Talk:Gaspé Peninsula

Attention native speakers of Canadian English

Swept in from the pub

Other than districting Buffalo, my main project on Wikivoyage has been elevating the Gaspé Peninsula to Guide status with a view to nominating it for OtBP sometime next summer. The first phase of that project is complete - namely, expanding the Gaspé Peninsula article itself, with a mixture of material translated from fr: (where it is a star article) and my own experiences visiting there in 2012.

en:'s policy is to write articles in the same dialect that is spoken in the destination. Though I am familiar with Canadian English, as an American it's not my native dialect, so I may have slipped up and forgotten a "u" here and there or whatnot. Could someone who is a native speaker of Canadian English (Pashley? K7L?) perhaps take a look at the article and correct any oversights on my part? Also, if there's anyone native to the area (Amqui?) who might review the article's factual accuracy, that'd be great too.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you've added a huge amount to the article, thanks. Our coverage of Québec is sporadic at best - even on fr: - once one leaves the Ottawa-Montréal-Québec City beaten path. Distances are "metre" and "kilometre" (a "meter" is a measuring device, such as a voltmeter, water meter or parking meter) and the St. Lawrence River runs from the western tip of Wolfe Island to Pointe-aux-Pères, just past Rimouski. Anything further downriver would be in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The claim that "Anticosti is part of the north shore" reads strangely, as Anticosti is an island. Maybe it should have its own "go next" entry. I suppose the real (huge) task will be getting the individual articles under Gaspé up to 'usable' status? K7L (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Running a Microsoft Word spellcheck for Canadian English turned up nothing in particular. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That should flag "kilometer" (sic) but won't find instances of "meter" used instead of "metre" or "check" used instead of "cheque" as these are valid English words... which just happen to mean something else. There's a joke, something like "My spelling is purr fact in every weigh. My spell chequer told me so," which plays on exactly this. K7L (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course I know that. But at least it Word spellchecker will catch a common lot of things like those U's mentioned. I wasn't saying that checking is done, only that it's started. Texugo (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To K7L: That is indeed the next step, but I don't know how "huge" it will be. The requirements for Usable status in city guides are actually pretty lenient: a Get In section and at least one listing each in See, Eat and Sleep. I'll very likely go above and beyond for many if not most of them, but at a basic level I could probably do two or three of those in a day. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look and see no problems. That may not mean a great deal, though, since my English has been influenced by dialects other than my native Canadian. Pashley (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the star article on fr: I will review this article for content. Amqui (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I added my suggestions on the Talk page of the article, nothing wrong with the content, just some suggestions about couple things to add. Thank you very much for this beautiful article! I will help develop pages for cities and sub-regions in English, I already created most of them in French by now. Amqui (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We would need to find how we translate "Bas-Saint-Laurent" (the region next to Gaspé peninsula). On the Gaspé Peninsula page both "Bas-Saint-Laurent" and "Lower St. Lawrence" are used. The page Bas-Saint-Laurent translate it by "Lower Coast". In my opinion Lower St. Lawrence is a far better translation, I never heard Bas-Saint-Laurent referred as a "Coast" and I grew up there. The official tourist website doesn't translate the name [1] and use "Bas-Saint-Laurent" in English (but this is to be expected I guess from any regions in Quebec), I think using Bas-Saint-Laurent as the name of the page on English Wikivoyage, as it is now, is the good way, but I think the translation offered should be "Lower St. Lawrence" and never "Lower Coast". Termium, the website from the Translation Bureau of Canadian Government also translate by "Lower St. Lawrence" [2]. I wouldn't oppose to use "Lower St. Lawrence" as the name of the page either, this is English Wikivoyage after all, not French. Amqui (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving this to the talk page of Bas-Saint-Laurent. Amqui (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm Canadian & had a look, found no problems. I did change "kilometre" to "km" wherever I found it; this seems better to me than choosing between kilometer and kilometre. Pashley (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pashley: - Appreciated, but the article on which I was hoping for feedback was actually Gaspé (which I linked in the section header at the pub, though I admit it could have been made clearer). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Some sources

