Welcome to my talk page! Feeling confused? Worried? Frustrated? Celebratory? Got an idea or just need a chat? Leave me a message below, and I'll reply as soon as I can.

It's best to discuss most matters on-wiki, but if there's something you need to communicate in private, feel free to send me an email. While I will never disclose the contents of your email to anyone else, if the matter is not confidential, I'll reply on your talk page.

Older discussions can be found at:


Hey pal I need some help Rn 001 project travel (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. What do you need help with? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I’ve been blocked from most wikis for no good reason for things that are way too small for a block like it is genuinely unbelievable that those people became adminsRn 001 project travel (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm only an admin here, so if it's not something related to Wikivoyage, I can't help you.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
K guess I’ll make some edits on hereRn 001 project travel (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Driving licence as IDEdit

To address your comment, when I first moved to the U.S. from Australia, my Australian licence was accepted for renting a car and driving, but if I wanted to buy alcohol or enter bars, it was a bit of a hit or miss. It all depended on how familiar the cashier/bouncer was with my Australian licence, and I have actually been denied entry to bars for not bringing passport. This is no longer an issue since I now have a U.S. licence, but the point I'm making here is that your foreign licence may be accepted for driving if you are a short term visitor, but that does not necessarily mean it will be accepted as proof of age. The dog2 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I didn't add it back. However, UK workers are very familiar with EU licences and would always have had to accept them in the past, so I should think they'd still be fine now even if the law isn't clear.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered usersEdit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in Heathrow articleEdit

Hey, sorry that was my mistake. I was trying to copy and paste some stuff and ending up pasting in the wrong window. The dog2 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Easily done 🙂 ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


Hello. The A49 definitely does end in Ross-on-Wye (you can verify that here) but you can get to the Forest of Dean and Monmouthshire via the A40 and the A449 takes you to Ledbury, the Malverns etc. I'm quite new here though so I may be misunderstanding the road template here. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikivoyage :) Our guiding principle is that the traveller comes first. The exact end point of the road matters on Wikipedia, and it matters to cartographers, but it doesn't really matter to the reader/traveller. They just need to know which road to take in order to get to an obvious next destination from the subject article (e.g. if driving from Ross to Birmingham, you initially need to take the M50, so even though the M50 finishes 40 miles south of Birmingham in Gloucestershire, the routebox for the M50 on the Ross article mentions Birmingham).
For this example, I think I'm right in saying that travellers driving from Hereford to the Forest of Dean would normally take the A49. The fact that they have to take another road after reaching Ross doesn't change this.
Is that logical? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes more sense. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien I didn't take the time to analyse this case, so feel free to dismiss it, but you could also put a "to xx". I haven't seen many cases of that style used, but I used that format on here. If it goes unnumbered, you can just mention "continues unnumbered" and if it changes merges into another highway or freeway, just mention "merges into xx". But I know very little on how road numbering works in the UK, and my comment was based on the numbering systems I've seen in Australia and the US. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Eating options in the London/Bloomsbury articleEdit

There were only up to 7 entries per area. So simple enough for the reader to choose one.

You removed the headlines stating the area of the restaurants. Now it's harder for the traveller to find a suitable restaurant in an area the traveller wants to go to. Or to find a restaurant where the traveller stays nearby. Flightnavigator (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Bloomsbury isn't that big, tbh. The traveller can see where the restaurants are marked on the map if hyper-localness is desired. Overall, I think you're doing a valuable job on updating the 'Eat' sections of London, but please don't take offence at my touch-ups based on local knowledge.
Would you mind taking a look at WV:Boring? WV discourages adding chain restaurants when there are enough independent options. It might not necessarily be easy for you to know which restaurants are chains, but a general rule of thumb is if it's called "[rest. name] [area]", or "[rest. name] [street]", it's likely to be a chain. I was going to drop you a message about this, but you beat me to it.
But anyway, thanks for all the updates.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
i see the case regarding the chain restaurants.
just the area headlines are helpful for tourists. let's say somebody wants to visit the London Bridge and eat there something. I gave that person up to 7 options in very small walking distance. Now there is one long list without seeing what's nearby. Using the map is less convenient, because the map does not give further information what kind of cuisine the restaurant has. Flightnavigator (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
ah now i found it. now the lists don't fulfil this rule of Wikivoyage anymore: Avoid long lists. Now they are "Long undifferentiated lists" which should not exist on Wikivoyage.
With the geographical headlines it was differentiated and that rule was fulfilled. Flightnavigator (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, actually, I left the South Bank geographical headings in place, because that is a much larger district you can't quickly cross on foot. By contrast, districts like Bloomsbury, the City and Leicester Square are compact enough that a geographic split isn't needed.
From any listing, you can click the marker (the coloured box with the number), and that opens a map centred on that listing.
Removing the chain restaurants cut those lists down considerably. For small neighbourhoods like Bloomsbury, another way of avoiding long, undifferentiated lists is to be more selective when adding new listings. 7±2 good quality eateries under budget, mid-range, and splurge (and an optional specialist heading such as street food, markets, whatever), is enough in the vast majority of cases.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC). Edited one sentence at 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

i still find the subheadings "around the train station Paddington" and "around the tube station Bayswater" better than just "Paddington" and "Bayswater"

Because tourists from other countries coming to London don't know if Paddington is a big district with big walking distances in between.

When stating 'around the tube station', the reader knows he can reach the restaurant in just 2-5min of walking from a station he or she is using anyway.

A good amount of tourists takes the London tube so they know where the tube stops are. Flightnavigator (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. You make a decent point about stations possibly being better known than areas among tourists (probably not just those from other countries either). However, the practice in our London district articles is to subdivide by neighbourhood, when further geographical precision is needed. It may well be that all such subdivisions on London district articles would be better done by proximity to major landmarks or stations, and perhaps you'd like to propose that as an idea on Talk:London. But, I think while the existing convention is in place, it makes sense to use the same style of geographical subheadings in each section of every London district article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

readability of subheadings in Eat/Budget sectionsEdit

in the Budget restaurant section the bold subheadings are just a pain for the eyes. They look the same as every restaurant name in the listing. The non-bold underlined subheadings lead to a way better readability of the whole Budget section. Flightnavigator (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Flightnavigator: As far as I know, we don't use underlined headings anywhere in Wikivoyage. If you think we should, make a proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Section headers and try to build a consensus. But while the current policy is in place, I would ask that you adhere to it. I appreciate your hard work on updating lots of articles, but we have an in-house style that has been built over years of discussion, and the opinion of one person on what is "a pain for the eyes" is not going to change that style without persuading other members of the community.
If you don't wish to argue for a change in policy, I would appreciate your help in replacing the underlined headers you've added with boldface. Let me know what you're going to do. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I gonna make a proposal. Flightnavigator (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Okie-dokie. It might also be worth posting notes on WV:RFC#Policy planning and proposals and the Pub, as I'm not sure how well-watched that talk page is.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


I wonder if it's true that upper class Brits are no longer trained to speak in RP in schools like Eton. For instance, Rose Leslie and Tony Blair are both from Scotland, but when you hear them speak, they both use RP, and you don't even hear a hint of a Scottish accent. And on the BBC, of course guests will speak in a wide variety of accents, but if I'm not wrong, most news anchors still speak in RP.

One thing I've noticed though is the Prince William's accent seems closer to the BBC anchor accent than to the Queen or Prince Charles' accent.The dog2 (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As you know, I didn't go to one of those schools, so couldn't tell you about what they learn. In Edinburgh, I was mistaken for "one of those posh Scots who sound like they're from the home counties" by a Geordie; "no, I actually am from the home counties..." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yiddish in LondonEdit

