User talk:AndreCarrotflower

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Older discussions can be found in the archives:


Happy 2017, Wikivoyagers! Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting your edits on Canada[edit]

Sorry about that. It wasn't intentional. It must have happened during an edit conflict. I'll be more careful. Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I was fairly sure you weren't edit warring, but I wanted to call your attention to the situation anyway.
Thanks for your edits!
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Kenosha revert[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I can't believe I didn't see that the article didn't have a by car subsection. Did you notice anything else in the Kenosha article that needs done before it can be promoted to guide status? DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Userban comments[edit]

I didn't want to hijack another discussion so I'm commenting here, but re: this comment, I'm not suggesting that the user in question behaved appropriately, I'm suggesting that it's harder to deal with problem users when phrases like "this doesn't push me in the direction of showing him much mercy" or "unless you want to see your name come up on this page in a different capacity" are used. As admins who have to implement a block, it's particularly important to ignore provocation and stick to guidelines about not getting personal, otherwise it undermines credibility when a ban eventually needs to be implemented.

I know you get frustrated with me and others, and that you have in the past expressed opinions that admins need to be tougher on disruptive users, and while in some cases I agree, in many others I think things could just as easily be handled by not taking the bait offered by trolls, thus avoiding the need to take actions that can be seen as heavy-handed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, Ryan, and please let me emphasize that while we may have our differences of opinion on how best to deal with situations like this, I have a great deal of respect for you and full faith that you have the best interests of this site in mind, so if you may have wondered otherwise, please don't.
As concerns this situation, though, I think the real problem is that Wikivoyage's culture of endless patience toward trolls, though diminished since the resolution of the Alice/Frank/118 saga, hasn't completely died out yet. A summary permaban for Spendrups should have been a quick, easy, and uncontroversial solution for a user who very clearly falls into the "not here to create travel guides" category in Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, yet if I had done that, I'm sure I would have heard from somebody about being too trigger-happy with the sysop tools. So, instead, and also bearing in mind the amount of time that had passed since his most recent edit, I had no choice but to call attention to the situation, and rehash Spendrups' history here for those reading the thread, so that they might know exactly what they're dealing with. But that had the unfortunate side effect of feeding the troll, hence your comments. Maybe you're right that ignoring Spendrups and hoping he'd get bored and go away would have been a better way to deal with the problem than what I did - but that's a roll of the dice with a user like Spendrups whose edit history is low-volume and sporadic, but who has caused a disproportionate amount of trouble with those few edits (example, example, example, example, example, and just look at some of his edit summaries). Better still would have been if some admin could have simply banned Spendrups, as policy clearly allows for, without having to deal with a lot of backtalk from other users. That would have been a quick and efficient solution to the problem that would have denied recognition to the troll and, more importantly, also eliminated the nagging possibility that he might resurface sometime in the future and cause problems all over again, as indeed he just did. More broadly, I think there's something very illogical when a user's judgment proves trustworthy enough that the community would see fit to pass them through the admin vetting process, yet after being given the sysop tools suddenly everyone's breathing down their neck and second-guessing their decisions for no particular reason. That's not a reference to you, me, or this particular situation, but it's something that regularly hampers admins' ability to solve problems like this in an ideal way, and as I see it that's the root problem that needs to be solved. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Re: "yet after being given the sysop tools suddenly everyone's breathing down their neck and second-guessing their decisions for no particular reason" - I agree that it can sometimes seem like there is a lot of second-guessing, and that it could be significantly reduced if everyone remembered that the other editors here all mean well. However, there are always going to be differences of opinion - to cite an example, you wrote "if some admin could have simply banned Spendrups, as policy clearly allows for", but I'd be surprised if there wasn't disagreement that policy clearly allows a ban; differences of opinion remain as to how much to tolerate before a block is appropriate, when the Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks process applies and, if it does, whether that process is being followed. I'm not sure that having those sorts of checks is such a bad thing, although I agree that if they too often lead to stalemates then we have a problem.
In any case, I've made a conscious decision recently that I'm less happy when I'm involved in policy discussions and more happy when I'm writing travel guides, so I'll wander off quietly now. I appreciate all you do for the site, I hope that I don't annoy you too greatly when I have a difference of opinion, and I very much hope that in a decade from now we're both still here happily editing & engaging in the occasional argument over policy interpretation. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling all administrators of Wikivoyage's Facebook page[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'm posting this in the pub for higher visibility.

For various reasons, I recently temporarily deactivated my Facebook account. Before I did, I wrote up the three links and blurbs that our Facebook page usually posts every month for our DotM/OtBP/FTT candidates, and scheduled them to be posted on February 1st, 11th, and 21st, respectively, under the assumption that I'd be back on Facebook by the time March rolls around.

I was recently signed on to my alternate Facebook account, which remains activated but is not listed as an admin of our Facebook page. I noticed that the Facebook post that I'd scheduled to go live today sometime during the 5:00PM US EST hour, announcing Hobart as this month's DotM, hasn't appeared yet. Can someone who's an admin sign on and confirm that the three posts I wrote up weren't somehow deleted when I deactivated my Facebook?

Pinging Ryan, who I know is an admin; I'm not sure who else is.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your post was scheduled to go live at 4:47 PM Pacific, so I've changed that to "publish now" and it is now live. A note to anyone who has suggestions for Facebook posts: please place those suggestions at Wikivoyage:Social media/Nominations. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

389[edit]

I created an article today that you might be interested in: Quebec Route 389. Ground Zero (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ground Zero -
Actually, I was just about to contact you about this article. I see it as a potential springboard into rectifying a policy that we've been applying inconsistently for a long time, which generally prohibits itinerary articles dedicated to individual roads and highways (with the exception of routes that are well-known and serve as destinations in themselves, like Route 66 and the Pacific Coast Highway). I've never been a fan of that policy, and if we've now got articles for highways as mundane as Interstate 5 and U.S. Route 1 baed on ever-flimsier rationales, the policy is clearly pretty meaningless anyway. I think there's an extremely strong argument in favor of QC 389 as a road that, while obscure, merits its own article, given that it passes through extremely isolated wilderness without regular availability of fuel or other services — and also serves as a logical extension of our existing itinerary article on the Trans-Labrador Highway.
I wanted to check with you first, because I realize that the worst-case scenario in doing this is that the article will be deemed to contravene policy, which is emphatically not what either of us want. But I'd like to use 389 as a test case to potentially argue for a formal change in the anti-"road itinerary" policy.
Of course, none of this is what you asked me. :) Yes, it's an well-done article and an excellent addition to our coverage of Quebec.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage talk:Routes Expedition/reboot is the discussion that led to the Interstate 5 article. Overall I think that article has been well-received, so while the door isn't open to creating articles for every highway in the world, a few more well-developed articles should be fine. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yikes, I again stumble blindly into a minefield. I did not see the potential for conflicts with policy, probably because I could not see anywhere else to put this, and I think it isn't set up for teavellers. I saw a parallel in the Trans-Labrador and Dempster Highway articles. I realize that R-389 does not have the reknown of the others, but it would not make sense to try to build this information into the articles on Fermont and Baie-Comeau -- you wouldn't put into on gas stations and motels on the road to Fermont in the "Get in" section of that article. That would not be a useful approach. Is it a destination in itself? No. But a journey it is. So maybe the article can serve as a test case. Thank you for adding the banner. Ground Zero (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In response to your comment on the discussion page Ryan mentioned, I am concerned that the article does not fit within policy. To me, that signals a problem with the policy, not with the article. Thanks for your input and support. Ground Zero (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was driving at. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Maps[edit]

My comment wasn't meant to be snarky. Powers (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I still found it unhelpful. It may be that editing a map or an SVG file is not significantly more difficult for you than writing prose, but they're nonetheless two different skill sets that others may have in proportions different than you.
More than that: not knowing how to edit maps is not, as you've put it in the past, "a cop-out" (a comment that expressed a similar viewpoint, as I see it, to the more recent one you're referencing in this thread) for the simple reason that no one owes Wikivoyage the time and effort necessary to learn how to edit maps, or indeed to make any contribution at all. All contributions that are made to this site are done on a volunteer basis, for no gain to the editors other than their own pleasure. Your complaints sound, in essence, as if you're chiding some editors for not gifting this site enough of their free time and uncompensated labor, which I find unfair.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan OtBP[edit]