Some links/sources you might be able to use for more information on this article

1. By car
   • Provincial Route 132 -- WP page: Quebec Route 132
   • Provincial Route 299 -- WP page: Quebec Route 299
   • Provincial Route 195 -- WP page: Quebec Route 195
   • Provincial Route 198 -- WP page: Quebec Route 198
2. See
   • Bonaventure Island -- WP page:Bonaventure Island
   • Percé Rock -- WV page:Percé
   • Quebec Acadian Museum -- URL http://www.museeacadien.com/
   • Gaspesian British Heritage Village -- URL http://www.gaspesianvillage.org/
   • WP page: List of museums in Quebec - and WP page: Organization of Military Museums of Canada might also be useful
3. Go next
   • Anticosti Island -- WV page:Anticosti
   • Miramichi River -- WV page:Miramichi River Valley
   • Pointe-au-Père -- WP page:Pointe-au-Père

Matroc (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maritimes vs. Atlantic Provinces

Pashley, I'm reverting your edit to the Talk section, where in the passage reading "Acadia included what are now the Maritimes and parts of Maine" (paraphrased) you replaced "Maritimes" with "Canada's Atlantic Provinces".

First off, "The Maritimes" is a more well-known place name than "Atlantic Provinces". Secondly, my original is also a truer and less confusing statement - the Atlantic Provinces include the Maritimes as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, but the latter was not part of Acadia and does not presently play host to any significant degree of Acadian culture.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Pashley (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions by Amqui

In See section, I would add a mention about the numerous lighthouses, maybe a mention of the scenic route Route des Phares (Lighthouses Route) [3]. I would also mention the Bioparc de la Gaspésie in Bonaventure and Exploramer in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, both of which with the Jardins de Métis are the three "must-see attractions of Gaspé" [4]. I didn't add them myself since my English is not at the level used on this page.

In the winter sub-section of the Do section, I would mention snowshoeing also and not only snowmobiling, since comparison with hikers in the summer is made at the beggining.

Amqui (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These all sound like good suggestions to me. Pashley (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyedits and tone

I fully respect WV:Tone, and the reasonable limits it suggests for liveliness. "Careful generalizations are okay, but don't cross the line into exaggeration.... Avoid clichés. Being lively doesn't mean being vague, flowery, and effusive. If you find yourself starting to write like an attraction advertisement, it's time to take a break for a while." I think that my edits fit well within this advice and should not have been reverted holus bolus:

1. "Mont-Joli is a regional transportation hub (boasting an airport, train station, and important highway crossroads) and also contains a museum dedicated to the art of weaving." -- Does a town really "boast" about having an airport? And isn it better to say that a town "contains" a museum, or "has" a museum? The former is awkward.
2. "Gaspésie National Park and boasts a range of accommodation and services." -- Again, "boasting" about accomodation and services is overkill.
3. "The Gaspé Peninsula... boasts a population of about 130,000" -- that's not actually much to boast about.
4. "This is just the latest in a growing string of NatGeo awards the region has racked up lately:" -- this is repetitive because the article then lists the string of awards.
5. [Bonaventure — The beating heart of Acadian culture along Chaleur Bay, containing the massive Quebec Acadian Museum." -- again, "contains" is just awkward. "Home of" flows better.
6. "Chaleur Bay that boasts artisans' shops, a café, and, at its nucleus, an interpretive museum" -- these are all nice, but "boast" is used so often that it is just trite.
7. "No matter what you're into, you can do it here in style." -- That's overselling. There is no mention of surfing, downhill skiing, deep-sea diving, abseiling or any number of other things outdoor enthusiasts might be into.
8. "The fun doesn't stop when the snow starts flying. Far from it—" -- this has definitely crossed over into writing like an attraction advertisement.
9. "The Gaspé Peninsula's restaurants run the gamut, including everything from gourmet haute cuisine to humble..." -- same thing. "Range" says the same thing as "run the gamut, including everything from" in fewer words without being flowery.
10. "It has all the information you could ever want" -- we don't know how much information the reader could possibly want, and shouldn't presume to know that.
11. "Neighboring" -- let's use Canadian spelling here.
12. "Visitors should keep in mind that" and "currently"" -- these words are on WV's list of words to avoid, so restoring them is a mistake.

There are a couple of places where I'm okay with restoring "boasting", like "it boasts among the most beautiful scenery", but using it as a commonplace replacement for "has" makes it meaningless. Ground Zero (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In no particular order:

#s 1-3 & 6 - I concede your point about "boast". I'm probably more tolerant of the word than most, but I agree that it's way overused on this article and I'd be fine with toning it down a little bit.

#s 1 and 5 - "Has" is frankly one of the most boring and lifeless words in the English language, and "home of" sounds like a cliché. I'm sure I used both of those words/phrases in the article already; why not mix it up? "Contains" doesn't sound awkward; it's just a synonym that's slightly less often used in this context.

#11 - The American spelling of "neighboring" was an oversight on my part.

#s 7 and 8 - This is an understandable but still erroneous interpretation of policy. The key to differentiating lively prose (which is encouraged) from flowery prose (which is discouraged) is that the former consists of information of substance relayed in a more imaginative and memorable manner, while the latter is just a puffed-up way of saying nothing at all. If the quotes in #7 and 8 stood alone, they would handily qualify as fluff, but when they're placed in their proper context as the catchy lead-ins to the quite salient information in the sections that follow, they become lively prose. Our objective is to keep readers interested, and that means not launching them headlong into long blocks of text that are dry and dull and will make their eyes glaze over. The zippy lines in the section ledes are there to keep readers' interest and get them excited about slogging through the stuff that follows.

#9 - Same deal as above, essentially, with the added corollary that brevity per se is not necessarily what we're going for at Wikivoyage. We want interesting turns of phrase and text that flows well. Condensing "run the gamut, including everything from" to simply "range" takes a lot of the liveliness out of the prose (and this is lively prose, not flowery fluff, for the same reason as described above).

#10 - This is a classic example of Wikipedia-think. You're looking at this too literally. In informal registers of English at least, "all the information you could ever want" is understood to be a metaphor for "a lot of information", and in that way is yet another example of lively prose.

#4 - The mention of "a string of NatGeo awards" is redundant, but again, as with the point about brevity in #9, the question of whether that's considered a bad thing depends on context. As with #s 7 and 8, the passage you cited serves as an introduction to and summarization of the information that follows, written in a catchy way so as to excite the reader about digesting what otherwise might read like a dry and tedious string of text.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that I am mistaken in interpreting WV:Tone. We are writing a travel guide, not a tourism brochure. It should be lively without losing its objectivity. Tourist brochures make our eyes glaze over because they lose any sense of objectivity with over-the-top descriptions. We are trying to share our enthusiasm for travel without trying to sell the reader on a destination. Let's look at individual pieces in context:

#7: "Whether it be white-water rafting or mountain biking in the summer, leaf-peeping and wildlife spotting in the fall, or world-class skiing and snowmobiling in the winter, the Gaspé Peninsula is a twelve-month-a-year destination for adventurers from all over the world. No matter what you're into, you can do it here in style." -- The first sentence, to which I made no change, is lively and positive. The second sentence doesn't add anything, but crosses the line into exaggeration because it is not supported by the rest of the text. How about something that doesn't go beyond what the Gaspé actually offers, like "In the Gaspé, outdoor enthusiasts can indulge their passions in style", rather than promising everything and not delivering?

#8: "The fun doesn't stop when the snow starts flying. Far from it—the Gaspé Peninsula is one of the best winter-weather destinations in North America, according to National Geographic magazine. Why? For starters, the region makes up part of Quebec's snow belt, with the mountain landscape transformed into a winter wonderland perfect for fans of skiing, snowmobiling, and the like." -- "The fun doesn't stop" is a sales pitch. I find the NatGeo reference a far better way of convincing me, because it is from a credible source, than WV selling me on the "fun".

#9 and #4: "Run the gamut" and "a sting of" -- again, I can live with these, but they belong in a tourist brochure, not in an enthusiastic but objective guide. We undermine WV's credibility by switching to the language of salespeople. It is gilding the lily, which does not convince people, but turns them off.

#10: "If you're a foodie, you can use the Gaspé Gourmet (Gaspésie gourmande) website to design your own culinary tour of the Gaspé Peninsula. It has all the information you could ever want about Gaspesian cuisine" -- again, crossed the line into exaggeration. this can easily be brought in line with Wikivoyage policy by changing it to "It has a wealth of information about Gaspesian cuisine". Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

While allowing that the sentences and phrases Ground Zero is quoting are somewhat out of context, on the face of it, I've been interpreting Wikivoyage guidelines pretty much the same way he is laying out here and editing out what strikes me as purple prose from articles I've been patrolling. I don't know if we'd really want to have a long discussion about this kind of thing at Wikivoyage talk:Manual of style or some other place, because on the whole, it's better to just spend time doing things to improve the site, but if good-faith editors not here to promote their businesses are working somewhat at cross-purposes, that could be problematic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the last thing we need imported from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage is the compulsion users of that site have to nitpick over every last minute detail of word choice and nuance of tone, which often leads to longwinded and sometimes rancorous talk page discussions. I agree that Ground Zero is operating in good faith, and several of the points he's made are well taken and appreciated, but it looks like we're experiencing a bit of culture clash here. Probably due to its smaller editorial community, Wikivoyage culture has come to consider it a point of good etiquette to give other editors, especially longstanding and active ones, a wide latitude to interpret style in their own way, and to therefore take a laissez-faire approach to their work except in cases of factual inaccuracy, closed businesses, dead URLs, spelling or grammatical errors, and the like, or truly flagrant violations of policy. Yes, that's a self-serving argument, but it's true nonetheless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In practice, I do give longstanding editors more latitude than new users when they've built up a track record that demonstrates they are not here just to tout businesses they are paid by (and not given to making edits of undependable accuracy without discussion, like our friend on Telstra). But it could well be argued that trying to apply policy to the letter to new users and not longstanding users, even users who make such outstanding contributions as you, is biting the newbie — or coddling the veteran. We need to be careful not to in practice use language that would or should be reverted or edited if used by new users. Really, on questions of tone, I think our attitude should be, if the shoe fits, wear it. So, for example, I try to avoid the appearance of seeming to tout when describing my favorite restaurants, just as I would expect anyone else to do so. Of course you do not represent a tourism bureau, but that doesn't mean that you don't or shouldn't try to follow the guidelines at WV:Welcome, tourism professionals, which covers similar ground to what Ground Zero is covering. In particular, this bullet seems relevant to this discussion:

• Please don't tout for products, services, or destinations. Overexcited or exclamatory statements put off other editors and readers. Straightforward, objective descriptions of a destination that are fair are more likely to survive future edits, and are also more likely to stimulate the interest of Wikivoyage readers.

That conflicts somewhat with the call for lively prose at WV:Tone, which I would say means ending up somewhere in the middle is probably about right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have assumed that our aim here is to provide the most useful guide for travellers. In that vein, I edited this article because I felt that it sounded like it was touting. I did not look to see who had written it, because what I assumed to matter was the end result. At no point did I believe that Andre had any personal interest here beyond writing a good article -- it is just a matter of disagreeing over what a good article is. I have proposed alternative wording to try to bridge the gap between our two views. I was hoping the Andre would work with me so we could improve the article together.

