User talk:Wesopa

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Wesopa! Welcome to Wikitravel. Thanks for plunging forward so far. If you're going to continue working on Wikitravel, you may find the tips for new contributors helpful.

You should also make sure you understand our copyleft and policies and guidelines. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted.

If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, and if you need some info not on there, post a message in the travellers' pub or on the talk page for the most appropriate article.

Thanks for your contributions on Amsterdam and The Hague. Looks good! -- Ryan 15:56, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Alkmaar / "External links" section[edit]


I removed the "External links" section from the Alkmaar article [1] a couple of days ago, unfortunately my "Summary" comment was simply remove External Links section - something like removing "External links" section - see Where did the "External links" sections go? would have been much better, sorry about that.

Please can you have a look at Where did the "External links" sections go? and also What not to link to and then figure out how best to proceed with the external links you've added since then?

If in doubt, please post something here or on the Talk:Alkmaar page - thanks!

PS: hope you don't mind me asking, but maybe you could also review some or all of these external links too? - if so, many thanks!

Please take a look at What not to link to. In particular, the sentence "We should have travel information in Wikitravel, not linked to from Wikitravel." While I recognize in some cases I have been overly zealous in getting rid of external links, in 90% of the cases these links fall into the category of linked-to information. In about 10% of the cases, they belong somewhere else in the article (eg attraction listing). In those cases, i) I will try to move things within the article instead of deleting them but ii) feel free to put them back. Jonboy 09:26, 26 February 2006 (EST)


Hi Wesopa. You have been doing a great job with articles related to Holland and Dutch cities. As you are very familiar with the country, is it possible that you could help reduce the number of cities listed on the main Netherlands page. According to Witravel rules the number should not exceed nine. In addition, the custom is to place the capital city first, then list the other eight cities in alphabetical order. Thanks. WindHorse 26 Feb 06

Hey Wesopa, I had a go at pruning the list myself. Some places like Amsterdam and the Hague obviously should be among the nine places listed. Some others, though, I'm not sure about. Please change at your discretion. Thanks. WindHorse 26 Feb 06

Removing sections[edit]

Please don't remove section headers just because there isn't (currently) something under them (like when you "cleaned up" Bergen (Netherlands). We leave them there to make it clear that there's information missing, and to help people put it in the right place. - Todd VerBeek 07:41, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

When it says to remove headers if they aren't relevant, that's talking about things like "Get in, By train" for an island. Unless there are no stores and no bars in the town, "Buy" and "Drink" are relevant. (In fact, if there were no stores and no bars in the town, that would be worth saying under those headers.) If the place is small enough to get around just by walking, say so. And if the only place you can go from Bergen is back where you came from (how do you know where they came from?) then describe that bizarre geographical anomaly under "Get out". - Todd VerBeek 08:05, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
The purpose of "Get out" isn't to provide people with descriptions of bus routes, but with ideas. If someone is in Bergen, where might they want to go next? Is there another similar town in the area (even if it's not the next stop on the bus)? - Todd VerBeek 09:27, 9 June 2006 (EDT)


You wrote: "If you feel you are deliberately being treated offensively, then you probably are." Which means you are deliberately being rude, because that's certainly how I feel about the way you've been treating me (and other editors). Thanks for making this clear; I'll stop assuming otherwise. - Todd VerBeek 16:20, 9 June 2006 (EDT)