User talk:PsamatheM Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

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.

Thank you for your edits on Lhomme please remember that this is the English edition of Wikivoyage and therefore information in listings like opening hours should be in English. Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• First, glad to have you aboard, helping improvement of our travel guides. And sorry if I upset you with quick, undiscussed changes to your edits. About the postal codes, I see your point and have been paying attention about their importance. You mentioned GPS and satnav apps, and the possibility of using WV data on them. I'm out of my depth technically about this subject matter, but am wondering if you could/should/would program the stuff to work with them codes AND geocoordinates. The lat/long stats are slowly being compiled and put to use on our dynamic maps. I feel they are the future, the way to go. So I felt like suggesting to you to consider working towards using geocoordinates together with postal codes on your programming. Ibaman (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • (Sorry a long explanation/response). Not upset about the changes; I recognise it is a collaborative project and thus there must/can be no "ownership" of contributions and that any thought or contribution can invariably be enhanced through additions from others. Also, as a new contributor I am not familiar with some of the practices and I fully accept the work is enhanced by everybody adopting similar layout standards. That said, I was shocked by how quickly the entry was descended on by several others, often changes to language making no sense and probably based on the (incorrect)assumption that I was French and not a native English speaker and it was not phrased "how the editor would have phrased it" ...

• • I am also aware of how often new contributor does not fully understand the project and comes in "and wants everything changed" .... not for a new contributor to do. I am a great believer in collaborative, public, open license, etc. projects as I feel we all have something to offer others and don't like the development where e.g. Google, Apple, etc. use mapping and information as a backdrop for their own commercial activities, their commercial activities being the true motivation (i.e. until we all end-up living in and using "the World according to Google"). When I first started travelling (before the days of the internet) I used to contribute to the South American Handbook (commercial but in those days all there was).

• • But based on experience the shortening and removal of elements of the address is a disaster that dramatically reduces the functionality of WikiVoyage. It is costing me time (not with WikiVoyage but with an app developer who is suffering the impacts of Apple having done the same in the past).

• • I've again been spending this morning diagnosing mapping and location issues caused by Apple MapKit shortening the address by removing components and then as a result of that, plotting the wrong location on their mapping.

• • I actually spent my career a software developer (C/C++/Objective-C) specialising in mobile data systems. However, I suspect that the Wiki code is not based on those software platforms and thus I doubt I have the experience to help code anything reliably. I am happy to contribute thoughts and experience as to appropriate functionality.

• • I had made some notes as to why I consider the WikiVoyage practice of removal of implied address elements/ shortening, etc. so bad and have included them below - as I am unsure as to where they should be posted to start a discussion on changing the project practice. Please do not take any of the points I raise as being personally directed.

• • (Sorry, I've not indented this so it can be cut and pasted to a more suitable place for further discussion ? (if appropriate to the way the project operates, etc.)

Some Outline Thoughts on the WikiVoyage Practice of Address Abbreviation/Element Removal/Shortening

Listings: I believe should be self contained as nobody knows how any user of the data might present the information at some point in the future. As an information resource, needing to take elements of information from different (and unstructured) places to try and reform and build a valid address, and even then have components missing severely limits utility of the dataset.

Use of various SatNavs, phone route planning and mapping apps, etc. - all these apps require a complete address NOT just a street name. The more complete the address the better. So shortening the address and removing everything other than street means that the address cannot be used in SatNavs, phone mapping systems, etc. or at best the address needs manual editing (but probably just wont work).

The listings entry field if for an address NOT a street/number and an address should include all elements in order that somebody can find the location..

My (limited) experience of WikiVoyage is that it is very city orientated. Being a contributor driven project I would guess this is because of the interests and experience of the contributors and thus as the city oriented nature grows, so further users and contributors are more city oriented (if you travel rural areas you would be less likely to use WikiVoyage (not much info) and thus be less likely to become a contributor - so it sets-up a self perpetuating "specialisation". But there are loads of travellers out there visiting and interested in rural areas, visiting and small towns e.g. the large numbers of cycle tourists, sail cruising (mainly visiting and staying in small costal village ports, etc.), walkers, kayak touring, etc., etc. Removing address elements is less crucial in cities (though can still cause grief that traveller e.g. "Great Bar @ place de l'eglise, Alencon" and without a postcode you'd stand a 50:50 of ending up at the wrong place. This illustrates why complete addresses are crucial.

