User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2017

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:

Reverting your edits on Canada

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Kenosha revert

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)Reply[reply]

Userban comments

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
That's exactly what I was driving at. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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)Reply[reply]

Pakistan OtBP

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Traveling with high blood pressure article

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

NOAA Weather Radio deletionism

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? 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"how many people is that information going to benefit if we include it?" It's a good question, but apparently enough people that their representatives keep approving funding for NOAA to continue their operations. It's difficult to contribute to this site when what is considered suitable for inclusion on wikivoyage seems to be entirely dependent on the whims of the most stubborn editors and not in any sort of meaningful and descriptive standard. If this is the case, why not err on the side of inclusion? 19:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your tone is not exactly helping your case. You may try arguing it in the pub, but I'm not sure you'll get all that much support there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not my case personally, the goal of improving wikivoyage is something we all share. I understand when there is a difference of opinion of what should be included, but reverts should be based on consensus policy not on mere disagreement. Otherwise it gives the impression that the opinions of some editors carry more weight than others and/or newcomers. I don't think that is conducive to creating an open community that encourages contribution. 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd tried raising this question in the pub, where it was met primarily with derision: Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Weather radio is the (archived) discussion. K7L (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you K7L, I had missed that. 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for not chiming in here until now. To what has already been said I will only add that:
  1. On any wiki, there are generally two directives that are in conflict with other: "plunge forward" (cf. "be bold" on English Wikipedia, etc.) on the one hand, and "decisions are made by consensus" on the other. The question of which of these applies in which type of situation really depends on the culture of the individual wiki, but as a general rule the smaller the wiki, the more you'll see the former and not the latter. If every revert (or even a majority of reverts) were necessarily preceded by a consensus-building discussion, there'd be no time left for anything else - we just don't have the manpower here to litigate everything.
  2. Where the IP editor sees an obstinate curmudgeon undoing others' contributions according to his whims, I see an editor who's been around the block a few times, knows policy, and in cases such as this one where no specific written policy applies, knows what does and doesn't work within the structure and scope of most Wikivoyage articles. Does that mean some editors are more important than others, or that authority can't be questioned? Of course not, but neither is it true that experience doesn't count for anything.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AndreCarrotflower, no one is questioning the value of your experience or contributions. The case here is incorporating diverse viewpoints. When the final say is always had by the senior members of a group, it is to the exclusion of others. No one should claim definitively to "know what does and doesn't work" when there are reasonable arguments held by both sides and the potential harm caused by including a piece of information seems low. 20:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I frankly don't care either way, but the way I read the discussion it appears that you are the only one to hold the opinion in favor of inclusion. There is just too narrow a case for users to care. And those that do will probably already have that information from other sources. And discussions are not resolved by seniority, but by consensus. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>it appears that you are the only one to hold the opinion in favor of inclusion
If I thought that was the case I would have no objection. What troubles me is the fact that the revert in question was done a few hours after the original edit was made and days before a pub discussion was started. Again troubling is that the editor has stated above that in some cases consensus is neither practical nor desirable.
>discussions are not resolved by seniority, but by consensus
I have no objection to this. This is the ideal. But the discussion shows a split, two individuals arguing in favor and two against.
Overall, this is less about any individual edit and more about the culture we're trying to create. A wiki should not laud values like consensus and inclusion if they can't be demonstrated. Edits should be done by consensus and documented style not arbitrary decisions made by senior members.
We should be welcoming new members and incorporating diverse viewpoints if we want to make a truly useful travel guide. Wikivoyage hosts so little content and attracts such a low amount of editing activity that it may be worth some self-reflection to determine if improving the culture could change that. 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If by your own admission the level of editing activity at Wikivoyage is so low (I would disagree with that, but I'll play along for the sake of argument), then let me repeat my earlier question: how in the world would it be practical to gather consensus before the fact every single time something gets reverted? It's hard enough already to get people to chime in on discussions of critical importance; holding hostage the resolution of minor quibbles like this to a consensus discussion in which no one will ever participate would completely paralyze the site. That's where plunging forward comes in, as I said above.
Frankly, after having a look at this user's contribution history both here and at Wikipedia, which each consist of a few minor edits and a whole lot of raking other editors over the coals for daring to alter said minor edits, it looks more and more to me like the breakdown in understanding lies with the issue of ownership of content. To quote myself from a discussion elsewhere on a different topic, "Wikis are collaborative projects, and anyone's contributions are subject to alteration at any time, and users simply have to get comfortable with that fact."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we discussing content ("Weatherradio is 162.55MHz in Syracuse") or are we discussing individual users? Making this about the user is far more divisive and rarely helpful. K7L (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I have to defend myself against accusations of violating the norms of wiki culture, I think it's perfectly fair game to point out when my accuser's contribution history reveals him to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the very aspect of wiki culture that's at issue here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the day before yesterday we are apparently discussing the "whims of the most stubborn editors". :D
Concerning the weather radio broadcast itself, are radio receivers that can receive those frequencies common in the US? Maybe among truck drivers/people living in rural areas? If yes, I guess the information could be added somewhere, if not necessarily in the individual destination articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone from Walmart to Walgreen's sells them; they are common in localities known for severe weather ("Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore..."). There is a brief mention in the severe weather article. K7L (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be down to regional differences between different parts of the country. Here in Buffalo, I've never seen weather radios sold anywhere — which is not to say they aren't, just that they need to be sought out pretty specifically — and I don't personally know anyone who owns one. Furthermore, there's very little in the way of severe weather around here, aside from lake-effect snow which is forecastable with much more advance warning than, say, a tornado. The latter of those two things is also true of Syracuse, so it stands to reason that the former also would be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baltimore Basilica

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Yes Done. --Saqib (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalizing "Medieval"

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your thanks!

--Tineykitty (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wordiness is not the same as liveliness

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(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))Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Your recent revisions to Cheyenne, WY

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! 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Bonk! I could have had a WV8

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! 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request again

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)Reply[reply]

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

Swiss Chalet

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Man I love Fran's. Powers (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Some questions pertaining to Kimball

AndreCarrotFlower, You are thanked for your recent contributions to Kimball, Nebraska. That was very helpful. Although...

  • I placed the Template:Wikitable in there because the Infobox was malfunctioning. I usually don't do wikitables, however, I usually try to use an infobox. If you could convert this into an infobox, that would be great.
  • Is there a reason you changed the addresses of a routebox? I can see if you want all blue links, but Rock Springs is a litte too far.
  • Nebraska 71 is an important State highway that serves as a through route toward other destinations with articles. Why was this taken out of the routebox?
  • Why was the marker for Kimball Transportation Authority removed?

Otherwise, I enjoyed them. Have fun!

-- 22:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, it sounds like you should probably get better acquainted with our Manual of style. However, in regard to your specific questions:
  • Regarding the wikitable/infobox issue: unlike Wikipedia, on Wikivoyage we prefer to use ordinary prose whenever possible, and use infoboxes only when necessary to give more in-depth information that wouldn't really fit in the body of the article itself. Given that the bit about the street layout was basically the only information in the section, it should be rendered in ordinary text. See Wikivoyage:Information boxes for more information.
  • Regarding routeboxes: the goal of the routeboxes is for the reader to navigate all the destinations along a particular route, so you're correct that they should not contain any redlinks, as that would break the chain. The process for determining which places to use as control cities (the ones in boldface on each end of the routebox, marked "major") is described in detail at Wikivoyage:Routebox navigation#For highways, but a short answer to your question would be that control cities should be identical along the same leg of the route — for instance, if Cheyenne, Laramie, etc. have Rock Springs as the control city on I-80 going west, Kimball should too.
  • Regarding the marker for the Kimball Transportation Authority: while visitors obviously should know about the bus system, they don't need to know the location on a map of the main office of the bus system.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll keep that in mind, that was an eye opener. I see what you are saying. I still wonder why the N-71 list was removed.
-- 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On your revert of Cheyenne of the Greyhound bus routebox

