Hobbitschuster

While you've expressed your disregard for Wikivoyage policy in the past, I encourage you to propose changes to it and get consensus for those changes before trying to impose your preferred style on Wikivoyage articles. This process, while it can be cumbersome and time-consuming, avoids the time wasted by revert wars. You make useful contributions to this projects. It is unfortunate that you chose to ignore its policies and engage other contributors in an aggressive and dispectful way. That behaviour makes Wikivoyage less enjoyable for everyone, and from the tone of your comments, I can see that it has agitated you too. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit warring both of you. There is certainly some third person who can judge what version is better, or whether there is an even better third way. –LPfi (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Hobbitschuster, for recognizing my edits to some of the hotel and other proprietor listings out there. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds when I take corrective action like that. It seems like it won't do a WV traveler much good to go somewhere and then find that a place is closed, so that has been my rationale. It's kind of sad when I can see someone has put a lot of effort into listing something though. Lazarus1255 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

sadly removing things that no longer exist is one of our perpetual tasks. I fear that with the plague it'll even get more common. Thank you for contributing on it and of course it's sad to see some listings go, but if they no longer exist, it's best to remove them Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suppose I can partly guess what you meant by this, but I think you should be explicit about what business practices you are referring to:

South Asia was the world's leading textile producers with manufacturers engaging in several business practices that would characterize the later industrial era in the Global North.

–LPfi (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stuff like, err, "distributed manifacturing" maybe? I don't know how you call it when one big "company" buys the raw materials and takes over sales but "sources out" actual production to numerous home manufacturers. Anyway, I got the gist of "India was an economic superpower before colonialism" this excellent episode (and to a lesser extent this one - warning, bleak) of the "History of the Twentieth Century Podcast" Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Do you find a way to word it explicitly in the article? As I know little about this, it is more difficult for me. I think I am not the most ignorant among our readers. –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

You wondered about "own car". Yes, at least in Swedish we use that phrase, I suppose it is the same in the other Nordic languages. We also take the hat instead of our hat, so "your" is much less used. The indefinite "you" has become common, calqued the other way, as in "when you win the Olympics" (as a sportsman put it) – sounds funny, as if I were to win the Olympics, which would be the only interpretation in correct Finnish or Swedish. –LPfi (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Interesting... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

here. Maybe before blasting me in an edit summary, you should check the edits I've actually made. Flaming someone who has been assiduously building an article is bad form, especially when you are dead wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this comment, I invite you to review the contributions I have made to Wikivoyage so that you can see that I make voluminous contributions to improving the site. Ground Zero (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Does that include not even looking up w:Frankenstein (disambiguation) to see whether there "are sites" regarding Frankenstein? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't done it, why do you think you can assign that task to me? Other editors are not responsible for cleaning up after you. My edit history shows the many articles that I have improved. Your accusation that I do not improve the site is demonstrably false. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I explicitly asked for the help of other editors in the pub. And this side show here is over with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

And that is the point. If you are going to create a fiction tourism article, it is up to you to demonstrate that it can be a travel article, not up to other editors. Adding practical travel information, as you have now done, makes it a travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, look at its article history. And stop trying to get on my case for everything I do. This behavior is damaging to the wiki and not endearing you to anybody. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The record shows that I do not get on your case for everything you do. There are lots of edits that you make that I do not question or challenge. I noted at the beginning of the discussion, "We have several sites that fans of Dracula can visit, so that article makes sense" in deliberate reference to an article that you created.

And the record shows that that this statement is demonstrably false: "But it is just like you to complain about everything I do instead of actually improving the site". If there is any question about behaviour to be asked, I think it is making false accusations that is damaging to the wiki. Ground Zero (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe you should leave the criticism of my oh-so-offending behavior to others. After all, if you are right, others would see and criticize it just as well, right? Anyway, I have better use for my time than to defend myself against attacks on my honor by your likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I note that the discussion of behaviour began with you making obviously false criticisms of my behaviour, so I encourage you to heed your own advice. Ground Zero (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The edit comment was of course not OK. I should have deleted it if I saw it first, and stating that it crossed a border was OK. The criticism of the Frankenstein article, however, is unfunded: the stub without travel related information was still better than the redirect. The article might be a vfd candidate if work on it ends, but requiring it to be in good shape in less than a month is unreasonable (some write articles in one go, others by additions every now and then). And the argument here is no good.

