To tell you the truth, I've been editing here on Wikitravel as an IP for many years, so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the stuff. I'd welcome your comments on the two issues I've already posted about in the Pub! --Ttcf (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2014 (EST)
Hi! I noticed you are making unilateral changes to the format of the site to fit your personal tastes. This is not how things work on Wikitravel (I'm sure you know it). Please refrain from changing policy pages and templates without community and admin agreement. Thanks! IBAlex (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2014 (EST)
Well, it's rather disappointing that you still haven't commented on the relevant page nearly one week later. Please don't conflate your opinion with that of the "community" - it's not just a meaningless PR word, you know! --Ttcf (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (EST)
Thanks for putting my edits back, I didn't understand why they'd been undone either:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruben Alexander (talk • contribs) • 01:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Ibrshao does terrific work combating vandalism and touting here, but in this case I have the strong suspicion, from looking at your other contributions, that you are quite knowledgeable about Belgium and should be allowed a few days to develop your ideas further. If, after a week or so, your ideas have not further developed or there is a consensus that they are not useful for travellers then we may have to think again.
"Regions are somewhat nebulous organizational groupings we use on Wikitravel to organize all the many cities in a country into some kind of navigable and comprehensible hierarchy. They can be sub-national political territories, like Minnesota or New South Wales, or more nebulous "tourist" regions like Normandy, or the American Southwest. Region articles tend to be more "soft", discussing the people, culture, climate, and cuisine in the region, rather than the legalistic stuff that's in a country article, or the addresses-and-phone-numbers stuff that's in a city article.
Before you plunge forward creating a region, keep in mind that we only add a new level of regions when there are too many cities or too much content in the existing breakdown. The regional hierarchy at Wikitravel doesn't always follow the official breakdown—and frequently is much "flatter" than the official breakdown." --Ttcf (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2014 (EDT)
Hi! I see you're active again here! Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2014 (EDT)
Well, I have been continuing to edit without logging on, Aleksandra.
However, since the spam levels seem to be higher every day, the recent changes have become unmanageable and I need to be able to utilise a watchlist. It's a great pity that admins have even less time for more interesting and creative work.
I'd still welcome your input at Template talk:IATA - see section above... --Ttcf (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2014 (EDT)
Hello Ttcf, I really appreciate you revise my poor English sentences! It's very nice lesson for me. aiko99ann (talk) 10:40, 2 Nov. 2014 (JST)
My pleasure - I just hope that I don't change your intended meaning too much. I always have a great time when I visit Japan - it's a pity I don't drink alcohol... --Ttcf (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (EST)
I think you revise this article moderately and correctly. I consider the sake brewing in relation to Japanese culture and craftsmanship, so I recommend you to visit museums and breweries in your next time even you are a nondrinker..! aiko99ann (talk) 11:55, 2 Nov. 2014 (JST)
Chicagoland people are not nice or sociable people at all! They do not like to be bothered, and people need to be warned to leave other people alone while in Chicago if they don't want to get in trouble. Wikitravel is not to be designed to get people in trouble and put people in harm's way. I live in Chicago personally, and I know what the social atmosphere in Chicago is like. If you don't like my edits, please be advised that you are not in North Korea anymore. Conserve (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (EST)
I think this illustrates what I've long thought. For some people, travel broadens people's ways about thinking about things and may counter some long-standing misconceptions. Others, unfortunately get robbed, bitten by dogs, scowled at by cheating retailers and shaken down by venal cops leading to a somewhat jaundiced view of their travel destination. All of this means that their visage darkens and becomes miserable. Unfortunately many of their contacts then start to mirror this somewhat negative outlook meaning that they might have got a more balanced view if they had read Lonely Planet or Wikitravel and saved the price of a ticket.
I've had wonderful experiences in Chicago: once at a Polish wedding and twice at Irish and Croatian wakes - oh, I also did attend a retirement party for a Chicagoan of Korean (South) flavour, so I'm rather biassed in favour of the windy porkopolis.
You're right in thinking that we need to be fair and warn travellers where necessary but, if you've travelled as much as I have to far worse and more dangerous regions, we also need a sense of perspective. Are you really saying that Chicago is way less sociable than other large US cities?
Now, since you haven't actually answered or directly addressed either of my questions, I'll assume you did simply mistook my edits for those of another. --Ttcf (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2014 (EST)
Chicago most certainly is far less sociable than other large U.S. cities! Even New York City residents are more sociable than Chicago residents. I've been to New York City before, and most of the people I encountered in New York City were quite nice; even right in Manhattan. I checked out Times Square, walked around most of that area of Manhattan, the air smelled like barbecued hot dogs, it was a nice experience. And believe it or not, Chicago's suburbs are even less sociable than Chicago proper; in fact, Chicago is the type of place where, the farther away from the city proper you go and the deeper into the middle and outer suburbs you go, the less sociable people get; and in fact, the more likely trying to interact with those people is even likely to get you into some nasty trouble. Especially when you get out to places like Glen Ellyn, Wheaton, Naperville, Bolingbrook, Aurora, Batavia, and even places as far flung as Sycamore and DeKalb. I personally have been to all of those places before. I also have been to Miami, Florida, Tampa, Florida, Fort Myers, Florida, Key West, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Indianapolis, Indiana, St. Louis, Missouri (and also got lost and ended up in East St. Louis, Illinois ),and I have also been to Madison, Wisconsin and even Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Conserve (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (EST)
--Sorry to drop in on your guys' conversation--Conserve, thank you for warning travelers about the harsh reality of Chicago's current atmosphere, but I think Ttcf is making an excellent point and I agree. Travel is not a one size fits all experience. I read some of your edits and they inspired fear. I understand crime is prevalent there(mostly informed by articles and news stories), but perhaps there's a better way of wording the edits. Now, I'm not one to censor anybody (unless it's swearing or vulgarities on our good old WT ;)), so please just take this as a suggestion to communicate caution without making the experience of reading the travel guide dark and grim. One example is that you changed Austin from being a "rough neighborhood" to a "very, very bad neighborhood" - they both convey warning to stay away but the new edit is a little excessive in grimness.
I better get out of here haha this is your convo, just my thoughts as a patroller. IBcaldera (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (EST)
swept from my user page, which usually only I should edit:
I tried to find it on Tripadvisor but I couldn't; how do you know it's "Extremely pricey and slightly soulless", have you stayed there yourself, or read solid reviews? My only concern is to prevent an edit war. Thanks! PierrB (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (EST)
Being slightly facetious, how do you know it isn't?
Maybe the IP editor that inserted the phrase had an axe to grind, maybe he didn't. What I do know is that I'm reluctant to allow hostel marketeers to flout our formattingrules when they have been warned by my edit summaries but can't be bothered to either reply or create an account where we can dialogue.
I do expect your support to uphold both our be fair and tout policies.
I might have a different attitude if there was an extreme sparsity of accommodation in Tbilisi, Phnom Penh and Yerevan, but there isn't. I think we're being very tolerant in allowing the entries to remain at all and their own website confirms that they are expensive... --Ttcf (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (EST)
(Sorry for obviously posting on the wrong page, my eyes must be tired)
Yes, in such cases, there is always a doubt: sometimes the place is indeed terrible, sometimes it's average but there is an angry competitor... And here the history doesn't help. We had a similar case (I think it was on Kiev page), a similar edit war that lasted for months.
I didn't step in Tbilisi as you probably noted. Actually my question was triggered by the fact you restored the entire edit, including the word "very". We usually tend to replace such strong adjectives by something more consensual, so I was just wondering why you were supporting "very". If you did compare the prices on their website, it's surely good enough for me! PierrB (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2014 (EST)
I'm all for consensus, Pierre - but it's very difficult to achieve it in a meaningful way if folks don't discuss at all - and sadly that's all too true of most marketeers - that's why I believe in a carrot and stick approach. Show a bit of leniency with the unschooled, struggling local entrepreneur and crack down hard on those that ignore good and helpful advice in edit summaries and talk and discussion page messages... --Ttcf (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (EST)
We've all seen what an awesome contributor you can be, but there's also a lot of concern for the latitute you've taken recently. Placing a denomination banner on a top performing article(Chicago), "codifying" the accommodation listings, deliberately saving banned names as IBobi pointed out above. It's simply too much.
I'll be upfront. Please approach edits with more care. The next step would be banning your Ttcf account for a week. If the problem persists, we'll ban it permanently.
