Talk:Clarence (New York)

Lazy reverts are for vandals or bad faith edits

André: please would you explain why you are flouting our relatively recent policy of frontlinking external links so that we don't have those misleading, incrementing little numbers? --W. Frank^email_talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so polemical. He reverted your edit because he wants to use the word "boast." So instead of being deliberately confrontational, you should just make the external links edit that he reverted and leave "boast" alone. Or you can discuss the use of "boast" separately, somewhere else (you could start in the Pub if you're not sure where else to do so) - preferably without an accusatory tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way about the word "boast", and I reverted Frank's edit because I felt that he was being overly nitpicky in editing my prose just to change that one particular word. I had no idea that he also made other edits, but I feel that my mistaken conclusion was a reasonable one to arrive at given that the only comments Frank made in his edit summary were in regards to the word "boast".

I certainly don't have any problem with the current external link policy, but I find it curious that Frank's edit summary did not reflect the edits he made in their totality. In the spirit of avoiding being accusatory, I will refrain from assuming that Frank deliberately intended to obfuscate his external link fixes for some unknown reason, but that still leaves the question of why his edit summary addressed one issue, the less important of the two at that, and completely failed to mention the other one. (Especially because, as evidenced by his recent contributions, Frank is not averse to wordy edit summaries!)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't start to edit this section because it had too many "boasts". I started to edit it because of the very-easily-spotted footnote number - the only one in the article (if you check my edit pattern, you'll see that I do remove a lot of these pesky little footnote numbers every day) and, unfortunately found yet another "boast" right next door to the frontlink. Along with "It should be noted that" and "note that", it tends to jump out from almost every American's travel prose.

If you want to use a barrow load of clichéd "boasts" that's your prerogative, André - after all you've written most of this article. However, if the article is put up for a Star nomination, it has to be both correctly formatted and well written. Please remember that, I already removed a handful of "boasts" a short while back.

We don't really have a policy for edit summaries that I'm aware of, but my common practice is to highlight anything that is a judgement call rather than a matter of policy that should be non-controversial. If this is going to cause problems, then it will be quicker to give no edit summaries at all since some of my edits are quite difficult to summarise comprehensively. As an admin you should know already that you should examine the totality of every edit before reverting. Too many of you throw a lot of babies out with the bathwater. In this case, IK has rescued the little thing.

IK and everyone else: You all need to thoroughly read the good advice that was penned the last decade about reverts. Most editors do find them confrontational and I'm no exception in that regard. --W. Frank^email_talk 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who's being confrontational, by using ridiculous words like "vandals." It's no-one else's problem if you decide to take reversions personally instead of being constructive. Many of us appreciate the good edits you've made, but none of us appreciate it when you decide to call names and be unnecessarily prickly, so please quit it. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Listings order in "Worship" section

is obviously NOT alphabetical, so what should the wv:comment for editors say, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andre stated elsewhere that he tends to list churches by number of local adherents, a statement which matches quite well with the observed order here. LtPowers (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If this were an encyclopaedia, I think that would be a very reasonable alternative order to alphabetical.

From a travel perspective, almost by definition, most "local adherents" will already know of the existence, geographic location, service times, etc of their chosen place of worship. It's also rare that locals would shop around or experiment. If we are not to have the usual alphabetic order in a "Cope" listing, then it would seem more appropriate to have the rarest types (for that particular location) first, on the basis that they will be the most difficult for a traveller to find.

Either way, if the order is not alphabetical, I think there should be an explanatory wv:comment for editors. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed Star Nomination

This article was nominated as a star article. If you know the city and would like to make it a star. Please address the concerns below before renominating:

