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

Article status footnotes[edit]

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

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

Why do this:

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for a better phrasing for the "has the status guide"? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, "has guide status." Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"has Guide status". I agree with Ikan regarding the wording, but I think capitalizing the word "guide" would clarify things even further. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization is fine. To be consistent, if we do capitalize, we should arguably capitalize all other status levels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In a brazen disregard for wiki user page etiquette I updated the proposed template with the suggested wording. [1]. I didn't change capitalization in the interest of consistency, as noted by Ikan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ryan, no offence taken :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't understand why everyone hates discussion all of a sudden. So far Ryan is the only person to respond substantively to my questions. This is extremely frustrating. Why is the way that Template:Stbox currently implemented better than all possible alternatives? Powers (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This question does not belong to the proposal that we discuss. If there is a strong argument against putting all footnotes into one template, we could discuss that. Otherwise, it is a matter of taste. Some people prefer one template, others are more comfortable with a bunch of similar templates, but there is no point for discussion. --Alexander (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The solution that has been implemented is not "better than all possible alternatives", but that criteria most definitely should not be the bar we set for making a change - see: WV:Plunge forward, and note that wikis are about incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. The proposed solution has now been implemented and I'm happy with the implementation as-is, but if you'd like to see changes made I'd suggest the best path forward is to create a sample implementation that we can discuss. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
A sample implementation was created, in this case, and I've been trying to discuss it, to little avail. Why should I think that it's any more likely people will want to discuss a different sample implementation? I still don't know which of my suggested alternatives is most likely to be acceptable. Design is supposed to come before implementation. Powers (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a link to the sample implementation. I might or might not understand it, but others will. My feeling is that whatever alternative meets with the most approval should simply be run, since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the language used in the footnotes. In other words, I'd like for whichever implementation you most like to be used, presuming that no-one has any reason to object to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll echo what Ikan has said - if there was an alternative to User:Traveler100/sandbox-stbox being proposed I missed it and apologize. If there wasn't an alternative, then my statement above remains relevant: "if the choice at this time is between a solution that has been implemented, or of waiting until someone implements a technically superior solution, I think the correct outcome is that we move forward with the proposal as-is.". -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the proposal at the head of this section. I've been trying to discuss it here, and on Template talk:Stbox, but there has been a lot of resistance to addressing my concerns over the implementation details. So I'm left with two obstacles to your suggestion that I try a sample implementation: one, I don't know which route to take with an alternative, because no one will engage me in discussion on which would be best, and two, I have no guarantee that my sample will actually be discussed once I implement it, because I've been trying to discuss this implementation with little success. Powers (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with the current implementation - the statement "there has been a lot of resistance to addressing my concerns over the implementation details" indicates that others have clearly engaged in discussion, although that engagement has mainly taken the form of stating that the current version is acceptable. If you're looking for design feedback, my feedback is that I'm happy with the implementation as-is, but will gladly consider an alternative if something is put forward that you feel addresses your concerns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have raised several issues with the implementation but no one has really attempted to explain why they aren't issues -- I've pretty much seen either silence or simple assertions that they aren't issues.
Consider an analogy. I'm buying a used car, and I notice during the test drive that the steering is a little sloppy and the glove box appears to be duct-taped closed. I raise these issues with the salesperson and am told "Those aren't problems. You're the only one who's had an issue with them." Where do I go from there? How do I get the salesperson to explain why he doesn't think they're problems? Powers (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with any implementation improvement you design. Have you designed any? Not that I've seen. But I don't think anyone is making the good the enemy of the better, so why do you think that if you design an improvement, people won't support it? Anyway, it seems like a waste of time to complain that no-one is supporting something that's apparently theoretical. Create the mockup and ask for support. Apologies if I missed something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly pointed out that there are multiple possible ways to go with the implementation. Given that this is a labor-intensive process, it seems like it would be much more efficient to decide on a design first and then implement the chosen design, rather than implement first and perhaps have to scrap it when it fails to meet with approval. Powers (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have yet to see anyone object to whatever better implementation you would design — rather, Ryan and I have both encouraged you to design one and suggested that we are likely to support it (I actually have guaranteed my support, providing no-one has any reason to object). However, if you decline to design anything, there's nothing to discuss really, is there? There's no argument between something theoretical that doesn't exist and an actual implementation, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What I am asking to discuss is which of several approaches is the most appropriate, so that I don't waste time implementing a direction that won't meet with approval. Powers (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, so for my part, I will support any approach of yours that improves on the current implementation. I can't address others' opinions, but if you don't get specific responses from others, it might be because they haven't seen the mockup. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it strikes me that one of Wikivoyage's guiding principles is that we encourage folks to plunge forward, which says to me that we're placing way too much emphasis on nitpicking back and forth over which alternative approach is the best (a scenario complicated by the fact that none of these alternative approaches has actually been described). Powers, if you were to just randomly pick one of the options you have in mind and implement it, the worst-case scenario would be that the community doesn't like it and ends up reverting it. If that happens, Wikivoyage wouldn't be any worse off for it - just as it's no worse off now since Traveler100's original tweaks to the wording of the status tags were reverted. That probably won't happen, though, because Ikan has expressed almost guaranteed support for it, and Ryan, too, seems to have an open mind about it. The reticence, then, strikes me as pointless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andre. However, since endless discussions that never resolve anything are something that saps my will to contribute here, here's an attempt to address the complaints about having too many switch statements: User:Wrh2/Stbox (view the results at User:Wrh2/Status templates). I don't care if this change is used or not as I'm happy with the current version, but I wanted to make the point that if you don't like something it is very, very easy to make a concrete proposal to demonstrate what you want to see fixed. Please make any changes you want to this proposed update. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Picking a design at random would only make sense if all of the designs were equally good. But we cannot know if that's the case without discussing them. Assuming the designs are not all equally good, then picking one at random would risk choosing a non-optimal design and forcing a later re-implementation, wasting both time and effort. Why would I want to take the time to implement several alternatives when we could discuss them ahead of time and only have to implement one? This seems like a basic principle of software development to me.
I have mentioned these before, but I will reiterate the options again as completely as I can:
  1. The prior implementation, imported from WT, had each status template completely self-contained. Each template provided its own text and formatted its own display box (the blue box). This made it easy to make minor changes to a single template, but made it tedious (and potentially error-prone) to make changes to multiple templates.
  2. The current implementation, detailed at the top of this thread. Each of the status templates simply invokes Template:Stbox, passing two parameters: the article type and the status level. Stbox then programmatically composes the text and styles the surrounding blue box based on the article type and the status level. This is elegant from a code-reuse standpoint, but not so good from a usability or maintenance standpoint. It also results in very consistent wording among the various statuses and article types, which may or may not be desirable.
  3. Ryan's new implementation, which 'explodes' out the various statuses and article types from Stbox so that each box's message is clearly stated inside the template. This reverses the advantages and disadvantages of the current implementation (#2), though it also inherits many of the disadvantages of the original (#1).
  4. A suggestion I made on Template talk:Stbox, which was never responded to, would involve returning most of the text to the individual status templates (as in #1), but using a common template to adjust the visual display characteristics. This would allow us to use unique text in each template (if we wanted to) while keeping the visual look consistent. Changes to the visual look would be relatively easy to make, with the caveat that it wouldn't be obvious to a novice where the change would need to be made, while updates to the text of the messages would be very straightforward. As in #1 and #3, however, making the same change to multiple templates would be tedious and error-prone.
  5. Like #4, but rather than keep all of the visual display logic in one template, we could have one template for each status type (e.g., Template:Outlinebox, Template:Starbox) that handles visual display. This would make it very clear to a reader what was going on with the templates and simplify the code, at the expense of a bit of elegance.
There may be other options as well. The decision of which implementation is best, however, comes down to the question of what properties (elegance, simplicity, maintainability, efficiency, accuracy, readability, etc.) we want to prioritize, and that's not a decision I can make on my own. It's one that we as a community have to come to a consensus on. The reluctance here to discuss these priorities troubles me. Powers (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Why be troubled? Suggest to us which solution you think is best and why. It seems other people may not really care which solution you pick. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(reindent) "The decision of which implementation is best, however, comes down to the question of what properties (elegance, simplicity, maintainability, efficiency, accuracy, readability, etc.) we want to prioritize, and that's not a decision I can make on my own."

Powers, thank you for taking the time to corral all of those options into one centralized location. Now I don't really know anything about coding, but I do know that one of the major problems I had with Traveler100's initial alterations to the status boxes was the way the text read - it was very obvious that it was a situation where words like "outline" or "usable" were plugged into what was otherwise boilerplate text, and it was also very obvious that as many SEO-friendly words as possible had been crammed into the blurb. So, my opinion as to where we should place our priorities is that it's fine to streamline and it's fine to try to optimize our placement on Google searches, but the paramount thing to me is that the prose should read as elegantly as possible. Also, I didn't think it was necessary for Traveler100 to shrink the text so drastically, but that's a lesser issue IMO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Powers: I'll again echo Ikan - aside from the previous statements in support of consolidating logic as an exercise in good coding practice, no one else seems to care very much about the implementation. I'll add that the point about making the template easy to update for a novice strikes me as unimportant in this case - it takes some wiki knowledge to change any template, and in this case an undiscussed change to a status template would almost certainly get immediately reverted. Given those two caveats, we're left with options #2, #3 and #5 (#1 and #4 fail to consolidate template logic). With that said, since you felt strongly enough about the implementation that you were willing to oppose this proposal moving forward [2]), and since no one else seems to really care, please just choose whichever of those three options addresses the concerns that led you to oppose the original proposal and propose a new implementation. This template simply isn't complex or important enough that I think the implementation details make much difference, so as long as the logic is consolidated in a way that makes maintenance easier than the old cut & paste mess, and as long as the template is functional, I don't care what changes. My "reluctance" to discuss trade-offs stems from a belief that they simply aren't that important - if we were implementing a new city article template or something that would be very difficult to change later on then that would be worth spending plenty of time to get it exactly right, but this template can be changed in a matter of minutes and thus the details just aren't that important. Unless there is anything new to discuss I'll bow out of this discussion now since I don't have anything to add beyond what's already been stated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, Ikan expressed confusion as to where to go to edit the text of a status message. This is the sort of situation I'd like to avoid; experienced contributors like Ikan should be able to easily see where particular text 'lives' so that it can be changed when necessary without relying on an 'expert' to come along.
I fear I didn't explain the available options very well. #4 does indeed consolidate nearly all of the template logic, particularly the visual properties of the blue boxes; what it doesn't do is keep all of the text in a single template. In fact, #4 consolidates more logic than #5 does, so I'm little confused by Ryan's prioritization above.
Is it safe to assume that we as a community would generally prefer more natural-sounding status text over text that's been generated programmatically? I don't know which is better for SEO purposes.
-- Powers (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that it would be best for it to be easy to find where the text "lives."
But I think that the implementation of the wording and the wording itself are different questions. I'm actually satisfied with the current wording, though if you have a suggestion you consider superior, I'd certainly be willing to consider it. Strategically, however, you might consider focusing on the implementation first and getting that out of the way before reopening discussion of the status footnote wordings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the best implementation to choose depends on whether we want the text to be programmatically generated or not. That's why I asked. But the message I'm getting here is "Make whatever changes you think are best, but we refuse to have a discussion on how to determine what 'best' means." Powers (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think I understand the difference well enough to express an opinion about it, but really, you're being given practically a blank check and you're complaining about that? Have a nice day and a good year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I never asked for a blank check. But even if I want to use it, someone has to tell me how much is available in the bank account.
I just don't understand why we can't have this discussion. I can't determine which implementation is best without knowing the consensus opinion on these topics. The fact that I've been given a 'blank check' is irrelevant. My opinion is only one person's; I can make an educated guess as to what the site consensus is on these topics, but if my guess is wrong, then the implementation I design will be incorrect. I, for one, don't want to waste my time implementing an incorrect design.
-- Powers (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Change effected 21 December 2014[edit]

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

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

Currency symbols missing from listing editor[edit]

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

It is not so much that some are missing, but that it is somewhat impractical to list all currency symbols currently used around the world.
Interesting to note that the Indian Rupee (₹) actually has different symbols depending on the local language - for example ರ in Kannada.
We could add a look up list I guess. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is odd, but not a difficulty for us because we're the English language version of Wikivoyage.
However, my apologies, since I now see after further research that I'm behind the times.
I see that despite no logical riposte to Seligne and Alice at Wikivoyage talk:Currency#Currency codes in text!? Srsly? the progressive policy to only use currency symbols for a few universally used and understood symbols was reverted. My error was to think that the three letter universally understood ISO symbolisations were to be used other than for the eight currency symbols I mentioned. I do now see the difficulty with including 50 odd glyphs in our listing editor and I apologise for raising the issue here. --Ttcf (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't kept up to date with this website in a year, so am not sure what policies have changed, but just want to point out that when you are in the editing window, there are 27 currency symbols in the box at the bottom. Scroll down past the save page/show preview/etc buttons and the second line below the big, bold "Sign your name" line contains a bunch of currency symbols that can be clicked and added. I had edited the template a couple years ago to include all currency symbols that had a Unicode number at the time. I think the most recent addition then was the Armenian drahm symbol: ֏ AHeneen (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

rail-air alliances[edit]

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

I just went ahead and created an article on the subject. As of now it s very Germany-centric. If some or any of you have ever used the similar services in other countries, I would like you to contribute. Best wishes and a happy 2015Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg

My fellows and friends. We celebrate travelling so its time to celebrate this holiday season. Living in Pakistan, its not actually holidays or time for celebrations for me but I feel great joy during this time of the year and so its my pleasure to send seasons greetings over to you guys. This is time to reflect upon the good things and recall we had in 2014. I really loved working with you guys in 2014 and I hope that the the coming year 2015 will be more fun. I also hope that 2015 will bring everyone here happiness and success. So please accept my aplogies for any misconduct if I did. Have a magical and wonderful holiday season. I wish you and your family, Merry Christmas and a joyous New Year. Thank you very much everyone! --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

С Рождеством и Новым Годом - Matroc (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
שנה טובה לכולכם. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay but I've been in holiday, so, even if late: buon Natale e felice anno nuovo a tutti da it:voy! :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How free do you are?[edit]

Every time here gives me a so bad experience that my will to participate became negative, now I'm have to say to my friends, "do not edit there, it's a waste of time".

Simple editions that could highly improve the community are not allow, if you don't spend tons of hours, that I don't have, discussing the "egg hair"... 2 years in the Wikimedia Movement and do not adopted the "be bold, don't be idiot".

