Talk:Cartwright (Labrador)

Condemned to perpetual outline status

By lack of a restaurant, one has to wonder? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, not really. If there's enough content to justify an article, and it otherwise meets our guidelines on what's an article, it's perfectly fine to upgrade it to usable without an eat listing if there simply isn't one. In this particular case however, this review does suggest the mentioned Learning's place is just a five minute walk. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with JuliasTravels. If a place doesn't have a restaurant, I think saying so and suggesting alternatives for getting food (bring it in, grocery store, general store, nearest destination with a restaurant, etc.) would be sufficient. -Shaundd (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a restaurant 200km away in Port Hope Simpson. Remember, this is Labrador - sub-arctic and very sparsely populated. If the Northern Store and the local takeaway are all that's there, not much we can do but say so. K7L (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Which would then qualify as enough in the "eat" section for promotion, given the other sections are brought up to par? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Likely, but here's one possible source http://www.servicenl.gov.nl.ca/inspections/public_regional.html#labrador which basically lists every establishment which sold food to the public in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2015. The government inspects annually; if the establishment were closed, there's nothing to inspect and they drop off the list in a very timely fashion (at least compared to www.tourismlabrador.com/home/files/pg/trans_labrador_highway_guide_may_2012.pdf which is more than three years outdated, or www.labradorcoastaldrive.com which is no better). Some of the places on the 'inspected' list sell relatively little food (as a sideline to a filling station, discount store or other non-food business) but at least this is an indicator the business still exists and is still trading. K7L (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lodging

Tried the numbers listed on just now (so 11am NDT) and get no answer. The "fax" listed is a wrong number and reaches a private residence, voice. I'd add this place if I could verify it to be open, but the venue's own site is a photo from 2004 (when the property opened), an adjacent "Mug Up Restaurant" which is/was part of the same operation, a claim to be "near" a credit union branch that looks to not currently exist and not much actual useful info beyond that. The "labradorcoastaldrive.com" site is worthlessly outdated in that it still lists the hotel that burned to the ground in 2013; the page on tripod.com was last updated a decade ago. K7L (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC), updated 18:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 on http://www.destinationlabrador.com/guide/hills_hospitality_home.htm and the corresponding page on the provincial government site. Not good, this raises Wikivoyage:What is an article? issues but with no other villages in a 175+ kilometre radius (by road) there's really nowhere to merge this article. Would tent camping meet "can you sleep there" if all else fails? K7L (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As a footnote, I'd e-mailed "Experience Labrador Tours" in September 2015 and they indicated the motel is still running; the province did a restaurant-style inspection in June 2016. While I'm not willing to rely on details from the property's own outdated site (a free "Tripod" page which they last updated in 2004) this does appear to meet "can you sleep there" and Cartwright, while limited in amenities, nominally is a usable destination. The question of whether Cartwright will never advance beyond 'usable' (given how little is here) is addressed at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Labrador although this page only needs to be usable to permit Labrador to be 'guide'. The question of how to handle the Mealy Mountains national park is also addressed there; it currently doesn't have an article but is listed in this article (as access is from Cartwright or Rigolet). K7L (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

@K7L:, I think you have every right and justification to make this edit (which you helpfully summarized as "the Internet is a proper noun to identify a specific group of networks, therefore capitalised".

However, there will be editors like me, that think that, although it started life as a proper noun, the internet is now as ubiquitous and necessary a utility as electricity or the telephone. (In a similar way that the trademarked "Gramophone" transitioned to gramophone).

To avoid wasting time on these sort of discussions, I would suggest enshrining your viewpoint on a Wikivoyage policy page so that, in a similar way to using Wi-Fi (rather than the many variants of WiFi, wifi, wi-fi, Wifi, Wi-fi, etc, etc), we have consistency throughout our guides.

Which page would be best, do you think? BushelCandle (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it on Wikivoyage:Spelling? It's been very consistent in my time here that Internet is capitalized, and I remember discussions but couldn't immediately find them. In any case, you can consider this another quirk of Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "telephone exchange" (a generic term) and "London Director Area" (a specific group of interconnected telephone exchanges in what is currently +44 20 xxxx xxxx). Likewise, the North Korean domestic computer network is a "packet switched network" (the generic term) but is not "the Internet" (a specific group of interconnected packet-switched networks). K7L (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's their national intranet. BushelCandle (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I for one strongly support explicitly mentioning spellings that may be considered idiosyncratic or where several different spellings exist concurrently. While the arguments in favor of capitalizing "Internet" are sound, I think our spelling policy benefits from explicitly mentioning it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. These kinds of things are covered in manuals of style for the New York Times and other organizations. If they're not explicitly covered in our Manual of style, they should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've raised this minor issue at Wikivoyage_talk:Abbreviations#Internet or internet? Capitalization BushelCandle (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)