Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid/Archive 2009-2020

Conveniently located

Not sure if we are ready to recommend something specific as alternative to "conveniently located". Judging by Project:Accommodation listings#nearest attractions, there is no clear consensus on this yet. Any contribution towards reaching it will be appreciated, however. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:38, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I'd say things like "central", "near the North end of Elbonia beach", even "across the square from the cathedral" or "ten minutes' walk East of the train station" are fine, as long as they tell us where the hotel/restaurant/etc. is; the key question is "will this help a traveller find the place".

Giving info that is not there to help a traveller find the place, but for marketing is forbidden. Not "close to the museum and cathedral and only three minutes' walk from the gallows", for example. That is utterly useless for finding the place, pure marketing twaddle. Pashley (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding to spam list?

Brainwave of the day: should some of these words be added to the spam lists? For example, I see no reason why any non-tout would ever use a word like "complimentary", and indeed a quick Google reveals a ton of spam using the word. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It would take a lot of work to just add this one term [1]. Most users just get confused when they hit the blacklist, and give up on editing the page (as evidenced by the many misguided bug reports we get for "uneditable" pages due to blacklisted terms). Regular users (including me) slip into these words now and then, and it would be nice to get a reminder via the blacklist to not do this, but I think it would totally throw off new and infrequent editors. Maybe this could work if we could alter the blacklist message to make it more user friendly? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:01, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I actually changed it already yesterday, see MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. But yeah, ideally there would be a way to distinguish between dubious "tout-y language" and 100% blockable "xxx viagra!!!11!!" spam... (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

If you're looking for...

Here's one that's been annoying me for a while. I'd like to add this to the list:

If you're looking for ______, look no further! / this is the place! / etc.

It just strikes me as formulaic tout language and a waste of space since it doesn't really add anything interesting. Does anyone agree with me? (WT-en) Texugo 11:11, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Yes, 100%. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:18, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

I think I used that language to help travelers find bull testicles in Chicago. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:22, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Hehe. I can perhaps tolerate it for something unusual like that, but what I see most often is much more mundane, like "If you're looking for a burger and fries, this is the perfect place." --(WT-en) Texugo 13:39, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

Similarly, I'd like to add:

Whether it's A or B, C has what you're looking for.

How do we know what the reader is looking for? What if it is neither A nor B? And what place has absolutely every possible thing anyone could look for? (WT-en) texugo 07:16, 12 March 2011 (EST)

If it's neither A nor B, then it's not covered by that statement. This is really just another way of saying "C has A and B"; it's a bit wordier but also a bit less dry. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:58, 12 March 2011 (EST)

considered polite

Can "It's considered polite to do X" be simplified to "It's polite to do X" without losing any meaning? After all, manners and politeness are always a matter of local opinion, so saying that it's considered polite seems redundant. --(WT-en) BigPeteB 13:59, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

I see your point, but I'm reluctant to recommend against the wording. The "considered" phrasing helps emphasize that the advice is not universal. Take "It's considered impolite to shake hands with your left hand" versus "It's impolite to shake hand with your left hand." The former wording makes it clearer that it's a local custom not a universal expectation. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Honestly i'd prefer that 'considered' was kept in there. MIVP - (I am prepared to assist. This way please.) (My main base.) 11:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with MIVP. Geopersona (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tourist

"Tourist" has negative connotations? Really? "Very few English-speaking travellers identify themselves as tourists;" Any sources? I've never heard of this until now. "Recreational traveler" sounds like an absurd euphemism for something that doesn't need a euphemism. Certainly I happily describe myself as a tourist unless I live in a place or am visiting family (in both cases, merely because it seems inaccurate, since sight-seeing isn't my primary goal). Even if some tourists object (and someone must, to have added that entry), it sounds to me more like a weird phobia than a well established principle. —Quintucket (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tourist" can certainly be a pejorative term among locals in places where there are a lot of tourists. So it does carry some negative weight; the term must be used cautiously lest that connotation be misapplied. LtPowers (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's used pejoratively by travelers too. I try to avoid it in writing travel guides, unless I'm using it the pejorative "touristy" sense. No one should use "recreational traveler," though—that sounds ridiculous. --Peter ^Talk 20:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "tourist trap" is pejorative, when applied to some of the rubbish marketed at popular destinations. Use it if it fits and the label is intentional... K7L (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I get what is meant when the OP says that "tourist" can be taken pejoratively, but in our case I think that it's a quibble. I see nothing wrong with using the word when appropriate, even though in my own mind I distinguish between "tourists" and "travellers". Seligne (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I never or hardly ever edit "tourist" out of guides here, but I do edit out "touristic," which oddly enough isn't getting a red underline on my browser, but which I recognize as a Romance and not an English word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a red underline for "touristic" (Firefox/Linux, UK dictionary). I've noticed some pages in which the term "holiday maker" is being stuffed in with the rest of the CVB-marketing fluff, when did that start? Then there are the hotels where you are a "guest" when addressed to your face and a "transient" said behind your back. K7L (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also on Firefox and Linux, using the US dictionary, I see no redline, so it may be an American thing. The word sounds fine to me. I agree that "holiday maker" sounds weird to me, but I can't always tell when something British sounds weird because it's actually weird, as opposed to just being British. (For example: "different to" and "at the weekend" set my teeth on edge.) —Quintucket (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I can kind of see the objection to "touristic," though not from questions of whether it's a valid word. In speech I'd use "touristic" or "touristy" interchangeably, to complain about a place that is overrun by slow-moving visitors gawking at the sites, with the attendant rip-off prices, aggressive hawkers, and attempts at scams. In Wikitravel, and in writing generally, I simply describe a place like that as "popular" since I don't want it committed to the record that I as a tourist sometimes like to complain about the effects of tourists. —Quintucket (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Turistica" and "touristique" are in no sense derogatory in Italian or French, in my experience, but instead refer to a sight that's really worth seeing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Many words can have both a positive (or neutral) sense, and 'tourist' is one of them. Let's stick with it - if the tourism industry thought it was so negative then they'd call themselves something different, but they don't. Let's replace that piece of text. And whilst I'm at it, 'touristic' is gaining acceptance in English - it fills a useful hole and is likely to continue on that trajectory towards more acceptance. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on "tourist." I don't see any reason to prohibit the word. I'm not as tolerant of "touristic," though. By the way, I don't agree with prohibiting "stunning," either, though I'm sympathetic to your plea for more description. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan: "Touristic" somehow is grating, but I use "tourist" when appropriate. Seligne (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to deleting the word "tourist" from the list of words to avoid? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I think it's a word to be aware of/careful with—not one to be avoided. --Peter ^Talk 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Stars Ratings

Here is my own pet-peeve: the use of "5-star, 4-star, 3-star" or any other number of stars when referring (usually) to a hotel. Even our own Help Pages use the term with a straight face. My problem with it is that there is no referent: "4-star" by whose criteria? Off the top of my head I can think of only two cases where "star" ratings are appropriate: 1. When referring to stars awarded by the Michelin red book, and 2) Star ratings for French hotels awarded by the French government. In the latter case, mentions of star ratings would be restricted to France and its dominions. Am I off-base in my thinking here? Seligne (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AAA/CAA award "diamonds" instead of stars... no idea if the criteria differ. K7L (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No one talks about "4-diamond" hotels, so I don't think it's an issue. Seligne (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Diamonds are used only in North America, and follow strict criteria that are checked annually by inspectors, making them very meaningful. Star ratings are worldwide, but they are pretty much just made up. --Peter ^Talk 08:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick check of three random US cities came up with the following:

• Portland OR: One 4-star hotel, no diamonds
• Seattle Downtown: No star hotels, 3 diamond hotels
• Dallas Uptown: One 5-star hotel, no diamonds

Seligne (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that we use diamond ratings—I meant that they exist. --Peter ^Talk 18:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See w:Hotel rating for some background. Star ratings are not entirely meaningless, but there's no worldwide organization regulating their use. Some countries do have such an organization, and in those countries the rating could be said to be very meaningful and reliable. AAA/CAA Diamond ratings are the same. But, despite the lack of worldwide regulation, star ratings do have a fairly consistent character to them; one-star is pretty universally understood to be a basic, well-maintained room with en suite bathroom, bed, and telephone, while five-star represents the pinnacle of luxury and service. The specific requirements for a particular rating may not be universal, but the general concept is fairly consistent from place to place. LtPowers (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should watch for weasel words like "we offer five-star service", which technically doesn't claim that any external body (or which body?) actually gave the place five stars. (the Titanic can claim to offer "White Star Service" but that is a different animal.) K7L (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! According to the HotelStars Union criteria at the WP article referenced above, 90% of the hotels listed in the region I work on (SE Asia) do not warrant 1-star! Seligne (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Applying hotel-style "star" rating systems to bed-and-breakfast accommodation is also awkward. If the system expects everything to be laid out as a hotel/motel where each room is self-contained (television and bathroom ensuite, huge lock on the door of each room) a B & B which is instead designed like a family home with the telly in the living room will rank poorly, even if the food is good. The system is designed for hotels, where restaurant and lodging are each rated separately as each is sold separately instead of in a B-and-B sized bundle. This is why we need full descriptions and not just "stars". K7L (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we can agree that star ratings are not sufficient, and should probably only be mentioned if it conveys useful information the traveler (such as 'the only five-star resort within a hundred miles' or somesuch). LtPowers (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, there is some discussion in Hotels and a Rating systems article. Pashley (talk)

Good stuff! I was not aware of these pages. Thanx. Seligne (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of third person pronouns

I've been writing wikipedia stye, but I've seen some pages where "you" (wherein "you" refers to the reader) is used. Does that mean that it's okay to use those pronouns?? Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine, and it's actually second person. See Wikivoyage:Use of pronouns#Second person pronouns. Third person singular would be he/she/it/one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and by "the use of third person", I meant if third person should be used like on wikipedia. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mecca

User:K7L added "a dining Mecca" (later changed to "a Mecca for dining" for better alphabetization) back in February, but I'm not clear on why. For at least 20 years, the word has been in use -- often lowercased -- to mean "Any place considered to be a very important place to visit by people with a particular interest." It's moved beyond allusion or metaphor to become an established part of the language. Its use may be an exaggeration, but I don't think it necessarily is. For example, if I described Walt Disney World as a "mecca for middle- and upper-class families with young kids", could anyone really object to the characterization? LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Without considering how the profane usage of the word is received by Muslims, I would say that the mecca metaphor is over-used on Wikivoyage. It could be relevant for a place of worldwide significance, but for most resorts it is an empty hyperbole. /Yvwv (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Yvwv. And there are many good alternatives to the word. We could say it is teeming with such families, that it's a draw for them, that it's a favorite of them, etc. - none of those are perfectly synonymous with "mecca," but I would submit that any of them would probably be good enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with "good enough" when we have a perfectly good word that means exactly what we want to say. LtPowers (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with how the line has been changed on the project page. It may be ok to describe the destination itself as a mecca for something (Disney World for families, Las Vegas for gamblers, etc.) but should generally be avoided for individual listings. Texugo (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Listing an individual hotel or restaurant as a "mecca" is self-promotional. The result is hype like "Sackets Harbor is fast becoming a dining destination for tourists from throughout the US and Canada. Offering a variety of unique locally owned and operated restaurants on the historic Main Street, dining in Sackets Harbor offers options for every pallet and pocketbook... No trip to upstate New York is complete without a stroll through Northern New York’s dining Mecca: Main Street, Sackets Harbor." [2] Pure CVB fluff.

It's also being misued to the point where LGBT travel has at least one destination described as a "lesbian mecca" which looks really strange given the status of both women and gays in Saudi Arabia. The term is overused and often inappropriate.

It will, however, take more than just replacing words from this list to turn a promotional article into a fair one. K7L (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This page vs. Wikivoyage:Tone

I've seen a number of edits to articles citing this page that have seemed like a degradation in style, usually making a point to remove the word because it's on this list, and not really thinking too hard about what's left in the article. This is a pretty good example—exclusive was absolutely the right word (if overused) to describe a neighborhood where there are invitation-only bars, neighborhood parties for only the politically well-connected, bars with $100 cocktails, etc.

Occasionally additions to this list seem like an attack more on the use of metaphorical language (like mecca). Edits made solely to excise words on this list can easily run afoul of Wikivoyage:Tone in dulling down prose, by replacing metaphorical language with lifeless neutral terms.

I think the initial purpose of this page was to keep writing from sounding like touting. We don't want fluff of that commercial–self-promoting sort, but we should be bending over backwards to encourage sincere attempts at original, creative writing. Stamping out all instances of given words is not likely to be a sophisticated approach to editing.

I'm starting to feel like it might be best for us to just refer to Wikivoyage:Don't tout to monitor for overly promotional fluff, and not try to create a blacklist of words. Another approach might be to make it clear that this list applies to descriptions of businesses. So while exclusive is precisely the right word to describe the D.C. neighborhood of Georgetown, it's usually going to see abuse in hotel listings. --Peter ^Talk 06:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of the problem with the wording from this list is that it is promotional fluff; businesses are using it to describe their own properties, CVB's are using it to describe their own cities, but it conveys no useful information. One could just as easily claim that Hell (Hades) has "beautiful sunsets" and Sodom and Gomorrah have "friendly staff" without providing any useful information about either. As this isn't Wikipedia one doesn't have to be neutral, but avoiding overtly promotional language is necessary to be fair. K7L (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The quality of sunsets and friendliness of staff seem like useful information to me. LtPowers (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially in Hell. :-) Point taken, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro a bit to link to the various policies (be fair, don't tout, goals and non-goals, ttcf) and indicate this page as a guideline with the listed words as examples. Hopefully this should clarify things a bit, although the Gomorrah Convention and Visitors Bureau isn't going to like me for this. K7L (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

is located in, is situated in

This page says avoid using "is located in, is situated in" in articles whereas I noticed "is located in, is situated in" is being used very deliberately in majority of articles and even in some of our star status articles such as Khao San Road. I raised this issue because I myself often use this words in articles so I want to know whether I should stop using it in the articles or are we going to remove this word from this page. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a tricky balance. In many cases, people add the unnecessary words because it sounds more formal and makes the sentence sound more advanced. In these cases, we should aim for simplicity and remove them. But there are other cases where using the extra word is either idiomatic or necessary for clarity, and it can be very hard to tell the difference between the two types of cases. Powers ^(talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

'complimentary'

I'm not sure we should scrupulously avoid "complimentary". There is a subtle difference between "complimentary" and "free"; the latter implies that the service can be accessed without charge, while the former that the service can be accessed without additional charge. For example, in a case that was recently removed: "Usually in converted houses or buildings with less than a dozen units, B&Bs feature a more home-like lodging experience, with complimentary breakfast served (of varying quality and complexity)." I fear that changing to "free" in that sentence removes the implication that the no-charge breakfast is only for paying guests and makes it seem as if the breakfast is served to anyone who drops in. Am I off-base here? Powers ^(talk) 21:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If we need to make clear that the item isn't free but merely bundled into the cost of something else (the usual context in which marketing hype abuses "free!") perhaps "included" would be clearer than "complimentary" in this regard? "Complimentary breakfast served" infers that the merchant is offering some sort of favour, while "breakfast included" makes clear that the traveller implicitly paid for this as part of a larger, single-price bundle. K7L (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Complementary would actually be more accurate than complimentary, except that "complementary breakfast" is not idiomatic and "complimentary breakfast" is. But "included" is definitely clearer, as you say, K7L. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see why you would make that inference, because you might say that the free services "complement" the paid-for services. But in actuality, "complimentary" is correct because it means something is being provided "with compliments" from the proprietor. Powers ^(talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like an amuse bouche being provided compliments of the house as part of a paid dinner. I get it. But I still agree with K7L, though I wouldn't make a Federal case about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Included" would be fine, though it requires more involved work to reword the sentence. Either way, though, I don't think we should just replace "complimentary" with "free". Powers ^(talk) 21:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Comprised of"

Swept in from the pub

I saw an article this morning about a Wikipedia initiative to get rid of the term "Comprised of"

I noticed User:Helenabella has already made a start here.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this style either way, but it seems acceptance of this style is not universally accepted by WP. Are we comfortable with this wikignome initiative? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The changes made on Wikivoyage so far have all been to change "comprises of" to more appropriate wording, which is an appropriate cleanup since "comprises of" is incorrect grammar. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: When it comes to our copy here, the two most important things are keeping it interesting for readers (which occasionally means colloquial or somewhat non-standard language) and making our copy different from Wikitravel. Honestly, the latter should be the number one priority at this site because it will significantly effect our SEO. If someone changes these "comprised of"s, then that's a good thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Good thing in my opinion. Gnomes also often improve the wording. The only thing that would be negative would be changing the tone to make it sounds encyclopedic, which is not our goal. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any such initiative. First of all, we have bigger fish to fry here. Second, and more importantly, just because Wikivoyage has joined the WMF family does not mean we need to be a clone of Wikipedia. And one of the things that makes editing Wikivoyage fun for me is that editors are given a wide latitude to write in their own style, within a framework of standards and guidelines that is designed to be as generalized and unobtrusive as possible. The last thing we need at Wikivoyage is to import to our site the petty, picayune, heavy-handed grammar-Nazism that's made Wikipedia such a drag. For that matter, it bears emphasizing that "comprised of" is actually perfectly grammatically correct; ergo, what's going on at Wikipedia is little more than one overbearing user imposing his personal taste on the whole site by fiat. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding differentiating ourselves from Wikitravel, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SEO should never be the primary reason why we do anything at this site, at least in terms of altering our content. I would much rather slow down the inevitable and ongoing demise of Wikitravel a little bit than compromise the quality of our product. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Andre on this. Even if I do prefer "consists of" for stylistic reasons, this seems like a really petty thing for us to worry enough about to dictate in policy. I mean, this is practically on the level of coming up with a policy about oxford commas or double negatives — that is, a practice that may not be technically correct grammar but is wide-spread enough that the vast majority of users won't notice either way. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to micro-manage this sort of edit unless someone is bothered by the change. These types of edits are harmless, and if someone feels strongly that "comprised of" should be changed (or any other copyediting matter) and wants to change it, so long as no one is hugely attached to the original text it seems a bit petty of us to tell them not to do it. Where I would say we need to take a stand is if someone wants to codify a style guide for these sorts of trivial copyediting matters, or if someone else disagrees with the changes being made - an example of the latter would include past efforts to change English to British spelling (or vice versa) where concerns were raised about inconsistent spelling across articles.

Overall we want to encourage contributions, and if an editor is making harmless changes I don't see any value in telling them to stop. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryan - as I see it, this has little if anything to do with discouraging users from making constructive edits, nor frankly even with a preference for one wording over another. Copyediting articles on a case-by-case basis to improve the flow of their wording happens all the time on Wikivoyage, and rightly so; however, any crusade to completely eradicate a perfectly grammatically acceptable turn of phrase based on nothing more than one individual's subjective opinion of what constitutes appropriate tone does not constitute constructive editing, and in fact would be heavy-handed and would fly in the face of the democratic, consensus-based approach that's fundamental to the policy of our site. Particularly when such a change is effected on a "one size fits all" basis without regard to context: certainly "comprised of" will not be the optimum wording everywhere it crops up, and sometimes it may even be downright inappropriate, but the context in which it is used is different in literally every single instance. There's absolutely no way to believably argue that "comprised of" is never acceptable under any circumstances. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The word 'crusade' actually sums this up for me. I was not suggesting banning these edits in anyway, just remaining vigilant against 'single purpose' edits that do not further our mission in any way in either quality or substance, and frankly make the experience less fun for other contributors. ( see the various incarnations of user 118 )

Also in response to Justin, I don't see changing every instance of this term making any real impact to our SEO. Adding more original content will always be more effective. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where I have concerns is when "democratic, consensus-based approach" is used to mean minor issues have to be agreed-upon in advance - we want users to plunge forward. When there's disagreement we should discuss it, but so far as I can tell no one has any disagreement with the edits that have been made, the concern is that a change might be made that is "downright inappropriate". If someone wants to make edits that seem pointless to me, but that are important to that user, it's counter-productive of me to object unless I disagree with the substance of the change; only if I have a disagreement would it be appropriate to ask the user to stop. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: No doubt. The best thing is a lot of new, good content. But that is hard to come by. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Comprises of" is incorrect and should be changed. Editing out "is comprised of" is another matter and a totally silly thing for people to waste their time on, in my opinion. I use "is comprised of," and I don't support the tyranny of Strunk & White. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryan - I don't see making indiscriminate, context-ignorant changes to our articles' wording on a sitewide basis as a "minor issue". Particularly not when the justification for said change is a half-baked, poorly-thought-out statement of position that's not even official policy of the wiki it was written on, let alone this one. And particularly not when said change is instituted by someone with no prior contribution history and who didn't even bother sounding out the Wikivoyage community's thoughts on the matter beforehand (maybe because anything approaching consensus has so far eluded him/her at Wikipedia?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek is quite correct when he mentions the grammatical incorrectness of "comprises of". It's fine to change instances of that phrasing, but in my opinion we should quickly revert any alterations to otherwise appropriate instances of "comprised of". In addition to being astoundingly bad Wikietiquette, it sets a bad precedent vis-à-vis the importance of consensus and the relationship (or lack thereof) of Wikivoyage's policies to the policies of other WMF sites. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose "quickly reverting" edits solely because someone has changed one type of phrasing to another, and would potentially revert the revert. Yes, such edits seem silly to me, but clearly they are important to the person making the change. A revert would be justified if someone disagreed with the substance of the change, but absent such a disagreement there is no justification for reverting that edit. We've got a small enough editing community as it is without shrinking the tent further by excluding editors who make edits that others perceive as trivial. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Andre seems to have taken a firmer stance on this than I'm willing to. I should probably clarify that I don't really have a problem with an individual user editing out individual instances of "comprised of" (unless said edits disrupt the conversational, informal tone we look for in our guides), since I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Like Ryan said, if it's important to that user, I say let 'em at it; no need to micro-manage. My concern is that, as administrators, I wouldn't want us to give backing to some sort of wider initiative to change all instances of the term, since I believe that would give it the weight of policy.

The original question asked was "Are we comfortable with this initiative?" My answer is that I'm not going to get in the way of it (unless it starts posing problems), but I don't really want to lend it my support either. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I use "comprised of" frequently, so perhaps I'm taking this a bit personally. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you folks are aware - but there a few editors on english wikipedia whose edit history shows that they spend most of their time simply trawl through spelling and minor grammar issues by hand for years to try to clean up... As we have a much smaller domain here in comparison, I think that certain words and phrases may be a problem - if we already have a '[3] words to avoid' in this project, which includes phrases as well - why not consider such a list as an advisory as such, and use it as the point of where we can place such phrases... It is in effect an advisory, not specific 'prohibited list', and that may balance the various concerns made above sats (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Most of the entries in our "words to avoid" section are buzzwords notoriously used by touts and destination marketers. There is very little if anything on that list that's proscribed for reasons of style. The editing culture that has evolved at Wikivoyage simply doesn't place a great deal of importance on issues like that, at least as long as no full-fledged grammar errors rear their heads. Now if minor grammar issues get more attention on Wikipedia, fine and dandy, but a culture clash arises when an overzealous Wikipedian comes to Wikivoyage and starts upsetting the apple cart based on a wrongheaded assumption that what flies at Wikipedia flies here.

And of course, there's a whole other issue too as to whether this anti-"comprised of" effort really "flies at Wikipedia": a quick look at the user talk page of the campaign's mastermind shows quite a bit of strongly worded opposition from other Wikipedians, and even The Guardian is calling the whole thing out for the nonsense it is.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oxford is the first source I've seen that claims "comprised of" is standard English; most other sources say it's non-standard. A very good reason to avoid it is because self-antonyms are confusing. The only reason it even became a thing is because people confused it with "composed of". Powers ^(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:PerryPlanet's point of view. I don't see the point in editing out instances of "is comprised of," but I don't see a reason to be greatly attached to the phrase, either, so if someone wants to edit out instances of it, so what? And why are we spending so much time discussing it, especially if it isn't happening here as of yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That escalated quickly. There are two types of 'comprises of' that seem to crop up here. One is 'comprises' v 'comprises of', which looks to be up for debate (for those who actually have an opinion). The other is far more clear cut - 'comprises' where 'features' (or similar) is intended. In this case, the words have different meanings. Apologies if the grammar edits bothered anyone - I try to push through a few best practice edits 'wether'/'weather', 'their'/'they're'/'there' et cetera where I can, as it's a tiny contribution I can make on my lunch break. Helenabella (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and for weighing in here, Helenabella. I apologize if my vehemence put you off. Copyedits to fix grammatical mistakes (and general Wikignoming) are of course always welcome here at Wikivoyage. But the anti-"comprised of" campaign seems quite controversial at Wikipedia, so in my own opinion it would be preferable to gauge the opinion of the Wikivoyage community before importing it here. Admittedly, you have not altered any instances of "comprised of" here yet, but given the fact that you cited w:User:Giraffedata/comprised of in your (AFAIC uncontroversial) edits to instances of "comprises of", it seemed to me like an issue worth addressing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To me — natively a speaker of Canadian English but one who has lived abroad much of his life and worked with a lot of Brits & Aussies — "comprised of" is completely normal and correct English. I'd need a lot of convincing to even entertain the notion that eliminating it might make sense.

On the other hand, I've been both an ESL teacher and an academic editor at various times and am really picky about (some) grammar issues. Wearing that hat, I'd say misuse of "comprise" is a rather common problem. In particular, "comprises of" is, as someone points out above, invariably an error. (At least in standard English; I see it fairly often in articles on India or Pakistan & wonder if it might be normal in their English.) To me, it is an obnoxious & irritating error, and eliminating it wherever it occurs would be a useful bit of gnomish work.

I tried a search for "comprises" and nearly every instance I saw would be better without that word. In most cases it could just be replaced with "includes". As for "comprises of", it can just be replaced with "is comprised of" to get a grammatical sentence but often some other rewrite would be better. Pashley (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Having now read this whole section, I now seriously doubt that "comprise" is even a word. Imho: If the changes do no harm let us just keep them if there is a controversy we address that than. But we should not imho form a policy or anything either way. The use of British v. American English already causes enough controversy and sometimes headache (I for one usually change the pseudo French spelling centre and metre (as well as theatre) whenever I encounter them, but that may be because the German spelling follows the American). However I usually don't edit an article just to switch from one variant of English to another and neither would I advise to do that on the comprise issue, but to each his/her own. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster: wikt:comprise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's notable that the usage notes in the Wiktionary article that I linked mention that the definitions of the word "comprised" that are at issue here are "often considered incorrect" in formal language, but "are usually informal" and "becoming increasingly common in nontechnical literature, while American Heritage Dictionary and Random House Dictionary state that it is an increasingly frequent and accepted usage." This recalls the difference in tone between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage: while Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone makes it arguably understandable to edit out instances of "comprised of", the phrasing lends itself well to the informal tone of the language we endeavour to use at Wikivoyage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was (in part) referring to the theory that a word sounds less and less like a real word the more you use it in a debate about it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree (also native speaker here), I don't see what the problem with this phrasing is, if it's used correctly. To use an example sentence from dictionary.com:

• "The advisory board comprises six members." Correct.
• "Six members comprise the advisory board." Correct.
• "The advisory board is comprised of six members." Correct (according to multiple dictionaries and common usage). This is the passive form of the previous sentence.
• x "The advisory board comprises of six members." Incorrect. "Comprised of" would also be incorrect.

I'd be in favor of removing the last usage, but not any of the others. --Bigpeteb (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I completely agree with Perry ([4] above) in that I don't want to give an official blessing that would encourage seemingly pointless copyedits, but I also very much feel that it's counter-productive to stop someone from making edits that he feels are valuable solely because I think the edit is pointless (so long as that contribution is also harmless). That said, the "comprised" debate has caught the attention of the wider world, and I thought it was amusing how the outside media views these sorts of changes: [5]. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of Bigpeteb's examples, the second strikes me as problematic because the word means the exact opposite of what it does in the first example. That can lead to ambiguity. Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

'the perfect gift'

I'm afraid I don't understand this addition at all. It's confusingly worded and seems to go into more detail than necessary. On top of that, it fails to understand that a "gift shop" is not a shop that gifts things to customers for free; it's a shop at which customers may purchase gifts for their friends and relatives back home. Powers ^(talk) 14:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I second these concerns. I think it would be fine to discourage the phrase "the perfect gift" as being vague and instead encourage a description of what kinds of items are being sold, but the text placed here is totally confused; it's perfectly legitimate to speak of a "gift shop" or selling gifts, etc. Many shops even self-describe as gifts shops, and it has absolutely nothing to do with giveaways/freebies or whether they offer wrapping/packaging services. Texugo (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Popular

The addition of "popular" to the list of words to avoid severely hampers my ability to describe establishments I haven't personally visited. Sometimes the only way to explain why a place is worthy of a listing is to say that it's popular among locals or visitors or both. Powers ^(talk) 14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The page's name is Words to avoid, not prohibited words. "Popular" could be a meaningful word in the right context. /Yvwv (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

While the caveats given are good advice, I still rather think "popular" is not actually a "word to avoid" in the same sense as other things on the list. Texugo (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Words to avoid" means "not prohibited"?

I find this edit confusing. "Avoid" means "not do". If we're telling people to avoid words, saying they are not "prohibited", even if strictly true, just muddies things. "The words listed below are examples only and are presented as a guideline" is much clearer. I would suggest reverting the latest edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I´m also unsure about "If a venue is totally off limits, there is no need to mention it at all." Occasionally, something is notable because it's locked down in some Cold War-like manner, DMZ (Korea) and Area 51 come to mind. There's also the possibility that something the voyager would expect to be possible is no longer there or no longer open to the public - in which case they'd want to know? K7L (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I'd simply add "In general" to the beginning of that sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Recommending avoidance doesn't necessarily mean the words are to be avoided at all costs. Powers ^(talk) 00:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. So does anyone object to my changing reverting the edit I started this thread by discussing? What about adding "in general" to the sentence User:K7L brought up? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No-one has any further comment? Going once, going twice... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Be welcome to change the wording. /Yvwv (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being generous and flexible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested additions to the list

Recently

readers don't know when you've added the information, so specify the year, rather than "recently"

Just or Only (with a distance, time or amount)

"just five minutes away" or "only $3 for a beer" is unnecessary - the amounts are clear, so let the reader decide whether they are small or large.

Any objections? Ground Zero (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems good. /Yvwv (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The absolute amounts are clear but it's not clear how they compare to local averages. I don't see a problem with those words. Powers ^(talk) 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, they're usually used instead of giving actual prices, and for the purpose of touting. There certainly can be exceptions, but in general, I think it's best to avoid these words unless they really explain something that can't be easily explained by providing figures. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how those words would be used without providing figures. Powers ^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Only a few [name of currency]"; "just a short walk to the beach"; "just a few minutes to the airport". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Touche. Though even in those cases they're useful terms, don't you think? Is it necessary to give exact figures in those cases? Powers ^(talk) 20:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

How are those phrases different from "a few [name of currency]"; "a short walk to the beach"; "a few minutes to the airport"? Are the units of currency smaller if we add "only"? Is the walk shorter if it is "just a short walk"? Are the minutes shorter if they are "only a few"? If "only" or "just" are being used to imply a comparison, it would be better to make the comparison explicit: "it is cheaper than other restaurants - just a few units", "it's closer to the beach than other hotels", "unlike other brothels, it's just a few minutes to the airport". Ground Zero (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The problem with removing every use of recent(ly) is that sentences sometimes lose a lot of meaning without them. Furthermore, sometimes saying "in recent years" or "in the last few decades" is and reads better than giving a year or saying "since the 2000s" or the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In my wanderings through Wikivoyage, I find myself in articles - quite a lot of them - that have not been edited substantively since 2008. Once a reader understands this, "recent" means nothing. Giving a year or a range conveys meaning better than using words that mean something only to the writer. A hotel than in 2008 was "recently renovated", i.e., in 2006, is looking pretty tired now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

{{warningbox|Due to a recent armed insurrection, King George III is currently advising loyal subjects of His Majesty's [[United Kingdom]] to '''defer unnecessary travel''' through [[Boston]] and the 13 colonies until public order is restored. God Save the King.}} K7L (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, King George? I thought King Charles and his rampant popery were defeated and executed by the right honorable Oliver Cromwell. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How recently? K7L (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Point hilariously made, K7L! But to further address your point, Hobbitschuster, "words to avoid" are not always to be avoided. There can be some contexts in which they can be appropriately used, with caution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that recently is usually ok in sentences giving advice - "Don't drive if you have recently had a drink". Of course it might be better to give more specific times, but the advice applies whenever it is read. AlasdairW (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another example is "Cinema A shows recent films, Cinema B shows vintage films". This is likely to be true whenever it is read - In 2018, I can see a film released in 2017 in Cinema A and one released in 1987 in Cinema B. In 2048, I expect Cinema A to be showing films released in 2047, and Cinema B might have one from 2017. AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Unindent] We should also add at the time of writing to the list. I've seen that a surprising number of times, it bothers the Hell out of me, and it was often added 10 or more years ago. Of course the substitute is "as of [month year]." Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hell damn fart

Swept in from the pub

Hello! Can you say "shitshow"? Not sure if you can "work blue" here. Pretty sure this is the first swear I wrote in a guide, so figured I'd check with you fine people. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see any direct prohibition against this in Wikivoyage:Tone or Wikivoyage:Words_to_avoid. Maybe another policy? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Invite your mother to become a contributing member of Wikivoyage, and then she can rap your knuckles, and we get another contributor. Ground Zero (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Tone says "Be conversational and informal" but not "all-out slang informality". I think vulgar language is too informal. Also, is that a regionalism - I'm not sure what it means. Also in that edit, what does "the shockingly amazing location" mean? Is that an in joke perhaps? Is it a restaurant in an electricity substation or something? There should be an indication of what is shockingly amazing about it. Nurg (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nurg on this. While I personally take no offence from a word like "shitshow", I do think words that might be considered vulgar slang are to be avoided. Wikivoyage needs to be a good source for all travellers, my grandma included ;-) It's not a matter of words to avoid so much, but rather of common sense. It's not hard to find another word and in all honesty, I don't think too much slang makes for pleasant travel writing anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll rephrase. Swears are a cop out half the time anyway. I'd consider at least a mention of this in a policy page somewhere. User:Ground Zero ha, that was my first thought as well! User:Nurg thank you so much for the feedback! I agree with your comments and am very excited to get writing feedback like this. Feels like I just learned something. Thanks again everyone! --ButteBag (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, ButteBag. My own writing skills have improved a lot through editing wikis. Nurg (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So what happens when someone gives a real place a name like Sheshatshit (Labrador)? Or Dildo? Or Fucking? K7L (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem of whoever lives there, not travel guides, lol! --ButteBag (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

WTA includes:

it should be noted that...

Go ahead and note it, then.

I have assumed that the intent here is to cover similar phrases like "Note:", "you should be aware that", "be advised that" -- all of these phrases say, "I'm about to tell you something". These phrases take up space while providing no information or colour. They are like eating cardboard: it provides neither taste nor nutrition, and we should be able to safely take them out without losing any meaning.

But at Talk:Calp, I have been told that "Note:" is not covered by WTA, so I am proposing to specifically include it and the other phrases above in the existing point on "it should be noted that". Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary pedantry. We cannot possibly include every possible variation of the phrases on this page, so we should not do so lest we imply that all other variations are allowable. (That said, there may be a case to be made for any specific usage of an avoidable word, like "Note:".) Powers ^(talk) 01:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of the word 'Note:' here is to draw extra attention to a particular point which might otherwise be glossed over by the reader without resorting to the use of a warning box. Here is another case where I believe 'Note:' is appropriate, while in this example a warning box is clearly warranted.

A quick search shows countless other cases here on this site where 'Note:' is used. Is the proposal to remove each and every one of these instances too? –StellarD (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

By the time the reader gets to the sentence that starts with "Note", or some variant, they are already reading it.

The argument that it is used elsewhere doesn't work. Wikivoyage is loaded with typos, bad formatting, grammatical errors, touting, and stiff, overly formal writing. The fact that this stuff exists doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it when we see it. Wikivoyage should always strive to become more informative, and easier and more fun to read. Ground Zero (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that writing out 'it should be noted' as well as other variations is unnecessarily wordy; however my point is that to add 'Note:' (instead of writing it out) is a shorthand way of pointing out to the reader that the issue merits extra attention, especially if the reader is just skimming the text (which many people, including myself, often do). Apparently we will never agree on this, so it would be helpful if some other editors could weigh in here so we don't circle endlessly like two lawyers (sigh). –StellarD (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe I did weigh in. As with everything listed on this page, exceptions can and will exist. The important thing is to understand why words and phrases are listed here and use that guidance to determine if any specific usage is appropriate or not. Pointing out that "Note:" is not specifically listed on this page isn't helpful, as there is an entry which covers much the same ground. And we certainly don't want to litter our guides with such labels to an excessive degree. But there might be some merit to having a way to call out important information short of using Template:Cautionbox. In general, I tend to think that if something is important enough to call out with a label, then it's important enough to use Cautionbox, but others might disagree. Powers ^(talk) 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We do have a policy on Wikivoyage:Creating emphasis, and using words like "Note:" or "be advised that" isn't it. We use italics. The Wikivoyage community has spoken on this matter. If you don't agree, you can propose changes to our policies.

@LtPowers:, I understand your point about not listing every possible variation of phrases, but listing a few examples, as is done elsewhere in the list, to illustrate that we are meaning to be general and not specific, could avoid arguments like this. I suggest something like:

note:, it should be noted that, be advised that....

Go ahead and note it, then.

Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think using italics for more than one line of text is excessive, when the same can be accomplished with 'Note:'. Given the number of other pages on this site which use the same phrasing, I think you'd have to get more people to buy in to your proposal before unilaterally changing policy (and a lot of other editors' writing) simply because it suits your personal preferences. –StellarD (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You can use italics for a few words to provide emphasis. You don't have to italicize whole lines. You just put two single quotation marks before and after the words you want to italicize.

Who is changing anything unilaterally? Not me. I made a proposal for discussion that I believe clarifies the intent of the existing policy. LtPowers agrees with that view of the existing policy, but does not agree that the policy needs the clarification. He thinks the policy applies to "Note". It is your personal preferences that are out of line with policy.

And the "other stuff exists" argument isn't going to convince anyone. Again, the same argument could be used to justify typing all-in-caps, touting, grammatical errors, bad formatting, and all manner of other stuff that violates policy and is commonplace in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Selectively picking out some points while ignoring others does not make your argument more convincing. Lt. Powers also said there may be a case to be made for any specific usage of an avoidable word, like "Note:". Just because you don't like it doesn't mean my point is invalid. –StellarD (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I should speak for him/her, but I understand his/her point to be that, as with any "word to avoid", "Note" can be used on an exceptional basis, where there a specific reason to do so. It shouldn't be used just becaise you like the style. In the case in question, emphasis, if it is needed at all, can be provided with italics per Wikivoyage policy. Ground Zero (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And I gave you my specific reason, for a specific case, not for general use. Personally I've used 'Note:' here on this site I think just twice, and no, it's not because I like the style – it's because I found it more suitable in these two cases than using a caution box or italics. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean my point is invalid. –StellarD (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

All right, guys, take it down a notch here. This is a fairly minor point and not worth the virtual ink already spilled on it. Since this is a talk page for a policy guideline I'd like to keep the discussion here general, and I think I've said my piece on that. You've both correctly noted aspects of my interpretation of policy but I'm not an authority, just another editor. Do you think wider discussion of this guideline would be helpful, or should we focus specifically on how to apply that guideline to Calp (preferably at Talk:Calp)? Powers ^(talk) 13:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

StellarD has already edited Calp to remove the "Note", so that issue has been settled. I think it is that wider application of the guideline that would benefit from others' input. Ground Zero (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot think of a proper use of the word "note" (other than maybe in a warningbox or infobox or the likes, where it is arguably redundant anyway). Maybe we could have a clearer and less emotional discussion if an example were provided? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: The car ferry to St. Pierre-et-Miquelon is no longer running.

Something which needs emphasis as it can break your plans, not quite enough to merit a {{cautionbox}} or {{warningbox}} but in the same general style.

Not the same as "be aware that it should be noted that Belgium overcharges visitors exorbitant prices for their famous fries by pricing a single serving at an absurd €7 or so, then claiming to offer a 'discount for locals'" – a valid point, but this could be expressed much more succinctly without "note that...", "be aware that..." and the like. K7L (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The explanation for why we recommend avoiding "it should be noted that" is not succintness, it is "Go ahead and note it, then." Don't tell us you're going to tell us something, just say it. In the example you use, italics could provide the emphasis you're looking for per Wikivoyage:Creating emphasis. Ground Zero (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally we've avoided italicizing entire sentences or long phrases; italics for emphasis are intended for one to four words or so, such as in the examples on the Creating Emphasis page. Powers ^(talk) 19:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but "it should be noted" is not good for creating emphasis either... Have a look here on how a canceled (or is it?) boat could be handled. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So the way Creating Emphasis encourages us to create emphasis is something like "The car ferry to St. Pierre-et-Miquelon is no longer running." rather than with "Note", or something like that, as is covered by WTA. Ground Zero (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Should probably be boldface, not italics. Use italics where there would be vocal emphasis in speech. Powers ^(talk) 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that approach before. That change would be better discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Creating emphasis. I wonder about the merit of changing our style after the project had been running for so long under the existing style, but nothing is set in stone, so you can propose a change if you want. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not a change. Wikivoyage:Creating emphasis says "When you're writing prose, it's sometimes necessary to emphasize a term to mirror its emphasis in spoken English. To emphasize a term, use italics." (Italics mine.) If you would not emphasize "no longer running" in speech, then italics aren't the best option. Powers ^(talk) 23:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Note that" in a sentence is unnecessary, but "Note:" at the beginning of a note is OK with me if it's the best way to indicate something in a given instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the words "as of"

Swept in from the pub

Now first off I am - as may be known - not a native speaker of any dialect of the English language. Furthermore, I lack knowledge of the finer points of some varieties of the English language. But is there every a case in which "as of" can mean " since"? I have stumbled across this several times here and will point to an example if asked (I don't want any given user to look bad if indeed it turns out to be a wrong wording). The use for "as of" I know and would myself use in this travel guide is "at [date] the situation was as follows". So "As of May 2017 the train is no loner running" means "In May 2017 the train did not run; there is no clear indication as to when it stopped running nor when it will begin running again. Or "As of December 2012 the planned opening date is 2018" - the information from 2012 points to an opening date for 2018, but it may well get later and it is also possible that it opened already as it was ahead of schedule. Am I wrong here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What the dictionary has to say about the matter I don't know, but in colloquial English at least, "as of" can be used either way and thus sometimes, for our purposes, can be a misleadingly ambiguous term. I'd be in favor of altering the wording to clarify in cases where it's necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"As of", almosts always means since. So "As of December 2012 the planned opening date was 2018", means thats the planned opening date since them, and there is a subtle implication that the opening date was set or changed at that date. So, "As of December 2012 the train line was closed", means exactly the same as "since". and "as from".

You can use "as at" to say what was in effect on a day. "As at December 2012 the train was scheduled to open in June 2017", means at that time, that was the scheduled opening date. It may have changed since. In think in a WV context, "as of" should be avoided or clarified. Inas (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Inas, "as at" may be a regionalism. American English doesn't use it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

At the very least I would never presume "as of" to mean "since" unless context (or my own background knowledge) makes that immediately clear to me that it has to mean that. "as at" just sounds weird to me, which means it's not something I have encountered much previously. It may however be that due to sheer ambiguity of the term(s) we should add them to some of our style guide pages and give hints how to word "With the information being current in [x] the situation was [y]" with the least amount of ambiguity. This is, after all, one of the most important things a travel guide has to do; say when information might be outdated and give a hint as to when the last reliable information was obtained. It also makes it easier for subsequent editors to see which information needs checking and updating the most. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of Canadian English. To me, the Hobbit has this exactly right; "as of" is the normal way to indicate "at [date] the situation was as follows", & I cannot think of a situation where it could legitimately mean "since". To me "as at" seems plain wrong, but perhaps as Andre suggests that is a dialect question. Pashley (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As a New Yorker, I agree with Pashley 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Pashley and Ikan. Powers ^(talk) 01:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I've found a few grammar pages that concur with my interpretation, so I'm still inclined to think it's a regional thing rather than my interpretation being wrong. Perhaps the phrase is best avoided? Inas (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What alternative wording would you suggest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As a native Midwestern United States English speaker, "as at" does not sound correct and "as of" means "at such-and-such time". "As of" is used to say particularly that something may not be the case now or wasn't at some further point in time but definitely was true at a certain time. "Kevin was still in the bathroom as of noon when I went on lunch break—for all I know, he's still in there an hour later." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP seems to use as of fairly often to mean that a fact was true as of a particular date, but may not be current now. K7L (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I also read "as of" like "something has been true at a certain time, but not necessarily any longer". "As at" is probably the Australian way of saying this. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So which advise (if any) should we give and if yes where should it be given? "Words to avoid"? MoS? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, have a look at this, which was the first google result, and a Canadian source. I done some more reading to show that using 'as of' to mean 'as at' is a common grammatical error, particularly common in the U.S. I'd say is is a word to avoid Inas (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, User:Inas has edited WV:Words to avoid to add the wording you see. I am not entirely sure we've yet established a consensus that bears out this wording, but I don't want to unilaterally revert, either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus; I have reverted.

Putting "as of" on the list of words to avoid is absurd. I honestly don't see the ambiguity. Whether "As of June 2016, the trains are no longer running" means "Since June 16, the trains have no longer run" or "In June 2016, the author of this sentence found the trains to be no longer running" is a nuance of detail that doesn't really matter. The information conveyed is still the same; the trains no longer run, and haven't done so since (at least) June 2016! Is there some extra layer of potential misunderstanding that I'm missing here? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the confusion was raised by Hobbitschuster. And the regional meaning supported by a team of our North American friends. My understanding of the ambiguity, is that in one case, a visitor found the trains to no longer be running on a date. In the other case, the trains stopped running on a date and are still no longer running. I'd say we would like to know which is the case. Did the railway line close? Or were the trains not running on the day you visited? Inas (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a world of difference whether something is closed since 1994 or something was the case in 1994. And I just want to point out, that "as at" sounds weird to so many people, I doubt it's very common in all that many varieties of English. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading Inas' link, I realize that "as of" does usually carry a connotation that expects the situation to have been maintained since that point, though not a necessarily a guarantee. If the tense of the associated verb is past, then it is equivalent to Inas' "as at". If the verb is present-tense, then it is very close in meaning to "since". Compare "As of last month, the road is closed" to "As of last month, the road was closed." Powers ^(talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've had another hack of WV:wta. Hopefully less controversial? If we revert this one, I'll give it away, I promise.. Inas (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"And much more"

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. I deleted or edited out a lot of instances of "and much more" at the ends of lists, but it's quite a common cliche/promotional phrase, so I could really use some help if anyone would like to take up where I left off. Of course we have to be careful when using search results for "and much more" because it can be part of meaningful phrases like "and much more interesting" or "and much more expensive", but as a phrase at the end of a list, it's gotta go. And once we banish it, continued vigilance will be needed to revert or edit out new instances of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. There are variations of this like "and so much more", "and much, much more" and other similar touty phrases that we need to delete too. Gizza ^(roam) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The end of this task is in sight, but this is still a big job. Anyone who would like to help would be doing a good service and saving me from feeling impelled to do the rest of this by myself. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Just "and+much+much+more"&title=Special:Search 16 left for "and much, much more". I got most of them but need to get offline for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask what the problem, is with this phrase? Is there a better way to indicate that a particular list isn't exhaustive? Powers ^(talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit to being a bit disappointed that you'd ask a couple of months after all the effort I and some other put into getting rid of it. But my answer is that it's an empty promotional phrase, lazy and a terrible cliche, and even worse with an exclamation point at the end. The best way to indicate that a list isn't exhaustive is to start it with "including". Other options are "etc." at the end or "for example" at the beginning. Of course those aren't totally synonymous, so it depends on the exact meaning that's desirable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is "technically" a word to avoid?

Swept in from the pub

So it appears that User:Ground Zero has been removing the word "technically" from quite a few articles recently. Given that it appears that I am one of those who use the word quite a bit, I'd like to hear some community input on the issue, so that I might adjust my writing if need be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be avoided in all cases, but there are some times when it is superfluous (the removals on Ruta del Tránsito strike me as examples of this).

However, "technically" does seem to me to add an extra meaning to the other two examples you've cited, given that it is implied that although San Ysidro and Neuwerk are treated as their own place, they do in fact technically (legally, actually) belong to San Diego and Hamburg, respectively. The use of "technically" highlights this. I would go as far to say that without technically, the following sentence is unclear: "Although part of the City of San Diego, San Ysidro is separated from the rest of the city by the entities of Chula Vista and National City just to the north." So it's part of the city, but also separate from it? No, it's "technically" (legally) part of SD, but is physically separate. That makes better sense. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am removing it only where it doesn't add any meaning or is vague. I am sure that we can agree that:

1. San Ysidro is part of the city of San Diego?. The modification "technically" doesn't change that. The rest of the same sentence explains that "San Ysidro is separated from the rest of the city by the entities of Chula Vista and National City just to the north", which provides clear information to the reader.
2. the lighthouse in Neuwerk is the oldest building in Hamburg, because Neuwerk is administratively part of the city. There is no older building in mainland Hamburg. In what way is itthe lighthouse not the oldest building in Hamburg?
3. the ferry from Ometepe should be able to accommodate a horse. The question posed in the rest of the sentence is whether the operators are willing to do it. In what way is the sentence ambiguous and in need of clarification?

In these cases, "technically" is a filler word that adds no meaning.

In other cases, like here and here, "technically" is used to distinguish between the physical challenge of a hike, and the technical challenge of a hike, e.g. the requirement of climbing skills. So I wouldn't say that "technically" should be avoided everywhere, it's that it should be used where it adds meaning that isn't already clear from the sentence, and not where it doesn't.

I was caught in an edit conflict while typing this. In response to Thundering Typhoons' comments, I don't think these are unclear, but if someobe else does, there are ways of providing clarity that are not vague as "technically" is. San Ysidro is administratively part of the city of San Diego, but geographically separate from it. (I've made this change to the article.) The Neuwerk article already provides the "administratively" clarification. The problem with "technically" is that the writer understands what s/he means by it, but we can't expect the reader to do so. Ground Zero (talk)

Imagine the following: New York City annexes some minor island in the Caribbean where there is an old Spanish customs house from the 16th century. Hence it would "technically" be the oldest building "in" New York City, but most people would not consider it a building in New York City at all. Hence the "technically". Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case you should explain exactly what you mean instead of implying it. The point of writing is so that other people understand it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think technically is vague; however the insertion of administratively and geographically on San Ysidro has made it clearer. Few Hamburgers (tehehe) or anyone else would consider some random lighthouse on an uninhabited island several miles out to sea to be the oldest building in a city that isn't even on the coast! So the use of any word that highlights the unusualness of the situation is preferable in my books to having none. I'm not fussed whether that's technically, actually or something else though. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In the San Diego example, I think technically is a better choice than administratively because it better suits the informal tone that we aim for on Wikivoyage. I don't see how the word technically is ambiguous in that example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Mx. Granger, "technically" is fine for the writer who knows what s/he means, but "administratively" is clearer for readers who may not know what the writer means. An informal tone is fine until it doesn't convey the intended meaning, as in this case? That San Ysidro is part of San Diego is not a technicality. It is a factual matter of municipal administration. Ground Zero (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the intended meaning is that San Ysidro is legally part of San Diego but is physically separate from the rest of the city. To me, it seems like the sentence with the word technically conveys that. Maybe it's ambiguous or unclear in some way that I'm not seeing? Anyway, I think the word administratively is fine, just a little too formal, so I won't press the issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous without the modifier, but if someone else thinks something is unclear, I think the best approach is to try another approach to make it better, as I did, rather than just saying "you're wrong". Ground Zero (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it's unclear? So far you technically haven't said, you've just said other people may find it unclear :-) Still, I've changed the wording at Neuwerk per my comments above. If you want to make it even better, go ahead. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading these edits, I'd say that the first two changes are clearer after the edit than before. In the third edit, the use of the word technically in the first of the two removals is necessary. What does it even mean to "technically" accommodate a horse? I think it means there is room but we don't know if it is permitted, and it's clearer to say that. The second edit in the third diff seems to change the meaning. So, I don't think it's a word to avoid in the correct context, but it's an easy word to insert rather than saying what you actually mean. And these edits I'd consider 3 from 4 to be improvements, so that's pretty good odds. --Inas (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding the word "Ghetto" to WV:Words to avoid (with a few certain caveats, which should be obvious)

Swept in from the pub

So after we've had a certain brouhaha at Talk:Brussels because someone who shall remain nameless considered it a good idea to call a district "Ghetto" (yes, really!), I think that we should make policy abundantly clear where I thought it didn't have a need to be. Let us please add "Ghetto" to the list of WV:Words to avoid with the caveat that its proper use in historical contexts, particularly Shoah remembrance and the history of Jews, particularly in Europe is of course encouraged where that term is the one that was in use historically. Is there anybody still of the opinion that we do the voyager or anybody else for that matter a service by randomly calling certain parts of certain towns "Ghetto" just because someone read somewhere once that "evul peepull" live there (which, to me, is antithetical to what travel should be about, but I digress)? If that be so, may they speak up now or hold their peace forever. I for one am frankly a bit shocked that we have to clarify this at all, but maybe not all here are English native speakers and maybe to some, the word isn't offensive? I don't know... At any rate, that's the proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Having read all of and taken part in a bit of the Brussels discussion, I strongly support this proposal. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What about this passage from Buffalo/West Side?

"Less hip locals will try to dissuade you from crossing west of Richmond Avenue. It's 'dangerous', they'll tell you. A 'ghetto'. And while it's true that the West Side has had a rough go of it over the past half-century and it's still a ways from exorcising its demons when it comes to crime, poverty and other social ills, this is probably the neighborhood that best embodies Buffalo's phoenixlike rise from the ashes."

This is a case where the word is used judiciously to address and then dispel local prejudices about certain places. I agree with the spirit of this proposal but I would hope that whatever the new policy ends up being would allow for usages like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If the word "ghetto" is used in quotes like it is in AndreCarrotflower's comment, that is different because the travel guide is just quoting others. It's when the travel guide labels, to the tourist, the place as a ghetto that it becomes an issue. Selfie City (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I second the sentiment of AndreCarrotflower and hope that we can either arrive at a wording that makes it sufficiently clear that such use is allowed or that we are all mature enough to understand the difference between such use and the one that started the whole discussion... That said, saying "the neighborhood has a bad reputation" may in some cases achieve a similar thing, but then we can justifiedly argue the old Mark Twain adage about the difference between almost the right word and the right word. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with a policy placing a blanket ban on the word "ghetto". Some uses, such as "student ghetto" to refer to a university off-campus housing district controlled by mostly absentee landlords, are valid and inoffensive. They don't live there, their tenants leave after a few years whether the housing is any good or not, so what's the incentive to maintain anything well? There's also the voyager-comes-first principal where, if a district has an unusually-high crime rate or poses other specific and identifiable hazards, we say so. The people living in the district with the highest crime rate in the city won't like us for that (and may even start editing the pages themselves to whitewash the situation) but the traveller's safety takes priority over local promotion or pride. K7L (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Saying an area has a high crime rate is not the same as calling it a ghetto. Frankfurt has insanely high white collar crime and offenses related to border violations, drug trafficking and so on. Which part of it is the "ghetto"? And just the same we should not go around calling places "shithole countries" even if they do present certain, shall we say, challenges, to the visitor... Calling a spade a spade doesn't mean insulting for the sole purpose of insulting Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely support a policy against labelling places as "ghettos", "shitholes" and similar such insults. It's just an application of the WV:Be fair rule. There's a difference being frank to the traveller and describing the negative or dangerous aspects of a destination and just insulting for the sake of insulting as Hobbitschuster said. There is also a difference between the way the word ghetto was used in the Buffalo example or the way K7L uses it and the way it was used in Brussels. Using these labels isn't even all that useful for the traveller. Does the place have a high crime rate, no electricty, no water, high drug usage, beggars, water but not clean water, not actually that poor but has rundown, dirty housing that makes it look like a slum on the outside? Not every third-world shitholes faces the same issues. Gizza ^(roam) 01:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But then there's the flipside; we wouldn't label something a "glorious workers' paradise" if the appropriate term is "tyrannical dictatorship", much like we don't claim a hostile invasion of a weaker country by a stronger one to be "restoring democracy" if it's being done solely to install an oppressive puppet régime the invading country can more easily control. A description filled with euphemism violates Wikivoyage:Be fair just as surely as just insulting for the sake of insulting does. K7L (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. But I haven't yet come across a city or district called "XYZ/Paradise" for example. I'm against the labelling (which is a personal judgment) rather than the describing (which is more neutral), especially if there's context (which group of people think a place is a hole or paradise). Gizza ^(roam) 03:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is necessary. Searching for the word, it has only 100 appearances sitewide and about 3/4 of the mention of "ghetto" are already Jewish and Holocaust-related sites. Other mentions seem pretty apt as descriptors of places that have been known as "ghettos" in their respective cities/countries, typically also in a historical (but not Jewish) context, with a few in China and the US among other places. There also seems to be a few bars/drinks with "ghetto" in the name. A couple "backpacker ghetto" mentions as well, that I find interesting as descriptors, as well as lively writing. I don't see the term being thrown around liberally at all or being used to intentionally make places appear like something they aren't ("insulting just to be insulting"). Many of the non-Jewish ghettos are describe as historical ghettos that actually sort of add to the intrigue of the location. It's also not being used as an adjective which is when the term often sounds most offensive. "Ghetto" is like "slum" (I would not say it is akin to "shithole", which is profane and more judgmental than descriptive) in that it is a negative descriptor, so there is always potential to offend, but avoiding "negative" words doesn't change the situation or conditions on the ground and often "ghetto" can sum up a place much more succinctly and even less offensively than trying to describe all of the elements that make it a "ghetto" without using the term; if the place is a "ghetto", alternative descriptions are not going to make it sound better without lying. It seems unnecessary to ban the use of a word we are using correctly due to a single dispute. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I just read the discussion at Talk:Brussels. I could agree that the word "ghetto" shouldn't be used in a European context except when describing a place to which Jews were restricted. However, in the U.S., the word has a different meaning - a neighborhood into which black people were de jure and/or de facto segregated and/or redlined (effectively forced to live by real estate agents), generally a place of widespread poverty, poor living conditions and neglect by local and higher levels of government. It is probably not necessary to use the word in the American context, but I would have to judge this on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with banning the word ghetto, and second user K7Ls opinion on this. The word has a legitimate use even if not linked to Venice or Jews, as Wikipedia defines it as "a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure." In the example of Brussels, it indeed seems that the proposed area is inhabited by a large community of economic immigrants, so it satisfies the definition of the word ghetto.

Please keep in mind that Wikivoyage aims to provide the traveller with honest information, including dangers. We're not a ministery of tourism, and don't have to draw as many tourists as possible to a specific destination. If the conditions are dangerous then we should say so, there is no point in using euphemisms. If you call a ghetto an adventurous residential neighborhood then you could just as well call a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist or a rapist a freelance gynaecologist. ArticCynda (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we can trust our users to exercise common sense and judge any controversial additions of the word as they come. Like I said, the word is generally most offensive when used as an adjective, but if someone were to add "The ghetto waitresses distract from the food" we'd easily be able to justify a revert/rewrite without needing a "ghetto ban". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the word "ghetto" has clearly entered the common venacular and can be used broadly to describe any empoverished and unfriendly neibourhood. No its not polite- but it's frank and usefull to travelers because it's universally understood.

Sure we shouldn't label a place as a ghetto just to be rude, and it's a claim that might often be subjective, but I'd argue it has its place because the pejorative is often applied accurately. Many poor or dirty or ethnically segregated neibourhoods are entirely safe-but when someone says a place is a ghetto I know exactly what to expect going there. -willthewanderer

I think we ought to go back to what was said in Talk:Brussels: there's a big difference between saying that a place is a ghetto and calling a city district "Ghetto" — in Brussels, a district was actually called "Ghetto".

I normally would support the proposal, but after ChubbyWimbus's statement that there are only 100 uses of the word "ghetto", and many of these refer to it in a historic context, I don't think adding the word "ghetto" to WV:Words to avoid is necessary. We may as well just deal with the word on a case-by-case basis unless it starts to appear in articles much more frequently in the long term. Selfie City (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the key point is that "Ghetto" should rarely be used as a proper noun. In particular it shouldn't be used when it isn't by any other travel guide, news article, book or source. And on the flipside, calling a district Heaven or Paradise would be just as biased. Gizza ^(roam) 02:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of its definition, which is broadly applicable, the word ghetto has entered mainstream vocabulary in the sense that (nearly) everyone interprets it as an unwelcoming, run down neighborhood with numerous safety and health concerns. If used to refer to such a neighborhood, I don't see a problem with using it. ArticCynda (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Ghetto" should not be part of the Wikivoyage name of a district unless that's an official name, as in Venice/Ghetto, if Venice is ever districted on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well there is a certain unicorporated Nevada community legally called Paradise... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ArticCynda, you're saying: "[...] If used to refer to such a neighborhood, I don't see a problem with using it." People here pointed out many good reasons why it is problematic. Here is a summary, with some comments from me:

• it's imprecise (everyone seems to have a different understanding of the term) and acutally describing what the area is like (what and where the dangers are) is much more useful for the traveler
• it has strong negative connotations (at least in a European contex) with what the Nazis did (and this is actually the first definition that comes to my mind when hearing the word)
• using it as Wikivoyage district name gives such a problematic word too much attention (distracting from the actual problems or benefits of visiting the district)
• it is unfair and insulting towards the people living there most of which are innocent of the conditions they (have to) live in
• you're picking out one meaning of the word (claiming it's the mainstream meaning everywhere around the world), ignoring other more problematic usages

I'm unsure about adding it to Wikivoyage:Words_to_avoid (which is actually not banning its use, but clarifying that it should be avoided and why), because I think a discussion is much more beneficial for everyone involved. Xsobev (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have a policy proposal, post it at Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid#Ghetto. /Yvwv (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ghetto

Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Adding_the_word_"Ghetto"_to_WV:Words_to_avoid_(with_a_few_certain_caveats,_which_should_be_obvious) has brought up issues around the word ghetto, which hopefully leads to a consensus around usage of the word. Concepts such as slum and shanty town could also be brought up for discussion. /Yvwv (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We call a spade a spade; if there's poverty, if there's crime, if there are conditions which represent a danger to the voyager we say so. We're a travel guide, not a destination marketing organisation's promotional brochure. K7L (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"We say so". Exactly. We say "There's poverty, there's crime" and so on. We do not say "X is a ghetto", because that is an entirely meaningless word on its own. It would be a bit like saying "Religious movement x is a cult". Highly inflammatory and opinion driven, but essentially saying nothing. It would make much more sense to say "Leaders of religious movement x have been proven in a court of law to engage in [list of cult-like behaviors] they have furtheremore been accused of [other bad behaviors] by [footnotes to who is doing the accusing]". A similar thing is to be said about "ghettos". And I also question a bit the wisdom of that particular Brussels example which cites that Molenbeek was the place where certain terrorists lived. Well several of the 9/11 guys were foreign students in Hamburg, Jena was of course the last place of residence of the w:National Socialist Underground and we could add to that list. Does that help anybody learn anything of value other than reinforcing certain stereotypes ("Small towns in East Germany are full of Nazis", "German intelligence agencies are incompetent" and so on) Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether an object is a spade is objective. Whether a part of town is a ghetto is somewhat subjective and relative because the word has different connotations to different people. How poor or dangerous does a place have to be in order to be a ghetto? But more importantly, labelling the whole area "Ghetto" is even more opinionated, not factual or useful at all. Calling it "Molenbeek" is factual. Gizza ^(roam) 07:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No place should be named "Ghetto" on Wikivoyage unless that's an official name, such as Venice Ghetto. Whether it should be used as a description is probably best decided on a case-by-case basis. As I said on the discussion in the Pub, I can agree that the word should not be used to describe neighborhoods in Europe unless it's an official designation. In discussing neighborhoods in the United States, I'm not sure we should adopt a hard-and-fast rule, though the designation is probably unnecessary in every case, so I won't oppose a listing in "Words to avoid". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

While we strive to be fair, I would oppose a "words to avoid" listing as we don't water down warnings which affect the voyager's safety merely to avoid offending local sensibilities. From Wikivoyage:Tone, "For example, North Korea's human rights situation can and should be summed up as an 'Orwellian nightmare', as opposed to noting that 'some organizations have expressed concern about less than full compliance to international human rights standards, a charge vigorously denied by the Foreign Ministry.'" K7L (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - not merely to avoid offending local sensibilities. Wikivoyage:Be fair is a useful standard. That said, I think we should avoid any language that could smack of racism, and therefore, words like "ghetto", when not official descriptions, should be used carefully if at all. As has been pointed out already, objective (or at least more nearly objective) descriptions of a neighborhood's condition and potential threats to visitors don't have to include this term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguably

WTA was recently amended to add: "Seems to be, might, possibly, could and other indicators of speculation: We don't deal in speculation - either verify that the situation is indeed so, or don't say so. Speculation seems to be unhelpful for most travelers who might possibly be confused by it."

The Collins Dictionary identifies as synonyms for "arguably": possibly, potentially, conceivably, plausibly, so it falls into the list of speculative words. This site proves that anyone can argue anything. If we're not willing to stand behind the statement, it shouldn't be there. Ground Zero (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(indent) I don't think "arguably" is quite the same, and "arguably" is not used simply because someone or some people refuse to look at or believe evidence (or are trolling). I think arguably can be useful and its less formal nature sounds better than trying to spell out the same thing. In looking up the word "arguably", I think a lot of the uses read well, such as:

• "This was arguably the largest migration of the human race in such a short time." Gold Coast
• "Bangkok is arguably the best city in Southeast Asia for fine dining..." Bangkok
• "Europe runs the whole spectrum Cycling in Copenhagen - the original and arguably still most bike friendly city" Transportation
• "Hanauma Bay in Eastern Honolulu is arguably the best place for snorkeling in the islands," Oahu
• "M'Hamid gets fewer visitors than Merzouga and is arguably more "authentic."" M'Hamid
• "Holocaust was neither the first nor the last genocide in world history, it is arguably the most thoroughly documented and researched crime against humanity." Holocaust remembrance
• "Popeye's is arguably the best place in Tokyo, if not the world, to try Japanese microbrews." Tokyo/Sumida
• "Lewis offers clean, beautiful and empty beaches and arguably the best breaks in Europe." Lewis

These I think could be better worded:

• "Raleigh's crime rate is below average for an American city of its size (and arguably one of the lowest in the Southern USA)..." Raleigh
• "Istanbul's Karaköy district, arguably deriving its name from Karay — the Turkish name for the Karaites" Judaism
• "Cascade volcanoes, is easy to access and also provides views of Mt. Shuksan, arguably the most photographed mountain in the United States." North Cascades National Park

A lot of the use of "arguably" are in restaurant listings in relation to the unofficial "best" ethnic restaurants, such as:

• " Long established and arguably the best South Asian restaurant in the Whitechapel area." London/East End

Read the quotes (and look it up yourself if you're curious to see others), but I think "arguably" has a place here. Sometimes there are things you cannot verify to be "offical" but with strong evidence or strong favorability, it is very much worth noting and useful to the traveler. "Arguably" is a good word for such situations. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It depends on how "arguably" is being used. Gizza ^(roam) 12:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I fear that adding that word would lead to "search and replace edits" that just remove all the "arguably"s, just like all the "currently"s, even where meaningful or used properly are being removed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That was also a concern I had. Putting too much on the list starts to impede on our "lively writing" by pushing towards a list of set phrases for specific circumstances, especially if the "search and replace edit" method is used, which should be avoided. We don't want to language police too much. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have used the word "arguably" myself on this website, and I think in most situations there is nothing wrong with using the word. A list of words to avoid could easily get too long, and let's remember what "arguably" means: that something can be argued. Is that really speculation? Selfie City (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

True. The idea seems to have been to describe one specific issue – the promotional hype that destination marketing organisations tend to dole out liberally for every city and town, which is laudatory and superlative but vague enough to tell us basically nothing. "Beautiful sunsets, cool breezes, mouth-watering cuisine and well-appointed lodging with friendly staff and every amenity combine to make our destination ideal for business and leisure travel, great for getaways, fun for the whole family and a shopping and dining Mecca unequalled anywhere..." could be the convention and visitor bureau blurb for, well, anything - as seen by its promoters. Print this page as a BINGO card, hit Special:Randompage, first to call BINGO just found the destination where someone copy-pasted the CVB blurb verbatim instead of describing the destination fairly from the point of view of the voyager. Someone posting sales hype as 'content' isn't going to claim "the steaks in Sheep's Hoof, Montana are arguably a cut above what's being served in the city", they're going to hype this to "the steaks in Sheep's Hoof, Montana are unequivocally the best on the planet, bar none, making the village a world-class dining Mecca for pilgrimages by discerning gourmets world-wide".

If we're unsure about something, or a statement is merely one person's opinion, claiming to be certain when we're not does more harm than good. That's not what this list should be being used for, much like watering down important safety warnings to avoid hurt feelings by locals in "ghetto" or "slum" areas isn't what the list of words to avoid is for. It's just a description of one particular pattern of vague promotional hype - and yes, there is a fine line between promotion and lively travel writing. Some of us, working in computers or technology all day and describing everything in painstakingly-neutral and bland detail, need to adopt a different tone here than there - as many would consider the words "technical literature" to be an oxymoron and purely-descriptive text may take that dry, almost-repetitive encyclopedaic tone at times. K7L (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the well-stated opposition to including "arguably" on a list of words to avoid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It does look like the s proposal is not going anywhere, but I will make these remarks:

• It is bizarre that Hobbitschuster, having added "possibly", etc., to this list now objects to adding its synonym, "arguably" to the list. Whether he likes it or not, "arguably" is a synonym of "possibly".
• His comment that "adding that word would lead to "search and replace edits" that just remove all the "arguably"s, just like all the "currently"s, even where meaningful or used properly are being removed..." is equally ridiculous. As he well knows, when I copyedit, I remove touting, I update, I fix time, date and currency formatting, and I remove words that are meaningless or repetitive in line with the advice of WV:tone that "Writing should describe the destination or attraction in a lively and concise manner. Avoid exaggerations, superlatives and vague, flowery language." And yes, I know that he doesn't like seeing his writing edited for clarity, brevity and to avoid repetition, but he should come to expect that his work here will be edited by others, because that is the nature of a collaborative project. I will also note that when I copyedit, I am always willing to discuss edits on an article's talk page and work with others editors to improve text.
• All of the example statements that ChubbyWimbus provides above are equally true if you make them negative:

• "This was arguably not the largest migration of the human race.... (i.e. because there was one that was larger)
• "Bangkok is arguably not the best city in Southeast Asia for fine dining..." (i.e. because someone thinks that Singapore is better)

because, again, anyone can argue anything. "Arguably" is simply meaningless, and adding meaningless weasal words does not make our writing more lively. Quite the reverse.

• There are no "language police" on Wikivoyage, there are just copyeditors who want to make Wikivoyage more enjoyable to read by cutting out repetition, and filler words that are more about makng the writer feel important than about providing information to the reader in a clear, concise, enjoyable way.
• The speculative weasal word "arguably" can be replaced easily by "one of":

• "This was one of the largest migrations... one of the best cities for fine dining... Copenhagen - the original and still one of most bike-friendly cities"

If we're going to leave "arguably" alone, then we should remove its synonyms from the list for reason that others have identified above. Ground Zero (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There are shades of meaning. "Arguably the best" is stronger than "one of the best". "One of the best" could be the fifth-best, but "arguably the best" means that whoever is writing probably thinks it's the best but isn't positive there might not be some better place they don't know about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

So it's a weasal word to get around our proscription against saying something is "the best": WTA says to avoid "best... Or any similar superlative. Unless you've actually tried all the others, this is a presumptuous comparison." Why allow this loophople? Ground Zero (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to present an example that I wrote myself, on the Roman Empire article: "Lugdunum (today's Lyon) was arguably the most important city in Roman Gaul, the birthplace of emperor Claudius". I think that this usage is fine, and the word in question, here, should not be avoided. But that's just my opinion. Ibaman (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would argue that it wasn't the most important city just because it was the birthplace of an emporer. Massalia (Marseilles) was a major port and trading city. Narbonne was the capital of Gallia Narbonensis. They would be candidates, but that's just my opinion. Do you see my point? "One of the most important cities" would avoid this. Ground Zero (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ground Zero, it's not a "loophole"; it introduces a note of humility instead of sticking to absolutely black-and-white language. You've done a lot of good in reducing the use of unnecessary words, but I think you want to go too far in the direction of absolute certainty by avoiding all indications of possible unintentional error or arguable opinions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding an element of uncertainty is sometimes a good thing. Other sources of independent travel information don't always express things in absolute terms. I find it hard to believe that a word with 46.5 million Google hits is meaningless and redundant in every way it is used. If we add arguably, we would have to add equivalent phrases like "it can be argued that" and "it may be argued that" (both getting about 10 million hits on Google). Gizza ^(roam) 01:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think that we should not add "Arguably", and should also allow some use of the other terms. Arguably is often used as a way of expressing a subjective judgement: "arguably the best pizza in town", which to me sounds much more like it has been written by somebody who has eaten there - remove arguably and it sound like marketing talk. Informed speculation, such as the likely completion date of construction work is ok, but speculation about future construction that has not yet been started is not. AlasdairW (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that's more than a thousand times the hits for "Molenbeek war zone". And arguably I should have debated the edit about speculation before I made it, but there were quite a few things in Antarctica related guides that boiled down to "whoever wrote this doesn't know but wants to opine"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

First built

There's an ongoing disagreement about the use of this phrase. This is not the first time its use has been questioned, so I think it would be good to establish some guidelines here. –StellarD (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm usually in favour of using policies and the manual of style to avoid editing disputes, I think this is too fine-grained. I don't think WTA needs to address this issue. Ground Zero (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Rephrasing?

The same list that's currently on the page, reformatted to group similar items together (by topic, instead of alphabetically) and check for duplication:

Avoid superlatives and vendors' opinions of their own product or location. Declaring something the best, unless you've actually tried all the others, is a presumptuous comparison and claiming a tradition of service and hospitality is speculative if you've only visited a venue once. If something is ideal, perfect or the perfect choice, state what exactly makes it ideal. Even if something is "perfect" for someone, someone else may dislike it. The travel cliché perfect for romantic getaways is as overused as "loves long walks on the beach" in personal ads (although we may want a "see" or "do" listing for the beach itself) but not helpful without an explanation of why this destination is more romantic than countless others. Instead of claiming to be premier, première or premium, if a place or business is "first" in some sense, use that sense specifically. If the lodging is luxurious, sumptuous and fully equipped state what it is equipped with and why you find it luxurious, instead of adding this promotional fluff. Are the curtains made of purple velvet? Is the ceiling painted with gilded murals? Does the venue provide personal valets? Claiming something is unique (or unique for some specific kind of travellers) says nothing on its own. Instead, say what exactly makes a place unique (such as "Giant pandas only live in the wild in China") or use an objective measure (such as "Real Madrid has won 12 UEFA Champions League finals, more than any other club").

Avoid hyperbole. Reserve words like magical for reference to mythology or sleight-of-hand performances; restrict the word Mecca to the sacred city in Saudi Arabia or destinations with worldwide significance for some category of travel. Describing something as paradise is utter hyperbole, unless they're going to meet their Maker. The common marketing clichés in which every vista is breathtaking and stunning, every food item "mouthwatering and delicious", every accommodation sumptuous, well-appointed and luxurious tell the voyager nothing. Could another adjective be used which conveys more of a specific sense of the place being described?

A claim that something is popular (used without context) is typically a bandwagon argument that does not warrant a good experience. This could, however, be used in a broader description such as "[County Kerry] became a popular tourist attraction in the 19th century and is still very popular today, despite considerable rainfall." If a venue is overcrowded at times or an inordinate number of visitors have compromised the unique character of a sensitive site, say so. Claims of being prestigious are also taken with a grain of salt; prestigous according to whom? Using this for a university with hundreds of years of published research may be legit, but publishing it as an owner's opinion of their own restaurant or inn tells us little.

Avoid broad, generic statements which add little of substance. Purporting to appeal to *every* group of voyager can be a vague and meaningless claim. "There is so much to see and do. Our friendly, charming staff will maximize a visitor's time and experience in this beautiful city. An amazing variety of world-class, delicious foods complement stunning and unforgettable scenery. Great value, fun for the whole family, ideal for business or pleasure travellers" uses many words to convey little useful, factual data. Any destination can bill itself as great for getaways and short stopovers, as relaxing or romantic, or as ideal for business and leisure travellers; what makes this one different?

Avoid vague, laudatory claims which could apply to any venue. Instead of declaring a pub the hotspot for cool people be specific; if a venue "serves college students in their early twenties", "is frequented by businesspeople" (or whatever demographic), say so. A claim that a venue is famous, renowned or award-winning says little without indicating who issued the award, under what criteria. Does a claim to five-star service mean an independent authority awarded five stars (if so, which one? there are many rating systems) or is this the establishment's opinion of their own product (which is meaningless)? Likewise, a claim that a firm is approved by TripAdvisor (or Yelp, or Facebook, or Twitter, or Uncyclopedia, or any other random website which relies on user-supplied content instead of paying staff to inspect restaurants and hotels under clear, established criteria) means little.

Don't include a claim in one local listing which could just as easily apply to all competing venues. An individual hotel listed as being in (city), minutes away from (another city) is redundant as the city's location should already be in "Understand", "Get in" or "Go next"; likewise, nearby attractions and activities belong in "See" and "Do" and not in hotel descriptions (unless the amenity is inside the hotel). Praising the beautiful sunsets and refreshing breezes at one individual inn isn't helpful if climate is the same region-wide; keep weather and climate data in the "Understand" section.

Where possible, avoid speculative phrasing such as seems to be, might, possibly and could — either verify that the situation is indeed so, or don't say so. There are exceptions (such as the "anything listed here may not still be standing" disclaimer in an active war zone) but these are rare.

Avoid time-specific wording which quickly becomes outdated, including new, newest or the latest and greatest superlatives. (As of what date?) Instead of newly established or recently opened, the opening year is more persistent information. Replace currently, recently, today, now or this year with terms like "during 2024", "since 2024", "as of 2024" or whatever the current year might be. Avoid hopelessly dating an event listing: instead of announcing the "n'th annual edition" of a recurrong festival or event ("Come celebrate the 225th anniversary of the Storming of the Bastille next Monday!"), use wording like "Bastille Day is celebrated annually in mid-July" which remains valid in subsequent years. Superlatives like "listed by Guinness as the biggest/tallest X in the world" may need to indicate the year, as someone will inevitably build something taller for next year's record books. While historic itinerary/topics may use comparison in the style "1843's Oregon Trail settlers caulked wagons, floating them across treacherous rivers; today a steel-and-concrete bridge carries an Interstate highway", one-time events which directly affect travel ("Fukushima was hit by a 2011 earthquake", "Los Angeles will host the 2028 Games", "As of 2003, Iraq is a war zone") may need to be dated and removed once the event or incident is finished.

Avoid ambiguous terminology. Is an entrée the first course or the main course? If it depends on where you are, choose another word. Similarly, is a trolley a rail vehicle or merely a bus with wires? Is a guide a person (tour guide, tour leader, outfitter, tracker etc), or a written instruction (guidebook, manual etc)? Be specific.

If something is exclusive, what does that mean? $100 cover charge? Say so. Invitation only? Say so. Months of advance booking required? Say so. In general, if a venue is totally off limits, there is no need to mention it at all.

Instead of claiming to sell an impressive line up of products or the perfect gift, indicate the types or classes of items for sale. Let the readers decide for themselves whether to be impressed. Labelling items for sale as "gifts" is vague; a clear, specific identifier (such as "souvenir shop") is preferable. The one exception may be "gift baskets" where the giftwrap-style packaging (usually a basket arrangement of local foods or wines) is an integral part of the item.

Be specific with locations. Claiming something is conveniently located in a privileged location or an ideal location is fluff; use "strategic location" only in the context of military history. Instead, add precise, factual addresses and contact info to listings, preferably with metro station or (lat, long) co-ordinates for display on locator maps.

Avoid deliberately-evasive wording; a claim that something costs mere pennies per day, is nearby, minutes away and steps away from everything deliberately avoids giving specific numbers — for example, price or distance are wilfully omitted. If something is adjacent to the marina or directly across the street from city hall, say so, but some place three miles beyond the town line is "steps away" or just a short walk only if one wants to hike an extra hour each way. All that walk to leading restaurants honestly tells the voyager is that there is no restaurant on-site.

Don't make impossible location claims; a hotel can't be near downtown and the main international airport if major international airports in big cities are built in far-flung suburbs by necessity (their land requirements are huge; see Wikivoyage:Air travel information for writing about aviation). One individual venue can't be in three or more districts of the same city at once and a hotel can't be near all major attractions (followed by a list of every landmark in a town, everything in the next town and a few points across the county line) if those attractions are nowhere near each other. It's meaningless to promote a vendor as your local neighbourhood merchant (with wording like "Your Neighbourhood Brewery for locals, tourists and everyone in between brings a new and refreshing approach focusing on the retail customer experience!") if Wikivoyage is for voyagers and this is not their home neighbourhood.

Instead of claiming low(est) prices provide a price range or at least some example prices. "This charming inn offers people travelling for business or pleasure fantastic room rates in a great location" could be claimed by any innkeeper but says nothing. Vague promotional terms like affordable, cheap or reasonable mean little as what's "reasonable" for a business traveller in London may be a barbarous outrage for a backpacker in Thailand. Don't list prices as per person, double occupancy as the actual room price is double the advertised number. If "£100 pp/double occ." means one room is actually £200, say so (£200/double). A claim that an item is "just €99.95" or "only a mere €99.99" unhelpfully injects the vendor's opinion of their own pricing; simply admit the item will set the voyager back "about €100" and leave it at that.

For cautions or warnings, be specific. Does severe penalties mean a $100 fine? Imprisonment? Death penalty?

Don't insist that more information can be found on a web site; as one of the project goals is a portable destination guide to be carried while travelling, we must include all key information here (Wikivoyage is not a web link directory). Don't demand that the reader look no further! This absolute cliché of advertisers and marketers, in a user-generated travel guide that encourages original research, is presumptuous and ill-placed. First-person pronouns "our / we / us" are also a dead giveaway that a listing is promotional, written by someone with a bias toward the subject. Travellers don't want to know what a hotel's proprietor thinks of the hotel; they want to know what other travellers think of it.

Lastly, keep the tone of text lively, brief and informative. There's typically no need to indicate something as recommended or suggested; if it were not recommendable, we wouldn't have listed it. Saying something is located in or is situated in some place is merely a longer way of saying "is in". Promoting something as complimentary is just a longer way of saying "free" or "gratis" (if the item is free, instead of merely "included" in the price of something else). Tacking ...and much, much more onto the end of a list of amenities adds nothing of value and sounds like an advertisement. If there's something more that's important enough to be noted, note it — if not, end it here. If it should be noted that..., travellers should remember that..., note that..., be aware that... then just go ahead and note it. (Good thing we wrote it down in the guides, then!)

I'm not suggesting that we replace what's there now; items like "recommended" and "suggested" which are similar in content should be grouped together as one entry, but the rest looks like it should be left as-is? K7L (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say you aren't suggesting we replace what's there now, but then why did you group all of these into paragraphs? I appreciate your efforts, and I see the point I think you're making. We can go some ways in that direction, but if you're suggesting replacing what's currently there with all these paragraphs, I think that your current draft is too long to be user-friendly. Instead, I'd suggest keeping an alphabetical order and putting every (and I mean every) word or phrase we want to include on its own line, but with notes for more of them than currently to "see [name of other word]". We can group things together that way, but I think that it's just easier to read if we don't group to this degree. And for example in the case of "recommended/suggested", I don't think "it should be noted" is really the same thing, as it's calling attention to information instead of recommending anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Grouping related items (such as claims about price, or claims about location) was something I'd considered. When I tried it, it looked no better than what we had... but it did reveal a few places where specific advice (like listing "a proper street address... and (lat,long) co-ordinates" instead of vague terms like "nearby" or "steps away") appeared more than once, in different items. If we have 'recommended' as " If it weren't recommendable, we wouldn't list it in the first place. Simply add descriptive listings." and then have 'suggested' as "If it weren't recommendable, we wouldn't list it in the first place. Simply add descriptive listings." it makes more sense to group "recommended, suggested..." as one item. While I've likely added a few of these inadvertently, multiple items which merely duplicate the same concepts make the text repetitive and tedious. K7L (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree on avoiding repetition on this page. Thanks for doing this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Requests for removing from this list

I think there's some here that are rarely used or could be removed from the list for the following reasons:

• beautiful sunsets, cool breezes... — our tout policy covers this phrase already.
• five-star service — same as above
• fully equipped — same as above
• great for getaways — same as above
• the hotspot for cool people — same as above
• ideal — same as above
• it should be noted that... — I think this is OK unless it is over-used and it makes sense. No real reason to not use it.
• is steps away — same as "beautiful sunsets, cool breezes"
• look no further! — same as above
• luxurious, sumptuous, true luxury awaits business and leisure travellers — same as above
• magical — same as above
• Mecca of dining — same as above
• paradise — same as above
• perfect, perfect choice — same as above
• perfect for romantic getaways — same as above
• the perfect gift — same as above
• premier, première, premium — same as above
• prestigious — same as above
• a tradition of service and hospitality — same as above
• travellers should remember that..., note that..., be aware that... — like "it should be noted that", it's OK as long as it's used in moderation
• unique / unique for (kind of travellers) — there's nothing wrong with this word, unless it's trying to be promotional, which is covered in our tout policy
• walk to leading restaurants — same as "steps away"
• well appointed — same as above

There would still be some on this list, but it would remove a lot of ones that are already covered in our tout policy. When it comes to the "note that" ones, I think there's nothing wrong with those, unless they're used in moderation.

I think that, by removing these from the list, the list would be more meaningful and easier to read and follow. The list of words to avoid because they're promotional could go on for thousands of words; one general policy is good enough for them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think tout covers these. The words should be avoided for destinations as well as listings. As for the others, the reasons given make sense for leaving them in the list. ARR8 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should spend a lot of time arguing over this. it is a list of words to avoid, not a list of words that are banned. There will be places where some of the words on the list are needed, but they should be rare. It is easy to scan the list, so the length is not an issue.

As far as "it should be noted" goes, that's just filler that sounds stiff. It is the sort of thing used by writers that like the sound of their own voices. The page provides the advice that The words listed below are examples only and are presented as a guideline; ultimately the goal is to present basic data useful to the traveller while omitting promotional "fluff" which conveys no information. "It should be noted that" provides no information: it is just fluff used to promote the writer's contribution. Good writing doesn't inflict that on readers. Ground Zero (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The words and phrases in this list are in part concrete examples of marketing language. I'm surprised you want to spend time arguing about whether to remove these words and phrases, but since you do, I vote No, don't remove any of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no need to check this list to remove duplication of Wikivoyage:Don't tout as much of what is here is here as an example of what not to do because it's self-promotion by an individual business or by a destination marketing organisation. The only duplicate checking which could be useful is to check that this list does not duplicate itself - such as by including the same explanation on multiple entries. No need to fix what isn't broken. K7L (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While these words may be used for touting, they can just as easily be used by people not trying to tout. Cliches can easily slip into anyone's edits. I'm sure most of us have used some words/phrases on the list at some point (I have). I also agree that it's important to stress that the list is not a ban of words/phrases. It's not imperative that we scour the site and remove all of them. This is better used as a reference page to get an idea of Wikivoyage's vision regarding listings/descriptions and how to better your writing as a contributor. Keeping these here is definitely helpful for that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess I vote to delete, but only in the context of every word listed in this article should be deleted. I have to ask again what the purpose of this article is. It's already been said that this isn't a George Carlin-esque list of dirty words you can never say on Wikivoyage, but what exactly is the point of having a list of words that are okay to use sometimes but not other times? Technically speaking, every word in the English language is okay to use sometimes but not other times. And obviously the answer is that it depends on context, and the article should provide guidance for when and why editors should avoid using the words in this article, but aren't that context and that guidance already provided by the manual of style, and such policy pages as WV:Don't tout and WV:No advice from Captain Obvious? Why do we need that information in two different places? And if we absolutely must provide specific examples of words and phrases that are inappropriate in various contexts, can't we just do so on those pages? The very fact that this page exists, whether we call it a policy or a guideline or an essay, smacks of word policing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the edits you suggest, nor instead making this a section of Wikivoyage:Don't tout. To do that, we'd have to eliminate some non-touty words, though. Would you like to put some of them (e.g., "It should be noted that...") somewhere else in the manual of style? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of the words listed in this article have an analogous policy page that they could be moved to if need be (e.g. "more information can be found on a web site" could be cited on WV:Goals and non-goals). Others, such as "it should be noted that...", could probably just be eliminated outright: in much the same way as "located"/"situated", that one seems more than anything like a case of one editor enshrining their arbitrary personal taste in phraseology as policy (or a guideline or whatever you want to call it) for the entire site. So what if it's a few extra words? Sometimes it's a nice way to frame a sentence. Anyone is of course free to change the wording of any article at any time for any reason, but I don't think we need to put the weight of policy (or of a guideline or whatever you want to call it) behind that one in particular, or a few of the other ones on this page ("complimentary" is another example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I know it would be a lot of work, but my suggestion would be for you or someone else to point out which words and phrases would be moved to which page and which would be eliminated, so that we can consider the proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I will do that over the next little while, but I'd like to preface that by saying that simply because there are policy-based reasons to avoid most of the words on this list, we should not see it as a requirement that we cite each and every word currently listed here on its respective policy page. In other words, what we should be adding to those policy pages are not smaller lists of words to avoid, which IMO would only replicate the word-policing problem we're trying to solve by phasing out this page, but rather short clauses that say something like "If you see words and phrases such as [name one or two representative examples here; enough that readers get the drift], you're likely dealing with [touting, advice from Captain Obvious, etc.]". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]: To make it easier, your proposal could be "remove x, y and z from the list, move a and b to this page, c and d to that page, and make the rest a section in don't tout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to move everything off this list and onto the underlying policy pages as that would require we point users to more than a dozen policy, guideline, help or mainspace content pages (basically everything in Wikivoyage:Words to avoid#See also, the Manual of style pages and even English language varieties) in response to every single-purpose account which pops up, dumps the hotel's (or the destination marketing organisation's) blurb into a city article, then vanishes. We shouldn't need to cite a long list of project: pages just to point out base concepts like "no, it does not serve the voyager to give your own hotel five stars". If a copy-paste marketing blurb will usually hit multiple items (as if this page were a BINGO card), it's easier to say "rv, see Wikivoyage:Don't tout and Wikivoyage:Words to avoid" than to reference a dozen underlying pages for every "Visit our luxurious, newly-renovated hotel – mere steps away from downtown and the airport!" edit, to explain everything from how to factually indicate locations on dynamic maps, to handling dates, to avoiding self-promotion, to being fair, to avoiding first-person pronouns. Like Wikivoyage:Welcome, business owners and Wikivoyage:Welcome, tourism professionals, WTA is a shorthand. It deals with one specific issue: the promotional blurb that looked fine in the CVB booklet just doesn't fit as Wikivoyage serves the voyager first. K7L (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't tout would be quite sufficient as an explanation for why a hotel can't dump their blurb into a city article; I add WV:Copyleft if they've clearly copy-pasted it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted...

The policy basis for removing needless words comes from WV:tone which encourages lively writing and being concise. Phrases like "it should be noted that" are just dull and provide no information. "Located" usually just takes up space ("the museum is located in the city centre" vs "the museum is in the city centre"), but there are some occasions where it makes sense, so it should never be banned, just avoided, as it is now.

I have been told on more than one occasion that I shouldn't remove a particular meaningless word because "it's not on WV:WTA". WTA is a useful way of providing examples of the policies. Ground Zero (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Must-See"

Is there a Wikivoyage consensus on the term "must-see" (sometimes spelled without a hyphen, "must see")? I've searched but haven't found any explicit references. The example I just came across is in a Go Next section: "The Washington Arch is a must-see while in Manhattan."

I encounter the term pretty regularly both on Wikivoyage and elsewhere, absolutely hate it, and am keen to make it go away. I'd love to remove it whenever I come across it, but don't want to ruffle the wrong feathers or expend unnecessary effort if this has already been tackled.

Am I correct in assuming that "must-see" would be discouraged under the general philosophy of giving people information without telling them how to travel, plus existing rules against touting, against superlatives, and against clichés? Or is there a traveler-oriented mandate to ensure that readers are informed about the most iconic landmarks at any given destination? --Pbaribeau (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think "a must-see" is an overused term, but you've gotta admit, it sometimes really applies. In Paris, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre, Notre Dame and the Pont Neuf are must sees. In Siena, there are sections for the Piazza del Campo and "Other major sights"; all of those would be "must see". As a New Yorker, I don't consider the Washington Square Arch a must see. I think we might get a fair amount of agreement on the very top sights in this city - the Brooklyn Bridge, view of the Statue of Liberty from New York Harbor, and then probably the Empire State, Central Park, perhaps Rockefeller Center, and the Metropolitan Museum for art-lovers/museum-goers, and I'll grudgingly accede to the annoying (for New Yorkers) Times Square as a major sight for tourists - but beyond that, a lot of individual preferences come into play.

I won't complain if you substitute a wording you find better, especially in cases that aren't obvious, but I'd say don't go too crazy with such edits, as some sights are pretty indisputably "must see" if you're visiting a place at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those phrases where it's difficult to find a dividing line between when it's appropriate and when it isn't. Therefore, it's hard to put it on WV:Words to avoid.

I agree with User:Ikan Kekek that, if there's a good alternative in the text, go ahead and make the change, but don't just search through every article with the words "must see" and remove those words. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

support Ikan kekek and Selfie on this - not worth seeking out to eliminate but where alternatives are available to use - use! JarrahTree (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Formally established

Apparently the phrase 'formally established' is unclear to most English speakers; see 1, 2, and 3. I understand it to be unambiguous, standard English usage, and because it is used in a number of articles on this site, I think it would be good to establish some guidelines. –StellarD (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to formally establish those guidelines? ;-)

I don't think the problem was with the phrase "formally established", but rather with the fact that the area was settled before being incorporated as a town wasn't adequately explained. The situation of the town in this instance (existing before being officially founded) is ambiguous, therefore our language needs to be as clear as possible. However, I'd have no problem with saying, e.g. "York was formally established in 71 AD by the Romans." or in any other instance when settlement follows the founding, in the ordinary sense.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know what you meant by "formally established", because the article didn't say that the town was ever "informally established". You provided the information in the comment line that the area had been settled four years earlier. Instead of hiding that information in a code word or on a comment line, I have incorporated it into the article. Instead of implying or hinting at something, let's tell the readers what we mean. I don't think we need a rule on this because it is generally good writing style to write clearly for the benefit of readers. Ground Zero (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

outside planned cities and colonial contexts the best guess for the "founding date" of a city is often a largely incidental mentioning in some document. That is the thing cities in Germany celebrate for their anniversary most of the time. Which leads to oddities like Nuremberg being supposedly 50 years "younger" than Erlangen even though that's almost certainly not the case... And even Roman settlements which sometimes have well attested dates in Roman records were often established in the environs of Celtic oppida which aren't well attested at all Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Authentic, genuine

Authentic and genuine and are qualities sought after by tourists, but not always clearly defined. Is the Moulin Rouge genuine? Kebab restaurants in Berlin? Open-air museums? When are the terms meaningful? Especially when it comes to art and antiques shopping, the concept is dubious. /Yvwv (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The longer the list gets, the less I like it. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the list short.—The preceding comment was added by SelfieCity (talk • contribs)

Whether something is "genuine" or "authentic" is a value judgement. If we're okay having certain sights described as "unmissable", or food in restaurants described as "delicious", then we should be fine with other such value judgements. Readers know that such judgements are opinions, rather than facts. And that's okay.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes; good point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So my point is they shouldn't be WTAs, if that wasn't clear.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that a lot of what this page really is trying to address is untrustworthy editors, rather than words that are all truly ones for everyone to avoid. If someone posts that someplace is authentic, and it's as phony as a $3 bill, that doesn't make the word "authentic" bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "authentic" and "genuine" shouldn't be words to avoid. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(indent) I agree with Ikan Kekek. "Authentic" and "genuine" are not completely judgement calls. There are ways to measure authenticity. Authentic Sichuan food, for example, is real, and it is meaningful to note. You could also note that it TASTES authentic (since patrons don't always know if the ingrediants/preparation techniques/etc are the same) and that is meaningful, too. Of course, it is ripe for abuse, but that doesn't mean we should ban the word. Just because it's a popular touting word, doesn't mean we should ban it. We just have to continue watching out for touters as always. We could ban every adjective and there would still be touters. We shouldn't restrict the writing of our good users for the sake of people who already don't care about our policies (touters). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are valid uses for these words. Sometimes the fight against touting has to be more nuanced than taking out words. Ground Zero (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. My highly nuanced approach to touting is to revert everything on sight. The onus is on the business owner to get it right the second time, after reading and digesting the 'subst:tout' message - most don't bother, or else carry on touting and get blocked soon after. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems as they are not words to avoid. In any case, they should preferrably be clarified. One case study is touched upon in the Nordic cuisine article. Chinese restaurants in Sweden tend to be run by Chinese staff whose food and furnishing allow Chinese expats to feel like home. Not so much for "Mexican" restaurants in Sweden; typically internationalized Tex-Mex diners run by people who have never set their foot in Latin America. /Yvwv (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If they're serving Tex-Mex cuisine, the thing that would make it authentic would be a background in Texas. Tex-Mex is its own cuisine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As an ethnic Chinese who has lived in Australia and the United States, there is a distinction between authentic Chinese food that you get in Chinatowns or Chinese suburbs or neighbourhoods, and the Chinese takeaway many white Australians and Americans are used to growing up. The latter is so Westernised that the taste profile is hardly recognisable to people actually from China, while the former is reasonably close to what you will find in China or a good Chinese restaurant in say, Singapore or Malaysia. Therefore, I don't think these should be words to avoid. And personally, while I go to authentic Chinese restaurants for some degree of comfort food, I just can't stand the heavily Westernised stuff you find in Chinese takeaways. The dog2 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Give walking distances, not times

Swept in from the pub

"The City Centre is a 5 minute walk from the station"

I bet I can do it in 4. My elderly neighbour would take 15.

Distance should be given thus: "The City Centre is around half a kilometre, by foot, from the station".

Can we adopt this as standard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but don't expect most people to adhere to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's already in the much-maligned Wikivoyage:Words to avoid under "minutes away". I think a lot of writers use that form because the walking time in what they know from experience. Determining the distance would require using a mapping app. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The "a few minutes" is often used also when you have no idea how much time it really would take. Hotels "just a few minutes walk" from somewhere may be a few kilometres away. I suppose not only touts do that mistake. One more reason to avoid times. Saying one kilometre when the distance is three is much less common. --LPfi (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Providing walking distance is the most neutral statement. If a path for walking is difficult because of staircases, rough ground or crowds, it should be said. /Yvwv (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, "5 mins from the beach" is a phrase even the pro travel writers I've read seem to be wary of using. "5 mins from the beach...<pause> for a racehorse" was the comment from a humor thread on uk.games.mornington-crescent a while back... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that distances are generally better than times, but I have to admit I often write walking times, because as Ground Zero says, it's what I know from experience. When describing hiking trails, I think a time is useful, because terrain varies so much from trail to trail that it's hard to judge from the distance. For ordinary city walking, better to give the distance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Approximate distance between 2 points (as the crow flies) can be calculated using a Module. Does not take into account any twists, turns and deviations. Experimental code. -- Matroc (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Grand Place to City Hall (Brussels): Approximate distance in miles: 0.031675 Approximate distance in kilometers: 0.052283

To be clear, I don't think distance as the crow flies is very useful. Walking distance is. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Google Maps and other mapping apps will calculate walking distance including twists and turns. I don't know why you'd use something that calculates as-the-crow-flies when you can calculate but accurately and easily with a free app. Ground Zero (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ground Zero, "minutes away" is not at all the same as "a 5-minute walk". The first is completely vague; the second has a number, though we can discuss it. I posted this "Go next" entry in Manhattan/East Village: "A bit further south but still at most a moderate-distance walk away (15-30 minutes) for a reasonably able-bodied person is Chinatown." I can't be more specific than that because Chinatown is not a point, nor is the East Village, so the distance between the two neighborhoods varies, but the timing I gave should cover pretty much the whole of both neighborhoods, with the caveat I included. As for distances, "as the crow flies" is not useful unless you're a crow. Distances have to be actually walkable. And elevation is sometimes an issue. In San Francisco, you might prefer to walk a longer distance to avoid a steep hill. I guess I'm feeling like numbers, presuming they are a rough average, aren't really that problematic, as long as there aren't a bunch of them under "directions" for hotel or restaurant listings, where they're promotional and should normally be substituted for with geo. Let's not try to ban them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, you should read the explanation of why "minutes away" is in Words to Avoid. It clearly is intended to include "a 5-minute walk". I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:

"How many minutes, on what transport and under what conditions? Distances are routinely underestimated by promoters of venues. Don't claim that Oshawa to Hamilton is "sixty minutes away" if it's 130km on congested Toronto motorways with posted 100km/h limits. Factually state accurate centre-to-centre road distances, or scheduled durations of rail, airline or ferry journeys. "15 minutes from X" can be anything from 1 km to 20+ km away depending on if you walk, drive or ride public transportation; adopt general aviation as a hobby and the sky's the limit."