A rural area I know well is 3 villages Aslacton, Tibbenham and Great Moulton (each a few km apart). There are two recreational airfields. So, somebody wanting to get to Tibbenham Airfield after WikiVoyage has removed "Tibbenham" from the listing address would end-up at the wrong place because Tibbenham Airfield is in Aslacton and the airfield in Tibbenham has a different name (and flies different aircraft). Aslacton Village Hall happens to be in Great Moulton NOT Aslacton. Tas Valley Vineyard is administratively in Great Moulton though is only connected to that village by a long strip of territory only a few meters wide and in fact in in another village called Fornsett. These are rural examples from one small locality and all illustrate how incomplete addresses or addresses requiring assumption of elements from e.g. page title will get you to the wrong place. When I lived in France the boundary between to administrative areas passed straight through the middle of my house - in the kitchen I'd be in one area and walk to a sitting room and I'd be in a different one (and it was not a natural boundary but actually deviated from the natural path in order to go through the middle of my house, the house having been built decades before the boundary was moved!).

Mapping is something WikiVoyage is already making use of but it is such a broad area that WikiVoyage can/will never provide a complete solution. There are too many specialisations for people who are travelling. e.g. cycle touring routing is a popular way to visit places/countries (just look at how busy La Vélodyssée or the Danube Cycle Paths get in summer). Yet cycle tourists will use specialised routing systems e.g. http://cycle.travel that place greater emphasis on quieter roads, and lower altitude ascent (fewer hills!) and will provide different information (e.g. altitude plots) - something WikiVoyage will never be doing for the range of different activities. So people are always going to be using external systems to make use of WikiVoyage data and thus in order to be useable that information must be complete (and cannot rely on "common sense" to sometimes add elements from a page title to an address (and then have nowhere to get a postcode from, etc.).

As a collaborative work, different contributors edit and contribute to the same e.g. destination. So the practice of address element removal (shortening) is a disaster as the original author who has specific knowledge enters a complete address and then somebody else without local knowledge comes along and implements WikiVoyage "best practice" or guidelines and removes elements and destroys the previously entered information. Thus the practice should be that addresses should be complete (or as complete as possible) and specify an address without requiring "common sense" additions from other page elements or text. Only that way can the information be of widest use and also be reliable.

Use of Lat and Long coordinates for a listing is excellent and does increase the utility of the data for app systems that import directly from WikiVoyage (e.g. PocketEarth) but for a contributor, finding the Lat/Long coordinates is a bit of a fiddle (no way round that) so I suspect that for accurate locations a full address it the most valuable common easily entered data. Also, offline use (pre downloaded WikiVoyage information) introduces further issues where incomplete address information available.

As more and more people make use of mobile data systems (GPSs, smartphones, smart watches, etc.) and as these systems become increasingly sophisticated, so the useless addresses information (elements removed/shortened) from WikiVoyage will make the resource less and less useful. Current practice seems entirely oriented for the information to be read and used by a human, reading a page of text and any significant project needs to think beyond that (as use of technology has already moved things beyond that).PsamatheM (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some useful entries added by you, such as Long Stratton and Wymondham. May I suggest only adding a particular attraction as a listing to one article and mentioning it briefly on other nearby towns and villages pages in the Go Next section adjacent to the article link it is a listing in. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The difficulty is that with many small towns in the area a traveller is unlikely to search them all to find all the different things available. As an area it has a lot to do but many of those things are not particularly associated with a town. For example, somebody visiting Norwich is unlikely to search WikiVoyage all the nearby towns to find what any one might offer and so would likely miss something they might find interesting. Where something is actually in a town (that has an article) I would agree but where something is between towns I feel it useful to include. For example, I've not yet started Attleborough as few travellers would really bother with the place but if Snetterton was to be listed only once it would probably be under Attleborough - so most people would completely overlook it because of the town it might be listed under! Where people look is more likely to be determined by their means of transport so it gets even easier to miss potentially interesting things. Also, some offline systems using WikiVoyage no not offer indexed searching.PsamatheM (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is the reason for the go next section, it provides a method to highlight a POI nearby that is detailed in another article. The other option rural areas is to combine the articles into a more comprehensive one of the whole area like Worcester Hills or Eltville. Can start that way and split later, which is what I intend to do with Erewash that I just started (which includes much larger towns that the ones we are discussing here). --Traveler100 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry, it's a long response 'cos it raises several issues that I hope I've explained ok)

• I can appreciate the issue that repeat listing complicates keeping listings up-to-date but it is more complex than that as linking through the "Go Next" can also leave "dead links" in that a user might follow a "Go Next" link and than scan through a big page searching for a listing that has actually been deleted some time ago (imagine that frustration).

• The problem comes in that it is a relational linking issue (as in e.g. relational database) yet WikiVoyage uses a flat model. Ideally there would be a system of "Virtual Listings" where a single listing could then be embedded in several different pages. But that would require development all to avoid updating a few extra listings.

• Increasing the size of the area covered does not solve the problem as it is an issue of boundaries (and crossing them). I suspect part of the problem is that WikiVoyage is still somewhat City-centric and has not adapted to the way more people are travelling these days e.g. cycle touring, long distance walking, kayak touring, etc. where you don't sit at home with a big screen on a fast internet connection and chose where to go, how to get there and what is there when you arrive, but rather you e.g. look for somewhere to stop as the headwind builds and the rain starts and you are on a smartphone over an intermittent very slow GSM connection - and that is when you curse whoever built such big pages with links to other big pages that have to be searched and scrolled through and you just want to get out of the rain. e.g. Long Stratton and area has terrible GSM coverage - most of the surrounding areas you only have intermittent GSM coverage.

• There is less of an issue when considering cities as most of the listings will reside within the city boundaries and cities are (normally) well geographically spaced. But in more rural areas a lot of things are NOT located in village/town boundaries but rather spread throughout the countryside where people don't think in terms of lines on maps and things overlap and are vaguer as to where they relate to. e.g. a few examples from the Long Stratton area: Aslacton Village Hall is actually not in Aslacton but in Great Moulton. Tibenham Airfield is not in Tibenham but in Aslacton and the airfield in Tibenham is not called Tibenham Airfield, etc.

• Moving a listing form a "See" or "Do" or "Buy" or "Drink" etc. section into the "Go Next" section is losing useful information categorising the listing (i.e. as a "See" or a "Doo", etc.) mixing listings of different types into a section that was not intended for listings.

• I can appreciate that there is no absolute "answer" and that which listings are duplicated where is a question of judgement - hence I have only selectively duplicated a couple of listings that are of broader coverage and not to all towns. Question of judgement and local knowledge.

• It is a relational system using a flat model so the choice ends-up making it much easier for the user by duplicating a few listings in some rural areas or a bit easier for authors and a complete frustrating pain for users by mixing links and hiding them at the bottom of a page, a system designed to be un-maintainable, creating big pages totally unsuited to small screen use and a system where the user has to scan through loads of irrelevant stuff to find what they wanted. A question of focus on user or author (and I do think WikiVoyage has to look to a wide userbase not just "city travellers").PsamatheM (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If "24 Hours Race" is the official name, let's put it in capital letters. If not, it's a 24-hour race, with the hyphenated adjective, "24-hour", modifying the noun "race". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be quite honest, I'm at the point to quitting as a contributor. I seem to be being stalked. Loads of listings all over the place out of date, incomplete and missing content poorly organised and people seem to be stalking me quibbling over capitalisation of a letter in a minor text. That bit was cut and pasted from the Le Mans page which has been there for ages, nobody worrying about upper or lower case of a single letter. There seems to appreciation of local knowledge, people who don't know local detail suddenly leaping on things and changing then for minor reason (and sometimes changing "right" to "wrong") ... Sorry but I'm pretty disappointed right now. PsamatheM (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't react too strongly to this. Your edits are greatly appreciated! By way of some explanation, whenever anyone makes an edit, their edits show up in Special:RecentChanges. Many of us follow recent changes to see what the new edits are. Once we are looking at an article, we may notice things we didn't see before and edit them. You're of course absolutely right that capitalization is not the most important issue, but we all come from different backgrounds, and since I'm a former writing tutor, I notice and like to correct things like that when it seems appropriate to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do appreciate that it is an open work and that anything I write is subject to changes from others. I understand it's how such projects work - rightly no ownership of content and if there was [ownership of work] then it would not be the project it is and I would not even be considering contributing (and I have made changes to text others have written, though mainly to make corrections where things have got out of date). Sorry if I did over-react (and I probably did) and I accept that following a style manual improves the quality of the product (making life easier for users) but pretty much everything I've written has been quickly descended on and had mostly trivial changes made and I look at other sections I have knowledge of and I question that if people have time to add a colon or put in a missing hyphen or change a double space to a single space, would that time not be better spent addressing some of the sections that need significant updating. I think of it in terms of "greatest good, greatest numbers" or an analogy, if you can spend an hour weeding your garden do you spend that hour searching through an already pretty ok flower bed for a few trivial weeds whilst ignoring the overgrown mess the other flower beds have become? I am not shy to express my opinions but I'd expect others might have tried and just drifted off by now. PsamatheM (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's a strange phenomenon but a very noticeable one, especially on smaller wikis like this one, but an article that has been recently edited is much more likely to draw more edits. Especially if it has been recently edited by a (relatively) new user or an IP or if said article is on many watchlists. This is certainly nothing personal and no ill will, but if you look at an edit already and see a misplaced comma, you are more likely to tweak another wording here or there than for any other article. If you look at - for example - my contributions, you'll also find that my edits sometimes follow "wiki-walks" of articles that are linked to one another. I really do hope that you stay with us and maybe we should do some soul-searching regarding the way we sometimes "descend" on some articles, which is a consequence of recent change patrol I have in fact seen. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. Some other users have made similar objections. I'm not sure what the best solution is, as the problem is, "Out of sight, out of mind". When I make edits I consider really trivial, I mark them as minor edits. Small copy editing edits aren't of huge importance, either, but I make them when I see them. Similarly, though I don't edit Wikipedia a lot, when I'm reading an article there and notice some small issue of syntax, spelling or the like, I generally correct it. We should discuss this in the Pub, as there's no talk page for Recent Changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can appreciate with any new contributor I would expect it to take some time for the more experienced editors to develop some trust (e.g. that they are not going to wake-up one morning to several thousand articles trying to sell new kitchens (spelt "k i t c h e n")) - particularly in my case as being currently based in the UK and the UK has rather lenient snooping laws allowing government agencies massive freedom ... and so I run through a VPN some of whose servers are blocked by WikiVoyage. And I also appreciate that there is (and should be) a "style manual" and that new contributors will not be aware of consistency practices. But at the same time, when some of that trivial "re-wording" changes the "true" original text to be "wrong" one does question things (and get frustrated as my initial response rather gave away!).

