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


Remove MySpace links[edit]

There are 130 or so articles with links to MySpace pages, which was at one time similar to how we allow Facebook links for listings which have an active, official FB page but no official website. However, MySpace has changed its whole concept and content since then, so that now it is pretty much exclusively a site for sharing music. I had a look at a large sampling of the links listed here, and not a single one appeared active or contained any useful information at all. Most were completely empty with a default background and only the name and city of the account, a few also had a few recommended mp3s on top of that, and another 10 or 12 of the random ones i clicked on no longer even existed. That's all. The site is pretty well obsolete as a social network and not even terribly popular as a music platform. continue linking to it? I'd like to rout all these out and add it to the list of things we don't link to. Texugo (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose creation of any more policy restricting external links. If the information is gone, that already can be dealt with in the same manner as any other broken link. No need to hamstring the project with more instruction creep if it serves no useful purpose. K7L (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think opposing on the basis that you don't like any new rules really constitutes much of an argument that anyone can fairly and logically engage with. At any rate, it's less about creating a new rule and more about eliminating an implicit exception to an existing rule because the original circumstances for which we made that exception no longer exist. WV:External links#What not to link to lists
Blogs, forums and social networking sites (Facebook, etc), with the exception of when a business has no other official web presence.
I suggest that MySpace should no longer be considered a useful, valid social networking site for the purposes of this exception because the site's raison d'etre has changed from being a social network to being a music platform. If you can find even one case where MySpace provides something valuable to the traveller, I'll certainly reconsider though — I have been unable to find any. If we're going to continue making a special exception to a rule, there ought to be a reason. So I'll rephrase my question: Is there any reason at all for us to link there? If so, what is it? Texugo (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not the question you originally asked. "I'd like to rout all these out" can be handled with our existing procedures for dead links (attempt to determine if the business still exists, replace the URL with a new one if available, remove the listing if the venue is closed) and "add it to the list of things we don't link to" is a policy change (which doesn't get done unless you can establish a consensus that there is a need for same). K7L (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an explicit mention is not warranted, but a change in practice, since MySpace is not really a relevant social network any longer. Texugo (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that MySpace no longer qualifies for an exception, but I don't think it needs to be encoded. Powers (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have looked at 5 of these links - 2 of them I replaced with primary links, 2 were for places that have closed and I removed the listing. I have left the one in London#Do as it suggesting looking at a band's myspace to see where they might be playing. I don't know enough about London music to know if that is still the case, but I am inclined to leave this link. Generally the list is worth reviewing, but not removing links without investigating.AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Interlingual lounge: First proposal Milan Expo 2015 as joint Dotm[edit]

Mates, i started the discussion on meta lingual display for Destination of the month to see if there is interest in an interlingual DotM. The first proposal from the Italian community is Milan for the Expo 2015 (May-Oct). PrinceGloria proposal in Lisbon. Any feedback on that? jan (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me in general, but for our purposes Expo 2015 would probably fit better as an FTT. See Previous Featured travel topics#Honorary where it's said that Expo 2005 would have been FTT if the feature had existed at the time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If Spanish community is interested. Mexico City during Wikimania 2015. --Saqib (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, I think Mexico City has the potential to be an excellent interlingual collaboration, and being fluent in Spanish, I could serve as liaison. But I do have some doubts. I don't poke my head into es: very often, and I may very well be wrong about this, but at last check it was pretty much a ghost town over there. Can we speak meaningfully of "collaborating" with a community of one or two active contributors - especially when it's an open question whether Zerabat or B1mbo are willing to act as liaisons to en: or have the on-the-ground knowledge of Mexico City that would be necessary to improve es:'s article? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I swear I posted this last night. Anyway, I was going to say the same thing of pt: with regard to the suggestion of Lisbon, since pt: is basically, well, me. Plus an occasional useful edit by an IP address or one-time user once every few days. And I've never been to Lisbon so I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. Texugo (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

André i see your point with FTT but i assume that on Italian wv they will feature the city and the expo because it seems to be important for Italy. Maybe we can use their local knowledge and run the city as Dotm and the expo as FTT. Just an idea as the whole expo runs about six months. jan (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Milan is certainly a worthwhile destination for travellers. I would not be opposed to a scenario such as you describe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
André, the German wv admin User:Balou46 indicated interest in collaborating for Milan. So far no other proposals. I think the Italian wv community is likely to take the lead on the expo and maybe i would take the lead on Milan. I keep en updated on the discussion and feel free to particicpate on meta if you want, too. jan (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the Milan guide is Usable in en.wikivoyage. Until it's a Guide, it is ineligible for a DotM nomination under this site's rules. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ikan thank you for your posts in both pubs. The main obstacle for Milan are the suburbs, the central districts can be easily turned in strong usables or guides. I can read some french and italian but i'm far from conversational, so users like User:Andyrom75 would be needed to translate. It's a year, so about four months before nomination. I assume it could work out if we collaborate. Therefore your comment on cotm is a good idea. jan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My Italian is not bad and neither is my French. I have yet to look at either version's Milan article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New data for your smartphone or mashup[edit]

Fresh Wikivoyage data has just been distilled and refined into various delicacies:

  • Kiwix: Wikivoyage articles in the ZIM standard format
  • OxygenGuide: Wikivoyage articles as simplified HTML files.
  • POIs: All listings as CSV, OSM, OBF.

Enjoy your trip! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there an offline version that contains thumbnail pictures? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes! The files at that don't have a "nopic" suffix are supposed to have thumbnail pictures :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Automating warning boxes[edit]


As a (future at least) major source of information regarding travel we have a big responsibility to make sure that our guides provides accurate and up-to-date information regarding security information. As of now this is a manual process were any user can add the warningbox-template to articles. This can be quite tedious as a single warning might effect dozens of articles. For example the current outbreak of Ebola in West Africa should be added to all articles about places in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. As you all understand that takes a lot of time and more often then not articles are lacking important safety information.

So, what I think we should introduce is a script when a warning box i added to country/region all pages that's under it automatically get warning boxes too. As articles already is categorized by which region they belong it seems the same mechanism could be used for this.

However, they are of course some exceptions. For example we would have warning boxes regarding the current ISIL offensive on the Iraq page as well as all northern regions. But it makes no sense adding it to it's southern regions were we have more of a general warning. Those types of issues would have to be sorted out.

Overall, I do think this is quite an important issue to look into. Especially as Wikivoyage hopefully will be a major source for travel information. Jonte-- (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like overkill. Consider a directly travel-related safety event like 9/11: Would you have added the same warning to absolutely every town in the US? I could see adding it to US, DC, and New York; I could maybe even see adding it to every US state, or possibly to every city containing a commercial airport (because airports were closed). But every single tiny little town? I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to be careful to not position ourselves as an authoritive guide to travel safety, quite simply because we are a volunteer group and few of us (if any) are really in a position to speak with authority or update the relevant articles in a timely manner. Obviously we do it sometimes for major news events, but to automate the process and have warning boxes everywhere doesn't seem to be the right direction. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Also per the Reuters, South Africa have banned travellers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


This group is doing work very similar to us. Have we reached out to ask if they are interesting in collaborating yet? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Their terms of use are not extremely restrictive, however I would say restrictive enough to prevent much collaboration.
My amateur take would be that unless they also adopt a creative commons license then any such collaboration would be difficult. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is CC BY SA [1] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems articles have the creative commons logo at the botton of each, but there is no reference to creative commons in the terms of use.
Is the presence of a logo (and nothing else) sufficient? (I really don't know the answer) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The example page at least now has the text "Except where otherwise noted, content of this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" by the logo. Has it been added later? --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First competition of the Romanian Wikivoyage Project[edit]

Welcome to the first round of the Wikivoyage competition
about the country Romania!

Romanian Wikivoyage Project

From July 1 to September 1, all Wikivoyage projects will be invited to take part in our first competition. The challenge is: Improve the article Romania in your language!

Here you can find out the way, how you can earn points for your edits. The Wikivoyage with the most points, as well as the one who has helped the most are rewarded with the Romanian Wikivoyage Project Medal!

A competition by:Vladislavian (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

10 years of Destinations of the Month[edit]

Tomorrow it's July, and it'll be ten years since we featured an article on the Main Page for the first time. Would it be a good idea to celebrate it somehow? I wish I (or someone else) would've noticed it earlier so everyone interested would have time to think it through.

We could put Geneva, the very first DotM, on the Main Page for one day (just like the April Fools article gets featured for one day) but for that a banner would be needed. Alternatively we could mention the anniversary it in the blurb of the upcoming DotM: e.g. "CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF DOTM" in red letters. Or maybe an additional banner in the carousel with a "birthday cake banner" and a link to the hall of fame. Other ideas? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Geneva banner WV front page.jpg
Ypsi, I like your "1 day of Geneva" proposal and if you get broader support, this banner might do. I think it would be nice to mention Geneva as the first DOtM in the blurb, but actually link to the hall of fame. Danapit (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I second Ypsi's idea for one day of Geneva, and also Danapit's banner. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
No objection from me - I think these sorts of special events give a vibrance to the site that we sometimes lack. Please plunge forward. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice that you like the idea! Dana's banner with the Jet and the lake ferry looks good (it's either that, the UN or the Old town, right?). And the article should be OK to feature (worked on it quite a bit last summer). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take the above to mean that we have consensus behind Geneva as DotM for one day, followed by City of London on 2 July. Would anybody like to write a blurb, or shall we just use the one we used in July 2004? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of run, announcing competitions, having seasonal content and anniversaries content on the mainpage IMO is a good idea. I think it will help grow our contributor base. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Should "10 YEARS OF DOTM" be added to the blurb? Something along the lines: "Wikivoyage celebrates 10 years of Destination of the month. The first DotM ever was Geneva." Without it probably only a couple of people involved in DOtM planning will notice something is special. Danapit (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should add it because it's the point of featuring Geneva for a day now. Objections? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Have Tweeted about it too. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoting Wikivoyage[edit]

Hello! It's time to start working on the Promoting Wikivoyage project! I'm so excited!! The plan is to introduce Wikivoyage to local chambers of commerce in the US. My user page will have any news and links to works in progress. I expect to have a basic draft of the presentation by next Friday. Please chime in with your comments anytime along the way.

One question I have is: Who uses Wikivoyage? Is there a profile of a typical user? Please comment so I can help the chambers picture the traveler. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a start: according to Alexa, the average Wikivoyager is a female with a postsecondary education browsing from school. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat technical, but we have general statistics for browser visits here. You can make some determination about what devices are being used on all wikimedia sites. (Short version is that we are getting less visits by desktop/laptop users over time, and our users are increasingly visiting Wikimedia sites with their smart phones (iPhone, Android, etc) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to do further analysis as to how these stats apply just to Wikivoyage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Its nice to know we're ahead of Wikipedia in terms of female visitors but I'm wondering how Alexa detects whether the site visitor is male or female. --Saqib (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
w:Sexing PrinceGloria (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It's probably also worth considering the difference in demographics between readers and editors - I'm not sure they align entirely. --Nick talk 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! These are helpful links I had not looked at before. I am agreement with Nick that readers and editors may be somewhat different. So maybe the question becomes why would a traveler choose Wikivoyage for information as opposed to another travel site? --Tbennert (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Behind schedule by several weeks but finished up a large project this week so I'm hopeful that I can get back on track. I'm going to add to the pages at meta to better fill in the timeline. I'll post when the presentation and materials are viewable. A couple items to help with logistics:

  • Is there a single person who manages the Facebook page? I'm thinking Facebook might be a useful communication tool because it is familiar to the chambers.
  • I would like to rework Wikivoyage:Welcome, tourism professionals. I will do the work on a usersubpage. Discussion is on the Welcome talk page.

Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To Tbennert: Regarding your first question: our Facebook page has (I think) three administrators, but I'm the only one who updates it on a regular basis. I generally update the page three times a month when the new Destination of the Month, Off the Beaten Path, and Featured Travel Topic articles are rotated. Also, I answer questions from Facebook users who are connected to the page, but that doesn't happen terribly often. I'd be happy to help this initiative out in any way you envision. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you're interested in promoting Wikivoyage via social media, Saqib helms our Twitter page. You might want to get in contact with him as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the good info. Right now I'm just hoping for a place chambers might go if they feel uncomfortable communicating here. Essentially removing the interface concern other new editors have expressed on wikipedia. I'll keep in touch directly with you after the calls to help if we get a flood of inquiries on Facebook. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Bad news - I have not been successful coordinating with the US Chamber. They don't "do tourism" apparently. I am going to contact each state starting today. This may adjust the number and times of calls because I'll be responsive to each state. The outcome should remain the same just a bit different in organization. --Tbennert (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

According to w:Convention and visitor bureau#United_States, "In the United States, convention and visitor bureaus (CVBs), financed through bed taxes or their members, perform destination marketing. Every U.S. state and almost every larger city and county has its own CVB. Although many government and chamber of commerce bodies also market destinations to visitors and meeting planners, most U.S. convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) are independent non-profit organizations." K7L (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
On the surface the chambers encourage tourism. When looking past the surface, activities are geared toward economic growth. I hoped that offering a free, informational, non-selling webcast would be persuading even though there is not a direct return on investment. Unfortunately the multiple people I spoke to at the US Chamber of Commerce were not interested in educating the local chambers about Wikivoyage. Really all it means is a bit more time on setting up the calls. We are on plan B and I have one more in reserve with a few more halfway ideas. The economic push was somewhat expected but I hope the states will be more willing. --Tbennert (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The chambers are funded by individual local member businesses, many of whom are industrial firms (not tourism per se) looking to connect with other businesses or advocate on behalf of the private sector... so Whatevertown is a great place to build a factory or open a business, according to the Whatevertown Chamber. The chambers are primarily local entities and the amount of Chamber activity devoted to tourism varies, based on the size of the town, on whether there's a publicly-funded "economic development corporation", a CVB or even city hall itself already actively promoting the town as a travel destination and on whether tourism is the town's main business. I wouldn't rule out contacting state-level entities like the I ♥ NY campaign, even if they are state-funded development corporations and not chambers of commerce. K7L (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Promote via open projects?[edit]

One of this project's founders, User:EvanProdromou, went on to do several Open Source social networking projects; the current one is There are also several other projects aimed at building social networks not under commercial control; Forbes lists three; w:Diaspora (social network) is probably best-known. See also w:FreedomBox for a project aimed at wide deployment of small cheap home servers to make the net more secure and more under personal control.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the goals of these projects align with the goals of WV, WMF and open content projects in general, where the goals of Facebook and other commercial projects do not. This implies we should support the open projects wherever possible. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should support open projects when we can. Promoting Wikivoyage is a plan to provide webcasts for chambers of commerce in the US explaining what Wikivoyage is and easy ways to keep their town current. My request for Facebook was to use a tool already in place to aid the chambers in asking questions. I didn't find any open projects to support my plan. If you know of some that would be appropriate, please message me?--Tbennert (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Mainly, the WMF as well as WV are free content, not free software organisations/projects. Wikimedia projects do not have Twitter or Facebook accounts to support these services, but to promote themselves, and I don't think we should explicitely promote anything that is not related to the WMF itself.    FDMS  4    05:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The WMF has been great about doing this kind of thing. I agree that Open Source and Open Content projects go hand in hand -- WMF's support of open protocols and open file standards has been above reproach. Is there a specific project we want to orient WV towards? --EvanProdromou (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Statistics recalculated[edit]

You might like to know that the statistics (Special:Statistics) for all Wikivoyage additions have just been recalculated. For those not aware, many of the counts were excessively high due to a (still-existing) bug that leads to multiple counting when pages are imported from other sites. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI the known bugs that currently affect the stats are two: page importing (bugzilla:40009) and page movement (bugzilla:64333). The first one has been opened almost 2 years ago while the last one is quite recent but it seems that no one has yet tested/confirmed it. Feel free to access bugzilla and vote for their resolution. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that votes are mostly ignored at Bugzilla, even if it's turned on for some of the projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, there's the possibility that you are right, but considering that the alternative is not doing anything, waiting other 2 years for nothing, it worth a try ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing on mobile version[edit]

As highlighted on meta lounge the numbers associated to the listing with coordinates are not shown properly on the mobile version. Is anyone able to fix it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Originally I combined the listing numbers with a background color. Example:  12 . This worked on all operating systems, browsers and font sizes without problems. This was modified by other users multiple times by now. Now missing on my mobile devices, the second digit in all listing numbers. And in other cases, the listing number is outside or at the edge of the colored background. - I can not understand these changes technically and therefore cannot help unfortunately. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As per my understanding, the second (and sometimes third) digit has not disappeared, but is located below the first one. Apparently is like the horizontal size is fixed so the text is force to go below. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
We also have a problem in french, the number aren't shown at all: here.--Adehertogh (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Adehertogh, I've noticed it too. Theoretically the issue on fr:voy should be easier to solve, because for sure there's something that is missing in the French configuration. While the problem in en:voy and in it:voy is different because the configuration should be aligned to the latest standard. Unfortunately Torty3 do not access since March, and for sure he's the most skilled user on this topic. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that we have same problem as in the PDF output? Does the new type of the mobile version recognize CSS styles? --Alexander (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The stylesheets like Common.css etc. are not used for the mobile versions. I think the only workaround is to use number images. --RolandUnger (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's really bad. Do you mean that no css styles are used in the mobile version at all (that would be silly), or we have to duplicate some lines from Common.css in another *.css file that is responsible for the mobile version? Using images is not an option, because automatic numbering is essential. --Alexander (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The file dedicated to manage the layout of the mobile devices are: MediaWiki:Mobile.css and MediaWiki:Mobile.js, I've already used for some specific fix. I'm confident that is possibile to not use the image for the numbered marker, but I've got not enough time to study the code. So I was hope in someone else's help. I think also that the PDF issue is not related with this issue. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It should be the problem of the box size and paddings. --Alexander (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a more elegant solution, however at the moment on it:voy I've patched it:MediaWiki:Mobile.css (well... changing width: 12px; height: 13px; into width: 25px; height: 20px,
In the absence of better ideas an admin can patch MediaWiki:Mobile.css in the same way.
Note: for articles with more than 100 listing width: 25px; is not enough and it's necessary to use at least width: 29px; jointly with padding: 0px 0px 3px 1px;. However, three digits are not shown correctly in desktop mode as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Alexander I've just noticed that ru:voy has a third different problem on the mobile listing version. Instead of replicate the patched configuration file, I'd like to make some realtime test, but I need your ru:voy-admin support. Maybe we can catch each other on IRC. Just let me know (better if you contact me on my base talk page for quicker answer). I'd like to see if it's possible to find a better solution for all the languages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the problem of ru:voy is essentially the empty Mobile.css file. Of course, I can do the testing, but you have to explain me your idea. I am not using IRC, and my preference would be Skype if I am to use any chat client. On the other hand, we can also discuss on-wiki, which is a bit slower, but other people could benefit from reading the discussion. --Alexander (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To access IRC you don't need specific software, just click on top right link on my user page. I have not yet a specific idea, just a series of try, that's why I'd like to test and see the real time feedback. I'm going to connect now. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not now. I have to leave for some hours. Evening (CET) would be better. --Alexander (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok good to know, because I was waiting for you but I need to exit as well :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible solutions[edit]

Together with Andyrom75, we found a solution or even multiple solutions that rely on the way how we draw POI markers. Presently, each marker is a square box of the same size, and the number has to fit into this box. Given different fonts used in the mobile and desktop versions, paddings and other settings should be different in Common.css and Mobile.css, and one has to tweak the code in Mobile.css accordingly. Another solution is to adjust the box size to the number, as we do in ru.voy (an example is here). The drawback (although I don't consider it as a drawback) is that boxes with two-digit numbers have rectangular shape. On the other hand, we can use exactly the same code in Common.css and Mobile.css, and the whole thing is simpler and more robust.

I can modify Mobile.css in any of these fashions, but I would like to hear your opinions first. --Alexander (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the solution of ru.voy because it is universally applicable. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as the issue is of no interest to anyone, I changed the format of POI markers to what I and Joachim prefer. Now the markers should be shown properly in both desktop and mobile versions. Please, let me know if you don't see the markers, or their position is skewed. --Alexander (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Tested on . Works on all current operating systems and browsers, both in desktop mode and mobile mode. The best solution in my opinion. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

Just three months after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared with no trace, another passenger plane of Malaysia Airlines carrying 280 passengers and 15 crew members shot down on the Russian-Ukraine border. I'm deeply saddened and this is a really devastating news. --Saqib (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. I hope it was a case of mistaken identity, but whatever the reason, it's been an extremely tragic year for Malaysian Airlines, and my heart goes out to all who are touched by this calamity and outrage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Also of also in Donetsk, the MH17 (from Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam to KUL, Kuala Lumpur) has been crashed in Grabovo (borders with Russia) (see BBC). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Really sad to hear about it. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite saddening and this year is rather a tragedy for Malasyia Airlines. Jianhui67 (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe good news[edit]

Hey all. Maybe some good news on the readership front. We have had a consistent (14days) of three fold increase in readership per [2] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am completely failing at figuring out how to view site stats for anything more than 1 day. And even those numbers don't change when I select a different language or project. Powers (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to select project totals than select, stats under wikivoyage, than set the days to 180. Might simply be that these numbers are not accurate though.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Summer season? The figure seems to be just a bit higher than July last year. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Something happened a couple of weeks ago to increase viewership. Could just be a bot or spider, though. Powers (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes is a spider; most likely from (it's just a guessing without any data). More than 1M click have gone to the following pages: Special:CentralAutoLogin/setCookies Special:CentralAutoLogin/deleteCookies. No brain gifted person would make 1M click to these technical pages :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A resorts article?[edit]

Big resorts like Club Med are not my preferred type of destination, but they are very popular with some travellers. Areas like Montego Bay or the Yalong Bay area in Sanya seem to be mostly such resorts. We have an articles on cruise ships, another all-inclusive way to holiday, and one on GLBT-friendly beach resorts. A search for "resort" turns up many Disney resorts and a few other things. A search for "Club Med" turns up many mentions but no article.

I'd say an overview article on such resorts would be a good idea. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talkcontribs)

It is certainly a useful travel topic. Resort holidays are popular, but I believe that an almost invisible percentage of WV's current readers and editors are people who frequent resorts. One just has to look at the state of our Caribbean articles, given the fact that they AFAIU are certainly not off the beaten path for North American visitors, the same goes for places like the Canary Islands, Spain's south coast and so on. Also, the status of our articles of cities towns and regions next to ski resorts, even the most popular ones in the Alps etc. don't reflect the amount of visitors they get. So we might very well even attract some new editors. I must admit I don't really have much experience of this kind of travel, either. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Me neither, but yes, definitely a great idea for an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be a good idea to get some funds from WMF through grant for the promotion of WV through Facebook? Andrew? --Saqib (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "promotion"? We already have someone, I assume a volunteer, posting updates (new DotM etc.) to a WV page. I average about one link a week; when a friend says they are going to London or wherever, I often reply with a WV link. I cannot see that such activity needs funding.
If you mean buying Facebook ads, it would take a great deal to convince me that that would be a good use of WMF funds. Pashley (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the latter. Well I'm afraid our presence on social media is not good particularly on FB. FB is without doubts a good tool for SEO and I think an affective way to increase the traffic to WV. When we'll make a post about featured articles, it will gives our featured articles an SEO boast. Our competitor WT FB page have quite good fan base than us. I think a FB page with good number of fan base is a powerful way to expand our reach and increase awareness of WV. I'm not sure either if that is really good and appropriate usage of WMF funds but we can try asking WMF grant department persons about their thoughts on this first. After-all, WV is the youngest project of WMF and some more publicity will definitely required to increase its visibility. --Saqib (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as Facebook's procedures have evolved over the years it has become progressively less effective as a marketing tool. I'm happy to help maintain Wikivoyage's Facebook presence, but I think relying on Facebook as the main, or even a significant, avenue of promotion for Wikivoyage would be a mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I would definitely say that is worth maintaining and perhaps expanding our FB presence, I would agree that the WMF's money would perhaps be better spent advertising this site itself rather than our social media presence. As Andrew has suggested, it might be better to look at more efficient and effective ways to get people using WV on a regular basis. And it's always worth remembering: cream rises! --Nick talk 02:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not for or against the proposal, but Facebook has definitely tried to ultra-monetise pages over the past few years/months. Not only do they ask you to pay to get new likes, but they ask you to pay so that your own followers see your posts. Even if someone has liked our page, they're not guaranteed to see our posts unless we cough up money. And when Facebook pops up and shows small-ish amounts like $30 for thousands of views, that's only for one post. For effectiveness, we'd have to do it for every one of our posts, and the costs increase. I manage another Facebook campaign page on behalf of a municipal government, and they've just earmarked AUD8000 for Facebook advertising and promotion. It's not small money. James Atalk 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. What might one day be possible (not necessarily through WMF funds but also possibly through sponsors) could be some kind of content related competition, like Wiki Loves Monuments did for monuments. Access to the WMF notice options is the key to success, much better than any "purchased" visibility on social networks. Say we can get some fabulous travel prizes to win -a trip to a great destination, travel guides, photo cameras- for a competition to add a specific kind of relevant content or pictures, that could lead to some serious sharing on FB and other social media as well as attract new readership and authors. Of course, this kind of thing requires a huge amount of work, and I'm not volunteering. :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading all above comments, I'm very much convinced that advertisement on FB was definitely not a good idea and is not worth but your idea of a competition is just great Julia and I think this is something we should really talk about. Wikipedia is doing Wikicup and I think we should do such a on-wiki writing competition of a similar pattern. Anyways, I've asked Asaf Bartov, Head of WMF Grants to shed some light on this as I think he probably have some good experience with such stuff. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The notice system Julia is talking about is called m:Special:CentralNotice.
If you'd like to know what running Wiki Loves Monuments entails, then look over commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013/FAQ. It might make more sense to piggyback on one of these larger projects. For example, could we partner with a photo-taking project to get more images added to existing articles? We could perhaps ask specifically for skyline/panorama images for pagebanners, if you didn't want just anything. Or perhaps WLM would be willing to have a suggestion that important monuments be considered for inclusion here as well as at the Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding and adding Commons categories to articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. For the last few hours, I've been looking at articles I edited back in 2009 and seeing whether they have sidebar links to Commons. Many of them - surprisingly, including Philadelphia - did not. So if any of you would like a particular task to perform, that's a helpful one, and then if you feel like adding (more) photos from the selection you've found, you can do that, too.

One topic for additional discussion: For articles without corresponding Wikipedia links, we've been inserting a template showing that there is no Wikipedia link. Should we also be doing that for articles with no corresponding Commons link?

And a second topic for discussion: For articles on topics that have Wiktionary definitions, should we be linking the relevant Wiktionary page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your two topics for discussion, Ikan: I think it's an excellent idea to add the template about Commons links, but doing the same for Wiktionary strikes me as overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've now got AWB set up and running through all the articles without commons links and automatically adding the commons link listed on wikidata, if there is one. If we do in fact want to tag the ones without, that'll be easy to do as well, just give me the word. As for Wiktionary definitions, I don't think we currently have it mapped so that those could be put in the sidebar automatically, but at any rate, I'm not very convinced of the utility of such a link anyway. Any definition that is related to travel should already be more than adequately covered here, and providing links for exploring the unrelated aspects shouldn't be any more important than ensuring we link to WP disambiguation pages, which is to say, it's out of scope. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's great that you've got AWB set up to take care of Commons links automatically, although will it find non-identical matches, such as, say, Commons:Category Cityname, Countyname, Statename as well as identical matches? In terms of Wiktionary, I was thinking about looking for a definition for a term like Art Deco, or for that matter, Architecture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Ikan, it will put exactly what has been entered into Wikidata as being the corresponding page on Commons, whatever that may be. If nobody has filled that data in yet, it skips over it and does nothing. Basically I just modified the routine I previously used to fill in the WP links/tags. Texugo (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I just patrolled recent changes - great work on the Commons links! Little did I know that I should have just asked you to do this in the first place. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I ran them through "Lu...". I'll try to get the rest of them tomorrow. Texugo (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice work, Texugo! Pashley (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Silly question, but shouldn't we be picking up the Commons link automatically from Wikidata rather than having to run a script? Powers (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a silly question at all. I suggested long ago that we have a single, simple "sister links" template for all articles to automatically use the WP and commons links directly from Wikidata without our having to maintain them manually. I don't remember where that was exactly, but somehow I was under the impression that it was your opposition to the idea that ended up halting the discussion. I'd love to be wrong though. I've used such a template over on pt: for over a year now, and it's very nice not to have to mess with those things manually. Texugo (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Prototype template to automatically use the WP and Commons links as informed by Wikidata: {{sisterlinks}}
  • Can be put in all main namespace articles and in our article templates instead of maintaining the various links manually
  • Wikidata-reported links can be overridden manually by using wp= and commons= attributes.
  • Adds to Category:Articles without Wikipedia links for articles where WD reports no corresponding WP article. (Can be adjusted to do the same for missing Commons links, should we create a corresponding maintenance category for it)
  • Used experimentally at Hamamatsu.

