User talk:RogueScholar

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, RogueScholar! 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 are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.

Thanks for your update to Fort Bragg.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day abbreviations[edit]

Hi there. When you get a minute, could you please read the policy page Wikivoyage:Time and date formats? It's a bit difficult to get used to at first, but here at Wikivoyage we do have a preferred style for abbreviating days of the week: M, Tu, W, Th, F, Sa, Su, rather than Mon, Tue, Wed...

Anyway, I just noticed you replaced some instances of our preferred format with something else (at Wilmington), while making a bunch of good edits including correct formatting corrections. If you could check out the policy and bear that in mind moving forward, that would be appreciated. Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!:Salutations, fellow Wikivoyager! Thanks for pulling my coat about this, I have indeed been making edits in complete ignorance of that policy, which is somewhat frustrating since I thought I'd done a fairly comprehensive review of the pertinent policy pages before sinking my teeth in here, but I promise to remain mindful of them going forward.
Do you happen to be aware of the criteria which led to those being selected as the canonical abbreviations? Strictly from a algorithmic standpoint they strike me as...well, horrific, with strings of varying lengths of either one or two characters it makes them harder to accurately parse programmatically (not overwhelmingly so, but still...). I haven't yet encountered a use case to inspire me to want to write a bot for work here on Wikivoyage but I'm sure that time will come, and it would be a comfort to know that those considerations are taken into account during policy discussions.
Thanks again for being so diplomatic in bringing this to my attention. One of the things that led me to start contributing here was a general sense of disgust with the frequency of needlessly rude interactions I've been subject to on Wikipedia (mostly in my particular bailiwick, to be fair, that being the Education/Schools area) and it's been incredibly refreshing to see how you and so many others here go out of your way to be thoughtful with how you communicate with each other as well as the newbies. Take care and I look forward to seeing you again around here. Cordially, — 🐈⚞ogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk (Tales of recent mischief) 07:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about making mistakes - there are quite a lot of standards and conventions and policies to navigate through; even those of us who have been here years still forget things from time to time.
As for when or why those formats were chosen, that was before my time, but I imagine there's a virtual paper trail on the talk page of the TDF policy. I agree with you that the format is not ideal, and you are welcome to propose a change in policy. That said, the last time that was suggested, the consensus seemed to be that there might have been a better way to start writing days back in 2003, but that that particular ship had long since sailed; it would be too much effort to find and replace millions of instances of one format with another.
We are a friendly wiki in general, that's true. I still remember what it was like to be new; many people had a lot of patience with me, so I try to emulate that. It's gratifying to hear nice things from a new Wikivoyager, though! All the best! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Roguescholar. Just to let you know, there was a discussion on the formatting of days around two years ago (see here). And there was a strong consensus to move towards a 3-letter abbreviation and make Wikivoyage align with the rest of the world (8 supported and 3 were against it - a clear majority). Unfortunately, nobody was bold enough to plunge forward to update our policies). You are welcome to restart the discussion and hopefully it will get over the line. I agree that Wikivoyage's weird day abbreviations are one of the ugliest things on the site. You will have my fullest support. Gizza (roam) 00:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DaGizza: Thanks for bringing me up to speed! I've been trying not to get sidetracked on my commitment to see that the current Collaboration of the month fully reaches it goal and so hadn't yet gone digging into the history of how things got to be the way they are re: the day of the week abbreviations, and what you just shared has me excited to dig in on that topic next. Honestly from what I've seen in the few months I've been here so far, giving some ardent attention to the state of the documentation here in general may trump any proposed collaborations that are presently in the queue; there's simply no end to the outdated /inconsistent (or just as bad, wholly absent) information to be found on any number of template documentation pages, policy articles and other general infrastructure documents around here. Before I decided to throw myself bodily at this month's collaboration my pet project had been the Template index page which had largely been languishing for over four years and had a host of templates shown with old fields in use or no mention of additions that had been made, some had even long-since been deleted or never been included there at all, and that's not only detrimental to the overall quality of contributions here but to the morale of those doing so. I'll stop rambling now but if any of this resonates with you then please keep an eye out for a discussion I'll be trying to spearhead in short order to address it, and thank you so much again for the Cliffs' Notes version of the day abbreviation consensus. If all that's been needed to bring the community's will to fruition is someone too dumb to avoid wading neck deep into shark-infested waters, then I believe I might be just the man for the job. ;) Warmest regards, —🐈⚞ogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk (Tales of recent mischief) 01:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buffalo/North Buffalo[edit]

I have seen your edits there, and I advise you calm down. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SelfieCity: Who's not being calm? I'm just being bold and speaking my mind. I'd attempt to open a dialogue about the subjectiveness of a term like readability versus an actual schema of good grammar and format like Turabian, et al., but after watching the East Palo Alto discussion I'll pass on that too. Thanks for the suggestion, —🐈⚞ogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk (Tales of recent mischief) 14:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I think, however, you could have added <nowiki> and solved the problem with adjusting the prose, which was, in my opinion, better before the changes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: To the first point, that doesn't at all match my experience with the nowiki tag, though I am, admittedly, far from an expert on MediaWiki specifications. The <nowiki> tag from what I've seen only instructs the parser not to interpret what's between the tags. That does nothing to a regular expression search of the unparsed source code of an article, as far as I know, since you're not even invoking the parser the tags just become more raw input for the search as remains true for what lies between them.
To the second point, setting aside which set of prose you liked better, you can't honestly tell me that with all the infinite ways to articulate a thought using the English language that there aren't a multitude of ways to convey the sentiment in those sentences that don't involve a colon after the street name? The two that I used were plucked out of probably a couple dozen options I ran through in my mind in the space of less than a minute, just as I believe would arise in the minds of anyone else of average intelligence that set themselves to the same task. My frustration arises from the fact that neither of you who reverted my edits seemingly even took that minute to attempt to rectify whatever it was that you disliked about my selections; instead the path of minimum effort was selected and you clicked undo. I simply think it's in poor taste to react to another's efforts in the act of creation with a destructive act involving no similar effort, that's all. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, mind you, I'm just letting you know what motivated my pushback in this instance; for my part the matter is already closed. —🐈⚞ogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk (Tales of recent mischief) 14:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A fundamental element of Wikietiquette around here (so fundamental, in fact, that for Star-level articles it ascends to the status of full-fledged policy) holds copyediting well-developed articles to be taboo absent a truly compelling reason to do so (i.e. factual inaccuracy, misspellings or bona fide grammatical errors). "Subjectively, I think the prose reads better this way" is not a compelling reason; nor, in my mind, is the fact that there's a bug in the regex whereby "Hertel:" is read as a phone number with no spaces. Presumably there's a list somewhere that you're consulting of all files on Wikivoyage that contain spaceless phone numbers, but now that you know this is a false positive, why can't you just make a mental note of that and move along? Is it just for the sake of no longer having to see Buffalo/North Buffalo on that list? Why is that of any importance at all, let alone more important than the actual content of this project? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RogueScholar, we all have our views, but I feel like you have an attitude of "I think this is right." AndreCarrotflower has spent years (since 2012, if you go through Wikivoyage and WT article histories, at least — maybe as early as 2011) improving and maintaining the Buffalo articles so they are now some of the best-written elements of Wikivoyage. There is poorly-written content on Wikivoyage that could do with copyediting, but this isn't it. Our goal, as a travel website, is to have content that is straight-forward, attention-getting, and easy to understand. Adding long, stringy sentences works well on Wikipedia, but is not the best thing here. I appreciate your efforts, and I would have no objections if you were adding new content where it belonged, but messing with a star or near-star article because you personally don't like the prose is not the right way to deal with the issue here. Plunge forward is fine, but it doesn't mean that you ignore ACF (AndreCarrotflower) and change a piece of writing that is completely reasonable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To AndreCarrotflower's point about copyediting, there is one other time when copyediting is acceptable that I think is worth mentioning, and that is when an article's content was copied from somewhere else and should be changed to improve SEO. What's wrong, when it comes to your recent copyediting, is the spirit of it: "tit for tat" and "you removed my addition, so I'll remove yours." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AndreCarrotflower: I was being sincere when I said I considered the matter closed, but I know you carry a lot of water around here, so an acknowledgement and attempted meeting of the minds seems appropriate. I wasn't aware of this "taboo" of copyediting high-status articles and can certainly agree to add that to my list of local mores to remain mindful of, though I fail to see how it can be reconciled with the very nature of a wiki. To lock down the stylistic elements of a page once its content reaches a certain critical mass seems to communicate to all users that if they are not present during an article's period of primary evolution, they're unworthy of contributing to it at all, unless they happen to live in that area and are abreast of local developments that bear on content. How does that not ignore the possibility that the next Hemingway, Theroux or Hunter S. Thompson might stumble upon a great article and choose for some unknowable reason to move it towards being a masterpiece? The essence of art (and surely this entire exercise is a literary art) is that perfection, if it exists at all, is completely ephemeral. Today's paragon will inevitably be some tomorrow's mediocrity, just as soon as someone comes along with a greater capacity to imagine what that paragon could be. That's all just a thought exercise, though; I've been around these wikis too long to expect to impact their operating philosophies even trivially, let alone so dramatically. Consider your message received and agreed to, even if not understood.
By the way, the list to which you refer and that I have been attempting to clear is part of the current Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month, and I believe the regex behind the search was specified by Traveler100. I was merely trying to accomplish what had been set forth there as our collective goal as a community, and while I've crafted more than my fair share of regex criteria over the years, I wouldn't presume to wade into any of those that are so widely promulgated as that until I'd become far more conversant in the local code schemas. I'll take your advice and just move on to other things and hope that brings this rather tedious exercise to a close. —🐈⚞ogueScholar⚟🗨₨UserTalk (Tales of recent mischief) 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said my piece, and barring something else comes up, I'm finished on this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly amusing[edit]

Talk:Macau/Archive_2006-2011#Street_name_question Pashley (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]