Good afternoon, I can understand if my listing was disorganized, cluttered, and tacky looking, but what I don't understand is why buses don't get covered here, as opposed to rail and trains. If you may please bring a rational explanation, that would be wonderful! -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 00:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Routebox navigation#Listing order lists highways, train lines, and famous historic or touristic itineraries as routes that might be included in routeboxes, but says nothing about bus lines. Furthermore, you'll notice there are no Wikivoyage articles that include bus lines in their routebox. (Which is probematic in itself: if we were to add the Greyhound line to our routbox navigation system, you can't just add it to Cheyenne and call it a day. Every city along the route would need to have the Greyhound line added to its routebox.)
If you're going to get involved with contributing to our routebox navigation system, I would urge you to first familiarize yourself with policy as well as how Wikivoyage handles routeboxes in practice, rather than charging ahead with changes that are only going to get reverted. Most of the contributions you make to this site are good, but routeboxes are an area where you seem to run into snags more often than not.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rail lines and highways are permanent, bus routes can be changed at a moment's notice. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything you said is contradictory in one way or another, but I understand the point. Creating something is often a hard process, and if there is a better option, we shouldn't do it. I'll keep the Greyhound off. -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 23:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain what you mean with your first sentence? I'm not sure I understand it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My response is private. Please see your talk page for my comment and explanation. -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 03:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything you post on a wiki like this can be seen by everyone. And quite frankly your reply does not make all that much sense to me. Ceteris Paribus bus lines are the least stable of all transport connections. Second perhaps to ferry connections, but if that, not by much. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Diff/3236756/3242382 replaces a section-link to Previous Featured travel topics with Previously Featured travel topic, a redlink. Typo? K7L (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. Good catch! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should the redlink be made into a redirect? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We usually use the plural form of topic names, so "ghost towns" instead of "ghost town", in titles. If "Previously Featured travel topic" is a typo, it's best just to fix the typo. That would require admin intervention as this is a fully-protected page. K7L (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm happy to help out now that you've done all of the heavy lifting. Great job. Ground Zero (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! The improvements to Aarhus were the kind of cooperative effort that lately has me more optimistic about the long-term prognosis of this community. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Huntington a neighborhood of Alexandria?

You've done quite a bit of work on the Alexandria (Virginia) article. Huntington (Virginia) looks to me like a neighborhood of Alexandria (albeit one that's just outside the city limits), and not a separate city. I'm thinking we should just redirect Huntington to Alexandria. But I'd like a second opinion: What do you think? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you may have me confused with another user. I did add a few routes to Alexandria (Virginia)'s routebox about a year and a half ago, but other than that I don't remember working on the article and have no familiarity with the city and its neighborhoods. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actuality, I looked at the history page, and you looked like the editor who had done the most work on the article recently ("recently" being a relative term on an article that doesn't get edited often). I guess just looking at the history page, without actuality checking the edits themselves, can be misleading. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'll try the Alexandria talk page. Honestly, I doubt I'll get a response there, that's why I picked an editor from the history page in the first place. But it's worth a shot. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virginia's redirect.

I know how to address the issue without creating a redirect, but what's wrong with simply creating a redirect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We generally only create redirects for likely search terms. It's doubtful that someone searching for information on Virginia is going to intentionally type "Virginia's" into the search box, especially because the appropriate article would automatically pop up in the box for any hypothetical user doing so even before they got through typing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not many people are going to look up the possessive form of "Virginia". But that's not really the point of the redirect. It's easier and simpler to deal with [[Virginia's]] then [[Virginia|Virginia's]], so I figure the redirect makes things a little easier. Basically, it's the KISS principle. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a topic in the pub so we can get some other opinions to break the logjam. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one redirect doesn't really matter. The larger issue here is: Does WikiVoyage want redirects like that?
If we're bringing other people into this, I should explain the context of this conversation: I was editing an article, and put [[Virginia's]] in the article. That was a redlink, so I created the redirect. Then AndreCarrotflower deleted the redirect, and changed the link to [[Virginia|Virginia's]]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emmette and Andrew, there's no need to create a redirect or do anything the least bit complicated for that purpose. Simply type this: Virginia's. Just put the apostrophe-s after the close brackets. That's all that's needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do that, the apostrophe and the s isn't part of the link. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but why is that important? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you really think it's so important, I come down very squarely on Andrew's side on this one. Try to imagine people creating redirects from the apostrophe-s version of everything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm starting to worry that this is being blown out of proportion. This is a minor disagreement, not a major issue. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it isn't an issue of awesome consequences. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a huge issue, but since I've been asked, I would agree with Andre that we don't need redirects for the possessive of every article we already have. Just fix the link so that "'s" lies outside of it. Links are functional, not decorative, so there is no reason to force the "'s" into a link. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page on Shiraishi Island, Kasaoka

Hi, I see that a few minutes after I committed my first edit on Shiraishi Island you changed it to redirect to the Kasaoka page before I had a chance to start filling in very much information.

I don't think that the Kasaoka page is an appropriate place for information on Shiraishi for a few reasons. For one, most islands in the Seto Inland Sea have their own articles, although they are often administered as part of mainland municipalities. They are distinct geographic entities and it's not reasonable to suggest that sleeping arrangements in an island a 45-minute ferry ride from Kasaoka are actually in Kasaoka city, for instance. For another, I was planning on adding a considerable volume of information that is not covered in the Kasaoka page that I wished I had been able to find before I went, and this would distract from information about Kasaoka itself.

So, my question is, as a new editor, how do I build a page up without having it get unceremoniously removed? I was planning on updating the links from relevant pages once I had a significant amount of content. Thank you.

Auspicacious (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to hear an answer and thank you for creating the article in userspace. I moved your question to the bottom of the page as is customary. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an ordinary case, by way of answering your question I would have directed you to Wikivoyage:How to start a new page#Do I need to create a new page? and perhaps Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy#Districts in cities (Shiraishi Island would have functioned de facto as a district article for Kasaoka city) and advised you to first add your information to the Kasaoka article, then when that article starts to become too lengthy or too overly dominated by information about Shiraishi Island, start a discussion at Talk:Kasaoka about splitting off the information about Shiraishi Island into its own article. However, in light of the other information in your comments, it appears as if 1) that would have eventually happened anyway and 2) there are other practical reasons why the articles should be separate. In this particular case, and given the fact that I can't name any other user on this site with the local expertise you appear to have who might otherwise be able to meaningfully contribute to a talk page discussion on the matter, I'd say go ahead and re-create it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for your help and I'll move the page from my userspace to a more appropriate location once I have some more content in it this time, so that there's more concrete information to discuss. Probably will be working on it on the weekends. I may also run it by the only native English speaker on the island as well who is an acquaintance. Auspicacious (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shanghai articles

I'd like to call your attention to Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Downtown Shanghai; your comments would be valuable.

I have also recently done a fair bit of work on Shanghai/Pudong & wonder whether that might become a nomination later; I think it is now close but not there. Pashley (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the requisite fixes, I think either would make a fine DotM. I actually think Pudong is closer to Downtown Shanghai when it comes to being ready; I've detailed the issues with the latter in the linked pub conversation, but the only problem with Pudong that I could see was the need for expansion in the "Buy", "Drink", and possibly "Eat" sections. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manual of style

Regarding your additions to the North Estonia article on the topic of manual of style. I think many countries work well with such listings on regional level, like Israel (where a lot of our members are active), with no one complaining. I would really not like to waste my time on a discussion about the manual of style and concentrate on putting value into the articles.

I agree, listings should be as deep down as possible, and there are examples where this rule is really applicable like Kurzeme. But for the sake of clarity and readability I would be hesitant to put endless information into the city article, even if sights are 50 km out, just because of the manual of style. Articles like Baku and Tbilisi are flowing over and are barely readable. What use is information of places that are far out and maybe not relevant for a city trip? Nevertheless, I usually tend to write a small reminder at the end of city articles on close-by regional attractions, as I also did with Tallinn.

So, what do you think? Should I stop working on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and rather put my time into an exhausting and general discussion on the manual of style?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This certainly merits a discussion somewhere. I think it's much easier and more logical for contributors and readers alike to have rural/remote listings (roadside motels, natural attractions, farms with restaurants/vineyards etc.) in region articles rather than having to either shoehorn them into a city/park article where few people would know to look for them or create a whole new article just for one or two listings. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second that and like to reiterate that our handling of rural stuff could be improved but I do not have the patent solution, either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This clearly merits a policy discussion, but personally I think the status quo works fine. For attractions in themselves, i.e. anything that would go in a "See" or "Do" section, those can and should be used as the basis for new articles. For anything in "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", or "Sleep", the question is that if these places are located in places where there's nothing of interest to travellers, why do they need to be listed at all? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well some people just love camping in a cabin in the woods where there is nothing for miles on end. Or shop at an highway off-ramp. Or sleep at a dingy motel somewhere between exits 348 and 349. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a case where Wikivoyage does not follow administrative structure but matches the geographical and article structure. I cannot see Kasaoka becoming a region article or a huge city. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chicano note

Re this: "Chicanos" are a people group of Mexican-Americans. They are not "redundant" to Mexicans. They are a subset of the larger Mexican ethnic group but they have distinct traditions and a cultural identity. My purpose in mentioning Chicanos in addition to Mexicans proper is just to say that Mexican-Americans in the United States will do [x] and so will the Mexican residents/citizens/members of that ethnic community in Mexico. I think I was unclear about this myself, so I fully support you fixing my bad copy but wanted to give an explanation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Andre!

Sorry if I didnt see your edit! See my opinion jere: [1] -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 04:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I should thank you!

For your hard work and dedication!

Although I thank you for thanking me here: User: Zanygenius/Thanks You for your help


Ah sorry about that. I was trying to justify the length of the block but realize it was a bad choice of words. Hopefully they didn't notice :) Gizza (roam) 05:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I just thought I shouldn't change the terms of the block you instituted without explaining myself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since Rochester and Buffalo both just got Morton's The Steakhouse outlets... I noticed your edit summary on Buffalo/Downtown stated "listing to come" and I was a bit surprised since you are usually adamant about not having listings for chains. Cognizant of that, I only mentioned Morton's in the lead paragraph of Rochester (New York)#Splurge rather than giving it a full listing. (I admit I wouldn't have thought twice about a listing if I didn't have your advice in mind.) I'm curious if you think a listing is appropriate in this case, and if so, why. Powers (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... you know what, you're right. I tend to consider ultra-high-end chains that don't have that prefab feel (Morton's, Ruth's Chris, etc.) to be a different category than the Applebee's and Olive Gardens of the world. On the other hand, omitting Morton's is an opportunity to avoid adding length to an already long article. What keeps me from being completely on the fence about this, and puts me in the "do not list" camp alongside you, is the fact that it's located inside the Hyatt Regency and thus could simply be mentioned in that hotel's listing in the "Sleep" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I don't want to give the wrong impression. Like I said, I would have added a listing for it without a second thought. =) Certain chains (not just the ultra-high-end ones, but also places like Rainforest Cafe or Hard Rock Cafe) have a bit of a destination feel to them; they can be places that people actively seek out when they're traveling. That does distinguish them from, say, Outback Steakhouse or Red Robin. Powers (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On that note, I wanted to ask your opinion on an edit like this one, which among many other things deleted a listing for a local McD. Yes, I know the golden M is a WV:Boring place (I have taken a pledge more than a decade ago never to eat there any more), but this particular establishment is something not entirely cookie-cutter. What would you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a particular reason to visit an otherwise boring restaurant, it's no longer boring as far as I'm concerned. Powers (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. I may have taken an interest lately in removing listings of chain restaurants from various articles, but that doesn't mean there are absolutely no circumstances where listing a chain is appropriate. And it doesn't have to be anything of international renown, like for example the "Rock and Roll McDonald's" in Chicago or the original KFC in Corbin, Kentucky. For instance, in Lewiston, New York for many years there was a McDonald's located in the Frontier House, an old hotel that IIRC is the oldest building in Niagara County outside the Old Fort Niagara campus and whose guest list reads like a Who's Who of 19th-century America. It's also reputedly haunted. It closed in 2004, but if it hadn't, that would be a no-brainer for inclusion at Lewiston (New York)#Eat. Speaking about Erlangen and the Rochester Morton's: if it were me, I would include the former listing and exclude the latter, but in both cases there's a perfectly defensible argument to do the opposite. And if I came across such an edit on Recent Changes or whatever, I wouldn't make an issue out of it, because it really and truly could go either way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you were assuming anyone's gender

I don't think you were assuming anyone's gender in this post. You were just using a gender-neutral "he". There's a debate as to what should be used as a gender-neutral pronoun, but "he" is definitely one of the contenders. It's hardly unprecedented in English for the masculine from to double as the gender-neutral form: People sometimes say "actor" to refer to an actress, or just to refer to actors and actresses in general. Other masculine forms (such as "doctor") are in such common use as gender-neutral forms, that the feminine forms aren't even used (when's the last time you've heard someone say "doctress"?).

I don't think you have anything to apologize for. And no one here should hold your choice of gender-neutral pronoun in your own posts against you: This is Wikivoyage, not the grammar police. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French bunch!

Hello André, I have asked my students to build a profile on Wikivoyage with a view to contribute new articles in French this month. I thought accounts and profiles were cross language platforms, but it seems not... Hence, we will not bother you longer (!) and start new accounts and profiles from fresh on the site. Sorry about that. How do we close our account on Cheers, --Bunnikin (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bunnikin! Sorry for the lateness of my reply. Let me start by emphasizing that we were not bothered in the least by your students' edits here - the use of French on their user pages was a bit confusing to us at first (thank you for your explanation above!), but any of your students would certainly be most welcome to edit here at the English Wikivoyage should they ever choose to do so. As for closing their accounts here, there's really no way to do that; copyright regulations connected to the Creative Commons publishing license we use would make such a thing legally problematic. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the accounts are cross-language (and cross-project, they will also work e.g. at Wikipedia). Also the user pages would be, if they were created on User pages elsewhere are to some degree supposed to be project and language specific. --LPfi (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern Tier

FYI, with this edit, you orphaned Johnson City (New York) and Windsor (New York). On a tangential note, I wonder what your opinion is on subdividing the Southern Tier. Are subdivisions even necessary? Powers (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I suppose it's not impossible that a good counter-argument could sway me, but not having heard any at this point, I'd say I'm definitely of the opinion that the Southern Tier should remain subdivided, and that doing so by county makes as much sense as any other way I can think of. I'm familiar enough with Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany Counties (especially the latter, which was my route back when I delivered for FedEx, and which I've thought about developing with an eye to OtBP at some point in the future, when/if I ever finish the Gaspé Peninsula project) to say that there are some subtle but notable differences between them in terms of traveller experience, and I suspect the same would hold true for the further-east counties, most of which function basically as mini-metro areas for what passes for large cities in the Southern Tier. I think Broome County, Chemung County, et al. could certainly be developed along similar lines to Rochester and Suburbs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My perception may be skewed as I think primarily of Allegany County, which doesn't have any cities. As you note, each of the other counties does (except Tioga). If I were doing it from scratch I'd probably group Chautauqua-Cattaraugus-Allegany, Steuben-Chemung (because of the Elmira-Corning area), and Tioga-Broome. But maybe three is too few. Powers (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Powers - I just uncovered an issue here. Steuben County is one of the current county-regions of the Southern Tier, yet the whole northeast quarter of the county (including Hammondsport, which is listed in the "Cities" section of both articles) is also considered part of the Western Finger Lakes. I tend to be more inclined than you do to think political boundaries are important in breaking down regional hierarchies from a traveller's perspective, but since we can't do that in this case, your proposal above is starting to make more sense to me. I still tend to think Chauatauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany Counties should be left alone (especially because combining all three would make for the largest Southern Tier subregion by far, geographically speaking) - at a minimum, I could reluctantly sign on to combining Cattaraugus with Allegany while leaving Chautauqua as its own region (it's the most divergent of the three, with a Great Lakes shoreline, viticulture, etc.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I really wanted Hammondsport in the Finger Lakes instead of Southern Tier, but that does leave Steuben split. We should probably take this back to Talk:Southern Tier. Powers (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hutt River

Hi Andre. I agree a redirect merits consensus. I proposed this move about a week before on both the HRP and Geraldton pages, no replies. Where else should I have done so? Grahamsands (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Grahamsands. You were right to take the issue to the talk pages, but in general, if you really want to draw additional attention to issues like this, the pub is the place to do it. However, in the event that there's no significant degree of participation in any of the respective conversations, the policy is that the status quo remains in effect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I've set out my reasons in HRP Talk, and also put a shout into the pub. Grahamsands (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How's it going? I hope you enjoyed Christmas and have a great upcoming year!

Small thing, but I don't go by the New York Times/academic manuals of style standard on this: "numerals are appropriate only for the numbers 11 and higher; one through ten should be spelled out". I don't really see a good reason not to use numerals for all numbers, and that's exactly what I do. Why do you think we should be bound by some academic standard that does nothing to improve comprehensibility and only lengthens the text?

Very best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I didn't know you were still editing. I was trying to help expand the article, but I'll fuck off now. Enjoy yourself. Ground Zero (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your help is not unappreciated, but it's been noted that some of our Recent Changes patrollers have something of a hair trigger vis-à-vis articles that are still in the process of being edited, and that it's been getting under people's skin. My edits to the article were coming rapid-fire, just a few minutes apart; in situations like that, it's good form to wait until things die down. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That being said, I understand your frustration with my snippy edit summary. I'll try to be more cool-headed next time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could choose to work on a project you're developing in a workspace instead of in the public-facing article. If you decide to work the public-facing article, you shouldn't be surprised or angry if someone tries to help. Chewing them out for doing so is not productive, and it's rude.

A different way of handling this would be to say, "Hey, thanks for the help, but I'm working on developing this article. Could you give me a few hours before you edit?"

It's all in the tone dude.

Happy new year. Ground Zero (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

w:Template:In use could be useful here on WV as well.
Myself I expect someone who has just created a page or made more than one edit to it to be around for half an hour or so, and unless we're talking about vandalism so severe that it needs to be dealt with in real time I leave the article alone. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]