Alternatively, since the language interwikis were made to appear there automatically, it seems like we should be able to request that WP and Commons links do likewise, in which case we wouldn't need any code in our articles at all. The drawbacks would be that it would be a little more complicated to override, and we wouldn't have a vehicle through which to manage the maintenance categories. Texugo (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for information, in fr.voy, the links are managed by wikidata in the pagebanner template because it's the only template witch was already present on all the pages.--Adehertogh (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth taking a look at mw:Extension:Wikibase Client#Other_projects_sidebar? It looks to be a one-line change to one of the server config files, listing which Wikidata links are wanted for the sidebar. No need to touch the actual articles. K7L (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I guess that's what I was referring to in my alternate suggestion above. Note, however, that this method does not allow for overriding what is listed in WD. Texugo (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering the links on WD were largely populated by our own data to start with, that may not be an issue. With the modification K7L mentions, though, would the Commons and Wikipedia links appear under "Languages" or under "Related sites"? Powers (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the page, the id of the sidebar is "wikibase-otherprojects". It doesn't appear under "languages". K7L (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm having trouble imagining any situation where we would want to have an article connected to a given data item but intentionally show a different WP or commons link. Unless somebody can present some case examples, I might be fine doing without a manual override. Texugo (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some scope issues with the connection between Wikivoyage and Wikidata. From what I've seen, Commons and Wikidata both have a strong tendency to follow Wikipedia's lead when it comes to defining topics and divvying up locations, whereas we break from this tendency much more often to benefit the traveler. As an example, our article entitled Wasatch Range covers both the mountain range and the urban strip next to it more commonly referred to as the Wasatch Front. Wikipedia has a separate page for each, so of course Commons and Wikidata do as well. I'm not sure which set of sister links is best in this specific case, but it demonstrates the type of situation where we should want to at least have the technical capability to override Wikidata.
Thatotherpersontalkcontribs 02:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Texugo, the Chiusure article is an example of intentionally showing a different WP and Commons link - in this case, to articles about the Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore, which is usually the only reason that people visit Chiusure, but since we have the policy of not giving abbeys their own article, and furthermore, some of the accommodations within town limits are at a convent and an agriturismo place, it is quite right for us to have an article under the name of the village and not the abbey. However, since last I checked, neither WP nor Commons have topics on Chiusure but both have topics on Monte Oliveto, I strongly believe that's a close enough topic match to post the links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata also has the dmoz property. Should this also be included in the template? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of dmoz - presumably there would be a different DMOZ page for each language (so becomesçais/Régional/Europe/Royaume-Uni/ and others in other languages). Can we assume P998 DMOZ always points to the English-language DMOZ category? If so, a template would work while adding DMOZ to a server configuration file as a "sibling" would not. K7L (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
One other oddity with commons; there are two plausible ways targets to link there: the main space (rarely used, unless someone manually makes a gallery page for one topic) and the category space. Wikidata seems to prefer linking to mainspace for some reason; a template could make either link. K7L (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I kind of blanked on this one. Ikan and Thatotherperson, those are convincing enough examples of why we would want to retain override control, so that looks like another advantage to the template approach proposed above. Are there any other concerns that should be addressed? Is there any convincing reason not to automate this with a template? Texugo (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm totally good with standardizing this template, with the possibility of a manual override. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
K7L, I'm not completely sure I know what you mean by mainspace and category space. I think what you mean is that there is usually a category for a particular subject on Commons, but occasionally (probably less than 10% of the time), there is instead a non-category page, instead. Is that what you mean? When I've posted Commons links, I've always chosen the non-category page when there was one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two ways to store a link to Commons in Wikidata. The #sitelinks-commons section of the standard Wikidata page links to a commons page, not a commons category. d:Property:P373 links to a commons category. If there usually isn't a non-category page, we do need to be able to fall back to the P373 property, which is a category link, using a template. K7L (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you're absolutely right, K7L. That hadn't occurred to me. I think when I originally created this for pt: there was at that time only one property being used for this. It should be quite easy to set up the template to fall back on the category like that. Don't know if I'll get to it immediately, but I can take care of it. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gaspé Park#Name[edit]

Hey folks, I would appreciate some input from other members of the community in this discussion about what the above article should be titled. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates to Wikidata documentation for Wikivoyage[edit]

Hi all!

I am a current Wikimedia OPW intern working specifically on Wikidata outreach and just wanted to let you know that the Wikidata documentation for Wikivoyage has now been updated and hopefully will prove useful for the Wikivoyage community and encourage further collaboration. If interested, please have a look at Wikidata:Wikivoyage. You can also leave any feedback on the talk page.

Cheers, -Thepwnco (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Article subheadings[edit]

A proposal: Should the subheadings under "get in" and "get around" be changed to match Wikivoyage imperative style, ie:

  • By car → Drive
  • By air → Fly
  • By train, by bus, by camel → Ride (by train, by bus...)
  • By horse → Trot, Jump, Gallop
  • By bicycle, by motorcycle → Bike
  • By sea, by ferry → Sail
  • By public transit (subway, taxi, streetcar, rickshaw) → Ride

It would make us look a little more different from other travel guides, but I'm unsure if there's a better word than "Ride" for the numerous public conveyances. K7L (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The enforcers of British English will hate "Ride," because they change phrases like "cab ride" to "taxi journey" all the time. But I disagree with putting all these disparate forms of transportation under "Ride," too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we collect basically all forms of land transportation where someone else is controlling the vehicle under a single "Ride" heading? I don't think it would be a smart idea at all. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
We should not. The heading for bus and train should be "Take the bus" and "Take the train" if they need to be imperatives for some reason. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:100F 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
A 'ride' to me implies something done for fun, rather than utilitarian transportation. Linking motorcycles and pushbikes is also unhelpful. I like the idea, but the fact seems to be that there aren't imperatives to match each of the modes of transport. --Inas (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2014 ( TC)
I don't support any change at this time. I don't think any of the suggestions above would do anything but make the headings more cumbersome. Texugo (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The imperative is in the heading "Get in", and "by ..." is the right qualifier eg "Get in by train". Also "ride" is a verb I am more likely to use for a bike than a train. It would be far better to spend the time improving the information in "Get in" in some articles - too many articles have only one way of getting in when others are available. AlasdairW (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the actual benefit in changing subheadings to imperatives? Copying WP style for the sake of it doesn't actually help us. I recall there was some discussion before that changing subheadings 'may' improve SEO results. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

<indent reset> But really, there are so many different things to put our attention and effort to. This particular proposal doesn't hold water for the reasons mention above, and our current headings do serve us well. New, better, original content not only "may", but does help our SEO, and it helps bring in and retain readership and generate positive buzz with a snowball effect. There are still many articles on important destinations that are quite shambolic. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For SEO, it would be far better to change headings so that they contained likely search terms. get in->transport to & from, get around->local transit, eat->restaurants, sleep->hotels, etc. There would be problems with that, & details to be worked out, of course.
From that viewpoint, using "ride" would be appallingly stupid, replacing several fairly common search terms with one no-one is likely to use. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree that is what 'should' happen with SEO when changing articles headings, do we have any actual evidence that it would? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to an experiment last year. As far as I can tell it didn't succeed, although the sub headings that were chosen were probably not the wisest choices if they were looking to improve SEO. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
That experiment was, I think, mainly to see if making section headers different from WT improved search engine rankings, presumably mainly by avoiding the penalty the engines apply to duplicate/copied content. User:W. Frank who created the page thought it showed evidence of success.
As I see it, the headings chosen there were remarkably bad for SEO, probably because he was trying to stay with our policy of using verbs. Changing Eat to Dine. for example, is dumb but harmless. Things like Buy to Spend up! or Drink to Quench are worse; they remove somewhat likely search terms and replace them with even less likely ones.
I'd say drop the policy of using verbs (which was an arbitrary, if reasonable, choice anyway) and make changes aimed mainly at getting likely search terms into headings. Pashley (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd happily run an experiment at Xiamen if others think that is a good idea. 02:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently magical about using verbs. We used them originally because we thought it'd make us look different from other travel guides, supposedly? If so, their existence on both WT and WV (with just "connect" and "go next" as minor differences) defeats that objective. We're no better off with these than with the stock (attractions, activities, shopping, restaurants, nightlife, accommodation) standard header set from any printed guide. K7L (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If the only reason to do this is to 'look different' in a minor aesthetic sense, then I'd say the change isn't particularly compelling. High effort, near zero benefit. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If there's the suspicion that this might help SEO, and anyone prefers to put their energy in this rather than one of the countless other tasks on this site, I see no reason to not try. Why can't we just repeat the test Frank tried to do with more likely search terms? What's the harm? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I support Pashley for his proposed experiment article above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't oppose an experiment with likely search terms, but I don't think Pashley's suggestions above (Ride, etc.) are quite worthy of even testing. I don't think testing will produce respectable, actionable results unless we:
a) use likely search terms - "Ride" or "Gallop" are less likely search terms than we currently have
b) use terms which could be substituted without tedious reorganization of the content of every article - i.e. neither "Bars" nor "Nightlife" could be used in place of "Drink" because that section often contains other things as well (cafés, info on water quality, local specialty beverages, etc.); neither "Restaurants" nor "Cuisine" are a good replacement for "Eat" because it contains info on both, etc.
c) run the same test on a group of articles - Since SEO rankings tend to vary over time and depend on many other factors as well, an arguably positive result on a single article is not going to convince me anyway. The test, the exact same changes need to be implemented on a number of articles, say at least 10 or so, including destinations of different types (popular searches, less popular ones, different sizes, region/city, etc.).
If we do all the above and the overall results demonstrate a quite significant improvement across the board, only then might I be inclined to think this type of change to be worth the trouble. Texugo (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. Any ideas on which search terms would be best? We have over 25000 articles and these experiments don't make them less useful for a traveller to any specific destination. We could even have 2 or 3 groups of articles to test different headings, if we'd want. I'd say as long as we document the experiments well, so they don't end up forgotten, it's all no problem. And then how long should we wait to have results that can mean something? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm rather attached to the headers we have and skeptical that such a change will make a difference that's worth the effort, so while I don't necessarily oppose such testing, I don't feel very compelled to push it forward either. Texugo (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not suggest Ride; in fact I pointed out that it was a bad choice for SEO.
I will go ahead with an experiment; see Talk:Xiamen for details. Pashley (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. My mistake. But what headers do you plan to use? And why bother with such a necessarily long-term experiment on only a single article, knowing that results from only a single page will not be reliable or scientific enough to convince everyone of its effectiveness or lack thereof?
Why not do this:
  • first, come up with a workable set of replacements
  • implement them as suggested above in a variety of different articles, at least 10 or so
  • choose another equal number of comparable articles as control articles (which don't implement the proposed change)
  • put all the starting stats in one place for tracking, say, a subpage of Wikivoyage:Search Expedition
  • track the stats for all, monthly, for a few months
  • see how it goes
Yes, it's more work, involving 20 or more pages etc., but at least I might believe you when you come back months hence and tell me whether it works or not. Texugo (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree we probably need to do all that eventually. Talk:Xiamen#Headings_experiment is initial exploration. 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki link leads to disambiguation page[edit]

Yuryev-Polsky leads to w:en:Yuryev-Polsky, which is a disambiguation page. Can this be fixed? I'm not sure which of the pages to link it to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have already been fixed. Texugo (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is actually a category full of these cases waiting to be fixed. They have to be fixed both in the manually inserted Wikipedia link at the bottom of the articles here and on Wikidata as well. Texugo (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me a pair of diffs showing how to make these changes for an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, to fix the WP link on the article here on the WV side, just edit the article, go to the bottom where the link is, and change it from [[wikipedia:Wrong article title]] to [[wikipedia:Right article title]]. However, that's not all there is to it, since it will likely still be connected to the wrong Wikidata item, and unfortunately I can't show diffs for that. There is more than one way to do it too, but you can follow the Wikidata item link from the left column, remove the en:wikivoyage link from that item, and find the wikidata item for the correct WP (I usually go to the correct WP article first and follow the left-column WD item link), and add the en:wikivoyage link there. Texugo (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Guide articles lacking pagebanners[edit]

Hi, everyone. I believe that all Guide-level articles should have custom pagebanners, but right now, 97 do not. So your mission, if you choose to fulfill it, is to create pagebanners for one or more of these Guides. While we're at all, adding at least one well-chosen photo for the body of the article, if there isn't already one there, would be a great thing to do as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for WikiVoyage![edit]


sorry for writing such a random note here (I don't know where else to put it), but I really, really do like WikiVoyage as a travelers guide. So I want to thank all the people making it.

It is becoming (for me) the third most useful Wikimedia project, after wikipedia (of course) and wiktionary.

(There are some other projects, like Wikiversity, that I don't get at all, but that's for another debate.)

Thanks guys. Since I am from Prague, I am thinking about enhancing its article. --Running (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Running. It's always gratifying to see travellers making use of what I personally feel is a tremendous resource. As for our article on Prague, it would be absolutely wonderful to have you as a contributor. I encourage you to plunge forward with your enhancements! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic to hear! I'm sure you'll enjoy contributing both to Prague and any other of our destination and travel topic articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

UserMerge permissions removed[edit]


Today we removed the "usermerge" right from all bureaucrats on Wikivoyage. The UserMerge extension was used during the transition period when some users had two accounts and this let them reclaim their contributions. However, it has not been used for some time, and was blocking the eventual m:SUL finalisation, in addition to possibly causing database inconsistencies. If a user must be merged, you can contact m:User:Hoo man for assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns on my meta talk page.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This really should have been raised here *before* breaking things, instead of merely presenting this after the fact as a fait accompli. K7L (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This has still been used occasionally, including quite recently. This is a bad move, and should be reversed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
While it has been used somewhat recently, it's pretty rare. If it was blocking SUL finalization, then it has to go. The chances of someone with an editing history (significant enough to make merging worthwhile) finally coming by after nearly two years are pretty slim, and if it does happen, we can talk to User:Hoo man. Powers (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If people would like to know what's going on, they should subscribe to m:Tech/News. There are more than a dozen developer teams (involving both volunteers and paid staff) supporting 800+ wikis in about 300 languages. Realistically speaking, they cannot separately raise all issues "here" for every change. However, they do make general announcements for many things, and they often contact directly affected groups (in the case of SUL, the global stewards, who are getting stuck with all the extra work). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The usermerge issue affects Wikivoyage specifically in a way that it doesn't affect all "800+ wikis in about 300 languages" because of a quirk in this project's history. We have a mess of imported edits from (WT-en) and (WV-en) users that no other Wikimedia project (outside WV) has, so we have a greater need to merge users. The same would be true if a change were to specifically affect a Wikivoyage-specific extension (RelatedSites, RelatedPages, Insider, MapSources) that no other WMF project uses. WV, and not just the global stewards, is a directly-affected group. K7L (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Even so, there's 16 Wikivoyages, most of which used that extension... --Rschen7754 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
...a far cry from 800 wikis. How much of Wikivoyage:User account migration and Wikivoyage:Changing username is incorrect now? K7L (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
...and this is far from that team's only task. As I said, if you want to know what tech issues will affect this community, you need to be looking out for changes, not assuming that the devs will bring everything to you in advance.
Also, as a practical matter, if your bureaucrats aren't worried about a change to a tool whose use was "somewhat rare", then you probably shouldn't worry about it either. The work can still be done, just not in the old way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a fairly condescending attitude that I, for one, don't appreciate. Regardless of whether the bureaucrats are concerned or not, I think the points raised by the rest of the community are quite valid. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll just chime in to say that, having worked on various software projects, I understand & fully support WhatamIdoing's comments above. There is no need at all for a tempest in this particular teapot, and anyone who cares about other changes should be reading m:Tech/News. Pashley (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a very small issue, compared to recent events happening elsewhere on Wikimedia... --Rschen7754 03:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Change name of Category:Articles needing attention[edit]

Does anyone object if I change the name of Category:Articles needing attention, to make it a more accurate description of what it contains? It contains categories regarding not only articles but also files, categories, and other non-article pages, and there are some types of maintenance categories which should not necessarily imply that their contents need direct or immediate attention. I think something simpler like Category:Maintenance would be better. (Note that this change wouldn't show up anywhere except on the maintenance category pages themselves.) Texugo (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to change this. We have a long history of not using categories at all, having adopted them on any real scale only in the last year or two and then only to facilitate carrying out specific maintenance tasks. The current naming reflects this. K7L (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This category has been around since 2006. Are you sure you aren't being a bit obstinate because of our other disagreement? The current name does not reflect inclusion of categories, files, etc., and there are a couple of other maintenance categories which are homeless simply because they do not technically fit with this name. What is the harm in making it accurate? Texugo (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with either name, and I find categories very useful. I believe that "we have a long history of" should never be an argument in any discussion here, btw. We should do what is the best and most logical, and continue to evolve to serve the travellers best. Articles and other pages and features do need attention and maintenance, an categories, even if hidden from the reader, can be very helpful with that. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The name "Articles needing attention" has a specific meaning. We don't create categories here for the sake of creating them; a category like "telephone numbers with missing country codes" is a request to the user to plunge forward and fix the problem. The same is true of other items in "articles needing attention"; the name and purpose is by design. K7L (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is creating categories for the sake of creating them. We include Category:Has default banner, but we have to exclude Category:Has custom banner and Category:Has standard banner because they don't require direct attention. And we've included files and categories here, but they are not articles needing attention. Why would you be so attached to such an inaccurate name which excludes similar maintenance categories the user might be interested in? Texugo (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The banner-related categories are requesting user attention, implicitly; they're asking users replace default banners with custom banners. Nothing neutral about that. K7L (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point, which is that only one out of the set of three categories appears there, excluding the other 2 since they two do not technically "need attention" despite their usefulness in maintenance. I still see zero advantage in keeping a limited, outdated moniker which does not group all the maintenance categories together. Texugo (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I really understand your concern, K7L. It seems to me that making the category-name more general (like Texugo is proposing) will rather make extra categories redundant and thus supports your overall goal of limiting the use of categories? I'm not particularly bothered by using this category also in cases where the name is not 100% accurate, but if Texugo wants to change it to better fit the content, that's fine with me. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
`Attention needed`, would maybe be a good name for it? (Ypsilon) 22:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be slightly better than the current title, but still wouldn't be appropriate for the maintenance categories which do not actually need direct attention. Texugo (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Maintenance categories. One advantage is that it makes it clearer that the category should not directly contain any pages. One disadvantage is that all of its subcategories will refer to Pages, which disrupts the usual category semantics. Powers (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't all of our hidden categories exist just for maintenance purposes, including the geographical hierarchy? K7L (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In a sense, mostly, but there is of course a difference between the nested category tree which keeps the geographical hierarchy in order and the set of categories which directly group pages because they share a given property. If that distinction is actually important, I suppose we could call the latter Category:Tracking categories, in keeping with the already existing Special:TrackingCategories. I would be fine with Category:Maintenance categories as well, but now that it occured to me, I think Category:Tracking categories would be the best solution. Texugo (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic map templates[edit]

According to Nemo_bis comment on meta there's a privacy violation with the use of current dynamic maps (and all the equivalent templates on each voy language version).

Please take part to the discussion to understand how to proceed in a coherent way within the whole wiki-project. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested over there, there is a replacement called WikiMiniAtlas that can possibly be used. However, this is a serious issue that should be addressed ASAP. --Rschen7754 01:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Volunteering and working holidays[edit]

Our article on Volunteer travel could use contributions. See Talk:Volunteer_travel#Sorting_out_problems for current state and earlier parts of the talk page for background.

We might also cover w:Working holiday visa. Our visa article and several country articles mention them, but very briefly anywhere I checked. I'd say we should have either a separate article or a section of Working abroad (which currently does not even mention them) with links from other places. Pashley (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw your work on that article and it is much appreciated. Although in concept the idea of volunteering seems simple enough, the reality is that it is very hard to find the right opportunity where you can add true value and more importantly not cause more problems than if you didn't go.
I hope some contributors with practical experience can help add to this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A mobile app with Wikivoyage content - more publicity for us![edit]

Someone is interested in using WV's content in a mobile app. I think it sounds really cool not to mention that it's something that would get more people familiar with Wikivoyage. However he is confused about licensing and attribution. Someone more knowledgeable about it should reply to him ASAP. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DotM banner for Karachi[edit]

I have combed through Commons, Flickr, and locally-hosted material on Wikipedia and have not found one single CC-compatible image of Karachi that's high-quality enough or dimensionally appropriate to use as a banner. I don't know if this is a freedom of panorama thing or what, but to my knowledge this has never happened before with a DotM nominee and I'm at a loss as to what to do here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Saqib, some time between now and October would you be able to take some appropriate photos yourself and upload them to Commons? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sidebar: going forward, should we weigh the availability of suitable banner images as a factor in supporting or opposing feature article nominations? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The couple of photos currently in the article are indeed of a surprisingly low resolution. Saqib has taken good photos for Mohenjo-daro and other destinations. I think he would be happy to take some nice photos for Karachi's DotM banner.
Concerning your suggestion about availability of banner images - I hate to say it but without a Main Page feature banner I guess we cannot feature it. Tangentially, I think it was Ikan Kekek who recently suggested articles should have a custom banner in order to be eligible for Guide status (which, in turn, is a requirement for featured articles). If I'm not mistaken, banners for the article itself must have a higher resolution (at least 2100px wide) than what is required of the feature banners. Now that would solve all the problems, if we're desperate we could use the same photo for the feature banner as for the article's own banner. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The pagebanner itself looks like it may well have been a last-resort selection: [3] -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, it's one of Ypsinardo da Vinci's first banners! :D ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(editconflict) Well, we could start with just holding off on an otherwise accepted destination until someone has found a suitable picture, as in, not putting in the slot. If we really can't come up with anything over some time, we can discuss how to proceed. The promise of a feature might make it easier to persuade copyright holders to change the license for cases where suitable pictures are available but use is restricted.
If all else fails, I suppose I would incidentally find it acceptable to use a picture of a more general nature, even when it was not taken at the destination itself, if it represents the atmosphere of the place. Say, a colourful bazaar for a Moroccan city, or something. In the case of Karachi, it would be nice if Saqib happens to be in the area. If not, it might be good news that Wiki Loves Monuments will have a Pakistani edition this year in September. If we are to wait for that however, we might want to move the feature a few months further along the line, to not put pressure when it's not needed. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ypsi: your suggestion was unexpectedly productive. To my great surprise, the source image for the pagebanner actually makes for a mighty fine DotM banner. Check it out. It would still be great if Saqib could go out with his camera and take some banner photos himself, but at least we have a fallback option in case all else fails. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done, AndreCarrotflower! :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that definitely works. In terms of your question above, Andrew, yes, it would be perfectly reasonable to provisionally oppose featuring an article, pending the availability of a suitable file for creating a banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflicts...) Elegant banner, Andre! And Julia, Saqib lives in Karachi (I think) and he has really put a ton of effort into the article so we will probably have a couple of nice photos to choose among in the next couple of weeks. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Surprised to see a thread has been started about Karachi. I'm sorry for not being very active on Wikivoyage as I'm busy with organizing the world's largest photography competition in Pakistan this September. I can imagine, Commons soon going to host thousands of CC-licensed photos from Pakistan including of Karachi. Andrew, can you wait for just 3 more weeks and then you'll have plenty of beautiful high quality photos to choose from otherwise if you're in hurry, I can take some photographs but I think its worth to wait. --Saqib (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Saqib: In a few minutes, I'm going to place the banner that I created for Karachi on the banners page, with a blurb summarizing everything said here for those who haven't followed the discussion. In three weeks' time, when the new Pakistan photos materialize, we can make a second, third, and fourth banner (or maybe more) and choose between them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure Andrew. You've created a nice banner but I bet you're going to see many beautiful photos once the Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan take off on September 1st. --Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Star nomination of Beijing/Dongcheng[edit]

I just did this, and per the instructions at the Starnom page I am giving notice here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Attention native speakers of Canadian English[edit]

Other than districting Buffalo, my main project on Wikivoyage has been elevating the Gaspé Peninsula to Guide status with a view to nominating it for OtBP sometime next summer. The first phase of that project is complete - namely, expanding the Gaspé Peninsula article itself, with a mixture of material translated from fr: (where it is a star article) and my own experiences visiting there in 2012.

en:'s policy is to write articles in the same dialect that is spoken in the destination. Though I am familiar with Canadian English, as an American it's not my native dialect, so I may have slipped up and forgotten a "u" here and there or whatnot. Could someone who is a native speaker of Canadian English (Pashley? K7L?) perhaps take a look at the article and correct any oversights on my part? Also, if there's anyone native to the area (Amqui?) who might review the article's factual accuracy, that'd be great too.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you've added a huge amount to the article, thanks. Our coverage of Québec is sporadic at best - even on fr: - once one leaves the Ottawa-Montréal-Québec City beaten path. Distances are "metre" and "kilometre" (a "meter" is a measuring device, such as a voltmeter, water meter or parking meter) and the St. Lawrence River runs from the western tip of Wolfe Island to Pointe-aux-Pères, just past Rimouski. Anything further downriver would be in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The claim that "Anticosti is part of the north shore" reads strangely, as Anticosti is an island. Maybe it should have its own "go next" entry. I suppose the real (huge) task will be getting the individual articles under Gaspé up to 'usable' status? K7L (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Running a Microsoft Word spellcheck for Canadian English turned up nothing in particular. Texugo (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That should flag "kilometer" (sic) but won't find instances of "meter" used instead of "metre" or "check" used instead of "cheque" as these are valid English words... which just happen to mean something else. There's a joke, something like "My spelling is purr fact in every weigh. My spell chequer told me so," which plays on exactly this. K7L (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, of course I know that. But at least it Word spellchecker will catch a common lot of things like those U's mentioned. I wasn't saying that checking is done, only that it's started. Texugo (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To K7L: That is indeed the next step, but I don't know how "huge" it will be. The requirements for Usable status in city guides are actually pretty lenient: a Get In section and at least one listing each in See, Eat and Sleep. I'll very likely go above and beyond for many if not most of them, but at a basic level I could probably do two or three of those in a day. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had a look and see no problems. That may not mean a great deal, though, since my English has been influenced by dialects other than my native Canadian. Pashley (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes?[edit]

Does Template:Infobox allow editors to insert images inside infoboxes? If so, how? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It can be made to work. I did one at Ouro Preto. I think there are others too, but can't remember where I've seen them. Texugo (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You can even insert many!. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

New maintenance tag proposals[edit]

I have been doing a lot of work correcting mistakes and oversights in the breadcrumb trails/geographical hierarchy, and I have identified a need for two new maintenance templates which I think would help us track and draw attention to problems in this regard. Below:

1: {{vagueregions}} - This tag can be used for regions where the regional breakdown does not have its borders defined well enough for someone unfamiliar with the region to ascertain which region a given destination should be categorized under. Often a region may be divided into Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western/Central or X Valley/Y Lake Area/Z Mountains, with no map and no discussion of where the boundaries between those regions should be drawn. Other times, someone may have started a few subregions for part of the area but there are gaps or overlaps between them. The template could be placed at the top of the Regions section, would add a hidden Category:Regions with vague subregions for maintenance purposes, and might look something like this:

2: {{putinsubregion}} - As a counterpart to the above, sometimes a destination article should be sorted into and linked from one of the existing subregions of the parent region, but it is unclear which one it should go into, either because of one of the problems pointed out above, or simply because it falls on or near the boundary between two regions. This template could go at the top of the article under the banner, would add a hidden Category:Change breadcrumb to subregion, and might read something like this:

For some examples of where these might be used, have a look at the Chicagoland area (it may be easier to see what's going on if you look at Category:Chicagoland) or try to figure out which subregions the towns listed in Category:Queensland go in. I have come across many similar situations of late, and wish I had had some way to tag them to come back to them later but no appropriate tags existed. Does this seem like a reasonable solution to everyone? Texugo (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that there are a good number of regions that need attention and having a maintenance category to identified them would be useful. A large template banner at the top of the page is something I am not too keen on though, maybe should be placed on the talk page or at least at the bottom of the page rather than the first thing people see. Also would like to propose that other templates like the translated from tag be moved to the bottom of articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The {{translated}} tag already goes on the talk page (though the {{translate}} tag does not). The problem with putting them on the talk page is that you lose the advantage of calling any attention to the problem, since people don't generally go browsing through random talk pages. Plus it populates the maintenance category with talk pages instead of the actual pages, which precludes any CatScan searches, etc. Texugo (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I don't think there are any other maintenance tags we've ever put at the bottom, I might be ok with putting number 2 at the bottom rather than the top, since that's where the IsPartOf tag is (invisibly). But I think #1 needs to be in the Regions section itself. Texugo (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, translated goes to the talk page, because it's something that has already happened. On the other hand when there is a need for some form of work on the article (translation, category maintenance, cleanup etc.) I do think it's necessary to have it on the article itself for everyone to notice. And yes, I think such maintenance tags are useful and would support using them.
On the other hand, a huge text box right at the top of the article is not pretty. As cleaning up categories, listingfying sections etc. in practice is something that's performed by users with some editing experience anyway, we maybe don't need to outline exactly what has to be done in the tags and they could perhaps be smaller and briefer. This is something we could consider doing to all maintenance tags. (How about "Maintenance needed:geographical category"?). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what I think of removing the instructions — maybe we could just shrink the text and make the box smaller, I dunno. But anyway, if you don't mind, I'd like to divorce any proposal to change the overall style of such tags from this discussion. Maybe you could make that a separate discussion. I think it's pretty clear that these proposed tags above match the existing style for maintenance tags, so concerns about the appearance of maintenance tags in general should in no way be a barrier to implementing these. The overall style can always be changed later. Texugo (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Your proposed maintenance tags are useful and address a real issue so we should implement them.
Traveler100's remarks above got me thinking that perhaps we should do something to the overall tag style (which these tags match). Make them a bit smaller or something so that users that know to look after them notice them while "simple readers" don't. E.g. Israel recently had a warning box in addition to the two tags and the thing looked quite massive. But I agree that's better discussed elsewhere. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So accepting this template mean that discussion before reordering of major regions is no longer needed? Should we not still use the process of discussing on the talk pages and placing the {{Regions discussion}} on pages before more that simple fixes? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it implies that at all. The guiding practice of ensuring discussion first generally applies to cases where a well-established system is to be changed, where developed region articles have to be totally rewritten to match a new scheme, cases where we want to ensure that the work of previous contributors is not being undone without agreement. Most of the cases which need this tag, however, are cases at the bottom of the hierarchy, in relatively small areas with typically underdeveloped region articles, where the subdivision is poorly or ambiguously or incompletely established — by definition, this tag cannot be applied to "major regions" with an established, functional division scheme. And in these cases where it is applied, often a simple declaration that "North" includes districts A,B and C or that the "Timber Woods Region" extends from river X to river Y would be very helpful, and for that, it's just fine to plunge forward. If anyone disagrees with it later, the discussion can still take place. Texugo (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Tinkering with region boundaries and breadcrumbs is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. We really don't need a big, ugly template on the article itself for something this small. Save the templates for more serious issues, like "This page has been nominated for deletion, the entire text is plagiarised from a local CVB's promotional blurb and consists of the hôtelier's opinion of their own establishment, and, by the way, this country is an active war zone perched atop an erupting volcano." which affect the usability of the article or the viability of an entire destination. K7L (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That is simply not good enough. This is a problem of no less importance than many many other things we track with similar tags, and being able to track them is enormously advantageous. If I had to start a discussion on the talk page of every article of this type, the text of each would be essentially what is written in one of the tags above, but with the disadvantages that a) I'd have to spend more time typing out the same thing every time, b) I'd have no way to keep track of it and come check on it later, c) it would be far less likely to come to anyone's attention because it would have no category and because people don't generally browse talk pages for the hell of it. The purpose for having this tag — to keep track of identified problems of a given type so that we can reduce them to zero — is the same as the purpose for {{crop}} or {{style}} or {{movetodistrict}} or {{merge}} or any number of tags for other problems we currently track. Would you suggest we reduce ourselves to untraceable talk page discussions for all those problems too? Texugo (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Those tags tend to identify problems that a single dedicated editor could fix without assistance or consultation; your proposed tags are more likely to sit on the article for years while we wait for enough editors to be interested to both have a discussion, and find a consensus. Powers (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not at all true. In fact, it is very similar to the {{movetodistrict}} and other tags in that respect: yes, it would be easiest if someone who knows the place well comes along, but that doesn't mean that a single dedicated editor could not fix it without assistance or consultation, given a little research time and/or a map. And as explained above, the type of articles these tags are designed for are not the cases where we need consensus, they only call for cleanup of situations which fail to comply with the basic principles of the geographical hierarchy.
Besides, there are plenty of {{merge}} and {{style}} tags and {{regions discussion}} that have been sitting around for years, among others; that's rather irrelevant and it would certainly be impossible to argue that the problems themselves aren't more likely to get worked on when tagged than when left untracked. We generally do mark these types of unambiguously identifiable problems; it's just that these particular two problems are not covered by any of the existing maintenance tags. Why in the world should that mean that subdivision/breadcrumb problems must be left untracked? Texugo (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think it's helpful to tag these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


The adding of these tags brings up another issue. Initially regions were created based on what is relevant for tourists but there is now a tendency to move to administrative structures. For example Middle Rhine Valley has now been tagged an extraregion of Rhineland-Palatinate and some of its articles tagged with {{putinsubregion}}. Anyone familiar with this area of Germany knows that it is dictated by the rivers, not just major towns, roads and rail but where the tourist go. Should the towns be rearranged into the Germans states (the river is not always the border) and new sub-regions for Kreis rather than geography of the area for Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse articles? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what has to happen. Since the Middle Rhine Valley crosses several of the hierarchical regions we've chosen to use (states, and the hierarchical subregions under them), it is by definition an "extra-hierarchical region", and therefore no destination should use it for its breadcrumb trail, because otherwise the breadcrumb would follow an alternative hierarchy that skips over the official hierarchy we've used to subdivide down to that level. This case is slightly complicated by the fact that Rhineland-Palatinate lists it as a subregion, but it is clearly not a hierarchical subregion because it contains destinations from other areas, so it still shouldn't be inserted in the hierarchy via IsPartOf. The only ways for Middle Rhine Valley to be a hierarchical region is if a) we re-carve the whole country into regions other than states, of which this could be one, or b) we limit this article to cover only the Rhineland-Palatinate portion of the valley and put coverage of the rest elsewhere. In the absence of either of those events, we have to let it just be an extraregion and change the breadcrumbs of the destinations to reflect the actual hierarchical state or state subregion. In any case, that's just the way it's done across the site, and none of that actually has anything to do with the tags suggested above. Texugo (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That may make sense to someone who does not visit the area but is really a bad idea for a travel guide. The geography of the region is dictated by mountain regions divided by rivers. You visit the Mosel, the Rhine or the Nahe, or go into the Hünsruck or the Eiffel. The organisation had worked as was in the most useful form for tourists. Someone visiting Rüsselsheim will then travel to Sankt Goar, with a strict administrative regions these would be be in different sub-regions of different German states. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Traveler100 - The point is that any discussion of changing the regions of Germany belongs at Talk:Germany (incidentally they were just changed less than a year ago) and has nothing to do with the tags proposed above. As Germany is set up currently, the states are the official top-level hierarchy and anything which crosses more than one of those to carve up the country in an alternative way is necessarily an extra-hierarchical region. We choose one official hierarchy with no gaps and no overlaps, and all breadcrumbs are set under that hierarchy, in which they all have a single place where they belong, and other ways of dividing the space up are covered as extra regions and left out of the breadcrumb hierarchy. Otherwise, we´d start having breadcrumbs arbitrarily subscribing to competing organizational schemes all over the place, which would be a nightmare to maintain and would completely undermine the utility of the parallel category tree. (If, god forbid, you actually are proposing some change to abolish the geographical hierarchy in favor of a patchwork gaps-and-overlaps approach, that would probably belong at Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy, but expect some fierce opposition.) I set Middle Rhine Valley to extraregion because that's exactly what it is, by virtue of not being its own region on the Germany map. And currently, it is the only extraregion on the whole site which has destination articles categorized directly under it instead of under the conventional hierarchy. (see Category:Extra regions with categories) Texugo (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
<edit conflict> If I may interject - can we discuss the regional division of Germany under Talk:Germany?
As regards the general thing - there are many ways to slice the same geographical area. This is why we have the breadcrumb division, extraregions and finally itineraries. I believe they all have their place. For the sake of making Wikivoyage easy to navigate, I believe we do need a single major breadcrumb trail, while we can we add as many extraregions and itineraries as we see fit. We also need a general idea which we should follow while splitting every geographical area, otherwise we might end up in a mess.
I tend to believe that going by e.g. mountain ranges or river valleys we might end up with leftover areas which would have to be put into "stuff that is not along any touristically interesting river, lake or mountain range" and otherwise unreasonable regions we will forcibly need to adopt that nobody would be looking for, will be hard to identify and their borders very subjective, unclear and regional division hard to maintain - e.g. one user may find one location is one arbitrary region, but another may see it more in another arbitrary region, and we will end up with a breadcrumb mix-up, so we will need to constantly patrol for that while maintaining a reasonable knowledge of the idea behind the regional split.
In short - any reasonably identifiable region, like a popular mountain range or river valley, that does not fit in an otherwise reasonable general regional division of the upper-level entity, e.g. country, should become just that - an extraregion. In said case, it may be hard to appropriately describe the area in separate parts, and those parts may singularly be rather uninteresting or provide insufficient content for a reasonable standalone guide unless put in the right context. I find an extraregion, or if applicable, itinerary, a great way to do with such cases. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed, and yes we should move the rest of this conversation to Talk:Germany, though I will comment that I just realized that Harz and Eifel are two more which need to have their "children"'s breadcrumbs aligned with their respective state subregions instead of that alternate breadcrumb trail. Texugo (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss on the talk page before you undo any more work that other people have spent time on. Discussing a new structure is worth doing but you are not going to win any friends just simply doing what you think is the correct solution without discussion. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have undone no work here, and changing a list of IPO tags is a breeze anyway. But please realize that the way those breadcrumbs are currently set up is not consistent with WV:Geographical hierarchy#Dividing geographical units, and my efforts only aim to rectify that. There is already broad consensus that we use a single no-gaps-no-overlaps hierarchy for the breadcrumb trails and no other. Nobody is trying to delete those region pages or strip the lists of cities from them or the links to them from elsewhere or anything like that; they are just simply not the regions that get used in the breadcrumb trails, that's all. Texugo (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess the point is that instead of asking me to discuss before making completely standard corrections which are already a part of our system, you should drop your objection and either start proposing new Germany regions, get used to the extra regions not figuring into the breadcrumb trail, or propose a drastic abandonment of fundamental WV:Geographical hierarchy policy. In other words, I don't believe I should have to raise any new consensus before setting it up the way written policy dictates, the way everything else is. I'll humor you for the time being, but I'd appreciate it if you'd think it over and let us follow policy on this one until there is consensus to do otherwise. Texugo (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "extraregion" is a fairly recent concoction and its existence is not in any way entrenched in policy nor precedent. K7L (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct — the previous practice was to not allow articles exist to outside of the hierarchy at all, to always redirect them to the most suitable higher region or country article. Now we have become looser with what we allow articles for in terms of alternative region structures, tagging them as extra region, because the coverage, when possible, should still be concentrated in our primary hierarchy. But they certainly haven't negated our hierarchy policy; they fall outside of it by definition. Texugo (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record - if this becomes a policy discussion, I support allowing extraregions if there is a region that 1. objectively exists 2. does not fall within the regional hierarchy agreed and the hierarchy cannot be reasonably amended to include it. I would add a provision though that first all effort must be done to try to include it in the breadcrumb hierarchy, perhaps altering it if reasonable. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We had some debate around the European Union where we concluded that it should not be an extra-region but rather a general travel article.
What would be examples of valid extra-regions ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Category:Extra regions lists all the currently defined ones, although it seems to require a good deal of clean up. ( e.g. Arcadia_(Greece) ) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That one was incorrectly categorized (now fixed) but by and large, the list is mostly accurate. The overwhelming majority are examples of historical regions/provinces/states/countries or tourist regions based on lakes, seas, mountain ranges, valleys, peninsulas, etc., which happen to overlap with two or more regions of the established hierarchy we've chosen in our regional breakdowns/maps. That's what it's for. Texugo (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And incidentally, "extra-hierarchical" regions are not something someone just cooked up one day and started slapping on there. Discussions go back to at least 2009, and {{extraregion}} is the best response we have so far for a real issue which we have collectively identified, of having regions which are necessarily left out of the no-gaps-no-overlaps hierarchy. Consensus seems to back it pretty solidly at least as for as it goes. It boils down to the simple fact that the breadcrumb for any given article can only go in one hierarchy, and for that purpose, per WV:Geographical hierarchy, we choose the one which covers the geographic area comprehensively with no gaps or overlaps, the one that we organize our regional breakdowns with, the one that can be used to perfectly divide up a map without ambiguity or holes in the coverage. This inevitably means that since there are obviously multiple ways of slicing up most areas, the regions which don't fit into that comprehensive subdivision plan are necessarily left outside the hierarchy, and are thus extra-hierarchical by definition.
Over the 5 years the discussion has been going, no one has suggested that there is no need for such articles outside the hierarchy — we have them and we need to have them, and there is a recognized need for flexibility in such articles, given our guidelines to avoid redundant coverage and recognizing that needs for these articles range from minimal (Cumberland County (Maine), Western New York) to complex (Schwaben cultural region, California Wine Country) — the {{extraregion}} tag simply makes them their own class where that flexibility is possible. Everybody seems to have been in agreement up to that point. The direction of the discussion only suggests we need to go further still in defining guidelines on how such articles should be constructed, given that necessary flexibility, but to suggest we should stop acknowledging that some regions exist outside the hierarchy would be a huge step backwards at this point. Texugo (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
They're occasionally useful, but the instances in which they are needed are rare. There's no need for a mess of new policies, added maintenance categories, templates on articles or more rule creep just to accommodate this. I´d also prefer not to see {{extraregion}} tagged onto things which are bottom-level destinations, not regions - Thousand Islands was one example where I'd reverted this sort of edit. K7L (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be used for destinations (and in fact, I just now suggested that Bolan Pass and Khyber Pass be changed back to the city template).
Please note, though, that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the templates proposed in the thread above, so it's better to keep comments about those up there in the previous thread. Also note that neither discussion here is presenting any new policy or rule creep whatsoever. Texugo (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion, as it relates to Germany's subregions, now has a proposed resolution at Germany#Move to restructure regions. Please comment there. Texugo (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on

-- JurgenNL (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Signed. What an unconscionable abuse of power by the WMF. Shame on them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Shame. I hope not to see another IB and yet another fork of Wikivoyage. I wish WMF realise and co-operate with Wikimedia community members. --Saqib (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You guys have only gotten one side of this story. The anti-Media Viewer drive fails to take into account the needs of non-editors and is driven largely by a reflexive resistance to change. Powers (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Powers , do you have any link to the other side of the story? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at the moment, I'd have to do some research and get back to you. Try the Signpost? Powers (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A couple of links in English and German. It seems this originates from a disagreement around the implementation of Media Viewer on German WP pages and has resulted in the implementation of 'Super Admin' status for WMF staff in order to override the wishes of the community.
I found the following statement from the WMF that does not directly address this issue, but suggests that stronger leadership and decisions from the WMF staff is important in order to help the WikiMedia platform survive in the developing internet landscape. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
[4] may also be helpful to read. (I'm choosing not to state my full opinion at this time, as that would put me in an awkward position - but there's plenty of opinions available at m:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights.) --Rschen7754 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the issue here more one of principle than on the question of whether this software should be used on every Wikimedia site or not? I do realize your first link addresses that, and I appreciate reading that side of the story. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes unfortunately it is creating excessive drama. The WMF is giving themselves extra authority to push software changes without first getting community consensus. This is tilting the fine balance between the foundation and the community. The flip side is of course that it is a huge effort to develop consensus for anything. Experimentation within Wikipedia is hard. But than maybe it should be. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo/South Buffalo[edit]

Announcing the completion of the second-to-last Buffalo district article. Hope no one minds me patting myself on the back about it here at the Pub. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Why here in the pub? You should've put it in Wikivoyage:Star nominations right away! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well done and keep up your good work Andre. You've invested a great deal of time and effort into Buffalo articles. --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. Ypsilon: sadly, sticklers will note the article's map is dynamic rather than static. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm...then we need to create a new category for superb articles with "just" a dynamic map? Category:Sun articles?ϒpsilon (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Process ideas for software development[edit]


I am notifying you that a brainstorming session has been started on Meta to help the Wikimedia Foundation increase and better affect community participation in software development across all wiki projects. Basically, how can you be more involved in helping to create features on Wikimedia projects? We are inviting all interested users to voice their ideas on how communities can be more involved and informed in the product development process at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I and the rest of my team welcome you to participate. We hope to see you on Meta.

Kind regards, -- Rdicerb (WMF) talk 22:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Badge function in Wikidata[edit]

Dear Wikivoyagers, contributors, readers, travellers...
Wikidata has introduced badges to denote good and featured articles in Wikipedia. These article statuses are displayed with stars in the interlanguage links. Maybe you think, this feature is useful on Wikivoyage and should be implemented on Wikivoyage as well. There is a discussion on meta to develop a common strategy and request the needed functionality from Wikidata. Please joine the discussion, if you are interested in the new feature. (Sent by DerFussi via MassMessage) 06:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I added a comment on meta. I don't see any information about why this would be of benefit. Maybe the benefit is too obvious to everyone else, but I would appreciate knowing exactly what it is. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
We already have statuses, so I don't understand what this would add. If an article is a Guide, that's a mark of quality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, it would just move the 'Guide' status into WikiData. It wouldn't be useful because this is not a data item that can be shared between different Wikivoyage language sites.
It 'may' be useful to know that Jerusalem is a Guide article in Hebrew if I am looking at the English article which is only 'Usable', although I doubt anyone would be that interested. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the usual argument. On Wikipedia, other-language articles with exalted status are indicated with an icon next to the name of the language on the sidebar. Wikivoyage could do the same. Powers (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it some more, I have to say that I don't check out other language versions of an article because I make the assumption that they will have less content than the English one. This feature would encourage me to at least check out the other ones if there was a quick icon that would tell me there was content worth viewing. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrewssi2, Ikan, it will be great if you make a clear statement on Meta, because we have to demonstrate our consensus regarding the usage of badges. So far we have seen a regrettably low interest of the community in this topic. --Alexander (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Andrewssi2 and Powers, I hope you don't mind that I copied your comments as well as mine to the linked discussion in Meta. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CC interview[edit]

Hello guys, recently Creative Commons interviewed me regarding Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Pakistan. Wikivoyage was mentioned in the interview so thought of sharing it with the community as well. --Saqib (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Rail trails: where do you stick 'em?[edit]

I'm trying to figure out the best place to stick a rail trail, a non-motorized bike and pedestrian trail converted from an old railway.

Specifically, I'm considering the OC&E Woods Line State Trail in Oregon. I'm thinking it belongs somewhere on the Klamath Falls article. Maybe under "get around" because it's a great way for pedestrians and cyclists to get from one end of town to the other. But maybe "get in" works better because the trail extends well beyond town and meanders quite a ways northeast, passing through a handful of small towns. But then does it go under "by bike" or "by foot"? Or maybe it goes under "do" instead?

Ideas? Athelwulf (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is a good size trail and you can write a reasonable article about the route and places along the way then I would suggest creating an itinerary. Something like the Rheinburgenweg listing places of interest along the way as well as an overview of the trail. Then place in the town articles that the trail passes through a link to the page in the do section, like in Koblenz#Do. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Athelwulf: I had a similar situation on my hands when I wrote Clarence (though it sounds like the Woods Line State Trail is a good deal longer than the Clarence Pathways). What I ended up doing, and what you might want to use as a sort of template, was giving the trail its own entry under "Do", and also mentioning it in the "By bike" subsection of "Get around". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What is exactly the policy regarding having "regions/districts/boroughs" sections in articles about smaller cities/regions/towns/villages?[edit]

What I mean is... can users on EngVoy add those sections to any article even if the city/region/town isn't too big to justify presenting smaller sub sections of that place? Is that allowed if no extra information is given about each of the sub sections made ?

For example, at the HebVoy article for the Israeli city of Rishon LeZion (as you can see in this version of the article which is produced with Google Translate) the "Regions" area was added with a map, and that small city was seperated into 3 sections, even though no information was added to those section other than what neighborhoods each section consists of. Is this permitted also on EngVoy articles ? or is there some policy that prevents users from making an endless amount of smaller and smaller sub-regions within each existing region article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi ויקיג'אנקי. We generally subdivide cities on a case by case basis, usually only for truly huge cities with many districts, and after the article has too much information to keep organized well on one page, and in most cases after a group discussion on the best way to divide up the city into districts. While a static map is of course welcome for any city article, a small city like Rishon LeZion does not even come anywhere near being the type of article we typically subdivide into multiple articles. Texugo (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I myself have understood for a long while that what you just described above is the norm on EngVoy. Nevertheless, it seems that there are no specific rules on this matter which would clearly explain this norm.
Currently I have noticed that the habbit of sub-dividing smaller cities/town/regions/villages has become very prevalent on HebVoy - where some users especially like to subdivide each area into smaller regions. I understand how it would make sense to split many small or remote cities/regions/towns/villages into smaller regions at Wikipedia articles, but on Wikivoyage I think this trend only adds a lot of unnecessary clutter to existing articles/guides. Unfortunately, as this was never fully explained anywhere on EngVoy I find it very difficult to explain to them why subdividing each area into smaller sections is not the best way to go. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At least articles should not get separate sub-district articles of the type City/District until the article is so large that it has to be done. On the other hand I think a District section with a map can be useful for practical navigation in some cases. One example would be Mombasa which practically is a kind of small archipelago where travelers are helped a lot by knowing on what island what is.
On the other hand Rishon LeZion is firstly not as big population-wise or geographically, secondly it's a normal city without any exotic geographical configuration and finally the article itself isn't very long.
I don't think there is an explicit policy against just a Districts section with a map and some descriptions of districts, however in most cases there are probably more important things to work on in the article. And if someone make red links someone else might be tempted to create a bunch of articles with one sight or one restaurant in each - persons who want to use our guides in practice might get pretty annoyed. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי, we do actually have guidance on this topic, at Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy#Districts_in_cities. Texugo (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Also relevant is the note further down that page at Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy#Keeping it together. Texugo (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would note that unlinked districts -- that is, lists of districts, without having articles for each district -- are best put under "Understand" (optionally in an "Orientation" subsection) to avoid confusion. Leave "Districts", "Regions", and "Cities" for site navigation amongst extant (or redlinked) articles. Powers (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)