141.30.210.129, I presume?

Nice that you decided to create an account. And once again, thanks for your contributions so far! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are right. The main thing that kept me from doing it was deciding on a name, actually...Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hobbitschuster wrote "Hi. Judging from your edits to Intercity buses in the US you know quite a bit about the subject. Do you happen to know anything about the topic in Europe?" Only in Spain and Great Britain.

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Also, please sign your contributions to talk pages. As to the topic at hand, I think an Intercity buses in Britain article might be helpful. Eventually we might even have a Intercity buses in Europe travel topic, but I think it makes more sense to build such a thing bottom up than top down... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think it's OK to very briefly explain the differences between the NFL (also also US high school and college games) and CFL (and also most Canadian university) games: The CFL requires the ball to be moved 10 yards (or is it metres in Canada?) in 3 downs (plays), rather than the 4 in the American game, and the field is wider; therefore, the Canadian game is more of a passing game. If a different number of players is used on each side, that can be mentioned, too. My feeling is, it's reasonable to explain the basic differences to someone unfamiliar with them, but I wouldn't explain the rules or basic structure (e.g., the shape of the football) of either type of football game to the Wikivoyage reader who doesn't know them, any more than I'd support explanations of headers in the article about Football in Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge Canada uses yards. In Germany the terms yards and meters are used interchangeably (neither being correct, as the field is simply defined to be 120 "yards/meters" long and - as frequently soccer fields are used - often isn't.) I was also of the impression that we needn't discuss the rules; however in the article on Ice Hockey there is such a discussion. And yes Canadian Football uses more players (I don't know the exact number any more) also the field is longer and there is the possibility of a game ending 1:0 which is impossible in American Football as the only way to score a single point is after having scored a TD. I would really like someone who knoes about College Football to fill in the blank section. Do you know whom I could ask? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know a bit about college football. I don't think there are too many differences in rules between US college and NFL football, now that the 2-point conversion was reinstated by the NFL a few years ago, but I could be wrong.

I posted to Talk:Ice hockey in North America questioning the detailed description of game play in "Understand" in that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Depending on the results of that discussion, it might be decided that it's appropriate to reinstate the details I deleted from the American Football article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know a bit about the rules of the game of College Football (Germany plays according to NCAA rules where applicable) but I don't know the byzantine mode the national champion is decided and what all those bowls are all about and I don't know any teams besides Notre Dame, which I oly know because of the West Wing...Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's way too complicated to understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the section about football rules and play to American Football, based on the discussion at Talk:Ice hockey in North America. I'm serious about no-one understanding how the "national champion" of US college football is chosen, though. It really is just about impossible for anyone to understand, and definitely not worth trying to explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well we can't leave the section empty. And I don't know a thing about College Football; not how the Conferences are aligned or what they mean; neither who the good teams are, nor the - as discussed - impenetrable mode of selecting a champion. Imho the word "consensus" shouldn't figure in when you determine a champion. You either are or aren't. There should be no need for consensus. There is no need to find a consensus on whether apples exist, either. There is not consensus NFL champion either. But anyway; an empty section is worse than none. would you happen to know sb. to fill it in with sth.?Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that much about these things and it's a huge mountain of information that I couldn't begin to summarize. We need to leave this task to someone who is really familiar with the college game. Might be a good candidate for a post to the Pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll post a bit, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User:Hobbitschuster, and thanks as always for your great work! But do be careful not to change British to American spellings in articles such as Switzerland, as you did in this edit. If you know that Switzerland deviates from the usual European practice of officially using British English, please mention that at Talk:Switzerland, and otherwise, please change the spellings of words like honour and neighbour back. Thanks.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was unaware of the fact that any European country besides Britain, Ireland, Cyprus or Malta has any preference either way much less an official one. I do know, that school teachers in at least some parts of Germany are at least "allowed" to speak general American and usually both spellings are taught. And as far as I can recall teachers were (or still are) advised to accept both a British as well as an American pronunciation unless the accent was deemed too "sub-standard". The same is true for Spanish at least my teacher though preferring Spanish Spanish herself was always willing to accept Latin American spelling and pronunciation were she was aware of it or could be made aware of it. That being said I thought the default "no clear historic preference" applied to pretty much all of Europe (you could for example argue that those parts of Germany that were occupied by the US post world war II would "historically" prefer AmE) so assumed that as there is - to my knowledge - no official or de facto official rule either way in Switzerland, that American English is the way to go. I know that this issue is as sensitive to some as the term "Football" being used or not being used for a specific sport, so I am willing to accept the consensus although there doesn't seem to be good justification for it in the case of most non English native speaking countries in Europe. I prefer the American spelling for personal reasons as well as the fact that it is a fractional amount closer to the way stuff is pronounced (something English is horrible at to begin with). And it is the default spelling of my spell-check. So to sum up: Didn't know don't care all that much either way, will defer to those who care more although I don't see how British English is "standard" in Switzerland but not in Nicaragua even though Nicaragua was partly colonized by the British and later a de facto vassal of the US for most of the 20th century, whereas Switzerland hasn't had more than incidental contact to either English speaking country. (besides of course former British colonies whose dictators have their money there) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge, British English is official for the EU. I don't know for sure what the situation is in Switzerland, which of course isn't an EU member, but I would say at least don't change existing British English to US English in articles about Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I just found a style guide from an EU institution suggesting British spellings, though I do think that we shouldn't let that be decided by one political entity alone. What if Britain leaves the EU and the rest of the EU decides to make American spelling or some form of hybrid (which it actually is just with more British than American elements) official? Would we than have to change all spellings in all articles on Europe? As for Switzerland there seems to be no official use as there seems to be little use for it (internal documents are translated in all four or the three most spoken official languages and private businesses may spell their English as they please). American English suffers imho (at least in spelling) from the problem that once you try a good reform and not everybody follows it (center instead of centre, favorite instead of favourite etc.) you become the weird one out. Just like the Soviet practice of using metric units in aviation or the replacement of horse powers with kilowatts in cars... I do agree that the issue is a minor one and will refrain from changing it in articles on European Union member states in the future as going against what seems to be a tenuous compromise to begin with on the spelling issue is not worth the hassle of some more or less aesthetically pleasing spellings, which is a subjective issue to begin with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, we definitely shouldn't change the spelling in European articles wholesale in the instance that the UK and Ireland leave the EU and the EU decides to adopt US English as its official English language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understand the inherent status quo bias in this, but I have to ask: Based on what? If the only "official" thing we have for Europe is a style guide from the European commission and that thing changes, why should we not follow "official" use and/or revert to our "default" of American English. Besides - at least in Germany - loanwords are almost universally written in the American spelling (e.g. "Shoppingcenter" not "Shoppingcentre"). Still I don't care either way, but I think for European non- EU countries the case for any variety of English - much less the British one - being official is shaky at best. For the EU it is based on basically one style guide that I think most Europeans aren't even aware of. (and the official working language of the EU seems to be English with a bad German accent or French anyway these days ;-) ) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I personally don't really care, except that I'd like for varieties of English not to be changed without there being a really good reason and, as a very distant second, don't want articles about the same area of the world to be inconsistently in different varieties of English. But I think it would be fine for you to advance your argument at Wikivoyage talk:Spelling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits on Germany are still consistently using American English spellings. It may be that you actually never learnt how spell in the British English way, so perhaps you would like to use a different spell check from your browser? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was taught to in school, but teachers never really cared either way as long as it was somewhat consistent. As I also write on topics where US English is preferred, I rather not change the spell-check. I really don't think it is all that important anyway. Yes there are some chosen few articles that lose from being inconsistent but there is a whole bunch of articles that have a two line get in section for a whole continent or a town with a major port airport and public transport connection. I do not do it on purpose, but I must ask: is it all that important? If need be you can change it back. I won't edit war over this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It may interest you to know that I would prefer just all the articles are in American English and that would be an end to it.

However the consensus is to contribute to WV on the basis that Ikan has stated above. If you think this consensus is pointless and keep spelling in that way then you will inevitably go against the collaborative spirit of the site. I guess we are politely asking that you don't do that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah sorry. I am a little over-tired and should probably go to sleep right now. What I wanted to say is: It was with no ill intent and my sometimes less than perfect English spelling is aided by a spellcheck. I use an American one and I am sorry, that it sometimes gives me American spellings where British ones are expected. I know that this whole spelling issue seems to be a very tenuous compromise of sorts because passions on both sides seem to be high. I would honestly not have a problem to write in all British, but than I would get people angry when I make a quick contribution on - say - Nicaragua and it is spelled in British English (as the policy says we should write American English there). This whole thing reminds me a little bit of that one time the pope divided the whole world between Portugal and Spain, and now someone in WV calls the shot whether countries that don't really speak all that much English prefer American or British. Anyway. I am probably not making much sense now so let me say this: I am sorry, I try to eliminate such behavio(u)r in the future if and where possible. I hope it doesn't distract too much from the more or less useful contributions I may have made from time to time ;-) Best wishes and good night Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

First, thanks for your many edits and additions lately - overall I think they've been excellent. I'm not sure about this edit though - does a traveler really care about that level of political detail? In my travels I honestly don't care about the political parties in a country unless they affect me directly as a traveler, and such edits in the past have led to extensive arguments and edit warring by those with strong opinions on the subject. WV:Be fair#Political disputes is the closest official policy we have on this subject, and it is not directly applicable to your edit, but my preference would be to leave details on political ideologies out of our guides unless they are directly relevant to travelers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you in principle but the word liberal is used extensively in the US (including in the article you reference just one or two paragraphs to the bottom) and thus I thought it needed an explanation, because "liberal" in the US means something very different from e.g. the "liberal" FDP in Germany. Maybe it is better to cut it down to one sentence along the lines of "in the US liberals are usually understood to be at the left end of the political spectrum, much like Socialists and Social Democrats are in Europe". Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fine to have something brief, but I'd call liberals in the US left-of-center, not "on the left end," which is a phrase that suggests a more extreme leftist position to me. Of course, others would consider them far left. So it's best to just say that they're considered to be relatively left-wing in an American context, with the conservatives comparatively right-wing, and leave it at that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can live with that. Though mentioning certain political areas that usually serve as "litmus tests" might be a good idea as "left" and "right" all by themselves aren't all that meaningful. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I edited the article, apparently while the above discussion was ongoing, to remove the new addition and replace the instance of "liberal" (that was called out as problematic) with the word "progressive". We've had discussions of red-vs-blue and such before (see Talk:United States of America/Archive 2006#Revert of the day for the first of many), and the consensus is almost always that these tidbits are irrelevant for travelers but great for generating edit wars, so unless there is a good reason to include this stuff I'd strongly suggest we just leave it out. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not to start a whole new discussion, but I have found that 80% or more of edits to the USA page tend to come full circle in two to three days tops. Either this article is next to perfect and can't be approved upon, or it has a very strong status quo bias. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ryan, if the point is to give visitors from the rest of the world, where "liberal" refers to classical liberalism (after Adam Smith), useful, explanatory background, I believe that replacing "liberal" with "progressive" instead of including both is unhelpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to upset Hobbitschuster and apologize if I've done so. Please revert my latest change if desired. I'll bow out, but with the final note that when we're talking about classical liberalism we've strayed pretty far from travel writing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of the differences between liberalism and libertarianism , I'd agree with Ryan that it isn't actually in the scope of a travel guide. High level discussion of the political landscape in the United States is certainly valid, but we do serve the traveller best by keeping it concise and easy to understand. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Libertarianism doesn't need to be mentioned at all, but saying in a single sentence that the Democrats are the liberal/progressive party that is considered to be relatively left-wing in the US context and that the Republicans are the conservative party that's comparatively right-wing is surely fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Time_travel&oldid=2741556

