An award for you!Edit
|The Wikivoyage Barncompass|
|Great job updating the currency exchange rates! Ypsilon (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)|
Hey, sorry for busting your chops, man. I was just knocked off balance with the idea of opera as particularly gay. I'll ask my girlfriend whether that ever occurred to her - it might have because she's worked with so many gay tenors and other gay male singers in opera productions. But anyway, you have my respect. Carry on! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: thank you for this message. I have been very much feeling that this article has been under attack from all sides: those who believe it shouldn't exist, those who think there isn't enough content, and those who want to pick away at the content that is there. The existence of other online guides to LGBT Stockholm really make me wonder why some people believe there isn't room for such a guide in Wikivoyage. And I have wondered why this article is being expected to meet standards not applied to other articles. It has led me to reconsider my role here.
- The opera thing is the most tangential thing here, but I have a number of gay friends who are opera queens, so I believe it is of interest to gay travellers.
- I would like to see Wikivoyage expand its travel topic guides as that is an area where we differentiate ourselves from guide books and from TripAdvisor. I spent an amazing day in Jewish Prague, and think that would be a great guide. I plan to work on a guide to wine tourism in Ontario. Given the growth in craft brewing, beer guides to cities would be a great addition. Guides on feminist history of cities would be another great addition, but there is so much other work to do. I also want to return to expanding regional pages in Canada when I return home in April, meanwhile I'll be updating Indochina articles as I go.
- Thank you again for reaching out. Thus really helps. Ground Zero (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick reply and your warm welcome Ground Zero. Hopefully I am posting this message in the right place
I agree that it makes sense to keep the information on the page that some countries still have issued travel warnings for Dagestan.
May I nevertheless suggest to provide a more factual description of the situation? What is written at the moment...
"Travel to Dagestan is strongly discouraged, due to high criminal activity, frequent bombings, and general lawlessness and crime. Chechen terrorists often target Russians in Dagestan in bombings and other terrorist acts. Salafist extremists (largely foreign) have engaged in violent conflict against native, moderate Sufi groups, in pursuit of the establishment of Sharia law. If you are planning to visit Dagestan, consult your embassy. "
....(fortunately) does not reflect the 2020 situation in Dagestan
You can see [| in this infographic] that violence has dropped drastically over the last 10 years in the whole region. In 2019 to my knowledge another 50% drop compared to 2018 (not yet in the statistics)
May I suggest to keep the warning box but just write?: "Several Governments have issued travel warnings, see below:" And keep the links to the various governments where they are?
The statistics I shared also reflect my personal experience (I am European, but speak Russian quite well by the way) Summer of 2018 I drove with my family for two weeks all over Dagestan as a tourist, first down south through the mountains and then back up north along the Caspian Sea coast (about 1000km trip) At no point I had the feeling that Dagestan was in any way unsafe, quite on the contrary the local population is really happy that there is finally peace again after they had to endured so much turmoil.
I am looking forward to hear your opinion on this.
- @User:Traveller Andi: telling people that there are warnings and making them go to other websites to find out what they are doesn't seem to be the best way if providing information, does it? The fact is that the governments of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and probably others are advising there citizens not to travel there. Your experience was different, but that doesn't mean that we should hide these warnings from readers. I've never heard of Caucasian Knot, but it looks to be legitimate, although not as authoritative as the foreign affairs departments of numerous countries, so how about we change the first line to read, "The incidence of terrorist violence dropped dramatically through the 2010s, but several governments continue to advise against travel to Dagestan because of...."
- By the way, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Ground Zero. If there are equivalents of the FCO in other countries providing advice that is more in line with Andi's experiences, we can mention them as a counterpoint to what the existing government advice says. But otherwise, in a choice between one person's experiences and the situation as described by several countries' intelligence and diplomatic networks, I opt to give more weight to the latter.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I know I'm the last person you want to get a message from, but first, thank you for adding the information to the LGBT Stockholm article. I hope you can see how much less confusing your new description is than "waterfront property" and I think the simple line added to the ABBA listing would have prevented questioning it in the vfd article had it been there before.
I just want to address this comment: "Why do "all of the LGBT article listings need to be related to something LGBT"? Is that a policy? Or just something you've made up?"
As far as I could find, there is no "travel topic policy" of any kind, but travel topics are meant to be (as stated at the very top of Travel topics) "about a specific topic". If the listings are not about or do not relate to the topic then they have no relevance. If they don't even need to relate to the topic, then there's no reason to have any travel topics. Disregarding the the topic breaks the article. If someone started adding all war-related listings to World War II in Europe, it would be seen as vandalism and if allowed to remain would render the article useless as a guide to World War II sites in Europe. If you had added everything from LGBT Toronto to LGBT Stockholm instead of creating the new article, it would have broken the article and rendered it useless, because Toronto's LGBT sites are clearly outside of the bounds of "LGBT Stockholm"'s location bounds, even though they are LGBT. If we add a bunch of Buddhist temples to the Christian Sites in Japan article, it would also lose its relevance and purpose. Each travel topic has its own set of "rules" in what is allowed or not allowed based on the boundaries set by the topic itself. Typically those involve time periods, locations, types of destinations, travel interests, etc.
There is a castle site in Christian sites in Japan (Hara Castle), for example. If the description read, "Castle ruins that offer a great view of the ocean. No structures remain." That sort of description is true, and would not be questioned in the Shimabara article, but for the travel topic "Christian sites in Japan", it would seem irrelevant to the article and worthy of deletion. The listing instead focuses on the castle's relevance to Japan's Christian history. It is highly unlikely that a person who reads its description is going to ask, "Why is this here?" or think "This doesn't belong here." and delete it. The castle is 100% relevant to the topic of Christianity in Japan, but our descriptions have to relate it to the topic so that the readers know what we know.
So yes, listings in travel topics must relate to the topic, whatever the topic may be. If the topic is "LGBT location" then all of the listings need to relate to LGBT within the bounds of the specified location. If it doesn't relate (or the relation is not stated in the description) or is outside the location bounds, then there is justification for the listing to be removed on the grounds that it is unrelated to the topic. If you still feel that this is all nonsense that I have made up and think we need a policy that clarifies that the bounds of a travel topic should be respected and reflected in its listings, feel free to make that proposal, but I think for most people, requiring travel topic listings to relate to the travel topic is Captain Obvious editing. I don't foresee many people supporting the idea that listings in travel topics don't need to have any relevance to the topic. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ChubbyWimbus: on the contrary, I am happy to get this message as its tone is respectful and colloborative. I don't disagree that travel topic listings should be connected to the topic, but I don't think it's worth worrying about it if the large majority of the listings are connected, and there are one or two listings that don't have the connection made explicit. Especially if there is no explicit policy on the matter.
- This article has been subject to substantially more scrutiny than most articles, and is already at a much higher standard than a lot of the articles we have. So I don't think it is the best use of time to go back in very it again and pick at one or two listings.
- I hope you can understand my frustration at having put so much work into the article, and having it scrutinised yet again. I think there are better ways to improve Wikivoyage. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)