As for discussing in the Pub - not on my account but if others have similar feelings then up to those with more experience than myself. I do recognise that there is nothing worse anywhere when a new contributor joins and wants everything changed to be done their way (before they have even appreciated the reasons behind existing practice. That said I do feel strongly about the "address abbreviation" practices - as I have experience elsewhere of the problems such practices cause and how WikiVoyage current practice limits utility of the data and how this will get worse over time - see section above "Some Outline Thoughts on the WikiVoyage Practice of Address Abbreviation/Element Removal/Shortening" (I don't know where to post it or if it's been discussed 100 times before ...) PsamatheM (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've read your thoughts on addresses, and those deserve more discussion. I would encourage you to participate in a thread I start in the Pub. We really should try to figure out how to balance "Recent Changes Patrols" participants' desires to edit things when they see them (even though of course sometimes the edits are wrong, as we are all human) with the need not to put off valuable new (or relatively new) users like you. Whatever changes we make really shouldn't be up to more experienced users only; anyone who's had experiences like yours has more to contribute to this kind of discussion than someone like me. At the very least, I hope you wouldn't mind if I linked to this discussion in a thread in the Pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The thread is at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Rethinking "Recent Changes Patrol". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to revert your last edit to the United Kingdom article, but listing no more than 9 "Cities" and 9 "Other destinations" is a fundamental Wikivoyage policy in country-level and non-bottom-level region articles. Please see Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists for reference. You can see a preexisting discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Avoid long lists#Number of Cities in each country/state/region, and you can always reopen the discussion of the policy there if you like.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. But I don't think the Scilly Isles a major destination for travellers (if there is a 9 limit). Similarly, I think, whilst deserving separate destination pages, Liverpool & Manchester (from a travellers perspective) being so geographically close should probably be listed as a single entry in a country page and somewhere like Chester added (which has a massive amount for the traveller to see). Removing Scilly Isles would probably not even be noticed but merging Liverpool & Manchester into a single destination line on the England page might end-up with Liverpudlians and Mancunians reverting it ... (in the interests of the regard they hold for their cities, not in the interests of information for travellers). Somebody visiting either Liverpool or Manchester is only 35 miles from the the other city so in terms of a country, really just "one" destination". The Destinations seem to have been chosen more for being geographically distributed (e.g. Brighton, nice enough place but hardly in the top 9 places of interest for a traveller). PsamatheM (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I was going to post "You could also start a discussion at Talk:England, if you feel strongly that the Norfolk Broads should replace one of the 'other destinations' already listed." Since it does seem that you have a few concerns, please do raise them over at Talk:England. Hope to see you there, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] I was about to post the same thing at greater length. Which 9 get listed is always subject to reargument and can be changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's not something I feel desperately strongly about. In fact, if I did, I'd probably consider splitting the "Other Destinations" into a "National Parks" list and a "Monuments" list (which I believe would meet with policies) - they are really very different things appealing to different groups of travellers. There are probably far bigger things for people contributing to the project to spend their time on. PsamatheM (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Totally up to you. I'd be fine with you subdividing "Other destinations" the way you suggest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks as always for adding content! I know you'll probably feel that using non-standard capitalization in edits like this and this is no big deal, but I think it is a medium deal, as it's not in keeping with site guidelines on avoiding touting. Obviously, you have no motive to tout, but you might have copied some of the format of business sites (I haven't checked), and it's still really best to use normal capitalization.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was how I thought they were written (not touting, just activities I thought some travellers might be interested in doing and not cut and pasted either). I've changed them to lower case but just shortcomings in my own English. PsamatheM (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, much appreciated.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to drop you a quick note here to give you a (belated) welcome to Wikivoyage and to thank you for rolling with the punches vis-à-vis all the feedback your edits have been receiving. Though it might not seem that way, I see it as more a good thing than a bad thing - a new editor who comes in with a splash and contributes prolifically is bound to attract attention and maybe scrutiny, and to receive guidance where necessary, but ultimately that's exactly what Wikivoyage (desperately) needs more of: prolific contributors like yourself. I truly hope you don't still feel like you should give up, because your contributions are strongly appreciated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Second that, some nice work. I know I reset to outline but now I think after the resent work you have done Norfolk (England) can now be made usable. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd strongly third that. You've quickly become a valuable contributor to this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I had a nice polite response ready, and I've just seen somebody had gone through and removed address elements from many of my listings. And I'm beyond furious, toys completely out of the pram furious. If people here cannot recognise the value of a complete address, if they cannot see uses of an address beyond WV internal reading then I'm gone. I'll decide later this evening, probably depending on what happens to the addresses messed-up earlier today and if it happens again .I appreciate it's a collaborative effort but to make an address usability dependent on adding elements from elsewhere on a page, just beggars belief and fails to see uses outside the rarified atmosphere of WV (and shows whoever does it that they have no experience of mapping systems where such removal has been done, regretted and the grief it causes).

I do appreciate your welcome and don't mean to be rude in rejecting your polite and appreciated comments but it seems the above may be of greater importance. I am a great believer in collaborative works (many years ago I used to contribute to the South American Handbook, pre-internet, before it split into South and Central versions and when new/updated information had to be written out and posted ...). PsamatheM (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand your frustration and how maddening it is when people undo your work, but venting your anger here and threatening to leave, without indicating which edits on which page(s) you find objectionable to provide context, doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

Tell me to butt out and mind my own business if you want, but have you spoken to the editor(s) you're in disagreement with, either on their talk page or on the discussion page for the article(s) in question? Part of the collaborative process is communication. Attempting to overcome differences of opinion with a compromise if possible, or by achieving a consensus among the community of editors is the way forward. If you make a good argument, the consensus may very well swing your way, but if it doesn't, you should try not to take it personally and just go with the flow, at least for the time being. What's consensus now, may not be consensus a few months down the line when people have had a chance to reconsider. Personally speaking, I am more than happy to weigh in on any discussions you may have started, and help to nudge the consensus one way or the other.

All unpleasantness aside, I certainly echo the praises of other editors. Your enthusiasm and commitment to making Wikivoyage a better travel guide are obvious, as is your knowledge for the pages you contribute to. It would be a huge shame (and, I think, a failing on our part) if you decided to leave as a result of this disagreement, and you would certainly be missed. All the best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have not raised the issue with the contributor making the changes as it seems they are an established contributor who spends their time making such changes (which is why I have not bothered to revert them as I'm not going to start a revert/re-instate/revert/reinstate ... battle over an increasing number of destination pages). I have outlined my significant issues with the way WV handles addressed at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Practice of Address Abbreviation/Element Removal/Shortening - And The Shortsightedness of Doing This. I believe the best time to capture complete information is when data are 1st being entered. To miss that opportunity to collect complete data (e.g. by quick removal of elements) would cause untold additional work. I see WV as always being a "work in progress" but where that "work in progress" should be to update to reflect changes in the world rather than to make-up for shortcomings in original data collection (or removal of data following initial entry). I base my strong feelings about addressing on personal experience of the grief that removal of elements can cause (and the work I've had to put in to resolving such practice!). I don't mean to appear rude (which I probably am appearing) and I genuinely do appreciate the welcome - but to put a lot of effort into something you have to believe in where it is going and where there are significant shortcomings it can make that effort not time well spent. PsamatheM (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter one jot that they are an established contributor, an administrator or anything else; they're not above criticism, nor are they above being corrected if you think they're getting something wrong (none of us are). You can disagree with the user in question, and revert their edits if you feel strongly about it, and as long as you don't get into an edit war, you're not treading on anyone's toes by doing so.

But the absolute best course of action would be let them know your opinions directly on their talk page, and also to invite them to participate in the discussion you started at Wikivoyage talk:Listings. Frankly if you don't contact them somehow, you're shooting yourself in the foot, because they will most likely carry on merrily undoing your work without realising there's a problem.

I don't think you're coming across as rude either, so don't worry about that. You are free to express negative opinions on here :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've raised the issue with the contributor concerned. I felt I was being rude because I received some great "welcome", "thanks", "appreciated" messages from yourself and others and replied with an angry outburst! (which I though must come across as my being totally unappreciative of the welcomes). I also felt my comments on leaving/stopping contributing might be taken as a childish threat along the "do what I want or I'm going" whereas it is more that if I spend significant time contributing I need to feel that the info I'm entering will be of broadest use to users of the site (and beyond just eyeball reading within the site itself) and if I feel that the data I spend time entering will be abbreviated to be much less useful ... there are plenty of other useful things I can spend my time doing. It's not about others changing my entries (it's a collaborative project - which is a great positive) but about utility of the information. PsamatheM (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be someone that can dig up really obscure entries.

Want to have a look at this travel topic, with a view to adding some listings? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Only really for places I know about. More quirky things that are a bit odd or different or just daft (Brits poking fun at themselves). UFO'y, hauntings, Lock Ness Monsters, etc. not something I pay that much attention to. If I come across anything relevant I'll add it to those pages. PsamatheM (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.. I also seem to recall somewhere in the Midlands had a cryptid legend about a Wyrm (most likely a story about a large eel that got embroided in the re-telling.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No idea. Not something I'm particularly interested in - but others are and each to their own interests. PsamatheM (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Tring&type=revision&diff=3224673&oldid=3220485

Felt it was reasonable to mention given it's in the banner photo :)

Do you know anything about the English Canal network, to at least put in a stube for the Grand Junction Canal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No real knowledge (beyond a few holidays on some many many years ago, back in childhood days). But I don't think it's called "The Grand Junction Canal". I believe (and I'm no expert) that it's a branch of the Grand Union Canal. I thought there were actually two "Arms" in the area (branches off the canal); the Wendover Arm (now a disused waterway) and the Aylesbury Arm which join the Grand Union Canal just N of Tring. There is a pub around there called The Junction (or something) but not heard the canal called that. Try Googling "Grand Union Canal" and check where it runs. PsamatheM (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

UK has a pretty extensive canal network and they are popular for holidays (narrow boat hire), fishing, kayaking, tow-paths popular or cycling, jogging, etc. wildlife. There should probably be a dedicated page about them - but might be duplicating info in destination articles, but pulling it all together (even if some duplication) to an overview I suspect would work well (though I've got more than enough on my list of work needed. PsamatheM (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Stubbed here Inland waterways in the United Kingdom if you evenntually have a spare moment. I added a "By Narrowboat" to Tring, but won't object if it's reverted. Trying to recall where else such a sub-section could usefully be included. I've said Inland waterways rather than canals, so that things like the Norfolk Broads could be mentioned (they probably have their own article though).

Inland Waterways works, probably better (but ask 3 people and you'll get 4 different opinions on that) PsamatheM (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think this will need someone that knows a lot more about it than I do though, as there would be a lot to cover.. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW - Wikipedia seems to have w:Grand_Junction_Canal rather than Grand Union ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Look at Wikipedia::Grand_Union_Canal (your link does not seem to work). I suspect that the Grand Junction Canal (maybe a more historic name?) is part of the Grand Union Canal (everybody knows the Grand Union Canal (famous), I've never heard of the Grand Junction Canal. Canals are quite old and were constructed by quite a few different companies which then merged, got purchased, etc. as their transport functions were taken over by the rail system. At some point they were virtually all taken over by then British Waterways. PsamatheM (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@User talk:ShakespeareFan00 I should add that I'm personally very keen on the "a bit different" e.g. unusual means of transport. I think it broadens that interest and potential users of the project, makes it a more complete work. I see e.g. a lot of cycle tourists around the country and it could be a fabulous resource for that group. Same with those on walking holidays, canal holidays, etc. (particularly with the offline versions as where people cycle, walk, travel on canals/rivers mobile GSM coverage (and thus internet) can be pretty bad, so the off-line WikiVoyage can be a fabulous resource. PsamatheM (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the cycle routes to article BTW. Is there a Cycling in the United Kingdom overview? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

We do have Cycling in Europe, but it needs love. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cycling in the United Kingdom is stubbed, some of the road rules section of Driving in the United Kingdom like road signs is applicable to this as well. Might be worth finding the relevant cycle lane signs to include? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hope you've got some time to write them. My own focus is on existing pages that are embarrassingly empty (and reflect badly on the project) and my list currently stands at 36 and is getting longer faster than I'm completing filling out existing pages - so no time for the foreseeable future to start on new ones! My personal opinion is that if somebody visits WV and goes to a page with "inadequate" content they will be discouraged from using the site further; hence my personal wish to build-up what is already there. PsamatheM (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You've done some really great work on the Petersfield and Selsey articles recently ... however can I suggest some of your additions to 'Selsey' are moved to 'Bracklesham Bay'. It's actually a bit of pain getting from the western manhood to the central manhood and the two areas are best kept separate in my opinion. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done. I never checked but just assumed both were small places, close together and never imagined they'd have separate destination pages (meaning that both end-up rather "empty"). Maybe merge the two together ? PsamatheM (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestion. In my view the local (road) infrastructure means I oppose what otherwise would be a likely sensible merge. You won't be the only one who might think this, so I've put a section at Talk:Selsey#Why Not to merge this article with Bracklesham Bay. (I also forgot to say the 'Get In' section also becomes messier). The Bracklesham Bay article particularly still has some growth potential especially if expanded towards Dell Quay Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another article for your ever growing watchlist? :( I don't expect any major contributions , but would like your advice on where it might be over-hualed. (Concerns were also expressed recently about "lists" as topics where better written paragraphs would be more appropriate). Based on what you've written so far, you seem to write better paragraphs than lists:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not something I have anything to contribute to really. My haunting contributions were just a bit of local knowledge from places I've lived (and thus know a bit about). My main focus is getting the destination articles (the rather "empty" ones) looking a bit better. PsamatheM (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand, that said some large historic houses had mazes... hmmm... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

My personal opinion is that many of these articles are getting rather "encyclopaedic" rather than "travel guide". I can't imagine there are many Labyrinth enthusiasts out there who'll be trying to visit the listed places or people sitting at home wondering where they can go to see a Labyrinth. People will visit e.g. a country house near where they are visiting rather than the other way round. There are so many rather inadequate destination articles that just need work. PsamatheM (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You don't by any chance subscribe to a publication called "Which?" do you?

They produce a semi-regular Travel Supplement which although written by professionals, seems to have reasonably neutral editorial policy (if they include something it usually means it's been checked by them, with them paying full price if thier editorial blurb is correct.). A recent article on Whitby gave a suggestion for an Eat listing (now added to the article), and gave a website link for another which assisted me in updating another.

I've found it a useful resource, and your local library might have old issues if you aren't a subscriber. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not a subscriber. PsamatheM (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I also removed the listing I'd added to Whitby as Open Street Map's gazzateer couldn't find it yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply