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


Bugs in interface for creating a new account[edit]

I'm a new user, having just created an account. There are some bugs in the web interface used for creating a new account. It says that the email address is optional, but if you don't put in an email address, it doesn't work. The resulting error message doesn't accurately explain the problem (which is a lack of an email address); it talks about cookies and says something vague about not being able to verify the source.--Bcrowell (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Bcrowell.
I'm neither an administrator nor a programmer, but I'm sure someone who is both (like @Wrh2:) will probably take a look at this soon...
Thanks for creating an Apizaco‎ article! --118.93nzp (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This is probably something to bring up at m:Wikimedia Forum, as it probably affects more than just the English Wikivoyage. --Rschen7754 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Cannot recreate the problem - I just created a test account without email address and it went fine (Chrome 33). Which browser is this about? Is this still a problem? --Malyacko (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a problem creating my account yesterday. I wanted to use the same handle I use on other Wikimedia sites (The Photon), but I was told that that name is too similar to an existing account (The photon), which you can see from red link does not actually exist. El Photon (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's my guess as to what happened. When you create an account now, the account is a Single-User Logon -- a global Wikimedia account. You can't create an account here just at Wikivoyage (see here that your El Photon account is an SUL account. Trying to create a global "The photon" or "The Photon" account won't work because both of those exist (as non-SUL accounts) on some wikis. What you should do is go to en.wikipedia (or another Wiki on which you have the "The Photon" account) and go to the page called 'Special:MergeAccount'. That will set your account up as an SUL and allow you to log on to any wiki with the same logon. Powers (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)



Yesterday, I took a quick glance over on Wikibooks and noticed that they've got several travel guides and tourism topics that might do well to be integrated into our guides over here on WV. They don't have very many and they mostly haven't been edited for awhile, so I doubt they'll be missed particularly, though I have asked for the community's thoughts here. Naturally, the guides over there don't fit our templates, but I'd be more than happy to sift through them, merge them to their analogues and create new articles as necessary.

What do you think about this? Is it worthwhile? If nothing else, it should hopefully mark out WV as the clear repository for travel guides within the WMF family.

Nick talk 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Great find! Yes, usable info should be merged into WV, and a friendly message left on each talk page suggesting where to find a more up-to-date guide and suggesting to join. Example: Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikibooks in general is not very active, but I'd prefer getting their okay before mass moving stuff over, so as not to step on any toes. --Rschen7754 08:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nick's message is great I think. I assume that if there's no answer in a week, the merge can be performed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I would flag down an admin too and make sure it gets noticed - QuiteUnusual comes highly recommended. --Rschen7754 09:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've pointed QuiteUnusual towards my post - thanks for the recommendation Rschen7754! If/when we're given the 'go-ahead', is there a more sophisticated way of moving the pages across beyond simple copy-and-paste? --Nick talk 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to import entire page histories, but that will need assistance from developers and/or stewards. --Rschen7754 00:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it preferable then just to copy the contents, linking to the remaining page history over on WB in the summary? --Nick talk 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think an import might still be a better option. Probably best to see what the result is at en.wikibooks and go from there. --Rschen7754 02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't admins use Special:Import too? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
For direct imports, in theory, but no upload sources have been defined, so the tool doesn't work. --Rschen7754 19:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A request on bugzilla should be able to get them added, if this will help in the future; it would just need a list of acceptable import sources. (If that goes ahead, I would suggest 'pedia as well as 'books, as the ability to just import templates and modules can be useful.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, though I think we may need local consensus for this. --Rschen7754 07:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated the pages to be moved here. --Nick talk 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've made the completely unilateral call that this is the only book of Wikibooks' tourism category that we don't want - am I right? It doesn't seem to fit our remit really; I think it sits better in its current home. --Nick talk 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like our request will probably receive consensus soon, however, we've not yet decided where to put each book. I would suggest that both b:Hiking_in_the_Canadian_Rockies and b:Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide could both survive as separate articles, whilst the rest should probably be merged with existing articles. Despite this, all of the nominated books would require some editing as they're split over several pages. With that in mind, I'd be happy for the books to be moved first to my userspace (making the job easier for whichever steward moves the pages) where they can be 'voyage-ified' and/or have their content distributed to existing pages. For attribution purposes, the pages could then be moved to Article name/Wikibooks. I'd be happy to undertake the bulk of this work myself. Is this acceptable? --Nick talk
Request for import submitted here. --Nick talk 22:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Import proposal[edit]

I propose that we have enwikipedia, meta, and enwikibooks added to the list of import sources at Special:Import. This section is for documenting that there is consensus to do this.

Note: this only gives us the technical ability to do imports, even if we rarely use the feature; it gives us the ability to do it just in case we ever need it again. --Rschen7754 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer. --Rschen7754 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, since I can not work out why ever we wouldn't want to maximise our future choices. --118.93nzp (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems perfectly intuitive to support this, but first, I'd like someone to explain what the possible down side of this could be, because I don't see a down side. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - A very useful tool, particularly when dealing with the above. --Nick talk 14:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The only possible drawback that I can imagine is the possibility of overzealous importing. Pretty weak, though. Powers (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It is an admin-only tool, by the way - that should have been mentioned, my bad. --Rschen7754 23:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. If there is no harm and a clear benefit then let's make this happen. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the import was now done, but this may be helpful for the future (though not such a high priority). --Rschen7754 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would still be keen to see this happen! Please feel free to edit any of the imported articles:
--Nick talk 00:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is now bugzilla:63095. --Rschen7754 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And now live at Special:Import. --Rschen7754 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia blog article[edit]

FYI, there's a nice article on the Wikimedia blog today featuring Saqib. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

+1. Saqib, I know I'm a thorn in your side sometimes (q.v. recent proceedings on dotm), but I do truly admire your tireless work. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff Saqib! Thanks for your constant promotion of WV! Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh you guys found it. Thanks! --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, very nice. It is good to see both the site being promoted and Saqib getting some well-deserved credit.
It raises a question, though. English-speaking locals are a great resource for the site — their knowledge and their perspectives complement what visitors can provide plus they can translate to and from local languages. We have some good ones for various places, but is there anything we should be doing to attract more? Pashley (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful, Saqib! Danapit (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Excellent article Saqib! I play chess with a friend from Pakistan and hope someday to visit him there... Matroc (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Really fantastic article! Great story, great photos. Godspeed on your journey! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. --Saqib (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Great job Saqib! Well done on raising the profile of both Pakistan and WV! --Nick talk 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting WT attribution template[edit]

Hi, everyone. I want to delete that stupid template from User talk:Ikan Kekek, since anything having to do with my time at WT has already been archived. How do I delete the template from my user talk page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you recall, User:Pashley did this for us for the Talk:Iran page. I still don't know how he did it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete the page. Then restore only those edits that were done after the migration. --Alexander (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, deleting a page and recreating it gets rid of the template. In general, this should be done only after a bit of thought; we do have both a legal and a moral obligation to give proper attribution. Pashley (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]I have to delete the page? All the edits were done after the migration, every single one of them. The older edits (which are linked from the top of my user talk page) are archived. There's no simpler way to do this than for me to copy the entire contents of the page to a blank file, delete the page, then recreate the page and put the contents of the former page back? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, who said anything about copy and paste? You can do a selective restore of just the edits after the migration. Powers (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
In order to do that, I'd have to cut the contents, paste them elsewhere, then repeat the procedure. There should be a simpler way to delete templates from articles that no longer need them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the WikiMedia software, although in IT solutions generally it would not surprise me if a full deletion was required to remove the template.
What should the process be? Can a user request this on a talk page and an individual admin ensures that there is no WT content before doing this?
Additionally if WT content is archived then how do we handle the lack of attribution on newly created archive pages? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ikan, listen to what I'm saying. As an admin, you have the ability to selectively restore specific edits after deleting a page from the Wiki. See, for example, w:Wikipedia:Selective deletion. No copying and pasting required. Powers (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried it, and it proved too complicated (my first attempt didn't work), so I deleted my user talk page and recreated it. However, the WT attribution was also for some reason deleted from User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive, which I didn't intend to do, as it includes content from before the move. So what do we do now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Restore all the deleted edits on your talk page and then move your talk page to your archive page and then you can edit your archive page to just have the archived stuff that you want on it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying if I restore the deleted edits, the WT attribution will reappear? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Didn't work - same as before the undeletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Your archive page doesn't have WT attribution because you created it after the migration. There is no User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive on WT to credit. On the other hand, your current talk page does have the WT attribution, because its history includes edits that go back before the migration.
One way to fix this is to archive your current talk page (to, say User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive 2) by moving it. This retains the edit history and replaces your talk page with a redirect. You can then edit your talk page to remove the redirect and start fresh (and include a link to the archive pages at the top). This should move the WT attribution to the Archive 2 subpage and leave your talk page without it.
A more complicated way to fix this would be to delete your talk page and then do a selective restore of just those edits that occurred after the migration. I don't know first-hand that this will work, though.
For complete thoroughness, I would suggest the following:
  1. Delete your archive page.
  2. Delete your talk page.
  3. Do a selective restore from your talk page of only those edits that occurred before the migration.
  4. Move the restored edits to an archive. Do not create (or delete after creation) the resulting redirect.
  5. Do a selective restore from your talk page of the remaining edits.
-- Powers (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand your explanation, but I'm really confused, in that it would seem that User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive, since it includes edits from before the migration, is the one that should include the WT attribution, whereas User talk:Ikan Kekek should not, because I've archived those edits from before the migration. If what you're saying is that because there is no User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive at WT, there should be no WT attribution for that page, then should any of my user talk pages have any WT attribution at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
What you seem to be missing is that the WT attribution is added programmatically. We don't have any way to add it after the fact, so pages created after the migration (which includes your archive page) can't have it. The system has no way of knowing that the posts you pasted into your archive page came from your main talk page, so there's no way it could show the WT attribution. If, instead, you moved your talk page to an archive name, the WT attribution should move with it. Powers (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If we would like to add the WT attribution to the relevant archive pages, can we just use a template (similar to {{swept}}) to basically achieve the same thing? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well we could, but it's hardly necessary since the posts are all signed. I wasn't suggesting that it was necessary for Ikan to maintain that attribution notice, but rather explaining why the notice is on his talk page but not his archive page. Powers (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Call for project ideas: funding is available for community experiments[edit]

IEG key blue.png

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

Do you have an idea for a project that could improve your community? Individual Engagement Grants from the Wikimedia Foundation help support individuals and small teams to organize experiments for 6 months. You can get funding to try out your idea for online community organizing, outreach, tool-building, or research to help make Wikivoyage better. In March, we’re looking for new project proposals.

Examples of past Individual Engagement Grant projects:

Proposals are due by 31 March 2014. There are a number of ways to get involved!

Hope to have your participation,

--Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Guys, is this something we could profit from? Think developing and sending out actual paper printed brochures to tourist offices inviting them to update their own town? Or find a developer who would be willing and able to fix fairly pressing tech issues, such as the dynamic maps that can't translate to English. Or develop other tech tools we could use? 08:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) JuliasTravels (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Your idea of brochuers sounds good but the question is who's willing to do the job and should we expect to receieve good response from the tourist offices when Wikivoyage:Tourism Bureau Expedition is died already. --Saqib (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just thinking about asking Joachim whether he would consider trying out for a grant, since there's a proven track record and still a fair bit of potential goals to achieve like improved features and static map printing. Some funding may help in terms of support and motivation. Possibly in conjunction with the Wikivoyage EV association, User:DerFussi and User:RolandUnger as well.
Other than that, Building community and strategy for Wikisource is quite an interesting approach by another WMF project, although that would take some effort to get together. -- torty3 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer[edit]

Greetings all!

In the coming months the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team will be developing Media Viewer from version .1 to v.2 and then v.3 as we move it out of Beta Features and into live use for everyone. We invite you to try out Media Viewer by turning it on in your preferences. You should also check out the notice below about prioritized developments.

We'd love to have English Wikivoyage on board in the first release stage in April. Let us know how you feel, and leave us feedback about Media Viewer.

You can read a longer version of this note and find more information about the release plan here.

I appreciate your time! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No objections from me. --Rschen7754 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sedona/Northern Arizona[edit]

Hi, everyone. Please have a look at Talk:Sedona#Banner image. It seems that there's a rough consensus of 3-1 so far in favor of replacing the current pagebanner for Sedona with what's Pagebanner #4 on the talk page. However, Northern Arizona has no pagebanner, and my proposal to move the current Sedona pagebanner to Northern Arizona is currently being blocked by a single user who does not like that banner, which was put into the Sedona article by User:StellarD. A 50-50 deadlock between two people does not constitute any kind of consensus. So if any of you would like to have a look and express your opinion, please do. But my main feeling is that even if the image in StellarD's pagebanner is determined not to be suitable for a pagebanner, it should at least be inserted in non-pagebanner photo form somewhere because it's a good picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be technically high-quality, but it is not an inviting travel photograph. Powers (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles with ref tags[edit]

There are a number of pages which include <ref> tags which could do with changing into just links. For example Oxford (Ohio). Just wondering if someone could edit MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references and set it to the following so that these can be tracked into a category for easier finding and editing.

<code><ref></code> tags exist, but no <code><references/></code> tag was found[[Category:Articles with ref tags]]

Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Users shouldn't be using the references tag either; maybe we shouldn't include it in the wording. Powers (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the cat. I forgot to put the includeonly tags around the category. They should be added as well. Sorry. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
<code><ref></code> tags exist, but no <code><references/></code> tag was found<includeonly>[[Category:Articles with ref tags]]</includeonly>
Yes Done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's day article 2014[edit]

Sorry guys for bringing this up very early but 1st April is approaching so I thought of presenting an idea. I think having Wikipedia as DotM will attract many Wikipedians. --Saqib (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I like this idea a lot. You might want to move this discussion to the Pub so that it gets a wider audience. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
At first I didn't thought this is important but per Ryan above, I've moved this discussion to pub. I think the best way to select our April Fool's article through voting as we did last year so I'm creating a table below, please feel free to add suggestions and add your name next to those you support. --Saqib (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I too like the idea of doing Wikipedia - do you mind if I add some things to your mock-up? --Nick talk 19:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not Nick. Plunge forward please. --Saqib (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I added another article suggestion for the April day to the table - maybe not as good as WP but certainly more absurd... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Might want to look at Wikivoyage_talk:Joke_articles#Nominees for last year's runners-up, which appear to be w:Gotham City, w:Springfield (The Simpsons), w:Valhalla and maybe w:Wonderland or w:South Park. K7L (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A Smurf village might also be an idea? K7L (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@K7L: No doubt, many good ideas were nominated last year for the April Fool article and we've plenty of good option to choose one from them this year but I would say let's not lose the opportunity and select "Wikipedia" over those brilliant fictional destinations. No doubt, having an article on one of those fantasy lands might be more fun than having an article on boring Wikipedia but having an article on Wikipedia may be very beneficial for WV because the article can attract many Wikipedians to WV. What do you think? --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with Saqib - this could be a fun and novel (in every sense) way of attracting more users across from WP, whilst continuing our tradition of joke articles. --Nick talk 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
We're a week out from April Fool's Day, so if anyone wants something other than Saqib's suggestion of Wikipedia, speak up soon, otherwise let's move forward with that one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What can we do on WP on 1 Apr to attract attention to the article? Nurg (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
A message on social networking website such as Twitter and FB. Also, Wikipedia's next Signpost is going to publish in a day or two. We can ask the editor to write some about our April DotM. What else? --Saqib (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Last Signpost in fact included thoughts about April Fool's Day articles ...on WP. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's article proposals[edit]

Article Supporters
Wikipedia Saqib, Nick, ϒpsilon, Ryan
State of denial ϒpsilon
Example Example

More Stats[edit]

This site has a nice array of statistics relevant to Wikivoyage. It's nice to see that we appear to have hit 1,000,000 hits/month and that Reddit is so important to our social media presence (could a WV account be useful?). That being said, it also shows areas where we could improve and the work we still need to do. --Nick talk 19:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion as travel topics[edit]