I think this article, which User:AndreCarrotflower has worked so hard on, is really exemplary and should be made a star. It's so comprehensive and has wonderful illustrative photos in just about every section. Do you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's a fine article, but it has no map, which is a requirement. LtPowers (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Besides the glaring lack of a map, I'm also finding the way the images are aligned, alternating between right and left, really distracting. Maybe it's just because they're formatted so huge - which is another matter; save for the lead image, none of the photos seem interesting or detailed enough to justify having them at such large sizes. There is also some detailed information I question having. For instance, the mention of the Continental Connections Flight 3407 crash (I'm pretty sure I watched that Air Crash Investigation episode a couple of weeks ago); what use is that info to a traveler? It may have been a big event for this town, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should define it. Now, all that said, this is a good article, and I would like to see it come back with these issues resolved. It'd be very interesting to see an article about a suburb get a star. PerryPlanet (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• LtPowers and Perry, the lack of a map didn't register for me, and is obviously a good point. Perry, it's interesting to read your different take on the photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  I may try to whip up a map if I find the time. LtPowers (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  Map complete, though "whip up" turned out to be a hopeless ideal. LtPowers (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  The photos are now right-aligned, as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Left-aligned images have always been frowned upon here - you may have noticed that literally less than 0.5% of our articles contain them (intentionally curated this way), and the ones we do have now were added in the last few months since launch, mostly by User:AndreCarrotflower, and possibly a couple of other users. They remain controversial as far as I know, since they create a meandering text flow, reduce scannability of listings, introduce flow and formatting problems (same reason we are happy to eliminate the vertical TOC), and present one more aesthetic variable for editors to disagree and fuss over. I personally despise the idea of introducing them sitewide, and if I had come across this article randomly, I absolutely would have changed the image positions back to our right-aligned standard. Texugo (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I would also have an issue with left-aligned images in a star article, because they disrupt the flow of the text/bulleted items and make it difficult to scan. --Peter ^Talk 23:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  To play devil's advocate, though... don't most professionally published works try to vary the alignment of images in order to provide visual interest? LtPowers (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Text publishers have absolute control over formatting, always ensuring text is not broken up in random ways and listings remains appropriately grouped, etc.. We, however, are subject to a variety of things which affect our layouts in random ways depending on the reader's combination of window size, monitor size, font size, and browser type. Left-aligning images causes a number of random problems which may not be evident to the person originally deciding how the layout should be done. Texugo (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• While I was flattered by Ikan's note on my user page, I must confess I was surprised that Clarence was nominated for Star status especially in view of the fact that it doesn't have a map. Nonetheless, I agree that it's a well-written article and could easily be a Star with a map and a few other tweaks.

By way of addressing some of the other points brought up here: the reason for the left-aligned photos is that, as an amateur photographer, I tend to use a lot of photos in my articles. As LtPowers said, I feel that varying the position of the photos provides balance to a page, which I realize is at odds with Wikivoyage convention. But, much more importantly than that, the main reason I do so is to avoid having one photo stacked directly on top of another, which would happen frequently in an article like Buffalo if not for the staggered photo positions. That concern doesn't apply to Clarence, though, so I wouldn't oppose it one bit if someone went in there and shifted all the photos to the right.

I do have to rebut PerryPlanet's comments on mentioning the Continental Connections Flight 3407 crash in the "History" section. Among articles on this site, "History" is a pretty common subsection of "Understand"—but to take a strict reading of ttcf, we may as well jettison all the "History" sections sitewide as little if any of the information in them is indispensable information for travellers. Any historical information that has been integral in shaping the identity of a place would no doubt be reflected in what type of destinations are found there, and so forth. But being that the majority of Wikivoyagers who've written long and detailed articles have concluded through their own work that it's better to include a "History" section even if it runs afoul of a strict reading of ttcf, I included the information about the plane crash for the simple reason that if not for that, the "History" section of the Clarence article would have come to a dead stop in, if I remember correctly, the 1960s or '70s with the construction of the malls. It wouldn't read right; it's not as if nothing has happened in Clarence for the past half-century.

