Talk:Stay safe

I've moved this section from Edinburgh, becuase I didn't feel it was that appropriate there. It needs some work, but do people think it is worth having a general article like this? -- (WT-en) DanielC 09:46, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)


 * Yes, though I think the article could be better titled, say Personal security or even simply Staying safe, to go along with the Stay safe section of the template. The advice is too general for cities and is applicable at the beach, in remote car parks, in rural places, or pretty much anywhere. Remember criminals take holidays too, and crime against tourists is often opportunist, because the criminal on tour takes advantage of people relaxing their guard when they are relaxing and enjoying their holiday. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)


 * Note: Page subsequently moved from Staying Safe in Cities to Staying Safe by (WT-en) DanielC -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:54, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)


 * I moved the article from Staying Safe to Staying safe because travel topic articles should only have an inital capital that way they can be used in text like ... you may have trouble staying safe here ... -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:00, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The bleedin' obvious
I've restructured this page, and added a few more bleedin' obvious things, to the existing list.

Maybe this article may become a list of things so obvious, that we don't need to include them in the Stay safe section of other articles. I really think telling people not to flash around their wallet, or to use a condom, etc apply globally, and really don't rate too much of a mention elsewhere. --(WT-en) Inas 21:28, 11 November 2008 (EST)


 * To this end, this article should probably be called Stay safe. The article titles are consistent, but the name of the article isn't.  I have a background objective here, to try and get rid of some of the information that is repeated in every article.  There are so many articles that have repeat that your credit card or bank may charge you a fee for using an overseas ATM.  True enough, but its always true, and could be repeated in every guide.  If we are going to have travel tips articles, then we should have a brief set to read before you travel anywhere, laying down the basics.  This information then doesn't need to be repeated everywhere.  They would be the prologue to every printed travel guide.  --(WT-en) Inas 15:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)


 * I'd also like to change the title to Stay safe&mdash;since that's a Wikivoyage convention. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:41, 6 December 2008 (EST)
 * I think the fact that I had to write "stay safe" instead of "staying safe" in the lead paragraph is a really good sign that it'll be a lot easier for people to add wikilinks to stay safe in other articles than staying safe. I'll move it.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 15:34, 7 December 2008 (EST)


 * Agree that this article does not comply to No advice from Captain Obvious. It should be made more brief. /Yvwv (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just looked at that, I am a newcomer so take a pinch of salt, but it doesn't seem to be what that page means. That page is discussing general safety tips applicable to all places, probably including where the traveler lives, that don't need constant repetition, much less on every individual destination and article. But this isn't a destination page, it's a single point of reference for all the principle advice about staying safe, and the page visitors use to learn about safety specifically, so it's sensible to include a bit more. This page is not what the "Captain Obvious" page is discussing, as most of the contents don't apply to every place or every travel, and a lot is not that obvious to all travelers from all countries. Travel4thesakeofit (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, actually this article is intended to be advice from Captain Obvious, so that people don't put it in destination guides. Respect has the same purpose. --Peter Talk 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, what he said :-) Travel4thesakeofit (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Following local advice
I noticed that one of the bullets in the "Buy" section suggests following local advice, while one of the bullets in the "Eat" section says not to follow local advice. I'm thinking the article should probably be a bit more consistent (-: Personally, I'm leaning towards not trusting local advice in general, since a few locals may be trying to trap or scam tourists, and even well-meaning locals may not be aware of differences between themselves and tourists that may render their advice invalid.  Any other thoughts on this?  If no-one disagrees I'll update the article shortly.  (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:23, 19 February 2009 (EST)


 * It depends on where and what. Ask a cyclo where the best market is in Saigon?  Waste of time.  Ask a National Park ranger where the best swimming spots are in Kakadu free from crocodiles?  Absolutely.  There are few absolutes in travelling, and wikivoyage can't free anyone from having to use some common sense.  Follow some simple rules to decide who you trust, and only follow the advice of those that you do. --(WT-en) Inas 23:13, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Risk evaluation box
Hmm. I think the risk evaluation box at Tokyo (copied here for reference) is interesting, but it should be properly templatized, and above all we need to agree on what the levels are and what they mean, in more detail that the current general levels. Eg. for Tokyo, which is at very high risk of earthquakes, I don't think "Nature: Low" is appropriate. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:21, 11 August 2009 (EDT)


