> There is also the legendary and very friendly Hotal Sahara run by the Naamani brothers, Habib and Hassan.
What makes it more legendary than any other hotel in MHamid? --DenisYurkin 10:42, 19 November 2006 (EST)
In the meanwhile, I removed Legendary from the article--but still I'd be happy if you tell what makes it legendary. --DenisYurkin 18:42, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Will you stop nitpicking other people's descriptions if you have no personal experience of the place? The single word "legendary" usually means that the place is well-known in the backpacker community, and is a pretty good guarantee that it's decent. If you remove it, and just call it "friendly", this is lost. Jpatokal 22:42, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Isn't Wikitravel all about open discussion and consensus? What's wrong about asking a question that (in my belief) can clarify a listing? It was not obvious for me that legendary means exactly that (and it furthermore refers to backpacker community--how a reader is supposed to guess about that?)
if you doubt something, pull it out to the talk page.
Legendary has nothing to do with personal experience with a place per se--it's only about reputation, about place being famous etc. Do you mean that I should not try to improve any other's text? Otherwise, how would you recommend to resolve cases like this? --DenisYurkin 04:20, 27 January 2007 (EST)
If you have reason to doubt the description, then go ahead and pull it out — but what is your reason to doubt that the gulyas in Rab Raby is worth trying, or that the Hotel Sahara is not well known in M'Hamid? Jpatokal 04:45, 27 January 2007 (EST)
I've been in MHamid and participated in finding accommodation for our travel--but heard nothing legendary-like about Sahara. OK, it may be popular with backpackers (which sounds much clearer), or even legendary well-known among back-packers.
In general, I believe we should avoid characteristics like Legendary if we give no reasoning or details--it will help a reader understand what exactly is meant (again, legendary can have too much readings), and it helps to distinguish tout-style listings from real experience-based.
As for Rab Ráby, I already gave my reasons for asking:
gulyas is probably the most typical and frequently served dish in Hungary--so recommending gulyas at a particular restaurant should have a strong reason
You answered a question, I updated the article and now it's bit more clear. But what's wrong about it? --DenisYurkin 05:18, 27 January 2007 (EST)
In a nutshell, I am trying to make these two pieces more helpful for a traveller choosing a place to eat in Szentendre or a place to stay in MHamid. I believe that changes I make and discussions I initiate move us a bit in this direction. --DenisYurkin 07:56, 27 January 2007 (EST)
Let me see how I can best express this. I went to Rab Raby in Szentendre, ate the gulyas and thought it was good enough to record in Wikitravel when I created the article a few years later. And when you went and removes this recommendation without what I would consider good reason (eg. ordering the gulyas yourself and finding that it's full of cockroaches), I was somewhat offended.
A fundamental Wiki principle is Assume Good Faith: if somebody adds information ("Try the gulyas"), the default assumption is that it's a valid recommendation (= the goulash is good). I see no reason for you to assume that this is "dubious", and it's certainly not the kind of important info that warrants pulling out until "verification" (by who, the Central Goulash Committee?). Jpatokal 05:17, 28 January 2007 (EST)