Hello Andre! Hope you're doing well. There has not been a Pakistani destination featured on the main page for a while. See if any from Category:Sindh can make a potential candidate? --Saqib (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Saqib. I've been busy offwiki for the last little bit, but I haven't forgotten this message and I'll look into it ASAP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Traveling with high blood pressure article[edit]

Hi, Andrew. How's it going? I'm wondering if you have a view on the discussion that's been taking place at Talk:Traveling with high blood pressure and the edits I've made, including adding 9 inline links to good reference sources on the basis that topics which could be seen as providing medical or legal advice in spite of whatever disclaimers there are in the articles (and I may have inserted too many of them and attenuated my statements too much in that one) should be exceptions to external links rules, not to throw them wide open to links to stories in lay news sites, etc., but only to authoritative sites on medical (or in other cases, legal) topics. Traveling with a criminal history would seem to be another exception, on the basis of a need to reference the specifics of different countries' laws and regulations in that respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ikan. I gave my two cents at Talk:Traveling with high blood pressure, but I think I'll have to ruminate a while longer on Traveling with a criminal history, which at first blush strikes me as a different and more complex case in several fundamental ways. Is there an ongoing discussion about that article, or was it just a hypothetical that you mentioned here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's ongoing discussion. It just seemed like a comparable article in terms of the need to cite specifics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NOAA Weather Radio deletionism[edit]

Weather Radio is a public service like 911 and can be vital in emergencies, especially when other sources of information may fail. Devices are mass-produced and available in pretty much any big-box store that sells electronics. Given that one of Wikivoyage's use cases is offline is it really too much to include a small line of text to aid in tuning to this service?

74.111.42.191 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think to compare NOAA Weather Radio to 911 strains the limits of credulity. 911 is a service that everyone is aware of, and can be accessed through any phone, and most people nowadays go through their lives with immediate access to a telephone on a more-or-less constant basis. Weather Radio, meanwhile, consists of obscure stations broadcasting on frequencies that require specialty equipment to pick up - even if "devices are mass-produced and available in pretty much any big-box store that sells electronics", how many people actually have them, or are aware that they exist? I have no doubt that NOAA Weather Radio is a valuable service, but for Wikivoyage's purposes, the overriding question is how many people is that information going to benefit if we include it? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore Basilica[edit]

True, we shouldn't list it in the overall Baltimore article or promote the in-house tour more than to simply say that guided tours are available for $x and perhaps describe them a bit, but is there a listing for the basilica in the appropriate district article (not sure which one that would be)? A search of "Baltimore basilica" on this site yielded nothing but separate results for "Baltimore" or "basilica", so it was of no help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly astonished that Baltimore/Downtown, being a Guide article, would omit that in its See section. But apparently it does. I will restore the information there, but someone (Saqib?) should also update the static map.
(Sidebar: this, I am finding, is a potent argument against static maps. Some have grumbled that it's laziness on the part of editors that has kept more than a handful of us from learning how to edit maps, but the reality is that a) it's not everyone's cup of tea and b) shaming volunteer editors for not giving up more of their free time to download and familiarize themselves with map editing software has, quite unsurprisingly, not helped at all to convince folks to take up this skill. I actually think static maps are roundly inferior to dynamic ones in most of the important ways - as it is now, for anything other than countries, regions, and Huge City parent articles, the former are obsolete almost as soon as they're uploaded to the page.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done. --Saqib (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Medieval"[edit]

I think the practice on this site has been to capitalize all such adjectives (Gothic, Baroque, Modernist, etc.). You're thinking only "Renaissance" and maybe names that come from the names of tribes (Gothic) get capitalized? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

w:Middle Ages doesn't capitalize "medieval"; that's the model I was following. I was unaware of any convention at Wikivoyage that dictates otherwise; please feel free to revert my edit if that's the case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's any rule, just what some people have been doing (not all, because after all, a lot of users do all kinds of garden-variety wrong capitalization and lowercasing, if that's a word). Would you like to establish guidelines? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly enough about whether or not "medieval" should be capitalized to bother bucking convention, written or unwritten. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks![edit]

