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) 09:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Banat
[edit]Hey there! Thanks for your help with the Banat region articles. I just wanted to point out that I removed the western part of Mehedinti County from inclusion in the Banat article. At the next level down in the hierarchy, Romania is fair consistently broken down into counties, and each county can only have one parent region which, as it has been set up for Mehedinti, is Oltenia. I adapted your Banat intro accordingly. Texugo (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
hey there, thanks for the help, but given your edit i think you misunderstood my text - Banat consists of TM, CS and the western part of MH is what I said. you edited that to say - banat consist of TM and CS. (period) for the western part of MH, see Oltenia. That is not only confusing, but also incorrect, as Oltenia is another historical region. anyway, I just merged TM and CS into Banat, as there was not much point having them as separate articles.
- Please see my response on my talk page. Normally we try to discuss and get consensus before making big changes to region organization. Merging TM and CS to Banat is not a huge problem in my opinion (though if we get 10 more city articles in the region, I might start to think differently), but saying "part of X county is here and part is in another region" is something I think needs to be discussed, because while that may be true in a historical sense, Romania as a whole was organized by using county boundaries, and in many cases, county articles. To start splitting counties may be problematic unless you have a comprehensive vision of how the whole country should be set up. Texugo (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are two issues here - one is merging CS and TM, another one is saying the region includes part of MH. If you say you agree with the former, then please revert your revert of my merge. I don't think we can get 10 more city articles here, as there are simply no more cities, and the ones we have have barely any content at all. If the article does happen to grow to something huge (which I doubt), we can easily split it later. Now the 2nd issue, whether to include the western part of MH - I made that change simply to be compliant with wikivoyage's definition of Banat! I don't really mind whether we decide to include Orsova in Oltenia rather than in Banat, but given the map of Romanian regions, that is clearly not the case. So all I wanted to do by adding Orsova there was to make things consistent with the way we split regions on the Romania page. IonutBizau (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, when you merge regions, don't forget about the breadcrumbs. You need to go through all the city articles and change the IsPartOf tag at the bottom from the county name to Banat. Texugo (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Haven't realized that, thanks! IonutBizau (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also let me know when you've done that so I can delete the empty category pages. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Haven't realized that, thanks! IonutBizau (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for deletion
[edit]Please have a look at our deletion policy. The three articles you nominated for deletion are not really eligible for that process because they are in fact real places, so they cannot be outright deleted and can, at most, be redirected. Furthermore, we usually keep articles like Bocşa, even if they are a rather boring place - 15-19000 is too big to redirect somewhere else unless it's really mashed up against a bigger city. The other two might be redirected if there is a really truly logical place not far away in which to cover anything that might be added, but otherwise they probably aren't hurting anything as separate articles. Texugo (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, they are real places. What made me consider them for deletion is the rule in the deletion policy that says that imported pages from another wiki with no content can be "speedy deleted" by admins. These are obviously old articles imported from wikitravel, and they wouldn't really meet wikivoyage standards. IonutBizau (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of redirections, Bocşa is very close to Resita (15km), so maybe I could redirect there? As for the other small places, couldn't I redirect to the parent region (Banat) with an eventual anchor (#)? IonutBizau (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see any real reason to redirect Bocşa. Anyway, when it says "no content" it means zero, nothing but a template, and our general agreement was that those could be deleted and recreated, just to get rid of the attribution note which accompanies imported pages. Texugo (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I removed my proposal for deletion. Thanks for clarifying. IonutBizau (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do not see any real reason to redirect Bocşa. Anyway, when it says "no content" it means zero, nothing but a template, and our general agreement was that those could be deleted and recreated, just to get rid of the attribution note which accompanies imported pages. Texugo (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- When did the criteria become "15-19000 is too big to redirect somewhere else"? The real question isn't how many people, it's whether there are things for travellers to see or do in these places. We'll list ghost towns if they're village-sized, nowhere near a larger city and actually worth seeing. A "bedroom community" with 20000 people and nothing to see, though, isn't worth listing. K7L (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to imply that it's a hard and fast rule. I guess my point is that if a city that size already has sleep and eat listings etc., I don't see a compelling reason to go out of our way to condemn it as boring as redirect. Texugo (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Where to cover listings
[edit]Hi there. Thanks again for your continuing work on articles in your region. I would ask you to reconsider your approach just a little — I noticed you removed a statue listing from Orșova and put it only in the region article. However, listings should pretty much always go in the article for the nearest city. The region article (Banat in this case) should contain an overview of what there is to see in the area; it really shouldn't contain the listings themselves. Exceptions are occasionally made, of course, if there is a good reason, but if the only reason is that a listing is a little outside of town, it can and should still be listed in that town's article. So when you have an attraction that isn't in a town, just ask yourself "What town/city would this place be most easily visited from?" and then put the listing in that article. Then, if it's important enough regionally as well, you can also mention it in the region article, with a pointer to the city article for more details. Texugo (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see, so you would always add it to the nearest city if it's within a reasonable distance? What would be that? In this case it's 17km on the road. You say I should mention it both in the city article and in the region article if important enough, so basically duplicate the listing? That is a bit weird. Would I add coordinates to both listings then? Can you point me to other regions that do something similar? IonutBizau (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- If your foreign friend was going to Orșova, wouldn't you mention to him that this cool statue is only 17km away?
- And, no, you wouldn't duplicate the whole listing in the region article. The full listing, with the address, directions, coordinates, contact details, more detailed description, goes in the city article. If it's an attraction that is also notable on the regional scale, you can give a short one-liner description or a mention in prose, with a pointer to the city article. Texugo (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Examples of regional See sections handled in prose: Northern Territory, Eastern_Shore_(Maryland), Southeastern_Islands, Svalbard
- Examples of regional See sections handled with one-liner listings: Colorado, Gili Islands
- Texugo (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hard to say, and rather subjective. I think in this case the statue is more a defining feature of that particular section of the Danube river, together with the two canyons I mentioned, and other stuff like caves, etc., rather than a point of interest in the city. I would much rather have these natural features grouped together and rather do a one-liner in the city article under a "things to see nearby" heading than have the full listing there. As you said - this is something I would recommend to a friend to go to if he's in that city - not an actual point in the city. IonutBizau (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Our city articles should contain the listings for their nearby attractions, that's just how we do it. If we started putting full detailed listings in the region articles, it would make it much harder to have the region article give an appropriate prose overview because it would get too clogged up with details. Details should always go at the bottom of the hierarchy when possible, i.e. the nearest city article. Texugo (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rock statue is part of the Iron Gates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gates) and it really makes sense to have all these places of interest grouped together, because they are visited together. When there will be enough stuff, we could probably move them to a separate article (whether Iron Gates, or Iron Gates National Park). But we can't have one in the city and the others outside. Nor it makes sense to have *all* in the city (the Iron Gates span 130km+). IonutBizau (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Still, until such time as there is enough to make a separate article, the details of each should be covered in their nearest city article, and the region article should probably contain a prose overview, in its own See subsection, of the Iron Gates, which links to the city articles where the details are found. Texugo (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rock statue is part of the Iron Gates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gates) and it really makes sense to have all these places of interest grouped together, because they are visited together. When there will be enough stuff, we could probably move them to a separate article (whether Iron Gates, or Iron Gates National Park). But we can't have one in the city and the others outside. Nor it makes sense to have *all* in the city (the Iron Gates span 130km+). IonutBizau (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Our city articles should contain the listings for their nearby attractions, that's just how we do it. If we started putting full detailed listings in the region articles, it would make it much harder to have the region article give an appropriate prose overview because it would get too clogged up with details. Details should always go at the bottom of the hierarchy when possible, i.e. the nearest city article. Texugo (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hard to say, and rather subjective. I think in this case the statue is more a defining feature of that particular section of the Danube river, together with the two canyons I mentioned, and other stuff like caves, etc., rather than a point of interest in the city. I would much rather have these natural features grouped together and rather do a one-liner in the city article under a "things to see nearby" heading than have the full listing there. As you said - this is something I would recommend to a friend to go to if he's in that city - not an actual point in the city. IonutBizau (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see, so you would always add it to the nearest city if it's within a reasonable distance? What would be that? In this case it's 17km on the road. You say I should mention it both in the city article and in the region article if important enough, so basically duplicate the listing? That is a bit weird. Would I add coordinates to both listings then? Can you point me to other regions that do something similar? IonutBizau (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oravița
