Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the Pub Shortcut: Pub The Travellers' Pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question though, since that may save your time and others'. Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward! 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 are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Bugzilla instead. If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Project:Celebrate a contribution. Issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage are discussed 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.

Missing images and missing maps

Have been look around preparing for the talk and not only are there a lot of pages missing images many are also missing maps. Looking at this previous destination of the month and IMO it would be a huge improvement to have a map showing where Jiuzhaigou_Nature_Reserve is just in case I want to go there. All articles should have a map.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What are peoples though of this geohack tool on the toolserver? Hopefully it will move over to Wikimedia labs eventually.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For those wondering, here is an example of a map generated by GeoHack. I think it would be better than nothing, indeed. A more advanced tool is PoiMap2, though. The French Wikivoyage has started deploying it on a wide scale, as seen for instance here, even for articles that contain no POI. How about going ahead as well and deploying PoiMap2 on more articles? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We essentially do in the form of the {{geo}} map icon link at the top right of all properly tagged destination guides. But I assume you are talking about displaying it in-article using {{mapframe}}? --Peter ^Talk 06:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition isn't very clear if you came to ask about Geohack here. It isn't suited to travel needs at all, and that's what {{PoiMap2}} and {{mapframe}} are for. I think {{mapframe}} and the listing/sandbox are ready to be deployed site wide as well, not experimental any more, by Saturday if no one objects. Please look at Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps for a guide on how to use them.

By the way, when I marked the template as experimental, I really meant it was experimental and while nice, did not expect it to be spread far and wide. Please check the latest Mediawiki:MapFrame.js which patches a pretty serious security hole which I overlooked and should not be in a wide release. -- torty3 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I remain concerned that the dynamic maps may discourage future hand-crafted maps. Also, I think we should standardize on a rendering appearance for these dynamic maps; the default Mapnik is, IMO, horrible for travel purposes. LtPowers (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In Russian Wikivoyage, we have been using dynamic maps since the moment they appeared, which is about half a year from now. The maps proved to be a very useful feature, because every new article comes with a built-in map. Additionally, they give us an impetus for updating and revamping existing articles. The total number of maps increased dramatically. The travel guides became more useful, which is a good reason to implement this feature as soon as possible.

Regarding the static maps, I personally decided that I would not draw city maps with individual listings any longer, because I simply don't have time for that. I wonder how many people still draw static maps, but I guess that we did not have more than 10-20 new maps since the launch of Wikivoyage. Therefore, our choice is between having dynamic maps or having no maps at all. Finally, from my previous map-drawing experience, I think that it is very useful to have all locations visible on the dynamic map. It helps you in choosing the right area and saves a lot of effort in finding individual places that were added by different users. If anyone still wants to create hand-crafted maps, he/she is welcome to do so. I can make a very long list of places that will benefit from a hand-drawn map, but I don't see a queue of volunteers who would be working on it. --Alexander (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you go from "10-20 new maps" in six months to "no maps at all"? LtPowers (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

English Wikivoyage has ~28,000 articles. 10-20 new maps in six months means ~0.1%/year. It is nothing. Readers will never find them. We do have several hundreds of city maps drawn in the past, but many of those maps are not updated and eventually become useless. --Alexander (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

POI2 looks great and it has already been implemented on at least Travemünde and Roppongi. Dynamic maps are also easier to update which is useful in city and city district articles as they contain stuff like hotels and restaurants which appear and disappear more easily than monuments and parks do. Not to mention that drawing a map in the first place takes longer than just adding a few coordinates (of course that isn't a problem if you're good at drawing maps and love doing it). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Static maps do have some advantages over dynamic maps (and thus provide a really good comparison to help us figure out how to improve the dynamic maps), but for the vast majority of bottom-level guides, it's just not practical to keep maps updated by hand. My association with WTP kept me on point for updating Chicago and D.C. maps, but that's certainly slid since. It's also not realistic for us to expect all city, park, district, etc. guides to be illustrated with drawn maps—there is a steep learning curve for producing them, and even after mastering the process, they are time intensive. I don't really intend to keep making standalone static maps, and I plan to replace the years of hard work I've done in district article maps with the auto-generated sort ;)

There are a few issues still being ironed out on these maps, and the relevant discussions are all over Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition, but the big one left is working on the printable version, which is still very Beta. And LtPowers, note that {{mapframe}} supports many layers for tiles, one of which has our own custom built Wikivoyage-aesthetic. (That needs work still too.) --Peter ^Talk 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been giant leaps in auto map tile production too over the past couple of years. Tools like maperative, would allow us to replace the hand painted style of maps quite quickly - if that's what we wanted. Tilemill would allow us to build our own style, emphasising features important to the traveller. --Inas (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say I LOVE the progress on the Dynamic Maps front and what the guys are doing. I frankly don't see much benefit in "hand-made" static maps over dynamic maps. Dynamic maps have the great advantage that they reflect the current state of the article, so if anything gets added or modified, which it constantly should as destinations change everyday, it will get reflected on the map and what the traveller needs is a guide that is up to date and a map that matches it, not a map that might match it in a few days if a merciful editor with the appropriate knowledge and skills comes round and has the time and interest to do the map. Furthermore, we need to broaden the editor/user circle, and chasing after editors to have them toil away hours by making "hand-made" maps would not be a great way to enticing them to stay.
Just to make sure - I have nothing against hand-made maps, and most of those that I saw were nothing short of brilliant. I do use them and print them out, for one they were great for my recent visit in Copenhagen. It would be brilliant if people continued to make and update them, and more people did them as brilliantly as the current maps were done. But I am just not seeing this as the way to go forward with mapping all of our articles quickly, and I firmly believe each article should have at least one, fully up-to-date map, ASAP.
Let's roll out the dynamic maps and associated template numbering ASAP and work on it together to make it even better. This is what really sets Wikivoyage apart and open so many exciting possibilities (like "Special:Nearby" and such). PrinceGloria (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic maps are the way to go, the learning curse for static maps is high and they don't update as the content updates. Only a few dedicated editors have taken the time to learn to use a vector program. And all this had to be done off-wiki, dynamic maps can be updated by everyone without needing to download and learn external tools. However, I do think the dynamic maps could look a bit more professional. We should choose one layer and stick with it. I think Mapquest Open looks a lot better than Mapnik and the custom-made Wikivoyage layer, can't we just use that one for all articles? Globe-trotter (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyway to role them out in a semi automated manner? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond. The learning curve for creating maps is not steep at all. Hand-designed maps are plainly superior to algorithmically generated maps, which is why cartography is still a profession. The location of points of interest does not change "daily" by any stretch of the imagination. I just... I can't believe this. I feel like I don't even know this community any more. LtPowers (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us opposes hand-crafted maps... They should be left as a preferable option, but they will never cover even our guide articles, which is only a small fraction of the Wikivoyage content. We have to be realistic about that.

Regarding the locations and their changes, I do try to maintain some articles (again, in ruvoy) on a yearly basis. I think that every year between 10% and 20% of listings are changing, because some places close down and others open or simply come to my attention. If I keep changing the article without updating the map, the period of 3-4 years is enough to make the map irrelevant to its article. We see it quite often, and we have no mechanism to circumvent this problem. It is sad, but again, we have to be realistic. --Alexander (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly that, it is a matter of scale. Consider that OSM is nine years old, has over a million contributors and an active user base of 6000 people which include professional cartographers and GIS specialists, focusing exclusively on map data. Yet when I click through to some places, there's not much coverage at all. Can we realistically hope to compete with that? Or is it better for us to focus on the general travel content and reviews.

Even maps of big cities rated as star articles get neglected. What more about little towns that aren't even on the radar of people?

And I don't believe that dynamic maps and hand-crafted maps cannot go hand in hand. It does make hand-crafted maps less required, but I feel that dynamic maps in fact help make it easier to make one. I wouldn't be comfortable making maps of areas that I've only visited, let alone never been, but if Nicolas for example were to request me to make a custom map of Tokyo/Roppongi right now, it's a lot clearer and more instructive. Then insets and other adjustments that would make it a great map could be included. -- torty3 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether the learning curve is high or not, hand-making maps is a very time-intensive endeavor, and it would take literally several thousand hours of work to get hand-drawn maps for even a fraction of our articles, not to mention the task of revisiting them all periodically to keep them updated. We simply do not (and will likely never) have the manpower to do things that way. I do agree that despite some limitations, the hand-drawn maps do look much nicer, and I wouldn't necessarily advocate deprecating them entirely, but dynamic maps are the only way we will ever be able to provide maps for every article, and they are really coming along and getting better all the time. And, at least for now, I really only envision them for cities and districts at the bottom of the hierarchy; hand-drawn maps will remain important for continent, country, region and metropolis articles to show how we have broken down our coverage and show highlights of things which would otherwise not show up on a map zoomed out that far. Texugo (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

But how do we encourage people to create star-worthy hand-drawn maps if there's already a good-enough hand-drawn map on the article? LtPowers (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand how that question relates to dynamic maps, unless you meant "if there's already a good-enough dynamic map on the article". But as far as I know we haven't talked about whether to lift the requirement for star articles to have a traditional hand-drawn Wikivoyage-style map. Texugo (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. But I'm not concerned only about star articles. The point is that hand-drawn maps should be our ideal, and the absence of a map on an article is an impetus to create them. How do we mitigate the loss of that impetus? LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point, and I don't have an answer for you, but I would say it's not nearly worth preventing 25,000+ articles from getting an instant, workable, automatically updated map just so we can encourage people to hand-draw a perfect map for each one. Texugo (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that hand-drawn maps will always be the preferable option in the future. Today we have some issues with dynamic maps, but those issues are being addressed. In the future I fail to see how a map that automatically updates when someones adds lat/long coordinates to a listing, that can scale easily based on people's preferences, and that allows you to easily browse to surrounding locales would not be preferable to a static map. I would contend that a static map should eventually become the exception, useful for countries or in situations where we need to show a Wikivoyage-specific regional breakdown, but that our goal should be to make the dynamic maps the optimal solution for the vast majority of our articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ I am with Ryan on that ^^^^ PrinceGloria (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And I am not. Hand-drawn maps give us the freedom to decide what to show and what to skip. Dynamic maps always rely on a certain tile that can't be customized for every particular destination. Additionally, dynamic maps do not solve and probably will not solve the problem of printing and offline usage. Most cities require several maps that have different scale and show different listings, as in paper travel guides. However, this should not prevent us from using dynamic maps as broadly as possible. I see no problem in leaving the option of hand-drawn maps for those who are willing to spend time on them.

To Powers' concern: I have not seen any strong impetus, at least not over the last 3-4 years. Some of the most productive map-makers have left the project, while others say that they won't spend the effort when dynamic maps are available. I simply can't imagine who will make use of this impetus, and I don't think that many new people will jump on map drawing, no matter how large the project grows. Using Inkscape is not difficult, but many (or even most?) people never used vector graphics and won't learn it only because of Wikivoyage.

I think that leaving static maps as a requirement for star articles would be a reasonable compromise, at least for the time being. --Alexander (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be doing the opposite, actually. We want the maps to be easily updateable, and by anyone. Any time someone does something as simple as removing a closed geocoded listing, they will be updating the map. Maps will be updated continuously by the enormous efforts of OSM contributors worldwide. They're infinitely more wiki and more practical in this regard. A good case in point is the map at Valle de Cocora (the star nomination of which LtPowers has now voted against for having a dynamic map). I could draw a static map from the same data, but that would make it harder for others to update, and would rob us of immediate updates when a hiker walks a new trail with a GPS device, or marks a new lodgings POI.

Several of the concerns brought up, I think, are also misplaced. Another benefit of dynamic maps is that they provide us with multiple layers per map. If you don't like the aesthetics of one layer, just click another one right on the map. The map becomes personally customizable to anyone at the click of a mouse. --Peter ^Talk 23:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And not to "pull rank," but I can say with some confidence that I've done more updates on static town and district maps than anyone else here. It's painstaking work each time. Renumbering all those listings every time one is removed or another added, and then trying to keep the legend synced to the new icon numbers is incredibly tough for maps of busy districts. --Peter ^Talk 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We cannot let "perfect" kill "good enough". I would not propose adding dynamic maps were hand drawn maps already exist. I am talking about adding dynamic maps were NO maps exists (which by the way is almost all articles). Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet everyone seems all too willing to let "good enough" kill "perfect". Star articles should have the best maps possible, and these slipshod dynamically-generated maps look nothing like what you'd find in a quality printed travel guide. I am stunned and disgusted that anyone would think they're actually better than a good hand-drawn map. LtPowers (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Would not making it a requirement to have hand drawn maps / best possible maps for an article to become star not address this? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] A map that updates itself and can be modified for different purposes on the spot is preferable to one that does not. Static maps like this are perfect only at the point in time when they are made. And your point above about cartography seems, along with your over-the-top rhetoric about this, a little strange—cartography in the modern era is GIS. And yes, our competition does use dynamic maps (Tripadvisor, Lonely Planet, Foursquare, etc.). We call our star articles perfect, while letting them fall behind reality. Keeping the maps updated for, say, Chicago is absolutely the biggest piece of the work in keeping those articles up-to-date, and it's the main reason why they're not. --Peter ^Talk 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yosemite#Get in and Ann Arbor#Get around are two star articles with "perfect" hand-drawn maps that haven't been updated in ages and would (IMHO) be far more useful as dynamic maps. Our dynamic map capabilities aren't as good as our best static maps right now, but others have enumerated their functional and maintenance advantages, and they are improving daily with respect to the cosmetic issues that seem to be your primary concern. I don't think anyone disputes that some articles (mainly those that show Wikivoyage regional hierarchies) are probably better as static maps, but just as no one would suggest that Google maps would be better if it was a non-interactive series of static images, I'm not understanding why a dynamic map that offers so many more capabilities than a static map and that is constantly updated with the latest information would not be the "best map possible", particularly as cosmetic concerns are being addressed. Also, what Peter just said. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All articles are better as static maps, because a static map has been customized for the unique situation that is every place on the globe. Google Maps is great, but it already exists, and does a better job of mapping than any open-source solution we have available to us. But even then, its best maps don't compare to a good printed map where the labels have been conscientiously placed and icons carefully considered for both density and clarity. Unfortunately, just as I seem to be inadequate to the task of explaining good graphic design precepts to the participants in the logo selection process (since I am only an amateur graphic designer), I cannot sufficiently explain the many advantages of a hand-drawn map because I am not a professional cartographer. (And of course, by hand-drawn, I don't mean literally; I know professional cartographers use GIS data! But they craft their maps with an eye to readability, clarity, and aesthetics that no computer algorithm can match. That's what we should do as well, at least for articles which we are claiming to surpass the best printed guides!) LtPowers (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be dispirited, LtPowers.
I think many of us appreciate your cogent points that all dynamic maps are aesthetically inferior to the best hand-crafted static examples. Do you appreciate the points being made about their ease of insertion into articles and maintenance?

I think there is still much work to be done in improving the way icons are displayed and other aesthetic improvements and your eye for good readability, clarity, and aesthetics could provide valuable insights there. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 15:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, they certainly are easy. And if there was nothing more to this than "these are a useful stopgap until we can create good maps for all destinations", I'd welcome their proliferation. But their mere presence will serve to strongly discourage future hand-crafted maps, and others above state that they're actually better than hand-crafted maps. Both are significant problems that I'd like to see addressed before we go forward with any more of these maps. LtPowers (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

People only make hand-crafted maps for star articles and I think leaving the current star nomination requirements as needing a hand-crafted map addresses your concern, and that is a separate issue blocking star nominations and not dynamic maps in the first place. Anyway I've been typing and re-typing my response, but I am unexpectedly busy this weekend, so this is as much as I'm going to get in today. PS do not use {{Poi}} in the first place. -- torty3 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Only for star articles? Absurd. Look at Childs, Rochester (New York), Niagara Falls (New York), Letchworth State Park... LtPowers (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-star articles do not require any maps. I think that static maps should be welcome as long as they are up-to-date. --Alexander (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Powers, could you explain your ideas regarding the development of maps and cartography in Wikivoyage? --Alexander (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, there is absolutely no way to say that the new dynamic maps are not a million times better than nothing, and I would not accept holding up their implementation in the 99% of articles which currently have no map on the basis that someone wishes they were the same quality as a hand drawn map. That is asking too much. Texugo (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's what you think I'm saying (and if Alexander doesn't understand my ideas at all), then I guess I've utterly failed at communication here. LtPowers (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't understand your ideas well enough. However, I don't want to ignore your opinion, even though I feel that dynamic maps are absolutely crucial for this project.

OK, let me try to ask you a different question. Do you feel that Wikivoyage has sufficient number of maps and decent rate of map-drawing? If not, how could we improve this situation? --Alexander (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Texugo just above.

Taking Shanghai and its districts as an example, since I know that moderately well, we find four types of map are involved.

we have one fine hand-drawn map at Shanghai#Downtown

dynamic map links for every district

maps for the borders of each district, grabbed from Commons

A recommendation in "get in" that travellers grab the tourist bureau's free map handed out at the airport

All of those are useful, and none of them are perfect. See Talk:Shanghai#Map_stuff and Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Shanghai_map for discussion of some problems.

I'd say all have a role and, as a rather non-graphical person, I'm content to let the map-makers work out where their effort is best spent. Making more hand-built maps here? Improving our interface to OSM maps? Contributing to OSM work? I can see benefits to any of those, but have no idea what the priorities should be, and anyway it seems possible different people will contribute in more than one place. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Where to start. Again, I reiterate that dynamic maps will make it easier to make hand-crafted maps. All the current instructions already rely so heavily on OSM, which continue to come out with a bunch of output options. Maperitive itself has custom rulesets so you can actually set a shared Wikivoyage colour scheme instead of manually changing them by hand. I'm vague on the details, but as far back as WTP days I think there was a coordinates to SVG tool which would significantly cut down on the time needed to map listings. This would all come down to a base SVG map with various layers that could be tweaked in Inkscape.

Of course, this is all moot if everybody feels that dynamic maps are the way to go. Admittedly the expedition has been more focused on the technical aspects, and this is probably the largest philosophical discussion we've had over dynamic maps. The quality of hand-crafted maps is recognised, but the sad fact is that even for star articles (Ann Arbor has 250 listings (!) of which I'm willing to bet at least 10% have closed), they are not maintained at a rate that I would expect from a quality printed guide. Hence the argument for perfection doesn't even seem to apply currently, especially so for huge cities where listings may open and close everyday. Ideally yes, reach for perfection but realistically I don't see it happening, with or without dynamic maps. -- torty3 (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand LtPowers, and agree that a perfect hand-drawn map is better than a perfect auto-generated map, especially on static media (paper, offline HTML) where maps can't be scrolled/zoomed/clicked anyway. How about we allow dynamic maps on all articles, but require at least one quality up-to-date static map for star? That would re-establish the incentive to create such maps. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Well said, Nicolas1981!

As someone who loves maps I'm excited by the possibilities that are opening up with the wonderful work being done with dynamic mapping

However, we also need to give some thought as to how we can give a choice to our readers on slow or expensive connections to avoid the massive data download hit associated with embedding dynamic maps in articles. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 12:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick, are you proposing that some articles have both a generated map and a hand-designed one? That seems excessive. I'm also not sure how much of an incentive it is, as not everyone can or wants to work toward getting an article up to star quality. LtPowers (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(Note: There is another person here really called Nick) I don't think static and dynamic should be mutually exclusive. When there are both, I suggest embedding the static map as a wiki image (as usual), and adding a link to the dynamic map in its legend. By the way, do you agree that some articles requires several maps (for instance one for the whole city and suburb POIs, and one for the tiny historical center where all of the good small restaurants are packed). Requiring static maps for stars is already quite a strong statement. Placing incentives for volunteer work is risky, because it takes the form of "You want to contribute X? Then you must contribute Y too!". Like any of our rules, it can make contributors flee.

Another advantage of dynamic maps: I believe they encourage visitors to add new POIs with latitude/longitude, just for the pleasure of seeing their work appear immediately on the map. Also, map-minded people will easily spot POIs that are missing ("the history museum is great, why is there no pin on it yet!"), leading to more participation.

