Talk:Baedeker
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Section titles, flow comment
[edit]I added section titles to the article, and moved one section about WWII up to the proper section. The article still needs some flow-work. Stale Fries taste better 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
MairDumont
[edit]This brand has been an imprint of the MairDumont group for well over a decade now, per many sources including the official Baedeker site... Ranma9617 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Who invented the "stars"?
[edit]Was Baedeker the one who invented the "stars"-rating system for attractions. Who had the idea to rate hotels and restaurants with "stars" ? Michelin started with this system for restaurants only in 1923. First star for a sight in Germany appeared in a Baedeker book in 1846. --79.230.25.23 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Whole of article needs review for "story" / POV issues, and thorough-going issues with referencing
[edit]The last three sections were tagged as examples to call attention to repeated vague statements; see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions. More critically, large parts of the article, including these closing sections, are like a positive local news story (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:NPOV_language), and therefore have repeated POV issues due to use of overly positive descriptive (WP Peacock) terms. These closing sections are examples why the article tags were introduced; the whole of the article (and not just the three closing sections) should be examined for these same issues. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- You may want to check WP:OVERTAGGING - adding heavy amounts of banner and inline tags can be counter-productive. I've gone through and trimmed back some unnecessary ones, deleted a lot of obvious peacock words outright, and have cut all your {{when?}} tags, which should be used for material "so vague or ambiguous that you do not understand what is being said" rather than (as it seemed to me) dates you are merely curious about. --McGeddon (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point of initially "over-tagging" (your opinion) was to call other interested editors' attentions to pervasive language that was unacceptable; you have now very efficiently removed the examples, undermining the point. Will you now edit the rest of the article, to remove all cases of the same language? Will you also do the research that the original editors would have done, so that vague references to dates are now clarified (returning here to enter them)? Please, be considerate, before making rapid, easy changes that undermine edits whose point was to aim the article at longterm changes to common standards of quality. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OVERTAGGING policy says "it is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles"; you've added seven. If you're saying "section needs additional citations for verification", you don't need to keep saying "this sentence is unsourced! and this one!" all the way through that section. But if you're annoyed that by fixing the problems you raise I'm just making the article look less like it needs fixing (?) then I'll leave you to it and come back later. --McGeddon (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Until such sentences as "They were responsible for all the Baedeker editions in English for almost forty years." contain specific date information, the "when?" tags should not be removed (and are therefore re-entered). Until such sentences as "The Baedekers… were always generous in acknowledging the commitment of the Muirheads and Piehler to their firm, and the contribution they had made to the success of Verlag Karl Baedeker" appear in such unequivocally positive terms, and appear without any citation, the tags should remain indicating that they are editorial opinions of the contributing editors, and contain peacock terms. As the tag above the section states, the goal is that editors... "instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, [would] use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". Again, as noted above, these three sections were done as examples; the vagaries and puffery appear throughout, and this point should not be diminished by deleting tags, until the whole of the article is edited for these issues. Of particular concern is appearance of positive opinion without attribution, see also next comment. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Moreover, I would argue, that by removing the tags for unacceptable content, you make it harder for original editors to maintain a positive tone if, on adding citations, that tone can be attributed to a source—in which case it is not editorializing, but reporting of the positive opinion of a reliable source. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Until such sentences as "They were responsible for all the Baedeker editions in English for almost forty years." contain specific date information, the "when?" tags should not be removed (and are therefore re-entered). Until such sentences as "The Baedekers… were always generous in acknowledging the commitment of the Muirheads and Piehler to their firm, and the contribution they had made to the success of Verlag Karl Baedeker" appear in such unequivocally positive terms, and appear without any citation, the tags should remain indicating that they are editorial opinions of the contributing editors, and contain peacock terms. As the tag above the section states, the goal is that editors... "instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, [would] use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". Again, as noted above, these three sections were done as examples; the vagaries and puffery appear throughout, and this point should not be diminished by deleting tags, until the whole of the article is edited for these issues. Of particular concern is appearance of positive opinion without attribution, see also next comment. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OVERTAGGING policy says "it is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles"; you've added seven. If you're saying "section needs additional citations for verification", you don't need to keep saying "this sentence is unsourced! and this one!" all the way through that section. But if you're annoyed that by fixing the problems you raise I'm just making the article look less like it needs fixing (?) then I'll leave you to it and come back later. --McGeddon (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point of initially "over-tagging" (your opinion) was to call other interested editors' attentions to pervasive language that was unacceptable; you have now very efficiently removed the examples, undermining the point. Will you now edit the rest of the article, to remove all cases of the same language? Will you also do the research that the original editors would have done, so that vague references to dates are now clarified (returning here to enter them)? Please, be considerate, before making rapid, easy changes that undermine edits whose point was to aim the article at longterm changes to common standards of quality. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baedeker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213104740/http://blueguides.com/our-titles/blue-guides/history-of-the-blue-guides/ to http://blueguides.com/our-titles/blue-guides/history-of-the-blue-guides/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)