See also w:George Hudson, whose collapse is all too contemporary to a post Madoff world. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for adding the Managua fun fact to the Discover section. However, facts should be added to Wikivoyage:Discover (not to the archive) and this is where I moved it. I've also improved the instructions on the page, because I noticed they were very misleading (you aren't the first one to add facts to the archive :)). ϒpsilon (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There are probably some other trivia about places I might want to add info about. For example that the East Frisian islands are car-free, or that there is a paragraph of German federal law (StVO) that explicitly forbids cars and limits bikes on the island of Heligoland. But the articles are not yet up to par, sadly... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do agree that this article should be at least usable or maybe even guide but technically it is still outline as some of the Other Destinations listed on the page are still Germany#Other destinations are still at outline. Most could be usable but some need more work to their city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

re: User talk:2602:304:AF53:3E99:A935:54D:5B3F:9FC‎ please see w:Wikipedia:Deny recognition. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

sorry Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Would this template be better? {{EuropeHistory}}. Would then only need to update in one place. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea. But what do we do if the history of Europe gets too unwieldy and we have to split it up? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Scrap the idea of a header list and just go back to links on the topic parent page; split into multiple template; make it a collapsed- expandable text block. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

when u get a chance could u help? thanks. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about the place. I only put in the standard section headings, as we structure all our destination guides (roughly) the same way. I may have time to look over some formatting and stylistic issues of what you write tomorrow, though. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Hobbit. If you're going to essentially remove an article (in this case by redirecting it) that has routeboxes, you have to also remove the article from the routebox sequence. Note that Saranac Lake, for instance, still links to Redford in its routebox. But Redford no longer has a routebox, because it's a redirect, so the routebox chain has been broken. Powers ^(talk) 16:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Okay. I didn't know about that. What do I have to do now? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

For each city adjacent to Redford in its routeboxes (in this case, Saranac Lake and Plattsburgh), you need to replace Redford with the next destination. In the case of Plattsburgh, you can just replace Redford with Saranac Lake and be fine. But for Saranac Lake, it's trickier. The next destination is Plattsburgh, which is a major destination. When that happens, we show the next two major destinations (instead of a minor and a major as normal). You can look at the last Redford edit before your redirect to see how it was done. Powers ^(talk) 01:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can I just keep doing like I am and let someone else decide whether or not to merge any excessively tiny place into articles on broader areas? I have no knowledge of or interest in these areas beyond their fossil content, so I don't know which should be merged and which shouldn't. It would be a lot easier for me if I could just leave it up to a more experienced editor to do so whenever one decides to significantly expand the content about the region. Abyssal (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can. But if, say, 30 (a number I'm just pulling out of my hat) new articles have to be redirected, that's a fair amount of work. So I wouldn't presume to try to tell you what to do, but you could possibly see what other things to see and do a local tourism office (if there is any) mentions, and also look at the travel-related content in the equivalent Wikipedia article (if any). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

An alternative would also be to add fossil information to existing articles, and in cases where the article doesn't yet exist, add the fossil-collecting information to the relevant region article. That way if and when a town article is created the info can be moved in from the region article, and the approach saves others the work of having to sort through 30 skeleton town articles to figure out what to do with them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan and Ryan Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome!... I have a tendency to float around recently edited articles and see if I can help out even a little bit. - Matroc (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can say one thing i was addressing the traveller which mostly unaware of real vrindavan historical temples. And in vrindavan more than 5000 temples but somehow traveller visit only new architecture of temples but not that temples which were historical so i was addressing that part with near to my budgetery stay Guest house if traveller visit vrindavan I guarantee i gave them stay safe free visit in just £ so you can say as a promotion in your point but we are in center of historical temples of vrindavan and Yamuna river are just 200 meter far you daily feel that marvolos view .My edit just for the traveller which don't carry so much money want to visit reality of vrindavan and want to feel peace as well so they can stay long and safe free with £ rs enjoy the marvolos moments

Girriraj Bhawan Bengali Ashram (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete mine edits? only because you think yours are better. I can prove you it isn't. Why you delete Dordrecht , only because you truly think Nijmegen is the oldest. I am an Dutchmen on my own , so I know what I am doing here! You not ever been there I saw on your wiki. So why you still don't allow me to add content? What wrong with you?

