Talk:Beaches

Which subheadings are relevant?
I just deleted "Get around", "Talk" and "Go next". Is "See" relevant? "Buy"? (I mean, sure, I guess unless you're going to a nude beach, you should buy a swimsuit, but that's obvious, right?) "Eat"? I guess you can get more fish and seafood in restaurants or cooked for you in a stall close to the beach, and you may be able to fish from a pier or dig for clams and other shellfish yourself from the beach, and maybe gather seaweed. Is that worth mentioning? "Drink"? Is that where we mention the obvious fact that swimming while drunk is stupid? That seems to be more a "Stay safe" item, if not simply too obvious and unnecessary to mention. "Sleep"? Is it too obvious to mention that there are lots of hotels, resorts and serviced apartments on the beach? If so, we should probably delete the heading. "Connect"? What would be there? "Cope"? Wouldn't anything relevant to that have already been covered in "Stay safe"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say: Understand, Get in, Fees/permits, See (maybe?), Do, Work, Eat and Drink (maybe — as one if we decide to keep it), Sleep (maybe?), Stay safe, Respect. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think also the not obviously useful headings might prove interesting and would prefer keeping them until more people have looked at the article. E.g. Buy: drinks, chairs, parasols and sports equipment being available surely differs between a beach in Thailand and one in Finland, and people accustomed to one of them might get quite surprised at the other. Is having a picnic with own drinks and food allowed everywhere? Otherwise that deserves mentioning. Cope could be about child care, toilets etc., not to mention beaches suitable for the impaired.


 * Those are just some things from the top of my head, somebody else would think of different issues when seeing the headings. There are probably some superfluous ones, but they can be removed later. Empty sections may more easily get irrelevant stuff e.g. from the Captain Obvious department, but I think tidying the article afterwords is easier than to get sure everything important is included.


 * --LPfi (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In some places also sleep at the beach. e.g. pitching a tent or hanging a hammock. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda with Ikan here. When there are universals that apply everywhere, sure, OK, but for all the things that vary widely from place to place, I'm not too sure it's useful for us to be essentially saying:
 * "Eat: Beach food varies widely; some places have vendors, some don't; some have restaurants nearby, some don't; some let you bring food, some don't..." or
 * "Drink: Some places let you drink alcohol, some don't; some have other stuff to drink, some don't; some allow bottles/cans, some don't..." or
 * "Sleep: Some have lodging, some don't; some allow camping, some don't..." or
 * "Connect: Some have internet café nearby, some don't; some have cellular network reception, some don't..."
 * The reader doesn't really gain much of anything from those kinds of statements. And what other kinds of general statements can be said about beaches worldwide in those regards? What else could make those sections actually worth having?
 * Texugo (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We could of course skip the article. Most people who go to a beach have seen one before and know what it is about. The point in having this article is pointing out things that are not the same everywhere. People who enjoy vacations on the beach in far away locations have some understanding of what kind of surprises may be awaiting in a new country and could share it here.


 * Really odd things, like swimming suit only being considered obscene dressing (not that odd really, but unusual enough these days), is best handled on the country or destination page, but some practises are common in one part of the world while unheard of in another, and those should be dealt with.


 * --LPfi (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And if some appropriate things do come up, the relevant section headers can be recreated, but I think it just as likely that at least some of these blank headers will stay that way indefinitely, or that another method of organizing the information might be better. Since it's a topic article, we have that flexibility, and most topics are not organized strictly along lines that mirror destination headers, so without an especially good reason, I don't why we'd want to start out by dictating that those headers will be the best for this article. Texugo (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * LPfi, you have some interesting thoughts. Please go ahead and write them up in the article. I think everyone will give you the latitude to do so, if the product is an interesting article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I were the expert I would have done so. I thought about the heading structure when transforming the redirect to an article. I wanted to get an outline and not a stub (I think we are not supposed to create stubs), realized I cannot overview the subject to the point of creating a good structure and, looking at the standard headings, concluded there might be some interesting things to write under most of them, but with my limited experience I could only write the "there might" type Texugo exemplified above. --LPfi (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is already enough there that it won't slip back into stub territory. I don't object to recreating any one of these if and when there is something reasonably informative to say, but let's get rid of them for now and let the article develop organically, because as a topic article we aren't limited to just those possibilities, and we aren't bound to keep empty sections for angles we may not even need to be taking. Texugo (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I should clarify that when I started this thread by asking questions, I didn't prejudge the answers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Directions for developing this article
Last night, I looked at some of the numerous results of Featured and Quality images of beaches on Commons, of which there are many, but I didn't add any, because right now, this article is using photos as examples of types of beach surfaces, not as inviting pictures of specific beaches or beaches in specific areas.

One possible direction for this article would be to recommend some particularly beautiful, pleasant beaches, for different purposes (beaches that are great for swimming, have the best views, have the most interesting sea birds to watch, perhaps have the best surfing, and perhaps have the best snorkeling, although are there other articles that cover surfing and snorkeling?). However, I don't know whether that's a direction people would want to take this article.

