Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
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

Automatic archiving[edit]

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

How would a bot know which talk page to sweep discussions to? Powers (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It only recognizes systematically named subpages such as Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2014 and Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archive/4. Edits like [1] and [2] can be automated, while [3] and [4] would still have to be done manually. I believe both could co-exist and could save the time for the maintenance overall. Whym (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to hear more about how the co-existence workflow would work. Powers (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The concern I would have is just that if there is minimal effort (perhaps 'one click'?) required for automatic archiving then it will probably result in most discussions being archived in the standard location.
If you want to manually archive a discussion in the standard location then anyway it isn't much effort presently. Most effort is around finding an appropriate article to file each discussion under. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the Pub may not be the best page for auto-archiving, but what about using a bot on pages where we do archive to a sub-page? The following jump to mind:
Most of the time discussions are properly archived on those pages, but it wouldn't hurt to have a bot that archives old discussions if we forget to do so, and I would think that setting a bot up for these pages probably wouldn't be controversial. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, except perhaps for Star noms. Powers (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe Wikivoyage:Tourist Office, too? Whym (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A bot sweeping the Tourist Office could be useful. In order to function properly, it'd have to check two things, though: when there hasn't been any discussion for 14 days in a thread it should be swept. Moreover threads should be swept to the proper archive page, which is defined as the month when the thread was started. In almost half of the cases this is the month before - in extreme cases it might even be two months back. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC), frequent Tourist Office sweeper.
I would say 2 weeks might be too short. Probably at least a month. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Powers, regarding the workflow, here is what I thought: when someone is quicker than the bot, then there will be no problem, and when the bot is quicker than a potential sweeper, then someone might have to look at the subpage to consider sweeping the archived thread to somewhere else - still, no more effort than currently required will be required, IMO. I get Andrewssi2's point above on possible tendency towards not bothering to find a more appropriate place, though. Whym (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't support automatically archiving discussions less than a month old, because I think there will be too many unhelpful instances of archiving, in that case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
When a page is configured to have a 31-day threshold, no thread commented a month ago or later would be archived by The configuration would also imply that no thread less than a month old would be archived. Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon: 1) Duration of inactivity before archiving can be set to one month or anything else, by specifying it in the marker template, as explained in mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ 2) Choosing the archive page based on the month when the thread was started - this option is not available in Would it be acceptable if the timestamp of the last comment in the thread decides the subpage? Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have another question, can the bot create new archive pages for new months? Otherwise they need to be created manually, and if this is the case I don't think there is very much left for the bot to do.
Also, in the Tourist Office the asker wants an answer to a specific question unlike for example talk pages or the pub where policies, district divisions and whatnot are developed. IMO we shouldn't keep the threads in the Tourist Office longer than necessary. Now they are archived after two weeks of inactivity, and I don't think that's too short time at all - this period could even be shortened. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The bot creates new archive pages when they are needed. [5] m:Template:Archive box auto ensures links to newly created pages to be shown on the parent page. (it doesn't support some types of pages such as "/2014-Q1", though.) Whym (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the links I gave (which didn't work). Sorry for the confusion. Whym (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, let's implement the archiving bot for the Tourist Office and see if it works right. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have set it up for the Tourist Office and scheduled a daily check. I consider it a trial and haven't requested a bot flag yet. Note that Wikivoyage:Tourist Office#Is Suriname safe to travel? will be archived into the October page, not September. I hope this is an acceptable change, but if you disagree I can try implementing the original rule for the Tourist Office mentioned above by ϒpsilon. Whym (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikivoyage:Script nominations#‎ArchiverBot. Whym (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Your participation is needed in that thread, if you support the bot. Statements of support in this thread, for some reason, aren't being counted there. Neither would statements of opposition made here be counted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Changing username[edit]

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

Strong support. It seems like common sense that if we can't rename users here then we should redirect Wikivoyage:Changing username to m:Steward requests/Username changes and either archive or delete the various sub-pages (Special:PrefixIndex/Wikivoyage:Changing username). As a side note, as a bureaucrat I'm very glad that figuring out what to do about global username conflicts is no longer something that needs to be dealt with. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@LtPowers: and @DerFussi: as others who may be interested in this. --Rschen7754 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I certainly have no objection, but I wasn't clear enough on the change to say if that's the correct course of action or not. Powers (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a no-brainer. Let's redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an explanatory page is better, with a link to meta and some comment on Wikivoyage:User account migration. The meta page seems not to yet reflect that all changes are "global" - and being redirected to another site (Wikimedia instead of Wikivoyage) is obviously confusing at least for some. --LPfi (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I've closed the process; feel free to add to the page. --Rschen7754 04:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft of the Proposed Banner Suggestions Section[edit]

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

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

I'd especially appreciate any feedback from prominent and highly active banner creators such as PrinceGloria, Saqib, Jjtkk, Lkcl_it, Nicholasjf21, Adehertogh, Inkey, Armigo, PerryPlanet, Peterfitzgerald, Traveler100, Pbsouthwood, OskNe, AHeneen, Ypsilon from Finland, Torty3, and Missvain, and/or from the users whom have participated in this discussion so far - JuliasTravels, Andrewssi2, Danapit, and AndreCarrotflower. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is good to have this format where there is a list of targeted articles. Page size in bytes is a good measure in lieu of page hits.
Just wondering, why not add this list to the end of Wikivoyage:Banner_Expedition ? The goals of the expedition seem to be the same? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That would make sense to me too. Just don't overestimate the response you will get, ויקיג'אנקי. Most people who are interested will master the art of creating the banners quickly, and some people will only want to suggest images for e.g. articles they've written. The concept is fine, but I think we can provide the message in a far shorter way. Best practices in finding images are already mentioned elsewhere. All we need to add to the expedition is something like: "creating banners is easy and you can find an explanation [here]. However, if you don't want to create one yourself, you can still help this expedition along by helping to identify suitable images. If you've found an image, just add it to the relevant article below." JuliasTravels (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added one suggestion to the page. I am not sure that the table is in an easy format for an occasional editor to add a link. In many cases the problem is a lack of suitable images on commons. I would like something that encouraged readers to upload photos. I started creating banners using my own photos, although I have since created a few using commons images. Also a central page is likely to only be seen by regular contributors. Maybe we should add a para to the talk page of the more important articles which are missing banners.
It might be worth looking at the upload pages for the Wiki Loves Monuments competition [6] and [7] which try to help novice uploaders, by automatically adding commons categories etc. AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי, my concern is this is all very manual... Soon these pages will be totally out of date, as editors will continue addig banners. Danapit (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Manual is perfectly OK, as hopefully it will only need 2 or 3 iterations. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Danapit, for that reason I created this additional list in which we'll all be able to add the suggestions for banners to the newer articles created after 11/12/2014. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Great initiative, I just added 7 images in a few minutes (note: some may need rotation). Finding images is fun, I recommend using Google Images with "Search tools" -> "Labeled for reuse with modification", that also shows image sizes, choose images with width over 1300. Easy way to make tangible contributions even during lunch time! Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There are now about 20 images waiting to be bannerified, looking forward to your work ויקיג'אנקי :-) Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I will definitely make use of people's suggestions in order to make a lot more good banners from now on. Hopefully more banner creators would make use of the banner suggestions section in order to make banners. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Crop Tool[edit]

I was made aware of this crop tool hosted on Wikimedia:

Since it doesn't require the user to download the image to their computer/device and will inherit all copyright info, it may make banner creation even easier for some users. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainpage carousel[edit]

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

Not me... Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Special:EmailUser/Nicholasjf21? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much AndreCarrotflower. --Wesalius (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Need Wikivoyage without Internet: Download a ZIM before leaving:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, really awesome. As for dynamic maps, I think it would be much more useful to have WV on Kiwix work with mapping apps such as Osmand. It would be really fantastic to be able to click on the symbol before an listing and have it open in Osmand. Or instead of the dynamic maps, get an GPX file that opened in Osmand Elgaard (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
AlasdairW, I totally agree with all of your points and sub-points! This project is looking for volunteers, by the way :-) Here is where to report bugs or ask for new features for non-Wikivoyage-specific things and for Wikivoyage-specific things. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nicolas1981, Thanks. I did not know about those pages. I think that the page banners not appearing may be related to them not printing, which was raised a while back but nothing happened.
I would like to try to create a country ZIM file, but I am about to go travelling so this will need to wait until next year. I see that there are topic based WP ZIM files, but I don't know if our breadcrumbs would work in the same way. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nicolas1981 (and all),
just a note that once you feel it's ready for a wider audience (I agree with AlasdairW's third point in particular), you would be very welcome to publish post on the Wikimedia blog about this. We know from experience that there can be quite a lot of reader interest in such offline editions, and it might be a nice way to draw attention to Wikivoyage. You can start a draft at m:Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A feature I miss in the kiwix offline version is breadcrumb navigation and the absence of top level articles (continents etc.) on the front page. --Mads.bahrt (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

VE as BetaFeature.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karachi - Edit drive[edit]

Hello everyone! As some of you may know that I'm planning to publish a travel guide book on Karachi since last year and for the purpose, I've secured the sponsor who would bear the cost of printing of guide book. But unfortunately, the content in our Karachi guide is not worth printing as of now. Its been a long year now and I see no local ever care to edit it. So before the sponsor slip out, I've decided to run an online edit-a-thon where I will invite people from Karachi to help us improve the guide. I've created an introduction page for our edit-a-thon participants and I request it to be moved temporary under a WV namespace. Also, I need help of you guys with improving the introduction page. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction page I believe is introduction page as it was moved recently... Reads well... Also, did some editing of Karachi page (mostly alpha ordering of various sections and some minor editing) - best wishes! - Matroc (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I added coordinates to all restaurants. By the way, Open Street Map is more detailed than Google Maps in many areas of Karachi, which is to our advantage :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Your travel guide will benefit from several maps that you can generate using dynamic maps if you don't have the money to pay professional map makers. One or more map for restaurants, one map for bars, one map or more for hotels, one map for consulates, etc. To generate them, just copy sections of the page into draft pages together with a map component, and take screenshots. Low tech but doable in a matter of minutes. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Matroc and Nicolas: Thanks to both of you for working on the guide. Nicolas, I'll draw maps myself once we're done with other things. Anyways, it may take further few more days for the edit drive to begin and then I'm expecting hundreds of local people editing our guide. --Saqib (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
That's exciting! I hope some of them stay and also contribute to other articles about Pakistan and other places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
IK. Yes, thats exciting but I'm also expecting too much mess. Lots of vandalism, copyright violations and touting. Hope you're up for the challenge. Anyway, I'm inserting some templates into Karachi guide article but that will be temporary. Also, Ryan, I'm editing Common.css and hiding the page tile of Wikivoyage:Karachi. Edit drive will last for 1 week and once its end, I will revert both of these changes. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
IK, Nicolas, and Matroc: The edit-drive is started now. --Saqib (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, the page displays badly on my browser: CSS problem? Firefox 33.0 on Linux Ubuntu 2014.04 Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That is weird. Try now Nicolas and show me screenshot. --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've closed the edit-drive. It was not helpful and very unsuccessful. --Saqib (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sad to hear that.. do you mean not enough local people participated? Participation can take time to come but I hope you will be successful eventually :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the edit drive - don't give up, I am sure someone will still contribute - Matroc (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Nicolas, As you can see many people edited the Karachi page but none of the contribution was helpful. --Saqib (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
While I certainly support the spirit that was behind his idea for an edit drive, I share Saqib's concerns. Before doing anything like this again, we need to look before we leap. We've had discussions on this site before about how to deal with new contributors - it doesn't paint our community as very friendly and welcoming if newcomers' edits are summarily reverted without explanation or guidance, yet it's anyone's guess how to patiently and attentively coach such a huge influx of newbies all at the same time, who may not be familiar with our goals, style preferences, etc., such as an edit drive entails. In the case of Karachi, this was compounded by the fact that (as Saqib mentioned elsewhere, maybe on his interview with Creative Commons about Wiki Loves Monuments?) there's more of a learning curve among Pakistanis regarding concepts like copyleft and open-source technology (hence the large number of edits reverted as copyvios), and many of the new editors are not native speakers of English. These are particularities that we'll have to allow for before making any kind of major push for new contributions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A new pagebanner for Rimouski?[edit]

What do you folks think about a new pagebanner for Rimouski? It would be great if the community could please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Rimouski. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Touting on WV's Facebook page[edit]

Just a heads-up that I blocked and banned this account from en.voy's Facebook page for touting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to mention that here because its not serious nor important. That often happens on FB and its absolutely fine to block people there. --Saqib (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but it seems like since we make such a big deal out of user bans on Wikivoyage itself, it might be controversial to do the same on our social media accounts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You gave me a good chuckle Andrew. Now I get you. --Saqib (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We only make a big deal when they're contributors. The standards on Facebook are quite different. Powers (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Social media share buttons[edit]

Wonder whether it would be a good idea to use social media share (Twitter and Facebook) in our guides. It would be definitely make much more easier for our readers to share a guide if they want to. Wikinews is one such example which use such social media buttons. --Saqib (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First we should solve the problem of the image chosen by Facebook as a preview: Right now Facebook chooses the banner, which in many cases is just a grey default image. We can set the image manually by setting <meta property="og:image" content="" />. Ideally, we should suggest the picture in the heading paragraph if there is one, or the first image of the "See" section if there is one. Since we have banners, the first non-banner image is often in "Get In" or "Get around", usually showing a boring airport or bus. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I oppose those buttons strongly. The normal way to add the button is adding code that directs the browser to get some elements from the foreign site. This allows them to keep track of our users, which is unacceptable. We would also be supporting those sites. Such buttons should be implemented/installed by the user, not by websites. --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Does the solution have to include coding and tracking? How about just invoking the user's Twitter client and embedding the URL with TinyURL? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No coding required Andrew. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Share on Share on Facebook
While this is better, it still involves promoting those sites on every page. I think it would be a dramatic decision, which should not be taken lightly. --LPfi (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right but then I wonder why Wikinews uses these social share links and even on their main page. Other than that, WP Signpost also have social share buttons. While on MediaWiki, I found few social media extensions as well. —The preceding comment was added by Saqib (talkcontribs)
I also oppose social media share buttons. The drawbacks cited by LPfi far outweigh the benefits. Anyway, it's easy enough for users to share our guides on Facebook or Twitter simply by typing in the URL. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
On a related topic that should probably be spun off into a separate discussion thread, I would strongly support allowing the official Facebook pages of listed attractions, businesses, etc. to be linked, as fr:voy (and probably other language versions) do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The rationale against doing so has been that Facebook pages are almost invariably available in one click from the listing's home page, making it somewhat redundant. Sharing buttons, on the other hand, seem like something worth discussing. I don't see any strong drawbacks, and at any rate, other sister projects have deemed them useful. Powers (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought that it had already been resolved that it's no problem to provide a Facebook page under "url" for a business, if they have no other website. I'm not sure whether the previous discussion was at Wikivoyage talk:Listings or here. But in practice, haven't we been allowing Facebook page links under such circumstances for a few months already? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to return to Saqib's question of FB/Twitter link buttons, I don't see any disadvantages. The privacy issue that LPfi identified (and he is right to raise them) would not be a concern with this type of integration. The advantages would be greater linking of Wikivoyage articles on the web in general which would help both SEO and general internet mindshare. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Illegal advertisements on the Tourist Office[edit]

Someone recently posted an advertisement for counterfeit identification documents and counterfeit money on the Tourist Office. I'm pretty sure such an activity is illegal to some degree. The edit was reverted within minutes, but the user hasn't been blocked. Shouldn't they be? And if such activity indeed is illegal, can this be reported to the police? The poster did even provide contact information, with a telephone number, a Skype account and a free Yahoo e-mail account. JIP (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, the user should be indefbanned and the edit should be made invisible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done without prejudice to any further action others may feel needs to be taken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Map thumbnails not showing properly[edit]

When I click the link that says "View full-screen map for X," I do see a full-screen map of X. However, I see only numbers and plus signs on the thumbnail in the article, nothing more. Are other people having the same problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

yes since yesterday. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's too bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the map embedded on the article page, just the numbers and plus signs as you described. Is this the same issue? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what "" is, but that's hanging on my browser when the map loads and apparently preventing the map background from displaying. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
OSM-Mapnik tiles are loaded from the WMF-Labs-Server. This server is faulty at the time. Wikipedia also has no access. The PoiMap2 scripts were not changed. -- Mey2008 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I would add that we are obliged to use the unsteady server because of privacy issues. There is no solution on our side. --Alexander (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Consulates on maps?[edit]

Do we want to put markers for consulates on maps?

While it might be informative in some cases, it could also be seen as too much not-so-useful markers. For instance, Karachi has 110 consulates.

My personal opinion is that we should have a special type of listing called "consulate", and not display it on dynamic/static maps.

A separate map just for consulates might also be an option.

What do you think? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

One or two would be fine on the main map but 110 would be very annoying. A separate map would be a good idea, maybe in the case of locations with more than 100 a sub-page which would then have its own map. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I think travellers looking for a consulate are looking just for one of them and only when wanting to go there. A map with all consulates is not necessary if you can get one with just the one you are interested in. I think this works with editing previews (just click the number, even if it does not yet show on the general map). Can it be made to work also generally? Otherwise a subpage is probably a good solution. For printed guides this is a bit clumsy. I would prefer to have my consulate on the general map. --LPfi (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't need a special listing type, just the standard 'List' template. Top level articles for large cities won't generally have dynamic maps however.
I think a dedicated static map for consulates/embassies sections may be feasible. It would take more work than I'd be prepared to do though. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Many capitals of minor countries, or secondary cities of major countries, have consulates and don't have sub-articles.
LPfi's idea is interesting, showing "my consulate" would require to enter my nationality(ies) into Wikivoyage, though. And actually when I travel I sometimes visit the consulate of the neighbouring country, to get a visa.
I think the ideal would be to not show them on maps, but still have the latitude/longitude in the listing, so that when clicked they show the clicked consulate. That would require some development though. That would not be visible on paper. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's unlikely that a capital of a minor country would receive a consulate. Usually, a capital of a Commonwealth dominion rates a High Commission from fellow members of the great Britannic Empire, while any other foreign capital gets an embassy. A country normally establishes both embassy and consulate in the same foreign capital only if their diplomatic presence doesn't quite fit into one building, causing visa issuance, trade promotion or other consular activities to be split from the main embassy. K7L (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is being proposed. Is it just for articles that have no sub-articles? That would be a messy approach.
Also anyone needing a consulate/embassy is possibly in an emergency of some sort and should refer to the web site of their country's foreign department rather than WV. Embassies and consulates move and close all the time and the lists that we have in WV are probably not accurate. We should still list them, but not tightly integrate them into the WV experience.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think WV will be used more and more offline. A traveler in an emergency might have nothing but WV on paper, Kiwix, or saved webpages, although I would use an OpenStreetMap client. But I think a more general filtering option would be great. For example to produce maps and paper copies without hotels (if I already booked my hotels), only midrange restaurant (if that is what I can afford), only embassies and consulates for certain countries (between my wife and I we have a few options), etc. Elgaard (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
K7L: I said "consulates" but I meant "consulates+embassies", sorry for being unclear. So, yes, many city articles have no sub-pages and have a list of consulates/embassies. Karachi and Quito are a good examples. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Andrewssi2: I beg to differ: We should provide travellers with an up-to-date and convenient way to find their embassy/consulate or the embassy/consulate of the next countries in their trip. It is a common use case of a travel guide. Printed guides are not ashamed of listing them, even though they become out-of-date faster than us. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have found the official databases for all embassies in Washington, D.C., and all US/Canada/Australia embassies around the world, so expect to have at least those up-to-date as soon as I write a script :-) Now if we could find such data for all countries other that would be great... Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not say we shouldn't list embassies. I said "We should still list them, but not tightly integrate them into the WV experience". I still hold that position.
Even if you can find quality data for all embassies of all countries around the world (which I doubt), you still need to explain how it would be presented? London has something in the order of 150 listings for embassies, which is impractical for one map. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not only impractical, it's guaranteed to be 99% clutter: for any given traveller there is pretty much a predetermined absolute maximum of exactly two useful listings of this type, with only one in the vast majority of cases. This would automatically mean, in the above case, that 149 map icons would be no more than utterly useless clutter making the map hard to read. I don't know if it would be practical, but Nicolas1981 had the right idea above, about making it so you can see it on a map only if you click on it, etc. But showing them all on the maps is out of the question; in many cases they'd practically outnumber and obfuscate the Eat/Drink/Sleep listings, placing very disproportionate emphasis on a whole class of listings all but one or two of which could serve no possible purpose for a given individual traveler. Texugo (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
We could work on the layer system of the map control in order that the user has to specifically request to display the embassies, although 150 embassy dots on the map won't be that much help.
I also still need to understand how these listings would work on cities with sub articles. Would it require an additional dynamic map at the top level? What if an accepted static map already exists? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Andrewssi2's idea is ideal, a layers control would mean that only people who want to see consulates see them. Roma probably has nearly as many consulates as London, and a map of them is very readable: (unzoom a bit and press "Run") That example map would be very usable if it had numbers. Consulates tend to be rather large buildings in the city center, which means that overlap is rather rare. Anyway, for now, how about we 1) Create a new listing type called "consulate", or any better word that encompasses embassies too 2) Filter out them so that they DON'T appear on dynamic maps. Cheers!Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting challenge... a name meaning both consulate and embassy. I wonder if consular_section would work? Typically when a traveller visits an embassy, they are not going to the office of the ambassador for diplomatic business (unless they are Julien Assange) but rather visit the Consular Section which is contained within the embassy and deals with things such as visas. Probably confusing to most people though. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The experts have spoken: legation is a word that apparently encompasses embassies, consulates and similar. I suggest implementing this new listing type if there is no opposition? It will make dynamic maps lighter, as many have them shown as unclassified listings. The appropriate template will need to be created. I guess the listing editor would need to be updated, even though it is not urgent. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen "delegation" used for a fair amount of w:paradiplomacy (such as Ontario's former 'embassy' to Québec, which used to sit just outside the walled city) so I suppose that makes sense. K7L (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with the experts at StackExchange :) In earlier times 'Legation' referred to any diplomatic office other than a country's embassy, however in any case it is no longer used. I'm not sure about the term Delegation as well, just because it is not widely used in this context. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
How about "representation"? I will only appear in the listing's wikicode and as an icon in the listing editor I guess. Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
'Representation' could work.
I was also thinking that a specialized template could also optionally include other nations that an embassy may represent. For Example the Swedish Embassy in North Korea represents the United States, or the Embassy of an EU country should also offer consular services to any other EU country as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Content erroneously posted in Wikivoyage:Tourist Office[edit]

Hi folks. User:فلورانس posted the item below in the Tourist Office. I didn't know exactly where to move it, so I figured the Pub was the best bet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Offline Wikivoyage (02-Dec-2014) Wikivoyage-Archive From Kiwix Updates is now online --Florence (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but someone had posted this above. --Doostdar (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
ok thanks AndreCarrotflower , --Florence (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in a PageBanner extension?[edit]

The mobile web team that powers your mobile site are interested in page banners across all projects, not just Wikivoyage. I was curious, if I was to write an extension that used the Wikidata property would you be willing to install it and remove usage of your existing pagebanner template? Currently the banners are drastically broken on mobile, an image as big as 1mb could block the loading of the rest of the page. Using an extension would allow us to adapt the image based on the size of the browser and would bring performance gains to the desktop site too. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about Wikidata, so how would this work in cases where a Wikidata property isn't set, or if envoy wanted to use something different than what was set up in Wikidata? Also, I'm not super-familiar with Wikimedia extensions, so how would the page banner code be invoked once converted to an extension? Is it still called through Template:Pagebanner, thus leaving some room for local customizations?
On a side note, if there is a good way to return more appropriately sized images using an extension that would be a huge win - right now we're pulling in some very large images in cases where they might not be needed, which is far from ideal on slower connections. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of an extension in principle, but I want to know more about how it would work. Continuing to allow local customization would be key. Different language versions of Wikivoyage don't always have the same banner (and I'm not convinced we need to). If the banner is used by other projects, I could foresee a travel-focused banner that works for Wikivoyage may not be the best banner for a different project, and vice-versa. We also add icons to the banner like previously featured destination and disambiguation, which can vary from Wikivoyage project to Wikivoyage project.
All that said, I think it's a great idea to explore. Something that has potential performance gains is worth considering. -Shaundd (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As someone who contributes to several Wikivoyage sites, I personally would not mind loosing the ability to override Wikidata's banner. I always use the same in all languages anyway. Apparently Shaundd (and probably others) want to keep this ability so it would be great to have though. By the way, in how many articles does the English Wikivoyage override the Wikidata banner? If none, the experiment could start with the English Wikivoyage alone. Or start with the Wikivoyages who have a policy of not overriding Wikidata banners. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jdlrobson! Sounds wonderful! Banners are an easy way to make articles very attractive, and even though some projects (like Wikipedia or Wiktionary) might not like it, other sites like Wikiquote (they really really like images over there), Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, etc would love it. Best of luck with the project, and don't hesitate to use us for testing (I don't speak for the whole community but I think most people here will love the idea). Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback User:Nicolas1981 :-) Shaundd essentially the template would no longer needed but you would be able to style it using MediaWiki:Common.css - but I'd be looking at porting over your existing styles as a starting point so you would notice no difference. It would be an extension so projects would be able to turn it on only if they felt it useful but the community as a whole would benefit from such a feature. It would be great to use Wikidata as the basis for the data as this means we wouldn't have to resort to magic words in wikitext and keep the wikitext clean and friendly to new editors! I've setup so we have a central place to talk about this topic. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for making things simple and user-friendly, where possible. A dumb question though -- how do I add myself as a subscriber to the Phabricator discussion? I didn't see anything, but it also wouldn't let me log in with my WM username. -Shaundd (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Shaundd: Push the round on/off button in the upper-right, click the Wikimedia button, and accept the OAuth authentication. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wales entries[edit]

Is someone running a Wikivoyage awareness course in Wales? This is the third time we have had a spate of edits from multiple users on the same day promoting various websites and locations. Obviously we welcome more contributors and Wales does need more listings in the town pages, but please make sure people are aware of the difference between entering useful information about their business and touting. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes to all that you said. When people post listings for a holiday lettings agency without street address in multiple articles, it takes a fair amount of work to delete them all. People wanting to list such agencies need to read this site's rules on rental listings, external links and how to avoid touting and be aware that no business can be listed in more than one article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A policy regarding history sections?[edit]

I think readers as well as writers might benefit if there were some clear and concise policy regarding "history" sections in country or region articles. On the one hand Wikivoyage isn't and shouldn't be a copy of Wikipedia in that respect, and being too detailed obviously does more harm than good. On the other hand history plays an important role in shaping a country's architecture and geography and people's mentality and many travellers travel to "experience history" in one way or another. I think to start a discussion keeping in mind that the traveller comes first, maybe we should include historical information if it can be "seen" at the destination (e.g. some words about the US civil war as there are well preserved battle-fields and reenactment is both a tourist attraction and a reason for travel by itself) or "noted" with the people (e.g. attitudes towards national symbols and patriotism in Germany as (among others) a result of the Nazi era) of course it could be argued that everything from the beginning of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago might somehow be "visible" - at least in the night sky above the destination - but I think this rule of thumb could be a good way to aid in discussions about whether certain things should be put into the history section or not. If there already is a policy regarding history sections I would ask to put it somewhere more prominent as I was unable to find such a thing. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On the fact of it, your policy makes sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
We have Dinosaur National Monument; the Civil War and the Underground Railroad are rather recent by comparison? K7L (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's why I think this policy should apply: obviously this is something that can be "seen firsthand" and it is a reason to travel all by itself, whereas - say - the geologic origin (not that that is unimportant or not interesting, just not to the majority of travellers ;-)) of the Rocky Mountains isn't. I am a new user and of course this was only a first proposal to get a discussion going to get a more "fleshed out" policy as a result of this discussion. Best wishesHobbitschuster (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the things I like about Wikivoyage is that editors are given a wide berth to develop their own writing style and establish their own hierarchy of priorities vis-à-vis what it's important for visitors to know about a particular destination. Therefore, it's my contention that the establishment of new policies should happen only where there's a widespread problem that needs solving. In other words, policy should remain silent unless and until there's a pressing need for it to take a stand.
Are wordy, encyclopedic History sections an issue that is endemic to many different articles on this site? If not, let's avoid policy creep and handle problematic instances on a case-by-case basis. If you're writing a History section, use common sense or ask another editor for guidance if you feel the need, but otherwise don't worry about it.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think the only existing guidance on this subject are brief notes such as Wikivoyage:Country article template#History ("History in a nutshell"). Parroting Andre, I don't know if we need to be too prescriptive beyond our more general advice to keep things brief and travel-relevant. That advice is even more important for countries with long and interesting histories, since we don't want historical information to distract from travel information. Citing the example of the USA, a traveler will encounter Civil War battlefields and Native American sites and thus some relevant history is important, but since the section is likely to grow large we can skip things like past foreign policy positions or economic trends that are unlikely to have any bearing on a person's visit to the country. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
André writes a lot of sense above.
There's a danger in being too pre (or pro)scriptive and then "policy" being abused to justify edit warring rather than working collegiately to improve articles for travellers.
As long as we have a good, working table of contents and appropriate H3, H4 and H5 headings, travellers should be able to easily find their way around and skim over sections that are not of interest even if there is quite a lot of text. In many guides at the regional and continental level we don't have a problem with prolixity - quite the reverse in fact. --Ttcf (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange goings-on at Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path and Previous Featured travel topics[edit]

I had this notice posted at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations originally, but I'm uncomfortable placing it there because this situation doesn't actually call for a user ban, at least as yet. Nonetheless, it's something that we should keep an eye on. is an anonymous user with no mainspace contribution history and an IP address that traces back to New Zealand, who made his Wikivoyage debut in quite the obscure place: adding pagebanners to Previous Destinations of the month, Previously Off the beaten path and Previous Featured travel topics with no basis in consensus. This bears several of the hallmarks of our old friend 118.93nzp, currently indefbanned.

Also, the registered account User:Axisixa is likely the same user - q.v. the revision history of Previously Off the beaten path.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. Those pages are in mainspace and might be the only such pages without banners. Star articles, for instance, has a banner. Powers (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat of a tangent, but unless a block is being proposed, it's important that we focus on the edits and not the editor. If someone wants to suggest that an account should be banned because it may belong to a banned user let's present evidence at WV:User ban nominations, but unsubstantiated accusations should always be avoided - we don't want to create a guilty-until-proven-innocent environment. Regarding the edits themselves, I tend to agree with Powers that it makes sense to consider adding banners to those pages since they are in mainspace. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I reject the characterization of my post as an "accusation" - I stated already that there's no grounds for a user ban at this time, and that it's nothing more or less than a situation that merits our continued attention. This thread does not accuse the user of being a sockpuppet any more than the Telstra vandal abuse filter tag ("Possible edit by banned user" or something to that effect) is an accusation against any good-faith Telstra user who the filter catches as a false positive.
Nor is it "unsubstantiated", as these edits fit an unusual pattern that is specific to one user in particular. Perhaps that's not smoking-gun proof, but it's interesting circumstantial evidence nonetheless.
As for applying the pagebanner template to the Previous DotM Pages: if the community wants to do that, fine. The proper procedure for any user who wants to put that into effect is to bring the issue up at the pub or on one of the relevant talk pages, not to insert the template unilaterally without consultation. Furthermore, any edits made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user are regarded as block evasion, so if this anonymous user is, in fact, a sockpuppet of 118.93nzp, then it's irrelevant whether the edits he makes are judged by the community to be productive.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that that user could be 118.93nzp. And for the record, these edits didn't really bother me. Sometimes, old featured articles lose their pagebanners, as they are deleted from Commons. We can watch, but I don't see a problem so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is one of 101 best travel websites[edit]

Of course, there is still a lot to do to strengthen the popularity of Wikivoyage. But William D. Chalmers told in his HuffPost blog that Wikivoyage is already one of the 101 best travel websites. Other travel-guide sites are Fodor’s, Frommer’s, Timeout City Guides, Wikitravel und World Travel Guide. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

umm.. FTA:
WikiTravel - Crowd sourced travel info.
WikiVoyage - Crowd sourced travel destination info.
Guess we also need to work on distinctiveness... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Article status footnotes[edit]

I would like to propose a change to the footnote box at the bottom of all articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The main change is to add the words travel guide to the text together with the location name.

Why do this:

  • Increase ranking in search engines
    • Adding the phrase travel guide to location-name , will add a term often used in search engine entries.
    • Adding the location (page) name near the bottom of the article increase hit count.
    • Change the text from that used by WikiTravel, providing some distinctiveness.
  • Single place to edit footnotes
    • Easier to make format changes
    • Remove inconsistencies win html syntax between templates

Example of proposal showing existing and new can be seen at User:Traveler100/sandbox-stbox. (Where you see the text sandbox-stbox this will be substituted with the article name.

Feedback please. Suggestions for better phrasing? Should it be more different that that used by WT?

good idea. I support it Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support this proposal as it is a pretty obvious way to (hopefully) improve our search ranking for "travel" queries, and the use of a common base template for all article status boxes is a better coding practice. Thank you for putting together the sandbox page that shows exactly what would change. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the wording change, but I don't understand why they all need to be parameterized into the same template. It overloads the template code, and it makes it both harder and easier to make changes (depending on what one wants to change). Powers (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced as to whether the wording changes will be effective vis-à-vis SEO - as LPfi said last time we debated this, "Are search engines still dumb enough for this kind of thing to be a benefit?" However, I do notice that the text of the blurbs are a lot less awkward and clunky this time around. Mark me down as neutral. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ensuring that the phrase "travel guide" appears in our articles will absolutely improve search results that include "travel", "guide" or "travel guide". It's not a matter of search engines being dumb, it's a matter of ensuring that the text we want search engines to find in our pages actually appear in those pages. See Google's own guidelines: "Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, this would change a wording like "This is a usable article." to "This is a usable travel guide to [Placename]"? Then what happens when the status of the article is Guide? "This is a guide travel guide..."? Maybe it's time for us to reconsider the word "Guide" being used as a status category, but until or unless we substitute another word for Guide, I don't see how we can use the phrase "travel guide" in every article. There also may be some strange juxtapositions, such as a "travel guide" to Malaria. But I guess that's what the article is, really, so I'm OK with that but not OK with "guide travel guide." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ikan: To Traveler100's credit, the rewording was handled a lot more gracefully this time around than before; the potential pitfalls you mentioned regarding Guide-status articles and how to handle travel topics, etc. were both addressed, and IMO addressed well. You can see the proposed text of each template at User:Traveler100/sandbox-stbox. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a lot better. I still really don't like this, though: "has the status guide." Would anyone object to "has guide status"? So much more natural to read, isn't it? But along with that request, I give my vote of approval for adding "travel guide" in this manner at the bottom of articles, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Please make them as different as possible to WT's. Because they are used on so many pages, this would be the biggest rewriting we could do for the least effort. I am not certain that it will improve SEO or the duplicate content penalty, but it's worth trying. Nurg (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there is room both to differentiate us from WT and (equally important in my mind) to make the status messages far more useful. Currently our messages are generally "here is what this article has, please plunge forward", whereas we probably want to focus on quickly telling the user how to get the article up to the next status level. That said, in the interest of not making it more difficult to gain consensus for implementing Traveler100's proposed changes, I'd suggest we first move forward with that proposal as-is and then discuss further changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent) I, too, don't like the awkwardness of "has the status guide". I also notice some of the descriptions need to be reworded to actually match what that level requires. For example, the guide status for continents actually lists specific things we DON'T want at the continental level, basically just a copy of the city article template. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for a better phrasing for the "has the status guide"? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, "has guide status." Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"has Guide status". I agree with Ikan regarding the wording, but I think capitalizing the word "guide" would clarify things even further. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization is fine. To be consistent, if we do capitalize, we should arguably capitalize all other status levels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In a brazen disregard for wiki user page etiquette I updated the proposed template with the suggested wording. [8]. I didn't change capitalization in the interest of consistency, as noted by Ikan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ryan, no offence taken :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This thread has gone silent, but I think the phrasing issue has been addressed - is that a correct interpretation of the above comments? Powers raised a concern that hasn't been addressed about consolidating the logic into a single base template, but personally I strongly prefer consolidating logic in most of my coding, so I actually view that as an improvement rather than something to be concerned about - perhaps others can comment so that we can determine a preferred solution and move forward on that point. Aside from that concern, is there anything else that would prevent implementation of this change? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on making the change this weekend as most comments have been positive. So any objections before I do so? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Consolidating logic is usually a good idea, but in this case, the actual amount of logic consolidated is extremely small. And consolidation always comes at the cost of obfuscation. Look at Template:Stbox. All it is is a bunch of giant switch statements, and I can't see any logical reason to do that except to get all of the code in one template (and what's the advantage of that?). I daresay the total amount of code there is probably larger than all of the current templates put together.
The main candidate for code consolidation on these messages is in the visual style of the boxes themselves. But as I said on Template talk:Stbox: "I think it might be better if this template simply handled the graphic details, while allowing each status template to pass its own text in. That will be both more transparent and more user-friendly, without any real decrease in efficiency or functionality." It would also be worth considering an in-between option, where we had a suite of base templates (one for each status level) that each displayed its own status level's graphic style, and then article-type templates that each call the appropriate status level template. But having one single template with a bunch of switch statements in it is neither efficient nor elegant. Powers (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, so if you or someone else wants to implement the proposed solution, either now or later, then I'd say go ahead. However, seeing as the concern is about the implementation of this change and not about the change itself, I'd suggest that we not hold up implementation of the existing proposal from Traveler100 (using the status templates to potentially improve SEO) since the implementation can always be refactored in the future by whoever wants to take on that task. Is that fair? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the way you've phrased this threatens to mark me as an obstructionist if I point out that implementation matters, and that (generally speaking) institutional inertia makes it unlikely that a project gets re-implemented correctly once it's been done incorrectly. I really can't think of a good reason not to do it right the first time, but that's why I've been asking these questions: to see if I'm missing something. But I got little response on the template talk page, and even here I'm still waiting for a discussion of the benefits of doing it all in one template. Powers (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the technical issue, but is there anything preventing the change from being done right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To Ikan Kekek: there is a minor difference of opinion as to what "done right" means here, but the major hurdle to implementing the solution Powers proposed is simply someone doing the work to write and test the templates.
To Powers: As a matter of opinion, I disagree with the characterization of the current implementation as being "incorrect", but will happily support you or anyone else implementing a solution that would address the concerns raised. With that said, discussions on this topic have been active for several weeks, and this thread in particular has gained a decent amount of feedback during the week that it has been in the pub, so if the choice at this time is between a solution that has been implemented, or of waiting until someone implements a technically superior solution, I think the correct outcome is that we move forward with the proposal as-is. You're right that it may be unlikely for someone to change it once implemented, but I think that may be a matter of others not feeling strongly about the way it has been implemented - anyone who does feel strongly is very welcome to make whatever fixes they see necessary. Obviously sharing your opinions does not "mark you as obstructionist", but per Wikivoyage:Consensus#Contributing to a consensus building discussion it would be helpful if you could make clear whether you are OK with the proposal moving forward should your concerns not be shared, and that would allow us to continue to discuss those concerns without any danger of anyone seeing that discussion as a barrier to consensus building. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any sort of argument in favor of the one-template-fits-all solution, then no, I don't think it should go forward. As a coder, I understand that switch statements are sometimes necessary, but in this case they're being used for no good reason (that I can see) when we have an alternative that is superior in both efficiency and comprehensibility. I'd be happy to discuss the advantages of the one-template solution but no one seems eager to do so as of yet.
The template change aside, I don't see any reason we can't update the status message wording immediately simply by updating our current templates.
-- Powers (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If you don't like the current proposal for purely technical reasons, would you please take care of the technical issue so that the language in the templates can be changed, as you don't object to the new language? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't just "take care of" it without some feedback from the rest of the community on what the best way to proceed is. I've suggested two or three alternative paths forward but can't seem to spark any discussion over the relative advantages and disadvantages of them compared to the main proposal and the previous status quo. Powers (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Traveler100's "common source" template is an improvement over the status quo, in which we have style information copy & pasted into 45 different templates - look at Template:Outlinecity, which contains all hard-coded HTML and CSS; abstracting out the common bits most definitely improves upon what we have now in terms of maintainability. The proposed solution may not be perfect (honestly, most of this should be moved to MediaWiki:Common.css), but even forgetting the language changes, doing some consolidation of that copy/paste mess is most definitely an improvement, and I'll back that opinion with 16 years of web application development experience. I'll reiterate that at this point I think our best option is either for anyone who thinks a better solution is needed to implement that solution, or else we should move forward with the original proposal.-- Ryan • (talk) • 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The single template for article status has been introduced on several language versions, and, to the best of my knowledge, no problems were ever encountered. I don't see any clear counter-argument here as well. Discussion for the sake of discussion should not be encouraged. --Alexander (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why everyone hates discussion all of a sudden. So far Ryan is the only person to respond substantively to my questions. This is extremely frustrating. Why is the way that Template:Stbox currently implemented better than all possible alternatives? Powers (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This question does not belong to the proposal that we discuss. If there is a strong argument against putting all footnotes into one template, we could discuss that. Otherwise, it is a matter of taste. Some people prefer one template, others are more comfortable with a bunch of similar templates, but there is no point for discussion. --Alexander (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The solution that has been implemented is not "better than all possible alternatives", but that criteria most definitely should not be the bar we set for making a change - see: WV:Plunge forward, and note that wikis are about incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. The proposed solution has now been implemented and I'm happy with the implementation as-is, but if you'd like to see changes made I'd suggest the best path forward is to create a sample implementation that we can discuss. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
A sample implementation was created, in this case, and I've been trying to discuss it, to little avail. Why should I think that it's any more likely people will want to discuss a different sample implementation? I still don't know which of my suggested alternatives is most likely to be acceptable. Design is supposed to come before implementation. Powers (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a link to the sample implementation. I might or might not understand it, but others will. My feeling is that whatever alternative meets with the most approval should simply be run, since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the language used in the footnotes. In other words, I'd like for whichever implementation you most like to be used, presuming that no-one has any reason to object to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll echo what Ikan has said - if there was an alternative to User:Traveler100/sandbox-stbox being proposed I missed it and apologize. If there wasn't an alternative, then my statement above remains relevant: "if the choice at this time is between a solution that has been implemented, or of waiting until someone implements a technically superior solution, I think the correct outcome is that we move forward with the proposal as-is.". -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the proposal at the head of this section. I've been trying to discuss it here, and on Template talk:Stbox, but there has been a lot of resistance to addressing my concerns over the implementation details. So I'm left with two obstacles to your suggestion that I try a sample implementation: one, I don't know which route to take with an alternative, because no one will engage me in discussion on which would be best, and two, I have no guarantee that my sample will actually be discussed once I implement it, because I've been trying to discuss this implementation with little success. Powers (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with the current implementation - the statement "there has been a lot of resistance to addressing my concerns over the implementation details" indicates that others have clearly engaged in discussion, although that engagement has mainly taken the form of stating that the current version is acceptable. If you're looking for design feedback, my feedback is that I'm happy with the implementation as-is, but will gladly consider an alternative if something is put forward that you feel addresses your concerns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The change has been made. I would appreciate someone doing a few checks to make sure I did not miss anything (already spotted one with continent category logic - fixed). --Traveler100 (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Now could we have some discussion on rewording of the second part of the text in the footnote, about what is covered in current status of the article and what should be added to get it to the next status. I think having word such as accommodation, restaurants and sightseeing would be a good idea as these important words tent not to pop-up in the article main text too often. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User stats. footer[edit]

If you are interested in you contribution statistics add {{Contributor-footnote}} to the bottom of your user page. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor procedural note[edit]

Copying to Wikitravel I figured I would let everyone know that someone is copying to Wikitravel again but this time with attribution. Evidently, the filter has been modified to allow that. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Is there any specific policy regarding T-comma and S-comma versus cedilla? The Romanian language doesn't have cedilla, officially. It was long used however in digital texts, as common computer fonts were not compatible. This issue seems to have been resolved in recent years for many systems, but maybe not all. Our Romanian articles seem to use both now. Any thoughts? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct characters to be used in Romanian language are t-comma and s-comma. I don't think I've seen them misrendered in the last decade or so. Also, all Romanian keyboards should produce these characters these days. IonutBizau (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Best to use the correct orthography when using the local spelling of place-names. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that en.voy frowns on using diacritics at all, except when absolutely necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Where is that discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And how is "necessary" defined? For example in Polish names, where that l with a line through it is pronounced like our "w," I think it's clearly necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Any pointers to that rule? I wonder which diacritics are "unnecessary". ș is a totally different letter from s. Seems a bit random to me to disallow correct spelling for certain languages just because they have non-english letters IonutBizau (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This isn't a question of using Chinese characters or Cyrillic letters: This is the extended Roman alphabet we're talking about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I hadn't had my coffee yet. :) Apparently that rule only applies to article titles. See Wikivoyage talk:Foreign words#Pronunciation Help for the discussion I misremembered. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
More so, it seem to be about diacritics in romanization of languages written with other alphabets. So I think we have a consensus here: Always go with the correct spelling using diacritics. IonutBizau (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]That discussion is about transliteration from Japanese (and on a tangent, Korean). I don't see the direct relevance: "for non-Latin scripts in general and Japanese in particular, use of diacritics is essential in pronunciation guides, but adds little to negative value in article titles due to the broken link problem." My only concern would be the mention of a broken-link problem. Is that relevant? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus on anything yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The technical issue is the main concern indeed. We should obviously strive to use correct diacritics where-ever we use them. I don't think anyone disagrees with that in principle. Apparently however, the use of cedilla instead of comma was necessary in the past to avoid issues in rendering. The question now is: does that problem still exist, or can we safely switch to t-comma spellings? Even big sister Wikipedia doesn't seem to have addressed the issue: both forms are used in Romanian topics, even within the same article. It would be good if we could come to a consistent practice. If at all possible, that should be t-comma. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(indent) The main rule "against" diacritics is that if an English name exists, it must be given preference over local names, because this is specifically an English-language site. There are other reasons to avoid them, but using English is the a rule above all others when such a name exists. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are clear cases. There is however no common "English" name without diacritics in most of these Romanian cases. Just using leaving out the diacritics would also give a misleading sense of pronunciation. It's rather a comparison with places like São Paulo, where we also use the diacritics. It's really only a question of which diacritic. If no-one has reason to believe the t-comma will still create rendering problems, we can safely move towards the correct and common spelling. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sao Paulo is a bad example, because the diacritic was unilaterally changed by a user after consensus to NOT use it was reached. What happened there was a user gone awry and unnoticed (at least by admin who are the only ones that could change it since the user had made the non-diacritic name into a redirect). Incidentally, I looked up Romanian cities and could not find any that used the T-Comma (it was a Wikipedia search, but still). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In any case, this whole question started when user IonutBizau changed Oravița. The issue applies for t-comma and s-comma alike. Examples include Crișana, Hațeg, Reșița etc. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Personally I tend to find diacritics to be "not English", since they're not and generally prefer to just drop them, Crisana, Hateg, Resita. In doing searches, the diacritic is only used on Wikipedia; not other English-language sites. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Dropping the comma in a S is like dropping the h in an SH in English. Why would anyone do that - randomly changing letters in a word of a language they don't know? Sure, if an English name exists, that should be used - for example we use Bucharest instead of București - but Romanian cities don't generally have English names (they have German or Hungarian names). Anyway, I don't think the question was even about dropping the diacritics, but about which ones to use - ș vs. ş, ț vs. ţ. I wish more Romanian people would reply, otherwise the discussion is really just wild guessing IonutBizau (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@JuliasTravels: Barring any input from actual Romanian speakers/readers, I would suggest just going with whatever is at the Romanian Wikipedia. We should probably reserve page titles for standard English alphabet titles (Istanbul rather than İstanbul) but it's worth mentioning the native name in the native script once. If you're going to do that, there's no real sense in choosing a version of the diacritic that you know is inaccurate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer the "right" spelling, i.e. with diacritics when there is no English name. For those that are interested in the local language they do serve a function. With redirects – and those could be used very much more liberally – having a title that is difficult to type is no big deal. But as European, with a mother tongue other than English, I may be biased. --LPfi (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, Istanbul is with an I because that's how it's called in English. For the same reason wikipedia says Prague rather than Praha. But if you look at places that don't have an established English name, wikipedia uses diacritics in the title: Asunción, Bogotá, Reykjavík... IonutBizau (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To ChubbyWimbus' point above: If you search for any of these place-names without diacritics, won't the article come up? If not, that's a problem and requires redirects to be made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@|Koavf, IonutBizau has Romanian as a mother tongue, I think? Anyway, if anyone would like to change our current policy on diacritics, that's a different discussion and should be started on a relevant talk page. My question was merely whether changing the previously used (and language-wise wrong) cedilla's into the correct comma's would still generate any rendering issues. It doesn't seem to be the case, so all is well for this matter. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@IonutBizau Most of the results in a search I did on those cities were written as I wrote them in English without the diacritics, even when I put the diacritic name in as my search term. On some of the other cities you mentioned, particularly Bogota and Reykjavik, they are quite established as non-diacritic names in English. These are country capitals, so they definitely are known places and have names. In modern times, diacritics in names seem to be popping up more in large part BECAUSE of the international nature of sites like Wikipedia, so although we all look at Wikipedia because of its convenience, it's not necessarily a reliable source for this particular topic. Wikipedia CREATES a lot of discrepancies rather than solving them.
@Ikan Kekek Are you referring to Sao Paulo? I *think* the article was moved from Sao Paulo to the current name so it became an automatic redirect. I personally still find it bothersome that it was never changed back and put to discussion because Sao Paulo seems to be mentioned whenever diacritics come up when there is nothing exemplary about it. I still think that the name is still very prevalent in English WITHOUT the diacritic, enough so that it should be considered to have an established English name (as stated in the original post to leave it as is), but even if there are people who are in favor of keeping the current name, it may be worthwile to at least HAVE the discussion so that we don't keep promoting an article that's name was changed against what was advised as an example for any other changes. That's the kind of behavior that can get people suspended. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It was agreed to continue using the diacritic on Sao Paulo here: Wikivoyage talk:Naming conventions#Latin Characters (scroll to the bottom of the section). I share your contention that the accentless spelling is standard in English, but the consensus was that the inability to determine whether that was truly the case or not meant defaulting to the local name. Powers (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This sort of thing arises routinely in Québec, where French-language accents appear routinely in place names. We usually do not strip accents from any of these except Montreal (which has a sizeable anglo minority on "le West Island") and Quebec City. Every tiny place named after a "Rivière de ..." gets left that way, we don't try to turn Trois-Rivières into "Three Rivers". K7L (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't refer to Sao Paulo in this thread, though others did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Uh, I regret "conceding" in the Sao Paulo argument. A lot of non-native English speakers sometimes appear to be more concerned with "protecting" local names than using English names. Sao Paulo should have been a clear-cut no diacritic case, and it will always leave a bad taste in my mouth regarding its initial change... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Currency symbols missing from listing editor[edit]

I just used the listing editor for the first time here and I was impressed - except that it only has a pick list of 4 currency symbolisations ( £ € ¥ ₩ ) and is missing ₹ ₪ Kč and  ! --Ttcf (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not so much that some are missing, but that it is somewhat impractical to list all currency symbols currently used around the world.
Interesting to note that the Indian Rupee (₹) actually has different symbols depending on the local language - for example ರ in Kannada.
We could add a look up list I guess. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is odd, but not a difficulty for us because we're the English language version of Wikivoyage.
However, my apologies, since I now see after further research that I'm behind the times.
I see that despite no logical riposte to Seligne and Alice at Wikivoyage talk:Currency#Currency codes in text!? Srsly? the progressive policy to only use currency symbols for a few universally used and understood symbols was reverted. My error was to think that the three letter universally understood ISO symbolisations were to be used other than for the eight currency symbols I mentioned. I do now see the difficulty with including 50 odd glyphs in our listing editor and I apologise for raising the issue here. --Ttcf (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On hierarchy depth[edit]

I looked at the rules, but didn't find anything regarding this issue.

It's been suggested in Talk:Muntenia that all counties in the region are redirected to the region, because there are too many counties and too few destinations. I proposed I will drop all counties except Prahova County which contains a lot of cities. But wouldn't it be weird to have a bunch of cities in the region, and then a county which has even more cities? I'm just asking because I am not sure whether that would be against the rules or not. IonutBizau (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I find myself wondering if Padlipsky's "If you know what you're doing, 3 layers is enough; if you don't, 17 layers won't help you." might apply here. He was talking about network design and, as usual, being snarky about OSI and its seven layers. I do think we sometimes have a problem with too many more-or-less empty articles, partly caused by bad layering.
However, policy has always been to redirect real places and counties are real places so I see no point in deleting them. On the other hand, if the articles do not exist there is no reason to create them, except perhaps for a well-known name that seems likely as a search term. Pashley (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree. In this case, the articles exist, and I would redirect them, as most of them have only one city. The issue is that one of them has more cities and would cause the region to have 18 cities, which is apparently too much. So then the question is - can that particular one be kept as a county (sub-region) while the others get redirected ? IonutBizau (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No, each level of the hierarchy must be completely subdivided or not subdivided at all. Partial subdivisions make for confusing data structures. 18 cities is a lot, but it's acceptable if there's no good way to subdivide the region. That said, there's usually a way to subdivide, especially at this level. Even if it's just "East Mutenia" and "West Mutenia"... or "Greater Bucharest" and "Outer Mutenia" or something like that. Powers (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So with Willamette Valley, sub-divide and have regions with no text or no subdivide and have long list of locations? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I would subdivide, under the assumption that there are many more destinations in the valley that simply don't have articles yet. The lack of text isn't a huge deal. In my experience, most U.S. states (that is, all but the very smallest) need two regional levels between the state level and the bottom destination level. Powers (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

rail-air alliances[edit]

As Andrewssi2 and I have discussed here: , we both think it would be nice to have an article dealing with air-rail alliances (or the other way round, as this isn't really a fixed term we can choose to follow or differ from wp's nomenclature) (that's the WP article). However I am only minimally knowledgeable about rail&fly and know nothing whatsoever about any of the other offers, so (unless you disagree) I would suggest to write an article about rail&fly under the rail-air-alliance headline and hope that people on this very wiki will be able to fill in the situation in other countries (I have gotten the impression that WP might be outdated on this topic and it certainly isn't very useful to the average traveller)Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)