User talk:Flightnavigator

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Flightnavigator! 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. New users are also welcome to post any questions or concerns to the arrivals lounge. If you want some practice editing, please do so on our graffiti wall. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. If you want to contribute with information about the place where you live, see Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals.

Thanks a lot for adding content to articles about Brazil!

I noticed you had trouble trying to put a thumbnail in the Hoi An article. With rare exceptions, images aren't uploaded to this site. Instead, we use images that are on Wikimedia Commons. See Wikivoyage:Image policy for more information, and let me know if I can help you.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eat sections[edit]

Please take greater care with capital letter (upper case when starting); punctuation (: is not used in a heading) and spelling (centre if not on the US)

Hey unregistered user, I'm fine with the proposed capital letter and punctuation for these kind of subheadings.

The word "centre" just looks strange and almost nobody uses it outside the UK. I will only use "centre" in UK articles. Flightnavigator (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Centre may look strange to you but it is English. You are not correct that almost nobody outside the UK uses centre. For a start I am not from the UK and I am not in the UK now. Center is used by Americans while centre is common everywhere else.

"Center is used by Americans while centre is common everywhere else." That's not true. Flightnavigator (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Centre is English (which is from England, part of the UK) whilst center was introduced by Americans after they became an independent country in effort to further separate themselves from Britain. Center is common in countries that were part of the American empire (such as the Philippines) and countries that were long occupied by the US military (such as South Korea). Otherwise centre is very common in many countries. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
You're right, but could you please sign the end of each of your edits to talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, and thanks again for adding all that content! This is just a short note: "Caribbean" has only one R, just like the Carib people for whom it's named.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok thx i got it Flightnavigator (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Question: Do you think that site is OK to link under this site's what not to link to guidelines? I doubt it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm for finding flights to alternative airports around a city this method helps a lot.

It's not just linking to a to the homepage without further explanation.

In this case there is a very practical reason behind it. Flightnavigator (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's always a practical reason behind consolidators, portals and price comparison sites, but as a rule, they're not OK to link here. I'd encourage you to make an argument at the relevant talk page for why that particular destination really needs the link where most other destination articles wouldn't have it. Exceptions can be made by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Go next" for countries[edit]

Based on previous discussions I've had, we usually have decided not to include a "Go next" section for country articles, and you'll see that Wikivoyage:Country article template has no such section in it. However, if you think it's most useful to the traveler to have one, that's fine with me. Don't suggest for people to visit countries at war like Syria, though! And don't provide irrelevant information. It's not relevant to travelers, at least in Israel#Go next as opposed to Israel#Stay safe, that Israel borders on Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, because it's impossible to cross two of those borders and very difficult and usually inadvisable to cross the other one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find the 'Go next' section relevant as it provides quick and very useful information of which countries to visit next. Especially for the growing number of digital nomads. Being able to fly to another country for a very low price is relevant.

I'm fine with your additions in the Jordan article. You could add these additions also to the Egypt article regarding Libya.

I did not provide irrelevant information. And I did not write that Israel borders Syria, Lebanon or the Gaza Strip. Flightnavigator (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at this difference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok. didn't remember that. I wrote that information in the same style as somebody else wrote it in the Egypt article, which has been approved. Flightnavigator (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this is a multiply-authored site anyone can edit, there is no such thing as an article having been "approved" for good and all, but the more important point is to think about which information is really useful to people who want to go somewhere else next. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Converting currencies[edit]

It seems you are adding rough conversion guides in many country articles. I wonder, would it be better to create a template for the purpose? Such conversions are hard to grasp for many people, and I think cooperating on one page with such conversion tricks could give a better result than trying to do improvements here and there over a hundred articles. I note that you don't copy the formulas exactly, but adjust them to the individual currencies, but still, I think the most easy-to-grasp version should be developed somewhere centralised. –LPfi (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i agree. whatever is most helpful for the reader.

i just don't know how to create a template Flightnavigator (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the template would be quite convoluted, but that is a lesser problem. The main thing is to get these schemes in a form that wouldn't confuse most readers.
The problem is that people aren't generally good at maths, and most get confused even by easy calculations. Given a price of 4836 ISK the instructions tell them to do 4836/1000=4,836 and 4,836·7=??? to get EUR, instead of just doing 7·5=35 (or somewhat less). You'd have to teach them to round bravely. And if the price is 4,500, can you round to 4,000 or 5,000 and still get a valid result? 7·4.5 isn't too hard, but how many readers can do that? And when they put the decimal point at the wrong place, do they realise that?
There are some travellers, perhaps even a majority, but I'd guess about 10%, who aren't confused by these schemes. It might be better to have a travel topic article discussing brave rounding and shorthands to give easier calculations, to be read by those, and sparing the confusion for the rest.
For me it was a nice surprise that 7·7·2 ≈ 100, the key to the Icelandic approximation (1000/7≈140). I don't know how I had been able to miss that until long into adulthood. Those insights are valuable when doing the conversions, and are the essence of your conversion instructions. They could be explained in some more words to those interested.
There is a wonderful guide to brave approximations at Wikibooks in Swedish: Överslagsräkning. You don't have a Babel box, so I cannot guess whether Swedish is comprehensible for you, but as at least English speaker you might understand enough to see its idea (skip the intro, the examples have more numbers and units, and are thus more comprehensible).
LPfi (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My way for converting 4836 ISK to euro is:
4836 -> 5 -> 5*7 -> a bit more or less than €35
how is your step by step calculation for using your "7·7·2 method" for 4836 ISK?
And how would be the step by step calculation for rounding bravely? Flightnavigator (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 7·7·2=100 is just the bases for the calculations. It means 7·140=1000, which is what you use for your *7/1000. It was just how I thought you arrived at using 7. The point is that you need to find small or otherwise handy integers to use for the (reverse of the) needed quota.
Brave rounding is like your 4836 ≈ 5000. There is plenty of mathematical theory for managing rounding errors – you'd want that when calculating how much fuel you need for March, as you cannot avoid rounding and accounting for uncertainty – but for earthly travellers the best way is just to have a feeling for how much off you might be. If you have, then you are probably quite good at doing maths in your head. And if you are, you don't need to round as much. Part of the trick is to notice the easy-to-do calculations: for 4836 you might notice that 48 = 4·12, which could help, or that 48 ≈ 7·7, so if you had €48.36, you'd get kr 7000 with no real calculations.
For travellers, the point about rounding is to know when 7/8 ≈ 1 (3.5 ≈ 4) and when it isn't. Do you mind spending a dollar or two more on your pizza? If you are on a tight budget you might, otherwise you would care more about whether the place looks nice. It is very hard to give a step-by-step guide when the issues are of that nature, especially if the readers just want the answer.
LPfi (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: timestamp for prices[edit]

What you suggested does not appear to be consistent with the policy for dates on prices. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah i see. there has no consensus been reached to change that policy...
even in countries with stable currencies prices change, sometimes every year like public transport tickets. And Wikivoyage has content which is over 15 years old.
Stating on Wikivoyage that a ticket fare is US$10.50, but in fact it's US$15.30 confuses the reader. The reader thinks he is going the buy the wrong ticket.
But when it's stated "US$10.50 (Jan 2014)", the reader gets an impression of the how much to pay and knows that it could cost somewhat more this year. Flightnavigator (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was some changes by K7L in 2017. Since then the guideline has been stable. I am not sure whether there has been discussion on this.
I think the guideline allows stating the date in the way you do. It is a judgement call: stating it always feels redundant and odd, while if you do it only when needed, there will be outdated prices. For listings, the lastedit should suffice in most cases, while for running text one can hope stating the year somewhere is enough, as prices will be updated with the other text often enough that the year isn't too far back. You are right about the "wrong ticket" (or scam) issue.
LPfi (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revert[edit]

Hi Flightnavigator,

I disagree with your revert on Georgia. I hope you understand what a US$32 flight may be of interest to you, but not everyone would go to the UAE, just because of cheap flights. I removed it because that section was way too budget traveller-centric, and Wikivoyage is a travel guide for everyone, not just budget travellers. In fact, for some people, flights so cheap as US$32 will actually discourage them from visiting, and this is why I object to your restoration of budget traveller-centric content.

I also disagree with "The UAE are a popular travel destination so there is quite an amount of people interested." – sure, the UAE gets many visitors, but not everyone will travel just because of cheap flights, and given that the UAE is well-connected to nearly every country in that region, this is not something that is specific to Georgia.

So I hope you do reconsider those edits, as Wikivoyage is a travel guide for everyone, not just budget travellers – and thus please consider the consequence for other travellers too. Low-cost flights are not appealing to everyone, and it is not the most exciting thing for most travellers.

All the best,

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Go nexts are just suggestions, and regardless of what you put there, it won't be of interest for every traveller. I am not sure cheap flights should be standard content of that section, but neither do I see why they should always be removed. I don't think one line on them in Georgia is disturbing. However, I don't think this should be made a standard without a discussion in the Pub. –LPfi (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, this is not a one-off incident, and Flightnavigator has adding "cheap flights" to a fair number of pages (e.g. on Italy, Israel, Morocco, Iceland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile). I think you can see why I'm concerned about this excessive budget traveller-centric content being added. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot see how flights for 32 USD discourage people from visiting a country. There are still high-price flights from legacy airlines available for those who want them.
Sure Wikivoyage is a travel guide for all budget ranges. That's why there is budget, mid-range and splurge content. In the 'Go next' section of countries there can be also a paragraph about the connectivity of legacy airlines, like in the Germany article.
I like to give people suggestions where they can go next very affordably. I removed writing it bold so it looks less budget-traveller centric.
The flight connectivity is not the only content in the 'Go next' section of Georgia. The land borders are also described. Flightnavigator (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither do I. However, those tips being added to many articles may start to look like they are standard content, and I think that means they should be discussed in the Pub. –LPfi (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flightnavigator and LPfi, if you cannot see how US$32 flights discourage people from visiting a country, then think again – because I am one of those, who would never think of going on a flight that is unreliable, likely to be delayed, with a compromise of comfort over money but that's just my opinion – likewise, budget flights may be of interest to you, but that does not mean it should be the only thing added. If you are going to portray that there's flights to xxx destination, please add everything, not just budget destinations, which make it look like budget flights the primary way of travelling to another destination
Additionally, spamming it across several articles makes Wikivoyage less interesting to read, and reminds me of the solar eclipse incident, and unless it's templated (e.g. Template:Tasmanian national parks pass or Template:Canadian national park passes), it gives an impression of Wikivoyage being less reliable.
Furthermore, if you're going to state, there are low cost flights, shouldn't this be in the relevant airport article? Repeated information in several articles can cause confusion, especially if one is updated, and the other is not.
Finally, re "The flight connectivity is not the only content in the 'Go next' section of Georgia. The land borders are also described" – I did not remove the information about land borders. And, "I removed writing it bold so it looks less budget-traveller centric." – please explain how removing boldface looks "less budget traveller-centric"? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

offered flights by legacy carriers are just standard. But if a user has helpful content to add something about it, that's good.

Ultra low cost flights in this region are new! Some year ago it was expensive.

Only because it's a 32 USD flight doesn't mean it's unreliable or likely to be delayed. Ryanair, one of the biggest ultra low cost airlines in the world, is one of the most punctual worldwide. You can still book a seat with more legroom to have more comfort.

The airport paragraph in the 'Get In' section is about getting in, rather not about Going next.

I don't see it as spamming and Wikivoyage being less reliable because of that sentence. That sentence is customized to the individual flight connectivity of each country. And that sentence is valid all time, not only for a solar eclipse on one day. I can add '(updated May 2022)' behind that sentence to lower that mentioned confusion.

Have you ever done a backpacking tour in one piece through several countries? It's becoming more and more popular. Flightnavigator (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit conflict] First, there is no way the flight can cost $32 in all. There must be somebody paying for the rest of the expenses: perhaps there are people going the other way (the flight might also be a third or forth leg, where people on the first pay also for the last (return) leg), perhaps those flying other days pay the higher prices, perhaps something else. The $32 may cover only the difference between flying with seats empty or not, if that. Thus, I don't think the price tells anything much about reliability.
For legacy airlines, destinations and prices will probably not vary much between inbound and outbound flights (at least if bought from themselves). Thus, they are covered in Get in. In Go next we list a few destinations that there is some special reason to go. For "world travellers" (whatever that means) on a budget, a cheap price may be an important criterion. For other people, we need some other reason to list a destination (nearby, "exotic", well-served, what have you).
I haven't noticed the same connections being spammed across several articles. Cheap connections should probably be told in airport articles, but for countries with several international airports, it might be good to have the cheap flights listed together at one place (the country Go next seems a logical place for reasonably small countries), or having that one place link to the relevant airport article (if the budget flights leave from one place). There is a trade-off between repeating information and having it in one place only, and between case-by-case optimisation and having a standard solution. I don't think we have a standard solution for this (yet?).
There may be other aspects, and people will have different opinions, so decisions on whether to list budget airlines in Go next sections should be discussed with a wider audience.
LPfi (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually my average fare is 15 USD for flights from/to/within Europe which last from 1 to 6 hours. I flew 3 hours for about 3.50 USD altogether. That was not even a promotion.

That's special about Ryanair and Wizz Air. On low demand flights they decrease the price as much as needed in order to get the plane full.

There are optional charges like a big piece of hand luggage, choosing the seat or having checked-in luggage.

The average fare of both airlines is about 40 USD and both make hundreds of millions of profit with that (outside pandemics) Flightnavigator (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one example:

Cologne-Katowice can be booked for €4.99 (5 USD). That's not really a promotion. Ryanair usually offers a number destinations from €10. Flightnavigator (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]