User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2016-2017


 * User talk:Ground Zero

Hello, Ground Zero! 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. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.--ϒpsilon (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all the great copy editing you're doing!

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Until I get travelling again, it's what I can do. I hope to return in the autumn with informational contributions. Ground Zero (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Swiss francs symbol
Hi there,

I saw that you have been editing articles on Switzerland recently. Thanks a lot for that, I have been trying to improve on Swiss articles and a lot of them are still lacking a lot, so any attention they get is good.

You have changed some of the currency symbols to Fr citing WV:$. I have so far always used the notation CHFxx, as I assumed this was the convention, however looking at some of the articles there's a lot of inconsistent notation. In my experience (I'm Swiss) the notation CHF is used quite frequently, as are Fr. and SFr. Of course most of the time in practise there won't be any symbol and it's just going to be something like 20.-. The notation of Fr, without a dot, the way you introduced it, is wrong, this is also confirmed by w:Swiss_franc. Furthermore according to WV:$ the currency should be in front of the number and not behind it. If it is behind, then it should be written as 'francs' (as far as I understand that).

Now reading through WV:$ I see that there's some ambiguity. The introductory paragraph states CHF but then further down there is no mention any more of that and it sounds like we should avoid the ISO code. Looking more into this, there has been a discussion on this here: Talk:Lausanne however there seems to have been a lack of consensus. However, I think for the sake of overall consistency, we should adopt a currency symbol different from CHF, so might I suggest we use 'Fr. x' with a space or remain with CHFx? This should be consistent with 'We also adopt some widely used abbreviations, with whatever formatting convention comes with them' noted in WV:$.

I think either way would work, but we should do it consistently. And I would rather not introduce the x Fr notation without dot and with the currency behind the symbol.

Do let me know what you think about this. Drat70 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have a problem with the ISO code it looks technical and formal which is what WV should be working to avoid. But I take your word for it that "x Fr" is wrong. It has been a while since I have been to Switzerland. I will start correcting things to "Fr. x". Ground Zero (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll change the WV:$ page to remove the ambiguity and will also start making editing out the old notations out from all the Swiss articles. Drat70 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's done. I went through all the pages under Switzerland and changed the currency symbols (except those you changed already). It's great that this is now consistent! Drat70 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's amazing! Excellent work! Ground Zero (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A final word about Gaspé
I feel like I should reach out to you privately here to apologize again and thank you for your patience with me. My work (and sleep) schedule have been very erratic lately, which always puts me on edge. Hence my hyperbolic defense of my own edits as well as my reading assumptions of bad faith where there were none.

All rancor aside, you're absolutely right that we do need a larger editing community here at Wikivoyage. I'm glad you're here to put a dent in that deficit, and I hope your experiences with me haven't put you off continuing to contribute.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Don't beat yourself up. For me the big thing was my impression that you were talking about different rules based on seniority, and now that we've cleared up that misunderstanding, I'm cool. I know you put a lot of work into WV and have a lot of respect for that, so you deserve to be cut some slack. And no, I haven't been put off the project - all's well that ends well. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cartwright, Labrador
I see we now have three listings (instead of one) for "Northside Enterprises" in Cartwright (Labrador), "Northside Motel" in 'Sleep', the same contact info as "Northside Pub" in 'Drink' and the same company again as "Mug Up" in an adjacent building in 'Eat'. These listings are claiming to be "(updated Feb 2017 | edit)". May I ask what source you're using to verify these as up-to-date and when you made these verifications?

I'd raised the issue two years ago at Talk:Cartwright (Labrador) that northsideenterprise.tripod.com hasn't been updated since 2004 (and is outdated), labradorcoastaldrive.com is no better (it kept listing the Cartwright Hotel years after it burned to the ground) and the only real indication I have that this company is even still operating is a June 2016 provincial restaurant inspection and an e-mail from Pete (Payton) Barrett at Experience Labrador Tours last year which indicated the motel was still open. I'd tried calling the telephone numbers and got either no answer or (for the fax number) some other subscriber as a voice wrong number.

Normally we don't list the same business multiple times (eat, drink, sleep) in the same article, as a matter of policy (Don't tout, for instance). Occasionally the rules are bent in places like Chicken, Alaska where there are only three businesses in the entire town - but three listings for a company that's "barely there" and hasn't updated their website in a dozen years is a bit of a stretch? K7L (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's the policy, it's the policy, but I don't know if it serves the reader. If I'm looking for a place to eat or drink, I would look in the Eat and Drink sections, not under Sleep. In this case, since they are doubtful, I've combined the listings and added a note indicating as such.


 * As far as using the template for the Wakefield steam railway, my intention was to show when it was last checked to support the out of service stranger. But on Reflection, I don't think it should be in the Quebec article at all. A province-level article shouldn't have info on services that are no longer offered. Generally I delete the "but it's now closed down" info if something was closed more than a year or two ago. I don't know if there is a policy on that, but historical information like that is just clutter in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If the only pub in the village is at the Northside Motel, we'd likely leave a one-line note in 'Drink' that "there's a pub at the motel" and put the main listing in "Sleep" as part of the motel. My concern is that we don't actually know if any of the "details" you've added are true. Are they from a website that hasn't been updated in a dozen years, or did you try contacting the motel to verify any of this? The "lastedit" field shouldn't be "2017" if the only source is a 2004 website that hasn't been changed since it was created. A lot can change in that time. The motel still exists. Northside Enterprises still sells food in some form. Beyond that? No idea if anything on that old website is still accurate - at least at the level of detail you've added. That's awkward if this is the only motel or only bar in the entire village. Have you been there? Have you contacted these people? I haven't.


 * For Wakefield? The usual policy is to not mention "permanently closed" or "gone" items unless there is some reason the voyager would expect that they're still there - for instance, a car ferry which had long run to St. Pierre and Miquelon no longer exists and its absence could throw a "YUGE" monkey wrench into a voyager's plans. The Wakefield train was a major attraction; its absence is awkward as a municipal group still owns the rolling stock and intends to return - but, if this ends up on some other route or in some other village, is it the same train from a travel perspective? I'd be inclined to keep a "temporarily closed" item with a note, but might be less accommodating were this gone for good. K7L (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For Cartwright, I have added a note that the info comes from an old website and that through and restaurant may no longer be operating.


 * For the Quebec article, the Wakefield Heritage steam train should probably never have been in the "Get arpund" section in the first place. It is an attraction, not a way of getting around. And it has been out of service for over five years. The site that talks about restoring the service is a Facebook page that last posted in Sept 2014. I don't have a problem having on the Gatineau page, but it doesn't belong in the Quebec page. Noone is planning a trip to Quebec just to ride on that steam train, and if they are, they'll be sure to check the Gatineau page for how to get to the attraction, where to stay, etc. I don't think was one of the major attractions in the province, even when it was operating. Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, people did travel from out-of-province routinely just to ride that steam train. That's not saying much, of course, given its location. Pity it's gone.
 * In Cartwright, there's some sort of food service still operating at Northside Enterprises as it passed the provincial inspection cleanly in June 2016, and the motel is open according to Experience Labrador Tours, but that doesn't say much about this place beyond verifying that it still exists. Not sure what to do. K7L (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wakefield: do you think it is necessary to note it in the "See" or "Do" section of Quebec? I don't. I think mentioning it in Gatineau is sufficient.
 * Cartwright: is there better wording we could use to explain this uncertainty in the reference to Northside? Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The track washout should be mentioned in both Gatineau and Wakefield (Quebec), the two endpoints. Northside is likely to need "as of (date)", as in "Tiny six room motel with food service. As of 2004, this was configured as a waterfront Northside Pub below the Northside Motel and a Mug Up restaurant adjacent." Short of relying on a dozen-year-outdated website to be current, that's really all we know about this place. I tried a 'phone call in Sept 2015 and got no answer.
 * I'd also blank or remove the "lastedit=" field when importing anything from a less-than-firsthand source. Yes, you edited the page in 2017, but if you're relying on a 2004-era website, isn't that pretty much "lastedit=2004" (and not 2017) in terms of reliability of the information? K7L (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it is often not apparent when a website was created -- this case is an obvious exception. The lastedit field is really useful info because at least it indicates that there is a website that is still available. In most cases, but not all, this should indicate that the place is still in business. The Tripod site should have tipped me off - I haven't seen one of those in ages. Ground Zero (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the info is from a website created on an unknown date? The "lastedit" field should be left blank. Outdated info and websites are prone to remain online long after their "best before" date, sadly. K7L (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you using some kind of automatic text replacement for some of your edits?
this edit looks a bit like it. There are some typos / weird words otherwise broken sentences introduced by this edit not since fixed, I am having a look at it right now, but I might not catch it all. Please look a bit more closely at your edits to reduce such hiccups. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not, but I am editing on a tablet, and when I search on "words to avoid" like "note" and "currently", sometimes there is an automatic replacement that I don't know how to turn off. I will make a habit of reviewing such edits better. Thanks for catching my errors. Ground Zero (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, and yes, I know the struggles of mobile devices. About half my edits are made from my cell phone... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My aggregators article
Do go ahead and edit. It is by far not far enough along to be proposed as an article, so I think more input cannot harm. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your Boston edits! I was actually going to ask you to give the whole article a once over after I fix up a few more of the rough patches. You can see what I still consider to be in rough shape at the to-do list I'm trying to keep updated. I'd like to believe Boston is coming along nicely, but it's hard to know without feedback. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I only reverted the "shiploads" bit because it seemed like you may have read it as shitloads, lol. Also, curious about your thoughts on bolding? I thought I was using it lightly to make the text more skimmable, but I'm sure there is room for improvement. --ButteBag (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi, Ground Zero. I think everyone considers you a trustworthy editor who's shown a commitment to the betterment of the site. Would you like to become an admin, so that you can have a couple of other tools that, for example, enable you to block spambots and serious vandals and roll back a bunch of junk edits in a single click? If so, let me know and I'll be happy to nominate you.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I'm quite happy editing as I am without more tools and responsibility, but I recognize that we're running low on admins, so I'd be willing to take that on. (I've been in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine with spotty wifi, or I would have replied sooner.) Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you've been having a good time. Thanks for agreeing to do this if chosen. The nomination is up at Administrator nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The process took longer than it should have, but you are now an admin. You'll note your new powers to block users and rollback a series of edits with a single click. I'm sure you will use them wisely, and please feel free to call on me or any other more experienced admin for advice any time you want it. Thanks for agreeing to help us in this way.


 * All the best,


 * Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll do what I can to keep things running smoothly. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hikes in Narvik
It seems you removed the hiking listings from Narvik. I see nothing relevant in the edit summary, so I wonder why. Did you find them inappropriate in some way? --LPfi (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry about that. I shouldn't edit when I'm tired. Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored them. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --LPfi (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Universalism
Lets propose it somewhere. --Neurorebel (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Hi!

As you might have noticed I'm looking up prices and other informations for listings in the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk article. I just spend more than half an hour digging up prices for the Mid-range hotels (and some websites and e-mail addresses) but when I was about to save the edits I got the edit conflict warning because you had edited the page in-between. Of course you couldn't know I was working at the page at the same time, though it'll now take me another 5-10 minutes inserting that content into the listings piecemeal. I'll still be editing the article for about one hour or so, so I'd ask you to please wait with your edits during that time to avoid further edit conflicts. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry to make extra work for you. I'll stay out of the article. It's all yours. Ground Zero (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. And thanks for helping out with the upcoming featured articles. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unity Savings and Credit Union
I see that an anon-IP w:Special:Contributions/66.79.248.60 has been removing validly-sourced information which you added to Kawartha Credit Union a few years ago. This is a w:WP:COI editor, according to whois:
 * NetRange:      66.79.248.32 - 66.79.248.63
 * CIDR:          66.79.248.32/27
 * Parent:        NEXICOM-3-CA (NET-66-79-224-0-1)
 * NetType:       Reassigned
 * OriginAS:      AS11666
 * Customer:      Kawartha Credit Union (C05194494)
 * CustName:      Kawartha Credit Union
 * Address:       1054 Monaghan Road
 * City:          Peterborough
 * PostalCode:    K9J-6Y5

I'm vaguely familiar with the history as a former client of Unity Savings and Credit Union, which was taken over by Kawartha in what was presented to members as a "merger of equals" but was nothing of the sort. I joined in 1986 (back when "Unity" was still Alcan Employees Kingston Credit Union and Alcan still had three factories and a laboratory in Kingston) and left in 2013. The Alcan (Kingston) CU merged with a Dupont (Kingston) CU in the 1990's (the article listed "Nylon Employees (Kingston) – merged in 1995" cited to the former unitysavings.com site; Dupont owned a nylon factory in Kingston), becoming the "Industrial Community Credit Union". Further mergers extended this east to Brockville, becoming "Unity Savings and Credit Union", and later Cornwall. The last mergers with "Unity Savings" as the surviving entity were the takeover of Rideau St. Lawrence CU (Smiths Falls and Brockville) in 2005 and a credit union at a Dupont factory in Maitland in 2006. At its peak, there were ten branches; one closed in 2006 (Unity closed its existing Ormond St branch in Brockville, keeping the former St. Lawrence CU location instead). By the time of the Great Recession of 2008, things took a turn for the worse. In August 2008, Unity closed its recently-acquired branch in Smiths Falls (Rideau CU), and two branches which formerly operated inside Dupont factories in Kingston and Maitland. The Kawartha takeover of Unity was presented to members as a "merger" in 2012. There might have been a vague passing reference in a local newspaper report of the merger to "a low interest rate environment" having been hard on Unity, but no one clearly and honestly spelled this out as a takeover. Indeed, Unity was no more; its branding was removed from signage and websites, members were sent new chequebooks replacing Unity's name with Kawartha's. In April 2013, Kawartha shut down the former Unity computer infrastructure, moving all members to new account numbers on Kawartha's systems. Any online banking features which existed at the former Unity but not at Kawartha (such as Interac e-mail money transfers or online transfers to TFSA's) were gone. Service charges went up for some items (such as NSF cheques) and online account history from the Unity days was no longer accessible online on Kawartha's online banking app. As far as I know, all of the Unity branches acquired by Kawartha are still in operation, and one additional branch was opened in downtown Kingston a year or so ago, but my last contact with these folks was in 2015. A fair amount of unitysavings.com from 2000-2011 still exists on archive.org and is verifiable.

I was a bit disappointed to look Kawartha CU up in Wikipedia and see that they were removing factual info from an article you'd created there. I haven't said anything on WP as I'm no longer active on WP, but this does smell of WP:COI. Kawartha CU should not be rewriting or removing their own collective history from Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't spent much time on WP anymore, but I will take a look on the weekend when I have wifi again. This sort of thing bugs me. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Germany history section (and other sections if you like)
So after someone cut down the history section of Germany in a degree I (and I think at least one other user too) wasn't quite comfortable with, I lengthened it a bit again. That said, you are pretty good (if sometimes over-enthusiastic) about excising needless verbiage. If you'd like to have a look, go ahead. If not, no harm. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. To be honest, I wasn't in favour of adding back in all that stuff because I think the history section is long enough and we don't need to be Wikipedia, but you and the other user felt stronger, so I stayed out. I'll put myself in trimming mode instead of hacking back the jungle mode. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing edit
Why did you edit my comment? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - my apologies. That must have been a finger-slip. I don't know how that happened. Ground Zero (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Thanks for getting back to me. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Erlangen edit + one suggestion
Hi Ground Zero,

thanks for the edit which is much appreciated and - after a quick skipping read - I think it makes it much better. At the same time a suggestion for the future: do more smaller edits. One of the edits broke the parser; whole sections are not displayed at the moment. I am trying to fix it now without breaking your edit.

Cheers, Buan~dewiki (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * When I look at the edit, I can see that I put in a line break that caused one listing not to be formatted properly, but no sections were missing. Thank you for removing the extra line break. I can do smaller edits, but some people complain if you do a series of 20 edits when cleaning up an article.
 * I see that after I cleaned up the formatting so that all of the times and dates are displayed in a consistent format (24-hr clock) according to WV:TDF, you added new listings using the 12-hr clock format, but not the one set out in the policy. Let's keep things simple for travellers by using one format instead of a variety of formats in the article, especially if it is to be a featured article. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply: I've found it and the article is repaired. It was the comment which had a space in the ending tag ("-- &gt;" instad of "--&gt"). As for the times, ok, I did not have a closer look that you changed everything to 24hr mode (at least 80 % of the article was in am/pm format) -- I personally don't mind the format, while I deem the policy WikiVoyage has rather not so helpful in that regard. It would be way better to have one standard across the site, as that would facilitate it to all editors working on several pages. I will comment correspondingly on the policy page. Buan~dewiki (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but WV:TDF does not include the am/pm format, but rather AM/PM. And the day abbreviations we're all over the place. Am I mistaken in believing that Germany generally uses the 24-hr clock? That would seem more natural to me for an article on a German city. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In informal talk the 12 hour clock is used. Everywhere else, it is the 24 hour clock. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Polokwane telephone numbers
In South Africa when adding the country code the 0 is removed from the truck region number --Traveler100 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cape Race, Terra Nova
I'm a bit unsure about this edit to Trepassey and the Irish Loop which changed the address of the Myrick Wireless Interpretation Centre to "Cape Race - Portugal Cove South Heritage Inc, Site 13" with no city and no specific road. This is an awkward location to describe as Cape Race appears not to be a village; it's just a point or peninsula with a light house and a radio museum on what was the first point of contact for inbound trans-Atlantic vessels back in the day. The only way to get to it overland is to go to Trepassey and then follow a long gravel road eastward along the coast to the lighthouse.

