Talk:Chiusure

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Amant, and the relevance of the word "currently"[edit]

Currently, the main reason people visit Chiusure is to go to the abbey. After Amant has been built, perhaps that may change, and perhaps the character of the village may change for good or, I fear, perhaps for ill. But we do know that User:Poggio99 and now User:Poggio100 are very eager to promote the not-yet-built Amant complex and use purple prose to promote Chiusure and the Crete Senese in this article as part of their promotion of Amant. I would suggest that the word "currently" and the thought contained in it are where we need to keep our focus like a laser beam. Thus, we can and should revisit things after Amant has opened, and not before. (And Ground Zero, please accept this article as an exception in which deleting "currently" is unhelpful and don't redelete the word now that I've restored it.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:, I come across so very, very, very many instances where this word was added in 2010, 2007 and even 2006 by someone who assumed that the article would be updated soon, and it wasn't. It's for that reason that I feel that "currently" is meaningless in Wikivoyage. Is there a reason why you would not accept "as of July 2019" or "as of Sep 2019" which would let the reader know that this is true now, as opposed to having been true 13 years ago? Ground Zero (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I would surely accept those expressions. What I don't accept is a simple deletion of the word"currently" with no replacement. That said, there is very little chance in this case that the article won't be updated when Amant is opened. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Location of the center of the village vs. the abbey[edit]

As I remember, the abbey is on one hill and the village is on another hill, with the road through the Crete senese below both hills. If my memory is correct, is this text really misleading?

the abbey, which is up a hill a few hundred metres from the centre of the village

I didn't say the village was in a valley, but the abbey is surely not "down a hill". I substituted "which is on a hill a few hundred metres from the centre of the village", but I think "atop a hill" or "on a hilltop" would be clearer, because it is in fact at the top of a hill, is it not? Correct me if my memory was wrong and the hill continues further up with no decline in between. Poggio99, you are invited to comment, as you've been in the area more recently than I. Ikan Kekek (talk)

Chiusure[edit]

Swept in from the pub

If anyone would like to take some turns at working on that article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Look at these edits for a very small taste of what in a larger sense is an edit war I've been dealing with. To their credit, User:Poggio99 has added some new content and updates to the article - but also a combination of purple prose with some touting, edit warring over points of style like not capitalizing "abbey" when not used as part of a name, and sometimes awkward English, and the user has engaged in a type of dialogue only in edit summaries, which you can get a feel for here (and you may want to look at previous pages, too). I'm a little tired of dealing with this user who's determined to do it their way, regardless of what's best English usage or more in keeping with Wikivoyage guidelines. Thanks, anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also going to leave it to someone else to make a decision about whether this behavior is indeed edit warring that should at this point result in blocks until the user engages in dialogue on their user talk page or not. I think it could be useful to have him/her around when Amant, which s/he clearly represents, actually opens, but until then, this constant insistence on doing it their way is really not Wiki-like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the edit pattern as it stands is not productive. Have left a final warning message on the user's talk page, in the hope of receiving an answer and some co-operation. But the days when we indulge difficult, if earnest, users who don't try to change to suit us but insist we suit them for weeks on end (à la that Lima/Cuzco editor) are gone. Escalating user blocks will follow if things continue as they are.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:User ban nominations seems like an appropriate future step, if necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I've now done a more detailed examination of the edit history since this user began making edits. I don't think a user ban nomination is appropriate at this time, since the user hasn't done anything that would deserve such action. On the other hand, the user's lack of communication on the talk page is a warning sign and needs to change. Otherwise, for us, using the talk page feels like a waste of time. However, any block should be short, since the user has not been disruptive enough to deserve a longer block. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The initial block would be for a day, no nomination necessary, with an aim to provoke a reaction, and hopefully dawning realisation, from a hitherto unresponsive person. I disagree with holding off on further action should we not get a desired result. Why do you not think that edit warring deserves action? We're all volunteers, and I'm not prepared to see my or others' time wasted on someone who isn't here to collaboratively build a travel wiki. But we'll see what happens.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I support the block you want to do. What I see isn't outright edit warring, but it is disruptive in its way. I'm trying to see things from all sides. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There is definitely edit warring going on, though it's not the simple linear type that involves only simple reversions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I know this kind of situation can be frustrating, but maybe just ignore it for a day or two? It's a newbie editing on a holiday weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if the user goes back to work tomorrow morning and doesn't have time to edit for a long while afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I can ignore it, but someone has to pay attention to it, and this is not such a new user, but rather, quite a persistent one. Please look at the history of that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I doubt the user was celebrating American independence in Tuscany. What may be a good idea, though, is to hold off on editing too much for the next day or two, just to give him or her the chance to reply, or otherwise make their intentions known. Perceptions of an edit war can work both ways. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I'll ignore that article for a week. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Since it's basically been a week now, I wouldn't blame you if you resumed editing the page now. It seems that the user has no interest in responding to our messages, but I hope that the next time (s)he edits the page, (s)he takes on board something of what we were trying to get across.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

What it means to stay at an abbey[edit]

The reason I quoted from the abbey's website was to give people a sense of what the experience would be like. What I get from the spirit of their words is that it's not an ordinary accommodation but more in the nature of a pilgrimage or contemplative retreat. And I don't see the quoted words as similar to a tout of a hotel's "luxurious, well-appointed accommodations, perfect for business and pleasure", etc., but more of an explanation and invitation to those who would want this experience. I don't think there's any policy against quoting from an abbey's website, but if you think you can do better by summarizing or paraphrasing, I think at least a bit more of the information and tone of the original is probably needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with what you've added. I don't agree that we should quote directly from a service-provider, whether it is for-profit or not-for-profit. I think that is an invitation for other service-providers or well-intentioned newbies to follow suit and start populated guides with cut-and-paste from service-providers' websites. Ground Zero (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I do understand your concern. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)