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


No data dump since last year[edit]

Data dumps used to get generated every 2 weeks, but since July 2014 the frequency has started to fall down dramatically. Currently, the last dump is from 42 days ago. I am a bit sad as I have improved/added a lot of content recently while preparing my trip, and I won't be able to benefit from it using Kiwix/OxygenGuide/OsmAnd offline tools. Data dumps are one of the reasons why we forked from WT.

Any idea why? Is it inevitable, and if not where I should ask for the frequency to be restored to about a dump every 2 weeks? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess someone on Wikimedia would be better placed to answer your question, since we at WV don't (I believe) have any control over this process.
That said, monthly data dumps seem like an OK frequency to me, although I wonder where January 2015 went to. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know that, currently (within the past month) we've had some issues with the dumps servers which may be why but I will poke ops to see what the issues are with the wikivoyage dumps in general as well. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A new dump has just appeared, right in time before my trip tomorrow :-D Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a side information, I just wanted to inform you that new ZIM files of Wikivoyage are now released one time a month - and this is independent of the XML data dumps. Regards Kelson (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Last edited" date for listings[edit]

In trying to use Wikivoyage guides on a three month trip last year, one of my frustrations was that listings were often hugely out-of-date, but there was no way to know if a listing was added to an article one week ago or ten years ago. I wrote an essay with some suggested fixes, one of which was to add a "last edited" date to listings that would display as follows:

  • El Rancho Hotel & Motel, 1000 E. Highway 66, ☎ +1 505 863-9311. This historic Route 66 motel has been the site of numerous film productions over the years, and today offers an upscale lodging and dining option for travelers. Blah blah blah... (last updated 04-Oct-2013 | edit)

There has been some discussion on this idea already, and it seems like there might be interest in having this feature available subject to the following constraints:

  1. We would add a new field named "lastedit" to Template:Listing that can be used to indicate when a listing was last updated. The input format for this field will probably be something like "lastedit=2015-01-15", and the output will then be "15-Jan-2015" (generated by adding {{#time: d-M-Y|{{{lastedit}}}}} to the listing template).
  2. The listing editor will be updated to automatically populate this field whenever a listing is added or updated ({{#time: Y-m-d}}). People who prefer to edit wiki syntax directly would also be able to add/update this field by hand.
  3. "last edited" would only be displayed in listings when there was a non-empty value present, so this would have no effect on existing listings until those listings are updated.
  4. A category will probably need to be created to track listings with invalid dates, similar to what we do already with issues like Category:Listing with phone format issue.

I think this would be a very useful addition for users of our guides, and there has been some support for the idea expressed already, but since it's a change that would affect most of the articles on the site it obviously needs wider discussion. Concerns raised so far include the issues that displaying this field might make some of our guides look more out of date than they actually are in cases where places don't change much, and that it might look cluttered for listings that are just name + address. Advantages (beyond giving readers an indication of listing freshness) include an indication for editors that listing data needs to be checked for accuracy when the "last edited" date is far in the past. Suggestions, comments, support, or opposition? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I very much support this idea. Making sure that listings are kept up to date or their outdatedness is visible to the traveller. Remember: the traveller comes first. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The idea is good but as you say too many would have dates that have not change for a long time but are still valid. How about just doing for listings with no web page and also highlighting listing with web links that are giving error such as page not found. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't support that limitation. If a hotel was updated 7 years ago, even if the address, telephone number, URL and description are still valid, the rates would have changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I see two weak points of this proposal. First, standard edits that are done without the listing editor will not generate the date. Second, an arbitrary edit of a listing does not mean that all information in this listing has been updated and checked. One should probably try the automatic implementation and see how it works, yet we could keep in mind the simple and straightforward alternative of adding the date (year) manually after the price, because prices are most likely to change from year to year. This will guarantee that dates are added consciously. --Alexander (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If we institute this proposal, I think it should be allowed for editors to update the "last edited" date upon verifying that existing information remains true, regardless of whether or not any change has occurred since it was written. That might be an answer for those who are concerned about how many outdated listings readers might encounter in a given article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Basically I think this is a very good idea and with the smaller text for the date as in Ryan's example, it doesn't really look cluttery to me. Sure, it might look a bit awkward with a bunch of several years old listings, but again this should be a signal for the reader that here's an opportunity to do a valuable contribution. We're a wiki and everyone (new and old users) can check up information, and update and fix things! We could perhaps also have a maintenance category for listings that haven't been edited in say 3, 4 or 5 years.
The problems would be those which Alexander just presented — that the date wouldn't be updated when not using the listing editor (for instance, I very seldom use it) and that the listing would be timestamped also when someone is just e.g. copyediting it. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The timestamp can also be updated manually, not just through the listing editor. (Sure, not everyone is going to do this when manually editing, but if you update a listing then you are taking some responsibility for its quality)
I would actually really like to see this new attribute added to the listing template. It does not have to be visible on the rendered article page for now, but why not try and capture this important piece of data if we can? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should give this a try. I also agree with Andre’s point above about allowing editors to update the “last edited” date if they’ve verified the info is correct but nothing has changed. I think part of what Ryan is getting at is a reader doesn’t know if the listing is still accurate — so if someone makes the effort to verify the info, the listing should reflect this otherwise the reader won’t know it’s been recently verified. -Shaundd (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In the same spirit as the "Closed?" checkbox that people can easily use to report a closed restaurant, how about a button that anyone can click to indicate that they've just been at this restaurant and found the listing info to be correct? Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Responding to several comments above, I agree that the fact that using the listing editor for a simple copyedit will trigger the "last updated" date to update is a problem, but I think capturing this information is still an improvement over the status quo, and it's something we might be able to mitigate in the future by providing a "minor edit" checkbox in the listing editor, or perhaps only updating the "last updated" date when substantial updates are made (I think that's out of scope for the initial version, however - first let's just try to get something implemented and functional, and see how it goes). Regarding comments about updates made directly via editing the wiki syntax, it's straightforward enough to add or update a "lastedit=2015-02-15" field to a listing by hand, and since it's mainly experienced editors that are updating listings by hand then I suspect that's a step that many editors would start using. Finally, to Andre's point about just updating the date for listings that are still up-to-date even if the existing data hasn't changed, we can definitely make it clear in the documentation that updating the "lastedit" date as a way to show that the information was verified accurate is acceptable. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the date of the last edit is a valuable information, and should be recorded, as well as presented (also including the risk that changes were just cosmetical). I like the form suggested above. Regarding editing without the listing editor, maybe a little date stamp icon could be added to the vw editor, that would generate the date code with today's date. Danapit (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is worth trying, and if we hate it later, we can always revert it. Overall I like the proposed look and functionality.
Ryan, this might be more complexity than you want (especially for the first version), but to reduce visual clutter, could the date be shortened to just the year, at least for older listings? If the answer is "2008", then the exact date doesn't matter much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am in favour of recording the date that a listing was edited using the listing editor, but I think that we may need to think a bit more about how it is displayed. To readers who are familiar with our site an update 10 months ago may look recent, but those who are more used to other sites may think that 10 weeks ago is stale. Also different travel information ages at different rates - a listing of a public park or statue from 50 years ago could still be accurate, but often half the places to eat have changed after 5 years. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Instead of displaying the exact date (which is too much information), how about just displaying "updated 3 years ago" or "updated 2 weeks ago"? JavaScript time humanization libraries are tiny and widely available. I believe we should be very liberal when truncating, better display "1 year ago" or "2 years ago" than "1 year and a half ago", because the half does not bring much value and make the text longer. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


If I'm reading the above discussion correctly it sounds like there is support for this idea, although some further refinement will need to be pursued, including Nicolas1981's idea about displaying descriptive text ("updated 1 week ago") instead of a date, and the issues raised about minor copyedits causing the "last updated" date to make a listing look more accurate than it might actually be. LtPowers also raised a concern about articles potentially looking cluttered, but indicated he would need to see more examples to make a final judgement. Assuming there is general agreement for moving forward with a test I should be able to put an implementation together this weekend, which would then allow us to move on to discussing changes to the initial implementation. As WhatamIdoing notes, if people dislike the feature once it is in action then a simple template change will make it is easy to switch off. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The changes are now live. Feedback appreciated, particularly if anything seems to have broken. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Amazing. Looks good to me. For the record. I've no opposition implenting it. --Saqib (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Great! Just tested it... :) Danapit (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be difficult (or unclean) to include a checkbox for (not) changing update date? This would partly solve the copyedits changing update date issue. I am not sure what wording should be used, though. --LPfi (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If this proves to be something worthwhile, I would highly suggest that we incorporate some sort of verification timeline into our Star article status requirements for star articles to remain stars, for example verifying listings every 3 years or risk losing status (or at least get tagged as potentially outdated). Having these dates will make it easy for us to keep our stars in check and most importantly, ensure that they're still star-worthy. Otherwise, our stars become articles that LOOK nice at first glance but are in fact riddled with problems. As a sidenote, I hate that the first thing I see in the mobile version at the top of articles is when it was last updated. Very unattractive and leads to the false impression that everything is outdated. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

There are a few enhancements that have been suggested related to the "last edited" change:

  1. Do not automatically update the "last edited" date from the listing editor for minor edits - suggested by several people.
  2. Instead of "last updated on 21-Feb-2014" display as "last updated 1 year ago" (possible ranges would be "last updated today", "last updated 1-6 days ago", "last updated 1-4 weeks ago", "last updated 1-11 months ago", and "last updated 1-infinity years ago") - suggested by Nicolas1981.
  3. Include a shortcut in the editing toolbar to insert a valid "last edited" date when editing listings by changing the listing template syntax directly - suggested by Danapit.
  4. Various policy updates for use of this field, including changes to star article criteria, etc - suggested by several people.

Of these four, #1 seems to be the one that generated the most discussion above, so what about adding a "minor edit" checkbox to the listing editor that, if checked, would flag the edit as a minor edit and not update the "last edit" date? The tip for this box in the editor UI could note that it should be checked in cases where an edit is just fixing typos or make other changes that do not reflect the current status of the business/attraction. As to items #2-4 (and anything else people want to see), further discussion is probably needed to ensure that people have had a chance to weigh in. Are there other changes/enhancements that people would like to see? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest anything since I don't have any opinion but for the record its important to endorse worthwhile stuff. So here I support #1. We need minor edit check box and I will go with "last updated 1 year ago". Having icon in editing toolbox is also good idea and yes I liked the proposal of User:ChubbyWimbus that we need such a verification mechanism for star guides to make sure they remain up to date. I hope such a mechanism is not difficult to implement for Ryan. BTW, I hope people may not misuse this system and false update each and every listing. --Saqib (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I can endorse #1 and #3 and agree with the need for further discussion on #4. For #2, I feel strongly that we should go even further - if this is going to be repeated a gajillion times across the site, it needs to be as absolutely short as possible, so I'd also drop "last" and the whole "ago" thing and go with simple three-letter month abbreviations plus year:
  • Spam Heaven +1 (972) 555-5555. Cozy restaurant where everything is made of Spam, including the napkins. Try the house Spam martini! (updated Jan/2015 |)
  • Bob's Butt Bar +1 (806) 555-1234. Butt-themed bar and grill. The patio has a panoramic view of Buttville municipal landfill. (updated Jul/2018 |)
Something like that. Texugo (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this proposal for a minor-edit checkbox for the listing editor. Certainly those of us who use the MediaWiki platform regularly are familiar with the concept of "minor edits", but what about inexperienced users? I think it's just as likely that newbies won't bother to check the minor-edit box - either because they don't notice it, don't realize why it's important, or don't feel confident enough to make the judgment call of whether or not their edit is minor - and we'll end up not really being any closer to answering the question of which listings were updated recently enough to be accurate.
What we need to do is first decide - assuming it can never be made 100% accurate - whether it's more desirable to have some listings that are accurate display as if they hadn't been updated in a long time, or the reverse; to have some old listings display as if they were newly updated just because of a minor copyedit. If we decide the former, then maybe the "last edited" feature should be opt-in rather than opt-out, and the checkbox should be for edits that do update the "last edited" date.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What about instead of a "minor edit" checkbox, having a "Verified Current Info" checkbox that is unchecked by default and included only for updates (adding a new listing would still automatically set the "last edit" date to the current date). If that box was not explicitly checked then the "last edit" date would not update. That should address the concern about the "last edit" date being an opt-in field and would ensure that the date would only update when a user explicitly stated that the info was current in order to trigger an update. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Verified current info" definitely sounds more informative (to a new user) than "minor edit". I prefer Texugo's version of how to write the date rather than "xx-yy days or months ago". ϒpsilon (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I also support "Verified current info". Texugo (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


There seems to be support for moving forward with a "Verified current info" checkbox in the listing editor as outlined above - does that seem like a correct interpretation of this discussion? Also, how about changing the "last updated" text to be shorter per Texugo? Rather than "updated Jan/2015", I would suggest that we use "updated Jan-2015", which I think is a more standard date format. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will there be some regex to enforce the format? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Category:Pages with parser function time errors will now capture any pages that have an invalid #time entry. I'm not sure how we could use a regex for validation - the listing editor adds or updates the timestamp automatically, so someone using the listing editor would be unable to enter an invalid value, and for people who edit wiki syntax directly we don't currently perform any validation on the input aside from executing the spam blacklist and the abuse filter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Slash or hyphen, makes no difference to me. Your version is fine, Ryan. Texugo (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think either seems redundant, in Swedish I'd use a space. Would "Jan 2015" be wrong in English? --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've updated Template:Listing to now use the shorter "updated Feb 2015" instead of "last updated 23-Feb-2015". -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Does it need to show an update when someone simply copy edits the listing? I guess there's no way to filter for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek , do you typically copy edit with the listing editor (dialog box) ? I personally do not, although other editors might do it this way... Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I edit the article or a section, but I think I've noticed that whenever I copy edit a listing, it shows up as updated. Maybe I'm misreading it, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The "last update" date only changes if the listing's "lastedit" value is changed. The listing editor updates that automatically (see point #1 above for a proposed change), and the skeleton listing templates created by the buttons in the edit bar will also populate that value in the new listing skeleton, but the only other way to change it when modifying a listing is to explicitly change the value. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that I quite like the implementation. The last updated date is visually understated (in a positive way), yet accessible enough that someone can easily find it if interested. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikileaks: Italian Wikivoyage community possibly going to implement the same mechanism but they're considering to display "last edit" next to price field instead of at the end of listing. --Saqib (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not about to go there and attempt to join that discussion, but if I were, I'd point out that the price is not the only, nor necessarily the most important, thing to be updated. Texugo (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Per point #1 above I've added a "Verified information up-to-date?" checkbox to the listing editor. The "last updated" date now updates as follows:

  1. Adding a new listing using the listing editor automatically adds the current date as the "last updated" date; no action is necessary by the user.
  2. Editing a listing using the listing editor will now show a "Verified information up-to-date?" checkbox. The "last updated" date is now only updated when editing an existing listing if that box is checked.

Feedback and suggestions appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

April Fool's article 2015[edit]

Discussion moved from Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles since we usually have this discussion in the Pub

A little under six weeks until the day we've been waiting for the whole year ;). So let's hear some suggestions. How about Time travel? South Park or some other fictional place? A planet? A dish? A web site like last year? Trololo? Some place we invent from scratch? Or should we be so boring that we feature some place that exists for real but has a fun name?

BTW in Next year above it's suggested that there'd be more than one joke article for the April Fools day. So what would you think of having not only a joke DotM, but also a joke OtBP and joke FTT? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that we'd have both an FTT and a destination, not sure if we'd have all three (unless there's some obvious thing to replace OtBP - on the beaten path? off the bike path? maybe not...) K7L (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to the pub since we normally figure out the April Fool's Day article there, and it will get more attention. For suggested ideas, Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#Nominees has a lengthy list of ideas from 2013. As to doing three articles, I think we should concentrate on one, and only do three if enough people contribute to the first one that three looks like a viable possibility. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So finally the planning started. Thanks for initiating it YPSI. I agree with Ryan, we should concentrate on only one and we should go with the nominees presented last year. --Saqib (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I still think Wonderland would make a fine article. Keep in mind when selecting a topic that it's necessary to be able to get free images to illustrate it. Powers (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Woo! I've been looking forward to this! I love the idea of a Time travel travel topic; I myself was going to suggest The Future, and I think that would fit really well in Time travel. I tend to prefer the more abstract concepts to the cultural references. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Anyone may add nominations for the April Fool's 2015 article(s) to this table in alphabetical order. Anyone may add their name into the "Supporters" column for as many nominees as desired. Note that the selection of an April Fool's article is NOT a vote, but having a clear indication of which ideas have been proposed, and which are strongly supported, is a useful tool for focusing the discussion.

Proposed article Supporters Notes
w:Land of Oz LtPowers, AndreCarrotflower, Nicolas1981 Public domain illustrations available (examples)
w:Springfield (The Simpsons) Images from the TV show cannot be used under the CC-SA license
Time travel PerryPlanet, ϒpsilon, Ryan, Saqib , Traveler100, Danapit, Bigpeteb, Half past, Nicolas1981 Can be illustrated with a variety of motifs (for this topic just our imagination is the limit!), so there are plenty of free photos on Commons we can use
w:Wonderland (fictional country) ϒpsilon, WhatamIdoing, LtPowers, Danapit, Nicolas1981 Plenty of public domain illustrations (examples)
w:Whoville Danapit Some illustrations available (here)

Result: Deadline is over. Outcome is Time travel. --Saqib (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure? It's not a vote, remember? The poll was just supposed to focus the discussion. Powers (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Obviously I know its not a poll. It has been made clear above. We're supposed to start work on article from now on as a month left. So what do you think is the outcome? Wonderland ? --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no outcome, because there has been no discussion of the poll results. Powers (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the one month deadline came from, and I agree with Powers that asking for any further comments or feedback prior to declaring "deadline is over" would have been the proper way to proceed, but since there was fairly overwhelming support for "Time travel", and since User:K7L has already made a good start on Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Time travel, I am in favor of moving forward with that. With that said, if a pattern develops where future discussions are summarily declared "over" without any advance warning, that would be a cause for significant concern. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Pardon for being so hasty and declaring the outcome but it didn't crossed my mind that we're supposed to further discuss on the outcome even if one gets majority votes. As for deadline, last year we started working on article before arrival of March. We had a whole one month to work on the article but due to lack of interested volunteers, a month time wasn't enough. This discussion was started a week earlier so I thought one week time was enough for voting. But yes, I missed to state the deadline in advance notice. Anyways, I take back my declaration of outcome and look forward to see discussion if anyone want to begin. --Saqib (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the existing start on time travel as precluding Oz and Wonderland; one is a travel topic, the others are destinations. K7L (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be more enthusiasm for the former. Most of the folks who worked on fictional destinations in the past seem to have moved on. I still love our Jurassic Park article, though. Powers (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Map marker going off the map[edit]

I recently added Ravintola Kaisaniemi to the Helsinki/Central article, because I think the restaurant is in central Helsinki. But the map marker goes just very slightly off the map. In the default zoom level, you can't see it. But if you zoom out just one level, it can be seen at the northern edge, just a bit north from the central railway station. Walking from the railway station to the restaurant takes less than fifteen minutes. What should be done? Leave it as it is, zoom the map out a bit by default, or move the restaurant to another subpage of Helsinki? JIP (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a quite normal problem with the dynamic map, discussed on countless talk pages, and there's really no good solution. If one sets the zoom level to one higher, there will be a sea of plusses. :P The good thing is that as the map is dynamic you can move it just like Google Maps or whatever (or look at it in fullscreen). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about how it is for the first time user, however I believe most WV'ers assume that some POI's are out of sight on the map. In the example you use it seems that there is a "sea of plusses" at zoom level 13, 14 and even 15 so doesn't make too much difference :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to bring this up because it's controversial in some corners of WV, but you could also manually customize the dimensions of the mapframe (by default it's set at 420px by 420px). Template:Mapframe has a breakdown of how that's done. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice article! Maybe it could use more pictures, for instance pictures of food in the Eat section? I took the initiative to rezize the map as it contains a high number of POIs. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I've twice (Talk:Helsinki#Districts Talk:Helsinki#Further_districtification) suggested the current Helsinki/Central to be broken up into 2-3 districts but it was opposed on the talk page. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded some pictures of food in restaurants in Central Helsinki to Commons. I could perhaps try to add some of them to the page. JIP (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not equate a map window with the entire dynamic map. I prefer to show inside the map frame only the important touristic center. Not the whole city or district. POI's outside automatically will be marked with light blue semi circles on the map frame edges -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Headings covered by map[edit]

Enlarging the map on Helsinki/Central (see above) had the effect of getting headings covered by the image (when the browser window is narrow enough; tested with iceweasel/firefox and Opera on Debian/Linux). I have seen the phenomenon before in other articles.

There seems to be something weird about how headings and images interact. The running text is pushed down if there is too little space to the left of an image, but the headings are just wrapped word by word and the word endings (if too long) get hidden behind the image, not pushed down. Probably there is some CSS code that does not take headings in account, and could allow a neater solution.

--LPfi (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, that header is pretty long for a WV header. I'd prefer to see it shortened to either "Waterfront architecture" or "Kruununhaka and Pohjoisranta", rather than squeezing all that in there. You can always put the missing info into the first line of prose there. Texugo (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Header shortened. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the problem is only exaggerated with long headings, short ones do not solve it. With my current window size I only see the "S" of See. --LPfi (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Does this happen to all images, or just dynamic maps? Does it happen only here at Wikivoyage or also at other sites (the English Wikipedia, or any of the others)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If your window/screen is so small that a typical image will smash a three-letter header, shouldn't you probably be viewing the mobile site anyway? Texugo (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I typically adjust the browser window to suite typical Wikimedia layout. When an image, like here, is much wider than typical images, the text column becomes narrow. I have no problem with short headings by images of normal size (even long headers are no problem if the images are below the heading, as they normally are).
I will do some experimenting when I have more time. Am I alone with the problem? Don't you have it if you make the window narrower (as in allowing two parallel windows)?
--LPfi (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic maps everywhere[edit]

Right now when I browse WV, I always need to have another tab with Google maps open. I often find myself on a page with no clue where it is (other than its country). Its difficult to visualize where things are with just static image maps. Dynamic maps are just much more usable, especially when trying to quickly visualize the sub-regions, some of the 'go next' pages mentioned, or jumping from things on the map to other WV articles.

I think a long term project of WV should be to replace static maps with dynamic maps. If we can then overlay on top of this things like directions and all the WV listings, it would make WV and all its listings so much more usable.

Any thoughts? Magedq (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at WV:Dynamic maps Expedition, particularly the "Current stage: PoiMap2 broader deployment" section, which may address the points you've raised. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as they are reasonably up-to-date, static maps should not be removed. Feel free to add dynamic maps to articles that you feel would benefit from one :-) Having both a static map and a dynamic map is good I think, it is even better than having only a dynamic map, as they can focus on different scale/areas, for instance a static map for the historic center and a dynamic map for the whole city, including landmarks in the suburbs. Automatically inserting dynamic maps in all articles is an option, and actually it is what the French Wikivoyage has done last year (although they put it in their infobox, while we don't use infoboxes here). For each article with no dynamic map we could generate one and put it in the Get Around section, the map would be useful as it shows the destination's streets layout, even in cases where no POIs have coordinates. Let's wait for everyone's opinion about this :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe in substituting dynamic maps for static ones when the dynamic map is obviously more easily readable only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it should be out of question to replace static maps with dynamic ones once they become outdated to a certain degree. On the contrary, I would regard that as an inevitable concession to the reality that our community simply doesn't have enough members experienced with static mapmaking to handle the level of upkeep required by all the Wikivoyage articles that have them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I also believe a move towards the acceptance of Dynamic Maps is the pragmatic way forward for this site to engage a broader set of contributors. At the same time I do understand the position of those Static Map people who have put in a lot of effort crafting those static maps and would feel slighted if those same maps are dumped as soon as they become ever so slightly outdated. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a clear difference between a sightly outdated static map and a hopelessly outdated one, and the threshold a static map has to cross before it's justifiable to start talking about replacing it with a dynamic map is certainly debatable. But as to your point about the hard work of static mapmakers, to cater to whose who cry foul about their maps being replaced would run afoul of a fundamental wiki principle regarding ownership of articles. The good of the project has to come first - and in the long run, like it or not, static maps are dinosaurs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as User:Saqib is here and willing to continue with his great map-making, static maps will continue to exist. He can update them, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Is he alone up to the task of ensuring that all the static maps on Wikivoyage are kept up to date, though? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. How many of them are there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean city/district static maps or region static maps? I imagine there are a few hundred region maps (every country, plus many states and provinces), probably fewer city/district maps. I still draw static region maps and can fix them up if someone points them out. City/district maps, on the other hand, I usually leave to dynamic maps since I feel they're almost always a better option. -Shaundd (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Also User:LtPowers makes static maps. Even I do it to some extent, but like Shaundd I always use dynamic maps for pointing out attractions in cities and city districts but static maps for regions and city districtification. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(This has been discussed already before.) Anyways for the record, I'm in strong favour of static maps for regions and big cities (districtification). I know still there're plenty of regions/big cities articles out there without a static map, but it is because either the article is very outline so there's really no need of a map or lack of sources (boundries issues) from which a map can be traced. For instance, Athens missing a districtification map because I couldn't able to find a source from which I can trace the map. For cities/districts, offcourse dynamic maps are better as of now giving that we have lack of map making team. In-fact, Karachi using a dynamic map. With that being said, I'm always available to help out with maps if I get request. --Saqib (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(reindent) Yes, I probably should have specified that everything I have said above pertains to bottom-level destinations only. Country, region, Huge City, etc. maps are obviously a whole other kettle of fish. Static maps are ideal in those circumstances because what the map depicts is itself a lot more static - a country officially changing its borders, or the Wikivoyage community deciding on a new regions scheme, is obviously a much rarer occurrence than a business closing its doors or a new listing being added to a city article.

Still, as it pertains to bottom-level articles, I stand by what I said above about static maps: obviously at this point dynamic maps are much more commonplace for districts and non-districtified cities, but there are still some that have static maps, and those that do are crippled to a significant extent by there being a much smaller number of editors capable of updating them. The fact that static maps are disproportionately well-represented among Star articles, supposedly the best work we have on this site, is especially concerning.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I would say we should have static maps for star articles atleast, even if they're districts. Star articles should have both (dynamic as well static maps). WHY? There're plenty of reasons. And I'm more happy to update the maps of star level articles and we should create a project page somewhere to list the star articles that need map update. I'm happy to work on them. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If there are plenty of reasons, please offer them. I should think a dynamic map would be rather redundant on, say, Walt Disney World/Epcot. So long as our dynamic maps are horribly jumbled collections of plus signs and numbers obscuring street names and POI labels, locked into a north-up orientation, and lacking the flexibility to include things like insets and legends, static maps remain essential.
I once again have to strenuously object to the completely unfair characterization of maps as things that only "a much smaller number of editors" are "capable of updating". Our map paradigm was designed under the principle that anyone can edit them, just like our articles are. Just like nearly everyone is capable of updating articles, nearly anyone should be capable of updating maps.
To address the original point of the thread, I would point out that we can never hope to duplicate the functionality of Google Maps. We shouldn't even try. What we could do, if it would be useful, is place a "vicinity" map in the Go Next section that shows the relationship of the destination to nearby destinations mentioned in that section.
-- Powers (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Replace the words "capable of updating" with "interested in learning how to update" and/or "interested in putting forth the effort to update when the same thing can be done on a dynamic map in a fraction of the time", and the essence of what I said remains the same. No matter how much effort we go to in scolding people for not being interested in learning the ways of static maps, the fact remains that our community is made up of volunteers who are under no obligation to do or learn anything - and there aren't very many of us to begin with. Given that, some concessions to reality are in order. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
With respect to the point about a "vicinity map", the dynamic maps already do that - click on the third icon ("POIs <-> destinations") and you'll get a map that shows all articles in the immediate area, and you can click on any marker to view that article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This should definitely be more prominent! Have been looking for something like this for a while Magedq (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I tested this out. When I click that icon, all I see are a mass of unlabeled blue markers. I can hover over some of them to see what city they refer to, but that's tedious. And others are so close together that they do not show up as individual markers. A hand-crafted map would be much more readable and usable. Powers (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The zoom / scroll functions and the direct jump to each neighboring article, you forgot to mention. - How can you do something like this with static maps? -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
While dynamic maps are obviously a sore subject for a few people, for the vast majority of users the dynamic maps seem to be a highlight of the move to Wikivoyage. Mey2008, I don't think you and the others who maintain this functionality get thanked nearly enough, so many, many thanks for the work you do on this feature - today we have over 1500 articles with maps that would likely not otherwise have them, which is a massive usability win for our site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Direct jumps can be implemented with imagemaps, if deemed necessary -- but keep in mind that the text list would appear in the article right next to the map. I'm afraid I don't see how zooming and scrolling serve to solve the problems I pointed out. A well-designed static map can tell the user at a glance what it would take these dynamic maps several seconds or minutes of scrolling zooming and hovering to find out. Powers (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
An imagemap is no alternative. First you need to check all neighboring destinations whether an article already exists. A monotonous and tedious task. Then you have to manually detect hundreds of pixel coordinates and dozens of polygons. This lasts many hours. A single mistake makes the whole map unusable and caused extensive search. - To create a dynamic map is only required {{mapframe|zoom=auto}}. That's all. The only (logical) precondition is that some listings with coordinates should be available. - Try this once on my test page [1] and you will be amazed. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it'd be easy. Much that's worthwhile isn't. But I'm also not convinced that the links are a vital part of this puzzle given the caveats I mentioned above. Powers (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say nearly all articles should have a dynamic map; that just needs geo co-ords added. Just doing the city gives a map, then if there are co-ords in listings, it improves. Co-ords can be added even by someone like me who has approximately the same ability with graphics as the average turnip and is not much interested in learning more. For example, I added a lot to Suzhou and Dumaguete.
Then some should have a static map added. Of course a good static map can be better than the dynamic ones if someone has the time & skill.
I think there are some open problems with dynamic maps. One is that many people do not set zoom= when they insert co-ords; this can give a map of an island or region that shows far less than the whole thing, or a city map that shows only the center. Another problem, I think, is that the map icon, off in a corner of the screen, may not be noticed by readers; I'd like to replace it with MAP. Pashley (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed about noticibility. I consider myself a regular user, and always wanted there to be maps, but never knew that button existed. I'd say that the map should even be displayed by default, with a button to expand to full screen. Magedq (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the map icon is not noticable. Even when I have told friends about a page here and that there is a map, unless I point at the icon on their screen new users don't recognise it. Changing it to "MAP" and / or adding it to the left menu would be good. AlasdairW (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

About maps[edit]

The Amana Colonies are on the northeastern edge of Iowa County in Iowa.
The Amana Colonies are in east central Iowa.
Major highways near the Amana Colonies in Iowa

Magedq, I'm curious about the kind of information that would be really useful to you. So I'd like to offer an example, and see what you (or anyone else) think. I've been working on Amana Colonies. It's a collection of historically important villages in the US. I added a dynamic map that's been set to show each village. Would one of these two maps be helpful to you? (I was thinking that it could be placed in the ==Get in== section.) Or do you want something more detailed, e.g., with highways and cities marked? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For me browsing this page, the US map is the most useful because I have no clue where Iowa is, so I want to be able to place villages on a map I know. But I definitely am not the normal/expected(?) user for this page. Would it be someone who regularly drives through the area? Then maybe one with roads/highways would be most useful. This is why dynamic maps make so much more sense to me, especially if it can be simple to jump between layers and get to the info that you're specifically looking for. Magedq (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You definitely should not give a map of the entire US, showing where the entire state of Iowa is, in an article about the Amana Colonies. I think the locator map, showing the whole county, is modestly useful, but I wouldn't include that, either. What's really needed is a road map, showing how to get there. So I ultimately agree with Magedq about a dynamic map for the larger area, in addition to maps of each village — unless you'd prefer to make a clear static map, showing the placement of the different villages and roads between them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added a third option: the state of Iowa, with the major highways marked (US 6 in red, all the interstates in blue). I'm thinking that you would need to add a dot that shows the location of the Amana Colonies. (It's a little west of where the red line and one of the blue lines intersect in the right side of the map.) Also, the highways ought to be labeled, if you want to use them as driving directions. I'm not sure how helpful this would be to someone who doesn't know where Iowa is, though. Even if you've narrowed it down to "one of the square states in the middle", that leaves a lot of room for error. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't like it because I really don't get any useful information from it. But the main point that I'd like to make is that this site operates on breadcrumbs, so if someone doesn't know where Iowa is, they can go up the breadcrumb trail to look at the Iowa article, and if that doesn't help, the regional article for the Midwest or the USA article. We don't need to and shouldn't show a map of the entire country, the entire state and the entire county in every city article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I would find a good locator map useful, but I think that they probably take far too much work to create. It would be better to spend the time creating a static map for Eastern Iowa. The location of Amana Colonies can probably be covered effectively with a sentence: "The Amana Colonies are about 25 miles northwest of Iowa City, 20 miles southwest of Cedar Rapids, 100 miles East of Des Moines and 250 miles west of Chicago." This should let readers have a reasonable idea of where the place is, Get in can then provide the details of road numbers, bus times etc. AlasdairW (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Availability map server[edit]

The availability of the map server is bad. Wikipedia uses the same server and it's the same problems. - I get every 15 minutes an email when errors occur ( Here are the messages today:

times status
27.02.2015, 07:04 not ok (500)
27.02.2015, 06:47 not ok (500)
27.02.2015, 06:33 not ok (500)
27.02.2015, 06:15 ok (200)

However, I do not have access rights to the wmflabs server. Maybe an admin is interested in such messages to help out? - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Labs is having problems recently: Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We have indeed; sorry for the inconvenience. Over the past two weeks we suffered a hardware failure followed by a mysterious failure of the host where the virtual machines were moved to. All told, parts of labs had some six hours of outage over the past couple of weeks. We're hard at work increasing our redundancy. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Map Server is evidently down again. Matroc (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Visual appeal for Districts lists, by reusing banners[edit]

Dear all,

Most of the "Districts" sections of our region articles don't look very attractive (example), even though they are probably the most-read part of Wikivoyage (someone travelling to Tokyo would probably spend a lot of time on Tokyo's districts list, going back and forth and using it as a table of contents). So, I made this small prototype showing a first wild idea of how we could reuse article banners within region articles. As a first shot, I blurred banners a bit and reduced their opacity, then applied a blurred shadow below the text.


