I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edit to Pensacola. The beaches nearby Pensacola are an important part of tourism for the city, and a large number of visitors to the city will find beach information useful in a guide about the city. Even the city of Pensacola itself agrees that beaches are the main draw for tourism, check almost every single Pensacola tourism website for references to "Pensacola's famous white sandy beaches." Including this section will make the Pensacola page a more complete guide, more useful to guide users, and in the end, that's the goal of Wikitravel, isn't it? Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals So, I disagree with the decision to revert.
--Tally 19:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
It was my intention ro create a separate page for Pensacola Beach and put your information there. Would that work as a solution for you? I was actually on my way to do that a few days ago, when the database locked up and I could not edit for a few days... Sorry for any misunderstanding. gamweb 20:30, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I seem to keep losing my posts! I thought I'd already replied to this earlier today... Anyways, yes, that seems like a good solution. I'll put a note in the Pensacola article under 'Do' that despite popular belief, the 'famous beaches' of Pensacola are actually at Pensacola Beach, and from there, just link to the new article. Good idea, sorry I didn't think about it earlier! --Tally 02:35, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks again for proofing my Russian version Florida map. Do you mind if I ask where you get your Ukrainian from? Are you a heritage speaker? --PeterTalk 22:19, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Heritage speaker? My family came from Ukraine, if that's what you are asking. My Ukrainian is kind of "rusty" now; I will have to do some practicing before I can contribute. I also have to figure out how to access the Ukrainian Unicode letters. (Several years ago, I was using Windows-1252 or Cyrillic-KOI-U characters.) Any pointers would be appreciated. gamweb 04:06, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I will gladly look over the Wikitravel:Florida_Expedition page. Have I edited a Florida page in a way inconsistent with wikitravel's standards or goals? I am new to being a wiki contributor, but am trying to contribute everywhere I can. Your input or suggestions will be appreciated. Jtesla16 20:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
I disagree with you reverting the links to Disney World. Since Disney world has its own page every reference to it should be linked to that page. A single link to it under "other Destinations" is not sufficient, readers do not read articles word for word from top to bottom, and should be informed that Disney has its own page whenever they first see the topic.Jtesla16 23:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
If you would check the Florida page, you will see that Disney World is already linked (Other Destinations). Earlier, it was linked three times (Other Destinations, See, and Do) from the same page. Do you think other attractions/destinations in Florida should have an opportunity to be linked from the state page? gamweb 23:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I noted above that Disney is linked in the Other destination section, my point is that it should be linked in all three places. By virtue of the fact that it is one of the largest attractions in the US, and already has its own page, readers should be informed that a separate Disney page exists whenever they first stumble upon the word (since they likely wont read the article linearly). If an attraction is large enough to warrant its own article, I think it should be linked from the state page.Jtesla16 17:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
What is the rationale for these? If someone has navigated to a city's page, why would they be interested in sleeping in another city?Jtesla16 17:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
In some places, cities are piled one on top of another - I considered this to be a useful way to link to other lodging. Another consideration is to help stop the constant flow of SPAM in Orlando and surrounding cities approaching Walt Disney World Resort. gamweb 17:46, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I think it is obvious that you and I have different ideas of what this website is about. The ultimate ruling should be made by Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals. Please pay close attention to Non-Goals 7,8, and 11.
Florida Parks and Airports: The Florida state page cannot list every attraction, airport, university, lighthouse, and park in the state. This is not wikipedia. Information has to be useful, i.e. concise. The most relevant airports for someone visiting the state should be listed. Only the most important national park should be named.
If you were telling your cousin about coming to visit Florida, would you tell him there are 15 airports he can use and 10 national parks he should see?
You decided on your own, without seeking input or consensus from other contributors, to trim the list of airports to three and parks to three? This is a brash move on a state page, for someone who has been a contributor for less than 30 days. I have been here over a year, and I would not consider making such a move on a state page without input from others. gamweb 15:09, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Ormond Beach and Lakeland: THIS IS NOT THE YELLOWPAGES. The eat section of Lakeland is totally inconsistent with the goals of this site. That information is in no way helpful for someone visiting the area. Cope for Ormond beach? Someone on vacation visiting the beach wants to know the phone number and address of every church in 20 miles? This seems to be a peripheral issue to the main focus of this site. Again, I think that is tending toward a level of comprehensiveness which this site tries to avoid.
My last intention is to undo any work you have put into this site, I am merely trying to standardize and improve Florida's pages. I hope we can come to an agreement on these issues.Jtesla16 11:14, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Just jumping in here to say that I disagree that "Only the most important national park should be named". Perhaps you meant "parks"? OldPine 12:22, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Thats right, "parks", like it is now with Biscayne, Everglades, and Ocala forest mentioned. Listing the other 6 makes the information too cumbersome to be useful.Jtesla16 12:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Kindly do not exaggerate. There are six churches/temples listed, all within city limits of Ormond Beach. I suggest you take a look at Chicago#Cope. I consider star articles a valuable resource for ideas on developing cities, beyond the simple template. gamweb 14:30, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I think that pinpoints the problem. Comparing Chicago to any city in Florida, let alone Ormond Beach, is illogical. Chicago has a population of 2,800,000. Ormond has 38,000. There are templates for different sized cities for a reason.Jtesla16 14:43, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I have pinpointed the problem. This guide is not concerned with "residents", but "tourists." The templates clearly spell out that they can be expanded, and headings taken from a larger template as they grow. gamweb 14:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Right, not a comprehensive list for residents. Its to be useful for travelers. Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals I still don't think ormond beach warrants a cope section. Jtesla16 15:05, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I see that you are one of those people that only hears what he wants to. Very well. I actually work in a hotel in Daytona Beach. Sometimes hotel guests ask where the nearby churches are. Case closed. gamweb 15:14, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, case closed without requesting input from other contributers? Show any of these issues to Peter or LtPowers, lets see what they have to say about it. I'd love to have their input on 6 churches in Ormond Beach, every university, airport, and park in Florida, and 40 restaurants in Palatka. Jtesla16 15:32, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Snide remarks appear to be your specialty as well. Kindly do not communicate with me any more. Since you chose not to communicate to seek out my opinions, I do not need to read your snide remarks instead. gamweb 15:49, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
If you'd like to discuss any unqualified articles I have promoted I'd be glad to. Also, adding a bunch of useless information can be as destructive as deleting info. --User:Jtesla16 2008-09-07 10:46:54
Lets let the quality of edits determine a contributer's value, not his time as a user. You obviously had never read the Wikitravel goals or the article status requirements. I think this is the main source of our disagreements.Jtesla16 15:24, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
This is getting out of hand. We have the same goals here, just different opinions. I'm willing to work through our differences here, or submit every disagreement to review by others if thats what it takes. Jtesla16 15:46, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Kindly do not communicate with me anymore. Since you chose not to communicate with me regarding changes, I do not need to read your snide remarks instead. gamweb 15:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Hi, Gamweb. Please don't label other Wikitravelers' good-faith edits as "vandalism", as you did here. Jtesla had a legitimate concern, however incorrect he/she may have been in that particular case. LtPowers 17:19, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
See my talk page for an outside opinion on the issues. I was wrong to remove the churches from Ormond. I'm willing to seek consensus before removing info in the future. I apologize. Jtesla16 17:39, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Hi George, unfortunately we cannot use Wikipedia content here unless the author of said content gives explicit permission to license the content under CC-by-SA 1.0. Please see shared:Copyleft for more information, and also please remove content that you have copied here from there. We'd rather not wind up in legal troubles ;) Sorry if this wasn't clear before, but really take a hard look at that copyleft article — it's one of the most important policy articles on our site. --PeterTalk 19:46, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
You can definitely use any text of which you yourself are the author. If you copy text from Wikipedia that you wrote to here, just note that you are the author on the talk page. --PeterTalk 22:05, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Just an extra note -- be super careful that anything you copy from Wikipedia is the work of you alone. If it has been edited by others, then they share the copyright for the text with you and you cannot copy it here. -- Colin 22:37, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I also contribute to both wikitravel and wikipedia and would like to offer an additional view on this. Though you can submit exact copies of your own work (text or images) to both wikipedia and wikitravel under different licenses (you own it, you can distribute it as you wish), I would really urge against it for a number of reasons:
WP and WT have different goals. One can use the same content, but generally it serves the goals of the different wikis better by rephrasing it differently and adding or removing facts as appropriate for each wiki. On WP one might want to read what the average monthly rainfall in a city is, but on WT it is more useful to know whether that rain comes as short afternoon thunderstorms or as an all day drizzle. WP might tell one me that a main highway passes through a town and cost $X to build, but WT should tell me that one should drive carefully when using that highway as children and livestock might be crossing it.
It gives a better user/reader experience if both wikis have original and unique content. A WT reader might decide to find our more about a city by clicking on the WP link in the sidebar, and will be very disappointed if all they finds is an exact copy of what they have just read on WT. Similarly a WP user might decide that a place is interesting enough for a visit and wish to find out more by visiting WT. From WP they might already know there is a museum X, but WT should tell them that it is closed between 12 am 3PM for a siesta.
By not using exact duplicate work, all this licensing issues are simply avoided and the lives of admins on both wikis become a lot easier. This is especially true for text content; image licensing is a bit easier to manage.
Hey George, I know things got a bit heated in the past week. But conflicts do occasionally occur here. I hope that after some time allows things to settle a bit, you'll be back and working on the Wikitravel:Florida Expedition—the competition already has me working hard on Maryland! --PeterTalk 19:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I disagree with the revert edit to Harbour Beach Resort (Daytona). The official site is www.wgdaytonabeach.com and is part of Westgate Resorts. The current link goes to a timeshare owner which is not the property owner. Please find the correct URL (link) at the bottom of http://www.harbourbeachresortonline.com/rentbyowner.htm. Open321 17:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
You can disagree all you want. I am well acquainted with the property (I used to work there!) Westgate does not own Harbour Beach Resort and if you claim otherwise, you are a liar; Westgate owns 24 (out of 159 total) units there; the other condominium units are owned by individuals and their official website is harbourbeachresortonline.com. You have repeatedly perverted the name of the property and tried to change the official website. gamweb 21:51, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Westgate has requested a secondary listing, which has been added, to accommodate both sites. Open321 13:09, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Hey George, I do rather think this was you, just not logged in. But since it was an anon ip making major changes in your userspace, I reverted just to make sure it was not vandalism (if it was you, please log in to confirm). Also, if you are interested in cleaning up your user talk space, I would strongly encourage you to archive the discussions, rather than simply delete them. Deleting other people's good faith comments is generally frowned upon. It is your userspace, though, so if you insist, it will be left alone. Let me know if you need anything else, or have any questions. --PeterTalk 13:53, 25 April 2009 (EDT)