--Tineykitty (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wordiness is not the same as liveliness[edit]

I'm not going to argue with you at the Boston article - I will leave it alone, but I don't see how some of the edits you restored make the article livelier. Brevity is the soul of wit, wrote Shakespeare, so replacing "and" with "as well as" just makes the point longer, not more interesting. The fact that the USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned vessel is what makes it interesting. "Iconic" is applied to everything these days, including fast food hamburgers, so using it makes the writing less interesting. I deleted the point about Bostonians considering the Silver Line to be a bus because I doubt that non-Bostonians will care. That kind of cruft drags an article down. I did misread "shiploads" as "shitloads". Had I caught the correct spelling the first time around, I would not have deleted that bit of wit. Sorry for missing that. Changing "traveller" to "traveler" was me mistakenly trying to be helpful in using American spelling - I'll have to remember that exception. Ground Zero (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think striking a balance in tone is important (btw, you seem to have "shitloads" and "traveler" twice, just there), but we should also be aware that while various articles might slightly vary in tone, we should be consistent within articles as much as possible. We should also try to not go overboard with brevity and simple sentences (though there is certainly no danger of me ever doing that). Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbitschuster here. Some of the edits I reverted were to restore lively prose, but that's not the only factor I cited in my edit summary, and in fact most of the ones you mention in your above comment had more to do with the flow of the prose ("as well as" simply reads better than "and" in that sentence) and/or to restore bits of nuance that were lost with the new wording (describing something "not actually within the city limits" hints that it would be natural for a person to mistakenly think it was, which seems to be the author's original intent; remove "actually" and you introduce a measure of ambiguity on that point).
Zooming out, we seem to disagree that, all else being equal, brevity per se is a virtue in our craft. So long as an author sticks mostly to the main topic at hand, I think brief asides that serve as windows into aspects of the local mindset or culture - such as the bit about the Silver Line - are not only perfectly valid to be added to the article, but are actually higher-quality information than you might find in Lonely Planet, Frommer's or other competitors whose guides aren't written by locals and which thus aren't really in a position to dig as deeply into what makes a place tick.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If autocorrect can charges shiploads and traveler for me when I dont want it to, why can't it correct Shakespeare for me when I mistype that? HS, thanks for pointing those out. I dont see brevity as an end in itself, but I bristle when adding in words that add no meaning is described as being "livelier". Colourful adjectives and verbs in the active voice are livelier. "As well as", "actually", and trite modifiers like "iconic" deaden the text. Ground Zero (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I did want to explain the edit about the USS Constitution as well - it's true that "iconic" is overused these days, but I do think it's apropos in the fullest sense of the word to use it to describe this indeed very historic ship. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
(Aside: I've heard that Shakespeare spelled his name 12 different ways in those days when there was no such thing as "standard English spelling". Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC))
I thought that the second part of the sentence about the USS Constitution explained how historic it is much better, "oldest commissioned naval vessel in the world". I don't see what "iconic" adds, aside from repetition and triteness. "Repetition and triteness are the soul of wit" said no-one ever (not even Scheikhspier). Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent revisions to Cheyenne, WY[edit]

Every once in a while, my edits become messy, and hard to read, so I applaud your correction. :) However, there are two pieces of content I feel should be discussed.

I would like to know more information about why my section "High Speed Rail" is irrelevant, despite of what I have read at WTE. On a recent trip to Casper that required me to use the area, I noticed that all signs of construction has been taken down, so I fore-handedly removed the #Caution-box, to have it on again. I am ready to sorrow-ly apologize if I realize I have made any mistakes, I just thought the travelers shall know!

Before you find something else to look out, I want to again, APPLAUD and APPRECIATE you for CLEANING UP the "Get around" section. These edits will remain untouched, as I believe they are correct grammatically.

