Hello, Mr. Granger! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.--ϒpsilon (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm enjoying your pagebanners. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear it! Mr. Granger (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted my travel guide to Somaliland which is different from Somalia,there are thousands of Bussiness people.UN workers oversea somalis who depend on travelling to somalia even with security guard now i have updated from my own experience pics and reference.you were quick to revert them with out any reason.you have caused a lot of foreign bussiness people a great deal of pain

Thanks for the message. Updates are very welcome, but please respect the formatting and organization of the page. For example, don't radically change the headings, and don't remove the templates at the bottom of the page. See Wikivoyage:Country article template for the structure that a country article like Somalia should have. I've incorporated some of your updates into the existing structure of the article—you're welcome to add more, but please maintain the overall organization of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the banner update on Bonavista Peninsula! I knew it wasn't cropped to the correct ratio, but am running a random garbage netbook with no decent ability to really do anything. So I was hoping someone would see and fix the image. Glad you did. Cheers! Pbaribeau (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Thanks for creating the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your assistance in cleaning up dead links! It's been great to see so many people updating old information now that outdated links have been flagged. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I fix dead links now and then on Wikipedia, where there are some 70,000 currently tagged (and that's after a massive bot cleanup effort that was recently undertaken—there used to be hundreds of thousands). Since there are only a few thousand here, I feel like I can make more of a dent in them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Are there boat tours in San Rafael?😐 BulbAtop (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi BulbAtop. Yes! Barbary Ghost apparently offers cruises through the canal. That's the only one I know of, but you might also be able to find boat tours around Marin or the Bay Area that pass by San Rafael. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for updating not only URLs but also menu prices for New York restaurants - really helpful! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating the redirects. I had thought about doing it but was unsure so held back (to avoid what seems a bit of effort to get pages deleted). I was unsure about combining the two towns to a single destination (Wikipedia keeps them separate) but thought that from a travel perspective they are both too small to warrant their own pages but are significant enough to justify being covered so ended up combining them - hope I made the right decision. PsamatheM (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I think when places are combined like this, redirects are useful, both to facilitate linking and to help readers who search for one of the places. As for whether to combine the towns or not, I can't really say, but the article looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please explain this. Same exact name, right, or am I missing something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has a similar redirect —one title uses a "curly" apostrophe ( ’ ) and the other uses a "straight" apostrophe ( ' ). Our article is located at the title with the straight apostrophe, but I found that someone had written the name of the airport with a curly apostrophe in the article Northfield (Illinois), so when I added a wikilink it didn't work. I figured I'd go ahead and create the redirect so that that link (and any similar ones added to other articles in the future) would work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I struggle to see the difference, but I get it now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	As thanks for months and years of valuable contributions to Wikivoyage, please have a Barncompass. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mx. Granger! Thanks for adding banners to several articles. If you could, it's usually considered good practice to add a caption to those banners unless they clearly just show a skyline or something. So, for example, on Southern Tier, it would be nice to have a caption explaining what that building is and where it's located. Powers ^(talk) 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! I added a caption to the Southern Tier banner, and I'll try to include them in the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

And it's been used to transmit signals to possible alien civilisations. I understand your point, and would ordinarily agree, but the comment about it possibly being the largest in the universe was an intentional nod to Arecibo's role in the SETI projects - and to a lesser extent, its role in The X Files :) I'd like to reinstate, but don't want to tread on your toes if you really don't like that line. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm familiar with SETI and the Arecibo message, but I don't think the line really tells readers very much. We don't really have any reason to think it's the largest one in the universe, unless you think humans are the most technologically advanced beings in the universe (which seems unlikely to me and would make projects like SETI fairly worthless if it's true). But the line is technically true and vaguely related to the topic of the fact, so I won't make a fuss if you put it back. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! If someone else removes it, it'll stay out. I hope it's not the largest either, but decades of radio silence seems to defy all logic... hence the Fermi Paradox :) Fascinating topic. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll start hiding instances of "seemingly-straightforward" around Wikivoyage for you to find and correct. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hahaha, well, it probably won't be my top priority... —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a quickie (hopefully). I think it should be made clear here where the illegality of marking one's own passport applies. Is it against Peruvian law? If not, how can we be sure that it is against the law of the traveller's home country? Many countries have laws against passport defacement, but those laws are unlikely to match up, and are probably not universal. In the UK for instance, "reasonable wear and tear" is allowed, but for anything beyond this deliberately vague threshold, passport replacement is merely advised, as it "may not" allow you to travel otherwise, rather than required, which suggests that defacing a British passport is not illegal as such. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I find it hard to imagine that it's against Peruvian law, but I don't know. I've never heard of anyone actually getting in trouble for getting these kinds of souvenir stamps (which exist at other places besides Machu Picchu as well), which is why I restored the word "technically". I don't know, maybe it would be better to remove the entire comment about it being technically illegal to mark your own passport. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well if it can't be established who it is illegal for and where, it probably would be better to remove the comment :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Great initiative to tidy things up. Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Regarding your edit to Rail travel in the United States, I must disagree. Brightline may currently only operate along a rather short route, but they are by their nature distinct from a commuter railroad and their current short service is just a stopgap until their full stretch is built. I am rather certain that they could not sustain operations over just this short stretch and will thus either expand towards Orlando and Miami or withdraw service in a few years' time. Thus I do think they merit their own bullet point. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand that Brightline is still growing and their future is uncertain, but from a traveller's perspective at this time, how is it more important than, say, the South Shore Line in Chicagoland, the Front Runner in Utah, and Caltrain in the Bay Area? None of those lines have their own paragraphs, nor do the numerous other short-distance rail systems in the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a difference that travelers might care about, at least as far as I understand it. Brightline apparently uses or plans to use dynamic pricing and sells tickets via app and internet. I am not sure most commuter railroads do this. So if you book a Caltrain ticket at the station, no problem, the price is the same at any given time. Brightline apparently not so much... However, maybe we should agree for the time being to not list it prominently (a single link somewhere might still be wise due to some unique features) but to revisit the issue and perhaps give it a proper listing type thingy when service to more destinations starts... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The dynamic pricing sounds interesting and different, but it doesn't sound like it makes Brightline any more important for travellers than the other rail systems I mentioned, as far as I can tell. Anyway, when it expands to Miami and Orlando it'll be pretty large, so I agree we should revisit the issue at that time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noted your confusion about the day in the polar night. The polar night is the opposite of the "nightless nights" you encounter in the Nordic (or Antarctic) summer: in midwinter the sun is below the horizon all day, so it is more or less night all the time. "In the day" during the polar night means the hours when your watch shows it should be day (there is usually some twilight, depending on season and how far north you are). I hope the wording in Northern Lights makes sense after reading this (see also Midnight sun which explains the phenomena). If you can clarify it, you are welcome. --LPfi (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the clarification—I'm familiar with the polar night, but was confused by the phrase "Day Northern Lights". I'll try to clarify it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You are right, the "surprisingly" was maybe a little overdrawn. However, I have been to Taiwan and Egypt lately—two completely different countries for that matter—and you would be surprised how incredible close the exchange rates at the airport were to the interbank ones, just about 1 % off. Some countries just remain stuck in the past apparently. ;-) Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just what I read somewhere. But I will check it out and correct if wrong. ;-) Ceever (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! I've never been to Minas (except riding through it on the way to other places), but from what I've heard it seems to be mostly known for old mines, rolling hills, and alfajores. There could well be other attractions there that I don't know about, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, did not see the rest there. :-) Thanks, Ceever (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there

Can we not get rid of the Connect chapters? I do not see when and with what most of them would ever be filled in the times of the Internet.

Also, most other WV article, except for maybe South America omit this chapter, which is what the manual of style says if no information is to be expected. Though, it does not mention this explicitely for Connect.

I feel for about 90 % of all article for Uruguay and Argentina that have this chapter, it is empty. Where is the added value for the traveller? Why do you need it?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most major cities in Uruguay have free public WiFi available somewhere. I've added this information to some Uruguay articles, including Colonia, Durazno, Florida (city, Uruguay), and Rocha. It would be nice for other Uruguay city articles to have it too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is fine. But in general, do we want to downgrade articles that are quite good with an empty "Connect". We can of course always add it if information is available, but I feel the general consensus on WV seems to be to hide empty Connect chapters, at least for most articles I have worked on.