First of all, please sign your contributions on talk pages by posting this "~" symbol (the tilde) four times in a row. Second of all, there is a rule that we only allow a maximum of nine cities in non bottom level regions ( see here). If you think your city deserves mentioning in the country page, another one has to be removed from the list and that requires consensus at the talk page of the respective country first. You can argue your point there. Unilateral changes without searching consensus will be reverted. I do think most other longer time users would have done the same. I hope that clears that up. Please raise your issue at talk:Netherlands. All the best 21:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at your talk page. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please check again. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

it:Rostock has been saved :-) and it:Wismar is almost done: check again the missing QuickbarCity parameters. --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it:Wismar is done as well... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added the official website for Wismar. Now I just need to know an info for the popoluation then it's done (see your talk). --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here I've left you some suggestions to copmlete the Quickbar. While here some suggestion for the Quickfooter. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

To facilitate your job, I've left you a table on your talk page where you can see the status of the various articles that you have created and what is missing to do to avoid their deletion. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've update content status. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update it again. We should be very close :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I was talking of the image, I wasn't referring to the banner (although when missing it should be added as well) --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please try to complete the last missing information on the Quickbar. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this category you can find the articles with missing image, please check yours in order to fix them. PS With the image should be insert a caption in its relevant parameter. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem for ignoring the request to complete the stubs that you have created on it:voy, but please for the future try to not start what you are not willing to finish. The spirit of it:voy is not to have a big amount of "empty contaiers". Thanks for your understanding. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not replying earlier, I am quite confused as to what and how you expect me to do. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My personal approach when I do not understand something is to ask questions. However, as said above don't worry, I've posted a message in the lounge to look for any volunteer that would be willing to remedy. Let me only add that if you will stop again on it:voy, you'll be more than welcome, but do NOT create more than one article at time, and start to create the following one only after the first one is completed according to the it:voy principles. Thanks for your understanding. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

ok. Well my problem is still that I don't understand by which criteria the image is chosen and what to put under its description. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any nice image representative of the place, with a description of it. It's like: "what to write inside an article?" ....it's up to you. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll look into it those days, but I am not sure I will have much time today Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I've published an help request in the lounge so few volunteers have helped. Maybe if want to improve your drafts you can add other places where to eat/sleep/drink instead of one. But feel free. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My friend, thanks for all your great work, but are you joking with your redirects of Joisey and New Joisey? What's next, redirecting "Nawlins" to New Orleans and "Lawn Guyland" to Long Island? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are right. It probably does not qualify as a "common misspelling" (from which a redirect is ok). On the other hand, I could not think of any actual place of that name... and it prevents jocular folks from creating something along the lines of our article on Dixie... But yeah, I won't raise objections if you delete this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dixie is an actual alternate name for the South. "Joisey" is just a local pronunciation, not an alternate name, and people write it out that way only as a joke. If you're sure you're OK with deleting these redirects, I could do it on the basis of "author request". Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, what good is there in keeping them? They do no harm, but apparently they don't do any good, either... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I can't see anyone searching for New Jersey under such spellings. I'll delete the redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heya, I saw your attempts to fix the IP's efforts to create Herzberg am Harz. I'd like to encourage you to wait a while before jumping in on new articles (both from new and established users), even if there are obvious mistakes/omissions. For many people, it's rather frustrating when they're just starting to work on something and someone else starts creating edit conflicts within a few minutes. Especially for newbies, that can get rather confusing too. When they're just editing, it's the best time to welcome new users and point them in the right direction via their talk page. Most of them don't know the concept of edit summaries yet, but many will notice the talk page message. Just wanted to make you aware ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well some of this user's other edits have been borderline problematic, but I get your point. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I undid your edit on Monschau (where you added the "could benefit from translation" tag) for the exact same reason as what I mentioned above. It's really a matter of courtesy to refrain from jumping in and tagging articles when someone is clearly working on a new article. I'll let you edit the article as you please for now, and get back to it later. No tags needed for now, though. If you want to actually write subsections for getting in by bus and train, that's fine. If you're only going to create empty subsections however, that's not really an improvement. Cheers, JuliasTravels (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Instead of going around asking people whether or not I'am a vandal it would be well to know iam not a vandal as i left a message on ryan's talk page asking him to unblock my other account thahouseusers2015. Just saying. Maybe i should work on USA only? I dont mean to sound prejudice. --Gol929 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Plus i have skitzophrenia. --Gol929 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry if my asking more experienced contributors for help offends you, but I wanted to see what their insight could offer to the discussion at hand. If you are indeed the other user that has already been blocked, you are most likely going to be blocked in a short time hence, as circumventing a block does not fly here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You people dont care about me. --Gol929 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

what kind of response are you expecting? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

To keep me on the site and not block me indef. --Gol929 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

look at my user page please. maybe you can be informed. --Gol929 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

While I have not followed the reasons for your original block, I trust that they were justified and you reappearing under a different user name does not indeed help your case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whatever --Gol929 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'am a human being just like ryan or anyone else. --Gol929 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Would bush planes deserve an article on their own? Added to WV:RA in any case. /Yvwv (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. But I don't know much about them. Although I may have once flown with an airline that might be considered as meeting (some of) the criteria. Which would imho be:

1. small airplanes, often Cessna or similar small propeller craft
2. flying primarily or also into / out of runways that aren't much more than paved dirt
3. rather short distances for some flights / rather long distance (at least for the size of the craft) on others
4. flights where ground transport is unavailable /onerous (e.g. a 50 min. flight or a 24 hour bus ride)
5. Government subsidized to provide "access" or "essential airservice", sometimes for political reasons (e.g. claim on distant territories, enticing settlement of remote areas etc.)

Numbers one two and four apply for la costeña, but I am not sure about three and five. I will certainly have a look if and when the article is created. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	As one of the most active editors here as of lately, please have a barncompass! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well thank you, is all I can say to that. I hope to deserve it in times to come as much as now ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed the comment about high-speed rail from the Yosemite article since that project is still more than a decade from being operational, and there is a good chance that funding will be pulled and it may never become operational. It would great to have a high-speed train in California, but the currently proposed project is still a long way from becoming reality. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

If Wikipedia is to be believed trains will run over a significant portion of the route as early as 2022 (seven years from now) and the San Joaquin is scheduled to use newly constructed tracks (at faster speeds than currently possible) as early as 2019 (four years from now), once construction reaches Bakersfield. While funding may still be pulled away from the project, I think that for several reasons this won't happen

1. HSR and pro HSR candidates have consistently won at the polls, most notably Governor Brown
2. Unlike the failed Texas project of the 1980s and 1990s no major airline is openly opposed to the project
3. No court challenge came even close to stopping the project
4. Once a certain amount of track is laid and especially once trains starts running, the project gains a sort of momentum that is hard for even the most hardline politicians to stop
5. Even assuming (which I quite frankly deem to be laughable) no additional funding through 2022, current funding provides for more than the cost through 2022, at which point momentum will make killing the project politically undesirable

In short, I am quite confident that the project will happen and that it will eventually link San Francisco and Los Angeles at 2h40 travel time or faster even though some uncertainties remain. What can be considered as certain as almost anything that concerns the future is that the Central Valley parts will get built. Fresno, Bakersfield, Merced and others will get significant rail improvements, including better travel times and new stations (which is in essence what I was getting at in the Yosemite article). But I guess the project is inherently controversial because it goes against a lot of "common wisdom" in the US, so the American media like to overstate the risks and underestimate the benefits. Similar things seem to be happening with HS2 in the United Kingdom - though that project is probably wildly overpriced (still worth it, but if you compare the per km cost to other HSR systems, something seems to be wrong with it). The point being: The project will come and I will gladly edit the articles accordingly in the 2020s if you deem it too early to do so now... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hope you're right - as a California resident and an engineer I've avidly followed every development on this project since before the ballot measure in 2008 up through (finally) the start of construction earlier this year in Fresno. That said, I think it's best to hold off on updating articles to reference California high speed rail until the project has made enough progress that there is more certainty about timing, service, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may want to see the oblique reference in the California article than... as well as the sentence in the US without a car one. And on the issue: Yes I also very much hope the project gets built the way it was promised and is currently scheduled to be built. As a matter of fact, I fully intend to ride the train as close to opening day as possible. San Francisco is very high on my bucket list indeed, and I quite enjoyed myself in SoCal when I was there and do fully intend to go there again if the opportunity arises Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Hobbitschuster. You are a very active editor who's been involved in all kinds of work and discussions about how to improve this guide. If you'd like to have access to a few additional tools that will enable you to more easily roll back vandalism and block spammers, let me know. I haven't discussed this with anyone, but I doubt you'd get opposition to an admin nomination, if you'd be willing to accept that role.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will have to think about it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. It's fine either way, and there's no rush. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hobbitschuster, so what do you think? --Danapit (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I fear I lack the patience, especially vis-a-vis newbies to do the job. Given that things I have written or done seem to in more than one case have caused a newbie to cease contributing, me being a mod might not be to the best of the wiki, after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Completely up to you, but as an Admin I mostly just clean up clear vandalism when I see it. Most of the discussed issues about biting newbies (as far as I can tell) do not actually require Admin tools. I've noted that you have taken proactive steps to gain clarifications regarding 'grey' areas of policy, which is the right thing for an admin to do --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see you doing great job actively participating in policy discussion in a constructive way, so I believe you have a very good knowledge of the site's policies in the meanwhile, which is another prerequisite of an admin. I'm not pushing you into a rush decision, just noticed your good work and wanted to mention it. Danapit (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guten Abend, Hobbitschuster. Thanks for reverting one of my edits. I plan to be brutal so it's good that other editors are making sure I don't go too far. I can see how the information is useful to voyagers, with one exception. The origin of the British word nappy. Since they were called napkins in the past, it's not useful information to today's travellers. Anyway, I'd like to delete that bit again, as long as you don't oppose. If not, well there are other more important things :-) Dankeschön --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. But let's have the in depth discussion tomorrow or at some other time Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course :-) If you make it known on the talk page that you want to discuss it further, I'll gladly join in. And I'll hold off on further edits to the page until then. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is Ibaman from a smartphone. I tried to improve the part on Apicius and think I might have removed quite a good chunk of your very good prose. On a desktop I would now salvage and put it back. Ill do it tomorrow. Lets hammer it to Star. Best wishes

No problem. I know how finicky a smartphone can be... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I know it's bad to tout stuff here. Nevertheless I stumbled upon a travel video series on Youtube that I thought you may find very interesting and entertaining. A guy travels from overland from Los Angeles to Panama using public transportation. (His other travel adventures are also interesting) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will look at it once I get time to. There also was a documentary on the Panamericana some time ago on German TV.... Where they skipped exactly one country: Nicaragua :( Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

hey if you have time check out mangkunegara and pakualaman on wp en - they were mirror image crown prince dynasties in central java, nothing unusual about them ,it was the dutch trying to pay off on the divide and rule stuff... not just age, but heredity and generations of them JarrahTree (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the editing on [Böblingen] about the Subway branch.

I'm not sure if it is enshrined in policy as such, but yes we do tend not to list chains. For major cities that is fairly obvious. For smaller towns like this I guess exceptions can be made. My own memories of Böblingen is that it wasn't a tourist destination and there were not a huge amount of options. Hope the POV helps! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is my understanding not to mention boring places. Chain restaurants, especially the fast food variety seem to definitely fall into that category, save for exceptions like the architecturally interesting golden m in Erlangen. Though small places that would be devoid of listings otherwise might be an exception. I don't know. I am at a loss when it comes to most aspects of our coverage of rural areas. As a further aside "Böblingen bei Stuttgart" is mentioned as a boring place that is contrasted with Berlin in the Kraftklub song "Ich will nicht nach Berlin" Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

A lot of thanks for highlighting the rural areas coverage on the pub. It has good momentum so I'll help when I have something to give. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi you have been to Germany maybe you know a few things about Bad Orb? --2604:6000:9EC3:7A00:5871:10EB:F180:4DD3 21:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is the first time I hear of the place, tbh. Sorry about that. If you want to go there, do ask in the Tourist Office Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

No i dont want to go there i added the loc. --2604:6000:9EC3:7A00:D94A:96A0:A5A0:E99 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hobbitschuster, we all greatly appreciate your efforts in improving our travel guides. That said, please stop nominating real places for deletion. It's against policy and wastes everyone's time. If you want to ask whether a place should be redirected, start a discussion on the article's talk page. Link to it from the Pub or from Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, but don't use the VfD page. Thanks. Powers ^(talk) 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the only thing that can happen to real places i redirection and the vast majority of our pages covers real places, why do we even have vfd? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Travel topics, itineraries, and other non-places and non-articles. Powers ^(talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Out of interest how well do you know Wolfsburg. Looking for a good hotel recommendation. In past have stayed at the Holiday Inn which has now change ownership (was not impressed), also stayed at the Seehotel am Tankumsee, which is nice but not practical in the winter if risk of snow and have stayed at a couple of others but cannot remember which but were nothing special. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been there twice (once a day trip and once visiting family) but I could not give you a hotel recommendation, as I have not stayed in a hotel on either of my visits. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean with Bad Wildungen is used by one German comedian as the prime example of a rural bland German town. Is it really urgent we cover places like that? in the revision history of Kassel? Please answer at my German Wikivoyage user talk page. MfG -- Feuermond16 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What I wanted to say with that is that of all those redlinks, "Bad Wildungen" was the only one that rang a bell, mostly only because Dieter Nuhr used to use it as a token punching bag. And I just questioned the value to have this article end with a huge list of redlinks. But I have of course been proven wrong on that before, so what do I know? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kurz auf deutsch: Werde demnächst anfangen pro Sehenswürdigkeit einen kleinen Text zu verfassen und habe noch zwei kurze Fragen: 1. Dürfte ich auf diesen englischen Zeitungsartikel von theguardian.com (Ranking) verweisen, oder würde der sofort mit Hinweis auf nicht erwünschte Links oder ähnliches entfernt werden? Und 2. Könntest du mir sagen, wie man am besten Deutschlands einzige Galerie für Komische Kunst übersetzen könnte? MfG -- Feuermond16 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Komische Kunst könnte man womöglich mit "humorous art" übersetzen, aber eine kurze google-Suche lässt mich anzweifeln, dass die Aussage haltbar oder sinnvoll ist. Zumindest Museen, scheint es auch anderswo zu geben. Gallerie in dem Sinne scheint sich wohl mit "art gallery" halbwegs treffend wiedergeben zu lassen, aber wie gesagt es erscheint mir nicht ganz klar ob der Unterschied zwischen einem Museum für komische Kunst und einer Galerie für komische Kunst den durchschnittlichen Besucher derselben so brennend interessiert. Üblicherweise hat ja jedes Museum heutzutage einen Museumsshop wo man zumindest Nachahmungen erstehen kann... Wenn man in der erwähnten Galerie Originale kaufen kann sollte das natürlich gesondert erwähnt werden. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for archiving some bloated talk pages. I've also done some of this in the past and thought I'd make some suggestions:

1. The Infobox above makes it a bit clearer that archives are available
2. Try and avoid archiving region and city district discussions (to be clear, I have not seen you do this yourself).
3. Avoid archiving any section that may possess permanent relevance
4. Discussions that occurred on the legacy WT site (2013 and before) are prime for archival. Anything after migration somewhat less so.

These are just pointers, and not policy in any shape or form. Good luck!

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up! Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

	Thank You
	Thank you for the encouragement. I don't want to use the template, however. I want to make it my own way so I don't have any empty spaces on my page. Sonicparty64 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Apparently I should have used the WV:small city article template. However, in general our articles should contain the standard top level headings. We have recently deviated from this for regions (which may omit empty sections) and don't follow them as closely for travel topics, but for cities we still have the "==" level in full for all our articles. Some subheadings of the "===" level are of course optional. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I cross-referenced Urban rail adventures from Underground works for obvious reasons.

Also I was wondering if you could help massively expand the outline I started at Paranormal tourism which is rather short at present. I've mentioned a few more obvious items, but would really appreciate it if someone went into more depth. I've not yet included Dark Peak and so on, because of phrasing concerns. I'm alsop minded to leave out locations that whilst connected with nominal pranormal events, took place on "private propety" and thus aren't actually accessible to a casual tourist. 11:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the first point: Thanks. Good catch. To the latter... I don't know whether I can help you there... Generally speaking I see the purported "paranormal" as mumbo-jumbo designed to cheat gullible people out of their money or in some cases massive self-delusion on the part of the promoters of such (and it's really hard to tell which is more dangerous, the con-people or the true believers...) and as such my interest in this topic is extremely limited and I even somewhat doubt its place on WV. Sure, some people will undoubtedly travel for that reason, but as with our sex tourism policy there are areas which we deliberately do not cover... In any case we should avoid even the semblance of promoting pseudo-science as this is a reputation that travels far and wide on the internet in no time and can do incredible harm in even shorter time. But I'll see what I can do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can re-word the lede - I have an obvious skeptical bias, but things like the Pendle Witch trail exist. The aim was not to cover the "bloke from the pub, whose had too many of the local scrumpy" told me fringe stuff (which is why I've not used the W word directly.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your view sounds like you are the perfect person to right a Stay Safe/Stay Alert section, that exposes paranormal scams encountered by the traveller( Faith Healers being one. ), As I've said under Occult Esoterica, much magic relies on the sucessptibility of the willing. Just because the Heading is Paranormal Toursim doesn't mean the contributors to it have to think the phenomena are genuine. Perhaps there should be a wider disscussion at the travellers pub> Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

We have an article on safety in cold regions, not one for arid regions though? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, They certainly aren't theories in the 'scientific' sense! XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whilst, my previous effort might be controversial (and if you think it's gettng problematic I won't object to it it going).