I'd just used the address as it appears on the venue's own site. Google Maps gives something different, "Division No. 1, Subd. V, NL A0A 4B0" but doesn't identify this as anything but an Unnamed Road. I don't think that just randomly sending someone to "Site 13" is going to get them there, given that this is an article about a wide rural area encompassing everything south of St. John's on the Avalon Peninsula. If this were in Trepassey village, I'd list (street number), (street name), "Trepassey" but this sort of highly-rural end-of-a-long-gravel-road location seems to lack a civic address in that format. What to do? K7L (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that this is a problem. I was removing the postal information. The PO box doesn't help you find the place. I removed Trepassey because it isn't in Trepassey article, but 32 km away. The postal code is A0A 4B0 the series in the second and with positions tell us that it is the code for the post office (in Trepassey), so it doesn't tell us anything about this location. I have added some text inthe "directions" tag to give driving instructions along the unnamed road. It isn't the best, but I can't find a name for the road either. Ground Zero (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lochearn redirect
It was proposed that Lochearn be merged into Woodlawn (Maryland). In May, you redirected it to Baltimore County, with the edit summery "Merge as proposed over a year ago". Did you mean to redirect it to Woodlawn? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That may have been a mistake, but looking at the articles, I have proposed that Woodlawn be merged into Baltimore county. Ground Zero (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actuality, we were talking about merging a bunch of Baltimore County city guides at Talk:Central Maryland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But I'm thinking it'd be better to merge Woodlawn into West Baltimore. Woodlawn is right outside Baltimore city limits, and the Baltimore County guide might not even exist after we're done merging cities. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's okay with me. I expect that you know the area better than I do. I was just looking at the next level in the tree. Ground Zero (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

An edit you made sparked a discussion at the pub
An edit you made to the Kurashiki article sparked a discussion at the pub: Travellers' pub. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I read the policy
"Use noon and midnight, not 12PM and 12AM." I don't see any ambiguity. Cheers Ibaman (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the section on 24-hr clock formatting. It is both unambiguous and the relevant policy here. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * well, you're right. The consensus has always been the 12:00 AM/PM format, and I have been forever editing any "12:00" on sight. I must have missed this change. Sorry for overlooking this. Ibaman (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know when it changed. I think it's been the policy since before I started actively editing at the beginning of this year. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Clark
Thanks for pointing out an incorrect link I'd created, but see Talk:Clark. Others have made the same error. Pashley (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Give me a chance...
Ground Zero: I am an experienced editor here, so I am well aware that listings should be complete. I had not, however, finished editing them before you stepped in (and still haven't, so please leave alone for now). Thank you, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have no way of knowing your intentions. You could put a  in indicating that it is a work in progress. I will leave the article alone now that I know. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion?
In the Cebu (city) article, User:92.30.2.39 has recently made a lot of edits which I consider dubious & am inclined to revert. However, many of them were removing text I'd added so I am hardly unbiased & I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please take a look? Pashley (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , while I think that this article is probably too long, the anon editor's deletions look to me to be pretty random, and no explanation was provided so I agree with reverting them. I have been concerned for a while that the Drink section violated Sex tourism policy, so I have made edits that I think bring it in line. I hope you're okay with those edits. Ground Zero (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I won't complain about your edits to Drink, though I don't think they were necessary.
 * I agree the article is too long, but it it also needs some additions. Sleep has a huge ugly list for Budget & almost nothing for Mid-range or Splurge. Eat has only the ugly list. I do not know the city well enough to do much about this. Pashley (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

have you been to Cebu at all ? or any where in the Philippines ? I have lived in the Philippines 24 years.
 * That's great. Your experience is very valuable for Wikivoyage. But we are trying to create a travel guide that is easy to read and useful for travellers. That is why we have policies and a Style Guide, and why we ask people to write using standard English capitalization and punctuation. It doesn't have to be perfect, but I am sure that you can write better if you try. Just slow down, and read over what you've written before you save it.
 * Tips for new contributors is a great place to start learning how to contribute effectively to Wikivoyage.
 * Registering for an account also makes it easier to contribute because you can "watch" articles to see when changes are being made, and communicate with other editors. Registration isn't required, but it would help you. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The articles are written to help people who visit the destination (in other words people probably aren't familiar with it). Therefore articles should be tidy and comfortable to read and use. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Brazilian postal codes
Thanks for taking the time to clean up some of the entries that I've made recently. I try to add in information when I have time so that it's available to other people who are interested in the same places that I'm planning on visiting or have recently visited. I don't always have time to format things correctly but I like to at least share the information that I have. Please note though that Brazilian postal codes (called "CEP" here) are an essential part of travelling in Brazil - including by Brazilians themselves, even in their hometowns. They are very precise. Often they cover one or two blocks in the city, or one road in towns, and sometimes even one or two specific buildings. Cities often have more than one street with the same name and without the postal code you might not know which is the one that you want. When searching for a hotel, restaurant, shop or even someone's home, it's far more common to do a Google Map search using only the postal code because it's that precise. Taxis will also use it to find the place you're going to and if the restaurant or hotel isn't marked in their navigator or Google Maps, they can at least get you close enough that you can usually see the place. I know that postal codes are usually left off addresses in this wiki but the topic IS under discussion (easier to leave them for now than for someone else to add them all back in if postal codes are officially approved) and it is an essential part of addresses here, not just for sending letters in the mail. --Vagabond turtle (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That discussion kind of fizzled out, but you make a good argument. I will stop removing them. Ground Zero (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Alsergrund Jewish Cemetery
Before removing relevant information, it would be most helpful if you would please verify that it is no longer current. The cemetery is indeed open, as it was when I visited late last year, but it was still not possible to walk among the gravestones, as I was disappointed to learn and had described in the text which you have now removed not once but twice. Renovation work on the cemetery has been ongoing for a very long time, and it says this on the website: 'Restoration works at the graveyard have already been carried out for many years.' Unless you personally have visited the site yourself, it would be most appreciated if you would defer to someone who actually has. –StellarD (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect that you visited last year. What is the situation this year? The cemetery's website says:
 * "Access for visitors: The cemetery was made accessible in 1984. Today the cemetery is managed by the Jewish Community Vienna. During the day, visitors have access to the Jewish cemetery in Seegasse 9-11 via the retirement home Rossau. The graveyard covers an area of 2,000 square metres and is situated on the premises of the retirement home. Opening hours: Monday to Friday from 8am to 3pm. Access via the retirement home."
 * There is no mention of it being closed. Do you think it is possible that that the situation has changed in the last 12 months? Ground Zero (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, as I stated earlier, the cemetery was not closed last year either, and the website hasn't changed since then. The cemetery is located in a central courtyard, and was roped off because of ongoing restoration works. If the cemetery wasn't open for visitors I wouldn't have been able to walk in, as I had to inform the visitor's desk that I was not visiting a resident but rather wanted to see the cemetery. I do not personally know if it yet possible to set foot in the cemetery, but I rather doubt it because this is a long-running project. –StellarD (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What worries me about "closed for renovations" or "not accessible during renovations" tags is that they end up sitting on the article forever, and making WV look out of date. For sites that are visited regularly, we can count on someone updating it. For more obscure sites, like this one, we can't rely on personal visits. How long should we leave this tag on? Indefinitely? Or should we say that after a period of time, we no longer know that the graves are not accessible, and remove the tag? Ground Zero (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, however Vienna generally is a much-visited destination and it is possible that someone will eventually visit and edit that entry – in any case the website states very clearly that restoration work has been ongoing for many years, and it is a small cemetery. I myself usually visit Vienna every other year or so and have a personal interest in such sites, so unless someone else confirms it first I may be able to confirm it myself, possibly next year. However I don't believe it is a service to travelers to remove potentially relevant information unless one has personal knowledge of the place or can confirm the details themselves. –StellarD (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While Vienna is much-visited, I expect that this cemetery is not. If Wikivoyage relied only on personal experience, there would not be much of a guide here at all. Internet research will remain a key component of our work until we achieve a critical mass and can rely solely on personal experience. Ground Zero (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So in this case would you not agree that it is better to wait until someone (likely myself) visits and confirms this entry, before zealously removing information that is just over a year old? It is more likely than not that the situation there has not changed much, and as there is an active editor with local experience who may visit again next year, why argue ad nauseam about this entry? –StellarD (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem eager to rant angrily on about this instead of discussing it calmly, so I am giving you that opportunity to vent. You're welcome. I am willing to wait. It would be great if you could visit it again and update the article. That, of course, would be better than relying on internet research, but I still think it is unreasonable to proscribe updating articles on the basis of internet research as that would lead to Wikivoyage becoming a collection of mostly out-of-date information. Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)