User talk:(WT-en) Paul. Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Hello! Welcome to Wikivoyage. If you want to specialize your experience you may want to consider editing your preferences. Please take a second to look at our copyleft and policies and guidelines, but feel free to plunge forward and edit some pages. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted. If you're new to the whole wiki community look at the Wiki markup to get an idea of how to use the wiki markup. If you need help, check out the help desk, and if you need some info not on there, post a message in the travellers' pub.

Thanks for uploading your map, but in the future please upload your travel related images to Wikivoyage Shared, our image depository. Thanks. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:49, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

The best place for maps if the city can't or shouldn't be broken down into districts is the orientation section. See Edinburgh for a general idea of what should be there. I'd cover important streets, is there a particular district or street that has a high density of tourist attractions or museums? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:39, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, upload the .svg and .png to Shared. Thanks for all the great work. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 00:44, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

You should consider becoming a Project:Docent for Dalian! (WT-en) Maj 16:28, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Swept in from the Pub — (WT-en) Hypatia 19:14, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

I've just plunged forward and done a major overhaul of the Dalian page. As this is my first go at editing on here I'd appreciate any feedback that could be offered. The major problem at the moment is that the article is far too long (61k). The standard solution is to subdivide into districts, but I'm not at all sure that Dalian is a prominent enough city to warrant subdivision. That tends to suggest that some of the detail should be trimmed down or removed, so I'd appreciate ideas from those not familiar with the city as to what is or isn't likely to be useful. The other issue is that I created maps for the city, but found that the central area was too big to comfortably fit all the detail on one map. I've created a "Maps" section at the bottom (I'll probably add a public transport map and maybe district map later) but I'm sure there must be a more elegant solution, I'm just not seeing it yet. --(WT-en) Paul. 14:23, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Hi Paul, nice work! There's some feedback on the article talk page, but I just wanted to answer the district question here -- it's not really a matter of 'prominence' but what's going to be useful to travellers. If there's enough going on in each area, then it's probably easier for travellers to think in terms of districts rather than have to deal with an unmanagable list of places to go, eat, etc. Again, nice work! (WT-en) Maj 16:27, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Hi, thanks for the positive feedback! Thinking about it dividing into districts is probably the best way to go about it, especially now I've finally found a map showing the district boundaries. I'm working on the maps at the moment, when they're finished I'll get started on the article. Thanks again for the comments. --(WT-en) Paul. 22:43, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Here's one for you for your map-making efforts! Also, I am planning to nominate Dalian for stardom. Let's see if folks have feedback. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 18:37, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I just wanted to let you know that I think you kick ass too! I second the stardom nomination. It'd be great to for someone else to (WT-en) join the star user club! -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:43, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul - the regional maps of Wales look great. Your efforts are commendable. However, I hope you don't mind, but I have moved the town of Knighton from the Mid Wales page to the Powys one. I did this in order to reduce the number of towns on list for Mid Wales to nine as per Wikivoyage policy. And, as Knighton was the least well known (and possibly the smallest) town in the group, that was the obvious choice. Thanks for your efforts. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 06:46, 20 November 2006 (EST)

One final point - outside of cricket, the county of Glamorgan no longer exists. It has been carved up into boroughs and city/county districts. So, to be precise, one can no longer say that places like Cardiff or Swansea are in Glamorgan. Several years ago, the county was divided into three districts that retained the name Glamorgan - Mid, South and West, but even that has gone. If you'd like more information, check out this Wikipedia article: [1] - sorry to give you a headache. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 06:46, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, if it is not difficult to change, then Builth Wells would be a more suitable candidate to include on the map. Knighton is really not a very well known village. However, if it is a hassle, then leave it. There is not too much to choose between those Mid Wales towns and villages. Regarding Glamorgan, I agree, it would be very difficult to do a color-coded map that included the eleven districts that now constitute the old county, so I suggest leaving it. I have written an explanation on the Glamorgan page, please have a look and amend as you see fit. Thanks. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 08:13, 20 November 2006 (EST)

The maps not only look great, but are really helpful. Thanks. When I get the chance, maybe I'll try to copy your lead and create one for Swansea. As the city is spread out along coves and bays, places are often difficult to locate, so a color-coded map would be quite useful for travelers. Let's see how time goes. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 08:50, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul - sorry to give you a headache again, but there are a couple map errors: Newport, Pontypool and Cwmbran were all in the traditional county of Monmouthshire, not Glamorgan. I also need to amend the list of places in Glamorgan as I've just discovered that Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen were in Gwent (the succssor to Monmouthshire), not Glamorgan as I had thought. Apologies (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 21:44, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, yes those border changes were quite confusing and actually a few new boroughs seem to have been carved out of traditional areas that were in both Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. Anyway, I apologize for not giving you clear info initially, but I am not familiar with places like Bleanau Gwent, Torfaen or Pontypool etc. Actually, to be honest, Mid South Wales would sound strange. There has never been such a demarcation, either colloquially or officially. However, if you want to simplify this area, you could follow the BBC's demarcations [2]. They have divided the region into South West Wales and South East Wales. South West Wales covers Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and the old administrative region of West Glamorgan, which consisted of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot. On the Wikipedia map [3], those are areas 11, 12, 13 and 22. South East Wales covers the former admin areas of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan as well as Monmouthshire (Gwent), which includes Cardiff, Newport, Porthcawl and Barry and covers admin areas 1 to 10 on the map. Confused?!? Anyway, if you think that is a good way to go for the map, don't worry too much about listing of the towns. I'll sort out the ambiguous ones later. (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 00:14, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, Yes, I agree, keeping the counties as separate entities is the most ideal option, and your latest map has achieved that aim perfectly. I appreciate for all your efforts. Ps. just one thing though, I wonder if you could somehow manage to include Leeds somewhere on the map? (just a joke!) (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 09:45, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, I don't know too much about Gwent, but anyway I've added some explanatory blurb to the understand section. Please have a look, and let me know if you think anything needs changing. Thanks (WT-en) Frequenttrekker 10:00, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Thank you for the Birmingham maps,; but please be aware of [WCAG Guideline 2.1 - "Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]". You might, for instance, label each bus route, or use differently-shaped dashes. Cheers, (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 13:30, 28 November 2006 (EST)

OK, I tweaked the maps, adding labels and route summaries to the bus map and changing the pattern of the mainline routes on the rail map (the rest I left alone as the colours don't signify anything particularly important, they're just there to match up with the local rail guides). Hopefully that should be sufficient, but if you think anything further is needed let me know. --(WT-en) Paul. 17:25, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Much better, thank you. (The other guidelines at that page make intere4sting reading, as well) (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 17:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, the map of England looks great. However, regarding the list of cities I feel I should clarify my sentiments. I'm not actually opposed to York being placed in with the smaller cities category as I see other towns of similar size listed there. I also am not adverse to Leeds making the list, though I notice that the next candidate in terms of visitor figures is Coventry. Anyway, I'll leave the decision to you. However, I'd just like to make clear that my original support for York was based on the fact that I hadn't realized that the other towns of similar size were being listed in a separate 'smaller cities' list (also, I'm not familiar with the size of most English cities), and the fact that I felt that if the decision to include Leeds was made as a result of their persistent lobbying and not based on actual visitor figures, then we would open our selves up to similar calls from supporters of other cities. Soon the talk page for England would soon become like a football supporters campaign. Anyway, I'm just clarifying my initial statement on the England Talk page. The maps and listings you've done are really great, and I'll support whatever decision you make regarding which cities to add on the front page listing. Apologies for my initial vagueness about the matter. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:57, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul - thanks for supplying the new stats. I have no opinion about which set are used to decide which cities are placed on the main list. Putting Leeds on the main England page is also fine with me as long as its inclusion is the result of actual facts not pressure. Otherwise, it starts the whole 'who shouts loudest' game again. In short, based on your knowledge of the UK coupled with the info on the stats, I trust you to make a wise decision, and so leave it totally in your hands. By the way, the maps looks great. (WT-en) WindHorse 11:25, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Hi Paul, seems you are the man with the ultimate power to change city lists (due to ownership of the maps, which need to match the lists). Just wanted to alert you to a discussion on the UK page... Looks like a while ago there was much argument about which cities made the list, and in the end this was based on visitor numbers. There are now some new stats available, which reshuffles the top 9. There seems to be some support for the changes, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to redo your excellent map? Thanks

Amazing job on the maps of counties in England -- what a step forward for the project! Thank you so much for the effort that must have gone into these maps. --(WT-en) Evan 13:27, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Hi, Paul. So, previously, we've used "Cities" as the heading in the Project:region article template for any settlement, from a tiny hamlet to a megalopolis. If there's a need to specify the size of a community, you can do it in the description that comes after the link, like:

• Greatbigsville - the largest city in the county
• Teensytown - a village known for its pottery
• Middlesize - a mid-sized town with some amenities and features

I realize that putting a tiny village under the heading "cities" can be counterintuitive, but I think it's better than the alternatives -- either having a single heading for each kind and size of settlement, or having one big heading with each kind in it ("Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, megacities, unincorporated townships, settlements, communities, crossroads, parishes, and suburbs"). In cases where all the cities in a region are really just towns or villages, we sometimes do "Towns" or "Villages" instead of "Cities", but it's unusual.

If you think this is crazy, could you please comment on Project:Region article template? Otherwise, I'm going to change back to "Cities" for counties and regions in England when you were adding your excellent maps. --(WT-en) Evan 12:58, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Paul,

Do you have an svg version of the uniformed police figure that you put up on Project:Common map symbols last year? I think we should incorporate it into Project:Common map symbols and the map template I am busy building. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:12, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Please have a look at the discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Copyleft#The_copyleft. Would you be willing to release these two symbols under public domain?

• wts:Image:Light Rail.svg
• wts:Image:Underground Rail.svg

--(WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:18, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

There's a question about one of the hostels in Dalian on Talk:Dalian/Zhongshan, and since you know the city and seem to be the one who added the listing for it, I'd appreciate your input. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)