Given a travel related situation, and given a specific question about the situation, summarize the question into a title
One example is below.
Q: The green carriage is of course first class. This would be our first preference with our 5 month old baby in lap, because of the presumably larger toilets for changing and whatnot.  However, the baby being a Western white baby... will occasionally babble, screech or cry uncontrollably for a little while.

Speaking in terms of Japanese culture, should we avoid Green class tickets if we are taking aboard a potentially disruptive baby?

A: Japanese train etiquette: Is it acceptable to take a baby in the Shinkansen Green Car?
Rationale: A person gives a detailed description about a situation where they would prefer to travel on the Shinkansen Green Car but is doubtful if doing that would be against the Japanese train etiquette since they will be traveling with a baby. The question is summarized as Japanese train etiquette: Is it acceptable to take a baby in the Shinkansen Green Car? for easy indexing the next time someone searches for a similar phrase
Q: My Fiance had been in Australian on a tourist visa for 3 times now since 2016. He always return to his country before his visa expires. 4th time he applied it was rejected for the reason that they think he won't stay in Australia temporarily. We always submit same requirements as we did before but cannot understand why his application was rejected. Here is the part of the letter from embassy...


  The applicant is currently self-employed and have provided no evidence of ongoing work commitments and income. Having considered the information, I find that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has significant economic ties to the [country of origin] that would induce him to return home within the validity of the visa. I have considered the offer of support provided by his relative in Australia. Generally, however, offers of support or guarantees given by family and friends in Australia are not sufficient evidence of a genuine temporary stay. The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the decision maker that the applicant intends only to stay temporarily in Australia.
  
  I am not satisfied that the applicant's personal circumstances support his claims that he intends to temporarily stay in Australia as a visitor. Therefore, I find that he does not meet clause 600.211.
  
  Decision
  
  As the applicant does not meet clause 600.211(c), I find that you do not meet the criteria for the grant of a VISITOR (Class FA) VISITOR (Subclass 600) visa.
  Therefore, I refuse your application for a VISITOR (Class FA) VISITOR (Subclass 600) visa lodged at [embassy/consulate].


A:
Australian Tourist visa rejected