AUTO SIGNATURE: Please, have a chat about Wikivoyage! 174.45.128.124 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me answer here (without any prejudice to Andre's motives or actions); in general we only report on "soon to open" stuff if we can at least give a rough estimate or if construction is obvious. Mentioning high speed rail in the California article is already stretching it (despite ongoing construction) as nobody - not even Jerry Brown - can say when if ever the first trains will roll. I am by no means an expert on the topic, but I consider myself informed enough to think I'd have heard of ongoing construction for passenger rail in or through Wyoming. I'd of course be delighted to be proven wrong, but other than that, our guides are supposed to be useful and usable for our readers now or in a foreseeable future. And I say that as someone who quite enthusiastically inserted the (then very tentative) December 2017 opening date of the new line from Nuremberg to Erfurt as early as 2015. Turns out December 2017 is still the planned opening date as of right now. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster has it right. Speculating about the future of high-speed rail in Wyoming falls somewhat outside of Wikivoyage's scope. There is no such railway in Cheyenne presently; therefore, for the visitor to Cheyenne of the present, the information is irrelevant. Of course, that will change in the future when the system is up and running. As to the question of when to include the information, Hobbitschuster says to do so when "we can at least give a rough estimate [of an opening date] or if construction is obvious", which is one school of thought, but my personal preference is to hold off a bit longer than that, until close enough to opening day that people currently planning a trip to Cheyenne might realistically be able to take advantage of the service by their projected travel date. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Bonk! I could have had a WV8[edit]

First of all, WV8 stands for Wiki Voyage 8.
Second of all, I understand what you are saying about the present day traveler thing. Thanks for making me wiser! Yep, I wouldn't want to be that tourist that thinks something's built when its not, and be disappointed. I know you said you would be "delighted" if you were proven wrong, however, I have to say I screwed up! Thanks for helping!
AUTO SIGNATURE: Please, have a chat about WikiVoyage! 174.45.128.124 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request again[edit]

Hi AndreCarrotflower, Hope all is well :),
When you have a spare 5 minutes could you delete User:Davey2010/Strood please as it's now only a redirect,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant thank you :), –Davey2010Talk 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Swiss Chalet[edit]

I noticed that you deleted a Swiss Chalet outlet because: As a rule, we don't list national chain restaurants in "Eat", especially if they're already described in an article like Fast food in North America.

However, Swiss Chalet is not mentioned in the Fast food in the United States and Canada (Fast food in North America) article, nor in North America, although it has a brief mention in the Canada article. The Yonge-Dundas establishment is not a fast-food outlet, but a restaurant with full table service and waiting staff. I think it is useful to point out where such moderately priced restaurants can be found as the chain isn't that large, with some districts having only one or no Swiss Chalet restaurant.

Would you object if I reinstate the listing? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: The listing for Swiss Chalet has since been moved from Fast food in the United States and Canada to Restaurant chains in North America. The latter article is in sorry shape indeed, though, so I'd be more inclined to say the listing could be reinstated - especially because, you're right, there is a distinct lack of moderately-priced non-chain restaurants in Yonge-Dundas (Fran's on College Street is the only one I can think of off the top of my head). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Man I love Fran's. Powers (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Boldfacing[edit]

Andre, where in the style guide does it say that "Inline external links should always be bolded"? That seems like a silly thing to require people to do when it isn't necessary. Maybe we should propose to change that. I see lots of instances of inline external links note being boldface, so it seems like it is a policy that is being widely ignored. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Ground Zero - My thought process on that goes back to 2013, when Wrh2Bot was deployed to convert the old footnote-style external links to inline ones. As you can see in that diff, the bot was configured to splice together external link URLs with whatever bolded text preceded them, but that didn't extend to unbolded text (in fact, some of the lesser-visited articles of our site still contain old-style external links that the bot didn't catch for that reason). At any rate, I figured it stands to reason that, if the bot assumed anything in an article that merits an external link would be rendered in bold text, that can be construed as Wikivoyage convention. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that it isn't a rule, then, because I think it would get in the way of good formatting. It seems like it was a decision of the person who wrote the bot, rather than an explicit decision by the WV community. We should be able to boldface external links when they are made to important things in an article, and not when they aren't, rather than being forced to boldface all external links regardless of their importance. I look at an article like The Canadian, for example, which has been edited by several experienced editors this year. None of the external links in the article have been boldfaced, and doing so would just add clutter to it. In the case of Percé, I agree with you that boldfacing the name of the park right under the heading is unnecessary. I think it is easier for readers to find an external link in ordinary text than in a heading, though, as we don't normally put links in headings, so readers may not be expecting to find one there. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)