User talk:Ceever

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Good to know. I ll do so. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I've always used Template:Translated, putting it on the article's talk page like this. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Edit on Batumi article, marker vs listing[edit]


Please notice that there is an ongoing discussion at the Travellers' pub regarding use of marker and/or listing. Glad that you added important information on local buses, but I'm not sure we need to make it into a listing in this article. Regards --Jonte-- (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jonte--. No worries. If you find a way to add hours to markers, go ahead, but take care of semantics instead of just creating inseparable continuous text that includes all relevant information. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you![edit]

The Wikivoyage Barncompass
As thanks for 2+ years of valuable contributions to Wikivoyage, please have a barncompass! ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You're doing excellent work on the Egypt articles. There is nothing better than on-the-ground research. And you're making me envious. Thanks for your contributions. Ground Zero (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sections can be omitted[edit]

Hi, Ceever. I'm looking at Wikivoyage:Region article template. Where does it say it's OK to omit "Get in" and "Get around"? I don't see that, and I think those sections are basic and should be included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Ikan. Thank you for your comment. However, neither does it say they must remain there if empty. Actually, what their relevance in light of an existing and well written "Get around" section on country level, not to mention their relevance if they are empty to begin with? However, I am again feeling like you are cherry picking things here, promoting your double standards, just to pick on me. I am really sick of these games. Do what you have to do, you gonna do it anyway. Why bother dropping this message here? Ceever (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had no idea you felt generally aggrieved toward me, and I'm very sorry I'm cramping your style and don't mean to do so. The reason I posted this message here is that I'm seeing you remove these sections. It's obviously not useful if the sections are empty, but without them, the articles are stubs. If the "Get around" section at the country level is sufficient for a reader to know how to get in to a region, the "Get in" section in the region article could refer the reader to, in this case, Egypt#Get around, but if you're reading an article and it gives you no information on how to get in, isn't that a bit of a problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just reviewed my previous remarks on this page. It all seems friendly to me. What am I doing that's bothering you, and why do you feel like I'm picking on you? Short of no longer ever trying to communicate with you, what could I do to make things better between us? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While there might be few things to say in a "get around" section in some regions, the "get in" section seems valuable to me. If there are main bus/plane/train hubs, they should be mentioned and if there is a dominant road or other route into or through the region it should also be mentioned. After all, a region which cannot be gotten to at all is a whole other ballgame, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also came here after noting those deletions; I do not see why not also IK would have done so in good fate. Anyway, an empty section tells a prospective editor that here is something to work on. Removing currently empty sections removes that hint and leaves the reader without the advice. For some of the sections the template indeed says "If there isn't anything to say ... then this section can be omitted.", but not on all, and not e.g. on Understand and Get in – for a reason. Also for optional headings, "nothing said" does not equal "nothing to be said", so delete them only if you know the region well enough to make the judgement call. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @LPfi: I reckon such a judgement is highly arbitrary. Furthermore, according to your statement, missing "can be omitted" chapters could then be hidden and potentially never be filled by prospective editors. This is inconsistent, and does actually support a more equal approach for all sub-chapters. However, for editors on such (region) levels, I would actually expect them to be quite knowledge-able, knowing what information to put up here and what not. But this is a never-ending back and forth discussion, because it depends on yours and mine impression of how editors work.
  • @Hobbitschuster: Yes, totally agree, but we are talking about empty sub-sections here that have no information at all (yet). In my point of view they leave the interested reader with the awkward feeling that this online guide is bad. Which is why I shortened it so in the context of overall Egypt it might be a stub but it at least lists the important destinations where the majority and relevant information can be found and acts as a direction sign.
  • @Ikan 1: What is the definition of a stub? Is a stub a region that has two filled chapters or a region that has 5 empty chapters? It depends on the reader and the context. Psychologically speaken, as just mentioned, showing that something is missing is simply worse than not showing it at all. A region with just the cities and destinations listed might not leave a negative impression on the reader at all. What else would he expect on this level without a second thought when the country level and city levels are fill richly. For him it acts as a direction sign which destinations there are. Apart from that he would not leave with a bad feeling. And in the context of a complete book (see book creator) it acts as a good and compact chapter overview.
  • @Ikan 2: I have already tried to make that point about a month ago when we had the conversations regarding Myanmar. Please re-read my points on the treatment of juniors and double-standards. I understand that your arguments and views are often well-founded. However, WV lives of information not bureaucracy. I see so many article and countries that barley get updated and if so then mostly just minor English improvements or editing wars over PM/24h or which dash to use. But where are the real travellers that actually contribute knowledge to this guide? I have the feeling many of them get fed up pretty fast by the way they are treated here and the load of rules that is rained down on them - actually not just rules but all-counting opinions of seniors. See the example of the user how got fed up by the pub decision of now adding general mapframes to all articles (and destroying beauty in the way). Yes, we now have informative mapframes, but lost someone that was happy to spend its free time contributing actual and valuable information. Because where does the information in the mapframe come from? It does not come from senior decisions and preaching policies over and over. It came from the very user that is now gone.
I am not saying abandon consistency, but not letting free-spirited and supportive travellers flourish is neither an option. And I reckon many such travellers/contributors are quite free-spirited and not used to strict environments and rules. So what is the solution and how to better take care of them? Maybe by defining policies that actually work in a way that they support the growth of this page and take note of the different personalities and psychology of each contributor.
Furthermore, you can continue "teaching" me about what the policies say and what you think about my opinion that often contradicts your views. But if you have ever raised a child or intend to do so, you need to understand that constant criticism is not a very wise and sustainable approach. I understand it does not make a difference whether I am part of this community or not. I just have the sad feeling that my situation represents a general and larger issue here, as I have tried to lay out before, which, when not acknowledged, could mean the decline and disappearance of this so valuable website in our otherwise self-centred and highly commercialised world.
Ceever (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I am experienced enough to work on region articles, yet I have to look up the region template or sections article to check what sections to include and where they belong, if they are not present. A minor annoyance. The more problematic thing is that I too might not notice an important section like Get in is missing, when just cursorily checking a region article. What optional section to include is sometimes an arbitrary judgement call, but more often than not it is quite clear for somebody knowing the region whether the section is important, probably useless or something in between. --LPfi (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well I don't know, but what is so bad about leaving the empty sections in or just adding a "route xyz is the main road" line... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ceever, it would definitely matter if you stopped contributing, as you've been a great contributor! I may have been at fault by not thanking you at the beginning of my message; would that have helped much? I think that which section headings can be deleted for lack of information is something worth discussing at Wikivoyage talk:Region article template, where I'll start a thread (and won't ping you). My feeling is that there might be nothing particular to the region relating to "Eat", "Drink" or "Buy", but that the absence of "Get in" information doesn't mean there is no such information or that it's ever an unimportant enough section to remove, just that the information hasn't yet been put into the article. Anyway, sorry about all the general talk, thanks again, and information is way more important than format, as you said. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the pep talk. However, I would more appreciate a rethinking with regards to rules and treatment of junior editors. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lastest Taipei/Zhongzheng edit[edit]