Why that? Why that much of bureaucracy instead encourage volunteers to contribute? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A cursory inspection of your reverted edits today seems to indicate that you are just upset because you don't get to do what you want, regardless of standards that were developed through many discussions over the years. Since you know how Wikis work, you're surely aware that if you're unwilling to see your edits subjected to all kinds of revisions and sometimes reverted, and especially if you want to do things like create pagebanners that are much larger than the standard size, you need to start your own blog instead of complaining that this entire site is not your sandbox. Happy trails, and have a great 2015! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I guess you are referrring to your edits to the pagebanner template, which User:PerryPlanet reverted. I admit I do not understand very well how templates work. Nevertheless, the pagebanner is something visible on pretty much each and every article. Edits to a central page like that will have consequences for practically the whole Wikivoyage instantly, therefore anyone should realize such edits should be discussed before they are implemented. Besides, edit warring is definitely not making matters any better. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
w:WP:DIVA, folks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's be nice and assume good faith, barring any evidence to the contrary. In this case, the page banner edit was well-intentioned, but I very much agree with Perry's concern about an undiscussed change to a template that appears on basically every page on the site, and I suspect that a similar edit on Wikipedia would probably be reverted as well. While a max height makes sense for the specific article and image that Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton was attempting to add, we've had all sorts of troubles with large page banners creating problems for mobile and elsewhere, so I'm inclined to support the current policy of forcing properly-sized banners, rather than using a CSS hack to be more permissive with banner dimensions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ad hominem and disrespect that I will not enter on that...
And a q.e.d.... yep the whole Wikivoyage instantly will be affected... but, this don't change any present edition, this affects future editions, and this allow new things so, q.e.d., you created barriers and do not allow small changes that could improve the community... ant that's the point here, not the edition. Ryan, the banner have a "no mobile", they don't appear in mobiles.
I'm not talking about the small picture, I'm talking about the whole thing... as you entered in the example, the pt community is haunted by a en volunteer that don't allow beaches articles, but, as the majority of occasional volunteers are Brazilians, and beaches are important for us, I saw a lot of this type of articles being deleted with no discussion, and the argument is "the community [this one here], do not allow that type of article", I tried to solve, showing alternatives and nothing. And he won, I don't have time to enter on more hours of this.
And this happens every time and time, "this article is to print", "we do not allow galleries" "we do not allow videos" "we do not allow montages" "we do not allow...", we already have tons of tech solutions for all this, "noprint", i.e., and yet, you tried to stop in time and be the 2005 WikiTravel...
You are free and have a real support, and we are in 2015, we have tablets, internet, people can select what they want to print and we can create books for than with to buttons....
Dogmas will not improve the community "Let it go!", be bold, spread your wings, if something do not worked after use, revert, but try, let happen... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It would help if you could explain the purpose of your bold changes. For instance, doesn't setting the maximum height of the banner to 250px reduce the height of all of the banners on the site? And how does that provision interact with an image such as you posted on Manhattan/Midtown East? What's the practical effect of these changes? Powers (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your comment about banners not appearing on mobile devices is inaccurate and also conflicts with work going on elsewhere (see [3] for one example), and thus supports the point that when there is concern about a change to an important template it should be discussed to avoid unintended consequences. With that said, I'm sympathetic to many of your points and agree that the culture here is too restrictive, but also feel that your comments indicate an unwillingness to go along with existing consensus when you disagree with it. Existing Wikivoyage editors should very much work harder to be more accepting of new ideas, but you also need to respect the fact that many of the guidelines currently in place are the result of difficult compromises made by a large editing community. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict (four times already) Ryan look this File:Wikivoyage banner versions.jpg on mobile versions, now I saw that your version is present in mobiles, in the pt version no. But, you can compare the difference between the 7:1 and the CSS "cheating".
For me is to tough to see in the actual version...Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Powers a lot of image you can put there will work without editing, and create a new image 7:1, I can simply choose one that looks good with the cut, and that's it. See: pt:Nova York. The ones that are in 7:1 are not affected. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah Ryan, I get the respect part, but I rise up the pt version alone, helped to raise this one and the es, made a lot of importations, adjusts, recovered files... and after ready you started to be very aggressive with me, never if respect, and just because I was questioning some things... respect need to be mutual ;)
I didn't get how this affect the discussion about mobile, but this is not the point that I'm raising, the bureaucracy is what's bothering me, if some one have a real argument as "we could not change that, because of that", I respect, but reversion for free... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked at pt:Nova York, and the image's aspect ratio changes dynamically based on the window width. It would only be 7:1 at one specific window width, I think. It seems like our other banners would be affected similarly, with the bottom getting progressively cropped out once the image width exceeded 1750 (your coded maximum height of 250 times the 7:1 ratio our banners follow).
Anyway, one thing you should understand is that on Wikipedia, the template you edited would likely be protected from editing because of the high potential for damage and vandalism. They even have a template for that: w:Template:High-use. We don't protect high-use templates like that; instead we revert if the changes are wide-ranging and undiscussed beforehand. Is that really a less welcoming move than simply using page protection?
-- Powers (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we should all drop our personal prejudice and abstain from off-tangential discussions, focusing instead on answering the poignant original question: "How free do you are?" PrinceGloria (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you PrinceGloria, this is not about the template, if you want move your concerns to the template page that I can respond there.
You are not Wikipedia, the volume of editions and access is not comparable, wp wy, you don't need this level of bureaucracy, you can track every step, and not many people will be affected if something goes wrong.
And even WP are more free than here when we are talking about edition, if I want I can put more images, write in a different flow, {{eat}} {{do}} {{learn}}, and learn could not be "visit this neighbourhood, to see this type of architecture", because this is not learn this is see(?), but I could not put in see, because we already have too much "see". For big cities I can't create a gastronomic guide, even having people that just travel for that, for beach cities I can't create a guide with all beaches, I need to squeeze all beaches in see, and I can't put photos, and not much information, because don't fit... I can't create a article Musée du Louvre to give tips to travellers more valued than just the price, hours... Today I can't put info how to get there, a map, photos of arts there... and you can say to me, in this case "they have a website", first, I need to stop my reading here to go there, and second the have 3 languages, France, English, and Japanese... and for some reason, pt e other smaller wy, suffer a huge influence of here, informations about some monuments is totally ridiculous to find in some languages...
I need to restrict my share potential, because you don't allow more information, I truly understand that in a trip you need to see the top 5 monuments, top 10 restaurants... and we need to be concise, but a lot of people want to see alternatives, some people live there and want to discover new places. I live in a huge city, I don't know 1/10 of the places available, even I taking my camera and visit new places at least one time in the month. We can simply create a "appendix" in the "Eat" section with a food guide, with a lot types of food, restaurants, same with beaches, museums, galleries... and the main article will be with more 5 lines indicating this appendixes, and will not affect the tourist, but can put a gigantic smile in some travellers...
Look how many monuments the Wiki Loves Monument bring every year, and how many people are involved on that, picture a married if that, if will could list this here, saying how to hit that spot, giving tips of the surround, and maybe linking a QR Code in the monument to a appendix here, that bring more of the same... And now you have a server for that, and have a community with a new breath to make this happen, but you need to be more flexible, all this things at the end that I described we can make happen this year.
So you don't need to block, you need to be more open, what's the difference between ratios, the other to right, quantity of lines... spread your wings. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As on any wiki, it's perfectly possible to change Wikivoyage's policies, but only if users go through the proper procedure to do so. That procedure consists of initiating a discussion on the matter on the relevant project talk page and/or rfc and/or in the pub, gathering consensus, and - if consensus is agreeable - initiating the desired changes. A problem that this project has been seeing more and more often is users trying to bypass the official channels and either proposing huge, sweeping changes to policy in totally inappropriate venues or, as Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton has been doing, making such changes unilaterally and then getting angry when they're reverted.
I totally get that changing policy in the prescribed way is a pain in the neck and the process oftentimes moves at a glacial pace. And I am totally sympathetic to folks who are frustrated with what a tedious undertaking it is to hammer out consensus. If what PrinceGloria is suggesting is that we make some sort of effort to streamline the process of gathering consensus and implementing policy, or to encourage input from a wider slice of the community when policy issues come up, or to establish some guidelines for the scope of policy discussions so that they don't get derailed by folks going off on a thousand different tangents - then you can mark me down as an enthusiastic supporter. But even if nothing changes, I still prefer the status quo a thousand times over rather than some sort of Wild West scenario where anyone can make any major sitewide change he wants at anytime, without consultation. And regardless of any other factor, the petulant attitude displayed by Mr. Argenton on this thread and elsewhere (e.g.) are never called for in any circumstance. Wikivoyage is a wiki that provides itself on maintaining a civil atmosphere and we have actually userbanned editors for consistent patterns of uncivil behavior, which I mention not as a veiled threat but to underscore the importance we place on this.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"status quo a thousand times" = dogma...
" the petulant attitude displayed by Mr. Argenton" ≠ maintaining a civil atmosphere
"userbanned editors for consistent patterns of uncivil behavior..." = open threat (not a veiled one) ≠ maintaining a civil atmosphere
A interesting thing in this "ban", the name of the same person that do not allow any kind of change in pt.wy pops up... And the people that are being "rude" (I'm not gonna use what I'm thinking) here, are the people who hunted the person banned and creating a not civilized environment in this discussion, maybe the problem is in another side...
"or to establish some guidelines for the scope of policy discussions so that they don't get derailed by folks going off on a thousand different tangents" = The issue
I can hear you screaming "this is not WikiTravel, ops, Wikivoyage!" when you was reading my thoughts, and possibilities to here. You don't need more guidelines, or rub in the face of a volunteer the "scope" that were created in 2003, we all get.
But why not improve things, why you cannot rethink as you have more power to use, more technology to burn, to provide more options, more information, to receive more knowledge, to bring more volunteers...
Why do not thing out of the your giant iron box...
This is not working for the pt community, and I bet my kidney that it is slowing down the en...
I'm not gonna get deeper, because you keep trying to punch me, not the issue. So I can't see a point to keep discussing with you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of any merits the argument in the second half of your post may have regarding the scope of policy discussions, the first half makes it abundantly clear that you're not interested in contributing to Wikivoyage in a constructive and collegial manner. Again, if you can't handle cooperating with the community, you're more than welcome to leave as you promised to do. Happy trails! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, q.e.d., "you keep trying to punch me, not the issue.", nothing more to say to you. And any one can read the thing that you wrote to me ;)... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
PS:Ad hominem and creating a hostile environment to stop the conversation, don't make you write...
Happy New Year all. Not the best conversation in which to start a new year, but I'll go ahead and put it out there that I am the "en member who haunts pt". I have been round and round and round with this user many times on various topics, which in pretty much every case has involved him ignoring or denying the legitimacy of existing policy/practice and insisting on making unilateral changes, on everything from montages to banners to attraction/beach articles to the use of hot pink text. Pt is pretty much in maintenance mode and does not have any regular users besides myself with which to build any consensus behind his desired changes, but obviously that doesn't mean that he therefore gets to have the site as his personal "sandbox", which is what he has always appeared to feel entitled to. When I reverted his changes, it inevitably led to interminable conversations in which he often resorted to very nasty personal attacks, including lodging inappropriate formal allegations against me at meta (which failed of course). After some point maybe a year ago he stopped editing, and so all of that was buried long ago. I hope not to have to dig it all up again, but I will if I have to.
Anyway, I cannot say I am pleased to see this user back again with the same diva behavior, and I will go ahead and announce here that on pt:, his unilateral changes will be patrolled and reverted exactly as they would be here on en:. He will be referred here to en: for any new proposals to gain consensus, because I do not intend to allow the absence of discussion participants there to be used as an excuse for him to redesign the whole site to his liking, and because I do not appreciate the stress I felt from trying to hold him back one-on-one the last time around. Already wasted much time on this guy. Texugo (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Ad hominem again! That's awesome!!!
As it's me subject again: this what I was doing the whole day, even with years in WT/WY as he proud says, never fixed one of the most accessed pages, and I spend the whole day fixing problems, improving the page, in 3 min he f up all the work, just because he doesn't like.
[4], [5] the last one is incredible, he wrote "restore map wikivoyage style - which would justify taking one WV map and put other non-WV?", and that's so absurd that I can even say anything. I change one map that no one could read for one that even me, can see... and this is not a WY map, dogmatic to the roots...
Again I don't need to prove my point, it's pop up during discussion. The same crew hunting another guy that change one thing, and they create a non-healthy environment and change the angle to the lonely guy...
You know what's gonna happen? The NY page will be stay the s that is now, and the Paris, Tokyo, and London (cities planned to be fix, in my holiday). As pt:Oslo, pt:Florianópolis, instead of helping, the volunteers withdraw my contributions, no matter if it was better than before just to maintain the things the way that they like... in most cases in pt, empty...
And the possibility to this happens is your fault...
Old guys can implement anything without any kind of discussion (as the banner, buttons...), write rules that was not present before [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],..., and the "new" ones need to pass through the whole bureaucracy, this is not a free space, we have a name for that. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's best that we not continue to give this user the attention he clearly craves. Let's move on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Running out of potential FTTs?[edit]