IBcaldera (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2014 (EST)
Hello. I see you edited a bit of Lithuania article, and also increased the size of some pictures. Is it now a default size, or is there some other reason? i usually try to make the smallest possible size and add more different pictures. When pictures are larger there is not enough space left for other ones. Was it wrong? Or there are other reasons for increasing the size? --Local (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2014 (EST)
The vast majority of our readers have either not bothered to create an account or are not logged in. My guesstimate would be more than 99%. These are the readers that are important to Internet Brands because they monetise the site by selling advertising space. The advertising space at the top does not usually disrupt the display of this site (although some videos can completely bugger things).
However, all of these readers will have their usable screen width considerably reduced by the advertising displayed at the right side.
Our readers have disparate connection speeds. In some first world countries, readers will have lightning fast speeds and have access that does not penalise them for high data downloads. By contrast, some readers will have to content with slow, flaky connections with very high prices for each byte they have to download.
How can we not penalise the latter reader too much while keeping a reasonable viewing experience available to the former?
In two ways:
use thumbnails without any size forced on the reader by specifying a pixel width. (Those users with fast, cheap connections can click once on the thumbnail to view and enlarge it)
use thumbnails with a size expressed as a ratio of the default using the "upright syntax" - you can read more about how this works below...
If I remember correctly, usually a thumbnail on Wikitravel has a default width of 180 pixels (px). This width is used by typical readers, who have not logged in or who have not changed their preferences. (You can set a different default width for yourself from the Preferences tab at the top of the page when you're logged on and then choose "Files" and then "Thumbnail size". The options are 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px, 250px, and 300px. Any image narrower than the preferred width is displayed at the narrower width.)
Images beside the text should generally use a caption and the thumb (thumbnail) option; the default results in a display 180 pixels wide (140 pixels if the upright option is used), except for those logged-in users who have set a different default in their user preferences. In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference!!!
Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default; see the Manual of Style for guidance.
Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays in common use.
Lead images should usually be no wider than about 310px (equivalent to upright=1.7 here on Wikitravel if I am right about 180px still being the thumb default width.
Since the MediaWiki software we use dynamically scales inline images there is no technical reason to reduce file size via scaling or quality reduction when uploading images.)
The upright option normally creates an image that is about 75% of the width of the default and this was originally intended for portrait (as opposed to landscape) oriented images - hence the syntactical label. The exact width is computed by starting with the default thumbnail width, multiplying it by 0.75, and rounding to the nearest multiple of 10 pixels. I think that here at WT, normally the default width is 180px so an upright image is 140px wide; changing one's default width within the range from 120px to 300px results in upright image widths ranging from 90px to 230px.
The Egyptian god Amun, portrayed before the Amarna period
If the upright factor 0.75 is too large or too small, it can be specified explicitly and this is the method that I invariably adopt. A factor of 1.0 uses the default thumbnail width, which is the same as not specifying upright at all; a factor less than or greater than 1.0 creates an image smaller or larger than the default. For example:
[[File:Amun.svg|thumb|upright=0.56|alt=Full-length profile of man in ancient Egyptian clothing. He has red-brown skin and wears a helmet with tall yellow plumes.|The Egyptian god Amun, portrayed before the Amarna period]]
will display as at the right of this text...
Short, wide images sometimes benefit from upright factors greater than 1.0. Factors greater than about 2.5 can generate large images that cause problems with some browsers; however, many of the maps we use on WT benefit from sizes expressed up to and including 3.1. (Although many image types, such as JPEG and Portable Network Graphics (PNG), don't handle enlargement well, SVG images have no problem with it. For example:
[[File:Köppen-vereinfacht.svg|thumb|center|upright=3.1|alt=Map of the world. A tan band stretches from northern Africa through central China; most of Australia and parts of south Africa and the western Americas are also tan. Dark greens dominate the northern hemisphere. Lighter greens cover much land near the equator. Polar areas are white, the north fringed with light blue.|Macroclimates of the earth. Tans represent desert, dark greens humid continental, and light green tropical rainforest. Light blue and white represent tundra and ice cap.]]
displays like this:
Macroclimates of Earth. Tans represent desert, dark greens humid continental, and light green tropical rainforest. Light blue and white represent tundra and ice cap.
Although pixel counts seem to have been easier to understand for some of our most prolific editors than upright factors, they adjust less well to user preferences. For example, suppose a picture contains some detail and by default is a bit too small, and you want to grow it by about 10%. Although upright=1.1 and 200px do the job equally well for the common case where the default width is 180 pixels, many of the users who set the default width to 300 pixels to work better with their high-resolution screens will be annoyed with 200px because it will make the picture a third smaller than their preferred size!!! In contrast, upright=1.1 will display the picture to them with a width of 330 pixels, and this is more likely to work well on their displays.
Pixel counts are typically better than upright factors for displaying combinations of pictures, some of which have known and limited sizes, and for displaying tiny icons that are intended to be combined with text such as the country flags we use at 20px when listing embassies and consulates.
Hmmm. I could not imagine i will have to read all those "technicalities", and i could not imagine that, by reading them, i will realize that i know everything i read. So you provided a detailed explanation how it works, how it can work and what is good (and why) and what is not good (and why) - but you didn't tell why you did that with those few pictures in that concrete article? :D .
I uploaded most of them and have clear criteria (for myself, of course) what images and why should be uploaded. The only problem i see is the lack of space. Since most of other images (uploaded previously by others) were 200px or 300px, i reduced them to default, as you say, by "not specifying upright at all". And I have no any interest to set a different default width for myself from the Preferences tab, it's totally irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is the space, and i try to save it. Aleksandra previously explained me that the agreement is to keep all images by the right side (and not to add them to the left) which is OK for me because we win an orderly appearance then (regardless what was the actual reason to reach the agreement). And here is what i want to stress to you explaining my stance: all rules are acceptable to me as they all are just sane and simply normal rules, so all those "technicalities" and pixels are totally irrelevant - i focus exclusively on the appearance seen by an average reader. And from this point, practically there is no better size or worse size: all those sizes are too small, if you want to see the details of any photo, you have to enlarge it. So regardless the size, there will be additional click. Or will be not, if image is not interesting to the particular reader. So the smaller the size - the better. I'm not generalizing, i was editing only few unpopular articles and not going to try to edit something more remote than i know perfectly myself, therefore it should be understood that my pictures, remarks and details were "well thought", so to speak.
So i'm adding images for information, not for the beauty. There may be articles that need to be decorated or so, but not in this case. You like the details, right? I'm talking in details :) . Images are supposed to enrich the text. I mean, this is my stance. The nice text is easier readable, i.e. more pleasant to read, therefor more beneficial to the reader (travellers' interests come first). Apart the composition of the text itself, it also is achievable by putting the text in a proper context, in this case the right side (where we put the pictures) is such context. If pictures are few, they don't play a role of the context, but when there are many, they form a column and are perceived as some sort of a frame. You have increased the size of some of them - and disrupted the orderly edge of the column. I ask why? :D . There may be a reason, i simply don't see it and am asking you :) . You want to make them taller? To make them orderly by their height? It would be a "calculated" order, it doesn't work on human's perception. Perception catches large geometrical shapes first, like "edge" or "line", or "blank area vs coloured area", etc. Or is it due to some technical specifics? You have named them all, everything is (in this case) irrelevant because i don't argue about sizes as such: i argue about the "width of entire column of the pictures". I work with a wide monitor, the text expands to the sides automatically. The pictures also arrange to the column automatically even if "technically" there are gaps (spaces) between them. On wide screen they (spaces between pictures) disappear and you see an orderly (or not orderly) column. So you made some of them wider - now they disrupt the nice edge :) . The top of the article is rather ugly even without that "disruption", those templates and such make the beginning rather cacophonic. You find those pictures nicer than others? This is subjective and as a criteria it is very elusive. It can't be a criteria. Different people have different tastes - and the travellers' interests come first. Traveller can enlarge the image if he finds it interesting. So i'm going to ask you a permit to set a default size to all images, except for those that i have already expanded (for certain reason, i can explain if necessary). I mean, i can do it, revert them to default size :) .
