User talk:Clumsy plumsy
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.
- From me too—really great work! And sorry if my comment regarding travel topic categories came off as harsh ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:30, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
Hey I know you are still working on Big Bend, but I thought I'd mention that it's nearly up to Destination of the Month standards. To prepare for a successful nomination, I think it would just need a stay safe section + 3-4 more photos. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:46, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
- Wikipedia (more precisely, Wikimedia Commons) is usually a good plpace to get images, as is Flickr . Not all images at either site are compatible with our license, but a lot are. Wikivoyage:Copyleft is where you can read up on what types of licenses are allowed, but the short answer is that we can use any file that has one of the licenses in the pulldown menu at wts:special:upload.
- The one license at Wikipedia that you'll run across that we can't use here is GNU FDL, although if it is cross licensed with a Creative Commons license, then we can use it. So we can't use commons:File:Bbnp the window.jpg, but we can use commons:File:Waving to the Sky.jpg or Public Domain images like this one. For Flickr searches, use advanced search  and check all three boxes in the Creative Commons section to restrict the search to only those images licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 and CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.
- As for user talk pages, both methods are used and are perfectly acceptable. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:37, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
- Oh yes, I plan on expanding all sections before I dust my hands and call it quits : ) (WT-en) Army of me 22:10, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Big Bend maps
Hey John, I just added the big NPS overview map, but was wondering if you thought any more of these  would be worth converting to PNGs and displaying in the article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:26, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for doing that; that one is very complete and detailed. For that reason, I think the rest are probably not needed - maps are given to visitors free at the park entrances and the more detailed maps are readily available at trail-heads and visitor centers for people who need that something extra; the one you posted is excellent for people who want the grand overview, though. Actually, one map that could be helpful is the "Area Map" one since getting to Big Bend is sort of an adventure by itself, what with the remoteness and all. I feel comfortable leaving it to your judgment. (WT-en) Army of me 17:57, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
- It looks very good, thanks for doing that! If anything else springs to mind, I'll be sure to let you know. (WT-en) Army of me 19:41, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
Let me know when you feel comfortable enough with the article to nominate it for destination of the month. And you'd know better than me whether it's complete, but from my view only the incomplete "See" section stands in the way of a successful star nomination! (That and a need for ever more images to break up all that text.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:14, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Wow, thanks a lot. Doing this article has taken waaaay longer than I first imagined, but I'm glad I did it. Yes, I am still working on the "See" section as you've probably surmised, after that, it would be *technically* done but I think afterward I'd like to go back over everything to be sure it's cohesive and trim the fat where possible. Also, I've been wondering lately if it's too big... I would hate if the size discouraged readers or made it a bear to load on less-agile electronics or what have you. (WT-en) Army of me 19:41, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- I actually think the size is just about right. Chicago's business district is a considerably smaller area, but has an article for itself of about the same size. It looks a lot shorter though, and I think that's because of the pictures—it has 12 while BBNP only has 6. I think the article would look a lot prettier with an extra 5-6. If you are going to trim anything, I'd recommend perhaps looking at how to re-write parts of the understand & stay safe sections to condense the existing information (all of which is good). But generally, I think the level of depth in the article is fantastic—I hope I'll be lucky enough to get to use it in the not-to-distant future. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:01, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks and thanks again! I'm basically trying to write the kind of guide I would like to read... I prefer more detail rather than less - and if even one other person finds something useful here or has their interest piqued from reading it, I will be a happy camper.
- I was actually eying those very sections you mentioned! They do seem to stand out as being a bit dense (plus, once the "See" section is finished it will have expanded the page even more, so I'll definitely be looking to trim certain areas where possible). And the extra pictures sounds like a very good idea; I'll be keeping my eye out for more. (WT-en) Army of me 01:05, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
- I think I'm done writing the article. With the few images I added and the great maps you provided, I feel like the article is more balanced with images, but I'd consider adding more if warranted. (WT-en) Army of me 14:02, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
- The only thing I can think of to improve the article further would still be a couple more photos ;) But other than that it looks just about perfect—I don't think there's a better park article on the site! It's without question good enough for a Dotm nomination, and I'd say it's ready even for a star nomination. Please go ahead and make the nominations! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:16, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks! Will do on the noms. Meanwhile -- in your opinion, is there a certain area in the article where you think a photo would improve it? I could really use the help. (WT-en) Army of me 00:23, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
- The photos are already pretty well spread out throughout the article—adding more would probably mean you'd have to reshuffle them a bit to keep the even spread. In general, I think it's best to have them more dense towards the top of the article, less dense towards the end. I'd even think about adding one right under the landscape header. --Peter 00:31, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Yes, you usually include the next location with a Wikivoyage article, regardless of size. (WT-en) Eco84 12:40, 4 February 2011 (EST)
OK, I've now merged your old account into this one, and moved your old subpages here too: User:Clumsy plumsy/Most Visited Tourist Attractions. And again, welcome back! --Peter Talk 01:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)