A dynamic map is a great first step before creating a static map. It allows the map creator to envision the final result, decide what is the best scale, clip the right area, find an appropriate place for the legend, easily place POIs. Inexact analogy: It is a bit like adding a new POI with no contact details: Offline people won't be able to use it, but it is better than nothing, and within one year another contributor will probably come and add the contact details. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I just did a performance analysis of the Tokyo/Roppongi article, and I found out that dynamic maps actually don't take much bandwith. [1] As you can see, base page takes 1265kb, and map takes 859kb, of which 535kb should not be loaded, so that's down to 324kb when the bug is fixed: Only 20%. I find it very acceptable. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that some articles need multiple maps. I just think that the dynamic map doesn't offer anything to the reader (vs editor) that a good static map wouldn't. LtPowers (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For one, I love the ability to zoom in, and the ability to scroll and see what is further down that river... exploration :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely; browsing a zoomable world map is an entertaining pastime. But I don't go to a travel guide to do it; I go to a mapping site. There seems to be a push to be all things to all people: some want to provide hundreds of links to Wikipedia to save a few users the trouble of seeking out an encyclopedia; others want to provide comprehensive world maps to save users the trouble of seeking out a map site; next, I assume we'll have a proposal to add hovertext definitions of words to save folks the trouble of consulting a dictionary? LtPowers (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers, you're missing the mark in a spectacular way here. Dynamic maps have a bunch of advantages over static maps, to the point of making static maps largely obsolete in almost all fields. So let's go over some as they pertain to our purposes, starting with the benefits to readers, most of which have to do with the ability to customize your own visual, thematic, and content experience (this is basically why they are called dynamic maps). We don't have all of the following potentials realized yet, but they're all possible:

1. Readers can customize their experience to their own aesthetic preferences. If a reader prefers the familiar OSM Mapnik scheme, they can choose that, or switch to our Wikivoyage layer at the click of a button. If a reader needs a high contrast colors map, a map with larger or smaller icons, etc., again, they can get that with one click.
2. Readers can customize their experience to their own content needs. A reader could click a button to show only restaurant listings, or can zoom in to only look at one area. This is obviously of enormous use in printing maps customized to the reader's needs.
3. Readers can customize their thematic experience by clicking for other features, like a topo layer, bike paths, bus routes, etc. A topo layer is often going to conflict with (crowd out) other information presented, but a user might have a special use for it.
4. Readers can navigate elsewhere via the map itself: a user looking at the map for Washington, D.C./East End could pull up the icons showing nearby geocoded articles to jump to adjacent district articles like Washington, D.C./National Mall or Washington, D.C./West End.

Those four are enormously useful, and are just what come to mind off the top of my head without thinking much about this. But the notion you are advancing about advantages to editors not being relevant to readers is just 100% wrong. (And I'm not talking about the ease of creation--they are superior even when you have a motivated editor pushing an article up to star status.) Here's why:

1. Maintenance workload. I personally have contributed 101 maps with listings currently displayed on our site (I just checked). I can count on two fingers the number of times that I've seen someone else upload a listings update to any of them--the wiki method that allows us to keep content up-to-date is absolutely not working with city/district maps. So let's say I update each once a year, budgeting maybe 25 minutes for the chore per map. That's 42 hours of work to keep them updated on just a yearly basis, and that doesn't include time spent checking that the articles themselves are up to date! Moreover, there's far too high a likelihood that I screw up the numbering between the legends and all the individual icons. The end results are simple and are to the detriment of our readers: a) outdated maps, 2) significant error introduction, and 3) time wasted that would-be mapmakers should put to much better use in developing content.

So what are the advantages of static maps? There's really just one: control by the final mapmaker. When drawing a map in an SVG editor, the mapmaker has pretty much full control over every aspect of display, in terms of what to include and how to show it. Here's a pretty one that I made, with selectiveness of display terms of which street names are displayed, as well as labels for the sports stadium and only one of the parks. The other biggie is icon size, but that's something I envision we'll be able to let readers customize—remember that all this extra control to the mapmaker is taken out of the hands of the end user!

If the proposal from this thread is that our best articles should omit dynamic maps, then I think we've reached very wrong conclusions. Maybe this will only become clear to some as our capabilities with dynamic maps improve—they're just in their infancy right now. --Peter ^Talk 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If the proposal from this thread is that our best articles should omit static maps, then we've reached very wrong conclusions. A good cartographer can beat a computer every day of the week and twice on Sundays. The profession of cartography isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how good Google Maps gets, and there are good reasons for that that I'm apparently completely failing to communicate here. That's on me, but I don't know how else to put it. The dynamic maps are nice toys for online use, but they are not suitable for printing in any way, shape or form; relying exclusively on them is a step back, not a step forward. LtPowers (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers - you are making your point very clearly, and Peter has outlined his counter-arguments. If you disagree with any of his points let's discuss, but if the argument is simply that a cartographer can make a better looking printed map then that doesn't appear to be a persuasive reason to ignore all of the benefits that Peter has enumerated. If our primary goal was to make maps that people print out and hang on walls then I would agree with you, but since 1) our primary goal is to produce free, complete, and up-to-date travel guides, 2) we can continue to improve the printability of dynamic maps, and 3) for the reasons Peter outlined dynamic maps are far, far better references for online use (our most common use case), I agree 100% with him that the technology has reached a point where they should become our focus. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep alluding to esoteric knowledge that you cannot communicate, but you are instead communicating a lack of familiarity with the field of cartography. Google Maps is produced by cartographers. Virtually any print maps of any kind you see today are printed more or less directly from dynamic systems. You aren't bothering to acknowledge any of the long list of very meaningful advantages of dynamic maps enumerated in my last comment or prior throughout this long thread, and you aren't explaining the advantages of static maps beyond weird blanket statements and straw men like "nice toys," "not suitable for printing in any way, shape or form," "the dynamic map doesn't offer anything to the reader (vs editor) that a good static map wouldn't," "I am stunned and disgusted that anyone would think they're actually better than a good hand-drawn map," etc. That's making this discussion frustrating and less productive than it should be. --Peter ^Talk 00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern printed maps are computer-assisted, but their final aesthetics rest in the hands of expert cartographers. This parallels our process with taking data from sources like OSM and carefully arranging the information for readability and clarity. I have acknowledged that the dynamic maps are easy, and fun to play with, and useful; I'm not sure what more you want on that front. As well, only Peter and Ryan appear to be unable to recognize the strengths of hand-designed maps, so I could make a similar complaint: this discussion is more frustrating and less productive because you aren't bothering to acknowledge the many advantages to static maps that I've laid out in the past. To Ryan: Where I disagree with Peter's points is in his dismissal of "the advantages of static maps" as "just one": "control by the final mapmaker". Embedded in that seemingly small 'advantage' is a very big point, though: the entire purpose of maps! The purpose of a map is to show, clearly and understandably, where things are in relation to each other. That requires precise control by the mapmaker. Have you not seen these dynamic maps with icons overlaying text, and each other? And I am appalled that we are dismissing the print version so easily; last I checked that was still one of our bedrock Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals. Do you want our maps to be competitive with those in printed guides or not? LtPowers (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Our core disagreement seems to be this: you say that creating a good map "requires precise control by the mapmaker", while Peter and I dispute that statement and are arguing that any display issues with dynamic maps are minor inconveniences that are easily rectified by zooming or hiding layers, and that the list of advantages Peter outlined (that I assume you do not dispute) far outweigh any disadvantage due to the default display issues. Given those two positions, we may have to agree to disagree that moving control of map display from a "cartographer" to a user who can now customize what the map shows and how it shows it is detrimental enough to outweigh the many advantages offered by dynamic maps. A strong argument that Peter has made is that giving the user (rather than the "cartographer") control is an additional advantage, as that user can now easily create a customized map that is tailored to their specific travel needs. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep putting "cartographer" in quotation marks... Customizable maps are good, to an extent (it's easy to go too far), but I don't see any rational way to achieve that without sacrificing the many advantages offered by a well-constructed hand-designed map:

1. A carefully designed static map can achieve a level of clarity, aesthetics, and simplicity that even the best dynamic maps cannot.
2. Static maps provide the information they need to provide right there, without requiring input from the user.
3. Relatedly, the interactive features of the dynamic map are useless in print, leaving a hand-designed map the only way to present a useful guide to the print reader.
4. A hand-designed map can be designed explicitly for the unique properties of a given destination, rather than needing a single solution that works for all.

It's unquestionable that these dynamic maps will greatly enhance our guides that do not have maps. But I would be disappointed to see hand-designed maps fall by the wayside simply because dynamic maps are available, and I really could not countenance the deprecation of hand-designed maps. LtPowers (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe we can now have an actual conversation about this... I definitely agree with your point #1, although I think you critically underestimate the influence that you as an individual contributor can have over the default appearance of a dynamic map. It requires some very basic work setting up defaults in the article itself, and may require some work on OpenStreetMap itself (which is much easier than trying to import their huge files and edit them in SVG format).

Number 2, though, strikes me mostly as a disadvantage. Preventing users from being able to use their own input to get what they want from the map (focusing on only the content they want, the appearance they want, etc.) is one of the most obvious reasons of why static maps are inferior (in both online and printed environments).

Number 3 is dead wrong for reasons I've already covered above (I'm resisting a temptation to just copy-paste my earlier comment). Users can choose what sort of map they want to print via clicking layers. Readers with visual impairments can select a scheme that is more readable in terms of color, text size, etc. Users can choose to print only the content they are interested in (turn off icon layers & keep only bike layers, turn off all icon layers other than restaurants, turn on topography, select only a small portion of the map, etc.). Brilliantly, we don't even need to maintain the information in those layers, since OSM will do it for us. I would never contest that static maps have their advantages for printing—I'm intimately familiar with the advantages, but to claim that dynamic maps don't have advantages for printing is absolutely, positively, completely wrong.

Number 4 is also wrong, in missing the whole point of what a dynamic map is: it's dynamic. The notion of one-size-fits-all goes out the window when readers (and editors, in choosing defaults) can choose how the map displays. Topography is usually not too important, but it's great to have for a mountainous hiking route, so just turn on that layer (editor-chosen defaults, or user selected); want biking routes?—click the layer; color schemes; content themes (just attractions, just restaurants, etc.). The opposite, however, is true of static maps—they are one-size-fits-all for users. The map editor makes their best judgement of what to include and how to present it, but those choices are denied to the end user.

These are all reasons why map editing with graphics software is not something that geography departments are even bothering to teach any more—GIS technology has developed so rapidly and our capabilities today are so radically different from even 10 years ago, that static presentation of maps is fast becoming obsolete. Intervention before printing is possible in the dynamic system itself. This is why "cartographers" is starting to show up in quotes, because you're attributing a meaning to it that absolutely is not shared by professional cartographers, who view computers and GIS systems as their tools, not competition. We were stuck in the 90s before, because we didn't have any developers interested in creating custom mapping tools for our own project. Somewhat to my amazement, that's no longer true, and we should take full advantage of this.

Lastly, it would be absurd to ignore the enormous advantages in maintenance and accuracy of dynamic maps. Human error (mostly typos) is a big problem, especially when performing listings updates on icons numbering in the hundreds. I have a lot of experience with this. Allowing all users to take part in the maintenance (by just editing the article text, or by "external" editors working on OSM) allows us to finally crowdsource this work, instead of relying exclusively on a handful of superusers. This will mean maps that are more up-to-date and more accurate, which is just another huge advantage for the reader. --Peter ^Talk 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't get past the fact that these maps look like crap. They really do. Icons overlapping text, missing text labels, inefficient icon and text placement. Why would we want to make our users fiddle with settings just to get something that looks mediocre? I can't deny the advantages of dynamic maps, but I just don't see how we can consider any of our travel guides to be among the best on the planet without a good travel-style map that prints up as well as any in Lonely Planet or Fodor's. It's nice that users can customize their maps for printing, but you're trying to have it both ways a bit; one of the mitigating factors for dynamic maps is that it's okay if they're not perfect layout-wise because users can scroll and zoom them, but that mitigation is not applicable to print versions. Also, I also view computers as GIS systems as tools; it is you who is viewing them as mapmakers themselves. I still say it requires human intervention to create a good map, and that intervention should rest on us, the authors, not our readers who may not have the technical savvy to fine-tune a map that looks good. LtPowers (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the things you say in this thread are amazing to me. I just said, verbatim, that cartographers view computers and GIS systems as their tools. And then you state the exact same belief and say I claim the opposite? What's the deal, seriously? Are you having a laugh at my expense? Human intervention occurs at nearly every step of the way in a GIS, but we'd be able to crowdsource that work, instead of having a handful of people (mostly me and PerryPlanet?) do virtually all of it.

The technical fiddling required to see different street names and deal with icon placement (an issue at lower zoom levels) is just double clicking. People overwhelmingly use online mapping services like Google Maps instead of the printed maps you used to buy at gas stations, so they're pretty used to that functionality, and clicking layers is likewise familiar (street map/satellite/etc.) and easy. Static maps do require less manipulation to get a good print copy, and you don't have to worry about perfection of display at multiple zoom levels (you do have to worry about whether it will print legibly in-article, and whether what's readable to you is even vaguely readable to everyone). That's probably their biggest selling point. But with all the other advantages of dynamic maps... I think the cost/benefit analysis has to favor the dynamic maps. Having created 101 static maps with icons literally numbering in the thousands (I think Chicago alone has more than 1,000) to keep updated, I feel the need to diffuse the workload more deeply than most, perhaps. And FWIW I've always thought commercial travel guides had awful maps—ours are usually way better. If the bar is to get our dynamic maps printing better than the in-guide LP maps, then I expect we'll arrive there soon. --Peter ^Talk 03:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And you scoffed when I said I was having trouble explaining myself... I agree when you say cartographers "view computers and GIS systems as their tools". We do the same thing. What I was trying to say is that you seem to be of the opinion that these computers and GIS systems can do it all by themselves, producing the dynamic maps that everyone seems to like so much. I'm saying that computers and GIS systems are just tools; they can't produce good maps by themselves, and need a human cartographer to refine the information into an aesthetically pleasing, easy-to-understand form. As for the rest, I strongly disagree that the advantages of dynamic maps outweigh the disadvantages to the point of deprecating hand-designed maps. When you can find a computer that can produce a map comparable to File:Map - Walt Disney World - Hollywood Studios.png (including the orientation selection), then maybe we can talk. Until then, I can't imagine telling anyone "No, we don't need your map; we have computers!" LtPowers (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be foolish for me to assume from the silence on this issue that I've brought everyone around to my point of view. Are we going to continue on the road toward deprecating hand-designed destination maps in favor of mass-produced "good enough" dynamic maps? LtPowers (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I like both, and would prefer to see both when possible. A good custom map is a thing of beauty as well as a way of displaying the information the maker considers most useful, while a dynamic map gives a wider range of options. On the other hand, a good custom map can be a lot of work, and a dynamic map can be better than a crappy custom map, and certainly better than no map at all, which is the default condition of most articles. Ideally, I like to see a location map, giving the position at a glance, and a custom map showing the detailed layout and the scope of the destination. A dynamic map can often be more useful when working out how to get to a specific place. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@LtPowers - I can't speak for others, but silence on my part has been due to a lack of anything new to add to what's already been said. My position remains that I think the dynamic maps are superior to static maps in the ways that have already been enumerated (and I would emphatically state that they are not just "good enough" maps), and where they have layout or aesthetic disadvantages (which I would continue to argue are disadvantages that are far outweighed by their advantages) are being addressed as the technology rapidly improves. As PeterS notes, there will always be some places where a static map makes sense, such as with dive sites, Wikivoyage region maps, or "overview" maps where the data the map is trying to show (underwater topography, region boundary, simplified overview) is not handled well using OSM data. However, for cases where the map is showing listing locations I'd like to see dynamic maps eventually become the default for all of the reasons that have been previously discussed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can admit that dynamic maps often have "layout or aesthetic disadvantages" while simultaneously disagreeing that they're merely "good enough" and not ideally suited to every destination. LtPowers (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To flip your statement around, would you say that static maps lock users into a specific map area, are quickly out of date, lack the benefit of data generated by OSM, are potentially unusable to visually impaired readers, prevent a user from zooming in on areas of particular interest, cannot be customized to a specific traveler's needs, etc, but are superior because the creator can ensure that they never have "layout or aesthetic disadvantages"? We fundamentally differ on the value of aesthetics vs the value of the additional functionality offered by dynamic maps. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly both approaches have some disadvantages, but you specifically claimed that dynamic maps are better than "just 'good enough'", implying that they are in fact ideal. I apologize if I misread your intent. To answer your point, all of those functions can be achieved using other tools, tools which will almost always be better designed, faster, and more familiar to readers than our own dynamic maps. A good-quality static map is pretty much unique to the travel-guide realm. I don't think I'm just being self-aggrandizing when I say that this map has inherently more value to the traveler than this one, even (or especially) if the latter were to be peppered with numbered icons. LtPowers (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for deploying dynamic maps

The author behind dynamic maps (Joachim) will soon make his source code open source, which was one of the concerns blocking wider deployment. While the discussion above is not settled, we should brainstorm how deployment should be guidelined. Ideas, feel free to edit:

A) In which articles can a dynamic map be inserted? A1) All articles, just centering the map on the place. A2) All articles that have at least one geolocatlized POI. A3) All articles that have at least 5 (or more than 70% of all POIs) geolocalized POIs.

B) Where to put it. B1) Always in the up-right corner, infobox-style, like on the French Wikivoyage (example). B2) Right-aligned at the top of the See section. B3) As an external link, like on the German (example) and Russian (example) Wikivoyages. B4) Right-aligned at the top of the Get in or Get around section section as in Troy (Michigan).

C) What size? C1) Same size as at Tokyo/Roppongi. C2) Smaller. C3) Larger. C4) Ad hoc.

D) What legend (small text below the map)? D1) Similar to Tokyo/Roppongi.

E) How many dynamic maps per article? E1) At most one. E2) A main plus plus one per interesting part of the destination. E3) Same as E2 plus a higher-level map showing the destination in its wider region.

Personnally, I would say A1-B2-C1-D1-E2. What do you think? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Russian Wikivoyage is switching to another format with the collapsible map inserted after the introductory paragraph and right before the Understand section. Here is an example. Click on the map icon or "Открыть карту" text next to it. --Alexander (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think placement should be in the Get in or Get around section as the POI are going to be for listing from See, Do, Buy, Eat and Sleep. Near the start of the article so readers understand the context but not at the top or in specific POI sections where hopefully are some interesting images. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say:

A) All destination articles at the bottom of the hierarchy-- the function of maps in metropolis, region, and country articles is to show how we have broken down the coverage. The dynamic maps do not serve that function at this time.

B) At the top of the Get around section. It needs to be down lower since people will be scrolling between listing sections and the map. Putting it in See would strike me as odd since it has listings for the subsequent sections too, but it is generally essential for getting around in all cases.

C) I would be OK with the size at Tokyo/Roppongi or a little smaller, but do I think the size should be standardized between all articles.

D) I don't know what the other options are, but Tokyo/Roppongi looks fine to me.

E) Just one. More than one takes up too much space and seems redundant.

Texugo (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Texugo for A&B, although we should give ourselves a bit of leeway with B when it doesn't fit quite right with other right-aligned content. I don't think we need to force a one-size-fits-all approach for C: some that have little detail can be quite small, while others will be better suited to a larger frame; ditto width-height ratios. Could you restate question D?

E is kind of the biggest question, and maybe one we'll have to feel out. Having more than one mapframe is kind of redundant, since they are zoomable & scrollable. But there are display advantages to having one loaded with an overview of a city, and one loaded with just a view of the central tourist area. I'm thinking of Vladimir as an example: there's the whole city, but it would be nice in the see section to have a map preloaded of just this area to show the main sights. I believe that, right now, it is not possible to add more than one instance of {{mapframe}} to one article. --Peter ^Talk 23:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• A) All destination articles at the bottom of the hierarchy. Maps of regions etc. could follow later.
• B) At the top of the Get around section. So you can always find the map in mobile version at same place. The sections are there collapsed as standard.
• C) Map window should have a standard size. The window only needs to show a 'hotspot', not the entire article area. The button 'Show me all ...' do that quickly.
• D) D1 is OK for me.
• E) Just one mapframe. In addition, you may always click on the colored markers in the article. Then you will see immediately the correct map section.

Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most said above, but firmly disagree about "one map per article" - the articles also need to be printable, and in many cities there are many "hotspots" which one map cannot cover legibly, and/or there are many POIs outside of the centre and many in the dense centre, so we need at least two maps to cover them in a legible way. I've just used the maps for a road trips of 8 cities and printed each of them in several zoom levels and focii - but this was because I knew how to do that and that I would have to do that. Other users without much in-depth knowledge would simply print out the article and be baffled not to find many POIs with POI icons in the article displayed on the map and get frustrated.

For the same reason, I am not quite sure about standard size. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Printing is another thing. It is possible to print specific sections in different scales. Not limited by the screen. The whole city, the center, the special destination. But the programming takes a little time. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First simple demo. PDF for off-line map or A4 print [2] . -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Would it be possible to have an arrow indicating the North, as it might not be obvious? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a messy jumble of shapes to me. It's not very readable. LtPowers (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We have lost listings numbers in print version

It seems we have lost listings numbers in print version after last MediaWiki upgrade. Could anyone check it please? --Voll (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Voll. Can you give more details? If you explain how to reproduce and check for the problem, we can more easily track it down and fix it. (I am not as familiar with Wikivoyage and with what the print version should look like.) https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/18/how-to-create-a-good-first-bug-report/ has some good tips! Sorry for the trouble. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am soory, I have no ideas where is the issue, because this feature (numbered and autonumbered listings) was developed by User:Torty3 and User:Mey2008, I am a user only. Numbers in articles printable versions have disappeared at 3 sites: wy/en (roughly 1-2 days ago), wy/ru and wy/uk (roughly 4-5 days ago). I know that ru and en users are working on this feature independently so the problem is somewhere outside. You can reproduce the bug for example on Cologne page, there you can see colored square boxes with numbers. When you click in the left menu to Print/export and then Printable_version you will get Cologne article printable version without mentioned square boxes with numbers. Thank you. --Voll (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The colored square boxes on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cologne are shown for me in the print preview of Firefox 23.0.1. Please tell us more information, for example your browser and if other users have the same problem. Also see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug for general information. Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem, but also the same browser: Firefox 23.0.1. --Danapit (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it displayed for you? Is "just" the blue background missing, or also the numbers (as they are in white it might require marking that text)? Is there still the "empty space" for these squares or is it also missing? Does it work with another browser for you? Looking at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cologne (https), the blue squared boxes with numbers are links which have class="external text" and they link to the external website http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org (http), so I also wonder if Firefox' new policy to not display unencrypted (http) content on encrypted (https) pages comes into play, however the CSS is not loaded from an external resource if I get it right, hence unlikely. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the colorful squares AND the numbers are missing (they don't appear even when the text is marked), there is no space left for them. I have no other browser than Firefox. The same problem occurs from https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cologne and http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cologne. --Danapit (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is supposed to be the intended behaviour, and I really don't recall any difference between now or a month back. From w:Help:Printable#Printable_version (do we need a printing help page?), This printable version is often misunderstood, as it is not exactly a print preview. It does not show page numbers, headers and footers applied by your browser. For a proper print preview, use the one supplied by your browser, which means File->Print->Print preview. It works for me with Firefox 23. The PDF version doesn't work well in either en or de, so there needs to be a more customisable book extension, or a rethink. -- torty3 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When I do the print (from print preview to pdf, not using a physical printer), the numbers appear all right. No problem. Danapit (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the whole printable version mess, it threw me for a loop the first time round as well and is certainly not very user friendly. Basically this is the best way to cater for both printable web version and printable export to pdf version. Other ways lead to extraneous external links in the print version, unless any one has any ideas. -- torty3 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for silence, but I was without Internet two weeks. It seems that you have fixed it. Am I right? --Voll (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Great map of Wikipedia articles

Here we should see if we can get WV added to it. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the positions are quite badly out. How can they be fixed?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fix the coordinates on the corresponding Wikipedia article, I presume. LtPowers (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Equivalent for Wikivoyage: http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/artmap.php?lang=en As Peter said, fixing coordinates on English Wikipedia is a priority. Wikivoyage should reuse these coordinates (see for instance the property coordinate location at Los Angeles Wikidata). Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How often are these updated? My changes do not seem to have any effect. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's currently once a month, at the beginning of the moonth, Peter. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 16:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank. That is a rather low frequency. I assume it is a resource hungry process. Where do you get information on this feature? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good question. It's a neat map, but I'm not sure how thorough it is. On the pt: version, I can see that articles I added geo to on August 1 are not there yet. Some I added at the beginning of July are now there, yet there are others which have had properly filled-in geo tags for a couple of years now that are not showing up on there. It would be great if we could get it working completely and frequently updated. Texugo (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The WV article map [3] is updated monthly for all language versions at the beginning of the month. Using the latest available data base dump [4]. This can be up to two weeks old. @Texugo: Please list some specific examples of missing items in the map. The only way I can eliminate this errors. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The one that stood out to me at this time was pt:Osasco, which has had its geo coordinates filled in since sometime in 2011, but does not show up on the map. I may be able to hunt down others... Texugo (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The marker for pt:Osasco is present but in the wrong position [5]. The coordinates in tl:Geo were wrong. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, thanks. I have fixed the coordinates. If I come across anything else, I'll let you know. Texugo (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the map, but how is it intended to be used? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One more way to promote the project. A link to it inviting people to browse via map might be useful. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I really, really really really want to embed ArtMap at Destinations. Can we do this? --Peter ^Talk 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am all for it! With prominent linkage goodness from the front page. That map is fun, and now that our geo coverage is up from around 55% to over 82% of our articles this month, it should be more and more worthwhile. I can't wait to see the 6500 or so new blips show up on the map when it next gets updated on Oct. 1. Texugo (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Destination-specific travel topics

I've noticed there are a lot of articles considered "Travel Topics" that are in fact just an expansion on a given destination article, or are in fact a destination-article in themselves. The (star-topic) Chicago skyline guide is, in a way, just a huge expansion of multiple See listings; while Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay (also a star) can be considered a "specialized" destination article, dealing with a specific destination but only listing one kind of activity to be done there. In my opinion, it'll be much for the benefit of our users if the Chicago article was PartOf Chicago and the diving article a PartOf South Africa. Therefore, I would like to suggest creating a new type of article – "Specialized Destination Articles", which are hierarchically destination articles, but their content only deals with one kind of activity or attraction for a given destination. For convenience, these articles can only relate to destinations smaller than countries (e.g. the two aforementioned articles, but Driving in Australia would still be a travel topic, since it's very general). Additional examples for such specialized articles may include Cycling in Copenhagen, Literary London as well as moving Judaean Desert#Hiking trails (written by me) to a new article. What do you think? Tamuz (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, I'm intrigued to see how this discussion will play itself out, but right off the bat this is something I'd probably not oppose outright. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In general we've always requested that such destination-specific information start out in the parent article (London, Copenhagen, etc) and only be moved to a separate article once it gets too extensive for the main article. Otherwise one of two things tend to happen: we get a lot of incomplete topic articles that then need to be merged back into the main article, or we get detailed topic articles without a good summary of that information in the main article. That said, splitting out detailed information into its own article is a fairly common practice, just err on the side of caution - don't split until warranted, and try to make the topic article as broad as possible (ie Cycling in Denmark would be preferable to Cycling in Copenhagen, if such a broad topic makes sense). -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tamuz, I don't see how this would significantly differ from the status quo except by changing the hierarchy. Could you explain for example, why Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay should be PartOf the Western Cape rather than PartOfTopic Diving in South Africa? Also how you propose the local topics be linked from the destinations they are PartOf, and where applicable other nearby destinations they are not directly PartOf, like all the destinations in the Cape Peninsula and the coast and nearby hinterland of False Bay such as Hout Bay, Camps Bay, Simon's Town, Somerset West, Stellenbosch, Rooi-els etc, but are relevant to travelers visiting that destination? Also, how do you propose the connection between Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay and other diving articles such as Diving in South Africa and Scuba Diving should be handled? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ryan I agree completely. Even if my suggestion does get consensus, that doesn't mean people should start creating Hiking around Moscow, not until Moscow#Do starts overflowing with hiking trails.
@Peter The main differences from the current state are (a) that these articles will not be listed under Travel topics (but naturally there should still be a link from the travel topic Diving in South Africa to the Specialized-Destination article Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay); and (b) users will have an easier time navigating back from that diving article to its parents Western Cape <- South Africa, which I think should be more convenient, since most people probably wouldn't go from, say, America to South Africa just for a few-day diving safari - they'd probably want to visit other attractions while they're there. Also, in general, I think it'd be more intuitive if travel topics deal mainly with general guidelines and suggestions, while destination articles focus on technical details such as locations, prices, etc... . In my opinion, that diving article currently feels de facto much more like a destination article than a travel topic. Tamuz (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dive guides are already considered to be their own distinct article type, with their own template and proposed status criteria. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

But hierarchically they're still a PartOf a travel topic, while in fact they're a destination, which is IMO both confusing and somewhat less convenient for navigation. And, of course, that's just the dive sites at this point, while I'd really like to get Judaean Desert#Hiking trails into its own Hiking in the Judaean Desert article, which I really think should be a PartOf Judaean Desert and not of Hiking and backpacking in Israel. Note that the hiking-in-Israel article is definitely a travel topic since it just lists general guidelines, while Judaean Desert#Hiking trails gives you only destination-specific technical information (path description, arrival info, etc...). Tamuz (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, that's news to me. Maybe we should generalize that to incorporate other types of articles as Tamuz is suggesting. LtPowers (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Come to think of it, Texugo's message does in fact seem to confirm there's a need for a destination-activity-specific article template; and why should diving be any different from hiking, or skiing, or cycling? Tamuz (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be combined with the one here, as one will affect the other. Texugo (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know at what level the articles are to be integrated into the geographical hierarchy, as to the best of my understanding, it does not allow a destination to be PartOf more than one higher level region, and I expect that a large number of these destination/topics will overlap more than one conventional destination. Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay is just the one I am most familiar with, and it is most definitely part of several destinations (maybe 10 or more) at more than one level (at least three) in the geographical hierarchy. I don't object to the concept, but also don't see how it can be integrated with the current hierarchy, breadcrumb system and general policy on articles. I predict unforeseen consequences may complicate this issue, we need a fairly precise and detailed analysis of how it can be done and whether the current software will support the proposed changes. A graph or two may clarify the proposal. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Texugo, I guess the discussion you linked to does propose several options that solve the problem I noted, though in a different way than I proposed. These collapsible lists of Topics-In look like a very good idea. I did see that that discussion has been inactive for the past week. Has it just been abandoned? If so, I'll send a message there and try to revive it.
Additionally, there could be an advantage in viewing these topics-in articles as destination articles, at least in terms of their article-templates. The Dive-Site template looks pretty much like a destination template, and it would be good if articles such as Hiking-in, Cycling-in, etc... would also have a template like this, not as some vague convention but as an actual policy. Tamuz (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Pagebanner}}

Why do OtBP and disambiguation have the same icon in this template? --Xiaomingyan (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just changed back the edit to Template:Pagebanner that made the icons the same. OtBP and FTT articles now share the same icon - is that right? --Nick ^talk 11:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this page uses the question mark. I'm a little bit confused now. --Xiaomingyan (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Articles needing the Geo zoom defined

I added a line to Template:Geo so that, for country/region/huge city articles with no zoom parameter defined, it adds that article to Category:Articles needing the Geo zoom defined, so we can better track and take care of those. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Great work! (I've been fixing a few countries' zoom levels as I slowly check for $ howlers).

Folks doing this work will often need to change the map centre too, since many use the co-ordinates of the capital and the capital city is rarely in the middle of the country. --W. Frank^email_talk 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. Does that mean that in such cases we can not use Wikidata information? Or should we fix Wikidata information? What is the Wikidata policy on this? Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

From purely a Wikivoyage perspective, my very loud advice would be to ALWAYS check the co-ordinates are appropriate for what you are trying to achieve and set the zoom level to something appropriate too. Remember that if you don't set a zoom level, that level will currently default to 13 (that default level of 13 may be changed in future, so always best to set a zoom level in our templates). A zoom level of 13 is always going to be inappropriate in a country level article (except perhaps for Monaco or San Marino) so "machine edits" like this one where {{geo|17.066666666667|-88.7}} was added, rather than a more appropriate {{geo|17.2|-88.7|zoom=8}}, so the map would be centred more equidistantly between the northern and southern borders of Belize and show more than just a small patch of jungle when opened or this one, where the dynamic map of the third largest country in the world opens at a high magnification view of the tiny village of Hézuò "City" are perhaps not to be encouraged. --W. Frank^email_talk 13:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking the ones on my watchlist, I find about half are fine with the default and the others easily fixed.

I also notice that some maps show the old WV logo. Since there is a legal problem with that logo, this should be fixed pronto. Pashley (talk)

Good point. As far as I know, all the maps at [6] still have the old logo. Is it someone at de: that set that all up? Anyone know who to contact? Texugo (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nicolas - Wikidata does not store zoom information, so that part is all up to us. As for the centering, I can't imagine why anyone would object to moving the coordinates nearer to the geographic center of any region or country. I have changed a few of them on there myself already, but do not know if there is an official policy. Texugo (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Take, for example, Orleans County (New York). This is a county on the northern shore of New York State, meaning it is bordered to the north by Lake Ontario, with Ontario, Canada across the lake. Legally, then, the northern border of Orleans County is in the middle of Lake Ontario, and the geographic coordinates on Wikipedia reflect that. But that definition is silly for a travel guide; we need only show the land area of the county in our maps. So the centerpoint should be considerably farther south for our purposes. That's a case where there's a disconnect between the WP and WV purposes and I don't know how to resolve it. LtPowers (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but since we are not directly using the wikidata coordinates in our geo tag (so far at least), there is nothing to stop us from setting our center point wherever we need to.

I just used AWB to add coordinates from Wikidata to every article lacking them and for which the respective data item had them, adding geo templates to several thousand articles and bringing our total geo coverage way up to 82% of all destination articles. Basically this means there are two sets of articles we need to focus on: the ones in this category I created above (about 2450 articles), which have coordinates but may need to be adjusted or zoomed, and that other 18% (about 4600 articles) that have no geo info, which probably includes many regions which do not correspond to a wikipedia article, articles which are connected to the wrong wikidata item, etc. Texugo (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine we can use WikiData by default, and override as needed for special cases like Orleans County (New York). Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't use Wikidata coordinates automatically by default, not yet at least, because if you have {{geo}} invoke coordinates directly from wikidata, the articles don't get included in the article map, which is why I copied all those coordinates into manually configured geo templates instead of proposing a more automatic solution. I already had a template-based automatic solution all worked out on pt:, but it seems that the article map scrapes the coordinates from the unexpanded source code, so if the coordinates are not physically written there, they don't get used on the map. Texugo (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

artmap.php will be modified to extract its data from Wikidata. I think that in the future, {{geo}} should only be used in cases where Wikidata is not appropriate for some reason. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to store zoom level on Wikidata Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

landing page layout seems a bit off

On [wikivoyage.org], the international landing page, something's off with the layout of the circle. At the top "English Wikivoyage" seems to not be centred properly, sticking to "Português" on the left. Also the bottom two are stuck together. Is this my browser or has it something to do with the new logo? JuliasTravels (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine from Chrome here on my screen... Texugo (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would however say that we should change it ASAP to the new logo with text. As discussed above, the new logo looks a little odd without the text and Lenka isn't an official part of our identity any more. --Nick ^talk 21:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The layout looks fine on my Firefox window, but agreed that we should change it to the logo with text and drop the Lenka word on top. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that I started a discussion about this when I changed the logo on meta. I personally prefer the with text too but didn't want to leave it that way without asking since the old one didn't have the text. I'm happy to change it tonight if that seems to be what people want. Jalexander (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be great. --Nick ^talk 06:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better with the text in the logo. The layout for me is still a bit off though. It looks find on other browsers I can check, but on Firefox 23 it's not quite right. Don't know how important that is though, as I don't really know which browsers people use most. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm on Firefox 23 and it looks about as good as can be expected. LtPowers (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm running FF23 on Ubuntu (perhaps that makes the difference?) I get the same image as the screenshot nicolas1981 posted on meta. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved with the new landing page :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Traveler/traveller, traveling/travelling

In the last decade and before Evan sold Wikitravel to Internet Brands, I seem to recall that there was an executive decision made to try and put an end to unproductive language variety to-ing and fro-ing. The decision that I recall was to mandate a default of US English for all destination articles (except those that had a history of using a different variety of English or a clear preference for using a different variety) but to diplomatically mandate the spellings of traveller (rather than traveler) and travelling (rather than traveling) since they were also (rarely used) US spelling variants. I've been searching for a while now to find the original discussion but can't find it. Does anyone know where it is, please? --W. Frank^email_talk 16:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To save fruitless searching, I know the discussion isn't preserved at Wikivoyage talk:Spelling because after Evan wrote "Wikipedia solves this issue by saying that articles dealing with Commonwealth issues will have Commonwealth spelling, and others will be in American spelling. I think that that's kind of forced for Wikitravel -- is Thailand in Australia's sphere of influence, or America's? What about Antarctica or Disabled travellers? I figure just choosing one spelling style is the best. If anyone has a particular spelling style they write in, that's fine. But if we have a rule, we'll know why stuff gets edited. I'm willing to change it to Commonwealth spelling if we have enough support for it." at 15:50, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT) he made the traveller/traveler decision (as is evidenced by his edit here when he created our "The traveller comes first" article and deliberately used the "traveller" variant at 21:01, 10 October 2003). Do you remember where this is recorded, Evan? --W. Frank^email_talk 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Though before my time, the list of common misspellings page was initiated circa August 2003.. It has both variations (ie. traveller or traveler etc.) There are many other word variations as well used throughout Wikivoyage... Churchill I think said something about the only thing separating the US and Great Britain was a common language.. probably should be updated to include all English speaking nations - :) -- When doing minor edits and in doubt, I have been letting variations stand (hope that is correct thing to do?) Matroc (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that this page is the Traveller's Pub, not the Traveler's Pub. Also, while I'm an American, I use double-L almost exclusively in my own writing (on and off WV). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's just because "a pub" is thought of as such a quintessentially British institution - although there are many fine examples in Ireland, New Zealand and (even) Japan, too!

The discussion that I remember was where a lot of time was being spent arguing about the language variety to be used on Wikitravel. Although he was an American like yourself, André, in 2003 Evan had written all of the very early Wikitravel policy articles using the (more rarely used in US English) traveller / travelling spelling variants (also like yourself, André) and he was pulled up on it. I seem to remember that for a very short time he was leaning towards using Commonwealth rather than US English, because by far the greater number of countries used (use?) that variant, but in the end he was persuaded to change the default language for Wikitravel destination articles (where there was not a strong local connection to another language variety) to US English because the USA had (still has?) the greatest number of native English speakers. I seem to remember that (as a consolation prize?) it was agreed that the traveller / travelling spelling variant would be the orthodox spelling in all articles. Here's an example of Evan "correcting" the spelling. --W. Frank^email_talk 12:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall be sticking with "Wikivoyageler" as the established usage. K7L (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC) a proud Wikivoyageler :)

You are a naughty Wikivoyageur! --W. Frank^email_talk 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for feedback: listing page consolidation

It would be much appreciated if people could provide feedback at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Proposed consolidation of the SEVEN current Wikivoyage:Listings pages where a discussion about whether to consolidate our seven current Wikivoyage:Listings pages has stalled. There may be a larger point to be made about whether it is desirable or not to consolidate policy pages, so please add your thoughts. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bump. I feel strongly that simplifying our documentation for something that is such a core piece of our site's functionality would be a huge win for new users, but the discussion needs additional feedback. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaplıca

I feel like the name of the article Kaplıca should be Anglicized, I don't know the pronunciation. Another option would be to rename it to Davlos, which has political implications. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Best edit counter for Wikivoyage?

I have a strong suspicion that the edit counter I'm using is not very accurate since it shows I've only made a couple of thousand edits over the last year, whereas my current Active users list shows I've made more than one thousand in the last 30 days.

Does anyone know a better one, please? --W. Frank^email_talk 22:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you can see edit count in your preferences -- only other way I know of is to use an API. en.wikivoyage.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=USERNAME&usprop=editcount - how accurate that is, is unknown to me... especially if the "initEditCount.php" hasn't updated the sql table lately... (that info is for 1.19 so probably is still valid) The sql table may or may not be accurate... COUNT(*) WHERE rev_user=user_id -- as for extensions or other programs, no idea... Good luck! Matroc (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That API still works and bumps my total up by a thousand or so; thanks! --W. Frank^email_talk 14:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Global Messaging System works now

Wikivoyage Global Messaging System works now

I've just set a Global message delivery up. Now we can drop messages and announcements about running expeditions and important discussions at all lounges. If you want to receive these messages on your user page as well you can subscribe to the list by adding your talk page to the list by following the link below. Thanks. -- DerFussi

Subscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery (wrong page? Correct it here), 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Stefan! --W. Frank^email_talk 14:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Calculating map zoom level from Wikidata

If all goes well, place items will soon include a "diameter" value that describes "rough diameter of the object in meter, used for selecting the scale of the map and for uncertainty of an area".

Converting this diameter to a Google Maps-type zoom level will probably be implementable in Lua using one of the algorithms suggested as solutions to this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6048975/google-maps-v3-how-to-calculate-the-zoom-level-for-a-given-bounds

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO icon in banners

French WV came up with a new UNESCO icon incorporated in page banners. IMO it is a great idea worth considering at English WV, as well. An example is here. --Danapit (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea indeed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I like that too. It's definitely worth considering. Nick1372 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many in-banner icons do we currently have, and what is the maximum number of them that can appear on one article? I like the idea somewhat, but I worry that the bigger the pile of icons in up in the corner, the uglier it will be... Texugo (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly (see Template:Pagebanner), a destination can have now up to two icons: 1) star and 2) one of DotM/OtBP/FTT. Then we have the geo icon above the banner. --Danapit (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a third as well - if you set 'disambig=yes', the banner replaces the usual disambiguation template and features a question mark icon. See it in action here. --Nick ^talk 13:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How is the disambig icon used? Could have all 3 icons for example at Santa_Fe_(New_Mexico) or Washington,_D.C.? Danapit (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's possible that you could have them all in use at once, yes, but such occasions would be very rare. As far as I'm aware, it's just used as a replacement for the old template, though it doesn't seem to have been done en masse by a bot for some reason. --Nick ^talk 14:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Gold Coast

Gold Coast was just linked to by the official Wikipedia Facebook page. Keep an eye on it as traffic may increase for a bit. LtPowers (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

They've tweeted as well and they often tweet about our article. --Saqib (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to put detailed traveller info on visiting attractions? (wiaa)

I'm new to Wikivoyage and I've been busy getting my feet wet with the Calgary article. I hope I can bounce a question off the more experienced folks here.

I don't fully understand the policy on What is an article [7]. It seems that there is no middle ground for giving detailed tips and information on large attractions that you can't actually sleep at. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the style for destination articles (like Calgary's) is to just give one or two paragraphs on attractions. If it's a recognized huge attraction like Disneyland or the Louvre, it can have its own article.

