after the Civil War, blacks, though technically equal citizens, suffered through strong social and economic, political, and social discrimination and state-sanctioned segregation, especially in the South. How do you call people who were prevented from voting and serving on juries (to take just the most obvious examples) "technically equal citizens"? I'm guessing you're focusing on the "separate but equal" nonsense, but "separate but equal" was far from the only kind of systematic discrimination against blacks. Recall the amount of opposition there was to anti-lynching laws, too. I don't think your language on Jim Crow should stand, but I'd like to hear your explanation. We also might want to tweak the language stating that the civil rights movement "emerged" in the 1950s. Au contraire, Plessy v. Ferguson was the product of organized action by a Creole civil rights organization in 1896, and the NAACP was founded quite a long time before the 1950s. We needn't go into detail, but perhaps it would be better to say that "a movement fighting for full civil rights for black Americans gained strength following World War II, when returning black veterans who fought against racism abroad came home to find they were still being denied service at lunch counters, hotels, and many other establishments." Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mentioned the changes on the discussion page for just this purpose-- so someone could disagree. First, about the War of 1812-- although Americans had, since the Revolution, cast a covetous eye north, the conquest of Canada was not a war aim. The US had tried that in the Revolution, of course, but for just that reason they were aware that the population of Loyalists (who retained loyalty to the UK) and French (who were distrustful of the overwhelmingly Protestant Americans) would not flock to them. The invasion of Upper Canada occurred because that's where the British land forces were. The Americans were especially concerned that the British were supporting the Indian tribes in the Old Northwest. The early loss of Detroit to a combined British-Native American army confirmed this. If there was a hope for a land grab, it was actually for Spanish Florida, one of Britain's allies.

It seems strange to us that a relatively minor issue, impressment, could be a causus belli. But the Republican Party (not the same as Republicans today), who held power, were traditionally anti-British and pro-French. When the Federalists, who held opposite views, were in charge, we almost went to war with the French in the Quasi-War. I guess we had a chip on our shoulder. Between Napoleon's Continental System and the England's broad interpretation of contraband, the US felt disrespected. England was taking command of the seas and not taking any other power into account. President Jefferson tried to deal with it by shutting down all Atlantic trade-- a policy of admitted failure. Finally, with the support of the War Hawk faction in Congress (many of whom were Westerners-- remember the fear of British Indians?), Madison sent a war message. The war had little support in New England, stronghold of the Federalists, the Army was unprepared and understrength, and the Navy was competent but miniscule compared to the British. But Great Britain were more concerned with the French, and by the time the British could turn their attention to the US, the Americans had finally found their competent generals, and there really wasn't a reason to fight anymore.

So, that's my defense of my changes to the War of 1812. In other words, sorry Canada, but it really wasn't all about you.

My changes in the Civil Rights section were to make a subtle point: although the 14th Amendment did guarantee equality of citizens before the law, the truth fell far short in reality. This is typically American-- high ideals that are not always fulfilled, but they endure as something that we think should be. The "separate but equal" nonsense was not even the worst of the odious system; the political and economic oppression backed by violence was. The blacks in the South didn't like Plessy v Ferguson, but they reluctantly accepted it. They didn't accept the lynching and virtual peonage there. I thought of touching on the Great Migration as the reaction to intolerable conditions in the South; this would explain to the traveler the distribution of African Americans within the US and some families' cultural ties to the Southern US. What do you think? This section, like all of them, needs to be brief. If someone wants to learn more, there are plenty of resources out there.

As far as the specifics of the transition from the Jim Crow system to the Civil Rights era, I think 1954 to 1965 can be defended (Brown v. Board of Education to the Voting Rights Act). You are absolutely correct in noting the influence of returning veterans of WWII. But remember how brief and simplistic we will need to be. I wouldn't want to add very much verbiage. To add or change something we need to ask "Is it true?" then "Does it tell the visitor something they need to know to appreciate the US and their people?"

One more thing-- this should be written from the viewpoint of the US. Balanced, yet positive and enthusiastic. It may seem that we lose a lot of subtlety when we do this, but our purpose is just to whet the appetite for further study and travel. I think the section is the correct length. I worry that as we try to add more clarifying detail, we will get too deep into controversy.PhilD86 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like a lot of your thoughts (thanks for your remarks on the War of 1812, which make a lot of sense), and we are certainly in agreement on being brief and to the point. My understanding is that the Great Migration was not an escape from racism at all, and that Northern cities like Chicago were also very racist; instead, it was triggered by the availability of factory work in Northern and to a lesser extent Western cities, and was paralleled by a migration of rural whites into cities like Atlanta and also from the South to the North.

Where we couldn't disagree more is the idea that the facts should be slanted toward an American view, if that's what you mean (of course, it may well not be what you mean, in which case, what I'm about to write should be somewhat disregarded). Would you like to also do that with North Korea, have the article give a description of the country that fits a North Korean party line? I don't disagree that we should be positive in presenting the US as a good place to visit for those who are willing to deal with the hassles of entry, but the history of this country is very problematic and should be presented accurately to the extent that's most helpful as background for visitors who want to understand what they're seeing and experiencing in some reasonable context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the paragraph on civil rights somewhat. See what you think of the changes, and of course feel free to edit further. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the changes you made. My view of the Great Migration is informed by the book "The Warmth of Other Suns" by Isabel Wilkerson, which tends to emphasize the oppression and violence in the Jim Crow era South. Like most, I was taught that this movement was a matter of the "pull" of economic opportunity. Wilkerson claims that the "push" was as important, or more important. I would trade the words about the veterans for words about this. But you are correct in pointing out the movement of Southern whites due to impoverishment as well. Alas, we are now getting into the realm of interpretation, in which good people will have to disagree.

As far as the issue of viewpoint, I would not expect any whitewash of USA. However, to use your example of North Korea, I would expect an emphasis on the positive aspects of the country without neglecting the more unsavory parts. Again, thanks for your comments!PhilD86 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yours, and for your welcome efforts at improving this article. I would be completely supportive of adding a phrase about racist oppression and the term "Great Migration" to the sentence that already mentions the migration of black Americans northward. Please plunge forward and add any other clarification you feel is necessary or useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the trail of tears be mentioned in the history-section? imho it is quite an important historic event with repercussions up to the present day (e.g. the debate over whether Andrew Jackson was great or not-so-great as a president due to it) but than again I grew up with books by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May and films based on his booksHobbitschuster (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of a history section, generally, is to provide enough historical context for someone traveling to a destination, but not so much that we're writing an encyclopedia article rather than a travel guide. The Trail of Tears was an important event in US history, but is probably more suitable for a relevant state or region article, rather than adding to a lengthy history section in the USA article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see one issue with dumping Trail of Tears into a state-level article (presumably Oklahoma) - it by definition runs interstate from multiple Dixieland states westward; http://www.nps.gov/trte/index.htm claims it as a "national historic trail" and lists nine states. While it might be viable as itinerary, there might not be a lower region that includes the whole journey. K7L (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is one (albeit very stub-y) article on the itinerary... maybe we could put in one sentence like in (year) or around (decade) the "five civilized nations", among them the Cherokee were expulsed from their ancestral homelands as many of the people forced to make the trail died it is still a very controversial and often traumatic/shameful issue to both European-Americans and Native-AmericansHobbitschuster (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a standalone question, my response would be that I think it's fine to briefly mention the Trail of Tears in the History section. However, we do have to be mindful of not making that section too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a discussion on buying a used vehicle to travel in the US? Although I don't know any visitors who have actually done this, I recall that the TV show Top Gear actually discussed this, and I have known visitors who had thought about this method of travel. Does anyone know any details on how it is done?PhilD86 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You go to a used car dealer. It's easy to find used car dealers in any part of the US, and I think this option is too specialized to cover in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Government and Politics The United States is described as:

a federal republic comprising 50 states, the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), and several dependent areas including Puerto Rico and Guam.

But does this oversimplify what constitutes the U.S.? Wikipedia cites the Supreme Court as defining Puerto Rico as "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States." All the Unincorporated Territories appear to be not part of the U.S.A. Which I think leaves only the Palmyra Atoll as the only incorporated non-state territory. Is this right? This seems quite complicated.Travelpleb (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So after cutting out a lot of information on the page for not being noteworthy for travelers, you're concerned about the precise definition/status of U.S. territories/possessions? The simple matter is that the U.S. has sovereignty over land that is not part of any state. Since the U.S. was founded as a collection of states yielding some sovereignty to a collective government, in the years after the Revolutionary War, there was a question of what to do with land that was not a part of a state but controlled by the U.S. Thus, the Constitution gave Congress the "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Congress created many Acts between the late 18th century and early 20th century concerning the status & jurisdiction of lands possessed by the U.S. The reference to "not part of the U.S.A." refers to jurisdiction of the federal government and of the Constitution. To quote Wikipedia:

"An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's local government and inhabitants in its entirety (e.g., citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the local governments and residents of the U.S. states. Incorporated territories are considered an integral part of the United States, as opposed to being merely possessions." (w:Territories of the United States#Incorporated and unincorporated territories)

That means that the U.S. owns/possesses the unincorporated lands, but that Congress has not given those other lands the same status as the states and that the U.S. Constitution isn't the governing doctrine of those lands by default (the people of those lands must consent to governance/legal jurisdiction of the U.S. despite the U.S. having possession of those lands). There is also a distinction to be made between organized/unorganized territories. The term "organized" simply means that the territory's government hasn't had a government "organized" according to certain provisions put forth by Congress (namely an "Organic Act"). In the 19th century, this was an important step toward statehood, but today it just means that American Samoa (the only inhabited "unorganized" territory) hasn't been given extra rights by Congress (like citizenship). The term "Commonwealth" has no effective meaning.