What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that I added some of the existing images. I thought that most readers would be familiar with some types of beaches but not all, and so I choose images to show some of the variety. I am happy for these to be replaced or others added - particularly the shellfish safety sign might be replaced.


 * I am not sure about recommending individual beaches in this topic - that is probably best done at country level, but we could have a sentence or two about countries where beaches are popular. Otherwise we could end up with a 1000 best beaches list. AlasdairW (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the images in this article and wasn't proposing replacing them. I definitely see your point about the top 1,000 list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous undertow
The article states:
 * Some beaches, such as many along the coast of the South China Sea that aren't partially enclosed by capes, have deadly undertow that is likely to kill you if you swim or wade out too far.

What is the mechanism for this? My impression from Undertow is that the undertow is more or less horizontal, so that you should be able to stay or return to the surface, and there is now undertow outside the surf zone, so you wouldn't be pulled too far out on the sea. Are there some special topological features that pull you deep under the surface or is returning difficult for some reason? Is the problem simply that you are pulled over by near-seabed current going out while breaking waves are coming in?

Some understanding of the mechanisms and the real emergency situation would make it much easier to avoid the worst danger zones and rescue yourself or help rescue efforts.

Are there good web pages explaining the danger?

--LPfi (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the person who added it might have meant rip currents/rip tides (which can be dangerous, because they can pull swimmers away from shore and leave them exhausted in the middle of the water after swimming against the current). According to Undertow (water waves), the term is sometimes misused to refer to rip currents. I added a paragraph about rip currents yesterday, so if that's what was meant, we can probably remove the mention of undertow. Otherwise, clarification would be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence is referring to rip currents. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added that text, and I was referring to a powerful coastal current that will pull you under the water and drown you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've edited the article to clarify. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The warning is probably way too weak. On the South China Sea coast of Malaysia, I believe it's not "swimming out too far" but swimming at all at beaches that are not partially enclosed by capes or whatever that can kill you. It's a very powerful current close to the coast. Of course I haven't put this to the test, but the locals certainly considered this true and cited the example of Australian tourists who disregarded their warnings and ended up dead, and I wouldn't want anyone who isn't positive they know what they're doing to risk it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please adjust the warning as you see fit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, and I removed the word "undertow" from the bullet. Is a current that pulls you under the water a rip current or another kind of current? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a rip current pulls you away from the shore rather than pulling you under the water. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I've understood it too. And undertow means a current below the surface in a different direction (or very much stronger) than in surface water. I'd still want to understand the mechanism: a current parallel to the shore should not by itself pull you under water. I could imagine sea bed topography where the current "dives" at some point, given there is something hindering its surface flow. Perhaps the sea is shallow by the beach, which forces the current to surface, while the winds cause a general surface current in the opposite direction. This is pure speculation though – did the locals explain the phenomenon, or is it rather a "mean spirits" problem? (I remember that wording used on some of our pages, referring to "scientific" Westerners ignoring "irrational" local knowledge.) --LPfi (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

[undent]Yep, they told the Australians there were hantu (evil spirits) in the sea, the Australians scoffed and swam anyway, and the current killed them. That's how I remember it, in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Beaches empty in the dry season?
The article says that in tropical countries, "beaches may be next to empty in the dry season". Is this right? Maybe so for river or some lake beaches, but I would expect ocean beaches to be crowded in the dry season and nearly empty in the rainy season. Sunbathing and other beach activities aren't much fun in the rain, and tourists avoid the rainy season in many destinations. Am I missing something? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And how many famous beaches have a true dry season? If there are few to none, then it's irrelevant; if there are many, it's easy to find exceptions and prove it's a generalization. The word "may" also implies that the person who wrote the text (no offense the person who did) doesn't have local knowledge and this could be speculation. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, an informed generalization or a relevant example isn't the same as speculation. But I'm puzzled by this sentence because I know many destinations get less tourists in the rainy season, and I think that includes tropical beaches in Southeast Asia at least. Maybe it would be best to replace "dry season" with "off season" in the article—that highlights the key point that even tropical beaches have an off season, and demand for lifeguards may not be constant year-round. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing no more responses, I'll go ahead and change this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Blue Flag eco award
I think the link to that website is a great idea, but it seems odd to me that not a single beach in Florida is included on the website's map. Florida beaches from my experience have always had a high standard of responsible travel. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, no destinations in the United States are included on the map. That's worth mentioning? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They do have some beaches in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Maybe there weren't any beaches in the 50 states that met their criteria? I don't know. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * More likely the US isn't a member of the organisation. If you're not in the club, you don't get the trophies.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I did, thank you pal. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are members in their own right, whereas the USA as a whole is not, according to WP.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve added a note to the article. Thanks for the research, I was just confused. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)