User talk:BushelCandle

From Wikivoyage
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Nurg in topic Blocked?!?
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, BushelCandle! 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 Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.--ϒpsilon (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thansk, Ypsilon - I'll do just that when I get a moment. BushelCandle (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
You already found out how to make a redirect, that's superb! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for ballsing things up in the first place with the spelling - I wasn't paying attention! BushelCandle (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

U.S. spelling is the default, isn't it?[edit]

Hi. I actually changed instances of "center" in Niš back to the British spelling of "centre" on the basis that British spelling is (I think?) more or less standard in Europe. If everything had already been in US spelling, I would have left it alone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the nutshell at Wikivoyage:Spelling, I read If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for a variety to use, U.S. English is used.
Has that policy changed or did Serbia use English English once? (Genuine questions, both, so I'm not quibbling, just seeking guidance) BushelCandle (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought I understood that Europe was generally treated as using more English spellings. I don't think it matters much, but unless American spelling is used more in Serbia, it doesn't seem right to me to change British to American spellings, although I wouldn't "correct" an article about Serbia that was all in American English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
The policy here seems to be different from Wikipedia then and as stated at Wikivoyage:Spelling- unless I've misunderstood that page or unless there is indeed a history of using English English in Serbia. If you're not claiming that, then I suppose you could stretch a point and say that since Serbia is a candidate for EU membership and the EU flavor seems to be the Pom version, then Serbia should be getting ready for membership. What do you do about Iceland, where they definitely tend to use Webster's spelling? BushelCandle (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
If Iceland prefers American English, American English should be preferred for articles about Iceland.
I admit I could be wrong about Serbia. We have a difficulty in en.voy that they don't have in, say, de.voy, because Germans don't argue about spelling and use a consistent standard of German for all articles. Here, we try to divide up the preferences for different styles of English, with mixed results. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I don't think anyone will object to American spelling in Roman Empire; after all, the Saxons were a bunch of barbarians as far as the Romans were concerned, and I don't think they had even started writing down their old Saxon language yet. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
(Chuckle) Nice one!
Seriously though, I have been reading and re-reading Wikivoyage talk:Spelling and I personally think things are long overdue for better codification and advice. I'll think for a bit longer and then run some proposals past you. The only obvious consensus that I can see at the moment is that editors seem to think that the same flavor of spelling should be used within the same article (many also seem to pretend it isn't at all important, but the mere fact that we are having this interesting interaction probably shows that, actually, it is - if only so that new editors should not be baffled and perplexed. There also seems a diminishing degree of consensus that the spelling flavor should be consistent within the same region of a country; a particular country; and a continent. {That last consensus of continental consistency seems almost vanishingly small, except possibly in the case of Europe. However, that would lead to the farcical result of having 2 spellings for transcontinental Turkey unless we define linguistic Europe as different from geographical Europe.} BushelCandle (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do feel free to broach a new proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Spelling. I think that consistent spelling within articles is somewhat important, and that there are also obvious cases, like using American English in articles about the US, Canadian English in articles about Canada, Australian English in articles about Australia, and British English in articles about the British Isles and various former British colonies that use British English as standard, etc. Where we run into difficulty is what to do about articles about places like Mongolia and whether we should care, as long as the spelling is internally consistent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Proposal 1[edit]

New heading of "Consistency" inserted after heading of "National varieties of English" and before heading of "Proper names" at Wikivoyage: Spelling and then the following text: " Spelling should be consistent in the same article "

The one consensus I have been able to find reading discussions going back more than 10 years is that nobody seemed to favor a hodge podge of different spellings in the same article.
The exception to this preference is, of course, proper names which would continue to be covered in the very next subsection. Examples of following this advice might be
"Theater is thriving in the downtown areas, as exemplified by the renowned Fords Theatre which dates from the period when all theaters were lit by gas" (rather than the inconsistently spelt Theater is thriving in the downtown areas, as exemplified by the renowned Fords Theatre which dates from the period when all theatres were lit by gas) or
"Theatre is thriving in the city centre, as exemplified by the renowned Yankee Vaudeville Theater which dates from the period when all theatres were illuminated by gas" (rather than the inconsistently spelt Theater is thriving in the city centre, as exemplified by the renowned Yankee Vaudeville Theater which dates from the period when all theatres were illuminated by gas) BushelCandle (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please make your proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Spelling. Policy decisions get made on talk pages for policy pages, not on user talk pages. Thanks a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'd value your thoughts on whether it's worth even making the proposal there.
There has been so much discussion over the years on that page without ever making concrete progress in clarifying policy. As is evidenced by our first interaction above, you seem to have a great interest and knowledge on this topic and I would cleave to your judgement as to whether such a proposal (that I may misguidedly have thought would enjoy wide support) would just divert people's energy and time from more productive endeavors.
Can you improve the wording? BushelCandle (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I really would rather that you just put it there. I don't actually have any great interest or expertise on this. I think it doesn't hurt to make new proposals, especially in good faith as you are doing. The worst that could happen is that nothing changes, which in the scheme of things, is no disaster and won't cause anyone to die. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

My two cents[edit]

Disclaimer: As can be read I am in favor of American spellings mostly for personal reasons and have made proposals on spelling that some people have soundly rejected and thus I decided to not get involved in this whole mess without good reason.

That being said, I do think the current spelling policy is in need of update / clarification. Reading things like "most of Africa", that obviously date to times when our editor base was very different and we were hosted at a different place, makes me cringe. While we can discuss the merits of dividing up the world into British (Commonwealth) and American spelling to no end, your proposals as far as I can discern them don't seem to be bad ideas per se and would merit discussion on the appropriate talk page imho. Do tag the users you think might be interested in such a discussion (I know most British / Commonwealth users to care quite a bit about "their" spellings), but I guess most will have it on their watchlist anyway. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I'll bother, Hobbitschuster.
If you read this, you'll see that copy editing is not welcome here and that policy about style should remain opaque and querulous rather than clear and helpful. BushelCandle (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tasmanian devil extinction year[edit]

Also, by when is the Tasmanian devil predicted to be extinct? Right now, the Tasmania article says "before the year 20135". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Ikan - I'll go and correct my whoopsie. BushelCandle (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Small thing[edit]

Small thing: "Is nestled" is present tense, just more idiomatic than "nestles". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If that's what you prefer, then feel free. BushelCandle (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I realized it's a transitive vs. intransitive thing. But anyway, I hope I don't seem too nitpicky. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not at all - I've learnt something. BushelCandle (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

UK 0870 phone number format[edit]

Hi, with regards to Nottingham phone number edits. I want to highlight that they are expensive number but still want to keep the international dialing format. Any objects to keeping the edit I made until we decide how to handle extra charge numbers? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's inappropriate to use the international format for two reasons:
a) these 0844 and 0870 numbers can not be dialed from most of the countries in the world
b) the fact that they are in a "funny format" may serve to warn the unwary visitor of the high charges they will incur (especially from a cell phone). BushelCandle (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
So we need to find a rule in the Module:LinkPhone so it does not flag as error format. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, especially since Ryan thinks it's not worth changing the Listings editor for such minor islands. BushelCandle (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply


Hi BushelCandle. According to the EWCA website, fees are the same for all National Parks of Ethiopia. Their image-table seems up-to-date: That are exactly the price I paid for Abijatta Shalla Lakes National Park one week ago, and probably the same price for Awash National Park (not sure, one year ago). Should be insert link to this site in all National Parks? or should be keep a summarized table of this? Regards -- Jeanot (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pardon me for interjecting. We don't usually use tables in articles, except for climate. However, I like the table you created, so I think it's sensible to use it in every Ethiopian park article. I also think it would be good to include this information in prose at Ethiopia#See. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Jeanot: African articles don't see as many active editors as American articles so I agree with Ikan that, if there is a national scale of charges, it would be good to have it centralized at Ethiopia#See rather than have to individually update in each and every Ethiopian NP article.
Many of the "conventions" that have grown up here have been without much prior thought or discussion (and sometimes persist because of "status quo bias" even despite discussion showing them to be irrational and actively hindering the dissemination of travel knowledge and easy editing) so just because we haven't had admission prices tabulated much before does not, of itself, mean that it should never be attempted. (I'm agnostic, except to make the point that tables can be fearful beasts for casual editors to update).
The other alternative would be to have a template. However, the template solution is again less accessible for newbie editors wanting to update prices and might also seem like overkill.
Either way, I would be very grateful if you would create it (whether you decide on prose, a table or a template is your editorial decision) and I'm sure that Ikan or I will probably give it a look after you've done the hard stuff.
Merci encore pour tout le bon matériel que vous ajoutez, Jean! BushelCandle (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply


@AndreCarrotflower: Who the hell is "118" and why exactly do you think I'm him? BushelCandle (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You know, I had made you an Autopatroller for a while. If you want to be successful as a sock puppet, you have to avoid antagonizing people and dead giveaways in your editing patterns, and no, we don't have to tell you what they are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
UN-believeable! Literally. Run a checkuser. BushelCandle (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Can I see the justification for this user block please? Most of the edits I have seen have been minor syntax edits. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know that you are unfamiliar with this user's editing style. I can link to the edit that clinched it for me, but I won't do that without approval from at least 2 other admins, and even if I do, I don't think it'll satisfy you because you are unfamiliar with the user's editing style. So if you really want to know, I suggest you look through edits by previous blocked socks and see if you notice the patterns. I believe it'll take you a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I cannot say if this user ban is justified or not and I really do not like the idea of some inner circle make decisions without being visible to the greater community. Risk of admin powers being abused and will only discourage others users working on this site. I see no comments or warnings on the user talk page or at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. Request for transparency here. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
You got a detailed response at User talk:AndreCarrotflower‎‎. You'll need to read through previous threads at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive. This has gone on too long for a complete recap to be typed up at length for anyone's benefit, but the userban archives are transparent and there for anyone to read to their heart's content, and the user contributions of previous incarnations of this user are also all there for you to peruse at length, so that you can recognize the patterns. Since you are an admin and care greatly about this, it may be incumbent on you to take the time to inform yourself, especially if you don't trust the rest of us. But let me say that far from any abuse of admin powers, we have bent over backwards again and again and again and again and again ad nauseam on behalf of this user, losing some very valuable admins who resigned in frustration along the way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
You really are paranoid. You think that anybody that doesn't like the eyewatering AM/PM formulation is the same person? I repeat, run a checkuser. BushelCandle (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
User:BushelCandle had been editing for 3 days and doing good edits when I noticed an edit that had specific characteristics of at least one of the three blocked editors, User:118.93nzp, User:Alice and User:W. Frank. On examining other edits by User:BushelCandle, I saw characteristics that were quite unlike User:W. Frank. So I suspected that the "new" editor had probably edited as User:118.93nzp or User:Alice, and most likely the latter. I then took a 2nd look at the username BushelCandle and realised that I had seen one of these 3 blocked users use a similar expression on a discussion page. I thought that if I could find that expression, it would either strengthen my suspicion that User:BushelCandle had edited as User:Alice, or it would point me in another direction. I found the statement at - note the last sentence. Based on editing style, choice of articles to edit, policy interests, and that statement about lights under bushels, I strongly suspect that User:BushelCandle has previously edited as blocked user User:Alice and is guilty of block evasion.
I kept my thoughts to myself, as BushelCandle was doing good edits, there were signs that they were endeavoring to edit in a collegial and cooperative manner, and I consider that blocked users may be blocked summarily for block evasion, rather than must be immediately blocked. But seeing this insult based on nationality (I wasn't personally offended, nor involved), this silly tantrum at Wikivoyage talk:Abbreviations (where I was involved, but ignored it), and over-reaction to an unfortunate comedy of errors at Talk:Philippines#Call center question (where I had no involvement), the reasons for ignoring the block evasion were coming to an end. Nurg (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply