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

Formal request: Including OpenStreetMap in the sidebar[edit]

RfC please I am opening up a proper RfC for an issue that I mentioned briefly in a prior post. I think that OpenStreetMap is a good resource to include in the sidebar for a few reasons. First off, it is an open project, like Wikimedia and the ODP/DMOZ (which is the other project linked in the sidebar). On an abstract level, it's good for us to support one another. On a more practical one, OSM provides the kind of in-depth data that would be inappropriate for a travel guide but very useful for someone getting into the nitty-gritty of a city. Furthermore, it generally has high-quality content, although it's uneven—just like our WMF projects. Does anyone else think that OSM rates as a good enough and useful enough project to direct travelers to once they're done with travel guides from us? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We already integrate OSM information rather prominently, {{geo}}, {{mapframe}}, {{listing}}, {{marker}}, special:mapsources. How does your proposal differ? K7L (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@K7L: These other templates simply include OSM amongst other map services. I am proposing two things make OSM stand out from (e.g.) Google Maps: OSM has a number of high-quality options that other map services lack and it's an open project. As an open project of our own, we should encourage support of other such open projects. This is precisely why Wikitravel linked to DMOZ and Wikipedia in the first place. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not true. Take a look at Oswego#Get around; the German 'Wikivoyage eV' users have put a fine effort into integrating OSM maps to appear directly in Wikivoyage with our points of interest marked. OSM isn't being treated as just another map service like the (proprietary) Google Maps. K7L (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Most destination articles have a link to a full screen OpenStreetMap map - an icon on the right just above the banner. However I expect that many readers don't take this in, or notice that it is OpenStreetMap. It might be good to duplicate this as a link in the Related Sites group on the left. AlasdairW (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I would love to see a map in every article. Could a bot do this? Also support the adding of an OpenStreet Map link in the sidebar. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the icon be replaced with MAP; users may not notice the icon or realise its significance. Pashley (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DMOZ tool to mine and check Wikivoyage links[edit]

Link scraper There is a thread on DMOZ's forums (membership required) where a user has taken their regional link ontology and our RDF breadcrumbs and used some computing magic to find links on our pages that are dead or which are redundant to DMOZ. The forum is supposed to be for internal use only but I think it's okay to quote since they are interested in cross-collaboration:

Well, I've been doing a little playing with the data and I've got something worth looking at, although it's not what I think the final product could eventually become. It's a browser of DMOZ topics that maps to the related Wikivoyage links, broken down by their page and categories. For example Vancouver (Wikivoyage has several neighbourhood pages as well, which were also identified cleanly):

or all the localities that I could automatically identify in New Brunswick:

Lots of stuff to mine pretty easily. I could also use the categorization that Wikivoyage does to suggest topical categories inside the locality -- I don't know if it's that important.

Thinking about things from the other direction, I see this cat:

contains 13 sites not listed in DMOZ, but 6 of them are dead. I think there's a certain amount of possible value to be had for the Wikivoyage project. They are not a specialized link directory, but DMOZ is -- which is why we have a well developed QC system sweeping the directory clean. Right now from what I've seen, just using my own QC tools, Wikivoyage has an incredibly large number of dead links. If there were a database of links that are listed in both sites, maybe we could find a way to have their editors being notified when we are removing links on our side.

One obvious thing to do from the link mining perspective would be to filter dead links, but I thought it was useful to show them for illustrative purposes right now.

Interestingly, this is a segment of the DMOZ ecosystem that could benefit the Wikivoyage project that they might not want to internally develop due to their open source licensing system, since open sourcing the heuristics would let spammers easily circumvent them when buying expired domains. Maybe less of an issue for them since they are all nofollow links.

This could be extended to all the other languages of Wikivoyage of course. I just did English first to see if there was any interest, and because I'm more fluent in it.

On another note, I see the number of Wikivoyage listings in DMOZ has grown to 20 .

Useful? Does anyone want to work back and forth with DMOZians when it comes to links on these pages and links to these pages? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! A first thing is that we could really benefit from getting a list of all our dead links. Dynamic sharing of information (via wikidata?) would be even better. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The links that were posted above had a layer of authentication that prevented them from being viewed by anyone other than DMOZ editors -- I've made a public version of the browser and updated the links. That's just the mapping of ontologies, but I do have a database of broken links (from your XML dump, not live) that I will put online in a bit. Unknown (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a [list of dead links on Wikivoyage], which is 29305/171536 = ~17% of links. Some of these will be transient errors of course, and it's based on the XML dump which may be slightly out of date. There are also around 10,000 probable errors or things that should be corrected that aren't listed here because they're more fuzzy (extremely tiny pages, weird redirects, etc). I'm not sure what the best thing to do with this data is. It's a pretty big list, obviously -- if there were constant maintenance going on thena single page listing errors would probably be sufficient but maybe this is too much for one page? Might be better to break it into more manageable chunks, or maybe mention them on the individual talk pages? I could also make this into a more searchable system if there were some interest in that. Any ideas welcome! Unknown (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the list! I fixed a few ones, and realized that trying to fix links takes too much time, it is probably better to just remove the 29305 broken URLs... could anyone write a script to do that? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I fixed a handful of broken links in Culver City and Yellowstone National Park, but also came across a few false positives that would make me hesitant about using an automated script to remove them all. Additionally, manual removal might allow us to identify (and remove) some closed listings. Can we promote this list for a while (perhaps via Wikivoyage:Cleanup and other means) and see how much manual cleanup is done over the next couple of weeks before considering automated options? -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I certainly didn't intend to automatically remove everything on this list :) This was definitely for manual inspection. If we wanted to do an automated solution, we'd want to put dead links into a queue and see if they come back within a week or two to make sure they weren't transient errors, and we'd want to have special handling for different cases. In DMOZ once we identify a link as properly dead we don't even delete them then either, but instead we throw them into a secondary queue where editors go and hunt down a replacement since there is often a good reason, like a business changing names, getting a new domain name, or whatever. Which is why I was thinking that some means of directly collaborating between the two projects would be a good idea, as the link scanner I put the Wikivoyage links through is not nearly as well developed as the ones running at DMOZ, and also because are constantly fixing our links and it would make sense to get the value of that work propagated out to other open projects like this. Ideally, when Wikivoyagers find replacements those replacements would be sent in the other direction to improve DMOZ as well. Using Wikidata to do this dynamically sounded like an interesting idea. Either way, I'm happy to continue generating these reports from the WV XML dumps on an ongoing basis if they are helpful here. Unknown (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought the list came from the same multi-step checking engine as DMOZ. If it is only a one-time check, then deleting URLs would be premature indeed. But if a link has been consistently down, I would be in favour of just deleting this link (and keeping the listing). Unlike DMOZ, we don't absolutely need URLs. Unlike DMOZ, we have a relatively high number of people who actually travel to that destination, these people are the best for the task of adding correct URLs later or removing the listing altogether if it has disappeared in real life. Anyway, looking forward to collaborating with DMOZ on this! Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any plans to rerun this list? It might be good to have a focused cleanup drive and then re-run to see what's left to do. I've been fixing links here and there and it sounds like others have been too, so the list has probably changed. Agree with others that it's not a good idea to summarily remove links before checking whether the listing has closed. -- Phoebe (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to count on having "a relatively high number of people who actually travel to that destination" as a sanity check, as that varies depending on the popularity of a destination and the number of our regular users there. A small eatery in a tiny, out-of-the-way village often disappears very silently, with only the locals in that village being the wiser. Broken URLs are often the first outward sign that the business has closed, as domains expire to be hijacked by spammers if they're not renewed annually. Outdated white-page or yellow-page listings still exist online for a decade or more because some sites don't update their info. Short of using a cheap voice over IP service to actually call these venues (which can be a penny or two for a one-minute call to landlines in most industrialised countries), we have no idea if they're dead or alive. A broken URL is all too often a closed venue.
Another option may be to gather a list of what's broken and contact the local CVB's in those destinations to enlist their aid in spotting business closures. K7L (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Checkuser#Another go at a new sockpuppet policy[edit]

A pointer to a proposal for changes to our policy on sockpuppets. Your participation in the discussion is urged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BUMP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Leaflets for Wikimania[edit]

Please see m:Wikivoyage/Lounge#Wikimania Leaflets. I think this is a great idea to help promote our project to the WMF community. Powers (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Who's going to make a request for leaflets of WV? --Saqib (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping we could discuss details at meta. Powers (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but I thought it would be better to discuss it here first as we've more chances to get potential interested people, otherwise so far no one responded on Meta yet. --Saqib (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Left note on Meta that I think it would be a good idea to promote Wikivoyage by doing a leaflet - Matroc (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A pagebanner printed on card would make the basis for a good bookmark. There would be enough space on the back for a few lines of text. I expect that this would cost about the same as a small leaflet and would be more likely to be kept by people that pick one up. AlasdairW (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Promoting Wikivoyage[edit]

Hello! The Individual Engagement Grant at m:Grants:IEG/Promoting Wikivoyage was selected. I am so excited to share what a great resource Wikivoyage is! The basic plan is to directly inform Chambers of Commerce in the United States about Wikivoyage. I'll be asking for community input along the way and posting on the pub with updates. The main project page is at meta. For now, just letting you know the good news. I'll be seeing you around! --Tbennert (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Terrific. Well done! -- Alice 03:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Tbennert, congratulations! That's really good news. --Danapit (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
We count on you :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Great job! Congratulations! Do let us know if you'd like any help! :) --Nick talk 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative guide?[edit]

Hello, I wanted to write an "alternative guide to Prague" to show everyone some of the less obvious points of interest in Prague. Is there a tradition of pages such as Prague/Alternative guide? Or what would you recommend me? Thanks, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would start by just adding the points of interest to the existing Prague page. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Vojtěch, your suggestion sounds interesting. I don't think we use "alternative guides" here, but do you think format of an Itinerary or a Travel topic might be suitable for what you have in mind? Danapit (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the feedback. I will definitely improve the Prague page with a section "Alternative", but what I have in mind is something bigger than just a section. A travel topic or an initerary might be what I am looking for but I don't want to change the Wikivoyage routines. How would YOU name a page if you wanted to write about alternative spots to visit in Prague? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Literary London comes to mind as a comparable project. You can always create this article in your user space to start with ( for example User:Andrewssi2/Pyeongchang ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no single formula, and we are always looking for new and interesting types of itineraries and travel topics, so feel free to experiment. However, I think the best and most successful itineraries and travel topics have some sort of theme that binds them together. Is there a theme to what you are hoping to introduce in your 'alternative guide' or is it an itinerary for seeing lesser known sites that are not necessarily related to one another? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The theme is being alternative, so going to places which are not often visited by mainstream tourists. Maybe Andrewssi2 is right with the userpage sandbox, I'll just write something and then see what comes out of it.. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Off the beaten track in Japan is another example you might look at. Perhaps also LGBT Stockholm. Note, though, that both of those are tagged as not sufficiently developed to stand alone, with a suggestion of merging. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
My concern would be scope. What kinds of attractions are we talking about here? If they're good but obscure, they should be in the main Prague article or its district articles. If they're only kinda 'meh', and thus not good enough to list on the main articles, why list them at all? Powers (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think this would be an excellent, excellent travel topic. When I was in Quebec City the summer before last, I found myself disgusted by how much the Haute-Ville and Quartier Petit-Champlain had devolved into tacky tourist traps. Of course, they had always been touristy, but it was much worse than it had been the last time I visited five years previously. It was very hard to appreciate the real history in the place when I had to shove my way through throngs of dead-eyed, human-cattle bus tour groups, and practicing my French was nearly impossible because as soon as they heard my Anglo accent they addressed me only in English, the better to speed things along with a long line behind me at the counter. I found myself craving a true representative Québécois experience, and I did find it, but in the outer boroughs where tourists are rarely seen. Prague is a place where a lot of tourists go, and I imagine it might be the same way there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks all! --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you create such a page, you probably will have to maintain it (add spots, improve phrasing, update pictures, update opening hours, etc), because most people will concentrate on the main articles. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wales Challenge: A Fistful of Nuggets![edit]

Fistful jpg.jpg

Howdy, all!

I've set a Challenge to all Wikivoyage language projects: to complete just over 10 articles on some of the gold nuggets of Wales - the little corner of this planet where I was born and bread! Every article needs a few essential elements: sleep, drink and eat as well as 2000 bytes of text. The first language to complete the Challenge will get a Gold Dragon Barnstar - as well as the user who has collected the most points. Have fun!

I look forward to meet you at the Saloon - please add the points yourself and tick the grid to show that it's done! Many thanks, or as we say in the BIG COUNTRY (Wales of course!) - "Diolch yn fawr!" Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It does sound like an interesting project, but it would likely require some first-hand knowledge of Wales which I'm afraid most Wikivoyagers do not have. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As you can see from this map, there is fairly extensive coverage of Wales in English, but some of these articles are just an introductory sentence or two. German also has over a dozen articles. As ϒpsilon say these articles are best improved by people who know the area. It is a long time since I visited Wales and I haven't been to anywhere on your list.
Maybe it would be best to raise some interest from people in Wales by contacting a local radio station or newspaper. Maybe you could also interest people in translating articles - generally from English to other languages. AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Great ideas: I've Tweeted the request too. Let's see what happens! Any help will be appreciated, for the other languages are unable to translate from en if there are no articles! Take a look at this comprehensive Italian discussion at their theirTravellers' pub. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What is a "Guide article" exactly?[edit]

Wikivoyage:Guide articles mentions only that the definition is fluid, and that guide articles for bottom-level destinations should contain plenty of listings. Well and good. However, I was just now looking through [[Category:Guide articles]] for destinations that would be suitable as OtBP for the upcoming winter, and I came upon Bisbee and Bihoro, which are classified as guides (or, in the latter case, was classified as a Guide before I made the executive decision to demote it to Outline status) but would never cut the mustard as featured destinations. If any article that is Guide or better is supposed to be eligible for featuring on the Main Page, and if the guidelines for what makes a Guide article are so vague as to not, technically speaking, exclude either of the foregoing articles, I think it's high time we made our policy on what does and does not constitute a Guide article quite a bit clearer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Bihoro is obviously not up to the standards of a guide, but what's wrong with Bisbee? Looks pretty dang good to me for a page about a small town. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a problem with our guidance on the subject, except perhaps that Wikivoyage:Guide articles doesn't point you more directly to WV:City guide status, WV:Region guide status, WV:District guide status, etc., where you can see more somewhat more specific criteria for how each type should be rated. (We can't get too specific because there is a wide range of sizes, types, and contexts for cities.) Also I think it a little bit off to think that simply having the article at guide status would automatically mean that the destination itself is suitable for featuring. Just because our coverage of a place is as good as can be reasonably expected doesn't necessarily mean that the place itself is among the more recommendable ones out there. I doubt if Bihoro should ever be featured, regardless of the status rating of our coverage of it. Texugo (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Bihoro article technically qualifies as usable as it tells you how to get there, has something to see, a place to eat and a place to sleep...
I'd say the criteria for when an article would qualify a guide depends on how large the destination is and how much it has to offer. In articles for really small destinations (like Childs) there cannot be very many POIs because there are just a handful of them in the town. According to WP Bisbee has 5,575 inhabitants, which means that the town cannot be a very large one and subesquently that our article already contains much of the town's interesting things, restaurants and hotels and therefore can't get any more better. On the other hand, if these would be e.g. our Buffalo and Helsinki :) articles, they would for sure not qualify as Guides.
Another thing, maybe there's nothing wrong with the current article status policy. It might also be that editors are not aware of it and either upgrade articles to guide when they feel like or in other cases write guide-worthy articles but forget to upgrade their status. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Bisbee has plenty of listings; that isn't the problem. The problem, in fact, is that's pretty much all the article has. It strikes me as a virtually context-free list of tourist attractions, events, restaurants, bars and hotels. For instance, what is Bisbee all about, exactly? What is its historical importance? What kind of experiences, generally speaking, await a visitor to Bisbee? Those things should be covered in the Understand section, which at present is three sentences long. The Muheim Heritage House Museum is a fully-restored family home, built in 1898; fine. Who were the Muheims, and what was their significance to Bisbee's history? What kind of things will I see in the house? How long does a tour typically last? Are they guided or self-guided? These questions should all be answered in the listing's descriptive blurbs - but there's only a sentence or two for each one. (Compare the aforementioned Childs, where the listings are fewer in number than Bisbee but properly contextualized with an abundance of background information; in my mind there's no question that Childs is at Guide status.)
Again, we'd never allow an article on the Main Page that gives such dry, bare-bones information, yet it still technically qualifies as a Guide. Texugo suggests that we should restrict the requirements for featured articles rather than the requirements for Guide status, but I think that misses the point. A Guide article, whether it's featured or not, is supposed to be so detailed that "not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here". But if I were taking a trip to Bisbee, regardless of the fact that it's a small town, I would want a lot more information than Wikivoyage's Bisbee article gives me.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggest any further restrictions, I was just pointing out that "guide status" only defines the quality of our coverage and does not necessarily imply that the destination itself is worth putting on our front-page pedestal. Texugo (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, by definition, it does. "The destination isn't good enough" isn't a valid reason to oppose a feature proposal, per the instructions. There's no reason not to feature a destination just because you don't think someone ought to go there.
To Andre's concerns, it sounds to me like the Bisbee article is borderline Guide status. All the essentials are there, it seems; it's just missing the spit and polish it would take to bring it up to Star status, yes? Powers (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with our definition of Guide; for some larger places, it is very difficult to meet current criteria because all the next level down need to be at usable first. See Talk:Shanghai#Getting_to_guide.3F and Talk:China/Archive_2003-2012#Status_of_this_Article for examples.
I am not sure how this might be fixed, or even that it should be, but it definitely causes some frustration. Pashley (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Per Texugo I've added links from the various status pages (Project:Guide articles, Project:Star articles, etc) to the type-specific criteria pages (Project:City guide status, Project:Region guide status, etc). Hopefully that makes it clearer how to determine what the criteria are for each article type. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess for Pashley's concern it's the difference between evaluating each page as it is or evaluating based on the depth of content available under it as a part of the status of the whole. If a person looks at the China page by itself, they'll probably think "This page should be a guide". However, if you look at the status as an indicator of the depth of information we have on China, then usable seems like a fair assessment. We've gone with the latter way of assessing our guides, so that if we say we have a guide status China guide, readers can expect to find satisfactory information about each region, province, and major destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Listings with multiple locations[edit]

Hi, I've been listifying stuff in various locations for a while, and there is one pattern that seems general enough to support it on the level of listing templates. That is, there are case when there are several sister pubs/bars/restaurants around the town, with the same name and same descriptions fitting all of them, but with different addresses (and directions) obviously. Sphinx in Poznań#Medium is one example I met recently, but that happens quite a bit all over the globe apparently. It would be rather convenient to have a possibility to add multiple (up to 3-5?) addresses/directions/coordinates/phones in one listing, at least for eat, drink & buy, so that they are all rendered in some standard way. AntonBryl (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem I run into now and then myself as well. Don't tout prohibits adding multiple location for businesses, and I assume it concerns not only marketers but everyone. I usually list one restaurant (or whatever), and mention in its description that they also have another restaurant and where it is. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
One listing is one object and one point on the map, so putting several addresses into one listing is counter-productive. You can easily make a nice format by using * {{listing}} for the general description, followed by a series of ** {{listing}} for individual locations. Ideally, they should be connected to each other by a dummy parameter (something like |ref= ?) that can be used for attributing each object to its relevant description. However, we are still far from processing and re-using any of the listing content, so the attribution problem is not so important... --Alexander (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The second half of Wikivoyage:Listings#Complex attractions contains some guidance for places with multiple listings, although the use case of multiple locations of the same place could probably be called out into its own specific example. See "Harold's Chicken Shack" in Chicago/Bronzeville#Eat for usage in a real article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies everyone! AntonBryl (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

New Star Nomination[edit]

I didn't do this initially, but I was told it is part of the nomination process to post here in the pub when a new star is nominated for the community to comment. I have nominated Okayama for star status and would appreciate your comments, critiques, support, etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)



since today the first cross-wiki collaboration is online on .de and .en! I would like to thank User:Ikan Kekek, User:Pashley and User:Texugo for their proof reading and tireless control of my inferior writing skills, User:Saqib for the static and User:Mey2008 for the very early implementation of the dynamic map. Special thanks go to User:DerFussi and User:Tine who are the German admins who made the German side possible.

I think we need to keep working on cross WV to maintain the spirit of a multi-language community WV is. Mr. Nugget does a good thing at the moment, so maybe we should aim for an annual cross-wiki collaboration for a Dotm/OtBP? Regards, jan (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Nugget! Thanks! I'm learning all the time here, and that's worth more than gold. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to you and all others involved! I think it would be great to have other cross-WV features. A cross-wiki feature would be great, too, if we could get cooperation from any other wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I talked with the German WV community and they are positively interested in having an annual collaboration for a Dotm/otBP/FTT. André is our grandmaster for that area so i hope we will work a way to keep that going. Maybe we can even aim bigger and do something with the Italian and German community together. jan (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated response to this thread. To address jan's suggestion, I'm fully in support of an annual cross-language feature. I can serve as liaison to fr: and es: when/if we collaborate with them, but in other cases it would be good for other willing polyglot editors to identify themselves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries André, i see you are busy. I guess User:Andyrom75 can serve as go between for it: and User:Texugo for :pt. I will post something in the interlingual pub. jan (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can do my best. To be honest, on pt: I usually prefer to keep things in order and work in the background and leave the actual prose writing to the native speakers, but at the moment there are no regular contributors there besides me. Texugo (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if we made Lisbon a multilanguage collaboration that could spark some interest - maybe we could ask the Portuguese Wikipedia community if they'd care to participate? PrinceGloria (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a good idea. It might be best to start off with experienced people here, to make sure that the basic structure is in place, but talking to w:en:Lisbon's editors or w:pt:Turismo's might be a way to find someone who can help with language or local information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
jan, very glad to help when needed. Just give me a whistle on it:voy just to be sure of catching my prompt attention ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

André, WhatamIdoing, PrinceGloria, Texugo i started the discussion on coordination on the interlingual pub. Regards, jan (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Print versions[edit]

The argument that Wikivoyage guides "also have to work offline / in print" is often raised, and I do agree, but I believe our print versions lag behind our online version at this moment. For example, dynamic maps are rendered when clicking "Printable version", but when you make a PDF or book out of your selected guide(s), they disappear. What is worse, the POI numbering disappears as well, so even if you print the dynamic map from the "printable version" level, you have no key.

There are other issues with print I noticed, but the ones above are most pressing IMHO. Can we do something to rectify that? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Print and PDF functions are not perfect in Mediawiki. Background colors (POI numbers) and embedded windows (dynamic maps) are not printed. - I use the browser's print function instead (Firefox, IE, Chrome). Page setup: background colors on, landscape. PDFs (see example) I create with a PDF printer driver (e.g. Foxit Reader's PDF Printer). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I figured out so of my own as well. That said, if we have explicit links to "print version" and "make a PDF", we should make them work or disable them and agree that for the time being we do not explicitly support printing. Oh, and the banners don't print either. Can we rectify this ourselves or do we need to raise that higher up with at the Meta? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, we have no control over PDF rendering. Of course, you can raise this issue at Meta, but you will have to be very persistent about it, because nobody touched the PDF module in the last few years. --Alexander (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your edit summary is appropriate - we actually CAN, and you said what we can. I would hate for it to be "me" rather than "us" though, I sure hope I am not the only seeing this situation as bad, but one that can be changed. If nothing was done about the PDF module for years, then the potential that something CAN be done is actually quite big. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am sure that your request will gain some support. The problem is that PDF's can't be tuned by standard editing tools that are accessible to admins. It is something about the PDF extension, so you need programming skills and eventually you have to add the modified PDF extension to the new MediaWiki release. We don't have people with the necessary experience and personal connections to code developers, except for, perhaps, Roland on de:
I think that the best strategy is to raise this question on some bigger Wikipedias and see whether people with strong technical expertise want to work on it. For example, one crucial technical issue is to make PDF converter recognize CSS styles. This will solve our problem with the POI numbers that are currently missing in PDF. --Alexander (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a simpler approach:
# Take a screenshot of the Dynamic Map and save it as a static file
# Use this file instead of Dynamic Map in the Print View
# Profit?
Obviously you restrict yourself to one zoom level, but it is more acheivable. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just admitting defeat - I print my dynamic maps as screenshots for my own purposes, but we shouldn't have to update screenshots everytime an article gets edited to have an up-to-date print version. I will raise that at Meta in due course, I am sure there are many people with appropriate programming skills in the Wiki community. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Updating a screenshot isn't too difficult. The real problem with printing dynamic maps is that there's no way to expand the marker clusters once you've printed the map, leaving some POIs hidden beyond usability. I wonder if it would be possible for a full page to be added at the end of the print version showing an auto-generated screenshot of the dynamic map at the automatic zoom level? It wouldn't completely guarantee a lack of marker clusters, but it would reduce them as much as we can hope for.

Regarding your question above about including banners in the print version, I'm pretty sure it would be as simple as deleting <div class="noprint"> and the corresponding </div> tag from the {{pagebanner}} template (or, alternatively, we could move those tags so the banner prints but the table of contents doesn't) if there is consensus that the banners should be included in the print version. I would support the idea, since the banner is often an important image with no equivalent anywhere else on the page.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 02:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a double-edged sword - there usually is one or more outlying POIs for every city/district article (except for small, well-formed districts that lend themselves well for mapping), which would lead the automatic function to zoom out and leave most of the POI-dense area and unlegible sea of yellow pluses somewhere near the middle of the map. That would not serve the traveller well either, or even less. I would trust the collective users' intelligence in formatting the map for online display and print by selecting which POIs to show, what zoom level to adopt and where to cut off the map, better than an automated solution.
Further on automation - do note that we deliberately made adding and editing a POI very easy in hope of having as many editors as possible jump in. This means that POIs are often added actually wrongly and with incorrect coordinates. We even discussed recently with User:Ikan Kekek how our own geolocation tools end up locating POIs in wrong cities (even if with correct street addresses, but this isn't much help) as we could two Berlin restaurants auto-located in Zurich and Leipzig (one each). Given that every new edit may change that, the numbering of POIs etc. and that direct edits to POIs are on the rise, I find generating a screenshot version of the map something impossible and quite pointless (we would be almost always guaranteed to have an outdated version of the static map that doesn't match the article).
If anything, we may want to ask Joachim to add a feature that not only indicates the existence of POIs outside of the map range, but also marks the POIs on the map's edge with icons, colours and numbers and maybe even distances. But until then, I believe the map does a fine job of letting people know there is something outside the map's scope, and the POI description also should make a mention that something is farther away. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Supposedly, a POI that's slightly off the map is indicated as a semi-transparent blue semicircle at that edge of the map. For instance, Oswego#Get around shows this in the lower portion of the right-hand edge as an Oswego Speedway (Do:1) at the edge of town is off-map. A pair of restaurants (Eat:1,8) which are barely in the visible map area appear to also trigger this. There is no one position in which the on-page inline map shows every POI clearly without either clustering (+) or pushing a few off-page, and Oswego (pop 18000) is one of the easier, more palatable choices as a reasonably compact city. A large city (if not broken into districts) would be more difficult, but that's not the only issue. For sprawling Lac-Mégantic (pop 6000) all I can say is "bonne chance" as the tourist area wraps around the lake into the rural countryside and includes a pair of provincial parks 20-30 miles (30-50km) distant. Radiator Springs is worse, as that's an itinerary; even if it only covers half the main Route 66 beaten path, that's still 1200 miles from Baxter Springs to Peach Springs. (There's no map on our main US66 itinerary yet.) There's no map on our Underground Railroad article, but with multiple routes (anything from Ohio to Pennsylvania) and multiple POIs on each, they'd never all fit at once. Trans-Canada Highway would be the extreme case, no dynamic map, no POIs as the article scope is ridiculously the entire country so little or no detail can be provided at the local or regional level in such an overview.
A static map for a city with a static inset for downtown would be typical for a large city description in a standard printed guide. There is no one dynamic map view which fits everything without some scrolling, zooming and manipulation that isn't available in print. It's not just Wikivoyage, good luck taking something like and finding one view that fits a 170km cycle trip on back roads but still has enough detail to even see which roads are being taken? Couldn't see one, and bringing a laptop PC on the road isn't an option if that map was intended for cyclists. K7L (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles can have an overview map and any number of detailed maps [1]. With a PDF printer driver, the complete article (incl. all maps) can be printed [2]. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bug report for print version?[edit]

Would it be worth opening a bugzilla: item? Issues with the MediaWiki code (or an extension) are more likely to be seen by developers there than in meta:. K7L (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
What you are asking is technically challenging, and as an IT person I would really categorize this as 'High cost, low benefit' when evaluating the value of developing this feature.
By all means raise a request in MediaWiki. I would just suggest that you may want to consider other options in the meantime that are lower cost. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki software does need a good PDF converter. It will be useful even for Wikipedia, let alone other (non-WMF) sites that are using this software. The problem is that technical efforts are often spent for useless things such as new fonts or MediaViewer, so indeed, we can hardly expect any technical improvements unless we know people who are both interested in the PDF feature and can implement it.
Anyway, a bug request will not hurt, so anyone willing to submit could should mention the following crucial features of the PDF converter:
  • Render CSS styles
  • Control the inclusion of images (ideally, one should be able to decide whether images are included at all, and if they are, which of them should be included)
  • Render iframe environment
--Alexander (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Guys, would any of you familiar with Bugzilla be willing to file the above bug? I would like to concentrate on addressing the Meta this weekend. Let's push for it on all fronts, loudly and repeatedly, and we will be heard. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

At a point in time when Internet access is available even in the most off-the-beaten-path Third World backwaters, I really question our continued emphasis on maintaining a print version. We're Wikivoyage, the free online travel guide that anyone can edit. I, for one, see hard-copy travel guides as a separate niche, and a dying one at that. I wouldn't mind so much if our dogged insistence on accommodating a dwindling number of readers who prefer a Stone Age approach to travel literature weren't hamstringing our efforts to incorporate technological advances on our site, case in point the skepticism some of us still have about dynamic maps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Andre, you may be surprised, but on a train between Moscow and Saint Petersburg, which are two biggest Russian cities, you will find only sporadic internet connection. And if you try to read a travel guide from your smartphone or tablet in a smaller Mexican city, you will simply lose your favorite gadgets (at best). So printed travel guides remain a must for those people who really travel and not just visit popular tourist destinations. It is also important that the printing option does not hamper any "technological advances". However, both on-line and off-line versions must be developed in parallel. --Alexander (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Further on this - while I find the "gotta mind the print version users" as abused as "gotta mind the people with low bandwidth" argument to throw stones into the cogs of progress, I believe the print version continues to be very relevant even in the digital age. Not only is it useful in places with scarce Internet connection - I tend to have a phone online all of the time with me, and generally travel with at least one laptop, but running around a new city with an open laptop is not an option, and mapping out my route using a mobile version of Wikivoyage would be a folly. I always carry a printed version of the guide I need, with my handwritten comments, directions etc. on it, which I can fold into my pocket and consult wherever I find myself. The print version is an important aspect of Wikivoyage and we should pay it appropriate heed. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think the printed version should be paramount, but there sure are areas with no cell phone or Wi-Fi signal at all, including a very long stretch of central California coast. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
One of my long-term goals is to improve the handling of printable versions of our guides. WTP had a pretty decent engine; it had its flaws but it was much more flexible and customizable than the current. I will say, however, that printing dynamic maps may always be problematic simply due to their dynamic nature. I would certainly not support ignoring print versions simply because dynamic maps -- which are still an in-development, somewhat experimental feature -- were added without thinking of the print impact first. Powers (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Did WTP use a custom MediaWiki extension? Who developed it, who may have the code, and how does the code look like? --Alexander (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Alexander, I believe Jani is the only one still here who knows about the printed guides. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't own a smartphone or tablet. On some recent trips I have taken no computing device and used no internet. In Addis Ababa I visited two internet cafes but neither had any connection at the time. I only had what I printed before I left home. Just saying. Nurg (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In many parts of the world there you can indeed not get online anywhere you wish. Also, it's not always a smart idea to flaunt a laptop/tablet/smartphone maybe worth four months' local salary. I now and then print out travel guides (4 pages on an A4 + cut & staple makes a good palm-sized travel guide that doesn't mark you out as a tourist on the street) and for me they work well as they are now. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
WTP used a standalone engine unrelated to Mediawiki; it took the supplied articles as plain wikitext and parsed them to produce LaTeX output, including automated ToC, page headers, and indices. Manual index entries could be produced via Template:Index. Internal links automatically became page references within the book; external links were automatically expanded in-line. Images could be set to print as two pages, as a full page, grouped with two per page, floating within the text, or as the lead image... just by changing a keyword in the File tag. The LaTeX was then used to generate a printable PDF. The output format (about 5"x8", two columns) was ideal for travel. Powers (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
LaTeX sounds great. A stand-alone thing could also work for us if WMF is not interested in improving their own PDF extension. But the question is: who was involved in WTP, and who may have the code? Is it only Jani? I believe we had quite a few old admins on the old (pre-migration) mailing list. Some of them might be accessible by e-mail even if they no longer contribute to the project. --Alexander (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(undent) Wikitravel Press is dead and buried. The code we wrote is far inferior to the Pediapress version, which is currently used for printing to PDF across all WMF wikis. It's mostly open source, if you want to improve handling of dynamic maps etc, that's the place to contribute. Jpatokal (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know! --Alexander (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Before I go pester Pediapress to provide support for printing out our maps and listings, I just wanted to make sure whether we don't actually "noprint" those features? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


I can file bug reports. Can we work out here exactly what we want it to say, and perhaps a link to an ideal example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have an ideal example. Three main features that I can envisage are as follows:
  • Render CSS styles
  • Control the inclusion of images (ideally, one should be able to decide whether images are included at all, and if they are, which of them should be included)
  • Render iframe environment
--Alexander (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I meant an ideal example of the problem, so that any interested dev could easily look at it and see that it's broken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
That's easy. Go to any page with POI markers (say, Berlin/Mitte) and click Download PDF to see that the PDF file is missing the map, all POI markers, and the page layout is anything but ergonomic. --Alexander (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick update: There are now plans to replace the existing pdf tool. The schedule has not been set, but it will probably be at least six months from now. It sounded like PediaPress is discontinuing support.

If there are other things that you'd like to have added to bugzilla:68008, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any links to more information on this PDF tool replacement, WAID? I'd like to get involved in its development. Powers (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
All I've seen is this: WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a question at bugzilla:68008 about why someone might want to exclude images. Do you have something in mind beyond the obvious "people might not want to bother downloading/printing them"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for posting our request on bugzilla. I added a comment there, although it is pretty obvious indeed. --Alexander (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi everyone, despite the title, this section isn't about Twitter alone. It's also an apology for my extremely reduced activity over the last few months. As you've perhaps guessed I've been rather overwhelmed by work recently and I've not been able to give Wikivoyage the attention I'd have liked; I hope you're all well!

As part of this, whilst I have tweeted from the Wikivoyage account as often as I can, I haven't been able to give it all the attention I feel it deserves. As such, I'd like to appeal for another user to help operate the WV Twitter account. I don't propose to stop tweeting altogether, but it would be good to have someone else to fill in the gaps when I'm otherwise engaged - we're on more than 500 followers at the moment and they expect content! In terms of requirements, any previous Twitter experience would naturally be a bonus, but really you'll also need to be a trusted Wikivoyage user (whatever that means) and you'll also need to be prepared to give me your email address/have that feature enabled on your profile so that I can send you the log-in credentials in confidence. If anyone can think of any other necessary requirements, please let me know.

Once again, I apologise for my protracted absence, but I hope to be able to become a little more active over the summer. It's been great to see how the project continues to grow (even from a distance), and I remain absolutely committed to WV's success. Thanks! --Nick talk 22:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Glad to see your message. I can handle WV Twitter if the community have trust on me. Currently, I'm handling @WikimediaPK. --Saqib (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bar listings for Manhattan/Lower East Side[edit]

Hi, everyone. I don't know if this is really a request for comment, so I wasn't sure about putting anything up on Requests for comment but thought I'd post here to urge anyone who knows more about bars on the Lower East Side of Manhattan to post listings in Manhattan/Lower East Side#Drink. I posted a couple, but I'm really not the demographic most bars south of Houston are now catering to - a loud, young (20s) crowd (and I mean crowd) of out-of-towners. But they come here in droves, and since that's now mostly what the Lower East Side is about, we need to put in a bunch more bar and also restaurant listings. So if any of you liked anyplace, please help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Increasing spam[edit]

Recently I saw a significant increment in spam from IP addresses. I was thinking would it be a good idea if we limit article creation only to registered users only? --Saqib (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a few new pages but could you give some examples of spam? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Spam deleted.--Saqib (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that spam has reached any level where it's eating up too much admin time or threatening to get out of control. I'd like to keep things as open as possible for new users unless/until things start to get pretty seriously out of hand. Texugo (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What would be the wikimedia foundation's position on this be?
Also it seems like a lot of accounts are automatically created for spam purposes, so I'm not sure restricting anonymous users from creating pages will help too much... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Texugo - right now it looks like we're dealing with an average of about 2-4 spam articles a day created by IPs, which is a minor annoyance rather than a problem, and not something that I think merits a change that would affect our principle of being as open as possible. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It is something that might be declined by WMF, yes. --Rschen7754 14:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that the WMF will back the WV users if we decide to keep things as they are now and they would also back us if we decide to restrict new users or IPs from creating articles. I think WV would have to go a long way towards unreasonable (in either direction) before WMF would intervene at all - in my opinion. On the question of automatically generated accounts: that I can see WMF acting on via technical measures, without even consulting us. Remember that User accounts are now accounts on all WMF wikis. I believe there is already a restriction on creating a lot of new accounts from the same IP address in a short period - I was warned about this when I helped run an editathon. Filceolaire (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter: WeAreWikipedia[edit]

The @WeAreWikipedia account on Twitter is run by a different Wikipedian each week. This week it's me, and I'm trying to include something about each sister project. Do drop by, and follow it if that's your thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Andy, this is a great idea! If you wanted to mention something about Wikivoyage, you may perhaps say that our article on Berlin is now undergoing major refurbishment, but we are lacking voices from those who actually LIVE in Berlin. Since the German Wikipedia/Wikimedia community is actually one of the strongest, this may be because they did not take interest in Wikivoyage before - if Berlin is close to their heart, perhaps it is time to plunge forward! PrinceGloria (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
PS. Similarly, I am not sure if Wikipedians know that we are actually using OpenStreetMap to dynamically map out POIs (points of interest - such as sights, restaurants, hotels/hostels etc.) people add, so that we always have an up-to-date map. This world-class application is unique to Wikivoyage (e.g. Wikitravel does not have it) and has been basically created and maintained by one, very committed user - as it happens, a German one!
Berlin done - thank for the tip. I'll cover OSM later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we breaking our own rules of attributing[edit]

Hello and I hope I am not posting in the wrong place.

I am concerned, wondering if/why we are not attributing our sources materials the same way that we expect others will attribute to us when we are the sourced? I think according to our rules we are to provide a text and a link to the source, such as here:

Again I am wondering in pages such as where I have edited why we do not do it? I have a hard time finding our sourced materials, thank you. Travel doc96 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the page, where it says "This article is partly based on Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Licensed work from other websites. Details of contributors can be found in the article history" (with links). Texugo (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I do see that, than you texugo. Also in our rules for attributing it tells everyone to use this form: "[A list of contributors (link to history tab)] is available at the original [Singapore (link to attribution source)] article at [Wikivoyage (text name of source)]."
So I was noticeing that when we attribute or original sources, we do not follow our own advice. And that has changed only since recently:

It seems to be just a user who changed it and no discussion of changing the recommended way to attribute sources. It looks like we say others must attribute us one way, and then we do it a different way. No? I think a text and link also is what Wikipedia does and what recommended by Creative Commons. So we should change back and add link to sources, so nobody feels bad about giving credit for writing, no? Travel doc96 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't read through MediaWiki talk:Creditssource-credits, please do, and if after you've read through the entire page, you would like to suggest a new idea, I would suggest for you to go ahead and do so on that talk page, but I think you'll have a different view about whether the change you're objecting to was a result of a process of discussion and consensus or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You're right I had not read that. Cheers! Travel doc96 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, ok except that does not address why we are asking for one kind of attributing, but doing a much less one?
Abd also, it looks like several members are upset by the change, which was made and not discussed before it was done at all. The mention that it was a translation problem is a joke I think? It is clearly the same user who wants to try search optimizing to improve google, so that's why he did it. Again, maybe not an issue? But we are not following attribution advice of Wikipedia, Creative Commons, or even our own guide. Surely it was not a problem the way it was before. I could change it back, but it is a locked page. Can someone else do this? Travel doc96 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You think that the way we provided free publicity to Wikitravel in the past was not a problem, but many of us think it was, and the policy won't be changed back because of only one or two users' objections. You have to try to gain a consensus to revert to the previous policy, and again, I suggest that you post to that talk page with your specific proposal and try to gain a consensus for it. I predict that you won't be successful, but your only chance is if you indicate very clearly why you think it's necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You've answered your own question. 'Advice' as you put it is 'advisory' and we have considered this as a community and made a decision. If you disagree, you are welcome to make a formal proposal on the talk page. James Atalk 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Per Ikan's suggestion this discussion has moved to MediaWiki talk:Creditssource-credits#Policy change - please make any further comment there. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove MySpace links[edit]

There are 130 or so articles with links to MySpace pages, which was at one time similar to how we allow Facebook links for listings which have an active, official FB page but no official website. However, MySpace has changed its whole concept and content since then, so that now it is pretty much exclusively a site for sharing music. I had a look at a large sampling of the links listed here, and not a single one appeared active or contained any useful information at all. Most were completely empty with a default background and only the name and city of the account, a few also had a few recommended mp3s on top of that, and another 10 or 12 of the random ones i clicked on no longer even existed. That's all. The site is pretty well obsolete as a social network and not even terribly popular as a music platform. continue linking to it? I'd like to rout all these out and add it to the list of things we don't link to. Texugo (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose creation of any more policy restricting external links. If the information is gone, that already can be dealt with in the same manner as any other broken link. No need to hamstring the project with more instruction creep if it serves no useful purpose. K7L (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think opposing on the basis that you don't like any new rules really constitutes much of an argument that anyone can fairly and logically engage with. At any rate, it's less about creating a new rule and more about eliminating an implicit exception to an existing rule because the original circumstances for which we made that exception no longer exist. WV:External links#What not to link to lists
Blogs, forums and social networking sites (Facebook, etc), with the exception of when a business has no other official web presence.
I suggest that MySpace should no longer be considered a useful, valid social networking site for the purposes of this exception because the site's raison d'etre has changed from being a social network to being a music platform. If you can find even one case where MySpace provides something valuable to the traveller, I'll certainly reconsider though — I have been unable to find any. If we're going to continue making a special exception to a rule, there ought to be a reason. So I'll rephrase my question: Is there any reason at all for us to link there? If so, what is it? Texugo (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not the question you originally asked. "I'd like to rout all these out" can be handled with our existing procedures for dead links (attempt to determine if the business still exists, replace the URL with a new one if available, remove the listing if the venue is closed) and "add it to the list of things we don't link to" is a policy change (which doesn't get done unless you can establish a consensus that there is a need for same). K7L (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an explicit mention is not warranted, but a change in practice, since MySpace is not really a relevant social network any longer. Texugo (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that MySpace no longer qualifies for an exception, but I don't think it needs to be encoded. Powers (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have looked at 5 of these links - 2 of them I replaced with primary links, 2 were for places that have closed and I removed the listing. I have left the one in London#Do as it suggesting looking at a band's myspace to see where they might be playing. I don't know enough about London music to know if that is still the case, but I am inclined to leave this link. Generally the list is worth reviewing, but not removing links without investigating.AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Interlingual lounge: First proposal Milan Expo 2015 as joint Dotm[edit]

Mates, i started the discussion on meta lingual display for Destination of the month to see if there is interest in an interlingual DotM. The first proposal from the Italian community is Milan for the Expo 2015 (May-Oct). PrinceGloria proposal in Lisbon. Any feedback on that? jan (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me in general, but for our purposes Expo 2015 would probably fit better as an FTT. See Previous Featured travel topics#Honorary where it's said that Expo 2005 would have been FTT if the feature had existed at the time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If Spanish community is interested. Mexico City during Wikimania 2015. --Saqib (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, I think Mexico City has the potential to be an excellent interlingual collaboration, and being fluent in Spanish, I could serve as liaison. But I do have some doubts. I don't poke my head into es: very often, and I may very well be wrong about this, but at last check it was pretty much a ghost town over there. Can we speak meaningfully of "collaborating" with a community of one or two active contributors - especially when it's an open question whether Zerabat or B1mbo are willing to act as liaisons to en: or have the on-the-ground knowledge of Mexico City that would be necessary to improve es:'s article? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I swear I posted this last night. Anyway, I was going to say the same thing of pt: with regard to the suggestion of Lisbon, since pt: is basically, well, me. Plus an occasional useful edit by an IP address or one-time user once every few days. And I've never been to Lisbon so I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. Texugo (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

André i see your point with FTT but i assume that on Italian wv they will feature the city and the expo because it seems to be important for Italy. Maybe we can use their local knowledge and run the city as Dotm and the expo as FTT. Just an idea as the whole expo runs about six months. jan (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Milan is certainly a worthwhile destination for travellers. I would not be opposed to a scenario such as you describe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
André, the German wv admin User:Balou46 indicated interest in collaborating for Milan. So far no other proposals. I think the Italian wv community is likely to take the lead on the expo and maybe i would take the lead on Milan. I keep en updated on the discussion and feel free to particicpate on meta if you want, too. jan (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the Milan guide is Usable in en.wikivoyage. Until it's a Guide, it is ineligible for a DotM nomination under this site's rules. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ikan thank you for your posts in both pubs. The main obstacle for Milan are the suburbs, the central districts can be easily turned in strong usables or guides. I can read some french and italian but i'm far from conversational, so users like User:Andyrom75 would be needed to translate. It's a year, so about four months before nomination. I assume it could work out if we collaborate. Therefore your comment on cotm is a good idea. jan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My Italian is not bad and neither is my French. I have yet to look at either version's Milan article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New data for your smartphone or mashup[edit]

Fresh Wikivoyage data has just been distilled and refined into various delicacies:

  • Kiwix: Wikivoyage articles in the ZIM standard format
  • OxygenGuide: Wikivoyage articles as simplified HTML files.
  • POIs: All listings as CSV, OSM, OBF.

Enjoy your trip! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there an offline version that contains thumbnail pictures? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes! The files at that don't have a "nopic" suffix are supposed to have thumbnail pictures :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Automating warning boxes[edit]


As a (future at least) major source of information regarding travel we have a big responsibility to make sure that our guides provides accurate and up-to-date information regarding security information. As of now this is a manual process were any user can add the warningbox-template to articles. This can be quite tedious as a single warning might effect dozens of articles. For example the current outbreak of Ebola in West Africa should be added to all articles about places in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. As you all understand that takes a lot of time and more often then not articles are lacking important safety information.

So, what I think we should introduce is a script when a warning box i added to country/region all pages that's under it automatically get warning boxes too. As articles already is categorized by which region they belong it seems the same mechanism could be used for this.

However, they are of course some exceptions. For example we would have warning boxes regarding the current ISIL offensive on the Iraq page as well as all northern regions. But it makes no sense adding it to it's southern regions were we have more of a general warning. Those types of issues would have to be sorted out.

Overall, I do think this is quite an important issue to look into. Especially as Wikivoyage hopefully will be a major source for travel information. Jonte-- (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like overkill. Consider a directly travel-related safety event like 9/11: Would you have added the same warning to absolutely every town in the US? I could see adding it to US, DC, and New York; I could maybe even see adding it to every US state, or possibly to every city containing a commercial airport (because airports were closed). But every single tiny little town? I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to be careful to not position ourselves as an authoritive guide to travel safety, quite simply because we are a volunteer group and few of us (if any) are really in a position to speak with authority or update the relevant articles in a timely manner. Obviously we do it sometimes for major news events, but to automate the process and have warning boxes everywhere doesn't seem to be the right direction. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


This group is doing work very similar to us. Have we reached out to ask if they are interesting in collaborating yet? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Their terms of use are not extremely restrictive, however I would say restrictive enough to prevent much collaboration.
My amateur take would be that unless they also adopt a creative commons license then any such collaboration would be difficult. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is CC BY SA [3] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems articles have the creative commons logo at the botton of each, but there is no reference to creative commons in the terms of use.
Is the presence of a logo (and nothing else) sufficient? (I really don't know the answer) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The example page at least now has the text "Except where otherwise noted, content of this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" by the logo. Has it been added later? --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First competition of the Romanian Wikivoyage Project[edit]

Welcome to the first round of the Wikivoyage competition
about the country Romania!

Romanian Wikivoyage Project

From July 1 to September 1, all Wikivoyage projects will be invited to take part in our first competition. The challenge is: Improve the article Romania in your language!

Here you can find out the way, how you can earn points for your edits. The Wikivoyage with the most points, as well as the one who has helped the most are rewarded with the Romanian Wikivoyage Project Medal!

A competition by:Vladislavian (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

10 years of Destinations of the Month[edit]

Tomorrow it's July, and it'll be ten years since we featured an article on the Main Page for the first time. Would it be a good idea to celebrate it somehow? I wish I (or someone else) would've noticed it earlier so everyone interested would have time to think it through.

We could put Geneva, the very first DotM, on the Main Page for one day (just like the April Fools article gets featured for one day) but for that a banner would be needed. Alternatively we could mention the anniversary it in the blurb of the upcoming DotM: e.g. "CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF DOTM" in red letters. Or maybe an additional banner in the carousel with a "birthday cake banner" and a link to the hall of fame. Other ideas? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Geneva banner WV front page.jpg
Ypsi, I like your "1 day of Geneva" proposal and if you get broader support, this banner might do. I think it would be nice to mention Geneva as the first DOtM in the blurb, but actually link to the hall of fame. Danapit (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I second Ypsi's idea for one day of Geneva, and also Danapit's banner. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
No objection from me - I think these sorts of special events give a vibrance to the site that we sometimes lack. Please plunge forward. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice that you like the idea! Dana's banner with the Jet and the lake ferry looks good (it's either that, the UN or the Old town, right?). And the article should be OK to feature (worked on it quite a bit last summer). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take the above to mean that we have consensus behind Geneva as DotM for one day, followed by City of London on 2 July. Would anybody like to write a blurb, or shall we just use the one we used in July 2004? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of run, announcing competitions, having seasonal content and anniversaries content on the mainpage IMO is a good idea. I think it will help grow our contributor base. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Should "10 YEARS OF DOTM" be added to the blurb? Something along the lines: "Wikivoyage celebrates 10 years of Destination of the month. The first DotM ever was Geneva." Without it probably only a couple of people involved in DOtM planning will notice something is special. Danapit (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should add it because it's the point of featuring Geneva for a day now. Objections? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Have Tweeted about it too. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoting Wikivoyage[edit]

Hello! It's time to start working on the Promoting Wikivoyage project! I'm so excited!! The plan is to introduce Wikivoyage to local chambers of commerce in the US. My user page will have any news and links to works in progress. I expect to have a basic draft of the presentation by next Friday. Please chime in with your comments anytime along the way.

One question I have is: Who uses Wikivoyage? Is there a profile of a typical user? Please comment so I can help the chambers picture the traveler. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a start: according to Alexa, the average Wikivoyager is a female with a postsecondary education browsing from school. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat technical, but we have general statistics for browser visits here. You can make some determination about what devices are being used on all wikimedia sites. (Short version is that we are getting less visits by desktop/laptop users over time, and our users are increasingly visiting Wikimedia sites with their smart phones (iPhone, Android, etc) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to do further analysis as to how these stats apply just to Wikivoyage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Its nice to know we're ahead of Wikipedia in terms of female visitors but I'm wondering how Alexa detects whether the site visitor is male or female. --Saqib (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
w:Sexing PrinceGloria (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It's probably also worth considering the difference in demographics between readers and editors - I'm not sure they align entirely. --Nick talk 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! These are helpful links I had not looked at before. I am agreement with Nick that readers and editors may be somewhat different. So maybe the question becomes why would a traveler choose Wikivoyage for information as opposed to another travel site? --Tbennert (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Behind schedule by several weeks but finished up a large project this week so I'm hopeful that I can get back on track. I'm going to add to the pages at meta to better fill in the timeline. I'll post when the presentation and materials are viewable. A couple items to help with logistics:

  • Is there a single person who manages the Facebook page? I'm thinking Facebook might be a useful communication tool because it is familiar to the chambers.
  • I would like to rework Wikivoyage:Welcome, tourism professionals. I will do the work on a usersubpage. Discussion is on the Welcome talk page.

Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To Tbennert: Regarding your first question: our Facebook page has (I think) three administrators, but I'm the only one who updates it on a regular basis. I generally update the page three times a month when the new Destination of the Month, Off the Beaten Path, and Featured Travel Topic articles are rotated. Also, I answer questions from Facebook users who are connected to the page, but that doesn't happen terribly often. I'd be happy to help this initiative out in any way you envision. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you're interested in promoting Wikivoyage via social media, Saqib helms our Twitter page. You might want to get in contact with him as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the good info. Right now I'm just hoping for a place chambers might go if they feel uncomfortable communicating here. Essentially removing the interface concern other new editors have expressed on wikipedia. I'll keep in touch directly with you after the calls to help if we get a flood of inquiries on Facebook. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Bad news - I have not been successful coordinating with the US Chamber. They don't "do tourism" apparently. I am going to contact each state starting today. This may adjust the number and times of calls because I'll be responsive to each state. The outcome should remain the same just a bit different in organization. --Tbennert (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

According to w:Convention and visitor bureau#United_States, "In the United States, convention and visitor bureaus (CVBs), financed through bed taxes or their members, perform destination marketing. Every U.S. state and almost every larger city and county has its own CVB. Although many government and chamber of commerce bodies also market destinations to visitors and meeting planners, most U.S. convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) are independent non-profit organizations." K7L (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
On the surface the chambers encourage tourism. When looking past the surface, activities are geared toward economic growth. I hoped that offering a free, informational, non-selling webcast would be persuading even though there is not a direct return on investment. Unfortunately the multiple people I spoke to at the US Chamber of Commerce were not interested in educating the local chambers about Wikivoyage. Really all it means is a bit more time on setting up the calls. We are on plan B and I have one more in reserve with a few more halfway ideas. The economic push was somewhat expected but I hope the states will be more willing. --Tbennert (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The chambers are funded by individual local member businesses, many of whom are industrial firms (not tourism per se) looking to connect with other businesses or advocate on behalf of the private sector... so Whatevertown is a great place to build a factory or open a business, according to the Whatevertown Chamber. The chambers are primarily local entities and the amount of Chamber activity devoted to tourism varies, based on the size of the town, on whether there's a publicly-funded "economic development corporation", a CVB or even city hall itself already actively promoting the town as a travel destination and on whether tourism is the town's main business. I wouldn't rule out contacting state-level entities like the I ♥ NY campaign, even if they are state-funded development corporations and not chambers of commerce. K7L (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Promote via open projects?[edit]

One of this project's founders, User:EvanProdromou, went on to do several Open Source social networking projects; the current one is There are also several other projects aimed at building social networks not under commercial control; Forbes lists three; w:Diaspora (social network) is probably best-known. See also w:FreedomBox for a project aimed at wide deployment of small cheap home servers to make the net more secure and more under personal control.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the goals of these projects align with the goals of WV, WMF and open content projects in general, where the goals of Facebook and other commercial projects do not. This implies we should support the open projects wherever possible. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should support open projects when we can. Promoting Wikivoyage is a plan to provide webcasts for chambers of commerce in the US explaining what Wikivoyage is and easy ways to keep their town current. My request for Facebook was to use a tool already in place to aid the chambers in asking questions. I didn't find any open projects to support my plan. If you know of some that would be appropriate, please message me?--Tbennert (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Statistics recalculated[edit]

You might like to know that the statistics (Special:Statistics) for all Wikivoyage additions have just been recalculated. For those not aware, many of the counts were excessively high due to a (still-existing) bug that leads to multiple counting when pages are imported from other sites. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI the known bugs that currently affect the stats are two: page importing (bugzilla:40009) and page movement (bugzilla:64333). The first one has been opened almost 2 years ago while the last one is quite recent but it seems that no one has yet tested/confirmed it. Feel free to access bugzilla and vote for their resolution. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that votes are mostly ignored at Bugzilla, even if it's turned on for some of the projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, there's the possibility that you are right, but considering that the alternative is not doing anything, waiting other 2 years for nothing, it worth a try ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing on mobile version[edit]

As highlighted on meta lounge the numbers associated to the listing with coordinates are not shown properly on the mobile version. Is anyone able to fix it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Originally I combined the listing numbers with a background color. Example:  12 . This worked on all operating systems, browsers and font sizes without problems. This was modified by other users multiple times by now. Now missing on my mobile devices, the second digit in all listing numbers. And in other cases, the listing number is outside or at the edge of the colored background. - I can not understand these changes technically and therefore cannot help unfortunately. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As per my understanding, the second (and sometimes third) digit has not disappeared, but is located below the first one. Apparently is like the horizontal size is fixed so the text is force to go below. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
We also have a problem in french, the number aren't shown at all: here.--Adehertogh (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Adehertogh, I've noticed it too. Theoretically the issue on fr:voy should be easier to solve, because for sure there's something that is missing in the French configuration. While the problem in en:voy and in it:voy is different because the configuration should be aligned to the latest standard. Unfortunately Torty3 do not access since March, and for sure he's the most skilled user on this topic. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that we have same problem as in the PDF output? Does the new type of the mobile version recognize CSS styles? --Alexander (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The stylesheets like Common.css etc. are not used for the mobile versions. I think the only workaround is to use number images. --RolandUnger (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's really bad. Do you mean that no css styles are used in the mobile version at all (that would be silly), or we have to duplicate some lines from Common.css in another *.css file that is responsible for the mobile version? Using images is not an option, because automatic numbering is essential. --Alexander (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The file dedicated to manage the layout of the mobile devices are: MediaWiki:Mobile.css and MediaWiki:Mobile.js, I've already used for some specific fix. I'm confident that is possibile to not use the image for the numbered marker, but I've got not enough time to study the code. So I was hope in someone else's help. I think also that the PDF issue is not related with this issue. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It should be the problem of the box size and paddings. --Alexander (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a more elegant solution, however at the moment on it:voy I've patched it:MediaWiki:Mobile.css (well... changing width: 12px; height: 13px; into width: 25px; height: 20px,
In the absence of better ideas an admin can patch MediaWiki:Mobile.css in the same way.
Note: for articles with more than 100 listing width: 25px; is not enough and it's necessary to use at least width: 29px; jointly with padding: 0px 0px 3px 1px;. However, three digits are not shown correctly in desktop mode as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Alexander I've just noticed that ru:voy has a third different problem on the mobile listing version. Instead of replicate the patched configuration file, I'd like to make some realtime test, but I need your ru:voy-admin support. Maybe we can catch each other on IRC. Just let me know (better if you contact me on my base talk page for quicker answer). I'd like to see if it's possible to find a better solution for all the languages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the problem of ru:voy is essentially the empty Mobile.css file. Of course, I can do the testing, but you have to explain me your idea. I am not using IRC, and my preference would be Skype if I am to use any chat client. On the other hand, we can also discuss on-wiki, which is a bit slower, but other people could benefit from reading the discussion. --Alexander (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To access IRC you don't need specific software, just click on top right link on my user page. I have not yet a specific idea, just a series of try, that's why I'd like to test and see the real time feedback. I'm going to connect now. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not now. I have to leave for some hours. Evening (CET) would be better. --Alexander (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok good to know, because I was waiting for you but I need to exit as well :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible solutions[edit]

Together with Andyrom75, we found a solution or even multiple solutions that rely on the way how we draw POI markers. Presently, each marker is a square box of the same size, and the number has to fit into this box. Given different fonts used in the mobile and desktop versions, paddings and other settings should be different in Common.css and Mobile.css, and one has to tweak the code in Mobile.css accordingly. Another solution is to adjust the box size to the number, as we do in ru.voy (an example is here). The drawback (although I don't consider it as a drawback) is that boxes with two-digit numbers have rectangular shape. On the other hand, we can use exactly the same code in Common.css and Mobile.css, and the whole thing is simpler and more robust.

I can modify Mobile.css in any of these fashions, but I would like to hear your opinions first. --Alexander (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the solution of ru.voy because it is universally applicable. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as the issue is of no interest to anyone, I changed the format of POI markers to what I and Joachim prefer. Now the markers should be shown properly in both desktop and mobile versions. Please, let me know if you don't see the markers, or their position is skewed. --Alexander (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Tested on . Works on all current operating systems and browsers, both in desktop mode and mobile mode. The best solution in my opinion. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

Just three months after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared with no trace, another passenger plane of Malaysia Airlines carrying 280 passengers and 15 crew members shot down on the Russian-Ukraine border. I'm deeply saddened and this is a really devastating news. --Saqib (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. I hope it was a case of mistaken identity, but whatever the reason, it's been an extremely tragic year for Malaysian Airlines, and my heart goes out to all who are touched by this calamity and outrage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Also of also in Donetsk, the MH17 (from Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam to KUL, Kuala Lumpur) has been crashed in Grabovo (borders with Russia) (see BBC). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Really sad to hear about it. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite saddening and this year is rather a tragedy for Malasyia Airlines. Jianhui67 (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe good news[edit]

Hey all. Maybe some good news on the readership front. We have had a consistent (14days) of three fold increase in readership per [4] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am completely failing at figuring out how to view site stats for anything more than 1 day. And even those numbers don't change when I select a different language or project. Powers (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to select project totals than select, stats under wikivoyage, than set the days to 180. Might simply be that these numbers are not accurate though.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Summer season? The figure seems to be just a bit higher than July last year. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Something happened a couple of weeks ago to increase viewership. Could just be a bot or spider, though. Powers (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes is a spider; most likely from (it's just a guessing without any data). More than 1M click have gone to the following pages: Special:CentralAutoLogin/setCookies Special:CentralAutoLogin/deleteCookies. No brain gifted person would make 1M click to these technical pages :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A resorts article?[edit]

Big resorts like Club Med are not my preferred type of destination, but they are very popular with some travellers. Areas like Montego Bay or the Yalong Bay area in Sanya seem to be mostly such resorts. We have an articles on cruise ships, another all-inclusive way to holiday, and one on GLBT-friendly beach resorts. A search for "resort" turns up many Disney resorts and a few other things. A search for "Club Med" turns up many mentions but no article.

I'd say an overview article on such resorts would be a good idea. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talkcontribs)

It is certainly a useful travel topic. Resort holidays are popular, but I believe that an almost invisible percentage of WV's current readers and editors are people who frequent resorts. One just has to look at the state of our Caribbean articles, given the fact that they AFAIU are certainly not off the beaten path for North American visitors, the same goes for places like the Canary Islands, Spain's south coast and so on. Also, the status of our articles of cities towns and regions next to ski resorts, even the most popular ones in the Alps etc. don't reflect the amount of visitors they get. So we might very well even attract some new editors. I must admit I don't really have much experience of this kind of travel, either. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Me neither, but yes, definitely a great idea for an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be a good idea to get some funds from WMF through grant for the promotion of WV through Facebook? Andrew? --Saqib (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "promotion"? We already have someone, I assume a volunteer, posting updates (new DotM etc.) to a WV page. I average about one link a week; when a friend says they are going to London or wherever, I often reply with a WV link. I cannot see that such activity needs funding.
If you mean buying Facebook ads, it would take a great deal to convince me that that would be a good use of WMF funds. Pashley (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the latter. Well I'm afraid our presence on social media is not good particularly on FB. FB is without doubts a good tool for SEO and I think an affective way to increase the traffic to WV. When we'll make a post about featured articles, it will gives our featured articles an SEO boast. Our competitor WT FB page have quite good fan base than us. I think a FB page with good number of fan base is a powerful way to expand our reach and increase awareness of WV. I'm not sure either if that is really good and appropriate usage of WMF funds but we can try asking WMF grant department persons about their thoughts on this first. After-all, WV is the youngest project of WMF and some more publicity will definitely required to increase its visibility. --Saqib (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as Facebook's procedures have evolved over the years it has become progressively less effective as a marketing tool. I'm happy to help maintain Wikivoyage's Facebook presence, but I think relying on Facebook as the main, or even a significant, avenue of promotion for Wikivoyage would be a mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I would definitely say that is worth maintaining and perhaps expanding our FB presence, I would agree that the WMF's money would perhaps be better spent advertising this site itself rather than our social media presence. As Andrew has suggested, it might be better to look at more efficient and effective ways to get people using WV on a regular basis. And it's always worth remembering: cream rises! --Nick talk 02:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not for or against the proposal, but Facebook has definitely tried to ultra-monetise pages over the past few years/months. Not only do they ask you to pay to get new likes, but they ask you to pay so that your own followers see your posts. Even if someone has liked our page, they're not guaranteed to see our posts unless we cough up money. And when Facebook pops up and shows small-ish amounts like $30 for thousands of views, that's only for one post. For effectiveness, we'd have to do it for every one of our posts, and the costs increase. I manage another Facebook campaign page on behalf of a municipal government, and they've just earmarked AUD8000 for Facebook advertising and promotion. It's not small money. James Atalk 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. What might one day be possible (not necessarily through WMF funds but also possibly through sponsors) could be some kind of content related competition, like Wiki Loves Monuments did for monuments. Access to the WMF notice options is the key to success, much better than any "purchased" visibility on social networks. Say we can get some fabulous travel prizes to win -a trip to a great destination, travel guides, photo cameras- for a competition to add a specific kind of relevant content or pictures, that could lead to some serious sharing on FB and other social media as well as attract new readership and authors. Of course, this kind of thing requires a huge amount of work, and I'm not volunteering. :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading all above comments, I'm very much convinced that advertisement on FB was definitely not a good idea and is not worth but your idea of a competition is just great Julia and I think this is something we should really talk about. Wikipedia is doing Wikicup and I think we should do such a on-wiki writing competition of a similar pattern. Anyways, I've asked Asaf Bartov, Head of WMF Grants to shed some light on this as I think he probably have some good experience with such stuff. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The notice system Julia is talking about is called m:Special:CentralNotice.
If you'd like to know what running Wiki Loves Monuments entails, then look over commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013/FAQ. It might make more sense to piggyback on one of these larger projects. For example, could we partner with a photo-taking project to get more images added to existing articles? We could perhaps ask specifically for skyline/panorama images for pagebanners, if you didn't want just anything. Or perhaps WLM would be willing to have a suggestion that important monuments be considered for inclusion here as well as at the Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding and adding Commons categories to articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. For the last few hours, I've been looking at articles I edited back in 2009 and seeing whether they have sidebar links to Commons. Many of them - surprisingly, including Philadelphia - did not. So if any of you would like a particular task to perform, that's a helpful one, and then if you feel like adding (more) photos from the selection you've found, you can do that, too.

One topic for additional discussion: For articles without corresponding Wikipedia links, we've been inserting a template showing that there is no Wikipedia link. Should we also be doing that for articles with no corresponding Commons link?

And a second topic for discussion: For articles on topics that have Wiktionary definitions, should we be linking the relevant Wiktionary page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your two topics for discussion, Ikan: I think it's an excellent idea to add the template about Commons links, but doing the same for Wiktionary strikes me as overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've now got AWB set up and running through all the articles without commons links and automatically adding the commons link listed on wikidata, if there is one. If we do in fact want to tag the ones without, that'll be easy to do as well, just give me the word. As for Wiktionary definitions, I don't think we currently have it mapped so that those could be put in the sidebar automatically, but at any rate, I'm not very convinced of the utility of such a link anyway. Any definition that is related to travel should already be more than adequately covered here, and providing links for exploring the unrelated aspects shouldn't be any more important than ensuring we link to WP disambiguation pages, which is to say, it's out of scope. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's great that you've got AWB set up to take care of Commons links automatically, although will it find non-identical matches, such as, say, Commons:Category Cityname, Countyname, Statename as well as identical matches? In terms of Wiktionary, I was thinking about looking for a definition for a term like Art Deco, or for that matter, Architecture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Ikan, it will put exactly what has been entered into Wikidata as being the corresponding page on Commons, whatever that may be. If nobody has filled that data in yet, it skips over it and does nothing. Basically I just modified the routine I previously used to fill in the WP links/tags. Texugo (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I just patrolled recent changes - great work on the Commons links! Little did I know that I should have just asked you to do this in the first place. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I ran them through "Lu...". I'll try to get the rest of them tomorrow. Texugo (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gaspé Park#Name[edit]

Hey folks, I would appreciate some input from other members of the community in this discussion about what the above article should be titled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates to Wikidata documentation for Wikivoyage[edit]

Hi all!

I am a current Wikimedia OPW intern working specifically on Wikidata outreach and just wanted to let you know that the Wikidata documentation for Wikivoyage has now been updated and hopefully will prove useful for the Wikivoyage community and encourage further collaboration. If interested, please have a look at Wikidata:Wikivoyage. You can also leave any feedback on the talk page.

Cheers, -Thepwnco (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Article subheadings[edit]

A proposal: Should the subheadings under "get in" and "get around" be changed to match Wikivoyage imperative style, ie:

  • By car → Drive
  • By air → Fly
  • By train, by bus, by camel → Ride (by train, by bus...)
  • By horse → Trot, Jump, Gallop
  • By bicycle, by motorcycle → Bike
  • By sea, by ferry → Sail
  • By public transit (subway, taxi, streetcar, rickshaw) → Ride

It would make us look a little more different from other travel guides, but I'm unsure if there's a better word than "Ride" for the numerous public conveyances. K7L (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The enforcers of British English will hate "Ride," because they change phrases like "cab ride" to "taxi journey" all the time. But I disagree with putting all these disparate forms of transportation under "Ride," too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we collect basically all forms of land transportation where someone else is controlling the vehicle under a single "Ride" heading? I don't think it would be a smart idea at all. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
We should not. The heading for bus and train should be "Take the bus" and "Take the train" if they need to be imperatives for some reason. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:100F 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
A 'ride' to me implies something done for fun, rather than utilitarian transportation. Linking motorcycles and pushbikes is also unhelpful. I like the idea, but the fact seems to be that there aren't imperatives to match each of the modes of transport. --Inas (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2014 ( TC)
I don't support any change at this time. I don't think any of the suggestions above would do anything but make the headings more cumbersome. Texugo (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The imperative is in the heading "Get in", and "by ..." is the right qualifier eg "Get in by train". Also "ride" is a verb I am more likely to use for a bike than a train. It would be far better to spend the time improving the information in "Get in" in some articles - too many articles have only one way of getting in when others are available. AlasdairW (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the actual benefit in changing subheadings to imperatives? Copying WP style for the sake of it doesn't actually help us. I recall there was some discussion before that changing subheadings 'may' improve SEO results. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)