User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2016

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:

Routebox towns

Hi, do you have a long term strategy for the towns you are currently creating or is the aim just to list all rail stations along a line? Do not get me wrong I think route-boxes are generally a good idea but not sure about creating all these empty article. The minor destination in each direction should always be the next place along the route for which we have an article. Not sure that means we should create an article for each minor destination and not add any see or sleep listing to it. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was actually thinking of another way of doing what you are creating. How about route articles? A textual map (similar to what you can find on Wikipedia). Page for major roads or rail lines, lists towns along the way and in the case of road key service points for fuel, food and sleep, and highlights of thinks to see along the way. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) If there's a long empty stretch between the two closest places with articles on any given route, and there's one or more towns inside that stretch that 1) are large or important enough that we probably should have articles for these places, and others will almost certainly come along at some point to add information, 2) are large enough that there's more than one station in the same town, 3) are linked to by several other articles, and/or 4) are major transport crossroads or hubs (i.e. Secaucus) - then I'm not going to lose any sleep about creating an empty article here and there. If my aim were to list all the rail stations along the lines of the routeboxes I'm working on, believe me, I would have created exponentially more articles than I did.
Regarding your idea: except in the case of an exceptionally well-known or tourist-oriented route (which does not describe anything in the NJ Transit system), articles about roads or rail lines would specifically contravene or policy about what is (and is not) an article. I'm not necessarily against it, but it would require a pretty major overhaul of policy.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a couple of changes to routebox. Can now link to location of information about the route and give it a name that shows on mouse over. Examples Harrison (New Jersey), Raritan and Lorch am Rhein. It occurred to me that if you do not know the area then some of the symbols may not be clear what they mean. Cannot create a page for each route but can link to the information on the relevant region page. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US 202 routeboxes

Would it not make more sense to have all the routeboxes going left to right in the same direction? Take a look at New Hope, Lambertville. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it would make more sense to have north always be on the left, rather than having it vary by the whim of whoever set up the string of each particular route. I've been correcting south-left routeboxes myself, but I'm only one person and it's a big task. I wonder if it could be done by bot. In the meantime, if you see one that needs to be flipped, by all means. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See for instance Doylestown, also on the US 202 corridor - does it make sense for US 202 to be south-left, while PA 611, which lay directly below it on the same box, is in the reverse direction? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the documentation North should be left side. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely, but for whatever reason, there are south-left routeboxes all over the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. As I said, I'm correcting them piecemeal, but it's a big task (one that maybe would be better performed by a bot) and in the interim there's bound to be some inconsistencies such as the one you noted in your original comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least some of those inconsistencies are purposeful. For example, Eden (New York) has Buffalo on the left side of the US-62 routebox but on the right side of the I-90 routebox. That's confusing for travelers. I explained in an HTML comment the dual reasoning for switching US-62 when I implemented the routebox initially. Powers (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but let's remember the purpose of the routeboxes - to enable travellers planning to take a particular route to know what other places they'll pass through. A traveller along Route 62 doesn't need to worry about the I-90 line and vice versa. It's much more confusing for travellers to have the routes displayed in a non-intuitive direction, such as south-left, than it is to have the same city show up on different sides of the box along routes he or she is probably not even looking at. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but the routeboxes are also used to help travelers (and readers) move on to their next destination (that's why it's in "Go next"). In that respect, maintaining consistency within a routebox for the destinations helps the reader see what routes go where. I think US-62 is a bit of a special case, of course; I don't think it should be a common exception. Powers (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for that matter, I-90 doesn't even pass through Eden. Exit 57A is signed for Eden and Angola, but it's actually located in Evans. (Angola is part of Evans). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems like unhelpful hair-splitting to me. Anyway, I've started a discussion on the other issue at Wikivoyage talk:Routebox navigation#N-S convention exceptions. Powers (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't strike me as unhelpful at all. Wikivoyage has articles for both Evans and Eden; the Thruway passes through one and not the other. Why would we intentionally include inaccurate information in our guides if we can help it? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the same reason the Rochester (New York) article covers more than just what's within the city limits. The traveler comes first, and the traveler generally doesn't care about municipal boundaries. Powers (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Rochester article may cover more than just what's inside the city limits, but that's not true of all articles. Whether it be municipal boundaries or something else, there obviously has to be some sort of geographical guideline that determines where the purview of one article ends and that of its neighbor begins - that's true for general purposes but even more so for routeboxes, which present multiple different destinations in geographical order. As I've said before, in the case of Erie County municipal boundaries default to being the determiner in the absence of any other clear, generally-agreed-on standard. It would be unhelpful to the traveller for Wikivoyage to describe the Thruway as passing through Eden if no other sources, particularly not local residents or signage, would say the same. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe routeboxes have to be limited to routes that physically pass through a given municipality. They signify means of access, and implying that Eden is not easily accessible, right off a Thruway exit, is misleading and unhelpful. Powers (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent) I wonder how you would structure this routebox, then. Buffalo-Evans-Eden-Erie would be no good, nor would Buffalo-Eden-Evans-Erie - that would imply that one travels through Eden to get from Evans to Buffalo, or through Evans to get from Eden to Buffalo, neither of which is true (they're both accessed from the same Thruway exit in different directions). So obviously it's either one or the other, and between the two of them Evans is clearly the superior choice. Not only does the Thruway physically pass through it and not Eden, but Evans has more to offer the traveller: a Frank Lloyd Wright house open for tours, plus one of the few publicly accessible beaches between Buffalo and Erie at Evangola State Park. Eden's sole claim to fame is the Eden Corn Festival, which while popular, is fundamentally no different from the Holland (NY) Tulip Festival, the Cuba Garlic Festival, or any of the numerous other small-town agricultural-product festivals that dot the region. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise some good points, but I think there are persuasive points on both sides. Powers (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Routebox towns again