I could upload more as twice informative, aesthetic, relevant images to any of LT (and its neigbours) article. It wouldn't be insane, it would be cool. Simply there is not enough text around. It's insane if the column of images protrudes at the bottom. Looks stupid. So i try to save space for extra pictures. Actually, i don't see any sane reason why the default size (width) should be modified? :) . If there is one i'm going to accept it. So far you profoundly explained all "technicalities" but didn't make even a hint that you are going to pay any attention to my humble question. I don't ask anything general, this is a concrete article, those concrete pictures were uploaded specifically by me (carefully selected from existing amount), the sizes were set by me. I did pay attention to a general appearance of the article, i did care about potential readers who may be reading the article and i did think that the internet speed may be slow or fast. --Local (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (EST)
One reason I may not have specifically addressed a particular situation is that you did NOT provide a diff of the specific edit you wished to address.
Please remember that I make many hundreds of edits every month, some without logging on. Let's assume that you wanted to discuss this edit.
If my assumption is correct, then in this edit I deleted the right switch because it is redundant and superfluous - the software assumes that images will be displayed right aligned by default. Incidentally, I'm not sure that Aleksandra was correct in saying that it is POLICY to always align right - can you show me where she says that or where our Image policy says that?
Now what we can agree is that it is best not to specify any dimension in pixels for the reasons both you and I describe above. Where we may part company is that there is no aesthetic dynamic in the choice and display of images. We can agree that good design is subjective and what appeals to one may be a huge turn-off to another. Even you, yourself concede that aesthetic judgement is important when you write "It's insane if the column of images protrudes at the bottom. Looks stupid." (my emphasis added) However our existing advice says: "This doesn't mean no images, just no more images than are necessary to make the article beautiful and informative.
Image use in articles should be kept at the minimum necessary to get across a point or impression." - please note the "beautiful" part.
I think there is often a tension between having a striking and punchy first image (the lead image) and not wishing to impose too high a bandwidth load. I resolve this by usually setting the first image as upright=1.7 (unless it's in Portrait orientation) and subsequent images uniformly as upright=1.3 so they all appear at about the same minute size as Wikipedia (which has a more reasonable default size of 220px rather than our even more minute 180px).
Bottom line is that if you wish all the images to be right aligned and with no size specified (either in the preferred "upright" syntax or in naughty, "dumb pixels"). I'm certainly not going to argue with you or change your preference (always providing I can remember which articles you've edited)... --Ttcf (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2014 (EST)
Yes, that image and two other, eg this one. Well, my mistake about diff, simply this was "fresh", i.e. you quickly responded to my question at Aleksandra's talk page, i quickly asked about your edits you made after that quick response. But nevermind. If you simply removed the right switch - i understand, i thought your intent was to expand the size. So the question is answered, i think. As for Aleksandra's explanation about the pictures on the right side - see the top of this. And you can read our conversation at Aleksandra's archived talk page, find "Pictures on the right side", it is somewhere about at the middle. As for the "larger lead image" - i make all lead images larger, and not specify any dimension in pixels for all other images. What i have noticed right now is that people are uploading banners to WT Shared e.g. here - will there be something similar like in that other site? Should i start to think how to "decorate" the articles with leading banners? And i'm aware about the rule "just no more images than are necessary", i simply was talking that potentially there is no shortage in images, but it all was my reasoning, nothing more. I simply didn't know why suddenly those few images were expanded. I mean, i was thinking that the image policy could change and all images must be expanded, and those your edits are just a beginning of a long and boring work. The "beautiful" part is clear too, that sentence is perfectly sane, and when i ironically was referring to the "images added for the beauty" i had in mind a stupid habit to upload "nice" (often kitschy) images because they are nice and not because the images make the article beautiful. So i think now there are no misunderstandings between us :D --Local (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2014 (EST)
Over the years it's been very difficult to change policy other than in tiny increments. Now we have almost the opposite problem: those with administrative powers (but who were never either nominated or approved by the community) are either ignorant of long-standing and carefully-debated policies (or just ignore) them or make up "hidden" policies that they determinedly refuse to expound or make transparent - why just the other day our long-standing policies about quickbars were overturned without addressing any of the contrary arguments in order to humour what will probably turn out to be a here-today-gone-tomorrow editor that insists on writing nonsense about whole countries or implying that Australian electric sockets are common throughout the USA to those reading quickly on mobiles...