So leave it for now, as H asked you above (16:04, 21 May 2021).

–LPfi (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lets not have another litter bin debacle again, as one stupid discussion is enough, and we could be doing more constructive stuff, rather than focus on an article that isn't a city, phrasebook, park or itinerary or anything that's not a travel topic. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you don't like travel topics, don't work on them, but if you want to call into question the very idea of them, I guess Wikivoyage talk:Other ways of seeing travel might be the best place to start a thread - and good luck! I don't see you making any headway, but restrict yourself to discussing this in one place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I have been planning to start a discussion there about topic articles that provide no travel information, such as plot summaries and unreferenced history essays. At no time did I say that I don't like travel topics. I believe that you are misrepresenting my argument here. I have worked to improve many travel tropics. As with Hobbitschuster's false accusations, misrepresenting another editor's position is not constructive. Ground Zero (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero:, I thought Ikan made that accusation against me. But again, when did I say I'm against topic articles? After all, I've got plans to make more. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

And misrepresenting one's position is what KevRobb did, and after that litter bin debacle, I think GZ and I do not want that again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for misreading your remark, SHB2000. GZ, I know you don't object to the idea of travel topics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: - while I am not against topics, I do sometimes find it difficult to say what's an outline and what's not. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do, too. Travel topics are much harder to judge than other types of articles. But the heart of them has to be travel information, or else they're indeed glorified Wikipedia articles without footnotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

And what's a star travel topic? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Retiring abroad. You can see the complete list of star articles at Category:Star articles. The one about retiring is the only one that's a travel topic at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit. Not a huge deal, but I wonder why. You've changed two more common words back to two less common words. Do you find them more poetic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was also going to ask why as well. It reads more confusing to me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Meh, I'm not wedded to it. I think I was more sure about one than the other, but it doesn't matter much, all things told... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I prefer “metropoles” over “metropolises” as it’s easier to pronounce. I think I’d prefer “urban areas” or “metro areas,” though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Go for it, SelfieCity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the move, based on your concerns, I'm now not sure if it's within the scope of the 'underground works' article either based on the Wikipedia article for the site. Could you review and place the listing somewhere appropriate? Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to trust your experience on this , So I've struck out my earlier message. Apologies for the move. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Where do you think the article could be improved? On the other user talk page, concern was expressed about scoping it more tightly. Do you have any suggestions on how to do this?

Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd like some thoughts on this as a viable travel topic to work on at some point, if you feel I haven't lost your trust, by making page moves without adequate research. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, Myanmar uses km/h like the rest of the world does. See the bottom bit of w:Myanmar units of measurement SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it was not very wise from you to undo the m/s undoing in Metric and Imperial equivalents. On the talk page there was doubt about its usefulness. Let somebody else handle such redoing your edits and undoing GZ's. If the discussion seems stalled with no clear outcome, ask others whether it could be reinserted. –LPfi (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

HS, at least you could have used an edit summary. Why didn't you do that? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was a discussion underway on the talk page. That is where any editor should explain their views. HS chose to stop participating in that discussion. I waited a week for a response before making the edit. Reverting an edit after quitting the discussion is edit warring. It achieves nothing, and is not an acceptable way of participating in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

HS, also looking at this talk page, why aren't you answering most of your talk page messages? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suppose he doesn't want this to deteriorate into an argument. Let's not push him, he can still note the points made. –LPfi (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Motels describes motels in "most of" Latin America as commonly or mostly used for romantic assignations, if I understand the section correctly. Wiktionary and Wikipedia hint on the same, but none of the three is particularly clear. South America#Sleep says "the types of lodging available are the same as in North America and Europe" and keeps quiet on the motel issue. Central America lacks a Sleep section.

So are the motels the same as in the USA, but with a questionable reputation, are they unsuitable for normal accommodation, or does the word refer to something altogether different? I think the description in Motels about chastity of normal hotels should go in Hotels or Sleep (a Cope section might need to be added) and the relevant country articles, and instead motels and what are called motels should be described more clearly.

Is this usage of "motel" familiar to you from where you have been travelling? Do you think you could write something about it?

–LPfi (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you again. –LPfi (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply