Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Pub)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Pub

The Travellers' Pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
  • If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment
  • If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.
  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
QA icon clr.svg

Contents

Bug with Internet Explorer[edit]

IE bug.png

Most of the small icons to add listings to the site do not show up properly with Internet Explorer (see screenshot). Anyone know how to fix this bug? Globe-trotter (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

With what version of Internet Explorer? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I see exactly the same thing with IE 11 under Windows 8.1 (64 bit). I never use IE for Wikivoyage, but this may be a CSS issue. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's also my version. Globe-trotter (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there nobody who can solve this problem? I have no experience with CSS and I am also not authorized (I think) to make changes. --FredTC (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be an issue with IE's scaling of SVG images - see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9777143/svg-in-img-element-proportions-not-respected-in-ie9. The code that adds the buttons to the edit toolbar is in MediaWiki:Common.js, but it's using functionality that appears to be part of MediaWiki (and not custom Wikivoyage code), so I'm hesitant to overwrite anything in the CSS or JS. One possible workaround might be to try recreating the toolbar icons as 22x22 PNG icons (instead of SVGs), in which case no scaling would be necessary. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think our admin Globetrotter can use your suggestions to solve the problem. --FredTC (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving[edit]

I'm wondering if there is interest in having a bot for archiving discussion pages that need archiving constantly (such as this Pub). I have a bot to do that, which is an unmodified copy of archivebot.py of Pywikibot. To get a sense of how it will look like, please see the bot's edits on Meta. Would you like to have it? It would take almost no effort for me to add English Wikivoyage, if there is interest. Whym (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How would a bot know which talk page to sweep discussions to? Powers (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It only recognizes systematically named subpages such as Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2014 and Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archive/4. Edits like [1] and [2] can be automated, while [3] and [4] would still have to be done manually. I believe both could co-exist and could save the time for the maintenance overall. Whym (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to hear more about how the co-existence workflow would work. Powers (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The concern I would have is just that if there is minimal effort (perhaps 'one click'?) required for automatic archiving then it will probably result in most discussions being archived in the standard location.
If you want to manually archive a discussion in the standard location then anyway it isn't much effort presently. Most effort is around finding an appropriate article to file each discussion under. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the Pub may not be the best page for auto-archiving, but what about using a bot on pages where we do archive to a sub-page? The following jump to mind:
Most of the time discussions are properly archived on those pages, but it wouldn't hurt to have a bot that archives old discussions if we forget to do so, and I would think that setting a bot up for these pages probably wouldn't be controversial. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, except perhaps for Star noms. Powers (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe Wikivoyage:Tourist Office, too? Whym (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A bot sweeping the Tourist Office could be useful. In order to function properly, it'd have to check two things, though: when there hasn't been any discussion for 14 days in a thread it should be swept. Moreover threads should be swept to the proper archive page, which is defined as the month when the thread was started. In almost half of the cases this is the month before - in extreme cases it might even be two months back. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC), frequent Tourist Office sweeper.
I would say 2 weeks might be too short. Probably at least a month. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Powers, regarding the workflow, here is what I thought: when someone is quicker than the bot, then there will be no problem, and when the bot is quicker than a potential sweeper, then someone might have to look at the subpage to consider sweeping the archived thread to somewhere else - still, no more effort than currently required will be required, IMO. I get Andrewssi2's point above on possible tendency towards not bothering to find a more appropriate place, though. Whym (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't support automatically archiving discussions less than a month old, because I think there will be too many unhelpful instances of archiving, in that case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
When a page is configured to have a 31-day threshold, no thread commented a month ago or later would be archived by archivebot.py. The configuration would also imply that no thread less than a month old would be archived. Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon: 1) Duration of inactivity before archiving can be set to one month or anything else, by specifying it in the marker template, as explained in mw:Manual:Pywikibot/archivebot.py/setup. 2) Choosing the archive page based on the month when the thread was started - this option is not available in archivebot.py. Would it be acceptable if the timestamp of the last comment in the thread decides the subpage? Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have another question, can the bot create new archive pages for new months? Otherwise they need to be created manually, and if this is the case I don't think there is very much left for the bot to do.
Also, in the Tourist Office the asker wants an answer to a specific question unlike for example talk pages or the pub where policies, district divisions and whatnot are developed. IMO we shouldn't keep the threads in the Tourist Office longer than necessary. Now they are archived after two weeks of inactivity, and I don't think that's too short time at all - this period could even be shortened. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The bot creates new archive pages when they are needed. [5] m:Template:Archive box auto ensures links to newly created pages to be shown on the parent page. (it doesn't support some types of pages such as "/2014-Q1", though.) Whym (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the links I gave (which didn't work). Sorry for the confusion. Whym (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, let's implement the archiving bot for the Tourist Office and see if it works right. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have set it up for the Tourist Office and scheduled a daily check. I consider it a trial and haven't requested a bot flag yet. Note that Wikivoyage:Tourist Office#Is Suriname safe to travel? will be archived into the October page, not September. I hope this is an acceptable change, but if you disagree I can try implementing the original rule for the Tourist Office mentioned above by ϒpsilon. Whym (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikivoyage:Script nominations#‎ArchiverBot. Whym (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing of status descriptions[edit]

I really don't like this phrasing, but where is the template, so I can edit it?

This region travel guide to La Palma has the status outline and needs more content.

It doesn't have the status outline. It is an outline, or if it's important to use the word "status," it has outline status. All similar phrasings need to be changed in the same way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's {{stbox}} and the wording should be chosen to emphasise likely search terms such as the name of the destination, tour, travel, voyage, visit. "Status" isn't a valuable, useful term. K7L (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I object to the way this was carried out. Well and good that changing the position and size of our maintenance tags was discussed in the pub, but if we were going to also alter the wording of the tags, the proposed new text should have been vetted in the Pub rather than put in place unilaterally. All the new tags should probably be reviewed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Would it make more sense if it said "has the status 'outline'"? It's still a bit mechanical but grammatically it's fine. Ikan's comment "where is the template, so I can edit it?" neatly illustrates the concern I raised (and which was dismissed) on Template talk:Stbox; shunting all of the status descriptors to a single template is a bad idea. Powers (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I find your proposed solution tolerable, though I like my proposals better. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't a proposed solution, but an attempt to make the syntax clearer. Powers (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Solution for the problem of bad syntax. :-) Shall we attempt to gain a consensus here? So far, we've had 3 edited wordings proposed — 1 by you and 2 by me.
So, everyone, do you prefer "has the status 'outline'", "is an outline" or "has outline status", or would you like to propose another wording? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Is an outline". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Anyone else have an opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Has the status 'outline'" or "is an outline". ϒpsilon (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Is an outline". K7L (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Is an outline" looks most popular so far. Are there any objections? I'll wait at least 24 hours for other input before making the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
"is an outline". Any change to usable, guide and star? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ikan (and others), I am going to be on a plane for most of the day so feel free to edit and experiment with the pages User:Traveler100/statustype and User:Traveler100/sandbox-stbox. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd change them all in the same way: "is usable," (that one can't be "is a usable" but could be "is a usable article," so maybe we should discuss that wording), "is a guide," "is a star." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
the one I am not sure of is guide, was the original reason I added the word status. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I get your point and I agree with you. It does have to be "has guide status," because "This article is a guide" will be met with a reaction of "No kidding!" Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
"Is a stub", "is an outline", "is usable", "is a reasonably-complete guide", "is a star". K7L (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm definitely not a fan of the phrasing "is a reasonably-complete guide". I think guide-level articles are the one exception where it would be preferable to use the word "status", i.e. "this article is at guide status". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine, but I would still like to lose administrative terminology like "status" from the others. This is on the actual article (not the talk page) and is traveller-facing. K7L (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with "this article is at guide status," and I completely agree with eliminating "status" from the other templates. Is there agreement on this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with the word "status"? It's a perfectly cromulent word; it's not specialized jargon. And it serves the purpose of conveying to the reader that the text is referring to an evaluation of the article's quality, rather than some other property. Powers (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) Frankly, if it were up to me we would simply go back to the old wording. The original problem that we sought to solve was that the maintenance tags were too large; that problem was addressed by downsizing the font. However, there was no consensus regarding how the phrasing of the tags should be altered, or even if it needed to be altered at all. That was all done unilaterally and without community input, and it should be reversed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What was the old wording? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The new wording includes the words travel guide and the name of the location. The idea is that it quickly adds text to all pages that would helps with typical key words used in search engines. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike clutter added solely for search engines. The location is already mentioned in the main heading and mostly several times in the text. "Travel guide" should (if needed at all) be somewhere in the meta description, such as "Welcome to Wikivoyage!" -> "Welcome to the travel guide Wikivoyage!", not in the article itself. Are the search engines still dumb enough for this kind of optimisation to be a benefit? --LPfi (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a very reasonable point, but could we please come to a consensus about how to handle these status wordings, in the meantime? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree to a reversion to the old wording for the reasons LPfi mentions above. Texugo (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Texugo. I don't remember exactly what the old wording looked like, but I thought it was acceptable, though arguably not optimal.
Everyone: Can we please have more input in this thread? Right now, there is no clear consensus for any action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate, I think that all status descriptions should be reverted to their pre-9 September 2014 phrasing. To address the second part of Ikan's comment above, and to perhaps cut to the heart of the direction this discussion is currently headed: I don't think that a "clear consensus" is required to do this, as the rephrasing itself was done unilaterally and is thus a violation of the preexisting consensus that a reversion would return us to. In the future, I'm certainly open to discussing changes to the phrasing of the status descriptions, as long as any action that's taken in regards to that is consensus-based. For now, though, the way to go is returning to the old phrasing on at least a provisional basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Understood, and no objection on my part. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have made the chances suggested above but if you still want to revert to the old, simply undo the last edit on the status template pages (like usablecity). For those wanting no change but asking what was the original text go to the equivalent page on Wikitravel. The intention of the change was to increase rankings in search engines, first to make the pages different from wikitravel, second to actual have changes on pages, thirdly to have the phrase travel guide proceeding the location (page) name and fourthly to put the phrase travel guide into the main page text and not just in the title. It also had the advantage of making the id tagging of the text the the same format for all status tags. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) Per consensus here, all article status templates have been reverted to their pre-9 September 2014 versions. In future, let's please subject to community consensus any major changes to the wording of status templates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Propose to rephrase status footer text to include travel guide to city name. As per Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition#Key search term in status template --Traveler100 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Discount sites active in multiple cities[edit]

Hi, everyone. I'm wondering if we want to allow listings for or links to websites like Trevii in multiple cities, or even in any city. I started a discussion about the adding of the link to the New York City article at Talk:New York City#Trevii website, but no-one has responded so far, and I now see that the Boston guide also has been edited to add a link to and description of the site.

I'd say the pros of including a link to the site would be that it seems to be honest in recommending that people planning to visit only free or "suggested donation" sights not buy any special ticket through their site and tells people when museums that usually charge admission have free days.

The cons would be that: (a) There may be many sites around the world that claim to provide discount sights packages, perhaps in dozens of cities or more (Trevii is operating only in New York and Boston so far); do we really want to vet all of them? (b) Some of them may be a lot less seemingly honest than Trevii.

So what do you think? I tend to support allowing Trevii to be listed in the New York City and Boston articles, but I definitely see the other side of the argument, and if these kinds of listings became rampant, I'd support removing them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't even link to proven reliable sites like TripAdvisor, Expedia or even Google Flights. Therefore, I don't think we should promote any particular site, except for official ones. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, although look at Planning your flight#Finding cheap tickets, where there's some basic discussion of travel search sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this slipped through the cracks. I'd remove this link. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the discussion of search sites in that article is an exception and appropriate, but the one that's given a listing should probably be deleted.
Before I delete the links to (and mention of) Trevii in the Boston and New York City articles, does anyone have any objections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Please go ahead and removed them. It is a kind of travel agency, even if they are honest people, their place is not in Wikivoyage. (at best it might be acceptable in Planning your visits#Finding cheap tickets if there is such an article) Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are several other listings for "multi-attraction schemes" in New York City#See. Should all of those listings be deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
And the beginning of Boston#See includes links to GoBoston Card and Boston CityPASS. Are those links violations of policy, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would say that quickly mentioning "city passes" is OK (but not as listings), but linking to a website that helps people select what is the cheapest ticket for them is not OK. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So what that would amount to is that Boston#See is OK but New York City#See would have to be revamped. Do other people agree with this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is ok to mention city passes, particularly those that can be bought locally at ticket counters / tourist offices. In some cases it may be worth filling a paragraph with details of how to get the best value from a pass. However booking sites generally should not be listed - just like hotel booking sites. AlasdairW (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be on the road soon and may have limited time on WV, but I think the remaining issue is really to decide what to do with the coverage of multi-attraction schemes in New York City#See, which are in templated listings, vs. the briefer coverage with links in Boston#See. Once a consensus is reached, would someone (not necessarily me) please take any necessary action? I'm not sure I have a view on this question myself, by the way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been in California for over a week, and this topic seems to have petered out. Any thoughts, ladies and gentlemen? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Presentation ready for review[edit]

I would greatly appreciate feedback for the informational video on Wikivoyage that I've been working on. It is 15 minutes long. Rather than a tight focus on US Chambers of Commerce it is more generic. The "ideas" slide is the only one specifically aimed at Chambers.

There are some clunky sounds on a few of the audio transitions. Those will be fixed. The first several slides are sort of sleepy and I'm not sure how to fix, so please give any suggestions you have.

After I implement your suggestions and get a final draft, I would like to request a review from Wikipedia editors. They will be familiar with the mechanics but not with specifics so their input can help me find any spots that don't make sense to a non-Wikivoyage editor. Let me know what you think on any/all of this. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Great efforts but too long to watch. You've to shorten the video if you really want someone to watch it but I'm afraid I'm not good with suggestions. --Saqib (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing! You obviously put a lot of work into this and I think the idea is wonderful. That said, I do think there's room for improvement. A few of my first thoughts;
  • I agree with Saqib that this video is far too long for people who are not yet engaged. As I see it, your presentation now pretty much combines two separate targets: a promotional aspect, aimed at gaining people's interest, and a fairly comprehensive explanation, almost a tutorial. For promotional purposes a catchy short video (say 2 minutes) would be far more effective. A more in depth introduction would rather be a next step.
  • Also, I would suggest focussing more on our strengths. Show viewers (eg Chambers) why Wikivoyage can be a resource for them. Of course you may want to explain what red links are, and that editors are very welcome to fill empty sections, but if you want to make people enthusiastic about the project you want to showcase good articles. Pick examples with great banners, pictures, maps and more or less complete content. Also, while many articles indeed start with the rather factual "x is a place in y", we encourage editors to be more creative.
  • Regardless of the target, I would start positive and leave the somewhat more complicated or administrative topics like the licensing for later on in the presentation. Start with destination articles (because that is the part of interest to Chambers) and leave our Main Page etc for later. Start with why Wikivoyage is great: as an up to date and ever-growing source of information for travellers and a free opportunity for Chambers to share information and highlights of their town with potential visitors, with only a handful of restrictions.
I understand that these are suggestions for rather large changes - I hope you don't mind. Thanks for your efforts! JuliasTravels (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the look through. I think you are absolutely right on this being too much at once. For some reason I kept wanting it to be something that could load quickly and with no glitches on a webcast and boxed myself into an idea. Will give it another go with these excellent suggestions. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Image licensing paperwork[edit]

Have any of you seen this report on image licensing documentation here at the English Wikivoyage? https://tools.wmflabs.org/mrmetadata/wikivoyage/en/index.html

The goal is to standardize documentation so that bots and scripts can keep track of it and so that people are more likely to re-use images correctly. I looked at a couple of these, and I think that the "problem" (from the perspective of a bot) is just the location of the tags. On the couple I looked at, the "permissions" fields said "see below" rather than having the tags inside the {{information}} template. I'm thinking that if we just moved those tags, that Wikivoyage could have most of its images in the ideal format pretty quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 4 machine generated categories:
I've made some changes to Template:Information, Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0, Template:Cc-by-3.0 and other templates to reduce the number of entries in those categories. There are still some of the license templates that need doing, mainly those with multiple licenses. I also changed Template:Imagecredit to use Template:Information but that was reverted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've done the rest of the license tags and it has revealed a few unlicensed images, which will need removing from articles and deleting. I'm listing here so that alternatives can be sourced if possible before deletion. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Image Used on
File:Accra lighthouse.jpg Accra - Replaced
File:Bam-severobaikalsk.jpg Baikal-Amur Mainline, Severobaikalsk
File:Beirut818bpa6.jpg Beirut - Replaced
File:Bozar IMG.JPG Brussels - Replaced
File:Greater Sydney Discuss.png Talk:Sydney/Archive 2003-2012
File:Hurshimchung Entrance.JPG Hot springs - Replaced
File:Madisonbanner1.jpg Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners/Archive
File:Malta Sliema Sign.JPG Malta - Replaced, Wikivoyage:Joke articles/San Serriffe - Replaced
File:Pirelli Building, Milan, Italy.jpg Italy, Milan/North
WOSlinker, File:Madisonbanner1.jpg's description clearly states that it was sourced from this photo on Commons. The reason why it doesn't have a license listed is probably because the source photo is public domain, which is precisely why I clamored for expanded licensing options for locally-hosted images a while back. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've addded {{Cc-zero}} to that image, so that it matches the license used on commons. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Bam-severobaikalsk.jpg has "photo license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 or GFDL 1.2" as the second line of text. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added the license templates to match this. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like 52% of the files have been fixed already. Congratulations! There are just 354 to go as of the last count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that envoy got a shout-out at today's m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings for making so much progress on this issue so quickly. You can see it around 50 or 51 minutes, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage's newest Guide article[edit]

...is Percé.

I'm pretty proud of my work, but this post isn't just intended to pat myself on the back. As happened with the Gaspé Peninsula article before it, I'd love it if someone who is a native speaker of Canadian English would go over it and check for any mistakes I missed.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrew. I must say you're a talented guy. You sure know how to write a well-written guide. Keep up your good work. I'm proud to have you here. --Saqib (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Percé is an exemplary article! Our Canadian contributors have been a bit inactive the last weeks for some reason. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Project scope[edit]

I see that an IP has been busy expanding our article on Binghamton. Most of the changes look good, but I'm uncertain about listing local employers and media outlets. Is Binghamton#Work outside our WV:Project scope given that we're a travel guide and targeting primarily short-term travellers visiting for a week, a day or at most a fraction of a month? The list of goals and non-goals is vague on this point (claiming, among other things, to not be a yellow page directory) and the only place we explicitly say anything "must be available for a stay of one week or less" is Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental listings. There was a previous discussion of marriage in China which claimed it (like going to the dentist in Burundi) was somehow out-of-scope, but I don't see anywhere where the outcome of this (or a discussion on whether multi-year BA or BSc students at out-of-town schools are travellers or in residence) is reflected in actual policy. K7L (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, that's not what the Work section is for, but I've chosen to let the IP user continue with his or her edits and see what results, rather than interrupt with criticism. There's nothing egregiously bad there, so there's nothing that can't wait until the article is in a more stable state, IMO. Powers (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding content duplication[edit]

While adding information about tipping in Madagascar to Tipping#Madagascar I realized that the exact same text would be needed in Madagascar#Tipping and suggested a possible solution to avoid having multiple copies of the same text for every country article. It was suggested that further feedback be solicited, so for anyone interested, please comment at Talk:Tipping#Duplication between this article and country articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with districtifying[edit]

Talk:Indianapolis#Districts I think I have a good idea of the logistics of how many districts to make for my city and roughly where but I have a few questions as well. Although I've been on this site back since it was Wikitravel in 2005, I've never really attempted something this elaborate. Does anyone have any thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit listing dialogue box could be better[edit]

  • The alignment of "alt" is not nice. And "alt" should start with a capital.
  • Fax is missing
  • You do not get it in Mobile modus --FredTC (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Dialog English.jpg
--FredTC (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've capitalised the "A". My "Alt" aligns fine. What browser are you using? Nurg (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I use IE11, and I see only the capital A as change. --FredTC (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the alignment is a problem in IE11. It is fine in Firefox and Chrome. I can see two possible causes. One is that IE11 renders all the edit boxes with a smaller height - maybe the font has a smaller height and causes this. The other is that the arrow head in the "Type" box is much bigger in IE11 than the other browsers. One or other or a combination of both means that there is not enough room for the Alt box to fit below the Type box, so the Alt box is pushed to the right. The "Alt" label, being of less height than its box, can fit under the Type box. Maybe an expert needs to modify MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor.js. Someone like User:Torty3, who created it. Nurg (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Since we can have an image in the template - do you want to put an Image: field in as well??? Matroc (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that should be there as well. However if you use one of the listing buttons in the edit screen, the code genereated does not include it, that is why I did not notice that one. There is an additional problem: you do not get the dialogue in mobile modus, and to my opinion that is the situation where you need it the most. --FredTC (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think there should be an image field, as in the case of eat/drink/sleep listings, it will appear to encourage people to add pictures of the Super 8 motel, the Howard Johnson, the T.G.I. Friday's, and so on, all of which are explicitly against our image policy. Texugo (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, the image isn't actually displayed in the article - it just appears if the numbered icon on the map is clicked. That creates somewhat of a grey area which our policy was never designed to address - an image which might not be worth thumbnailing inline may still be suitable for the map icon click... or not. I doubt we want a link to national hotel, hire car or hamburger chain logos but some which are marginal (local photo of an individual museum, tour boat, attraction) might get the map icon click and not the inline thumb image on the page itself.
"Fax" is another matter... it's obsolete technology based on dial-up modems and really bad black-and-white (no greyscale, 100x200dpi TIFF) scanned document images, but it somehow refuses to die. I have no idea why - my workplace pulled the plug on it years ago as mostly receiver-paid hardcopy of unsolicited advertising gets sent and it does not play nicely with Internet telephony - but enough travel venues are still listing it that its absence from the listing editor is anomolous.
I usually avoid using the listing editor as it has a sneaky tendency to outright remove any fields in the existing listing which aren't on its internal list, clandestinely and silently. This is a bug which was reported long ago, no idea if anything is being done to fix it. K7L (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion about fax listings, but they just might be useful somewhere, so I see no important reason to delete them. In terms of images in listings, K7L explains the situation exactly. I have no problem with them whatsoever, including in the cases of nationwide or international chains. They're solely for the convenience of map-readers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Chain logos would make these businesses stand out and also make them look like the normal alternative. I think we should not do that kind of advertising. --LPfi (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Article statistics available?[edit]

Quick question: Are there statistics available per article (e.g. number of article impressions)? Thanks! User4353 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Click the history tab for any article. Near the top there's an external link that says "Page view statistics". Powers (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! User4353 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tampa recent edits[edit]

Can someone who knows Tampa please check out recent edits. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That account was blocked on Wikipedia for making edits to Tampa articles that were called "dubious" in reverts (w:Special:Contributions/24.164.7.74). I'd suggest a revert with a request on the IP's talk page for clarification would be prudent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Changing username[edit]

Recently the renaming process was changed so that only stewards and m:global renamers can rename users, so that the process is global. Perhaps requests should be made at Meta (m:SRUC), and this process should be closed? --Rschen7754 16:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. It seems like common sense that if we can't rename users here then we should redirect Wikivoyage:Changing username to m:Steward requests/Username changes and either archive or delete the various sub-pages (Special:PrefixIndex/Wikivoyage:Changing username). As a side note, as a bureaucrat I'm very glad that figuring out what to do about global username conflicts is no longer something that needs to be dealt with. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@LtPowers: and @DerFussi: as others who may be interested in this. --Rschen7754 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I certainly have no objection, but I wasn't clear enough on the change to say if that's the correct course of action or not. Powers (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a no-brainer. Let's redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an explanatory page is better, with a link to meta and some comment on Wikivoyage:User account migration. The meta page seems not to yet reflect that all changes are "global" - and being redirected to another site (Wikimedia instead of Wikivoyage) is obviously confusing at least for some. --LPfi (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia and time zones[edit]

Apparently Russia is ending its three-year experiment with year-round daylight savings time. I presume this will affect a huge stack of articles here? K7L (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

listing and geo coordinates[edit]

We appear to be having some syntax update errors with coordinates on any recently saved pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See the relevant thread on meta. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Traveler100, the problem is on each page not just in the recently saved. The one that looks fine is just because of the cache memory. When you purge it (or look them in preview) they turn bad. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm: listing templates seem to be broken, but {{Template:Marker}} displays fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is on #coordinates not in the listing template itself. Marker does not use #coordinates. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing see sections for countries[edit]

I'm quietly celebrating a bit as I've just finished the last of a long list of missing European country See-sections. Other continents are not as far yet though. A few years ago, Peter started the Wikivoyage:Country surgeon Expedition in order to provide usable see sections for our country articles. Strangely, that whole section was not part of the template during the first so many years, resulting in underdeveloped see-sections all around. Despite the wide interest in the beginning, and quite a few contributed sections in the first months, the expedition seems to have been forgotten. From time to time, I try to get back to it and get a few more done. So here's just a kind reminder and a call for even a little bit of help, as I'm finding it hard to stay motivated too :-) It's a really good goal, I think, and just picking a country is the kind of easy project you can do if you have a couple of hours to spare. Most of the high priority destinations have been covered now, and we're not necessarily after great content. Just a short, usable section for Jamaica or Gabon would be appreciated too. Next time you're bored (which I know is not often on Wikivoyage..) just consider it :-) Cheers, JuliasTravels (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new section on extended stays[edit]

Possible change to guide format Does anyone think it might be a good idea to include sections on extended stays and what kind of resources travelers might use in those instances? Someone traveling through a city for a day or week will have different needs than someone staying for an internship or a study abroad semester. It seems like we could mention the extra services that someone staying one to six months might use (grocery delivery services? Extended stay hotels? P.O. boxes?) I think this could be valuable because for large cities especially, there will be travelers who will be there for a long time and aren't just sight-seeing. They will need to know some basics about how to get health care or where certain government offices are that are irrelevant to someone backpacking through the region. Additionally, having unique content on travel guides would be a big boost to search engine optimization results contra Wikitravel. Right now, a number of our returns are buried below Wikitravel because it looks like we're a mirror of them (and that's not entirely untrue, of course). The greater the unique content here and the more hits we can get for it, the better this site will perform in reaching users looking for good and reliable information while traveling. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We've had similar discussions before. I've always been on your side of this argument, and I remain there. I don't think that travellers are solely people staying for a day to a couple of weeks in one place before moving on. A semester abroad or a year's business, diplomatic or NGO posting somewhere can be considered forms of travel. But I think you'll get pushback from those who find it neater to restrict this site primarily to short-term visitors (with the exception of articles like Retiring abroad, which somehow gets a totally free pass, with ready explanations from those who believe it should remain an exception). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Do you want to draft up some extended stay info on a guide? I can help make some for my city as a kind of proof of concept. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd propose for you to start such a topic in your userspace. I'd be happy to copy edit as appropriate, but I'm hardly an expert. I think that if this is made into a travel topic, it might pass muster, but I doubt we'll be able to get agreement to allow such information into guides to localities ("cities," in WV parlance). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: That's what I would have done: a username draft. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be as clear as possible: I think that what would be most likely to pass muster would be a worldwide topic, perhaps with examples of regional variations in countries or multi-country areas. I don't think a travel topic for "Long-term stays in New York City" or the like would be likely to pass muster with a consensus here, though I'd support anything that's not promotional. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Including a bit more relevant info for prolonged stays seems like a good idea for large destinations. I'm not thinking of real expat info, but rather information useful for a language course visitor etc. I've been living in abroad destinations for 6 to 20 weeks a few times and yes, it requires just a bit more info. Looking at your first post, it seems that a change in policy or template would only really be needed for long stay accommodation options though. Adding unique content is of course valuable, whatever the exact topic. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as my experience with prolonged stays abroad goes, what you need is mostly stuff that is already allowed under the Cope section (see (Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it), just not always included. Things like medical care, fitness studio's and laundromats. Most of the other things are strongly location determined, I suppose. Grocery delivery is uncommon in most parts of the world, as are P.O. boxes. That said, I'm not sure they'd be a huge push back for those topics for destinations where those are very common. That's something quite different from Ikan's proposal for a general, world-wide oriented article though... so maybe I'm misunderstanding. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Anything that's based on staying for a year or more is out of scope. Governments do consider someone living in a country for at least six months out of any year to be resident for various purposes (ranging from removing the person from public health insurance back home to causing them immigration issues in whichever country they're staying or adding them to the local tax base there). That said, there is the snowbird phenomenon where travellers are away for the entire winter (only) and that *might* be in scope. We just need to cut this off before our so-called "traveller" arrives at the local lumberyard to buy materials to build a house, or we are just another yellow page directory for residents instead of a travel guide. K7L (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@JuliasTravels: I was thinking of a section explicitly about long-term stay. Do you think it would be better to include this information within the existing sections? It seems like if you're staying for three months, you might want to see that information separately. I don't know. What do you think? @K7L:: I was explicit before about saying that this is intended for someone staying a semester or a season rather than several years. Wikivoyage isn't intended to be an all-purpose city guide or yellow pages, indeed. Although I was thinking of a section on long-term stay, there's no reason why it can't be a topic article as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I rather emphatically disagree with "Anything that's based on staying for a year or more is out of scope." Things like Teaching English, Retiring abroad, Volunteer travel or Studying abroad are mainly oriented to longer term stays and I'd say they are certainly in scope. As I see it, these appeal to a limited set of travellers and writers but that no more makes them out of scope that articles on Scuba diving, Travelling with children or LGBT travel. Almost nothing will appeal to all travellers, but I'd say almost any topic that does affect some and for which we have a writer is in scope.
That said, there is a slippery slope here and at some point we may need to shout "Whoa!". In at least one case we already have; see the vfd discussion for Marriage in China. However, I do not think either any current articles I know of or the proposal in this section take us anywhere near the point where it becomes a problem.
There is related discussion at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Scope. Pashley (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually looking for extended stay (2 months) options in my next city, although I wouldn't expect WV to list all those options for me in the city article.
A purpose of the wiki is to allow everyone to pool their knowledge but I would strongly urge keeping each main article clean and concise as suggested earlier in this thread. If every single aspect of life is crammed into a main article then is becomes harder for the traveler to quickly find the core travel information they are after and many won't bother with WV. Less is certainly more.
We do have travel topics for subjects that affect a minority of travellers and that allows the writer more freedom in terms of scope. Studying_abroad is another example. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess we should first have a better idea of the sort of content we're talking about. I for one have no idea how to write a practical travel topic about "prolonged stays" that works for New York, Bangkok, Berlin and Cape Town at once. And when talking about a "section" in an article, I'm not sure what kind of info that would need. Looking at some of our star articles (like Bali or the US destinations at star status) I'm wondering how much more you'd exactly need to stay 3 months instead of 3 weeks. Bali even has a small section for Long term rentals in the sleep section. Once people stay somewhere for over a year, I'd say they should probably invest in a yellow paper. No-one is arguing we should become that. During my trimesters or 6 month stays abroad however, I had to find long-term accommodation, sometimes a doctor or dentist, or a public transport season ticket. Otherwise however, I find it hard to think of what else an average traveller would really need, and is not allowed in our articles? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Listings for accommodations that can't be rented for 2 weeks or less are excluded from our listings policy, I recall from repeated discussions. Edit: Actually, I'm wrong:
Apartments or cabins must be available for rentals of one week or less - remember, Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not an apartment-finder service. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Most serviced apartments should be available to rent for at least 1 week, so I'm good with that rule.
I agree JuliasTravels that a travel topic of 'prolonged stays' is not particularly natural, although I'm aware of travellers staying multiple years in resort locations such as in Thailand with a semi-official status. I'm also not sure how useful that would be since in that situation I would probably get information for my long term options after I arrived there. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing whatsoever "unnatural" about the topic, at least in principle. What do you think would be strange about it in practice? Or maybe it's best not to answer that question yet and wait and see what Justin comes up with in his userspace before we come to any firm conclusions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(indent) If a listed hotel offers long-term options/deals, I think it's fine to mention in the description, but are you proposing adding new sections specifically for long-term stays (residents)? I'd say we should define a traveler as someone spending 90 days or less in a country, since that's the max for most tourist visas. After that, they probably have some sort of resident or semi-resident status. To me, adding grocery stores, delivery services, hair salons, how to get a P.O. Box, etc sounds like a lot of clutter that will make our articles more cumbersome to navigate and likely bother more people than it will help. I'd call all of that out of scope. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: Scope is defined by us. If the traveler comes first and a significant portion of travelers are long-termers then why would we deliberately exclude their needs? As pointed out above, even someone staying more than a week will have certain interests—90 days is a lot more than that. In fact, having a section just for extended stay would *de*-clutter articles because it would allow those who are interested in this particular information to look at it for their needs. Just like "Go Next" is irrelevant for many travelers who are going only to a particular location: it's at the bottom, so just skip it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not have the time to read the entire discussion, but I want to say I am against a section in our destination articles regarding extended stays, i.e. more than a month. This will require an entirely different approach to accommodation and including many practical issues like work permits, then we need to cover the long-term labour market, then suddenly car registration, getting a bank account etc. may become of interest. This is a travel guide, like any other travel guide. It is for tourists, not nomads or expats. An expatpedia could be just as useful for the latter, but this is not it.
We also generally do not feature individual apartments and agencies providing those and those are pretty much no. 1 accommodation options for long-term stays. I would not want to change our consensus not to feature those. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This site is for travellers, not just tourists. And it isn't and needn't be "like any other travel guide." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal[edit]

I do think expats are travellers, so info for them is obviously in scope. Expat communities in some places are rather large; for example Shanghai has 200,000, more than many "cities" we cover. I also think some expats, especially ones living in out-of-the-way places that might not otherwise get written up, have much to contribute here so we should encourage their participation. If they create some articles of interest only to other expats, that is fine.

On the other hand I agree with the Prince in opposing "a section in our destination articles regarding extended stays". Such info does not belong there. Moreover, some info for expats does not belong on this site at all. In most countries with a large expat population there are one or more web forums for them. For example, I'm a sort of lapsed regular at Raoul's China Expat Saloon. Also, there are often local newspapers, sometimes even radio stations or TV channels, in English or other foreign languages. We no more want to duplicate things those sites or media do better than we want to duplicate Wikipedia. On the other hand, as for WP, having an overview here is sometimes necessary even if we do not want all the detail.

We have articles like Diving in South Australia or Winter sports in Austria. These contain info that would be excessive in the main destination articles but is fine in a separate article, and they are reasonably easy to organise as a hierarchy under Scuba diving or Winter sports. I suggest we allow articles with names like "Expartriates in ..." or "Living in ..." (which?). We'd need some work on policies for those — what to include & especially what not to include (e,g. I agree with the comment above that we should not start doing long-term housing listings; leave those to the local sources.) — but it looks doable.

Some articles already appear to need this. For example, China#Work is quite a long section and almost nothing in it would be useful to a tourist, but most of it might be of interest to an expat. I'd say moving it out of the main China article would be a definite improvement. Pashley (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that information for long-term travelers belongs in travel topics, not in our main travel guides. Powers (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I basically agree, too, though we could argue around the edges. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've never really felt that the "Work" or "Learn" subheadings were particularly useful anyway.
I find the very term "expat" to be silly and pretentious. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: 'Expats' are only travelers when they're traveling. Otherwise, they're just living their lives (working, paying bills, cooking, bed-wetting, etc.). A guide about daily living in China is not a travel-related article regardless of where one was birthed. The general guides for long-term stay abroad and Study abroad were not kept as exceptions at all. Those who believe that they were should consult the discussions. It was made very clear in the discussions that those articles were preserved just to provide basic information and things to consider before committing to moving abroad. It was decided that once they go beyond that point to find housing, buy a car, etc., they are no longer a traveler and they should consult more direct sources (their employer/coworkers/government/whoever) for further information. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: But why, though? Surely, you'll grant that someone studying abroad for a semester is a traveler. This isn't a print travel guide (although it can be printed) so it's not like space is a concern. If a guide to any particular place or topic gets too long, break it up into parts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Justin (koavf), there is a hard requirement to print the guide , it isn't a secondary consideration. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Maybe I'm splitting hairs but it's not required that anyone print these, just that they be accessible to printing. We could always restart Wikitravel Press... —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: The requirement is that the user is able to print the article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: That is what I wrote above. I don't see how my proposal is germane to this point, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: You wrote above: "This isn't a print travel guide". It was not evident that you were aware of the print policy. Just trying to help. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Oh, granted. Thanks. I do understand that printing/offline access is a part of the mission. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of travel topics covering longer stays at a country level - but we should target these at those staying months rather than years. They should cover general advice - what the process is for renting an apartment in a country, but exclude detailed rental listings. Travelling for a year or so, and supplementing this with some work is increasingly common, and several countries offer visas specifically for this - "working holiday" or "youth mobility". Most of the advice would also be useful to those moving permanently, but we should exclude topics only of interest to long term residents like pensions or buying a house. In some cases we could also use this to trim country and destination articles so that most travellers don't have to print half a page on work when they are only in the country for a week. I would suggest a title like "countryname for a longer stay" - put the country name at the start of the title so that it shows up when people start to search for a country. AlasdairW (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. Such advice could also be provided at regional or huge city levels, if it is dramatically different from what one would advise a traveler to the rest of the country. But your main point of general advice, rather than specific listings, is where I stand, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I can easily imagine someone saving up money for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to spend a few months in a country, and telling them things like "if you rent an apartment in Germany, then you have to pay the television tax yourself" or "if you rent a place in the US, you need to ask whether garbage, water, sewer [often billed separately], hot water [separate in some old buildings], telephone, internet, gas, heat, and air conditioning are included in the rent, because it's totally up to the landlord" might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, then perhaps we should do as I suggested above and define "traveler" as a stay for 90 days or less as per general visa limits. Providing the most general information at the country-level would be consistent with our general articles of Study abroad and Work Abroad, as well. Any further information is better explored by the individual directly with their company/coworkers/unversity/etc. Justin, a Study Abroad student can use our guides as they are for their TRAVEL needs. It is outside of our scope to give program information and evaluations, requirements, campus maps, etc. None of that is travel-related. Study Abroad options are also often dictated by their home university, so it's much better for study abroad students to get study abroad information directly from the programs and to talk to their Study Abroad Office advisors. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: I'm not suggesting something as fine-grained as a campus map. I think we could all agree that's out of scope as it only applies to a very small subset of travelers, all of whom would have easy access to that information anyway. Virtually anything that would apply to a three-month stay would be the same for a six-month stay except possibly residency requirements and tax collection. These could probably be mentioned briefly and cover all kinds of travelers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that longer stay guides should cover visits of between one month and one (or maybe two) years. Working holiday visas are often for a year and the UK offers one of 2 years. Anybody staying less than a month is covered by our regular pages and is unlikely to be working, buying a car etc. The need / opportunity to do things differently only comes when staying several months, but the threshold will vary with location - eg. the minimum time that you can usually rent a house for in the UK is 6 months. Once the stay approaches a year, a local driving licence or car licence plates may be needed, and insurances will probably need to be arranged locally rather than from home. I am only suggesting that we have pages at the country (or maybe state) level - we might list the cities with universities, but not go into the details of courses. In many cases a traveller will be staying in the one country for a year, but only staying a few weeks in most cities. AlasdairW (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Excessive changes to an article in one edit[edit]

I just noticed that an anonymous editor has made significant changes to the Hong Kong article. Some of the edits I agree with, and others not so much.

The problem is that it is really hard to compare the changes made and this makes it very difficult to check each one. Undoing the change will lose all the good edits the person made.

Is there any policy or precedent dissuading this kind of editing behavior? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's usually not considered a good idea, precisely for the reasons you point out, but there's no hard rule against it. Powers (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I recommend taking the time to go over all the changes this user made and making a new version to this article which would contain only the best parts from both versions. (if this user would keep adding some specific bad parts, open a discussion about those specific additions in the discussion page of the article and strive to reach a consensus about the ideal version). good luck. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the recommendation ויקיג'אנקי, however that method would actually take more time than the time spent making the edits in the first instance. As part of the collaborative spirit I believe all edits should be made so that specific changes can be checked with the minimum of effort. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
From experience, things don't work like that in any Wiki based platforms. That is basically one of the major downsides of inviting the whole world to help develop content collaboratively. You can not expect everyone to do things exactly the way you want them to be done. For that reason, in many instances there is no other way but to develop the content in a longer, more tedious process which involves (1) making several/many bold additions/changes based on your own common sense (2) striving for consensus on specific edits through getting many people to share their opinions in the discussion page regarding what ideal final version would be (and make the changes based on the support you'll get). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say yes, ideally do what ויקיג'אנקי suggested, but in the meantime, revert to the previous version and then start a discussion on the talk page there, linking to the change-comparison view of this big edit in question. Especially if you don't have time to go through it all yourself in one go. Texugo (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked this edit. In general however, I'd say reverting to the previous version just for lack of time is okay if someone is introducing (even a limited amount of) explicitly wrong information or deleting whole sections. If it's rather a matter of not liking all of someone's choices for cleanup, I'd say the edit should be allowed and you can change it later or discuss on the talk page. It's really not uncommon for regular editors to "clean up" or rewrite one or two whole sections at once: I know I do. I would not be pleased if you'd bluntly revert me just "until you have the time" to review, discuss or change individual elements I've changed. We encourage people to plunge forward. Of course we keep a closer eye on new users, but their edits should still be judged on merit, not on the person who wrote them. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I have seen the two edits don't look a problem. It is a matter of taste whether the old or more spaced out new layout is better. All the edits are to the get around section, and it is perhaps even good that these have been done in two edits rather than 20. What I find more irritating is when somebody does one edit that is against policy and then follows with five minor edits which are ok - this gives the impression of hiding the the "bad" edit. AlasdairW (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess that means there isn't very much to be done in this instance. I wasn't suggesting there was anything untoward going on, just that I didn't agree with this particular method of editing. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
One annoying thing is changing order of paragraphs in the same edit as changes to the paragraphs themselves, especially if the latter are not explained in the edit summary. I do not think we can forbid such edits though (and some edits are hard to do so that diffs are sensible). I would still recommend checking the diff to see whether the changes are clear and e.g. join or separate paragraphs in a separate minor edit (a practise I try to follow myself). A better diff algorithm would help in some cases (the engine is absurdly weak at matching paragraphs in some situations) – this and an easy-to-use tool for diff analysis would be a good project for WMF.
A tips for editors trying to see what changes have been made: make edits to the old version yourself (mirroring what the other user seems to have done) without saving, until the diff you get to the current version makes sense. Sometimes just a trivial change (such as adding and removing whitespace) makes the diff clear. If you need saving (e.g. if the current version is irrelevant), copy the relevant versions to a subpage to your user page (User:NN/sandbox; also comparing different pages is possible, manually inserting the oldid parameter).
--LPfi (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, when I was new at en.wp, I once had someone complain because I made a lot of changes in a lot of edits, exactly the way you recommend here.
LPfi, you're right: the diff tool is absurdly weak in some situations. Maybe User:Rdicerb (WMF) would like to put that on her list of irritating problems that editors have to deal with all the time (along with edit conflicts), and that some attention from the WMF devs might be able to improve. (If anyone has other ideas that should go on the list, then please leave a note for her or send her e-mail.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely it would be great to have a better diff tool! For example it would great to compare specific sections even if they are moved to a different part of the article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unattributed copying to Wikitravel[edit]

On a separate issue, this same Washington DC IP editor has been trying to make Wikitravel look like Wikivoyage (has s/he been trying the reverse, too?) and s/he's been called on it now over at our original home. --103.9.41.192 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@103.9.41.192: And the ridiculous thing is, sharing is allowed/encouraged but impossible because there is a filter that bans the word "Wikivoyage" over there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
IB deliberately makes effective attribution impossible - that's why "sharing" is problematical. However, even if that was not the case, I'm really not sure that it is helpful to either (and certainly not for the poor confused traveller) for whole sections of Wikivoyage and Wikitravel to be carbon copies of the other: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=2682085&oldid=2682084 and http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=2256728&oldid=2256727 with each edit made at the same time. --103.9.41.192 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@103.9.41.192: Cf. here. I can change the local blacklist there but I can't even edit it to allow "wikivoyage" on a page. I just tried. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much issue with someone adding the same content to WV and WT (SEO concerns aside), however WV content being removed in order to sync with WT should not be acceptable. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Agreed, no doubt. We should definitely have a high standard of having the best information for the traveler. In addition, even if the words on the guide are identical, we offer things here that do not exist there: interlinked Wikimedia projects, slippy maps from OpenStreetMap, more media from Commons, etc. Our guides are not simply the text (although that is obviously the bulk of it). Also, the use of tags and templates here is significantly more machine-reader friendly making for scraping and creating apps in the future. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; we have to respond in some type of way. The filter that Wikitravel has put in place to remove the possibility of attribution to Wikivoyage is a blatant violation of the terms of the Creative Commons license - and to be perfectly frank, if my work here at Wikivoyage were copied lock, stock and barrel onto another site that is openly hostile to the concept of proper attribution, and there were no efforts toward redress on the part of the Wikivoyage community, it would make me think twice about continuing to contribute here. Speaking for myself, I release my work under the Creative Commons license for a reason; if I wanted it to be public domain, it would be.
This is a slippery slope we're heading down here - at the risk of running afoul of w:WP:BEANS, there are any number of ways unscrupulous individuals at WT could make use of our contributors' work to preserve what's left of their rapidly dwindling SEO advantage. At the very least, someone who still has login credentials at WT should revert the changes and state the reason as clearly as their filter allows in the edit summary; if IB gives us trouble over it, we should encourage editors whose work has been copied without attribution to pursue a cease-and-desist order (possibly with the help of WMF Legal, if they're willing).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, if they do anything which violates the CC-BY-SA licence, any right to use the material under that license ends. From the licence text, "7. Termination: This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Adaptations or Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License." K7L (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the process for dealing with unattributed use of your writing on Wikivoyage (or any site) is to file a DMCA takedown notice. It must be filed by the person who actually wrote that content, not just anyone on the wiki. The Wikimedia Foundation cannot do this for you. There are probably detailed instructions at en.wp or Commons on how to protect your rights to the work that you created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@AdnreCarrotflower: The IP claims to have edited travel before voy, so there's extra nothing we can do. It's his right to post material at both sites and if the direction is travel first, then he can properly attribute here. I've talked to an IBadmin before about removing the AbuseFilter setting but I don't think it will happen. If you can find instances of material being ported from here to there and that user wants to license his work with a Creative Commons license and he's interested in filing a DMCA notice, that's another point entirely but it will require a lot of sleuthing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The CC-BY-SA licence is "non-exclusive" (see section 3), so a contributor is free to grant WT a licence and separately to grant a similar licence to WV, and indeed to grant a completely different licence to another publisher. There is no need for the contributor to give any attribution - that only is required if somebody different copies the content. It actually helps the traveller if a good edit is made to both sites - it is only an issue from a SEO perspective. AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at the changes made to Hong Kong International Airport on Wikivoyage and WT, and the result is indeed that large swaths of content are now the same. (Probably the same for Hong Kong and other articles that this user has worked on).
If this stands then it will be terrible from an SEO perspective. I believe that our SEO has been improving as we have spent the time and energy to produce distinctive content, and copying and pasting wiki source from WT to WV will basically lose this.
I'm mindful that the user may not be intentionally trying to cause issues for WV, however the edits actually do harm our project.
What is the appropriate response in this context? 1) Undo all changes? 2) Rewrite the new content? 3) Other? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: Well, the traveler comes first, so if the additions are genuinely good and useful then reverting them for our SEO rankings isn't traveler-friendly. Plus, it means that Wikitravel has stronger content than we do. The best solution is to re-write what's written here. Bots don't crawl all our content every instance, so if we are steadily refactoring this material, then search engines would never notice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no new content was added. In fact existing content was deleted and therefore it is subjective whether the WT version would be 'stronger'.
Probably the best course of action is to wait for the editing to subside and then merge the deleted content back in.
The distinction that I am trying to make is whether the edits genuinely make the article stronger, or are they just hacking away at WV existing content in order to align it with WT? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to know the synchronising editor's motives.
In the absence of an explanation from the horse's mouth, lets give her/him the benefit of the doubt and assume they just thought it would be neat if both articles on each wiki got the benefit of their deathless prose... --103.9.41.192 21:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE Wikitravel IBadmin IBobi wrote in their Pub at 21:17, 4 November 2014 (EST) (with an edit summary of attribution unnecessary):
"The short answer on attribution from other sources is: we don't allow content from other sources, so no attribution is necessary. We're the original source, they're the copy. Since we don't allow copied content from other sources (and since content written by the same author is not "copied" content, but original content added to more than one site), we shall always be a source of entirely original content. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Also, I think that 99.99% of the time, the idea of multiple users editing anonymously from the same IP AND copying content from another site is an extreme edge-case and we needn't worry ourselves about it. Nice work, everyone."
--103.9.41.192 02:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making us aware of this conversation. I still feel uneasy about it, but if nobody on the WT side has a concern then it can likely be left and just regarded as esoteric behavior. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@103.9.41.192:, @Andrewssi2:: For what it's worth. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
An employee of IB created a copy of Template:Pagebanner ([6]), and two other IB employees have since edited that template, but no attribution has ever been provided. It would be nice if someone who still edits there could raise that example to determine what exactly the "we don't allow content from other sources, so no attribution is necessary" statement means. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@wrh2: I actually have a decent relationship with that admin who has since left IB but still edits from time to time. The project of adding banners is moribund, for what it's worth. Obviously, that should be credited and it's possible that if Wikitravel attempted to create branding that was sufficiently similar to Wikivoyage, that could be a problem but it's more-or-less moot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE, there's a sequel posting from IBobi. Those who are interested can read the whole thing at Wikitravel's pub, but the drift of it was "...Other sites are sad, carbon-copy wannabes, and that's fine too. We can continue to ignore them. Just like Google does." --103.9.41.192 01:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

IBobi has already made it clear that no solution is forthcoming regarding the attribution issue on WT. Furthermore, it's no secret how he feels about Wikivoyage, and there's not much we can do about that. So I really don't see what purpose it serves to continue to report on the things he says about us. He is no longer a part of our community and we have bigger fish to fry. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been clear for a long while that (except for destination articles' inferior Table of Contents) Wikivoyage has been the superior guide for many months now. Wikivoyage has more Wikimedia potential (such as pronunciation and headphone guides), interactive maps, better curators, less spam and more active development. However, Google's spiders are oblivious to all of that and, while the stick-in-the-mud attitudes to copy-cat H1, H2 and H3 headers and article naming are preserved, then Wikivoyage's readership will continue to lag far behind that of Wikitravel. That is not just a tragic waste of talent, it means that Wikivoyage will also suffer from a lack of those IP edits that update the trivial but useful minutiae of openings, prices, closures, and sneaky travel tips.

For now, there are no "bigger fish to fry" than removing Google's dupe penalties. --103.9.41.192 02:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again with this dead horse being beaten. On the exceedingly slim chance that you don't already know this from your previous iterations being told it, we've covered the topic of altering section headers many times in the past, and forum-shopping isn't going to change consensus. Pre-emptively, the same goes for relative image sizing, TOC alignment, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't change the indentation on what I write to make it look like I wanted to write a reply to what you wrote, User:AndreCarrotflower.
Having got that off my chest, one of the reasons little progress has been made on removing Google's duplicate penalties is that those who should know better inevitably play the messenger rather than actually examining the merits of the message.
Try and be part of the solution, rather than aggravate the problem. --103.9.41.192 05:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower:, @103.9.41.192:: For what it's worth, I think that Wikivoyage is generally a stronger product and is more useful to the traveler but it's also a serious problem if travelers never find this resource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How would I be able to get the image Carousel feature working on the Hebvoy main page?[edit]

Need the help of the tech experts on this one. I am interested in having a display of the Hebvoy star articles on the main page of Hebvoy, which would be done with the same Carousel feature used on the envoy main page. I noticed the newly launched Persian Wikivoyage uses the same feature on their main page as well. Unfortunately, so far I haven't been capable of getting this feature to work on Hebvoy by simply importing the page as is. I assume I have to install some special extension for it to work. How exactly would I be able to get it to work? (I am, by the way, an admin on the Hebvoy) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css - copy everything from those two files from the "BEGIN Main Page carousel code" section until the "END Main Page carousel code" section to the corresponding files on Hebrew Wikivoyage. You'll also need Template:Banner. Beyond that, make sure your carousel is set up the same way that English one is done on the Main Page:
<div class="jcarousel-wrapper">
  <div class="jcarousel">
    <div class="jcarousel-list">
        <div class="jcarousel-item">
{{banner|direction=left|title=Karachi|section=Destination of the Month|section-link=Previous Destinations of the month|image=KarachiBanner1.jpg|quote=Pakistan's largest metropolis blends glass-and-steel modernity with colonial British architecture of yesteryear.}}
        </div>
        <!-- more carousel items go here -->
    </div>
  </div>
  <span class="jcarousel-control-prev">[[#|‹]]</span>
  <span class="jcarousel-control-next">[[#|›]]</span>
  <p class="jcarousel-pagination"></p>
</div>
-- Ryan • (talk) • 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Ryan. Yesterday we added the carousel feature to the hebvoy main page. This feature is used to display all of the hebvoy starred articles of 2014 on the main page. I think this would greatly help to expose the hebvoy readers to some of the best articles our little community created so far, thus encouraging more people to create expanded quality articles which would also be linked to from the main page. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates all messed up[edit]

uuu, i need some help. In the article Esino Lario all the coordinates appear messed up. I must have done something wrong but if i review the history i can not identify when, since it all appears already with the mistake. --Iopensa (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not done anything wrong, known problem with the geo data, bug has been logged. BTW, impressive amount of data added in short time to the article, nice job. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The simplest way to solve this problem is to remove the #iferror statement. If there is really an error you will find the page in a maintenance category defined in MediaWiki:Geodata-broken-tags-category and you can check it. --RolandUnger (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all! --Iopensa (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
For the records, messed up coordinates when search has problems should not happen anymore: according to bugzilla:72559 GeoData will not be disabled completely anymore if CirrusSearch is having problems. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't there a New Delhi article on Engvoy?[edit]

I noticed that articles about New Delhi do exist in other editions of Wikivoyage but not in the English edition. What is the reason we chose not to have an article for New Delhi? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is at Talk:Delhi#Delhi vs New Delhi?. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, Delhi is an important enough city and a long enough article that perhaps it's time to think about districtifying it. When and if that happens, New Delhi could certainly be created as a district article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Likely this would be worth raising at Wikivoyage:India Expedition. Pashley (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems very odd not to have an article on the national capital. Powers (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
...unless dealing with something like Montserrat. K7L (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article on Nauru's capital Yaren is a redirect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, sorry. A national capital for a country with a billion residents, then. Powers (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Which Wikivoyager/s do you recommend contacting whom might be willing/capable of districtifying the Delhi article? (are there any specific users you know of whom have done many similar tasks before?) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that we're in particular need of anyone with local knowledge: the article already has an Orientation section complete with a districts map, and there's probably enough content in the article that we can simply divide the listings up geographically. That being the case, probably any number of our more seasoned contributors could take care of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand. I didn't mean that I was looking for a local expert, but rather a Wikivoyage expert whom has districtifyed many other huge city articles before. Unfortunately I am still not really sure whom would be able to help me districtify the Delhi article. Can you name a few Wikivoyage experts you think would be capable and willing of helping me do this? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
New Delhi is a part of Delhi. It is like Manhattan or City of London. In the long-term, it and Old Delhi should have its own article as it seems that the districts of all major cities in the world can have their own article on wikivoyage. Delhi itself is also a varied place to travel. DaGizza (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי, your best bet is to start a discussion at Talk:Delhi, if you haven't already done so. Presuming that we go with the districts already shown on the map AndreCarrotflower alludes to, all that's necessary is to decide on the borders of the districts, so I'd suggest that borders be the place to start the discussion, assuming you do agree with the districts on the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I had always read New Delhi was more akin to Washington DC in the US; a separate territory from the rest, not just a city district. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a National Capital Territory of Delhi, not a separate Federal district of only New Delhi. From w:Delhi:
Delhi (/ˈdɛli/, Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪ɪlliː] Dilli ), also known as the National Capital Territory of India is the capital of India.
Also see w:New Delhi:
New Delhi Listeni/ˈnjuː dɛli/ is the capital of India and seat of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the Government of India. It is also the centre of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. New Delhi is situated within the metropolis of Delhi and is one of the eleven districts of Delhi National Capital Territory.
So New Delhi is a municipality, but it's one of 11 districts of Delhi - maybe the situation is more akin to Los Angeles being widely identified with Los Angeles County, not just the city, which excludes a bunch of small municipalities like Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, and El Segundo, rather than Washington, DC, which is loosely described as including a bunch of neighboring areas of Maryland and Virginia but clearly understood as technically meaning only the district itself, which is coterminous with the city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Officially Delhi have 9 districts but from a traveller point of view, we don't need to districtify Delhi article into those 9. I wouldn't prefer to districtify the article based on orientation mentioned in the article because I believe it is of no good use from a traveller point of view. This case reminds of of Karachi districtification. I spent months districtifying Karachi based on official 5 districts but at the end, I found them all useless from a traveller point of view. Today, Karachi — one of the world's most populous city — have no district at all on WV. Anyways, I think we need local expert who can suggest districtification. --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In any event, there's a consensus on Wikivoyage that ttcf trumps official municipality boundaries, so even if New Delhi is politically a separate entity from the rest of Delhi, that alone does not justify it getting a separate article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It is actually more important for Old Delhi to have a separate article before New Delhi. Old Delhi is a distinct cultural and historical area from a general perspective and travelling perspective. The markets are different. The people living and working there are different. Even the forms of transport are different due to narrower roads. DaGizza (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are all the categories in Engvoy hidden?[edit]

As a reader in Engvoy I know it is difficult to navigate through existing articles in each region because all the categories are hidden. As an admin on Hebvoy whom is currently working on building the entire Hebvoy category tree, partly based on the existing vast Engvoy category tree, it is a very difficult task as in many instances I end up having to guess which article appears in what category.