And as always, WV:WTA is in no way a "ban" on any words: it is a guideline. It is misleading to suggest that WTA is a ban. We try to avoid these words. The reality is that writers will continue to describe distances in imprecise time durations in contributing useful content. If some cares to improve the information for readers by converting these to distances in metres, more power to them. Of course, adding a description of the walking conditions (steep, rough, infested by rabid dogs) is always welcome information, too. Ground Zero (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The examples in WTA are of essentially impossible times (60 minutes for 130 km on congested freeways) and cases in which it's not clear what mode of transportation is being used. The quote you're giving me does not extend to "5-minute walk". And distance is in no way the be-all and end-all. As you know, in places like Midtown Manhattan, a car trip of a half a mile could take more than 30 minutes, and if you're not carrying heavy bags and are able-bodied, your best bet in Midtown is to walk, although walking on streets that are absolutely crushed with crowds can slow you down a lot, too. The best thing would really be to combine distance and time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, you say WTA isn't a ban, but I know that your habit is generally to remove any word on that list that you find in an article. "A 5-minute walk" is better than nothing, so I hope you don't think that phrase is better simply deleted. I would oppose that, as a rule, although I think we should allow less latitude in listings where the claim may be touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That isn't my habit at all. I remove those words (and rephrase the sentence where necessary) if doing do improves the sentence. Per WV:tone, we aim to have writing that is lively, concise, informative, etc. I don't know why you think I would advocate removing useful information. I've made no such suggestion. As I explained above, if someone can improve a description by changing "5-minute walk" to "200-m walk" (or whatever it is), then then should do do. I read Wv:wta to say that distances in length measures are preferred to time measures. It does not say that time measures should be removed. I think it can be tightened up though to avoid confusion. Ground Zero (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could suggest a form of words for us to consider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made a change to Wv:wta based on the points raised here. If anyone wants to improve if further, they should go ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly prefer walking times for short trips that should be walked, and to have them based on typical "easy" adult walking speeds (which are approximately 12 minutes per kilometer/20 minutes per mile). Telling me that a distance is 200 meters (or 200 yards, or two football fields) means nothing to me. By contrast, I have a pretty clear idea of how my own walking speed compares to a typical walking pace, so if you tell me that it's a three-minute walk, I've got a pretty clear idea of what to expect.

For longer distances (perhaps >1 km, probably >1 mile), distances become relevant again (not including hiking trails or paths with complicated terrain).

(I've partially reverted Ground Zero's change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, I'm not sure about this when it comes to driving. For walking, distances are better, but when driving, a kilometer on city streets is a very different story from a kilometer on a country highway. I think "a 30-minute drive" is fine; the reader can presume this is estimated for ordinary conditions on the roads in question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing also makes a good point that for short distances, walking time may be more intuitive, whereas distance may be more useful for longer walks. We should allow for editor discretion. We can also provide both distance and time when appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that Google once cheated me of 80 km (that I had to ad to the trip) when going from A to B by car in Sweden, and that was approximately 15% of the actual trip. But then again, knowing how much time a long trip might take makes no sense after sitting 2½ hours in a stop'n'go on the autobahn. Giving an estimate of time makes sense to me if it is not too far away. Philaweb (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

PS. I think it is individial to the reader what the person best understands. I have given tourists advise on the street when asked for it, and often when I say "after 500m you shall...", and I can see they keep on walking, they have no idea on distance. Some people simply do not navigate well. Philaweb (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to prefer one or the other. It can also be deceiving to measure in distances; walking a mile up and down hills on cobblestone streets (i.e. Boston's Freedom Trail) is very different from walking a flat mile on asphalt. Similarly, Captain Obvious dictates that if you know you're a slow walker or elderly, you round up walking distances measured in minutes accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Like any other big city"

This is a cliche when talking about crime, but I find it unhelpful, inaccurate and uninformative. It conflates Caracas with Tokyo. I think this phrase should be avoided in "Stay safe" sections, in favor of simply describing safety issues and conditions in the city a particular article is about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see that. If one is making a comparison to "other big cities", it's better to name them and describe how they are comparable. Pretending that "city" already implies "crime-ridden" is just not true (and what constitutes "high crime rates" differs greatly between countries and regions). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

there has been criticism for my comparison of Neukölln with major American cities... I think a comparison is germane because German media makes it out to be some crime ridden hellscape while the actual statistics don't merit anything like that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Caucasians" to mean white people

Swept in from the pub

This crops up from time to time, and my practice has always been to revert it, but since there is currently a new IP user who seems to be making a Crusade of substituting "white people" with "caucasians", using this kind of justification, I think we should have a discussion here.

The reason I always revert this kind of substitution is that (1) "Caucasian" properly refers only to people from the Caucasus region. (2) When it is used to refer to white people, it is a relic of the dark days of 19th-century pseudo-scientific racism, when the human race was divided by pseudo-scientists into "Caucasoids", "Negroids", "Mongoloids" and so forth - with so-called "Caucasoids" or "Caucasians" being considered by these white racists the sole "civilized" people, with the "Mongoloids" and other "races" who were supposedly descendants of "decadent ancient civilizations" (those were the East Asians, South Asians, Arabs and so forth) being considered "barbarians", and the rest - basically black people and aboriginal people around the world - being considered "uncivilized" or "savages".

So not only is it true that for the purposes of travel, using the term "white people" when describing how they are received somewhere is merely descriptive of someone with light skin and probably non-East Asian features, but it's also not an inaccurate, pretentious-sounding pseudo-scientific term with racist baggage. To be sure, "white" is an invidious term in countries like the U.S. where it constitutes a "race" that is supreme over the other "races" in the country, but when we are talking about how people are received in different countries, we are relying on the judgments others are making on what our skin does or does not look like, and in that context, such distinctions are reasonable and very unlikely to be misunderstood by our readers. And if anyone really thinks there will be confusion about the meaning of the term "white", we should use a more descriptive term like "light-skinned", although using "round-eyed" to describe the reception of white people in East Asian countries would be problematic, because "Round-Eyes" is a racial slur.

Your thoughts, everyone?

Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I should add that if there turns out to be wide agreement on which term to use, we might make it some kind of guideline, so as to avoid this problem in the future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO, we should obviously avoid "round-eyed." Since "white" is the most common term, I think it should be used in the vast majority of cases. If someone adds text with the word "Caucasian" in it, we can simply change the word to "white" (unless we're talking about people from Azerbaijan, etc.) and if someone's changing every instance of "white" to "Caucasian," that's disruptive editing anyway. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

While "Caucasian" may be widely used to mean "white people", this is a travel guide that deals with the Caucasus region. "White people" is unambiguous, and is not offensive. Maybe there will be a better term some day, but this is the best one for now. I support adding the use of "Caucasian" to mean "white people" to Wikivoyage:words to avoid. Ground Zero (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Does this happen frequently? "White people" sounds fine if it needs to be mentioned, just like "black people" is better than "African" when talking about race. Things like "light-skinned", "round eyes", etc. should be taken case by case as they may be relevant in specific cases to specific topics, but they should not be used as euphemisms to mean "white". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree, changing "white people" to "Caucasian" certainly does not make articles easier to understand but more confusing. Ypsilon (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with user:SelfieCity: racially-motivated editing like this is disruptive. Personally, I have no problem with "Caucasian" being used alongside "white", and I don't think anyone is using it in the 19th century way that user:Ikan Kekek describes, but if someone is on a personal crusade to change every instance of one to the other, that needs to stop.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, notice also (if you didn't already) that this isn't one instance, but one of many. Check out the IP user's Special:Contributions/194.1.195.128. If it was one instance among many good contributions, the situation with this IP user would be different, but since this user makes identical edits (even the same edit summaries) to articles time and time again about a controversial, racial issue, s/he is not out to help us. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd say using "white people" or "people of European descent" is fine since most people in the English speaking world understand it, and I don't know of anyone being offended by those terms. I see the issue with "Caucasian" being ambiguous as it technically refers to people from the Caucasus, but I've never heard of people being offended by it.

Maybe we should use the Singaporean term "ang moh" (lit. red hair) or the Hong Kong term "gwai lo" (lit. ghost guy) instead. ;) The dog2 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "white people" is clearer than "people of European descent" because there are many people of color in Europe, but I might be persuadable on this. Some of the articles this guy changed were South Africa, which obviously has a very long history of describing some people as "white", not "Caucasian", and Kelantan, which is part of Malaysia, where just about no-one would understand that "Caucasian" is being used to mean "white person" and the local term, "orang putih" means exactly "white person/people". To the question of whether this happens frequently: Not extremely frequently, but it does come up from time to time, and I also change it when I see it in an article and it isn't necessarily a recent change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible that this IP user was targeting places where the term "Caucasian" is not used, with the intention of being disruptive? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe? Hard to get into someone else's brain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, tangential to this, I'd caution against using "people of color" since it's a very American term and not widely understood outside the U.S. I think we should just stick to "non-white" as that term will be universally understood.

As for the issue on race, I'd also like to point out that the term "race" is by nature arbitrary. Race does not exist as a scientific category, and the definition varies significantly between societies. For instance, a Yoruba and a Hausa from Nigeria will consider themselves to be of different races, even though Americans may consider them to be part of one single "black" race. Likewise, in Asia, saying that Chinese and Japanese people are the same race could be offensive, and most Chinese and Japanese people will consider themselves to be belonging to two separate races. The dog2 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should call white people "people of pallor", but I doubt that will catch on. Ground Zero (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL!!!! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. And in the 18th century, Europeans considered Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans, Italians, Dutchmen and so forth to be of different races and Malaysians consider Malays, Chinese and Indians - all Malaysian citizens, mind you - to be of different races. The reason to use expressions like "white people" in a travel guide is because people recognize such a category by appearance, although it won't mean quite the same thing in different countries. For example, some Americans who are considered black in the U.S. will be considered Mulatos/Mulatas in Latin America, Coloreds in South Africa and even white people in some African countries, depending on their appearance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to police what terminology we use when referring to race (with the obvious exception of unambiguously offensive terms like the N-word), but I do think using the word "Caucasian" to refer to white people in general is something to avoid in contexts where there's a chance it might 1) be mistaken as a reference to people from the Caucasus or 2) cause offense. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a 3) - cause confusion. Isn't "white person" much clearer and more widely understood than "Caucasian"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is reasonable likelihood "Caucasian" will cause confusion and ambiguity in many sentences. White person is better though in many situations racial descriptions are used, there is often a more apt word to replace it. Replace Caucasian/white with Western and whatever is being said usually (though not always of course) makes more sense. Gizza ^(roam) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "Western" is clearer. African-Americans, black Britons, black French people, Australian Aborigines, etc. are all Western, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DaGizza's point is that sometimes editors write "white people" when what they really mean is "Westerners"; in those situations rewriting the sentence to say "Western" is actually more accurate. Of course the reverse is true too—sometimes people write "Western" when they really mean "white". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Gizza can speak very well for himself, but my 2 cents are that "Western" and "white" are two different things and that we should say what we really mean and mean what we say in either case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I meant what Mx. Granger said. Sorry if it wasn't clear. I've sometimes noticed "white" being used when Western, developed nation or first world is the word that is meant to be used and vice versa. All four of those descriptions have different meanings to each other but there are people that use them interchangeably. Sometimes "light skinned" is the more appropriate choice of words, again depending on context. Gizza ^(roam) 09:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I should have known you'd mean something nuanced like that. I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ethnic Russians are white, but many people will dispute whether or not Russia is a "Western" country and hence, whether or not ethnic Russians can be considered "Western". For that matter, ethnic Tatars in China look white even though they are citizens of China, which nobody considers to be a Western country. So I will say that the term "Western" and "white" are not interchangeable. I'd say let's just stick to "white" if that particular appearance is really what you mean, since it's unlikely to offend anyone, and it is widely understood and unambiguous. The dog2 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think in some cases, people are using "white", etc., to mean privileged people from other countries who get charged more or are treated differently. This usually really means "foreign". I've seen Canadian-born Chinese being charged the "white fare" in China, African-Americans being treated like whites in Africa, Indo-Canadians complaining about being ripped off in India. Sometimes it's about race, other times it's about privilege,and "foreigner" works better than "white" or "Westerner". Ground Zero (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, in Apartheid South Africa, most Asians were classified as "coloured", but ethnic Japanese were classified as "white" because at that time, Japan was the only Asian country that was as rich as majority-white countries like the United States or Western European countries. By the way, when I travel to Japan and China, I can definitely tell that in some restaurants, white people get better service than non-whites, which includes non-white foreigners like me. So "foreigner" isn't a substitute for "white". I won't be surprised if a black American gets crap service at a sushi restaurant in Japan while a white American going to the same restaurant gets phenomenal service. And I know this is ridiculous, but I've heard to language schools in China hiring white Russians who can't speak English properly to teach English because they look the part, while a non-white Brits or Americans get rejected for not "looking Western". The dog2 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat the parts of my post that you skipped over, with emphasis added so you can't miss what I'm talking about again: "... in some cases, people are using "white" ... to mean privileged people.... " And "sometimes it's about race, other times it's about privilege." If you read my post, you'll see that nowhere did I write ""foreigner" is a substitute for "white"". Reading other people's comments before you respond to them helps you write a better response and moves the discussion along instead of confusing the issue. Ground Zero (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologise if I misunderstood. But yes, I agree that terms relating to race should only be used when it is actually an issue of race, and not as a substitute for other terms like "developed" or "foreign" when that is really what is meant. The dog2 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Since there still seems to be doubt in your mind, let me be clear: you absolutely did misunderstand. It is not a matter of if. Then you completely misrepresented my point. This is a chronic problem in Wikivoyage. If someone says "my neighbour has a mean dick", someone else jumps down their throats saying, "why don't you like dogs? Are you saying all dogs should be put to death? You monster!" Misrepresenting someone else's comments makes it easier to make your point, but it doesn't lead to building consensus, and makes Wikivoyage a crappier place to hang out in. Is that clear now? Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, I'm not a native English speaker, and every time I read about "Caucasian" or "Caucasus", what comes to my mind are Armenia and Azerbaijan and Chechnya and the Cossack sword dance. It's a confusing term. "White person" is so much simpler and less ambiguous. My opinion. Ibaman (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we have clear consensus that (a) generally speaking, "white people" is clearer than "Caucasians" for the meaning in question, and (b) the terms "foreign", "Western", "white", "developed", etc. have different meanings, are not interchangeable, and should be used carefully. At this point new comments are just piling on. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like a consensus to me. The dog2 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. One more point, though. I don't think it's worth going through the whole website changing every instance of "Caucasian" to "white." That would be a waste of time — we have better things to do here. Let's just stop anyone adding new references with the word "Caucasian." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a great use of time to pointedly search out every instance of "Caucasian" to change it to "white person", but I will continue to make the change any time I happen to see "Caucasian" being used in a potentially confusing way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not against that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The word "exotic", and making assumptions about our readership

Swept in from the pub

I just saw two recent edits that included this word: "exotic wildlife" in Bangladesh and "exotic restaurants" in Yongin, Korea. I don't like that word, because it means "strange and foreign to you", with the implication that "you" are a white person from somewhere in what's called the "West". But in 1975 Tokyo, where white people were scarce, unlike today, and white 10-year-olds were so rare that when my parents took me to the zoo, all the Japanese families seemed to be asking to take a picture with me such that I felt I was the animal on display, I was the "exotic" - not to mention when I then went to the rural Malaysia of those days, where people stared, pointed and said "Orang putih!" ("White person!") But that's not the default meaning of the word. Korean food is not "exotic" to me and neither are tropical flora and fauna, because of my own experiences and travels, and to some people, the word is likely to be insulting. I don't think it's useful on a travel site with a worldwide readership, and I think the word should be on "words to avoid", as long as we choose to maintain that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although it is more "use with care" rather "avoid completely". I think that it is acceptable to use it to describe how locals view something. "The inhabitants of <remote fishing village> regard hamburgers as exotic, but scallops are everyday food." AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

And what about stuff that is out of place for where it is? So Tresco Abbey Garden in the Scilly Isles has a frost-free microclimate right by the gulf stream, allowing the mass cultivation of plants (such as bananas, cycads, birds of paradise etc) which are exotic - to Cornwall. The word is meaningful in that sense (indeed, I think exotic is a botanical term, albeit a Eurocentric one).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm with AlasdairW and ThunderingTyphoons!. The word is culturally insensitive in some contexts, but too useful in other contexts to be proscribed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of you, but I think virtually all the words on words to avoid are really "think carefully before you use". Perhaps we could discuss a clearer name for that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it was André who made the point a while ago that "Words to avoid" doesn't actually mean "words which must never ever be used", even if sometimes we treat the page that way. Whether it was him or not, we would do well to remember it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've put that in the relevant paragraph of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek because our audience is not, and does not need to be, concentrated completely in the supposedly "non-exotic" countries. For example, certain kinds of birds are considered exotic, and that opinion can be shared universally by identifying those birds' various colors; therefore, I would say that exotic birds are an exception to Words to Avoid. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I made a brief entry in wta, also discouraging usage of "exotic" as a euphemism for striptease and such. /Yvwv (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I support the idea of renaming the page. Maybe Wikivoyage:Words to watch, which is close to what Wikipedia calls their equivalent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted Yvwv's advice to avoid "exotic" with reference to striptease, as that particular aspect was never put up for discussion. Please don't alter the wording of policy documents in ways that have not been vetted by consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved to a title that better describes what it's about. The problem is, some of the phrases on that list, like "look no further," qualify as touting and therefore should never be used — we don't want people thinking those phrases are allowed in certain circumstances. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Granger, despite the "Words to watch" title, the English Wikipedia has regular problems with editors claiming that it's a list of banned words. This problem probably can't be solved in the title, unless we try calling it something like "Words that might be okay sometimes, but are probably not a good choice in most cases, so you're going to have to be thoughtful and use your judgment every single time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] We could probably find an exception, but this can always be addressed in specific entries in the article. By the way, I think it's much clearer to call a bird colorful than exotic; I wouldn't know an "exotic" bird was colorful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Hong_Kong_to_Kunming_overland#Understand (which I wrote) and the intro to Southwest China (not me) are exceptions; even most Chinese find these areas exotic, and foreigners certainly do. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that for the same reason - in this case, that most Chinese people are Han and that many border areas such as this are populated by many non-Han people, who thereby feel strange and foreign to the Han who dominate them? I think it's fine to say that Han Chinese or Chinese people from other parts of the country find the area exotic, but a context should be given (it probably is - no time for me to check right now). Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think flora/fauna is not that controversial. Who would be offended by pointing out that Madagascar has exotic wildlife? In Pashley's example, the metric is given that it is exotic compared to the rest of the nation. Seems like Hawaii; from a continental American perspective it's "exotic" with its completely different culture, climate, flora/fauna, and landscapes. Without context or parameters, I would agree that the perspective is typically Western (rather than "white"), although I don't think just because some people are well-traveled and want to flaunt it by saying nothing is exotic to them that the word is not meaningful. I'm not sure how prolific the word's usage is, and I would agree that there are times it's not appropriate, but the reverse of the "It's offensive because it singles something out as different" argument is that "exotic" denotes that something is different in an appealing and enticing way. It's a positive word, certainly in the travel context. More than being "offensive", I think it can be a bit fluffy in some contexts, but I agree with others that the term is not altogether bad or unworthy of use. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've argued in the past, and continue to feel, that an even better option than renaming Wikivoyage:Words to avoid would be getting rid of it entirely. In general, I think we should not be in the business of language-policing our editors. By that I mean that if anyone comes across a passage that could do with better wording, they should absolutely edit as they see fit, but it should be on a purely case-by-case basis rather than systematic or enshrined in policy. Most of the exceptions to that rule, i.e. words or phrases that are never appropriate under any circumstances whatsoever, either fall under Captain Obvious (racial slurs, for example) or Don't Tout (the examples SelfieCity mentioned upthread, for example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:ChubbyWimbus: I obviously disagree with you and have explained why. It has nothing to do with my "flaunting" anything. But that said, if you described Hawaii's flora and fauna as "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries", or some similar phrasing, that would be fine with me, keeping in mind that there are loads of Japanese people who visit Hawaii. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It does appear that most of the complaints about the words on our list are covered in the "Don't Tout" article. It doesn't list the words, but it certainly lists the sentiments that you could still use to justify changing/deleting the same words/phrases. Maybe our words to avoid list isn't really very useful. I have seen edits that seem to be referencing that list (or maybe just the idea of being succinct) that I have felt were made at the detriment of "lively writing". I doubt we'd be losing much by deleting the list altogether. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think CW has it pretty much exactly right, and re: Ikan's comment above, why would someone say "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries" when they could just say "exotic" and treat the other words as redundant? In point of fact, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about re: wta doing more harm than good. When systematically proscribing a word means you have to expand a one-word phrase to sixteen just to get your point across, we need to rethink whether it's a good idea to systematically proscribe words. (And IMO that's equally true whether they're banned outright or merely considered "words to watch".) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] Since Hawaii is a group of islands, its native flora and fauna are unique, a more meaningful word than exotic. That said, if you really insist on using "exotic" about Hawaiian plants or, like, birds, that's not as bad as using the word for tropical Asian flora and fauna that are familiar to a very large number of people. Whether we have an official "words to watch" list or not is not going to change the views I have expressed above, and I'm a bit annoyed at the tone of your last reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Andre, you've made your case for scrapping WTA on many, many occasions. Other than ChubbyWimbus I have yet to see anyone won over to your way of thinking. There are still many editors involving in refining the list, so I don't think we need to discuss it again now, but if you want to start another thread on its talk page, you can, of course. Ground Zero (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on the semantics of "exotic", FWIW. When applied to flora and fauna it often has a somewhat technical meaning of non-native, non-indigenous or non-naturalised. The Auckland Zoo, for example, invites visitors to see "Both New Zealand and exotic birds". In this sense, a species can be drab and nondescript, not necessarily colourful or especially foreign looking. Nurg (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

True. The word can be equivalent to "foreign" when applied to wildlife. The problem is, with a travel guide like Wikivoyage, if "foreign" and "exotic" are synonyms, something can be "exotic" to me, but is it exotic to you, or any of the other contributors taking part in this discussion? Many of us are from different parts of the world. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think the discussion I started a while ago, Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid#Requests for removing from this list, demonstrates how I did not fully understand the meaning of the list. I was probably thinking, "these words should be avoided at all costs" when I brought up that discussion, which led to a misunderstanding, which in turn led to a less productive discussion on that front. We can at least start by changing the name of the page to "Words to Watch," so the meaning of the list is clear. Then, we can decide whether or not we want to keep the list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of SelfieCity's posts above. Nurg, thanks for that contribution to the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to the above discussion, but I'm sold by the argument that "exotic" should generally be avoided. Hopefully it shouldn't be impossible to create a wta page that communicates that idea while also noting the possibility of exceptions. Sdkb (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

So how should we describe food ingredients then? While I understand that ingredients like alligator meat or turtle will be exotic to many visitors but not to the locals in Louisiana, how else can we describe those ingredients that are not common outside the region? Another example would be when you describe authentic Cantonese food, since it uses many ingredients that foreigners or even Chinese people from elsewhere would not be comfortable eating. The dog2 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are writing and want to use the word "exotic", you can still use it, but I understand that having words added to this list does make you feel like you can't use them, and another user could also delete or change your writing on the basis that you used a word on "the list". The language policing aspect of the list is of course a downside, as mentioned previously. I do worry that the more we talk about the list and add to the list, the more seriously people will take the list. I feel like that's the wrong direction. We shouldn't be having conversations about "how to replace the word exotic" if exotic fits, and you shouldn't have to worry about your edit being altered and made boring solely on the basis that you used a "forbidden word". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The dog2: It can be fine to use "exotic" if the word is given a context. In the example you give, the best way to explain things is that locals eat ingredients such as x, y and z that outsiders/many visitors (and even some locals, if that's true) find exotic. Anyone who wants to keep all articles as short as possible may object, but that's really the clearest phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Here in Finland we love visitors thinking our winter, archipelagos and forests are exotic. On the other hand the Sámi want to be treated as people, not as exotic creatures to take photos of. Sámi with tourist businesses seldom dress up as Sámi for visitors, while many Finnish competitors do. The Finnish are playing a role for their guests, while the Sámi are showing (some aspects of) their own life. I suppose calling everyday food exotic may contribute to making the locals exotic creatures instead of people. "Exotic to many visitors" is not very cumbersome, and where it has an advantage it should be used over plain "exotic". And if we want to point out something as exotic, we should afford also an explication. --LPfi (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Very well argued. Excellent example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That also works for me. I certainly agree that Wikivoyage should be written from a global perspective and not a Eurocentric or Western-centric perspective. Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., there has been a history of non-white and disabled people being dehumanised and put on display in freak shows as "exotic creatures" just like animals in a zoo, so we need to treat this issue with utmost sensitivity. On the other hand, we need to be able to convey information to potential travellers that some local ingredients may not be what they are comfortable eating (eg. dog meat in China and Korea). I guess "exotic to many visitors" does the trick. The dog2 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's not make WV too bland and boring. I think people should and do understand that when they read about their own region in an international travel guide, the point of view will sometimes be a bit external. Which is fine. For example on Denmark (where I live) VW now says: "Drinking alcoholic beverages is, however strange it can seem, a key component in the social life there.". Well, it is not so strange to me, but it is in the Culture section which I would expect to target visitors. The Copenhagen article say "If all this strange outdoor shopping takes you too far from your usual habitat, head for Magasin du Nord ...". Which makes little sense to me, but might be relevant for visitors (malls might be typical North American, but many Asian an European visitors to Denmark prefer malls too) Elgaard (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As a New Yorker, on the face of it, neither of those things is strange to me, and I would indeed edit out claims about their strangeness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

the problem - or rather one of the problems - of an over-zealous "copy editor" is when they don't understand what the original author was doing or what they're talking about. Nobody can be the expert for the nooks and crannies of the town history of every hamlet on this earth. But if by trying to the tone "livelier" (a very subjective judgement call for which objective criteria will thankfully never exist) a sentence is changed in such a way that it says or implies blatantly wrong things, that's pouring out the baby with the bath water. Nor should any list of words which should be used with caution lead to the damnatio memoriae of those words. If such were our intention, we could just as well write a bot to excise every instance of the offending word(s)... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Language policing, again

It appears now that the words 'situated' and 'previously' are so noxious they must be purged from this site. Regarding the word 'situated', please see 1 (line 105), 2, and 3; regarding the word 'previously', please see 1 (line 71), 2, and 3. I disagree with the other editor's very narrow and subjective interpretation of Wikivoyage:Tone, but apparently my opinion is irrelevant.

I would appreciate others' input on this matter, as it is because of precisely this kind of behavior that I have stopped donating content or time to this project. –StellarD (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What StellarD calls "language policing" is making the Wikivoyage more enjoyable to read through a livelier tone. "Situated" is on the list of WV:words to avoid, but that's neither here nor there. Replacing "situated on a rocky outcropping" by "set on a rocky outcropping" seems to be an easy way of improving an article. StellarD just doesn't seem to like having his work edited. While I never like to see a contributor leave Wikivoyage, if someone wants their work to remain untouched forever, maybe collaborative projects aren't for them. In most collaborative projects, people who threaten to leave if they don't get their way are allowed to leave.

These edits were made in passing while I was working on the WV:cotm to fix phone numbers so that they can be dialled directly from the article.

I know that some elements of my copyediting irk a few people, but overall, getting rid of filler words and redundancy, and avoid using five words where two will do, will make Wikivoyage more enjoyable to read. I know that my writing can be improved too, and I am happy when someone improves on something I have written. Ground Zero (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits are in no way an attempt at "policing"; rather, these are small changes in wording to better match what is recommended at Wikivoyage:Words to avoid. @StellarD: If you don't want those kinds of changes made to your text, first made sure your contributions fall in line with words to avoid. No-one here, I hope, has any intention of reducing the quality of each others' writing.

However, "previously" is an accurate word, so I personally would not change it unless I was making substantial changes to the text of the paragraph, section, or article. I wouldn't edit war over it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In these articles, I was correcting the phone numbers formatting. In the Hajar Mountains article, I also fixed some hyphenation errors, and made two minor wording changes. In the Xàtiva article, I also moved some text into the lead paragraph to explain why readers might want to go (per Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Lead section), and made two minor wording changes. Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "previously" here. Some style guides recommend using interesting verbs instead of adverbs with less interesting verbs (e.g., "exclaimed" instead of "said excitedly"), but in the example above the main verb is "occupied" either way—I haven't seen a style guide recommending replacing adverbs with compound tenses (indeed, Strunk & White recommends reducing the use of compound tenses). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think these are just style differences. Both "situated" and "set" are being used properly, so it comes down to personal preference. I don't think it's necessary to get rid of "situated" nor do I personally agree that "situated" is too high-brow or "more formal" than "set". I think situated can be a nice visual scene-setter and I think linguistic variety is better than trying to limit writers to one way to say things. "Previously" and "that had been" are similar in that neither are really wrong.

On the comment "first make sure your contributions fall in line with words to avoid." - This is a problem with our words to avoid article in general. We claim it's "just a guideline", but clearly there are those who see it as a rule and are using it that way. I do think it is used in a way that does creep towards language-policing and lowering the quality of writing to make it less varied and therefore less interesting and "fun". I think this article was meant to be used more to develop ones OWN writing for WV rather than to police the site to make sure the writing is uniform across the site, but I do think it has shifted more toward the latter in its actual usage. There is no reason to ban "situated" or to require all situations where one might used "situated" to be written with "set". There is nothing less "conversational and informal" than having predetermined requirements of the words you must use to convey a given thought.

I think in general, policing articles for words/phrases that "violate" what is supposed to be a non-rule "Words to avoid" is not the best use of time. I have also felt the annoyance described by StellarD as well as a sort of disappointment with what I sometimes see as replacing lively and varied writing, interesting words or writing styles for bland and uniform words/writing, but it's hard to voice those feelings because it always looks petty and you don't want to have lots of debates on which word out of two grammatical possibilities is the best. I don't know how to solve the problem, but I definitely think we need to stop having required words like this "situated should be written as "set"" thing. "Words you MUST use" is not how to write anything lively or interesting. Beyond that, I don't see much reason in scouring articles looking for words that are grammatically correct and understandable to change them. It serves little purpose and is likely to agitate users. Lastly, I don't think "words to avoid" should be taken so seriously. I'd rather it be deleted than to become a draconian rule that hinders lively writing and nitpicks at writing that is already just fine. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"That had been" is definitely not superior to "previously" (rather, I think the reverse is true), and "set" is not superior to "situated". And this kind of nit-picking is worth doing when it alienates an excellent content-provider? Ground Zero, please back off on such unnecessary substitutions. Your tireless editing is truly much appreciated, but these examples are not a worthwhile hill to die on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with a lot of Chubby's comment, and especially like "this article was meant to be used more to develop ones OWN writing for WV". We need to start treating this page as a motivator to be more creative with our own writing. It's a list of hackneyed expression that can often be rephrased into something more interesting, but that doesn't mean that every instance of a word on the list has to be expunged from the site. Part of what makes this a cool site is that everyone's writing style is different, and we should seek to preserve that, striking a balance between a linguistic free for all with no unifying style, and over-uniformisation.

BUT, I also think people need to stop being so precious about having their work altered by others. This is a wiki, after all, not a private blog. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it time to add to the preamble of this article that it is not intended for people to spend lots of time finding and eliminating every instance of words that are simply overused at times, when they're not appreciably damaging an article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

While I can understand why such a notice would clarify the issue, many of Ground Zero's edits based on Words to Avoid are positive, so I'm not sure that such a notice would be helpful because it might discourage him from editing at all. IMHO, both parties ought to agree that 1) Ground Zero should be more cautious of the context when adjusting language (removing "recently" is uncontroversial, but removing "previously" is controversial) and 2) for neither side of this conflict to be concerned about minor changes in wording that do not influence the meaning of the text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As I've pointed out above, these edits were made while I was fixing phone number formatting as part of Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the Month. I have been doing that, and updating or deleting out of date material which I have been identifying by searching on "recently'. Not all instances of "recently" are relative descriptions of time that go out of date, but the majority of them are. While I am doing these projects, I have also been improving the lead paragraphs of many articles, fixing section headers, time, date and currency formatting, and updating some entries. And of course removing touting where I find it. So seeing my work dismissed as "language policing" pisses me off, when it is clearly not that, but I'm not going to storm out of here just because someone says something mean or I don't get my way.

I have been reducing the copyediting that I've been doing, because I don't enjoy fighting over these things, and I will continue to restrain myself. But I think there really is a problem with editors who don't like seeing their work changed. Wikivoyage is fortunate to get a lot of contributions from people for whom English is a second language, and from native-speakers who don't use the language effectively, so I have a problem with people saying that we shouldn't change other other people's work. No style guide ever said, "It's better to say something twice and then repeat yourself again", or "why use two words when five will do"?, or "long, complicated sentences make it easier for the reader to understand what you're saying". And yes, I get that some writers don't like style guides that tell them not to write in the way that they prefer writing, but the style guide exist for a reason: to help people write in ways that convey information more effectively for the readers. Let's not put the writers ahead of the readers, and accept that everyone's writing can be improved, including mine. Ground Zero (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the most part I support your copyedits. However, it’s necessary in these situations to balance the opinions of everyone so we don’t have our editors leaving the website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SelfieCity. And as you know, I do eliminate a fair number of instances of unnecessary "located"s and "situated"s. But in these particular cases, "previously" is fewer words than "that had been" (and arguably more elegant) and "situated" is merely a longer single word than "sited". No improvement was made in changing those. And StellarD is not the only important content provider who's found very close editing annoying, so we should be a bit careful about it. I can immediately think of two other regular editors who've found it annoying, one of whom is an admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I have been reducing the copyediting that I've been doing, and I will continue to restrain myself. Ground Zero (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and as I also said, I greatly appreciate the work you do, so I'm content to drop the subject. Meanwhile, I just want to say to StellarD: You are a fine writer and provide excellent content here. We value your contributions. Stay healthy and edit here whenever you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)