User talk:LPfi

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: User talk:LPfi/archive

Recreational shooting[edit]

You may find this hard to imagine or understand, but at least in the U.S., some people shoot animals just for fun, then don't eat them or sell or give away their meat. That's probably what's meant by "recreational shooting". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Yes, I think we have such people over here also. Shooting just for the fun of shooting might be called recreational shooting, but handling it in Animal ethics by just warning about regulation and giving a link about how to do it is absurd. On the other hand, I call shooting mink or nutria hunting, even when they are shot for being pests (in the particular environment) and not for the fur. For the observer it is hard to distinguish such hunt from shooting for the fun of it, other than that the latter usually requires easy targets.
I also feel awkward about the Recreational shooting article, which seems to imply the shooting just for fun aspect. I think hunting should be handled in a separate article. Not all hunting is done with firearms and there are lots of aspects beyond that of shooting. For me, competitive shooting and hunting are very different beasts - and neither fits the "shooting just for fun". (Firearms law should of course be handled in one place, be it separately or together with competitive shooting.)
--LPfi (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Funny, I was told that Recreational shooting redirected to Hunting. Now I see it doesn't. Well, anyway, I think I'll just respect however you decide to handle this one and stop interposing myself on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I started to write a stub on hunting, but doing even the start well requires more work than I want to put in it for the moment. Still, perhaps I'd better start it sooner rather than later. --LPfi (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

Hi, LPfi. You're a great contributor, you've been here since 2013 and understand policy - in short, I believe you'd do a good job as admin if you were made one. Do you have any interest in having a few more editing tools, such as the ability to roll back spam and vandalism with one click? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Intercity buses in the Nordic Countries[edit]

It seems to me that you and User:Yvwv have some knowledge of intercity buses in the Nordic countries. Do you think this would be a better approach to the topic than the current small section in the Nordic countries article and the rail and bus travel in Sweden article? It appears to me that the Nordic countries have a bus market predating the German and French legal changes of the 2010s and are still mostly dominated by local companies. Or am I mistaken on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a large market for coaches in the Nordic countries as long as I know anything about it. The railways cover only part of the countries, and also e.g. in the busy Helsinki–Tampere–Turku triangle coaches and trains have competed at least since the 70s. I have no detailed knowledge about other countries than Finland, but I suppose they are similar at least in this respect.
There have been drastic changes in the last ten or twenty years, but they are not that obvious for the passengers. Earlier the market was regulated, and the companies had the same routes as it seemed forever (but "regular" lines in the countryside got more sparse as people bought cars and moved to cities). Now regulations are much less strict, routes have to be offered to all interested parties, and companies such as Onnibus are allowed to invent routes of their own. This has of course resulted in many small companies being bought up, some companies growing, and bargain prices being found on the net for some routes. Still many coach users have seen no change, except for Onnibus, conductors having to find other jobs and immigrants now being common as drivers of city buses.
In Sweden it seems that the provinces are the ones responsible for coach lines, and still dominate the market except for the busiest regions and some niches. In Norway there seems to be a few big companies dominating the scene, but I cannot tell whether that is the whole story.
--LPfi (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure there are enough similarities in the Nordic bus market to have a separate article for it. Rather I think we could have a paragraph in the Intercity buses in Europe and develop the sections in the country guides a bit (as many arrive by plane and car rental is expensive, I think buses are important for most travellers coming here). For the European article, I'd like to know what the market is like in e.g. Spain, the Balkan and Russia. Is the development there similar to France and Germany? --LPfi (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about the market in Spain or the Balkan, especially as it pertains to inside those regions as opposed to to/from those regions. In Germany and France intercity buses were regulated in a way that they basically only existed on a handful of routes. There used to be "rail replacement" buses on routes where the Bundesbahn had torn out the rail line, but they were often broken up a few years afterwards and by reunification no trace of them was left. There were buses to/from Berlin, mostly as a holdover from the incredibly bad rail connections during German partition, but other than that there were only slightly seedy international buses eastward mostly serving the Yugoslav diaspora. So the emergence of Flixbus really changed the picture completely. User:Yvwv argues on Talk:Nordic countries that there likely isn't a big enough overlap between the individual countries to make it its own article, but here might be a space for it in the Intercity buses in Europe article, that definitely needs love. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that it is difficult to write without knowing how representative one's own impressions are. I try to add a few sentences, though. --LPfi (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to have sections for countries/regions within the Intercity buses in Europe article so that people can add the biggest players in their country and roughly how the system works e.g. whether buses operate out of dedicated stations or curbside, whether prices vary by time of booking and so on and so forth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps. I am worried, though, that the article becomes a long list of countries, with information that really belongs in the By bus sections in country articles. I hesitate to add information on Finland that probably is true about many countries, or to say anything general about buses in Europe without knowing whether it is true for Spain, the Balkans and Russia.
The information here should be more like an overview, where the typical aspects of using a bus in different regions and different systems spanning more than one region are described. One point is that the international players introduce their systems more or less orthogonally in respect to the traditional systems of the countries. E.g. in Finland, Onnibus (a British company despite the name) is not part of the Matkahuolto cooperation, which otherwise handles tickets, timetables and freight uniformly across companies.
--LPfi (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Well right now the dangers of the article lie not in it becoming too long any time soon. We can see what needs consolidating summing up and cutting down when we have some information assembled. I know a bit about the situation in Germany and less about that in France. I know nothing about e.g. Britain, but if we get some more info there, it may also be helpful to someone who wants to tour Europe but dislikes trains planes and cars. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. I wrote a section on the Nordic countries. I hope more countries and regions will be added quite soon, so that the consolidating can be done. As it stands, I am also unsure whether the information I added is the information we want or need. --LPfi (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Let's see how it develops. I wrote a bit on the situation in Germany. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking numbers - prefix?[edit]

