User talk:Nicole Sharp/archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Nicole Sharp (2019)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Hi. Thanks as always for your enthusiasm, but please don’t create useless redirects like redirecting “Northern North America“ to North America or”American Landmass“ to “America”. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning about useless redirects[edit]

Your insistence on creating useless redirects such as USA Virgin Islands and Mid-Atlantic USA is becoming disruptive. I would really hate to see this issue taken to Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. The best way for you to keep that from happening is to focus on adding good-quality content to existing articles rather than creating unneeded redirects. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Nicole Sharp (2016)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

need redirect for old WikiTravel userpage[edit]

Swept in from the pub

user talk:Nicole Sharp (2015)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirects[edit]

  • Why all the redirects? I really do not think we need to create redirects like "Country Club Mall," on the odd chance someone searches for it, it will be picked up by page content. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While they may not be necessary, they also don't hurt anything and can make it easier for some users to find content. Redirects are usually only discouraged if they are ambiguous ("Town Mall") or for a specific business ("Lockhart Best Western") and thus an abuse of Wikivoyage for touting. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I'd like to update my previous statement and note that I now share the concerns others have raised, particularly since this account was permanently blocked on another Wikimedia site. A number of people have suggested that the numerous redirects and empty articles being created are of questionable value, and so the fact that you are continuing to create more of them raises some red flags for me. I'd again suggest that your contributions might be more valuable if you were to concentrate on expanding articles that you have already created, and would help to dispel concerns that have been raised. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the airports and alternative spellings I agree but now I start to type Country and I get suggestion of an obscure shopping mall. And also not sure about Washington Street Library is tacking it too far. On a minor point, more redirects does mean longer lists in bot runs which becomes a challenge for AWB. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a really big fan of redirects, and most of my edits on Wikipedia are actually in creating redirect links for improved interwikilinking and organization of content. Redirects a) create a namespace for possible future articles and help with search-engine optimization of the wikisite as a whole, and b) help with interwikilinking between both the public Wikimedia projects and the many private installations of the free open-source software MediaWiki. I will try to pay better attention though to notability, since Wikivoyage is (notably) missing a large number of articles still, particularly away from major cities and tourist attractions, and with being the newest Wikimedia project. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Obscure? Perhaps. But it is the only mall within about 75 miles in any direction (covering Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania), so I would argue it is important for travelers to know about, particularly those on the USA National Road (one of the primary gateways to the West through the Appalachian Mountains, via Cumberland.).
    • My personal opinion is that anything that is a place where people can visit, should have a namespace on WikiVoyage, even if wikivolunteers haven't had time to write a proper entry for it yet. Redirects from namespaces for unwritten entries allow people to find these places on WikiVoyage (including from search engines and other wikis), and use the redirected-to entry to try to figure out how to get there and what to do. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you consider a "place where people can visit"? Or, rather, what doesn't constitute such a place to you? For example, do you think there should be a namespace for every museum? Every church? Every university? Every shopping mall? I'm not sure how I feel about the redirect you created for "Washington Street Historic District". I'm guessing there's also probably more than one "Lincoln Street Historic District", "Franklin Street Historic District" and perhaps districts for Hamilton and Jefferson Streets, maybe Adams Street, certainly Main Street, maybe Elm Street.... But is it really a problem if people search for these terms and get several different articles in their search results, given that in most cases, historic districts don't get their own dedicated article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that for museums, yes, eventually WikiVoyage should have separate entries for each museum, discussing what are the best exhibits, where to park, rules for photography, etc. Churches probably not, since people of different faiths may not always be welcome, and most churches are considered to be private not public property in the USA. I am a big fan of the USA National Register of Historic Places though (maintained by the USA National Park Service), and in fact there is a branch of tourism specifically related to tourists routing out places on the National Register to photograph. Not everything on the National Register is on public land, but for the publicly accessible places, I would argue that yes it would be good to have entries for them. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should rephrase that as "places where the public can visit," which would exclude e.g. most private property (other than commercial spaces). Large commercial structures like malls are important enough in the USA to include I think, whereas shopping plazas and individual stores in the USA probably not since they are much more commonplace. Malls in particular I think often provide unique shopping experiences for different areas of the country, and offer their own brand of commerce tourism. I know when I am traveling, I often like to stop at malls, and travel tips for visiting malls, particularly in urban areas for out-of-town visitors, would be helpful I think. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you sleep there?[edit]

  • @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for those links. I see your point regarding the "can you sleep there?" guideline for namespace inclusion. I wasn't aware of that criterion. You can go ahead and delete the redirect pages for those entries not fitting that guideline (listed below). Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Country Club Mall" - to be deleted
    • "La Vale Library" - to be deleted
    • "Washington Street Library" - to be deleted
  • They kick you out of malls and libraries at closing time; however, people do sleep in historic districts and in airports…? Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This site has a special policy toward airports that was worked out after long discussions. Please see Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition and Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition. In a nutshell, airports that are not especially big and complex are not covered in separate articles, but rather, in the "Get in/By plane" subsection of the main city they serve (and, secondarily, in other cities they serve, but most properly, with a link to the main place they're covered, and I give you New York City#LaGuardia Airport as a case in point). Historic districts can indeed usually be slept in, so I see your point that it can be justified to make redirects for them if they are not covered in dedicated district articles of huge cities. So maybe I just have to get used to disambig pages for "Franklin Street Historical District."  :-) That said, you can sleep in hotels, but a hotel will never get its own article, under current Wikivoyage policy, and probably shouldn't ever merit a redirect, because redirects are considered articles under the What is an article guidelines, to my understanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new articles[edit]

  • While your enthusiasm is appreciated, we have encountered a lot of problems in the past with vandals who like to create lots of new, mostly empty articles. As a result, we tend to encourage people to develop the articles they create before creating lots of skeleton articles. While your intentions may be good, you have created six mostly-empty articles in the past day; I would encourage you to more fully develop those articles before creating more. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just commented on "talk:science tourism#too broad." I am planning to eventually develop that out. Yes, the skeleton articles are all works in progress, it will probably take me months on my own to finish them, though the point of wikipages is that others will likely help too. I think it is better to get the pages outlined and organized first though, and then have them fill in over time, instead of vice versa. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We actually encourage people to do exactly the opposite - develop the content in existing articles, and when there is a sufficient amount of content to merit splitting up into separate articles consider doing so. While there are always exceptions, most efforts to start out with lots of small-scale articles usually fail to move beyond the planning stage, leaving lots of incomplete articles that others then have to consolidate into something usable. See Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions for the official site guidance: "A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex should a new article be considered. "-- Ryan • (talk) • 22:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

need admin for redirect page on old account[edit]

Swept in from the pub

user talk:Nicole Sharp (2013)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

welcome[edit]

Welcome! Glad to have you here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia interwiki links[edit]

Swept in from the pub

user talk:(WT-en) Nicoletapedia (2010)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:(WT-en) Nicoleta (2010)[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

welcome[edit]

  • Hi Nicoleta! Thank you for good work on Frostburg. (WT-en) jan 10:34, 2 March 2010 (EST)
    • Yes, a nice start Nicoleta and thanks :). Just quickly, when you spot that an article is correctly assigned to a parent (as you did with Frostburg), you can change this by altering the IsPartOf tag which you will find at the bottom of the article. I did this for Frostburg already. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:56, 2 March 2010 (EST)
  • Nicole: You can easily sign your edits on talk page with the Sign your name ~~~~ click below the summary line! (WT-en) jan 11:03, 2 March 2010 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nicole_Sharp/archive&oldid=4033476"