[edit]Hi there, IonutBizau. I saw you've created a redirect for Oravița. Unfortunately, we'll have to redo this move, as you've now only copied and pasted the content. This is not a good option, because the edit history is obscured as a result. The edit history is needed to adhere to our copyleft regulations; it should show the names of the users who've written the content. Therefore, we use the "move this page" function. It moves the history with the page. I can see in your edit history that you've used it for other pages. In this case, that would first require the target page to be deleted, because you cannot "move" a page to an already existing target page. For this you need help of an administrator. That's no problem, but could you explain why exactly the target page spelling (Oravița) is particularly better than Oraviţa? This because one of our admins moved the page in the opposite direction a few years ago. Thanks, JuliasTravels (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The name of the place is Oravița, the letter ţ does not appear in Romanian language, so the "Oraviţa" spelling is simply wrong. Yes, ideally we would delete the existing page and use the "move" function. Are you an admin? can you help with that? IonutBizau (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, alright. I'll delete the page then. You'll just have to redo the few adjustments you made after the move. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! IonutBizau (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't thank me yet... I'll post a message in the pub, as I'm seeing a rather ambivalent use of cedilla and comma throughout Romanian articles. I didn't find any specific guideline, but I want to make sure there's no problem with the t-comma, e.g. in how it is presented in different browsers or so. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! IonutBizau (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, alright. I'll delete the page then. You'll just have to redo the few adjustments you made after the move. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
recent edits
[edit]Hi, could you please explain your recent edits to Vulcan, Aninoasa and Petrila,it appears to be a deletion of information. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I explained in the comment to the change. Feel free to revert if you consider there is anything to see in any of these cities. And the information looked like useless information for a travel guide. IonutBizau (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Lakes, isles, mounts, regions, parks, etc. goes to "Other destinations", while buildings, monuments, etc. goes to "See". --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is not so much a distinction between natural attractions versus man-made attractions, as you seem to understand it, but rather between points of interest versus areas of interest. An island, a mountain, a national park, or even a lake can be quite large - large enough to make them a destination of their own that could have a wikivoyage page in the future, because they would contain other sights, hotels, restaurants, etc.. This is definitely not the case for the attractions discussed here, which are really just individual attractions, and not contain other points of interests themselves. This is how I understand and use wikivoyage, at least. But it could be that I am wrong. Can you point me to some page that says that *any* lake would go under "other destinations" as opposed to only huge lakes, like Lake Toba, Lake Baikal, etc.? And what about mud volcanoes? Why would they not be listed under "see"? IonutBizau (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is how we manage it:voy. Try to look around the en:voy policies. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is not so much a distinction between natural attractions versus man-made attractions, as you seem to understand it, but rather between points of interest versus areas of interest. An island, a mountain, a national park, or even a lake can be quite large - large enough to make them a destination of their own that could have a wikivoyage page in the future, because they would contain other sights, hotels, restaurants, etc.. This is definitely not the case for the attractions discussed here, which are really just individual attractions, and not contain other points of interests themselves. This is how I understand and use wikivoyage, at least. But it could be that I am wrong. Can you point me to some page that says that *any* lake would go under "other destinations" as opposed to only huge lakes, like Lake Toba, Lake Baikal, etc.? And what about mud volcanoes? Why would they not be listed under "see"? IonutBizau (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
[edit]Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to [email protected].
Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
[edit](Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or [email protected]. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)