I would suggest making the categories visible for those reasons + I also believe (please correct me if I am wrong on this one) that by doing so this might actually help tremendously the SEO of Engvoy (Google's crawlers would most likely give our articles higher ratings on the Google search results if all our articles are inter-linked through visible categories which appear at the bottom of each page).

Either way, I guess this suggestion would probably be disregarded as it is highly likely that this issue has been widely discussed in the past and the majority of the Engvoy editors decided that hiding all the categories is the best way to go. I would appreciate it if you could explain in detail what were the main considerations that led you to make such a decision which is significantly exceptional from the norm in all the other Wikimedia Foundation wikis. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone who joined this project after many years of using Wikipedia I also found this strange to start with. There is however a strong resistance to categories from the people who came from Wikitravel. I actually in many ways agree with their argument that categories do get our of hand if you start letting every contribute create what they want. At the moment categories are used for administrative and clean-up tasks and are thus hidden. The point is you should be able to navigate up via the breadcrumbs at the top of the page and down via the region pages. Having said that I have categories always switch on for this site (a setting in user preferences to show hidden categories): --Traveler100 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth starting a discussion about whether some categories should be user-visible. In looking at Culver City, I think that the geographic hierarchy category (Category:Westside (Los Angeles County)) would provide some value in travel planning, but the rest of the categories on that article seem to be solely there for maintenance purposes and thus are better off hidden by default. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@ויקיג'אנקי: I imagine that the only answer you'll get is "we don't use categories" which is not very satisfying. It's purely a matter of habit. I also agree that categories would be useful (such as for geographic regions, rather than maintenance) but pure inertia keeps them from being used. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Traveler100, in my opinion, having the categories visible would never "get out of hand if you start letting every contribute create what they want" simply because the community would monitor the changes and keep the category tree clean of redundant categories, based on the community consensus (having the community decide what stays and what has to go has worked quite well for the main space articles, as many articles of small/redundant sites are merged to articles of larger regions, so I don't see why this would not work well for the categories space too). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Has there ever been a community voting on this issue or was the decision to hide all categories taken by the admins? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: When Evan and Maj founded Wikitravel, categories didn't exist in MediaWiki. I believe that's why he created RDF breadcrumbs: for navigation. You will routinely see discussions at vfd which say "we don't use categories" as a rationale for deleting content. I'm not aware of any discussion like this which questions the use of categories as such. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. In that case, do you think there is any chance that the Engvoy community would actually be willing to reconsider this issue in a community voting held on this matter and open to all Engvoy active editors ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@ויקיג'אנקי: I hope! Count me in as a "yes". —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Categories has current guidelines on category usage, and as Justin pointed out the policy is mainly a carry-over from a mandate from the site's founder, whose view was that the category implementation on Wikipedia was a mess. Like many things here, it may be hard to change the status quo, but I suspect that there might be support for not hiding geographic hierarchy categories by default if people were inclined to push for that change. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the discussion were I created the region categories Wikivoyage talk:Breadcrumb navigation#Navigating down a breadcrumb trail and the following section entitled Categories. As you can see I would support making the region categories by default visible. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd be willing to go along with any consensus. If people feel like unhiding geographic categories is useful, let's do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd be strongly in favour of enabling categories if they could replace the breadcrumbs currently being used (as I see it, horribly misused) for travel topics. Long discussion at Talk:Travel_topics_index#Change_to_tagging_travel_topics; as I see it the breadcrumbs were inserted without consensus and were an error.
I suggested that categories might be a better mechanism at Talk:Travel_topics_index#Another_objector, and gave my reasons for thinking breadcrumbs were wrong. Pashley (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I truly don't see why we would need categories. The only two obvious categorization is by geography (taken care by the breadcrumb trail) and article status (we have it displayed visibly). Everything else is very subjective - I could imagine long and pointless bickering about whether a destination belongs in Category:Spa resorts. I fail to see any benefit that would outweigh allowing categories. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree in general with PrinceGloria - you can also Go to your Preferences - then under tab Appearance -- put a check mark in Show hidden categories box and save (see all categories) - or you can view the Categories via Special pages - or perhaps use the category tree extension on your user page (or elsewhere) or find categories using an API - (would not recommend forcing categories to appear on article pages as default in order to keep pages generally cleaner and also because other options are available!) IMHO - Matroc (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to address the comments made above by the users PrinceGloria and Matroc:

  1. First of all, in my opinion we should not let the Category:Spa resorts example above deter us from considering making the categories visible to all users by default, simply because, as I already mentioned above, there should be clear rules available that define exactly how the categorization should be done so that we would always avoid having pointless ongoing discussions regarding categorization. Because of that I don't think this is an actual issue.
  2. Either way, as I see it, the main issue with the current state in which we hide all categories by default, which PrinceGloria and Matroc did not address, is that currently most of our millions of annual readers (!) probably end up failing to locate all relevant articles in existence for a specific country or region they are interested in – that's because instead of giving the masses the option to easily locate the parent category of a certain country or region, which contains an automatically generated short and up to date list of all existing articles for that country or region, in many cases they probably miss some existing relevant articles simply because the links to those articles were not visually easy to locate or because an editor forgot to create links to a specific destination in a bunch of nearby region articles (this stuff happens a lot in other wikis and should definitely be taken into account). For example, while the majority of German Wikivoyage readers can most likely quickly navigate to this parent category from any existing article about Israel, and then easily see what are all the existing articles ever written on the German Wikivoyage about Israeli destinations, the majority of the readers on Engvoy whom are planning a trip to Israel would probably never be able to tell exactly how many articles exist in the English Wikivoyage about destinations in Israel or confirm with 100% certainty that the ones they found are indeed the only existing ones which are relevant to them.
  3. Finally, I wanted to remind everyone participating in this discussion that the majority of the millions of our annual readers, would most likely in most cases not be aware of the option to change a setting in the website's interface in order to make the categories visible (and this option of course is not possible for the majority of our readers, whom might be getting to our articles from Google and aren't registered users on Wikivoyge), and therefore, in practice by hiding categories we are preventing the majority of our readers from easily navigating the web site's available content in the way that hundreds of millions of people around the globe have gotten used to do in other Wikimedia Foundation wikis for nearly a decade or more. Please don't forget that the Wikimedia Foundation web sites are first and foremost designed for the benefit of the general public (Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first even states that "We make our navigation as intuitive as possible, to help readers find what they're looking for") and not first and foremost for the benefit of a small group of editors. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's my two cents. I could support this proposal if we'd still retain the breadcrumb navigation as well (the Germans have retained it too). Especially when it comes to articles about destinations — ie. most of our articles — I (and likely many others) find the breadcrumb navigation very useful and axing it would frankly speaking do more damage than being beneficial to Wikivoyage.
In the case of travel topics it's in many cases useful to have several categories for the article. For destinations I'm not sure how useful it would be — for our purposes a traveler would mostly need to know in what country and region the destination is located. One benefit of extra categories would be that we could categorize articles under itineraries and routes. But again; what to do if people start adding categories that would be totally meaningless for a travel guide like "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean" or "Populated places established in 1836". --ϒpsilon (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ypsilon that categories should not/never replace our breadcrumb trail, which I personally find useful and I think casual visitors may also find useful. For regular destinations (cities, regions, countries) at the moment I would only support geographic categories, because I don't think it would be helpful, for example, to have a Category:Hot springs that contains every city/town with anything resembling a hot spring; however, I like Pashley's proposal of using categories for itineraries and travel topics. Our current travel topics are extremely difficult to navigate. Many are completely unintuitive, such as the Chinese Revolutionary Destinations article local in a "History" subsection of the Travel activities page instead of the Cultural attractions page where it seems to belong. It is also not part of Category:Topics in China. There are many awkwardly placed travel topics that someone navigating our site would not likely find within the site itself but may be easier to find with categories. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep the breadcrumbs! Not totally opposed to categories appearing on pages; just leary of their current relevancy and shape!). - Matroc (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I also don't see any huge advantage in cluttering our footers with categories and encouraging the reader to use the bare category tree itself for navigation rather than the in-article navigation of breadcrumbs and cities/regions sections. Yes, once in a while we may forget to link a place from its parent. However, I have spent an inordinate amount of time working on the category tree this year, and these omissions are very very rarely if ever more than barebones outline articles on relatively unimportant places we have yet to give much attention to anyway, so generally the reader isn't missing out on much. They nonetheless should be linked to the parent article, of course, but finding those and fixing them is only a maintenance task like so many others, which is why the category should remain hidden. We should continue to encourage the reader to use our annotated and broken-down tree navigation in the articles, the value-added version, instead of the undifferentiated, list-y skeletal one. Texugo (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict] If anyone still considers omissions to be a big problem, there are better ways to address it than inviting visitors backstage; it would serve us to ameliorate the problem rather than circumvent it if we, for example, look into getting a version of Special:OrphanedPages that ignores links from non-main namespace pages, or get a bot together to hunt omissions down. Texugo (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Mark me down as strongly in support of user-visible categories only in the case of travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks and other non-destination articles, so that readers can more easily find articles that are not part of the breadcrumb tree, and opposed in the case of destination articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Support user-visible categories for destination parent region. There's no guarantee the manually-generated list in the region article will be accurate, up-to-date or complete as we seem to have a mess of subregions within regions within subnational regions within more regions and most of these region articles are poorly maintained and neglected as they were created as half-empty shells just to meet the arbitrary "cities and other destinations are limited to 9 items" by creating another pointless subregion for every 7 +- 2 tiny hamlets. K7L (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to reiterate that it would be far better to address any problem of omission directly rather than offer a circumvention that draws readers away from our annotated content. Showing categories still does nothing to help us actually fix the problem.
Anyway, point made, but I failed to address non-destination categories: I could perhaps be convinced to support categories in the case of travel topics, since there is no other logical way to navigate them and since they have a range of sometimes overlapping scopes. For itineraries, I am not sure — would they be a parellel geographical hierarchy? Would be better to just put them in the existing geographical hierarchy? I don't know. And I don't see any particular reason to have categories for phrasebooks — what would they consist of, language families? That wouldn't be travel-related or useful. A hatnote or other prominent link to Phrasebooks would be quite sufficient for our purposes, I think. Texugo (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a fallacy to think that the average reader has any idea what Categories are, or how they work. And I really don't think it's a good idea to take readers out of our carefully curated travel content and into the confusing and poorly implemented category space -- especially so for basic navigation tasks. And having the category tree as a backup risks making it more likely that editors will forget to link articles properly. Anyone who wishes to use the category tree for maintenance or navigation is welcome to register an account and modify his or her preferences to show the hidden categories.
The idea does have some more merit for travel topics, but I'd have to see a proposed implementation before I could give approval.
-- Powers (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems odd to claim that categories are too much for the reader to understand (especially if they found us from WP, which does use categories) but that registration and Special:Preferences is simple. I'd think burying this in the preferences, thereby limiting it to registered users only, would be the more complex from a user standpoint. K7L (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not odd at all; it's a complex feature that is best reserved for advanced users, primarily maintainers. For the average consumer of our travel guides, it's just clutter. I can't imagine anyone without an interest in maintaining the content would rather see what one sees at Category:Eastern Shore (Maryland) than the nicely organized lists at Eastern Shore (Maryland). Note that the former includes pointless alphabetic headers (with only 14 items, grouping by the first letter of the city is visually confusing, not useful) doesn't include redlinks, and doesn't include descriptions. Powers (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with the above characterization of the geographic category hierarchy, although I don't feel particularly strongly on the issue. I think nearly all users will easily understand the concept of an "index", which is essentially what the geographic category tree is. While most users will probably find the existing article/breadcrumb structure easier to use, some may prefer the category tree listing and thus I don't see any harm in making it visible by default. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
In UI design, there is harm in presenting too many options to the user. Wikipedia has a notorious problem with attracting new editors, as readers find the interface confusing and overly technical. The MediaWiki category system is a prime culprit in this. Yes, many editors of WMF sites have learned how to use it, but are those the people we are targeting? Powers (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. My opinion is that Wikipedia's problems attracting editors are due to the difficulty in understanding wiki syntax and unrelated to its use of categories. I remain of the opinion that showing the geographic category tree by default on Wikivoyage would be like providing an index in a book, which is useful for people who want such navigation and easily ignored by those who don't. I don't foresee anyone being confused by having the option to browse by category at the bottom of articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Similar to Wikipedia links, this feature is easy to implement, and it won't have any negative consequences immediately. On the other hand, it does change the concept in the direction of becoming a travel branch of Wikipedia rather than an independent wiki with its own style and format, including the original and traveler-friendly navigation. I don't like this, but this is a very subjective opinion.

It is easy to foresee that navigation through categories may completely kill articles about subregions because nobody will care to update them when categories are available. Therefore, I fully support Texugo in his idea that one should improve the existing system instead of introducing a cheap and inherently underdeveloped alternative. --Alexander (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we should obviously keep the breadcrumbs for destination articles; they are effective, visually OK, and simple for both readers and editors. There are a few cases where the hierarchical nature of breadcrumbs is a problem; e.g. should the breadcrumb for Turkey point to Europe or the Middle East? Neither single-valued answer is really satisfactory, and giving it two category tags would be easier than changing the breadcrumb software to allow two breadcrumbs. I'm not sure what the best solution is there and do not think the problem is common enough that we need to worry about it much.
I'd say we should obviously get rid of breadcrumbs for travel topics because the topics are inherently non-hierarchical so breadcrumbs do not work well there; see my earlier comment in this thread and the things it links to. Also User:ChubbyWimbus is correct that topics are currently rather hard to find or navigate. If categories can solve those problems, I'm all in favour.
Also, any index or sitemap type of article is likely to be good for SEO; see Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Index_articles. If using categories makes it easier to create those, or even lets them be created automagically, then I'm all in favour of that as well. Pashley (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I support having (some) categories visible in addition to breadcrumbs. I expect that we get a lot of visitors and occasional contributors who are familiar with other WMF sites. I have come across several hidden destinations which have only popped up when I have selected the destinations layer on the map. We could also use catagories to link destinations to travel topics. For example we have Art Deco architecture as a topic - we could have "Art Deco architecture in countryname" as a set of categories, with the category being added to any city that has a listing for an Art Deco building. Note that we would not be arguing over whether the city was centre for Art Deco architecture, only the simpler matter of whether there was any building listed in See, Sleep etc that is Art Deco. AlasdairW (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say going down to the level of "Art Deco architecture in countryname" would lead to a disastrous proliferation of categories. Tagging cities for "Art Deco architecture" and for their country would be fine. On a related note, we probably don't want category tags for every level of the breadcrumb hierarchy, just the main ones. Pashley (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Tags like "Art Deco architecture in countryname" are what sister sites like Commons are for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits[edit]

A discussion at a recently archived userban nomination brought up the possible need for changes to the wording of our policy on userbans. I'd like to solicit users' opinions on the proposed new policy text at this discussion thread, and I'd especially like to bring this to the attention of User:Andrewssi2, who first suggested that such an effort might be appropriate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An important page that is "piling dust" which could help us speed up the process of creating all missing banners[edit]

To date I have created 184 different banners for both the Hebrew Wikivoyage and the English Wikivoyage. At present I am capable of creating banner files from free pictures on Wikicommons or flickr very fast (that is, only if I already located beforehand a good picture file to create the banner from). The banner creation process involves first of cropping the picture file in Photoshop to the standard resolution & dimensions (2100 X 300), afterwards I usually slightly fix the contrast and/or colors, afterwards I upload the derivative banner file to Wikicommons and fill in the license information correctly to the uploaded file, and eventually I add the file to the relevant Wikivoyage article. In fact, when I create banners, most of the time is spent actually in searching for a successful panoramic picture file to make a banner from. In the recent months I have found out that searching for available good free panoramic pictures of destinations on flickr via this website usually helps me find a good free picture to work with much faster than going first to Wikicommons. (I of course create the banners from those flickr pictures only after I import those pictures from flickr to wikicommons with the help of this tool).

Either way, I now understand that like me, most of the main banner creators probably invest most of the time on searching for good pictures to create banners from, and less time on the technical part involved in creating the banners and uploading them. I also presume now that there are quite a few editors in the English Wikivoyage community whom want to help speed up the creation process of all the missing banners, but most of these people either do not know how to use an picture editing software to do that or how to upload the derivative banner files with appropriate licenses to Wikicommons.

Therefore, I suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would start working collaboratively through this page (which has never really been used since it was created in July 2013), in which we would join forces to first create a long list of names+links to the existing articles which still do not have banners, and that gradually we'll add next to each article name external links to existing free picture files, either on Wikicommons or flickr, which might be good choices for making the missing banners. I believe that if we join forces in creating such a list, the main banner creators (myself included) would be able to create all the missing banners in a much shorter time.

What do you think? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That could be useful. I wasn't aware of the page, but I'll keep it in mind if I encounter suitable pics. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It is correct that most of the banner making effort is finding a suitable source image in the first instance. That said, is the technical bar for going to the next step and creating a 7:1 banner really that high? It can be done using nothing more special than Microsoft Paint with a few clicks (and GIMP makes it a bit easier).
That said, if there are Wikivoyagers who would like to propose images to make banners of then I would support and help to do it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I personally find the technical side of making banners easy, the most difficult (and at the same time most creative) work is finding a suiable photo, that looks good even after cropping. This is sometimes challenging for places with little pictures available in CC license and those I never visited. Therefore I often have doubts about representativeness of my selection and I enjoy cooperating with somebody who knows the place and can guide me. Those who does not have the technical skills for cropping the pictures or just don't care about this aspect of WV (fair enough) can use this page, which I didn't know before, but now I have it on my watchlist, so I can help out - perhaps the page would need some more advertising? If there is a suitable photo which just need a slight adjustment of ratio, inserting the picture in the banner directly and using {{crop}} template is a good option.
I am not in favour of creating (and maintaining) a long list of articles lacking banners, we can use tools for finding them instead, like for example this search. Danapit (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes that tool is very useful! You can even filter the results to show the biggest articles that lack banners and prioritize accordingly (such as my long running attempt with South Korea) Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, just checked, the 'sort' functionality is currently disabled :( Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This whole thing strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. First of all, Andrewssi2 is correct: I have created many a banner in my day, and the only software I've ever used for that is MS Paint to crop and, when necessary (not often), GIMP to rotate. Secondly, Danapit is also correct that we have tools to identify pages without banners that would make redundant any long list of the type suggested here.
Lastly, is it really necessary to gain community approval for each and every individual pagebanner? It's not as if pagebanners are the same as DotM banners, which go on the Main Page and therefore call for a bit of scrutiny. The process seems simple enough to me: find a page without a banner, create one, done. In the exceedingly minute possibility that another editor comes by the page who dislikes the banner so strongly that he feels he needs to create a different one, he can, and in the even more exceedingly minute possibility that the original banner uploader comes back and takes issue with the change, the two of them can hash it out on the Talk page.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that my suggestion was completely misunderstood and I am very sorry for that. I didn't suggest that from now on a voting would be necessary to select each banner, as AndreCarrotflower and Danapit implied. Again, what I am suggesting is simply that we'll have a more prominent page in which a lot of additional users would hopefully take part in the tedious task of finding possible good free photos we can use, so that the main users involved in creating banners would be capable of getting a lot more good work done (While of course each user that would end up creating a banner based on a suggestion made by other community members would in practice continue being the one whom determines whether or not to accept the suggestions at all, and if he/she likes one or more of the suggestions, he/she would be the one to determine which of the suggestions is his/her preferred photo to create the banner out of).

Either way, it seems now that before we discuss this idea further it is first necessary for us to have an actual rough draft of the page I am suggesting in front of our eyes, in order for the community to make a better decision on whether this is a good idea or not. I will create a rough draft of my proposal later on today, link it here, and hopefully everyone else would then understand much better what I am proposing and why this might actually be a very useful tool that would help us speed up the whole process of creating all the missing banners. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also be interested to know which are the most popular (as in most read) articles without banners. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the Proposed Banner Suggestions Section[edit]

The wording in my draft is not perfect (English is not my first language), but I think that now my suggestion is much better understood. Although ideally I would prefer that all the items on these lists were sorted by page views (as Andrewssi2 suggested above), since we are not capable of easily retrieving that data for the items in these tables, I instead sorted the items in these lists by their current size in bytes (as there is probably a somewhat correlation between the amount of work invested in each article and the article's popularity among the general public). Please check specifically the page User:ויקיג'אנקי/Proposed Banner Suggestions Section - Page 1 to see how I suggest people would add links to the picture files they'll find.

Please share below your thoughts about my proposed new Banner Suggestions section and/or help further improve it. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd especially appreciate any feedback from prominent and highly active banner creators such as PrinceGloria, Saqib, Jjtkk, Lkcl_it, Nicholasjf21, Adehertogh, Inkey, Armigo, PerryPlanet, Peterfitzgerald, Traveler100, Pbsouthwood, OskNe, AHeneen, Ypsilon from Finland, Torty3, and Missvain, and/or from the users whom have participated in this discussion so far - JuliasTravels, Andrewssi2, Danapit, and AndreCarrotflower. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is good to have this format where there is a list of targeted articles. Page size in bytes is a good measure in lieu of page hits.
Just wondering, why not add this list to the end of Wikivoyage:Banner_Expedition ? The goals of the expedition seem to be the same? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That would make sense to me too. Just don't overestimate the response you will get, ויקיג'אנקי. Most people who are interested will master the art of creating the banners quickly, and some people will only want to suggest images for e.g. articles they've written. The concept is fine, but I think we can provide the message in a far shorter way. Best practices in finding images are already mentioned elsewhere. All we need to add to the expedition is something like: "creating banners is easy and you can find an explanation [here]. However, if you don't want to create one yourself, you can still help this expedition along by helping to identify suitable images. If you've found an image, just add it to the relevant article below." JuliasTravels (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added one suggestion to the page. I am not sure that the table is in an easy format for an occasional editor to add a link. In many cases the problem is a lack of suitable images on commons. I would like something that encouraged readers to upload photos. I started creating banners using my own photos, although I have since created a few using commons images. Also a central page is likely to only be seen by regular contributors. Maybe we should add a para to the talk page of the more important articles which are missing banners.
It might be worth looking at the upload pages for the Wiki Loves Monuments competition [7] and [8] which try to help novice uploaders, by automatically adding commons categories etc. AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי, my concern is this is all very manual... Soon these pages will be totally out of date, as editors will continue addig banners. Danapit (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Manual is perfectly OK, as hopefully it will only need 2 or 3 iterations. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Danapit, for that reason I created this additional list in which we'll all be able to add the suggestions for banners to the newer articles created after 11/12/2014. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Great initiative, I just added 7 images in a few minutes (note: some may need rotation). Finding images is fun, I recommend using Google Images with "Search tools" -> "Labeled for reuse with modification", that also shows image sizes, choose images with width over 1300. Easy way to make tangible contributions even during lunch time! Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There are now about 20 images waiting to be bannerified, looking forward to your work ויקיג'אנקי :-) Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I will definitely make use of people's suggestions in order to make a lot more good banners from now on. Hopefully more banner creators would make use of the banner suggestions section in order to make banners. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Following the community's general support in my suggestion I moved all my drafts, with minor fixes, to the Banner expedition's Banner suggestions section. Feel free to further improve these lists as you see fit. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate links to WP & Commons[edit]

Links to WP & Commons are appearing twice in the menu down the left side – once under "Related sites" and again under "Other projects". That's not supposed to be happening, is it? Nurg (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see an "Other projects" header. Are you seeing this on all pages, or only a subset? Powers (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
But the snuffleuphagus is real! I've seen him! Why does no one see him but me? K7L (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right, "Other projects" is a beta feature I enabled in my prefs when I was fiddling with beta features recently. I don't think we would want both sets of links, so have said so at Wikimedia. Now to turn it off in my prefs. Nurg (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Was just adding comment about turning on this Beta feature to see this condition. (Beat me to it!) - Matroc (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are the Numbers Accurate?[edit]

Are the numbers accurate when you look at the pageviews of an article? I noticed that for example Tsuyama says it has been viewed 48 times in the past month and ranks as the 8964th in traffic [9] while Takahashi [10] has been viewed only 44 times but ranks higher in traffic at 7942. Do I simply not understand what the traffic rank is? Shouldn't the one that is visited more rank higher? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The rankings haven't updated since March, although I don't know how accurate they were even when they were fresh. Looking through the user talk archives of the editor responsible for those graphs, there were complaints about inaccurate rankings even back when they were updated more often.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 23:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there no other analytic service that can help? A lot of our discussions around increasing readership would be helped greatly by numbers that we had confidence in. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Are the visits accurate? It would definitely be helpful to have this feature working. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's the ranking numbers that I believe are inaccurate. I can't personally vouch for the total views being accurate, but I have no reason to doubt them. I don't know of any way to update the rankings or any alternative service we could switch to.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 22:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WV DotM on WP[edit]

Recently I've been to Italian Wikipedia and I saw DotM of Italian WV was being featured on the WP main page. I started to wonder whether we can avail the benefit as well? We may need to discuss things with EN WP community. It can a lot of efforts and chances are our proposal could be denied but its worth to try. --Saqib (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that when Wikivoyage's Facebook page posts the new DotMs/OtBPs/FTTs, Wikipedia often reposts them onto their own Facebook feed. It's not a huge logical leap to imagine that en.wp might be willing to collaborate with reposts on their own Main Page as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice to know that Andrew but unfortunately, they don't retweet us. So if you think they can consider our request, it would bring us a huge exposure. --Saqib (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Salineras, Maras, Urubamba: Merge?[edit]

Do we need two articles for Salineras and Maras? They could probably be merged into Maras or even Urubamba, I think. Any opposition? Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, because I haven't been to any of these places. But please start discussions on the appropriate talk pages and link them here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Rerun bot to fix external links?[edit]

There are 84 footnote-style external links in the Venice article. I'm sure no-one wants to manually change them all. Can a bot take care of all of them? Incidentally, there are quite a lot of articles with one or more footnote-style external links still in them. For example, I just converted one to a front-link in a text box in the Iran article. But every day, I convert some of them. I thought a bot was supposed to have taken care of them all, but while it did a lot of good, it missed a whole lot of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I took care of that article, except listings that should be listyfied. With a tool such as the standard bots (or in my case: emacs syntax changes are not too difficult or timeconsuming, but there were a lot of "can be found here [x]" and similar, which had to be reworded. I did it without too much thinking (which probably can be seen in the result), but I think a tool with possibilities to adjust the automatics ad hoc was needed. --LPfi (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - if I remember correctly, that bot was configured to construct frontline links out of the footnote-style link plus whatever boldfaced text came before it. If the relevant text wasn't boldfaced, no change to the link occurred. I remember that in the case of Buffalo, I had to go back and manually alter about a half-dozen of them to the new style. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As Andre says, the bot I used was pretty simple in order to avoid making any incorrect edits. To convert links more aggressively individuals should consider using WV:AWB with the settings file for Wikivoyage (as described in the linked page), as it will attempt to automatically convert any link of the form "Capitalized Words [http://www.example.com]" to a front-link, with whoever is running AWB then given the chance to review all proposed changes and manually fix any change that was made incorrectly prior to saving the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter[edit]

Hello,

AbuseFilter is a MediaWiki extension used to detect likely abusive behavior patterns, like pattern vandalism and spam. In 2013, Global AbuseFilters were enabled on a limited set of wikis including Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikispecies and (in early 2014) all the "small wikis". Recently, global abuse filters were enabled on "medium sized wikis" as well. These filters are currently managed by stewards on Meta-Wiki and have shown to be very effective in preventing mass spam attacks across Wikimedia projects. However, there is currently no policy on how the global AbuseFilters will be managed although there are proposals. There is an ongoing request for comment on policy governing the use of the global AbuseFilters. In the meantime, specific wikis can opt out of using the global AbuseFilter. These wikis can simply add a request to this list on Meta-Wiki. More details can be found on this page at Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter.

Thanks,

PiRSquared17, Glaisher

— 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainpage carousel[edit]

Hi, I am trying to get functioning mainpage carousel similar to wikivoyages at a different wiki. I ran into a stack exchange question by local editor. He obviously solved the carousel issue and I would like to ask him, how did he do it :-) Can any1 kindly point me to the person, which used "Nicholasjf21" nick at stackexchange? Big thanks to you! --Wesalius (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not me... Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Special:EmailUser/Nicholasjf21? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

World's most visited attractions[edit]

Travel and Leisure magazine has compiled a list of the world's most visited attractions. These would be prime candidates for making sure they (or their cities) are listed at as many levels of the geographic hierarchy as possible. Powers (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Offline Wikivoyage: Available for every language as ZIM[edit]

Need Wikivoyage without Internet: Download a ZIM before leaving: http://download.kiwix.org/zim/wikivoyage/

Freshly made, available for all languages. You will also need the Kiwix app. Enjoy! Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Just wondering, why is the latest English version (wikivoyage_en_all_2014-11.zim) 829 megabytes and the version from one year ago (wikivoyage_en_all_12_2013.zim) 1.3 gigabytes? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried it on an Android tablet, and it looks good. A few observations:

  • It is a large download (with pictures). It would be good to have downloads for some individual countries, as a way of people trying it out before downloading about 1G.
  • Banners and dynamic maps don't appear. If Kiwix becomes popular this need to be borne in mind when creating articles. Also I could not zoom in on a static map.
  • I think we should have page with simple instructions for downloading and setting this up. It also would also be good to get the Zim + Kiwix as a package in the Play Store.

However these are minor points and it is great to have the site content when on the road without having to be in wifi range. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

AlasdairW, I totally agree with all of your points and sub-points! This project is looking for volunteers, by the way :-) Here is where to report bugs or ask for new features for non-Wikivoyage-specific things and for Wikivoyage-specific things. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Revising Template documentation[edit]

I mostly edit en.wikipedia, but after that & Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage is the project on which I have the most edits. I recently noticed that it is difficult for users (like me) to copy & paste from Wikivoyage Templates onto a page. I therefore would like to intermittently work on the Template documentation pages here to ease their use.

I have done this elsewhere. My most extensive documentation revision was for the WikiProject Medicine template. Here is what it looked like before and this was the difference afterwards.

The reason I am bringing this up here rather than just plunging forward was that I started a minor ruckus when I introduced the Okina template for displaying the ʻokina character. There was much discussion here & here due to a misunderstanding about whether it was an experiment (it was not) or whether it was needed (it was, since government entities use it all the time in Hawaiʻi). So I thought I would let y'all know what I was doing beforehand.

My first thought is to start with {{Userpage}} template, which is far from a copy & paste state. Do any of you have any other priority preferences?

Peaceray (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Documentation improvements sound fine to me. The {{userpage}} template isn't a heavily used template, but perhaps better documentation will help promote wider usage. That template was created by the site's founder and has been around for a while, so hopefully attempts to improve it will produce less wringing of hands than your previous attempt with a new template :) If you're interested in additional projects, Category:Hatnote templates are all fairly heavily-used templates that might benefit from some documentation love. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hotel tries to charge a guest £100 for posting a bad review[edit]

I thought that some might be interested in today's newspaper article about a hotel which charged a guest £100 after they posting a poor review online, quoting the small print of their terms. The hotel changed their mind after trading standards investigated. Another newspaper sent its travel editor to the hotel, who though it not bad for the price. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: Outrageous lawsuits like this are always a little bit comical and a lot of bit infuriating. The good news is that we're unlikely to be the target of these bullying tactics since we have a policy of not discussing bad and mediocre places (outside of the dangerous). —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This was not a lawsuit - the hotel simply charged the card used to book the room. Their terms said "For every bad review left on any website, the group organiser will be charged a maximum £100 per review." I doubt that it would be a problem here because it would usually be difficult to link our description of a place to a specific guest staying there. The point to take away is to read the terms when booking, but mainly this has just been a topic of discussion and amusement here. AlasdairW (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Pardon me. Yes, this is good advice. Also, we should boycott companies which are unethical like this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Union Street Guest House in Hudson (New York) tried the same moronic stunt back in August (but for U$500); it backfired just as badly. We don't have listings for either of these places, but I think we'd just pull the WV listing and link to the incident in an edit summary or talk page if an establishment listed in one of our guides tried something this unethical. K7L (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Licensing status of materials produced by the Canadian government[edit]

Hey folks. I'm very likely going to start work on Forillon National Park in the near future. On the Parks Canada website there is a really nice map of the park that, if possible, I would like to adapt for use here at Wikivoyage. I know from previous experience with Commons that as an organism of the U.S. federal government, works produced by employees of the U.S. National Park Service as part of their official duties are automatically released into the public domain, and I also know that at least one U.S. National Park article (Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park) uses an NPS-produced map. Does anyone know if the same is true for the Canadian government? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Have you seen this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"Status unclear", then. Thanks anyway; that also answered another future question of mine, whether official Quebec provincial park service maps could be reproduced (no). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's just the US government that releases a huge blanket category of material to public-domain like status (which is why CIA maps and NASA material turn up in WP). K7L (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature[edit]

VE as BetaFeature.png

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "VisualEditor". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "VisualEditor language tool" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at mediawiki.org so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature (errata)[edit]