User talk:Nick1372

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Nick, thanks for all your great contributions on all things Staten Island!

Just a comment about the "Eat" section of the Staten Island article: Generally, the practice is to divide restaurants into "Budget," "Mid-range," and "Splurge," rather than first of all by type of cuisine, which could be a lower-level subheading if needed.

Keep up the good work! Glad to have you here.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better for organizing. However, there is one problem with that, and it is that people don't come to Staten Island (or America in general) for American food. They either want A) their own ethnic food or B) pizza. Would a compromise be that we condense the type of cuisine to Pizza, American, and Ethnic (or Foreign), and then divide the categories into Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge? Nick1372 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
People may not go to Staten Island for American food but definitely do come to America for American food. I'm unsure about your proposed compromise; you may want to get some other opinions about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

NYC By Bike[edit]

Hey Nick. here you added the word "which" to a sentence that I think was correct before. Maybe I'm missing something, but by adding "which", you've changed the semantics of the sentence around. The part that is set off by commas, "called 'CitiBike'" is a parenthetical-like comment, that grammatically can be omitted; doing so produces "The city has a new bike share program which started on May 27, 2013." While colloquially acceptable, I think predominant usage would be "that", not "which". Alternatively, if you wanted to use "which", removing the first comma would allow that: "The city has a new bike share program called 'CitiBike', which started on..." I wish I had the proper grammatical jargon to use to explain why I think the sentence is a bit awkward, but I hope you get the gist. Could I ask what you think was wrong with the grammar as it was? LtPowers (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When I edited that sentence, it just felt weird. The sentence had been changed to "The city has a new bike share program, called CitiBike, started on May 27, 2013." Using the principle of the parenthetical-like comment you mentioned, that would change to "The city has a new bike share program started on May 27, 2013." To me, that makes no sense at all, as it is missing a word to link the two thoughts. I agree that "that" would be more grammatically correct than "which". Nick1372 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no; in that case, when removing the parenthetical, you have to keep in the comma: "The city has a new bike share program, started on May 27, 2013." There's an implied "which was" in there. Though now that I take another look at it, it doesn't look as good as I originally thought. Maybe we should just remove the start date entirely.  ;) LtPowers (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for removing the start date entirely. It doesn't really tell the reader anything that they don't already know from the word "new". They don't need to know that the program was started exactly 8 days ago. If not, we can always change the entire sentence around. How about this: "CitiBike is the city's new bike-share program. It began on May 27, 2013." I like this way a lot better, especially because the date part can be easily removed when it becomes totally irrelevant. Nick1372 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we can just remove it. LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, will do. Nick1372 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)