However, I thought something like Botanical tourism might be useful. It's only a very sketchy outline, but could be improved considerably, and going to look at Kew Gardens (for example) is firmly within scope :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC) (Sfan00_IMG is my alternate account, which I am in the process of "closing" on some wikis due to policy changes.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Created in userspace as I have no idea what to put in it yet.

Comes under the heading of "Activites" as a travel topic mostly, but there are some notable mazes that have historical importance like the floor design in Chartes Cathedral, and the one at Hampton Court. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given the rapid progess on two other travel topics I suggested, and the seeming lack of progess here, I can't see a reasonable way to improve it in the neutral traveller friendly way other topics are. You had already expressed serious concerns about this topic on the talk page. At present I don't even think a compromise of a re-title to Fringe Phonemena would work.

As things are done considerably more informally here, I am therefore strongly suggesting that even though it was well-intentioned, that the portions of the article that can be merged elsewhere are, and that we have an understanding that fringe esoterica are not something Wikivoyage should generally promote.

Given that I have no objections to the Topic's removal, potentially without further discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Hobbit, it must be mentioned, Martin Luther himself used to talk and digress about Arminius/Hermann. I think it was probably he who came up with this "translation". Too busy to research in this very moment, but I'm pretty sure about this bit. Ibaman (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are right. He said something about having him "von Herzen lip" (or whatever the spelling back then was). But the real Hermann-craziness was 19th century. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added two phrases to the German handbook. Please check them and fix spelling and grammar as needed. Ich spreche fast kein einziges Wort Deutsch, and I can spell even fewer of them.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fine, though another native speaker might have a different idea. I am not sure whether to put "stark" allergisch "sehr" allergisch or some combination, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just wanted to ask a question. How did you find out about this article? Rarely does one update it? Are you from the area? De88 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now, but I have Ikan's talk page on my watchlist. And I have an extension turned on (you can find it under "preferences") that shows when a country code is missing and given that this error message is rather prominent, I decided to do something about it. I have never been to the area, I am sorry to say. DFW airport is the closest I have ever been to "being in Texas". Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. Just thought you were a local, like myself. Thanks for updating the area code numbers. Didn't realize country codes were vital in these articles. Hope you do take a trip done here. It's really nice, except for the humidity. The area has some breathtaking views. De88 (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's so many places and so little time... I might, but right now Nicaragua is further up my list ;-). And yeah it's not vital, but since I switched on that extension it's kinda become a pet peeve of mine. By the way, when I first started editing here I was also quite surprised to see articles on Nicaragua edited shortly after I had edited them; as it turned out this is/was almost entirely due to recent change patrol; I think I am the only "regular" around here who has been to Nicaragua. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have similar pet peeves when it comes to organization. It surprised me when Ikan found out about the page and then you as well. Then I fount out about the recent change patrol and it made sense. You're a big fan of Nicaragua as I can tell. I also feel like the only "regular" when editing articles about Brownsville. It would be nice if more locals started editing on here. You can only do so much to give foreigners and domestic tourists a glimpse into what they can expect to see about your hometown. De88 (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. A small thing, I've seen there are two or three dead links in the article. It's much easier for a local to find out whether the reason is due to the website moving / not working any more or due to the business behind the website shutting down. Could you check that? And another thing, if you edit a listing and consider it up to date, there is a box in the listing editor you can check which will give the date when it was last marked up to date to our readers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. If you don't mind, do you know which links are dead? I tried my best in removing old links as the article was messy and old before I started editing it. De88 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The link for the listing number 2 under the "theater" headline. There should be {{ dead link}} or something in the wikicode behind it. If you can fix the link remove that afterwards. Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know why the link is dead. The theatre belonged to University of Texas at Brownsville but after the merger of UTB and its nearby college, University of Texas Pan-American, anything related with UTB was removed. The new place, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley took over everything. Thanks! De88 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hobbitschuster, I've seen that you have removed the trailing zero in area codes in my listing (zero in brackets in +49 (0)...). Has there been a discussion regarding the format? My feeling that it would be strongly useful for foreigners to see that they must dial a zero when doing a call here in Germany and I would therefore suggest to leave it here. Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about any discussions regarding this, but there is an optional extension (you can turn it on by clicking "Preferences" on the top of the screen and then the "Gadgets" tab where the "Error highlighter" is listed under "experimental".) which I mostly follow. Turning that extension on shows you a warning message whenever phone numbers are in the wrong format. Unfortunately, the zero in brackets is considered a "wrong" format by this extension and I have followed its advice. You can of course bring this up at the Travellers Pub, as I frankly do not know where else such a discussion should be held. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks; I will try to bring that up -- it is certainly not an error to have the zero (at least formally, the brackets indicate a number only necessary under certain conditions) Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I understand where you're coming from, but I am frankly ignorant as to whether implementing such an exception would cause more technological problems than it's worth. Furthermore, I think most people calling those numbers without the leading +49 will know that a zero is required without it being there in brackets. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

is there any point in mentioning the CarGo tram on the Dresden page anymore? As far as I know they are now only run occasionally to "air them out" a little. There doesn't seem much chance for visitors to see them. Griffindd (talk)

You are probably right. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

for me it's a special pleasure to read a novel/book about a place while actually in that place. Sometimes I find it helpful to read novels about a place before I go there. Do you think there is room for suggestions about that kind of reading here? Griffindd (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. But I would not just limit it to books. Movies or TV series might also enhance the travel experience or inspire travel in the first place. Have a look at the sections of our guides on Berlin , Washington DC or Chicago to see how something like that might look like. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

ah---literature and movies as headings. ok. I'll see what I can come up with. Thanks for pointing that out. Griffindd (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The section headings are Read and Watch. You can see them (well, Read, at least) at Wikivoyage:Article templates/Sections#Understand. Powers ^(talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well apparently many articles do not use the correct headings then, but you are of course correct in that we have a verb based approach to section headings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

even if users are not allowed to find out in articles, I would like to know: which is the best bus aggregator? Griffindd (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have you had a look here already? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

ah. well that's the German version of what I had linked. Griffindd (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Be my guest to mention more on the talk page. And you can of course raise the issue of aggregators in some appropriate place (the pub for starters). Maybe we might want to reconsider our stance and modify it as to have a very small handfull of pages where aggregators are listed, which makes the task of maintenance much less daunting. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

While the Portuguese were directly involved in trading enslaved peoples, the Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. During the first Atlantic system most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly during the era. Dutch, English, and French traders also participated in the slave trade P. C. Emmer, The Dutch in the Atlantic Economy, 1580–1880. Trade, Slavery and Emancipation (1998), p. 17.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Asiento was the permission given by the Spanish government to other countries to sell people as slaves to the Spanish colonies, between the years 1543 and 1834.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In British history, it usually refers to the contract between Spain and Great Britain created in 1713 that dealt with the supply of African slaves for the Spanish territories in the Americas. The British government passed its rights to the South Sea Company.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The slave trade was complex, but frankly many European countries were involved and Spain was no exception. Using legal terminologies to suggest otherwise is very unfortunate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a huge difference between direct participation in the slave trade and the asiento system. Believe me. I am a man who has recently earned a PhD in British and Spanish history. Also I have a PhD in Latin American history.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the 1650s Spain sought to enter the slave trade directly, sending ships to Angola to purchase slaves and toying with the idea of a military alliance with Kongo, the powerful African kingdom north of Angola. But these ideas were abandoned and the Spanish returned to Portuguese and then Dutch interests to supply slaves. Later in history, Britain and Holland dominated the slave trade. The slaves were sent mostly to the New World colonies.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Treaty of Utrecht granted Britain an Asiento lasting 30 years to supply the Spanish colonies with 4,800 slaves per year. Britain was permitted to open offices in Buenos Aires, Caracas, Cartagena, Havana, Panama, Portobello and Vera Cruz to arrange the slave trade. --181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, please sign all your contributions on talk pages by typing the "tilde" (~ this symbol) four times in a rwo (like this: ~~~~) secondly, surely we can find some compromise wording all sides can live with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

By July the South Sea Company had arranged contracts with the Royal African Company to supply the necessary African slaves to Jamaica. £10 was paid for a slave aged over 16, £8 for one under 16 but over 10. Two-thirds were to be male, and 90% adult. The company trans-shipped 1,230 slaves from Jamaica to America in the first year, plus any that might have been added (against standing instructions) by the ship's captains on their own behalf. On arrival of the first cargoes, the local authorities refused to accept the Asiento, which had still not been officially confirmed there by the Spanish authorities. The slaves were eventually sold at a loss in the West Indies.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In 1714 the government announced that a quarter of profits would be reserved for the Queen and a further 7.5% for a financial advisor, Manasseh Gilligan. Some Company board members refused to accept the contract on these terms, and the government was obliged to reverse its decision.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Despite these setbacks, the company continued, having raised £200,000 to finance the operations. In 1714 2,680 slaves were carried, and for 1716–17, 13,000 more, but the trade continued to be unprofitable. An import duty of 33 pieces of eight was charged on each slave (although for this purpose some slaves might be counted only as a fraction of a slave, depending on quality). One of the extra trade ships was sent to Cartagena in 1714 carrying woollen goods, despite warnings that there was no market for them there, and they remained unsold for two years.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Spanish empire didn't engage in the slave trade directly. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies.--181.137.12.115 00:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The British slave trade was carefully regulated from its early days. Even the first efforts of privateers – notably Sir John Hawkins– were subject to royal approval. In the 18th century, royal backing (it was, after all, the Royal African Company) gave way to full-blown parliamentary support. Indeed Parliament spent as much time discussing (and legislating for) the expansion and regulation of the slave trade as it was to spend on abolition a century later, passing dozens of Acts to fine-tune the trade.--181.137.12.115 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Similarly, slavery in the colonies was regulated by colonial laws approved in London. --181.137.12.115 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The English, for example, established a joint-stock enterprise, the Royal African Company, but this monopoly failed to provide planters with what they wanted and simply gave way under the growing colonial demand for more forced African labour. When a freer British slave trade was finally established – after protracted political and commercial argument – it ushered in an era of massive expansion. Enslaved Africans crossed the Atlantic in huge and increasing numbers. By the peak years of the 18th century, the British were shipping 40,000 people a year. Meanwhile the Spanish empire didn't engage in the slave trade directly. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. --181.137.12.115 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply