User talk:Ceever

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Ceever! 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. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Article templates[edit]

Hi, Ceever, and thank you very much for adding content!

You'll also want to look at Wikivoyage:Article templates, and more specifically, Wikivoyage:Country article template. Wikivoyage uses standard templates most of whose structure was developed a long time ago, and these are changed only by consensus and otherwise simply used site-wide. Country and other articles that are what we call non-bottom-level region articles are expected to have summaries and otherwise limited content, so as to leave most of the specifics to bottom-level articles, which use the two types of non-huge city templates, district templates for districts within huge cities like Seoul, park templates for important parks outside of cities, and airport templates for huge, extremely complicated airports.

I hope you find the pages I linked for you to be clear. If you have any questions or find anything unclear, please don't hesitate to ask below.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your edits to Mawlamyine! It's this kind of information that really helps other travellers.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wanna and Lebensraum, people as a "See" listing[edit]

Lebensraum isn't a homeland; it's a German word for "room to live" that was specifically associated with the Nazis and their genocidal campaigns against the Slavs and Jews east of Germany. And while a lot of people (including me) say "wanna", in writing, that's "want to". Please have a look at this edit.

Another concern is making a "See" listing about a type of people. I understand why, but I think it's very problematic and worth a discussion. Please read Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2013#Padaung for reference to prior remarks on the subject, but those are about an article, not a listing. So we should probably have a discussion on Talk:Loikaw. I would tend to favor a brief mention of the Kayan people and their customs in the "Understand" section, not as a "See" listing, but as unsavory as I think "a particular people's women as a freak show" tourism is, there is certainly an argument to be made for maintaining a "See" listing.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, made some corrections to my previous edits regarding the first topic. Also edited the Loikaw article to make it less populistic, not sounding like a zoo or something.


Ceever (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look when I have the chance, probably tomorrow.
New question: Why do all our readers want to take upper class trains in Myanmar? When I was in China in 1987, there was an assumption that Western tourists all wanted to stay in luxury hotels and ride in "soft" train accommodations. They didn't know what to make about people like the 22-year-old version of me, who wanted to stay in the cheapest hotels and ride the "hard" seats and sleepers. Maybe trains in Myanmar are much worse than trains were in China in 1987, but I'm thinking that the best place to discuss that is really in the "By train" subsection of Myanmar#Get around.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, now you're going further than necessary on contractions. "Wanna" is not standard for writing; "don't", "can't" and other contractions (except "ain't" in most uses) are standard informal writing and fine. :-) No need to change those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, this is what MS Word suggested, and who am I to question Microsoft. ;-) It does actually not correct all such case, probably only the relevent ones.
Ceever (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Links in section titles[edit]

Hi, Ceever, and thanks as always for your excellent and extensive contributions! One small thing: Section titles shouldn't have links in them. There's a technical reason for this (I think because it makes links to the section from other articles problematic or something), but it just isn't part of the site's style, so please don't do it.

Thanks a lot.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem, will correct it.
Ceever (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, as always. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Copying from Wikitravel[edit]

Hello again, and again, thank you very much for adding so much content!

Please avoid copying from Wikitravel, though. If you haven't already read WV:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, please do. Uncredited verbatim copying from Wikitravel, as you seem to have done in the Tiberias guide (compare the Wikitravel version which, note, has not been edited since 2015), is a violation of Wikitravel's Copyleft, the copyrights of the editors there you didn't credit by not crediting the article, and Wikivoyage's Copyleft policy. Verbatim copying also damages Wikivoyage because Google imposes a "copying" penalty on websites. Normally, I would revert to the last version before you started verbatim copying, but since you're a very active user, I will give you the opportunity to summarize, paraphrase and credit (in your edit summary) the Wikitravel article. But really, copying this kind of passage verbatim is entirely unnecessary:

The view of the lake from the hills is simply fascinating - so much water, and so blue. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Tiberias received an influx of rabbis who established the city as a center for Jewish learning. Tiberias is one of the Jewish Four Holy Cities, along with Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed. It is a pleasant lake-front resort, and also a good base for visiting the Galilee and Golan (see "Get out" below).