Your comments and suggestions are welcomed on the linked discussion thread. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tackling the large number of outline articles[edit]

Currently we have a large number (over 14,000) of articles tag as outlinecity. Some of these articles are lacking information, while others have enough information to be usable but need bring up to date. Although a monumental task to address all of these, I would like to propose an expedition to try and reduce this number and increase the quality of article on Wikivoyage. The idea is to pick a bottom level region and improve all the location (city/park) articles below it. This provides a clear, focused and achievable activity. I have tried a few myself in the past couple of months; takes more time than you would first think but the end result is rewarding. Draft expedition in my user space, if others think this is an idea worth pursuing I will move it into the Wikivoyage:Expeditions area for others to refine the idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well we have got the number of outline cities to below 14000 for the first time in a while. But I guess my next goal is going to take some time :-). --Traveler100 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I've wondered if there might be a way to automate some of the work of populating empty articles, for example by using a bot to pull in a few hotel or restaurant listings. I'm guessing there would be license/copyright issues if we were to (for example) grab the contact information for the top three restaurants and hotels for a destination from Tripadvisor, but are there any other options that might allow us to automatically fill in some articles without the need for manual updates to 14,000 articles? I'd be willing to write a bot if we can figure out some guidelines. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I like the idea of automating adding new listings. A lot of the articles have enough information to be usable articles, they just need the listings checking and cleaning up. One of the tasks that does take time is correcting bad web links, either changed address or the establishment is closed. Do we have tools for listing broken external links? Also could we automate checking to TripAdvisor, Yelp and Google to see if a restaurant/hotel is marked as closed (I am finding quite a lot of them)? Another cool thing to be able to do would be extract coordinates of listing automatically or semi-automatically, this is also a time consuming task. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Koavf created a list of broken links back in April - - although it is probably fairly out of date by now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wrh2: For what it's worth, I didn't make the tool originally, just initiated the conversation about those links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Restaurant name showing wrongly in hover message[edit]

I recently added the restaurant 2h+k (yes, the name includes a plus sign) to the Tampere page. Yet, when I hover over the location on the map, the message says "2h k". What did I do wrong? JIP (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed the same problem. It seems the hover message isn't configured to display certain characters. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The '+' symbol is used when passing parameters to a page through the URL; it represents a space (since space characters can't be used in URLs). When the parameter is encoded for placing in the URL, spaces are converted to '+' characters, so any '+' characters will get converted back to spaces upon decoding.
The likely cause of this bug is that text like listing names isn't being properly URLencoded before being passed as parameters. Unfortunately, I know only enough to identify the problem, not enough to fix it.
-- Powers (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The script poimap2.php for the dynamic map is wrong here. I will try to fix it in the next version. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
A plus sign is also possible in name fields now.    Hotel Chip + Dale77 Chipmunk St.. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DotM, page view stats, and a potential problem with (and solution to) the Main Page carousel[edit]

A little while ago I got curious about how much an article's page views are affected by being featured on the Main Page as a DotM, OtBP, or FTT. I did some research on the page view statistics of recent featured articles (go to View History on any article and you'll see a list of "External Tools" just above the most recent revision; Page View Statistics is one of them) and a clear pattern emerged: DotMs get a higher bump than OtBPs, which in turn get a higher bump than FTTs. I suspect this is because when you go to the Main Page, the DotM is the first of the featured articles to scroll through on the carousel. This strikes me as giving an unfair bias to DotMs in favor of OtBPs and FTTs. My question is, is there any way to tweak the coding of the carousel to randomize which of the three featured articles pops up first? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to have it initialize and immediately scroll to a random banner ([11]). If there is interest I can put together a test. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thats a good catch Andrew. Ryan, I wonder if it possible to have a carousel which shows banners all of the feature guides at the same time. Lets say 30% of images shows of each banner and when one hover over one of the three banner, it gives full banner image as well the text. Hope you got it. --Saqib (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Saqib, that would be a lot of work to implement, so unless there is widespread interest in such a solution it is more than I'd like to take on right now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
BUMP. Can we get folks' thoughts on this, please? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree it would be fair to give each of the three featured articles the same visibility and would support randomizing the starting point of the carousel. If I understood Saqib correctly, he's thinking of something like the Cover Flow of Mac OS and iOS — I'm not sure if it would be an improvement and if it's very difficult to build too, let's keep the layout as it is (and just randomize the starting point). ϒpsilon (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tweaking the Main Page[edit]

I've put together a proposed update to the top banner on the main page and would greatly appreciate feedback (note: only the top banner has been changed): User:Wrh2/Main Page.

Since the look & feel of the main page is most relevant to new users who aren't familiar with the site I used a test group consisting of one web-savvy individual who wasn't very familiar with Wikivoyage when trying to determine what to change:

  • User:Nicholasjf21 made the important point that our content is best reached by searching, and had put together a proposed update with a prominent search box. I've added a search box, but done so in a way that changes the page less dramatically than Nick did. It takes a lot of clicks to get to the city articles that most users will be looking for, so I think it's important to have a search box to make those easy to find. Note that there is already a search box in the top right corner of the page, but my single-person test group stated "I didn't even notice that" when I eventually pointed it out to her.
  • I remove the "Click on a continent" guidance as well - the continents are still clickable, but my test subject also said that she wouldn't have read everything on the page, and thus wouldn't have noticed that guidance. In addition, finding destinations by clicking through continents is a painful introduction to our site.
  • Again, due to feedback from my test subject I removed the "26,389 articles in English" line. Her comment was "if the site is in English, why does that say 'in English'"?, and after I explained it the follow up was "why does anyone care about that"? I actually sort of like having that info on the main page, but couldn't find a less conspicuous place to put it.
  • I changed the dropshadow text to a shadow box to match the carousel; I'm not a fan of the dropshadow text because I find it hard to read, and I didn't like the inconsistent presentation on the page.
  • The font used in the carousel banners has also changed slightly in order to be consistent with the rest of the page and to use h2 and h3 tags (SEO best practice).

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, objections, feedback, etc? I think it's really important to get a prominent search box on the main page so that visitors to the site can quickly discover that we really do have an article about their hometown or favorite destination - I suspect that currently we're losing a lot of visitors simply because they get to the main page but don't understand the amount of information available here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, it doesn't work properly with wide windows; the textbox continues to get larger even after the background image maxes out at 1125px. This causes the text to eventually exceed the height of the background image. Powers (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I always forget that for whatever reason we have a hard-coded max width for the top banner and carousel. This edit should resolve the problem you cited. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought the next time someone bring the main page issue, will get us rid of the uesless map. --Saqib (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I very much like the prominent "search" instead of the continent guidance, and fully agree with the assumption that it's much easier for users (especially new ones) to find what they're looking for that way. I don't find the new font an improvement, to be honest, and it's too large and "bold" for me. I wouldn't miss the article counter. Thanks for the work, Ryan. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Changing the font back would be easy enough - in converting the headings to h2 and h3 tags for SEO purposes it picked up the default heading fonts for the site, but it's a simple matter to change them back to what is currently on the main page if others feel that should be done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Since there were no objections to JuliasTravels' suggestion to change the font, this edit should make the font in the proposed page essentially the same as what is on the current main page. Any other feedback? -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Talking of the homepage, I would highlight this question. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Done Given past support for including a search box on the main page and the lack of objections in this thread, I've gone ahead and made the proposed changes live. If anyone encounters any issues with the new version please let me know. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Americans in Cuba[edit]

I discovered recently our article Americans in Cuba, which it seems is in need of a significant update given recent events. Of course, it will also need updating once the U.S. establishes its embassy. Powers (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the only travel-related changes that have been announced are minor changes that affect travellers in the existing categories of Americans that are permitted to visit Cuba. See this. I've added a diclaimerbox to the page, pointing to the State Dept. webpage about travel to Cuba and noted at the end that the information is subject to change & may become outdated. I also think it's important to highlight that not much change has occurred yet, since I imagine some people have heard that the sanctions will be eased and may naively think that all travel is now permitted. I also had an inclination to add "It is also important to note that some changes may be announced, but may not actually happen until legislation is passed by Congress" for that same reason, but decided to try to keep the disclaimerbox short and to the point. AHeneen (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I tightened up the prose a bit in the infobox. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The other major change that I'm aware of is that it's no longer illegal to bring Cuban cigars or rum back to the U.S., a prohibition that is explicitly mentioned at the bottom of the article. Is it worth updating that text to indicate the new value limits? Powers (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
New US-Cuba travel and trade rules 'set for Friday' -- The article is just a "breaking news" stub as I make this comment, with no details. Just says: "New travel and trade rules between the US and Cuba are to take effect on Friday, according to news agencies." AHeneen (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Spectator sports[edit]

We have an article on Football in Europe (which imho should be renamed "association football in Europe", because no Australian, American or supporter of various sports that are also called "football" would search for anything but "soccer" (a term that was btw. invented in England)) . And we have some outdated articles on bygone soccer world cups. As big sporting events (the Olympics, Handball world cup or European Championship, Cricket world cup, NFL international series, the Super Bowl) are major reasons for traveling I think we should maybe create pages on some of them or instead a page on spectator sports in general. Of course we shouldn't provide standings for the fourth division of Australian Football in Greenland, but I think some advice for the traveller, especially on upcoming events (such as the UEFA soccer thing that will be held all around Europe... how will people get from one game to another?) would be a good idea. And I also think that articles on events that have passed shouldn't be kept. Any thoughts?Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We have so far kept articles for past events (clearly marked as such) so that we have some models to work with when creating new articles of this type. That way we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Texugo (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Does something similar to it:Template:Photolist exist on en.voy? I'd like to translate the see section from it:Franciacorta, but I can also add photos manually. Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I love that See section! In my opinion we should implement the same here. I believe the picture should be the listings' picture, though, instead of specifying it outside of the listing. Yes, listings have a picture field, we should use it more often. Currently 4386 listings (out of 215593) have an image. This image is also used as a thumbnail in dynamic maps. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Even though we've been moving further and further away from the "minimal use of images" credo in our image policy, I think the "See" section in it:Franciacorta is a bridge too far. We do still want to accommodate offline users and those on slow dialup connections, right? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the "minimal use of images" policy is still useful. I do like the "See" section in it:Franciacorta, which is very neat, but there are articles with over a dozen "See" listings that would make things difficult, especially if the entries are short for some of the listings. And for one example of currently relevant applications of Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images, please have a look at these edits to Na'in and the discussion at Talk:Na'in. So we need to tread carefully here. I also know that there are some long-time users of this site who hate left-justified images in articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, regarding images in listings, there have been serious concerns expressed by some users regarding how that conflicts with our policy prohibiting photos of businesses. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It wastes a good deal of vertical space unless you can get a good paragraph of text for each listing, like number 4 and 5 in the example (this translates to needless extra scrolling and a waste of paper when someone prints it). Moreover, while that particular See section looks nice and neat, in order for that formatting to look nice it is necessary to have an image for every listing, cropped to the same aspect ratio for alignment purposes. Forcing that format on any section with a bunch of listings, some with photos, some without, with photos of all different shapes, some oblong, some tall and skinny, etc., would not look nice at all. Making sections looks as nice as the small example given would by no means be a small task for an article with 30 See listings and 30 Do listings, etc., and to implement it sitewide without actually worsening the appearance of our current articles would be an absolutely inconceivable amount of work. Texugo (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I share those concerns. It works for a few listings with long descriptions and good images for all, but it will look much less neat for many longer lists. Personally, I don't particularly like it; I prefer larger, quality images in an article over small thumbs next to each listing. That said, I'll admit that's a matter of taste and I see no need to prohibit the use of this concept on a couple of articles where it works and the author would like it, in the same way we allow for galleries here and there. While I encourage clever use of images (and the Na'in example is not it), slower connections seem less of a problem these days, as Wikimedia shows content without the images if it takes too long, right? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, we don't actually "allow for galleries here and there" based on whether "the author would like it" — they are only allowed in the relatively rare and specific situation of "multiple examples of a specific topic" like fauna or flora, almost exclusively in park articles and dive guides. Texugo (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Badly phrased on my part. I'm sure some (imho artificial) rationale was given. I fail to see how multiple examples of wildlife truly differ from multiple examples of monumental buildings; they are all the "sights" or attractions of their destination. But anyway. Point noted ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The types of galleries allowed serve as references to help the traveller identify things they may come across in the wild, whether they are birds or corals or highway signs, thus serving them up in a gallery has a specific purpose which justifies the resulting interruption to the flow of the article, whereas stopping any ol' place to have a picture party just breaks up the article needlessly and serves to encourage quantity over quality. Texugo (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As a side note, on German WV they have invented a kind of photo gallery called "Scroll Gallery" that doesn't take up more space than one single photo (example, click the black arrows to switch photos). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
On the discussion of galleries: I take a dim view of galleries because they are a series of small photos, usually smaller than optimal for decent viewing of details. I think their use should be very exceptional on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked my question only because I like the result. Also on it:voy we rarely use the photolist template (sometimes there aren't enought photos, sometimes the descriptions are too short ...) and they aren't in the article's templates. By the way I understand the problem with the minimal use of images, so I'll try to obtain a similar result without the template. Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support allowing the template in a few articles on an experimental basis, for what it's worth, but I think some other longtime users would probably oppose even that. I'll let them speak for themselves, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct, I would oppose even that. If it is already unsuitable for implementation across the site, then it's no more than a proposed optional departure from the ubiquitous consistency of our standard layout for listings, and, experiment all you want, I would not support the introduction of randomly formatting some articles one way and others another way. That would be a big break from how we've structured the site thus far. Texugo (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
At some point, dial-up, CDMA and a few other historic signalling methods (such as Morse code heliograph, semaphore flag and carrier pigeon) will go the way of the dinosaur and we can back off a bit on this phobia of photos, audio or anything else that might take up space. K7L (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The mere number of photos is hardly the only issue. I dislike overly small thumbnails or images that go past the end of the text in an obvious way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the issues that Photolist could cause, and I think that these issues can be solved one-by-one:ultra

  • Looks bad if a picture is missing -> We need a mechanism that disables Photolist entirely if any picture is missing.
  • Looks bad if all pictures are not the same size -> We need to design a smart resizing/margins-cropping algorithm.
  • No pictures of businesses on articles -> Let's use Photolist only for the "See" section, where it is most useful.
  • Bandwidth -> We need to wait a few more years, or disable Photolist/banners for low bandwidths. For instance this travellers-oriented website is reasonably lightweight on my phone, even though the normal website uses incredibly-large video banners (which is another extreme we should avoid imho).
  • Left-justified images are bad -> Because they break the text flow, but here if the whole section's text is translated, no impact for the reader... a UI specialist's advice could help here. Or we could maybe put images to the right.

I also understand that the idea needs to be thought and rethought, no problem if it takes years before we implement it, but I believe our future Wikivoyage will use much more images than now, and be more visually pleasant, more readable. Really, I can't stop looking at it again, it looks so nice... you see the pictures and immediately understand what it is about, and which place you want to visit, much faster than reading all of the text. I will put this idea in a corner of my head and come back to it in a year, cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on the pros of Photolist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Traditionally, Wikivoyage has been more of a text-oriented travel guide, which has its advantages and disadvantages. If you check commercial products, both text-based LP or RoughGuide and picture-based DK books are available on the market. Text-only travel guides are, of course, very boring (and LP recognizes this by adding color pages with illustrations), but glossy travel guides replete with pictures are not appealing to all. Moreover, it is very difficult to make them, especially in our case when 99% photos available on Wikimedia Commons are shamefully bad.
Another problem to consider is that the photolist imposes a very strict format with exactly one paragraph of nearly fixed size written about every attraction, no matter whether it deserves more or it deserves less. This will never work for many places including world-known attractions. The format has to be more flexible than "picture on the left and text on the right". Commercial travel guides demonstrate this very clearly.
On the positive side, one could try to develop this idea in other directions. Some of you might have seen the ongoing discussion on Ryan's talk page, where detailed descriptions of cities and regions are proposed. One possible format can be seen on the Russian site, where the idea of "text+photo" is applied to the lists of cities and subregions in regional articles. This might be easier to achieve, because it is possible (and reasonable) to write exactly one paragraph of text about each city or subregion. --Alexander (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a really good-looking article! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of the photos for attraction on the region pages, many regions are very dull at the moment serving only to create a structure, something like the Russian example would make the pages much more inviting. As for city pages I think a free format with most of the images on the right better. How about having thumbnail on mouse over a listing? We already have the ability to associate an image with a listing (see Wales Coast Path as example) but currently this is only seen in the dynamic map. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Displaying photos when mouse is hovered over the listing would be great. I would like to try this. Do you know how to implement such a thing? --Alexander (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Mouse over text can be done with standard wiki syntax but I think image on mouseover would require some programming above my current knowledge on the subject. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I believe having something like the photolist or the Russian site cityitem would be a good idea. Not for city pages, here there can be a large list of See listings, not all warranting a picture or paragraph of text. However at the Bottom-level regions a small gallery of main attractions for the area would greatly improve the aesthetics of these pages. What I am talking about are the regions below state level in USA, Canada, Germany, India, etc. or county level in England and Wales. There are often not much more than a list of cities sitting at outline status and preventing important travel regions and countries becoming guides. Adding some good photographs and a little more information will make this site look more like a travel guide for new readers. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a typical gallery with tiny thumbnails, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Something like the see section in this. Although I think this shows that need to do the whole page with the style, cannot just do one or two. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For those sights, those little thumbnails are sufficient, but there are plenty of sights for which those photos would be too small to see essential details. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes but these entries should only be a method to link to the city page where the sight is, which hopefully should have more information and larger images. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much I like that idea. I'm bothered by non-functional maps in articles that have to be clicked to be usable, so tiny thumbnails that aren't really viewable but have to be clicked would present a similar problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Bit of a detailed sub-discussion here. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
(possibly off-topic) Independently from the picture, I just got a related half-baked idea: In region articles, how about taking each city's banner and making it much whiter so that it becomes a background on top of which text is comfortably readable? So the list of regions would be more colourful, each city's line using that city's banner as a light background. Like banners, the goal is mostly aesthetic, the goal is NOT to show a detailed view of everything in the city. We would have to somehow get the banners from Wikidata, which I don't think is feasible right now. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we should be very cautious about that. The banners are carefully chosen to keep the TOC readable – even as it is regarded non-essential. Using the same banner as background to a paragraph will almost certainly make parts of the text harder to read, at least for some. I think functionality is much more important than aesthetics. And compromising the images for readability, they may transform into clutter. --LPfi (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Aesthetically I like the way Nicolas is thinking, but if we fade the images enough to make the text readable, I think we will lose any aesthetic value to the images themselves -- certainly not worth the bandwidth load. Powers (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Giving it a rest[edit]

After giving it some thought, I've decided to temporarily recuse myself from any Wikivoyage tasks that involve cleaning up vandalism and instituting user bans. This break will not extend to any of my other usual activities on Wikivoyage, and I hope that it does not affect my continued status as administrator.

While I remain very optimistic about the more realistic approach the community has been taking to the issue of unwanted edits since the days when Peter, Jan and Alexander walked away in frustration, I also feel that I've begun taking my self-appointed role as sheriff far too seriously, and it's begun affecting my enjoyment of Wikivoyage as a whole as well as my working relationships with various other editors. I apologize to anyone I may have crossed the line with over this issue, and specifically to Powers. I hold our team of administrators in the highest regard, and I am completely confident they will keep our momentum going vis-à-vis combating problem edits while I focus my attention on other aspects of Wikivoyage.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in what is an unenjoyable aspect of Wikivoyage (and wikis in general) AndreCarrotflower. Nevertheless, we do need a wide range of opinions to balance between the idealistic and pragmatic approaches to unwanted edits and I hope your absence from this area will indeed prove temporary. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Andrewssi2. With all the drama that's gone on in the past few months, from the IB vandalism just after the fork to the Telstra user to the Alice/Frank/118 boondoggle, it's sometimes been hard for me to keep things in perspective and remember that Wikivoyage is supposed to be fun and not a battleground. In that spirit, I feel that it's necessary to stop and catch my breath before it starts eating into the friendly and collegial working relationships I have with pretty much every editor here - but don't worry, my absence from these proceedings will most definitely be temporary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers to you, Andre, for knowing when to step back from tasks that aren't fun. No one likes dealing with problem editors. You've been very good at sniffing them out; feel free to ping me if you happen to see one you don't want to deal with. Powers (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Wikivoyage. I do understand. I did the same recently. -- DerFussi 08:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Help fix all of these simple syntax errors[edit]

My script has found a few hundreds syntax errors, your help is needed to fix them: User:Nicolas1981/Syntax_checks

Easy and helpful :-)
Please remove each line you fix.

Also, I generated a new CSV file containing all listings:

Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

help needed[edit]

Yongding County became a distinct of Longyan, Fujian, China since December 2014 (see Yongding District, Longyan), but the article is not update. please update it.-- 04:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You know about this, so why don't you please update it accurately? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ikan: it would involve renaming the article, which an IP-only editor can't do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. In that case, sorry for asking you to do something you can't do, Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Main Page aesthetics[edit]

Screenshot of the main page with the latest changes using Windows & Chrome

I somehow missed all the discussion regarding adding the search field, and it might have been there for ages as I don't visit it often, but I must say that to me the current layout is aesthetically awful compared to the generally superb appearance of Wikivoyage, especially vs. the other site. I was wondering if anything could be done to make sure the first bar with the search field and the global map could display more nicely? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) PS. One thing I believe to be a part of the problem is using much larger font sizes than usual, e.g. in the DotM banner. Reducing font sizes should help majorly.

What browser are you using? Using Windows with Chrome or IE11 the font sizes appear the same as they always have for me. Note that there was a bug due to some CSS cleanup done earlier today that caused the map to display at an incorrect size on IE, but that should be fixed now (diff). -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A screenshot of what I see using Windows & Chrome is to the right. I also went to and generated screenshots using a variety of browsers on Windows, Linux and Mac and saw pretty much the same thing, so if you can provide any further information about what you're seeing (ideally with a screenshot attached) and what's different from before it would be helpful in debugging any issues. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
In the screenshot the a in Wikivoyage in the welcome text is 19 pixels while the a in Saba is 16 pixels. I assume that is what the issue is? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, giving the welcome text the same font size would be much better, I imagine. It's a bit plump now, compared to the rest of the page. I'm using FF. Other than that, I much like the central search box :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it's the font size set to larger than in the banner below (and generally too large), not a browser-related issue. Would be good if this could be fixed. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've put together three options that change font sizes at User:Wrh2/Sandbox. If people can come to an agreement on which option is best, or propose alternatives, then it's a simple matter to update the main page to use whichever option is preferred. One note: while the recent main page update did change these headings from div tags to heading tags, I don't think the font weights and sizes changed from what was there before - JuliasTravels noted that my original change proposal used slightly different fonts, so I changed them back to match what was on the existing main page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Prefer option 3, less bold. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be better removing the italics from "Where would you like to travel?" It makes it look a little spotty to me. Nurg (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
#2 for me. I'm not a fan of the non-bold text. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This thread has been relatively quiet, so based on the fact that at least three people above wanted the "Welcome to Wikivoyage" text to be the same size as the carousel text I've implemented that change. Further comments welcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Welcome to Wikivoyage" ought to use a larger font than anything else on the page. Powers (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added an "Option 5" to User:Wrh2/Sandbox that uses a larger font for "Welcome to Wikivoyage" (230%, increased from 190%), a slightly larger font for the carousel (200%, increased from 190%), but makes all headings non-bold. This would be my preferred option, but I don't care strongly about it so I defer to whatever everyone else wants. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I like 5 except for the carousel titles being non-bold. "Featured Travel Topic" looks fine but "Cruise ships" needs to be bold, I think. Powers (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added an Option 6 to User:Wrh2/Sandbox that implements Powers' suggestion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that's what Powers was suggesting: he likes it bold, at least for the travel topics. For me however, these options are not really an improvement. I don't think the Welcome text ought to be larger in our current layout. It would be perfectly fine to have a huge (welcome) header and clearly different other sections (many sites use a layout like that), but having a seemingly equal 1st and 2nd banner, but then a welcome text that's just slightly larger or bolder makes the layout clumsy in my eyes. As if we just didn't get our fonts right. I also don't care much for the larger fonts, although it's not as bad if they are non-bold. Making them larger ánd bolder is too much for my taste. But well, that's just my taste ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh God, we're getting worse and worse with every iteration. Bold is OK, the font looks nice in bold. But we need the sizes not larger than the DotM banner. Anything in the top banner other than "Welcome to Wikivoyage" ought to be the size of the destination description in the DotM banner. Otherwise it's a clumsy cacophony of font sizes that look random. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Upload photos, add external links and write articles[edit]

We own a huge number of photos and videos for the whole coastline of Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and Corsica. We want to use a large amount of our content in order (1) to enhance existing articles about the above mentioned places and (2) to create new articles for places. Furthermore, our contribution with visual content for the existing articles could enhance the available info since our photos and videos show a completely different view of the destination. I wonder which is the best and the proper way of doing it. Can I add a link to our website @ related articles or Can I upload relevant photos or videos under the proper license?

@VasDion: Thanks so much for reaching out. When it comes to the guides published here, we don't include external links in a links section: a few links occur in the sidebar and link to specific venues or events are included throughout the text. If you want to upload your images, that can be done at our sister site Commons. If that seems confusing, please let me know and I'll help you upload, categorize, and share them. Part of the licensing at Commons can include attribution and there you can provide links to your site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As Koavf said, upload your pictures to Commons, using either the Upload Wizard (easy) or the Vicuna desktop tool (fast). If you have many pictures that are very similar (with a slightly different angle for instance), just upload the best ones, and in parallel also upload all indistinctly to Flickr using the license "Creative Commons BY". Thanks a lot! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Help to complete a Guide of Fabrica di Roma in Italy[edit]

Hi, I am a collaborator of municipality of Fabrica di Roma ( Region Lazio in Italy). I published a Guide in Italian and then in English ( ), but my English is a little scarce and I asked to a voluntary to help me. Now he is very busy and ask me to turn at other volontaries to finish to verify the translate. Someone help me? Thanks, --Patrizia (discussioni) 08:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant articles are Fabrica di Roma and it:Fabrica di Roma. What I've been doing is editing the English-language article with reference to the Italian-language article, but also simplifying some things. I have done an edited version of just about everything except the "Do" section, where I have gotten through the Beer Festival. You all might want to make some decisions about whether some of the entries should be less detailed, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
And now I've edited through Cedar Park. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You'll notice that some of the festivals in the Italian article are not yet included in the English article, so even after the English article is copy edited, more can be done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan Kekek, --Patrizia (discussioni) 12:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I edited a bit, but I suggest you add:
  • More restaurants
  • Coordinates for all places (I could not find latitude/longitude of most buildings, surprisingly)
  • An explanation (etymology) of why the town is called "Fabrica": Was there a factory there or something?
Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the mobile view of the Hebvoy main page doesn't display most of that page's content?[edit]

I noticed recently that the mobile view of the Hebvoy main page doesn't display most of that page's content (the mobile readers see many {{{section}}} wiki codes instead). Does anyone know why this happens and how to fix it? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Any section on the main page with class="nomobile" is hidden in mobile. See User talk:Jdlrobson#Mobile Main Page question for a recent discussion about similar issues on English Wikivoyage. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Do you guys know Wikipedia today received the prestigious Erasmus Prize? And while everyone busy wishing happy birthday to Wikipedia. Lets not forget or ignore the birthday of our beloved Wikivoyage. I appreicate great work of the community. Keep it up your good work guys! I love you all. --Saqib (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Wikipedia :-) I hope WP/WV collaboration will grow this year too, notably with WikiData. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the website which helps one find out the current correct/exact Google search engine ranking of specific articles  ?[edit]

I remember vaguely that a few weeks or months ago there was a discussion in Engvoy that focused on SEO in which one of the participants pointed out that in order to know the current correct/exact Google search engine ranking of specific articles one should not use (as the results on are skewed to produce higher relevancy according to each of it's users profiles) but instead use a different website that helps figure out the Google search engine unskewed search results, and thus help figure out the real ranking of any specific article or page in the Google search engine. Does anyone remember what the website is? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikivoyage:Search Expedition and use --Saqib (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

American Football[edit]

Hi. There now is an article on American Football that was mostly written by me. It is mostly done in terms of NFL and Canadian Football League, however, College Football is still missing as I know nothing about it. (as are the NFL sellout streaks). I am posting to find out: Is there somebody knowledgeable about College Football here? Best wishes (will now go back to watching Seattle vs. Green Bay)Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The College Football section is no longer completely empty, as I added something to it, but I'm not much of a football fan, so I'm sure some of you fine ladies or gentlemen could do much better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The sentence "Getting to London" comes a bit abruptly. Why London and no other cities where games are often played? Also, a banner would be nice :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I included the international series as it is the event most likely to be a travel destination all by itself (besides the Super Bowl, obviously) and unfortunately (thanks, Mr. Goodell) it is also the only event of any NFL games (pre season or regular season) held outside of the USA and will be for the foreseeable future. The NFL is currently making noices about maybe holding a international series game in Cardiff or Fulham, but as of this very day this all still not decided in the least. I am however not really happy with how we deal with the international series as of now. If you know something about it or know who might know more about it, I would welcome your help. As far as I can tell, there is also no mention of it on the London article…Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The NFL's Buffalo Bills used to hold one home game annually outside the US, in Toronto, but this was recently abandoned. K7L (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I know.Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Seasonal recommendations[edit]

Under which headline should you write recommendations for which season to visit a city or a region? For example, let's say I want to write that Stockholm has most comfortable weather during May to September, but the snowy weather in February could be nice, too, or that you should watch for the Culture Night each April. /Yvwv (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Understand", subsection "Climate" is what I usually go with. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. For one complex case, I created a "When to visit" subsection (under "Understand"), but that should be rare. (Such as when the weather isn't the primary motivation.) Powers (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Mobile layout[edit]

Comparing the Wikivoyage mobile layout with the one of Wikipedia, I've noticed that the "edit" & "watch" icons are in the wrong position, causing a bad layout (ovelapping the pagebanner). Most likely is because of the customization of the pagebanner because it doesn't happens on de:voy.

As a nice to have, would be possible have the horizontal menu on the mobile view as in the desktop one? --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity: none is able to do it or at least interested? --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Few people here have familiarity with how the mobile version is constructed. Definitely log a bug on Phabricator. Powers (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Urdu Wikivoyage[edit]

Everyone, please deal with Usman Khan Shah. He wants to create Urdu Wikivoyage despite the fact, there's no editor nor he's experinced. My concerns raised at meta:Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Urdu. And now he's asking me to remove the comments that I made (on Meta-Wiki, on his talk page as well on my talk page) so that he get the Urdu Wikivoyage approved which will surely tarnish and damage the credibility of Urdu Wikivoyage under his administration. I don't know how to deal with him so I leave it to you guys! --Saqib (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit hard because most of us can not assess the stuff in Urdu, so we have to rely on your opinion. I don't mind to add my oppose vote on Meta if you think it is important, but I am not sure the issue is very critical. Copyright violations is something that stewards and WMF should worry about. Regarding the quality, well, we already have several dormant language versions (Swedish, Romanian, Vietnamese), we have Spanish Wikivoyage that went a bit rogue at some point and disregarded some basic common rules, we have Hebrew Wikivoyage that tags very brief articles as stars. What can we do about that? Nothing. --Alexander (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't clear. I don't want community to add oppose vote to Meta page. I'm already dealing myself there since I know Urdu. Why I made this request is request you guys to convince Usman that he don't need to take it personal and keep asking me to remove the messages that I made.It was kind of harassment. But Anyway since I've blocked him. We can close this discussion. --Saqib (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I saw of his contributions here and the proceedings at Meta, it seems like this user is inexperienced and a bit of a bull in a china shop, but I would hesitate to draw the conclusion that he's acting in bad faith just by what's transpired thus far. I think that in dealing with this user's ignorance of talk page etiquette and extraordinarily thin skin, we also have to be careful not to cross the line into biting newbies. I also saw your nomination of this user at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations and, unless there's some unambiguous demonstration of bad faith that I may have missed in his contribution history, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose such a ban on the same grounds. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Andrew. Honestly speaking with you. To me the bull in china shop seems not in good faith to me. To me it look like that he's having fun by making comments. Some comments he made in Roman Urdu were somewhat political as well which I ignored. --Saqib (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Static dynamic maps[edit]

I have started writing a new script to make dynamic maps suck a bit less on paper/offline/NoScript:

  • Create a screenshot of the dynamic map
  • Upload it to Wikimedia Commons
  • Add it as the "staticmap=" parameter of the Mapframe

Proof of concept at Tokyo/Roppongi, it looks great on Kiwix (offline Wikivoyage reader). Some issues to solve:

  • I need a name for this script, and "static dynamic maps" is not great, clever suggestions appreciated :-)
  • Is it OK to store all of these images on Commons?
  • We will need to update each file when POIs are modified, not sure what is the best strategy here. I am thinking of regenerating every time the article is edited, then comparing with the previous image and uploading only if it has changed. Generation will not be cheap, taking about 30 seconds of computer time.

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If we could figure out some way to generate a map legend to replace the functionality of clicking on a dynamic map's POIs, that would be good too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Every time the article is edited" is probably too much, since people will make multiple edits in the space of a few minutes. Maybe we should limit it to once an hour or once a day? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to analyse the changes made in the edit and generate the map for comparison only when POIs are modified in ways the script used cannot see are irrelevant? Relevant changes would be removal or addition of POIs, change in coordinates or change in listing type. Something else? When moving the POIs the script would probably not be smart enough to see nothing was changed but in trivial cases. Even with a quite simple script we could avoid map generation when the edit e.g. affects only running text. Waiting while somebody is doing extensive changes would of course be good to (as with the suggested timer or more cleverly). --LPfi (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Many of the articles may need more than one static map, for example maps of different parts of the city taken at different zoom levels. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the script should work not with MapFrame directly, but with another (e.g., MapPrint) template, where maps relevant to the print/offline version could be specified. Even the Tokyo example shows that at a lower zoom level some of the POIs overlap, while at higher zoom levels some of the POIs are outside the map. We will typically need at least two maps (whole city + city center) as most printed travel guides do.

Storing images on Commons should be fine, but they have to be placed in proper categories based on the information taken from Wikidata. Regarding the updates, I think that one could start with the script running daily for every article edited during that day, but its scope should be restricted to usable articles and above. When we are sure that this thing works reasonably well, one could try to devise a better algorithm of finding which edits are substantial and which are not. Then thousands of outline articles could be included as well. --Alexander (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC) --Alexander (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How does this script handle overlapping icons? Powers (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The current script does not handle that. If I can find a way to know whether there is overlap or not, I could easily generate other images at higher zoom levels, but not sure where to put these images so that they appear in print but not to Web users. Any idea how to solve this, or reduce overlay? Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not only about the overlay, but about choosing zoom level and area that are most suited for a printed map. Creating a template that adds a static map to the print version but not on the web is trivial, isn't it? The printonly CSS class can be used. --Alexander (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Another question. What happens when such a static map is created and then the article subsequently receives many new/updated listings? Most editors won't notice the existence of this 'out of date' static map (since the picture will be similar) but end users will be impacted. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The "staticmap=" parameter of the Mapframes are often out-of-date. One of the goals of the present script is to fix this problem, by re-generating the image when needed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For the script name, I can't decide between "PepeFreez" and "DoraStone". Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For now this script takes screenshots of the right size and saves them on the local disk. I will be travelling soon, so if someone wants to take the lead or get involved in this project now is a great time :-) The next steps would be to get the list of target articles, write the code that uploads to Commons, and write the code that inserts the "staticmap=" attributes. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Events at Wikivoyage:Tourist Office[edit]

Apologies if this message should go on a different page. This isn't exactly a user ban issue, and Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress is a ghost town, so I figured this was the most appropriate well-trafficked page for it.

There's an extremely stubborn anonymous vandal who, over the past few weeks, has continually posted and reposted a spammy off-topic message in the Tourist Office regarding some video produced by CNN. Ryan and myself have been doing a pretty good job reverting the vandalism when it happens, but the user's persistence makes me wonder whether an Abuse Filter might get the job done more efficiently. As you can see from this diff, there's a lot of very specific words and phrases in the boilerplate text that keeps getting reposted (i.e. "CNN Deltalina") that we could almost certainly blacklist without catching too many false positives. Can I get some support for this?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I support it. But if Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress is a ghost town, that's a problem. Enough people, especially admins, should be checking recent changes to see posts on pages like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
BUMP. Just reverted another instance. Can some more users comment on this, please? I'd really like to get this issue taken care of. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Or should we politely answer the person's questions as well as we can and give him/her the e-mail address to CNN's complaints department? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
We can do both, if you like ;) A filter seems very appropriate. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisting "CNN Deltalina" for some time sounds reasonable, I would say. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say we should blacklist a number of different word combinations just to be safe - while largely made up of boilerplate text, the message has changed slightly from iteration to iteration (i.e. this one, which ends in "And by the way this video is related to travel" as a response to the edit summary of an earlier reversion of the vandalism explaining that the Tourist Office is for travel-related content only). I have no knowledge of how to construct an Abuse Filter, but it looks like we have a solid enough consensus to put one into action at this point. Would someone who knows what they're doing like to volunteer? (Andrewssi2?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: I've edited abuse filters on other MediaWiki wikis (e.g. WikiIndex) and I have some familiarity with regex. If no one else steps up and you think I'd be okay with the tools, I'll do it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like no one else is going to bite, Justin. Does anyone object to having him set up a filter: Ikan, Ryan, Ypsi, Julias or Nicolas1981? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't comment earlier because it seems to me that this user rarely turns up and is easily handled with the rollback button, but I have no opposition to using the spam blacklist or a similar tool so long as we don't accidentally block any good edits with whatever approach is implemented. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I already said upthread that I was OK with a filter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Good luck Justin and let me know if you want any help. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia news banner image confusing our articles?[edit]


Is it just me, or does the new Wikimedia information banner look very confusing above our own? If so, do we have any control over this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should tolerate this. We get so much good use out of Commons that allowing Commons to promote its Picture of the Year voting, which I participated in after accidentally clicking that banner, is a good sisterly move by us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. Me too participated in the voting and it was fun. You're right Andrew, at times the banner can be annoying but I don't think we have control over such central notice banners. Neither I think the WMF will allow anyone to disable showing central notice banners which are important announcements made by concensus across Wikimedia sites. --Saqib (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from that, it's a great picture. In fact, I'd love to make it the pagebanner for our article on whatever place that picture was taken in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And while voting for photos, I found some really brilliant photos that can be used as page banners. --Saqib (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind it. It's temporary and I had a lot of fun looking at some of the nominations, which I probably wouldn't have done if it hadn't been for that eye-catching announcement. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough :) I had concerns from a usability perspective, although the banner will of course be temporary. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic maps[edit]

The dynamic maps server has been down for half a day now. Can someone look into this? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mey2008: --ϒpsilon (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The map tool stopped around 1am. I restarted it by hand and it works now. Not sure what the problem was... --Alexander (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the image set as "staticmap=" in the Mapframe get displayed in such circumstances? That would minimize impact a lot. A example article is Tokyo/Roppongi. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)