Not sure if we are ready to recommend something specific as alternative to "conveniently located". Judging by Wikitravel talk:Accommodation listings#nearest attractions, there is no clear consensus on this yet. Any contribution towards reaching it will be appreciated, however. --DenisYurkin 07:38, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Adding to spam list?
Brainwave of the day: should some of these words be added to the spam lists? For example, I see no reason why any non-tout would ever use a word like "complimentary", and indeed a quick Google reveals a ton of spam using the word. Jpatokal 00:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
- It would take a lot of work to just add this one term . Most users just get confused when they hit the blacklist, and give up on editing the page (as evidenced by the many misguided bug reports we get for "uneditable" pages due to blacklisted terms). Regular users (including me) slip into these words now and then, and it would be nice to get a reminder via the blacklist to not do this, but I think it would totally throw off new and infrequent editors. Maybe this could work if we could alter the blacklist message to make it more user friendly? --Peter Talk 15:01, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
- I actually changed it already yesterday, see MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. But yeah, ideally there would be a way to distinguish between dubious "tout-y language" and 100% blockable "xxx viagra!!!11!!" spam... Jpatokal 23:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
If you're looking for...
Here's one that's been annoying me for a while. I'd like to add this to the list:
- If you're looking for ______, look no further! / this is the place! / etc.
It just strikes me as formulaic tout language and a waste of space since it doesn't really add anything interesting. Does anyone agree with me? Texugo 11:11, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- Yes, 100%. --Burmesedays 11:18, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- I think I used that language to help travelers find bull testicles in Chicago. --Peter Talk 13:22, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- Hehe. I can perhaps tolerate it for something unusual like that, but what I see most often is much more mundane, like "If you're looking for a burger and fries, this is the perfect place." --Texugo 13:39, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
Similarly, I'd like to add:
- Whether it's A or B, C has what you're looking for.
How do we know what the reader is looking for? What if it is neither A nor B? And what place has absolutely every possible thing anyone could look for? texugo 07:16, 12 March 2011 (EST)
- If it's neither A nor B, then it's not covered by that statement. This is really just another way of saying "C has A and B"; it's a bit wordier but also a bit less dry. LtPowers 09:58, 12 March 2011 (EST)
Can "It's considered polite to do X" be simplified to "It's polite to do X" without losing any meaning? After all, manners and politeness are always a matter of local opinion, so saying that it's considered polite seems redundant. --BigPeteB 13:59, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
- I see your point, but I'm reluctant to recommend against the wording. The "considered" phrasing helps emphasize that the advice is not universal. Take "It's considered impolite to shake hands with your left hand" versus "It's impolite to shake hand with your left hand." The former wording makes it clearer that it's a local custom not a universal expectation. LtPowers 16:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
Article sections describing the history of places should avoid using the word "discovered," as it's generally Euro-centric. The French didn't "discover" French Polynesia. This is particularly glaring when articles even mention that places were populated long before Europeans arrived. I'd recommend using phrases like "the French arrived" or "European explorers landed."