User talk:Zezen 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. New users are also welcome to post any questions or concerns to the arrivals lounge. If you want some practice editing, please do so on our graffiti wall. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. If you want to contribute with information about the place where you live, see Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals.

Thank you for the updates on Poland, though please be careful not to accidentally remove necessary section headers like 'Cope'. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear @ThunderingTyphoons!

Thank you for the welcome to this project and no WP:BITE. As you may see in my wikistalk, I came here mostly from enwiki (+10 years), but I have also dabbled with other language wikis, the quote, source, meta, etc.

Quick feedback from a relative newbie:

• The graffiti wall only offers the source editor mode -> it may be better to create a [[/Draft]] link to the user's space with VE so as not to scare off the non-WP newcomers.
• Myself, as most of the folks everywhere on WP, I guess, I drove right in, as per BOLD.
• The link to your wikivoyage sociolect (aka jargon, TLAs) is useful, while the one to generic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Internet-related_terms is not. My proposal: redirect the latter to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Glossary instead but then one would need to somehow transclude your bespoke Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians#Terminology thereto.
• Don't you use any VER aka RSes? Is there really no gradation as per your "Wikivoyage does not share Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. External links normally point to primary sources like the official page for a landmark or attraction, not to someone else's description (however neutral or objective) of a place. The way links are handled at Wikivoyage also differs from Wikipedia (see below)" ? See my recent edits, where I gave a decent VER to support a claim that "X love Y" in Discussion here as my third edit and the one where I removed "beware of even mentioning W as X hate Z" in the other ones. (Also, my experience from other projects tells me you must thus have lots of POV pushers, trolls, LTAs and spam then...)
• Sorry for the "Cope" section removal - as a end user (Traveller) I thought it is a spelling mistake, one of the couple I had fixed there. Is there a way to "superprotect" these structural elements or at least mark them as such?
• Thanks for deleting this silly [[File:Adolphe Bitard - Téléphone cropped1-2.JPG|thumbnail|right|Hallo, Copenhagen?]] as well: it reminds me of the "Why Xes are awful" attempts at humor in enwiki essays, most of them from the 2000s.

OK, let me stop here.

Take care. Zezen (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, to the sources one, well, what good is it for the traveler with secondary sources? There's no probs with primary sources, just touts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: sorry, I may have been too pithy or cryptic about this point. Let me elaborate then, maybe too much.

I meant this diff I made as a newbie, or this one, partially the bit about the laws and fines.

As you may know, on en-, he-, ar- etc. wikis, commons, see e.g. in the ARBPIA, CEE, India... "no-go article zones", one can easily step on smb's toes resulting even in bans, which happen even to very experienced editors, who stick to secondary RSes only and to such overt rules, but then were still unaware of a local consensus or old archived RFCs.

As a (conscious and self-declared) newbie here, without looking these things up, I still wonder if that happens with e.g. the borders and names: Crimea, Palestine, Kyiv, Taiwan, Hong Kong and their fines and laws spring to my mind, including what can be said and done there, where can one go and where not... - they all seem subjective to me without up to date RSes, so I was wondering how it works here.

Also, I have dumped my newbie feelings above on purpose, to share with yous.

Zezen (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the detailed reply, to which I've only got time to respond to some of the points. Feel free to make those suggestions I don't address on relevant talk pages or in the Pub.

Indeed, we do have a whole different lingo on Wikivoyage to Wikipedia, however in general I would say we favour plain English over jargon, which you'll probably notice if you choose to stick around and take part in more talk page discussions. To this end, I've no idea what some of your abbreviations mean: RS seems from context to mean reliable source, but on TLAs, ARBPIA, CEE, and VER, I'm afraid you've lost me.

Wikivoyage articles use standard headings; 'Cope' is one such heading that doesn't appear in every article because its scope isn't always relevant, but it is used in many articles. Occasionally, newbies such as yourself either remove a heading or try to change one into something they find more logical (e.g. 'Eat' --> 'Restaurants' / 'Local cuisine'), but stuff like that is no bother to quickly undo. People who stick around for more than a couple of days quickly come to recognise the same section names cropping up everywhere and know not to fiddle with them.

For borders and disputed territories, the issue is pretty simple: the traveller comes first. Whatever international law says about e.g. Crimea is irrelevant, because from the perspective of a visitor getting visas, entering the territory and needing to obey local laws, it's part of Russia. Another example: Taiwan is unrecognised by many countries, but the fact is that if you want to visit, you need to conform to Taiwanese entry requirements. For place names, within the parameters of WV:Naming conventions we do follow reliable sources, we just don't put them as citations in the article; see e.g. Talk:Eswatini, Talk:Kyiv, where authoritative sources are used as justification to change articles' names. On other edits where you think you might need to prove a claim, then you are welcome to cite your source in your edit summary or post it to a new discussion on the article's talk page.

Hope all of this is clear.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear @ThunderingTyphoons! - thank you for your extensive reply, glad you did not mind. All is clear. Let me only explain my enwiki-based idiolect then:

TLA = Three Letter Abbreviation (self-ironic) - I gather SHB2000 may know some of these below.

ARBPIA = Jews and Arab (+ all and sundry) clashing over the borders, names and almost everything: anybody who touches it gets a huge exclamation mark

CEE = Central and Eastern Europe, universal abbreviation, yet with similar "+500 edits in mainspace or else" restrictions in many wikis

VER = WP:VER including these Reliable Sources, the opposite of here

(LTA - we all seem to know them ;)

I appreciate your approach. Take care! Zezen (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the "translations", Zezen ;-) Hope to see you around on Wikivoyage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welcome, Zezen! I think it's totally fine to link to official sources on fines and the like. Those are primary sources. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned here that this is excessive OR, but note that original research is not banned on Wikivoyage, unlike Wikipedia or Wikibooks. There's a little except that I'll take from User:Antandrus, a long term Wikipedia admin, who said the following on not having a "no original research" rule:

Wikivoyage allows a level of freedom in writing that is refreshing to a long-term Wikipedian. If you have seen and experienced something on a journey, you may write about your experiences directly, as long as it is in a way that benefits another person traveling to that destination. Being able to write without violating the "no original research" rule is almost dizzying at first, but very freeing. Were you stunned by the view from a specific mountaintop? Say so. Did the ocean turn orange in the sunset with the islands purple behind? Did dolphins dance behind the boat? Was it magical, and did it make life a thing of wonder, at that moment? Communicate that, so others can some day enjoy it as well.

But instead, we do have WV:Be fair, which is not quite OR, but it needs to be from a travellers point of view.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 - I half-expected it, thus I added the caveat "read the talk page first".

See User talk:Soshial#ATM fee in PL with his go-ahead: "I can see, that you may be more knowledgeable than I, so I wouldn't mind if you improve my statement. I agree it sounds promotional."

Your meta comments?

FYI, and as an aside - some days ago I was taking part in a fascinating "what is truth" (in photos) discussion in eswiki plus some Commons, which may be relevant to wikivoyage, dunno. Zezen (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

:) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply