User talk:SHB2000/pub archive

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This archive section is for all discussions swept from the pub. In general, this archive section is there to distinguish and clearly categorise what was here and what was on the pub.

This page should really only be edited by me, template editors, admins as well as pub sweepers.

Discussions here will also be found in the corresponding year's archive pages.

Is it okay if I create two armchair travel articles?

Swept in from the pub

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to ask your opinion on creating two armchair articles. Strzelecki Track and Birdsville Track. They can be physically accessed but with one vehicle every 2-3 days. Just wanting to ask whether I should create it based on if a traveller goes and explores it or for armchair travel?

Cheers, SHB2000 (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say cover these as itineraries, but what would be the difference in your coverage if it was meant solely for vicarious reading, which is what I think you mean by armchair travel, than if you simply cover it as a practical itinerary? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally put a lot of humour in armchair travel and be a bit more serious in practical itineraries. SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean kind of like a joke article? A bit of humor is fine, but if the trip is doable, I'd say don't make a joke of it. You might look at some of the articles linked in Next-to-impossible destinations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might use Ashmore and Cartier Islands as a guide. It is doable, it's just that I don't think anyone will actually use this alone. SHB2000 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your article is looking good so far. Maybe the Ashmore and Cartier Island article reads like a joke because it's not written very well and has no information about why someone might want to visit, talks about what isn't there instead of what is, and is even a bit fuzzy on basic accessibility (It would really benefit from adding information provided by the Australian government. I'd suggest not trying to emulate that article. The Track and the few locations along it seem to have some history, so it shouldn't be too fill out as a legitimate travel article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 maps in an article?

Swept in from the pub

Hi everyone,

This might seem very odd but am I allowed to have two maps in Innamincka. One's for the 1.5km long town centre and the other is for the vast Innamincka. The problem is, they're either too close to each other or too far. Solution: A controversial request for two maps.

Is it okay?

Thanks, SHB2000 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are dynamic maps, that's probably not necessary. You can pick a kind of compromise zoom level and let readers click the map to zoom in or out for more location info. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000, have you considered a rectangular map? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, how do you do that? SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like this, if you want the default/auto-zoom approach. Since you have one marker in a different town, you may want to put a location and/or zoom level back in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like in this case a "compromise" in zoom level would leave both purposes unsatisfied. I use two maps where necessary; see, for example, Niagara Falls (New York). Powers (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably add the latitude, longitude and zoom parameters for the mapframe to center map and zoom in on the main area. You can use the width and height parameters to make the dynamic map into a rectangle if so desired. Two maps are probably acceptable but I think one map would suffice. Best wishes! -- Matroc (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, I've decided to remove the second map and incorporate both Ikan Kekek's and WhatamIdoing's ideas. Considering that for it to be a proper guide, it'll need 4 maps. (Town centre, greater Innamincka, Birdsville and Moomba) SHB2000 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I kindly tell users to provide better edit summaries than "Added content"?

Swept in from the pub

As some of us might know, before Autumn, someone who'd write "Added content" in their edit summaries would often be a tout or a vandal (another example) - often trying to not be seen. And I completely get that. But I did try ask a certain editor to provide better edit summaries, and I miserably screwed up with my examples. Now I think there's at least about 10 editors now, who frequently use "Added content" in their edit summaries. I'm sort of reluctant to ask someone again, since I failed miserably once, and I don't want to make it worse or no better than I started with. Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also one editor whose summaries frequently include "supp." Which I have yet to get the meaning of... Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might mean "suppressed content" or some immature teenager playing around with edit summaries. There's also a crosswiki LTA with all his edit summaries as "scobedos". No idea what that means. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hasty to be insulting. The person who does that is a constructive editor. I have no idea what it means, either, though. There is a type of summary that annoys me, though, and it's not "Added content"; it's "Deleted listing". As I explain, we can see you deleted a listing, but why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for that matter, I'm not sure which user is the user with the supp. edit summary, and these are just my best guesses. I need context though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their name is in Chinese characters and they come from Hong Kong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that user. It was them who brought up the Hong Kong warning box. Okay, so that is definitely neither of the two definitions that I thought. Then it probably just means supplement? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I’ve always assumed. People that use edit summaries like “supp” or “added content” are, I would guess, editors with limited English language abilities. Even if English is the official language of the contributor’s country, native languages may be prevalent in many regions and the local contributors may be more familiar with these languages than English. I wouldn’t take issue with the (lack of) edit summaries unless you’re sure English is the contributor’s native language. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user with supp. is a native english speaker (from userpage). From what I've seen, that's not his only types of edit summaries. For instance, if you're looking at RC, it's hard to not notice my edit summaries of "abc" which just simply means putting the listings in alphabetical order. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to his userpage and I see “professional knowledge” of English, not native. Are you sure we’re referring to the same user? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes you're right. It's an en-5 not an en-N. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think that "professional" is better than "native".
علاء blocked one of the 'scobedos' IPs last week for being on an open proxy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, that user's an IP hoping vandal so the last time I saw him, it was about a month ago (on the Māori Wikipedia). (but I scared away with an easy edit filter on His accounts are easily identifiable (they all start with "Juris", but thankfully he hasn't discovered Wikivoyage yet. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 22:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Added content" is one of the pre-filled/canned edit summaries offered by a gadget in one's user preferences. ("Fixed typo" is another.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which gadget is that? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000, Ikan Kekek:, I do use 'Added content' as my edit summary, the reason for this is that I transferred my knowledge of edit summaries from Wikipedia to Wikipedia, Is there a specific edit summary technique for Wikivoyage? You can share the link to the page if there is one, I have been training new contributors to Wikivoyage, I informed them to use added content to their edit summary pages. I will love to have the right knowledge.Haylad (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s best to say specifically what changes have been made. For example if you add a list of places to “go next” the edit summary would be “add list of places to go next”. Or “add hotels” or “add restaurants” etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit the section (this is less clear with the visual editor), you get /* Go next */ in the summary field, so the summary for the example would ideally be "/* Go next */ added places" (or ... a few more cities, or whatever. Similarly, you could write
/* Eat */ +Robert's Pub
/* Sleep */ details on Higgin's
/* Understand */ history from w:fi:Haapavesi
I don't know how much you should try to tell new contributors, but a specific change should be reasonably easy to find in the page history. Perhaps you can try to use easy sensible examples when training them, perhaps like those above (the last one is more tricky, see the wikitext for how I coded the "oldid" parameter of the permanent link from the left margin toolbox to get a working link for an edit summary).
If using the listing editor, you similarly get the listing name as part of the summary; a "fixed url", "new phone number", "added description" could be used in the summary field.
LPfi (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the content is much more important than the edit summary. Most edits can be figured out by looking at the diff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LPfi, WhatamIdoing, SelfieCity:, Thanks for all the information, really helpful.Haylad (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]