User talk:Bigpeteb

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, BigPeteB! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Project:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.

Thanks for your contributions to Lexington (Kentucky). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:23, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

My pleasure. It gave me something to do while I was on vacation there last week. :-) --Peter

Long vowels[edit]

Say, what method are you using to type the long Japanese vowels with a bar over them? (WT-en) texugo 12:14, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

I just use Windows Character Map to get the character and paste it in. It's tedious. :-( Or, if I know the characters are elsewhere in the document, I copy/paste them from there. (WT-en) BigPeteB 12:32, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

UserMerge[edit]

Your old WT account has now been merged into your WMF one. Your name now has a small b, which matches your WP account (I think to get the large B back, you would have to do a global account rename). --Peter Talk 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic maps Expedition[edit]

Hello Bigpeteb,

Thanks for your interest in Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition!

Could you please help by selecting a few articles (places you know), and inserting lat/lon to all restaurants/hotels/see/etc as explained here?

Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! I already did part of Lexington (Kentucky). I could do Atlanta/Midtown as well. I'll see if I can find one or two other articles that would make good test cases. Bigpeteb (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Great work on these two articles, feel free to do cities you don't know as well, using Google or review websites to check whether locations are correct. These articles will be in the initial trial perimeter when Dynamic Maps are deployed :-) Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, all I did so far was run them through the GeoMap batch updater. When I have more time at home I'll check that the locations are accurate and manually do the ones that the batch updater couldn't locate. Bigpeteb (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New portal implemented[edit]

Thanks for your changes to the /temp version! Feel free to fix anything else there and I'll see if I can sync it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Time travel[edit]

Wikvoyage started early this year.. I note you'd added to the Japan article recently, able to add anything to the Far East section? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Et al.[edit]

From an edit summary by you: usually "et al." is for lists of people, and "etc." is for lists of inanimate things

What's your source for this? To my understanding, in Latin "et alii" simply means "and others". I have never seen the claim you made, and I'm pretty skeptical about it.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind: I just did a web search for "et al usage" and got a bunch of results restricting its usage to a list of people. So the moral of the story is that I went through school with honors and fellowships through the Doctorate without ever knowing or being told about this restriction. I probably never used the abbreviation in a non-standard way in any academic writing, so no-one ever thought to explain that a seemingly all-inclusive Latin expression is reserved for people, by convention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, no worries Ikan Kekek. I'm glad I could teach you some minor thing today. :-) --Bigpeteb (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
:-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

Regardinging this edit, the Chicago Manual of Style recomends distinguishing between ellipsis within a sentence (three dots) and ellipsis at the end of a sentence (four dots):

Section 13.53 in the Spotlight
When words are left out of a quotation, an ellipsis of three dots (. . .) takes their place. When this works correctly, the reader can skip over the dots and the sentence continues smoothly on the other side.
Quotation 1: “With a sensation of horror . . . I saw at the open window a figure.”
If the first segment of the quotation could be read as a complete sentence (grammatically speaking), a period comes before the ellipsis (for a total of four dots).

As far as "... etc.)." goes, there isn't any need for another full stop after you've already used one full stop:

[1] "never double up periods. If a statement ends with “etc.” the period in the abbreviation does double duty, serving as the full stop to end the sentence."

Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: Hmm, thanks for pointing this out.
You're right about the first instance. It can be read as a complete sentence, so an extra period is appropriate. I'll change that one back.
In the second instance, the parentheses affect the rule. The CMOS FAQ for this topic isn't the most clear (and I don't have my copy of CMOS handy as I'm replying). A better Stack Exchange Q&A is [2], which explicitly cites CMOS and other style guides, all of which agree that two periods are necessary: one for the etc. inside the parentheses, and one outside the parentheses to end the sentence. (To use the old grade-school trick: if you deleted the parenthetical, what remains would still need to be a complete sentence, and thus needs a period.) The Wikipedia MOS also agrees with this rule, and an example ending in etc.). is the first example it gives.
(P.S. "Regardinging" isn't a word. That made me LOL when I noticed it just now.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I wanted to drop you a note to thank you for two things: one, your recent vigilance on English language varieties, and two, your recent additions to Fukuoka. As the one who originally nominated Fukuoka for Destination of the Month a while ago, it's frankly kind of embarrassing to me in retrospect how incomplete the article was at the time of its nomination. Sometimes it takes someone with local familiarity, as you obviously have, to fully illustrate that sort of thing. Anyhow, anything else you can do to add to the article would be hugely appreciated, especially in the realm of adding geo coordinates to listings that currently lack them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Happy to help! I spent half a summer studying in Fukuoka, although that was 15 years ago so I wouldn't say I know the city in too much detail anymore. But between the request for updates for DotM, and some friends having recently visited Fukuoka and re-sparking my interest in the city, I'm happy to contribute what local knowledge I do have. Geocoding listings is not my favorite chore as it's pretty tedious :-/ but I'll definitely have a go at it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Working with students[edit]

Thank you for leaving the long message on my students talk page, I may indeed use it for discussion material. The problem here is that said student is one of the 'quiet' people (she never speaks, she chose to work by herself instead of a group like I advised everyone to do), and I don't know if she is super shy or as is not uncommon in classes full of ESLs, her English skills are just low. In all honestly, I doubt she will participate in or enjoy the discussion about this incident, particularly if my hunch is right and she cannot communicate well in English on top of being shy. Sometimes there is no good solution :( --Piotrus (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Indeed, I know the type. Regardless, I'm happy to contribute. Cheers! --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Priority seats in Tokyo[edit]

Just to reply to your comment, I'm not sure there are priority seats in the trains in either Chicago or New York City, so I don't think you can say they are "common" worldwide. The dog2 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean priority seating for elderly and disabled people? Then yes, we have those on New York City Transit Authority trains and buses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Will people actually give them up for the elderly and disabled? The dog2 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes. And also for pregnant women and people with really heavy loads or holding children. And on the bus, if someone on a wheelchair comes on, the bus driver tells whoever is sitting in the wheelchair area he chooses for them to get up and move. I presume if they refused, s/he'd call the police if necessary, but I haven't seen anyone refuse. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@The dog2: In any case, it's already pointed out on Japan, so there's no need to duplicate it in Tokyo. Even the note about not talking on phones is redundant, although it doesn't hurt to have a quick reminder. There's also signage in English on Japan's trains and buses for both priority seats and not talking on phones, so we really don't need to bog down a city article with reminders. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

New York City[edit]

Please do not fully revert. I want there to be a mention that in Staten Island there is no subway system. So please revert that edit. Thanks. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:6A 21:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The better place to discuss this is on Talk:New York City. I've copied your question and will give a response there. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouting[edit]

Hiya, with regard to this edit summary ALL CAPS comes across as angry shouting, especially when you're correcting somebody. If you want to emphasise parts of an edit summary, I recommend using asterisks *like this*. It's not a rule or anything, but something to think about. Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Yeah, I should have done so. Does it actually display it with different formatting if you use asterisks like that, or is that markup for human eyes only? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No different formatting, unfortunately; it's just for the eyes as you said. You could equally use tildes or underscores, I guess.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Seattle[edit]

But surely we should have a caution (not a warningbox, which wasn't what it was) when someone leaves the United States while in one of the country's largest cities. I made clear the protests were not violent, but nonetheless an autonomous zone (with armed guards, from what I've heard, though correct me if there's evidence to the contrary) surely requires a caution to travelers per ttcf.

Have you entered or otherwise been inside CHAZ? I haven't, but judging from the reports this is important, not only because of the zone itself but what might happen if the police/military enter it, which President Trump has implied he will do.

As a side note, the definition of a cautionbox is "non-life-threatening warnings," not "a warning about protests last week...[pertaining to] police escalation." (the latter of course being a life-threatening warning)

Not to be too confrontational, because I don't intend to be, but these are the facts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I say this with a laugh, because I'm usually not quick to blame the media, but: Don't believe the media's lies!
I live less than a mile away. I attended protests multiple times last week, and have been to CHAZ several times this week.
The name "autonomous zone" is perhaps poorly chosen. "Free speech block party" would be a more accurate description. They're not declaring independence or anything like that, and you're certainly not "leaving the United States". There are no ID checks or armed guards, and there is not a protection racket taking place. In fact the mayor and police chief have taken some flak for making those unsubstantiated claims, as have local media for repeating it without doing any fact-checking. [3] is a fairly comprehensive and neutral overview of the situation; [4] is a more boots-on-the-ground view.
How it's going to play out moving forward is very difficult to predict. The police would no doubt like their precinct back, but that's likely to spark more protests if they try to simply return to the prior status quo without making any concessions towards defunding or reforming the police. But so far, it's just a peaceful occupation (for lack of a better word) of a few blocks, with little practical impact in terms of public services available (fire/ambulance/police, garbage, utilities, etc.) and no apparent threat to a visitor's safety or freedom.
Practically speaking (and this probably belongs better on Talk:Seattle, but since we're discussing it anyway) I don't think a caution/warning does much good here. Even if WV was the #1 travel guide in the world, which it isn't, there just aren't many travellers here these days due to COVID-19. If there were, one would think they would apply Captain Obvious and avoid any large crowds to avoid exposure to coronavirus, which includes protests and block parties. If they don't, one would again think they would apply Captain Obvious and avoid protests anyway, as it should be obvious that there's a potential threat to one's safety no matter how peaceful the protest is (or appears to be) at the moment. We should also assume our readers aren't ignorant and have at least a smidgen of awareness of the state of the world, and may have already heard about the protests happening in Seattle. And then on top of all that, WV is not a news service and we often have enough trouble as it is keeping up with "current" events here, so I think it's a waste of our time to try to describe a rapidly-evolving situation in one city which extremely few people will read or be affected by.
(Come to think of it, as a supporter of the movement, I'm now tempted to say we should put something in to help spread the truth that it's peaceful and safe, although that's countered by my own arguments that too few people will see it anyway.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, as you have local knowledge of the situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 294[edit]

If you look very closely at a map, you will see that just south of Exit 40, it is in Chicago for mere feet, when connecting western Chicago to the rest of the city.Interstate 80 is not in at all. It would be just like saying Interstate 80 enters New York City. In reality it doesn’t though-it ends to Interstate 95 within ten kilometers of the city. It could also be viewed as entering Cleavland, which is also not true. You either have to have it so it is in none, or in all 3. Plus for New York City, Interstate 80 does something none of the others do. Interstate 78 connects to Newark and central Pennsylvania, Interstate 95 to Philadelphia, and Interstate 87 to Albany and evantually, Montreal as A-15. Interstate 80, though, connects to the Poconos. In the NY Metro Area also lies Interstate 84, Interstate 91, Future Interstate 86, and potentially more. Regards, 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:16 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since you haven't created a username and logged in, there's no way to give you a notification. I'll just have to reply here and hope that you see this.
Firstly, this is better discussed on Talk:Chicago, not on my user page.
Secondly, if you disagree and think your change needs to stay, you should discuss it on the Talk page for that article. Don't reapply the change without discussing.
Thirdly, Chicago is one of our star articles, the best we have on this site. It's been continually maintained at that quality for years. I'm not saying we're incapable of mistakes, but for a new editor like yourself to come here and tell us we made what seems to you to be an obvious factual mistake by mentioning a highway that isn't actually in the city... doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous? Did you consider that maybe it's not a mistake, and that we mention it on purpose?
This brings me to the last and most important point... You don't seem to be familiar with the policies we use here on Wikivoyage. One of those is that the traveller comes first. We use that guideline to shape a lot of our decisions we make. On Wikipedia, being factual and accurate and verifiable are all important, but on WV we prefer a human approach that sometimes simplifies things in order to be more useful as a guide for travelling. For example, we don't constrain ourselves to only following the official borders of a city, as those are subject to sociopolitical whim. For example, on NYC we mention Newark airport as one of the 3 main airports in the area, even though it's in a different state! It would be absurd for us to not mention it as a primary way of getting to NYC just because it doesn't fall within the legal boundary of New York City. WV's article on Chicago is not about the "City of Chicago" (meaning the one incorporated according to state law, with an area of exactly 227.63 sq mi), it's about the abstract urban area called "Chicago" as a traveller normally thinks of it.
What does this have to do with highways? Well, I-80 is one of the primary routes in the Interstate Highway System (as are all Interstate highways divisible by 5). Imagine someone from Iowa City asked you, "How do I get to Chicago?" Which answer would you normally give them:
I'm being sarcastic and exaggerating to demonstrate my point, but this really is exactly why we say the traveller comes first. Adhering to strict legal boundaries of cities is not useful for travellers, and so we don't do it. We think and write as though we're giving colloquial advice to friends and family, not as though we're writing an encyclopedia that needs to pass fact-checking and peer review. Even going to Google Maps and searching "Iowa City to Chicago" gives you several options which it glosses as simply "via I-80 and I-88", "via I-80", and "via I-80, I-88, and I-90". Why would you expect us to not do the same?
This is the reduction to absurdity counterargument I was sarcastically making about I-294. (You overlooked that it is mentioned in the second paragraph.) You're correct, technically it does pass through the City of Chicago for about 300 feet in the Rosemont Corridor. [5] [6] And technically, the gore is within that strip, so you could certainly say that there's an exit from I-294 that's in Chicago. But that exit only takes you to Balmoral Avenue, which at that intersection is not inside the legal boundary of the City of Chicago. Except this is all completely absurd, because of course the whole reason I-294 exists is that there's some massive freaking city called "Chicago" in the way! I certainly hope you wouldn't tell someone taking a car from O'Hare to somewhere in south Chicago (say, Mt. Greenwood Park) that they have to get on I-190, leave Chicago, get on I-294, enter Chicago, leave Chicago 300 feet later, exit onto S Cicero Ave, and then enter Chicago on W 115th St.
 
I'm not saying all this to be mean, and I really do hope that you'll stick around and continue to work with us. I assume this edit to NYC was also yours, and I would have said "thank you" except that, as I said, it's impossible to guarantee that someone who doesn't log in will ever see replies. (The software doesn't even permit sending a "thanks" (the wiki equivalent of a "like") on edits done by anonymous editors.) We always love to have new editors join us, as many hands make light work, and there's no substitute for people with local knowledge of places they've lived or visited. But please remember, this is an established community with 15 years of decisions about what we want to say (or not say) in our travel guides. Try reading and using our guides first to get a better feel for how we present information, and then maybe reading WV:Tips for new contributors, which has links to our WV:Manual of style and WV:Policies. (They're not long, you don't have to memorize or even read all of them, and they're actually pretty casual and fun to read — much like we hope our travel guide content is.) But please, keep contributing! Nobody is perfect, everyone here was new at some point, sometimes even experienced editors only learn about a policy when someone else corrects them, and occasionally these kinds of discussions lead to policies getting changed. So please don't feel discouraged; I hope you're willing to stick around and become a lasting member of our community.
--Bigpeteb (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: understood. Can you mention Interstate 80 goes in NYC though-it is basically the same. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:8A 21:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Update-I already did. Updated to say I-80. But there is many things we can fix. I am taking a 7-month Wikibreak however, so good luck, on behalf of 2600:387:5:800::/60(if anyone edits on this IP until at least February, unless I say so, it’s not me)2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:8A 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I am leaving because, while I’d love to be a lasting member of the community, I need ~7 months to re-assess everything and with all of these crazy policies, I feel like after 7 months I can be one of the top contributors! Also, there is a way to get to Chicago from I-80 not involving I-55. In South Holland, IL, I-80 and I-94 split up. I-80 continues onto I-294 but, I-94 goes into the city. That is why for a few dozen miles, Interstates 90 and 94 are “incorrect”, that is, Interstate 90 is north of Interstate 94. I will be making my last 2 edits before leaving. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:8A 8:09 PM, 29 June 2020 (UTC-4)

New York City[edit]

First off there are 7 highways in NYC Metro. The three in NYC, Interstate 80, Interstate 84, Interstate 91 and Interstate 81. In the future, Interstate 86 will be expanded into the metro, but NYSDOT has no plans to do that in the near future. I agree with Template:Noping-Interstate 84 is too far north to be relevant. Interstate 80, though, is within ten kilometers or six miles of New York City, so its relevant. Honestly if we were to include US Routes, US 22, which ends in Newark, in my opinion, is close enough to be relevant. Interstate 495, the NSP and the SSP also only begin in Long Island. More people are coming into NYC on 80/95 then on 495. Furthermore, I-81 and I-91 are only barely in the metro area. The only people coming on I-91 into NYC are people in western New England(Hartford, Springfield)and for I-81 manly deals with the Cumberland Valley(even then, most people take 76/95 or 78). Enough people are coming on I-80 near enough to NYC for it to be relevant. Pinging User: ThunderingTyphoons! for his input on the manner. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:49 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I do think I-80 is relevant, but I also think it's fine to keep the "By car" section of "Get in" at the current length, because the main point of the section is to discourage people from driving to New York. I don't agree that Route 22 is relevant. It's not a superhighway and as you said, it ends in Newark. It's relevant to getting around New Jersey, not getting into New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: if that’s the case we shouldn’t have a “By car” section. The train is preferred anyway. We should also mention the historic Lincoln Highway, which goes on 42nd St to Broadway, and down to the Holland Tunnel on Interstate 78 to US 1-9. In either case, more people are going to NYC on 80/95 then people going to Chattenoga on 59/24. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:49 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: US 22 is relevant as it is the only highway that goes into Cincinatti, OH. New York City, by interstate, only directly connects to E Coast Cities, Albany, and a couple of other cities. Cincinatti has 300,000 residents and deserves a mention. US 46 also ends right on the NY Border, so it’s relevant. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:49 23:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I maintain that 22 is too far from New York to be relevant, especially as it's not a superhighway. Route 46 is a highway, but IMO not that important, and it's unnecessary to mention every highway in the article. The Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and the George Washington Bridge should be mentioned, sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Anonymous: Once again, you've brought this to my talk page, when this ought to be discussed on Talk:New York City. (Or if you think more people need to participate in this discussion, you could take it to WV:Pub.)
You still seem to be confused about the differences between Wikivoyage and Wikipedia. Here on WV, we don't include every possible detail about a destination, even if it's factually true, because our goal is to make a travel guide that provides enough information to help travellers without boring them to death with minutia. Some of our articles about large, important, and/or popular cities and countries have had to be very carefully pruned to limit their length. This does remove some information, but hopefully the information that's removed is some of the less important bits. A list of which highways do or don't enter the boundary of NYC is, in that view, not important. Approaching from most directions, there are only a handful of bridges and tunnels by which to enter NYC, and we describe those. Getting to those bridges and tunnels is, as they say, left as an exercise for the reader, as there are myriad ways they could do so. (Coming from the remaining cardinal directions, we do mention specific highways that are useful, but we don't go into much detail because it's assumed the reader can find their own way given a basic orientation.) In fact, some of our policies point out that part of the joy of travel is in the process, and sometimes it's better to not give the reader all possible information and let them discover things for themselves.
You also still seem to be focused on what's literally and factually correct versus what's helpful for travellers. Yes, there is a highway connecting NYC (or near enough) to Cincinnati, but when planning a trip by car, travellers don't think in terms of the furthest city they can reach; they think in terms of adjacent large cities. If we were going to mention cities connecting to NYC by car, even though San Francisco is connected directly by an Interstate highway (I-80, notwithstanding any bypasses it makes) while Pittsburgh isn't, we would absolutely mention Pittsburgh before we mentioned San Francisco. --Bigpeteb (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why I was pinged into this conversation, but I don't have anything constructive to add.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)