  • Gives a visual image to each article of the region. This visual image is the same on the article itself, which helps readers associate and remember the destinations they have browsed more easily than by name alone
  • In some cases, the image can give an idea of what the article is about (ex: Taj Mahal)
  • More colorful and visually attractive than plain text
  • Further differentiates WV from WT


  • Takes more bandwidth
  • Arguably makes the text less readable
  • Unbalanced if an article misses a banner. Resolution: Enable only if ALL articles have a banner
  • Development cost

What do you all think? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, it doesn't look bad. What about colorcoding for the map? And if we use the banners, the map couldn't be just right of the banners, it could only start below, right? Danapit (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nicolas1981, thanks for always coming up with unique ideas. Unfortunately, I can't really get behind this one for several reasons:
  • it would make the Districts section unnecessarily different from the similarly structured Regions/Countries/Cities sections, unless of course we applied it to all such list sections, in which case there would be an even more excessive amount of:
  • the more or less permanent situation where some articles are styled one way and others are styled another, which works against our consistency of article structure;
  • the banners create a fixed listing height, wasting space if not all available lines are used but eliminating the possibility of being longer than that;
  • as Danapit points out, it would preclude having the districts color-coded on the map and prevent the map from ever being placed alongside the districts, as it currently is in most articles.
Also, fuzzed-up and covered with text like that, you can hardly tell what some banners are supposed to be a picture of anyway (like the second and last one in your example), and I think this may add more confusion than recognition. Texugo (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Especially in "going back and forth and using the list as a table of contents", the bandwidth issue is real (my browser seems to often download the pages over and over in that use, unless I use tabs), as is possible rendering speed and links moving as images are loaded. The unattractiveness of the example, I think, mostly has to do with the extra links (couldn't that be fixed by having them in a list last of first in each district listing?). It is not very pretty, but functionality is the most important in the suggested use – and I don't think the bannerized version necessarily is more attractive, it is more about whether or not you like a "graphical" touch. Some hints making it more easy to remember which district is which would be good, but I am not sure the banners are the thing people associate with the district and remember. I think good descriptions go a long way on that point. --LPfi (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You might want to make a full prototype in your user space? I always want to know how the districts are geographically located next to each other and I'm unsure how this proposal would impact that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with some of the concerns raised about bandwidth and making such a large visual change for just one section of one type of article, but I like the idea of adding more visual appeal to articles. Perhaps such an effort could be combined with some of the existing discussions about making the map link more prominent and obvious, as well as the existing efforts with page banners, and an expedition could be started to figure out how to broaden our existing templates to produce some non-text visual flair. Sadly I have the style sense of a rock, but if anyone was interested in starting an expedition to explore options for improving the look of our articles I would be happy to contribute some ideas. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Would also be interested in a visual flair expedition. Visual appeal is where WV really lacks in comparison to published guide books. Magedq (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, no thanks. One, there is no problem with the "Districts" section as currently configured. Secondly, even if there were, this is not the solution to it: ugly, garish and (as already mentioned) a bandwidth hog for those on slow or unreliable connections. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's basically a nice suggestion and I don't think the row of banners look that ugly (though the blur could perhaps be omitted, just like in the banners for featured articles on the main page). But it would generate a whole lot of problems which others have already brought up. To implement this successfully, we'd need to rethink the layout of the districts section. And should we use the default banner for articles that don't have one? That wouldn't look very good. I'm sorry to say but I think the amount of work required outweighs the benefits. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like this. Sorry. I appreciate the effort, but I find the result ugly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion by Magedq for a style expedition is interesting. An anonymous user created this experimental template recently that seems to be trying to address this (although not clear what future this particular initiative has). I believe there is a lot that can be done to enhance WV visually with standard web styles (CSS) that would differentiate us a lot from both WT and wikipedia. Does anyone else support a visual style expedition? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you linked to the wrong article? Magedq (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about using a different image altogether, without writing text over it – just a little thumbnail-sized "icon" (about the same size of the color-coding boxes, which could be made narrower) of some relevant feature? For example, the district with the fish market would get a tightly cropped picture of a fish for sale, the district with a train hub gets a picture of a train, the one with the Imperial Palace gets a photo of the palace, etc. It would add some visual appeal but not introduce accessibility issues and should limit bandwidth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Russian Wikivoyage already does something similar to what WhatamIdoing is proposing for region articles. An example can be seen at ru:Эстония#Регионы. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find where it has been archived, but it has been only a very very short time ago that someone proposed something very similar and we discussed it. And the same objections apply. To have it look good you have to: have an acceptable image, croppable to the same size, for every single item, with just the right amount of text beside each one so that it doesn't leave blank space between the text block, but not so much that it puts blank space between the images. And you'd still have to figure out where to put the map that usually accompanies these sections (putting it to the right will squeeze text between 2 images, putting it below the whole section is disadvantageous to the reader). All of that is already quite a bit of work just for one article. Then, since we have always had a single consistent article format that every article follows, if we were going to implement this, we'd have to do it site wide. To do so, you have to do all that work for every Districts/Cities/Countries/Regions section in every article, which would be an unthinkable amount of work. There might be some out there willing to throw out the consistency of article models in order to allow for things like this to be implemented piecemeal, in effect allowing for multiple article formats to flourish willynilly, but as far as I'm concerned, there'll be a huge fight before we throw out consistency between articles. Texugo (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Texugo, we don’t have a “single consistent article format that every article follows”. There are common headings and subheadings, but there is variation in them from continent, to country, to subregion, to huge city, to small city, to district. Another example is maps and the region list template. Some guides have maps and some don’t. Some regions and huge cities have region list templates and some don’t. The Regions map expedition would have struggled mightily if we were told at the start no posting maps until it can be done consistently across the site. And I’m not advocating tossing aside our article structure — I think it’s important to have consistent sections — but I think we need to be more flexible in our approach to how those sections are presented. Some changes can’t be implemented all at once.
Generally speaking, I like the idea of what Russian Wikivoyage did (reusing banners in the region/district list not so much) although I do agree with some of the issues Texugo raised (acceptable images, what to do with the map). I think it’s worthwhile to explore it and anything else that could help in a visual style expedition. I’m not convinced our current style (for example) of one-liner listings of varying lengths in an encyclopedic format is better than having a bit of extra white space between lines if we feel a more visually catching style will make WV more reader-friendly. -Shaundd (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to be more specific, I should have said that there is a single consistent article format for each article type. As for consistency between articles of the same type though, I respectfully disagree. Sure, the differences you mentioned exist, but as I see it, those boil down to a matter of content and the presence/need/absence of information. While maps and their accompanying color-coding add functionality and information, this would be a difference of another nature, of mere aesthetic preference, akin to introducing a second, alternative listing format, yet one which requires so much work with every implementation that it has little hope of ever reaching even half our articles, and for no other reason than the fact that some people like a certain style better. This would amount to introducing an unprecedented optional style, purely for the sake of whoever wants to spend the time to give their favorite articles that style, inventing an extraordinary amount of work for nothing more than a spotty deployment of a meager and debatable stylistic advantage. Texugo (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Spotty deployment is definitely a danger and style is debatable. But I don’t think it has to be optional or an extraordinary amount of work. If there was a consensus that it was a good thing, it could become a required element for a star or guide region/huge city. It won’t end up in every article but it would encourage usage. Another possibility is to only implement in a defined section of articles, say huge cities. And if that worked, maybe say countries. It’s much more likely to be fully implemented in those situations and it should minimize the problem of not having pictures of a location. -Shaundd (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the look at ru:Эстония#Регионы that Ryan linked. If you haven't clicked through yet, then I think it's worth a look. It looks pretty easy, too.

However, I was thinking of something more modest. We already have this (I've pulled the map out):

The seat of Japanese power (both political and economic) that includes the Imperial Palace, the Ministries near Kasumigaseki, the Parliament in Nagatacho, the corporate headquarters of Marunouchi, and the electronics mecca of Akihabara.
Also includes the famed department stores of the Ginza and the fish markets of Tsukiji.

and I was thinking, why not have something like this?

Imperial Palace Tokyo Tokagakudo Music Hall.jpg
The seat of Japanese power (both political and economic) that includes the Imperial Palace, the Ministries near Kasumigaseki, the Parliament in Nagatacho, the corporate headquarters of Marunouchi, and the electronics mecca of Akihabara.
San-ai Building at night.jpg
Also includes the famed department stores of the Ginza and the fish markets of Tsukiji.

We set the image sizes to match. If we wanted to do this in a more significant fashion, then we could add a column specifically for images, which would change the word-wrap behavior slightly. It's not hard to find 4:3 aspect ratios, if you really need all of them to exactly match in shape as well as size. And, as noted above, if you don't have very many pictures (despite having a subject large enough to need a districts page), then you could just leave them out for that particular page.

I don't think that it's a good idea to worry about blank space, because screen size and font size varies dramatically. What looks like the perfect amount of text to line up with the image on your monitor is going to be completely mismatched on someone else's. That's why layout is handled by putting things in the right order for the meaning, rather than how it looks on my own screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At that size (100px), most images don't show anything useful. It looks like visual clutter to me, I'm afraid. Powers (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I like WhatamIdoing's proposal. Admittedly commercial guidebooks in the English speaking world don't use much images (probably for printing/paper/size reasons), but where I live commercial guidebooks use a lot of tiny images, see for instance [2][3]. That makes guides much more entertaining to read, and provides great information to decide where you want to go, to get a small idea of what kind of place it is, and to recognize landmarks. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if more places had enough good photos, it would make more sense to consider adopting these proposals. The Russian example is beautiful, but Estonia has some of the greatest photos on Commons. An article was recently begun for Dudhu Chak, a Pakistani city that has no photos on Commons at all. I think that we can probably count on any Estonian city of equivalent (>20,000) population having some beautiful photos. As for the miniature thumbnails in WhatamIdoing's proposal, I think they could work fine sometimes, but often, Powers' point above would obtain. And the difficulty is that if we set either of these alternate structures as the default, they'll work poorly for articles for places that only have a few photos available. I'd be happy to revisit these proposals, especially the Russian Wikivoyage setup, when there are a larger number of good Commons photos to work with, but I have doubts about them now, and I'd like to ask people who support them what we should do with articles for places that are sparsely covered by images on Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, everyone please upload your travel pictures to Commons, especially when you go to non-mainstream places :-) Here is a map that shows Commons geolocalized pictures by area, helpful to see whether a given area is already covered or not. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicolas1981, where's the map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, added link, thanks! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to figure out how to use it in a helpful way. What I notice right now is that when I zoom in, I see a lot of pictures over water that are obviously on land and identified only by filename, so it's not really clear what regions or even countries (in this case, I'm looking at West Africa) they depict. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Haha yes exactly! I have spend hours fixing these pictures' messed up latitude/longitude (or removing the coordinates if not easily findable and clearly wrong), but they keep coming :-) A lot of them are at 0,0 or nearby, suggesting unit problems. Most pictures far from 0,0 seem to be more accurate. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that your are overly cautious here. Page banners introduce even more stringent requirements to pictures, but we all agree that banners are a very nice feature, and it works well throughout the site. They can be prepared for the majority of destinations, and in other cases the default banner or any generic picture can be used. The same strategy could be applied to lists of cities and regions, although I think that most places of at least marginal tourist significance will have some 4:3 pictures available. --Alexander (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Banners are a nice feature because they provide both a clear distinction from WP (and WT for that matter) as well as providing an emotional feel to the article you are reading. But is more pictures in this manner really more value? My take is that the goal of increased readership will come through greater accessibility of the written text. If people really want to look at pictures of landmarks then there are plenty of places on the internet that do that better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I think not having photos is a concern once you get down to the lower regional levels. One way to get around this would be to only implement it for certain types of articles, say huge cities or countries. -Shaundd (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about replicating page banners as proposed in the beginning of this thread. I rather have in mind the format of Russian Wikivoyage, where we put a 4:3 picture next to a one-paragraph description of a city or region. --Alexander (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Alexander, what has the experience of Russian Wikivoyage been in terms of the numbers or percentages of articles that don't work with the format we're discussing? Is it a large number? Can we see a list of articles that do or don't have the format in question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't have much experience yet, but this page should give you a feel that we can use this format for individual Russian regions too. --Alexander (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I really like how this looks. I'm unclear on how much work this takes. If it's not a tremendous amount of work, such that we'll need people to volunteer to concentrate almost exclusively on this (and I don't think I'd volunteer in that case), I think we should consider doing it where feasible. It really beautifies articles. What can you tell us about the workload and the learning curve involved in this process? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think we could try it out on, say, ten articles? Attempting ten should give us an idea of how often this can be done.
Also, on the point of whether text or images drives traffic: I'd say that it's both. Do you ever click the 'images' search button in Google? I do, and it definitely drives people to the pages with images. Also, every time we use an image, the Wikivoyage page gets linked at Commons, which is another way of "advertising" our existence (especially within the Commons and Wikipedia communities, and therefore among people who are likely to be technically proficient contributors from their very first edit here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You can do it on ONE low traffic article with the experimental tag.
That said, I don't accept the premise that it will 'definitely drive people to pages with images'. Also not sure about the rationale that more commons links will help... Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether anything in particular is guaranteed to drive traffic to articles; I just think it's really pretty and looks like a slick guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Testing it on exactly one low-traffic article will not help you figure out how often this format could realistically be achieved. Attempting it on ten will let you say that it worked for "X" out of ten. A sample size of one is nearly worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ikan, of course, it takes time and effort to find good images and to write one-paragraph descriptions of our regions and destinations. The amount of time spent depends on your knowledge of the place, and we don't have more than 3-4 editors who will ever do this. However, our point was not to make a site-wide change but to find a good format that we can use from now on. I did not feel comfortable with the old format, for me it was too short and bland. Now I feel that we are going in the right direction and offer people an appropriate format of regional articles. That's the main thing. --Alexander (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with regional articles, period. Most are poor. We've been discussing this at User:Wrh2/Why Wikivoyage was not my primary travel planning tool and User talk:Wrh2/Why Wikivoyage was not my primary travel planning tool but have yet to decide anything. If anyone else would like to look at those pages and weight in, that would be most welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Regional articles seem to be generally half baked. People want to work on United States and New York but not the bits in between. I'm also unsure what could be done in the current format, although if we could change the software then some kind of navigational bar at the top would be preferable instead. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The proposals in this thread and the ones I just linked are alternatives. Have you looked at User:Wrh2/Why Wikivoyage was not my primary travel planning tool? If not, please have a look and then look through User talk:Wrh2/Why Wikivoyage was not my primary travel planning tool and see whether you have anything to add. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would first of all appeal to everyone to stop using "makes us different from WT" and "because SEO" as arguments in support of this or any other proposal. Ever since the great schism, people have been using these twin versatile and essentially unprovable arguments for everything under the sun, and since they are just as applicable to basically any proposal imaginable, they really do nothing but distract from the proposal at hand.

With that out of the way, I am still pretty solidly convinced this proposed visual style takes too much effort to look good; the vast majority of region articles would require several new paragraphs' worth of text each to make this look halfway decent. Sure, it may look good in cherry-picked examples where each subregion already has plenty of text and nice, properly-framed photos have already been found, but it looks ridiculous with just our (current) typical one-liner description (like this) and would look even more ridiculous with our (even more typical) complete lack of description. And when Alexander says the point is "not to make a site-wide change but to find a good format that we can use from now on", I heartily disagree, first of all because I don't think visual style is something we should start variegating on an quantity-of-content or whim-of-the-editor basis (i.e. such aesthetic changes should be site-wide), but perhaps more importantly because this is not a "format we can use from now on": new articles that are started will still not be started this way because there is too much overhead in terms of work to be done to keep it from looking like handfuls of words in giant empty white pools, wasting loads of vertical scroll space (like this). I simply cannot support the introduction of an optional, purely decorative format that requires so much overhead before it can be implemented in a way that looks nice. Any new aesthetic layout needs to work independently of the amount of information present. Texugo (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the main point. This whole idea was triggered by Ryan's statement that regional articles are hard to navigate because they give little to no information about individual destinations and subregions. One-line descriptions are typically too short to convey any meaningful idea. That is the problem, and I see it myself when I use English Wikivoyage for planning my travel. If you want to rectify this problem, you need to work hard on extra text and, naturally, on finding nice images. If you don't see the problem or you don't want to rectify it, well... that is your choice.
Regarding unfinished articles in Russian Wikivoyage that you mentioned, some of our editors think that even pictures and short description are good. I personally am neutral to this, so we did not make any effort to eliminate such things. If you want them to be eliminated, the solution is simple: do not use the new format and do not add pictures unless decent amount of text description is available.
Finally, every site-wide change requires a lot of time and effort. You either do it or you stay with the old format that nobody likes-) --Alexander (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing some of my main points too. I agree that region articles are weak and would love for more text to be added to them. Let's do that, by all means. However, this proposal is something quite beyond and beside content improvement. And of course, there are undoubtedly ways to improve our aesthetics too, and having a great deal of work hasn't stopped us when it comes to things like page banners and dynamic maps and all, but I believe this proposal is too ambitious, in a whole new way. There are several specific, unprecedented things I very strongly object to:
  • creating a great deal of white space = possibly wasted paper when printed, but more annoyingly, extra vertical space i have to scroll through, and less of an article i can scan at once
  • creating any situation where articles of a given type no longer share a single visual style
  • creating any alternative style which cannot be applied to all articles of the same type without writing an astounding amount of prose that requires personal knowledge or broad-reaching research on every little region
  • creating any format which essentially requires an image for every item in a list, especially if they all have to be of a fixed, reduced size and fixed aspect ratio
I would object to any one of those things individually, and this proposal would necessarily have us wading into at least 3 of those 4 items, so I have an even bigger problem with that. Texugo (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It is very simple. When you write more text in the regional articles, you see that this text should be illustrated by images, and when you add images, you see that they should be arranged side-by-side with the text, so that each paragraph of text has its own image, and none of the destinations is excluded by having no image.
You can also make a mock-up of a regional article with detailed descriptions of cities and subregions and show us how it should look like. Otherwise, I see no point in further discussion. --Alexander (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What mock-up? I'm not proposing a change, only defending against one that I think is not thought through well enough. And of course if there is no further discussion, then we'll shelve the proposal and be on our way, which actually would be fine with me.
Anyway, I hope that just saying "it's simple" is not just a way of dismissing my specific points. Obviously it's not that simple. I understand your train of thought as outlined above, and it admittedly looks nice and nifty within the confines of a model article, but I don't like where that train goes after it leaves the station, where we go from talking about the individual article to talking about implementation and its effect on the site as a whole, again referring back to the four points I made above. Texugo (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ryan raised a problem of very short or even non-existent descriptions of cities and regions in regional articles. Do you agree that this problem exists? If you do, what solution will you propose? --Alexander (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that our region articles are problematic due to lack of content. Where exactly is Ryan's statement to which you are referring? Texugo (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Texugo: see User:Wrh2/Why Wikivoyage was not my primary travel planning tool#Regions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Though I haven't given it a great deal of thought, I might largely support that proposal, which is considerably different from the one here in that it changes the whole article template and has all the flexibility of our other article templates, without trying to force any kind of ratio of giving every region a single paragraph and a single photo of a fixed size. What he seems to be proposing is just giving each subregion its own section, just like other sections in other templates, flexibly adaptable to the size and importance of each subregion, and not forcing us to give them equal vertical space or any kind of artificial equal importance between them. That, I could probably get behind. The proposal discussed above though, I cannot. Texugo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This will also require a lot of extra work and extra writing, and will make "new" and "old" regional articles rather different from each other, won't it? So please, make a mock-up, and we will discuss which option is better. --Alexander (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Work and extra writing? Yes, it would require some extra work and a little writing to convert the article model, but simply getting Ryan's new model in place in every article would not require the steps of adding pictures and blocks of text, and the resulting blank sections would essentially look no different than the ones they replace or the thousands of blank sections already existing across the site. It could probably be done in 2-3 months if we worked at it, and then the actual content creation work would continue on at the usual wiki pace.
The proposal above, on the other hand, is extremely limited in that it does not look good until completely filled in, so converting everything sitewide before the content creation work would actually highlight the lack of content over everything else, or if you accept the idea of only using the new format once the content is there, you must basically admit that it's a model that has no hope of ever reaching the whole site for years. To put it another way, Ryan's proposal would change the organization first, sitewide, and let the content be added afterward, while the above proposal tries to prematurely force a pretty inflexible style that only looks nice once all the content creation work has already been done, which would certainly take many years to accomplish. Texugo (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If you support Ryan's ideas on reforming the organization of information, let's discuss that without trying to simultaneously superimpose this extra dimension of stylistic framing that places arbitrary restrictions on what can/must/cannot be done with the content. Texugo (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Just do it for one article, and then we will see what extra work this actually entails. --Alexander (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Alexander, it's not my proposal so I am not the one to do that, and in this case I don't think a mock-up is needed or even very helpful for estimating the type of work needed. As I understand it, for articles with only region names/one-liners and little in the other sections, which is the majority of existing region articles, it would take literally maybe 20 seconds each to convert to Ryan's article model. For articles that are already more developed, which are fewer, it obviously wouldn't require writing paragraphs of new content to convert each one but there would be some kind of merging work to be done, and at that point there are some things I don't understand about that proposal. For example: if New Mexico had no Eat section, the only appropriate place to talk about New Mexican food would be in its respective subsection in the Southwest article? Maybe that's already been answered — I haven't read through all the existing discussion of Ryan's proposal yet and don't have time at the moment. But the place for that discussion is on the talk page there and not mixed in with this discussion here. Every proposal should be evaluated on its own merits, so whether I support Ryan's proposal or find problems with it, it still in no way negates my objection to the proposals above. Texugo (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I just asked you what format of regional articles you consider optimal, and suggested that a mock-up will make things much easier to discuss. I see that you prefer to shuffle around with the same (zero) amount of information and oppose any changes that may affect the integrity of the format throughout the site. I regret to say that with this attitude regional articles will remain in their sad empty state forever, because editors (myself included) will have no motivation to work on something that is visually not appealing and, basically, restricted to boring pieces of text. Regional articles do need a fresh look. You are most welcome to propose something. Doing nothing will bring you nowhere. --Alexander (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave some very specific objections, and instead of addressing those, you've come back by seemingly brushing those aside and saying that I personally have to show you what I think would be better, else my objections are somehow based in an indiscriminate resistance to change in general. It's not fair for you to try to pin it on me, and nothing could be further from the truth. I fully believe we can reorganize to foster more and better content without sacrificing stylistic consistency, and I don't think this proposal even considers that. But the very best thing in our approach would be to first concentrate first on content/organization (leaving style out of it for now) and figuring out what works, how much info we actually need and where it should actually go. After we're happy with that, then we can tweak around with style, which should be only a secondary concern. The main problem with this proposal is that it changes the style first and let style dictate the type and quantity of content. The bells and whistles are meaningless if the content isn't there first. So please don't start attacking me for resisting change -- I have supported many changes around here -- it's simply that I think the primary problem with region articles is the lack of content and the organization, and not the style, and I think trying to reform the style at the same time as the content is conflating issues here, and in this case both putting unfortunate restrictions on flexibility and possible content, and disregarding an important aspects of wider implementation and inter article consistency. If I do have a new proposal I'll be sure to share it, but I'm not obligated to have one in order to object to yours,and it certainly doesnt constitute an undesirable "attitude" that invalidates those objections. Texugo (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am left to repeat that the problem of regional articles is there, and we try to solve it while you don't. All your objections are entirely subjective and stem from the fact that you don't want to allow different format of regional articles depending on the content they have. This is understandable, but there is nothing I can address, really. I want at least some regional articles look good, that's the main difference.
And if you know other ways to make regional articles visually appealing, please, let us know. That would be helpful. --Alexander (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Preferring stylistic unity and preserving visual conciseness (avoiding wastes of space) may be subjective (albeit decade-long status-quo-backed) positions, but there is nothing subjective about noting how this proposal would restrict content to an unprecedented very prescriptive and inflexible one-item to one-paragraph to one-image, without stopping yet to consider where each type of info in such an article will go and whether it is appropriate to cap it at a paragraph by forcing a template layout on it. If we were to go with Ryan's idea, for example, removing the standard see/do/eat/etc and replacing them with a section for each subregion, it is pretty clear to me that we should not place such a limit on those sections because they very likely need to be longer, and then the suggested format above would be pretty much lost anyway and I don't know why we would then limit images to one per section.
Also, I kind of resent your repeated assertions that I am being unhelpful. Critiquing suggestions and trying to catch possible problems before they start is a completely valid manner of contributing here. Texugo (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The main problem, I think we all agree, is that we lack content in those articles. Changes to the format in itself does nothing to address the problem. Alexander says he would be more interested in working with those articles, if they had a format he likes, so for him, the format change would be a partial solution for the problem , but for many others (e.g. for me), the format would distract me from writing content, as I would have to use a lot of time in finding appropriate images. For me, who am more interested in the textual content, we would be better served by people writing instead of searching for images. If many people are like Alexander, then OK, but if people are like me, then this will slow down solving the original problem instead of helping in solving it. --LPfi (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
We already have experience that people add images to regional articles, even though they can't contribute the text. It is a normal wiki-process. One editor finds good image, other editors write texts. Visual appeal is an important thing, it stimulates people to read and contribute. Moreover, with the new format it becomes clear that cities and subregions need extended descriptions, while pages like this give you a feeling that everything is normal, and no descriptions are expected. --Alexander (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The restriction of text to one paragraph is as natural as the restriction of city lists to 7-9 items. You have to convey everything in one paragraph because people will never read screens of text just to see what the city is about. Information has to be concise. Texugo, I seriously suggest that you pick up a regional article of your choice and try to make it really good from the perspective of a person who is going to visit this region for the first time. This will raise most of your concerns and perhaps will bring new ideas as well. --Alexander (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done plenty enough work around here to know what working on a region article is like. The bottom line here is that since we lack content, what we need is an organizational change that fosters more content, not an aesthetic change that introduces a cap on it. And no, it is not natural to limit content to a summary if we haven't worked out how and where the more detailed information should be presented. Again, my example from above, if we go Ryan's route, New Mexico becomes a list of summaries of its component regions, and Southeast US becomes a list of summaries of states, where would a paragraph about New Mexican cuisine belong? Obviously we can't smash everything we have to say about the state into a single paragraph in Southwest, but the state article no longer has an eat section, so what now? Next you might suggest that your proposal is separate from Ryan's. OK, but then your proposal is actually just adding new sections to the existing ones, yet another element to sit empty in most articles, and you're forced to admit that it's nothing but extra decoration for articles that already have such content. The proposal does not answer the problem we have with region articles; we need to have that broader conversation about how region articles should be organized and where all the various possible types of information should go. Texugo (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Did I ever mention new sections? No. Did I suggest to remove the Eat section? No. It is sad that this discussion did not lead to any constructive suggestions from your side. I would still like to see what other options of organizing extended descriptions of individual destinations we have. If you feel that a different discussion needs to be started, please, go ahead. --Alexander (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't need to mention new sections — it is plainly apparent from the ru: implementation that the map/short description section is kept and a new paragraph/picture section is added under it for each subregion. And you did suggest that you proposal would be an answer to Ryan's essay, which does suggest removing the Eat section (and others). And now you have come back again almost rudely accusing me of being unhelpful, as if the only valid options were to agree with your proposal or make one myself. In reality though, it is you who should be doing the convincing, not me, because your proposal isn't going to go anywhere if it cannot respond to people's concerns. If you're going to continue with the rudeness, I don't think this conversation should be continued until some other reasonable and collaborative voices join in. Texugo (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not try to convince anyone here, I just collect feedback and hope that new ideas will emerge. --Alexander (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)



I will summarize what we have so far. The idea is to provide readers with extended descriptions of cities and subregions in regional articles. These extended descriptions could replace sections like See and Eat, or they could augment them. This really depends on the region, and this is not the question at stake here. The reason for this suggestion is the lack of relevant information in the majority (if not all) regional articles. Take Texas, which is considered a usable region article. Suppose that you visit this state for the first time as I just did. The list of cities and regions serves as a collection of links and gives very little information to those readers who are not familiar with the region (enough to say that most readers will think Alamo is a car rental company and not a Spanish mission).

One possibility is to write one-paragraph (and strictly one-paragraph) summaries supplied with one image, as we do on Russian Wikivoyage (example here). Texugo raised a concern that this format/style looks nice only with images found and descriptions written, which is true (missing descriptions introduce empty spaces as here), but this is the price one has to pay for eventually having things nice, and this hardly bothers me more than empty skeleton articles all around the site. The second concern is that the new style may not be introduced at once all over Wikivoyage, which is again true and boils down to the question whether you want things eventually look good or you want things look uniform and thus prevent any conceptual development that requires more than simple re-shuffling of the content. Lastly, Texugo thinks that one paragraph may be too short or too long to write about a destination. This I simply can't agree on, because, as a reader, I would not bother to read more than one paragraph about each of 7-9 cities, other destinations, and subregions. The main idea of each destination should be conveyed briefly, while any details can go into bottom-level articles.

In my opinion, the only format that would fulfill Texugo's concerns is plain text with occasional and randomly placed images, which is going to be chaotic and will deprive some destinations of having an image in the regional article. Do we have other ideas? How to make things visually appealing and useful at the same time? --Alexander (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm an eventualist. That's why I tolerate the empty sections everywhere, despite thinking that they are both ugly and that they leave readers with the impression that many pages are even less useful than they are.
In general, I don't believe that making everything matchy-matchy is an advantage. There is a point where "consistency" becomes a sign of mindlessness. I especially don't believe that preventing the addition of good content in some pages, on the grounds that it can't be added everywhere immediately, is a wise choice. We best help the reader of THAT article by making THAT article as good as possible (given the available resources, most importantly volunteer interest), even if the same improvements aren't going to happen at other articles for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly feel Alexander's summary above is a very fair representation of my viewpoint, but anyway, WhatamIdoing, the point here is that "preventing the addition of good content in some pages" is absolutely not part of the issue here, not in the least, because I fully support the content addition, just not the stylistic rigidity. What is being proposed is a different type of "matchy-matchy", where every subregion is given an inflexible, identical little box, as if every item were equally important to the traveller, which in general is not the case. The "matchy-matchy" you don't believe is an advantage is actually called "consistency of presentation" and is a pretty standard feature of publishing in general, something we've tried to preserve from the beginning, because if we start presenting the same types of information in multiple ways, willy-nilly, it demands more from the reader in terms of intuiting where to find what information. Texugo (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
So, what should one do to make the Texas article better accessible to those travelers who are not familiar with the region? Let's make it match-unmatchy or whatever you like. What kind of information should be added, and where should it go? --Alexander (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Texas article is not really one of the more problematic region articles, though certainly some of the subregion articles are pretty bare. But at any rate, it's a very complex question, one that I have of course been thinking about. But please don't be pushy about it. I haven't even had time to fully reflect on Ryan's ideas so far, nor to follow all the discussion up to that point. But I do think there is probably a solution without as many problems as the one presented here. Texugo (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, take your time. --Alexander (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Texugo, the proposal presented is to add a handful of images and a handful of paragraphs to some articles (aka "adding good content").
You have rejected this proposal to add content in favor of maintaining "stylistic unity and preserving visual conciseness". You have said that you "very strongly oppose" this addition of good content on the grounds that it will (temporarily) create a situation in which "articles of a given type no longer share a single visual style" and because converting everything immediately, rather than tolerating 'unmatched' articles until some volunteer is ready to add the good content to any given article, might create extra white space on your screen (though probably not, because if there are no new images, then there is nothing to cause the appearance of any whitespace; also, you're obviously thinking about desktop users, and many readers are on mobile devices, where whitespace next to a floated image is basically non-existent).
I don't mind your opposition—perhaps you've got the right idea after all—but I think you need to own all of your opposition, not just its benefits. You are telling a willing volunteer not to add more detailed descriptions and relevant images, on the grounds of that adding this content to some articles would make them different from the other, unimproved articles of the same type. There's no good place in the current system to put this style of information, so either we make a place for it, or we don't get the content. When you tell someone not to make a place for the new content, you (all, not just Texugo) are, unavoidably, opposing the addition of this good content. Feel free to oppose it, but please remember that this kind of opposition isn't free: it costs us both the new content and some of the enthusiasm from the volunteers who wanted to add it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, sorry. I do not in the least oppose adding exactly that kind of content where relevant, and nothing is stopping anyone from adding more pictures either. I simply oppose adding them while simultaneously creating an alternative, new, rigid, and prescriptive style standard that abandons our principles of consistent presentation, I oppose adding them in a way that leaves big empty gaps when the amount of text present is not exactly equal to the arbitrarily fixed height of a now-mandatory image, I oppose adding them in a way where not adding one and only one picture for every item in a given set makes it look like something big is missing, I oppose adding them in a way that defeats word wrapping in favor of blank spaces, I oppose adding them in a way that forces us to give the same attention, space, and treatment to wildly differing region items, forces us to pretend they are all equally interesting to the traveler. None of that is necessary in order to add the content you're talking about. And if you don't think See or Understand is actually an appropriate place for a certain type of text that should be added, by all means, let's talk about adding more text to the current one-liner set-up; you'll likely have my support. We can add text, we can add pictures, sure, but that in no way requires us to dispose with flexibility and use the stiff, prescriptive layout stuff which constitutes the principal point of this proposal. Let's leave this unnecessary rigid layout formatting mess completely out of it, because that is where all the problems lie. That is exactly what I meant when I was saying that we shouldn't confound the content issue with a simultaneous restrictive style makeover, as this proposal does. Texugo (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now, there is no good place in Tokyo to put 17 paragraphs and 17 photographs (one for each district). Listing all 17 districts under ==Districts== and then repeating the list (only this time, with more information) under ==See== or ==Understand== would be silly. Images can't be added in the existing districts table, because there's no room. The maps take up too much of the horizontal width to make that feasible. Map width + default image width = already wider than some reader's screens—and that's before you add any text at all.
The whitespace issue is a matter of choice: you can either design for your personal desktop screen size+font size+image size combination, or you can remember that people have significantly different experiences and do something that makes semantic sense for the content. What is an intolerable amount of whitespace for your computer is a perfect match on someone else's smartphone, and vice versa. The willy-nilly approach of "just add some paragraphs and some images", without a layout system to constrain them, means that with the exception of the first, the image will probably not be associated with the relevant text for many readers (including basically all mobile readers, which is probably a third of our readers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And last but not least, each piece of information should be machine-readable. Writing plain text and adding random images is not a good solution because this can not be read by scripts. --Alexander (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is easy to add markup to plain text, defining the semantics for scripts, if we know what semantics the script would be interested in (some semantic markup is in place already, in plain wikitext/HTML). The alternative approach (a table) is semantically clear only if rows and columns have adequate standardised headings – or the script has been specifically written for the specific format used. I have not seen this being suggested. And I very strongly dislike calling carefully chosen images "random".
I also think the traditional approach adjusts quite well to different devices. I usually check the amount of images with both my normal screen width and with maximized browser window (for small devices some more testing might be required to get decent layout). I do not understand how the one paragraph per image would help in this – usually exactly that approach wastes space, either vertically or horizontally.
--LPfi (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This template has several fields and sets a one-to-one correspondence between the city name, text, image and its caption.
"Random images" means "randomly placed images". Sorry if that was unclear. --Alexander (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Readership at two years[edit]

Readership/pageviews appears to be increasing per Similarweb

  • 4M for WV (internal data gives 9.7M) [4]
  • 11.4M for WT

Congrats to all involved. Still some work to do to attract greater readership... Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice! We certainly have a sizable readership, let's continue adding content :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you notice that the headline number is actually -24% readership (February 2014 - February 2015) ? I'd be interested in more data that would provide yearly averages. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, the data in Doc James' link shows that there was an unusual spike in readership in February 2014. Comparisons between last month and January 2014, or December 2014 vs. December 2013, both demonstrate the increases in readership James is talking about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The range for 2013 is 3 to 5 million a month. The range for 2014 is 2.7 to 9.3 million, but take out the anomaly of the spike in July/August 2014 (not since repeated) and we get a range of just 2.7 to 5.4 million, which isn't really a significant change either up or down.
I would like evidence of a consistent growth in readership statistics (which is just not demonstrated by the stats provided), and it would be great to analyze the underlying data. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've found the raw data here. Will take a look sometime this week. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the spike in July/August 2014 isn't as anomalous as you seem to suspect, Andrewssi2. It seems equally likely to me that it's due to normal seasonal variation. There was a similar, though smaller, bump in the high summer of 2013, and it bears mentioning that July and August are arguably the busiest travel months in the Anglosphere. It should be interesting to see what happens to those numbers in summer 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
August 1st 2014 at 09:00
September 1st 2014 at 09:00
I called it anomalous because the rise and drop was very dramatic. I tried to do some analyse on the page view numbers, but unfortunately the data dumps only give viewing numbers by the hour.
I did compare the view page numbers for the hour of 09:00 on August 1st and September 1st, and for those two files the read levels are very similar. I would have expected the numbers to be higher for August to be generally higher and therefore the origin of the spike will be elsewhere in the large number of files. The analysis does not prove an anomaly, but it also doesn't support a general higher rate of readership yet.
Is there a good place n Wikivoyage to further this discussion? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) I do not see any data on our stats.wikimedia that would merit any conclusions as to readership / visits, unfortunately it seems we only have a stable group of editors (i.e. not growing). BUT similarweb suggests that our site's readership is growing counter to intuitive trends (more now than in summer months), and wikitravel's is falling, albeit in line with expected similarity. The data at Alexa, however, show Wikivoyage falling, especially in terms of search engine generated traffic, and us growing, albeit with unstable and very low search engine leads.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT, however, is that e.g. our edits to the article on Hamburg have moved it from the third page when searched for "Hamburg travel" via to the second page. And we're far from done, and it's been only a few days. So Google appreciates our work.
I expect the readership to suddenly boom when we reach the critical mass in searchability and content quality. People will simply start referring to us as a good source. According to the social media data at, they already are. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. We also have a potential change later this year with the Google algorithms that may start ranking our articles on a (hopefully) more advantageous basis.
I'm also thinking that continued work on the 'traditional desktop web browser' format is running counter to the worldwide change to mobile usage. I think more focus there will help promote us as a 'good source' in audience mind share. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello I'm new here, but used to use Wikitravel. Another way to look at this data, that says (Similarweb) WikiTravel gets 6m visits/month and Wikivoyage gets 1.3m = since Wikivoyage spooled off of Wikitravel 2.5 years ago, that's around 140 million travelers who have been deprived of the work of the editors here. Sad but true. Maybe we should be working on both sites? I am Harlan. Harlan888 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, 2 issues I guess. There were various reasons why we split off from WT, (obnoxious advertising, insanely slow response times, lack of positive engagement by new management, etc) that we wouldn't want to return to. The other is that working on both sites will work against us in terms of search engine results since we would no longer be distinctive. There are a small amount of contributors who do work on both sites which we should allow but I wouldn't want to encourage. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
They like launching lawsuits against their volunteers and the people who run the site are clueless with respect to wikis (I met them). They have run many communities into the group. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you I had read most of that here. But I am thinking of the readers, who are being served mostly at Wikitravel and are missing our edits here. Harlan888 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well at some point in time they will notice that one page is better. If too many people continue keeping the Zombie that is that other page alive, that point in time gets put further and further into the future. But that is just my two cents. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
WT is too far behind, trying to maintain it is hopeless. WV has much better tools (like dynamic maps to check locations for instance) making editing enjoyable. Duplicating our work over there would be a pain, and as Hobbitschuster points out, it would only delay the death of WT by a few years. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we also need to stop fixating on WT as the competition, and just wish it well on its own very separate journey. It is unfortunate that it continues to attract a large proportion of our potential readership and casual editors, and maybe disappointing that our readership isn't actually rising markedly, but WV is getting better every day and hopefully we are all in for the long haul. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Marina / Sailing guide: as a seperate wiki, or on Wikivoyage?[edit]

Dear all,

I'm starting a discussion on metawiki to create a new wiki orientated towards sailing related information, like marina guide and sailing area guide. I'm unsure if this should be in a new wiki, or if would be better as a section of wikivoyage. This post is to ask contributors of wikivoyage about their opinion.

please find the page of the proposal here and comment: Proposal for a new WikiSailing —The preceding comment was added by Nounours77 (talkcontribs)

Given the name, Wikivoyage, it would seem natural for this site to host a sailing guide. I'd certainly welcome it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It does seem natural, although the amount of object in the proposal (e.g. 40,000 marinas. 100,000 - 300,000 POI's and natural harbors) makes me wonder how it could be accommodated inside WV if realized in full? What would be the impact on existing articles? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that there be a separate sub-site reserved for sailing and linked directly to the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re: Andrewssi2 - I think there would be strenuous objection if sailing content started out by creating articles for a vast number of individual marinas and POIs, but I could definitely envision something similar to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, where a general sailing guide to an area is slowly sub-divided as the content warrants additional articles. As with anything here, I think the key is to start out broadly, rather than creating dozens or hundreds of mostly-empty skeleton articles in the hope that they'll be fleshed out later. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking the Diving articles would be the closest in terms of this. It should be noted that Diving doesn't actually exist in a 'sub site' but rather a series of 'ad-hoc' additions (and no offence intended by that categorization).
My limited knowledge of the subject would suggest that the number of Marinas in Australia alone would probably be too much for one article, so how that could be split and structured for a global view would be interesting to understand. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We have an article at Cruising on small craft. There was an expedition aimed at building more, Wikivoyage:Cruising Expedition, but it seems to have gone inactive. Pashley (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds interesting! Please start with like 1 or 5 articles so that we can work out together what is the best way to structure information. Also, don't forget to sign your posts ;-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In addition to such "example" articles, I think it would be good to start out with a few good sailing destination areas, where we have interested contributors. Cruising on small craft seems to suggest the area around Long Island, Thousand Islands, the Erie and Rideau Canals, parts of the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and (parts of) the coasts of Ireland and Scotland could be such regions (choose those where we have expertise). Our "sailing guide" could then quite soon be usable for going to one such area, chartering a yacht and cruising around. Also the usability and how to integrate with our article hierarchy would be easier to think about when covering (more or less) complete destination areas. --LPfi (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes a good idea to create some example of what you mean. I would love to see Wikivoyage expand into other forms of travel more. More walking/biking trails. Mountain biking trails. Caving maps. Paddling trip etc.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Event pictures[edit]

I took the liberty of adding pictures of the Helsinki Samba Carnaval and the Helsinki Burlesque Festival to the Helsinki/Central article. Should I add more pictures of events, for example of the World Bodypainting Festival and BoundCon? The thing is, I have so many pictures to choose from, and I think one picture per event is quite enough. JIP (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In cases where the article is already full of pictures, I would say events should have less priority as they have a lower probability of being useful than attractions that are available all year round, but Helsinki/Central does not seem to be full of pictures yet. By the way, whenever you add a picture related to a particular listing, I recommend also adding the picture as a "image=" attribute of the listing. That way, the picture will be used in the dynamic map, possibly reused in other places, and will remain attached even after in cases where the picture gets removed from the article for a reason or another. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How do I add a picture as an "image=" attribute of a listing? JIP (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not editable with the listing editor. You have to click "Edit" next to the relevant section title and edit the wiki code directly. See for instance [5]. After the fax for instance, just add like "| image=Bregenz Rathaus 01.jpg" or whatever picture you see fit. Thanks! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The best image for the article is not necessarily the best image for the listing, as the thumbnail will be smaller.
Images not used in the article are not wasted: most Wikipedia folk will know how to use the Wikimedia Commons link, and more of our readership will gradually learn to use it too. If the categories for the destination on Commons are well organized, the images will be found there (sadly not true for all destinations, much work remains).
--LPfi (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Database of embassies and consulates[edit]

Dear all,

I just wrote a script to extract embassies/consulates data from Wikivoyage. Download the CSV file here, 4480 entries, 800 KB. I did this because a student asked me for this database for a thesis, but we can also use it ourselves, in particular to complete our data, as many consulates are missing from Wikivoyage. People interested in making this data more complete are invited to check this project, and complete either manually (many countries list their list of embassies) or by script (from other open data sources).

By the way, I also updated the extracted listings database and OxygenGuide. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a great thing to ad to WV! I would however caution that since this is not an official source, all listings should be verified (i.e. visit the embassy's website/foreign ministry website) before entry into WV. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Useful stuff. The wider we can make the content we cover the better. It is always a pain figuring out were the consulates are. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Something strange with section titles[edit]

I can't see section titles here (travellers' pub) anymore... is it just me? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And now I can see them... even though I refreshed to check before posting this... strange. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
There is definitely something strange with section titles... now the § symbol (which is usually present at the left of each section when hovering, to facilitate deep linking, see "HeadAnchor" preference) is superimposed over the first character of the section title, instead of showing up at its left. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it is your OS or your browser doing strange things? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Could be! I am using Ubuntu, it happens on Firefox but not on Chromium. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Firefox looks normal here (pir8 copy of Ubuntu 14), haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary. K7L (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Section titles disappeared again, this time in article space: Screenshot. I haven't changed anything in my Firefox (35.0.1 on Ubuntu 2014.04) recently, and this started happening yesterday. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I use Lubuntu (Ubuntu with a lightweight window manager) and Firefox. Both are updated fairly often. Section titles almost always look fine. Once in a blue moon I get something like your screenshot, usually when the system is heavily loaded. Reloading the page fixes it. Pashley (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Exact same problem with Chromium. Section titles never show on any article. When I log out, they show up. So something is wrong with my Wikivoyage account. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disabling HeadAnchor in Preferences>Gadgets fixed the problem. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to listing templates?[edit]

As you can see in this screenshot, some change has been made to the listing template whereby the indicator numbers for the dynamic map are rendered way too close to the beginning of the text. It's ugly. Is anyone else having this problem? If so, can it be fixed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Listing#noprint in span class just before PoiMap2. I don't have time to look at the issue right now, but maybe someone else can. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Special:Diff/2733536/2739855 will resolve this issue, although I only tested on Chrome. If it causes issues on other browsers please revert. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW, since "go" is a usable type for a marker, how can I use it as a standalone listing? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
{{listing |type=go --Traveler100 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot 2015-03-04-02.png
We've solved one problem and created another one: the listing templates look fine now, but in all instances of Template:Marker there's a huge gap between the indicator number and what's listed in the "name=" argument (see screenshot). I hate to be a pain, but could we fix that too? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I reverted all recent changes, so the listing template will be back to how it was last night. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made a different version for this change. It seems to be quite fine with FF, Chrome, and IE. BTW the effect shown up here did not appear at the template's sandbox --Vadp (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
On a related issue; can someone point me to any discussion about the "last updated" addition to our listings? JuliasTravels (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Scroll up a little in the pub Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can touts circumvent blocks!?[edit]

Ryan indefblocked a spammer named User:Anujkushawaha14. Yet if you look at that users contributions they've been able to start up the spam page once again despite being blocked! I think this looks pretty alarming. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI Ikan just deleted the spam page. If the user is still able to post spam, somebody has to contact Wikimedia's tech department right away. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No panic :-) The user was spamming on his own talk page. Preventing blocked users to edit their own talk page is an option you have to include specifically. I did that now. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :) *wiping coffee off my desk and laptop*--ϒpsilon (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What JuliasTravels said - the default when applying a block is to still allow a user to edit their talk page so that they can appeal the block. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. It did look quite unbelievable. :D ϒpsilon (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage software[edit]

I wonder if there is here some section for travel or Wikivoyage - related software.

One of candidates for such a listing is Kiwix[6] -- an offline reader for Mediawiki-based wikis. Among the others they regularly make offline archives of Wikivoyage, which can be taken away to a trip instead of a bunch of printed pages. --Vadp (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Offline reader Expedition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff! Is it possible make it easier to find, Perhaps put a link to there from a normal page? BTW are you happy about how listings look now, as I'm actually trying to make them work with Kiwix? -- Vadp (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Great to know that you are working on Kiwix! What we really need in Kiwix is GPS links: Add a small icon that when clicked opens your GPS app showing where the listing is. This feature is not in Kiwix but is in OxygenGuide. Also, dynamic maps in Kiwix would be wonderful. They could be static by default, but use tiles from OsmAnd/equivalent if installed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I 100% support this. How come this campaign does not appear on Wikivoyage? (At least not for me) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It did yesterday. I don't understand why it doesn't today (for me, either). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It only displays on 20% of pages, and only if your language (in Special:Preferences) is set to cs, de, en, es, it, mk and nb. If you've set your language to British English (for example), you won't see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That's weird. There was no such restriction on the announcement for voting for Commons Picture of the year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that one was appearing pretty much every single time :) I hope they could increase this campaign to more than 20% Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the only 20% of pages is to show how little 20% is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If so, that wouldn't be an effective way to spread the message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there's no secret message in the number choice. They try not to flood sites with banners, and there are always multiple campaigns running at the same time (see the list at m:Special:CentralNotice; most of that, especially if it has an incomprehensible name, is testing for fundraising). They set priority (some fundraising tests run at "emergency", probably so that their statistical analysis works out), time, language, location, and probability. If you set a language, then it only appears on those pages. (Picture of the Year did all languages except Uzbek.) If you set a less-than-100% probability, then you have a higher likelihood of core community members seeing it (vs people who rarely visit the site), a lower likelihood that people like me will have to click the banner off a dozen or more times (almost every time they run a banner for logged-in users, I see it at five projects times two accounts), and a lower probability that when you click off banner X that it will immediately be replaced by banner Y, and then banner Z. I suppose that I ought to remind them that a lot of people pick en-gb instead of en... but I think that some people have picked en-gb specifically to avoid some notices, so maybe I shouldn't.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems odd that we have more material at LGBT travel than Tips for women travellers, given that women are a much larger group. Probably more material for both groups would be a good idea.
Also interesting that we have nothing specifically for straight men, another large group with their own travel concerns. Pashley (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What issues do straight men traveling exactly have? This one actually puzzles me... I can't think of one issue at all Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of any, either, but I can think of types of establishments that are particularly interesting to and directed at heterosexual men. Of course, many of us don't have the slightest interest in them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I can think of a bunch. For one thing, there are a whole range of scams that mainly target travelling men.
I know quite a few couples composed of Western guy + Asian girl, mostly apparently quite happy. Two, though, where her line was "I'll love you forever" until she got a visa, then she filed for divorce a few months after reaching the US or Australia. How can a man avoid that?
More generally, how do you relate to a woman from a low-income country? I'm old enough to have lived through the 60s era of "free love", but on a recent trip to the Philippines I was getting more feminine attention than I ever did then. Of course nearly all these women have an agenda, looking for a rich husband or a sugar daddy. Is that a problem? How should it be handled? Pashley (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that (at least in part) dealt with in "common scams"? Also: I think the article for woman travellers (the way it is written now) is a wee bit condescending. The thing with the spiked drink, that is so prominently mentioned for example a) happens to males as well b) happens all over the world not only while travelling c) is common knowledge and falls in the captain obvious department. And for the sugar daddy thing: I do think a good number of men in this kind of relationship know or don't want to know what is going on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure about addressing the "passport girl" or "mail-order bride" as that's veering into permanent immigration, which is questionable in terms of project scope. K7L (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think getting married to a female from a low income country is a 'travel issue' so much as a 'making good life decisions' issue. It should perhaps merit some text in "common scams" as Hobbitschuster suggests.
The article for women travellers should really be written by women. I don't know if the condescending bit are written by men or not, but It is obviously hard for men to contribute in a meaningful way to that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion too, common scams would be the right article for said issue, as far as we need to cover it here. Remember, the article "Marriage in China" was deleted a year ago or so for being out of WV's scope.
Concerning the original post in this thread, each of us could start spreading the word among female friends and relatives (especially to persons who like writing!) — how easy it is to contribute to WV, WP and other projects and how useful and helpful even small contributions are. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
(fixed indents that I broke) Technically it is easy to contribute, but WP has earned (a deserved) reputation for being dominated by males who are not pre-disposed to females contributing and I think many of these potential women contributors are aware of that. Since joining Wikimedia we also have to deal with this association. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


OMG that tips for women travelers article is... really bad. And misleading. And patronizing. I just deleted the complete stay safe section. I will write a new proposal in the next week, but I much prefer having nothing over advise that I imagine American grandparents give their granddaughters when they go to Aruba for Spring break or something. As for the female contributors, I really doubt reputation is what keeps women from participating as much as men :-) There's a lot of research into this issue (it's not a Wikimedia issue specifically), and there are plenty of other reasons. Either way, we probably shouldn't make assumptions like that :-) By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the male-female division on WV would be better than it is over at WP. Not sure though. In any case, all extra attention for the issue is great. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it is that (due to whatever reasons) some males seem to positively define themselves by the attention they get and their public persona whereas this isn't as common in females. I may be mistaken of course, but there seems to be - through the ages - a higher number of probably insane celebrities in the veins of Kurt Cobain than there were people like Amy Winehouse. Of course there are female celebrities and female people that define themselves by the attention they get, but there seems to be some kind of " I have to create something for posterity" that has at least historically been more common in males. Anyway I am probably not making much sense. And I don't say writing on WP or WV is in any way similar to being a rockstar or wanting to be one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Males of various species are prone to mark territory... are Wikipedians attempting to fend off the edit warriors and the POV pushers from their WP:OWN creations any different from a four-footer instinctively defending its turf? :_) K7L (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should strive to establish a better balance. Like probably many people here, I am ready to work on this task, but not sure how to proceed/what to do. So all ideas are welcome, especially from women or gender diversity specialists. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Time travel[edit]

So, this is developing, It still has coverage gaps :(

Also it would be nice if someone was tracking if there's stuff in it that could be the basis of adding travel content relevant to the current era elsewhere. (Like a mention of a specific event in history, which might now have a museum and so on.)

There's a concern that the article is also anglo-centric, which needs to be countered given that the rest of Wikivoyage has articles covering the whole globe. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

All good stuff (I even helped out with the banner) but why take it too seriously? :) Pretty much I thought the idea was to throw out the guidelines.. if 'being too anglo-centric' is an issue (and I'm not sure it really is) then just contribute some other material to compensate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason I was being a little more serious, was because,
  1. It may get media attention, (I've added a customised joke header to the article for that reason).
  2. The more accurate a time travel guide is (tropey stuff aside), the greater potential it has as an educational resource. This is partly why myself (and others) in places tried to add genuine historical detail, or "period appropriate" comments.
  3. There is a unwritten Wikimedia "directive" about trying to avoid unintentional bias in coverage.
  4. There are things I've not added to the article because of policy concerns.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A travel guide being used as an educational resource for theoretical concepts in astrophysics? Concern about cultural or geographical bias in a joke article? It's almost as if this comment itself were an early April Fools' joke. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well there was a point in (the article's) history, when half of its content was about buying groceries in London. So I do understand where this concern comes from. Still it'd be nice to have something about Africa south of the Sahara pre 19th century or the Americas pre 1492 outside of the typical MayaIncAztec human sacrifice stories... And yes I do understand, why you are a little baffled by people taking this joke so seriously ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer to lose the box currently at the top of the article claiming to be an "educational resource". That's a ridiculously tall demand to place on something which was intended to be an amusement, especially since the hugely-broad scope (every place in the universe in every historic time period, including the future) is the biggest joke of all. If some real history slips in, so be it, but we could end up with many unfunny additions if we lose sight of the primary April 1 objective of the piece. K7L (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to see the box at the top removed - the whole point of the April Fool's article is to create something silly that everyone can have fun with, and then post April 1 to tag it as a joke and return to writing real articles. While it's great if there are actual historic details in the article that might inspire someone to do further research about a time period, that should be a secondary concern to the primary goal of writing an article that makes people laugh and is fun for editors to write. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning boxes[edit]

I suppose we aimed to provide practical travel advisory to travellers rather than offering same tradional common travel advisories issues by governments which I always found very negative. I was going through Middle Eastern country guides and I found a big warning box on Egypt guide. While certainly Egypt is currently going through some difficult time but I think the affected areas is not whole country but few regions. In this manner, we should had placed warning box in those affected region articles rather than in the country article itself and perhaps a CAUTION box could had been inserted instead of that warning box in the country guide. Now, I'm seeing government travel advisories less negative for Egypt because Canada travel advisory says for Egypt that "Avoid non-essential travel (with regional advisories)". But yes for some countries , they issue severe statemens like "Avoid non-essential travel", more severe like "Avoid all travel (with regional advisories)" for some countries including Iraq, and very severe "Avoid all travel" for some countries including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia. While Australia travel advisory says for Egypt that "Reconsider your need to travel". I assume our warning box is giving the impression "Avoid all travel" to Egypt. Same is the case with Pakistan for which both of the states (Canada and Australia) says "Reconsider your need to travel" and "Avoid non-essential travel (with regional advisories)", respectively. Australia government says same "Reconsider your need to travel" for some countries like Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, but I fail to see warning box in their country guides. For Pakistan, most of the advistory says avoid travelling to some particular areas bordering Afghanistan and Iran so I think warning box should be placed in those regional articles and the warning box in Pakistan article can be instead replaced by a caution box. Others opinion please. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One of my country's citizens is languishing in an Egyptian jail because he is an agent of dreaded terrorist organisation Al-Jazeera. The situation on the ground is martial law, even though the US diplomats are carefully not uttering the word "coup" to describe what has happened as that would require they act to impose sanctions. A warning box on Egypt is justified under the circumstances.
Certainly, we do need to improve our handling of warning boxes. Often, they're placed on articles with no date stamp (I had to do a bit of digging to find from other on-line sources that the volcanic activity behind a big red Iceland warning box was August 2014, and that the exclusion zone had since been cut back to the immediate area around the mountain) and are left here long after they are outdated (Odessa is out of the news now, there are still valid warnings for Ukraine but for the Russian-backed war on Donetsk and Luhansk). These big red boxes need to be specific - what happened and when - so that they may be removed in a timely manner once they've served their purpose. There is a maintenance category Category:Has warning box where one can check, "Walt Disney World, oh yes, a deadly place listed right before War zone safety." For Pakistan, yes, Waziristan is out of control. A warning box is in order. K7L (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, situation in many places around the world is not friendly for journalists. This does not necessarily mean these countries are dangerous for travel though. Many (most) regions in Egypt are as safe/dangerous as they've always been. Magedq (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be a bit drastic to delete all warning boxes without a date in them, but they seem to be next to worthless. What if years from now Iraq becomes a living democracy with a safety situation better than that of Chicago and we still have an undated warning box? I mean yeah caution is better than lack of caution but if there are too many warnings, placed in too many places, we run the risk of over-satiation. Bottom line: put a date on them where ever and when ever possible and avoid stock texts copied from Waziristan to Somaliland to volcanic activity in Iceland Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Odd that you should mention Chicago. One of its less desirable suburbs does indeed have the big red box as a crime-ridden hellhole. K7L (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I think out-of-date warning boxes are a repeating problem. An example at Talk:Karakoram_Highway#Warning_box has one that may have been around ayear or two too long. Pashley (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Worth noting here that there are two different uses for warning box being used. One is of the travel advisory/war zone type, which should typically be dated. The other is of for natural hazards or other hazards that can be deadly (dangerous undertow at beach, flash flood warning, poisonous snakes along trail), for which attaching a date doesn't really make as much sense. Texugo (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That depends on the natural hazard. A natural disaster (such as an earthquake, tsunami, cyclone/hurricane/typhoon or a volcanic eruption) often is tied to a specific date. K7L (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, good point. Just wanted to point out that there are some deadly dangers that are everpresent and not necessarily date-related. The one in the Disney World article mentioned above is another of this type. Texugo (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The documentation at Template:Warningbox has pretty specific guidance about when a warning box should be used, and what additional details should be provided (specifically, links to government travel advisories when relevant), but that guidance tends to be overlooked. Perhaps we could add two new required fields - "date added" and a warningbox "type" field that would flag warnings that were missing required data, with failure to add either of these fields resulting in a warning box that won't display properly. "Date added" could be displayed to end users and would be useful in cases where the warning is similar to the advisory/war zone warnings Texugo cited. The "type" field would allow us to require additional info in some cases - for example, if we created a "travel advisory" type, any warningbox of that type that was missing a link to an official government travel warning would be placed in a maintenance category. I'm not sure what other types would be needed - perhaps "local danger" for Texugo's deadly snake example, but this would at least give us some way to better control and maintain these boxes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
+1. A 'date added/updated' parameter in the same way as the recent Listings modification would be great. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In an ideal situation, we would also be able to set a relevant time for review when adding a warning box, and the maintenance panel would show a list of warnings that are due for review... But well, requiring a date to be added is an improvement on the status quo already :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
We could have a category page that lists all instances of warning templates, and review periodically the ones with old or no update dates. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Making newbies aware of our standard templates[edit]

Lately I've all too often noticed (or is it just me?) that anonymous or new users have created articles like this one. That is, articles without our standard headings (and of course also without ispartof, banner template and coordinates but that's a lesser problem). While it's fairly easy to add the headings afterwards I do find it a bit annoying. If the user comes from Wikipedia where article headings and structure are much more flexible, they might not understand what the problem is.

At Wikivoyage:Upload file users are reminded that files should by default be uploaded at Commons unless there's a good reason to upload them locally. Would it be a good idea to implement a similar warning above the editing window for when you create a new article? Or to put the "click here to add the standard template for a city, city district, national park etc." in a red box? Other suggestions? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Perhaps we should use input boxes. --Saqib (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the current method is not intuitive to the completely new user. Such buttons would be good to have instead of the little hyperlinks currently presented. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at our recently created new articles, I'm not sure there really is a problem to solve here.. The button looks nice, although I'm not sure how good it would look if we had a button for every standard template. Alternatively, as ϒpsilon suggested, we could start by just emphasizing the clickable templates part of the text that appears when creating a new article. It might indeed help to simply enlarge it, or colour it or something. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with JuliasTravels above and maybe add/update Guidelines and How to start a new page as well. - Matroc (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Such input boxes, while probably handy to use, have a drawback; they likely would take up quite a lot of space somewhere — right now I think there are 7-8 article types that you can create by one click. I don't know how hard they would be to implement either. The problem with the current system (which otherwise works well) is that new users often are unaware of the very useful clickable links and that they might not know anything about how wikicode works in the first place. For this, I think a red "warning box" with something like "On WV, headings and article structure is standardized. Please click below to create an article skeleton." and the links below it are enough. The thing would need to be half as tall as the one here.
Updating policy pages might be a good idea, but for people who want to start editing right away that wouldn't matter very much. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If we could get a pop-up menu in the blue box (I'm not sure that's possible), then we could have one button that includes them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Just throwing ideas out there, but we could look at making a page creation wizard with a dropdown selector for the page type, and fields which would automatically feed into in the geo, IsPartOf, and pagebanner templates and the wikipedia link. Texugo (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The ideas above + insert a default dynamic map that uses the Geo Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I Wizard could be OK, but I often prefer plain links: you have no control about what happens when you post a form, while a link leads to a web page you can just close if you get confused (HTTP POST vs GET). There are good links above the edit window, but the interface should be clearer: the article types are mentioned two times, with the first set leading just to Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy, while the second set, which fills in the template, have their link status hidden (they look just as text in boldface). Apart from the colour, I think the text should be rethought to lessen the risk for confusion (probably much shorter). --LPfi (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As a test I just tried entering "abcdef" into the search box on the main page when I wasn't logged in. The result was "Create the page "Abcdef" on this wiki!". A reader is being invited to create a page before reading any articles or policies. I think that we should consider removing the ability to create pages from search results (at least for those not logged in). We should keep the ability to create pages from red links. If an editor can only create a page from a red link then either somebody else added the link (in which case it is likely to pass the What is an article? test), or the editor has to make an edit to an existing page first. AlasdairW (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to get dev support, and based upon their response to a similar (but more sweeping) request at en.wp a few years ago, I don't think you'll get it, especially without proof that logged-out editors were very frequently creating pages that oughtn't exist at all. Given that they are creating (recent average) less than one page per day, you won't meet that standard.
However, I think that you (well, any admin here) could change MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new to provide relevant advice to everyone, by adding something like "Please check to make sure that it meets our guidelines first" or "We have advice on how to start a new article" or whatever seemed likely to be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think User:AlasdairW's suggestion is fine for people who aren't logged in, but I would strongly oppose making it harder for people who are logged in to start articles. I found using the search tool very useful in creating sub-articles for Wikivoyage:India Expedition, such as Wikivoyage:India Expedition/Maharashtra, which do not use standard templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid token[edit]

I get this error several times per week, and each time it means I loose 1 to 10 minutes of work. It happens when working on an article whose page was already open in the browser. I try to think to refresh the browser before doing any edition, but despite this I sometimes forget. I imagine many new users get frustrated about this too, especially if they don't understand the HTTP technicalities.

We need to fix this. If the request fails, we should acquire a new token and try again. At all we should not make the editor's precious content disappear. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if it will fix the problem, but it shouldn't make it worse - this change is completely untested but should hopefully at least give you the option to get your changes back in the case of a failure. If you encounter the problem again please provide any feedback as to whether this change actually restores the listing editor (with your changes in it), whether resubmitting works, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone else been having this kind of problem? Nicolas1981, is there anything unusual about your computer/browser/account/preferences/internet connection that you think might cause this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing unusual. I sometimes change from a WiFi to another, but I wouldn't consider this unusual. It happens very often: just let an article open for a day or two, go back to it, click "edit" to get the listing editor, and it will happen. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That is completely expected behavior given that tokens should expire in about an hour. Legoktm (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you should use mw.Api#postWithToken which automatically handles these kinds of issues. Legoktm (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
By "you", I'm pretty sure the Lego means "whatever gadgets you're using". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Undo" versus "Edit"[edit]

With the great hope this topic hasn't already been beaten to death...

Has anyone noticed that our edits...however modest...are flagged as "undo" in the "History". Would hope that very few edits truly undo an existing (sub)section with a few refinements/additions. Heaven forbid that we need a rule of thumb or automated routine that "judges" whether we've truly "undone" earlier work. Regards, and many respects for the wonderful content already developed. Hennejohn (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "Undo" link in "(+242)‎ . . (→‎Readership at two years: ok) (undo | thank)" for instance? It does not mean that this edit is an undo. If you click on "undo", then it will undo this particular edit :-) Or did I misunderstand your question? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicolas: Many thanks...yes, that's what I was looking at. Seems I've totally misunderstood what "undo" means/does. Never occurred to me that with one click I could "revert" (delete?) edits or additions of content reflecting perhaps considerable work. Would think new, "poor" content should be re-edited if untrue, objectionable or needing to be more readable. Guess I'll stick with adding best possible content I can. Best regards, Hennejohn (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It takes two clicks, but I understand what you mean. If you have NAVPOPS enabled in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, then you can 'read' the changes right from the watchlist and history pages. Some edits can't be salvaged. When they can be, it's worth doing it. People check back to see whether their contributions stayed in the article, and they get discouraged and quit if everything gets removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Map of all POIs[edit]

Hi all,

I created a world map showing all of our listings (that have a latitude/longitude):

It can help when you want to:

  • Spot erroneous latitudes/longitudes (for instance, a lot lack the minus sign, so they can be found in the middle of the sea)
  • Find what article covers a particular place
  • Quickly check whether the places you know is already in Wikivoyage or not
  • See if there are any listings around when you are in an area between articles
  • Find listings that are in the wrong article (there are a lot)
  • Decide how to split/merge/rezone articles
  • Many other uses I guess, let me know :-)

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to have to visit one of those hotel in the middle of the pacific ocean :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That big empty chunk missing from Buffalo is just the kick in the pants I needed to get back to work on Buffalo/East Side. Thanks! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice tool. Can you restrict it to just the main namespace? The example on Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps is covering up one of my areas of interest. =) Powers (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Great tip, thanks! I will be sure to filter them out for the new version. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick! Would it be possible to create such maps for other language versions? --Alexander (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This time I did it manually, but if the tool is popular I will write a script and try to make it compatible with your Russian data. :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice mashup! Is this using a snapshot of listing data, and if so how often would it be updated? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I used the CSV file available at that I sorted in LibreOffice (to remove POIs with no lat/long) then uploaded to a map generation website, very easy really, not a single line of code, anybody can do it. It is a manual procedure though, so if it gets popular I will write a script to remove time-wasting manual work every time there is a new data dump. Unfortunately we can't do real-time until we put POIs into WikiData (which I expect to happen in at least 3 years). Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed some erroneous latitudes/longitudes, but there are lots more. As well as errors with minus signs, a number have lat and long transposed. Nurg (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! I fixed a lot as well, in the areas I know. I suggest everyone help check the areas they know: we have more than 50,000 listings with coordinates, so there are probably mistakes a bit everywhere. Also check in the sea, in deserts, and lone points with nothing else nearby. When you don't know the real coordinates but are sure that the current are wrong, just remove them: no coordinates is better than wrong coordinates. Thanks everyone! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Map of all destinations[edit]

I've created a subsection so as not to hijack the discussion about Nick's great work above, but we have a similar clickable map of all destination articles available via I've found this to be a useful tool when trying to see what destinations are available in an area that I'm unfamiliar with, and would love to make this map more prominent on the site if others were interested, possibly on the home page or in the left nav, or at least in the Destinations article. Unfortunately I can't figure out how to load it in an iframe, so the only option appears to be to include it as an external link as the Germans have done under the "Übersichtskarte" heading on their home page. Would others find this to be a useful addition on our site? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Having it more accessible from the top page would be nice indeed. How about also showing POIs when there are less than 3 destinations on the page, or with a disabled-by-default checkbox? Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The map of all destination articles was revised slightly. The clustering is now accelerated ≈ 100 times. This becomes quite noticeable on slower PCs and mobiles. - This application is written in Javascript. All data must be downloaded to the local computer. Therefore, I would not enlarge the scope of data (eg POI's). Some mobile devices do not have enough memory for it. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'f I'm understanding Mey2008's concerns, it sounds like it would be best not to promote the map too widely at this time due to performance concerns, so consider my original suggestion withdrawn. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Do not withdraw your proposition: if tests show that it makes Wikivoyage better, more easily navigable, or more attractive, then we should create a good Labs instance and run Joachim's code on it :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If I'm understanding correctly, I think the problem is that the Javascript runs slowly on some clients ("This becomes quite noticeable on slower PCs and mobiles"). Since it's not a server issue the code would need to be refactored before it could be widely used. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A great solution would be to send only the data that is useful to the current view, if the user zooms on Italy then send more data about the Italy area, if the user zooms further on Policoro then send the data for Policoro. That's how scalable dynamic maps usually work. As you said, it requires some refactoring. But let's not drop the idea just because development is needed :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
How would duplicates be handled (ie. a city or location that appears more than once in wikivoyage articles) in this proposed world map? - Matroc (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete links[edit]

Near the top of Special:WantedPages, with 12 to 21 links each, are a dozen or so files whose names start with "Shared:" or "wts:", links to WT's shared space which of course does not exist here. I am inclined to create most of them as redirects to the corresponding pages in Wikivoyage: space or on Commons, mainly to make the Wanted pages list more usable.

Is this even possible, or will the mediawiki parser see the colon and refuse to treat a page as a normal redirect? Is it a good idea? Are there alternatives such as redirecting them all to a single page "You have followed an obsolete link ..." Pashley (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it would be easier to just go through and either change the link to the updated location (Wts:Votes for deletion >> WV:Votes for deletion), or delink them if no current analog exists. This could be done pretty quickly with AWB. Texugo (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, but I'm not an AWB user. Would anyone care to volunteer? Pashley (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pashley: I could help but I'm not always sure where they should point. E.g. the policy on language expeditions: should it go here or somewhere on Meta or possibly to Incubator? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:UsersWhoWillBeRenamed is interesting. There are hundreds, easily, most of them with 0 edits. But some users with a lot of edits are included, including long-time editor User:Cjensen (I stopped browsing in the 'c's). Note that the number of edits listed on that page excludes edits imported from WT; Cjensen's number is 126, which obviously doesn't include the prolific edits he made while we were at WT. Powers (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer travel article needs halp[edit]

I think this has the potential to be quite a valuable article, but it is some distance from reaching there. Does anyone know the topic?

See the article's talk page, perhaps especially Talk:Volunteer_travel#Problems_with_the_article.3F and the following section, for more detail. Pashley (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Pagebanner extension for wikivoyage[edit]

Hi all, I'm a mediawiki contriutor and there's a discussion on a project for developing the functionality provided by the pagebanner template into an extension here, with a purpose to make the banners render well on mobile in addition to desktop, as well as solve any size issues arising in any browser. It would be great to get feedback as well as if someone could help along, in providing valuable suggestions as to the look and feel of the banners in the new extension as the project progresses. Comments on the phabricator task are welcome. Looking forward to your help and support. Thank you! --Sumit.iitp (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggested this in the phabricator ticket already, but I think the place to start on this task is creating a set of requirements - I'm in favor of cleaning up the banner code, but it's still not clear to me what advantages the extension is going to offer, what the trade-offs might be, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The banners have been a huge improvement, but the change also caused some problems; we did not reach consensus on a solution. My preferred fix might only be possible with help from Mediawiki developers. Please have a look at these issues while planning any extension. Pashley (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Creation of many more itinerary guides that are about the filming locations of specific prominent popular TV series / films[edit]

In my opinion, creating many of these type of guides and linking to them from the TV shows + film articles in the English Wikipedia might help us significantly increase the number of people getting here from Wikipedia. What do you think?

P.S - how many such guides do we currently have? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! Note: I believe that a guide about drama XYZ should be written by fans of the dram XYZ, otherwise the spirit might be lost. So I would suggest only writing about dramas you watch. In addition, a collaboration with Wikia might make sense? They have a lot of passionate editors: (wikis activity ranking) Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer to stay away from Wikia as that site has a pattern, when a community leaves and takes its content elsewhere, of leaving the old project open in direct competition with the new wiki - much like IB did to us. That hurts communities because of the duplicate content penalty on search engines.
That said, a look at our list of itineraries should give an idea of how many reference film and video in some manner. I'd think very few have their own itinerary, Radiator Springs being an exceptional case. More often, we mention films "set in" an individual city or "filmed in" an individual city in passing in the city-level article (so Buffalo will mention "Bruce Almighty" just in case anyone wants to ring God on +1-716-776-2323 and maybe Delta City would mention "Robocop" as the only means to Stay safe, as films were set there, but Tulsa might not even mention Weird Al's "UHF" or "The Incredibles" as shot there). Certainly Bedford Falls would mention "Its a Wonderful Life" as the Bailey Building and Loan is the only sound US financial institution, inspiring a museum and a seasonal event which are listed locally (under the towns' real names if the films rename them). It would seem that we create single-city itinerary rarely (Literary London, perchance?) and the "Cars" film only got its own novelty itinerary article as the village depicted is a composite of five states worth of Route 66, so doesn't fit into an individual, real Wikivoyage city. K7L (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I noted a few months ago that WT had one for 'Breaking Bad'. That is actually something that would mostly fit on a map and I'd be interested to visit, and Albuquerque does have a small tourist industry around it.
As with all articles, what is legitimately interesting varies a lot. I loved 'Battlestar Galactica' as a series, but wouldn't want to check out the endless scenes of forests shot around Vancouver. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The inspiration for this idea came to me from this website and just from knowing that a big portion of the web traffic Wikipedia gets on a regular basis comes from people whom want to read about pop culture articles, so for example, I am sure that the millions of fans world wide of "The Walking Dead" or "The Twilight Saga film series" or "Harry Potter film series", "The Hangover film series", or the "The Hunger Games film series", or the "The Lord of the Rings+Hobbit film series", or of "Sex and the City", or of "Seinfeld", or of "Friends", or of "Lost", or of "30 Rock", or of "Star Wars film series" will be very very happy to find such detailed open source guides here at Wikivoyage about the locations they would really really want to go and see sometime sooner or later (even though I am sure such free guides exist already in many other websites, nevertheless, such links directed to Wikivoyage from such prominent articles in Wikipedia might get many people over here). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Radiator Springs, there's one more: The Wire Tour. Such articles could be very interesting, and I'd welcome more of them. Though it'd be very unfortunate if people would start making articles but leaving them at a few paragraphs (like is the case with all too many travel topics!). In the worst case there might not be anyone here knowledgeable to continue building on an article of this type. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Some shows have their own wikis already. My favorite has A Wiki of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones Wiki, both with a CC-by-SA license. We should not duplicate these but might link to them & consider whether we could do something specifically travel-oriented & get them linking to us. Pashley (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd expect any links would get the infamous rel="nofollow", unlike our Wikipedia interwiki links, so don't expect SEO gains. We also need to be careful about copyright; while there is a "fair use" exemption to allow quoting from copyrighted works to comment on those works, an entire wiki on some proprietary franchise is taking this a bit far. Most of the wiki farms allow fair use to be taken pretty much to the point of abuse, while Wikimedia is inflexibly strict on this point. There, one might get away with "this real thing (image:real photo) inspired this fictional place (image:fictional place in cinema promo poster)" but here we'd have to back off to "this real thing (image:real photo) inspired this fictional place (no photo, but a textual description in our own words)". Certainly, it is common for a fictional item to get several times more Wikipedia page hits than the original, real McCoy (10 views/day for Dawn Welch of the w:Rock Café on Route 66 in Stroud (Oklahoma) vs. 80 views/day for her Pixar cartoon car, w:Sally Carrera, for instance). Ultimately, though, we are constrained by whether there are real places and things to see. Something like "the Grapes of Wrath" goes through plenty of real places, while Darth Vader's Death Star does not. K7L (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
For a Star Wars article, places like Plaza de España in Seville and in Tunisia where the movies were shot would be included. Again, that'd be up to the authors of the article. Also, why would we need to duplicate anything from other sources? Wikivoyage articles are written from a traveler's (traveling fan's?) point of view while a fanwiki is not. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes, the shooting location is far from where the movie purports to be set (so Bruce Almighty and Robocop, while they wrap themselves respectively in the identities of US-Canadian border villages Buffalo and Detroit, were shot nowhere near Lake Erie). Sometimes, a location will be tied in solely as a studio's publicity stunt (Smurfs are Belgian, yet an easy target for a "Smurf village" piece is Júzcar in Andalusia, Spain as the studio literally painted the town Smurf blue). A cartoon may not literally have been "shot" anywhere photographically, yet may slip in obvious parodies of real place names (for instance, by enrolling Fred Flintstone briefly in "Princestone University," aka "P.U.", for one class). K7L (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, obviously it depends on the movie/tv series/game and how it was produced. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've actually been to one of the real-world locations where they shot Star Wars. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Elaborating on this discussion from another perspective, I can already see a *very* long list of what/when/where was filmed at Griffith Park in Los Angeles, from the Batcave entrance to the chase sequences in Rocketeer and Terminator:Salvation. It would blow the scope, wouldn't it. Ibaman (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In order for such guides to help produce high web traffic to Wikivoyage we should probably not just mentioned the filming locations in our real-world articles about places where filmes were shot. In my opinion, such articles would have to be itinerary articles, probably with names such as "Itinerary for a trip to the filming locations of Game of Thrones", so that we'll be able/allowed to add the links to such articles at the bottom of these prominent Wikipedia articles using the Template:Sister project links template. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a preposterously long title. I'm in favor of this idea in general, but very much opposed to burdening our articles with stilted prose just for the sake of SEO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How would you rephrase that title? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably Game of Thrones Tour (cf. The Wire Tour). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If the community would decide to go ahead and collaboratively produce such comprehensive guides (containing more than just addresses and pictures), a good place to start would be by using some of the filming locations information mentioned at IMDB (Example #1, Example #2, and Example #3). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So how would our article on Bedford Falls (It's a Wonderful Life) differ from what's already at Seneca Falls? Would we only create these itineraries when they span more than one village? K7L (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Had to smile when I read this and thought about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves film were Kevin Costner goes from France to Sherwood Forest via Dover, Stonehenge and Hadrian's Wall, and no one remarks on him not having a sense of direction :-) .--Traveler100 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


In my opinion, this is a classic case of "if you build it they will come". That is, although alone most of us would probably not be able to create really good comprehensive itinerary guides for real-world filming locations of prominent films or TV shows such as Hunger Games or Seinfeld for example, nevertheless, I think that in theory, if we create such guides together, and make sure that at the very least they would be good enough at the very beginning, and afterwards link to them from Wikipedia, I think that most likely sooner or later some of the biggest fans of those films / TV shows, whom have gathered a lot of knowledge about their filming locations, would most likely notice these guides and choose to help us improve them tremendously over time.

I suggest therefore that, as an experiment, we'll chose one of the current most popular films or TV shows from this list, and begin developing this itinerary guide in a sandbox. Once we'll manage to create something decent enough for the main space, we'll move it to main space, link to it from the TV show or Film's Wikipedia article, and see over time if the article gets a lot of page views + If a large fan base would help significantly improve and expand that article.

What do you think? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this has to be an experiment. We already have a handful of corresponding and valid articles for literature. For example On the trail of Kipling's Kim, Travels of Hans Christian Andersen and Literary London. I'd suggest you choose a subject and plunge forward --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just start it, even skip the sandbox phase if you want and go directly live :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would still consider it to be an experiment because it would be the first article of it's kind that would prove once and for all if an itinerary type article about filming locations of a trending film / TV show, with A LOT of fans world wide, linked back to Wikivoyage from the film or TV show's article on Wikipedia would actually end up producing A LOT of web traffic to Engvoy as a result. In my opinion it should also be considered an experiment because as of yet I am not sure if the quality of the end result (the actual article), which would be produced collaboratively over time, would actually be good enough and be something we all would want to see more of in Wikivoyage. Most importantly, I would also consider this an experiment mainly because I would need the assistance of other Wikivoyagers to produce this article.
Either way, I just went over this list, which contains the 5000 most accessed articles on the English Wikipedia (as of 15 March 2015‎), and I have listed the 19 current most popular long standing TV shows and film franchises that in my opinion would be the best candidates for our first article of this type:
10 current most popular long standing TV shows that I think are good candidates
  1. "The Walking Dead" - during the week of March 8 - 15 the The Walking Dead season 5 article had 476,572 page views! (only 4,172 page views less than the Facebook article).
  2. "House of Cards" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 458,640 page views.
  3. "Game of Thrones" - during the week of March 8 - 15 the The Game of Thrones season 5 article had 252,720 page views.
  4. "Downton Abbey" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 128,850 page views.
  5. "Friends" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 116,975 page views. the only real-world site is the Friends apartment building exterior in Grenwich Village.
  6. "Parks and Recreation" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 96,210 page views.
  7. "Modern Family" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 92,493 page views.
  8. "Mad Men" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 76,804 page views.
  9. "Lost" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 60,366 page views.
  10. "The Office" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 53,365 page views.
  11. "Sex and the City" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 39,960 page views.
9 current most popular long standing Film franchises that I think are good candidates
  1. "The Hunger Games" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 178,357 page views.
  2. "Divergent" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 130,962 page views.
  3. "Star Wars" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 104,910 page views.
  4. "The Hobbit film series" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 92,913 page views.
  5. "Harry Potter film series" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 85,204 page views.
  6. "The Twilight Saga film series" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 74,866 page views.
  7. "The Lord of the Rings film series" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 55,996 page views.
  8. "The Matrix" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 43,846 page views.
  9. "Indiana Jones film series" - during the week of March 8 - 15 this article had 28,222 page views.
Is anyone interested in helping me create such an article? if so, which of the choices above would you prefer we'll create our first filming locations itinerary article for? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think all of those necessarily make good candidates. In particular, some of them are almost entirely in-studio work and don't have enough recognizable real-world settings to fill an article (e.g. Friends, The Office, The Matrix, etc. etc.). Do House of Cards or Modern Family really have iconic filming locations to make an interesting article? Meanwhile, I'll second whoever mentioned Breaking Bad above, and it definitely does have enough visitable filming locations to make it worth it. Texugo (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, given the existence of The Wire Tour etc., I also do not consider this idea to be experimental, at least not in the sense of needing to have support for it first or marking it as experimental. I'd also point out that the itinerary model is not a very good fit for many of these. It worked great for The Wire Tour, but even when the majority of a show's locations happen to be in the same city, there is not necessarily any single, logical order for narrating them in such a strong way as Peter did in The Wire article. Moreover, very few travelers are going to go country-hopping on a sequentially laid out tour of Star Wars or Game of Thrones locations, nor should we attempt to make a huge US-wide circuit of Criminal Minds or X-Files filming spots. I think a travel topic would be much more suitable for the majority of shows. Texugo (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know about the existence of The Wire Tour article. In my opinion, the real-world filming locations shouldn't necessarily be amazing/iconic for the thousands/millions of fans to go out of their way just for the chance of being able to stand at the same spots their favorite show/films were filmed before (see example), and therefore I wouldn't rule out such guides just because of that.
Regarding the shows Texugo mentioned above - I removed Friends (because the only real-world site is the Friends apartment building exterior in Grenwich Village.). Regarding "The Office" see Link 1 + Link 2. Regarding "The Matrix" see Link 1 + Link 2. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(indent) I think some of the thinking above is too haphazard. It's okay if the filming was all done in a single city, but there have to be enough locations to build an article around. Also the comment about a "long list of films" filmed at Griffith Park seems irrelevant, because "Griffith Park" would not be the film article, the article would be about a single movie filmed there. The other movies would not be given any mention, as each movie article should describe what scenes from that movie alone were filmed there. If the concern was that Griffith Park would appear in multiple articles, I don't see why that is a problem if they are all reasonable articles and about different films. Articles written around movies, books, folktales, etc. are all great for fans, but based on the above discussion, people are really going to need to either do some research or stick to what they know before creating articles. Popular movies/citcoms alone are not good candidates. They need to have enough real locations to make them worthy of articles. In addition, museums centered around the film are also worth putting in, or even just if they contain a particularly iconic outfit, prop, etc. A coffee shop that the cast visited often or gave publicity while filming would also be worth inserting in the article. The articles should be guides for the fans, so any place of relevant interest is worth putting in the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically the above. A list of popular TV series or films does not equate to quality Wikivoyage articles. 'House of Cards' is a popular series, but the itinerary wouldn't frankly be much different from a standard Washington DC tour. 'Sex in the city' ended in 2004 .. so how many featured New York establishments are still open?
There really needs to be some criteria, such as A) Existence of real world locations and B) Locations that are not mainly already existing tourist sites --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My vast experience with creating articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia has thought me over the years that really good articles/content could be created collaboratively over time (which would eventually be superior to the initial vision the first editors of these articles had) if only a small group of editors is willing to take a risk and try to put together an initial decent article (which in this case, I am betting would eventually be vastly improved over time by the true fans whom find those articles). At this point, based on the feedback given so far, it seems to me that there is a lack of interest among the majority of Engvoy core community members to create of such articles, although many agree the general idea is good. I will go on to the next couple of wiki projects I am working on. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you believe in your idea then really go ahead and do it! My reading of the comments above is indeed supportive, but only by actually creating an article in question can you gauge how many people would want to be involved. If you need to know that other people will be involved before you even start... well I guess you could form an Expedition ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point I can not promote that aspect of WV completely by myself. there is too much to do on Hebvoy for me to be fully devoted just to this or one project. I need help. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unfortunately, due to the small size of our community, for two or more authors to collaborate simultaneously in writing an individual article or launching an initiative such as yours is very much the exception rather than the rule. Even Expeditions, which are launched for the explicit courage of fomenting such collaboration, have a low rate of being followed through on to the end. This is one of the reasons why attracting more editors needs to be a high priority for us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping I would find a prolific writer/s passionate about this idea as well, whom would be willing to help me develop these initial articles. Oh well... at least I am happy I got to share this idea with you, and maybe by bringing it up here, I have just inspired someone here to create such articles sooner or later. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's always better to start an article than to try to inspire someone else to start it, so I'd really urge you to plunge forward. I'll say for my part that I haven't had a television in years and wouldn't start any article about a television show I didn't watch, but I'm usually happy to copy edit articles others start. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually minded to plunge forward with a 'Breaking Bad' article. Google Maps already helpfully lists locations. Only thing against it is that there are plenty of other pages on the Internet for this show specifically, but it would at least provide a reference for similar articles in future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Plunge forward. We don't remove beaten-path destinations like Paris and London just because they're in every other travel guide for their respective regions ever published. K7L (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Being a Breaking Bad fan and a former resident of Albuquerque, I'd be thrilled to help out with the creation of such an article. Like The Wire, there's a lot of real-world locations that make it a good choice for a Wikivoyage itinerary. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't know how much I can help, but Breaking Bad is one I could get excited about too. Just as long as we refrain from throwing pizzas on the poor lady's roof. Texugo (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the plunge and started the page Breaking Bad Tour; obviously there's a lot left to add, but that's why you're all invited to help build it! PerryPlanet (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That is a pretty comprehensive 'start' :) I'm actually relieved that there is someone familiar with Albuquerque to be involved. It does raise a question about format.. should the POI's be in the itinerary text as you have done or as a bullet point list as is done in traditional city articles?
It is just an open question. I think your format lends itself to prose better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Initially I was going to bullet point them, but after looking at The Wire Tour, I thought in-text might be a better fit for an itinerary like this. The nice thing about these POIs is that you don't need to include lots of extra info like hours/price/phone#/etc that would be better suited to the bullet pointed listing templates to handle. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

Previously posted here. What do you guys think we should add edit filter in Special:Tags which would tag edits containing links. This way we can easily reduce promotional material. --Saqib (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. Question: how many edits do we get per day with links? What would the workload be like for the person handling the filter? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It is hard to tell number of edits we getting each day containing link but I guess not many. Perhaps those (Ryan, YPSI, IK) who actively patrol the unmarked edits have something to add here. And I don't it will going to increase any workload. On the contrary, it will easy for us to identify the edits containing external links and so we may able to deal with them much quicker. --Saqib (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a useful idea, but don't we already have a filter for (some) links? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no sense of how useful this will be, but I certainly have no objection if you all would like to do this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, Saqib, that in the end it will reduce workload rather than increase it. I'm in full support of this idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing For what it's worth, I went to go add this filter but couldn't... I guess I was right before that no one changed my user rights. I'd be happy to help if you'd like and if not, that's fine as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryan: Not many people responded to this but those who did, seems supportive to this proposal so should we go ahead and enforce the edit filter? I'm afraid I don't have the expertise on this. --Saqib (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Essentially it is a joke version of a travel wiki like this one... anyone interested in joining? Antiv31 (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide more details on the intended wiki? I would be interested in joining a wiki that's being written as a travel guide to fictional destinations provided it's being written in serious humor. My concerns are :
  • Are there enough fictional destinations?
  • Will you be covering similar ground to UnVoyage?
  • Does compiling a travel guide about places in an authors work constitute fair-use (given it could be an extensively derivative work) if done in depth?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? BTW I would also like to see someone start a 'Time-travel' guide, given the success of this years joke article here. However, I'd really like to see a 'time-travel' wiki done more seriously, so it can be a student resource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We hope to be more successful than UnVoyage, and covering fictional locations constitutes fair use in my opinion (look at TV Tropes for example).

I don't have a link yet but I'll get on to it. Antiv31 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You know I wasn't even allowed to edit as an IP because I use Telstra.
IP edits If you're an IP who wants to edit (and not vandalize), you can request IP block exemption. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh thanks man. Antiv31 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As for the site,
Not up yet, need to install MW first (and even then it will have to be MW 1.18). Antiv31 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Not 1.18, but I will use 1.24.1. Antiv31 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Frequent flyers around?[edit]

Hi, everyone! Frequent flyer programmes has been nominated for Featured Travel Topic. But as you can see in the nomination’s comment section, the article doesn’t mention that the airlines can and do change the rules and end the program as they see fit (something common in the US, among other places). As the article lack this important piece of information, there has been opposition to putting the article on the Main Page.

So, if there are Wikivoyagers who are or have been members of a frequent flyer program and can write a more detailed section about those ugly practices, I would very much appreciate it. Prince who’s written most of the article maybe would like to help out? Otherwise I will tinker together something from second hand sources. :P --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Deutsche Bahn responds to long distance bus competition[edit]

As you may or may not be aware, there are since about 2012/2013 a number of domestic bus lines in Germany. This has led to a huge decrease in Deutsche Bahn ridership, especially in the long distance market. Now how is this relevant for travelers? Bear with me... Deutsche Bahn now announced that in the coming years (they speak of "by 2030") they will make huge investments in infrastructure and provide better service for places that have been "disconnected" from long distance train services. Here are two articles from railway gazette (the best English language source a quick hit of the googles gave me, it has been all over German press in the last couple of days, if you read German...) this one and this one. Just a heads up that the get in and get around sections of many articles on Germany will probably have to be updated a lot within the next five to fifteen years. Maybe we should also put it somewhere in our travel news or something like that. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Let's keep this in mind and add the information when the changes actually happen :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. There is also a new route linking Berlin and Munich in about 4 hours end to end via Erfurt and Leipzig / Halle which is already mentioned as "soon to be opening" and while not yet fully operational will probably affect service on long distance routes in the east and center of Germany. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maps on Firefox[edit]

For about 24 hours when I view a map from a Wikivoyage page I do not get any of the controls such as zoom or POI type or map style. This only appears to be a problem on Firefox. Is this a problem just with my settings or are others seeing this too? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this happens to me a lot when I use Firefox, but it's OK with Chrome. Antiv31 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please close all WV tabs / windows. Important! Then clear the browser cache. Data structure has changed in the last version. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That fixed it, thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Worked for me too. Antiv31 (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Find around you what listings are missing pictures[edit]

Hi all,

You have already taken pictures of all of the interesting sights in the city you're in right now? Then why not take pictures for all individual listings? :-)

It is rather low-priority, but if you have time, taking pictures of sights/restaurants/etc is a fun way to have a walk while doing something useful.

I created a Google Earth file containing all listings that don't have an image yet. Download it and open it (Google Earth will open) on your smartphone for an easy way to find them while walking around. Screenshot Just go there, take a picture of the facade of the place or an representative detail, then upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and link it from the listing with image=.

These images are currently used in dynamic maps (when you click on a pin), and in the future they will probably be used by more mashups and Wikivoyage mobile apps :-) Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What a good idea. Antiv31 (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Even when you're not around, Flickr also holds a wealth of pictures with appropriate licenses - be sure to select both modifiable and available for commercial use, you may also want to sort by "interesting" rather than "relevant" and be creative with search keywords. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


No article on caving?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Plunge forward and create one and add whatever you (and Google :)) knows. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
With the usual caveats about safety (i.e. we wouldn't want anyone stuck in a cave based on the advice given in WV) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
WV is no cave safety advisory board. Or something like that. ;-) Sure create away. Caves are interesting travel destinations as well a reasons to travel. I'd like to read what you wrote once you're done. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a great idea, and lava tubes and probably grottoes should be subsets of caves that are discussed in the article. When the article has been started, I'll make sure the spectacular Frasassi Caves are mentioned or at least a photo of them is included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a few articles which refer to cave diving that can be linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Also Sabang (Palawan) for an underground river on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Mabinay and Yangshuo also have many caves. Pashley (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have a passion in caves, go ahead and make a start! It is always worth keeping in mind that most travel topics on Wikivoyage have not been created yet. Gizza (t)(c) 04:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mayday and changes on Swedish Wikivoyage[edit]

The last days the Swedish Wikivoyage has with kind support and hours of helpful work by users Andyrom75 och Nastoshka (assisted by their Steward Vituzzu), undergone some positive changes, and had its city factboxes upgraded to the QuickbarCity. The first changes can be seen on Florens (Firenze) on sv.voy as an example, and more will come so the pages will look like the the source location Firenze on it.voy, so please wait some time with major contributions there that involves factboxes and scripts, but please add plain content like submitting images and text!

Theres an ambition to develop and promote the sv.voy, and make it more attractive so its gets more traffic and more users in the near future, and this change is one step in this direction. Soon user rights as autopatrolled and patrollers, rollbacker and other relevant functions is planned to be implemented.

The sv voy has been more or less dead for some time, which is a pity, and the entire Wikivoyage network benefits from when any site grows in numbers of users. Cooperation over the language sections is of course essential in such situations, so please support if you can, your presence will mean alot, and just that theres more than one persons edits on the recent changes would be fantastic. To insert a missing picture is of course possible without any knowledge in Swedish language.

I presently have temporary adminship user rights from Meta-Wiki, why it would be helpful and beneficial if you would be kind to cast your votes for permanent adminship.

Any ideas, suggestions and assistance will of course be highly and greatful appreciated and at least for some time the Swedish Travellers Pub may as well be multilingual for this purpose . Since months, I have been almost the only contributor, and it would be great if that situation can be changed.

When time comes, I hope to pay back with more contributions here on en.voy :) Dan Koehl (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool! You might be interested in which can convert an article from the English Wikivoyage to the format used on the French Wikivoyage. Modifying it for your language is just a matter of modifying a few strings in the script. Good luck! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nicolas, sounds very good, sounds very useful, I will look into that. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Our current policy is unclear and needs updating imho. For more on the topic see here Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Permission to come aboard[edit]

Hello :-)

What is the consensus about articles on cruise lines? In particular, I have been working on User:Commander Keane/P&O Cruises Australia and would like to know if it is ok to move it to "mainspace" at P&O Cruises Australia?

I have seen that Disney Cruise Line has been up for deletion previously.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a question... Could it be called just Australian cruises ? I'm not sure an article about a specific company follows policy (although Disneyland does exist) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Disneyland has an article because it's not only a physical place but quite a complex attraction. Site policy, to my knowledge, has been that individual cruise lines, like individual airlines, don't get full articles to themselves. However, several different topics are linked at Boat travel. For example, there is Cruise ships, which includes a pretty long list of linked names of "Major cruise lines, large vessel". There is also a Cruising the Baltic Sea topic which might be a useful model. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't understand why Disney Cruise Line hasn't been merged and redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It was agreed to use it as a test case for cruise-line articles. I still don't understand the animosity toward them. Powers (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Countdown template?[edit]

I see a countdown template used on the Chinese Wikvoyage here, counting the days to the start of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Is there any similar template on the English Wikivoyage? Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just copy and create this page on English Wikivoyage:
Translation would be nice bonus ^-^ --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I made a first cut. I need to wait for some timer job in the background before some of the text refreshes into English:
Olympic Games 2020
JapanJapanTokyo - 24/7/2020
1941 days to go
--Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not quite finished yet! Although the original Chinese creator has taken a look. (It is also still experimental in the Chinese version) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel / Antisemitic countries Visa trouble[edit]

We have an article on avoiding a transit of the United States, so this is not unprecedented. As it now stands we mention in some country pages, that they absolutely don't admit anyone who has any kind of evidence (however circumstantial) of having traveled to Israel, while the reverse is not true. Some countries (I think it was Iran) even issue passports with the words "this passport is valid for travel to every country except Israel" (which if it is formulated that way is a tacit acknowledgement that despite their best efforts the Jewish state still exists). I think the scope of such an article would be:

  • which countries are known to make trouble if there is evidence of travel to Israel
  • How you can avoid producing evidence for travel to Israel
  • How travel to Israel is possible if your country of origin doesn't allow it (if it is possible at all) (somewhat analogous to Americans in Cuba)
  • How you get two passports (a frequent method of having the "toxic" Israel stamp in one and the visas for antisemitic countries in another passport) and which countries allow that
  • What problems (if any) you will face if your passport shows evidence of travel to antisemitic countries upon arrival in Israel (I think the thing that will most likely happen is extended questioning and heightened security, which - while unpleasant - is not all that bad)

A note to avoid a flame-war: the term "antisemitic-countries" is used by me in this context to refer to the blatantly antisemitic anti-Israel policy of a handful of countries when dealing with travelers that are in any way shape or form connected to Judaism, Israel or travel to or through this country. It does not imply or generalize anything about the citizens or the inhabitants of said country or countriesHobbitschuster (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To be brief, I think it could be an extremely useful article but should be carefully written, for the same reasons you found it necessary to include the disclaimer at the end of your post. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be preferable to use "Arab boycott of Israel" or similar terms instead of "anti-semitic" to make clear that this is primarily political in nature. The objective is to fight over control of land in the Middle East; religion just makes a convenient dividing line to fuel the conflicts. K7L (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
While Iran has an ethnically Arab minority (one of the reasons for the war between Saddam and Khomeini) and Farsi has a lot of Arab loanwords (or so I've been told), it is not Arab in any way shape or form, but still extremely hostile towards Israel. And I think I heard something about North Korea doing the same. And while it is neither the place nor the time to debate this (and beyond the scope of a travel guide) I do think it has to do more with Antisemitism than with who owns what land. The only countries that "lost" land to Israel in a sorta kinda way (except Syria, but there seems to be no Syrian government to speak of) Jordan and Egypt are also among the few countries that made peace with Israel at least on paper. Anyway, we should focus on what is relevant to the traveler. And what is relevant is that some countries make a fuzz about people how are Jews or Israelis or have been to Israel, this I think we should mention and I think we should make and article on this subject, and yes we should proceed with caution, because this issue is way more emotional for most of the world than say... the Rwandan genocide. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
We could make a general article on the topic, and therethrough we need to write less about the hot topic of Israel vs. its neighbors. Azerbaijan is almost as anti-Armenian, and at least Serbia, Moldova and Ukraine (how about Georgia (country)?) apparently also have restrictions on some passport stamps or lack of them.--ϒpsilon (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
A bit more clarification, Indonesia and Malaysia also have similar entry restrictions for Israeli passports and they are not Arab countries Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If I don't misunderstand it, the situation with the countries that User:Ypsilon has described seems to be mostly those sorta kinda de facto countries that are for whatever reason not recognized and get you in trouble in the countries which they "totally belong to" (read: not at all) and breakaway regions such as Crimea that were annexed conquered or otherwise forcibly made part of another politic entity. With Israel we have a whole bunch of countries, including as User:Andrewssi2 thankfully pointed out places that have never even been at war with Israel and don't claim any land in the general vicinity of the Jordan river or the Mediterranean sea. While I do think we have to improve and update our coverage on visa issues one might run into after having been to Nagorno Karabakh or Crimea (the latter being more likely than the former, at least once the major fighting dies down) the whole "we hate Israel" movement didn't arise yesterday and will unfortunately probably keep harassing travelers, Jews and traveling Jews for quite some time. Also while (at least in theory) Transnistria could for example disintegrate or be recognized tomorrow, bearing a major revolution in Tehran the Iranian policy towards Israel will not change in the foreseeable future. Therefore on this front at least I do think it is our biggest fish to fry and we can deal with the minor visa issues later. Either by expanding the article that was originally about issues related to Israel or by updating the various country articles or by writing (a) new article(s) on the various conflicts. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:]Probably the most useful way to deal with this topic is to make it a general one, with specifics covered in different sections. The topic could be phrased something like Visa restrictions based on travel to unrecognized countries, but a more specific Countries barring entry to travellers to Israel (or "from Israel") topic would be fine, too. I don't think we need to take a position on the extent to which such restrictions are based on hatred toward Jews, rather than pure opposition to Israel and/or unpopularity of Israel in particular countries, but I'd observe that there are no restrictions whatsoever on the entry of Jews with citizenship in countries other than Israel to countries like Malaysia, but Saudi Arabia may be another story. I'm not sure how difficult it is for Israelis to visit Indonesia; I thought it was easier for them to get there than to Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Although Indonesia is a (officially) secular country, it doesn't have diplomatic relations with Israel meaning that Isreali passport holders need to apply for a special visa from the Indonesian Immigration department. Maybe not a draconian as some middle-eastern countries, but seems like a de-facto restriction nevertheless. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a de jure restriction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering... might Hebrew Wikivoyage already have such an article that could be translated? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My only comment is to say that I strongly object to the use of "antisemitic" in this context. It is entirely possible to be anti-Zionist and/or opposed to some Israeli policies and actions without being antisemitic; indeed I have seen reports of a group of Orthodox Jews who are fervently anti-Zionist. Pashley (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting that although generally understood in the West to be specifically about Jews, Semitic-speaking people are actually a broader range of people in the middle-east and north Africa that includes Arabs. Therefore using the term 'anti-Semitic' in the context of the above discussion is not accurate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, although it might not be factually correct to say "Anti-Semitic" in this context (because technically Arabs are Semitic people too), nevertheless, it is a fact that in some countries around the world I would get into serious trouble just for being of Jewish ethnicity + because of growing up in Israel, due to various long ongoing tensions, political reasons, history. For the same reasons these countries don't want Israeli-Jews to even think of going there, many of these countries also try to prevent people with an Israeli affiliation to travel freely into their countries (to my understanding this is somewhat a result of fears from Israeli spies, collaborators, or secret counter-terrorist agents acting within their borders - see Lavon Affair + 1997 Khaled Mashal assassination attempt + Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh). In the recent decades there has also been cases of non-Jewish Israelis whom got into serious trouble in middle eastern countries, most likely ONLY because of their Israeli citizenship (see Azzam Azzam). There was also the Ilan Grapel affair in which a naive Jewish American, whom only got his Israeli citizenship a few years earlier, got into serious trouble in Egypt when the Egyptian authorities arrested him on charges of fomenting unrest in Egypt as a Mossad agent in the wake of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.
At the Hebrew Wikivoyage we have not yet created any Travel topic article devoted to this important topic (I would definitely get to creating it eventually), although, when we do eventually create such an article, I estimate it would probably only focus on presenting information about the countries which don't allow Israelis to enter their borders, and it would probably not focus on how a certain group of countries would not allow the entrance to non-Israelis if they have an Israeli stamp in their passport (simply because such an article would be of no value to 99.9% of Hebrew speakers whom are Israeli citizens).
Either way, by making a couple of searches on Google I have found the following articles which seem to fully address this topic.
I hope this help. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict:]Can we please not argue about what "anti-Semitic" means? The term was invented by a 19th-century German Jew-hater as a substitute for "Judenhass"="Jew-hatred", substituting "Semite" to use as a "racial" term to define the new racist form of Jew-hatred, and had nothing to do with the linguistic or Biblical classification of Semites as including Arabic, Amharic, etc.
Pashley is of course right, but there's a big difference between being strongly opposed to policies of the Netanyahu government and supporting the abolition of Israel and dispersion of its Jewish majority to who knows where, or worse, and since the whole point of this site's Wikivoyage:Be fair policy is not to have these kinds of arguments, that's all I'm going to say in reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, please read my comment again (you can also read History of the Arab–Israeli conflict + History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to be more informed about why this is not just resistance to the Netanyahu government polices). I was hoping that my comment above + the links I supplied would help us focus less on the Antisemitism part of this topic, and more on the actual facts relating to how a certain group of countries would not allow the entrance to non-Israelis if they have an Israeli stamp in their passport. I think it is important to stick to the facts about this topic instead of writing that specific governments are Antisemitic or hate Israel (because the truth is more complicated than those simplifications). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי, I wasn't addressing you because you were posting while I was trying to post my previous reply. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
But just to add: I do agree with you. I posted this upthread: "I don't think we need to take a position on the extent to which such restrictions are based on hatred toward Jews, rather than pure opposition to Israel and/or unpopularity of Israel in particular countries..." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
[unindent] Strongly suggest those who have an interest in this subject go forth and create an Article about it. The discussion above doesn't need to be extended on the Traveler's Pub. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As soon as we agree on a name for said article... And its scope. I would suggest for starters to have it called "Visa problems related to travel to Israel" or sth. like that and deal with the situation regarding Israel and its enemies exclusively and issues related to other countries or pairs of countries to be dealt with later. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Create a page called Travel concerns for Israeli passport holders or similar. You can easily change the name later.
By using the term 'anti-Semitic' in the header of this section you have invited a known unsavory aspect of Internet discourse to happen on WV. I'd appreciate it greatly if it was moved away and in a positive direction. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Andrewssi2 that we should not use loaded terms. As a Wikimedia site we should just expose the facts without trying to judge who is right/wrong and whether people's motives are political/etc. Just expose the daily life impact on travellers, and give tips on how to avoid unfortunate consequences. I suggest making the article cover not only Israeli passports but also Israeli stamps, so how about Travelling with an Israeli passport or visa? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The whole point of the Wikivoyage:Be fair policy is to avoid political arguments to the extent possible and just present facts that are relevant for travellers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic maps not showing[edit]

I get this error with any dynamic map:

No webservice
The URI you have requested, /wikivoyage/w/poimap2.php?lat=35.6457&lon=139.7729&zoom=12&layer=M&lang=en&name=Tokyo_2020, 
is not currently serviced.

Is someone working on it at the moment? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Only administrators @Zhuyifei1999:, @Torty3:, and @Atsirlin: can restart the service. Programs were not changed, and run the same version without any error on the WV.eV-server[7]. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't even log in to at the moment, so we can't do anything. Please, ask WMF why the tools server is so unreliable. --Alexander (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I temporarily changed the server address to WV-eV-server. Full Screen maps are functional again. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes Done Restarted --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)