Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Pub

The Travellers' Pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
  • If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment
  • If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.
  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
QA icon clr.svg

Pronunciation Help[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a bit late here, but this discussion really belongs on Wikivoyage talk:Romanization. Nonetheless, I'll summarize my view, which is essentially unchanged since 2006: for non-Latin scripts in general and Japanese in particular, use of diacritics is essential in pronunciation guides, but adds little to negative value in article titles due to the broken link problem. I don't care deeply either way about using macrons in link titles, but it seems a bit pointless.

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

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

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th. Your idea could improve Wikimedia projects with a new tool or gadget, a better process to support community-building on your wiki, research on an important issue, or something else we haven't thought of yet. Whether you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your own project development time in addition to hiring others to help you.

Such a great opportunity to improve Wikivoyage but its pity that this is going unnoticed. We've plenty of ideas already in place. It would be great if someone can take the charge. Maybe Ryan? --Saqib (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the final weeks of a long trip with limited internet access, so unfortunately I'm not in a position to help organize anything at the moment. Hopefully someone else has the time and ability required. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Tbennert is below planning some kind of series of meetings with tourism professionals with intention to promote Wikivoyage. Perhaps he would be interested. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me! I actually did receive one of the grants during the last round. I agree there are a lot of possibilities. Picking a path and keeping a tight focus is probably the hardest part. My understanding is that there are proposal periods each spring and fall, so even if no one is ready this fall perhaps they could prep for the next round. --Tbennert (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

India expedition?[edit]

Hi, everyone. Should we have an Expedition to fix the articles about places in India? I don't mean adding content, though that's great if you've got it. The problem is that even when articles about India have content, they're often incorrectly formatted, and the English (spelling, punctuation, spacing, usage, capitalization, even comprehensibility) is often really substandard, and touting is also a problem in some articles.

Lately, a user has been adding a lot of information (arguably too much) to the articles on Southern India and Karnataka, and that's great, but there are way too many destinations listed for a state-level article for a state that has linked region articles. One of the city articles linked from Karnataka, Hubli, has no "Understand" section but encyclopedic information in "Get in." Another linked city article, Belgaum, has all kinds of issues, but one that comes up in many India articles is the random bunch of bulleted entries, such as are in this case in "Eat."

I would propose that we start by making sure the articles linked from India#Regions are in proper format and an acceptable standard of English, and then proceed to look through articles for each state, but somewhere along the line, we should also make a list of the most important local destinations (cities, parks, etc.) and check on their quality, too.

So what do you all think? India is a country where much English is spoken, and it's an important country in terms of history, culture, wildlife, economics, and politics. If we can get together a group of several people who are willing to devote even a few minutes a week to doing some good editing, we have a fighting chance to whip these articles into shape. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Great idea IK. I would had loved to be part of this expedition but until late October, I'll be busy on Wikimedia Commons due to Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan. Right now patrolling hundreds of uploaded files daily and later I've to start shortlisting and do categorisations thus I'll be on a distant from my home-wiki however I do daily come over here to see how things are moving. --Saqib (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There will still be plenty of work to do after late October, I'm sure! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Right but when I'll be back, I'll focus on Pakistani articles. BTW, we need to look here how the response was in already ongoing geographic expeditions especially Wikivoyage:Brazil Expedition. If I recall properly, I see no one other than User:Texugo actively working on the that expedition and that one is actually is more important as it was started to make articles ready for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics. --Saqib (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There were at least 2 other users systematically helping on the Brazil Expedition, though it was most me that actually updated the statuses on the expedition page, but anyway, even when it falls inactive for a while, I'm glad we have it, because there's no better place to keep track and organize so we can analyze where coverage is weak, etc. I would totally support an India Expedition as well. I've done some work recently on India articles, especially trying to ensure we don't over-subdivide everything, and I know they are quite a mess. And yes, India articles have always been a frequent target of non-MoS edits, contributions with poor English, superfluous info, etc. It would be great to have a place to organize our efforts to get that mess under control. Texugo (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Greeting IK. I currently reside in Karnataka. I will try and help where I can. (I am also working on a few wikipedia pursuits in parallel). regards Arunram (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated! The Karnataka article itself needs a lot of work. Feel free to add your signature on the Wikivoyage:India Expedition page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Would a more general "subcontinent expedition" be a better alternative, or too broad to make sense? Certainly Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh articles could all use work & I think what problems there are with English usage are similar across the region. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talkcontribs)
Might be too broad, as India is already a vast country, but we could discuss this further. I'll create the Expedition later today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I think Pashley's suggestion not bad. Though my English is not good but I can cleanup Pakistani article and after that, I can look into Sri Lankan as well Indian articles. --Saqib (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely a good suggestion. I've created the Wikivoyage:India Expedition. We could discuss enlarging it on its talk page, but I think working on the Indian destinations is already a really daunting task, and perhaps each country should have its own Expedition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Article status tables are up for the India guide and the multi-state regional guides, with specific remarks about things that can be done to improve them, and I already did some copy editing and editing for structure. Anyone who's interested: Please come and help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A milestone has been achieved: Status charts for all the Indian states have been filled in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbered icons on article page not matching numbered icons on a map![edit]

Insure that listings of each type have both a latitude and longitude or both arguments are blank.
Everything will appear to be numbered correctly on an an article page (naturally the entry missing the long= argument
will not be numbered). However, here is the kicker: numbered icons after that entry missing the long= will
be increased by 1 on the map... For example: entry 5 on article page will be 6 on a map etc.
Example: - click on the icon numbered 5 for Gokoku-ji.. Hope that helps! Cheers! Matroc (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
To verify the coordinates of new listings please click the button 'map center <==> all markers' after saving. POI with incomplete coordinate pairs will be visible and may be corrected. - For further testing, you can use this script [16] . -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! - hopefully this will assist anyone having this issue and send them in the direction of correcting a listings latitude and longitude information... Matroc (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we should remove coordinates of POIs missing either latitude or longitude. Anyone disagree?
To start doing this, just open the latest CSV at open it in LibreOffice or Excel, sort by latitude with sub-sort on longitude, and you will find them. I actually just did this sorting and saved the erroneous coordinates (and their article/POI name) here: There are 103 to fix. Cheers :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Have downloaded the list and will update coordinates if possible, otherwise clean them up at my leisure. Matroc (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Done - These have beeen taken care of! - Matroc (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean that the lot of the stuff at User:Nicolas1981/Syntax checks can be deleted from the list? Nurg (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe so as this is a slightly different issue, so No - Best to get Nicolas1981 to answer that question... - Cheers! Matroc (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Should article discussion pages be archived and, if so, when?[edit]

At the discussion page for Karachi there was a brief discussion about if and when the discussion pages of articles should be archived. Although there were only two participants, they seemed to conclude that it was only necessary to archive discussion pages when they became very long and unwieldy.

Usually when I edit an article for the first time, I check its discussion page first to see if there is any guidance regarding language variety, 12 or 24h clock, currency notation or other sensitive issues where I might edit against an established consensus. This is less quick and easy if I have to open each of a series of archives. Because discussion pages usually have a table of contents and the sections are typically arranged in chronological order, I think archiving discussion pages should be a rare event instigated only by necessity.

An opposing viewpoint is that closed discussions from previous years should be archived and is exemplified here. --W. Frankemailtalk 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did some archiving for legacy WT discussions on very long talk pages (basically anything not concluded before 2013). This was because it would be unlikely that a discussion not concluded on WT would continue on WV after the move, and a very long page may be off-putting to a new user. Do remember that some articles have nearly 10 years of discussions built up, and in any case the material is still available on the archive page.
I would still take archiving on a case by case basis, but perhaps it would be good to agree on topics such as Regions and Date/Time that should remain on the talk page indefinately. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why we need the legacy WT discussions because we're not WT. We're Wikivoyage, an entirely separate project. In many cases, opinions expressed are from contributors who are no longer part of either project, having left years ago, and are largely irrelevant today. K7L (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Archives Because the content that we have here is a product of those discussions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't want to go off-topic with WT archiving. The original question from User:W. Frank was around archiving guidance, and if perhaps we should be careful not to archive topics that are fundamental to defining an article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Over at Rational Wiki, they use a program on many pages that automatically archives any topic that has had no contributions in a fixed time period. I think some of their time periods are a bit too short — they go as low as 48 hours for busy pages like their pub — but other than that it seems to work very well. Pashley (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Close old expeditions?[edit]

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

Examples of 'stale' expeditions include (but certainly not limited to are) Wikivoyage:Florida_Expedition, Wikivoyage:Maryland_Expedition, Wikivoyage:Education Expedition and Wikivoyage:Fellow_traveller_Expedition.

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

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

Several municipalities in same article[edit]

Hello, just interested in putting together a page about my current city, a Rust Belt community in the USA that (not surprisingly) doesn't seem to appear here at this point. As a political map will show you, it has several tiny satellite municipalities adjacent to it, e.g. w:Eastvale, Pennsylvania; w:West Mayfield, Pennsylvania, and w:White Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania; they're legally separate, and the locals know which one they're in, but for the out-of-town traveller, they're essentially just different neighborhoods in the same city. At Wikipedia, these get separate articles because they're legally separate municipalities, but the Our regional hierarchy doesn't always follow the "official" breakdown... line at Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians makes me guess (although of course it's talking about a different level of "official") that here we want to cover the closely interconnected communities in a single article.

Three questions come out of this: (1) Would it be best to cover all of these communities in a single article? (2) The Cincinnati article has a "Notable neighborhoods" section. If we say "yes" to question #1, is it reasonable to cover the legally separate municipalities in a similar section, e.g. entitled "Related communities"? (3) If we say "yes" to question #2, is it reasonable to create the titles of the satellite municipalities (e.g. Eastvale (Pennsylvania) as redirects to the related communities section? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to cover several adjacent communities in one article if that's what would best serve the traveler. Whether it makes sense to cover the other communities in a separate section depends on how much content each one would have. In the article for the town of Nyack, New York, which had 6,765 inhabitants in 2010, there is simply the following statement in the intro:
"This article also covers the nearby towns of Upper Nyack and South Nyack, immediately to the north and south of Nyack, respectively."
I don't hold that up as an example of a good article, as it's really lacking in content, but that's kind of the point: If there isn't much content and there are adjacent small towns that don't have a strong separate identity (which I think those probably don't), why create separate articles for them?
But my feeling is, just plunge forward and start writing, structuring the article in a way that you think best, within the basic guidelines of the Wikivoyage:Small city article template, which is flexible ("This template has a much briefer listing format than the big city article template, with fewer sections. If you think that your village or town or whatever needs more sections than are noted here, check the big city article template first for clues. Feel free to copy in some or none of those sections."). Once the content is all there, we can always change the structure if we determine in a discussion on the article's talk page that something else works better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes our legally-incorporated municipalities are arbitrarily built that way too, throwing in multiple villages in an otherwise sparesely-populated area to get something of reasonable size instead of creating one separate entity for each one-horse town and hamlet. Prince Edward County is a prime example (grouping Picton, Bloomfield, Wellington); Greater Napanee is another (grouping Napanee and Adolphustown, although the Wikivoyage article also continues into the next municipal township). It makes no sense for the traveller to print off ten individual-village articles with just one attraction in each to cover a large rural area, even if a crowde city like Paris is split into twenty arrondissements. K7L (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I've created a basic form (no images yet) at Beaver Falls (Pennsylvania); I thought disambiguation needed because there's also a w:Beaver Falls, New York. Do we disambiguate in hopes that someone will write a NY article, or do we just skip it because the NY article doesn't exist? Meanwhile, I'd appreciate comments on the article itself. I didn't understand the add-listing feature, so I simply skipped it. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend - Good start. You seem to have the hang of what the content of each section should be. However, I'm afraid that despite your trepidation, it's a necessity per policy to include proper listings in the article. Adding listings is easy enough to do, and you don't have to click on the "Add listing" tab to do so. Wikivoyage:Listings explains the whole process, or else to automatically insert listing templates you can click on any of the seven icons on the top bar of the Edit screen, next to the word "Listings" - from left to right, they're for "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", "Sleep", and generic "Other" listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, regarding whether to disambiguate: in cases where one city of the same name is far more well-known than others, we tend to add parenthetical disambiguators to the lesser-known ones but omit them for the most famous one - i.e. Buffalo, New York vs. Buffalo (Wyoming). That being the case, I think it's safe to move Beaver Falls (Pennsylvania) to Beaver Falls as it's eighteen times the size of its New York counterpart, not to mention that it has some degree of fame as the setting of the TV sitcom "Mr. Belvedere" (you might want to include that bit of info in the article, btw). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Man, I was a fan of that show and couldn't have told you that factoid. =) I don't think Beaver Falls, PA, is "so much more famous" than Beaver Falls, NY, as to be able to apply that guideline... but I also don't think Beaver Falls, NY, will ever get its own article. There's nothing there. So for now I think putting the PA article at the base name is fine. Powers (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: Promoting Wikivoyage[edit]

Hello! First I want to apologize to the community for the huge gap in my communication. I should have done a better job of providing information and checking in. I plan to rectify my poor behavior with logging on every day and also adding updates regarding the project soon after they happen.

On to the update. Arranging a conference call has been more difficult than I imagined. For now I plan to focus my efforts on creating the presentation, how to videos, and updating the "Welcome travel guides" page. I will then resume contacting chambers. After the chambers (the targeted project group)I will begin finding and contacting location specific travel groups.

The first draft for the presentation is on Google Docs. The link is at User:Tbennert/presentation. I'll be working on User:Tbennert/welcome this week. Anyone is welcome to edit, comment, or question. Thank you!--Tbennert (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, as nobody else has bothered commenting I'll try to write down a couple of thoughts. I think it would be good to urge the audience to try out WV themselves to see how practical and easy to use it is and also how easy it is to make it even better. Right away.
Unlike Wikipedia, a travel guide is something that you are directly using as it is - like a recipe in a cookbook. Ask the audience to use the WV article for their home town (if it has an article), a nearby larger town or a destination they visit. Or even to go out on the street right away and look for the nearest POI mentioned in the WV article for the city/town where the meeting is held/wherever they happen to be. Even many small towns have an article with something.
On the other hand, where information you add to WP has to have a source, information you add to Wikivoyage is usually, at least to some extent based on first-hand experiences and impressions, and therefore does not require any prior in-depth knowledge about the destination. Have the audience add something to the WV article of their hometown or some other place or again, the destination where they happen to be at right now. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. People usually have a "thing" that they recommend to visitors ("while you're here, make sure you eat at ____" or "If you go to San Francisco, be sure to walk across the Golden Gate Bridge"), and it's easy to see whether your "thing" is listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Official App[edit]

In which section should I add a link to the official app of a town? I am referring to this app. --Lkcl it (Talk) 19:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that this app is the "official app". It is not linked from the tourist office in the Iseo article. It also does not appear to be developed by (or for) an official body like the city council. We should only link to apps that would be a primary source (city council, railway, bus company etc). If an app is suitable for linking then we should link to the developer's webpage, not a store for a particular platform. AlasdairW (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Also Iseo municipality has collaborate to develop this app. I can't find any article in English to confirm that, but I have found this one in Italian where it is written: "Il Comune di Iseo e la società Itown Lab hanno creato “Iseo”, un’applicazione gratuita scaricabile da Itunes e Android, che promuove il turismo e permetterà di trovare tutte le informazioni necessarie per i turisti e non solo." "Iseo Municipality and the society Itown Lab have created "Iseo", a free app available on Itunes and Google Play, that will improve the tourism and that will allow to find all the information tourists need." --Lkcl it (Talk) 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I tend to see Apps mentioned in the 'Get Around' section.
I sometimes download apps to a new city that I am visiting, but generally speaking they are student projects and not great in terms of quality. It is also hard for the WV community to review the quality of an app as well (since they have to go to the trouble of downloading, installing and running).
Finally it is very difficult to establish what is the 'official' app for a given city. The problem is more to do with the fact that App Stores have no quality control. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating Calendar of events and festivals[edit]

I have spent some time cleaning up the month pages of Calendar of events and festivals. Bad links and inappropriate events have been removed and the format of the listing has been made consistent. Where possible I have also added the most recent know exact dates. These pages could now do with being expanded. Would appreciate input from others with events that attract international visitors. Why should we do this (I know list pages are not too popular)? Basically this is a good portal into other location pages on this site. The month pages have a lot of key words and with constant updating will attract good results from search engines, attracting more visitors to WikiVoyage. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub and Outline Statuses[edit]

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

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


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

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

Derivative FX[edit]

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

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


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

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

Bug with Internet Explorer[edit]

IE bug.png

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

With what version of Internet Explorer? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I see exactly the same thing with IE 11 under Windows 8.1 (64 bit). I never use IE for Wikivoyage, but this may be a CSS issue. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's also my version. Globe-trotter (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Map Coordinates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic archiving[edit]

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

How would a bot know which talk page to sweep discussions to? Powers (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It only recognizes systematically named subpages such as Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2014 and Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archive/4. Edits like [17] and [18] can be automated, while [19] and [20] would still have to be done manually. I believe both could co-exist and could save the time for the maintenance overall. Whym (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to hear more about how the co-existence workflow would work. Powers (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The concern I would have is just that if there is minimal effort (perhaps 'one click'?) required for automatic archiving then it will probably result in most discussions being archived in the standard location.
If you want to manually archive a discussion in the standard location then anyway it isn't much effort presently. Most effort is around finding an appropriate article to file each discussion under. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the Pub may not be the best page for auto-archiving, but what about using a bot on pages where we do archive to a sub-page? The following jump to mind:
Most of the time discussions are properly archived on those pages, but it wouldn't hurt to have a bot that archives old discussions if we forget to do so, and I would think that setting a bot up for these pages probably wouldn't be controversial. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, except perhaps for Star noms. Powers (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe Wikivoyage:Tourist Office, too? Whym (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
A bot sweeping the Tourist Office could be useful. In order to function properly, it'd have to check two things, though: when there hasn't been any discussion for 14 days in a thread it should be swept. Moreover threads should be swept to the proper archive page, which is defined as the month when the thread was started. In almost half of the cases this is the month before - in extreme cases it might even be two months back. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC), frequent Tourist Office sweeper.
I would say 2 weeks might be too short. Probably at least a month. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Powers, regarding the workflow, here is what I thought: when someone is quicker than the bot, then there will be no problem, and when the bot is quicker than a potential sweeper, then someone might have to look at the subpage to consider sweeping the archived thread to somewhere else - still, no more effort than currently required will be required, IMO. I get Andrewssi2's point above on possible tendency towards not bothering to find a more appropriate place, though. Whym (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't support automatically archiving discussions less than a month old, because I think there will be too many unhelpful instances of archiving, in that case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
When a page is configured to have a 31-day threshold, no thread commented a month ago or later would be archived by The configuration would also imply that no thread less than a month old would be archived. Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon: 1) Duration of inactivity before archiving can be set to one month or anything else, by specifying it in the marker template, as explained in mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ 2) Choosing the archive page based on the month when the thread was started - this option is not available in Would it be acceptable if the timestamp of the last comment in the thread decides the subpage? Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have another question, can the bot create new archive pages for new months? Otherwise they need to be created manually, and if this is the case I don't think there is very much left for the bot to do.
Also, in the Tourist Office the asker wants an answer to a specific question unlike for example talk pages or the pub where policies, district divisions and whatnot are developed. IMO we shouldn't keep the threads in the Tourist Office longer than necessary. Now they are archived after two weeks of inactivity, and I don't think that's too short time at all - this period could even be shortened. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The bot creates new archive pages when they are needed. [21] m:Template:Archive box auto ensures links to newly created pages to be shown on the parent page. (it doesn't support some types of pages such as "/2014-Q1", though.) Whym (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the links I gave (which didn't work). Sorry for the confusion. Whym (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, let's implement the archiving bot for the Tourist Office and see if it works right. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have set it up for the Tourist Office and scheduled a daily check. I consider it a trial and haven't requested a bot flag yet. Note that Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office#Is Suriname safe to travel? will be archived into the October page, not September. I hope this is an acceptable change, but if you disagree I can try implementing the original rule for the Tourist Office mentioned above by ϒpsilon. Whym (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing of status descriptions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

What was the old wording? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The new wording includes the words travel guide and the name of the location. The idea is that it quickly adds text to all pages that would helps with typical key words used in search engines. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike clutter added solely for search engines. The location is already mentioned in the main heading and mostly several times in the text. "Travel guide" should (if needed at all) be somewhere in the meta description, such as "Welcome to Wikivoyage!" -> "Welcome to the travel guide Wikivoyage!", not in the article itself. Are the search engines still dumb enough for this kind of optimisation to be a benefit? --LPfi (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discount sites active in multiple cities[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Licensing for locally-uploaded images[edit]

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

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

This looks very strange[edit]

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

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

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