Talk:Apple Valley (Minnesota)

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Have a look at Apple Valley (Minnesota)...[edit]

Swept in from the pub

... and tell me what you think of its WV:Tone. I think we don't want that much exaggeration and overselling. What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I got alerted to this article by its placement on the list of Wikivoyage:Discover nominations and I suggested it be put "on hold" if you want to participate in the discussion about that point (which may or may not touch on the definition of what "Discover" is or should be) please do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I would vote the tone needs to be turned down drastically. It also appears a lot of writing has been either copied, or heavily inspired by the Chicago pages. Why, if a place has "an embarrassment of architectural riches", would none of them be listed in the "See" or whatever section? ... Actually after looking at the talk page it looks like someone did a send up of a town that they decided "sucks" for whatever reason. I think this is a joke article and would assume all the information it contains is wrong. It should not be featured without a total rewrite. --ButteBag (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note that I have raised the wider policy issues that go beyond this one entry here and I would like input in this discussion. This (or maybe the talk page of Apple Valley (Minnesota) itself) is for the discussion of the tone of the article, whereas the discussion under "on hold" (which started this whole mess, sorry about that) is about whether or not the "factoid" should be displayed at the main page. If the article was indeed written as a sendup and the town does not even contain architecture worthy of being listed under see, that might change that argument and bring it to a swifter conclusion. Again, sorry for the mess. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever you want to do about it, the quoted factoid is false, as there are no extant FLW buildings in Apple Valley. (and to my (limited) knowledge, there never were any.) --ButteBag (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this literary masterpiece is utterly brilliant and we very much have a place for prose of this calibre. If anything, this destination should be featured for a day. It's likely too late to put it in the rotation for March, but maybe the first day of the next month after? It would be a shame for such a gem to merely pass unnoticed, when its stunning vistas, breathtaking scenery, beautiful sunsets, refreshing cool breezes, delicious eateries, mouthwatering cuisine and friendly country inns could become an oasis of rest and relaxation for business and leisure voyagers alike. Truly, there's something for the entire family here. K7L (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've been hacking away with the chainsaw already. But I have linked the last revision before my onslaught at the BJaoDN page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion? I'd be tempted to revert Apple Valley (Minnesota) to the last version before any unfunny additions, move it to Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Apple Valley (Minnesota), then start with a fresh copy of the template at Apple Valley (Minnesota). That new page could then be used as a dumping ground for all of the boring spacefiller you intended remain in the main article, as each piece is tediously verified.
That's effectively what I was trying to do when I split Blumenort into the current pair of entries at Steinbach#Blumenort and Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Blumenort. An erudite collection of truly original prose at this size should occupy a full subpage instead of merely a single BJAODN entry. Blumenort is a bit more complex as there were multiple versions with different content on the same theme. Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Blumenort is the best available version, the rest was archived at Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#From Blumenort. K7L (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. Let's go with that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At some point, it is best to start with a fresh slate. I remember Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#Portland (Maine) listing a string of draconian penalties for intoxicated drivers which ended "After a second offense, the driver license will be revoked permanently, not merely suspended, and the driver will be fed to a pack of satanic lobsters." Reasonable enough. Unfortunately, the next editor removed the "satanic lobsters" from Portland (Maine) and blindly left the rest of the draconian restrictions intact. That's worse. In the original format, someone seeing "satanic lobsters" would know this to be a joke and plan their travels accordingly. Someone seeing the "corrected" version would see the other penalties (which may or may not be accurate) and rely upon the information at face value. It was safer to treat all of the contributions of the same user as equally "reliable" instead of just removing the obvious jokes. Drop the satanic lobsters in the BJAODN pot and start with a clean plate, then one knows what's humour and what's verified travel info. K7L (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's why I rolled myself back. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've renominated this destination for Wikivoyage:Discover. If the 485-acre w:Minnesota Zoo and its 2500 animals in six climate-themed collections are the primary reason for visiting Apple Valley (Minnesota), the "Discover" entry should describe the zoo – not the nondescript outer Minneapolis-St. Paul host suburb and its entirely-forgettable 1970's architecture. K7L (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

The original version of this page, created in 2010, is now at Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Apple Valley (Minnesota). As the page was originally created as silliness, it will take some sorting and verification to determine which of the venues is worth adding to this page and which ones were jokes. That knocks this page back down to "outlinecity" until it can be repaired. K7L (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on, K7L. The tone of this page has been noted as problematic for quite some time now. You seem to be correct in that the problem lies with the tediousness of filtering out exaggerations and jokes from a wealth of at least potentially accurate information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
At least here I'm free to take this on. A User:CityofAppleValley tried to fix this mess on the other site (which shall remain nameless) and the outcome was this:
  • 15:26, 6 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-63,566)‎ . . Apple Valley (Minnesota) ‎ (Removed satiric content) (Tags: **Admin please check**, SPAMBOT, VANDAL, OR GOOD EDIT?)
  • 21:12, 7 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-59,078)‎ . . Apple Valley (Minnesota) ‎ (Removed misleading satiric content and replaced with accurate data from the actual local government unit) (Tags: **Admin please check**, SPAMBOT, VANDAL, OR GOOD EDIT?)
  • 14:34, 8 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-59,090)‎ . . Apple Valley (Minnesota) ‎ (Replacement of satiric, malicious, and misleading content with accurate information) (Tags: **Admin please check**, SPAMBOT, VANDAL, OR GOOD EDIT?)
  • 15:55, 8 December 2016 GiulioC (Talk | contribs) blocked CityofAppleValley (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) (Repeated vandalism)
Evidently, the page there is still nonsense and will remain that way. The "vandalism"? Replacing the brilliant, BJAODN-worthy text with a predictable (but at least plausible) CVB blurb touting the zoo, the aquatic centre and the proximity of this nondescript suburb to MSP airport and the Mall of America. K7L (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@K7L: Good job! And very interesting to see what happened at Wikivoldemort. Ground Zero (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


@Ibaman: I don't understand the rationale for semi-protecting this page. It looks to me like some anonymous users have been adding lots of good content in the past few hours. It seems like that should be a strong reason for keeping the page unprotected to encourage them to continue, rather than suddenly protecting the page. Is there something I'm missing? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oh well, I overreacted to the anonymous IP editor, who kept reverting all of my corrections and adjustments. More than once. No big deal. I hope the corrections keep standing, though. Ibaman (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
You could block the user for a couple of hours or a day and leave a note on their user talk pages and hope they read one, although the user seems to have a dynamic IP, but semi-protecting a page because of a few reversions by a non-vandal sure seems excessive to me. I'd like to request that you leave more user talk page messages. I've often followed up your reversions (some of them IIRC unaccompanied by an edit summary) with tout warnings and so forth. It saves steps to accompany a reversion with a user talk page message, because if there's already a record of violation on a user's talk page, the next time, a block is justified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)