Pride in my own work aside, an honest answer by me to the question of whether Clarence qualifies as a Star article at the present moment would be "close, but not quite". I do think it has potential, and I look forward to working with my fellow Wikivoyagers to bring it up to snuff.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Any historical information that has been integral in shaping the identity of a place..." And there's the rub. How is this plane crash integral to the shaping of Clarence? It was a one-time accident and any traces of it are most likely gone by this point. Anyway, I don't really see anything wrong with a history section on a travel guide ending in the 70s. I mean... it's a suburb. It probably hasn't changed much in the last 40-50 years. You could also just leave it on a general statement of "Today, Clarence is/enjoys... [insert general characteristics of place here]" to put something more conclusive at the end of the section. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well and good, but that seems to me to be beside the point. There appear to be two conflicting ideas here. As I said, if "the traveler comes first" is to be observed strictly at all times, we probably shouldn't write "History" subsections. However, in practice, most Wikivoyagers seem to think ttcf can be relaxed to allow for them. So the question I have is, if we're willing to include subsections like "History" despite the fact that a) a strict reading of ttcf would frown on including information like that and b) everything that's "been integral in shaping the identity of a place" can be incorporated into other sections, then why limit "History" to those integral identity-shaping facts? Isn't that kind of redundant? In point of fact, can't a reader who's not interested in the history of a place simply skip down to the next section?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're taking my argument to mean that we shouldn't have history subsections, you're completely missing my point. And I disagree that a strict interpretation of "the traveler comes first" means you can't have history sections. The idea (as I've always understood it) of having a history section is that you're providing some context for the reader so that they can get a sense of the identity of the place. For instance, look at the history section of Chicago: it's a very basic overview that doesn't get into a lot of minor specific events, but instead mentions only those large-scale trends or the rare really big event that played a major role in shaping the identity or layout of the city. Same with San Francisco or Pittsburgh. The Grand Canyon article doesn't need to talk about the 1956 mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon because an understanding of that isn't going to help a traveler get a sense of the identity of the Grand Canyon. We don't need to mention the "Miracle on the Hudson" in the New York City article.

I like to think of it as the difference between something that happened in that place, versus something that happened to that place, if that makes any sense. Anyway, we're getting way off-track here, the reason I brought up the plane crash in the first place was because I thought there was a lot of overly detailed information in the Understand section (do we really need all that census data?) and having an entire paragraph devoted to a plane crash struck me as the most obvious example. PerryPlanet (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The crash information does have some value, in that it's a recent event that may jog readers' memories as to where they've heard the name "Clarence" before. (Besides in It's a Wonderful Life.) LtPowers (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think we could still cut back on the detail; it doesn't need a paragraph when a short mention would do. Something like "Tragedy struck Clarence in February of 2009 when a commuter plane crashed into a house in Clarence Center, spurring a rush of inquiries and strengthened airline regulations." We don't need to get into flight numbers, the cause of the crash, or a count of the dead; leave that info to Wikipedia. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to compromise by keeping the information in a streamlined or simplified form. Much of the text of that article, especially the "History" section, was sourced from a project on local history that I've been working on intermittently. Though my work on that project and on Wikivoyage do overlap in certain areas, I agree that the more academic approach of the other project tends to bleed through—especially when text is copied lock, stock and barrel. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] LtPowers: Great job on the map! The whole-city map is a little difficult to read, though. Would it be possible to enlarge it some without messing up the rest of the format of the article? I realize there's a very readable inset, but there's a bunch of other stuff to see in other parts of town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The icons in the inset are the exact same size as the icons in the main map. LtPowers (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

They look bigger, then, because there's more space between them. I think the pitch of the text for the numbered items on the left of the map probably should be bigger, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think 500px is too small, feel free to experiment with different image widths, but I'm not sure how much bigger we can make it. LtPowers (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It was at lot clearer at 620px, but I dialed it back to 585px, which is the largest size that - barely - can fit on a single screen, being mindful of the difficulties in printing a map that requires piecing together two or more screens. I do think it's significantly clearer now than before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you define "one screen"? LtPowers (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] I define "one screen" as fitting (barely) on a single screen on my own desktop computer, providing that the top of the map is very close to the top of my screen and the bottom is very close to the bottom of my screen. If a lot of people's screens are small enough that the map is too big now, or if it's very unlikely to print on a single sheet of paper, that would be problematic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Very close. The two things that jump out at me as a blocker is the lack of descriptions for some listings and the use of duplicate listings, neither of which are that big of a deal in a guide article, but shouldn't be in a star article. This can be solved pretty neatly by just picking a section for the twice-listed items (Brennans sounds like it would be better in Drink, and it's OK to not have a ton of listings there, especially if you can just mention the most notable ones in the Drink intro). The coffeeshops should probably all just be in Drink, unless they are particularly notable for the food. We generally don't list grocery stores, unless you are in an area where self-catering is the norm or only option. I think the grocery stores are too much information, and should be struck. If the local chains are worth keeping (I'm not sure if they are, since there is already a long list of good Eat recommendations), they should still have some sort of description, ideally a mention of what they are + what is unique about that particular location. If there's nothing to say about them that hasn't been said elsewhere, just copy what's most important/most interesting from the relevant Buffalo articles—this article should be self-sufficient for the sake of downloaders and printers.

This next point is not, IMO, enough of a reason to hold up a starnom, but I'll still make the recommendation, since I think it would significantly improve the guide: edit the article down to size. Edit it like a madman intent on ridding the world of text. Good information and writing can get lost when there's too much information. The sections that stand out are Understand, Connect, Stay healthy, and especially Cope. Understand is really thick, and I had a lot of trouble reading it (I don't have a great attention span).

The other way to handle the issue of big blocks of text is just to make the lead sentence of each more attention-grabbing. Funny enough, the part PerryPlanet brought up was the one part that I immediately wanted to read, since it started with Tragedy struck... On the other hand, the lead paragraph of the section starts with a bunch of dry facts that aren't relevant to travel, like the square miles of the town, census definitions, and then gets bogged down in demographic statistics that could be replaced with something like "The wealthiest town in the Buffalo area (and one of the least diverse), Clarence has a bit of a snobby reputation." (Spin that however you like.) The next paragraph starts with Of all the cities... Clarence has the longest cities. I'm worried that the reader reaction at seeing that and then the big blocks of text following is "No kidding! Skim." The big problem there is that what follows is really good stuff, with a nice narrative, but which could all be edited down into something less intimidatingly big and more focused. Try and reduce the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level of those lengthy, punctuation-rich sentences down to something that a 16-year-old would be able to read ;)

I think you could do without most all the information in Connect (how many travelers are going to need this information?). The thing that might be missing, however, is a listing for the main public library, which would have useful computer/internet facilities. Stay healthy is almost always omitted from all but Country articles, and occasionally huge city articles. Cope really shouldn't have a laundry section, unless it's especially relevant (like for a backpacker stop at the end of a popular, grueling wilderness hike). Having it there (along with the yellow pages-like listing of all religious congregations) makes the article look less like a travel guide, and more like a locals/new residents guide or a department of commerce website. For the congregation section, I would remove all but the most notable—probably all but Clarence Church of Christ, St Mary's RC Church of Swormville, and maybe Niagara Frontier Sikh Society if it's interesting enough for a description. Then just briefly mention that "Jewish and Muslim services can be found in Amherst." I'd remove the broadcast section.

Lastly, 400px is really big by our standards for thumbnails, and I think you are using that because your thumb descriptions are 4-5x the length of what you'll find in other articles. That's another good place to look to trim, condense, and make tighter/punchier.

Now of course, I'm whinging about lengthy blocks of text while writing the same right here! But I hope this is useful criticism. If you'd like to see more examples of what I mean [1], I'll happily help with some of this—just say the word. I'm always reluctant to copyedit your work, since you're easily one of our best content contributors, and I don't want to step on your toes ;) But if you could just keep in mind the mantra "less is more" while you write, you'd quickly become one of our best writers in terms of style too. --Peter ^Talk 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very nearly. User:Peterfitzgerald makes a good point about thumbnail sizes - especially for our poor readers on slow and or expensive data connections. If there is a good reason for not leaving them to display at the readers default preference width, then you might like to consider specifying them as a factor of that default width. That way, readers who have specified the smallest possible default width will not be so greatly inconvenienced by a (large) hard-coded width. --118.93nzp (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Amherst

So, we're really going to assign listings to an article based on what side of the road they're on? How does this help the traveler who's on Transit Road and needs a place to eat? Powers ^(talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Of the many awkward ways in which this issue could have been approached, I feel this is the least awkward.