 * I would like a standardized, templatized evaluation box in more destination articles, but I was unsuccessful creating a template. When it comes to earthquakes, I might agree bumping the risk level up to Moderate. /(WT-en) Blist 12:24, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


 * I'm leery of this idea. I'd rather see detailed prose in the stay safe section&mdash;these sort of one-line boxes are really easy to change without any work, and thus invite trivial edit wars. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


 * All respect due to good intentions, of course, but I'd prefer to stick with prose instead of forms to be filled out. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:22, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


 * I Agree with (WT-en) Peter and (WT-en) Gorilla Jones. I'd like to see an effective example before considering making a template.  --(WT-en) inas 19:28, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Since there was never any real consensus on this, anybody object if I remove the risk assessment box. I doesn't look like a direction we are heading in, does it?  --(WT-en) inas 22:07, 14 February 2010 (EST)


 * I think that would be the right thing to do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:35, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Section titles
Hi, everyone. I don't think shoehorning this article into a standard structure makes sense. For example "Get in" should be changed to "Before you go," as no actual advice about getting in is addressed. Some of the other section titles make greater sense, but still might be worth discussing, if other section titles might improve the clarity of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm new, but I'd agree. This is a page people will read for guidance and doesn't fit sections designed for destinations. How about, Before you go (checklist of things to check up on and consider), and then a section Travel sense (nicer title than "risk" which may put people off!) with subsections for situations - General, Getting in (travel between places and arrival in places), Staying (places to stay, sleep, etc), Travel round, Eat and drink, Possessions, Health, Buy and sell, Connect, and end up with Laws and customs and Emergency. Travel4thesakeofit (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to have "Getting in," we should keep that as "Get in"; "Travel round," should remain "Get around"; "Health" should remain "Stay Healthy"; "Buy and sell" can remain "Buy"; and "Staying" can remain "Sleep." I doubt there's an important reason to customize those subtitles here, any more than in any other article. But for the rest, I think any section title that's pertinent and snappy is likely to be good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to travel warning sites
Hi, all! Normally we do not have sections with external links in our articles. However, what would you think about adding a section to this article with links to and similar services by governments from major English speaking countries. Yes, I'm very aware that the Stay safe sections in the articles, not external sites, are the place where the information should be. However for smaller and less traveled countries, for example in central Africa or the Pacific islands, I'm afraid the information in our articles is in practice either outdated or not very detailed. Government travel advisories are in general updated 2-4 times yearly or even more frequently. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

HIV prevention drug?
First question is why does HIV redirect to this article rather than to Stay healthy.

Canada has just approved a drug to reduce risk of HIV transmission. At $1000/month, it is not likely to be really popular, but it may be worth mentioning. Pashley (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely the redirect was created by someone unaware of the existence of this page or before this page came into being... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed the redirect to point to Infectious diseases. Not perfect, as technically there's a difference between sexually transmitted and merely sexually transmissible, but there seems to be nothing much about HIV/AIDS at stay healthy. K7L (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC's list of 6 well-governed countries
This could be of interest for certain articles of wide geographic scope, including Retiring abroad and Working abroad, though of course some of these countries may be relatively difficult to retire to or get jobs in as a foreigner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that article gets everything right. For a start, no matter what political position you take in the U.S., you have to agree that it is overall a well-governed country. I'm a little surprised, also, that the United Kingdom isn't on that list considering it's a BBC article. Maybe because they do not think BREXIT is a good sign for the country. These kinds of articles are always quickly written, without seriously considering the success of the countries. I'm sure these countries are well-run, but so are many other countries. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 11:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely floored by this reply. I think it's probably best for no-one to give a substantive reply to it. Let's nip any arguments in the bud. I posted this link purely because I thought that on a global travel guide, it would be interesting. Let's let Selfie have his own views and not reply to them with our own opinions or counterpoints, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, I'm surprised you took my comment so personally and I'm absolutely floored by your reply. I just have some criticisms of the article you linked to, I'm not personally criticizing or personally attacking you or the fact that you linked to it. If you seriously have this much of an issue with my opinions of the article in question, this really is your problem, not mine, and you really need to reconsider how you're taking my comment. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 14:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything about taking it personally. Why would a country that is seldom in the top 6 of any related measures be in the BBC top 6 list? Usually being in the top 20 of many such measures is not enough. But this is not the place to discuss the governance of a country or how to collect top countries lists, as IK notes. --LPfi (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that saying "I'm absolutely floored by this reply" is taking it personally. What else is it? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A statement of shock, not taking it "personally". Do some more reading and reflection if you want to understand why a global news organization might not consider those two countries among the 6 best-ruled in the world; I certainly have no interest in having an argument with you about that, nor should anyone else. And note that the U.S. was specifically compared to Canada in the section on Canada. Did you actually read the article? If not, read it before drawing firm conclusions about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Back to Ikan's original point, it can surely be interesting. I hadn't actually considered Chile or Botswana potential retirement destinations before, but seems they are worth considering :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting list. It appears to be based on a set of indexes listed in he first paragraph:, and . I think that it might be more useful to link to these indexes in articles. This would allow readers to consider whether the police or hospitals are likely to be as good in the country they are thinking of retiring to compared to where they are at the moment. I realise that this is duller than just saying "retire to Denmark", but I expect that most readers will already have a shortlist of retirement destination based on previous travels, climate etc. AlasdairW (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is, why can't travelers just write this information from personal experience? For example, if we have a contributor who has been to Denmark, they can write about how good the hospital services are there. I think that is what we should encourage, rather than external links. However, it may be okay to have those links temporarily until a traveler can write information based on experience. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Putting such links in articles would be an exception to this site's external links guidelines. Which articles would you like to put them into? Only Retiring abroad, or any others? We could probably discuss this at Talk:Retiring abroad if it's only relevant to that article. And the argument in favor of them is that they are an attempt at comparison based on more than someone's personal impression or limited personal experience. Note that hospital services in many countries vary widely based on how much money you can pay out of pocket and/or on which hospital you are taken to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Few travellers have experienced the health care in more than a couple, perhaps a dozen countries, and probably few situations where they were at the mercy of the institution. Having got the right treatment might have been sheer luck, and a positive experience might have depended on a few key persons. General well-governance is easier, as you get a feel for whether local people trust their institutions and how frustrated they are about the bureaucracy. Still, we cannot write anything like an objective top ten list. Linking is useful for getting the details, as there are many aspects and also methodological problems (which requires linking the study itself, or its sponsor if it is part of a series). --LPfi (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I guess that what means well-governed to some people might feel like a straightjacket to others. In well-governed countries it is often expected that subjects also perform accordingly, which could make it "boring" to some folks and "secure" to others. Just my 2 cents worth. Philaweb (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Emergency calls
I noted the section on emergency calls in United Kingdom. I suppose most of the advice, including that of not hanging up before told so, is relevant in many countries, and should be included here in some form. Now we only have a bullet point in #Connect saying you might want to carry a phone. I think emergency calls should have a section or subsection of their own. --LPfi (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could we get a map showing the number in different places? 911 for US & Canada, 999 in UK, I'm not sure what elsewhere. Pashley (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 112 in Most of Europe, 000 in Australia, IIRC.  (see File:Emergency telephone numbers in the world.svg,  Fuller table at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emergency_telephone_numbers

112 works in the the Uk as well as 999. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Most incidents don’t kill you or cripple you"
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-04/world-s-most-dangerous-countries-to-travel-to-aren-t-that-scary —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking to this article, which at first I would have dismissed; however, it gives insight to an aspect of world travel I normally wouldn't give a second thought. I wouldn't take the whole article as Gospel, but I would certainly consider much of it, as it is written well by someone who obviously has vast travel experience. I'm not sure we can apply this information to Wikivoyage articles, but I think we can apply it to our attitudes when we edit here. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but continuing the earlier "Don't visit" discussion: those government advisories have an immediate practical effect, because your travel insurance will have a standard clause excluding any cover for travel against such advice. So a turned ankle or cardiac collapse would be all at your expense, ruinous if it came to a medevac. Grahamsands (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that only applies to the most stringent warnings, and even then the results may not be total cancellation. I looked at one policy which said that it would not pay for "political evacuations" if there were warnings of political unrest, or medical conditions caused by some travel-warning-related things (e.g., injuries from acts of terrorism, Ebola if your home country said not to go there because of Ebola).  I got the impression that they were concerned about the "Avoid unnecessary travel" and "Do not travel" levels, rather than the "Exercise caution" level.  I didn't see anything that suggested that they'd deny coverage if you sprained your ankle in a museum; the limits seemed to be focused on warning-related reasons.  They seemed more concerned about Pakistan and Afghanistan than in places with milder warnings, like France, Germany, and Mexico.  But they were willing to give me a quote for Afghanistan anyway, so there must be something they're willing to cover there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. I'll reply a bit on a tangent, but our experience with medical insurance in the U.S. would cause us to be a bit cautious in assuming that a company that claims to insure something absolutely wouldn't try to weasel out of paying anything if needed. In other words, the fact that someone gives you a quote for Afghanistan in no way proves they'd pay out if you needed that. But I'll take your inference that they are at least suggesting they would. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * True. In fact, I'd expect them to try to weasel out of as much as possible.  It could be that, in practice, the Afghanistan quote would cover only "lost luggage" or something similarly trivial.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Back-tracking to Justin's article, another consideration is that upgrades to warnings get shouted from the rooftops, but downgrades pass quietly by. At some point in recent weeks the UK has put almost all of Lebanon into green, including Baalbek and Byblos which were long red. The world won't notice until the country's tourist agency launches a charm offensive to win back its lost trade. Grahamsands (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting thought. On that note, could we include a dynamic map, somewhere on Wikivoyage, showing which areas of the world are "green" and which are "red"? Perhaps it could be included in Stay safe or a similar article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a massive job, and a huge oversimplification of a complex issue. For example, at the moment I would happily travel to Hong Kong if I arrived on Monday and left on Thursday, but I would want to avoid being there at the weekend, as protests generally occur at then. Unless you can create a bot to read 5 or more government travel pages daily and update the map accordingly, we should leave this to others. AlasdairW (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Crowbars
Is carrying a crowbar really something people do or we should recommend? It is heavy and thus inconvenient for all but car travellers. As we say in the article: focus your energy on taking preventative steps proportional to the actual risks. Is this a proportional preventive step? All around the world? Should you only buy the crowbar locally when you see the padlock on the emergency exit and cannot change hotels for your one week stay? What about demanding it be removed? –LPfi (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"People with needs"
"Before you go" uses the phrasing "Pets, children and people with needs" to describe special groups of travellers. To my ear, "people with needs" is a strange phrasing -- what needs? and doesn't that apply to everyone? -- but I'm unsure of a simple improvement. In part, this is because of how uselessly general the current phrasing is, so it's unclear what exactly it's supposed to get at. My first thought was it applied to illness or disability, so I considered "people with special needs", but this itself has awkward implications. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "special needs", revert if you find that awkward. We have advice for seniors, nervous flyers, people with high blood pressure, disabilities or mental health conditions; travellers with a criminal history, budget travellers, women, lone travellers, LGBT folks and naturists (mostly linked from Concerns), and people with diets (Concerns). I think those are the main groups meant (although not all are about safety), along with people with other medical conditions or socio-psychological issues. Didn't we have an article on those with Asperger? Oh, seems included in disabilities. –LPfi (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Would "special concerns" be better? –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried 'special concerns' and added a parenthesis on examples. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Article length and disposition
I think this article is long enough that it is unusable. This is meant to cover also quite a lot of Captain Obvious advice, thus targeted at people unused to travel. There is a whole lot to digest even if we leave out the cruft. The disposition being unusual doesn't help, and I'd say the disposition is messy. I am thinking about doing something radical when having some time. Opinions? –LPfi (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I skipped through it. What would you remove? If nothing should be removed, there's always the possibility of creating more headings for greater ease in reading. But I'd suggest that this kind of article is for reference and doesn't have to be read through from beginning to end to be a useful repository of information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing I object to most is the Travel sense section, which includes Get in, Get around, Sleep & al, in non-standard order. We have Travel sense → See → Don't attempt to fight off a thief.
 * If we want to have this as a quick reference for different situations, then the disposition needs to be good; we need no Travel sense super-section and how to handle thieves should not be in See.
 * As a guide for novice travellers, the article should be written also for being read or skimmed through in its entirety.
 * Reading the article more carefully, I agree that there is not much to be cut down on. The article was just overwhelming, probably primarily because of the problematic structure.
 * –LPfi (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fighting or not fighting off robbers is not about seeing things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the structure more to my liking. Revert if you find it worse now. Next step would be to check what advice is redundant or in the wrong section (I did some such tweaks, but e.g. See is unchanged). –LPfi (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)