For the traveler, especially because of immigration/customs requirements (although not 100% identical), Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are a part of the U.S., while American Samoa is a grey area. American Samoa has a greater degree of autonomy than the other territories, including its own immigration/customs requirements (even for U.S. citizens visiting the island!). IMO, American Samoa can be considered a part of the U.S. because it is not completely sovereign (although largely autonomous) and has a U.S. national park...National Park of American Samoa. Is there any compelling reason not to include A.S. in the U.S.? Puerto Rico, U.S.V.I, Guam, & C.N.M.I are definitely a part of the U.S., despite the legal definition and difference in culture. AHeneen (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various territories mostly appear not to be legally part of the U.S.A. but are nonetheless U.S. possessions and some also have slightly different immigration requirements. This makes them seem to be similar to the British possessions, none of which is stated as being part of the U.K. The U.K. article clearly states the legal and practical aspects of its "Common Travel Area".

The U.S.A. article should also be clear and true in what it says. Currently it is neither. Puerto Rico, as an example, while not legally part of the U.S.A. (technically, the current wording is untrue), is within its customs and immigration area (the current wording is unclear). The article should have clear, helpful wording to this effect.

The Government and Politics section could begin:

The United States is a federal republic comprising 50 states and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) (and the Palmyra Atoll?). It possesses various island territories in the Caribbean and Pacific that, while not legally part of it, are closely tied to it. Many of these territories are within the U.S. customs and immigration area and so for practical purposes can be considered part of the U.S.A. (See Travel to U.S. possessions).

Travelpleb (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange to think of something "belonging to" but not "part of" a country. I suppose that's what a colony is, though, isn't it? I think the important thing is that we don't need to get into detail on the legal ramifications of various statuses; what's important is how the traveler sees the status. LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal aspects can affect the traveler, so it is important for this section not to imply incorrectly that the possessions are part of the U.S. If we're going to bother to have a section saying what the U.S. is, we should at least not just state the obvious... especially as it is not obvious! It would also be great if we could phrase it in such a way as to be technically correct without having to mention specifics like the Palmyra Atoll or chunky terms like "unincorporated territory with commonwealth status".Travelpleb (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LtPowers, The Boston Tea Party is a good story regarding the implications of "belonging to" but not "part of"! (not that I'm suggesting there will be a San Juan tea party; quite the opposite looks likely to occur)Travelpleb (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're largely in agreement. However, I note that the "incorporated" vs. "unincorprated" distinction appears to derive largely from how citizens of that territory are treated under the law. I agree it's not an intuitive demarcation and we should avoid using that specific language, either way. But I felt your proposed text underplays the ties between Guam/Puerto Rico/etc. and the rest of the U.S. LtPowers (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I say keep as is. Granted, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, etc. have autonomy. But people there are U.S. citizens, mainland U.S. citizens can (with the exception of A.S.) freely travel between the mainland and these territories, and people entering them (again, A.S. excepted) face most of the same rules as they would with the U.S. Purplebackpack89 20:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89, while this is a complex issue, there appears to be unanimous agreement upon the U.S. possessions not being legally part of the U.S.A., so we cannot say that they are. What we have to do now is come up with a way of describing the situation while paying due regard to the truth and to the practical reality. Regarding "But people there are U.S. citizens": there are surprisingly many quirky examples of being from one place giving you entitlement to a citizenship of another place. Examples include South Ossetians and Abkhazians being entitled to Russian citizenship; Northern Irish being entitled to Irish citizenship; and, perhaps more closely related to this issue, citizens of British territories (Falkland Islands, Channel Islands etc.) being entitled to British citizenship. In none of these examples is the territory considered part of the country that issues the stated citizenship.

Thank you LtPowers for the advice on how to improve the first draft. Perhaps this may be a improvement:

The United States is a federal republic. Its major constituents are the 50 states and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.); it also has various island territories in the Caribbean and Pacific that are strongly - but often not fully - integrated into the union. Many of these territories are within the U.S. customs and immigration area and so for practical purposes can be considered part of the U.S.A. (See Travel to U.S. possessions)

Travelpleb (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that hamburgers, hot dogs, ice cream and pie are a quintessential part of American cuisine, and that not all Americans would be familiar with them. User:Peterfitzgerald claims that to be a violation of WV:CAPTOBVIOUS. I don't see it that way, as 1) they aren't readily available everywhere on the planet (which is what the Capt. Obvious policy is for), and 2) There isn't anything in the Capt. Obvious policy that has anything to do with food. Can I get a 3rd opinion here? Purplebackpack89 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning them is fine, defining what a hamburger or hot dog is, is silly. Also, neither ice cream nor pies are from the U.S., and ice cream is pretty much universally available. Defining ice cream... --Peter ^Talk 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Hot_dog#Hot_dogs_outside_North_America, w:Hamburger#Variations. Particularly with McDonald's being ubiquitous around the world, I would agree that this information should probably be left out of the US article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous! Hot dogs and hamburgers are arguably the two most prominent meat dishes in America. The food section mentions much more oblique and uncommon foods, like fusion cooking. Why should it mention the oblique things and leave the common things out? It shouldn't! I still maintain Capt. Obvious is being misused here; the article should mention all major American foods, regardless of their ubiquity around the world. Bottom line: this article needs burgers and hot dogs Purplebackpack89 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is less mentioning the items than defining what they are. There's already a stereotype that Americans think of themselves as the center of the known universe, so including text in the article that tries to educate the rest of the world about a hamburger, hot dog, or ice cream seems patronizing and a bit condescending (IMHO), and definitely falls under the guidance that the obvious policy is trying to avoid. If you feel this information is important, could you word it briefly in a way that notes that hamburgers, hot dogs, ice cream and pie are staples that are ubiquitous in restaurants and at gatherings, but avoids the definitions of each of these food items? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could cut the sentences that say "It's a beef patty", "It's a sausage", etc. Can I keep the condiments and sides? Purplebackpack89 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that proposal adds that isn't true in most other parts of the world. The point of the obvious guideline is that we want to keep travel guides focused on information that a reader wants and needs to know, so we should avoid including information that is common knowledge. I think the information you're trying to convey can probably best be summed up under the "Types of food" section as a single sentence such as "Typical American food items that can be found at most restaurants or large gatherings include hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza, ice cream, and pie". -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a section on what the various colors mean in highway signage. Should we have what the colors mean for parking places as well? I.E. red means "no parking", "no stopping", or "fire lane", yellow means "loading and unloading only", green means "parking for a limited amount of time" (i.e. 20 mins, 1 hr, 2 hr) and blue means "handicapped only" Purplebackpack89 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure these colors/meanings are universal. I imagine blue is definitely handicapped and red means don't park here. However, I'm less sure about yellow and green. Yellow in Florida is used along corners at intersections & at the end of the median at intersections (to draw attention as a danger, not with regards to parking)...I'm quite certain you can't wait/unload there. I've never seen a green curb. AHeneen (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen colored curbs at all -- except perhaps yellow and white, neither of which carried any meaning in my experience. LtPowers (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red and yellow curbs are no parking zones (red is for fire lanes), which I think is pretty universal in the States. I've never seen any other colors, other than blue which as already stated is handicapped parking, which is also universal. Yes, yellow curbs can also be used to draw attention to them as well, but you also better not park there. Hawaiian Eskimo (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like policies vary by state. From Wikipedia-Parking space: "Curb markings in the United States are prescribed by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Local highway agencies may prescribe special colors for curb markings to supplement standard signs for parking regulation. California has designated an array of colors for curb regulations. A white curb designates passenger pick up or drop off. The green curb is for time limited parking. The yellow curb is for loading, and the blue curb is for disabled persons with proper vehicle identification. The red curb is for emergency vehicles only - fire lanes (no stopping, standing, or parking). In Oregon and Florida, the yellow curb is utilized to indicate no parking. In Georgia either red or yellow can be used to indicate no parking. In Seattle, Washington, alternating red and yellow curb markings indicate a bus stop." AHeneen (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. If I've ever been anywhere that had color-coded curbs, I didn't notice them. They certainly aren't universal. LtPowers (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just a California thing, 'cuz I see them all the time here Purplebackpack89

When doing a Google search for "United States curb colors" a lot of the results were from California cities and (judging by the Wikipedia content quoted above) it seems like CA uses colors on curbs extensively. This might still be worth noting on the U.S. page though, something like: "In many U.S. cities curbs are painted to reflect the ability to park at a particular location. The colors used and the meaning of the colors used varies from city to city. In general, red (and sometimes yellow) means "no parking" and blue designates handicapped parking only (with appropriate license plate or placard). In California, yellow curbs designate loading only (goods/cargo), white designates passenger pickup or dropoff, and green indicates there is a time limit for parking (look at signs for time limit). Elsewhere, the meaning of curb colors varies. Always follow parking signs and, if you are uncertain whether parking is allowed at a particular spot, it's best to park elsewhere than receive a parking ticket or even have your vehicle towed and impounded (which will result in a large fee to retrieve). A parked vehicle should never block the entrance to a driveway/alley or block a crosswalk." How does that sound? AHeneen (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add fire hydrant, but otherwise it sounds good Purplebackpack89 05:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. The last sentence was changed to "A parked vehicle should never block a crosswalk, fire hydrant, or the entrance to a driveway/alley."AHeneen (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly unrelated note, I've added info about the types of signals. Like the curb colors, there are regional variations in the types of signals used, like just 3-light signal, 5-light signal (either 1 at top & 2/2 columns or 5 in a vertical/horizontal row), signals w/arrows, and use of flashing yellow arrows, flashing red lights, & flashing red arrows to indicate left turns (see w:Traffic-light signalling and operation). I felt it is especially worth noting the right of way for left turns...green circle indicates left-turning traffic must yield to oncoming traffic, while green left arrow indicates that left-turning traffic has the right of way when turning. It took a lot of searching on commons to find a 5-light signal, which I felt was important to show for foreigners who may see green arrow & red circle on such a light and not understand what it means (the pic is green arrow, green light, but I could find any green arrow, red light pics!).