Thanks for your contributions, but your latest edit of Zhongzheng and Gongguan also deleted a number of user contributions and you only added a cryptic comment to the edit ("Lost in Translation") leaving no clue as to why you deleted stuff. Among things, listings went missing, some converted back to plan-text and map-pins/coordinates were removed. Can you please review your edit and restore those additions that are valid? When you delete things, please consider to do so in batches and add appropriate edit comments.

Arrrggg ... bad internet connection that only loads part of the editable text. Will correct. Sorry. Ceever (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bright clothing and un-threatening glasses[edit]

I do not get what glasses have to do with being seen, or not being weird. Glasses can of course be necessary, for the sun or because you need them otherwise, but I prefer to see people's faces and I suppose most drivers also do. Is the point of the glasses to make somebody who would seem like a threat seem more vulnerable? That point should then be made explicitly, probably in a separate bullet. I also wonder about the sporty outfit. Do you have experience of it working better than other types of clothing? There are probably better and worse ways of dressing, but I suppose what works depends on the hitch-hiker as well as on specific circumstances.

You probably know much better than me, but I just get confused. Perhaps there should be a separate section about clothing and gear with some more discussion on alternatives.

--LPfi (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant regular glasses. I had the feeling it is more appealing to families. Nerds are generally least threatening, and if there is someone which looks like a guy from IT college (with glasses), who would expect him to be a danger. Some probably even take him because of pity.
The sporty outfit was more saying, wear something positive with which people can relate. It is probably not a good idea to wear a suit or working cloths. Once I was standing there and was wearing a long shirt and long trousers because of the sun. However, it must have looked weird, because no one else would wear something like that. Consequently probably the minimal success then. I now stick with short pants, like everyone else.
Feel free to adjust it such that this view is reflected.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. My mental image was the tiny girl wearing glasses to get a hike :-) And although you might want to avoid suits or working clothes, there are many alternatives beside sport clothing. I will give it a try. --LPfi (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made some adjustments, hopefully to the better. I suppose you have hitchhiked in the third world, from where I have no experience. I think some of the advice was less relevant up here, but I might have removed some essential point by mistake. One thing I did not entirely understand was the "their language": in Finland nobody expects foreigners to speak Finnish, but might prefer people from countries where some language they know is spoken. I suppose a well-chosen phrase in a local language, if you find a suitable place for it, can get you some rides, but I do not know if there is any generally usable ways to do it. --LPfi (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The language thing is already mentioned before, so no need to have it there. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spaces before percent signs[edit]

As the Wikipedia article that you linked says, "English style guides prescribe writing the number and percent sign without any space between." Please don't add the space. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, while I'm here, thanks for all the additions to Uruguay destinations! It's great to see these articles being fleshed out more. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very welcome. I doubt however I will be much help for the Argentinian articles ... they are really a mess. :-S Ceever (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree no need to have the additional sub-regions, but please if regions are changed, also update the city articles to point to the new parent region. Also redirect pages should be cleared of all data except the redirect text, otherwise site statistics are messed up. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aaaahhh, was not sure how to handle this. Which is why I put "part of Patagonia" for the removed subregions, which fixed the breadcrumbing. This is not correct? Ceever (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the parent region changes the {{IsPartOf}} should be changed to update the breadcrumb. Like this. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the parent region is still Chubut. Chubut just redirects to Patagonia. Ceever (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either the region is an article or it is directed to another article. If a redirect, should not be the IsPartOf of a city. Can mention in the city article Chubut but should not be part of the structure. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Chalten[edit]

Your work on El Chalten is amazing!

Purely out of curiosity, I'm wondering if you could explain what the long string of numbers after the geo at the end of the article does. (I'm clueless about this.)

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purely out of curiosity ... already looking forward to what comes next.
Anyhow. These are the trails that are visible in the mapframe and the maplinks, unfortunately not in the map when pushing the upper right icon or gpx link. You must have seen that before somewhere. I saw it somewhere else before.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I reckon, you did not come here for the sole information, did you? What are your suggestions? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I missed this. No, I don't have any suggestions, I just didn't know what the string of numbers did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of & nbsp; in "template:exchange rates"[edit]

Hello Ceever, I noticed some changes you recently made in Country articles. Example: the change in the Thailand "template:exchange rates" usage resulted in a change from:

  • Exchange rates for Thailand baht (฿)


  • Exchange rates for Thailand baht ( baht)

I think the space between the bracket and the word "baht" is unwanted. Probably the coding of "template:exchange rates" must be adjusted to solve this. --FredTC (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome. Now, the content of the template complies with the outlined currency denotation standards.
Unfortunately, the heading directly uses the denotation including space. Please see the discussion of the template regarding the change and this issue. I made some suggestions to solve this, but I am not a coder. Feel free to plunge forward and correct it. However, please leave the newly solution intact.
Ceever (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add (city) or (department) behind the article heading[edit]

Swept in from the pub

There was an issue with people adding city information to the department article, because they are named the same: Santa_Cruz_(city,_Bolivia)

Is it somehow possible to at least on the department level write Santa Cruz (department) in the heading of the article so this does not happen again?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the {{pagebanner}} template the pgname parameter controls what is displayed. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Ceever (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiji $[edit]