I've been wondering about creating a couple of pages about religion in general, but I'm not sure how this ties into Wikivoyage's scope. I guess an argument could be made that the traveller would want to have a few guides on what places to possibly avoid during a travel vacation, since some regions of the world are more intolerant of certain religious persuasions than others. But some of the pages on religion, like Christianity and Buddhism, have been tagged at the bottom with some sort of pending deletion template or request for merge, and I'm confused. Should we have one central travel topic page discussing religion in general and incorporating all the different religions as subtopics (level headers) of the page? Or should we have them split up into different pages, touching on the specifics of each religion and what behaviors among travellers may cause its adherents to be offended? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just the standard message for any outline topic article. I think for now you could use those two pages as a model for creating other similar pages. What were you thinking of covering? Texugo (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, our religion articles are not very strong, but I think the Buddhism article is closest to what we might want from these articles. Ideally, these will give information that is useful to travelers in regards to themes and imagery that is commonly seen (architecture, sculptures, art, etc), restrictions (ex: many mosques cannot be entered by non-Muslims, proper dress, etc.), important differences between countries/faiths, etc. as well as becoming a place to link all itineraries that relate to that religion (currently there aren't any/many, but there's a lot of potential). I don't think that the focus of these or a general Religion article (if one is created) should be on what offends believers. That should be given some attention, but I don't think it's a good focus. Often religion is so integrated in societies that things that are offensive to followers become offensive to the larger populace, as well. We should probably have a separate template for articles that we definitely will not delete even if no one edits for a year. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For travel topics (and itineraries), the deletion warning is standard for articles that have an outline status. It disappears when the article is usable. We don't want loads of topics with only a couple of sentences. If your town has a cheese museum, it is fine to create an article for the town and add the museum - the article will stick around if it only has that one listing, but if you create a cheese travel topic and add the museum then it is likely to be deleted. I think that Buddhism is very close to being usable, maybe after deleting irrelevant headings like Buy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There are some topics that have been predetermined to never be deleted, even if they are outlines (discussion about this is out there somewhere). They are topics that are obvious itineraries, like the Silk Road. Even if the Christianity article is not edited significantly for a year, if you put it up for deletion, I think it will be given a "Keep" in spite of that warning. For those, it may be useful to have a separate template that does not threaten deletion. However, there are not so many of them, and I just threw the suggestion out there. I actually don't care either way. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There are some articles which, by their nature, will never be comprehensive. Underground Railroad is one (an unlimited array of largely-parallel paths), Moon is another (the Apollo programme proved it to be possible, but we'll never have enough detail in the article to provide a blueprint for the next nation that tries an Apollo-like mission post-2020). Contrast this to Radiator Springs, which is fluff but we have a list (from the "Cars" film's closing credits) of exactly who the filmmakers met while researching Route 66 and NASCAR, so only need to retrace those steps for the piece to be relatively complete. K7L (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, travel topic articles on the main world religions would be a good idea. I'm not sure of the best way to organise text to deal with the mostly separate issues of where adherents of some religion might go on pilgrimages versus advice for outsiders who will be affected by local religion. However, I'm sure that is a soluble problem.
Our current article on Islam is rather weak and we don't seem to have one on Hinduism, Taoism or various others.
We do have things like Holy Land, Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent, Hajj and others which cover some of the ground. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No need for a separate template, just a switch in the existing one that will have it give a more appropriate message. I seem to remember having brought this up before somewhere, not sure where at the moment... Texugo (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I plan to do the five major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) but I saw most of them had been created already. Also some lesser but still well known denominations, like Catholicism which is probably important as a complement of sorts to the Vatican City article, and Shintoism and one of my favorite religions Atheism. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Catholicism would definitely be an interesting one, since it is a major branch of Christianity that has a very strong background in travel. (I guess you could say that (at least in Europe) Roman Catholic pilgrims were the first people who traveled for personal fulfillment).
Just out of interest, what would Atheism look like as a travel topic? Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Dunno about Atheism, but Darwinism would be fair game... retrace the voyage of the Beagle in an ocean-going vessel? K7L (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Darwinism is not a religion and we emphatically should not use the term in a title.
An article about Darwin's travels would be a fine idea. Title should be either On the trail of Charles Darwin, parallel to existing On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim, or something like Voyage of the Beagle. Pashley (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I suppose Communism might be a atheist related subject with plenty of material, with the caveat that only some atheists are communist. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we no longer allow redlinks?[edit]

It has always been encouraged to link to articles, even if they don't exist, because it draws attention to them which will hopefully result in someone clicking them and creating an article. It's also more convenient to have articles that mention a destination already link to it upon creation rather than trying to find the city name in every article after the article is created. Edits like this [1] which remove links seem counterproductive. Was there some sort of change or can I re-add the links? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They should be always left in red, as far as I know. Texugo (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, there was no discussion around 'not allowing redlinks', which makes the title of this section a completely loaded question.
Definitely red links are part of the fabric of WikiMedia, and they have a use in identifying potential new articles. Do bear in mind however that an article with a very long list of Red Links may not have actually been designed very carefully. The Hubei example you use was actually excessively using red links out of the regions correct hierarchy that I have since fixed. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If those links were outside of the region's hierarchy, why did you only de-link them instead of removing them altogether? If they are not in that region, they should not be listed at all. 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The links were in the region's hierarchy, just not at that level. Cleanup exercises do not have to happen in one go. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm.. ok, but in the Cities section, every town listed should generally be linked, whether an article exists yet or not. If it doesn't belong in the list, remove it. Unlinked cities have no place there in any case. Texugo (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say that listing (and linking) every town and village in China (and doubtless other countries) is probably not the way to go in WV. Are you saying that if town XYZ exists then it must be red linked? If so then that should really be part of a policy that can be referenced. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What about redlinked counties? Red links to non-cities or to topics like hang gliding? K7L (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There shouldn't be redlinks for counties or other subdivisions unless they are part of a comprehensive no-gaps-no-overlaps subdivision scheme that isn't overly fine-grained, because otherwise they may not necessarily deserve their own articles. I'd think it better not to link topic articles that don't exist though, because topics that don't make it past outline status tend to get deleted again, thus the question of whether they deserve an article is a little harder to clearly answer in advance. Texugo (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Internal_links and Wikivoyage_talk:Internal_links would be a good place to continue this discussion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Related sites / External links[edit]

Hello, I come from Wikivoyage in Spanish. I created a module and a template for obtain the links to Wikipedia, Commons and Dmoz directly from Wikidata. We are going to include this template inside {{pagebanner}} and remove the old links. I leave the links in case anyone is interested. Módulo:EnlacesExternos. Plantilla:Enlaces externos. Regards, --Kizar (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And I would like to add that a similar module has been implemented a while ago in Ukranian and Russian Wikivoyage. It is sad that the summit page is dormant now. --Alexander (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems like something we should implement. Nowadays I'm pretty busy, but I can take a look at this if nobody gets to it. --Rschen7754 02:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page (again... sorry)[edit]

Hi everyone!

Sorry to raise this once again, but Saqib and I have been tinkering around with ideas for the Main Page once again. A lengthy discussion has already taken place and a new mock-up is already up and running. Despite this, most of the discussion has revolved around only a very small portion of the community. We'd be grateful if you could take a look at the two links above and leave your thoughts and desires for the Main Page there. Thanks! --Nick talk 23:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sorry guys if this topic has become a headache for some of you but this is something important and is unfortunately hanging since a long time now due to lack of community interest. --Saqib (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the mock up page better - Matroc (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Site Certificate Issue?[edit]

When browsing to to WV with an Android Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 tablet, WV changes the mobile version of the web page, i.e.

Recently it has been giving me an SSL connection error (Error code ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR)

Is anyone else experiencing this? It would not be great for many potential readers to be experiencing this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference, I used the Samsung browser and Google Chrome. It seems to be the same issue on a Window Phone 8 device. (Changing the browser settings to 'Desktop mode' fixes it) Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No problems on Android 2.3 with stock and Dolphin browsers. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
How about directly navigating to a mobile page such as from your desktop? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Without any problems using Firefox, Internet Explorer or Chrome (Windows). - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right. I just tried (remotely) from a computer I have in the United States and it is fine.
It seems that our mobile pages do not work when accessed from inside mainland China. Somewhat strange since the desktop version is fine. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wts namespace[edit]

Special:WantedPages shows many links to non-existent pages in the Wts: namespace; that is Wikitravel Shared, their space for images & other stuff shared across language versions. That namespace has never existed here and I think anything that needed moving from the old site long since has been.

Is there some way to fiddle the software so that any link into that namespace, or even any link to any non-existent namespace, gets some more-or-less helpful error message if clicked and/or so such links do not show up on the "wanted" list? Pashley (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We use Wikimedia Commons now, but I think currently links to those pages ought to be delinked in favor of something else, like double quotes or bolding the links instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Making wts an alias for the Wikivoyage: namespace would take care of a lot of those. Powers (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Manually delinking such pages by fixing the links on source pages would be too much work; there are a few dozen of them including at least 10 with more than 10 links each. A bot could do it.
Creating Wts: pages here as redirects, mostly to Commons, is feasible but I'm not sure what policy says about inventing new namespaces.
Making wts an alias sounds good, though I am not certain how it could be done or how it would work out in practice. Pashley (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the only significant objections to creating namespace alias are normally 1) possible conflicts with existing pagetitles, and 2) possible conflicts with interlanguage links, based off ISO's system. As we can see from Special:PrefixIndex/Wts which is only returning one entry which does not have the colon, there are no conflicts with existing pagetitles and it's highly unlikely there will be an actual location called Wts:Foo. SIL and Ethnologue reports also return null, so unless the ISO revise their codes to accommodate some new language it's unlikely to be used as an interlanguage code either. Technically feasible, but I haven't seen any objections to it so far. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a namespace alias would work - some of these links should go to commons (Wts:Special:Upload), most don't really have a place to link to now (Wts:Main Page, Wts:Technical requests) - but if we can agree on a solution then it could easily be implemented using WV:AWB. I would suggest just surrounding existing wts links with "nowiki" (<nowiki>[[wts:Special:Upload]]</nowiki>) since these links are mostly obsolete. Would anyone prefer an alternate solution? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm still uncomfortable going through and changing old comments on talk pages. We shouldn't have done it when changing "Wikitravel" to "Wikivoyage", and we shouldn't do it now. If we set up an alias, the pages that are still redlinks can be created as redirects (soft or hard) to the correct location. If we don't want to set up an alias, then we should set up redirects as necessary. Powers (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Page rank[edit]

en:Wikivoyages pagerank seems to have improved. to 6/10 (the same as WT). Not sure how recent this is. Or if it solved the issue with not showing up on google.

While German readership has increased English readership has not really changed. [2] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick provided this interesting link above [3] but the data is so different from our own data [4] German and English are nearly equally popular. And Italian less so. If we are getting the 1/7th of the traffic of WT that is not bad. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that Step 1 is getting our Google pagerank up. I don't think it's an unreasonable goal to get our pagerank above WT's, especially as their content stagnates and gets more and more tainted with spam. Imagine what that will do to the Google search results. As far as the differential in traffic between us and WT, we have to be patient and not get discouraged; it will come with time. We're headed in the right direction. And frankly, I'd rather the increase be gradual; thinking back to the temporary spike in traffic that accompanied the WMF launch, it was a bit much to adjust to all at once (at least speaking for myself). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be still a lot of links from Chinese WP to WT. Have fixed a few. A bot appears to pick up the site though? [5] Do we have any Chinese editors who can help? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Any reason for linking to "" as an external URL instead of using an interwiki link (or a templated interwiki link) to [[wikivoyage: ? The external-style link gets that ugly "nofollow", which we don't want. K7L (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As there is a new site, zh.wp should be linking there instead of en.voy. Maybe bring it up as a bot project for zh.voy people to discuss in their pub. -- torty3 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Anyone have access to [] data? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not. But perhaps we can retire the notion that WikiT is "filling with spam that will eventually kill it"? This was predicted at the time of the fork. Didn't happen. It's been nearly 2 years. They've made due. There's no more spam there that I can see than there is here (at least after a day of housekeeping has passed). Spam is not what is going to kill them. Nor is a slew of "Google tricks" going to get us visitors. We pulled our one rabbit -- changing the WikiP links to point to us instead of them -- from the hat, and that's from whence our traffic comes. Nearly all of it. We are a clone of Wikitrav. Over time -- a long time -- some of that will shift. But there's no magic bullet. I agree with James: we're fortunate to have the one visitor in 7 that WikiT has. Google knows who was here first, and we shall never escape being beneath WT's boot until our CONTENT is unique in all the world.SpendrupsForAll (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes unless we can convince google to adjust. Or really promote the site via social media. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Err... Convince Google to adjust? Why on earth would they choose to bend their own rules so as to favor a small free site over a large, established, popular ad-supported site that *makes google money*? Err... Good luck with that. SpendrupsForAll (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Paul.
I don't think any of your dividends are in too much danger while some of the movers and shakers here refuse to improve this site's search engine optimisation because they prefer to remain big fish in a small pond. --118.93nzp (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Uh, welcome back. Not a good way for you to resume editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Google has that "Don't be evil" moto. With respect to SEO it has my full support as soon as we can show it works for already established articles. My attempts failed. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Leaving 118 aside for the moment, IMO SpendrupsForAll's remarks above call his intentions on Wikivoyage into question. If you think Wikitravel is the superior site, Spendrups, why are you not editing there rather than telling us (with evident glee) how inferior we are to our rivals? I would describe your comments as trolling (if not akin to the shenanigans IBobi pulled just after the WMF launch), and counsel you in future to contribute constructively or not at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You could very well be right that Spendrups intends to troll in this thread, but I'm not reading his comments as trolling, but as tough, straight talk. Aside from the remarks about the amount of spam in WT vs here, which I couldn't address because I haven't visited that site for a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. Where did SpendrupsForAll says that WT was superior, or WV inferior, and where's the glee? I thought s/he made very good points, including the point that it is content that will make the biggest difference. Andre, if you were influenced by the suggestion above about SpendrupsForAll's identity, well, I find it hard to give the suggestion any credence at all. Nurg (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what nay says say. We have not succeeded as quickly as I had hoped but we will. We have a site, we have independence, we have an actual CC BY SA license and we are part of a movement. We have competition. Should only make us work harder :-) And if these are editors coming from WT to poke us the best thing is simply not to feed them... Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers again. If you look at pageviews WT 7.2M visits * 1.8 pages = 13M pageviews. WV 1M vists # 3.1 pages = 3.1 M pagviews means we are closer to 25% :-) congrats to all. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally readership was up more than 60% percent for Feb and the previous numbers were for Jan. Mar is looking like less though.[6] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
To Nurg: I stand by my statement regarding SpendrupsForAll, and I furthermore reject your categorization of it in your edit summary as "odd". Firstly, Spendrups did indeed strongly imply in his comments that he finds Wikivoyage to be inferior to Wikitravel ("we're fortunate to have the one visitor in 7 that WikiT has") and/or a sort of pretender to their throne ("Google knows who was here first"; "We are a clone of Wikitrav"). Add that to his far more explicit statement about Wikitravel's superiority, his general trolling and provocation, and his uncanny familiarity with Wikivoyage goings-on for someone with so short an edit history, including precisely no mainspace contributions (as elucidated by Ikan Kekek) - a red flag for problem users on several occasions in the past - and a bigger picture emerges. In a case like this, I think it's wholly reasonable to call into question a user's good faith. You'll note that I did not propose Spendrups for a userban or take any administrative actions against him, but rather calmly asked him to avoid contributions that were antagonistic. Ours is a wiki that emphasizes civility in dealings between members of the community, and for good reason. We've had enough issues in the past with users who seemed to be interested in little other than stirring up trouble that we IMO should not shy away from taking people to task who engage in behavior like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And he states he is leaving Jan 31st 2014 [7]. So Andre raises reasonable points. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

State of WT[edit]

Spendrups suggests "perhaps we can retire the notion that WikiT is "filling with spam that will eventually kill it"? This was predicted at the time of the fork. Didn't happen. It's been nearly 2 years. They've made due. There's no more spam there that I can see than there is here (at least after a day of housekeeping has passed)." Since I check WT from time to time, I think I can comment.

Looking at new pages, I often see lots of spam there vs almost none here. Currently, they only have two new spam pages, but 5-10 is typical and I have seen it over 20.
I left one really obvious spam page — no travel content, an odd title, and lots of dubious external links — alive some time back to see how long it would take for anyone else to notice. We are at nine months & counting.
We currently have one dead end page vs several hundred there, no double redirects vs nine, two orphaned pages vs several hundred, 40-odd unused files vs over a thousand.

I conclude that WT is not being properly maintained since more-or-less all the competent admins have left. This may not kill it, but there are definitely problems. Pashley (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have expected WT to be unsinkable. K7L (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

From the Tourist Office

I'm deeply saddened by the loss of 227 travellers and 12 crew members aboard ill fated Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 which goes missing over the Gulf of Thailand. Asked by: Saqib (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we all are. (Should we maybe rather move this discussion to the pub?) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This tragic incident has reminded me of the ill-fated wikipedia:Airblue Flight 202 in which one of my friend was travelling from Karachi to Islamabad to apply for Norwegian visa in the embassy. He was just finished from college and was planning to do a first trip abroad for leisure purpose. His parents were insisting him to cancel his Europe trip because they were afraid to let him travel to Europe alone but he was so eager to apply for visa. There were 152 on-board including 4 foreigners and it was the deadliest air accident in Pakistan. (I think its fine to keep this topic here in Tourist Office). --Saqib (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Saqib himself removed this from the TO, but I felt it might have a place here instead. I too am deeply saddened by this incident - it's a real tragedy. I thought that an incident like this might make some people even more afraid of flying than they already are, so I created Advice for nervous flyers, which I thought might be a good addition to our flying coverage. --Nick talk 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a shocking tragedy that comes at an uneasy time, especially for us here in Central Europe. I cannot imagine how the families of the passengers and crew feel. This comes after a period of exceptional lack of massively fatal accidents on major airlines and great safety record despite ever-growing number of flights. The fact that terrorism may be a factor is very worrying given the advances in technology and organization that allowed for the aforementioned. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Something had to have happened very suddenly, or else someone other than the pilot must have taken over, since there was no distress call. It's extremely sad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bug at Template:Eat?[edit]

Whenever complete sentences are typed in to the content= parameter of the "Eat" listing template, the last sentence always ends with two periods (full stops). This does not seem to be a problem with Template:Buy, Template:Drink, etc. I have no knowledge of how to work with templates. Please advise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific example? WOSlinker modified Template:Listing today to add a period after the price when there is both template content and a price, but the change doesn't look like it should add an extra period [8]. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much everything at Buffalo/Allentown and the Delaware District#Eat, for example. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
On second look it appears that the change would add an extra period whenever there is both a price and content, so I've reverted it pending further clarification. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I had added the extra . as I was seeing a number of listings with the content and the price running into each other, for example:
  • Title. Something Price.
As the content did not end with a fullstop.
  • Title. Something
So I'll have to do something that checks to see if the last character of content is a . or a , and if not adds one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes see a double .. on listings where the hours ends in a fullstop, so that could do with something similar. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Title. Hours.. Something

WT links[edit]

Some have collected on EN Wikipedia and I have replaced them with Wikivoyage links. We need to make sure this is happening in other languages. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provides some examples of where you have done this?
Additionally, although we are both part of WikiMedia, do we know that WP is OK with us doing this wholesale? (We already have the WikiVoyage template link for Wikipedia articles) Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of those changes -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There are still some WT templates on some languages of Wikipedia; is the most egregious (all of these need to be replaced with Wikivoyage templates before the old template can be nominated for deletion). It may be worth checking other Wikipedias where the template has already been removed from articles to ensure that the (now-unused) template is nominated for speedy deletion and doesn't find its way back into pages as spam. K7L (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

US National Park Visitor Ranking[edit]

This is from an article in the Seattle Times that I thought was worth sharing, US National Parks based on number of visitors. I'm not sure how to interpret this data since some parks are a lot easier to get to than others, but I thought it was worth a look.

New statistics from the National Park Service show Olympic park visitors numbered 3,085,340 last year, up from 2,824,908 in 2012. The increase came despite the October shutdown of Olympic and most other national parks across the nation for 16 days caused by congressional de-funding of the federal government.

Here’s the park service’s Top 10 list (out of 59 national parks) and the number of visitors to each:

America’s most-visited national parks (2013)

source: —The preceding comment was added by Lumpytrout (talkcontribs)

Thanks! To make it a little easier for reference, I have linked them above. Texugo (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


I am disgusted by the drive to remove less-than-perfect but well-constructed and painstakingly handcrafted maps in favor of dynamic maps, which are technically impressive but not as flexible or as usable as a good handcrafted map. It's one thing to allow them to co-exist on the same article, but we have now stepped off the precipice and removed a map because the dynamic map is "better". This I cannot stand for. These dynamic maps are not objectively better even than an imperfect static map. Icons overlap. Orientation is fixed to north-only. Important labels are omitted at various zoom levels in favor of less-important ones (since the algorithm can't tell the difference). We have no control over what streets and buildings and bodies of water and transit points are shown; that's all handled by the algorithm. But for some reason, which no one has explained, these drawbacks don't matter.

But when it comes to a handcrafted map, every little drawback matters. The letters are too small? Delete it! One icon is out of date? Delete it!

The most fundamental precept of the wiki ethos is that if something is imperfect, you fix it. Our maps are designed to allow that to the extent possible. If you can learn wiki syntax, you can learn how to modify an existing SVG map in Inkscape. But it seems there are too many people here who are content to toss a slap-dash auto-generated map onto an article rather than simply fix the problems they find with a handcrafted map.

This is not the wiki way.

-- Powers (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you know how to edit maps? If you do, then recommending that others who lack the time or/and inclination learn how to edit maps instead of editing them yourself is also not the "wiki way." The wiki way is to plunge forward, not to complain that others are not doing so when you can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Many of us are of the opinion that the "fix" to the drawbacks of static maps was to implement dynamic maps. We have had hundreds of maps added to articles in the past few months, as opposed to the much smaller trickle that was added when static maps were the only option, and every editor can now edit those maps when they edit an article. Clearly your opinion is different, but saying that implementation of dynamic maps, as opposed to maintenance of existing static maps, is not the "wiki way" is an argument that is definitely in dispute. To look for a constructive path forward, let's figure out how, when and if the two should co-exist, ideally acknowledging that both can have a place on this site and that supporters of each have valid arguments. Example: Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Are we ready to start deploying dynamic maps across the site? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Lt, I think you and I are part of a dying breed. ;) I'm not overly fond of the quality of the dynamic maps myself, although I don't find them to be so offensive as to be utterly inferior. And they are pretty dang functional, I gotta give them that.
More than that though, I've just lost any kind of enthusiasm in working with the static maps because I feel like the Wikivoyage community, for the most part, has no interest in caring for them. I made a lot of static maps, and I made them in the belief that after I uploaded them here, the community would take ownership of them and keep them up-to-date, even improve them if need be. That rarely happened. Usually, the map would just sit there collecting dust (by which I mean slowly go out-of-date) and eventually I would have to come back and update it myself. And proud as I am of the work I've put into this community, I have a busy life outside of this website; I don't want people relying on me to keep this stuff in order. And I get it; Inkscape looks like a really scary complicated program and there's a reluctance among users to touch the static maps. Fine, I accept that.
In the end, if the choice is between a well-made static map that no one is going to care for, and a sloppy dynamic map that people will at least bother to update, then I'd choose the dynamic map. I don't want to see a bunch of relics on Wikivoyage, even if I'm the guy who built them. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I do think static maps are the only way to go in region/state/country/continental section/continent articles, since they are the only way we can have maps that are color coded, labeled with our own peculiar region names, etc,. and I don't see that changing anytime soon. For cities though, I tend to agree with Ryan. Your critique about overlapping icons/names fails to take into account the ease with which the map can be manipulated around most of those problems. If they were algorithmically-created static maps, your point would be 100% valid, but they are dynamic, so the user can circumvent most of those problems, when they pop up, with a tiny movement of the mouse scroll. Texugo (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I am with Texugo on that. I would love to see the day when dynamic maps would sort the overlapping icons issues themselves, and we could even highlight objects on the map itself that should not be obscured by the icons, but I believe dynamic maps is the way to go for city/district-level articles. This is a wiki, which anybody should be able to edit with the result being a better article, not an outdated map. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometime back, when I was not a fan of dynamic maps and I really disliked them, so I created a city level map for Karachi but the map was lacking only FEW point of interests which are located in suburbs of the city so I realised a dynamic map is actually appropriate to use in such a large city POI are scattered far and wide and where new businesses such as restaurants, accommodations etceteras pop up frequently and the dynamic map can be modified easily simply by anyone accordingly. There were only minor issues with that static map I created but due to non-availbity of time, I decided to replace that static map with a dynamic map. I think I very much agree with comments of those who says a dynamic map is very useful for cities and district level articles but when it comes to a region article, a dynamic map can't beat even a incomplete and poor crafted static map. --Saqib (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My major issue with dynamic maps is that the server is balky. If dynamic maps become unusable, we will regret that we don't have static maps for every article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually share much of PerryPlanet's opinion, and no shared updates to static maps is what I mean by not enough critical mass. If say there were many people actively editing an article, I wouldn't mind perhaps chipping in my bit and making a static map. But I do not want to be the only one in charge of the map graphic. It's symptomatic of the problems of static maps in the past ten years. When I mean outdated, I mean five years outdated and it's not just one outdated listing, but tens. I'll even point out that one needs Maperitive and Inkscape, two different programs, to create static maps unless you painstakingly trace each and every road, since OSM no longer natively supports SVG export.
In fact I'm going to go further and say that there is a severe lack of collaboration around the entire site in the first place, where we are lucky enough to have one contributor for a city, let alone two or more to bounce ideas and keep up maintenance of maps or otherwise. I'm more interested in solutions for that, because I think it is the root problem, rather than retreading old arguments or nitpicking formatting. -- torty3 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The static maps have one trump card which is that they are always available. The Infrastructure behind dynamic maps is running on is not reliable and support is basically 'best efforts'. (And those efforts are very much appreciated, but we need to be honest about this functionality in order to improve it)
For that reason I would support Powers in not moving away wholesale from static maps today.
For the record, I did myself get started in creating some static maps however the effort involved meant that I simply can't justify spending the time to create or even update existing maps. Laziness? Yes, probably, but in all honesty the Dynamic Maps have a low bar for all people to get involved (a good thing) and the static maps have a rather high bar. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
All of the objections raised are addressable with a little bit of effort. And isn't it better to take that effort on ourselves rather than ask the reader to scroll and zoom a map until everything is visible? When did we become a community that valued ease of construction over value to the traveler? Powers (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"When did we become a community that valued ease of construction over value to the traveler?". Please re-read what you've just written. Nearly everyone who has argued in support of dynamic maps has stated that they provide added "value to the traveler". Everyone recognizes that there are pros and cons of each approach, but continually describing dynamic maps as if it is a fact that they are an inferior tool is not helpful; that is your opinion, and it is an opinion that is not universally shared. We need to come to an agreement on how to move forward, and while it would be great to find a compromise solution, if the choice is repeatedly painted as being between the "good" solution and the "bad" solution then I vote for dynamic maps as being far superior to static maps for everything below the region level. I hope it doesn't come to that - let's stop focusing on one instead of the other and find some middle ground that makes both sides happy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed a case in point. Hong Kong Central has some lovingly hand crafted static maps. I would like to update the article listings, but I'm not willing to spend the considerable time to edit the static maps. Effectively an impasse.
As pointed out before we really need more contributors. Being a master cartographer should not be a requirement to get involved and creating awesome articles.
Perhaps the Hong Kong central article can provide a good starting point for discussing the compromise? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"I vote for dynamic maps as being far superior to static maps for everything below the region level"
Not to nitpick, but I'd say static maps are also the superior option for parent articles of districtified Huge Cities (q.v. Buffalo#Regions).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Another case in point: Do you think a dynamic map is likely to be better than the static map in the San Francisco/Mission article? There are cases to leave well enough alone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I think the San Francisco/Mission static map is better than what can be achieved with a dynamic map. (i.e. if I want to print the map and walk around the district the static map would make it much easier)
The question is WHO is going to add new listing to this static map? If no one, then is it acceptable that the article becomes more out of synch over time? At what point does remedial action need to be taken?
And no, I have no answers to the above :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Formatting issue[edit]


There appears to be a formatting issue here [9] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Powers (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry extra space here Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not seeing it on my computer. System specs? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Captcha issue[edit]

I just now had an issue with Captchas. When I tried to submit a restaurant listing using the "add entry" interface, my response to the captcha (due to external links in the submission) was not accepted, and I was repeatedly asked to answer new captchas. When I pressed "Cancel" instead of "Submit" to try to get back to the new entry dialog, the page froze with the "Saving..." message showing. El Photon (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug with the listing module that should be tracked on Bugzilla. Powers (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Wikivoyage[edit]

This language seems like it is needed. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like we have it here in incubator [10]. Are there plans to import all the old content? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If memory serves, when we were talking about forking, the Japanese Wikitravel community elected to stay with IB for some unfathomable reason. Go figure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese WT had basically one main contributor (Shoestring) carrying the project along with just a few others and he decided to stay. I may be mistaken, but I believe ALL of the former language versions (Japanese, Arabic, etc.) that existed were saved just the same as the English version. Would it not be restored if the language version existed? It may just be a matter of getting some trusted volunteer admins to oversee the project. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
XML and image dumps from all WT language versions were made available to Wikivoyage at the time of the initial fork. If needed I've still got copies, but someone else would need to do the work of getting things imported with proper attribution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
May want to contact m:User:MF-Warburg if you have the dumps - the Incubator people have had difficulties getting them. (He is on vacation for a few more weeks though). --Rschen7754 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Email sent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Wrh2 - also see incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import. --Rschen7754 04:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
If we have to start from dumps, why not dump from live JP WT? I guess it is not that big. I used to write a tool for that: Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Appears I may have had success[edit]

in having an already established article come second on Google per [11] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed optional changes to Terms of Use amendment[edit]

Hello all, in response to some community comments in the discussion on the amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, we have prepared two optional changes. Please read about these optional changes on Meta wiki and share your comments. If you can (and this is a non english project), please translate this announcement. Thanks! Slaporte (WMF) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Triposo, copypasta and site ranking[edit]

In case you haven't noticed (probably this has already been discussed elsewhere), the travel site Triposo uses our content (example). I ran into that example by accident when looking if content in our Neringa article was copypasted from elsewhere (which it by the way was).

Another interesting thing was that the search results I got when googling one sentence from what was in our article was: #1 the WT article, #2 Triposo, #3 a web page stating they're using content from WT, #4 the page from where the text presumably was stolen from. But Wikivoyage did not show up among the search results at all. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Triposo is citing Wikivoyage, and linking to Wikivoyage, which is exactly what we need to increase our ranking in the long term.
They are not "stealing", on the contrary we should be proud that they re-use our content. The goal of Wikimedia is to distribute knowledge, serving web pages is not a goal in itself. If Triposo finds efficient ways to get the content to people, while respecting the license, that's a good thing, I would say :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing that others are using our content, I just wanted to know if people are aware of Triposo. They are using the cc-by-sa 3.0 license as well, so there's no license conflict. Actually we should have some kind of Hall of Fame for sites using our content. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:List of content re-users. Nurg (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage banners[edit]

Hello there Wikivoyage community. AndreCarrotflower notified me on my talkpage last week while I was transferring a few of Wikivoyage's freely licensed banners to Wikimedia Commons that I ought to leave local versions of the banners on the English Wikivoyage without deleting them, per the notice at the top of Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Banners. Of course, I respect the English Wikivoyage's independence from Wikimedia Commons, a practice sometimes exercised also on the English Wikipedia, but I am curious as to the original reason this not-so-well-documented line of policy was introduced. I was pointed to Talk:Main Page#PNG but the reasoning introduced there did not clarify exactly why hosting the files locally is better than hosting them on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps it was an issue regarding bandwith issues, but could someone also elucidate the technical details of that to me? If it was something else altogether, I noted the existence of commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners already created on Commons for the purpose of hosting banners across language editions of Wikivoyage, which would be an argument for transferring to Commons rather than against, wouldn't it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worthy of note that User:Peterfitzgerald, the one who originally proposed that banners be hosted locally rather than at Commons, is no longer active on Wikivoyage and is very unlikely to be reachable through his talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
One point is if hosted locally they could be easily protected by local admins, but I don't think we do it anyway. Danapit (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Another reason: might these banners be more likely than other illustrations contain non-free content according to our Exemption Doctrine Policy? Danapit (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page#Proposed Main Page Specifications indicates that local banner upload is done to allow admins to protect them while they are being featured, thus preventing a main page image from being changed to something that would be extremely embarrassing for the site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Keeping mind we're only talking about main page banners here (our 7:1 article banners should be on Commons where possible)... I would suggest that we keep the local uploads temporary for protection purposes. Once the feature is over, the banner can be uploaded to Commons (so that we can use it on our Previous DotM (etc) page(s)), while alternative banner suggestions can be deleted. Powers (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that it may be possible to have them protected on Commons (but it's done by bot); en.wikipedia does it, and you must be an admin to upload over the fullprotected file here. But, they may not be willing to do this as we're not en.wikipedia, and thus 1) not such a huge target of vandalism and 2) only a medium-sized wiki. --Rschen7754 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
That would require protecting the name on both wikis, as otherwise a locally-uploaded file overrides a shared repository. K7L (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this is rapidly approaching "more trouble than it's worth" territory. The current system of uploading banners locally has not been an issue thus far, and frankly I'm not exactly sure what problem we're trying to solve here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not correct; only admins can upload a file using the same name as what is on Commons. --Rschen7754 17:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Keeps our list of Special:ListFiles low and manageable, helps to keep track of local Fair Use files and whatnot.
  • Possible reuse on other language Wikivoyages, and even third-party reusers (InstantCommons) which is what we want per our licensing right?


  • Local upload/create-protection still necessary to prevent overriding the shared repository version.
  • May require jumping through commons:Commons:Upload hoops, though it might not be that much different than going through local Special:Upload.

Is this a correct reading of what I'm seeing here? As to the bot, I think I can ask Krinkle to modify his script accordingly to auto-protect Main Page banners. Or perhaps better yet ask a bot owner to reupload a banner to Commons after the main page feature is done and then delete the local version. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex tourism policy proposed change[edit]

There is a discussion on Wikivoyage Sex tourism policy that is underway. The proposal (in brief) is to allow brothel listings in locations where brothels are legal.

I think this is a rather fundamental change, so community views would be appreciated. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to sex change tourism? Apparently there are some medical doctors in Thailand who can make you feel like a new woman. :) K7L (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Umm.. Plunge forward? :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Feedback on Thurmont[edit]

I've been working on the guide for Thurmont for a few days now and I think I've got it into a usable state. I wanted some feedback on it though. What could I change? Where have I deviated from the MOS? What do I need to do to get this to Guide status instead of a Usable status? I'm going to go talk to some people at the town hall a little bit later to see if they have any suggestions for things I may have missed or things that I ought to remove since they know the town a lot better than me. Zellfaze (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I would say focus on expanding the description of listings. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are in Thurmont you can take some nice photos and upload them to Commons, there ain't many [12] now to illustrate the article. Jjtkk (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zellfaze! You should add an intro or "Understand" section explaining the atmosphere of the city, a bit of history, a brief geography explanation (for instance: historical center along the river and new town West of it and park on the East side), and what people like about this place. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tweaks to Special:Nearby[edit]

We increased the range for Nearby on Wikivoyage to make it more useful. The range is now 20km. Be sure to check out Special:Nearby ! Feedback welcomed! Jdlrobson (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware that this service existed. What was the old range? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have mw:Beta Features/Nearby Pages enabled in my special:preferences, it doesn't even have a chance in Hull of finding Ottawa. The same issue appears with other twin settlements like Prescott-Ogdensburg. A note on the talk page indicates it was recently broken, but it seems it never worked properly. Will the radius be changed on it too? K7L (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the nearby pages beta feature is currently broken but it will be fixed on Thursday and should show locations within 20km. Whether is sufficient or not (the previous range was 10km) will remain to be seen.. Let us know if you think the range needs to be tweaked any further. Jdlrobson (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that what counts here on WV are city/town articles, and given the fact that the majority of cities are more than 20 km apart in most parts of the world, I'm not sure this feature will be very useful for us unless the range is set considerably higher, say 80 or 100km. Texugo (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "find the five closest points" would make more sense than an arbitrary distance. A 100km radius in New York City would likely return Westchester, half of New Jersey and part of Connecticut. A 100km radius from Watertown (New York) would find Thousand Islands but miss Syracuse (New York) 73 miles away. A 100km radius around Port Menier, Anticosti would likely pick up nothing but static as Anticosti is 175km of provincial parkland. K7L (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right, 20 km is too short in most cases, but the distance that is considered "nearby" is very relative to what region you're in. Limiting it to the 5-10 closest articles instead of by distance is an excellent idea if it's doable! Texugo (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Texugo, User:K7L this seems like a good idea. I've started this thread on our mobile mailing list to see if we can tweak this even further. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative: Dynamic Map[edit]

The "Destinations" layer (button: Destinations) of dynamic map shows according to the language versions all articles 150 to 1500 km around. The markers linked with the articles (examples: en.WV 150km, ru.WV 1500km. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Want some publicity ?[edit]

Wikipedia is receiving good press coverage over edit wars going on with Crimean articles. I think this is high time when even Wikivoyage could get some press coverage. Crimea is almost become part of Russia and it is very likely that nobody need a Ukrainian visa anymore to visit Crimea. (A VOA reporter has today arrived in Simferopol from Moscow and tweeted "Customers officer at Simferopol airport trashed my filled-out arrival form, after looking at my Russia visa, said not necessary." ) My idea may sound very premature and stupid but I thought of sharing with you guys what's happening in my mind right now. Can we flip the IPO of Crimean destination articles and perhaps try our luck whether we can get some press coverage as well? Perhaps, we can prepare a press release as I believe we've some good writers here or we can ask someone to write a new story on it. -Saqib (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from questionable tactics like this. First of all, it's possible that it could backfire on us and we could be accused of crassly taking advantage of a political crisis for the sake of cheap publicity (which, after all, essentially is what you're proposing to do). Secondly, especially at this early stage of the game in the Crimean situation, flipping the IPO in and of itself could be seen as taking sides in a contentious political dispute, which is problematic per Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes. Sure, there's a potential ttcf counter-argument to that second point, but if at this time it's based on nothing more than a single tweet from a VOA reporter about what could very well be an isolated incident, it wouldn't be a very strong one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
About all we have to offer uniquely is the ability to respond quickly to changes in the situation on the ground which would take the full one-year cycle to appear in some printed guides. For instance, we could look at Lac-Mégantic days after the train wreck and prepare a list of what's still open; we can update warnings on the situation in Crimea (or the collapse of the Cypriot banking system, or whatever other nouvelle du jour) almost in real time. That doesn't necessarily give us boots on the ground or an inside track on what's going on in these places - just a slightly better response time. K7L (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

VfDs for "personal itineraries"[edit]

I'm not opposed to merging or deleting them, but I'd like the text at Wikivoyage:Itineraries to be elaborated to clarify where the boundary lies between itineraries that are allowable and those that are too personalized.

The reason I'm concerned is that I eventually plan on writing several itineraries for self-guided architectural walking tours of various Buffalo neighborhoods, which seems to me to be in a gray area: neither the fact that many buildings of great architectural distinction are located in Buffalo nor that architecture buffs constitute a large and growing proportion of visitors to the area are in dispute, and the material I envision including is probably too specialized to include in Buffalo or any of the district articles. But the selection of which points of interest to include is, to some degree, a matter of personal taste.

I'm posting this in the pub rather than at Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion because this touches on a larger policy issue rather than any individual article that's nominated, or at Wikivoyage talk:Itineraries as the discussion would likely languish in obscurity indefinitely if placed on as low-traffic a page as that one.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the main concern is that One day in Buffalo isn't created in a format that merely duplicates info in the main Buffalo articles. There are plenty of this sort of itinerary that were started but never finished. If the article isn't duplicative of the city guide, and you actually intend to finish it sometime this year, it is valid. K7L (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikivoyage talk:Itineraries#Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article contains a very lengthy discussion about why the itinerary criteria was tightened. There have already been questions raised about how to more clearly allow good articles like Loop Art Tour or Along the Magnificent Mile while discouraging random "X in Y days" articles, so suggestions for policy clarifications and improvements would be useful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh Lord. That's one mess of a discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be fantastic to have some place comparable the former WT Extra to move such personal itineraries. Even if they are unsuitable for Wikivoyage per the above discussion, I've personally found "X days in Y" like itineraries useful more than once. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read up on those discussions yet, but I quite agree with Ypsilon. For the average traveller a well-constructed highlights tour for a day is more likely to be useful than a tour only about art in the public space, or something else specific. To me the concept that a more general sights tour is per se more "personal" than any selection of art, architecture etc is a misconception. A good "one day in.." is more than just another listing of things you can find in the article, it also provides a logical walking route and/or public transport route. I used One day in Bangkok just last autumn. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should encourage one day tours of huge cities. The way our guides are structured it is sometimes hard to find the wood for the trees, so it is good to have a plan for either a one day visit or the first day of a longer stay. To make these easier to find they should be called <placename> in one day. In some cities it may be appropriate to have more than one route in the same article, but they should be self-contained one day routes - I see less value in more days in a city, but one or two weeks in a country can also be useful. It looks like we are only wanting the sort of routes where the local council has already put up signposts and written a leaflet, where we have little to add. AlasdairW (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
(undent) I'd favour some sort of exception that allows both the one-day-in type of itinerary and things like Shanghai for the first-timer at least for large complex cities, perhaps only the ones with districts. Such things would clearly not be much use for small places, but a pretty good case can be made when the main article or set of them is large; Alasdair is right about woods & trees above. Pashley (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If we could come up with very clear guidelines for such itineraries then they could be a useful addition, but the problem we've faced in the past is that no one agrees on what "X time in Y location" should include, so we get tons of incomplete articles that duplicate the main articles, and which then need to be cleaned up later. In my mind, a better solution would be something akin to Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy#Weak regions, where our region and huge city articles become essentially highlight summaries of the child city/district articles - in such a scenario, a visitor reading Hong Kong would get a few paragraphs on each district that would be useful in planning a 1-2 day trip, and could then drill down into the Hong Kong/New Territories article once he narrows the focus of the trip to specific areas. However we proceed, I think organization of our guides needs to be a key consideration, and I don't think that re-opening the floodgates to "X time in Y location" articles is the best solution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe we should work that out over time - let us focus working on a few "One day in Bangkok makes a hard man humble" articles and see how it pans out - what type of content did we have to remove, what to keep off limits and what rules of a thumb can we draw from that experience. Atm, I really really really don't see how "One day in X" are bad for WV, except for the fact that some are incomplete. But then, let's just complete them! PrinceGloria (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
PS. I never saw a "flood" of those, much like anything, they have not seen nearly enough contributions. I wouldn't worry about more being created. I find them EXTREMELY useful as a traveller.
See Wikivoyage talk:Itineraries#Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article for a list of twelve such articles that were created in a single week, leading to the current guidance against "X location in Y time" articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That was two years ago! I wish we had that level of content creation today... PrinceGloria (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I think all of us accept that "x days in Y" can be good articles: Three days in Singapore is one I think everyone agrees is a good itinerary article. The issue is what criteria we can use to avoid articles like A weekend on Block Island that are totally unnecessary. If you haven't done so already, please read through some of the previous discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Itineraries, particularly starting with the "Tightening the criteria for an itinerary article" section. If you can offer a good set of criteria that will enable us to distinguish between good "x days in Y" articles and those that should be deleted, and that set of criteria is different from the one currently in use, please do! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Block Island is a good illustration of why we should put the place name first. A weekend on Block Island is currently up for deletion. 3 Days in Block Island has already been merged into Block Island. I suspect that editors of each article were not aware of the other, but would have been if we had insisted on Block Island in a weekend and Block Island in 3 days.
I think that "city in a day" articles only become useful for huge cities with districts, or perhaps cities with more than 50 see and do listings. Maybe city itineraries should be discussed on the city talk page before creation. One day in Hong Kong is the sort of article that could usefully be developed, as it manages to show a good cross-section of the city visiting 3 districts, which I don't think somebody reading our 8 articles on Hong Kong would think of. AlasdairW (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for good "Y in X days" articles[edit]

  1. Precise sequence of POIs to visit
  2. Transportation between POIs described in detail (which bus to take, which streets to walk)
  3. Timing given per each part of itinerary
  4. More than one option for the above possible, as long as it is still legible
  5. Not duplication (or contradiction!) of general descriptions of the main city or district articles, this should be an utilitarian article

Your thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed related site external links and small technical issue[edit]

Adding OpenStreetMap I'd like to bring three things to the community's attention. The first is most important: I'd like to think that OpenStreetMap is a good enough resource to include in the sidebar. It's also worthwhile for this free/open content community to support other such communities. The wikivoyage-ev map links don't work for me (presently at my parents' house using Firefox 28.x on Windows 8) but I can go to OSM's site and see things there.

As smaller issues, I'd like to suggest that we consider renaming references to the "Open Directory Project" as "DMOZ" per this discussion on en.wp. It's not incumbent upon en.voy to always do what en.wp does but it's worth being consistent between sister projects.

Finally, a small technical note: Pages which have Wikitravel histories have a small bug with generating links to history pages. Cf. with . The latter has Wikitravel history and in the footer at the bottom of the page, there is a link to the non-existent "". What actually exists is "". Should I submit this to bugzilla or can someone here fix this?

Thanks for your feedback. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the credit extension changed and is now using MediaWiki:Creditssource-credits instead of MediaWiki:Creditssource-source-work, and that the syntax is slightly different. I've made a few technical tweaks to get the history links correct again. For the record, since this is a touchy legal area, I made no changes beyond what was necessary to restore the existing functionality and did not touch the content at all. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the small technical update, Wrh2.
Justin: Both your add OpenStreetMap to the sidebar and re-name to DMOZ proposals have obvious merit, Justin and I would support them both. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect mw:Extension:RelatedSites hard-codes the sidebar links into one of the server configuration files, so it'd be necessary to open a bugzilla: item to get these fixed. K7L (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage-ev map[edit]

Quote User:Koavf: "The wikivoyage-ev map links don't work for me ..." - The Wikivoyage-ev map is linked directly to OpenStreetMap, but also displays all the markers of Wikivoyage articles. What is wrong? Do you use a proxy server, which disguised your web address (known blocking reason)? What happens when you click this link? -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"The connection has timed out. The server at is taking too long to respond." I've been getting that message from all wikivoyage-ev links for several weeks now. If I use the URLs that start with then it works. –Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 06:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have changed all web requests to "//" (example). I hope the problem is solved now. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mey2008: For what it's worth, I'm on a different machine now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

With the WV.ev server there are problems depending of the browsers settings. Only http is supported, not https. The tools server supports both protocols. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Was anyone aware of this, because I sure wasn't.[edit]

Apparently the footer on articles derived from WT has been altered. Rather than an explicit mention of and link to Wikitravel, the test reads as follows:

"This article is partly based on Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Licensed work from other websites. Details of contributors can be found in the article history."

Was anyone else aware of this? Did WMF Legal do that or was it one of us? I follow on my watchlist most if not all of the important project pages listed at Wikivoyage:Administrator's handbook#Watchlist, but I don't recall this ever having been mentioned. Apologies if I missed it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of it from seeing it, and of course think it is an excellent change. Congratulations and thank you to whoever did it. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Doc James did it about 10 days ago. The relevant page is MediaWiki:Creditssource-credits, formerly MediaWiki:Creditssource-source-work. Powers (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes and WT is watching per Talk:Longsheng Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've noticed the footer has changed a couple of times for a little over a week. Jmh apparently tried it out on Longsheng first and if you read both threads there he unfortunately made a well known long time contributor very angry. :D ϒpsilon (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikivoyage have procedures for dealing with legal threats? I'm asking this because for reference Wikipedia currently has a policy on dealing with legal threats that might tell us how to handle these situations, and whether they might be unwanted for our reusers. I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind such a policy, but I believe it's due to the fact the reader who prints out the article as PDF might be wary of doing so for fear he would be copying copyright-violating content and breaking the law. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:No real world threats. K7L (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify what the user's beef was? Now that page histories have been merged, I can't see what the user was seeing. Powers (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you are talking about the problem at Talk:Longsheng, sure. If you look at the current history page of Longsheng, look at the last five of the edits made on March 11. Those are all that were showing before, and the rest were at the history page of the redirect at Longsheng, China (which is pointed to by the first edit summary of those 5 edits). The user was claiming that the pointer given by Jmh649 in his edit summary was not sufficient. I didn't necessarily agree that it was insufficient, but I merged the histories anyway, as that seemed to be the best way to shut down the complaining/trolling. Texugo (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it at best impolite that this change was done in a unilateral manner for all language versions, and they were not even informed of the change. I am sure that many people in other languages still scratch their heads to understand what to do with the red link to the history page, let alone absolutely weird translations. Finally, I really do not understand why this whole action was necessary, because the old credit message at MediaWiki:Creditssource-source-work could be rewritten in every possible way. The problem was on the legal side, and this problem is hardly resolved=( --Alexander (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The change message for the commit that caused the behavior to change states "Raised on". In case there is any confusion, this was not done at the behest of English Wikivoyage and appears to have been done to address translation problems rather than anything related to SEO or legal concerns. See the second comment under #Proposed related site external links and small technical issue above for an explanation of what needs to be changed to work with the new formatting. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe what Alex was referring to is the wholesale removal of attribution from the footer-- not any single specific edit that was made. That would be a mere quibble. Rather, the removal of proper attribution from not only the Longsheng page, but apparently the bulk of wikiVoyage, seems to violate both the terms of the sharing license as well as the spirit of the sharing idea, and therefore puts the whole of wikimedia-- including Wikipedia itself-- at risk of being found in violation of copyright. This is a poor precedent for this offshoot/fork site to set. Further, it appears to have been done not only without explicit approval from the legal arm of the wiki foundation, but directly in the face of their implied advice to very specifically not do so, and rather concentrate on creating distinct content. These google tricks are I'm certain a joyous distraction. But some of you are wandering into dangerous territory and taking the rest of you with them. Restore the links. Your page history attribution is insufficient (it does not even name real contributors, since someone named "WT-Alex" exists on neither website. In your zeal to remove attribution to the site that gave you all your data, you seem to have forgotten that in doing so you are cheating millions of Wiki contributors out of their copyright by applying technically shoddy and legally unsound methods. Change it back and move along with the rest of your agenda. —The preceding comment was added by HK britt (talkcontribs)
Attribution goes on the history page, just like it always has for all types of contributions. As far as I know, there is zero reason, legal or otherwise, why WT should get special treatment with a link on the actual article page. Clicking on any user in that history preceded by a WT- will give you an explanation who that user is on WT, so that is covered. As must as you would like to believe so, we are not cheating anyone. I also am nearly 100% convinced you a troll employed by IB. Texugo (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
HK, it isn't particularly smart to threaten the organization that develops MediaWiki. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
errr, what threat? You may rather refer to the foundation's top lawyer's advice to concentrate on content and dispense with the google trickery. The implication that it will have legal consequences is his, not mine:
That's a stretch of context. There is no Google trickery here. Can you show us where the license legally requires any type of attribution whatsoever to be included on the same page as the work? If not, please stop trolling. Texugo (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
HK's claims are ridiculous. Edits we imported are attributed exactly the same as they are on WT, with the addition of the signifier "(WT-en)" to distinguish users who have not merged their edits with a WMF account. The "WT-Alex" example is a straw man; the actual username would be "(WT-en) Alex". The only thing that was removed in the recent change was the link to the WT version of the article, which is useless and not required because we credit each contributor by edit. Powers (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly what matters is attributing the actual authors. WT is not the author of anything. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let’s see if I have the timeline correct.

1. User “HK britt” drops in on the Longsheng page to complain (admittedly, coarsely) that not only has the page footer attribution to his (her?) original work (presumably via an IP edit) imported from Wikitravel been removed systematically, but also the proposed new form of attribution was also removed (the page history listed only 5 revisions, instead of the dozens of actual edits since 2007 by various writers who contributed to the Wikitravel article).

2. This accusation was found to be true by Texugo, and though he did not agree that it needed to be there at all (why?), he went ahead and restored the page history, which had been removed by Doc James as an “experiment” (note to Doc James and others: maybe don’t play with removing attribution as an “experiment” from now on – this is people’s actual work you’re removing the credit for).

3. After calming down and pointing out on the Pub exactly why the brouhaha, HK britt is accused of making “real world threats,” goes ahead and denies making any such threats, and is promptly subjected to the kangaroo court of a quick userban for making threats which I’ll be darned if I can find (a threat, remember, is a statement of one’s intent to harm another in some way – I see no such statement by HK britt), and summarily kicked off the site.

Now, I am not sure if you can see the effect of all this to an outsider, but having had my run-ins with absolutely insane administrators here (not a threat! Calm down!), one could easily read this as: dare to question an admin here, get pig-piled on by all the rest with a trumped-up charge and get booted from the site. If your aim is to attract editors, you’re doing one heck of a bang up job fellows.

A secondary effect is that it’s embarrassingly clear you want the name “Wikitravel” scrubbed from every orifice here. Understandable. But as long as you let zealots like Doc James run roughshod and do whatever they want, as britt pointed out, you run certain risks as a community (not a threat! Calm down!). Remember how you all got started here. You copied the entirety of Wikitravel and renamed it Wikivoyage (yes, I know the Italians and German were already here). You may not like it, but you will owe that debt to those Wikitravelers until the last word of their writing is gone from Wikivoyage, and at the current pace that is going to be a very, very long time coming. It’s why Google barely gives you a glance. And even if washing the evil “wikitravel” name from this site ends up helping your google rank (it won’t – it’s about content, as the wm legal team pointed out), you’re doing it at the cost of betraying the very thing you propose to hold so dear: sharing content freely and attributing it to its authors.

Perhaps in some technical sense there was a way for a non-Wiki expert to visit the Longsheng page and actually locate, after many clicks, the authors of that content. Maybe they can decipher exactly what “(WT-en) Salbastarfrog” is supposed to mean, even though at present there is no way to find an actual link to the Wikitravel site through the page history/fake username rabbit hole you’ve created. Maybe this is technically sufficient for the CC/SA license to apply (a lawyer will surely answer that at some point). But is this why you came here? To be so full of bitterness at where you came from that you’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in making your “new start” and burn your content creators along with IB?

What a horrible precedent. What a rotten attitude. When you allow the bitterest among you to make such unilateral, vindictive, sweeping changes, you are all tarnished. I’m glad I no longer edit here. You who are complicit ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You have some soul searching to do.SpendrupsForAll (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You're on extremely thin ice yourself, Spendrups (examples: 1, 2, 3), so I would strongly recommend if you want to remain here that you think long and hard before spouting off your nonsense on a contentious issue like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact is however that HK Britt's behavior was unacceptably aggressive, and continued even when calmly engaged by the WV community. Their complaint about WT attribution was not the reason they were banned. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
None of your claims are accurate, Spendrups, and I don't even see any reason to dignify your trolling with a point-by-point rebuttal, though it's easy to mention that "You copied the entirety of Wikitravel and renamed it Wikivoyage" is a ridiculous description of a fork, and that the rest of your logic derives from this (intentionally?) distorted viewpoint. Either use your account here for constructive edits and cease trolling, or you are likely to be the next person nominated for a user ban in short order, as you are wasting our time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabotaging our own SEO[edit]

We seem to have managed the worst of both worlds.

Most of our pages still carry the legally unnecessary HTML hyperlink to Wikitravel's main page which boosts Wikitravel's Search Engine organic results.

If this wasn't bad enough, at the foot of most of our guides we also still have another legally unnecessary HTML hyperlink to a Wikitravel article with a similar title.

However, the legally required attribution is now defective in there being a defective (ie red) link at the foot of most of our articles to its history which ever so slightly saps our own Search Engine organic results.

When you add to this the fact that we preserve a less than optimal article naming scheme and almost all of the old H2 section titles used at the site we forked from, it's no wonder that most important search engines still regard us as an inferior johnny-come-lately imitation of Wikitravel and assign us a dupe penalty! --118.93nzp (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are talking about. I just checked two articles — small city Xiamen & big city Shanghai — and neither shows the problems you describe. Neither links to WT and both have working links to a history that shows contributions made on WT. Pashley (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Most of Wikivoyage's pages still carry the legally unnecessary HTML hyperlink to Wikitravel's main page ( which boosts Wikitravel's Search Engine organic results.
If this wasn't bad enough, at the foot of most of our guides we also still have another legally unnecessary HTML hyperlink to a Wikitravel article with a similar title (in this case, Shanghai).
However, the legally required attribution is now defective in there being a defective (ie red) link at the foot of most of Wikivoyage's articles to its history page which ever so slightly saps Wikivoyage's own Search Engine organic results.
I enclose a current screenshot of the foot of the Shanghai article to try and make things clearer... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look at Shanghai as well and I see what Pashley describes. Is it possible that you're somehow viewing a cached version of the page, 118.93nzp? --Nick talk 21:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right, Nick and Pashley! I've just been to a colleague's machine and now I see a (much better, from the SEO perspective) shortened sentence: "This article is partly based on Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Licensed work from other websites. Details of contributors can be found in the article history." Thank you Doc James and Ryan! This is great news to start my week!
Now if we can just change those H2 section headers and article naming scheme, our organic search engine results should improve by leaps and bounds... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Show it works and you will have my support. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would advise fellow Wikivoyagers not to encourage 118's forum shopping by engaging him in any way on discussions of this nature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Error adding listing[edit]

I just spent a good amount of time entering all the information to add a sleep listing and when I clicked Submit I got:

Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid token

and all the information I entered was lost. Gee, thanks. What's the deal? I try and help the site and this is how I'm rewarded? At the very least, if the listing is not accepted, it should leave you in the listing editor so everything is not lost. —The preceding comment was added by TokyoJimu (talkcontribs) 05:09, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

@Unknown user **: This error occurs when URL could not be detected correctly [13]. What article do you want to edit? -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ** Please sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)
This has also happened to me a number of times. Usually when taking too much time, there is a timeout. So if you go for coffee while editing a listing, better save it, even if it is incomplete, and then click "edit" again. Not losing input would be a nice enhancement indeed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Having worked on other wikis, timeouts were an issue and the above suggestion to save is great... My motto was "Save and Save Often". In addition, I have often written small data input GUI programs for Windows to gather basic information and write output files to my desktop (I think something external for starting various listings could be accomplished fairly easily) ... simple copy and paste to a Wiki article page and complete editorial work later. I also run MediaWiki on my desktop and use that for basic page creation as well - again copy and paste - edit later. It was also not uncommon to actually dump a wiki and rebuild it onto a USB stick and work from that... (This would entail quite a bit of work to accomplish something like that with Wikivoyage)... Matroc (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Cheers!

Please update links on MediaWiki:Common.js to protocol-relative URLs[edit]

Hi! Could some administrator change the links on MediaWiki:Common.js from to // (i.e. protocol-relative url), so that if users visit Wikivoyage in HTTPS, they won't get a "mixed content" error. Thanks! Chmarkine (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally an HTTPS server for dynamic maps[edit]

Dear travellers,

I got us an HTTPS LAMP server that looks more stable than the last one:

I hope that will solve the mixed-content problems that plagued dynamic maps until now :-)

I guess my PoiMap2 Github repo at is not up-to-date anymore. Could you please fork and send me a pull request? Or point me to a more up-to-date Git repo? Thanks!

Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing an error with the generic Listing icon. See here on the old server there's three green hexaflowers on the west side of town, then switch to the new server and the icons no longer load.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 01:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the PHP source code is not up-to-date.
So, if I understand correctly, the last thing to do to get rid of the mixed-content problem is to install an OSM tiles server on Am I right? Does anyone have experience with this? Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An own tile server for OSM Mapnik tiles is not a solution. We need tiles for all 10+ different layers. But not all providers offer data dumps as OSM (Planet.osm). Mixed content is inevitable. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we absolutely need to serve ALL layers as HTTPS, but at least the default layer, so that external visitors can enjoy the map instead of staring at a white rectangle. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I tested extensively on real hardware and could find no errors. Example: Debian 6.0/FF 28/https/not logged in [14]. Sometimes the cause is also due to specific settings (browser, proxy, virus scanners). Do other users have similar problems? Nevertheless, I will revise the scripts in terms of map tiles under https. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It should also be checked, whether in the personal common.js is still a trial version of mapframe.js. This needs to be deleted because it is no longer compatible. The old version caused a white map window. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As you pointed out, it was a problem with my common.js indeed! So an HTTPS tiles server is not absolutely needed right now :-) Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
All Mapquest and Mapnik layers now use tiles that are offered under https. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair-accessible POIs[edit]

In Japan, HEART BARRIER finds and classifies restaurants/etc that are accessible to wheelchairs, gathering data about its slopes width/steepness/etc. That could be useful. In the future we could to try to have at least one wheelchair-accessible restaurant in each article (where such a place exist at all), or something in this spirit. Meanwhile, how about an article that gathers such efforts, for example HEART BARRIER in Japan, XYZ in another country, etc? Do you know any similar classification efforts in other countries? Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In Germany there is the is an initiative of SOZIALHELDEN e.V., a German non-profit association. All relevant OpenstreetMap POI's are registered in a dynamic map and classified, for all countries worldwide. The POI's are color-coded. Not yet reviewed (gray) POI may be classified online. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any articles about traveling for those in wheelchairs or with other handicaps that affect travel, such as blind travel? I actually think it would be useful to have an icon or (Wheelchair accessible)=Accessible/Not Accessible/Limited Access/Partial Access/(whatever we deem most useful) as part of the information to fill in along with the other information (price, lat/long, hours, etc). It would definitely put our site above most others for handicap travelers. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I find Travellers with disabilities, which is a barely-begun outline, and Disabled travel in South Africa, which is quite a lot better. I certainly support any such article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Travel websites with user-generated content[edit]

What are the current 3-5 most popular travel websites online specializing in presenting user-generated information and reviews of travel destinations? (I'm specifically referring to websites such as that contain information, reviews and ratings about sites and businesses that can help travelers better assess ahead of time what the most popular and successful local attractions, hotels, pubs, restaurants, etc are within a certain area/town/city.) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yelp dot com comes to my mind. And orbitz dot com (just hotels). ϒpsilon (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
TripAdvisor and Wikitravel are the top two AFAIK, though Yelp might be up there too; not everyone considers it a travel site, since its listings are not limited to travelers' amenities and locals seem to be the primary users. Powers (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the list by Alexa [15] Tripadvisor is way ahead of all others. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The subcategory for travel guides might be more useful: [16]. Powers (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IEG proposal[edit]

Hello! First I want to apologize for throwing this out nearly last minute. I needed to be absolutely certain I could commit the time. Anyway, I have put up a proposal at m:Grants:IEG/Promoting Wikivoyage. It is to promote Wikivoyage to the US and State Chamber of Commerces. Hopefully that can then be replicated in other countries. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look at Tourism Bureau Expedition and welcome, tourism professionals; local CVB's (convention and visitors bureaux) are well-placed to provide info and correct factual errors as they represent "boots on the ground" in every destination community, but at the same time a raw dump of existing CVB material could easily turn an entire destination page into a flood of promotional hype. Certainly Wikivoyage has identified a need to encourage CVB's to contribute constructively to the project - anything from removing listings when venues close their doors to fact-checking to linking to us once a usable/guide article exists for their respective destinations - but we have a limited number of people to pursue this initiative. *(CVB's may be separate entities from chambers of commerce in some communities.) K7L (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest you develop the "Measures of success" paragraph with measurable and verifiable goals. How about adding:
  • Establish dialog with at least 50 contacts, non-negative answer from at least 10. Verified by CCing all emails or logging GoToMeeting sessions.
  • Have at least 5 contacts produce content on Wikivoyage, with at least 2 having more than 5 commits or more than 1kilobyte of added text. Verified by establishing username identity in above-mentioned email conversations.
Good luck! Even if the grant does not succeed, it sounds like a very interesting thing to do :-) I will try to contact the CVBs of destinations I grew up in. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas! These both will work great and give me a jumping off point for developing some of the weak sections. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a better metric would be factual accuracy, or the number of destinations actually improved from outline to usable or guide? Even Sodom and Gomorrah meets the one kilobyte test, although it contains enough marketing hype and outdated info to be worthless (except as a hypothetical example of what not to do). Conversely, fixing incorrect information in articles and removing venues which have closed doesn't necessarily lengthen a piece like fr:Lac-Mégantic. The Lac-Mégantic updates were useful to the traveller to determine what's still open after last summer's train wreck; at one point, worried visitors watching the destruction of the downtown on news broadcasts were cancelling trips to provincial parks twenty or thirty miles (30-50km) away. Quality, not quantity... please?
That said, our current coverage is very uneven in spots. New York (state) has solid coverage of Buffalo, Rochester and the Finger Lakes (where we have local users who've put in a massive effort), variable coverage of the middle of the state (Massena redlinked, Rome was started but never completed...), then extensive again in NYC. Keeping what information we have up-to-date is also a huge concern. CVB's in places our users haven't visited, where we have no one local, could fill a few gaps by contributing constructively to spot key destinations we've missed. K7L (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm hoping those less traveled locations will be well served by the plan. I haven't quite figured out the mechanics, but I was hoping to do a special email for locations that are redlinks or just a name with sections.
Your concern for quality is understood. I've cleaned up plenty of promotional pages over the years. Honestly I think most of these groups will be quite comfortable following the format given. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pages containing blacklisted links[edit]

I created this category the other day because I noticed that something, presumably mediawiki itself, was populating it. However, I don't fully understand what's going on. For example:

  • Prague shows up on the list. I copied the text of the article and tried to put it in a new test page in my user space, and apparently what is triggering the filter is the text "airport-shuttle(dot)com". However, a) the full text of the link is http://www.prague-airport-shuttle(dot)com, which is apparently a legitimate link and which should not be triggering a spamfilter with only part of its main domain name anwyay, and b) the text "airport-shuttle(dot)com" doesn't even appear at Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist in the first place, so I don't know why it's triggering the filter
  • Glen Canyon National Recreation Area did contain a link which was listed at Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. It appeared to be an actually valid listing under our external link guidelines, so I removed it from the blacklist, but the article still appears in the category anyway.

Anyone have more insight as to how this works? Texugo (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered part of the first point above: "airport-shuttle(dot)com" is listed on meta's blacklist, but it still raises the question, why is it triggering the filter with only a partial match, and what can we do about it? Texugo (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The first section of Wikivoyage:Spam filter has a bit more information about how all of the blacklists and whitelists work together, but updates to make things clearer would probably be useful. As to the airport shuttle link, all of the blacklist patterns are regular expressions, so the pattern just has to match something in the text, even if it's only a part of the full URL. If we need to override a Mediawiki blacklist entry we should be able to do so with MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this new feature something that spiders through our articles only periodically? Is that why I can't get Glen Canyon National Recreation Area out of the category? and why the category has gradually grown from a couple of listings when I created it to 16 now? Texugo (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the maintenance categories are generated - I know some of them are batch jobs that run at infrequent intervals, but maybe someone else can provide some insight. Have you tried re-editing the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area article so that it is re-parsed? And as a side note, the URL in question for that article is from a business that spammed a significant number of articles - see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#invertsports dot com. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
We could also ask to have the entry removed from the global blacklist (unlikely, as it was probably added due to a specific incidence of spamming), or have the "good" link added to the global whitelist (more likely, but not certain as they may question the propriety of any airport shuttle URL). Powers (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC: User rename requests[edit]

I've gotten two requests for user renames lately that I'm not sure what to do with since we don't really have any guidelines on the subject. After reading through w:Wikipedia:Changing username I'd suggest that we create a page similar to w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple that reflects the following:

  1. Any rename request must acknowledge having read something we create that will be similar to w:Wikipedia:Changing username#Must read, so that it is clear the user understands caveats and downsides of a rename.
  2. If the target user name is not registered on Wikivoyage and does not have edits on any other WMF wiki, then a rename can be done.
  3. If the target user name is registered on Wikivoyage or has edits on any other WMF wiki, then a rename will only be done if the user can prove that they own both accounts.

Thoughts and suggestions? The third point above might be too restrictive in cases where someone is trying to deal with global username conflicts, but I'm not sure how we can safely allow renames here when the desired username is already in use, so someone who knows more and can make a suggestion please comment. I can draft a policy page for further comment if there is general agreement that the above makes sense. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that sometimes people request renames that do not understand English well; they have edits here because of Wikidata, or removing deleted images, or something of the like. In regards to the latter, there is usurpation (renaming the offending account to something like OldName (usurped)), but if that user has edits already, it becomes problematic. --Rschen7754 19:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with renaming users when there might be a global conflict is that I don't understand issues around global usernames, so I'm unwilling to personally perform a rename when there is a global conflict barring clear guidance on when doing so is OK. However, that means that users attempting to resolve global username conflicts cannot do so on Wikivoyage until we come up with such guidance. Ideally such conflicts could be handled entirely from meta, but since they aren't, can someone provide a pointer to documentation (or write something up here) on when and how a global conflict can be addressed so that we can draft local guidelines? I'm never going to "usurp" a username unless there is a clear process for ensuring that the usurped user is actually obsolete, for example. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Wrh2 You may want to ask around on Meta (m:Rename practices may be helpful), but from what I know, the general guideline for usurping is that they have 0 edits anywhere, on any wiki (which can be checked with Special:CentralAuth). The requester is responsible for running Special:MergeAccount to merge their accounts back together. Also, renames of accounts where there are close to 100,000 edits (counting imported) will likely crash the database and should not be done. Rschen7754 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikivoyage:Changing username for a proposed draft. I've added "See also" links to meta at the bottom of the new page for individuals who need to resolve global conflicts. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@LtPowers: for feedback, since he's the only other active bureaucrat. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
So we'd do a rename even if the target account has edits here? Powers (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it is technically possible to rename an account using an existing username (the target account would have to be renamed first), but if I've written something into the rename policy page that seems to indicate otherwise please update the draft policy page to make this point clear. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I imagined a much cleaner process like simply the policy page and then the request page, followed by archives. I don't think we need extra subpages for "open" and "closed" requests. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The process is simple - see Wikivoyage:Changing username#Instructions. The user clicks on a link, fills in three fields, and the request is initiated. It's the same thing that's done on Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Any further comment on the Wikivoyage:Changing username page? At the moment our process for renaming users is completely ad-hoc, so if there are no further comments, and since it's better to have some guidance for users seeking a rename rather than nothing at all (as we currently do), I'd like to remove the "draft" notice from the page and start asking anyone with a rename request to follow the instructions on that page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Historically speaking, before the merge with Wikimedia Foundation servers, has the Wikivoyage community ever saw a need to rename user accounts? Was it ever done on an ad hoc basis, where users were aware of the bureaucrat technical capabilities and contacted one individually/privately? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename requests have historically been handled on an ad-hoc basis. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo/West Side[edit]

Friends, it's been a long time coming, but it's with great pride that I announce the completion of the fifth of the seven Buffalo district articles. Even more so than the others, my work on the West Side article was truly a labor of love, it being the neighborhood where I live and my favorite one in the city.

If any of you would like to look the article over and give me your feedback, that would be most appreciated.

Special thanks go out to User:Reemler for help with scouting and note-taking.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I must praise your tireless work. Your Buffalo articles are very comprehensive and in detail. Well done and keep it up! --Saqib (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Saqib. :-D -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a beautiful article, almost overwhelming in the amount of information you've provided. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a great article, just like the other Buffalo articles you've been working on. Few articles have so detailed listing descriptions. I'd like a few more pictures here and there - the middle third has no pictures at all - and coordinates for the POIs, but on the whole you've done a magnificent job, Andre! ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ikan and ϒpsilon.
Regarding Ypsilon's specific comments, I intend to add more photographs beginning in about a month or so, when the weather improves. One of my intentions in my work on the Buffalo articles is to rebut any misconceptions readers may have that it's always cold and snowy here. But, given the unusually harsh winter Buffalo (along with much of the rest of the U.S.) has had, it wouldn't have been good to add photographs in tandem with my writing of the article. Most of the pictures that are in the article were taken from my personal archives, and I did include a few winter scenes (i.e. Horsefeathers Market) so there would be a representative mix. Coordinates for the POIs, in Buffalo/West Side and all the other district articles, are also forthcoming.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikistats for English Wikivoyage[edit]

I am publishing wikistats reports for February. I noticed some numbers for English Wikivoyage are significantly lower than before. A small reduction is normal, as Wikistats always regenerates all data from scratch from the latest dump, and some bad articles will have been deleted from the dumps. This time there is a rather big discrepancy. Compare columns A and C in first table at new report and old report. Both dropped significantly in newest release. Has there been a major cleanup? Erik Zachte (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Empty articles which were just a {{smallcity skeleton}} and an attribution link to WT (with no actual content) were deleted, without prejudice to creation of actual articles for these places in future, to lose the WT attribution for SEO purposes. This is effectively a one-time operation as there are no plans to import empty skeletons from other travel wikis in future. See Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Summary K7L (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Thanks Erik Zachte (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Listings for chain stores/shops/restaurants[edit]

In a number of the articles, in the Buy, Eat and Drink sections there are listings for large chain stores and restaurants such as Walmart, McDonald's, Starbucks, ASDA, Sainsubrys, Tesco, etc. Just wondering if there is a need for these since they are quite commons, so most places won't be too far from one, is there much point in including them or would it be better to only list places that make the place more unique? Here's a couple of example articles, Rock Springs, Hyde, Tamworth (England), Chelmsford (Massachusetts), but there are plenty more. —The preceding comment was added by WOSlinker (talkcontribs)

See Wikivoyage:Listings#Boring places for the official guidance. For very small towns with only a handful of businesses I'll usually leave the chain restaurants in place since those are the only options, but for towns with several options available it is generally best to remove the chain listings and just include a line of text that mentions they can be found. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't need full {{listing}}s describing these places because each location of a franchise is interchangeable, but a passing mention may be in order if they're the local boarding point for an intercity bus or the only wi-fi hotspot in a small village. If there's a cluster of these in one location (often a motorway offramp), then list the whole group as one ("Various fast-food chains, including McDonald's, Wendy's, Harvey's, KFC and Piza Pizza, are available at the highway 41 offramp, southbound") with no detail. The country-level article likely already explains any differences between Wendy's and McDo, so no need to repeat these. The bulk of our text should go to describing what's unique about a town; the traveller doesn't visit a place just to see the "Stagecoach PLC" terminal or the "Holiday Inn Express" but if they're needed as infrastructure to get the visitor to something unique they want to see, their presence is tolerable. Even a petrol station might be worth a "buy" listing if it's the last fuel for 180km or so (which is rare, but happens). K7L (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth having a clearout. I'll have a look at time point. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The criteria are different for overseas locations where these places are rarer. In China, for example, we generally do not list the ubiquitous McDonald's and KFC, but we do mention the Burger King in Jinjiang and in many cities we cover the European supermarkets that many expats consider essential — British Tesco, French Carrefour and especially German Metro. Pashley (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Tesco and Carrefour are basically Chinese supermarkets and stock very few imported products. I don't think listing those is any more relevant for expats/travelers than local ones. I agree that in China it is relevant to list supermarkets that do offer a significant amount of imported products such as 'City Super' and 'Ole'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's Article 2014[edit]

T minus 3 hours till midnight UTC. Is it ready to go? Do we have a banner?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

One hour left. Should we just call off April Fool's this year and slot in Xiamen? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Aren't you aware of Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#April Fool's day article 2014? --Saqib (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To Saqib: Yes I am. My question is, is the article finished and do we have a DotM banner for it that can go up on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay. Yes, I think article is finished but it would be great if you give it a quick view for copyediting please and yes, a DotM banner is definitely required and since, we're running out of time, please feel free to look out for a appropriate banner. On the other hand, I don't think we need to that put that banner in the archives though. --Saqib (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone did a copy-paste move of Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Wikipedia to Wikipedia? That breaks attribution. K7L (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Andrew did that and that strikes me too. I'm not sure why he removed the useful shortcut leading to Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia and instead replaced it with our April Fool article and without attributions. I think we should keep our Wikipedia page as shortcut for something useful rather than replacing it with an joke article. Anyway, I've fixed everything now and lets travel to Wikipedia!--Saqib (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Geo coordinates[edit]

Is there a way to add coordinates for POIs other than as part of a listing template?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly use template PoiMap2? Not sure if this is what you are looking for - Matroc (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe {{marker}} is what you're looking for. Texugo (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, marker is very useful: {{marker|type=listing|name=Tegernsee Station|lat=47.71384|long=11.757204}}    Tegernsee Station Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[edit]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

New York Public Library Maps[edit]

The New York Public Library has just released its map collection under Creative Commons. Since our mid Atlantic state articles get a lot of editing, it may be interesting to see if some of the images could be used for historical context. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Header font change?[edit]

Header font change?[edit]

Header font change?[edit]

Is it just me, or did the font of our headers change to something more like Times New Roman? Texugo (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

See #Changes to the default site typography coming soon. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, missed that. I have to say, I'm not a fan so far. Texugo (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Just takes getting use to I guess, body text is also slightly different (lose approximately 10-14 chars per line, thus a few more turnovers). Matroc (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Could be changed back by adding some css code in Mediawiki:Common.css if you want. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've asked a question at Mediawiki about personal css changes. Hopefully it will be answered before the dung hits the fan when the change is rolled out on WP. Nurg (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The size difference I might be able get used to (though I'd prefer if it were reverted), but I think it looks ridiculously amateurish to have the body text in a typical sans serif font and the headers in a drastically more formal-looking serif one. It's a very poor aesthetic choice which completely contradicts standard typesetting wisdom and makes our content look bloggish. When I see something like in the above thread, where it has "New York Public Library" in the header, followed by the same text in a different font in the first line of the body text, it just serves to highlight what jarring contrast there is between the two fonts. I flatly dismiss any claim that this change provides any necessary improvement in readability, and I would definitely support changing the header font back to match the body text. This is so ugly that someone on meta even suggested it could be an April Fool's joke. Texugo (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Geez, and not only that, but now I noticed that while the page titles (H1) and H2 headers appear in the new serif font, all the H3 and H4 headers (of which we have many) still appear in the normal sans serif font like the body text, so now we have mixed header fonts as well (see the sample subheaders I've added above). This whole thing is horrid, very poorly thought out. Texugo (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a small change to MediaWiki:Vector.css. Let me know if it fixes the headers. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It does indeed fix the headers. I do hope nobody objects. Now we need to discuss whether we want to accept having this font size change pressed on us as well. Texugo (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The new font for the headers didn't/doesn't disturb me very much. But to be honest the supersized font looks obscene. First I thought something was wrong with my browser... ϒpsilon (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The font changes also seem to have affected the way the listing markers display:    ,    ,    ,    ,   . They now show the numbers very close to the bottom edge of the box, while they were more centered before. Texugo (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. And what might our Greek colleagues think about the Y letter (Ypsilon) looking like a hand operated well pump? :/ ϒpsilon (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I concur with the above - I'm not a fan of the changes. --Nick talk 19:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to revert all changes by adding this patch to Mediawiki:Vector.css. The new style is absolutely terrible. I don't know who proposed it, but I am itching to eliminate this person from the Wikimedia community. --Alexander (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We may want to wait a week or so to see if any fixes are applied to the core software before we add too many local workarounds that would then need to be rolled back - there seem to be enough concerns about the change that I would expect significant efforts to address them for all projects. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd encourage everyone to add your voices to the clamor at mw:Talk:Typography_refresh#serif_vs_sans_serif or one of the other threads on that page. Texugo (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the change to Vector.css. We have to give this time to settle before we start tinkering with a new feature. Powers (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
For those interested in why a serif font was chosen, there is some reasoning here. Essentially, serif doesn't work well at smallish font sizes on screens, so sans-serif is used for body text... leading to the use of serif for header text for contrast. The usual typographical standard of serifs being used for body text doesn't apply because computer screens are different than printed text. Powers (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That does not explain it to me. Who decided that it just wasn't enough to have headers already in different sizes, in bold, and with a separator line under them, that there was this burning need for even more contrast, a need so great that it was worth sacrificing our aesthetic harmony to get it? I think it's trying to fix something that was never broken, and that the result is that headers now stand out too much, in an undesirable way, like sore thumbs. Texugo (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Powers that we shouldn't make site-wide reversions of the changes at this time. If anyone dislikes aspects of the changes and isn't bothered with trying to get used to them, you can go to personal Preferences and change your custom Vector CSS. For example, to revert the body text size:
#bodyContent {
        font-size: 0.8em !important;
Nurg (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone clamoring for these changes on this site. How about a reversion on this site, regardless of what other Mediawiki sites look like? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the conversation, I had a lot of Village Pumps to check. First off, thanks to any Wikivoyagers who might have tried the beta feature and/or given us feedback over the last five months. In terms of local overrides: I would agree with Nurg and Powers. Design changes always take time to get used to. Since we spent a lot of time testing these, gathering feedback from editors across all Wikimedia communities, and iterating, my only request is to let Wikivoyage as a whole try out the defaults for a little bit before making any site-wide change. If individual people don't like the change, you can of course opt-out. Let me know if you have any more questions, like why we chose serif headings etc. Steven (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by, Steven. I don't recall seeing an announcement about this proposed change before it happened. I would request that in the future, when major Wikimedia-wide changes that will affect this site are under consideration, that someone please come to the Travellers' Pub while discussion is ongoing and inform us about them. That's happened at various times, but I don't think it happened this time. Another alternative would be to change other Wikis and not this one, if that's feasible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Or, people could be proactive and pay attention to this sort of thing... by signing up for m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors. Simply put, there are over 750 Wikimedia wikis, and it just simply isn't possible to make WMF staff go to every single wiki. --Rschen7754 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am emphatically with User:Texugo above, "it looks ridiculously amateurish to have the body text in a typical sans serif font and the headers in a drastically more formal-looking serif one. It's a very poor aesthetic choice which completely contradicts standard typesetting wisdom". The change strikes me as quite obviously absurd. Pashley (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The new design should be an optional feature, and the old design should be used by default until all formatting issues are settled. The "opt-out" option that you suggest does not bring interline spacings back to normal. Please, provide us with a css-file that removes all changes compared to March 31. Then we may discuss which features of the new style make sense, but so far this new style is only plain ignorance of the community. --Alexander (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The header font, at least, is even not something I am willing to try to "get used to", and hiding it with my personal css is not the answer - I am embarrassed that that's how we are now presenting our guides to the world and I want it reverted. This whole initiative is screwing up something that wasn't broken, with no prior community consensus that there was a need. I fully support the suggestion of reverting everything to how it was on March 31 until/unless there is any local consensus for change. Texugo (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
While I would agree that there are some issues with the typography refresh, I think some of the comments that this was somehow implemented without notification are out of line. The "beta" link that appears next to everyone's account preferences on every page has offered the typography refresh for several months, and there have been a few automated pub notifications alerting everyone that this change was coming. As User:Rschen7754 notes, it is impossible to interact individually with hundreds of wikis, so it is at least partially up to us to track global changes and weigh in before they are announced.
As to reverting things now, I strongly suggest we wait at least a short while for the major issues to be addressed before we try to "fix" the perceived shortcomings, since any time we create a Wikivoyage-specific customization that is one more thing that can interact badly with future upgrades, requiring extra work for us or causing us to miss out on new features. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel kind of like Arthur Dent being told he should have known his house would be demolished, since the demolition order for his home has been publicly available on file for months in a forgotten corner in the cellar of city hall. It just seems absurd that a change this big was not explicitly brought to our attention. Texugo (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Feedback was first requested for the typography feature in November: Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2013 (additional)#Introducting Beta Features, and it has been discussed further on mailing lists and at meta. I agree that it would have been nice to have another notification about the typography changes prior to the one at the end of March, but to require local engagement would make it impossible to make global changes since doing so would require individual discussions on 700 different wikis.
Going forward, it would probably be good if people enabled the "beta" features to get advance notice when these types of changes are being tested, in which case you will automatically see them as soon as they are proposed for inclusion, giving you the chance to provide immediate feedback. If desired we can probably also set up a page that has pointers to places that people should monitor in order to keep track of global changes - would that be useful? -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not our job to follow all technical developments across all Wikimedia projects. It is the job of the developers (and some of them are paid money, by the way) to make sure that their developments make sense and do not ruin existing content. Typography would be a perfect add-on if it is an option, but the unsolicited change in the default appearance of all wikis is very annoying. --Alexander (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
See also w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Font size and style for a discussion about the typography changes on Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I did actually turn on beta features when that was posted in the pub in November (and turned it right back off again when I saw what the typography did to the titles), but there was no indication that they weren't just features in development to be offered as options, when this one was in fact a set of fundamental changes to the global defaults that affected every page we have. Plenty of people in that wikipedia thread seem to feel the same way. Texugo (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any beta features that are being considered only as future options; if they were going to be optional, they wouldn't need to go through the beta test system. (The whole point of the beta test system is so that people can turn it on and off easily; if a feature is going to be an option in preferences, it can already be turned on and off easily.)
I certainly have some quibbles with some of the details of the new design but it's certainly not bad enough to take the drastic step of completely divorcing our design from that of other wikis. I am a bit concerned (if Steven is still reading) that the typography was chosen with an eye toward Wikipedia policies and style (neutrality, formality, reliability) rather than taking into account that other projects have different needs. Powers (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why keeping our design aligned with other wikis would be a concern. We've already veered way off that path with banners and horizontal TOCs, etc., and the font of our mainspace article titles is thus already unaffected by the changes. (And please please please don't suggest ruining our article titles with a serif font!) At any rate, we wouldn't be the only ones, as various versions of WP have already reverted. Texugo (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is one of the core policies of this wiki. There was no consensus to change fonts and other style issues. Therefore, all these changes must be reverted and discussed. --Alexander (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This was done by WMF, and was a technical decision outside of the purview of the consensus of this wiki. --Rschen7754 21:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
They are breaking their own policies, and it is their problem, but I don't see why Wikivoyage should support this. --Alexander (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
They are not. This kind of hyperbole is not helping your case. If we want to deviate from the default typography, that's what would require consensus. Powers (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
What kind of policy justifies unilateral site-wide changes that were neither adequately announced nor properly discussed (via an RfC, for example)? --Alexander (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The policy of "The WMF runs the servers and can do whatever they want". --Rschen7754 23:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that it was adequately announced and properly discussed. Powers (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This confirms my statement that the change was done against existing policies and was not supported by the community. --Alexander (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It does? How? Powers (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If "The WMF runs the servers and can do whatever they want" is the official policy, that would be really funny. I am tempted to go to Meta and ask when and how this policy was approved. --Alexander (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there's no community policy on any wiki that governs the default look-and-feel of the Mediawiki software. This was not a policy change at all. Powers (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How did you hide the page title from all articles?[edit]

We at the Hebrew Wikivoyage added the banners to all our articles a while ago but we haven't hidden all page titles from the top of the articles yet. Technically, how would this be done exactly? (I tried to do this by changing vector.css and common.css but it seems that this should be done in a different way). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We had to do it with Javascript, which isn't elegant but seemed to be the only option due to technical limitations. See MediaWiki:Common.js, specifically:
-- Ryan • (talk) • 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I added this code to Heb Voy and it does now hide all page titles from articles, nevertheless, it seems to me that this process is slightly longer at Heb Voy - meaning, you can see the page title on the top of each article for about 1.5 seconds before it is completly hidden - while in the Eng Voy articles, for me it seems the page titles be hidden immediately. (see an example of this delay for yourself at the article for Paris in Heb Voy) Any suggestions for how to reduce this delay? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Try moving the new code to the top of MediaWiki:Common.js - if it runs faster, that means that something else in your Javascript is running slowly and causing everything after it to run later in the page loading process. If you can figure out what is running slowly, you can defer the slow code by surrounding it with:
$(document).ready(function(e) {
    // put slow code here
If the problem isn't due to other code running slowly then further debugging would be needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, it seems to me now that this same problem actually exists both in Heb Voy and Eng Voy (it take more or less the same amount of time to hide the page title from the Eng Voy article of Paris as it does for the Heb Voy article for Paris). To me it seems now that this problem is caused by the fact that before the server works on hiding the page title it actually first works on loading the panoramic image of the banner - and therefore, in the instances in when images larger in size and details are loaded, the server take an additional second or 1.5 seconds to load the image before it goes ahead and works on hiding the page title from the top of the article. Ideally, in order to solve the problem, we need to get the server to first hide the page title from the top of the article before the server goes ahead and works on loading the panoramic image of the banner. Any ideas on how to achieve this? (I tried moving the new code to the top of MediaWiki:Common.js but it didn't change anything, probably because it is defined somewhere else that the panoramic image would load beforehand.) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a note from some old wiki tidbits from ages ago (may or may not apply): Matroc (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. To hide an article title on a single page can use a template to do so:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:none">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}}
  1. To hide all article titles, I have edited Common.css (many years ago on a personal wiki): h1.firstHeading { display:none; }
Of course mediawiki code has change since quite a bit and the above may not work correctly. —The preceding comment was added by Matroc (talkcontribs)
Unfortunately DISPLAYTITLE can no longer be used to hide the page title - see Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition/archive#Not inhibiting title. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Migration data[edit]

The site is for travellers in general, so it should include migrants though of course tourists are the most important group served and business travellers likely come second.

Here is an interesting graphic, Where everyone in the world is migrating—in one gorgeous chart. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stack Exchange has a new QA site for expatriates (that is distinct from their Travel QA site) Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparing language versions?[edit]

Is there some reasonably easy way to get a list of articles whose development levels differ across language versions?

For example, I'm an English speaker with reasonable French. I would not try translating into French, but I'd be interested in improving English WV based on the French version. Any article where the F version is, say, two levels higher on the none-outline-usable-guide-star scale than the E version would be worth looking at. Pashley (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The only thing we have are articles manually tagged with {{translate|fr}} at Category:Articles needing translation from French or another similar category. I suppose it would be theoretically possible to build a bot which compares articles based on the criteria you gave and inserts the appropriate {{translate}} tag, but I don't know how to write such a script. Texugo (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This may be possible with Wikidata badges, should they ever get it done... --Rschen7754 04:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pashley, I recommend using this link in order to more easily find the articles in Fr Voy which are the largest in size. in most cases these articles would be the ones the French Wikivoyage community invested most efforts on through the years. In addition, I recommend check out the few French Wikivoyage Star status articles, as well as the few French Wikivoyage Guide status articles. Good luck. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

39 suggested new alternative banners - please participate in the following discussions and vote[edit]

Over the last month or so I have created 39 new alternative banners to existing ones used in various prominent city articles on Eng Voy. I created these banners from exisitng photos on Wikicommons first and foremost for use in the parallel articles on the Hebrew Wikivoyage. In most instances these new alternative banners feature panoramic photographs of cityscapes (and yes, I know not everyone here want cityscape banners to be used in the city articles), as we in the Hebrew Wikivoyage tend to prefer cityscape panoramic banners to panoramic banners of flowers, bushes, fishes, or other individual objects which are not necessarily unique to a certain place and do not necessarily help the travelers get an idea of how the destinations they plan on traveling to actually look like (we usually add the photos of important individual objects to the relevant segments in the articles instead).

Please participate in the following 39 discussions and indicate in each of the discussions whether you prefer the existing banners or the new suggested banners.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at all banners of destinations I know, but none of the suggestions were an improvement. --FredTC (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me but I find this kind of shopping around quite disgusting and counter-productive. If you don't like a banner, make a better one, start a discussion in the talk page, see where it goes. It is not a "vote", it is a discussion. If you want voting, try Eurovision.
Secondly, if you believe you have superb banner-making skills and want to put them to good use, look around for articles to go without a banner, of which we still have shiploads.
If you just want to be appreciated, do note that this is a collaborative project and not a talent contest. Appreciation comes in the form of having created a better, more complete, more useful, more frequently visited and used, and also nicer to look at, site. Mediawiki sites, even those with well-developed badge/barnstar and whatnot systems, are some of the worst places to go to if you want to shine and receive massive expressions of awe and appreciation. This is the uttermost opposite of X-Factor.
If you want the kind of appreciation Wikivoyage can provide you with, start with articles that need help the most, as this is where making a meaningful and visible impact is the easiest. The appreciation you can provide yourself with looking at an article that started out as neglected, outdated stub and is now a full-blown guide is the best thing ever. Or at least the best thing on Wikivoyage. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually thought that this was a healthy way to promote collaboration between language versions. Even if none of the new banners are used here, it's interesting to see what other languages prefer, and it's at least worth discussing the possibility of changing to a potentially better banner. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand what the down side is. And some of the new banners are a major improvement (while others are not). Let 100 flowers bloom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
We've had those banners suggested in the talk pages for some time now and they have generated instantenous reactions, though some not favourable for the user who posted. I fail to see why this needs to be brought to the attention at the pub, I am seeing this kind of discussions quite often (i.e. suggestion of a new banner, also from other language versions). The fact that the user refers to their preference regarding panoramas and refers to a "vote" made me think they perhaps want to shop for "votes" for their proposals, which I find counterproductive.
I also believe that while diversity and multiple choices are always better, we may want to direct our attention to more creative issues. There was a fair share of discussions in the talk pages, why do we need to encourage more participation in bulk? If somebody is particularly keen on or knowledgeable about Leeds, they will probably have had the article on their watchlist and have or will see the discussion about its banner. If somebody isn't, why bother them. It is a local issue, not a global one, and not a pressing one requiring more attention from the community. The French and Italians are also using different banners oftentimes. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and we had a bunch of beautiful banners from French Wikivoyage proposed some time ago. I found your tone unnecessarily hostile. I don't see it as harmful that this notice was posted here, and I also don't see it as harmful that ויקיג'אנקי has pride in their banners or that they posted about their philosophy of what makes a good banner to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with ויקיג'אנקי's actions here. Even if in most of these cases I preferred the existing banner to what was proposed, it's nice to see other options presented and have these pleasant little discussions about what we look for in a good banner. No harm done, and I think we're a stronger community for it. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is a worthwhile exercise to see alternative banners. ויקיג'אנקי made some suggestions and if it helps improve one English destination article then that is great.
It does actually raise another question. Since the Hebrew site apparently doesn't use Wikidata as the reference to banners it means all changes have to be suggested in this manner. If it was the French site then basically our banners would change with no discussion (or even change notification), and this is true vice versa. Has anyone considered how we work with other language sites that use Wikidata for banner references? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all I want to apologize if anyone was offended becuase I did not choose the right words (I chose to use the word "vote" instead of "discussion" or "consensus based discussion"). English is not my primary language and therefore occasionally I may end up formulating sentences which do not take into account different nuances and sensitivities.

I must also clarify that contrary to what someone suggested above, in addition to these 39 alternate banners I created, over time I have also created many banners for articles ​​which have no banners at all (both in Heb Voy and Eng Voy). In the future I definitely plan to also help create even more banners for articles that don't have any banners. Either way, I have made many banners in the past and I'll continue to make many more in the future (first and foremost for usage in Heb Voy), and in my opinion no harm is done by having the Eng Voy community (and maybe also other Wikivoyage communities) discuss using some of these alternative banners here as well. On the contrary - I believe that permitting discussions of this kind help us improve the quality of our articles over time.

I will also note that I have noticed that many of the users in Eng Voy whom have created banners in the past tend to be very proud of to their creations, and some of them I believe might even assume that their banners would continue to be used in the Eng Voy articles forever. In practice, Wikivoyage banners​​, as well as any of the other elements appearing in the articles, are open to discussion at any time now and in the future, and of course in the future instances in which specific new alternative banners would actually end up being favored by a majority of community members in a discussion, existing banners might very well end up being changed based on the new consensus reached. Based on my experience with Wiki culture, most likely, in 5 years, or 10 years or 20 years from now, most of the banners currently used in Eng Voy would probably end up being replaced by more much more successful and spectacular panoramic photos, whether you like it or not (this would most likely happen when the En Voy community would become much larger and diverse).

Regarding the original note I added above, in which I invited the Eng Voy community to take part in the current 39 discussions being held over these alternative banners... I chose to post this invite here mainly because this practice is widely acceptable in many wikis as it promotes fairness and it help us make sure that the final decision actually corresponds to the prevailing opinion amongst the Eng Voy community.

Anyway, I am glad that so far at least some of the alternative banners I created have gained support/consensus of the community and would probably end up being used in Eng Voy as well.

Finally, regarding Andrewssi2 last question about the instances in which foreign wikis would use Wikidata to display banners - I can confirm here that we in Heb Voy community do display banners according to what is defined in Wikidata by default, NEVERTHELESS, in the instances in which we rather display other alternative banners than what is defined in Wikidata - all we need to do is edit the banner code of a specific article in Heb Voy and specify that a different banner would be used there, and as a result, that article only doesn't use the banner which is associated with that article in Wikidata. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi ויקיג'אנקי, you took the initiative to help improve WV and I personally don't think you need to explain yourself at all. Many thanks again for the alternative banner suggestions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is at least the second time you offered a lot of alternative banners. Last time, you presented some great ones, too, and this time, you waited for more people to pass judgment on them, so I think that's great, and I know that most of us will welcome you whenever you come again with more banners for us to look at. And we'll look forward even more to pagebanners for articles that have none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the pub is a nice place to get opinions, because some destinations may not generate conversation if it is left to the talk page. Plus, since users who make banners are all proud of their work, discussion is probably better than plunging forward to replace everyone else's banners with one's own. That way no toes are stepped on. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Guide to adding a business to WV[edit]

I just found this guide to adding a business listing to WV on Commons - has it been made by one of our number and is it worth promoting? --Nick talk 23:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks great to me! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Some feedback: It looks very compact (I guess it's hard to fill everything on a single sheet of paper), but it seems to contains most useful information. The map could be made smaller. The design could use more branding, and maybe a single sentence introducing the concept of Wikivoyage. To gain a bit of space for a more graphical title, you could skip the URL or at least "http://". The second page (editing in wikicode) can be skipped by those who want a single page, I guess. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Users are being forced to log out[edit]

Wikimedia users (Meta included) are being forced to log out and log-in again due to a vulnerability discovered in the OpenSSL implementation of the SSL and TLS protocols.

Wikimedia Foundation servers have been affected, and had their OpenSSL version updated earlier today; as a precautionary measure, all user session tokens will be reset — which causes the loss of session and forces users to log-in again using new, secure tokens.

Wikimedia Foundation also recommends that users change the passwords they use to log-in to wikis. Read more. Jalexander (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (Many thanks to Odder for writing the text I stole here)

World's most dangerous cities?[edit]

Is this list accurate or useful? What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have any facts behind it at all. Taking precautions in places like Mexico, Pakistan and Yemen is always a good thing, but I doubt specific to the cities mentioned. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth checking if top ones at w:List of cities by murder rate have warnings here.
We have links to several indexes of danger level at Retiring_abroad#Information_sources, under "statistics and indexes". Pashley (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Also worth noting that the danger experienced by a tourist taking precautions and a resident who has to live in the city are likely to be markedly different. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Andrewssi2. I'm not sure I trust that article much, because this much I know for sure: it's overtly alarmist and an extreme exaggeration to make the grand generalization that "[Brazil's] most populated areas are not places you want to hang out in". Texugo (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's surprising that Kabul, Baghdad, Grozny and Damascus are missing from the list. However the cities on the list and the parts of the world they're located in aren't exactly famous for their safety either. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm living in world's most dangerous megacity but fortunately never felt I'm unsafe here so yes, safety concerns are definitely different for a resident and a visitor. --Saqib (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
A more telling ranking might be one which doesn't count the ones where the victims are acquaintances of their attackers. Texugo (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just in, official data from the UN on the matter:
And some analysis by the Economist:
Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Malformed item in Tools menu[edit]

Looks like something's gone wrong in the Tools menu in the left column. &lt;wikibase-dataitem&gt; Nurg (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also at the bottom of the other languages links. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that something huge has gone wrong at Wikidata — all of the edit/add/save/cancel buttons there are broken. Look at wikidata:Q16503 for example. Texugo (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, they have fixed it now. Wikidata:Project chat#All labels are broken. Nurg (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal request: Renaming "Open Directory" as "DMOZ" in the sidebar[edit]

RfC please I am opening up a proper RfC for an issue that I mentioned briefly in a prior post. The Open Directory Project has officially branded itself as "DMOZ" (which is a name it has always used and is more popular). I have requested a page move at en.wp and similar changes at Wikidata and the Commons. For better or worse, English is the predominant language of the WMF projects and Wikipedia the predominant project, so I started there as a means of gaining traction across projects and languages for consistent branding of this site. This seems pretty non-controversial to me and others expressed support. What does the community think? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we be linking to ODP? It seems nearly impossible to get listings added or updated there. K7L (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@K7L: Why not? Even if it's not easy to get listings there, DMOZ can be a good resource for readers. At some point, a person might want more info than a travel guide would offer, so where should we direct them (if anywhere)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Spoke with one of the founders of DMOZ a while ago. He stated that the project was mostly dead and that we at Wikipedia should not link to it. I am not a big fan of long lists of external links within articles and it is better than anything else out there. I guess the question is should the WMF start one? No strong feelings around the term DMOZ. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If the link is kept, it seems sensible to rename it as suggested. Nurg (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal request: Including OpenStreetMap in the sidebar[edit]

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

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

Pages in the "Wikivoyage" project namespace that need updating[edit]

Wikivoyage:Categories has been tagged as needing updating for 9 months now. Are there any volunteers familiar with the topic that could bring it up to date? Nurg (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with Categories. We have extant categories in wide use for which no extant policy exists that permits their use, and absolutely zero apparent interest in updating policy to allow it. Powers (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Technical infrastructure policy has been tagged for over a year. Nurg (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Google search[edit]

It appears for some searches such as "Cranbrook Travel Guide" one need to click on "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 195 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Not sure what if anything can be done about this. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, pages that have been "omitted very similar to the ones already displayed" are almost always websites whose content is completely or almost completely identical to other websites, i.e. TheFreeDictionary Encyclopedia vs. Wikipedia. Google probably has an algorithm that detects identical text, so the answer seems to lie in the fact that Wikivoyage's Cranbrook article must be essentially the same as Wikitravel's. Thus, there are two possible answers: 1) this problem will gradually solve itself, both through development of Wikivoyage and the degradation of Wikitravel through unchecked spamming and touting, and 2) I hesitate to bring this up given the identity of the past proponents of this idea, but perhaps altering section headers, etc. would be of assistance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the text itself needs to be reworded a little and updated periodically to distinguish WV from competing products? We've already changed two of the section headers ("Connect" and "Go next") but descriptive text can get stale if it hasn't been edited in a long while. K7L (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting content from Wikipedia?[edit]

I noticed a recent edit has basically copied and pasted a great deal of content out of Wikipedia. I thought this was not within WV policy, however scanning through the guidance I can't see anything specifically against doing so. Can anyone else point me to the guidelines around this, should they exist? Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia#Sharing content ϒpsilon (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that link states “Copy-pasting blocks of text from Wikipedia is very much discouraged, and will often be reverted”
Does that mean the edit that I highlighted should be removed? Andrewssi2 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. A few months back Saqib expanded some Pakistani article with text from WP, but he modified the text sufficiently and therefore it hadn't to be removed. I'll notify editor of the article and hopefully he'll comment or at least read this discussion and does something to his copypasted content. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Note, though, that the issue is not copyright infringement; the two sites have identical CC-by-SA licenses so legally we can copy as much as we like and WP can do the same to us. The question is whether the text serves out goals as a travel guide. Material that is useful in an encyclopedia entry quite often becomes useless clutter in a travel guide context.
I put a note on the editor's talk page asking him or her to look here. Pashley (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Pashley. Although my linking to his page in my last comment produced that red box in the upper right corner when he is logged in. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm back! Thank you for patience, Pashley! And thank you for everybody to trying clear this theme! I hope my work/copy " serves out goals as a travel guide", and I hope those are a allways enough "modified". With respect - Globetrotter19 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about this and many similar edits. They are rather useless for a travel guide, because travel guide should fascinate the reader and motivate him/her to travel. What we have instead is a long list of something that is very difficult to read because of the awkward language and/or irrelevant information. This article is a sublime example of how a travel guide should not look like. Feel excited? Will not even bother to scroll through it? Then keep in mind that there are at least hundred more churches stored in the sub-district articles. In fact, we had to go through all these lists for Moscow and found an astonishing number of mistakes that come from both Wikipedia and the author. For example, some churches are mentioned twice under slightly different names. This shows very clearly that the edit was more of a copy-paste nature than a thoughtful and creative writing that Wikivoyage needs.
This actually goes back to a more general problem that travel guides should be written by people with travel experience and by people with personal experience of a destination, or at least with some basic understanding of the region. But we are on a wiki, where everyone is free to edit, so we are doomed to see many articles turning into copy-paste garbage. I don't know what kind of a guideline could help here... --Alexander (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Even if there are no specific guidelines about Wikipedia copypasta that are enshrined in written policy, it bears remembering that this is what got the Telstra vandal userbanned. I'd say the de facto policy that we've been going by is that copy-pasting from Wikipedia is effectively prohibited unless there's a pretty damn convincing argument otherwise. Also, to add a point that's been overlooked: if you absolutely must copy-paste content from Wikipedia or any other copyleft source, it still has to be attributed (cf. the "BY" part of "CC-BY-SA"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The content provided by Globetrotter19 was intended (I believe) to provide some good context to the city.
However we should bear in mind that some Wikipedians do ask the question 'Why Wikivoyage?', and the wholesale copying of content may make us look like an encyclopedic wannabe rather than a serious travel guide.
That is not to say we shouldn't source some content from WikiPedia articles, but we should at least rewrite them in a travel orientated manner that is more concise. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To Andrewssi2: Agreed. What I was arguing against in my comment was copy-pasting large swaths of unedited Wikipedia content wholesale, which, even if legally defensible when properly attributed, does indeed make us look like a cheap knockoff of Wikipedia. That's to be avoided, and I think it might even be good to codify that in policy. However, I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with an author who merely adds content that is ultimately sourced from Wikipedia, but recontextualized and put into his own words. There is, after all, some degree of overlap between what's appropriate for Wikipedia and what's appropriate for Wikivoyage, and no one "owns" facts in any way that's applicable to intellectual property law. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, I agree it would be good to codify somehow. Wikipedia#Sharing content is ambiguous in that it only says that copying content 'may' be reverted, but does not indicate under what circumstances or criteria. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
De facto, I'd suspect that users stumbling across Wikivoyage already have Wikipedia (as many of them found us from Wikipedia) and WV as a duplicate of WP serves no purpose. We need to distinguish ourselves from other wikis by offering something that Wikipedia is w:WP:NOT - for instance, a "how to" instruction or a travel guide. WP is a good source for the history of a place (and we might want a brief summary for use by travellers who print our articles for packing in carry-on baggage), but if we're not adding value beyond the WP writeup then why bother? K7L (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that we are in violent agreement. Shall we take it to Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikipedia in order to distill our thoughts, or is there a better policy article for this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Started here Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer this week[edit]

Hey all,

This is a reminder that Media Viewer will be enabled by default for all logged-in users on English Wikivoyage this Thursday, 17 April. There will be an option to disable Media Viewer in your preferences. If you'd like to try out Media Viewer now you can turn it on in your Beta Features or by using it on the demo page on Please contact me if you have any questions. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What, if anything, should WV do with this? It is not at all difficult to think of places where various media files would be interesting or useful supplements to our guides, though I cannot think of anywhere they are essential. Nor is it hard to see that there could be various problems, though I cannot see any that look insurmountable.
Previous discussion rejected the idea of linking to media files. I'd be in favour of allowing some links. Rule one should be link only to files on Commons; no local uploads and no external links to media files. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be interpreting it to mean exclusively non-image media files, but it changes the way images are displayed when clicked on as well. I don't think it necessarily has any implications for our policy on non-image media files. It's just a visualization feature. Texugo (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sibling project links in Wikidata?[edit]

According to mw:Extension:Wikibase Client#Other projects sidebar, Wikimedia is working on the Wikidata extension to allow it to be used to generate links to sibling projects in much the same way as Wikidata currently generates inter-language links within a project. The links would appear in a section of MediaWiki:Sidebar with title MediaWiki:wikibase-otherprojects.

For instance, wikidata:Q2078515 links to s:fr:Appel du 18 juin and a French Wikipédia article on the same topic. The Wikidata extension automatically puts "Autres projets - Wikipedia" into the sidebar of the Wikisource page without adding any codes to that page's wiki text. Contrast this with our current 'kludge' of an extension, mw:extension:RelatedSites, where every stray [[wikipedia: or [[commons: link gets moved to the sidebar (often unintentionally) as if it were a language and the rest of the siblings have no sidebar links.

The catch? This is still limited to one link per project from any page and it does require one line to be added to a server configuration file:

$wgWBSettings['otherProjectsLinks'] => array( 'enwiki', 'enwikinews', 'enwikiquote', 'commonswiki' );

There's a bit of discussion on m:Requests for comment/Interproject links interface but I'd presume that, if we want to use this, we should determine which wikis we want to appear so that a bugzilla: ticket may be opened. I'd suggest:

  • all Wikivoyage languages (as already exists)
  • all English-language versions of all Wikimedia sibling projects (Wikipedia, Wikinews and the like)
  • commons:, meta:, mw:
  • English-language DMOZ (if available).

Comments? K7L (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a related conversation on Wikidata: Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Sidebar links between projects powered by Wikidata now possible - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, some languages versions are already taking Wikipedia and Commons links from Wikidata, although the display of these links is still interfaced by the Extension:RelatedSites. Of course, it would be great to get rid of this extension. However, it is important that Commons links are set to categories instead of pages. Otherwise, many useful links will be lost. --Alexander (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should be generous and include many links. It is great to have Commons links and links to various Wikipedias for instance. Also, doing so might increase the probability that these sites start to link to us in the future. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Mediawiki:Wikimedia-copyright: Could a local sysop please update the license title to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License? It is currently like this: "Attribution/Share-Alike". See the official website here: . Also see m:MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright. Thanks, Glaisher (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Done! --Nick talk 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mexico city[edit]

It appears is going to be Wikimania for 2015. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for information and congratulations to Wikimedia México for winning the bid to host Wikimania 2015 in the City of Palace, Mexico City. We'll definitely look into preparing a special guidebook for attractions and things to do near the venue of the Wikimania 2015 (similar to Wikimania 2014 London Guidebook) when times comes. --Saqib (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin edit request[edit]

Sidebar change Per bugzilla:64027. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the bug and I'm not sure what we're changing. Powers (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The bug appears to be a request to change a configuration file on the server. That's something WMF's sysadmin would need to do. K7L (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or...[edit]

...has there been an uptick lately in activity from non-regular contributors? As ever, I'm hopeful that Wikivoyage is gaining momentum. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be, and I can't disagree. Powers (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed this too - are things starting to look up for WV? Has anyone got any reliable statistics on site views? --Nick talk 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The other day I had the pleasure to welcome someone who's first edits to WT were in 2003 and who's even been an admin there to WV. Pretty cool, right? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That's great to see! We need more people like that! It might also be worth considering how we can hold on to some of the people who are editing and get them to become more involved. --Nick talk 18:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If you're wondering how to get them more involved, a simple message on their talk page would be a good start. Show them some extra Wikilove, and thank them for their contributions! New users like to see enthusiasm and encouragement from the more experienced users. Edge3 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage offline[edit]

Hi all,

I just converted Wikivoyage to several formats:

  • OxygenGuide, the offline Wikivoyage, just a collection of HTML files streamlined to be viewed easily on mobile devices.
  • Listings as OBF, ready to be imported into the Android offline GPS/navigation app OsmAnd.
  • Listings as OSM, ready to be imported into your OpenStreetMap server.
  • Listings as CSV, for mashups, data reuse, error spotting, or just to have fun exploring the data.

If there is enough interest I will set up my scripts on Labs, so that these 4 files get refreshed automatically every 2 weeks. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is an absolutely necessary thing, but the next step would be some sort of communication with OsmAnd developers. I tried to import one of your earlier OBF files into my OsmAnd installiation and realized that the POIs are simply merged with thousands of POIs already existing in OSM. Then it is not possible to use or at least highlight Wikivoyage-specific POIs. Any ideas about that?
You may also be interested in interfacing Wikivoyage with MapsWithMe, which is an alternative to OsmAnd. --Alexander (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are approximately 80 or so entries with embedded tabs, in most cases users may have tried to do some formatting (Discovered while converting file to tab delimited file)... ie. Manchester/Downtown - Trinity Brewhouse... Am testing a few ideas I have and will pass on anything else I find - Matroc (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the tabs from the articles, so next time the listings file is generated, it will be fine. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I fixed a few articles that contained \\'s or , as data as well. Matroc (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongolian font doesn't display[edit]

I was just editing at Ordos City, and I noticed that the Mongolian name of the city displays only little boxes. If I look at the Wikipedia page, the same text displays just fine, so it's not a matter of my computer missing the fonts. What gives? Texugo (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I got boxes both here and on WP, with current version of either Firefox on Chrome for Ubuntu Linux. Adding the "unifont" package (plane 0 unicode fonts) solved the problem. Pashley (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would I get boxes here and not on Wikipedia? If their display method is more robust than ours, perhaps we should adopt it. Texugo (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses w:Template:MongolUnicode to display Mongolian script. It takes the Unicode characters (which you and I see as boxes) and (somehow; I didn't look at the code) renders them in what seems to be a browser-neutral way. You might want to ask at the template talk page or w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols for assistance. Powers (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)