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

Pronunciation Help[edit]

I want to verify that edits like this [1] are counterproductive, correct? I've noticed User:Fabimaru has recently been adding them to various Japan articles, changing place names to add the diacritics for pronunciation purposes. In most cases it seems inappropriate, but I'd like to double check before reverting. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did not change the name of any existing page, I only changed the display name. The only drawback I see is that it makes it harder to search a name on the page using the browser (not everyone can easily type such characters). But the reason why I did is that it allows to know the right way to pronounce it. For me it's like not having accents on French names, it leads to ambiguity. It may contribute to be understood when in Japan. From my experience, if you have both the wrong pronunciation and a strong foreigner accent it does not help. Also, Wikipedia (English and French) use the diacritics (excepted for the major cities like Tokyo or Osaka I think), so there would be some consistency between the two projects. But if my view is not shared, no problem, I can stop such modifications and rollback the previous ones. Maybe it should be clarified in the help pages (to be honest I did not check). - Fabimaru (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting question. For example, under North Korean romanisation rules, the capital city is P'yŏngyang (with diacritics) whereas is it typically spelt just as Pyongyang by everyone else, including Wikipedia . --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fabimaru that it is important to convey pronunciation for places that don't have a standard common print form in English. That either needs to be with lines over long vowel (more common) or doubling vowels (less common), preferably the first. Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto have a standard way, but most other places don't so the diacritic should be used, else ambiguity is introduced. This is how we've done it for other countries like Vietnam, Portugal, etc... Texugo (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Kyotanabe, Kyotango, etc. all have established English names, and I don't see why we would allow diacritics in city links when the cities themselves don't use them. The 'ambiguity' is here is all self-created with our own inconsistencies. I live in Japan, so I can see the names that are used and these cities are never written in diacritics on anything official, travel brochures, (anyplace). Ignorant Wikipedians who are unfamiliar with the area probably created those pages (neither wiki article contains much info), but they don't need them. Incidentally, I've read diacritic arguments on WP and conversations I've read have a strong pro-diacritic brigade that tend to bully those with differing opinions. I tend not to use WP as a reference on this for that reason. When I do an English search, Wikipedia is the ONLY source that uses the diacritics which suggests that a name has been established and Wikipedia is actually the outlier. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm.. I dunno, I lived in Japan for many years as well, and I think the long vowel symbol is pretty common on train stations signs and the like since as you know there is a difference in pronunciation between きょう and きょ or おお and お. I'm not familiar with either of the places you mentioned, which is exactly why I'd like to know if there are long vowels. And regardless of how the local folks there might write it in English, I don't think they are well-known enough or widely written about enough outside the local area to have the same "established spelling" that Tokyo or Hanoi or what have you. Texugo (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In my experience we've used diacritics when the original name is written in Latin characters (e.g. Västerås) and just in 99% of those cases (e.g. Zurich is written without the trema). When it's a romanized name like Pyongyang we haven't used them. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a valid point, and admittedly, we generally haven't used the diacritic for Japanese locations so far. I just think maybe we should, because unlike the tonal languages like Thai or Mandarin, the full pronunciation info for Japanese can be conveyed if we just allow this one fairly intuitive symbol that most of us know from grammar school. Texugo (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I approve of any kind of standard diacritics and the like, whenever there is no well-known and accepted standard English name for a place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
or for these well-known English name, just once in its main article (just like there is the kanji name) - Fabimaru (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see the names that are used and these cities are never written in diacritics on anything official, travel brochures: I just checked (Google image search), the names on the JR platforms use the diacritics at least for Tokyo and Shin-Osaka (edit: so, not never, maybe often). - Fabimaru (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The pronunciation help is good, but it should be separate from the place name, unless the real place name does include the diacritics. Västerås is Västerås, no one in Sweden would write it in any other way and I suppose there is no common English spelling differing from the Swedish one. In cases where diacritics are not part of the name, but a pronunciation aid for non-locals, we should be very clear about what the real name is. I also think it is problematic when links to a destination are written in a way that cannot be cut and pasted and used in the web address (as in the above cited case: Kyōtanabe is a redlink; genitives etc. are a different matter as they are obvious). --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed, and the crucial point is your first sentence: The diacritics have to be in the official name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the above reasons, the diacritic-included pronunciation is actually in the article beside the Japanese-language name. Take a look: Kyotanabe. So there is in fact, already no confusion in pronunciation to anyone who actually wants to know. Why don't we just establish this as a rule? Then we don't have to have diacritic discussions of this nature anymore. The pronunciation will be there while the actual city name can remain normal. Links from other articles don't need the diacritics in this case either, because if someone really cares, they should click the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that (1) using the diacritic is the most correct way to represent the name (2) people should care, and if we only put it in the main page then people will read (and then pronounce later) the name incorrectly. Also, I think that the diacritics should be used also for the points of interest (ex: temples…; with the same argument: avoid confusion when talking with locals, either in English or in a few words of the local language). Then in this case there would be a inconsistency between the norm used for the pages and the PoI. - Fabimaru (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with your claim that "using the diacritic is the most correct way to represent the name". My inclination is to assume that the most correct way to represent the name is however the official publications (like the city's website, if it has an English-language section) do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is true that the macron is not the only way to accurately convey long vowel pronunciation information — there are other systems which convey the same information by doubling letters, etc. The macron is part of the Hepburn system, the most common system and one widely considered to be the best and most intuitive for English speakers, which figures into the JR railway standard and various official government ministry publications, etc. The second and third main systems do basically the same thing but with a circumflex instead of a macron. Some other systems use "oh" for a long O, etc. I think the point is that in terms of "correctness", as measured by the degree of certainty someone can have of pronouncing the place correctly without additional explanation, the current non-standard romanization at use in our Japanese article titles comes way down the list behind all those other systems, making no distinction between short and long vowels at all, meaning that common placename components like big (大, long o) and small (小, short o) get oddly represented as identical, and potentially introducing ambiguity. I personally don't think adopting an occasional single diacritic is such a huge sacrifice to gain the advantage of having names fully pronounceable. I think the very easiest and clearest way would be to follow the Hepburn system, for which we can easily use the WP titles as a model. I don't know or care who the diacritic enthusiasts of WP are, but in the case of Japanese placenames, the result is that they are spelled consistently and clearly, and I don't know why we'd prefer not to have such consistent and clear spelling.
At the very very least, we should be consistent. The only thing I can thank of that would be worse than our current unstandardized quasi-Anglicized system is the notion that we should attempt to follow whatever the local town governments have put on their websites. Those do not necessarily represent some consciously chosen spelling system proclaimed to be the correct one for their little town. A more likely scenario is that an underpaid city employee who speaks little English wrote some copy, sent it to a translation agency or the local gaijin English teacher, and then submitted it to their boss who also speaks little English, and it just gets assumed that whatever transliteration system the translator chose to use "must be correct because it came from a native English speaker after all". Or maybe they are simply written by someone unaware of the rules of existing romanization systems, or they don't know how to type the macron, or they opt not to type it just because the macron can't be used in the URL of their site and they want it to match, or any number of other reasons which don't necessarily imply that some "official" spelling has been declared. Trying to follow whatever they come up with for dozens and dozens of small town websites will just leave us with a completely heterogenous mix of systems, where we have random variation such as using "O" for the 大 in Oita and Ogawa but inexplicably changing to "Oh" for the exact same 大 in Oda and Otawara.
We should at least choose one romanization system and stick to it. I'd still say there isn't any good reason for us not to choose the same system adopted on both Wikipedia and JR railroad signs. Texugo (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Indent) I think the usefulness of the diacritics here is quite exaggerated. To be frank, the diacritics don't/won't help most foreigners. Most of them elongate the "o" sound naturally, so it's not a problem and they can't even hear the difference when they are told. And saying Kyotanabe vs Kyōtanabe is going to cause confusion is laughable. The foreign accent and non-Japanese appearance of the speaker are going to be what make you "hard to understand", not a lack of vowel extension. I tend to be against diacritics unless there really is no viable option, which is not the case here. Our article titles should not be thought of as pronunciation guides. We should just be giving the names, not "representing" the names. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