When I started looking at these articles, I was wondering whether this would be NZ $, AUS $, or US $. I figured that using F$, as mentioned in Fiji#Money, would be the clearest option. I understand we don't do that for more well-known destinations like Canada and New Zealand, but since Fiji is fairly obscure, I think there is a good argument for choosing clarity. Ground Zero (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Currency and Fiji#Money are pretty clear on the usage of $ instead of F$. Also, shouldn't it rather be the other way around? Everything that is not F$ is tagged AU$ and such. Fiji is clearly no exception, there are many places around the world where this issue exist either because US$ is used regularly, because their currency is called dollar or simply because they use $ regularly. We having the same discussion for Chile and Argentina.
When I am in Fiji I expect $ to refer to the local currency, simply because it is also called dollar. Everything else just needs to be used properly, like NZ$ and AU$, e.g. when people add hotel prices.
Hence, I do not really see you point here. Starting an exception for Fiji, and we will run into endless discussions with other currencies as well. I do not prefer that.
Cheers Ceever (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero: Also, the more important thing is, what I actually see as a traveller in Fiji. If it is $, then I certainly would not go with F$. Ceever (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already exceptions, such as Mexico, where "$" would be ambiguous, so we use "M$". And in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, and Uruguay, all countries that use "$" internally, but we use a minor variation for clarity. We have to remember that Wikivoyage is not just being read by people on the road, but also by people at home starting to plan their trips. These ten exceptions are set out in Wikivoyage:Currency, so I'm hardly starting something new. We've dealt with these issues before, and it hasn't caused any problems. The policy provides for exceptions where it says "If the country or article uses more than one currency, including foreign ones, use the shortest unambiguous form for each." [Emphasis added.] And if the policy ever gets in the way of clarity for the reader, the obvious thing to do is to change the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The opinions regarding Argentina and Chile are far from unanimous, and so, I guess, it would be when starting a discussion about the other countries. I reckon no one is just currently willing to change all the "CLP$" or "AR$" to "pesos" or "$". As I said, the central point should be what the traveller comes across with in that country, and it is certainly not CLP$ or AR$, and probably not F$, which is why opinions are more towards moving away from such notations, see discussion. Though, I have the feeling this seems to be more an issue of the editors and not the travellers. Ceever (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this would benefit from a broader discussion amongst editors on a policy basis, rather than in each country, although I see the benefit of not treating all countries the same. I don't think you and I are going to agree on this. I do see the purpose of the clearer currency notation as being to benefit the traveller, and I see that you feel the purpose of simpler notation is also to benefit the traveller. It would probably make sense to have this discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Currency and invite other to join from the pub and request for comments pages. I don't feel like starting that discussion up right now, but I'll put it on my list of things to do, unless you want to take a crack at it. Ground Zero (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the regions have been reduced which is good but the region they were merged into has not been updated. Not all cities are in the article and there is a mix between articles with coord and those not. Also there are city articles, not parks, in the other destinations sections. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Traveler100. Thanks for the remark. I did not know that the national parks necessarily belong into other destinations. I thought this section is for stuff somewhere in between. It is true, the national parks do not quite fit into "See", but actually more "Do". I think there is no real consensus where national parks belong, is there? Otherwise these sections will kind of be empty with lavish blabla without value. But I can move the NP up and have two sections like "Other tourist cities" and "Nature destinations". What do you think? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I was misreading a little, I though not all destinations were not listed, they were just further down the page. I have moved the entries but maybe some cleaning up needs doing. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: What do you think about splitting the article into east and west of Patagonia (just in the article, not two articles). Actually, I faced this issue before when Patagonia was still split into its regions, and I thought, it is really stupid that Chubut cities to the east and west are listed together - no one is going to travel this way, but everyone goes up/down east or west, and barely crosses the region. Ceever (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page[edit]

I just noticed that Hobbitschuster created a user page for you over a year ago and just added a period to it. He wanted you to write something about yourself.

But do you actually want a user page? I mean, as far as I know, you don't have to have one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a priority to me. Ceever (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P breaks in listings...[edit]

It may well be the editor default, but it's use generates badly structured HTML (because P cannot be placed in side a BDI tag according to the structuring rules which the parser and the Linter extension implement. ).

The appropriate fix would be to re-write (and modularise the listings template so that it is able to handle multi paragraph content (and implied line breaks) without the need for clever soloutions that arent compatible.

I've asked for the Listings template and Listings editor to be fixed in the pubShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia in markers[edit]

Hi, left a comment that I think would interest you on the discussion you started in the pub. I know you don't check here every day, so I thought I'd let you know about it here. I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for your amazing contributions to that and related articles. Ground Zero (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ground Zero: It is always fun to rediscover a country and learn about all the stuff it was hiding when one was there. ;-) Btw. some input is needed. Ceever (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How would you like to be a patroller? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could try, but I would stick with my personal watchlisg. For other pages I cannot really be of much help, I guess. Ceever (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm assuming that's a yes, but a confirmation would be good. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I ll try. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just remember. There is no obligation; it is not like being an administrator. Do it when you choose, and I'm sure you have the potential to do a good job with the tools. One piece of advice that I'd give is that you need to be careful with the rollback tool; rollback vandals, but not good contributors. Not everyone on Wikivoyage gets along perfectly, but rollbacks are not the way to deal with personal problems, especially when it comes to experienced users. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks Ceever (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you've been a patroller for some time, perhaps you would like to be an administrator? Just a thought. See Wikivoyage:Administrators for information on what an administrator does and the requirements to be an administrator (which I'm pretty sure you've met). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I am pretty ok with the patroller status. Don't want to get involved too much in the high level stuff. Cheers Ceever (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! As a side note, as probably you should be aware of this as a patroller: "Telstra" — as we call him — makes many copyvio-ridden edits here. If you want more information I can send you an email explaining the vandal's habits. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaahh, yeah I heard before. Fine, no worries. Just probably a good idea to keep the valueable edits from side. 😉 Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit reversion on Cairo article[edit]

I hate to be a stickler, but I think you might be mistaken about a couple of things you referenced in the edit summary when you reverted my changes. First, if you review the canonical MediaWiki documentation here, you'll see that, in fact, spaces are used to buffer the heading syntax from the title strings. Now in reality it doesn't matter one way or the other because the parser only reads whitespace between the first non-equal-sign character and the last, but I believe readability is higher the way they demonstrate. As to the second part, capitalizing template calls, again I'll refer you to the official MediaWiki documentation here where they state

"The first letter of the link target is usually not case-sensitive (unless the wiki is configured otherwise), meaning links can be capitalized or not..."

So again this gets reduced to personal preference, though I would like to point out that should the configuration of this wiki ever be switched to use that case-sensitive link parsing function, it is the template inclusions as I input them, that start with a capital letter, that won't be broken by the change, whereas yours would. This is precisely why I do them that way, not because I anticipate such a change ever happening but because it costs me nothing when I'm actively editing a page and it reduces what's known in software development as technical debt. Is there anything else you took issue with that wasn't in your edit summary? 🐈ogueScholar🗨₨Talk (My recent mischief) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Links are something different than templates and certainly Cairo makes a difference to cairo, not in practise at the moment though.
  2. But you are right, it seems the templates are all configured with large letter first. So, I am sorry—please, go ahead with the capitalisation, but don't waste your time on it, I reckon a bot would be faster to do all that.
  3. On the heading, the reference you mention is just an example and not really a proof of how headings should be styled. As a matter of fact you also use ' 'this' ' and ' ' 'that' ' ' instead of ' ' this ' ' and ' ' ' that ' ' '. Here, your own argument actually works against putting spaces, because someone might just decide to program the wiki in such a way that the spaces are actually recognised then everything would be messed up. Spaces are not part of the text and it is more fail-safe to leave them out, just in case.
@RogueScholar: So, sorry for the change on the templates ... let's just meet in the middle. :-) Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listings in region articles[edit]

Hi, Ceever. I notice you moved some full, templated listings to a region article. Region articles normally should have only summaries, with full listings in bottom-level articles. If there's an important reason for an exception, there should probably be a short introduction to the relevant section of the region article that explains what is listed and why. Thanks a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: We have had this discussion before in a bigger round, and did not find a solution. Yes, the region help states that such things should not be on region level, but it is far from practical to put all (true) regional listings into the only (or few) city article existing in the region, just because there are no towns nearby the sights currently available in WV. Also, there are many articles and guides, where this principle works great, e.g. Israel, and I reckon many are happy with the solution there. Hence, my proposal is to leave such detailed listings in the region as long as there are not enough cities around and closeby. There are many countries in the world where sights are 50 km and more off a notable city, does it really make sense then to move them into the city articles and mix them up with local sights? Is this practical to the traveller? I felt like there needs to be a deeper discussion on this topic for the regions, but I am really lacking the energy to argue against you and Granger. So, feel free to put the listing back into the city, with a short mentioning on region level and reference ... at least now the duplication is reduced a little. Cheers Ceever (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about my suggestion of an explanatory introduction? Do you have energy for that, perhaps? If only points of interest far from cities are listed, it's important to mention that, lest readers think nothing of interest is in the cities! Do you see the issue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean mentioning in the city article that more sights further away from the city can be found in the region articles? Or the other way around?
As said, I really feel that anything that is not really accessible from the city itself is pointless inside the city article. Why should travellers head to Sevan, a dull city, when they should really skip it and enjoy the lake itself with all its sights far away from Sevan?
Cheers Ceever (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean if there are listings only for remote points of interest in a region article. Does my point above make sense in that context? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reckon there are parts of the world where we should indeed make more use of the "region" level, and not be shy of putting listings there, but I'll argue those examples case-by-case on the relevant pages. However, Ceever in amending my edits on Bishkek, if I understand you aright, you are saying that the "city" Get-in should major on the local transport, with long-distance covered more on the regional and country pages? But to do so fragments coverage and (especially when the city is a major portal of entry into the country) the more natural hierarchy for the traveller is to zoom in as if from space, with progressively greater detail as you focus on the city, with long-distance then regional then local connections set out in that order? Grahamsands (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great, but the current wording supports a general de-listing on region level and does not mention the alternative, especially for cases like Kyrgyzstan. Sure, case-by-case is good, but I can already imagine the discussions referring to this style guide leaving no breath for any case-by-case discussion.
Furthermore, as I wrote before, WV is not a guide for travel between countries but puts emphasis on specific countries. Thus, mentioning for a city article how to get in from another country is not what travellers would generally expect IMHO, especially mentioning a train coming from Moscow. Most people will come in by plane, less will come in by bus from Almaty, but certainly more people will use the Balykchy train than the Moscow or Almaty train. Wouldn't this be the "natural hierarchy" then? Also, wouldn't it be the "natural hierarchy" if we follow the example of other article, like minor cities, where exactly this ordering is applied?
Otherwise, this was not the only thing I reverted. Please note that we also generally differentiate between international and national travel, like for airtravel. You were neither happy with this change. For which reason?
I am definitely pro mentioning Moscow and Almaty by train on the country level ... please plunge forward and do so. This is definitely worth mentioning!
Cheers Ceever (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've lost me. I chipped in with the comment about regions as I was trying to grasp your POV, but I'm as baffled as before. So with that I'll leave it be, and wish you happy travels. Grahamsands (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you're interested[edit]

Hi Ceever, as you frequently contribute to destinations in Egypt, I just wanted to draw your attention to User talk:KarimBadr251, which could be good news for our Esna article. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thanks, I will of course review, improve and streamline all information and try to keep more information coming from KarimBadr251 and to positively support him if necessary. Cheers Ceever (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I'll do the same when I see his edits, but your expertise will be most welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the flower, dito! 😊 Also, @Grahamsands: is very active on Esna and Egypt, so he can be a good and reliable source in addition. 👍 Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rural area articles[edit]

Hi, User:Ceever. I'm not sure whether you're aware that a decision was reached recently to create Wikivoyage:Quick rural area article template. "Movetocity" is a bit of a misnomer template now, as rural articles have been specifically defined as a thing on this site, and they're different from region articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, sure. I just dont understand why we try so hard making our work and the readability for travellers so more difficult. A region will never reach the level and comprehensiveness of a country article but it has to stick to pretty much the same rules, while there are so many city-like topics/listings that would wonderfully fit into a region article. This is why I always considered the region article as a mix of country and city style the most reasonable solution. Now we have an additional article level that is somehow parallel to regions, while we already have so many region stubs lying around, especially when we decide to have e.g. 3 levels of regions (see Greece, Italy, Brazil) that are barely ever going to be filled with useful information because all have to stick to the country style or are simply too similar. WV seems like a maze to me and I already am aware of the region levels - I wonder what information newcomers are actually able to find without this awareness. Maybe I should have been involved in the discussion more, but it is really too exhausting sometimes. So, sorry for not taking part. Ok then, I will try my best with the rural articles then. Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceever, discussions are never over on Wikivoyage. If you have more to add to the discussion on rural area articles, please feel free to add it at Wikivoyage talk:Rural area article template any time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we create a rural area article for the Tian Shan? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, probably makes sense for the climbing and glacier destinations, but there is a lot of stuff near the lake too. I feel like putting the latter into the Issyk Kul article we also have floating around in parallel to the region article. Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Ceever, the government travel advisories for Azerbaijan from Canada, the UK and the US are dated 4-6 August 2020, so I think our warningbox should have a current date. When I see a warningbox dated 2018, I assume that the information is out of date and may not reflect current conditions. Having checked that the advisories are still current, I think it makes sense to change the date on the warningbox. Ground Zero (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

👍 Ceever (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgian cuisine[edit]

In Talk:Georgia_(country)#Georgian_cuisine_article? we decided to create a dedicated article for the Georgian cuisine. Now there's a quite good article in German Wikivoyage about the topic, so I thought we could start translating that one and then add whatever information in the Georgia article's Eat section that's missing in the German article and translation. The article draft is in my userspace (User:Ypsilon/Georgian_cuisine) but I'll move it into mainspace when it's translated and anyone is free to edit it right now. As you're apparently familiar with Georgia per your user page (and contributions), und offenbar auch Deutsch verstehst, I thought I'll notify you. :) --Ypsilon (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I notice that you are one of the most active editors for Azerbaijan. Any comment at Talk:Carpets#Azerbaijan?_Caucasus?? Pashley (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pashley:: Never noticed carpets to be an important in Azerbaijan. But then also my focus is more skewed to the travelling, nature and food side of things.
Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Prompted by this edit: "Proper usage of dashes in English explained here: ... ndash is mostly for durations". w:Dash#En dash says as third bullet:

  • as an interruptor at sentence level, substituting for a pair of commas, parentheses, or to indicate a rhetorical pause. [...]

Our own guideline Wikivoyage:Spelling#Hyphen vs. dash is neutral on which one to use; the en dash is much more common, at least in articles I have seen. There was a discussion earlier this year: Wikivoyage talk:Spelling#Dashes.

LPfi (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demogracy works, by abolishing itself. 🤷‍♂️ Whatever works for you. Didn't know that style information—tldr;... Sry Ceever (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert of my Turkey edit[edit]

Hope I'm in the right place to discuss this revert? If not, please advise. Couldn't find a page to discuss the change itself.

- Seems you misunderstood the price. It refers to the purchase price, not the monthly fee.

- I've been staying Istanbul since March and been unable to find a SIM card for less (neither has my local friend). If you have first hand knowledge to suggest otherwise it would make a great help for others.

- In your follow up edit you said "the prices seem to be BS". I think that's poor form. Unless it's obvious vandalism, touting etc, it'd be better to reach out to the editor first to understand how they come to their conclusion. Bugsinmyfood (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Bugsinmyfood – unless it's obvious vandalism, spam, or a test edit, a rollback was not appropriate in that situation. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bugsinmyfood:, @SHB2000: Thanks for the feedback. I was there a year ago and the prices were not nearly as high as claimed, and we already had the inflation then. Often travellers and potential editors get tricked into buying expensive packages or other things that do not reflect the real prices a local would pay and they end up on WV as "the price". Other travellers will then take it as given and will also get ripped off, ending in a price spiral to the disadvantage of locals and travellers alike. Hence, in this case I assumed it to be one of these case, since I was not familiar with you as a user, @Bugsinmyfood:. However, quoting a lower price would definitely have the traveller think twice before committing to buy anything – so I think no harm was done for any traveller here.
But of course, if these are the prices, then you are right, @Bugsinmyfood:, it is correct to have them here. Apologies for being too hasty in this case, unfortunately you fell under the 10% that would have justified some additional investigation.
I will correct the mistake. Thanks for the input and the good work.
Just a quick thought in addition, I often started quoting the underlying € price for TL now, since the TL is too volatile for any information to be of any value in 1-years time.
Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message to Jpatokal[edit]

You put it at User:Jpatokal. It should be moved to his talk page. Pashley (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Japan#Smart cards. Jpatokal (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]