And that one phrase, "Get out", tipped me off that this was probably copied and pasted directly from Wikitravel. I sincerely hope you haven't been doing that, undetected, in many other articles. If you have, please stop and please clean it up as soon as you can. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, you told me before. Have a look at the history, I just moved the stuff from the top down a little. It was there before. Ceever (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. So it wasn't copied at all but was already there from the time before the fork. So sorry to lay this stuff on you. I'll remember not to do it again and will simply make the edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Vfds for archeological sites[edit]

Hi. I notice you put Vfd templates on Beth Shearim and Megiddo. I didn't see relevant threads in Vfd, but I'd suggest that instead of creating such threads, you should remove the templates, as neither term is a candidate for deletion. Instead, the content of those articles could be merged and redirected to the articles for the nearest towns, or perhaps, since those are both national parks, the articles could remain and be expanded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Attribution for content taken from Russian Wikivoyage[edit]

Hello! Thank you for translating my texts about Estonia into English. Please, do not forget to provide the correct attribution, which is typically done via the {{AttributionAlt}} template, as in the Staraya Russa article. Kindly note that the attribution is a requirement of the CC-BY-SA license. --Alexander (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know. I ll do so. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that it states "This article is significantly based on work which..." ... which I find a little overdrawn, in case I add one or two things and maybe increase the relevant content by 10%. It kind of lowers the attribution not coming from the foreign article "significantly". Is there any other way to make a reference with regards to where the content comes from? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Proper CC attribution of content from foreign WV pages[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I recently came across the topic/question of how to properly attribute content translated from related articles of foreign WV pages. I was pointed to Template:AttributionAlt to be used. However, looking at , it seems no one really is using this template, even though I reckon there are many translations across languages going on.

So, what is the right way of acknowledging/attributing information coming from foreign WV pages?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always used Template:Translated, putting it on the article's talk page like this. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Back in old good days, when different language versions of Wikivoyage were supposed to feed each other with information, it was common to provide attribution at the bottom of the page. Later many of such attributions were moved to the talk pages, see for example the discussion here. While I don't want to challenge this new consensus, I find it unfair with respect to the original authors. Our software lists all contributors at the bottom of the page, and same attribution appears in the PDF version of an article. Now User:X translates content created in language Y, and every reader will assign the content to User:X. The attribution is on the talk page, but who cares about the talk pages? I am sure this will not motivate people to contribute original content to Wikivoyage. --Alexander (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I reckon this view highly depends on the author. I have already created many new articles and have filled many with considerable original content. I however would already be happy if someone takes his time and transfers this knowledge to other languages, which I cannot do. I feel (for myself) it is appreciation enough the amount of time spent by that someone multiplying my knowledge. A mentioning of where the information came from in the change log for reasons of traceability would suffice. But, I have no urge to harvest additional acknowledgement from foreign WV pages for my original work – the original work is already a kind of barely rewarded do-gooder work anyhow. But as I said, this highly depends on the author.
Furthermore, it seems neither Template:AttributionAlt nor Template:Translated are actually used by a considerable majority. So, there is no real consensus here.
@Alexander: To settle this, I think it would be best if I just skip any information that was considerably contributed by yourself. This way there wouldn't be any hard feelings, and we wouldn't have to put anymore time discussing this, which doesn't really seem to be of interest to anyone else.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This is something I've always wondered about how to do properly, as there doesn't seem to be much documentation on this. I usually use Template:Translated but I've always been confused about how to use it if only parts are translated, or different parts are translated at different dates. I've added more than one attribution to the talk page in the past, (Talk:La_Chaux-de-Fonds) however that seems quite unwieldly. Note: I've been using the Translated template, as it is stated on this page Template:Translate/doc that this is what should be used. Drat70 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ceever, I do not want to request any special attribution for myself, but I think there are license requirements that should be complied with. The license is very flexible -- you can add a note on the main page or on the talk page, or you can use edit summary -- but you should link to the original text. Therefore, I am perfectly fine with using edit summaries like "translated from [url]" or "translated from the article X on Russian Wikivoyage", but I believe that edit summaries like "Stuff from the Russian site ..." (Valga) or no summaries at all (Lahemaa National Park) are not appropriate. Not because I personally don't like it, but because it may create legal problems in the future.
As already mentioned, I do not want to challenge the existing consensus of leaving attributions to talk pages or edit summaries. I only mention potential drawbacks that this approach entails. --Alexander (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this was not very accurate. I will be more considered with my future changes. For the rest, I cannot settle this issue, since there does not seem to be a big general awareness or interest in that topic. Ceever (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all that you need to do is put it in the edit summary (unless, improbably, everyone at the other edition has released his edits into the public domain). If you're just trying to be nice, of course, you can add a lot of methods on the talk page or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)