I really am not sure about this adding pages with just routeboxes. Particularly boroughs that have no places to sleep. I find it really frustrating when I am looking into a new area I am visiting to find a region page with lots of locations only to click to them and find them empty outlines. At least suggest a good restaurant in the area if there is no sights to see or hotels to stay at. Otherwise use the {{rtarrow}} and {{lfarrow}} in the next destination to list intermediate locations before the next page that exists until someone has something to write about the place. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try and add information to the "See", "Eat", "Do", etc. sections when I get a free moment, but it's perhaps worth reiterating that this site does not have a policy against skeleton articles, nor is the sleep test a hard-and-fast rule in determining what is an article (there are plenty of articles I've come across lately that were not created by me, for example Rose Valley (Pennsylvania), that mention a lack of any place to sleep within the place itself). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you will be challenged to fill all these empty outlines with listings. It takes a lot of time and effort to get valid see and sleep information. It is challenging enough for well visited places but for commuter suburbs it will be difficult. Not sure this work is benefiting readers of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already stated my position on this clearly. The value of routeboxes to this site is self-evident, and the value of new articles on destinations that are clearly large enough to sustain articles - even if empty - is to invite those familiar with the area to contribute to them. There's nothing about my current work on routeboxes that is against policy, but in the collegial spirit of this site I have already offered to contribute content to the new articles myself when feasible. Beyond that, I don't want to hear about this from you again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi i'am new trying to work on Lonoke. Maybe more later I created Tioga. Whatcha think? --Pazxj (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected pages (and redlinks)

Hi, Andre: Just a reminder that protected pages (including protected redlinks) must be listed on Wikivoyage:Protected pages. Powers (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll remember that. Thanks, Powers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia

Hi Andre, I am trying to create/add South Tangerang city (indonesian: Tangerang Selatan). Indonesia has 34 provinces, headed by governors, one of which is Banten. Banten Province has 4 regencies and 4 cities, headed by regents and mayors respectively. Out of those above, Tangerang Regency, Tangerang City, and Tangerang Selatan City are 3 separate autonomous area. with 3 different sets of legislation bodies, and mayors/regents. —The preceding comment was added by Djoko purwanto (talkcontribs)

That may be the case, but please see wiaa#What does get its own article?, which says "When dividing geographical units, keep in mind that boundaries of a 'city' or 'region' in Wikivoyage do not necessarily match legal divisions—nations, provinces, and cities—as the latter are created by governments for administrative purposes. If it makes sense to list a suburb (and its airport) as part of the city which it serves, do so." It looks like the author of Tangerang intended for his article to also include South Tangerang. If you disagree and think that South Tangerang should have its own article, that's fine, but please don't simply copy and paste from Wikipedia without attribution, as that is a violation of copyright. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. I'll add any on all three (Tangerang Regency, Tangerang City, and Tangerang Selatan City) in Tangerang then.
Thanks for the update.
—The preceding comment was added by Djoko purwanto (talkcontribs)
You're quite welcome. Thank you for your contributions! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Podcast Interview on Wikivoyage?

Hi Andre, Im writing to ask if you'd be up for a podcast interview on Wikivoyage. I produce a show, in english, for Wikimedia Deutschland and we want to introduce Wikivoyage by hearing from enthusiastic community members. Got 10 minutes to speak via skype in the coming week? I think you'd be a great voice to have on the show. Bicyclemark (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)MarkReply[reply]

Bicyclemark - I'm very interested. What kinds of questions/topics would be covered, specifically? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AndreCarrotflower Hi! Apologies for not seeing this earlier. Part of the program is to introduce the audience to WikiVoyage, I've done most of that with John Perry (today). Im curious about what your areas of interest are when it comes to travel writing, how you got started, and perhaps a bit on the community - how it collaborates and/or has evolved over the past years. Later on the program Ill have a friend who writes traditional travel guides for those familiar names to hear his own take on travel guide writing and reading but it would be great to have yours as well. Im findable on skype: bicyclemark. 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Re: this edit, we have traditionally used hyphens to indicate which parts of a phone number must be dialed locally. In the case of an 888 number, it's all eleven digits, so we use all three hyphens. Powers (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to add, I'm following the formatting as given on Wikivoyage:Phone numbers. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That was definitely my error - thanks! -- Matroc (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T'es modérateur sur WV en français ?

NeoMaps is at it again on French Wikvoyage. Do you have moderator privileges on that site, or should I propose a separate ban nomination? Sorry to pester you about this, I'm sure you've got better things to do. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, no, I am not an admin there. I think the best course of action is to take this up with Meta, who can impose a global lock on the account. It's pretty standard for them to do so in cases of obvious sockpuppetry of users who are already globally locked. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I have done as you said. A plus, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I had done as you said, but the bastard has reverted me. Sorry, but I'm done with this. I haven't the energy, patience or Wikiediting skills. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, a Meta user has already reverted the reversion, and that kind of conduct can't possibly be helping his case if he's trying to prove himself a good-faith user. It's in their hands now, so you can feel free to move along to something less frustrating. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic. Having lost my temper with the whole situation, think I shall go offline for a couple of hours actually. I hope next time he comes back with another account (which he undoubtedly will) we can act faster to ban before the destructive edits start and people get upset. Thank you for your patience and help :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shopping center

How sure are you about this, which you just added to English language varieties?

US "shopping center" (also "strip mall", "plaza") refers to a complex of retail stores without interior corridors.

I don't consider "shopping center" to be at all identical to "strip mall". See discussion at Talk:English language varieties#Shopping center, which is hardly conclusive. My tendency would be to revert your edit as not at all necessarily the case among all Americans in all parts of the U.S., but tell me what you think.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope you don't mind me chiming in. While many malls use "center" or "shopping center" in their branding, I've never heard anyone use it as a generic term. Of course, I also haven't heard it used in reference to strip malls, either. Perhaps the text could be salvaged by inserting "often" into it? I wonder what they call strip malls in the UK. Powers (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my belated response, and regarding the talk page discussion you linked, I was unaware of the NYC-area definition of "shopping center" that you mentioned. I'd be fine with not equating "shopping center" with either or both of "strip mall" or "plaza", but I wonder if we may be parsing this issue a little too finely. After all, this is an article about the difference between US and UK English vocabularies, not about the different configurations of retail complexes. A common thread that runs between all the different U.S. regional definitions of "shopping center" is the lack of interior corridors, right? Or am I missing something? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. You're missing my impression that a "shopping center" is an urban mall that has interior corridors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Australia we have shopping centre for literally everything (the distinction of having interior or exterior components is never made), and the usage of plaza is virtually non existent (except, in names of shopping centres), and strip mall is not in general usage at all in descriptions or names - JarrahTree (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not familiar with "Plaza" as a term for a place to shop, either. I think of it as part of a name and it never occurred to me that it actually referred to anything other than a location. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an upstate thing. I don't know where else it's used but strip malls are "plazas" throughout Upstate NY, particularly western NY. Powers (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convention not to link to airport subsection of destination articles?

Where do we have one? I've been doing that since forever as I thought it's only logical, there'd be hundreds of wikilinks to amend, plus it doesn't strike me as very useful to the traveller NOT to link to the appropriate section... PrinceGloria (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been doing this a lot, too, e.g. New York City#LaGuardia Airport. Where was it stated that these kinds of links are a bad idea? They serve the traveler, and forbidding them disserves the traveler. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter to me so long as it's handled the same way throughout the article. PrinceGloria linked to Malmö#Malmö Airport (Sturup) as the airport doesn't have its own article, yet references to Fort Lauderdale, Phuket, Islamabad, Lahore, Bologna, Sarajevo, Belgrade, and possibly more airports link to the city article in general rather than any specific section thereof. I figured the path of least resistance toward that internal consistency would be to edit one wikilink rather than a half-dozen or more. If you feel strongly the other way, by all means. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the problem is with linking to airports in some other cases throughout the article when destinations are meant, as I do not think we need to link to the city's airport when mentioning it as a destination. There is a shady area here of cities where specific airports are mentioned as there are more than one, but then I guess the detail regarding which airport is being served is a bit superfluous. The link to Sturup Airport is valid IMHO, as travellers choosing to take a WizzAir flight will need to make different travel arrangements than those who arrive at CPH, which is of paramount importance in that context (rather than general info on Malmo). PrinceGloria (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take your points. I linked to New York City#LaGuardia Airport in articles for New York-area cities, not as a destination from other cities, but if there were a case of an airline that flew only to LGA, such a link might arguably be appropriate. I agree with both flexibility and consistency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if we want to talk about the airport of a city if there is only one (or its airports in general without one in particular) we should link to the "by plane" subsection. If we mention one specific airport we should link to that sub-subsection. Never should we link to a city if the airport is meant and an airport article exists (seems to happen quite a lot for Frankfurt airport and other generically named airports). Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the right convention would be:

  1. There is a flight connection from City A to New York City
  2. Airline X flies to New York City (JFK)
  3. Flights from City A arrive to New York's JFK airport

In most cases in the Copenhagen Airport article, the city guide should be linked, with perhaps a mention of the destination airport in some specific cases as in #2 above. 22:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)PrinceGloria (talk)

Region for Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch


thank you for putting the article Swiss_Alps_Jungfrau-Aletsch that I created into the right region, I didn't know that that is how it's done.

I'm a still a bit confused about this though. I was looking through some other park articles which are shared among two regions and saw that at least some of them also refer to the next higher shared geographical unit (Examples: Great_Smoky_Mountains_National_Park goes to South (United States of America), Zion_National_Park goes to Utah, Aral Sea goes to Central Asia) whereas others indeed only go into one region (such as Yellowstone). I tried to find some documentation on this, but couldn't find anything so far. Could you tell me where I can find more information on this?

Thanks Drat70 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at this case, I'm confused too. Shouldn't a destination be sorted under the lowest possible article that covers the destination in its entirety (in this case Switzerland)? ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. But on the other hand, Texarkana, a city that straddles the Texas/Arkansas state line, IsPartOf Northeastern Texas and not United States of America; Lloydminster, physically located in both Saskatchewan and Alberta, falls under Central Saskatchewan and not Prairie Provinces; and Death Valley National Park, on the California/Nevada border, is categorized in the California Desert region rather than United States of America. That was the model I followed with that edit. It looks like we've been dealing with cases like this inconsistenty for want of a specific policy. Perhaps this is an issue that should be brought up in the Pub. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I started a discussion there Drat70 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordan's "History" subsection

Hi, Andrew. I think the results of discussions at Talk:Jordan#Zionist nonsense, in spite of my initial concern at the way they began, have been very good. I would welcome your looking at the current shape of the "History" subsection. The content, copied from Wikipedia with attribution in edit summaries, is very good, but it should probably be paraphrased and summarized more. Try your hand at it if you like.

And have a great weekend!

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm no expert on Jordanian history, but to my untrained eye it looks a lot less biased. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you!

  The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Many thanks for your years of never failing to update the DOTM/OTBP/Featured topic, both here and on Facebook. There are a lot of thankless, mundane jobs on this site, so it's amazing to see someone handling one of them so flawlessly that the rest of us never even have to think about it - the right thing just ALWAYS happens at the right time. Kudos to you. Ryan • (talk) • 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Ryan. I suppose some people might see it as thankless work, but it's a trimonthly ritual that I very much look forward to. All the same, I appreciate the appreciation. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would enthusiastically second Ryan's commendation of your work! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fashion Weeks in Paris

I am in the trade so I'd hate to let through a confusing message - they have long stopped being "weeks" and the calendar started spreading all over the year with multiple events throughout it. We cannot say "four times a year" if there are at least five distinct periods separate from each other. Moreover, depending on which "week" it is, the 1e takes a more or less prominent role. So I'd rather we were vague but at the same time accurate, then precise but misleading. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you!

  The Wikivoyage Barncompass
So can I create a wikivoyage profile and wikipedia profile?
Downspec (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Forteau is in Labrador! It's Blanc-Sablon that's in une autre province.[1] Both are tiny places, predictably, so the Forteau article covers a huge chunk of southern coastline from Blanc Sablon to Red Bay where there's "a whole lot of nothing. As the only road access to Blanc Sablon is through Newfoundland and Labrador, it's covered with the rest of Forteau as a large rural area. K7L (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You and Questions!

Hello Andre. Thank you for your attention while I learn my way around here! I had a two questions about the Dorchester page I've been working on. I get that Wikivoyage:Listings#Tour listings "disallows most walking tours", but the Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it page says to put walking tours in the Do section. Is one right and the other in need of an edit? The houses are quite cool, and I'd love to include the architectural info on the page if possible. Maybe it could be added back with a few edits?

Other question: there seems to be a lot of pages that subdivide Eat listings by cuisine instead of Budget/Mid-Range/Splurge. It feels like there isn't 100% consensus from the admins on this one. If the Dorchester listings were reorganized, they would mostly be filed under Mid-Range with a few Budget ones, which doesn't feel super helpful. Plus the prices are already on there now, so it just feels a bit redundant to me.

Thank you for taking the time to help me out (and countless others too I imagine)! --ButteBag (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ButteBag, and sorry it took me so long to respond.
To answer your question about tours: without knowing for sure, I would suspect that the Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it article may have been written before our tour policy was formulated. At any rate, for those walking tours that our policy does allow for, they belong in "Do", but in general, yes, policy does disallow most walking tours. The difference hinges on the question of whether the tour is what we call a "value-added activity"; that is, the question of: does the tour take you to places or allow you to do things that you can only do on that tour? If yes, then the tour is allowed per policy (and should go in "Do"); if not, then the tour is not allowed, but you're encouraged to add any relevant information and listings from the tour to the article itself.
Secondly, regarding "Eat" listings, it looks like you're correct that Eat sections can be broken down by cuisine as well as by price range (though I could swear that I've seen style tags on such Eat sections before, and I feel confident in saying that the preference is for the latter, in general). For the record, if you do change your mind about it, see Template:Eatpricerange. You can actually define and tweak the parameters by which "Budget", "Mid-range" and "Splurge" are defined so listings aren't necessarily all clustered in one section.
Keep up the good work on the Boston area articles!
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Yeah I tried the budget/mid-range/splurge breakout in the South Boston article and it works great there, because that neighborhood has a much wider range of prices. The difference in Dorchester is "budget" might be $9, and "mid-range" might be $12, so it's much less helpful. I'll try it grouped by cuisine but ordered by price. I think that might be the best compromise. I'll also figure out some way of rewriting the architecture thing to get it back into the article somehow. Thank you again for your responses and insights! --ButteBag (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the prices are that close, don't bother ordering by price; just use alphabetical. Powers (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "AndreCarrotflower/2016".