For sure if you reduce all the cases to Kyotanabe out of any context, yes it is laughable. What I am talking about is the pronunciation inside a conversation. It happened to me many times that I had to ask my interlocutor to repeat the names of French cities they were talkin about (French is my native language), and we both had decent skill in English. It also happened to me in Italian (even if French and Italian are supposed to be similar; I did not used the long vowels as it's supposed to be done in Italian). Or maybe it's just me who is bad :-) - Fabimaru (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not denying that it happens. Of course it happens a lot. English speakers don't even pronounce Paris correctly by French standards, but we didn't name the article Pah-ree or paʁi. We just call it Paris and leave it at that. If we want the proper pronunciation, I think it should go at the article lead but not replace the city's name. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be glad if we could go forward with a consensus, because I don't want to submit any other name modification if I know that it may be reverted (you know, it takes time). What should we do? Wait for more feedback? Vote? I searched a bit more (it is as funny as reading the terms&conditions of an service :-( ), and in the recommmandation page concerning the Japanese names, it is asked not to use macrons in the page title. It has been added by Jpatokal in this WikiTravel modification in 2006. What puzzles me is that it is not exactly in line with the Wikipedia policy, which recommends using the name commonly used in English (if any exists, and it is not obvious to determine which one) and add redirections when macrons are used. My proposal is to use the same names (for page titles and other names such as those of temples, gardens and people) than in Wikipedia. I cannot see how the two projects could reach different conclusion for a name with the same rules. - Fabimaru (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Different projects, different contributors, different goals. Wikipedia has a lot of editors who value accuracy above all else, including accessibility. Wikivoyage places more emphasis on the latter than Wikipedia does. Powers (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can be different if we choose, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't weigh the advantages and disadvantages. And in this case, I strongly agree with Fabimaru. Given that, as we do for other languages, we can use redirects to ensure people don't have to type the macron to reach the very small number of destination articles that the diacritic would affect, I am completely failing to see an accessibility issue or any other consideration that could possibly outweigh the various advantages of:
  • showing placenames the way the traveller is most likely to see them on highway signs and at train stations;
  • having a consistent naming system across all Japan articles, which avoids introducing arbitrary transcription differences like those I mentioned above;
  • removing ambiguity in pronunciation; and
  • never having to discuss case by case what the best spelling would be for a given destination.
Where are the comparable advantages of the current way? How does insisting on an inconsistent, arbitrary non-system we made up serve the traveller better than the most widely-used and recognized form of transcription that we ourselves use on the phrasebook page? Texugo (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the version you are supporting is much more arbitrary and inconsistent than simply NOT using the diacritics, AND your way would in fact welcome discussions on any city that someone feels shouldn't use them, so your only argument is pronunciation aid, which I already addressed above. If we say "no diacritics", then we just write the names as they are (correctly). If we say "Okay" to diacritics, then we open every city to the "fame" discussion just like other places. We have to ask ourselves, "Is the non-diacritic name more famous and widely used?" and if someone says "no", it can always be questioned.
I already addressed the pronunciation argument, but I'll say it again; we don't and should not be using our article names as pronunciation guides. They're city names. If the name is difficult to pronounce for English-speakers or is pronounced in a way that is not obvious to English-speakers, let's put it in the article rather than messing around with the city names. It's a much simpler solution and can be applied to every city across the world. If we start doing it in all of our articles, users will also start to notice and be able to reference it.
I beg to differ that diacritics are "the most widely-used and recognized form of transcription" of the city names. That's not at all true. Kyotanabe doesn't [2]. Osaka doesn't [3] [4]. I never understand why people think Japan is such a "special" case when it's not. I notice the Wikipedia articles don't use pinyin for Chinese names. We don't either, because we don't name our articles to be pronunciation guides; we just write the names. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That is just purely wrong. Hepburn romanization wouldn't exist as the most popular transcription system if it were arbitrary and inconsistent. It simply isn't. It is beyond ridiculous to insist that Hepburn, the number one way to write anything in Japanese in the western alphabet, is inferior with regard to pronunciation or in any other sense to our idiosyncratic, made-up non-system of maybe-Hepburn-but-disregarding-the-macron-except-sometimes-when-we-feel-like-putting-an-'h'-or-a-'u'-in-there-instead, depending on whether the website creator happened to subscribe to a third-rate non-standard transcription system. And if our decision is to follow WP spelling, as Fabimaru and I have advocated, there would be no reason for us to have any separate argument about spelling anyway, but even if we didn't follow WP — to the extent that it affects travel, with the exceptions of Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, and Hokkaido, there are no destinations that both contain the long O sound and are famous enough to have any standardized spelling the layman who hasn't been to Japan would be used to seeing in print. As the spelling system used officially by both the highway system and the rail system, Hepburn is very easily the "most widely-used and recognized for of transcription", and easily the system the traveler will be most likely to encounter on the ground in transit. Anyway, for you to say "we should just be giving the names, not 'representing' the names" makes very little sense. Any time you write a Japanese place name, you are choosing a way to represent it. And while we are choosing a way to represent Japanese placenames, there is absolutely no convincing reason why choosing to vaguely approximate but not actually follow any actual system would be better than choosing the most popular established system used by all the major forms of transport that the traveller is most likely to use. Texugo (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's also pretty hard to claim Kyotanabe doesn't use it. Texugo (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, highway signs seems to always dismiss any mention of long vowels. But it was not my argument for using the macron (allows knowing the pronunciation without changing page, and having consistent usage of macrons for all the place names including points of interest) - Fabimaru (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need an irrelevant link to something that was already stated (or even linked?) above. Yours is of the JR station. My link was of the actual city and what the city calls itself (aka: relevent). Nice try though.

Your arguments about the Hepburn system are moot. The Hepburn system was designed for translating WORDS. We're talking about cities that already have English names. We don't have to translate anything. Also, you are using the modified version, not the original Hepburn system, which never used diacritics for elongated vowel sounds. And the Hepburn system is once again no more "special" than pinyin, which once again, we don't use. Of course based on how pro-diacritic people seem to be, it may just be a matter of time before China is targeted...

In response to your comments about Oda vs Ohda, Google produces many more results for Oda than Ohda (with Shimane), so I think it's safe to continue using it without being hypocrites. Whether you like it or not, these cities HAVE English names, so changing them to a phonetic representation is not better. I don't see how using their English names is NOT a convincing argument? I LIVED around Kyotanabe, and nothing in the city about the city in English uses diacritics. That's enough for me to say let's leave it alone. Adding diacritics would be the arbitrary thing to do. The diacritics REALLY aren't important for a traveler. Even those train station names are better known without them because Hyperdia doesn't use diacrtics.

Do you have a response for what's so wrong about just writing the pronunciation beside the name in the article lead? It seems like a win-win to me. The city name doesn't have to be changed and the pronunciation is there for people who are really concerned about being exact. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The city name doesn't have to be changed: I can take care changing the names. So I (or any other person) do it, what is wrong with my approach? It's a win-win, those who are not concerned by the diacritics are still able to read it, and the other have the pronunciation information anywhere. - Fabimaru (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if we have more opinions from other people, because the discussion is going round in circles. - Fabimaru (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would too but, I must say that I have just heard two claims that I feel are blatantly untrue and wholly unsupportable: the notion that Hepburn is only "for words and not for names" is completely ridiculous and I have no idea where you pulled that out of. Hepburn was designed to transcribe anything in Japanese, and placenames are constructed out of hiragana and katakana and kanji just like anything else in Japanese. Similarly, any claim that "Japanese towns all have an established name in English" is completely and utterly and laughably unfounded. I've already explained why above. Just because somebody, very likely not even a Japanese person from the given town, translated a website either using or not using a diacritic cannot in any way be interpreted as a statement on the part of the city that "this is our official name we consider to the the correct way to write our city name in English".
You have tried (unsuccessfully I think) to deconstruct the advantages that Fabimaru and I have given for adopting the most popular common transcription system, and you have tried to downplay the disadvantages we've pointed out in the current idiosyncratic approach, of insufficient pronunciation, introduction of ambiguity, inconsistency, and divergent transcriptions of things that are identical in Japanese. But what advantage are you offering?? What are you defending, and why? A system where instead of following a standard, we go case-by-case following whatever arbitrary decision was made by the person who did the translation of the website, regardless of which transcription system they happen to subscribe to, if any at all, and/or the evidence of Google searches made unreliable by the fact that Google searches ignore the macron, all because we want to... what? Where is the comparative advantage of the current bias against the macron? You are denying a system with more consistency, fuller pronunciation, and less ambiguity in favor of what, exactly? Even if I was inclined to concede all the points you just tried to make and pretend the current system has none of the disadvantages already pointed out, I would still see absolutely no convincing reason not to go ahead and use Hepburn. Texugo (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that Wikivoyage discovered all these Japanese cities and therefore needs to name them is ridiculous. I've already shown that these places do in fact already have names. Kyotanabe has a name, and it doesn't include diacritics. You can whine about it all you want but that doesn't change the facts (nor does stating that what has already been supported is "wholly unsupportable"). This isn't about the Hepburn system; we didn't discover these places and I guess neither did Hepburn. They don't need special Wikinames. I'm not sure how you can even propose that looking at how a place name is written is not a viable way to see how it is written. If the city hall and all references to and promotions of the city that don't copy and paste from Wikipedia write it the same way, you say NONE of it can be trusted, simply because it's not written your way.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere above did I deny that the diacritics could not be useful for pronunciation. In fact, the suggestion I've made a few times, which you continue to ignore in favor of irrelevant Hepburn rants, is that we should give the cities their names and put the pronunciation in the lead beside the name. I'm not downplaying the advantages of the macron. The advantages are truly minute here. You're talking about adding a symbol to tell people to elongate an "o" that most foreigners already elongate, so who cares? The example above of when the diacritics are useful wasn't even a Japanese case.
The problem is, you are talking about the "advantages" of renaming cities, and while you have ("unsuccessfully I think" to quote you) tried to twist and refute my argument, my argument is that these places have been named. Since they've been named, we need not debate; we can just write the names. You talk about all these "difficult situations" that exist, yet no one has ever refuted any of the Japanese city name spellings. Why? Because they're established, and we all know it.
The anti-diacritic and pro-English stance of naming destinations is a Wikivoyage rule of naming, so the fact that you think it's stupid doesn't matter.
To recap the points that I'm making: We don't need to name named places (As I've said, I know Kyotanabe extremely well and the names we use have never been controversial, because everyone knows them), diacritics are to be avoided whenever there are English names (which there are), AND I'll reiterate my idea to write the names as they've been named but put the pronunciation with the name in the lede, which would be a win-win and could be applied across all non-English city names. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Youour argument hinges on the claim that there is already a single official way to write every town name in English. Your chosen example was Kyotanabe, and I have already shown that even in that case there are at least two different orthographies the tourist will likely encounter. That means that no, in fact, there is no single English name for it. There are only competing transcription systems, at least three of them, and trying to determine in each case which to follow is silly because it presents no advantage. It would be prudent to choose one and be consistent. Texugo (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My argument doesn't hinge on that at all. If it did, you could have just pointed to Wikipedia's arbitrary names as "proof". Also, your "proof" is a JR Station, which is named by JR West and has no connection to the city itself or how it writes its own name, so you have no proof. Do you want to name every city based on its station name? Above you said that station names were inconsistent and not credible, so have you changed your mind, or are they only credible when they say what you want them to say?
There need not be a "single" way to write a name in order for it to have an established name. We've dealt with many cities where there are slight variances in spite of having one established and common one, and I think you know that. Why do keep saying we will have to "try and figure out which case to follow" when the names are already clear? You keep talking about consistency, but we're already quite consistent; we've named the cities according to... their names. And saying "no diacritics" does in fact create consistency.

In doing a search in Japanese (in hopes of being fair) I could only find non-diacritic namings: Kyotanabe is Kyotanabe [5] [6] [7] [8] [] Soja is Soja [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] I tried to find them written with macrons, and they didn't exist. The only inconsistency that I could find on an official page was that Kyotanabe's Chamber of Commerce website forgot the "e" at the end of the name [14], but we all know it should have the "e" so there is no controversy. Using the diacritics would be just as I said, a special Wikiname that does not reflect reality. That's why I will once again suggest naming the cities without the diacritics and then writing a pronunciation aid beside the city name at the beginning of the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how it is so easy for you to dismiss the evidence to the contrary. Again, the reality in the ground is the the diacritic is, quite indisputably, used as well. Even if we limit discussion to only your example, the very first thing the very vast majority of visitors will see is a sign using the diacritics. I already posted that pic above and you somehow tried to dismiss it. And that being the case, it's simply not possible to claim that I'm advocating some "made-up wiki name". There are, as I stated, multiple transcriptions in use, on the ground, in reality. It would be far easier to pick one than to go case by case relying on difficult google searches to trying to determine which transcription to use and end up with a collection a Japanese articles which are not titled consistently according to any single established system. If there is any "made-up wiki system" here, it might be the current one that eschews existing standardized spelling systems in favor of a "go with whatever flow you can discern from google but avoid macrons at all costs" approach. Texugo (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason you cannot fathom it seems to be that you aren't reading what I wrote, because I've addressed your ONE example above. Do you even remember your own example? It's the JR station to refresh your memory. Please reread my last comment. It has been addressed. I've addressed all of your comments while you continue to state that I am "ignoring" them. It's getting old.
My examples are "on the ground", relevant to travelers, and plentiful, while you are clinging to ONE station name that not only I addressed but YOU yourself called unreliable. Your ONLY source in unreliable by your own admission and , to repeat myself again, a single example does not show that it's an established name. Mine are all reliable sources. That is fact. Your assertion that your way of writing is all over cannot be taken seriously since you have no proof aside from a station name that we've both refuted. How does my proof hold less weight than your word? You don't even know the city. I've both provided evidence AND know that area yet you pretend you know what it's like "on the ground level". Clearly you don't.
And once again, you talk about all these Google searches, "difficulties", and pandemonium without an "established system". Sorry, but there aren't any difficulties and the naming system is well-established and really simple; use the city's name. No one is confused about the naming conventions except you apparently. You are the only one who seems to require Google. The rest of Wikivoyage has been naming these cities without controversy for a long time. Where are the confused masses you pretend exist? At this point, your argument seems to have boiled down to unproven blanket statements, false claims that I've not addressed what you've said, and claims about naming confusions that have never and still don't exist. You've ceased responding to the information I've given you and continue to reiterate things that I've addressed multiple times. I've even proposed a solution that includes the pronunciation guide 5 times. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I am really sorry. I hope we can reduce the level of emotion we seem to be investing in this. Maybe you didn't mean certain claims the way I took them, and I certainly didn't mean some things the way you seem to have taken them.
We are just looking at this from different perspectives and talking past each other.
What I see is 京田辺. I see 大田. I see 安城. And lots of other placename with various sounds. And for each, regardless of who writes it or where, there is one way to write it in Japanese, and multiple ways to write it using the alphabet which are being used on the ground. You are surely aware that the long O sound can be written with a macron, with an oh, with an ou, or with o with nothing signifying its length. The づ sound can be written as du or dzu or zu. The しゅう sound can be written as shu or shuu or syu or syuu or shū or syū. If you gave any placename containing any of these sounds to 20 Japanese people and told them to write them down in English, you'd definitely get a range of spellings. So, if you are claiming that all Japanese places already "have a name in English" that we should use, what I do not understand is: how do we know which of the possible spellings that supposedly established name is? Where do we find this "established name" you speak of? What is our source? The only possible answers I have seen implied are
a) we look at the town's website - If this is our answer, I wonder what you suggest when a place doesn't have a website, or has no English on its website, or uses machine translation on its website, or contains internal inconsistency on its website. Do we assume the website reflects some "official sanctioned" spelling even if the name is written nowhere except in the url or the copyright notice? Do we take the official town website spelling even if local tourism infrastructure tends to use a different spelling? If a town website does use a diacritic, do we use it too?
b) we look at Google results - In this case, it is rather difficult to get a clear answer on the most common placename orthography because place names coincide with business names and personal names, because Google ignores diacritics in searches, etc.
Ok so then, if that question is satisfactorily answered, the next thing I don't understand is: why is that better than following a standard orthography that always writes the same sounds in the same way? Given that we know people will see the placenames spelled different ways in different places no matter which spelling we choose, how is matching city hall websites or whatever case by case more advantageous than spelling things consistently and unambiguously using a recognized common system? Since most Japanese placenames are pretty unknown to westerners, and since there are multiple spellings of many of them to be found out there anyway, when I weigh the existing system against the advantages of following an established orthography system (still very minimal diacritics - just one, improved pronunciation information conveyance, using the same spellings to write the same sounds/kanji, simple check of WP instead of digging up city hall site/google search, etc), then I still wonder: Why are you so vigorously defending the current system versus those advantages? It must have some bigger advantages that outweigh them, right? That is what I do not see. Texugo (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The way I look at is that 99.99% of the cases, we would not need to consult sources. The names simply are. Do we really need sources for Kyoto? Kochi? Oita? I don't think so. Perhaps some of my views of the "obvious" are because I'm talking about places I've been and often visit, so I have seen more than even an internet search will allow. If however, someone DOES questions a name, such as Kyotanabe, then we can of course do a search and provide proof of our assertion. In Kyotanabe's case there are not only official websites from the city and tourism bureau, but also the university, which is known throughout the nation, spelling it with no diacritics, no "oo", and no "oh", so there is plenty to show as proof of its established name. I did the same with Soja above.
Modern naming conventions have almost completely dropped the "oo" and "oh" from usage, so they will generally not be an issue.
The only major case of the "oh" still being used in English that I am aware of is that of Minoh (Minō). Even Wikipedia uses Minoh [15] instead of Minō without anybody questioning it (and we probably should, too. Our way, Mino, with or without the diacritic is less common than Minoh or Minoo, but Minoh is really the dominant name). You pointed out the city hall website of Oda city using Ohda. Most sources in English use Oda, though. If however, you or someone else were to say that Ohda is the name, it could be discussed and considered. If we need sources, we should never use just one to determine the name anyway, regardless of what country the city is in. Google actually corrects the name if you type "Ohda Shimane" which is another indicator that just Oda should be used. But cases that may lead to discussions are very rare.
I would much prefer to review controversial names than to choose a single naming convention for an entire country without regard for how the name has actually been transcribed. It would seem to be against our goals to establish such a system and it would not be to the benefit of the traveler. In the Minoh example, to say that Minoh and Minoo have both been cited and therefore we will use Minō follows no sense of logic and is no help to the traveler. If the discrepancy is between "oh" and "oo", then we should discuss it and the result should be one of those, not something completely different. Pronunciation guides are useful, though, and do have a place, but it should not supersede all other naming rules. That's why I still think it best to write the names as they are written in English (with discussion if "the way it is written" is truly unclear). I think requiring a pronunciation guide in the article lead would be a great improvement to Wikivoyage for all cities with non-English name origins, but I'd keep them out of the article names themselves for the reasons I've stated above. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anything else to add really, and maybe you don't either. Summing up, I still see a plurality of orthographies that anyone writing about a given place has to choose between, and the fact that a city hall has had to pick one for their own writings does not to my mind imply that their choice therefore constitutes an "established" name in English. And since I think there is at least reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether there are universally "established" names in English, it is very hard for me to see what advantage an unstandardized selection of dubitably "established" spellings has over a clear and consistent and fully pronounceable orthography system recognized as the most widely-used romanization and adopted by various government agencies including the national rail system that is by far the most common choice of travellers. I have tried my best to explain and support my position above, as have you, and neither of us has managed to convince the other. Now I'm pretty tired of this conversation. Maybe we should hear from some other users who are less familiar with Japan and Japanese. Texugo (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we have both stated our arguments. I just don't see why we would/should establish a naming convention for one country that supersedes our established naming convention rules makes sense or is necessary, particularly when it is a country where names have been transcribed already in a variety of English materials. To me, it seems we should always at least try to take into consideration how a city's name has already been written in English (as I tried to show with Mino, our current name and the proposed naming conventions completely ignore that the name is most commonly written as "Minoh").
On the note of attracting other user comments, I think we may have confused or scared others away (lol). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but this discussion really belongs on Wikivoyage talk:Romanization. Nonetheless, I'll summarize my view, which is essentially unchanged since 2006: 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. I don't care deeply either way about using macrons in link titles, but it seems a bit pointless.

Also, Hepburn is *the* standard for romanizing Japanese and any alternative spellings should be nuked from orbit. Wikipedia's "use the most common name" policy is a snakepit of endless, pointless festering disputes (I think you'll agree that the discussion above proves this point rather handily); we have the luxury of being able to dictate our own polocy, and "use Hepburn, no macrons" has worked pretty darn well for Japanese place names to date. Jpatokal (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That page says "Indicate long vowels with macrons, except in article titles" which is not quite the same as "use Hepburn, no macrons". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Close old expeditions?[edit]

I thought I would post this in the pub first. I noticed that the expedition page is quite long and has a few expeditions that have not been updated for a while (both article and discussion pages), and even some not touched since before the WT fork in 2012.

Examples of 'stale' expeditions include (but certainly not limited to are) Wikivoyage:Florida Expedition, Wikivoyage:Maryland Expedition, Wikivoyage:Education Expedition and Wikivoyage:Fellow traveller Expedition.

In order to give more prominence to those currently active expeditions, can we archive those that have not been touched for over a year into the archive section and mark them archived with the {{historical}} template? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do, that would be more informative. If there is a group of users willing to restart a "historical" Expedition, they can always do so. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it would be good fto indicate 'Historical' expeditions that could one day be restarted. I will try this out with Florida (a WT era expedition) and see if anyone has feedback before doing this wholesale. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a logical step. It's neater if only the active (or at least relatively recently active) expeditions are listed as such; otherwise, we risk diffusing people's attention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I was hoping to draw new people into the active areas such as Wikivoyage:Search Expedition and Wikivoyage:India Expedition that have a good level of activity --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing to close LGBT Expedition because the Expedition has no concrete goals. The corresponding Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travelers is more appropriate for further discussions. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
We do need to distinguish between expeditions whose purpose is not supported by consensus or no longer makes sense vs. expeditions which would be valid were there interest and activity. WV:Routes Expedition is {{historical}} absent a consensus that WV really *needs* an article about Interstate 4; the same is true of RDF tags or any other expedition whose task is already completed or obsolete. These are {{historical}} as the task is no longer desired. By contrast, Wikipedia uses {{inactive}} or {{semi-active}} for valid topics (like WP:TRAVEL) which are dead only for want of users, and could be useful contributions if interested users in the future were motivated to revive them. They're abandoned, but without prejudice to their resuscitation should new users create a task list and set to work sometime in the distant future. WV:LGBT Expedition (and others that are inactive) still have valid objectives, but should be marked {{inactive}} so anyone stumbling across them will know they're currently dead or dormant. K7L (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, K7L. This is an important point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stub and Outline Statuses[edit]

There are hardly ever any Stub status articles as it's very easy to find any page that's not using pagebanner and go in and fix it. However, there are a number of articles at outline status, for example Spitak that only just meet the minimum requirements for outline. I'm just wondering what everyone would think about changing the divsion between stub and outline so that articles with just a single line introduction and no listings should be classed as stubs as well, even although they have the template layout? -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a city article that has the correct titles but no listings at all should be a stub. Regions however, as long as references city articles should be an outline article. I think also if we really want to make use of the status rankings then there is a need to go through the outline article as I think many could be marked as usable. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
By itself it sounds like a reasonable idea. The problem is that we have a tremendous number of outline articles, the total number of articles being 26,189, I'd estimate there are 15-20,000 outlines. The process should be automated somehow, and as Traveler100 said there are a great number of outlines that qualify for usable status (I nowadays update those whenever I run into them) which also would need to be updated accordingly. Should we have to go through the articles one by one manually I guess that would be a little too much even for someone like yourself and Matroc. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Maintenance panel shows just under 14,000 city outline article, yes a very large task. However could at least tidy up your favourite regions. Using CatScan set depth to 10, category to country of choice and has template to outlinecity gets a list that is doable. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I doubt that changing outline→usable is something that can or should be completely automated. It's too easy to fool an automated process by feeding it text that's pure copypasta from the CVB or venue blurbs, endless marketing fluff like "beautiful sunsets, refreshing breezes, fun for the whole family and ideal for business and leisure travellers" that gets dumped in any random destination but incomplete listings with no contact info and more promotion than fact. I'd hold those at "outline" until fixed even if there were a hundred kilobytes of meaningless text. An automated process could spot particularly long or detailed "outlines" so that someone could look at them manually, but would likely not be clever enough to see the difference between a good article and a heap of copypasta. K7L (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the whole point of the 'stub' class; it's supposed to designate articles that can easily be brought up to outline status. Consider 'outline' our version of Wikipedia's stub, if you must. Powers (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd not have guessed that a list of empty sections was an "outline". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
While more complex outlines are possible, a basic document outline is precisely a hierarchical list of subject headings, so it seems an appropriate word. Powers (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Something seems to be wrong with mw:Extension:CreditsSource, it's not displaying MediaWiki:Creditssource-credits properly in the page footer but instead displaying a hard-coded default which contains two clickable links to a rival travel wiki and one redlink labelled as "history". The link should go to the history page here, not red-link or off-site. I don't see anything in Bugzilla and no one has edited any relevant MediaWiki: messages lately, has someone or something broken the underlying extension code? K7L (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The links above the edit box when creating a new page are also missing; there used to be a one-click option to drop {{smallcity skeleton}} or a few of the others onto a blank page. K7L (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything looks fine to me at the moment. Powers (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Weird. I'm seeing this only if I'm logged in to Wikivoyage; the same pages look fine if I log out or go to another computer which is not logged in. K7L (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I see the problem now. Any messages which have been customised in MediaWiki: space for 'en' are likely to go back to default text if I have 'en-gb' or anything else selected as my language in my profile. That would explain why no one else noticed this, as well as why it only appears when logged in. K7L (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I read at the English Wikipedia that someone was going to add a warning to Special:Preferences to alert people to this unexpected behavior. (Most people thinks it's a problem, but some say it's a feature that allows them to ignore a lot of unwanted detail and messages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Derivative FX[edit]

Since the tool Derivative FX for uploading the derivative images from Commons doesn't work, I'm not able (in an easy/quick way) to perform that activity. There's an alternative tool that I can use? Any suggestion would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Massimo Telò (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the very same problem, very frustrating. So I usually just upload as new files and mention in the description. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Supposedly it's been moved to Labs, but I get an error message about it not being enabled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it's something the Wikimedia Foundation might want to take into their hands, as it affects copyright attributions. Has a bug been opened about this? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
A report was filed a couple of months ago at bugzilla:67283. I believe that all of the attribution work could be done by hand, so this is probably not a serious copyright problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


The "Discover" template is not displaying on the Main Page. Is anybody else having this problem? I am looking at it on my iPhone 5 in desktop mode, if that helps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Also did not see "Discover" from Firefox on a Mac, but on PC it works fine. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for notifying Andrew. YPSI, digit "0" in dates doesn't works actually. --Saqib (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing it. Of course it had to break down precisely on a day when the Discover section's main culprit was busy with other stuff... :P --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks for doing a great crime job YPSI. Well done! --Saqib (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bug with Internet Explorer[edit]

IE bug.png

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

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

Map Coordinates[edit]

For some reason, if longitude and latitude are entered as anything above a simple decimal - you wind up with a pile of extra characters at the beginning of the listing. Is there some way around this? It will parse if you decimalize the entire thing, but the map it links to will not parse it at all. What do I do? L. Challenger (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates are entered as strict decimal values not minutes and seconds. The number after the decimal point is not minutes and seconds but the decimal fraction of a whole degree. You will need to convert the number or use a tool that give the value just in degrees. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
You can use this conversion tool: --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Or go to the Wikipedia article for the place (usually our article will have link in the sidebar) and click on the co-ordinates shown on the upper right. That gets you to a page where second line is, e.g. for Xiamen, "24.479836, 118.089419". Copy that into your geo tag, changing the comma to "|". Pashley (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a great example, unfortunately, since those coordinates (even the DMS coords on the Wikipedia article) are far too precise. Powers (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I use this tool: Try it, maybe you like it. --Bernello (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
But what if an average user wants to modify the "price=" in a sleep listing and sees the empty "lat=" and "long=". In "Google Earth" he had already stored a marker to his hotel, so he copies the lat and long data in degrees, minutes, seconds format from Google Earth to wikivoyage, and sees the unexpected result. How does he know what he did do wrong? I think it is not correct how this is handled by the template. --FredTC (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It'd be nice if the template would recognize the format automatically. This may mean some tricky coding, but it is already done at Wikipedia (format deduced from number of parameters). The conversion is quite easy, even by hand (or by pasting into a calculator), but still unnecessarily cumbersome – especially while on the road. Any thing non-numeric should give a clear warning. --LPfi (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners/Hall of Fame[edit]

We've had a lot of Main Page featured articles come and go - and a lot of really nice-looking banners, if I do say so myself - since April 2013, the last time the Banners Hall of Fame was updated. What do you say we pick out some of the nicer ones from the archive and add them to that page? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are indeed some really great banners among the once we've had on the main page. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, why not? I think that there are also other banners that might be considered for a Banners Hall of Fame, though, and quite a number of users have posted great ones, but I'm kind of awed by the way User:Missvain is going through the entire list of articles without pagebanners alphabetically and posting a lot of real knockouts. Just from today, I really like the pagebanners she's put up in these articles: Arunachal Pradesh, Arromanches-les-Bains, Arraial d'Ajuda, Armação dos Búzios, Arles-sur-Tech and Ari, among others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving[edit]

I'm wondering if there is interest in having a bot for archiving discussion pages that need archiving constantly (such as this Pub). I have a bot to do that, which is an unmodified copy of 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 [16] and [17] can be automated, while [18] and [19] 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. [20] 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)

Phrasing of status descriptions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discount sites active in multiple cities[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Licensing for locally-uploaded images[edit]

Nominally, only nonfree content that falls under the exemption doctrine should be uploaded locally, but de facto the large majority of images that are hosted locally are DotM banners, which are sourced directly from Commons or CC-compatible Flickr images and are therefore free content. Many of these free images are public domain; however, currently locally-uploaded images can only be tagged with the Attribution 2.0 or 3.0 or Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 or 3.0 licenses, or as a Wikivoyage webpage screenshot. We should probably add a public-domain option (and for that matter, also options for Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, which Commons now supports). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BUMP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created the 4.0 license templates and a {{Cc-zero}} template. For the upload wizard, not sure there should be too many choices, so if 4.0 was added, 3.0 should be removed from the list. Just wondering if the 4.0 links should be added to {{Cc-by-sa-all}} and {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}}. Would also be good to add the cc0 option as you suggest. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Although thinking about it, may be worth staying with 3.0 in the list since the Wikitext is 3.0 licensed, so more convenient to have both the same. Worth having the templates though, for those who wish to use 4.0 instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's necessary to keep 3.0 (and 2.0) in there because the vast majority of DotM banner images are sourced from other CC-compatible images on Commons and/or Flickr, and they have to be uploaded under the same version of the CC license as their source image. Any source image uploaded to Commons before CC 4.0 support began will retain the 3.0 (or previous version) license, and anything CC-compatible that's uploaded to Flickr is always 2.0. So those tags need to be available for locally-uploaded banners as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks very strange[edit]

Saqib blocked a spambot called User:Johnmartindavies earlier today plus deleted a spam page this user had created. I noticed the talk page link was blue and out of curiosity went checking how many times he had been warned before. Well, this most definitely doesn't look like some vandal's talk page nor does his contributions record. I don't find it very likely that a normal Wikivoyager suddenly would start spreading spam?

Is something like this going on again? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. The user page User:Johnmartindavies was edited with spam by an anonymous IP (Special:Contributions/ and it looks like the Johnmartindavies user account was then incorrectly blocked. I've removed the block on Johnmartindavies and applied a three month block on the spambot IP -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Relieving to know that nothing serious is at large. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you YPSI. I was so foolish. It was a big mistake from my side and I apologies for it. --Saqib (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Mishaps happen to everyone now and then. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
But I'm really very embarrass over this foolishness. Actually I'm not active these days on-wiki so I was in hurry to delete and block the spammer. --Saqib (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Presentation ready for review[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image licensing paperwork[edit]

Have any of you seen this report on image licensing documentation here at the English Wikivoyage?

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

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

Wikivoyage's newest Guide article[edit] Percé.

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

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

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

Project scope[edit]

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

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

Avoiding content duplication[edit]

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

Help with districtifying[edit]

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

Edit listing dialogue box could be better[edit]

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

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

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

Article statistics available?[edit]

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

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

Tampa recent edits[edit]

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

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

Wikivoyage:Changing username[edit]

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

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

Russia and time zones[edit]

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

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

listing and geo coordinates[edit]

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

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

Missing see sections for countries[edit]

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

Proposed new section on extended stays[edit]

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

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

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

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

A different proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Koavf: The requirement is that the user is able to print the article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: That is what I wrote above. I don't see how my proposal is germane to this point, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of travel topics covering longer stays at a country level - but we should target these at those staying months rather than years. They should cover general advice - what the process is for renting an apartment in a country, but exclude detailed rental listings. Travelling for a year or so, and supplementing this with some work is increasingly common, and several countries offer visas specifically for this - "working holiday" or "youth mobility". Most of the advice would also be useful to those moving permanently, but we should exclude topics only of interest to long term residents like pensions or buying a house. In some cases we could also use this to trim country and destination articles so that most travellers don't have to print half a page on work when they are only in the country for a week. I would suggest a title like "countryname for a longer stay" - put the country name at the start of the title so that it shows up when people start to search for a country. AlasdairW (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. Such advice could also be provided at regional or huge city levels, if it is dramatically different from what one would advise a traveler to the rest of the country. But your main point of general advice, rather than specific listings, is where I stand, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I can easily imagine someone saving up money for a once-in-a-lifetime trip to spend a few months in a country, and telling them things like "if you rent an apartment in Germany, then you have to pay the television tax yourself" or "if you rent a place in the US, you need to ask whether garbage, water, sewer [often billed separately], hot water [separate in some old buildings], telephone, internet, gas, heat, and air conditioning are included in the rent, because it's totally up to the landlord" might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Excessive changes to an article in one edit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a look at MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css - copy everything from those two files from the "BEGIN Main Page carousel code" section until the "END Main Page carousel code" section to the corresponding files on Hebrew Wikivoyage. You'll also need Template:Banner. Beyond that, make sure your carousel is set up the same way that English one is done on the Main Page:
<div class="jcarousel-wrapper">
  <div class="jcarousel">
    <div class="jcarousel-list">
        <div class="jcarousel-item">
{{banner|direction=left|title=Karachi|section=Destination of the Month|section-link=Previous Destinations of the month|image=KarachiBanner1.jpg|quote=Pakistan's largest metropolis blends glass-and-steel modernity with colonial British architecture of yesteryear.}}
        <!-- more carousel items go here -->
  <span class="jcarousel-control-prev">[[#|‹]]</span>
  <span class="jcarousel-control-next">[[#|›]]</span>
  <p class="jcarousel-pagination"></p>
-- Ryan • (talk) • 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates all messed up[edit]

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

You have not done anything wrong, known problem with the geo data, bug has been logged. BTW, impressive amount of data added in short time to the article, nice job. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The simplest way to solve this problem is to remove the #iferror statement. If there is really an error you will find the page in a maintenance category defined in MediaWiki:Geodata-broken-tags-category and you can check it. --RolandUnger (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all! --Iopensa (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)