Hi. I am not 100 % sure if a prefix is needed when roaming. But the 112 number (police) should always work even without a sim-card and without connection to your operator. 112 should work in any country, as far as I understand. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For services like roadside assistance like 08505 perhaps you need prefix to make sure you dont call that number in your home country? --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, probably. 112, 911 & al are special cases handled by the phone and/or the GSM (or whatever) network, while other numbers are handled by the normal phone switches. But I do not know how much routing information is included in the GSM network, it would be possible to handle also some other numbers as special cases. For numbers like 08505 there is quite high probability it is conflicting with a number in the home country, and probably no reason to think you won't need it when travelling.
This is an issue in any country, I raise it on Talk:Mobile telephones.
--LPfi (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is attribtuion not preserved with what I did at San Jose (disambiguation)?[edit]

Isn't it easy to see the history of the redirect and whatnot? I mean we can probably do some fancier stuff but for that sysop rights would be needed, which I don't have... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need a sysop. In the last comment on the talk page Traveler100 said:
"Page should be moved so that edit history is preserved. This may be a good idea but should have some agreement and be done correctly."
Traveller also thought this has not yet been discussed sufficiently.
When you arrive at the redirect, find the link to it on the target page, click the link and look at the history, then it is quite easy to infer what has happened, at least if you are seasoned with MediaWiki wikis. It is quite clear that this is not easy for a random reader.
If you arrive directly at the disambiguation page proper, which should be the page most people hit (otherwise the page shouldn't be at that name), the only indication that there is history elsewhere is that a large amount of text had been inserted at one time. How am I to draw the conclusion that the text was not original but copied from another page? And then I have to guess at what other page that is. Still quite easy for the seasoned (a check at the first guess should suffice), but you have to guess first.
--LPfi (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
would an edit summary saying "moved from (URL)" suffice? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Better than nothing (especially with a permalink), but why not let an admin move the page appropriately? --LPfi (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Who'd do that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Choose among these (Special:ListUsers/sysop, linked from Wikivoyage:Administrators). But, as Traveller100 (who is an admin) said, the issue concerns many articles, so better take it in the Travellers Pub first. --LPfi (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Thank you Ikan Kekek for the suggestion above. I appreciated it and wanted to answer properly, but time past. I thought I would not want to devote time to patrolling, so would do little with admin tools (at sv-wp my main admin actions are page moves). But the edits yesterday morning convinced my I might have use for the tools; It seems I sometimes am here when no admins are available. Thank you also AndreCarrotflower for your suggestion, I think, however, that it can wait. --LPfi (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So I think you're saying you'd accept a nomination but don't feel an urgent need for one; is that right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I nominated myself. If I can help I do want to have the tools if the situation pops up again, and it seems it might. --LPfi (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You are now an admin. Please feel free to lean on me or any other admin if you would like any help with the new buttons available to you - and lay off the red one! :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the line! Long live Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you. --LPfi (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sound files[edit]

Hi, LPfi. I see you plunged forward and made this edit, but you did it without any notice, let alone a discussion. Policies don't get changed unilaterally, so I'm surprised you made that edit. There have been long discussions about changing this policy, but no consensus to do so has been reached so far. If you would like to renew the discussion, you know you can do that on the talk page. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I changed it according to my memory of the discussions, and now that I reread Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Audio files I see no objection to using audio files in phrasebooks (which was one of the proposed uses). I did not find all the previous discussions, but I thought my wording was unspecific enough not to go into mined territory (and I supposed enough people watch the policies for problematic changes to be reverted). I am sorry I was not careful enough. --LPfi (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It's OK, but my feeling is that until there's agreement on how sound files can and should be used in phrasebooks, there is no really useful consensus. The discussion has been renewed, so if you haven't already commented, please do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I thought the wording in the image policy was too harsh, but you are right that it is better to agree on how audio files should be used, not just an agreement that they might be useful. --LPfi (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because if a policy page doesn't provide guidance, it's not helpful to readers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed the sound files text[edit]

Since it is related to this discussion, I wanted to let both of you know. I did it because I think there is now consensus that, in the case of phrasebooks, sound files may be used. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Definite article[edit]

Hi! Please be sure to use the definite article (the) when writing about the EU, the UK, the U.S. etc. This is a grammar rule and not a matter of style. Thanks and best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try. I am not totally sure about where the article is needed, and I suppose I have sometimes been just sloppy. --LPfi (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If I may: I think that the definite article is needed whenever part of the name is itself a non-proper noun. So if a word like federation, kingdom, emirates, republic, union, state or states is part of a proper name, it takes "the". Examples: the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Federation of Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, the Soviet Union, the State of Israel. Of course, many of these names are formal and not the common names, which would be Ireland, Iran, Malaysia, Israel, etc., but where such titles or abbreviations of them are used (e.g., the U.K., the U.S., the U.S.S.R.), the name takes "the". (This rule doesn't apply to cases like The Hague, the Gambia or the Bronx, which nevertheless take "the".) Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have never thought of that rule, although my ear guides me right in most of those cases (when I am alert). --LPfi (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I thought of it so concretely, either, but it seems to work that way every time, so I think that's the reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's difficult to explain the rule, but Ikan has nailed it. Another 'rule-breaker' like the Gambia is 'the Netherlands'. But I suspect historically this was treated as a generic adjective-noun construction: "the nether (or 'low') lands".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for putting yourself forward for administrator, and congratulations on your success in the vote.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --LPfi (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on the responsibility.
P.S. Thinking a little more about the rule on definite articles: There are some exceptions, like "city" and "lake". For example, we don't talk about "the New York City" or "the Lake Ontario", though rivers do get it: "the Hudson River", "the Mississippi [River]". I think the rule applies consistently only to countries with non-proper nouns as part of their name, and maybe occasionally to districts ("the District of Columbia", but "D.C." and "Washington, D.C."). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Lakes are one thing I struggle with: should Paanajärvi be called "Paanajärvi", "Lake Paanajärvi", "the Paanajärvi lake" or something else. I find it odd to make up an English name by adding "Lake", when the domestic name is perfectly good and already includes "järvi", while nobody has heard the made up version (but making it up seems common practice e.g. at nationalparks.fi). Same with rivers etc. --LPfi (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I sort of hear when you need to have a definite article, maybe it has to do with the fact that I unlike most people have learned most of my English from (American) media rather than at school. I'm good at messing up prepositions and sometimes the word order. :P
It's indeed a bit problematic when the local name already includes the description of what it is (happens at least in most Germanic languages, Finnish, Estonian, and Korean), but I usually add the full name (e.g. Lake ??järvi, Mt ??berg), because I'm assuming the reader doesn't understand the local language and in English you're usually expecting to read Lake, Mount, River etc. before or after the name.
Och grattis till administratörskapet ;) --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Tack! I mostly try to keep to the local name, clarifying when I think it is needed, as in "the Paanajärvi lake" above. I think people should get it when many enough lakes are "-järvi" (especially when I mention its shores or the like) or when the name is repeated, but I am aware that many people just find such words odd enough not to see any logic (like I often do with Arabic or Chinese). --LPfi (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
When the local name includes a word for "lake", I wouldn't add "lake" to it. It's weird, like calling something "pasta noodles" or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
And yet we have such names quite a bit when different languages combine. "Laacher See" ("Laach" being derived of course from "lacus" - lake) would be just one example. Or with abbreviations like LCD Display or stuff like that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I remember deleting "island" in some phrase like "Pulau Perhentian Besar Island", as "pulau" is Malay for "island". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sierras and Sierra Nevada Mountains[edit]

In a recent edit summary of yours, you were asking about the connection between "Sierra Nevada" and "Sierras".

The answer is that the Sierra Nevada Range is often referred to as the Sierras. Since it seems that you did not know this before, it will probably worth clarifying in the mountain ranges article in case travelers do not know it either.

Thanks for the work you did on the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed so, and I left that name in the Sierra Nevada bullet on purpose (but your version is of course clearer). My first guess was Mexican ranges, had to check Wikipedia for where the Cascade Mountains are. One cannot expect people from all over the world to know such jargon – "sierra" is Spanish for mountain range, so "the Sierras" could be any mountains with Spanish names (or called by the Spanish term). --LPfi (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. Yes, there is even a Sierra Nevada range in Spain, I think. An option is to divide the North America section of the article into separate subsections by country; the problem with that is that the Rocky Mountains are in both the United States and Canada. But I'll try. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think describing mountain ranges by country is problematic, as they often span many countries and the border is arbitrary from the natural geographic standpoint. It may make sense in North America (with three enormous countries), but I do not see how that is related to the problem at hand. The original problem is solved as the proper name is used (confusion with the other Sierra Nevadas is easily avoided). --LPfi (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't this earlier, but I see what you mean, especially with the Rocky Mountains. I think it works okay in North America, especially the 3 largest countries that cover large regions, but for somewhere like Europe, Africa, or South America I think dividing by country should be avoided at all costs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on the administrator nomination[edit]

I want to congratulate you on your administrator nomination. I semi-apologize for not voting to support you in the WV:Administrator nominations; it's just that I didn't feel that I was familiar with a wide enough range of your edits at the time. I'm sure you're a good choice for administrator.

It's good to see the number of active administrators increase, even though some administrators have been de-sysopped having not been active over the past 2 years. The way things seem to be going presently, I may soon have the admin tools like you do, but after my first nomination I can never be confident!

As is the case with many Wikivoyagers, thank you for being here and for the edits you've made over time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)