I watched a documentary made by Richard Dawkins once (though I won't recommend it if you are sensitive since he made that documentary to promote atheism, and described religious people as "barking mad"), where he went to talk to a Chasidic Jew living in London, and it was very obvious from his accent that English was his second language even though he was born and raised in London. I would presume his that first language was Yiddish since that is the first language of the vast majority of Chasidic Jews in New York, but I won't discount the possibility that Chasidic Jews in London speak a different language. But anyway, while it's true that Yiddish is not generally widely spoken in London, I won't be surprised if you will hear people speaking Yiddish to each other in the streets if you go to the Chasidic Jewish neighbourhoods. The dog2 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You definitely will hear Yiddish if you go to Stamford Hill. There's like 3000 speakers in about a square kilometre neighbourhood. But hearing languages other than English isn't unusual in London, and there are dozens of more common languages that aren't broadly confined to a single area. The traditional Yiddish East End (2-3 mi south of SH) is pretty much gone and the English-speaking descendants of the Jews who lived there are now dispersed around the country.
I'll probably add some other common languages (i.e. those spoken by hundreds of thousands) to that section, such as French, Portuguese, Polish, Turkish, Kurdish, Romanian. Maybe even Mandarin, though a lot of the speakers were students from PR China who may well have returned home and not been replaced since 2020.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
OK. With regard to mainland Chinese, they have traditionally preferred to move to the U.S., with Canada in second place. One thing I have noticed is the Canadian universities are regarded to be the second most prestigious after American ones in mainland China, while in Singapore, British universities are regarded as more prestigious than Canadian ones, but still behind American ones (in general; of course Oxford would be regarded as far more prestigious than the University of Alabama, for instance). I have seen a video of a mainland Chinese shop worker being verbally harassed by Hong K,ong independence activists in the UK, in which she was told that she does not belong in British society and should go back to China, but I can't remember where the video was posted, unfortunately. I don't know how common such incidents are, but I won't be surprised if that has scared many mainland Chinese from moving to the UK. But in any case, most ethnic Chinese that I ran into when I visited London were Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong or Malaysia (though the Malaysian Cantonese speakers usually also know how to speak Mandarin). The dog2 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
From some time in the mid-2010s (after a lot of political cosying up between the Xi and Cameron governments) until 2020, there were lots of Mainland Chinese students studying in the UK, mostly for a single semester or year on a study abroad programme. The vast majority of the individuals didn't settle, but taken as a whole the populations grew because greater numbers were arriving each term as the programmes became more popular. I'm not plugged in to the university world anymore, but I imagine the cooling of relations between the UK and China, plus the restrictions on travel that seem to still be in place in the PRC have dented the numbers of students significantly. Might have to see if there are any reliable sources on the Mandarin population of London post 2020! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure. But just so you know, mainland Chinese are hardly the only Mandarin speakers around. Most Malaysian Chinese also speak Mandarin fluently, though they usually have a very distinctive accent, and they're usually multilingual; the average Malaysian Chinese typically speaks Malay, Mandarin, Cantonese and perhaps one or more other dialects of Chinese (so in Penang for instance, the average ethnic Chinese resident is able to speak Hokkien, Cantonese, Mandarin, Malay and perhaps another Chinese dialect if they're not Hokkien or Cantonese). And I know that there is a huge Malaysian Chinese community in the UK. I myself am a fluent Mandarin speaker, though unfortunately, Chinese language and culture is not as well preserved among Singaporean Chinese millennials as it is among Malaysian Chinese millennials, though your average Singaporean Chinese millennial should still be able to conduct a basic conversation in Mandarin. The dog2 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi there. May I ask why my edits were reverted on England? I see no copyright issues and some of the content was copied from Wiki Travel to begin with, with its own twist.

  • Exactly. Please, don't. Ibaman (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that was against the rules, I'm sorry. Would you be open for me to edit what I changed with my own wordings?

Posted on your talk page. It would be better to start over from scratch in your own words rather than try to edit copied content, but frankly the England article is pretty good already. There are plenty of articles on Wikivoyage (for instance smaller English towns and cities) that are incomplete and more worthy of your time. You may wish to search up a few places you know well and see how those articles could be improved - or even create a new article for a town we don't already have!--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat nom.Edit

Hi TT!, based on Special:Diff/4496509, I've nominated you for bureaucrat as you put your hand up for it. Good luck, and hopefully we'll have a second, worthy active bureaucrat within two weeks ;-). Cheers, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I suppose I should write a few words to support the nomination.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
After 20 days, congratulations on becoming Wikivoyage's ninth 'crat! Now we have another active bureaucrat and I believe the first who wasn't here from the times of Wikitravel. Happy editing and enjoy being demoted to the bottom of the Wikivoyage hierarchy ;-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Still, I get a new varnished broom handle, right? Right? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Nah, you get a 31-centimetre primeval stick as an add-on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ready to talkEdit

I'm ready to talk. What do you want me to say? BrandonJuanWilliams (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, unless you're going to change your entire editing philosophy, I don't think we have anything to say to each other.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This looks like an impersonation attempt of Brendan. Shall we block? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Everything that I did, that was just a long running prank. Whad'ya say mate? I'll create an account by the name of AussieQuarantineGuy and I'll stick to that. BrandonJuanWilliams (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
G'day mate AussieQuarantineGuy (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Blocking has to have some rationale behind it. If this person isn't here to build a travel guide, for instance, it will become clear fairly quickly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Libmod to me (possibly also because Australians rarely say "Whad'ya say mate?" or "G'day mate", signalling that it's not Brendan nor is it Basa Pulu Kokos), but agree that there needs to be a rationale behind it. I've filed a CU request so we won't need to do anything. If they're CU confirmed, stewards will lock the two accounts, and if they're not, then we'll need to further analyse their behaviour. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that had crossed my mind.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The three accounts (the two above + BrendanJohnWilliams2 have now been CU confirmed by Sotiale; although no information was given about Libmod, it's clear that these aren't Brendan's sock accounts per "but these accounts have a different timezone compared to the IP you suspect". Should we now block for impersonation? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked them all, but haven't requested locks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
So what has been confirmed? That both of these accounts are linked to a third account? We knew that already by the user's own admission. What does "the IP you suspect" refer to; Libmod? I don't get where the impersonation element comes in, since that BJW2 account didn't have any contributions before you blocked it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The IP I was referring to was (talk · contribs) which Sotiale confirmed that the owner of the three accounts aren't operating in the same timezone as (UTC+10). The impersonation bit comes from Wikipedia's duck test. The CU didn't give us a whole lot of new info, but we know this is not Brendan – it's someone impersonating them. As impersonation violates Wikimedia's ToU, m:Terms of use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, the blocks can be justified, whether or not it was Libmod. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Am I to assume that is understood to be the original Brendan / Telstra vandal? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah k.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Events in UKEdit

Should we link the official gov.uk page in the infobox added? https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-ii ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Good idea,   Done. I also removed the links to Wikipedia, which are generally not allowed outside of listing templates. Thanks for suggesting and adding the cautionbox.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

King's Guard unitsEdit

I was just wondering, who are the soldiers in the King's Guard? I'm surprised that they are not some elite commandos, as you'd expect of a unit responsible for protecting the head of state. In Singapore, whenever a Guard of Honour (which is comprised on four contingents from the army, navy, air force and police respectively) is mounted for the President, the army contingent is almost always made up of commandos (and on those rare times when the commandos don't get that honour, it will be made up of a special type of elite infantry called guards), while the navy contingent is always made up of naval divers because those are considered to be the elite units worthy of protecting the President. The dog2 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The guards comprise five infantry regiments (Coldstream, Grenadier, Irish, Scots and Welsh Guards) and two cavalry regiments (the Blues and Royals, and the Life Guards). They're essentially regular army regiments that rotate between 'normal' military service and their guard duties. Although there is a certain prestige attached to the regiments, most of the guards you'll see on a daily basis at palaces are guardsmen (equivalent to private), corporals, lance corporals and sergeants, i.e. the rank and file.
The thing that a lot of tourists fail to appreciate is despite the Napoleonic get-up and theatrical ceremonies, the guards they see in London and elsewhere are armed soldiers doing an important job as well as showing off. My dad was a Welsh Guard for 16 years; part of his career was spent guarding Buckingham Palace, Windsor, the Tower etc and the rest was split, as with any other soldier, between training and deployment - to West Berlin, Cyprus, the Falklands etc. For each infantry regiment, there's a ten-year rotational cycle: they do a two-year stretch at the palaces, followed by eight years of active training and readiness for deployment, then back to the palaces for another two-year stint.
To be honest, I don't think commandos would do a better job of guarding than, well, guards (in fact, the opposite), since their speciality is carrying out small targeted raids behind enemy lines. Ditto for divers; their specialist skills lie elsewhere. But having said that, a guard of honour is not the same thing as a guard. The former is a specific ceremonial job (usually for special occasions that honour someone or something, where using 'elite' units makes some sense), while the latter is a full time job of guarding life and property - in shifts! The guards regiments do both jobs, of course, so probably have the most varied careers in the British army.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That makes sense then. In Singapore, the day to day guarding of the President is the responsibility of the military police instead of the commandos. The commandos and naval divers are considered to have the toughest training in the entire Singapore military, while guards in the Singapore context are just a special type of elite infantry, but with tougher training that any other type of soldier besides the commandos and naval divers that makes them proficient in amphibious assaults and helicopter-based operations. That is why these are the units usually selected to mount a guard of honour. But speaking of the ceremonial guards, I thought only commissioned officers are allowed to carry the regimental colours. Is it different in the UK? To my knowledge, that tradition in Singapore was inherited from the UK, so things must have changed if it is no longer true. The dog2 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know much about that, but the guards regiments have the full gamut of ranks, including officers. The colour is just one flag, so if it needs to be carried by a commissioned officer that's no problem.
Yeah, day-to-day guarding being handled by MPs makes more sense.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)