Talk:Bay Shore

Combining headings; Wiki markup

I'm initiating a discussion about the changes made by Ibaman and how I should proceed from here as I'm not fond of edit warring and don't intend to engage in any in this community. I'm relatively new having made only a couple of changes previously. However, I was reading WikiVoyage over the weekend and I noticed that the Bay Shore article was seriously deficient and so I "plunged forward". I've been editing Wikipedia, off and on, for nine years, so I'm somewhat familiar with wiki markup. I have also read up on some of the style differences between Wikipedia and WikiVoyage; so I'm not unaware that WikiVoyage is intended to take a less formal tone.

Combining headings

In reading over material about WikiVoyage over the weekend, I noticed that for some articles, it was OK to combine section headings like "See and Do." My rationale for doing it in this article were two-fold.

1. Sagtikos Manor, while like a historical museum ("See"), it's also a walking tour ("Do").
2. The separate "See" and "Do" section were written like a narrative or an itinerary, which I had no intention of changing, other than changing the actual "sites" to listings to give more accurate information about those places. Rather than disrupt the narrative, I thought it OK to combine the sections since there was no prohibition in doing so.

Wiki markup / Tables

My understanding of WV:MOS is that tables are discouraged (not forbidden) because the information presented within them can be dynamic. However, the two tables I created contain static information. Highway exits and bus routes in this area haven't changed in the 38 years that I've lived here. So, there shouldn't be much need to change either table;

It's my opinion that displaying route shields and exit information is better digested in a table than as bullet points, especially since a traveler would be seeing route shields as they move about.

I still intend to do more editing on this page; so I would appreciate some guidance.
-- Mikeylito  ► talk 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The usual thing to do is to give the basics in prose in "Get in" and then have a routebox at the bottom of the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And for bus routes, it's usual to give some general information and then link to the bus system's website, where people can see detailed schedules (one hopes) and route maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Still seeking advice on combining "See" and "Do"-- Mikeylito  ► talk 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to have a "See and do" section if that would best serve the traveler. However, it seems to me, there are different things to see and to do, so instead of combining the sections, it's probably best to concentrate on listifying each particular specific thing to see and to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'm perfectly fine about these unusual wikiediting flourishes, even more as they are being properly discussed. Please keep it up plunging forward. Ibaman (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK! I appreciate everyone's response to this point. I'm going to make a small request. I have at least a day or two's worth of editing to put into this article including WV-research time. I'm going to remove the clean-up box and re-combine the "See" and "Do" sections and finish my edits. When I'm done, I'll come back here and let all the respondents know and you folks can "do your thing." Please know I'm also considering the mobile view of what I'm doing which is yet another reason to combine those two sections. Believe it or not, my only intent was to correct the misinformation I came upon in the first version I read. I didn't realize there was so much work involved! (laughing) When all is said and done, I just want to end up with an article which will be useful to a traveler, especially one who might be unfamiliar with the area.-- Mikeylito  ► talk 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it's best to combine "See" and "Do"? I don't see why that's optimal in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I originally gave my reasoning here. It's my fault for getting that discussion misdirected.-- Mikeylito  ► talk 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the narrative needed to be changed to listings, and I'm unconvinced combining the two sections is best, but go ahead. We can always separate them again if that seems best in the long run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Learn section

"Learn" is an optional section. If it's used, only institutions that have courses for non-matriculated students that last around 2 weeks or less should be listed, with information about what kinds of courses a short-term visitor could take. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Under that advisory, dropping Learn section-- Mikeylito  ► talk 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)