How about giving me this little gift, and I promise to continue adding more information on Argentina. :-)

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

As User:LPfi said at User talk:Ceever#What sections can be omitted, it is useful to keep empty section headers for sections that should have information, because it lets prospective editors know that something needs to be added. Please do continue adding information about Argentina, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is inconsistent. As there are sections that can be omitted, prospective editors will not be able to fill these, according to this reasoning. Give me a reason. Ceever (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I've already said, most major cities in Uruguay have free public WiFi available somewhere, and it would be nice for this information to be included in the articles. The empty section headers are a signal to prospective editors that the information should be added. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	For tireless clean up of deadlinks in country articles. Ground Zero (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It's good to know the effort is appreciated :) —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'm planning a trip around America at the moment, and have some questions about San Rafael that I would like answered by a local, not by a travel corporation that wants my money. Is there some way I can contact you that is more private? - I'm not really comfortable putting all my travel details out for everyone to see.

Thank you so much! —The preceding comment was added by DJ TLmayo (talk • contribs)

Yes! You can email me using the "Email this user" link in the sidebar on the left of this page, or using this link. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I notice you've reverted the blank space in the Brazil article. I've been adding them to country articles (when illustrating them), because I think it looks crammed, ugly and sometimes outright annoying when the sidebar pushes down the maps/pictures from next to the text they belong halfway down the article. This is usually even worse in articles like Brazil with more than one map. Much better to have a white space there (which could be filled with text like has been done e.g. in the Colombia article). Just my opinion. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's less than ideal when the map gets pushed away from the text that it corresponds to, but that's not the case in Brazil—the map is still next to the list of regions, at least on my computer. In contrast, I think the big white space is a bit of an eyesore and requires unnecessary scrolling. It's not that important to me, though—if you want the white space, I won't revert it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, in my summary to my last edit I tried to write that the setup isn't that bad compared to many other country articles, but accidentially hit enter prematurely :P. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Haha, fair enough. I definitely do see the value of having the white space in some articles, like American Samoa, where the space is not that big and the layout looks pretty strange without it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You recently added Shunde at Pearl_River_Delta#Cities, but it is already mentioned under Foshan. Could you please reduce it to one mention? I do not think it matters much which. Pashley (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It does matter which since the intro says "eight prefectures named for their main cities which we list below." Shunde does not have a prefecture & should not be on that list, so I'll delete it. Putting it back would be OK only if you rewrite the intro & I do not think that is a good idea. Pashley (talk)

Okay. In that case I guess Houjie needs to be removed too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about Saaremaa and Hiiumaa? Are you also going to convert them to city articles? Ceever (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a separate article about a city in Saaremaa, so while the current setup for that article isn't good, I'm not sure how best to resolve it. Hopefully someone else will be able to figure out whether it's better to merge Kuressaare into Saaremaa, keep them as two separate city articles, create articles for other places on the island, or some other solution. As for Hiiumaa, it does look like a city article currently, so I'll adjust that now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

After the time when I upgraded some articles that you didn't think I should have upgraded, I want to check with you about some itineraries I just upgraded to usable status: Trans-Siberian Highway and Interstate 5. Selfie City (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, they look usable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; sorry for responding so late. Selfie City (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I won't revert your revert, but I'd say until we can export dynamic maps as static maps, having two maps (one of them clickable, with city/main attraction photos) is better than one static map... I have done it like this for many places already in any case... Andree.sk (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, then would it be better to just use the dynamic map and get rid of the static map? Two maps giving roughly the same information just seems like a lot of clutter to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer that, esp. when the regions masks are also shown in the dynamic maps (like "here") - unfortunately the dynamic maps aren't exported in any way to offline versions (such as what can be viewed by kiwix)... :-( On the other hand, often the static maps are out of date with the article, and there's hardly anyone who would fix them, I guess. But as usual, this is a complicated topic - perhaps we could discuss it on pub or somewhere? In any case it'll surely take many weeks/months to come to a conclusion. I'd rather use the 2 maps in the meantime, and we can later cleanup (e.g. remove the staticmap=...) Andree.sk (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me it would be better to use one map (static or dynamic, it doesn't matter to me which one) in the meantime. But if you want to use two, I won't argue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to inform readers about what to do if you get lost hiking in the East Bay. This means that I need to include quite a few "might" and "could" examples in case someone loses their way. Would you consider what I've written in Hiking_in_the_East_Bay#Stay_safe to be harmful speculation. Just checking. Selfie City (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I can't really tell just from reading the section whether the information is speculation or not, but I don't see any red flags. If it's based on your own or others' experience or drawn from other sources, I think it's good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I went ahead and slushed some outdated nominations without realizing you commented with a disagreement. I think the best solution would be to change the name "Slush pile" to something like "Outdated nominations" or "Archives". What do you think? (Just to make clear, we're not removing nominations, just archiving them.) What do you think? Selfie City (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

How about "older nominations", so as not to suggest that they are no longer valid, just a separate group? Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That does sound better to me. Maybe "older requests" or "older suggestions". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

They are "Requested articles", so "Older requests" seems to be the best fit. Ground Zero (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think either would work. Selfie City (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

With regards to my edit that you reverted, "obligatory" of course does not mean the restaurant will force you to order it. Of course, you are free to order whatever you like, and the restaurant isn't going to complain as long as you are paying up. What I meant is that is is obligatory from a cultural perspective. I have Cantonese relatives myself, so I am somewhat familiar with Cantonese dining culture, and whenever you eat dim sum with Cantonese people, it is almost a given that they will order those two dishes. The philosophy behind this tradition is that because shrimp dumplings and pork dumplings are so simple, every restaurant should be able to make them, and if you can't make even such simple dishes well, chances are your other dishes won't be good. Moreover, because they require minimal seasoning, the belief is that ordering those two dishes will allow you to gauge the freshness of the restaurant's seafood and meat. I hope this clarifies what I meant by that. No restaurant will force you to order those two dishes, but if you dine with Cantonese people, they will expect you to order them. The dog2 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. In my opinion, your original phrasing ("Cantonese diners always order...") is a clearer way to convey that—saying "obligatory" in this context invites confusion. (There are restaurants where it actually is obligatory to get X or Y, in the sense that if you insist you don't want it, they'll charge you for it anyway. I've even been to an all-you-can-eat sushi restaurant where eating rice is obligatory—if you just eat the fish and not the rice from the rolls you order, they charge you extra.) By the way, I think the information about the philosophy behind the tradition would be a good addition to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have upgraded a couple of the lower-level destinations to usable, but Piedmont really just isn't up there yet. However, that county is very close to being at usable status and it would be great if we could get another region to usable status. What do you think? I can work on the county's article itself, but I know practically nothing about Piedmont. Selfie City (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, Wikivoyage:Region guide status says that usable status doesn't require all the cities to be at usable status or better, just the most important ones. I don't think Piedmont is one of the most important cities in the county, so that shouldn't be a problem. If you can work on the county article to add a "Get in" section with all the typical ways to get there, and the most prominent attractions (identified with directions), I think that'll be enough to get it to usable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that should be easy enough. Thanks for the information, and yes, Piedmont is definitely not the most important city in Alameda County. As you probably know, the main cities in Alameda County are Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, and Berkeley or something along those lines, with Pleasanton, Livermore, Alameda itself, and perhaps Castro Valley being of medium importance, and then the other cities being of much less importance. Thanks though. Selfie City (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know if you don't already, User:WOSlinker has nominated you as an admin. While I would of course be delighted if you were to accept (I don't think there's any doubt which way the vote will go), the choice is fully yours and I can't see anywhere where you were asked if you wanted to be nominated, so just wanted to make sure it's what you want. Best of luck, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I accept the nomination. Thanks for the message and the support! —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just voted for you, Granger. The above talk page sections show that you have given me a lot of help and guidance, and I think you'll be a good admin. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support! —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your edit summary

"restoring - the word "technically" is meaningful here - the country isn't legally part of the Schengen Area but de facto functions as part of it for travel purposes"

I will point out that this is what my version said (emphasis added):

"Although it's not part of the Schengen Area, there are no border controls when entering or exiting Monaco from France, so it can for all practical purposes be considered part of the Schengen Area."

The "technically" you've added back in alludes to what the rest of the sentence states clearly and unambiguously. Can we not expect readers to read a whole sentence? Or do we have to be repetitive and redundant and bore readers? Ground Zero (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's boring, I think it's clearer. Sometimes it's worth having a sentence that's slightly redundant, in order to make it easier to follow. The word "technically" here prepares the reader for some kind of major exception or different situation.

This seems to follow the pattern of other differences of opinion we've had about wording, where you've removed a word that's redundant, strictly speaking, but that (in my view) makes the sentence easier to follow. I think it's a small difference in this case, though, so if you want to remove the word again I won't object. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given that the reader has already been prepared for an exception by the word "Although" at the very start of the sentence. I'll take you up on that offer. Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great job on Chinese cuisine! I'm excited by the progress in the article. It would be awesome if it gets good and relatively comprehensive enough to feature as a travel topic! To what extent should we cover Overseas Chinese cuisines like Malaysian or Thai Chinese cuisines? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad the progress is appreciated! I'm hoping it can be a featured travel topic someday too. As for overseas Chinese cuisines, my initial thought is that the Chinese cuisine article should mainly focus on the food you can get in greater China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Then Malaysian Chinese cuisine would be covered in our Malaysia article (which already seems to have a good section about it), or a Malaysian cuisine article if it's ever created. But I think it would be good for the Chinese cuisine article to have a paragraph or two about overseas Chinese cuisine, so that readers know it exists and can click over to the relevant articles if they're interested. But I'm interested to hear what you and other editors think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the Chinese cuisine article should include information about, for example, Burmese cuisine. But at the same time I think the Chinese cuisine article should absolutely mention Chinese-American cuisine and other Chinese cuisines found in countries besides China. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are many different kinds of Overseas Chinese cuisine. Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian and in some cases Indian Chinese cuisines are way more interesting than American Chinese cuisine, and in the U.S., really old-school American Chinese cuisine (chow mein, chop suey, egg foo young, etc.) has been superseded in many places by a slightly less Americanized version. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What if we created a separate article for Overseas Chinese cuisine or even just for Chinese-American cuisine? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd support the creation of an Overseas Chinese cuisine with sections for each country or region with a distinct variety if someone wants to start one, but let's keep in mind that there'd be significant overlap with articles on the cuisines of Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, India and even the Anglo-Caribbean region (Jamaica, Trinidad, etc.). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What if we did something along the lines of Overseas Asian cuisine? I could see that getting chaotic, though, with so many different countries having different versions of their cuisines in different countries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Asian? No. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Too broad a topic, I guess. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Broad and unspecific. Compare "Overseas European cuisine". Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I see what you mean. Greek and German cuisines are not remotely alike. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I came across this so late, but I'd like to add that there's also Cuban-Chinese cuisine, even though I've never tried it myself. And there's also Japanese-Chinese (eg. ramen, gyoza) and Korean-Chinese (eg. jajangmyeon) cuisine. So if anyone decides to start the article, there's a lot you could possibly cover.

Speaking of which, I've never been a fan of American-Chinese or Australian-Chinese cuisine so perhaps I'm ignorant, but it seems like American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African Chinese cuisine all appear very similar to me. If anyone knows those in depth, I'm happy to have them included too. The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding American vs. Canadian Chinese food, one point that springs immediately to mind is that most Canadian Chinese restaurants, especially away from major cities, also serve Western food, while this is rarely if ever seen in the U.S. As for the cuisine itself, though, leaving aside different regional specialties that you can find in specific areas of both countries (i.e. Springfield-style cashew chicken in the U.S., ginger beef which originated in Calgary), there is no notable difference. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please pardon the delay in flipping the switch, but you are now an Admin by acclamation. Let me know if you need any help with any of your new tools, and thanks for being willing to help out this way.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on the promotion! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’ve been sending you a lot of thanks messages for edits lately. Just wanted to let you know that I am not trying to bother you, just that you’ve been doing a lot of edits lately that I’m grateful about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's no bother—I'm glad you appreciate the edits! —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. And yes, thanks for your work on the South American indegenous peoples article. IMO the Latin American indigenous groups have very interesting histories, and while our coverage of the Native Americans is quite detailed, until yesterday UTC the coverage on the South American peoples was comparatively very poor. History books tend to focus on Mediterranean peoples, and in the process many civilisations seem to be neglected. But how those Inca people survived, let alone thrived, in the mountainous jungles is quite an accomplishment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed—the Inca Empire is really interesting, and it would be great to improve our coverage of it and other South American cultures. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I messed up on the ping the first time, just wanted to let you know, I responded to you there today. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could you please appreciate the work I put into WV and not always make my life harder?

Yes, I know, you do not agree with every change I make, but at least have the decency to not start a fight about non-sense when there is no hard rules how it should be done.

I also do not agree with your edits all the time. But at least I respect your work and not just go ahead and revert changes that are not worth the fight.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I usually ignore edits of yours that I disagree with, because for some reason our disagreements seem to escalate and become unpleasant quickly. For example, I disagree with your recent addition of a banner to Talk:Bolivia—I think the banner is confusing because it makes the talk page look like an article, but I decided it wasn't worth the argument, so I left it alone. But sometimes when I see an edit that, in my view, clearly makes an article worse or violates Wikivoyage policies, I do revert it.

In the specific case of the Puno article, Wikivoyage:Measurements clearly advises providing conversions.

I do appreciate the work that you do to improve Wikivoyage and hope that you'll continue to do so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the case of the banner at the top of Talk:Bolivia, it's non-standard for pagebanners to be at the top of talk pages. Sorry, Ceever, but I think the banner should be removed (it's already at the top of Bolivia. It's actually a very nice pagebanner, just in the case of the talk page, not in the place where it belongs.

If we ever decide to make pagebanners at the top of talk pages standard, I'd go along with it, but since there isn't consensus currently for that, I think we should keep the status quo of not having pagebanners on talk pages. Per WV:Banner expedition and common knowledge, the point of banners is relevance to the place/topic described in the body of the article, which would make pagebanners irrelevant on talk pages. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't really care about the banner. I was just wondering where the chapter index appears. I thought the banner was the reason. Sorry for adding. I fixed the missing index with TOC. Cheers Ceever (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could it be that they escalate, because many senior users do not understand how to properly handle enthusiastic new editors? I have seen it often enough that new users are punished with apparently not applied "rules" by senior users, and often discussions escalate in the following.

This would be fine, if we had enough editors, but considering I am on the watchlist of beyond 600 articles, many of which are favourite travel destinations, and I am still able to review all edits within 2 hours after a break of 4 weeks, clearly points to the fact that we lack good and enthusiastic editors. That let alone is catastrophic, but editors also bring new readers, because they are keen to promote their work. If they decide to leave frustrated because all this bureaucracy is rained down on them, well guess what will be the consequence.

What people here need to understand is that besides the travellers/readers the editors are equally if not even more important customers for WV.

Yes, I had a look at Wikivoyage:Measurements, but it is clearly not applied meaningfully. Apparently, no one is really interested in conversions that are relevant to 5% or less of travellers. Rules should be practical not just logical, even though I do not even see much logic in this rule either.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I liked the change for Swaziland to Eswatini in that case. I think it's the sort of thing that will make people think "where's Eswatini?" and probably generate some interest. I don't think Swaziland would have had such a strong effect in that sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great! I think you're right. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out with followup edits to the articles for the Chinese provinces I moved to different Wikivoyage regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: this edit: Yeah, I think "vast majority" is accurate. To take me as an example, my immediate ancestors left Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but I had a lot of relatives in Poland who were murdered. I think this is very typical of American Jews. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't mean I think we have to revert your edit, but I do think the previous wording was accurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it was accurate, I don't know for sure. Like I said, I haven't seen statistics, I'm just judging from my own informal experience. I think among American Jews outside my family who I've talked to about the Holocaust, probably less than 2/3 have relatives who were killed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

So that would be a majority but not a vast majority. OK, fair enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't realize that you reverted my edit. I have and will continue to adjust to disclaimer so it adds to the joke rather than spoiling it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it now reads in such a way that it doesn't come across as serious. Sorry, I can see how such a disclaimer can easily be a joke spoiler if used the wrong way. I totally agree with you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks much better to me now. Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can see that before it was kind of a spoiler. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for creating so many page banners and helping to reduce the number of articles without custom page banners.