One thing I couldn't find is the legality of turning right on red when the traffic light has a red, right arrow. I recall a couple years ago looking this up (after a discussion about this when I waited at such intersections while traffic around me turned...learned it's actually legal in FL) and found some source that said it is legal to turn right with a red, right arrow in all but 2 states (I think CA was one of them & other was in NE/Mid-Atlantic). However, after spending time browsing dozens of pages from a search, I can't find much besides personal opinions/anecdotes. I can only say for certain it's legal in FL & illegal in CA & TN.AHeneen (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the level of detail on driving/parking laws in the U.S. It might be better to shunt it off to a Driving in the United States (or perhaps Driving in the United States and Canada) article. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This information is certainly useful but is somewhat specific. Many travelers, probably a significant majority, will do their traveling not by private vehicle.Travelpleb (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would "Driving in the United States" encompass? Rules and regulations? Routes? Both? I personally believe that the Interstate and/or U.S. Highway systems (U.S. Highways are the ones with white and black shields) need at least one article to themselves Purplebackpack89 02:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's going at it a bit backwards (your initial question). The idea would be to split out content from this article, and then figure out a name for the new article based on what's in it. LtPowers (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Driving in Australia for an idea of what the page would look like. While driving info is getting long, it's not quite enough to split unless someone wants to spend some time creating the new page and adding a bunch more content.AHeneen (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas to improve our regions map:

1. Simplify the map a bit, in terms of cities at least. We have a lot of rather small cities displayed, and I think we could reduce it to a more manageable number, allowing us to increase the text size and generally make a cluttered map a little easier to use. This would make the ODs way easier to find too.
2. Switch to a horizontal layout. This would stack Alaska and Hawaii vertically on the right, and then allow us to display the map at a higher resolution, putting it above the regionlist template, rather than to the side (squishing the text).
3. Make it clickable. I've been working on imagemaps lately, and think they are a cool, well-recognizable way of navigating our regions. Take a look at Europe#Regions or Oceania#Regions to get an idea of what this is like.

I think these three changes would really improve our regions presentation, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts. --Peter ^Talk 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something more like this? LtPowers (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm suggesting a clickable map with a horizontal layout and fewer cities displayed, with larger text size for the remaining cities and ODs. --Peter ^Talk 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When demoting a number of articles to Outline status (such as UK and Philippines), an editor has advanced an argument at Wikivoyage_talk:Article_status#Terminology that a WV status covers the "Travel guide to that country" as a whole, including underlying cities and destinations. He comment "It's been a practice here for quite a while. If just the page itself is good, but underlying destinations are lacking, it'd be strange to call the guide to Philippines "usable"." "... it'd be strange if we'd just consider the country page itself now (that would mean hundreds of countries would be bumped to "usable" level without having the required content in underlying articles)."

I think that, while this may be considerable spur to the development of lots of undeveloped articles, we may need to take a look at the assessment criteria again. -- Alice^✉ 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps you meant to ask this in another location? LtPowers (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's useful to point out here that this article has been demoted using the same (controversial?) criteria. I thought some of the editors might like to comment at Wikivoyage_talk:Article_status#Terminology upon either the rationale or the result of applying that rationale: if we are consistent almost all of our Country and Region level articles will be demoted — except those with very few regions or sub-regions to be (quickly) brought up to scratch. -- Alice^✉ 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, you must have misunderstood current policy. The United States fulfills all the criteria for usable, and is even pretty close to guide status (if not already there). See Wikivoyage:Country guide status. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has indeed been a misunderstanding. When you demoted the Philippines to outline status and the UK also your edit summary for the latter hinted "downgraded to outline -- there are articles at outline status" and I have also quoted you above. How can you hint that the US is a special case when it has, not just many underlying articles but, links directly from the main United States of America article that are only at outline status too? Personally I feel that you have either misinterpreted our existing policy with your spate of demotions or, if you are correct, the policy needs to be changed. What you should not do is play favourites by inconsistent application of a policy. Either both the US and UK articles need demoting or neither, since both these country pages were at similar stages of development before you only demoted one of them. -- Alice^✉ 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

→ Wikivoyage:Country guide status. --Peter ^Talk 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I quote from that Usable status for countries: "Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better)" This USA article does indeed have links but those other destinations are not all at usable status or better. ie the US is no worse and no better in this respect than either the Philippines or the UK! -- Alice^✉ 09:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Name one. --Peter ^Talk 11:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, this USA article does indeed have more than one link that is not at usable status or better. However, the reason I came here was not to tweak anybody's tail but to generate more interest and viewpoints at Wikivoyage_talk:Article_status#Terminology. Since it was largely you that wrote up the existing status policy, Peter, I shall wait until you have answered my questions there before I answer yours here — I think you may be surprised! -- Alice^✉ 05:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted again. Stop messing with the status rating unless you're willing to read Wikivoyage:Country guide status. Globe-trotter (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have pored over that as if it was a dead sea scroll (and contributed to the discussion there). Does USA have "a valid regional structure" ? Perhaps we can all move on when Peter answers the questions posed (or someone answers them equally definitively) and a consensus is reached. And please remember that it wasn't me that started messing with major country articles' status. Not that you were necessarily wrong to do so, since you have highlighted that the status criteria for country level articles do need both clarifying and consistent application. -- Alice^✉ 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "mess" with status ratings to solicit a discussion, I just applied the current policy. It's fine if you want to discuss changes to policies, but applying your changes before consensus is reached to stir up discussion is not the way things are done here. About the valid regional structure, obviously the USA has one. The USA has one of the best regional structures of any country.Globe-trotter (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked again just now, "one of the best regional structures of any country" seemed to have thirteen clearly defined (and coloured) regions incorporating all of the states of the Union and DC (and all shown clearly on the regional map) plus "a motley collection of non-state territories around the world" tagged on the end and not shown at all on the regional map. -- Alice^✉ 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

[re-indent]Trying to figure out who's doing the promoting and demoting of the page from the above discussion, but here's reasoning why the U.S. should be at Outline status. Per Wikivoyage:Country guide status: Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better) Does this mean that only the pages linked in the "Cities" and "Other destinations" must be at useable status or better, or does this apply to the entire page and imply that all links on the U.S. page must be at useable or better. Even if the former criterion is applied, the U.S. would still be at "outline" status, because Mount Rushmore National Memorial (in "Other destinations") is at outline status. In fairness, I just demoted that page (when browsing the status of all cities/ODs), but the get around, see, do, buy, eat, & drink sections of Mt.Rushmore Nat. Mem. are completely blank(!)...hardly a "useable" article. (Version at time of this edit, just in case anyone decides to add content to the page and make this comment inaccurate). AHeneen (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only the pages linked in those sections. Otherwise I could wait until the USA article reaches star status, then insert a tangential mention to Ada (Oklahoma), and bingo! It's back to outline. I think you are judging Mt Rushmore per city guide status criteria, not Wikivoyage:Park guide status—it does have what it needs to be usable. I'll improve it a bit while I'm looking at it, anyway, though. --Peter ^Talk 05:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [6] was reverted with the comment - "other countries don't have ZIP Codes".

1. My revision still clearly say to use a ZIP code. It just omitted the how to write on the front of an envelope. There isn't much difference to the end user between a ZIP code and any other postal code in use worldwide.
2. Are so many visitors to the U.S. really writing domestic letters to justify three paras on how to write on the front of one?

It is just more trivia bloat, at the expense of real travel info IMO. Anyone else think I'm wrong? --Inas (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the age old judgement call of how much is too much and both of you have good-faith points to make. As a very general point, not aimed at this particular editor that did revert, reverting is often insulting and demeaning for the editor on the sharp end and should really only be used for self-evident vandalism and spam. In this case, perhaps the very act of re-inserting all that excised text might have given the reverting editor a hint of just how prolix the passage was - or not.

A generalised solution to this kind of judgement call is often to lay out the basics first - in as sparkling and and lively style as possible - and then add the grey (or gory) detail in subsequent paragraphs that the reader can skip if they don't find them relevant/educational.

PS: I love this discussion sub-section title!-- Alice^✉ 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors on a site like this which anyone can edit need to suppress their irritation at their work being edited, including reversions. I wasn't really thinking about this until Inas worked on it. I think Inas is on the right track, but it's possible for there to be a compromise. How about including this, though without an example or further comment:

Addresses should be written in three (sometimes four) lines like this:

Name of recipient

House number and street name

City or town, two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP code

We hope our readers are intelligent enough to understand the structure given here, right? One guideline on Wikivoyage is not to assume our readers are idiots. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, being fair, this addressing information is actually not all that nco (Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious) for some nationalities — I know Austrians are used to writing addresses in (almost the reverse) order:

Postcode, City or town

Street name, House number

However, typically most Austrians I meet on my flights are also very well researched on their destinations and know that English speaking countries are typically little-endian. -- Alice^✉ 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's no harm to include this, but as briefly as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to tell people how to write on an envelope we should at least tell them the way recommended by USPS (which can be found here [7]), i.e. capital letters and no punctuation. Otherwise, just leave it to common sense.Travelpleb (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency in these country level articles to expound on what is largely true everywhere. Most people learn how to write a letter and address it in elementary school. All we need here is a short sentence on how ZIP codes work. --Inas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Inas, it should just go. Country articles attract a lot of writing about obvious things... Globe-trotter (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points I'd like to make that could give the point of view of a tourist (which I would be if I went to the US):

(1) Nearly every country has post codes, but as far as I know it's only you who calls them ZIP codes, so a 'translation' of the term is welcome and helpful and an explanation of the formatting is useful too.

(2) The example set out in the article demonstrates that the format to writing addresses does differ from how I write them and from how I've seen them written in other countries, so an example is again very helpful. I can't help thinking that perhaps the example could be of somewhere not in the capital, because wouldn't the format be different if writing to a resident of a state? Speaking of states, would it be possible to either list the abbreviations here or link to a page or website that does? Some of them (like NY) are rather obvious but some aren't (e.g. I'd automatically assume Texas was 'TE', rather than 'TX') and knowledge of the abbreviations isn't very widespread outside of your country.

Otherwise, I agree with previous posters that you don't need reams and reams of information about letters, most people don't write letters when they go abroad and those that do tend to be writing home like on postcards.

Anyway, that's my angle on it, make of it what you will :) Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I didn't remove anything about the ZIP code explanation. All I removed was how to address a letter. Besides the obviousness here, if you're going to be writing a letter, the chances are you have the address, and you'll just copy that. If you write the state in full, it will still be recognised by the USPS. --Inas (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's true (about probably knowing the address already). I don't know why I didn't think of that! Despite what you say about the state abbreviations, I still think the list I proposed would be useful in some capacity, even if not for writing a letter. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the form of address needs to be in here somewhere, in addition to the fares and such. It's not the same around the world, as noted by how they do it in Austria Purplebackpack89 03:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same comment pointed out that Austrians know very well how to address letters in English. Well, if some Austrian comes to the U.S., who isn't familiar with how to write on an envelope, decides to write a domestic U.S. letter, doesn't have an address to copy, they will have a ready reference source here. The irony of course, is that the letter would be delivered just fine, regardless. --Inas (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while the computers might not recognize the address, the human operator viewing the reject feed will easily determine the correct routing no matter what order things are written in. LtPowers (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why no one outside the US uses the term "ZIP code". It is (or was) a USPS trademark. K7L (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, Houston is more than worthy to be included in this list of nine (why not ten?) than Seattle or New Orleans. Not only is it the fourth largest city in the nation, and home to NASA's mission-control, but it's the most international, multi-cultural, and financially important city in the south. Worth consideration at the very least. MrLewis (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)MrLewis[reply]

New Orleans is probably more famous world-wide than Houston, and is the only thing we have representing the enormous region of the South (we try to spread geographic representation). Houston probably has the best claim of any not on this list for inclusion (because Philadelphia is so close to other listed cities), and Seattle probably has the weakest of any currently on the list. Then again, Houston is pretty close to New Orleans. The one anomaly regarding geographic spread is California, with both San Francisco and LA, but LA is the second biggest metropolis in the country and obviously world-famous, while SF is one of the top five most visited cities in the country, for the sole reason that people like going there. Tough calls, but fortunately not very important ones ;) --Peter ^Talk 20:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we replaced New Orleans with Houston, then Seattle should be replaced with Atlanta to keep a "Southern" city on the list. Texas is a region unto its own and not really a part of the South. Atlanta is the heart of the South and with Delta's super-mega hub, well connected with the world (despite most traffic being connections, not origin/destination). However, I support retaining the status quo...only mentioning this for reference in future discussions. AHeneen (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Visited Cities in the USA ... Neither Seattle or New Orleans are mentioned on the list, which includes the top ten. Houston is number 8, but admittedly, there are cities not in our "nine" that rank higher than Houston. SF doesn't make the list. Also, if Texas is a region unto itself, then why no representation? MrLewis (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)MrLewis[reply]

Looking at foreign arrivals (one of their criteria) can be a really bad metric to judge a "destination," since a lot of foreign arrivals are not actually going to that city. Atlanta is number 7 in terms of foreign visitors, but is Atlanta really a Top Ten draw for travelers world wide? We also discount business travel a bit in these lists, since business travelers are unlikely to be browsing through the hierarchy, and more likely to go straight to their intended destination's page for information. Popularity for domestic travelers is also less a consideration here, as the USA article is geared at foreign travelers (unlike the Texas article, which is geared at non-Texans, the Houston article geared towards non-Houstonians, etc.) "Interestingness" is another consideration, which weighs heavily in New Orleans' favor (see Sertmann's comment). Mention New Orleans to anyone in the world who knows anything about anything outside their borders, and they'll smile and mention carnival or jazz—they know it because it's so interesting and rich culturally. Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Boston, Denver, etc.—much less likely.

Your point about Texas not having representation is very well taken. The reason, essentially, is that there are more than nine regions, so some will not have representation. All the same, I'd be OK with switching out Seattle for Houston. I'd be OK with not doing it too ;) In a borderline case like this, it's not inappropriate to look at the quality of the two articles—Seattle does have a much better guide at present. --Peter ^Talk 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. :) MrLewis (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)MrLewis[reply]

Seattle is known for a lot being on the tops of many lists, from one of the highest educated to the highest caffeinated and of course it is a major port and airport for travelers arriving from outside of the country but here are just a few of the recent travel related statistics to think about. 2011- Seattle is the # 9 top U.S. city in the annual Readers’ Choice Awards survey - Condé Nast magazine, 2011- Seattle ranked #10 for top summer destinations booked by American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), Seattle ranked 8th most photographed city in the world – Cornell University, June 2011 , Seattle is listed as # 10 for the top 25 favorite destinations in the Travelers’ Choice 2011 poll, Seattle ranked # 4 for top 10 destinations for singles this summer – Travelocity.com, 2011, 2010 – Seattle ranked America’s # 9 summertime tourist destination – American Society of Travel Agents, March 2010, 2009 – # 10 among favorite cities in the Continental U.S. and Canada, World’s Best Cities annual readers’ poll – Travel + Leisure, August 2009, 2009 – # 7 among the nation’s top 25 arts destinations – AmericanStyle magazine, April 2009, 2009 – Seattle among the top-10 U.S. travel destinations for the African American traveler – Travel Professionals of Color, January 2009, 2008 – Voted one of America’s Favorite Cities by travelers and scored highest for cafes and coffee bars, farmers’ markets, intelligence, environmental awareness, public parks and access to the outdoors in a poll conducted by Travelandleisure.com and CNN Headline News – September, 2008, Lumpytrout (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swept in from the pub

Can we get a bot to go ahead and add redirect pages for City, ST and City, State for the US city pages currently as City and City (State)? Users will be searching for places with a variety of conventions, and we should have them all available (Wikipedia has redirects for different ways of writing for most US cities). Nicole Sharp (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about bots, but this sounds like a pretty good idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational marijuana is now legal in Colorado and Washington state but the drug section in North America needs some work. To say that the federal government is taking a 'hands off' policy is putting it mildly. The feds are actually helping form some of the regulations and making sure that it is not being sold near schools etc. To say that federal law supersedes state laws and that it should be avoided is a cop out, it is becoming quite main stream here. At hemp fest it is common to see people talking to police and smoking a joint at the same time and my friend that is a wedding planner says its almost standard practice now to have it available at receptions. To say that it simply should be avoided is not doing any favors to travelers that are curious about usage and are looking for realistic advice. Is anyone going to object if I rework this a little? Lumpytrout (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and rewrite the section. What I think is important is to make sure that travelers know what local conditions are, so that they don't end up in prison for a long time while visiting a retrograde state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the last sentence as I read it was an attempt to go back to the national level as a general warning that travelers are best off avoiding drugs in the US, which is good advice in spite of the current tone suggesting that US laws concerning drugs are too much (aka: draconian). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as a general rule I always take drug advice seriously when it comes from someone named Chubby. Lumpytrout (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If emphasizing the hands off bit, make sure to mention that this could change post-Obama administration. --Peter ^Talk 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is the beauty of a wiki, easy to change. Lumpytrout (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't live in either Washington or Colorado, I think it's still good advice for foreign travelers to avoid marijuana altogether. The last thing they need is to get caught on a drug offense. LtPowers (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly LtPowers, the previous wording just seemed patronizing. We owe it to our travelers to be more factual. America is a big country with wildly different norms, laws and expectations and we need to prepare travelers for that as well as possible. Maybe this might be a good place to talk about transporting drugs more. Lumpytrout (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I don't think this is the best venue for a detailed discussion of the varying laws and regulations. The Washington (state) and Colorado articles can get into more details of what's allowed (or common) where, but in the general USA article, I think the best and simplest advice is to just avoid it. LtPowers (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check LtPowers, there are areas in the US where two gay men can walk down the street holding hands and nobody would think twice about it while in other areas they would get stared at in shock and be harassed. Should we just advise gay people not to hold hands in public? Or let them know how US norms vary from region to region? I think that when I look through the whole of the United States entry a major theme is the variations of climates, cultural norms, laws and customs throughout the country and we have a responsibility to prepare travelers for that. I will make sure that the Colorado and Washington (state) articles are kept more up to date with the specifics of the laws as they evolve and are implemented but the United States entry is not and should not be about gross oversimplification. The first rule of Wikivoyage: Our work is guided by what is best from the traveller's perspective. Note: You could call this our Prime Directive. Maybe this is a bigger discussion that we have tapped into but I feel that there is no way that giving sweeping generalizations about laws without arming travelers with a correct perspective is the right course of action. Lumpytrout (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would take a less combative tone. I don't think your analogy is particularly germane, since same-sex hand-holding is perfectly legal in every American jurisdiction. Getting caught with weed, on the other hand, can lead to deportation and the inability to return to the country. We don't yet know how the feds will handle foreign nationals caught with marijuana now that it's legal in two states. We do know that in the vast majority of the country, it means big trouble. "Avoid illegal drugs" remains good advice for U.S. visitors, even if we point out the small caveat that two states allow one illegal drug without major penalty. LtPowers (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the analogy doesn't hold and incidentally, the variation in ways homosexuals are viewed/treated is dealt with just above the drug section. Although I find it funny that someone who calls himself "Lumpy" would feel superior to someone who uses "Chubby" in their username (my username is ChubbyWimbus, by the way, not Chubby), remarks like that will only hurt your argument and make you look like a troll. None of the comments aside from your own have been disrespectful. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChubbyWimbus, I'm sorry if my humble attempt at humor came across as as disrespectful in any way. A 'Chubby' is a slang reference for a joint. i.e. that dude can roll a phat chubby., and hence my failed attempt at a joke as you would be more of an authority than anyone else. I do feel that the homosexuality reference does hold some water as gay marriage is not a recognized law nationally but is dealt with state by state. A gay married couple has visitation rights in a hospital in Washington State that they would not appreciate elsewhere for example. Maybe a better example might be speed limits that change state by state? To simply state that travelers should go the minimum speed limit set by one state and give that advice on a national level seems a bit short sighted. I'm also sorry if LtPowers if I'm coming across as being combative, but I do feel strongly that this is an area where wikivoyage can really shine and give travelers solid and useful advice on a quickly changing basis rather than just a generic overview. Yes, travelers and anyone should avoid illegal drugs, but in Colorado and Washington at least there is nothing illicit about recreational marijuana and we owe it to our audience to give them as truthful as perspective as we are capable of. Lumpytrout (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel strongly about this, but I don't quite understand why. We should not be encouraging visitors to violate federal law, no matter how lax the enforcement in Washington and Colorado at the moment. LtPowers (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think the advice here should be something along the lines of: "While it has been legalized in two states, it remains illegal per federal law, and penalties are very stiff for foreign visitors." More detailed info should be in Washington (state) and Colorado, but it should still caveat that we don't really know what the future holds for federal enforcement, and that any use should be discreet. --Peter ^Talk 20:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right tone is to mention that recreational use of pot is legal under state law in those two states but remains illegal under Federal law, so visitors can smoke pot at their own risk. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input everyone, I appreciate it and I'm glad to hear everyone's two cents on this topic. I'm starting a new paragraph just to keep everything in order. If you have not already, I would encourage you to look at the Netherlands and specifically Amsterdam articles to see how well developed this section could be. Marijuana use is illegal yet tolerated in parts of the Netherlands and they have well rounded articles dealing with that. I'm also going to start discussions about this on the Colorado and Washington State pages to see if we can get some more input. I am not eager to encourage travelers to 'violate federal law', nor am I eager to go into a long discussion on constitutional law and the rights and responsibilities of states when it comes to law enforcement. I am however interested in building the best, most complete, most honest and well developed travel guide that the world has ever seen and this is a small but important piece of that puzzle. Marijuana remains a schedule one drug under federal law and is considered by the feds to be right up there with heroin as dangerous to the public (cocaine for example is considered a less serious schedule two drug) but the reality of federal vs state drug enforcement laws is murky at best and it is the states that will be enforcing these laws. Most states come down on marijuana offenses less severely and could arguably be in defiance of federal law because of this. There was a time when Washington State and Colorado was lax about enforcement, but that is no longer the case. It is now legal under state law. Colorado is growing industrial hemp, Washington has official marijuana certification, its even common in mainstream advertising. We owe it to prepare travelers to the best of our abilities and this includes a thoughtful, well rounded discussion on drugs and legality. --Lumpytrout (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USA article is already very long; it just seems excessive to put more than a sentence or two on a single drug that has different status in two states. In Washington and Colorado, sure, go into detail about when and where. The U.S. article has to remain just a broad overview. LtPowers (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LtPowers on this. It makes much more sense to cover things in more detail on the Washington and Colorado pages. Mention the special situation in the two states here, but do not go into detail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is how it reads now

Some drugs, such as non-prescription medicine, alcohol (for adults 21+), and caffeine, are legal and widely available; others are more highly restricted.

In general U.S. drug laws can be pretty draconian—even possession or transportation of small amounts can lead to prison and should be avoided by travelers. However laws and attitudes concerning the most commonly available drug—Marijuana vary wildly from state to state. 18 states currently allow medical use of Marijuana where persons can obtain marijuana for medicinal use with a doctor's prescription and "medical marijuana card" while both Colorado and Washington state allow limited recreational use of the drug. Technically illegal under Federal law, enforcement agencies have kept a hands-off approach and those laws haven't been enforced on consumers/sellers in those states.

I would be all for getting rid of that first sentence as Captain Obvious and maybe putting in an example of a state where it is still considered a felony? Lumpytrout (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence seems too obvious for mention to me (is caffeine illegal in any country?). The rest seems fine.

Except, one question; was the 'draconian' part added by you or already there? I personally don't feel that drug laws/enforcement are particularly harsh in the US compared to many other countries, so the statement is odd to me. I'm sure it depends on what country one is from and what drugs we're talking about, but in East Asia, for example, laws and punishments are much more severe if you're caught with drugs. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says (without citation) that caffeine is legal in all jurisdictions (in the world, I infer). Some regimes tried to ban it in the past but that was hundreds of years ago. "Draconian" is not a relative descriptor; laws in the U.S. can be draconian even if there are laws elsewhere that are even more strict. LtPowers (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drug laws are pretty draconian everywhere, compared to penalties for other types of offenses ;) --Peter ^Talk 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I took everyone's input and deleted that first sentence and expanded the other language. Take a look at the article and see what you think. It might still be nice to have a conclusion sentence that sums it all up. Lumpytrout (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better, but I agree there needs to be a conclusion of some sort. We should also point out that if the feds get involved -- possibly due to transporting the drugs over a state line -- there can be severe penalties, even if the states involved don't care as much. LtPowers (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is medical marijuana even worth mentioning? An out-of-state visitor, much less a foreign visitor (to whom this article is geared), would not be able to get a license. --Peter ^Talk 15:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a concluding sentence along the lines you mentioned, LtPowers. Peter, I think it doesn't hurt to mention medical marijuana, as it's one sentence and can be seen as purely informational. However, if you think it might confuse a visitor, "though visitors are not eligible for marijuana prescriptions" could be added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good conclusion and although I'm sure this could still use some minor tweeking I wanted to thank everyone for participating in this sometimes heated discussion. I think that we ultimately were able to hash out our differences to come up with something much better than where we started on a hot button issue. If that is not the American way than what is? Lumpytrout (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki way? :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is worth mentioning that the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison of any country on Earth and that about half the inmates are there for drug offenses. This puts the situation, especially the DEA claims that federal laws still apply even where a state has legalised, into perspective. Pashley (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it's worth mentioning briefly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the travel relevance. Powers ^(talk) 18:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems travel relevant to me for much the same reasons we warn about laws on alcohol, prostitution or homosexuality in various places. Travellers need to understand these local peculiarities to avoid trouble that might be unexpected and quite severe. Pashley (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It provides useful context, but only if we restrict it to a single sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the travel relevance of the specific statistic, that the percentage of American citizens incarcerated is higher than in any other country. Powers ^(talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It provides relevant context (especially for men of color, but also just as general background and a cautionary tale). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid all you've done is simply re-assert the relevance of this statistic without actually explaining it. Powers ^(talk) 20:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try this: Forget for a second that you're an American, and instead imagine that you are a potential traveler to the US from another country, who has watched a lot of American movies that show drug use and thinks that, therefore, it's routine to smoke a joint or do a line of coke and not get hassled by the cops in the US. Would it be in your interest to read about how many inmates there are who are there solely because of possession of drugs, very much including merely marijuana? My response would be: Damn right it would be in your interest, and it's almost as obvious to me as it is to mention that in Malaysia, there is a mandatory death penalty for possession of more than x-amount of marijuana. If you still aren't convinced, remember that it's part of our mission to help advise people how to stay safe and keep out of trouble. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mandatory death penalty is definitely worth mentioning. So is mentioning that drug possession is illegal and often harshly punished. But mentioning that "the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison of any country on Earth" is just piling on for the sake of making the U.S. look bad. That fact has nothing to do with how careful a traveler should be about drug use. Powers ^(talk) 18:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If people are doing life without parole for relatively petty dealings with marijuana, that's something the traveller should know. K7L (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But keep in mind that those are usually (exclusively?) the result of repeat offenses (e.g., three-strikes laws) and thus a bit of a special case. Powers ^(talk) 00:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, I think it's quite inappropriate to be concerned with whether the US looks good or bad, when it comes to facts. There are loads of great travel destinations in the US, but drug offenses can be punished very harshly here, and inconsistently between states and even between judges, and the fact that the US has such a high prison population and over half of the prisoners are there for drug offenses is both interesting background for readers and a useful warning to scare people straight. I don't consider it "piling on" in the least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of our most basic principles is "Be fair". It is thus not at all inappropriate to be concerned with the image painted by the language we choose. The bare fact of the U.S.'s ranking in per capita incarceration rates is completely irrelevant to the traveler (because the statistic doesn't address travelers' imprisonment) and unnecessarily sensational, particularly when presented without context (e.g., the U.S. ranks first but how far behind is #2? What's the median? How do similar nations compare?). Powers ^(talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can stating a fact be "unfair"? This isn't an opinion: These figures don't lie. The US has a fraction the population of China and India yet has more prisoners - not just a higher percentage per capita. And the comparison with the 2nd-place country isn't close at all. That's a fact. I think that providing the kind of comparative context you want is what would be irrelevant, but if you want to provide it, it will actually put the US in a _worse_ light, not a better light. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think facts cannot be unfair then we're never going to come to a consensus on this. The selection, presentation, and context of facts can all be molded to be more or less fair; that's a basic principle of public relations. Powers ^(talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make that argument, then the counterpoint is that omitting salient facts can be in the service of propaganda. I really don't understand why you are so adamant on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omission and inclusion go hand in hand and can serve to paint whatever kind of picture the author wants. Facts can be used to make any country look as good or as bad as you want. Quite often facts are removed here for being irrelevant, unfair, etc. I'm on the fence regarding the usefulness or relevance of this particular fact. I get the connection in that it's drug-related but I also see LtPowers' point that there are a lot of other factors involved that don't necessarily make it relevant to travelers. Not sure if it's worth it or not, but it would need to be put into context. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The failed war on drugs is relevant to travel as it's a border issue in many locations. It seems bizarre that we mention all the US narcodollars and guns pouring into Mexico in the Mexico articles and then say nothing in this article? K7L (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the words "at least for gay men" in this sentence: "Most cities have affordable or free testing and treatment centers for STIs at least for gay men, though hours may be limited and waits may be long."

Are most free testing centers for men only? Is that what it's supposed to mean? Seems unfounded and I highly doubt they're turning away straight men or suspected straight men, so if they do discriminate against women, let's just say "at least for men" or something like that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your edit was a good one. First, though, I've never seen "STIs." I always see "STDs," and before that, it used to be "VD" ("Venereal Disease"), but that usage has been deprecated.

In any case, it would be ludicrous for anyone to claim that Planned Parenthood won't let a woman get screened for STDs, and I'm having trouble imagining any treatment center that offers STD screening turning women away and getting away with it. Just because Gay Men's Health Crisis was a leader in AIDS prevention and screening doesn't mean they refused to help women. Quite the contrary, was always my impression. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently STI has supplanted STD in most of the literature and in school. LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why (I mean, illness is better than disease?), but I guess we have to go with the current acronym. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infection, not illness. Wikipedia says "a person may be infected, and may potentially infect others, without having a disease." If the infection is asymptomatic, then there is no disease. LtPowers (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That actually does make sense. Thanks for explaining. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the image chosen for this page be transferred into commons? I would use in it:voy as well and I would avoid to duplicate it locally. Let me know, --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the public domain; you can do whatever the heck you want with it. LtPowers (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why a traveler needs to know how the Congress is elected. Isn't this article long enough? LtPowers (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This doesn't seem travel-relevant, and could encourage more about U.S. politics, which is something people love to write about, but is of minimal relevance to our purpose. --Peter ^Talk 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar discussion (Talk:United States of America/Archive 2006#Revert of the day) User:MarkJaroski made a comparison that I thought was very helpful in giving some perspective on how unimportant it is to provide information about government and politics in most articles:

Hi guys, just to give you a point of comparison if I could explain which departements are likely to go for Ségoline Royale, and which are likely to go to Nicolas Sarkozy in the next French presidential election would you find the information very useful for yourselves as travellers? How about if I work up some text about the ascendancy of the (center-left) Green party in Switzerland and its cost to both the Socialists and the center-right Christian Democrats, and Radicals. For that matter I could spend days writing about the right-wing UDC. Would you be interested in which Swiss cantons had voted which way in the most recent elections (there are 4 per year)?

While these things always seem more important when it's your home country, if you wouldn't care about the details of how parliaments are configured or political parties are aligned when visiting another country, then a visitor to the US is unlikely to care when visiting America. While there are obviously going to be some people who want that level of detail, the link to Wikipedia seems like a much better place for it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I didn't originally write it, but I did restore this parenthetical after it was removed. Ikan has reverted my restoration, and I don't understand why. This very Learn section uses "school" and "college" interchangeably; I think it's worth a note explaining that this usage is very common in the U.S. Am I nuts? LtPowers (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"School" is a much broader term than "college" or "university." The main point is that "college" and "university" are used interchangeably. It's OK to state that colleges/universities are types of schools, but that's as far as I'd countenance going on that semantic front. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, Ikan's comment seems right. The situation could be stated something like: "The terms university and college are used interchangeably by most Americans, while simply saying school can be sometimes used implying college/university studies." AHeneen (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"college" and "university" are not used interchangeably. "I'm going to university" is a distinctly Commonwealth usage, unheard in the U.S. except in old For Better or For Worse comic strips. And no one would refer to a small liberal-arts college as a "university", even if the opposite applies. LtPowers (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. So how do you plan on explaining this? I don't think we want to get into too much detail in this article. I'll check the phrasing of the usage note I posted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "In the U.S., 'college' is a catch-all term for any post-secondary education. Even if a student is going to attend a prestigious four-year university, she is still apt to say 'I'm heading off to college in the fall.'" Would that be enough? Maybe we need some non-Americans to weigh in? LtPowers (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the usage note as it stands now pretty OK to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit too wordy and overplays the interchangeability of the two words, in my opinion. LtPowers (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer only the two-sentence version you posted above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something along those lines. LtPowers (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try your hand at it in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly satisfied with your infobox. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing about racial profiling at US customs? This is a fact that many non-white people have to endure. This is also something Muslims have to endure. WTF? I can think of at least 3 celebrities who have gone through this. If celebrities are being racially profiled, what do you think the average Muslim/black person goes through? People get interrogated. People can lose tons of money by not getting refunds on plane tickets. People get harassed by police. This is no fairytale. This is real life depressing stuff folks have to go through. Someone should update the safety section soon or i will. 80.43.217.97 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and post something, but isn't the issue more profiling at security (where Muslims and non-Muslims from the Indian Subcontinent who ignorant TSA agents think could be a threat often get a lot of abuse) than at Customs? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to our continuing efforts to keep the Respect section free of bloat, it's currently fairly terse and perfunctory. This recent reversion rightly eliminated some obviousness and duplication, but I think parts of it were valuable. For one, a reminder that cultural norms vary depending on state is useful as an introduction to the section. Second, I think the part about punctuality is also valuable; many other cultures place little-to-no value on punctuality, but it can be a bit of a culture shock to come to the U.S. and be expected to show up within 5–10 minutes of the appointed time. Third, while the sentence reverted had some flaws, it might be worth mentioning that women are treated much more as equals than in some other countries. LtPowers (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between states are probably best covered in "Understand," not "Respect." As for your other points, if you want to try covering them very briefly, go ahead. My tendency is to err on the side of brevity in the "Respect" section. There are loads of things that could be in it, and a relative appreciation for punctuality is probably not the most important, but it could be in there. I guess it's important for people coming to the US for interviews and business meetings to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the punctuality point actually was useful (specific and brief). I'm less sure of the statement about gender equality, if only because the addition was so fluffy. Any replacement should avoid borderline non-statements like "most Americans support gender equality." Again, info in respect sections is only useful when it includes specific recommendations. --Peter ^Talk 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the remark about punctuality and slightly tweaked some of the other wording in the "Respect" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes; thanks! LtPowers (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked them. I have to admit, I'm less sure about the changes I made to the "Culture" subsection of "Understand." Please have a look at those if you haven't already. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does ten-digit dialling not work anywhere (still)? --Peter ^Talk 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought that landlines in areas without an area code overlay still choke on 10 digits for local numbers... but I just tested it and it seems to work. Color me surprised. LtPowers (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I also didn't know it worked in areas where it's not mandatory. Still, in places without overlays, phone numbers will almost always be listed and spoken as just 7 digits, so I don't think it's appropriate to instruct people to always dial 10 digits. Bigpeteb (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the section, to hopefully make it a little easier to figure out: you can always use 10 digits, sometimes use 7 digits, and use 11 digits for toll free numbers. --Peter ^Talk 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe long-distance calls still require the 1, meaning 11-digit dialing. LtPowers (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, from landlines. Can you make a local 10-digit landline call? And what happens if you dial 11 digits for a local call (can you get charged for long distance)? I find I hardly know how to use those things... --Peter ^Talk 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. According to Wikipedia, some trunks will charge you long-distance if you dial the one, even if it's local, but I gather that's not universal. Local 10-digit dialing from landlines is possible, at least where I am, much to my surprise (as noted earlier). LtPowers (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(And I should also point out that sometimes even a seven-digit number can be long-distance; when I call my parents, it's LD but they're in the same area code so I only dial 7 digits.) LtPowers (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion here, I'm not sure I like the currently simplified text. It says

• "you can always dial a number using 10 digits" — false, since this isn't true for long distance and is directly contradicted below for toll-free numbers
• "sometimes can dial a local number with only 7 digits" — true
• "but always use 11 digits for toll free numbers"
• doesn't say anything about domestic long-distance

I just found w:North_American_Numbering_Plan#Dial_plans, which has a thorough chart. It also says "Most areas allow permissive dialing of 10D or 1+10D even for calls that could be dialed as 7D" (emphasis mine)

Can we cover the possibilities without over-complicating it? Perhaps something like:

From a fixed line, you can usually dial 10 digits. Local calls can be dialed with 7 digits in non-metro areas (if a number is written as 7 digits, you can probably dial it that way locally). Domestic long-distance usually requires all 11 digits, but sometimes can be dialed as just 10 digits. (In a few exceptional cases, long-distance requires only 7 digits; when this happens, the phone system should automatically tell you how to dial it correctly.)

I'd also suggest moving the description of area codes up, so that everything follows a more logical sequence: description of number format (including area codes), how to dial, exception for toll-free.

How do I dial it? Local – 10 digits (required in metro areas, usually works elsewhere) or 7 digits Domestic long-distance – 11 digits (required in most areas) or 10 digits; rarely 7 digits Toll-free – 11 digits

Maybe an infobox would be a good way to give a brief summary of the possibilities? Here's a first attempt on the right...

Let me know what you think, and I can take a stab at it. Bigpeteb (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "metro areas" has to do with anything. LtPowers (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of this from the perspective of an international traveler, who just needs to know the bare minimum, just caring about how to make their call (not interested in the ins and outs of the system). So the simpler the better, and the less options the better. How about:

From landlines, you can always make a local call using 10 digits. Dial long distance and toll-free numbers using 11 digits. You may see these numbers written in other formats, but this approach will always work.

That's very simple, and quite possibly correct ;) --Peter ^Talk 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if 10-digit dialing for local calls works everywhere (and I'm not sure that it is guaranteed, which is why I don't like saying "always"), it requires you to know the area code. If you're in a place with just 1 area code, phone numbers are often written as 7 digits. I think we can come up with a phrasing that doesn't say anything about metro areas and overlay plans, but still tells people "if a number is written as 7 digits, you can dial it like that locally". Bigpeteb (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I see that in New York City, all calls must be dialed as 11 digits, even local ones. So to say that local calls can "always" be dialed as 10 digits is just not correct. You're right, we should keep it simple (something I struggle with sometimes :-p), but not so simple as to be wrong. Bigpeteb (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ay yay yay, what a headache ;) If we as locals can't figure out a rule that would be simple and usable, then maybe there isn't one. My biggest remaining question is whether it's ever a problem to dial 11 digits—can you wind up getting charged a long distance fee for a local call so dialed? --Peter ^Talk 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, but in some areas, yes. LtPowers (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so what actually happens if you skip the trunk number, and only dial 10 digits for a long distance (or local within NYC) call? --Peter ^Talk 06:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you will most likely get a recorded message that says you have to dial a 1 before the number. But I imagine there must be some cases where the first seven digits of a ten-digit number could be confused with a local 7-digit number... LtPowers (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the education here, and think we have a much better section now ;) --Peter ^Talk 04:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our section currently reads:

Public libraries — have PCs with broadband for free public use. You may need to register with the library and get a library card. Non-locals may also need to pay.

Does anyone have any experience or evidence to confirm that non-locals would ever need to pay? Who would they even pay? I've never heard of that, and it seems directly counter to the national mission of bridging the digital divide by providing internet access in public libraries. I'm also fairly skeptical about the part saying that a non-local might need to get a library card, (registering definitely happens, though). --Peter ^Talk 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The public library in Albuquerque made me pay in 2007. $4, I think. They said it was good for a year, I believe, but I was only going to be there for 4 days. It made me mad because you never have to pay in New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One local library charges $1 for a guest pass that is good for 3 days, while a couple others don't charge. Throughout the entire local library system, you need a login/password to access the computers that is tied to a library card. Those without a library card need to stop at the desk and get a login/password to use the desktop computers, while iPads can only be checked out if you have a library card and drivers' license/state ID to leave as collateral. I've also encountered a library which requires a login to access wi-fi. However, I too am skeptical about needing a "library card"...this could be changed to "You may need to register with the library to receive a login code and PIN/password to use available computers or wireless internet. Some libraries may charge non-locals a small fee to use their wireless internet connection and/or computers." AHeneen (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The registering process sometimes simply has the library card attached to it so that you essentially ARE signing up for a library card in order to use the internet. I don't think it matters much if we say it or not. The library will inform the visitor of what they need to do to use the internet and if it means getting a card then get the card. I think it reads fine now but AHaneen's description reads just as good to me. The libraries all have their own way of doing things and tourists will do what they have to do (and the card process only takes about 5 minutes). Admittedly though I've never got one as a foreigner. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the Mobile phones section. It's more comprehensive, but lengthy. It still needs a table for frequencies so visitors can determine which network(s) a foreign phone is most compatible with (if they plan on using it with a U.S. SIM card). This also entails noting which type of networks the carriers operate (GSM, CMDA, HSPA+, LTE, WiMax, EDGE, UMTS, etc). Hopefully that won't be overwhelming where it ends up looking like a long Wikipedia table! An alternative is to list the networks as a bulleted list with name, website (main page & coverage), and type/frequency. Other than that, is there anything else that should be added? It seems like the last paragraph about buying phones may be more appropriate in the "Buy" section, but content-wise, it fits in nicely here with the info about carrier practices (those %#&$!*@ contracts & locked phones) and it's noteworthy for visitors from countries where phones can only be sold unlocked who come here, see the low prices, buy a phone, and realize it's worthless when they take it home. AHeneen (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like this. It feels very bloated to me, whereas the previous version was short and to-the-point. Why do we need so much detail about operating systems, network technology, and dozens upon dozens of external links (most of which ought to be front-linked as per new policy, BTW)?

I do think the section needs some expansion. Most visitors probably want to either use their phone from home, or rent one (something we have no mention of in either version). Long-term contracts are not viable for most visitors, and for those that it does apply to, a short description is all they need; they need to do more research on their own to choose a provider anyway. The advice about buying phones to bring home probably belongs in the "Buy" section. Bigpeteb (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's some duplication between the last paragraph and the first; can that information be consolidated? LtPowers (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The info about the networks (standards & frequencies) is actually very important to people who wish to use their foreign phones in the U.S.—especially for data (mobile internet). There are too many network standards & frequencies for today's phones to support even half of the combinations. Much of the world uses just a few of the combinations and phone makers manufacture different models of the same phone (eg. iPhone, Galaxy S4, etc) with different radio receivers to best suit different regions or networks. I do not know of any companies that rent mobile phones, so just left the statement that was in the previous version. Given the low cost of a basic prepaid phone & minutes, that is probably a better alternative than renting for someone who is only staying in the U.S for a couple weeks. AHeneen (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at rewriting this. I tried to condense it as much as possible, and eliminate verbiage without sacrificing any information. I went with bulleted format, similar to what the article already has for airlines, and I put in a table for SIM cards, conceptually basing it on a similar table from Japan#Mobile phones.

Hopefully this will make the section easier to read while still conveying sufficient information for visitors. Let me know what you think. Bigpeteb (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table goes into way too much detail; leave specific pricing plans to the company web sites, since they're subject to change at any time. LtPowers (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend removing the table altogether. I also got rid of the "Americans have cell phones" introduction ;) --Peter ^Talk 02:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the spiritual (yet also note-worthy) disabilities of LDS Church members, I thought that using, much less mentioning this website search engine is the least I could do to keep them sane and tame like the Quicksilver Flood of Hermes. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to link a site for Mormons to find temples, do you also propose to link to such sites for Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc., etc.? It seems to me, this kind of link is probably not OK under our external links policy, and that it makes more sense to include LDS temples under "Cope" in relevant articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ikan, and would also suggest that this is a 'slippery slope' direction to take. Also does this make sense considering LDS was actually founded in the U.S. ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim much knowledge in the area of LDS, however I suspect that "spiritual disabilities" is not respectful. "Spiritual Considerations" may be more appropriate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One thought, though, is that there could certainly be a Mormon Temples travel topic. Not only are there many Mormons around the world who would be interested in visiting temples, but Mormon temple architecture is quite interesting to many non-Mormons, too. If someone wants to start such a topic, they'll certainly have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Mormon Temples as a standalone article (or group of articles) would be great. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A travel topic might be useful, but I don't think the purpose should be to simply list the locations of Mormon temples. I believe it is actually quite easy for Mormons to find temples where they exist, and a quick Google search or inquiry at one's own temple would be faster and cut out the middle-man (Wikivoyage) in helping them find Mormon communities outside their own. Mormons tend to be more aware about where their temples are and I believe also more thorough in locating these places around the world than most other religions. If an article is created, I suggest making sure it is travel-related, such as an article about noteworthy Mormon spiritual sites and places of interest (such as Mormon museums if they exist) rather than a "Mormon Temples" article which sounds like a list (and duplication of the site above) or encyclopedic description of Mormon temple architecture. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my original concern about the 'slippery slope'. I understand that the LDS church is extremely savvy with IT, and I don't see how WikiVoyage could hope to be a relevant resource compared to what has already been done by them. Perhaps a one page overview on the subject for non members with a general itinerary of Mormon travel destinations (i.e. Salt Lake city) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out, ChubbyWimbus, that although only Mormons with temple cards can go inside a consecrated temple, it is not only Mormons who may be interested in visiting (the grounds of) various temples. LtPowers (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As I pointed out, Mormon temple architecture is quite interesting - to Mormons and non-Mormons alike. And I think it would be fine for the topic to be broader than Mormon temples, and for it to encompass all other sites of specific relevance to the history and current practice of the LDS Church. Of course it should be more than a list. There needs to be some minimal amount of general background, and each point of interest should ideally be described in some way, with a link to the article on the specific city or town where it's located. We already have other topics about types of religious architecture and other places of religious pilgrimage or other significance. Without checking them all, I think all of them are more than mere lists.

But all of this discussion is beside the point until or unless someone decides to start the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically the premise of the two articles Christianity and Islam. I can't find it, but I remember starting a discussion somewhere about the creation of travel topics concerning individual religions. These would cover some of the basics of their beliefs/practices (just as you would find a couple paragraphs or even pages about local religion in a good travel guidebook) as well as topics like pilgrimage/noteworthy sites, architecture, cuisine, and respect issues. Those two articles have not been developed yet, but can serve as a guide for an article on Mormonism. AHeneen (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AHeneen . As far as I can tell, no-one, including the original poster, has actually shown any enthusiasm for creating this article. As Ikan Kekek says it is somewhat irrelevant until someone does. Good that there is a template in case a volunteer appears. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my understanding of American culture is very shallow, but based on what I know, beyond the Northeast and West Coast, the US is basically a strongly evangelical Christian nation. I have actually seen some of these evangelicals going out on the street and chanting homophobic and anti-Muslim slogans. Some states have even gone so far as to attempt to pass legislation to replace the Theory of Evolution with Genesis in biology classes (though none of those bills were ever passed). Of course, I know that acceptance of homosexuality in say San Francisco or New York City is as good as most of Western Europe or Australia. But wouldn't it be a safety concern for gay and lesbian travellers heading into the rural inland areas? It is well known that people from those areas tend to be deeply religious, and many of the more extreme ones have homophobic tendencies. The dog2 (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article puts a positive view on the acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S, and doesn't seem to cover the valid safety concerns that you have. I'd just say it is very hard to make generalizations about this subject in the U.S., and specific safety warnings should go into the article relating to each state. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's only natural that our many US editors want to show the country in a good light and - being fair - the majority of tourists do concentrate on the areas where religiosity is slight and tolerance and apathy more pronounced. That's why I think the approach advanced by Andrew is more likely to properly warn queer travellers. That said, most queer travellers are likely to be pretty aware already due to films, etc. --W. Frank^email_talk 14:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's important to have some warnings, but although the US may seem unfriendly to LGBT people compared to Western Europe, the truth is most travellers probably won't have to worry about it. In almost all large and medium cities, travelers are unlikely to experience any difficulties. It's true that there are protesters and such, but actual violence is not common (although not unheard of, either). Re-reading what's written now, I think it's a pretty accurate description of the current state of things at a national level. (Things may be different when you get to Alabama or Mississippi, but as W. Frank points out, that belongs in articles for those states.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the areas that tourists are likely to visit will be fine. I do not think we should portray the U.S. in a more negative light than it actually is. Sure, most people in say California or New York are generally accepting of homosexuality. And of course, we know that even New Orleans or Chicago, which are geographically part of the "bible belt" are fine too. But that being said, it's also true that the evangelical Christian influence is much stronger in the U.S. than it is in Australia, Canada or Western Europe. Having a warning box against homosexuality is a bit over the top. After all, this isn't Saudi Arabia where you get stoned to death for it. However, I think it warrants a brief mention that some communities are not very accepting of homosexuality. Of course, if a gay traveller just sticks to the major cities, it will not be an issue but we should also not assume that gay travellers will not be interested in visiting the rural South. The dog2 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone say that Chicago is part of the Bible Belt in any way. I haven't even heard anyone say that the state of Illinois is part of the Bible Belt, though the southern part (Downstate) is quite a lot more conservative and Southern in culture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the current language in the "Gay and lesbian" section of "Stay safe," and I think it's good. What do you want to change? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, although you seem to be suggesting that the cause of violence towards homosexuals can be directly attributed to the prevalence of evangelical Christianity in a given area. I would say that although the viewpoints of evangelicals can sometimes contribute to a hostile atmosphere towards homosexuals, it is rarely a direct cause of that violence. It is a rather complex subject, however religion is only one factor of many. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. There have been gay-bashing incidents in New York City - and a shooting/killing within the last 2 years, and I think that they've been clearly associated with anti-gay bigotry, but I don't recall (someone may correct me if I'm wrong) that they were associated with particularly Fundamentalist beliefs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some areas, it's not unusual for people to be uncomfortable with homosexuals (after all, Trail Life U.S.A. exists). However, in those same areas, it's not uncommon for a local to walk up to a stranger and start talking about his/her faith. Perhaps a better answer is Americans (taken en masse) are more Christian than most other developed nations, more open about their faith. For a large number (certainly not all, I'm a person of faith who's fine with LGBTs), that informs their politics Purplebackpack89 04:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really propose any major changes to it, but I think it's worth a mention that the acceptance of homosexuality varies widely from region to region. Of course, I'm aware that acceptance of homosexuality also varies between individual Christians, but it is also true that areas with a higher proportion of evangelicals tend to be less accepting to homosexuals than ares which are more relaxed with religious observance. Maybe I was going a bit overboard in suggesting that evangelicals might attack a gay for no apparent reason (I'm aware that some will, but they are by no means the majority), but I think it is worth mentioning that gays would probably not have any major issues in New York or Califronia, but in places such as Oklahoma or Kansas, they should also be prepared for unaccepting attitudes from the locals there. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Basically, what it would amount to is, consider being circumspect while visiting highly Christian Right areas of the rural South and some other areas (e.g., Utah outside of Salt Lake City, Park City, et al., and probably parts of rural eastern California, but I really couldn't give an exhaustive list) if you are gay. You probably won't encounter any violence, but you may meet with disapproval. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"they should also be prepared for unaccepting attitudes from the locals there" Just to state the obvious, something that might make you feel uncomfortable does not constitute a Safety issue in any way. I would suggest placing this kind of information in the 'Cope' section. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right, actually. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already say the following:

"In general, Americans take a live-and-let-live approach to sexuality, but there are significant exceptions. It's generally not a problem to be open about one's sexual orientation, though you may receive unwanted attention or remarks in some situations. Attitudes toward homosexuality vary widely, even in regions with a reputation for tolerance or intolerance. Acceptance is most common in major cities throughout the country and smaller cities, suburbs and college towns especially around the Pacific Coast, the Northeast and Hawaii. Homophobia and anti-gay violence may be encountered anywhere, especially in some suburban and rural areas of the Southeast and interior West, but the chances of this happening to you are relatively low."

Does this not adequately convey the warnings you want to see, The dog2? --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change "relatively low" to "low," because the context makes it seem to refer to actual violence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it covers most of it, but perhaps we should uncouple homophobia and violence, since people who are homophobic may not necessarily be violent against gays. Perhaps the last sentence could be changed to something like "Homophobia may be encountered anywhere, though it is most common in some suburban and rural areas of the South and interior West, many of which are strongly evangelical. Unprovoked violence against homosexuals is also known to occur at times, but your chances of encountering it are low". The dog2 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just me, but I'm not understanding what the change is trying to achieve? You could possibly, maybe, under certain circumstances experience violence if you belong to a certain ethnic group, religion, own a dog, vote for Obama, don't vote for Obama, are over 60 years old, are under 60 years old, come from a Northern State, have an accent from New Jersey, go trick or treating on Halloween, go to the cinema, cut someone off in traffic... I just don't see a need to change the existing wording. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just thought it might be useful to highlight that the U.S. is generally OK but not as gay-friendly as other Western countries. But well, since everyone is happy with the way it's written, I'll just leave it as it is. I don't wish to incur the wrath of all the American editors on this site. The dog2 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what assumptions you make. I don't see any wrathful American editors in this thread. And I think it's fine to say that the US is not as gay-friendly, overall, as most European countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The advice for driving currently says "If you are pulled over, be respectful, address the officer as "Officer," and express heartfelt regret at your excessive speed. You will nearly always get a ticket, but it never hurts to express regret as maybe you will get lucky and only receive a warning."

Legally, in many jurisdictions saying "I'm sorry for speeding" is considered an admission of guilt (you admit that you were speeding), and may leave you little or no recourse for defending yourself as innocent.

Although I would probably give people the same general advice, is it worth mentioning that you may also decline to say anything, or disagree with the officer ("I don't believe I was speeding") so as not to implicate yourself? Or is that just too much detail for a high-level overview? --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most travelers are just going to pay the fine and not contest the ticket anyway, so does it matter whether they admit guilt at the scene or not? LtPowers (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like this recent change to 'talk'.

"American English differs somewhat from the English spoken in the UK and other parts of the world. These differences are mostly minor, and primarily around minor spelling differences as well as pronunciation, so speakers of British English would not have any major issues communicating"

First issue is that there are not that many British speakers that they deserve a reference here. (i.e. should we accommodate Nigerian English speakers in the same way?). Second issue is that this 'fact' is already well known to British people! It really adds no value. I have simplified to address the whole English speaking world, however let me know if you don't agree. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I just used the term "British English" since much of the English-speaking world