Transit Road happens to be the town line between Amherst and Clarence, both of which have articles on Wikivoyage. And, we have a policy against listing restaurants, stores, etc. in more than one separate article. Say we had left the article as is, with all points on Transit Road covered in Clarence - you could just as easily ask how it would serve a reader of our Amherst article to not have any information at all on Transit Road destinations.

Also, I remember it was mentioned before that perhaps a more logical breakdown would be by neighborhoods or hamlets rather than by town lines. Leaving aside the fact that most of the Transit Road corridor doesn't belong to any neighborhood in particular, I think the first thing that should be considered is the likeliness of the search terms. If we were talking about well-known place names like Snyder or Williamsville, a stronger case could be made. But even in the case of the bona fide hamlets that straddle Transit Road further north - Swormville, Millersport - there's a huge number of locals who aren't familiar with those names, let alone travellers. "Transit Road" seems like an even less likely search term, with the additional complication that, per wiaa, streets don't get their own articles. And I think it goes without saying that lumping everything into a Suburbs of Buffalo (or even Northern Suburbs of Buffalo) article is not a realistic option, given how long such an article would be.

A possible solution is to restore the explanatory text at the beginning of the subsections about how Transit Road serves as the town line, and direct readers to Amherst (New York) for information on the other side of the road. As you may have seen, I've already migrated the relevant listings over to that article.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Andre. It makes sense to separate listings by town line and have the explanatory text in each article, saying that Transit Road is the boundary and for listings on the other [give direction] side of that road, look at [name of article]. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My wife and I visit Transit Road occasionally from Canada. I am learning the 'village' names here at WikiVoyage. We call the area "Transit Road", and don't travel off that road. If I were to say Amherst, Clarence, or Williamsville to my wife, she'd say "where?" Because of the number and variety of stores on this strip, it can be a target destination for Canadian shoppers. Personally I would like a Transit Road" entry because it would simplify things for me, as in "where will we go for dinner?" Of course, the last trip we were exciting and went to Five Guys. Cpfan776 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make a specific proposal, because I can't tell whether you are suggesting removing all listings for businesses on Transit Road from the Amherst and Clarence articles or duplicating them (which we don't like to do) in an article about what would essentially be an Extraterritorial region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ikan, I believe he's arguing in favor of Transit Road as a destination article that does not conform to town boundaries. Problem is, we've already got the basic infrastructure in place for how we'll eventually be dealing with Buffalo's suburbs - Tonawanda, Amherst, Clarence, Cheektowaga, ad nauseam already have their own articles, in outline form - so in order to carve out a Transit Road article, we'd either have to start all over from square one or accept that many readers of Amherst (New York) or Clarence will be miffed to discover that despite their titles, the articles do not in fact cover the entirety of Amherst and Clarence. Not to mention the fact that wiaa clearly states that streets don't get their own articles, and while it does allow for articles about districts named after streets (giving San Francisco/Castro Street and Singapore/Orchard as examples), in the local understanding Transit Road does not refer to a neighborhood or hamlet, or anything other than the road itself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lively or touty?

I started to edit this to de-tout some of the restaurant listings that, to me, cross the line between lively writing and touting. But I want to ask @AndreCarrotflower: (and anyone else who is interested) for opinions before I proceed.

Also, I changed over the phone numbers to ten-digit dialling format, because it's listed here. If that is wrong, let me know and I will switch them back. Ground Zero (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's much risk of this being touting, unless ACF has secretly become a restaurateur magnate, so we can probably loosen our language requirements. That being said, that doesn't mean the writing can't be polished up or condensed. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Specifically, I think these lines sound like they were written by the businesses themselves:

"For almost thirty years now, Cycles Plus has been a local institution dedicated to personally attending to the needs of cycling enthusiasts"

"The premier establishment of its kind in all of Erie County... impeccable quality.... A high proportion of Erie County residents cite the Asa Ransom House as their favorite local restaurant, and with good reason."

Here are a couple more than I think make this sound like business promotion instead of a travel guide:

"according to general local consensus, the best and most authentic Indian restaurant in Erie County.... This magnificent establishment matches the impeccable quality of its North Indian and Pakistani cuisine with customer service that is second to none in its attentiveness." (What would Samuel's Grande Manor say about their staff's attentiveness being second to Kabab & Curry's?)

"Hong Kong seafood stew served to loyal customers who are nearly unanimous in their acclaim"

Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to food, I think the words "local", "personal", "produce"/"fresh produce", and "authentic" — but especially "local" — imply that the businesses wrote the listings themselves and are touting. I don't think ACF would do a thing like that; I think it was a tout who added this information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Andre is no tout. These things sound touty, which is my concern. And I don't know whether he wrote them or not. Ground Zero (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Out of town at the moment; will answer within a few days. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: This article needs a pretty thorough overhaul. I am the principal author, but most of the text dates back to 2013, when I was not nearly as good of a writer as I am now, and when I was in full "amateur tourist bureau" mode. It's funny how the evolution of my writing has been in tandem with the evolution of Buffalonians' perception of themselves and their hometown: over the past 15-20 years it's gone from (1) "Buffalo is a shithole; stay away" to (2) "Buffalo isn't as bad as people make it out to be" to (3) "Buffalo is awesome and I'm sick of hearing people talk trash about it" to (4) "Buffalo has its good points and bad points like any city, and the bandwagon-jumping local cheerleaders are equally as annoying as the trash-talkers". I joined Wikivoyage when we were at Stage 3 and I did my best to present my city (and suburbs thereof, like Clarence) in as positive a light as possible, carefully glossing over anything that might feed into any negative stereotypes that outsiders might have, no matter how true; now the mindset around here is at Stage 4 and some of my earlier writing strikes me as pretty embarrassing. (Incidentally, this is also why you won't find a blurb in the "Buy", "Eat", or "Sleep" sections that's written in anything less than glowing terms. Of course we avoid negative reviews, but one thing I've learned in the intervening years is that, where warranted, including honest mixed reviews written in frank, no-nonsense language is one of the best ways to build trust between author and reader. These should be tempered too, but that probably requires someone with a bit more local expertise. I'll see what I can do about that.)

@SelfieCity: Your comments are bewildering. Other than "personal", which in some cases could be seen as a meaningless filler word, what about any of the words you listed sound problematic? "Fresh produce" is not touting; it's a factual statement. And it's something that certain travellers seek out. We have a whole article about it. Same with "local". The locavore movement is very much a real thing, not dreamed up by someone in the marketing department somewhere, and it doesn't only apply to people seeking out food in their hometown. As for "authentic", just as one of many possible examples, there are plenty of videos on YouTube of Chinese natives reacting with confusion after visiting American Chinese restaurants. What other word would you use to differentiate?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean that, when business try to promote themselves, they will use terms like "local, fresh produce", etc., because they think customers will like the sound of it. Sure, many businesses are genuinely involved in fresh produce, and that's not the same issue — when people are might be touting on Wikivoyage, terms like "local", etc. are words to watch — not necessarily remove, but watch. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But there's actually no prohibition on local business owners listing, or even promoting (depending on how you want to define the word), their businesses here. The only thing they can't do is tout. The information they add has to be verifiably and quantifiably true. A statement like "This stunningly wonderful hotel is fabulously luxurious!" is meaningless and therefore inherently neither true nor false, but a statement mentioning whether fresh produce is sold at a store or served at a restaurant is perfectly verifiable. And yes, "local" is listed at Wikivoyage:Words to avoid, but it's pretty clear that it's only meant to be avoided in the context of the fact that Wikivoyage's audience is travellers reading about tourist destinations rather than people reading about their own hometown. Again, "locally sourced food", "local specialties", "gifts handcrafted by local artisans", etc. are definitely things of interest to visitors. So let's please think about complexity and nuance rather than simply making blanket statements like "these words are indicative of touting". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I see, thanks for information, and I will keep it in mind in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Andre, thanks for your reply. I'll address the issues I identified above. I wanted to check in with you before going too far. Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)