I am wondering though if you would follow-up by adding the banners to Wikidata? For each banner that you create, I have had to follow-up and complete this work for you. All of the articles that don't have their page banner added to Wikidata remain in the Wikivoyage maintenance category of Category:Banner missing from Wikidata. The top part of the page has the instructions on how to properly add the banner to Wikidata, and at the bottom is a list of articles that need this action. While the instructions may look lengthy, after you do this a couple of times it goes very quickly. Thanks for considering my request. It can be challenging to keep up with all of the banners that are being added each week. Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zcarstvnz: It seems to me this is something that can easily be done by bot—I don't think either of us need to spend the time manually adding the banners to Wikidata. At the very bottom of Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition you can find information about who to contact for a bot run. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would you say that article is at usable status yet? Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's funny, I was going through "what links here" for Ancient Egypt and I consequently viewed the Cedarville article, where it mentions "two sphinx". Which made me realize — the Sphinx isn't included in the Ancient Egypt article! What a terrible omission! I'll fix the problem. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. It only has two sections—is that all we expect the article to have? If so, I guess it's usable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree—it's a little thin. But what other sections could be added? I guess #Stay safe, but all I'd put is a link to Egypt#Stay safe, since relevant information is included there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does it need to be its own article then? Maybe better to redirect to Egypt and include relevant content in the "Understand" and "See" sections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Like many of the travel topic articles about history (and other topics), they were created around 2015 and have developed since then, but not a lot. I'm actually currently involved in a debate on this very issue at Talk:Ancient Israel. In both cases, I think there's too much content that's too united for for the travel topics to be merged into the country articles. But that's not how everyone sees it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very much support merging with Egypt. Not enough travel-related content on this page to justify being separated, and the non-travel-related content should go, anyway. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity, which state declaration of secession doesn't mention slavery? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia, only South Carolina, Texas, Alabama, and Virginia did, with Mississippi and Georgia additionally publishing separate explanations of their secessions which mentioned the slavery issue. If you're interested in a concrete example, you can read the Louisiana ordinance of secession here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

While I will defer this to your expertise, I would just like to understand what exactly the law is. My understanding is that the moment you stumble off the sidewalk onto someone's front yard, you are considered a trespasser and the owner then has the right to shoot you because he/she can go to court and claim to feel threatened because of your intrusion. The dog2 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I also have reason to believe that your appearance and skin color all too often have an effect on the likelihood of your being shot in such situations. There are too many stories about black folks being shot without good reasons and the shooters not punished for me to be naive about the difference in degrees of danger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And one thing that I will add is that even when it comes to self-defence, American law is quite unique in that you can use as much force as you want in the name of self-defence. In Singapore and Australia, which follow British law on this, you are only allowed to use "a reasonable amount of force" in the name of self-defence. So for instance, if a five-year-old boy punches you and you shoot him in retaliation, my understanding is that it is legal in the US because that is part of your right to defend yourself, while in Australia, you would still be guilty of murder because the amount of force used would be considered to be disproportionate and not reasonable. The dog2 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you're right, The dog2. If you were a police officer and the 5-year-old was black, you might get away with it, but I don't think there's any law in the U.S. that gives you the right to shoot someone in supposed self-defense, let alone in retaliation, just because they punched you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What are "stand your ground" laws then? The dog2 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You think they apply to shooting a 5-year-old? I mean, in practice, maybe if the shooter is white and the puncher is black, but that's not because of the law; it's because of racism in the legal system. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but at most, "stand your ground" laws allow the use of lethal force only if you believe the person presents an imminent threat of physical harm. Nowhere in the US (as far as I know) is it legal to shoot someone just because they're on your property. That's a Hollywood exaggeration. Your "five-year-old" example is incorrect too. (Of course it's true that race is a factor, both in property owners' behavior and in how a jury is likely to view the situation.)

More broadly, The dog2, I've noticed you sometimes add content to articles that's based on overgeneralizations, incorrect assumptions, or inaccurate stereotypes. I've gone behind you and corrected these sometimes, but there are certainly others that I've missed. Please be careful not to add content that you're not sure about. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I guess sometimes the media does exaggerate some aspects of American gun culture for dramatic effect. Perhaps how the media portrays the red states is not that accurate after all. But tangential to this, I've heard that it's legal for you to drive without a licence on your own private property. Is that actually true? The dog2 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, but I would believe it. Probably depends on the state. I know someone who grew up on a farm and started driving there when she was 12 or 13. If true, though, I don't think it's relevant to travelers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm Canadian, our legal system is mostly British, my dad was a high-ranking officer of our federal police, the RCMP, and sometime around 1970 he explained our law on this to me.

Shoot a burglar as he climbs in your window & you are in the clear; no charge will be laid. You do not know his intentions or how he might be armed, whether he has four buddies about to climb in behind him, etc.

Shoot him as he climbs out the window & you will be charged. With a good lawyer you might well beat the charge -- temporary insanity because he kicked your wife & raped your dog, or claim you were defending your neighbours who you thought he was going after next, or whatever -- but you would have to face a court.

This still sounds about right to me. Pashley (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the full international phone number for Traveles hotel? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm afraid not, though after looking online I found a longer version of the number with the area code, which I've put in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I looked on Wikipedia for information and I think I've added the country code correctly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking care of this issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know, it just so happened that you replied while I was editing my comment halfway, because I felt the need to elaborate further on why I consider some of these vitamins to be a safety risk. Whatever you were replying to is still there, and I merely added some stuff. I assure you that I was not trying to misrepresent you. The dog2 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Understood, and thanks for clarifying. I added the note to my comment to make sure it's clear I was responding to the stuff from the main article and the comments about Paul Offit and the FDA, not the information about Vitamin C. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nice little list. There's a whole Stack Exchange thread about "touristic" and how it's basically only used by non-native speakers. As an addition, may I suggest "orthography"? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, good one—that word is often misused by non-native speakers. That said, it doesn't seem to be a big problem on Wikivoyage—I just searched for "orthography" and it's mostly being used for its correct technical meaning. So I'm not ready to add it to the list yet...but let me know if you have any other suggestions! —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand the last time, I erred in saying that people could die by visiting Hong Kong, but people have indeed been injured as a result of the protests recently. There are photos of bloodied protesters on the metro that have been widely disseminated. I believe adding a notice saying that injuries are possible is not at all ridiculous or an exaggeration. I will not edit the warning box further, however, until we can reach a consensus on this issue. Kiteinthewind (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Indeed protestors have been injured, and I think the word "violent" already makes it obvious that attending the protests may bring a risk of injury—we don't need to be repetitive or to exaggerate by implying travelers are at risk everywhere in Hong Kong. The stuff about travelers' native languages is basically speculative, and the advice not to go to Hong Kong at all is excessive. One of my students (from mainland China) took a shopping trip to Hong Kong just last week. And so on. I think the current warning is adequate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I see it, if people are covered in blood, there is a risk of death, low it may be. However, I don't say the wording should necessarily be changed. —The preceding comment was added by SelfieCity (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 September 2019

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	For your amazing work revising country article lead paragraphs. Great job! Ground Zero (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree. Tremendous amount of work! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both—I'm glad it's appreciated! Still lots of room for improvement, of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the concept of "Stadtrecht" translates well into English, but Vaduz never received it, making it "still a village" at least in a somewhat medieval interpretation of legalities. This German language source mentions the lack of Stadtrecht near the beginning. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll defer to your judgement on the technicalities of Liechtenstein law, but I suggest we put this administrative trivia in the "Understand" section rather than the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since you lived in Guangdong for a while, I though I'd share a clip from Guangdong television with you. What they did here was that they got people from different cities in Guangdong to rap their parts in their local dialect, so you'll hear Cantonese, Taishanese, Hakka, Teochew and so on. The dog2 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I love it! Thanks for the recommendation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the mistake made in Hong Kong, as I thought that "lynching" refers to the unlawful punishment by others. I didn't even know that the term only refers to extrajudicial killing... But anyways, there are definitely such beatings by protesters on counterprotesters, known as "私了" by the protesters. Perhaps it is worth mentioning? 廣九直通車 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize! I'm glad we have you here updating the situation in Hong Kong, and there are plenty of people watching the article to correct any errors that slip through. The word "lynching" is sometimes used metaphorically, but usually refers to extrajudicial killing (I think it's narrower than the Chinese term 私刑).

About the beatings, I suppose the current language referring to "violent assaults on people having different political views" is adequate. Unless you think more details are needed? —Granger (talk ·