Could it not be possible to state somewhere within https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Europe that the UK is actually made up of FOUR countries; England (with capital London), Wales (with capital Cardiff), Scotland (with capital Edinburgh) and Northern Ireland (with capital Belfast) as the UK is NOT a single country and there are FOUR capital cities in the UK! 89.243.40.56 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have a fair bit of detail on that in the UK article (arguably too much). Just remember that the the traveler comes first, and we're not writing an encyclopedia, but a practical guide for people getting around. --Inas (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The UK is a "country of countries" though. Yes, it is made up for 4 sovereign states. But it is also ONE state/country. That's why Wales isn't listed as a member of the EU - the UK is. It's a tricky situation (like the City of London which is located within London City and has its own mayor and voting system and laws). 83.70.170.48 09:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

And there is a link to WP on the page, for the traveller who is concerned with the correct details of the political arrangements. --Inas (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was precisely BECAUSE the traveler comes first that it would be better to state the make up of the UK being England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (with their respective capital cities). 89.243.40.56 10:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why? Because they need a separate passport to get from England to Scotland? Because the currency varies? Because the Queen doesn't reign in all four nations? Why is that so critical for the European traveler to know? LtPowers (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The division into four is also covered in Britain and Ireland. I see no reason at all to consider covering it here. Pashley (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we opened this Pandora's box, just imagine describing Germany or the former Yugoslav republics, like Bosnia & Herzegovina. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are other editors' thoughts on including a map of the Schengen Area (like this one, or this one) with an appropriately descriptive caption? The infobox that's there now does give this information, and do I think we should leave it there (or alternatively, incorporate it into the map's caption). But I believe a map would help readers better visualize which countries are, and are not, Schengen Agreement member states. Athelwulf (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I would agree. A bit of visualization is rarely bad, and in this case there's plenty of text to put a map next to. I would say go ahead and put one there and then let's see how it looks. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

A map sounds good.

What about the table above the Schengen section, showing which countries are in EU, in Schengen, use Euro, ...? Text says it is up-to-date as of 2009. How about now? Do table or text need changes? Pashley (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I rv-ed the addition of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Northern Cyprus to the list of countries, and removed Transnistria to be consistent.

Putting these in what is essentially a countries list is problematic for a couple reasons. First and foremost, it's going to offend contributors from countries involved in the dispute, possibly turning off editors we want, and almost certainly attract editors we don't want (politically-motivated editors). People from these tiny entities are fully used to being left out of countries lists, so the reverse won't be true. Second, according to our own notions of how to divvy up content, places like N-K and S Ossetia really don't belong. Before the Russians took over, South Ossetia was basically an uncontrolled place. Visiting now is most practical on a Georgian visa—I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as a South Ossetian visa. There certainly aren't any embassies or consulates you could go to get one. N-K can only be visited via Armenia, and is for all intents and purposes part of that country.

We could put in just Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and Transnistria, then, as they have "more" sovereignty than N-K and S Ossetia, but why? These are meant to be navigational aids, not some sort of political statement, and I really don't think people looking at a Europe article are expecting convenient navigation to obscure, unrecognized "conflict states." --Peter ^Talk 03:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a navigational page, and these states are at the same level of the hierarchy as other countries. Not listing them here means you can't get to them from our geographical hierarchy. Travelers have to deal with these states, they are in control of the territory and they'll need to follow their laws and get their visa. I think it'd be a site-wide change if we'd now suddenly go back and only deal with UN recognized states. Then we'd also have to do away with Kosovo and Taiwan. Not sure who gets better from that.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean with being political. I actually think the current way is political, as we're using international politics as a measure for which state gets listed here, instead of actual states travelers deal with while travelling there.Globe-trotter (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it is necessary to make a clear distinction (here & in lower-level region articles) between these states and widely recognised ones. They have fewer embassies so getting a visa may be tricky, nearby countries may be involved in conflict with them so borders may be dangerous and/or difficult/impossible to cross, and most other countries have no embassy there so getting help once you are in them may be hard. As I see it, listing them as "countries" without some clear making of their difficult status is a serious error, quite dangerous to travellers. Pashley (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if these should be listed at all in the Europe article, though of course they should be at lower levels. If they are, they should be clearly marked as not widely recognised. Pashley (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Globe-trotter. We should be consistent at all levels of the hierarchy in our consideration of unrecognized states. The Europe page should contain links to Transnistria etc. as we treat them as separate countries. It is not for us to decide what "people looking at a Europe article" are expecting. It is our job to report the facts as best we can. If that involves providing information about states that no-one's heard of, so be it. You never know... It may lead us to spread knowledge rather than reinforce incorrect simplistic interpretations of the state of the world.

Travelpleb (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am inclined to agree with Pashley that bringing attention to their difficult status may be helpful. However, whatever we do, it must be consistent: that means that the cuddly Taiwan and Kosovo and prickly Transnistria must be treated similarly in accordance with whatever policy we come up with regarding this.Travelpleb (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The edit http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Europe&diff=2087841&oldid=2087649 changed the sentence on if the entering traffic or the already present traffic in a roundabout should yield give way to the other part. The current wording is completely the opposite of the practice in Denmark, and as far as I knew everywhere else in the EU. Researching the topic I did find a trustworthy source stating that in France both kinds of roundabout rules occur. But before I do something about it, I'd like to hear If anyone supports the current wording on this? Mads.bahrt (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Europe, the rate of current is 50, not 60 as it is in The USA. This should be notes somewhere in this article, but I've not seen it.~ Ceadeus Slayer Sea of Blood -Underwater Ruins 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is noted on every country article; do you think that's insufficient? LtPowers (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorta. *pokerface* Ceadeus Slayer Sea of Blood -Underwater Ruins 17:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well where do you think it would go best if we included it in this article? LtPowers (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

On the Europe page, the map of Europe is overlapping with text from the regions list. I don't know how to fix this. I expect we are having this problem on other pages, too. Templates are involved, and the page Table of Contents (TOC) and it is just too complicated for me. I think the regions list template could be the culprit because in my attempts to sort the problem I encountered the regions list text sometimes overlapping the TOC and other times overlapping the map. Here's a screenshot of this problem viewed in Firefox 19.0.2. I hope others can solve this. I'm stumped. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see no issues from my Windows 7, Chrome browser, but have seen this sort of thing before. The left-aligned TOC definitely causes a lot of issues. Last I heard, we're moving towards a horizontal TOC, but I'm not actually aware where that discussion is taking place. Actually, is that discussion taking place yet? JamesA ^>talk 06:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:TOC. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see this in Firefox too. Does not happen in IE but the positioning of map, TOC and region list is messy and there is a lot of white space. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have just tried the Europe page on several browsers on a Win7 PC. Firefox and Seamonkey both have text on the map (not surprising they are both from Mozilla). IE9 has no text overlapping, but also no text next the map, giving a lot of white space. Chrome looks best, with no text on the map, and only a small block of white space. I am surprised at how different this bit of the page looks in different browsers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this an improvement Central Europe/sandbox? Gets the contents out of the area of the region map. Traveler100 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your suggestion needs to be combined with the efforts at Wikivoyage talk:TOC/Banner. But yes, verticalizing the TOC generally does take care of this problem. However, I would prefer you didn't create test sub-pages in the main namespace - please put it as a sub-page in your user space, since main space subpages are only for district articles. I'm just afraid it sets a bad example for other less savvy users, who have been known to create these sub-pages for any and every proposal no matter how little support there is. Texugo (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just plunged forward. Other suggestions? Danapit (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like the theme but most of the subject matter is obscured by the text box.Travelpleb (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait... when I adjust my zoom, the text goes to one line, rather than two, and it looks good. I like it.Travelpleb (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a really cool banner! --Peter ^Talk 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a cool banner for Kinderdijk. If we decided to promote cliches, it would have been an acceptable banner for Netherlands. But it is totally out of place for Europe, IMHO. I love the Netherlands to bits, but this is neither the most typical nor the most important sight in Europe. It is a unique sight in the Netherlands, most of Europe does not look like that. And if we opted for a "symbol of Europe", some part of Brussels or Strasbourg, or a super-recognizable landmark like the Eiffel Tower would work well. How about a picture of one of the miniature parks of Europe, where you can have various landmarks and country sights juxtaposed against each other? I will look for one. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A quick glance through the available photos proves we have a really awful and not really useful selection of photos of miniature parks, so if anybody would be going near one, do your community service. Meanwhile, how about this banner?

I know Europe is not European Union, but a fair number of destination countries are members and also apply free transit laws resulting from the EU and agreements it has with non-EU countries. The borderless nature of Europe, which consists of so many diverse states yet is somehow one, is an aspect many tourists from outside (and inside as well) decide to go to Europe for. Europe also makes many think of "socialist" laws, bureaucracy and modernity deeply rooted in often convulted history. The European Union is simply the epitomy of being "European" in the eyes of a stranger, and this photo emphasizes it all. To those who won't know what it is, it is simply nice :) PrinceGloria (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, to me this is just not at all what makes Europe "inviting" or attractive, and although the open borders are obviously very convenient, I'm quite sure that's not why people go. I'm guessing it's not allowed under current policy, but Europe would be an excellent article to have a slowly changing banner at the top. Eiffeltower, English guards with their remarkable hats, Switserlands's mountains, a Spanish bull fighter... so many great options, but none of them single-handedly represent the whole continent  :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

And never will. It is impossible for a single page banner to represent the multitudes that are Europe. So choose a single striking image and run with it, which is exactly what Danapit did. I like it. LtPowers (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Continent banners are hard, I think European is the the only one that doesn't use the "some mountains somewhere" way out. And I like it. Jjtkk (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I understand that the Europarliament banner did not curry much favour, so here are two more proposals:

1. Hoping that the "some mountains somewhere" is at least a majority favourite, one using a picture of the Alps, very European to me (those may be some Alps somewhere, but to me it is clear those are Alps and that it is in Europe)

1. Since there seems to be a (perfectly understandable to me) predilection for the Netherlands, how about this banner devised from a photo of the Dutch city of Vlissingen, which can be said as representative of historic European cities, not like ones found on other continents. And this is surely a major reason for which people come to Europe.

I still believe the Kinderdijk banner belongs in Kinderdijk and we could use a more general banner here. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a thought: Europe is probably the continent where the cultural attractions outweigh the natural attractions. So how would it sound to have some Greek or Roman piece of art or architecture depicted in the banner? Or some medieval castle? But it should be something that the average reader cannot exactly pinpoint at the first glance. If we put a picture of something that anyone instantly recognizes like the Eiffel tower, Big Ben or Colosseum it is kinda "at the expense of" all the other attractions. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ypsilon's thinking, that something cultural is preferable to something natural for Europe in particular, and that it's better to avoid the most obvious cliches for the pagebanner. That said, I really like Dana's banner, and think it fulfills that role. Also, I agree 100% with LtPowers' comment above—so much so that I considered simply quoting it in full in this comment ;) --Peter ^Talk 05:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the windmills do not represent Europe very well. It's not an attraction that visitors to Europe are likely to see. They are characteristic for the Netherlands but not of any importance to Europe as a whole. I think it'd be better to get the Eiffel Tower or Colosseum on the banner. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think those are a bit overdone? LtPowers (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The United States have the Statue of Liberty on the banner. I don't think of the Colosseum or Eiffel Tower as overdone, but as icons for the continent. Of course other icons could be chosen. But the windmills have nothing European about them, they're only very characteristic for one particular country. Globe-trotter (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

But Eiffel Tower is way more "very characteristic for one particular country" than windmills. I have no problem with current banner but if has to be changed I'm with Ypsilon's idea of some not so famous medieval castle. Jjtkk (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not for nothing, Globe-trotter, but the USA is a country, not a continent. I would have no problem with the Eiffel Tower on France or Paris, or the Colosseum on Rome or Italy. LtPowers (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree with LtPowers that something that is iconic to a specific country is not ideal. Is the image of the timber buildings shown here generic enough? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

They're in a regional style, are they not? They're also just not as interesting as photos a majority(?) of you seem to be excluding because they are clearly from a particular country. I don't agree with those objections, though: What serves the traveler best is to select a good image that is in some way iconic of Europe, regardless of whether it is recognizably from one particular European country. Though if you really want to avoid using an image that's recognizably from a particular country, consider a natural scene, for example of mountains (which could be the Alps or Pyrenees) or coastline, or a view of vineyards, sunflower fields or the like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I proposed an alpine banner above, what do you make of it? I also find Traveler's banner "interesting" in the visual sense and quite representative of Europe without being too specific or cliche. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ikan, that's not what I said. I think something specific to one country is okay as long as it's not an overused image like the Eiffel Tower or the Colosseum. Something visually striking like the windmills is great. LtPowers (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

But others objected to the windmills. PrinceGloria, I like the Alpine image. I also like the current windmills image very much, just as you do, LtPowers. The Dornstetten image is fine, too, as long as we don't care about using a regional architectural style (correct me if I'm wrong that it is a regional style, but I wouldn't expect to see it in, for example, Italy or Spain). I don't find the image of portions of buildings in Vlissingen visually arresting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

How about the second proposal above with some typically European architecture? I find this a very nice photo anyway, and works well as a banner. It can be tricky to cut a castle into a banner so that it looks alrighty. What is wrong in the banner proposed above? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a very short sighted view to consider wind mills something characteristic for a single country. There are dozens of windmills in Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Poland or Belgium to start with, which are a very characteristic part of European cultural landscape. The idea of selecting a wind mill for European banner was quite premeditated in this respect. But feel free to come up with a better suggestion. --Danapit (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Both myself and Traveler100 just did. What do you make of our proposals? PrinceGloria (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS. My earlier comment about windmills which somehow went to the wrong place:

Those particular windmills are as Dutch as can be without actually eating a Pindakaas sandwich covered with De Ruijter hagelslag. There are windmills everywhere in Europe, but they don't look like that. In fact, there are windmills all over the world, because they are not a European exclusive. What is a European exclusive is the built environment several hundred years old and built in particular architectural styles - even if bits of it can be found someplaces else, it is clearly a foreign element (as much as a pagoda would be in Europe, even if several exist). And if we can find a reasonably common denominator for the European architectural heritage it would fit just right. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here are some more ideas, with things that I think conjure up "Europe" in hopefully a not quite so iconically nation-specific way as the Eiffel Tower:

I think I like the first two best. If not used here, they can be used elsewhere (the Montreux and Lake Geneva banners are begging to be replaced in particular). --Peter ^Talk 00:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

All of those are great banners! The one that most says "[name of city]" to me is the view of the Grand Canal in Venice, so for those of you who want to avoid nation- and region-specific banners, that's the one you probably wouldn't want to use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those are all brilliant banners, and I agree they should ALL be put to good use regardless of which becomes the banner for Europe in the end. My comments below:

1. The Venice banner is obviously too Venice for the whole of Europe but would do brilliantly as a banner for Venice as such
2. The Leeds castle banner, I am afraid, proves what I thought - medieval castles don't make attractive banners :/
3. The Neuschwanstein banner is too recognizable to me, besides Bavaria really does need a new banner...
4. The Montreux banner is just perfect if you'd ask me, the only problem is what will the banner for Montreux and Lake Geneva then be...?
5. The School of Athens banner is very creative and ingenious IMHO, I am all for it becoming the European banner. It symbolizes Europe on so many levels without referring to a specific country or attraction. Bravo!

Cheers, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tending to favour the School of Athens banner too. I think it is almost impossible to find a picture of a building or landscape that is not regional specific, and could represent the whole of Europe.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was fine with the mills but I'm also happy with any of these banners, as they are fine too. I too think the Venice is the most specific, and I like the idea of the School of Athens one. Good work, Peter. I'll say it again though... I would love to see a slow slideshow of such banners for articles as huge as continents :P JuliasTravels (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Peter, that's a tough selection! Any of them would be great. If the mills (my first option) need to go, I vote for Lake Geneva or School of Athens, they are really brilliant ones. Danapit (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I still like the windmills, but I think Nuschwanstein is the most obviously European of the new choices. LtPowers (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, looking more closely at the Nuschwanstein pic, it's poorly stitched as a panorama and includes a number of exposure issues and ghost images. LtPowers (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we agree on the School of Athens being the most universally appealing choice among us here and use it as a banner for this article from now on? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid that's probably my least-favored of the available options. I don't see universality as a desirable goal; I prefer well-composed and striking photography over trying to somehow shoehorn all of Europe into one image. LtPowers (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry, your opposition was not apparent to me from your comments above. Does anybody else share LtPowers' concerns or have their own other ones. If not, we may then go the majority route if my perception of support for the School of Athens was not misguided. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS. Just to make sure - I find the School of Athens photo to be both striking and very well-composed (both the photo and the original painting, obviously).

I know you wish to change the banner and some of us indicated our preferences for a new banner in the case of change, but do we have a consensus for change at all? I would keep the existing one. But I would be slightly biased, wouldn't I ;) Danapit (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

As part of an advertising campaign, in Europe but only Canadians can open the big red fridges. Can we provide a map for thirsty travellers? Pashley (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why not, if we have someone willing to create a map. It would make a nice subsection to Europe#Drink with a paragraph and a map. Do you think we should add a listing to every city where there's a fridge? Nick1372 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Do we want to collaborate with Molson like that? It would be participating to promote an advertising campaign, after all. Texugo (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Texugo. There is also the fact that they are not useful to most travellers. If a city has so many there's one in every street, then maybe a line in that city' Drink section? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think it's funny enough that a mention is warranted, but definitely not a map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we should think about diving and merging some regions, because it is harmful that one region (e.g. Central Europe) has plenty of inhabitants (in this case 165 mln people) while another has only 6.5 million residents (Baltic States). Please consider it.

PS The number of inhabitants correlates with the number of monuments (and other places to sightseeing) —The preceding comment was added by 85.202.44.245 (talk • contribs)

Only imperfectly. It's very difficult to get consistent population figures at this size; it's more important to have recognizable travel regions that the traveler would recognize. LtPowers (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was also thinking this division is imperfect and should be changed, but after trying to chart out some alternatives in my mind, I realized it is imperfect just like any other alternative. The reason to keep it as it is is mainly that we would have to do a new map and edit a huge amount of articles if we changed anything. I don't really consider this being a big problem, the "regional" articles within Europe are for the most part redundant and entirely skippable to individual country level, this should be the least of our worries right now IMHO.

The tourist attractiveness of a region or a number of attractions is absolutely not correlated with the number of inhabitants. Otherwise, nobody would be living in Bochum. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

To some extent it is, but you are right. I just wanted to compare that it is obvious that Central Europe region is too extended here and thus it has many of its attractions belittled while some less interesting places only because they are placed in a small region can be showed in the limelight. 85.202.44.245 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone do something about that (i.e. divide the Central Europe)? 85.202.44.245 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You'd have to come up with a division that made more sense for the traveler... do you have any proposals? LtPowers (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

How about splitting out the DACH (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) counties? And also Liechtenstein. I know Switzerland is not totally Germanic in language and culture but then the language and culture of many regions in Europe are not strictly following the current borders. Traveler100 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we had a new DACH division, would you propose abolishing the (tiny population region of) "Baltic States" by lumping Estonia in with a new "Nordic countries" region and have Latvia and Lithuania joining the same region as Poland? Or would Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all join in with a new "Nordic and Baltic region ? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is wrong with a small region group if they have a common culture, geographical area or history?

And what exactly is that common culture you are talking about? H2ppyme (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It might make sense to combine the current "Nordic countries" and "Baltic states" into a single region, but it would have to be called "Northern Europe". "Nordic and Baltic" is silly and, unlike "Britain and Ireland" instead of "British Isles", there is no reason for it. Pashley (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

How about just five regions: Western, Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southeastern Europe? Powers ^(talk) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

While I don't wish to comment on individual regions, I would say that taken as a whole, the current region divisions make sense from the travellers' perspective, more so than a simple 'compass point' division. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well the current divisions would still be in place, I think, just grouped directionally. Powers ^(talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why should regions be split by population? Surely the criteria is whether there is enough to write about a specific region that is common to a number of countries? If you look at Malta or Belarus they are directly under Europe in the breadcrumbs while Germany, with many more articles, is group with a large number of countries under central Europe. Traveler100 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find the existing division is logical and don't see any harm with regions not being equal sizes. None of the proposed changes so far make much sense to me. Danapit (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems strange that Europe has until now nothing to say about eating :)

Perhaps some people can contribute their nation's cuisines? As an English person I'm hesitant to start this :P Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Europe is not alone here. Unfortunately, the problem is same with all the continents. --Saqib (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have filled it in with whatever I could come up with, for better or worse. I hope it will be a start of a creative discussion and fruitful process :) PrinceGloria (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ha, sometimes things go faster than you'd expect ;-) You were ahead of me, but I saved it nonetheless. Feel free to revert or cut. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Awesome work guys! Thanks so much! I really can't think of anything to add at a continent level.

Saqib : I did add a sentence to Asia#Eat a few weeks back. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I feel like this content and this diagram and table are encyclopedic in character and not of much practical use to travelers, so I moved them here:

Here is an Euler diagram showing the various agreements and a ready reference table, up to date as of 2014:

{{Europe reference table}}

Please discuss. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the diagram and table have too much details, but they are better than nothing. WIth a quick glance at these visuals, the average traveler would get a quick overview of things that they would care about: currency (i.e. the eurozone), border control (Schengen Area), and the various customs unions in Europe. What improvements to these do you suggest? Edge3 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The members of the Schengen Area are already listed in an infobox at the beginning of the "Get in" section, where it's most relevant, and the Eurozone countries are shown in "Buy," where that's most relevant. So my suggestion is to leave things in the article as they are. If you think it's very important to have a list of all the Eurozone countries, in addition to the map of them and prose mention of Kosovo and Montenegro having unilaterally adopted the Euro, I suppose you could, but if a reader can't even recognize the countries of Europe on the map, I'm skeptical that they'll be able to get much from an alphabetical list of countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The diagram is indeed TMI for a traveller. The table is very useful and I would put it back. I know most of the information contained therein as I live and travel within Europe mostly, and quite frequently, but had I not, I'd want a reference table like that to plan my European journeys. It may not be that easy for an American or Asian traveller to make that out from prose, especially distinguishing between Slovenia and Slovakia, or particular Balkan countries. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up - that table is already present in our European Union article. --Nick ^talk 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up - if we still haven't merged that redundant article into this one, we should stat! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

First, I disagree that that table is so useful, as I mentioned before. But if a consensus forms that it is, it should be de-encylopediaed. "6 Independence disputed, claimed by Serbia" is not a worthwhile thing to mention in a table. I also dislike the obviously Wikipedia format of the table, with seemingly exhaustive information and footnotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I actually created a new table Template:European_Union_reference_table for the European Union article and made it more EU relevant and less encyclopedic.

In terms of the table above, I also don't believe it is very useful for a traveler and more relevant to Wikipedia. I would say that the 'Regions' section covers everything well enough considering the large number of countries involved. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, I believe that presenting this kind of data in encyclopedic format is very useful. You may foo-foo at it as "Wikipedia-style", but I'd hate to fish through paragraphs of text or many different articles to see if I need different currencies when visiting Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, or whether landing in Switzerland from the US will clear me for customs and passport control for the entire EU. I'd also want some info on time zones.

Secondly, the table is of no use if it is only for EU members. Tourists won't learn the composition of the EU by heart. It is very worthwhile to include ALL European countries so that tourists could double-check if a given country is a EU member (and more importantly, if it uses the Euro and is in Schengen, which may not be related to their EU membership).

We may want to remove the footnotes, but I believe they do no harm, and only two are "encyclopedic" rsther than providing extra useful information. Perhaps the data on when a country joined the EU and whether it is an official applicant is not as useful, but otherwise, I am all for including the table back in the article. And merging the redundant European Union back in as well. --PrinceGloria (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Andrewssi2: I think Template:European_Union_reference_table would look great on this article, but would it be appropriate to add all European countries, including the non-EU countries? Or should we just modify Template:Europe reference table? Edge3 (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Check out User:Andrewssi2/Europe_Table_Experiment . It needs the rest of the European countries appended to the bottom, but I think it makes things a little clearer. I also changed the Schengen area indicator from Y/N because that was actually unreadable. Feedback? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

So far, it looks good! The timezones might not be recognizable to someone that is not European, so maybe we could use "Western", "Central", and "Eastern" instead? I'm not sure if this is the best way to make the table more readable. Edge3 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Updated again with that suggestion, as well as removing currency codes. The information we are giving is around whether Euros can be used, and from that perspective it isn't too useful to know the Romanian currency code as well.

I'm thinking the time zone is still hard to read. Could we replace with a graphic of some sort? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I'm not sure why it's necessary to have time zone. Do we provide time information for other continents or regions? Edge3 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because it is useful for travellers. I live in and travel mostly across Europe, and I still do check my time zones for some countries from time to time. It really does make a difference. I would keep with the universally used designations of CET, GMT etc for time zones. "Western" is ambigious, this is also used in the US or Russia for entirely different time zones. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can we start a community discussion on whether this article on a Contenient should be upgraded to at least Usable status? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let's see (Usable region):

• Has links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better)
• Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there
• The most prominent attractions are identified with directions.

I would say it IS usable. Except in "Other destinations" at least countries could be mentioned for each of them (for directions). Danapit (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do we want to use Template:Europe reference table here? It is currently proposed for deletion at VfD. Edge3 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

We absolutely do! WTF about the VfD, to say it politely!?! PrinceGloria (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually we dropped discussing this a few weeks ago. I beleive we opted for a simpler more traveler friendly varient rather than the encyclopedic Wikipedia version? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how this table can be even simpler, but at any rate some version thereof must stay. Where is the simple version then? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are we talking same table? The symbol and rail columns can go, as well as the year when they joined EU. I thought we were going to use an expanded version of the European Union table? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should we still keep the EU column, as y/n? I think we should. It is probably a bit confusing for overseas visitors which countries are in the Schengen, where Euro is used etc. so I would prefer to keep the table in the article in some form. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

We should keep: EU, EUR, Schengen, Time Zone and perhaps add capital and maybe "our" region. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the {{Schengen}} template, used in articles on many European countries, is awkward, and suggest the content is moved to a travel topic page and replaced with a very short introduction. See template talk:Schengen. Please participate in the discussion there. --LPfi (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The history section is too brief (especially when we compare it to that of the USA) and was inaccurate in some places. I started adding a few things but I think before it grows to be five paragraphs long we should find some sort of consensus as to how long it should be and what to include and what not to include on what grounds. to give a brief list of "headline" that I think SHOULD DEFINITELY be mentioned how's this:

• Pre-historic times, Neanderthals, Ice-ages and emergence of civilization
• Roman times and Greek influence maybe a passing mention of Carthage
• Fall of Rome (continued existence of East-Rome) and the period of migrations (Huns, Goths, Vandals to name a few major groups)
• early middle ages, Muslim conquest of Spain, rise of the Frankish empire (don't know if anything of note happened east of the Elbe in that time but it might be worth mentioning if it did)
• Battle of Tours and Poitiers, rise of the Karolingians, Charlemagne
• end of the Karolingian empire/dynasty, emergence of "France" and "Germany"
• Somewhere there: Christianization Scottish and (especially) Irish monks, role of monasteries in the "development" of settlements and cities
• The Vikings and first European "discovery" of America
• 1066 and all that
• Emergence of urban centers of trade and learning and city states (Northern Italy, Germany, Netherlands etc.)
• First universities in Bologna, Prague etc. (perhaps mentioning in passing, that there were similar things prior to that in Cairo and Bagdad and that some of these also still exist)
• the "black death" (now believed to be caused by yersinia pestis)
• the Renaissance and the emergence of vernacular literature (as different from Latin literature) as well as some examples of Renaissance architecture
• 1453 (end of the last remnants of East-Rome) and 1492 (Columbus sailed the ocean blue, because he was a stupid moron who couldn't calculate the circumference of the earth correctly)
• First wave of colonialism, Spanish and Portuguese crimes against humanity in their conquest and conversion of the Americas in the name of god and crown
• Shakespeare
• Thirty years war (or eighty years war for the Dutch among us) and baroque architecture and literature as a result of that
• Absoultism, absolutist residences (Versailles but also Dresden or Potsdam)
• The Enlightenment; Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau
• The French revolution
• Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna
• The Romanticist movement and their impact on poetry and politics (rise of nationalism)
• 1848
• a sentence or two about the Crimean and the French Prussian war and their results as well as the formation of Italy through war
• Colonialism second edition: Africa, Tsingtao, Hong Kong, Macao, South East Asia, India and islands
• World war one "the original catastrophy of Euroean history"
• a sentence or two about the troubled period "between the wars"
• the rise of fascism and world war two (with a mention of Italian fascism and the Spanish civil war)
• The cold war
• European unification
• 89/90 and all that
• The economic crisis and the ramifications for (especially southern) Europe

I think that would be all and yes I fully expect it to be longer than the USA history section once this is done, because you can't fit everything that happened in Europe before 1776 into two or three paragraphs as you can with the USA. The buildings of that earlier era are still around (I happened to live in one for some time) and the historical narratives will influence travellers.Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

We actually worked hard to make this section briefer and tie it more closely to links to places a visitor might be interested in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

As of pretty much now the history section of Germany has 2188 words the history section of the USA has 1858 words the history section of Europe has 1186 words and we are arguing about whether it is too long. I don't want to have a long history section for a long history section's sake and being concise and brief while still correct is - I think - a very important thing, but a) I think the history section leaves out too much important stuff (no mention of the French revolution; come on!) and b) it isn't very consistent to have a much longer history section in other articles. I think we should come to some sort of consensus as to what should and shouldn't be put into a country's or region history section before the same issue arises again and again. I can live with a brief history section that basically consists of: there were the Romans they aren't here any more there was war, there isn't now. We have the EU. But if such a thing were to be decided it should be across the board and not just for one region/country. And I think the USA and the EU/Europe are comparable in terms of size/population/current importance/strength of the central government/diversity to not justify any one of them being a "special case". Of course some of the content of a history section for Europe could be moved into the country articles but some of the content of the history section of the USA could also be moved to the pages about individual states. I hope we can find some constructive way to find a suitable compromise to not clog the history section with unimportant information but also avoid leaving out important events that a traveller might care about (or visit the sites of). Kind regards and best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I believe I "misspoke": It's the Germany article that we spent a lot of time cutting down. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

So what would you consider to be things that are mentioned in the history section of Europe but shouldn't and what would you consider things that aren't mentioned but should? I for one think that e.g. the "black death" and the thirty years' war are pretty damn important events of a pan-European scale that should be mentionedHobbitschuster (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in, but I would like to voice my opinion that we should not consider what is "important", but rather what helps the traveller understand the destination they are visiting. We need to make sure we can make a connection between every historical event or fact mentioned and a particular destination or POI. I believe we can do so for the 30-years war, and any war where spheres of influence in Europe changed (e.g. why are there Spanish influences in the Netherlands, or why are so many places in continental Europe named after Napoleon), but I am not sure we can make a straight connection between the "black death" and Europe as it is experienced now. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem, in fact I want more people to join this discussion. your proposal sounds remarkably similar to mine that I made here: Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#a_policy_regarding_history_sections.3F so maybe we should come to a consensus there before moving on here. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Definitely with PrinceGloria here. Each item should be relevant to the traveler's current experience or otherwise we may as well just copy and paste from WV. 1066 (for example) is a very distant event even in England whereas the French revolution did have widespread effects throughout Europe (and the world) which can still be seen today. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a nice ideal, but in practice context is important. The displacement of the Anglo-Saxons in favor of the Normans starting in 1066 probably isn't vital to European history, but it absolutely should be mentioned in United Kingdom#History, for instance. Powers ^(talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If context is important then basically we should add all historical events that happened in Europe for the past 4,000 years? Obviously some are more significant than others and we should be judicial in their selection--Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

In order to find some way to proceed I think we should here discuss which events/eras should be mentioned in the history section, and I think we should start with mentioning things that should be included and a rationale for that. And afterwards we can discuss reasons why something shouldn't be mentioned. I think judging from the discussion we already have the French revolution / coalition wars (continued political importance, ramifications of Napoleon's conquests on the "landscape" as well as names of places) and the thirty/eighty years war (for Spanish influence in the Netherlands as well as its tremendous influence on central European culture, settlement patterns and history) I would add (well they are already there) colonialism (as they shape migration to and from Europe to this day, something travellers can "see" with their own eys) and the Roman Empire (buildings and cities from Roman times continue to exist). We should probably mention both world wars and Nazism and maybe even the war of 1870/1871, as there are a ton of monuments to commemorate it in Germany and the reasons for France's antagonism to Germany (a main reason of world war I) lie in that event. We should also mention the medieval times and maybe one or two notable dynasties of that time (the Staufer in central Europe, the Plantagenet in England/France, the Capet and their descendants in France) as they built a ton of fortresses and castles that are a major draw for tourists. And probably it isn't entirely ill-advised to mention the Renaissance and the rise of cities as political entities (as we already kinda do) because Rothenburg ob der Tauber or Florence would look vastly different today if they hadn't been politically important an economically powerful at some point in history.Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just as feedback, I actually can't parse the previous paragraph in any meaningful way. It is too hard to read.

If I read the guidance at Wikivoyage:Continent_article_template#Understand, I would say that adding too many events is not consistent with the aim of this guide. I believe we need a history section that summarises and reflects Europe's history as distinct from the other regions. I copied the guidance (and made bold the important text) here:

"This section of the page is where you give deeper background information about the continent: its history, culture, its people or peoples, relationships between the countries, etc. Some information about present-day situations in the continent that are relevant to travelers are broken out in separate sections below, 'so don't duplicate that information here. Also, try not to go too deeply into information about the separate countries, except perhaps in how they relate to each other; leave that for the country pages." --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think there also is a problem of style. The present version gives me associations to a text book passage, perhaps partly because of paragraphs too long to be easily read. I think hinting about important events is better than trying to be complete (some paragraphs mention too many persons, events, peoples or countries). Those interested enough will fill out the gaps from other sources. The Iron curtain must be explained, but what countries there were on what side can be left to the country articles (and Wikipedia). The traveller should be familiar with the phenomenon, but him or her being surprised when stumbling upon actual remnants (physical or cultural) is nothing we can hinder – and not always bad. --LPfi (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there is a style deficit. It is difficult to tell a short story of the European continent as a whole and so the tendency would be to just list a sequence of events.

The Iron Curtain scenario you describe is certainly what I am thinking as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Europe is currently considered an outline. This may well be due to a failure to update the classification, but I am wondering, whether a guide or even star level article about a continent is even feasible... Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

same rule as region Wikivoyage:Region guide status. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This might sound silly, but which of the following is not met here? "Gives you different choices for which linked destinations (i.e., the 5 to 9 item cities, subregions, and other destinations lists) to visit (all usable status or better), and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style, and all the standard sections have well-developed prose. All important ways to get in are detailed, along with some suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions, and thorough information on getting around. At least 2–3 good-quality photos accompany the article; preferably showing famous or important attractions." Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some of the sub-regions are still at outline, but I think in most cases that is just because no one has updated them not that do not deserve to be usable. The status of many article have not been updated. To get a country to usable the regions need to be usable and its major cities. So it does take some work cascading up the status from the bottom. And to get cities and bottom level regions from Outline to Usable properly does take some work. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs)

If you look at the article status requirements, you'll soon see that according to our current rules Wikivoyage would have to be a complete travel guide to everywhere in the world in order to allow continents to be upgraded to Guide or Star. Even Usable continents would require an upgrading hundreds and hundreds of articles on all the layers below... ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

But we currently have two usable continents... Antarctica and Oceania. If it stands as it is the least useful continents (in terms of numbers of travelers visiting and interested in the places) are the only useable. Rather strange if you ask me... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The status requirements for subcontinents and continents are too strict, IMO. As people are using such articles mainly for overview and general planning, the pyramid of requirements could be reset above country level. For subcontinent to be useful, I think it's enough that the article gives a general overview of the subcontinent, the country articles are simply there (even if they are outlines), the cities and other destinations listed are usable and that it'll tell you how to get in and around and mentions things to see. Continents would be useful if all subcontinents are useful etc. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Following advice by User:Ikan Kekek I have now raised the issue here. Please contribute Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a problem for large countries and even some cities as well as for continents. Examples include China and Shanghai; the latter includes a table for keeping track of progress. Pashley (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bring this up again, after the issue has been quiet for two months, but .... by the letter of the policy, shouldn't Europe be "useable"? It Has links to the region's major cities and other destinations it has a "get in" section with all the detail you could possibly need and The most prominent attractions are identified with directions. As for the cities that are linked under the nine cities: They all have usable status or above, with Paris, London and Istanbul even at guide status. From a strict "letter of the policy" standpoint that is all we need to make "Europe" "usable". Or did I misunderstand something again? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "most important" continental sections have to be at least Usable. Britain and Ireland, Central Europe, Greece, Iberia, Italy, Russia, and Nordic Countries are all Outlines. Powers ^(talk) 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but it doesn't say that on this page. The subdivision appears to only get important once we reach guide. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I missed that it wasn't the same list of items as Guide. I've done some investigation. The current wording (more or less) was installed as a result of this discussion. No one suggested then that subregions (Continental Sections in this case) had to be Usable in order for the parent article to be useable. I think it was written specifically to exclude subregions, which I find odd, but there you have it.

That said, three of the Other Destinations are Outlines: Białowieża National Park, Blue Lagoon, and Plitvice National Park. Are any of them among the "most important" for Europe?

-- Powers ^(talk) 23:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think either of those places is all that essential. While the blue lagoon is a place some people may have heard about, it is at the very edge of Europe (Iceland) and from a geological standpoint might not be part of Europe in any way after all (being part of the mid oceanic ridge of the Atlantic, rather than the Eurasian plate). The other two places are places hardly anybody would ever know about if it weren't for their being linked here. Maybe we should clarify that just because you can link 9 "other destinations" it doesn't mean you have to. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The intro of the Drink section states that "alcohol is considered a standard part of leisure gatherings" and "[often] a de rigeur part of a proper midday". While this is true, it is only part of the truth. There are also many social gatherings, events and parties where alcohol is not served and many where getting drunk is frowned upon. Also not drinking at parties where the others are, is possible. A more nuanced view may be important especially for those who have reason to avoid alcohol (or who have bad experiences of "wet" parties).

Over here not drinking is also quite common and accepted. Going to have to drive, being pregnant or having a "white month" (a period without alcohol) would be reasons universally accepted (and for a foreign quest, any reason should be). In most circles just stating you do not want alcohol (this time) would be enough, and at more formal parties you might be asked whether you want drinks with or without alcohol. Absolutism is not too uncommon, though in some circles going to a party (of a certain type) without going to drink may be considered odd.

Are your impressions the same? Do this apply to all Europe? I have some doubts, but better to have those in the know tell about other parts of the continent.

--LPfi (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

While teetotaling is certainly rarer than in most other parts of the world (especially the middle East or the Americas), I could think of two people in my more or less immediate social circle who don't drink ever without it being considered odd or remarkable by most who know about this. In my personal experience nobody objects to abstention from alcohol for a "good reason" such as pregnancy, driving, being a dry alcoholic, doctors advice, sickness or a damaged liver. Not drinking "just because" or for religious reasons may draw the occasional odd stare or derisive question, however. But still while alcohol is very much a part of social live and there are certain events that wouldn't function without alcohol (just imagine a "dry" Oktoberfest) you shouldn't have a problem in adult company unless you prefer to hang out with the "like totally wasted, like oh my god, so drunk" crowd one might expect in cheap hostels or during bachelor(ette) parties as well as in bad college movies... Or am I mistaken? One thing where Europe and America notably differ is that having one beer with lunch is common and both beer and wine are commonly and traditionally drunk for taste and not to get drunk. In my perception all too many Americans only know the extremes of total dryness or getting wasted beyond sense or reason. Or am I mistaken?Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, at least in Mediterranean countries it's common to have a glass of wine with a meal even if you aren't celebrating something. On the other hand, the further north you go in Europe the more "American" the drinking culture becomes. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well at least traditionally when going to a Bierkeller in Franconia you will have a beer with your food, but you won't go there to get drunk. That may be different in Northern Germany, where they drink more Korn, though Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

My experience with fellow students and others in France and Italy in the 1990s was that many people didn't drink wine every day, and that plenty of people avoided wine because of "liver pain" or a belief that a diet meant substituting mineral water for wine. Besides, a lot of people simply preferred mineral water. They really didn't drink nearly as much as most Americans would have probably thought they would. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's true; also here in Scandinavia it's not as popular among the youth to get hammered on the weekends as it was 15-20 years ago. Many people have a beer now and then with a meal or in the sauna, occasionally visit the local pub etc. and many also do entirely without. Then there's the 5-10% of the population who drink half of all of the alcohol that's consumed. Binge drinking is less common in Central Europe/UK and in the Mediterranean it's non-existent among the locals. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Old discussion, but anyhow... The further east and southeast you go in Europe, the more often you will be served hard liquor at any event. It will be difficult for you to decline, even at social gatherings, since drinking alcohol is a part of the social structure in those countries. Today, you might get away with bringing your own beer (preferably local beer) to keep up appearance. Philaweb (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

With this edit, the paragraph on chip-and-pin and American credit cards needs re-writing for clarity and flow. The new edit seems inappropriately strident in its tone. I was going to take a stab at re-writing but I have no idea how accurate the information is, and what should be kept/removed. Any suggestions? Powers ^(talk) 15:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

First off, I am not sure if they are required - if the sign says "VISA Electron" rather than "VISA". That said, it is never appropriate to be rude - it would be better to consult your bank beforehand rather than go and lash out at a shopkeeper or their staff in a foreign country. It is also always advisable to carry an electronic-enabled card, as far as travel advice goes. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking (at least in Germany) credit cards are much less likely to be widely accepted than in the US. If you go to e.g. a Christmas market you would certainly have to take cash, as the stands taking cards (if any) are few and far between... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well of course it's inappropriate to be rude (by definition), but the question is whether it's inherently rude to request that your PIN-less card be accepted, even if it requires involving a manager? Powers ^(talk) 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

My experience with the payment services industry is that training in handling non-chip-enabled cards is often no longer provided to retailers and their staff. So you may truly find yourself against the wall and you will be causing much trouble if insisting to pay by embossed card with no chip despite being told that they cannot process it. It is much better to advise people to carry cash, also for reasons mentioned by Hobbitschuster. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

But is what the article stated correct: that retailers are required to accept a signature in place of the PIN, by their agreements with Visa and Mastercard? If that's true, I fail to see how it's rude to insist they follow the agreement. Powers ^(talk) 18:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many Western hemisphere banks are upgrading to chip-and-pin systems, less than a decade behind Europe. Bravo, perhaps?

On the other hand, while it is almost certainly more secure than the stuff it replaces, there have been known attacks for several years. Pashley (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It appears that U.S. banks, at least, while required to issue cards with chips, are doing so without the PINs. That resolves the magnetic stripe issue, at least for terminals with chip readers, but still makes them difficult or impossible to use overseas. Powers ^(talk) 18:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is a bank in the US required to tell me how I use them if a PIN is required? Also what about shorter PINs? In some countries six digit PINs are usual. All cards (credit or debit) I have ever owned had four digit pins... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea -- thus all my questions in this thread. Powers ^(talk) 19:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Afaik, many European banks require the use of pin codes with credit cards. For that reason I need to give my pin code when I use my credit card in the US, even when holders of US credit cards don't. The US machines (in the restaurants and shops) simply recognize that I'm using a Dutch credit card, and know that those require a pin. I almost always have to go behind the counter to insert it. On the other hand, European retailers do not have contracts directly with Visa or other foreign credit card firms, but with their own bank. The bank handles the transactions. For that reason, many retailers need ask you for your pin if you want to use a credit card in their European business. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Indent reset) Well from my personal experience in Germany I have been asked for a PIN and not asked for a PIN without much rhyme or reason, sometimes at the same store on different days. Judging from the behavior of the people at the counter not even they know... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the future, you shouldn't have to go behind the counter in the U.S.; Visa and Mastercard are requesting all merchants get chip-readers. Powers ^(talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a process, and rules still differ between countries, banks, shops and even terminals within shops. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is simply not true on a European level that you can insist on using your card without a code. Managing a company that does allow cards, I can say that our terminals are debet card terminals, for which we pay extra fee to allow foreign credit cards. We have no procedure at all for signatures. We do accept the new debet card and mobile phone "touch and go" under 25 euro without a code. For this, eligible debet cards and mobile phones can just be held close to the terminal for a few seconds. Above 25 euro, those require a code as well. If we would face a customer who insists to use a foreign credit card without a code, I think our staff would contact police to report suspicious behavior, so I definitely think that advice was terrible advice, even if it might work in some places :-) PrinceGloria rewrote the section, it seems good now. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is rather strange and might be misleading. Could one of you have a look at that please? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've also understood that you can dial 112 from a cell phone even if it doesn't have a SIM card. What I don't understand is why on earth operators in Germany would ignore incoming calls from cell phones without SIM cards. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was getting at. Wouldn't it be highly dangerous and irresponsible to ignore any 112 calls? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, this document from 2012 seems to confirm that Germany did not accept 112 call from mobiles without a sim then. I only found it at first glance, and I'm not sure what the current situation is though. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I assumed it meant instead of specifically "ignore", that phones don't work in Germany without a SIM card, even when dialling 112. I know that you can call the emergency services without a SIM in the UK, and would have assumed you could in Germany too (as you're right, it would be dangerous), but I left it since I don't know for sure. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The German Wikipedia article says (I translate loosely): "In Germany the originally established possibility to make emergency calls without functional SIM card was abolished due to frequent misuse (at certain times up to 80% of all calls)..."

I also thought it was possible, but apparently not any more. Danapit (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a brief discussion in Talk:European Union#Germany and UK; exception for 112?. W. Frank made an experiment (in Glasgow, Scotland; in 2014), where SIMless phones did not work for 112 (but one did when calling 111, the Australian emergency number). Do SIMless phones now work in the UK? --LPfi (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

111 is the (non-emergency) number for the NHS, so nothing to do with Australia. You can definitely phone 999 (the national emergency number) without a SIM, and I see no reason for 112 to be any different, but then again I haven't specifically tried it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a section about "ice hockey". As a Canadian, I of course think there is no such thing; the name should be just "hockey" and the game Brits & others play on grass (and call "hockey") should be called "field hockey".

Is there a policy behind this, e.g. using British English for Europe since that is the EU standard? Pashley (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

In a North American article then I think "hockey" and "field hockey" should be used and in an European article "ice hockey" should be used, as they are the terms that are used in the regions (at least for UK and Germany, could debate that for Sweden). --Traveler100 (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

In an international sense there should be a distinction between ice hockey and field hockey, although I'm of the opinion that mentioning either is not relevant to a travel article describing the Europe region (both are pretty niche) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

They may be niche in certain parts of Europe and Field Hockey certainly has no mass appeal, but Ice Hockey does have a significant following in countries like Slovakia, the Czech Republic, several Nordic countries and even Germany. Not to mention the Kontinental Hockey League centered in Russia that has some of the best non-NHL Ice Hockey in existence. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Policy is to use British English where that is the local standard, so also for Europa. In this particular case it's not even just about policies regarding British vs US English, since the use of "hockey" and "field hockey" would be utterly confusing. I hope we never want to use confusing terms just to deal with the silly varieties of English discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Field Hockey certainly has no mass appeal"? Not in Europe, but it is huge in at least India and Pakistan, perhaps elsewhere in that region. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is what I meant to say. Field Hockey has little to no mass appeal in Europe. Similar things can be said for a number of sports that are huge elsewhere but not in Europe Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the very first sentence, the lede, rather than giving any reason for why anybody would want to visit Europe, it just states that many people do with a spuriously exact number that has not been edited since the migration. And what comes after is not that much better. I think it would be best to dump the current lede and start from scratch. Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

A rewrite would be good. No concrete ideas, though. /Yvwv (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how the current boring one-sentence lede is supposed to be an improvement over what was there before. Powers ^(talk) 03:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's purpose is to invite a new lede to be written disregarding whatever there was before. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's an acceptable strategy, though. Of course anyone is free to rewrite or change, and if there's incorrect information (like the number of visitors), it's fine to delete that part. Simply deleting the entire existing lede of a high profile article as a way of pressuring others into rewriting text you don't particularly like, or text that is simply guilty of being unchanged since the move, is another matter completely. If new or anonymous users do something like that, we undo their edit on sight, telling them to plunge in and improve rather than delete. We should keep ourselves to the same standards. I'll undo the deletion, for that reason. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The old, now restored version is much better than what replaced it. I'm open to seeing what else people would suggest to replace it, but deleting it and then standing back and asking other people to write something new is a bad approach. If no-one does, then the article is worse than before. There are a lot of bad articles here. If we gut them all in the hope that someone else will write something new, we might not have much left. Ground Zero (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have now had a go at the lede, you are invited to expand on it or draw on some other themes. I have seen that getting rid of the duplicate penalty is particularly hard because the older a text is, the less likely it is to be changed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a good start, Hobbitschuster. You've framed Europe as a travel destination better, rather than just listing facts that are going to be repeated in the body of the article. I'm going to have a little tinker, as there are some awkwardly phrased sentences, and there are a couple of things I can think of to add. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but attractions listed in City articles do not themselves qualify as Other destinations, right? If I'm right, we should expunge Alhambra and Schloss Neuschwanstein from the list. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neuschwanstein is physically located well outside of the town of Füssen. Does it have to be a seperate article to be listed in 'other destinations'? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neuschwanstein probably can stay. Alhambra on the other hand is in Granada (Spain). So perhaps we need another destination to represent the Iberian peninsula in the Other destinations section. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It really depends. If a city is mostly known only for a single world-famous sight, such as the Taj Mahal in Agra, it might be reasonable to list Taj Mahal in "Other destinations". It's a bit of a stretch, though, perhaps. Maybe the Alhambra is better listed in "See". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would nominate Pompeii as a replacement. /Yvwv (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think that's fine, but I would link it something like this: The ruins of the ancient Roman city of Pompeii. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

If Neuschwanstein is really that far outside Füssen and such a prominent attraction in its own right, then I can see the argument for giving it its own article, as Andrewssi2 seems to be suggesting. However, I still don't think it's ideal to include Neuschwanstein in Europe#Other destinations because of redundancy vis-à-vis Alps, which is also listed in that section. I think a better solution would be to pick a new one from a different geographic region. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mallorca or Canary Islands would be appropriate non-city destinations in Spain. /Yvwv (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hardanger would be a good replacement for Neuschwanstein. /Yvwv (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or something from the Baltic states or Caucasus; currently we have no Cities nor any Other destination from these two regions listed. Curonian Spit perhaps? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Curonian Spit is a good suggestion. /Yvwv (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a bit of a disagreement going on here. Some people appear to think that we should mention that Indo-European languages include Asian languages such as Persian, Hindi and others, while some think that it is not relevant here. To put things in perspective, on one hand, it's true that a Hindi, Bengali, Persian or Marathi (or whatever other Indo-European language from Asia) speaker would not be able to just show up in Europe and understand someone speaking say, Russian or Spanish, although they might understand a group of Gypsies since the Romani language spoken by the Gypsies is from the same Indo-Aryan sub-family. But on the other hand, this information could be relevant to a small extent, since speaking a language from the same family will mean that you can recognise some cognates from your own language in the foreign language you are studying, and you would be familiar with the grammatical structure to a certain extent. As an example, I would think that it would be easier for an English speaker to learn Russian than say, Swahili, since English will have more shared fundamental vocabulary and grammatical features with Russian than with Swahili. The dog2 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

In some ways, it was easier for me to learn Malay than German, because although Malay is unrelated to English, its grammar was a lot simpler and more intuitive to me. And my brother, who learned some Russian, said that it was very hard to learn because of its complex grammar. So I think the conclusions you're drawing are unwarranted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think The dog2 is well meaning with the in-depth linguistic backgrounds in many 'Talk' sections, but these details do not serve the Traveler in any meaningful way. Wikipedia is full of interesting and in-depth discussions on languages and linguistics, and that is great as an academic exercise. It is emphatically not great as a guide to travel.

It is also wrong to vaguely assume that English speaker may learn Russian easier than Swahili, since actually this could be wrong on so many levels, especially given the complex nature of Russian grammar.

The traveler is best served with facts that help them, and it is misleading at best to suggest that knowledge of English is going to help you understand Danish, let alone Hindi, just because of some unintelligible shared linguistic ancestry which is not actually applicable to your travel in any way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a matter of degrees. A traveller is better off knowing some background of the cultures being visited, even though that background is somewhat encyclopædic. We just should keep such explanations short enough. I did some trimming myself, but I think the information now being contested does not make the section overly long. I would be glad to read a similar section about Asia.

The fact that most European languages are related to some important Asian ones is an interesting fact, which I think is worth mentioning when it can be done in ten words, regardless of whether the relationship itself helps the traveller.

The closer relationships do help in understanding. Even Finnish is occasionally comprehensible (in signs, menus etc.) to some degree due to Latin or Germanic lonewords. Spanish helps tremendously in Italy, if you have some practice in cross-language decoding. Likewise, Dutch can be decoded to some degree based on (in my case) English, German and Swedish.

We should of course not overstate the usefulness of related languages: I suppose somebody who has studied Spanish but is unused to multi-language settings (such as probably the majority in, say, USA or Russia), would not be able to use the Spanish but in Spain.

--LPfi (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that providing context is fine. The problem was trying to suggest that someone speaking a language in the vast Indo-European linguistic family being able to easily pick up another within the same family is a fallacy.

Everyone has an opinion on 'how easy' is is to pick up languages. We should stick to the facts. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not so much that the shared history makes the languages "easy" to learn. It has more to do with vocabulary: the shared roots can make it possible to decipher, or at least guess at, words and brief phrases (such as those found on street signs or at the top of documents). Powers ^(talk) 02:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The connection through vocabulary is not convincing. The the Malay language is not technically related to English but has a lot of loan words that I could understand when I visited. It is just misleading to suggest that anyone who speaks an indo-european language can practically leverage that knowledge in any other indo-european language. It can even do you a disservice, for example "I'm embarrassed" by saying "estoy embarazada" in Spanish. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I tried to clarify, but seemingly it was not appreciated. The edit comment "Indo-European languages do not share recognisable vocabulary unless they are very closely related" hints that I was misunderstood. Common vocabulary between e.g. Spanish and Russian is more likely a result of loans than ancestry, but in subfamilies I believe most vocabulary is shared (partly through common loans, but that is not important here), and if you are able to recognize cognates, you will be able to guess the meaning of many sentences. False friends are a problem, but somebody with enough practice to decode the other language will know that. It took me more than a year of Spanish studies to be able to use my knowledge of French (which has a very different spelling), but I can (sort of) read German newspapers without formal training and without extended visits to Germany. Suggesting it is possible will make visitors more observant on this, which opens a new nice aspect to travelling. --LPfi (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for removing that without more consideration and I agree with your explanation. For example I also benefit from shared vocabulary. As an English/German speaker I could understand some basic vocabulary in Holland and Sweden. Also my basic Spanish/French helped me read Catalan and Italian when visiting those regions.

If we keep away from the suggestion that a Swedish speaker can go to Iran and get comfortable with Farsi, and explain that sub-families are somewhat mutually understandable then I am happy. I feel that talk of w:Cognates is somewhat too technical for what is after all general travel advise. Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

And with regards to the Celtic languages, I am fully aware that Brittany is located in France, but it also true that Brittany is close to England. I think the current wording may be misleading as it could suggest that Celtic languages are spoken in Spain and Portugal, which geographically occupy the westernmost parts of Europe. The whole point of using "in and around" instead of just "in" is to account for the fact that a Celtic language is spoken in a part of France, which would be near but not in the British Isles. The dog2 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

'Technically' Ireland belongs in the British Isles, but you should understand that many people don't know this and others simply disagree with the categorization for political/cultural reasons. Also Gallicia has strong Celtic heritage, culture and language influences still very much observable today in Western Spain, if you wish to learn about it. In any case, the sentence you question doesn't even mention the Iberian peninsular, so really not sure why you would believe that anyone could be confused. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It does say "western reaches of Europe", and technically the Iberian peninsula is the westernmost part of Europe. The dog2 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that it is confusing, but have changed to text to make it at least clear that it is the British Isles and France. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought the paragraph on Russian got confused in the series of edits. I tried to make it readable, but now I see that it was quite clear, just not stating what I supposed it to be. I am not sure "Russian is widely studied in ... countries that were part of the former Soviet Union and have significant Russian speaking minorities." It is known by those minorities, but is it necessarily widely studied by others?

There once was some wording about Russian not necessarily being liked by those studying it during the Soviet era. I suppose the old wording was found unsuitable, but I think we should give some hint that using Russian in e.g. Estonia can give an impression you did not intend to.

--LPfi (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not 100% convinced that the blurbs for Europe's regions are the best they can be and they are still largely the same as they were pre-migration. If you think you can do better, you probably can and have my encouragement to do so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

"This period (with exact dates being given either in connection with the Reformation or the Voyages of Columbus) is usually considered to be the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Early Modern Era."

Is that so? I think 1492 is pretty late for the beginning of the Renaissance. In terms of music, Dufay (1397-1474) is pretty commonly considered to be among the first generation of Renaissance composers, unless you begin with the English Countenance represented by John Dunstaple (c. 1390-1453). That date, 1453, not so incidentally, is also when Constantinople fell to the Turks, with an accompanying wave of immigration of Greek Orthodox Christians to Venice, an early center of printing. Following their arrival, numerous Greek-language texts that they brought with them were published in movable type in both ancient Greek and translations, so 1453 is a good date for the beginning of the Renaissance — that is, if it hadn't already begun and we really have to do the somewhat simple-minded thing and give a fictional exact date for the beginning of a movement that gradually gathered steam over a long period and has a lot of continuity with features of Gothic style.

But before I digress too much, what should we do with this questionable statement? I would not date the beginning of the "Modern Era" to either the voyages of Columbus or the Protestant Reformation, but to the beginning of the Renaissance, whenever we reasonably decide that began (and a rough date of "early 15th century" would do, in my opinion; arguments could be made that perhaps we should move that date back to the fictional starting time of the Golden Age in the Islamic world, but while we're talking about Europe, that would extend only to Iberia, really). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends on the country and it's of course hard to pinpoint a single "event" that would've ended the Middle Ages. In Scandinavia the Lutheran Reformation (and breakup of the w:Kalmar Union) is seen as the beginning of the Modern Era. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. But not, I daresay, in Italy, which is generally considered the wellspring of the Renaissance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Ikan Kekek.. but the cultural Renaissance you speak of now is not considered the beginning of Modern Times for all of Europe. It's much more complex than that. Complete books have been written about the end of the Middle Ages and the many opinions on the timeline. A travel guide is no place to get into those details. The large majority of historians don't even consider specific dates or events to be "the end" of that era, especially not for Europe as a whole. They consider them key events that set a change in motion. What we simply need here is the understanding that throughout Europe, a new era began to unfold roughly around the turn of the 16th century, when a range of developments and discoveries marked the first beginning of the Early Modern Age and saw the spread of Renaissance throughout most or Europe. Renaissance itself is just as hard to pinpoint too, as it was underway in Italian cities as much as a century earlier. In short- let's indeed stick to a general sense of timing and avoid too much detail. This is one of those cases where I thoroughly regret our ban on Wikipedia links :-) It would be perfect to link Renaissance, Middle Ages or Modern Age directly, for those interested. . JuliasTravels (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed it is more complex than that, but my problem is with the idea of the end of the Middle Ages pinpointed too late for the beginning of the Renaissance, which began in Florence and Venice and spread from there. So how about some compromise language? "This period, which saw the invention of movable type, the voyages of Columbus and Vasco da Gama and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, is usually considered the beginning of the Early Modern Era." How's that? No mention of the end of the Middle Ages or fictional exact dates for the beginning of an era, but the citation of a series of important events (though the fall of Constantinople in 1453 really could be one of them). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with any less exact language. However, my point was rather that the beginning of Renaissance WAS well before the end of the European Middle Ages. The beginning of Renaissance in Florence and Venice is uncontroversially considered to fall in what was still the Late Medieval period for Europe as a whole. It's the spread of Renaissance ideas across Europe, where they influenced and were influenced by developments that had already been set in motion in Northern Europe, that is so widely considered to mark the beginning of Early Modern times for Europe as a whole. It's important to keep in mind that before the late 1490's, the Italian Renaissance ideas had little influence in the rest of Europe at all. So while your argument that 1492 is too late for the beginning of Renaissance and the early Modern Era is perfectly true for Italy, it's not correct for Europe. The northern Renaissance (which refers to anything north of the Alps) is widely considered to have started only around 1500. So the real problem lies in the first sentence of our paragraph, which reads that An intellectual movement called the Renaissance (rebirth) began in Italy and spread across Europe in the 15th century. It only spread in the century after. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, in music, the situation seems more complicated than that, considering that the Renaissance in music at least very arguably indeed began considerably before 1500, and quite possibly before 1450 (I'd tend to think 1430s would be closer to the mark, but I've heard arguments that we shouldn't judge Dufay's music on stylistic traits we hear with our post-15th-century ears, so things can get even more complicated). Added to that is the fact that the French and Burgundians expressed debt to the English Countenance from even a bit earlier. Dunstaple and Leonel Power aren't usually considered Renaissance themselves, but they are indeed credited with inspiring the beginning of the Burgundian School, which is widely considered the first great Renaissance movement in music. Anyway, I surely do agree with your point that the beginning of the Renaissance in Italy did not suddenly cause the end of the Gothic period in other places, and I probably wasn't thinking that clearly earlier, now that I reread my previous remarks above. In fact, weren't there still Gothic cathedrals being started in the 16th century? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert on Gothic architecture at all, but I could imagine so, considering that the Renaissance as a wider style and movement only started to spread through Europe in the 16th century. It took a while to reach everywhere and well - it never did penetrate the far north and Russia as it did the middle of Europe. We're probably moving away from the direct relevance for the article, and entering into a little detour out of interest - but that should be fine, occasionally ;-). What you describe is pretty much what I was referring to, and why I said it's problematic to use the concept of Renaissance as the end of the Middle Ages (which our article is implicating). The Burgundian School is a perfect and well-known example of the developments outside of Italy which later blended together with the Italian cultural and intellectual movement and other developments to become the almost all-encompassing trend we call "Renaissance" today. That's exactly why not all scholars will even agree with the statement that "the Renaissance" started in Italy and then spread, to start with. Yes, the Burgundian school became part of what we call Renaissance today. However, it influenced Italian music rather than the other way around and emerged in a time when the new Italian humanism and arts had no real influence yet. It's a perfect example of why it is problematic to use "the Renaissance" as the starting point for the Early Modern Period for the whole continent. The dissolution of the Kalmar Union, which Ypsilon mentioned above, is another of those northern developments which is widely considered a key moment in the shift from Middle Ages to Early Modern times for the Scandinavian region - but it had nothing to do with the Renaissance. (Of course there were exchanges between artists, architects and scholars of different European regions well before 1500, but one swallow does not a summer make.) JuliasTravels (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert in history, but it seems Ikan may be conflating the Renaissance with the Early Modern Era? It seems to me that the Renaissance might be best seen as the transition period spanning the end of the Middle Ages and beginning of the Modern Era, which means that a date after the start of the Renaissance could indeed be the line of demarcation between the two eras. Powers ^(talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)