If there are different rules for long-standing editors, I was unaware of them. This is the first time in WV anyone has suggested that my contributions are valued any less than anyone else's. In fact, I appreciate how tolerant long-standing editors have been of my newbie mistakes. If there is a hierarchy of editors (beyond the powers given to administrators, etc.), I would appreciate that being spelled out. I don't think that such a hierarchy will help expand the project beyond the current small editorial community. It would certainly affect how I feel about participating in it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there are different rules for long-standing editors. You have been here long enough to establish a track record; that's all it takes. Note the caveat in my post: "In practice, I do give longstanding editors more latitude than new users when they've built up a track record that demonstrates they are not here just to tout businesses they are paid by (and not given to making edits of undependable accuracy without discussion...)." And, to clarify, a new user is someone with no track record. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ikan, I think your remarks about "coddling the veteran" and "us[ing] language that would or should be reverted or edited if used by new users" oversimplify my viewpoint a bit. Neither Ground Zero nor myself are arguing against policy, or saying policy shouldn't apply to us. We simply have two different interpretations of policy - naturally enough when we're dealing with a policy that's inherently subjective - and to that end we have both put forth coherent arguments as to why the edits in question were or were not allowable. That's all fine. In my above comments I do feel that I've demonstrated a willingness to meet GZ halfway. But that's independent of the larger point about the laissez-faire approach to others' edits, which is that Wikivoyage's culture has evolved such that, when it comes to users who know policy and are prepared to justify their edits per policy if questioned - and, yes, users who have been here a while and demonstrated a track record (this list doesn't necessarily exclude GZ) - we don't generally litigate these matters in the first place. There are enough things to add to Wikivoyage that we can be selective about nitpicking vis-à-vis what's already here. The reason why I used the terms "culture" and "etiquette" rather than "policy" is because no, this isn't something that's spelled out in black and white; we didn't sit down once upon a time and debate this issue until we came to a clear conclusion; it's simply a situation where the opinions of community members happened to evolve organically in convergence with each other. But just because this is an unwritten thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean discussions like this don't happen as a result. We're all humans behind these keyboards; we get used to things being a certain way and we feel rankled when the status quo is upset. I'm 100% sensitive to the fact that GZ is a (relatively) new user who might not be attuned to the finer points of Wikivoyage custom, but as I see it, discussions like this are an inevitable by-product of dipping one's toe further and further into the waters of Wikivoyage. Going back through the archives of my user talk page, it's happened to me many times in the past and still does occasionally. But I don't feel like I'm biting a newbie here; I've read this discussion as measured, dispassionate, and respectful on the part of everyone, and my own approach as understanding and didactic. And if anyone else has interpreted it otherwise, I sincerely apologize. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower, you've indeed been very reasoned in this discussion, as usual. I tried to be careful to avoid making any accusations. Statements like these - "But it could well be argued that trying to apply policy to the letter to new users and not longstanding users, even users who make such outstanding contributions as you, is biting the newbie — or coddling the veteran. We need to be careful not to in practice use language that would or should be reverted or edited if used by new users." - deliberately avoid accusing anyone of actually doing this. Instead, I held these up as things that perhaps we could agree aren't such a good idea. Anyway, I certainly understand the points you lay out in your last reply. Do they make sense to you, Ground Zero? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing in Wikivoyage for over a year now. I think WV is a great project, but the biggest thing that is holding it back is information that is outdated. To a lesser extent, poor formatting and writing also undermine the credibility to the guide. I took on the task of updating the exchange rates for 190 countries and a few dozen dependencies so that when a reader starts with a country article, at least they are not hit with exchange rates from 2011, which I think would be a turn-off for a lot of readers. I've also been doing a lot of clean up on formatting and writing to help make it feel more professional and credible. I have always tried to do so within Wikivoyage policy and in a way that is respectful of other editors. I am surprised that Andre does not seem to know whether I fit into the category of having a demonstrated track record or not.

Andre agreed to a few minor edits (which I don't see as meeting me half-way), but has not responded to the compromises I suggested in my second post above. It looks to me like he would rather argue about status in the project than work toward a compromise.

Ikan, if you had told me that you agree with his interpretation of the policy and not mine, I would accept that. But unless I am misreading your comments above, you seem to agree with me that the key passages in question sound like touting. If so, then the question is how to proceed. Do we improve the guide by adjusting the wording to reduce the touting, or out of respect to a long-standing editor's interpretation of policy do we leave his preferred wording?

This makes it a more existential question - what does WV want to be? Does it want to be a crowd-sourced travel guide, or a travel guide written by a "smaller editorial community". Having unwritten rules and allowing policy determinations to be made on the basis of an editor's experience instead of decided what it is that the policy actually says may work in a small community, but don't go over well in a crowd-sourced project. Such a broader discussion probably is better off handled in the pub than here, as you suggest. If the WV community wants to remain a small editorial community where disputes are resolved on the basis of longevity, then I will accept that I have been intruding and back off. I don't think that approach is the best way of keeping the guide up-to-date, but that's just my opinion. Maybe it is. Ground Zero (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To quote a landmark case on copyright law here "The parties are advised to chill". Yes, we do have a policy on avoiding touting (though, to be fair, it is mostly aimed at the touting of businesses, the touting of certain locations can get out of hand. I am a New York Giants fan, but the "New York is the best place in the history of everything" attitude of some New Yorkers can get even on my nerves and yes, it does shine through in places such New York City#Go next (though it is not annoying in that example, merely amusing). In general, a narrow rules-lawyery reading of policy won't help many people, nor will any party sticking to their guns come hell or high water, no matter the cost. I have had wordings of mine changed. Sometimes I was glad because a more elegant sentence than my garbled words came out, sometimes I found the edit pointless and sometimes I was mildly annoyed because I think the edit may have shortened the sentence or used more pedestrian words but robbed it of a certain noséqué it previously had. And yes, some of the edits that made me feel that way have been of User:Ground Zero, but he is far from the only one and I am certain not all my changes to other people's wordings have always been (perceived as) helpful. That being said, fighting over words is often silly and more often a less efficient use of our time than many other things we could do here. I hope we all (me included, but hopefully not in this particular debate) could gain something by trying for a less confrontational attitude and - as John Green says - imagine others complexly. There are good reasons to try for lively writing that "sells" destinations, but there also good reasons to not "tout" rural Forchheim County as the most beautiful place on earth. In general, it helps to find a good balance and both long time users and "newbies" - as well as those in between (guess that would be me?) should try and avoid letting their frustrations get the better of them. I know Wikivoyage can move slowly on some things, and some aspects (e.g. clunky formatting on some "forgotten" articles) can be frustrating, but overall I feel we are moving in the right direction and one thing is for certain, I do want to have as large a community here as we can and I wish it to be a place where Andre, Ground Zero, myself, Ikan and many, many others have a place and nobody feels left out or thrown under the bus even if we do have disagreements from time to time. Okay, this has already gotten longer and more rant-y than intended, so I will end this text here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that you read me correctly, Ground Zero. At least taken out of context, the passages you cited did come across as being like Tourism Bureau purple prose. However, maybe I should try reading them in the larger context again, and I might react differently. I would say, though, that even the best writers here should be careful about being too attached to our words. I know I often get annoyed at picayune edits to my prose or edits that in my opinion make the prose less elegant and drier. However, longtime users as well as the newest users (who wouldn't be anyone participating in this discussion) need to remember that everyone's contributions are subject to editing on a Wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ground Zero's most recent comment - I have scrupulously assumed good faith on his part, and while I wish I could say I've seen the same from him, the lack of such has left me increasingly dismayed. I have explained myself repeatedly, as clearly as I know how, and yet my remarks are always misinterpreted, and always in ways that paint them in an unfavorable light.

Let me try one more time before I throw up my hands. There's no pecking order or seniority here. This is not a case of "shut up, newbie". The custom at Wikivoyage is to give editors - all editors who have a track record, which includes both myself and Ground Zero - broad latitude to interpret issues of style in their own way. That doesn't mean I'm right and Ground Zero is wrong because I've been here longer than he has; that means neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong, and I don't nitpick what he writes so please don't nitpick what I write. Of course, as I said, this rule of thumb doesn't apply (quoting myself here) "in cases of factual inaccuracy, closed businesses, dead URLs, spelling or grammatical errors, and the like, or truly flagrant violations of policy", but in a case like this where the question of where to draw the line is subjective, and where everyone has made credible policy-based defenses of their point of view, why not just live and let live? Why, on a site where (as GZ readily admits himself) the number one problem is missing or outdated information, waste time worrying about information that's present and up-to-date but not worded in that just-so way?

And why, praytell, would this live and let live custom be a hindrance to growing our editor community? Far from not functioning well on larger wikis, I would think this paradigm would be a breath of fresh air for someone from Wikipedia, where the phenomenon of persnickety editors making federal cases out of minor issues seems to play a major role in the editor retention crisis they're undergoing. Wikivoyage has the benefit of allowing original research and not needing exhaustive citations for everything included in an article (to the point of explicitly disallowing "References" sections); why spoil that more easygoing policy environment with Wikipedia-style overpolicing of tone?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Andre, I have never assumed any ill intent on your part, and I apologize for having given you that impression. Thank you for clarifying that you do not mean to suggest that there is a pecking order or seniority here. That addresses my discomfort with this discussion, so I am very happy to let that drop.

We clearly agree that an editor should never tout for a business. Where I think we part company is the question of tone is whether WV should sound like it is touting for a place. I think it makes WV less credible for the reader. So I think it can be improved by adjusting the language as I've proposed above, or in other ways if you have other ideas. I know that a lot of my writing can be improved, and I am happy when someone finds a better way of writing something than I have. I don't think that editors should be bothered by having their contributions edited by others. That is the basis of a collaborative project. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I just read through the edits in question and a lot of it strikes me as style differences. I agree "boasts" is used too much and I find #7 over the top, but otherwise, I preferred Andre's wording in nearly all other cases. To me, phrases like "runs the gamut" and "the fun doesn't stop", while wordier, sound conversational and lighten the tone; it didn't come across as touting. Anyway, just my two cents. -Shaundd (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit of a hothead here. Ground Zero, at most points during this conversation I was editing on my mobile phone, which is a pain, so yes, I did miss the specific proposals you mentioned in your last comment. I can live with the solutions you've proposed for #7 and #10 ("In the Gaspé, outdoor enthusiasts can indulge their passions in style" and "It has a wealth of information about Gaspesian cuisine", respectively), as well as toning down the use of the word "boasting" as we discussed before. But I have to say I agree with Shaundd about the specific passages he brought up, especially in the case of "run the gamut" and "a string of", which I still can't figure out how you're construing as promotional. Lastly, while I'm still not convinced "The fun doesn't stop when the snow starts flying" is problematic, I'd be willing to hear out any compromises that are phrased so as to take into account that the wealth of wintertime activities Gaspé offers bucks the stereotype that people tend to stay away from destinations as far north as Canada in the winter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's water under the bridge. As I mentioned, I can live with "run the gamut" and "a string of", and for that matter, since you're willing to accept my other proposals, what's a little "fun that doesn't stop" between friends? Let's call this a happy compromise. I will endeavour to take a lighter touch to copyediting in the future. Ground Zero (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

sub regions

are the sub regions of the region article needed or useful to the reader? There are not that many city articles in each and little chance getting them past outline unless just duplicate information from this region? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Traveler100 - yes, the Gaspé Peninsula is a work in progress that I'm picking back up after a long hiatus. All the region articles, redlinks, etc. will be appropriately filled out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

OK --Traveler100 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Gaspé Peninsula - a progress report

Swept in from the pub

With yesterday's elevation of Land's End (Gaspé Peninsula) from Outline to Usable status, I'm now finished with the first of five phases of the Gaspé Peninsula project.

Though it was way back in May 2014 when I started on it, I don't anticipate that it will be decades yet before it's completed. It began as a side project that was subordinate to my main one of districtifying Buffalo and bringing it and its daughter articles up to Guide status. Even after Buffalo ran as DotM in 2015, my Gaspé work continued to be sporadic, as the maintenance of the Buffalo district articles - removing closed businesses, adding new ones, etc. - still took a huge chunk of my time at Wikivoyage, along with admin duties, buffing up DotM candidates before featuring, and other routine site maintenance stuff.

Furthermore, as the peninsula's main area of visitor interest, Land's End and its daughter articles were by far the most work-intensive of the five Gaspé Peninsula daughter districts. The district includes four of the ten bottom-level destinations I had targeted for Guide status (Percé, Chandler, Forillon National Park, and Gaspé; the others are Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Bonaventure, Gaspésie National Park, Matane, and Mont-Joli; Amqui is already at Guide status but was ported more-or-less verbatim from its counterpart at fr: and needs extensive reconfiguration to comport with standard English Wikivoyage article structure). The remainder of the bottom-level destinations are less important touristically and probably don't need to be developed beyond Usable status, and - as can be seen with Grande-Vallée and Petite-Vallée, which I promoted to Usable recently - I could probably knock a couple of those out a day.

So I'm happy to say that we're probably still on track to feature Gaspé Peninsula as OtBP sometime in summer 2019. I'm going to hold off on officially nominating it - I learned my lesson the hard way the last time, and there's another round of badly-needed updates to the Buffalo district articles that could yet throw a monkeywrench in those plans - but I'm optimistic on this forecast.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, for Gaspésie National Park I have recently written a Russian article which has no status (because it lacks some essential info and also is waiting for my photographs), but it has essentially more info than the English article. The Russian version of Sainte-Anne-des-Monts I will soon nominate for a guide article since it contains almost all the info and just is waiting for a couple of photos I need to post-process. You may want to use these two texts (feel free to ping me if smth is unclear).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Including articles in the list

@AndreCarrotflower: Andrew, I hadn't seen that you had reverted my addition of Chandler when I added Grande-Vallée and Petite-Vallée last night. I did not mean to appear to be edit-warring on this.

My argument for adding these two is that they are the only two destinations in the Gaspe Peninsula that are not listed in the GP sub-sub-regional article. Gaspe Peninsula is, I think, fairly unusual in Canada for having sub-sub-sub-regional articles. These two destination articles are good shape, thanks largely to your efforts. I think it would be difficult for many readers to make it all the way through to the regional breakdown to these two. It would be an issue if Upper Gaspé and Land's End (Gaspé Peninsula) were blessed with a bunch of completed destination articles, but they have only 2 and 3, respectively.

As you are the local expert on the Gaspesie, I will leave it your discretion. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I plan on creating at-least-Usable-level articles for all the destinations in the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections of the bottom-level regions that currently redlink. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Happy Easter and/or Passover. Ground Zero (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)