But there are places that people spend a full day enjoying that aren't as well-known. If I want to write more than a quick paragraph or two on Calgary's Glenbow Museum or Heritage Park, I can't figure out where I can stick it. Have I missed something? Thanks! —The preceding comment was added by Country Wife (talk • contribs)

That is a very good question. You're right in thinking that we generally limit information on attractions to one or two paragraphs (usually less, in fact). Most attractions don't really need more than that. Also, once you start getting three or more paragraphs per attraction, then you start getting into the walls of text that just end up scaring people off. If you have more than a paragraph or two of information, I would say to first have a discussion on the talk page about whether it merits its own article (I myself know very little about Canadian attractions, so I couldn't help you). I don't know what you'd do after that, though. I'm sure someone with more experience will come along and help you out. Nick1372 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Country Wife, kudos for all the good work you've been doing on the Calgary article!

You are in fact missing something, in regards to what is an article on this site. An article on the Louvre would never be approved, because it is a sight in the centre of a city. The reasons Disneyland has its own article are: (1) you actually can sleep there; (2) it's a huge and multi-faceted attraction that is a destination in itself (and, for example, can use a map). The Louvre's own website is quite adequate for detailed information about the attraction.

I am not familiar with Calgary, but an article about a museum wouldn't be appropriate - just summarize what there is to see there and provide a link to their website for anyone who wants more information. A city park in exceptional circumstances (e.g., Manhattan's Central Park) can be its own district, but usually, an entry in "Do" is sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikivoyage, Country Wife!

I don't have a whole lot to add to what Nick and Ikan have already said, but let me say that I sympathize with your plight: if Wikivoyage has taught me anything, it's how to fit a lot of descriptive power into a minimum number of words. I tend to be loquacious in my own writing - our article on Buffalo of all places, written almost entirely by me, was until recently the longest article on the site by far! - but that really doesn't jibe with our preferred style here at WV. I guess the best advice I can give to you is, always feel free to ask the assistance of one of our experienced editors, who can help you summarize what you have to say. (I'd offer my own assistance, but I don't know how much help I'd really be - I'm still working on it myself!)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

To address what Nick said upthread: There are some unusually large and important museums that get several paragraphs of coverage. For example, in the aforementioned Central Park article, the "See" listing for the Metropolitan Museum gets its own subsection with 4 paragraphs that represent a brief and quite intentionally incomplete summary of its wings and holdings. If it really is necessary to use more than one paragraph to cover a museum, I think you can use the format of that listing as a model. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I still feel like there should be some way to have more of a middling level of detail on attractions, something in between a couple of paragraphs and an article as big as the one on Disneyland. On the other hand, TripAdvisor at first allowed "Traveller Articles" (wikis) for all individual attractions, but after a couple of years, this was stopped. (The old Traveller Articles on individual attractions are grandfathered - here's an example, for anyone who's curious: [8]) The reason that they were stopped was because there was too much touting going on, and many of these articles sounded like ads rather than traveller-oriented info.

I really appreciate the feedback and will continue to ponder this as I continue to work within the existing guidelines.Country Wife (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Country Wife: don't forget that there is a lot of leeway built into our system already. We have far more in the way of general guidelines than hard-and-fast rules. If I were you, I'd go ahead and write the longer descriptions anyway, and if anyone questions it, just explain the reason why you did it that way. We understand that every place is different and should be treated differently - we're travellers, after all!

To give you an example, the Wikivoyage article on Nevyansk has an attraction, the Leaning Tower, whose description is three paragraphs long. Not only was this not a problem, but Nevyansk is considered one of our best articles - it's a Guide-level article, the second-highest level on our scale, and it was even good enough to be featured as Off the Beaten Path earlier this year. Calgary is obviously a much larger city than Nevyansk, so if you think the Glenbow Museum and Heritage Park are really major attractions, I don't see why it would be a problem to write long descriptions for one article and not the other.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andre, that's helpful to know. Country Wife (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

While Andre is correct that every destination may have different requirements, do remember that Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia: it is meant to be traveller oriented, and that means that nearly all information should be practical, sometimes even technical (prices, opening hours, etc...). When you elaborate on a certain site or attraction, it's advisable to put enough information so that the reader can get the falvour of the place, but not to burden them with over-extensive background info, however interesting that may be. They can go to the relevant Wikipedia article for that.
Happy editing! :-) Tamuz (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamuz. I do feel those Wikipedia urges at times, but so far I've been able to squelch them. As you say, travellers are a different audience.Country Wife (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

English in OSM maps

My article about Mitzpe Ramon has an embedded map as well as a link to an external one, but the street names in these maps are shown in Hebrew. They use the Mapnik (OSM) layer; now, Open Street Map does have both a Hebrew and an English entry for all of these streets, only the default display name is the Hebrew one. I've tried changing the default name over at the OSM website (which is a sort of a wiki), and it did solve the problem, but it turned out that I acted against their policy and my edits are about to be reverted (so right now, the streets in the northern half of the town do appear in English, but that will be changed back to Hebrew pretty soon). Can anyone who's familiar with the implementation of these dynamic maps provide some help about this? I did notice that the dynamic maps' URL does have a lang=en in the address, but that doesn't seem to work as I've expected. If it's of any help, one helpful user at OSM did point out that the address " http://toolserver.org/~osm/locale/en.html?zoom=16&lat=30.61189&lon=34.80542&layers=BT " does show the names in English. Tamuz (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"lang=en" simply means that your POIs are read from English Wikivoyage, it has nothing to do with the map itself. The link to the map should be changed by the map developer. --Alexander (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no function for it now. The link to the map should not be changed because the toolserver is not stable enough and is very slow. WMF are setting up a production server themselves, but no promises on the timeline. Once they get it set up, we will be able to get English names on English Wikivoyage, and Hebrew names on Hebrew Wikivoyage. See the Dynamic maps expedition and Wikivoyage/Wishlist. I suppose it should be made clearer on the "how to" guide? -- torty3 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Shanghai_map. Pashley (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pages linked to a data item for a disambiguation

Hi guys. I added a function to Module:Wikibase and an #ifeq statement to templates IsPartOf, Itinerary, Phrasebookguide, and PartOfTopic which checks whether the corresponding Wikidata item is marked as a WP disambig page. When it is, the article is added to the maintenance category Pages linked to a data item for a disambiguation. Those articles need to have their WD item corrected to correspond to the actual topic rather than the disambig page. (Note that our own disambig pages will not be showing up in the category.) When doing so, please move the links for any other Wikivoyage language versions which may also be present in the disambiguation item. Cheers! Texugo (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What is Module:Wikibase? I can't find any documentation for it. LtPowers (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a package of Lua modules for accessing WD properties which are unaccessible via #property. I have adapted it from it:Modulo:Wikibase, where it also still lacks documentation. Texugo (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of its functions I do not yet understand, but I will try to put some rudimentary documentation there shortly. Texugo (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. I whipped up some quick documentation for Module:Wikibase, to the extent that I understand it. Please have a look. Texugo (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Next question: Why are some properties inaccessible via #property? LtPowers (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best one to answer that question, but I think there are multiple answers depending on the property in question. For example, #property was prepared to call coordinates together and not prepared to call the latitude and longitude separately, which is the only way they are useful without further parsing, the wikipedia and other WV links are not technically properties with unique property names but rather language codes, etc. etc. I don't know why "capital" is included, since that one actually works with #property. Perhaps it would be better to ask Ricordisamoa, who is very active on Wikidata and who is developing Wikibase on it:. Texugo (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Indonesia

I just saw this interview and thought Wikivoyagers might be interested in reaching out to those contributors to help improve coverage of Indonesia on Wikivoyage. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone in touch with User:(WT-en) Burmesedays? He or she was a good contributor on WT, especially for Indonesian destinations, but as far as I know has never joined us here. I'd issue an invitation, but WT has long since disabled the "email user" feature mainly to prevent such communication and I do not have an email address to use. Pashley (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Burmesedays has vanished—hasn't responded to emails. --Peter ^Talk 21:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm here again at the moment adding content... Pratyeka (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My Voyage

Hi!

This has come up previously (see above), but for whatever reason the topic of conversation moved somewhat My Wikivoyage is the idea for a sort of 'Readers' Portal' (sort of analgous to the Community Portal) that gives the people who use our site a far more personal experience. 'What users?', I hear you cry; whilst this does not have any immediate SEO benefit, it does differentiate us further from another travel-based wiki.

The page I've linked to is only a quick mock-up of what such a page could look like. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is the finished article and would welcome your ideas and comments. My one caveat would be that this probably shouldn't be as complicated a page as our Main Page: MediaWiki doesn't really like images, hence the minimalist look I've gone for (would it be preferable to have all the squares in the same colour?).

Furthermore, the sections alluded to on that page are mostly fictitious, although based in the realms of the possible. Here's a quick description of the ones that don't currently exist:

• This month's travel article - A space for a travel themed essay by a WV contributor. Still fairly controversial, but suggested previously.

• Create an itinerary - An opportunity for readers to pull several articles (and listings within?) together to create an itinerary for their next trip. Suggested previously.

• Where in the world? - Terrible name, but probably where users could go to make a map of their travels thus far. A long-term roadmap resident - is this possible?

• Trip reports - Link to a directory of trip reports and opportunity to write their own. A button on that page would open a skeleton template to create a report within the user's space and would categorise it so that it would automatically be included in the directory.

• Reviews - Link to 'How to write a review' and search box for specific locations. Could reviews be a separate tab above a page (between 'Page' and 'Talk'?) where listings are automatically copied (but aren't editable). Users could then write reviews and give a standardised star rating.

• Notes from the field - Perhaps a description of the latest goings on within WV's editing side. This would be a means of turning readers into editors.

Sorry this is so long and rambles a bit; let me know what you think! --Nick ^talk 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I love the general idea of something like this. Something interactive is just what we need to differentiate ourselves with professional travel guides and that other site. Your mock-up leaves a lot to be desired, but I know you just whipped it up and weren't going for perfection. My concern about the layout would be mobile support—if we have something like this we'll get a lot of visitors directly from locations on their mobile devices. If this project ends up going forward, please put emphasis on that.

As for the individual features, each have their strengths and weaknesses so I'll discuss them individually:

• "This month's travel article" – I'm not sold on this, but don't really have string feelings about it—it's not the best or the worst.
• "Create an itenerary" – I like this idea. It's simple, but it helps the traveller.
• "Where in the world?" – It needs a better name, but I definitely like this! It gets the traveller engaged and interested. I wonder, though… Could we put this into Wikivoyage through an open-source dynamic map? Is it possible to adapt one to fit these purposes?
• "Trip reports" – I like this. This would not only provide stuff for readers to read but also help us, the editors, to improve articles. We could have a group of editors who patrol these to find any useful information and transfer it to articles. That could greatly help us improve articles that have very little content.
• "Reviews" – Not sure I like this. What exactly would be the point? It wouldn't help us improve Wikivoyage.
• "Notes from the field" – Yes, yes, yes, yes! This would be extremely helpful in getting those readers who ignorantly think that editing Wikivoyage is a tedious and thankless job. This would be a great way of showing that it's actually fun! :)

This is a great idea and I hope it makes it off the ground. Thanks! Nick1372 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments! What do you think would be a better way of displaying the page? I'll have a play, but I'd welcome your ideas! I confess, 'Where in the world?' was a name before it was anything else - I'll get changing the name! Reviews have been on the Wikivoyage:Roadmap for sometime, though I do realise that lots of people's feelings towards them are mixed. I think the hope with those was that a higher level of interactivity (i.e. writing reviews) would draw more people in.

I'll keep working at it, but any more comments would be welcome! :) --Nick ^talk 10:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've completely rebuilt it from the ground up, with mobile compatibility in mind. It's now effectively lots of pagebanners at 9:1 scale, that would act as links to the pages in question. It's still a little rough around the edges, but hopefully this is aesthetically preferable! There are still couple of issues, but in appearance at least, I'd hope that we'd be able to use something like this. See the revitalised, revamped and renovated page here. --Nick ^talk 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The appearance is much improved and no longer reminds of the crappy Windows 8 start page. Regarding the individual features, my thoughts pretty much echo those of Nick1372 in every case. Additionally, as I mentioned before elsewhere, I do not like the name "MyWikivoyage", as it conjures up MySpace and all the cheese that came with it. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you prefer how it looks! The name can be changed very easily, so if you have any ideas for better ones, do let me know! Not all the features currently listed would probably survive until implementation (if it is implemented at all), but I think it's best to list as many things as we have ideas for the moment and see what everyone thinks. --Nick ^talk 15:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The new layout is definitely an improvement. Great job! Nick1372 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! If you've any ideas for improving either the aesthetic or the content, I'd be glad to hear them! :) --Nick ^talk 01:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What does everyone else think about its features? Are there any ones that have been missed or should be removed? I've not had that many opinions about the actual concept itself. --Nick ^talk 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the notion of 'trip reports' at all and am inclined to be quite leery of 'create an itinerary'. We want most information to go into destination articles, not into such reports, and we don't need a bunch more itineraries that may be incomplete or may not meet our criteria for keeping them once the original writer loses interest. We may already have too many itineraries in some areas; see Talk:Banana Pancake Trail#Consolidation? for one discussion.

Of course it is possible to create reasonable itineraries after a trip. I started Yunnan tourist trail and Overland Kunming to Hong Kong after one of mine. With a bunch of contributions from others, I think those are now both worthwhile articles. It seems clear to me that having 'trip reports' is not going to lead in that direction. It seems possible that 'create an itinerary' could, but how do we ensure that? An experienced user could probably just go ahead & create an itinerary with existing tools and get it more-or-less right; see World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka for a recent example. However, if we are going to encourage new users to create itineraries, then I think we will need to give them quite a bit of guidance.

I am less certain about reviews. They seem to carry a large risk of biased edits, exploitation by marketers, etc. Of course those risks are already present and we have procedures in place for dealing with them. But will allowing reviews overstress those? Pashley (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! The trip reports would not be instead of articles, but in addition - people like talking about their holidays! Te reports would provide us with a mine of photos and information and users would of course be encouraged to edit the corresponding articles at every step of the way.

'Create an itinerary' would simply be a way for users to string articles together for their ease of use - the tool would not be for creating Wikivoyage itinerary articles; I've perhaps not made that plain enough.

Reviews are quite a controversial topic (not unlike videos), but we could perhaps delay that feature. I've effectively tried to incorporate as much as I can from the roadmap into My Voyage and seen what I could get away with! --Nick ^talk 23:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Names

And now, a few ideas for names if you're not a fan of 'My Wikivoyage':

• Voyagers' Club
• Departure Gate
• Check-in desk
• VoyageWiki

Any thoughts or different ideas would be gratefully received! :) --Nick ^talk 23:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about these alternate names except "VoyageWiki". The use of the word "wiki" isn't helpful at all; it might make visitors think they're in something that requires them to learn wikicode & edit.

I actually like "My Wikivoyage" the best. I don't see an issue with confusing it with MySpace. Keeping the two words apart should be enough of a distinction, no? If that's a bigger problem then I think, though, how about just changing it to be "Your Wikivoyage"? That has pretty much the same effect. Nick1372 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree about My Wikivoyage - it's simple, personal and, if we keep the words separate, shouldn't conjure up too many memories of MySpace cheese. The names I've suggested above are pretty second-rate if I'm brutally honest... --Nick ^talk 01:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Mon voyage" (my voyage) as a variation on "bon voyage"? No need to include the word "wiki". K7L (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone relates "My" to "Myspace" any longer. Its a common descriptor to a personal view across an account - "My Ebay", etc. However, I agree we should consider dropping the wiki. My Voyage. The only problem is, we're not going to own the domain. --Inas (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"My Voyage" sounds good to me too, though as you say, we'd have to check trademarks and the like beforehand. Do either of you have any thoughts about the content and appearance of the page itself? At present, for example, we don't really have a way of creating user maps, unless I've missed something. On that point, is there anything that you'd like to see included that I've left out? As it's My (Wiki)Voyage I'd like to somehow integrate the user page into all of this, though I'm not quite sure how that would work. --Nick ^talk 07:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A trifling matter, I know, but should it be called My Voyage or MyVoyage? --Nick ^talk 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

CamelCase is kinda passé, IMO. LtPowers (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. It also means I don't have to move the page again, which can only be a good thing! What do you think the way the page looks now? --Nick ^talk 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Next steps

Hi! Now that a major issue with the structure of the page has been fixed (Thanks Shaun and Ryan!), I was thinking that we could perhaps look into taking the next steps with the freshly re-christened My Voyage. Not all of the features listed are currently ready or approved, so we could do with thinking about that. I've created a few of the sub-pages, but there's still much to do. If you have any other thoughts or ideas about the page or concept as a whole, I'd be very glad to hear them! Wikivoyage has had a difficult week, so it would be good to keep our momentum on things like this going. --Nick ^talk 21:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Hi!

I've got some of the proposed features working on the My Voyage page, but some of them are still proving rather difficult to engineer. Whilst we've decided that reviews should probably be put on hold for the moment (see below), it would still be nice to get most of the rest functioning. At present, I'm struggling to think of a way to set up easily creatable itineraries (that might work like the watchlist?) and interactive maps that record a user's travels. If you've any ideas, I'd be really interested to hear them! I was also wondering whether the 'Video' section could be a link to a WV YouTube channel. I realise that videos on the site itself are still highly controversial, but, when mooted at the same time, a YT channel received a slightly less damning reception.

Let me know what you think! :) --Nick ^talk 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I don't see any possibility where a user can create maps on-wiki unless they request for one and the requested map will be created manually. --Saqib (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Saqib - I was hoping there'd be a way of doing it through JavaScript or something, but we shall see. Any ideas about the rest of it? --Nick ^talk 18:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we will require to install a extension which will allow a user to create and publish customised maps but I'm not sure which one. --Saqib (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A YouTube channel seems like a good idea. We should expand to as many platforms as possible to reach a younger audience. However, I'm a little confused as to what the actual content of the videos would be… Nick1372 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest either - it just seemed like something we should have! Perhaps travelogues and things? It would give us something to tweet about at least! Are there any features that you feel uncomfortable with? --Nick ^talk 22:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question… Are we still talking about YouTube? Nick1372 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! :) The first part of my response is referring to YT . I got a bit confused yesterday and the second part is sort of referring you to Pashley's comments above. Do you have any thoughts about the other proposed features? --Nick ^talk 02:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. About the specific features themselves, my thoughts are pretty much the same as what I said way back when this discussion started; maybe except for the fact that I like the idea of reviews even less. However, I did look at your mockup. It's coming along nicely, but the Trip Reports part doesn't make it clear enough that the user would not be creating an article. Your participants need to know that their work won't be examined with a microscope against the MOS & that they won't need to learn the complexities of MediaWiki. You'll have a lot more participants if you tell them that they'll have the freedom to write without limits.

Of course, you must also remind them that they don't have complete freedom. You should start making up a concrete policy of what to do with offensive submissions and whatnot.

Just a general note: You should decide now whether the page is going to be in British English or American English.

Other than that, the page looks great. Mobile compatibility is fine, and the starting page images are attention-grabbing. I hope you won't mind if my OCD and I do a little copy editing, though… Nick1372 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts! As stated somewhere on this page (below, I think?) we'll probably exclude reviews, at least for the moment. Please feel free to do whatever you'd like with the pages - it's nice to have someone else working on it as well! :) --Nick ^talk 03:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Red images

A number of article still have broken images (name of the image appears in red). Is there a list of those?

Many months have passed since the migration and many images have been correctly relinked manually. The remaining is probably mostly in low-traffic articles. Maybe it is time to remove them all by bot or manually? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas, do you mean these? They should be 1150 by now. Looking at other Nick's nice plot, heir number is slowly yet steadily dropping. Danapit (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you meant to give this link: Category:Pages with broken file links. Texugo (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, exactly. Thanks. Danapit (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have slowly being going through the list of red links. Sometimes finding alternatives on Commons other times simply deleting the reference. A very slow task would be good if others could help. If each of other did one a day the list would be go down at a good pace. Would help wit

Echo is live!

Not sure if a notice will be posted, but Echo is live! mw:Echo should have more info. --Rschen7754 23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oooh more buttons to play with! Thanks for the update! Oooh more buttons to play with! Thanks for the update! --Nick ^talk 01:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this something that was only introduced on the English version? Texugo (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It has to be implemented in each language version. In fact, they've been so busy with the many non-English Wikipedias, we're the first non-Wikipedia content wiki to get it! As far as I know, there aren't any other Wikivoyages slated to get Echo anytime soon (see mw:Echo/Release Plan 2013 for more details). mw:Echo has details on how you can get your language on the waiting list. Nick1372 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be ramping up deployment soon. --Rschen7754 07:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Texugo: It seems that Echo will now be released on all other Wikivoyages (and Wikidata) on October 22nd. --Rschen7754 06:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the head-up! Texugo (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiding the page titles in the main namespace

Can someone please point me to what our final solution was for hiding the native page titles on articles in the mainspace? I need it for pt: Thanks. Texugo (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you can find it in the {{Pagebanner}} code. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Or are you referring to this discussion? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Our banner template is equivalent to the one here, so I don't think it's there. And from the second discussion you mentioned, I had already tried what I thought was the latest fix, adding:

if ($('div.topbanner').length > 0) $('#firstHeading span').hide();

to the .js file. But that doesn't seem to have worked so far, even with purging the cache, unless it for some reason takes a really really long time to start working... Texugo (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any record in the banner expedition discussion of what was actually done, so I guess the best bet will be to ask the people closest involved, which seems to be Andyrom75, Shaundd, torty3 and Ryan. So lets see if the new notification system pings them. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You want the following from MediaWiki:Common.js:

        /* Hide normal page title and move location of geo map symbol when a page has a pagebanner */
        $(".topbanner").closest(".mw-body").children(".firstHeading").hide();
        $(".topbanner").closest("#mw-content-text").children("#geoCoord").css({top:0});

The changes that were made to the DISPLAYTITLE magic word required that we use a Javascript hack to hide the title. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the current version of pt:MediaWiki:Common.js has an unclosed comment ("/* Esconder títulos no espaço principal quando banner está presente") so any Javascript following that comment won't be executed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, Ryan! --W. Frank^email_talk 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Got it working. Thanks so much guys. Texugo (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, almost working. It didn't get rid of the line above the breadcrumb, and the geo icon is too high, encroaching on the search box. Any ideas? Texugo (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Try changing:

             if ($('div.topbanner').length > 0) $('#firstHeading span').hide();

...to:

             if ($("div.topbanner").length > 0) {
               $("#firstHeading").hide();
               $("#mw-content-text").children("#geoCoord").css({top:0});
             }

Alternately, if you want to keep en: and pt: in sync then just copy the last three lines of MediaWiki:Common.js. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the page looks better without the redundant title, but suspect that removing the <title> tag may be a bad idea in terms of visibility to search engines. I have asked about this at Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Questions Pashley (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ryan. I'm getting a little confused. Do I need both the .js code and the .css? I had both when it was doing as described above with the line and geo icon off. I removed the .js code and the title came back. Texugo (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, hiding the title is done entirely with JS now as there wasn't any way to conditionally hide it for pages with page banners using only CSS. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem now resolved. Thanks for you help. Texugo (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Locally uploading photographs of copyrighted buildings

I would like to upload my own photographs of copyrighted buildings (in Qatar) as a means of working around 'freedom of panorama' restrictions. I couldn't find any pages explaining how to upload directly to Wikivoyage, and so I uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, which apparently is not the correct way to go about this.

Is there someone here who can explain how to upload directly to Wikivoyage, or possibly even how to move the existing images from Wikimedia Commons to Wikivoyage?

Many thanks, StellarD (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

StellarD, you can upload the file here: Special:Upload and this might be the category to put them to: Category:Photos of copyrighted works. Danapit (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Danapit, this is exactly what I was looking for. StellarD (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no, please don't add Category:Photos of copyrighted works directly! All photos of non-free works uploaded locally should include Template:Non-free image, and that takes care of the categorization! If there are any files so categorized without transcluding the template, that needs to be fixed! LtPowers (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope I haven't created a mess here. I uploaded the files before LtPowers commented, but didn't add them to Category:Photos of copyrighted works because I didn't see where to do that, which it seems is just as well. They now appear in Category:GFDL_files – is this where they should be? And if not, how do I move them? Thanks, StellarD (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You add a category with the following syntax: [[Category:Some category name]]. But, as noted, please don't do that in this case. The category addition should be handled by the addition of Template:Non-free image. The syntax for that is more complex, but you can see an example of it on the Template page under "Template use". LtPowers (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to update documentation (probably on the upload page) so that it is clear how and when to add categories and when not? --Danapit (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We never add categories manually. On files or on article pages. Until recently we didn't even use categories at all. Categories should be completely invisible to the average casual user, so we don't even mention them on the upload form; it would only confuse people. The Upload form does link to the non-free content policy, which clearly specifies that Template:Non-free image be added to the image description page. LtPowers (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Recently I have uploaded some candidates for featured articles banners and I added the category Category:DotM banners manually. Was that wrong, as well? How else does such photo get to a desired category? Danapit (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of wikis. I was unaware of that category, and obviously whoever first used it was unaware that we should only assign categories via templates. The solution here is to create a template that would go on the file description page of such files, rather than manually categorizing each of them. Either that, or delete the category, as I don't quite see its utility, especially since DotM banners should be deleted once they're no longer in use. LtPowers (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, scratch that last part, as I forgot we keep the banners in the DotM archives. =) I'm still not sure we need the category, though. LtPowers (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Master list of articles w/o photos

I don't believe there is such a master list. Is there an easy way to generate one? I think there are a number of folks here (including me) who would like to do more work inserting good thumbnails into articles lacking them, and a master list would be a convenient way to know which articles to look at. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You could use Free Image Search Tool enter a category (would recommend a small region to start with as the tool hangs if too many articles). Without any of the source fields ticked you just get a list of pages without images. If you tick Wikimedia Commons it will also display suggestions. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and the link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you might be interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on wmf:Wikimedia trademarks.

Old WV logo on map page

Not sure who can take care of this, but when you click from the map icon on any destination page to bring up the full page dynamic map, they have changed the WV logo in the bottom right corner to the new logo, but the logo which appears in the browser tab is still the old one. It doesn't seem to be just my cache, as far as I can tell. Texugo (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Should be a simple fix by the maintainer. LtPowers (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the favicon. Maybe it is necessary to clear the cache or the reload the page. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We need more readers!

One way or another, I shan't be editing on this project for a while (Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations#User:W._Frank]) so before I go, I'd like to draw your attention to Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Action points to boost our readership. All the Best! --W. Frank^email_talk 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Frank. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think it is important to remove the hard-coded active hyperlinks to (the very censorious and dysfunctional) Wikitravel site on the majority of this site's pages if we ever want to get any visitors from search engines like Google. Most searchers don't go past the first two or three results you know.

Ikan Kekek suggested to me: "Unfortunately, unless Wikimedia Legal changes their minds about what kind of notification needs to be on the affected pages, there may not be much we can do about it." and I then asked him: "Where may I read this (mythical?) legal opinion, please? On the face of it, this (mythical?) legal opinion seems to fly in the face of the requirements of the cc-by-sa-3.0 license used by Wikitravel, Wikivoyage and Wikipedia unless this was a (secret) clause in the out of court settlement with Internet Brands. Do they realise that this (mythical?) strange decision dooms the English language Wikitravel to be inferior to Wikitravel in most search engine results forever (or at least until search engines value "mirror" sites as highly as "original" sites - which probably amounts to forever!). " to which he replied "I seriously don't think this is mythical. I understand that it was a part of the out-of-court settlement. I don't have the info at my fingertips right now and probably won't have time soon to research where you can read this verbatim. My suggestion is, if you can't find it in the Travellers' Pub, please post there and ask.".

Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere but this page is quite big and has already taken a while to skim. --118.93.47.31 23:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for consultation on community logo

Request for consultation on this community logo

First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.

The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the "community logo" (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. Your input would be invaluable in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.

Thank you! --Mdennis (talk) (via the Global message delivery system). 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

Source for Central Tokyo map?

This map has an enormous typo (MEGURU -> MEGURO).

How can I fix it? Is there anything better than editing the PNG directly?

I see the "Discussion on defining district borders for Tokyo is in progress" warning, but said discussion is stalled since 2009 so better not wait.

Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Stefan used an SVG to create this map, but you'll have to ask him for the source. Try dropping him an email. LtPowers (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No reply from Stefan. I GIMPed the PNG manually for now, but for the upcoming re-sectoring of Tokyo we might need to re-create it (them?) from scratch. I hope we don't have too many maps/graphics without sources. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tokyo Olympics

What do we usually do for the Olympics?

I could not find anything special about the 2012 London Olympics.

The main site for the Tokyo Olympics is an area of reclaimed islands, which is different from Tokyo/Odaiba, and for which Tokyo/Minato is probably too broad. By the way, the central Tokyo map shows it in an area called blueish-gray area which does not have a matching article. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. The Brazil article doesn't even refer to the forthcoming Olympics, and the Rio de Janeiro article has only some high level references to them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, all we've done is put an Olympics template on any bottom-level articles that have an Olympic venue. Template:Sochi2014 is the current one, but you can see how others like Template:London2012 were used in the article histories (example). LtPowers (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We do have a general article for the Olympic Games which could be expanded, and there is also precedent for individual articles for events of a similar scale (see World Cup 2006, World Cup 2010, World Cup 2014, Expo 2005, Expo 2010). I think similar articles for Olympic Games 2014 etc. would be welcome. Texugo (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an article London 2012, so I think that something like Tokyo 2020 ( or Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games 2020 but that is a bit of a mouthful) would be fine. I am also wondering if we should create Glasgow 2014 for the Commonwealth Games. AlasdairW (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct Texugo's suggestion, a page would be called Olympic Games 2016, not 2014. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Although there will be a Winter Olympics in 2014. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I created the article Tokyo 2020. A map should be added using info form http://tokyo2020.jp/jp/plan/venue/ Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I created Pyeongchang 2018 for the winter Olympics, since I was updated that region in South Korea anyhow. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We have Olympic Games. Should the others be at Olympic Games/Tokyo2020 or some such? Pashley (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I wondered that as well, although the article Olympic Games itself is not very clear in purpose right now, and simply links to Olympic cities.--Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bogus reviews

Bought & paid for, but sometimes busted NY Times story.

I wonder to what extent we need to worry about such things or an w:Internet Water Army paid to flood forums. Are our current defenses adequate? My guess would be 'yes', but it seems worth asking. Pashley (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw a similar story in (I think?) USA Today. Frankly, I don't think Wikivoyage is a big enough deal to attract large-scale organized spamming operations like that. As for the small-fish spammers that we do encounter from time to time, the size and activity level of our admin team is more than sufficient to easily deal with them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do have them on the English Wikipedia :/ --Rschen7754 04:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Barquinho.jpg in Praia a Mare article

Hello all,

Wikimedia Commons is my "home wiki", and through my work on there, I have identified File:Barquinho.jpg as being a photograph of the Serpentine Lake in Hyde Park, London.

However, I noticed it is in use in the Praia a Mare article on this wiki, with the caption "Dino Island".

I can see this has happened because the Wikimedia Commons file has the same name as the original Barquinho.jpg file on the original WikiTravel article.

As I can't immediately see that the file on WikiTravel has been released under a free license, I don't think it's a suitable candidate to be uploaded to Commons.

Although, I am unsure of the policy as regards to uploading WikiTravel images directly to WikiVoyage - i.e. is there a more relaxed policy here?

So I'd be grateful if anyone here with greater Wikivoyage & Wikitravel knowledge that me could transfer the file over if possible and correct this conflict. Or failing that, I guess we can just delete the reference to the Commons file from the Wikivoyage Praia a Mare article, as it currently stands it's an incorrect image for that page.

Thanks very much for any possible help, Rept0n1x (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the article, since it is incorrect anyway. Incidentally, the other image in that article was also incorrect. Texugo (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the incorrect images and for the quick reply. Now that the article is no longer showing the incorrect images - it'll be fine to leave it as is for the time being. But if anyone here in the Wikivoyage community feels it's possible and desirable to transfer the images from the original Wikitravel article, then please feel free to do that. Rept0n1x (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a list of all images that had name collisions? Most of them must probably be replaced or at least re-captioned. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that there is any way of automatically detecting where the old site had an image name that refers to something different on Commons. Yesterday I was looking at Tarrytown because it was listed as having a red image link (see above) and found that the other image was wrong. In this case the error was less serous. I think that we need to be aware that any image reference from over a year ago that doesn't have a corresponding image may be wrong. It probably doesn't matter if "Someville Main Street" gives a slightly different view, but if the reference is just to an image called "Main Street" then it could be the wrong city. I have seen a similar problem on WP where an image with a common name has been deleted (license queries) and a new image uploaded a month later that happened to have the same name. AlasdairW (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It reminds me of a recent case when I was fixing a red link in Topoľčany, Slovakia (well, removing in fact, as I didn't find any suitable image), something seemed to be wrong with the town hall picture above. Then I realized that there was a US flag hanging and the picture with a generic name (something along "townhall.jpg" lines) was taken in St. Louis, Missouri. Danapit (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How about a script that would for each image used on WV, check whether the image exists on WT, and binary compare the image of WT vs the image of WV? A list of such images would be useful, I guess half of them need to be fixed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas, that sounds useful. Danapit (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well... anyone willing to write said script? :-) I would like to write it but really busy with other open source projects right now... Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How are my edits?

I've new here, and I've made a few edits, mostly to Northern Virgina related stuff. How am I doing so far, any tips? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing! You really don't need to ask for validation of your edits since the WikiVoyage process (usually) deals with that. If you really want a comment (on a 'take it or leave it' basis) then I'd suggest adding some more content about places to visit in these locations rather than just the background history of a location. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Emmette! I actually saw your edits passing (I sometimes monitor Special:RecentChanges), and they are good! I personally think that background info and places to visit are both important.

Here is something you could do to help a lot: In Manassas#Sleep, click on the small grey "edit" at the right of Best Western's phone number. That opens a small "POI editor". Click on "locate on geomap". This opens a map showing a green cross where the hotel probably is. If the green cross is correct, click on it and it will show longitude/latitude. Copy them back to the POI editor. Sometimes the green cross is not at the right location, so it might be worth checking, using the map on the hotel's website for instance. By doing so, the POIs (Points Of Interest) will be shown on the Manassas map (accessible via the icon at the top-right of the article). Don't hesitate to do the same for all sections, in all articles you want. Once you get experience, you can even do it for cities you don't know (remember to check though).

Cheers, and keep up the great work! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Somehow I thought you meant the Marriott Battlefield hotel, so that's the one I checked. There's a hotel at the cross's location, but it's almost certainly not the Battlefield hotel. The one at that the cross's location location is the Olde Towne Inn. I'm not personally familiar with the Battlefield hotel, but Google Earth shows it as being on the edge of Greater Manassas, just outside of the Battlefield Park. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! Feel free to add the hotels you know are there, and look for the latitude/longitude of other points of interest, for instance the Bull Run Battlefield. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Old site

wikivoyage-old appears to be off-line, any explanation? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is up to now online. But http instead of https. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah that was the problem I was jsut adding -old to the page name, now need to remove the s. Thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

string editing in template

I would like to enhance the listing so you can click on a phone number and this will take your mobile device to the call function, or on your pc use what ever VoIP software you have. This would be useful, particularly for reserving a table at a restaurant or checking opening times. I can get the link to work and take you to the dial function of the device but having problems with the formatting of numbers in articles. I need to strip out the spaces and dashes from phone numbers in the listings for the link to work correctly. Is there a method to replace or strip out characters in a parameter in a template? Alternative would have to have two inputs of the number one without spaces and dashes and one human readable for the article. Not so keen on this as a challenge to maintain.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't most mobile devices ignore punctuation? At any rate, I can tell you that Mediawiki's template code doesn't do string parsing well at all. Certainly not something I'd like to do on scores of instances per page; it would have a significant affect on performance. Lua can do string parsing. LtPowers (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct mobile devices will ignore punctuation but unfortunately html and mediawiki will not ignore (blank) whitespaces. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

problem solved, was pointed in the right direction. Proposal now to update listings template so there will be a link for smart phones to call a number when it has a good format. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Telephone number --Traveler100 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Help boost our Facebook page likes

Hi all. I'm on a long Wikibreak here and will be back soon, but have been keeping track of our Facebook page now and again (thanks to the other dedicated users who've been doing a much better job!) I've found a way to merge the auto-generated FB page of 800+ likes which we have no control over with our own ~200 like, regularly updated page. However, the processing will be very slow as my request has been put in a queue, and can only be sped up with user votes. So if you've got Facebook, please take a couple of seconds to do the following:

1. Go to: [9]
2. Click the "Edit" button in top-right
3. Click "Vote on community pages", and then "Yes". Save

And that's it. The more people who vote, the further up the queue we go. It should add over 800 likes to our page, according to Facebook, so will be a dramatic boost to our social media presence. Thanks all. James A ▪ talk 13:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

At step 3 I only see "Category" and "Official page", no "Vote on community pages". Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, actually the merging process is already completed that's why you won't see that "Vote on community pages" option at step 3 anymore. --Saqib (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a merge; we're still at 216 likes on the active Page. LtPowers (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like they denied it for some silly, unknown reason. I'm not able to rerequest it either. The WMF folk will need to get onto it. I worry, because the WT FB page is doing very well. James A ▪ talk 02:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Urgent: US government shutdown could affect our readers

Hi. If you're a citizen of the United States, you've probably heard of the situation in Congress. It's really complicated, but the part that applies to us is that if a deal is not reached by 12:01 am EST (about 3 hours from now, so it's probably going to happen), funding will be cut off to most government services not deemed "essential". Some of these affect travel. It is imperative that we inform the traveller of the implications that may affect their journey into/around the United States. The main points we need to tell our readers are: (source)

• National parks are closed. All parks maintained by the National Park Service are included in this. No one will be allowed into these parks. All entrances will be closed. Campers who are currently in a national park have two days to get out.
• U.S. citizens can still apply for passports. However, if the shutdown goes on for an extended period of time (unlikely, but possible), the Department of State will exhaust its reserve funds and passports will no longer be available.
• Museums that are funded only by government support will close. This is mainly free museums located in the District of Colombia, including the Smithsonian, the National Zoo, and the Holocaust Museum. The National Archives and most of the post-Herbert Hoover presidential libraries will close.
• Flights should continue as usual, with possible minor delays, but that's on an airport-to-airport basis.

I'm certain we need to warn travellers about this, but I'm not exactly sure how. I'd assume we'd use {{Disclaimerbox}}? What would be the extent of its usage, then? Would it be just on United States, Washington, D.C. and the articles for each national park? Could we have a bot assign it to every US article? Now I'm just shooting off ideas. What do you guys think? I need your opinions.

Thanks! Nick1372 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the shutdown only lasts 1 day, then we would have to undo everything... --Rschen7754 01:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is tricky. Since we don't know how long the shutdown will last, it's hard to say what the best option is. Putting disclaimer boxes on every U.S. article is quite excessive, putting a disclaimerbox on every affected article (ie.where there is a park/museum that will be affected) isn't feasible (especially if the shutdown lasts only a day or two). I think it is worth putting a disclaimerbox on just the United States page. A mention could be made in the site banner, but that should only be reserved for wiki-related info. I don't think it's worth mentioning the passport or flight issues. AHeneen (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a disclaimerbox to the United States page that is short and to-the-point. I don't think it's worth mentioning that people camping in NPS sites will have 2 days to leave (those people should be aware or have been notified...not important for WV) and that passport applications/processing will be affected (most Americans are aware of the shutdown and people affected will likely learn of the situation from other places, not WV). I cannot determine if any parks will remain open through other funding....according to this article the south rim of the Grand Canyon remained open during the last shutdown (1996) because the state of Arizona picked up the tab for operations. It might be worth putting a similar disclaimerbox on the Washington, D.C. page since the city has so many sites affected and since the city has the unique status of being funded by Congress, some city services will be affected as well. AHeneen (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, at least some like Yosemite National Park deserve a box, along with DC. Yellowstone too probably. There the destinations where it would really have a very serious impact on your plans, rather than just a change of itinerary. --Inas (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest we err on the conservative side. Anyone already in the US likely has heard what's going on, and anyone using our guides for travel planning probably won't be visiting a park for at least a week. If it appears that the shutdown will last more than a couple of days then widespread warnings would be called for, but it might be a bit reactionary to put them on articles beyond the USA article only to have to pull them down tomorrow afternoon. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think DC should have a mention; not only does it have all the memorials/museums, but a lot of that city is run by the federal government. --Rschen7754 06:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the mayor of D.C. declared all city workers "essential" employees of the federal government so that city services could continue to operate, so the only impact in D.C. (so far) is the shut down of the museums/memorials. Anyway, as for the question at hand, I think this story is big enough news that no one is going to be reliant on Wikivoyage to find this out. If it drags on, though, then we should revisit this topic. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you are taking this too seriously? In the past week alone there have been events in countries all around the world far more serious than this (particular in relation to travel). This is relevant, but hardly apocalyptic and definitely not urgent. —The preceding comment was added by 116.247.111.2 (talk • contribs)

Guys, please don't misuse Template:Disclaimerbox. It's only for site disclaimers, not for general notices. LtPowers (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To User:116.247.111.2: Whichever events are more serious in relation to travel should be dealt with in the relevant articles. Which events did you have in mind? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the event has passed, I think the implications of the awful Westgate mall attack should be covered. Nigher Kenya nor Nairobi have had any updates with relation to traveler safety or impact to travel.

I agree: It should be mentioned in the Nairobi article and perhaps also in the Kenya article. Please plunge ahead and add a mention of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this should use Template:Infobox since it is not a disclaimer. If it is not sorted out, then at some point it might change to Warningbox but I do not think we are anywhere near that point yet. Pashley (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox is for sidebars. I think Cautionbox, to which I changed the Disclaimerbox on United States of America, works well, since it's just a blue exclamation point and the word "NOTE" (which can even be customized). LtPowers (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks about right. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've adapted AHeneen's box and added it to a few articles (mostly just ones in the areas where I usually edit). It would be nice if everyone could do that—just add a tidbit to articles that you know you'd see again and remember to take it down when the shutdown's over. We wont need more than that for now.

Latest news is that the House of Representatives tried to push a bill to fund some of the services lost (including the National Park Service), but it dissolved into an argument about who has the right to decide which services get funding. So, typically, it looks like we're in this mess for a while.

As for 116's concern about more important things we haven't covered: Just because we didn't cover them doesn't mean we shouldn't. We should strive to tell the reader every single thing that may affect their journey that they didn't already know. Does the Nairobi article have a docent? I'm sure that person could be able to find/add to the page the information you want. Nick1372 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Over

Cautionbox removed from USA page, please remove any other notices. AHeneen (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What is happening exactly?

It seems like I (and I believe not to be the only one) missed some important processes happening behind the scenes of day to day work at WV. I am relatively new here so forgive me I don't get the whole context. Also some discussions seem to be not well concentrated and are dispersed all over the place, which makes it maybe more difficult to understand the underlying problem. Is the entire issue connected to W. Frank ban nomination or is there more to that (I certainly assume so)?

In any case, I am shocked to see two of our finest editors and administrators leaving without much words of explanation.

• Is there anything we can do to revert the damage that happened already?
• What is there to change to stabilize the situation and prevent loosing the best people? We can't really afford that!

--Danapit (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Danapit, I am happy that someone has finally raised this topic. It looks like most people care about the strict adherence to policies, but they pay less attention to the fact that prolific contributors leave the project. I don't think I am supposed to explain the reasons, but perhaps I may quote Peter: "too many chefs in this kitchen, and not enough sense to go around". Yes, it is related to the page you mentioned, but I think that it is also more general. Consensus, soft security, and all these things work well as long as people in the community share same ideas and have the ability to listen to each other. This does not work here any longer. Sad, but true. Honestly, I don't know what could be the way out, because the community has to reconsider some basic things, and for this it has to reach the consensus, but consensus can not be reached unless some people step back. And they really step back by emptying their user pages and leaving the project. I am thinking of doing the same.

To be more specific, the current consensus is that we put more effort to protect trolls than to keep long-time prolific contributors (for example, by protecting them from trolls). Unless this stance is reconsidered, more people are likely to leave. --Alexander (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jan and Peter, but my sense of things is that people are getting overly frustrated with the perceived levels of bureaucracy needed to get things done around here. When the site was smaller it was fairly easy to get unanimous agreements, everyone knew each other fairly well, it wasn't hard to follow all ongoing discussions, etc, but I think we're experiencing severe growing pains and need to revisit some longstanding site norms. At a high-level, I think our Wikivoyage:Consensus policy needs to address what happens when discussion simply fails to reach any agreement - we have far too many discussions that stall, discouraging people from even proposing changes. In addition, I think we need to re-instill the spirit of Wikivoyage:Plunge forward, but also make it clear where the limits should be (example: w:Wikipedia:Be bold#... but please be careful!). In the particular case of Frank, the lack of any specific policy that allowed us to deal with a problem editor led to endless discussion and all manner of tiresome edit patrolling, which could have been reduced if we really did believe in plunging forward and trusted that experienced editors who dealt with a difficult situation in ways that might not follow existing policies to the letter did so in good faith. I don't have any specific proposals for addressing these issues now, but it would be good if everyone could take some time to think through what problems they see and what solutions might work (particularly if those solutions have already been tried elsewhere) so that we can have a meaningful discussion and hopefully allow people to spend more time writing travel guides and less time discussing site policies. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 --Rschen7754 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be unanimous, all it needs to be is majority. As WV grows unanimous consensus will become a thing of the past. The issue at hand does not appear to be that difficult to solve. Get consensus at the Wikivoyage:User ban nominations board. We could use a more formal Request for Comment process to help facilitate this but that is a different issue. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This topic is about two long-time prolific editors leaving the project. I don't see how a consensus at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations can solve this very serious problem.

As a side note, for Danapit who started this topic: this comment by James is a perfect illustration to my words above. Some people in this community have no ability to listen to others or at least to understand what the conversation is about. --Alexander (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In the limited context of this particular discussion, Doc James' comment does not appear unreasonable. Perhaps if you explained the full context to Danapit your meaning would be more clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand you. The question was how to revert the damage and how to prevent further drama. Suggestions are still welcome, but I don't think there is one. I better refrain from further comments about the context. DocJames is already suffering from insults, and I am not sure that he has proper medicine. --Alexander (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus does not need to be unanimous, all it needs to be is majority." Uh, no, that's not consensus, that's just majority rule (otherwise known as a democracy). Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity, but it does mean general agreement, which isn't exactly the same but pretty close. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the irony that the two admins left precisely at the point at which action has begun to be taken. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than that. It involves evaluating the strength of the arguments and the level of opposition and support (as in, how strongly the supporters support, and how strongly the opposers oppose). It involves some in the minority realizing that they are in the minority, and becoming okay with the "majority" decision or at least finding it acceptable under the circumstances. It involves compromise to make sure that the rights of the minority are not simply trampled on. It involves recognizing that some people will oppose anything and cannot be reasoned with, and that reluctantly we do have to go with an overwhelming majority to get anything done. --Rschen7754 21:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was mainly just objecting to Doc's statement that all you needed was a majority (not even "overwhelming majority", but just "majority"). That struck me as a pretty big misread of the definition of "consensus". PerryPlanet (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We define consensus on our wiki, and the definition there seems to be a pretty good one to me. I don't necessarily thing there is too much wrong with how we build our our existing consensus. It saves us from things like flip-flopping between AM/PM styles, and spelling dialects changing with the latest users opinion. Our consensus building doesn't count votes without argument. A simple support or oppose doesn't count. Therefore, all arguments need to be addressed in order to build a consensus.

The issue (as I see it is) once someone goes against an already built consensus, we then need to build another consensus to actually do anything about it. If someone actually does something about it, they are just as likely to be pilloried as the perpetrator.

We perhaps have a general issue to address here. However, I'd like to propose the following to deal with this specific case.

You may find an action has been taken against your editing on our wiki, because it goes outside our policies. Another user may revert your change. Sometimes an admin may block your account to prevent edits against our policies from continuing. You will have the right to discuss any reversion or block, and to find out what the issue is. You have the right to contribute to a consensus building discussion on our policies. However, you do not have the right to make personal comments against another user or admin trying to uphold our policies in good faith. Doing so after a single warning will result in you being banned from the project.

I have infinite time for anyone trying to build the project up by argument and consensus building. Happy to indulge strong argument on article content. Understand that no-one is perfect, (even administrators :-). However, we need to support the people who invest their time in patrolling this site. They can have their decisions questions and discussed, but they can't be disparaged in completely separate contexts, simply for enforcing our consensus policies on our behalf --Inas (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• What is happening exactly? Well, the answer is nothing. I have formed the opinion that a small body of long-established editors here resist even the most minor changes (Inas's fear-mongering of "flip-flopping" is just one example of an in-built stasis that prevents this site from evolving). My prediction is that WV is going to fade over the next few years, and then die. It's a great pity, but if any attempt to improve it is shafted by time-tested techniques in discussions and an effective veto power by a few people, I can see no alternative. Tony (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what this is about, and it's irritating for you to make that "prediction" in this context. The problem is that there are certain people - one in particular - whose response to being unable to gain a consensus behind their proposals is to make ornery comments about that in multiple situations, deliberately (and sometimes perhaps unwittingly but carelessly) insult admins and other users, and blatantly and knowingly flout consensus in his edits. I will make it plain that I'm talking about User:W. Frank, which you probably already knew. I personally have had a good working relationship with him, I like those edits he makes that are constructive, don't mind his opinions, and sometimes like his sarcastic sense of humor, so this is not at all about me, but Frank's antisocial side has taken up an inordinate amount of admins' time and has chased away an unknown number of editors, including two admins who recently retired out of frustration and another one who just announced that he will concentrate his edits in Russian Wikivoyage instead of here. Frank has been suspended a couple of times recently for persistent ornery and contrary behavior. Like Frank, you are welcome to express your opinions about matters of policy, but you should do so in a way that respects other users, which includes not gratuitously (and, correct me if I'm wrong, repeatedly) predicting the demise of the site because you evidently think those who disagree with you are so much less smart than you because they don't think your minority view on everything should govern site policy. So while I don't think you've ever come close to warranting a block, if you'd like to join Frank and be suspended yourself, just keep up with your annoying "predictions." This site isn't about you, and it isn't about me. But it's essential that an environment for peaceful and productive editing be maintained here, and that surely won't happen with a few individuals engaging in ornery behavior and hostile "predictions." Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of aggressive, threatening behaviour is just about convincing me that this site is going to die, actually. So you don't like what you hear? You then insult the editor and threaten to block. It would take a willingness to change, to be flexible, to convince me that this site was a huge waste of money for the WMF to take on. I'm thinking now that it should have stayed with the corporate raiders, left to die of its own accord. Now, instead of insulting and threatening me, you people need to act in a more functional way. Tony (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, but you are also a part of the problem. You've just been as strident and even inflammatory in your remarks as anyone. It's interesting really, speaking as someone who has never edited a public wiki, not even pressing the "edit" button until the launch of Wikivoyage. Now that I've looked behind the veil at both WP and WV, the distinct thought is that these are perhaps flaws regarding discussion endemic to wikis. The decision making cannot be said to be better at WP, and maybe it is even more entrenched there. The feeling is that a lot of time is being spent on debating, rather than adding content. I've tried to avoid sticking my nose into discussions if I couldn't add anything new and prefer to cut through to the key of the matter, but I, like Alexander, regret not putting my oar in earlier at the user ban nominations. I started precisely because of the mantra of "Plunge forward", and finally removed my initial bugbears of dynamic maps, a listing editor and empty outlines, only to look up and see an exodus.

Community is important, civility is important. I could pretty much predict the same sad demise for WP, yet others have already done this before and been proven wrong. We will see what happens, and whether this discussion does come to a conclusion. -- torty3 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are the problem. Tony (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Why are people running scared in Wikipedia talking about editor retention and lack of newcomers? Because people will not contribute if they feel threatened. I've not been threatened until now and I recognise my previous comment went a little far. Do you recognise the same for yourself? -- torty3 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One thing I've learned from editing wikis in the past eight years is that there are enough opinions and personalities out there that every single person who edits will be perceived as a "problem" by someone else at some point, so let's just agree that we're all the problem and move on. While I would like to see all major contributors stick around forever, the site survived the loss of its founder and most of the individuals responsible for making it what it is today, so I'm confident that new users will continue to take up the reins and that we'll be fine in the years to come. That said, this latest episode is a chance for reflection on how we can make things better, and it might benefit all involved to take a few deep breaths, formulate some thoughts, and come back tomorrow with a fresh perspective and some actionable plans for making it easier to achieve (and perhaps even update?) our goals. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking a deep breath is fine, but I think it's important for everyone to know that individuals who create a hostile work environment by being persistently ornery about not getting their way when they're in the minority may end up outside the site. Discussion and disagreement are always welcome, but you are way more likely to persuade people if you are respectful of those who at least initially don't share your opinion, and respect consensus while you argue for changing it. And if you really believe the site will die because it's your way or the highway, there are many highways you can travel without us, so it might be better for you to take one than to add insult to injury, especially at this time, with repeated prophecies of our doom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There we go again: batter down anyone who threatens your entrenched notions. I don't buckle under pressure, although there will come a time when I see this formulaic resistance to change (and unwillingness to support innovation) as terminal. There are clear signs of an entrenched culture that is rooted in some kind of nostalgia for the site as it was years ago; that is going to kill it off. My recent travels demonstrated starkly how inadequate it is for the needs of travellers, and how a few other sites individually offer a much better user experience in some key respects. Although en.WV does have some strengths, they alone are insufficient to stop its demise in a highly competitive, crowded market for travel information on the internet. The unfriendliness towards anyone who wants to promote change augurs badly for increasing the number of regular editors, particularly the housecleaners we so urgently need to keep its many corners up to date and professional. Tony (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep arguing for specific changes! Just do it without being hostile. And sure, the site might die - but realize, it's bigger than me and it's bigger than you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Because there is very little participation in discussions for bit-by-bit improvements/reforms, they are effectively vetoed by a few editors (you know very well who they are). This is not conducive to a site that needs to adapt and reform to survive. Tony (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the people you have yet to persuade to support your proposals on spelling, so you're at least partly talking about me. But I think the reason few people participate in that discussion is that few care. However, it's not like no-one can ever persuade a consensus to adopt changes on this site. People with good arguments and powers of persuasion have achieved the adoption of some major changes, such as pagebanners, a redesigned front page, and the Airport Expedition. There was also much discussion of the possibility of more Wikipedia links (which I was also willing to consider under certain circumstances), but no consensus has yet been achieved. However, some positive things came out of the discussion. I doubt this site will die over the issue of spelling, but if you have other proposals that more people might be interested in, you can try to garner more interest by posting a link to your proposal at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, and possibly here in the Pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Tony1. Sigh. I reject your accusation of fear mongering. It is simply that sometimes there are equally good reasons to do things different ways, and sometimes we have to make a call on one way to do them. Toss a coin, scissors paper rock, whatever. However, once done we don't need to re-consider these decisions every time the same arguments are repeated do we? New ideas, improvements, etc, are in a different league, and should be discussed and tried. But no-one should be too surprised at the lack of interest in a discussion British/American spelling yet again. --Inas (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Making major changes on either WP or WV is hard but not impossible. This is not really surprising. We have large communities who have developed the way things are now and a new idea needs to be good to justify change. What change have you proposed Tony? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will make an observation here at the risk of offending some people, though that is not the intention. There are many people who have the best interests of the project at heart, and feel very strongly that they know what is good for the project. Logically, they will do whatever they can to further what they believe is best for the project. Logically, to them, they feel frustrated when other people will not accept what they know is right. Logically, they take offense when their beliefs are dismissed as unimportant or nonsense, even when the perceived opponent truly believes this to be the case. The truth of their own belief is so self-evident that it is obvious that those who deny it are malicious, stupid, deluded or misinformed. When they still disagree after the point has been explained so clearly that it is impossible to misunderstand, this leaves malicious, stupid and deluded as the remaining options. It is difficult to come to a compromise between true believers with opposing views. Or maybe I am wrong? Is some other explanation why people who seem well-intentioned, friendly and helpful, and work so hard together to produce something of enduring value can be so bitterly opposed over what seems to a third party to be a small matter? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the text above, and on this user's talk page, and in the policy articles, you'll see so many examples of people being patient and polite with this user. Ryan, Ikan, have responded calmly and thoughtfully today. In the discussions the arguments placed have been met. The reverse has not been true. At the end of a rant, canning the project and the people on it, a strong community should stand behind the people who've tried to manage this issue, handle it rationally, and make arguments in line with our consensus building way. They shouldn't accommodate the person who has made the attacks, and who has flown off the handle. That's not a cabal or conspiracy. It's recognizing the people who do so much valuable volunteer work for the community, cop the flak, and keep going. I want to encourage new users. I want to encourage disruptive innovation. I want to interact politely with all our community. But we have to accept that there are variety of contributors, and we should make sure the squeaky wheel doesn't get all the oil. --Inas (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of us are more able to remain civil in a disagreement than others. Lack of civility is not necessarily an indication of bad faith, but how much one tolerates is also a personal choice. There is also the problem of personal interpretation, and cultural variance. What may be perfectly friendly in one country may be interpreted as hostile or uncouth in another. And that is just regional variations of English without taking into account the difficulties that a non-native speaker may have. However, in some cases almost everyone will agree that an unjustified personal attack has been made. Where and how to draw the line and what to do about it is a complex problem. Perhaps a third party could be chosen as an arbitrator. Someone who is acceptable to both parties in a dispute, and who is not involved, on the pre-condition that the arbitrator's decision will be respected by both sides. It may work, it may not. It may be worth a try. The arbitrator need not necessarily be a Wikivoyager. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm obviously not making my point very well. We already have the situation where an administrator acting in good faith, administering the policies on our site that have evolved by consensus is subject to sideswipes around the wiki, and then has to justify his actions as if they are a party in a personal dispute, rather than a volunteer helping with a mop and a whistle. What we need is more people to stand behind those people who are putting in, instead of feeling they need to pander to the contributor making the noise. I fear another layer of arbitration may just play into the hands of those whose interest is in dispute and drama. --Inas (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am with Inas in that respect. I would not like to see further levels of arbitration, especially from outsiders who may not be familiar with our processes and policies in the first place. I also agree that admin's using the mop and whistle should be supported in their decisions and not treated like they are in a personal difference-of-opinion dispute where the problem user they are trying to rein in is given equal respect and opportunity to try and discredit said admin. I think we need something like the proposal in the section below. Texugo (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Danapit, this sudden turn of events came as a complete surprise to me. The discussions that seem to have led to this position appear to have gone over my head, but that's perhaps a blessing in disguise. I think it's a terrific shame that we've lost several well-liked and experienced editors recently and we must do all we can to draw them back or at least prevent this from happening again.

From what I've seen, there doesn't appear to be a particular area of policy for the community itself rather than the content. With that in mind, I might suggest the two following tenets:

1. Wikivoyage is fun

1. There's a place for everyone

I've already written a very basic description of 'Wikivoyage is fun', which you can see by clicking the link. 'There's a place for everyone' would state that all are welcome here and that you will not be marginalised for an opinion or mistake that you've made. I understand that many people already view these as accepted wisdom and I certainly don't mean for them to be patronising, but would it perhaps be good to get these down in writing? Any thoughts welcome! --Nick ^talk 13:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I really like the "Wikivoyage is fun" essay - once again, I am touched by how much heart you throw into this project - but I'm not really sure what it would have done to help the current situation. The problem is that there isn't a place for everyone - at least not if your intent is to disingenuously subvert, ignore, or act against the consensus of the community, or to insult other users, or to discredit administrators who are simply doing their lowly jobs, or to delegitimize policies in a way that doesn't involve balanced and respectful community discussion. There appear to be some people willing to ignore endless warnings not to do certain things which go against the ideal of WV being a happy and fun community. We need to have a clear, decisive, and documented way to deal with those cases. Texugo (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion above (and at de:Lounge) I certainly see and understand better what got us into this point and it is shame that things got so far.

Now, I think a policy along the lines proposed by Texugo is way to go. I also believe Nick's Wikivoyage is fun and There's a place for everyone might be an important piece of policy or a guideline. Danapit (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That "Wikivoyage is fun" essay is great. Even though it wouldn't be formal policy, it would be a nice thing to link to when things get too heated, just as a way of saying "chillax". It won't stop the most persistent trouble users (as Texugo noted), but it could be employed to ease tensions with a more moderately-minded individual before things go too far, as well as just a nice general statement about what we're all about. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Revise policy on dealing with repeated unwanted edits

Discussion transferred to Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Proposal: Revise policy on dealing with repeated unwanted edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The End

Currently refining our iceberg avoidance techniques so this doesn't happen!

FYI, there is now one admin and bureaucrat less on English Wikivoyage.

"...an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits..." Remember all this rubbish? It became reality now. I hope it will be a good lesson to other language versions. --Alexander (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a damn shame it came to that. I feel like we should have a funeral or something. But instead, let's focus on revamping our policies- I've always felt like that line you quoted was not quite right. Blocking a user who is steadfastly bent on being disruptive should not in fact reflect poorly on our community - on the contrary: we can be strong and patient, and then if the time comes when that is obviously not going to work, we can be professional enough to put a definitive end to the problem before the disruptive editing weakens our community by driving away exasperated volunteers. Texugo (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Saqib, let's not go that far. We ain't all dead yet! Let's try to stay positive! (edited your caption for a more positive spin) Texugo (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Before we whip out the bagpipes and start playing "Amazing Grace", I would like to point to the discussion right above this one as evidence that many of us are committed to really learn something from all of this and not let the unfortunate loss of a beloved user be for nothing. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, Alexander, while I greatly appreciate all the work you've done on English Wikivoyage until now, you could choose to work on creating new procedures, such as the ones Texugo is proposing, rather than pronouncing our doom. I don't consider it any more helpful for you to do that than for anyone else to do it. Meanwhile, we'll work on this without your help, and you'll doubtless do great things on Russian Wikivoyage. See you around. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexander is just pointing out that this problem was foreseen and considered not worth providing for during the pre-migration policy consolidation and clarification drive. Prophets whose warnings were not heeded and later turn out to happen are often unpopular, So it goes. On the other hand it is quite possible that many disasters have been averted because doom was prophesied and some action was taken (Y2K?). Hard to prove either way in most cases. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

We use consensus within the rest of the WM movement. As shown by [10] however it does not require everyone to agree. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Whenever possible a compromise that is acceptable by all parties is preferable, When there is a deadlock there should be a way of going forward. The way of breaking the deadlock will work best if previously agreed (by consensus?). How about a two thirds majority of enfranchised voters? That would obviously require a franchise qualification, which could also be contentious. I suggest any user who would qualify for nomination as an admin, just as a starting point. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes sounds reasonable. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to recognise spiraling conversations as deadlocks where there are continuous attempts to try and convince the last one or two people even though unanimity is not required, especially when it's a matter of who can last the longest. It could simply be a difference of opinion which cannot be resolved. If you find more than three back-and-forths with no forward movement, then disengage. This applies to policy and regions discussions. I am undecided whether polls will help, but it may at least diminish some sore feelings (and probably bring up other new ones). -- torty3 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think our consensus policy does guide us here. In order for there to be consensus every argument has to be met. So, it's insufficient to just be a hold-out, saying you don't like a proposal without argument. And its insufficient to just repeat your proposal without addressing the rebuttal arguments. If there remain good arguments against a proposal that haven't been addressed, then we haven't got a consensus.

Once we start doing two thirds votes, then we really have to start worrying about stacking. With some discussions only eliciting comment by two or three people here, a vote of two thirds may just be two. --Inas (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, if there is common sense to recognise there is or is not consensus, but in practice the arguments just keep going on and on in circles. -- torty3 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's when we need to ask someone else to read through and determine what the consensus is, if there is any. --Rschen7754 07:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In reality, someone (preferably an admin, but not always) not involved in the discussion should be closing it, and they should have the ability to use discretion in the event of votestacking. --Rschen7754 06:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how this part of the thread arose and what it is trying to resolve. Texugo (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too, but I think it is a good discussion, and the one that we need to have first. --Rschen7754 07:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To add to my past thoughts on the matter, I would encourage all of you to take some time and explore other Wikimedia projects over the next few weeks or so to see how they do things. While the English Wikipedia does get a lot of things done, I would hate for us to blindly import everything from there, because I would hate to blindly import their systemic problems too. --Rschen7754 06:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Another thought: I think that the fundamental issue that we need to resolve is what consensus is. I think that from that, everything else will follow; once we know how we will make decisions, that will greatly influence the topics above. --Rschen7754 07:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this discussion be part of the discussion on How to deal with unwanted edits, which is where it started from, and now moved to Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Proposal:_Revise_policy_on_dealing_with_repeated_unwanted_edits or separately, on Wikivoyage Talk:Consensus? (I think Consensus is the proper place) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Will it be noticed on those pages, and have adequate participation? --Rschen7754 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This has often been a problem on Wikivoyage. Can you suggest a better way of doing it? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think stuff gets lost in the Travellers' pub, and when it is all archived in separate places, it makes things more difficult to find. I would split it into two to three pages, so that edits to sections are more likely to be noticed, and have an automatic archiving bot so that a) we don't spend our valuable time archiving the pub, and b) so that older threads get pushed off the page once they have been inactive for a week or two (or however much time is appropriate). One of these would be a noticeboard for administrators; all the background discussion that caused the kerfluffle of last week should be taking place onwiki anyway, and it provides a place for other Wikimedia users to contact admins.

In short: the infrastructure should be built to serve the needs of the community, not the other way around. We should be spending our time writing a travel guide, not fighting an infrastructure dating back from the Wikitravel days (as early as 2004!) that does not exactly fit our needs today. --Rschen7754 08:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully protecting departed admins pages

Is this policy? Usually one leaves them unlocked so others can leave notes of appreciation for their years of service. It is unfortunate to see both User:Peterfitzgerald and User:Jc8136 leave. While they and I may have differed on some minor points I respect both of them a great deal for the work they have put into making WV what it is today. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about fullprotecting their talk pages, as it leaves people no way to bring up concerns to them. --Rschen7754 06:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've only protected the user page of Jc8136, and his talk page is not protected. Peter protected his user page and talk page himself. --Saqib (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously they would be unprotected should they request them to be. It should be their choice. --Inas (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Old User sandbox articles

There are a number of old user sandbox articles around, for example:

• User:(WT-en) Gamweb/sandbox/Daytona Beach
• User:(WT-en) TomNativenewYorker/Sandbox Manta

Just wondering if it would be better to redirect them to the matching article? Or would it be better to delete them? Or should they just be left alone? -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In the past we've generally left them alone unless they are having some effect on mainspace - for example, if the article contains a category or broken image that causes it to show up on a maintenance page, in which case the page may be edited to remove the offending category or image. Is there a specific reason why we would now need to redirect one of these articles? If not, I'd suggest they are harmless enough to be left alone. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking that someone might come across them and read them rather than finding the main article and because the sandbox is old, it could have some obsolete information in it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How about adding a disclaimerbox at the top of each page. In this case I think it really is a disclaimer, so that one should be appropriate. 105.229.63.46 10:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If the user has migrated here, ask them to deal with it. Otherwise, I'd say delete. Pashley (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

One other option I forgot to mention could be to just blank the page, so the history would still be available for everyone to see if needed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a problem: why would users find a page like that rather than the article? However, if needed, let's just blank and not delete. I would prefer to be wary of actually deleting any user space stuff without the user being involved, unless we really have to. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we could just put {{user page}} on them and forget about it. The chance of someone "happening across" them is very very low, I believe. You would have to put at least "User:Name/S..." in the search box to even see them there, so the only way you could come across them is by following a link from that user's user page or a very old discussion, because they shouldn't be linked to from anywhere else. I think the probability of anyone confusing them with real pages is very low, and with the {{user page}} template, practically 0%. Texugo (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That would do it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged a few today in the A-J range. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Two destinations in one

Is it okay to bring two small villages together in one article, also in the title, when they market themselves as one destination? I'm talking about Ford and Etal in the UK. From a travellers' point of view, it seems better to combine them. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As far as I can see, the real question is what naming convention you should use ("Ford and Etal"? "Ford & Etal"? "Ford-Etal"?) Never mind, a quick review of Wikivoyage:Naming conventions suggests that "Ford and Etal" should be fine. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to having a combined page for the two villages, which are about 2 miles apart. However it is worth noting that the website is that of the Ford and Etal estate (the local land owner) rather than the villages themselves. There is an existing outline page for Ford, which should redirect to the new page. AlasdairW (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware, but it's the closest thing to an official website and pretty much all relevant travel information (including the wider Northumberland tourist information) uses the combination ánd focuses on the estates. The villages are part of the historic estates in this case, rather than the other way around. I left the Ford outline as it was just to await comments here, I'll move that info to the new article then soon. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dive guide article type

Is there a reason we can't go ahead and give dive guides their own article type like we've done with airports, instead of lumping them in with the travel topics? They already have a basic template worked out and suggested status criteria. Why don't we give them their own category and status templates? Texugo (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to say no, there's no reason. Does anyone object? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. --W. Frank^email_talk 00:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am more-or-less neutral here. It basically sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure if more article types might become a slippery slope. I'd like to hear from divers, especially Peter, about whether they think it looks useful or necessary. Pashley (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a potential slippery slope here. It's not like there are dozens of new article types popping up, and they already are a different article type, it's just a matter of whether we recognize, categorize, and track it as such. The thing to decide is whether they will be a sub-type of destination, like airports are, since they are undoubtedly destination based, or if they should be a new species of topic sub-type, so as to preserve the present topic-based breadcrumb situation. Personally, I think they should just be treated as a type of destination articles. Texugo (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need another category. It makes sense to have airport categories because airplanes are used by the majority of long-distance travellers. Only divers would be interested in our dive guides. It's covered perfectly fine by travel topics, so I don't think it's necessary. Although, I am with Pashley in wondering what a diver's opinion would be… Nick1372 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to oppose, I'd like to hear what you think the disadvantages would be, rather than an "i don't think we need them". I think there are clear advantages from an organizational/maintenance standpoint, having them put automatically into a category which can be tracked automatically, and giving us the ability to have customized status messages which correspond to the already proposed status criteria, etc. If there are no clear disadvantages, I would argue that we should still go ahead with it. Texugo (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Thinking about it, you do have a few points. If you have the time and ability to keep track of a category, I don't see why not. You've won me over. (I apologize for my weird answer earlier—I need more sleep.) Nick1372 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having a re-think, Nick - we need to see what Peter (Southwood) thinks about this... --W. Frank^email_talk 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I really haven't given it any thought. I guess in a way that means I didn't think it would make much difference to me. Having them in a category would definitely be useful for maintenance but does that make them a separate article type? Until fairly recently there was a major taboo on categories, for reasons that escape me at present. I suppose I should ask exactly what is meant by a separate article type.
• All except one have been written and formatted as a different type of destination article, complete with a logical geographical hierarchy, which usually fits with the mainstream geographical hierarchy, but not 100% - forcing a 1 to 1 match would be inefficient and strained. The single exception is the top level article Scuba diving, which is very clearly a travel topic.
• As a dyed in the wool pragmatist, I would go with whatever works best, both for the traveller and for us who have to keep the place tidy. My first impression is that the proposal will make no discernable difference to the average user, so what works best for us?
• This will be setting a precedent, so we should try to come up with something that will work well over the long run, and there is no rush.
• I guess I should go look what has been done with airports, and come back when I have more to say.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, personally, I'd say that airports have already set the precedent here. You ask exactly what is meant by a separate article type. I'd say this:

• Dive guides would have their own standardized, article template (which they basically already do, but it hasn't been formalized and made substitutable yet)
• Dive guides would get their own status evaluation criteria, as you've laid out here
• Dive guides would get their own set of status tags, customized to said status criteria: Template:Outline diveguide, Template:Usable diveguide, etc., instead of the generic topic ones
• Those status templates would put all dive guides into a Category:Dive guide articles, and additionally into respective status categories: Category:Outline dive guides, Category:Usable dive guides, etc. (This being instead of lumping them in the more general categories for topics)

Advantages for the reader are somewhat marginal - better standardization, more customized presentation of the statuses - but it would have substantial maintenance advantages for tracking, and setting up a substitutable article template will help editors to create new dive guides which are in line with existing ones. Texugo (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Texugo (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like many advantages, only disadvantage a bit of extra short term work substituting the new templates. All the rest would have to be done some time anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't the existing dive guides already share a basic model? All that would be needed is to list out the basic headers and descriptions on a template page similar to WV:Small city article template and then put just the headers into a quick version like WV:Quick small city article template and a skeleton template like Template:Smallcity skeleton. Then we could add a button to MediaWiki:Newarticletext to facilitate creation of new dive guides. Texugo (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean like these? {{Divesite_skeleton}}, {{DiveRegion}} and {{Divesitelisting}}? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Well, the first two anyway. I knew those existed but somehow couldn't find them. If there are no further objections, I'm going to plunge forward. Texugo (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I see much action on my watchlist. It looks like dive guides are getting a separate geographical hierarchy within each country. Is this all there is to it? 105.226.204.30 06:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the above changes have been implemented. The breadcrumb for top-level country dive regions was moved from Scuba diving (a topic article) to the relevant country, so as to avoid a hybrid destination/topic breadcrumb trail. Texugo (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Summit

I would like to remind everyone that we have monthly exchange of reports between different language versions. It takes place on a special Summit page. Each language version will typically have a liaison who follows the discussions on meta and writes a report about recent developments in his/her project. Now, as Peter has left, English Wikivoyage lost its liaison, and it may be good to decide who will be the replacement. --Alexander (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The obvious choice would be Peter (Southwood) - if he's willing to undertake this important task. --W. Frank^email_talk 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not as involved in the general editing as many others, so I tend to lose track of things that are off my watchlist. If you would all excuse me, I don't think I am suitable for the job. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Nicholasjf21 wrote the summary for last month. Maybe he would like to help us out again? Texugo (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If wanted, I'd be happy to write something, although I don't always feel as clued up on the tech side of things as I perhaps should be. Perhaps I could be part of a team responsible for our submissions? --Nick ^talk 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion! A dynamic duo! --W. Frank^email_talk 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest Nicolas1981 as the other member of a dynamic duo since he seems very knowledgeable on the technical side, is in a different time zone and also writes lucidly. He also seems very active and enthusiastic about our development like Nick ... --W. Frank^email_talk 16:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank both Nick and Nicolas1981 for taking up the baton and for being ultra quick (and comprehensive) in producing their first joint Summit report already.

Well done! --W. Frank^email_talk 17:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

placement of Template:Wikipedia

We have Template:Wikipedia, which adds:

This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on banana. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.

Common practice has people putting it at the bottom of the article, but I have a couple of questions:

• Is it absolutely necessary to put this inside the article?
• Wouldn't a link to the WP page in an edit comment provide a better, more permanent attribution, findable in the same place where other attribution is?
• If we do have to keep it at the bottom of the article forever and ever, can we please at least redesign the template to include options for multiple articles, so we don't get this kind of ugliness?

Texugo (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, yes, not applicable.

As long as the edit comment references the actual URL of the edit version that material was copied from, that is certainly all the legal attribution needed. (I don't think EN-WP needs any popularity boost from us at this stage of our relative developments). --W. Frank^email_talk 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought this up, and would love for us to finally get rid of that unnecessary template in the article. There's absolutely no reason why we would not follow Wikimedia's own rules for re-use. They ask either a full list of authors or a link in the edit summary. They also have a template available for use on the article's talk page (which I still think is overdone when a hyperlink is provided, but I would use it when large parts of an article are as good as copied, which is something we don't want in the first place). They never did ask for any templates in articles themselves. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And what to do with pages that already have this template. Would it be sufficient to remove the template and put the link in the edit summary at the same time? Texugo (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I for one don't see why not. I see no difference in requirements between future articles and existing ones that now have the template, so as long as we live up to the described WM practices it should be fine, even when we did more in the past. But it'd be good if others would comment: I remember when I was fairly new here I raised the same argument and did meet resistance to replacing the template. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see this template go. I've never quite understood how to use it correctly and, if the fix is as simple as you suggest, I'm all for losing it. --Nick ^talk 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some good news

Summer has ended in the Northern hemisphere; however our readership continues to increase. This month a healthy 20% [11] to a 12.8M. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Great :-) Now that dynamic maps work, I believe that will increase further! Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Missed this - that's great news! --Nick ^talk 16:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing editor and map maintenance

Just a heads-up, I'm going to disable both the listing editor and the maps at 11AM GMT, but it will be done real quick. -- torty3 (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Users can now choose to disable the listing editor and maps in their preferences (Preferences > Gadgets > General), where they are set by default. The in-article maps can now be seen in HTTPS for Mozilla. -- torty3 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat! Thanks, guys! --W. Frank^email_talk 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Torty3! So... should we start adding embedded dynamic maps to articles that have all POIs geolocalized? Or maybe more testing on mobile is needed? Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Free beer?

As part of an advertising campaign, in Europe but only Canadians can open the big red fridges. Can we provide a map for thirsty travellers? Pashley (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, if we have someone willing to create a map. It would make a nice subsection to Europe#Drink with a paragraph and a map. Do you think we should add a listing to every city where there's a fridge? Nick1372 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Do we want to collaborate with Molson like that? It would be participating to promote an advertising campaign, after all. Texugo (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Texugo. There is also the fact that they are not useful to most travellers. If a city has so many there's one in every street, then maybe a line in that city' Drink section? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's funny enough that a mention is warranted, but definitely not a map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

{{starnomination}} shown as "This page has some issues" on mobile

Featured article candidate icon

Try visiting Tokyo/Roppongi on Android: The first line is "This page has some issues".

Clicking on this message reveals the reason behind: "This article has been nominated for Star article status".

Being nominated for star is not an issue, so the message should not be "This page has some issues".

By the way, the icon for featured article candidates looks like a broken star. Could it be made to look like a star in construction instead? Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, what does a star under construction look like? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I can think of some nice concepts but all of them require more detail than would work for a little icon. Like a some scaffolding and a painter with a half finished paint job, or a crane lowering the last piece into place. Animated... • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the best one I could find that matches the full star on our star templates, but it´s not ideal. Texugo (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How about a pencil that is drawing a star, but has not finished yet? Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, other Nick. In my experience with the mobile site, it's not just {{Starnomination}} that produces the "This page has some issues" feature. It's basically every template that uses whatever code is in {{Ombox}}. On Wikipedia, that code is mostly used for cleanup templates, hence those specific words. This could only be solved by directly changing the MediaWiki code. I am not sure how you would be able to even request that, though, without changing what happens on Wikipedia. Nick1372 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mediawiki page in question seems to be MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-meta-data-issues. We can change the text there without affecting other wikis, but I tried blanking it, and while it then no longer shows the text message, it still displays the little "i" icon. Is there a more appropriate message we can put there? Texugo (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to tell readers in the first place? Being in a nomination process does not make the article special, so the easiest might be to remove the ombox from the starnomination template, leaving just the [[Category:Star article nominations]] part. What do you think about it? Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but telling readers does invite them to read through the article and then join the nomination discussion. Moreover, taking out this one ombox would only fix the issue for this one template, while all the other ombox-using templates continue to have the same problem. I think we need to 1) change that mediawiki page to something more useful/accurate as a temporary measure, maybe something like "some content may not be displayed", and then 2) figure out how to disable the automatic message. Texugo (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the message to "some content may not be displayed". It isn't ideal, but it's somewhat more accurate than the default message. Now if we can just figure out how to turn off that message altogether... Texugo (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Speak up about the trademark registration of the Community logo.

Hi all,

Please join the consultation about the Community logo that represents Meta-Wiki: m:Community Logo/Request for consultation.

This community consultation was commenced on September 24. The following day, two individuals filed a legal opposition against the registration of the Community logo.

The question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation should seek a collective membership mark with respect to this logo or abandon its registration and protection of the trademark.

We want to make sure that everyone get a chance to speak up so that we can get clear direction from the community. We would therefore really appreciate the community's help in translating this announcement from English so that everyone is able to understand it.

Thanks, Geoff & Yana 20:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi there!

Reviews have been a long-term resident on the Wikivoyage A-Z of the future, but I thought I'd mention the concept here as it's part of the My Voyage (subtle plug, see topic above) suite of user tools and enhancements that I'm meddling with at the moment. I understand that reviews are among the most controversial features (along with videos) on the MV mock-up, so I wanted to gauge opinion on the subject here. At present, I don't know of a way to implement the reviews as suggested in the roadmap, however, here's my alternative plan:

Reviews occupy a separate tab (next to 'Discussion') at the top of the page. There, all of the listings are automatically copied, but are read-only (is this possible?). Users may then leave comments and ratings (out of 5 or 10?), the latter of which is then averaged and displayed on the main article page alongside the listing in question.

I, like all of you I'm sure, have no desire for this feature to replicate the excesses of sites like trip advisor or for this to become our main endeavour, however, it is a fairly simple way in which users who are unwilling to write for the site may provide content. It's also yet another way of distinguishing ourselves from WT and hopefully boosting our search prospects at the same time.

Any thoughts would be very welcome! --Nick ^talk 23:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest out of 10.

How do we stop IP's gaming the system?

Registered Users may assess only? - then there will be a perverse incentive for hoteliers and restaurateurs to either register multiple accounts or get all their employees signed up. That's what I hate about the Tripadvisor blackmail site. --W. Frank^email_talk 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• For ratings: Unless/until we get all our listings templated and then all integrated with corresponding Wikidata items, this whole idea will be next to impossible to implement because we would undoubtedly need a database to keep track of and average the ratings. If we do that and if Wikidata allows us to store that type of non-factual information there, we could probably set up some kind of thing similar to the listing editor to pop up and allow users to put in a rating, but we will then still have the very challenging problem of keeping it fair, as mentioned above.
• For reviews: This would probably also be best done with a kind of database so that a page could be dynamically generated to show the reviews for only whichever listing you click on. Otherwise things will quickly become a big mess with multiple written reviews for multiple listings of multiple types all on the same page. This is another type of non-factual info that I'm not sure Wikidata will be willing to accommodate, and will require intensive patrolling on our part, wherever it is stored.

Overall, I'm not convinced that this won't be far more trouble than it's worth, if it is doable at all. I certainly wouldn't want a giant distraction from our main goal of writing great travel guides. Texugo (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm probably inclined to agree with you - it would require a lot of work to make it usable and we have larger problems at the moment. Any thoughts as to how we could make user-generated maps or easily creatable itineraries? --Nick ^talk 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have far too little time for WV now to get involved in every discussion, but I just wanted to make sure you are aware that there is a group of editors/community members who believe adding the review feature is a very bad idea and strongly oppose it. Please do not push that through. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would I be right to think that you include yourself in that number PrinceGloria? :) Nothing will or should be 'pushed through' without community approval, although the community sometimes needs to speak a little louder and sooner. --Nick ^talk 18:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't do anything about "sooner" except playing with time tags, but you can count on me shouting "NOOOOOOO" at the top of my lungs. Whenever you wouldn't be sure if it was a no, do let me know and I'll repeat it strongly and clearly. :D PrinceGloria (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Texugo's thoughts about the implementation, and it would really require a lot of moderation. It's not something to be carried out half-heartedly. Anyway, all the pros and cons from User:Jmh649/Travel reviews, Wikivoyage talk:Roadmap and Wikivoyage:Roadmap/Enable_listings_reviews needs to be summed up and concluded, so anybody new or unfamiliar with the site can understand why it's been considered and not been carried out. Any volunteers? -- torty3 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Making "Please sweep the pub" less prominent

Moved to Wikivoyage talk:Travellers' pub. Please comment there for discussion about archiving.

Experienced editors in London for a possible edit-a-thon?

I was talking to someone from Wikimedia UK recently along the lines of "wouldn’t it be neat if we could improve the London Wikivoyage guides before Wikimania 2014." (Most are just useable at the moment.) He suggested running an edit-a-thon but this is where it fell down. He’s run edit-a-thons before but doesn’t know anything about Wikivoyage, while I know nothing about either. After pondering this, I think it would be better to try to pass the idea on to someone else. I’m not sure how it would work, or even if it would go ahead, but, if it did, it would probably be with a mix of new editors and curious Wikipedians. (Wikivoyage policy is apparently a stumbling block for the latter.) So, are there any experienced Wikivoyage editors in the London area who might be available to help run an edit-a-thon? If anyone is interested, I can point both parties in the other’s direction and let them see what they can do. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: is an edit-a-thon the same thing as a Collaboration? PerryPlanet (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, you might want to look in to whatever is going on over here. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

An edit-a-thon is an event in which people work together in person to build content on a wiki. See this. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Saqib's link explains it in more detail but, in summary, it is a little like a collaboration except that everyone is physically in the same room and there may be a tutorial element. The last part is why an experienced Wikivoyager would be needed; they might need to teach some or all of the attendees how bits of Wikivoyage works and probably answer a few questions. (I exaggerated a little about knowing nothing; I just don't know nearly about either, although I have been to one edit-a-thon and I've made it to a mighty triple digits in my Wikivoyage edit count.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK has an office in London and would, I am certain be happy to host this, if it happens. Mozilla spaces in central London have hosted these in the past and are another possibility. Alternatively the Wikimania organisers might be able to get the Barbican to act as host. Check out the wikimania wiki Filceolaire (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, that's quite brilliant! Do let me know whenever you host that if I can participate as a semi-experienced Wikivoyager but not Wikimania participant or anyway else involved in Wikimedia. I would love to come to London and join in the effort and help in any way I could (if I indeed could and if you'd let me know early enough for me to make my bookings). I guess we'd need a workshop or two on district division to start with, but this could be concurrent to other efforts, as it is quite easy to move stuff between districts if arranged properly. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Geonotice

I would like to propose the Geonotice feature on this wiki. Those who don't know what a Geonotice is, please see Wikipedia:Geonotice. With Geonotice enabled, we can announce events related to WV such as above proposed edit-a-thon, meetups and even when a Wikivoyager is travelling to another location and would like to meet local Wikivoyagers in person. --Saqib (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To me it would be a shame to miss out on an event in a location I regularly visit. Also basing physical location off IP address assumes people are not running of remote proxies or simply travelling. One of my annoyances of hotel chain and airline sites is them trying to be clever about what language I prefer to read in based on the access route I am using into the internet or where I just happen to be logged into at the time. This is a site about travelling, keep it global.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it could probably wait until our meetups page is overflowing. That currently it doesn't seem to be. --Inas (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this can advertise Wikimedia-wide events, and I didn't even know that the meetups page existed until 2 seconds ago. Meanwhile, a geonotice is seen by everyone in the location. --Rschen7754 07:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have gone to a Wikimedia meetup in Glasgow as a result of a Geonotice on WP. It would be useful to advertise the edit-a-thon (see above) to all editors (all readers?) in SE England, rather than just those that look at a few project pages. AlasdairW (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata now has a "Wikivoyage banner" property, let's use it!

Wikidata now has a Wikivoyage banner property! Now when you create a banner, it will be used in all languages :-)

1) Could someone modify the pagebanner code to take advantage of that? See Andorra for an example of an article that retrieves a lot of its information from Wikidata.

2) Anyone willing to write a one-time script that would add all existing banners to Wikidata? (example)

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oooh! What a pleasant surprise! That will come in very handy! Unfortunately I have no idea how to make this kind of script. Texugo (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I quickly learned how to write bots (surprisingly easy!), and created BannerBot. For now it just sets the property for one object, so what's needed is the list of destinations-banner couples. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the pagebanner code; I believe it works, but check to make sure I didn't bork anything up :) --Rschen7754 09:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things to consider: 1) I coded it so that whatever is on Wikidata overrides what is on here. Not sure if that is what the community wants, though doing it the other way can be done too. 2) Hopefully different Wikivoyages didn't choose different pictures for the same page. --Rschen7754 09:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the file name in the pagebanner transclusion will be redundant, and you may want to consider running a local script to remove them (but it is optional - just to reduce confusion). --Rschen7754 09:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Rschen7754! Personally I think the ability to override locally would be appreciated, see this summit discussion with Alexander. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, though now the parameter will have to be removed to allow the wikidata stuff to show. --Rschen7754 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to have broken the banner - the TOC now appears below the banner, rather than overlaid on top. Any ideas why? --Nick ^talk 10:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

An extra line break had been inserted in there. Should be fixed now. Incidentally, I agree that we need local override capability. I was also thinking, after running the bot to catch wikidata up to speed, we can put a switch in the pagebanner template which checks for pages with local banners but no banner in Wikidata, and adds them to a Category:Banner missing from Wikidata, so that we can keep it in sync as people add more and more banners. (Note that this would not include future cases where we locally override a banner on wikidata, only cases where wikidata has nothing.) Texugo (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be another problem with the way you've changed the template though. Right now the logic says:

a) is there something in {{{1}}}?

if yes, use that

if no,

b) is there a wikidata item?

if yes, use that

if no, use the default banner

The problem is that this only works for pages which have nothing in {{{1}}}, whereas articles outside of europe/n. america all have various other default banners written in {{{1}}}— other default banners are still taking precendence over wikidata but they should not be. The logic needs to be changed so that a) asks "is there something in {{{1}}} other than one of the various default banners?" This will apparently require yet a third long list switch. Or perhaps the overall logic of the whole template needs to be moved around a little. Texugo (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Now done. I was able to trim some redundant code before I made the change, so it wasn't as bad as I had feared. I have an idea for improving the code - let me see if I can get to it within the next hour. --Rschen7754 18:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's more readable the way it is set up; WOSlinker made another edit to fix things too. --Rschen7754 19:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. I added a little switch for Category:Banner missing from Wikidata as well, as discussed below. Texugo (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm being obtuse, but...

1. Why do we want every Wikivoyage to use the same banners?
2. What happens if a banner is hosted locally due to copyright issues?

-- LtPowers (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To add, what if a banner has a caption (as do many of the ones I've uploaded)? Will there be a way to provide different captions for each language version? Rastapopulous (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's not that we necessarily want every Wikivoyage to use the same banners, but we do want as many pages to have banners as possible — a good, already made and properly sized banner in use on another version is always better than no banner at all, and this is an automatic way to ensure that. With much lower numbers of editors, it would take the other language versions years to create as many banner as en: has in a few months, so there is much interest using the already made good images. And there aren't currently very many pages for which multiple good banner options have been created. If it comes to that, we and other versions always have the choice to override locally.
• If a banner is hosted locally due to copyright issues, it shouldn't be listed on Wikidata.
• Captions do not appear to be stored on Wikidata anyway, so any captions will remain local.

Texugo (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me also write it here, explicitly. We need a list of exceptions including generic banners used by each language version (en: has generic banners for different continents, ru: is using generic banners for those destinations where a good custom banner can not be drawn, other projects may have their own quirks). These generic banners should not be copied to Wikidata. Then we need a really smart bot that will remove filenames from the {{pagebanner}} template, but only those filenames that match their counterparts in Wikidata. Nick, are you able to do this? --Alexander (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers: Creating banners is a severe pain. Finding good images, manipulating them, uploading as a derivative, categorizing... Each banner takes a rather long time, English Wikivoyage is slowing after painfully reaching 20%, and other Wikivoyages have no hope of ever reaching 100% if no collaboration happens.

Texugo: Good points. Any idea how a script could check whether a file is hosted locally due to copyright issues?

Alexander: That would be a different bot, right? I guess I could do it, but I will be travelling soon, back in December, so hopefully other people will step in and start coding :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it could check whether the file is in Category:Files to be kept locally. We don't appear to have any banners in this situation yet. Texugo (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I updated the bot request. By the way: Rather than create a bot that would maintain Category:Banner missing from Wikidata, how about just run the initial bot again, every week or so? Nicolas1981 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Non-free Wikivoyage banners exists; is it used anywhere? And it should probably be a subcat of Category:Files to be kept locally. LtPowers (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I couldn't find any templates that insert that category, but it's not a bad idea, and yes, should be a subcategory of the other..

As for running the bot every week or so, well, if somebody is going to keep track of that and do it regularly without fail, that's fine with me. I'm just afraid those things tend to be forgotten after a while. At any rate, I don't think the category would hurt even if the bot were run every week. At least you could see at a glance whether it needs to be run. Texugo (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If an image is nonfree, should it really be used in a banner? --Rschen7754 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Our policies allow it, as long as the reason it's non-free is limited to depicting an important but copyrighted work of art or architecture. LtPowers (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it comes very close to violating fair use laws. Since we don't have individual articles on sites, the chances that we would need a non-free image as a banner are fairly small. --Rschen7754 23:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, not even remotely. It would come very close to violating Wikipedia's non-free-use policy, but we are not Wikipedia. Fair use laws are considerably broader than that, and we're well within our rights to editorially use a photograph of a famous attraction in the area about which we are writing. Travel publications do it literally all the time. LtPowers (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At such a high resolution that is needed for the banner, and for decorative use? This really does not seem like a good idea. --Rschen7754 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolution is irrelevant. The reason Wikipedia requires non-free images to be low-resolution is because Wikipedia deals frequently in book covers and CD covers and screenshots -- images where someone might be able to use the image to recreate the copyrighted work, or for other fraudulent purposes. For travel photographs of buildings and sculptures, which is the extent of what our non-free-image policy covers, resolution is not an issue, with, perhaps, certain image-specific exceptions. "Decorative use" also fails to adequately describe the use to which we put these images. We choose to present them in a decorative fashion, but that hardly makes them any less educational than the more boringly-presented lead images we have long used. I hate to repeat myself, but we really are not Wikipedia. Wikipedia has their rules, and has good reasons for them; we have different rules, and good reasons for them as well. But since our purposes are different, so must the rules be. LtPowers (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great and all, but I don't care about local policy, if it doesn't comply with copyright law in the United States and/or puts the Foundation at the risk of being sued. --Rschen7754 07:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you think that current policy cannot be justified by the doctrine of fair use for educational or informational purposes, please make your argument at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content. My belief is that fair use is a principle that's important enough that the Wikimedia Foundation would be and should be willing to fight for it, if necessary, but if you think that banners are somehow different from non-banner thumbnails in terms of fair use, that would be worth discussing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And continue the discussion on some random page that nobody will notice. Eh, I don't think it would be worth it, since people around here don't seem to want to change any policy, or change anything from the Wikitravel days. In the last few weeks I've considered resigning the admin bit quite a few times for that very reason. --Rschen7754 08:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And continue the discussion on a page where there was already some discussion of the policy. I'm not sure who you're thinking of in your broad-brush remark, but I certainly have no great attachment to existing policies, and I'll observe that it would be quite ironic if you follow up resignations over frustration with Frank (and my apologies to Frank for bringing him into this discussion in order to make a point) by resigning because you seem to agree with Frank's viewpoint about admins (other than you). If you want to change a policy, as I've said to Frank, Tony1, and others, you need to make a clear argument and try to persuade others of its truth. I say that not because I disagree with most of Frank's arguments (rather, I agree with some of them, don't care enough to have a pro or con position on others, and disagree on one or two) or with yours (I'm not a lawyer and haven't seen your argument on this policy in detail), but because you know very well that by giving up and just applying a negative stereotype to (other) admins, you won't be able to achieve anything. So if you really would rather make the argument here, with reference to the existing arguments at the talk page I linked to, rather than at the talk page in question, please go ahead. But I would implore you not to repeat the kind of corrosive statement you just made. I can resign, too, and if I do so in the near future, it would be for another reason: Spending unpaid time here will have stopped being fun, in large part because of just the kind of remark you just made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you realize how deflating it is to spend time helping the community here, and have your suggestions that might help this site get along better with editors from other Wikimedia sites spurned repeatedly. Perhaps I was a bit too broad in my remark: my comments certainly don't apply to everyone on this site, and I apologize for that. But what I've seen is a bit too much of circling the wagons whenever new proposals are made, and it seems that moving such discussions off to side pages where only regulars will notice is another thing that seems to happen a lot. Plus plenty of other things that other Wikimedians have complained about to me, and which I've largely overlooked. --Rschen7754 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for others, but I'd like to read your ideas — and in particular, for the purposes of this discussion, your concerns about the use of images that include copyrighted sculptures, etc. Also, for my part, the reason I suggest having discussions on relevant pages is to maintain order and continuity. I do a lot of patrolling, so I don't have trouble finding discussions wherever they happen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing is that I don't do a lot of patrolling using RecentChanges - I keep an eye on things on #cvn-wikivoyage, but it doesn't show edits from trusted users. I've been wanting to write up my thoughts on Wikivoyage, but am still trying to find the time to do so. Oh, and in regards to your comment on Wikimedia defending fair use: that does not seem to be the case (also see Meta). --Rschen7754 09:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(unindent to avoid my interruption being a thin worm one word wide)Sorry to bother you, but what is " #cvn-wikivoyage ", please? --W. Frank^email_talk 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair use is not mentioned, but I don't think that proves conclusively that the WMF wouldn't want to fight for it, if they felt it was necessary. That said, if Wikivoyage's non-free content policy could expose the WMF to a lawsuit, I think the policy needs to go beyond the policy-discussion level and be referred to WMF Legal for them to rule on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We should probably have some idea of what the law says before trying to second guess the legal professionals about interpretation.

Does WMF have any existing policy on this? If so, we should take a look at it first, as it may solve the problem. (wishful thinking, I know, but we should at least check).• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, another concern: If we offload banners to Wikidata, it becomes nearly impossible to tell when a page on your watchlist has a new banner, or has its banner changed. LtPowers (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Check "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" in preferences. --Rschen7754 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I have that checkbox checked. The problem is that seeing that an edit has been made to an article's associated Wikidata item doesn't tell me anything about what was changed. It might have been the name of, say, the Esperanto Wikipedia article associated with that item, or the creation of a Wikidata Category associated with that item, or the addition of a translated property to the item, or any number of other things I don't really give a fig about in a Wikivoyage context. And given the scores of Wikidata edits on my watchlist every day, as well as the painfully slow speed of large Wikidata pages, I cannot possibly check the history of each one to see if it's a Wikivoyage-related change or not. LtPowers (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree that the template should default to the first banner listed, and that any additional banner should be added to the wikidata item rather than replacing the one already there, that would mean that banner changes would have to physically happen here by means of override, and would thus show up on the watchlist as always. Texugo (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The automatic edit summary should explain what was changed. --Rschen7754 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The only edit summaries I see on my local watchlist for Wikidata changes all say "Wikidata item changed" and nothing more. Is there something else I should be seeing? LtPowers (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) is that the expected behavior? --Rschen7754 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot has been approved! Anyone has time to prepare a CSV file containing couples ARTICLE NAME; BANNER FILENAME ? I would use it and start with a hundred of them. By the way, on the English Wikivoyage what are the filename patterns that distinguish generic banners that should not be uploaded? Will I filter them all out with "*default*.*"? Any other pattern? Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All the default banners filenames are listed in the code of the template. There are not very many so will list them here too:

Pagebanner default.jpg

Mena-asia_default_banner.jpg

S-amer africa default banner.jpg

Caribbean default banner.jpg

Australia-oceania default banner.jpg

TT Banner.jpg

Generic flying banner.jpg

Default Scuba diving banner.JPG

Itinerary banner.jpg

Welcome banner.jpg

I think that's the lot. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How does this banner property affect the way new custom banners should be added? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Banners should be added to the Wikidata item. --Rschen7754 17:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is something new, we need a suitably detailed explanation on the project page, which is now presumably inapplicable. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is overly complicated. It's bad enough we force people to go to another site to upload images, but we also want to force them to go to a third site to put the images into articles? LtPowers (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of promoting sharing of data via Wikidata is a good one, and that interfaces for interacting with Wikidata will improve over time and make this easier. For now I would agree that it is burdensome to have to go to Wikidata to add a banner, so at least for the moment it may make sense to have this be a bot task - if a bot finds an English Wikivoyage banner that isn't yet in Wikidata it can add it and update our site accordingly. There are a number of talented bot writers working with Wikidata, so hopefully this would be a proposal we could endorse and one of their bot people could then implement. Would that address the complexity concerns? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, though there's the still the issue of identifying changes to watchlisted banners, which is being discussed above. LtPowers (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need to take this slowly. It is a serous issue if banners can be changed without showing up on everybody's watchlist. A spammer could probably change a load of pages to show his advert before it was noticed, because the edits would not show up here or in most watchlists. The complexity will also put people off - banners are complicated enough as it is, and there is no link from our pages to the Wikidata page. I would also suggest that banners are only transferred after they have been in use here for a month, so that it is easy to change a banner shortly after it has been added. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, such a spammer would certainly be noticed on Wikidata, as we have our own patrollers and admins. --Rschen7754 01:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And such a spammer would have to upload their ads to Commons, where they would not last more than a few minutes. I don't think spam will come this way anytime soon. Sincerely, the worst I can see happening is two editors arguing on which banner is the best... by the way, does this kind of banner dispute happen often on the English Wikivoyage? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If the spammer uploaded an explict advert, it would be noticed on commons. But a lot of marketing photos would be accepted on commons - photos of hotels or restaurants for instance. Our policies restrict the use of hotel photos, so the use of a photo of an uninteresting hotel would normally be noticed and reverted. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

One mild three comment discussion on a replacement that was uncontroversial and a deletion of a touty non-compliant banner with strong agreement are the only cases I know of. It certainly is possible for this to be a problem, but there is a procedure for dealing with it at Wikivoyage:Banner_Expedition#Changing a banner. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a script of some kind similar to the listings editor which would update wikidata when the pagebanner template parameters are edited? This should be something that could later be called from VE if/when it comes to WV. I think VE already has facilities for editing some classes of template, and maybe we could borrow from their coding. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Before answering this question, we need to decide whether we are going to limit wikidata items to having only one banner (in which case it should be hardcoded not to allow more) or whether we will put multiples there (as it currently allows). My proposal is to allow multiples there, so anyone can check there to see what options there are, but have our template here use the first one by default, so that if the banner shown on en: is changed afterward, it has to be changed locally in the override parameter, thus always showing up in recent changes. Texugo (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to allow multiple banners on a Wikidata item. It allows choice to the various languages, and they can all choose which they prefer from the available selection, which will in most cases be one.

It seems like a reasonable idea to have the first banner loaded as the default custom banner, and to require anyone who feels strongly enough to provide a replacement custom banner to make the necessary changes. It is probably not going to happen that often anyway. I am not sure I understand exactly what you are proposing, but it sounds OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It will happen now and then. Some banners have been replaced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, they have, but the point is that if we follow the above, replacement would continue to happen by changing the attribute here in the template itself (where it can show up in our watchlists), rather than by simply replacing what is listed in the property field on wikidata. Texugo (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I got that and liked that proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All non-generic banners from all Wikivoyages are now in Wikidata :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm. What about all these? Texugo (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

These 472 banners have been missed indeed... Thanks for the feedback! Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done :-) Remaining images should be moved to Commons first. Nicolas1981 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some are already on commons (Whale Rock, Train travel in NZ, Travel photography, Tracyton), some were deleted as copvios (Stanley and Port Augusta) and some have to stay on WV for FOP reasons (Loop art tour, SF Mission/Bernal Heights) etc. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I took care of most of them. Buffalo/Allentown and the Delaware District still needs to be moved to Commons, and the other three are copyrighted works we'll have to keep here. I'll see about putting a switch so we can keep the category clean. Texugo (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Adding fop=yes to the pagebanner template will take them out of the maintenance category. Now all that is left is that Buffalo article. Texugo (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was away for some time and missed all this discussion about banners move to wikidata. The idea sounds great, but at the same time I am worried about yet another relatively difficult step within the banner creation. I mean how many editors will be motivated enough going through the whole procedure of finding a picture, editing it, uploading to commons, and finally putting it to wikidata? I also find it is important that we keep the option of having different banners for each project.

Because adding banners has been one of my main activities at WV, I still have some open questions, for which I might have missed the answers above.

• My main concern is how exactly will I find out from the watchlist that a banner was changed and why it happened?
• If an existing custom banner is changed, there should be a discussion or at least reason behind it other than just personal preference. There is no space for such discussion at wikidata, is there?
• How would I lead this discussion with anyone from a different language version?
• Also we have some set of rules (or guidelines) saying what is a good banner and what is not. This might very from one WV to another.
• Is it allowed or not to upload more than 1 banner to wikidata? If so and there are more than 1 banners, how can I implement a second/third/... one? --Danapit (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Danapit. The proposal, not yet set up, is:

• the first banner is added to wikidata
• the pagebanner template automatically grabs the first banner listed on wikidata unless something is written manually here (override)
• additional banners can be added to wikidata, but beyond the initial banner, subsequent changes to the banner here will be managed by manually writing in the title (override), so that they show up in recent changes.

Texugo (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Texugo, thank you for the explanation. Still it is not clear to me how we can follow a change in the wikidata banner. This will not appear clearly in the watchlist. Danapit (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well in the proposed scenario, the only way to change from one banner to a different one would be by manually changing it here, as we always have, so of course it would show up in the watchlist. Texugo (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How could we prevent anyone changing the banner at wikidata? We would have no control over that... It is not enough we agree only to add banners in case they are missing, but not changing them. We can agree here for this scenario, but how are the other wikidata users (non-wikivoyagers) to know? Danapit (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikidata has patrollers too, who should prevent people from removing banners there. Wikidata does support adding multiple banner entries, and they do remain there in the order they are added. Texugo (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The other option would be to keep doing everything locally, and have the template not display anything by default but only flag articles (put them in a maintenance category) when wikidata has a banner for an article without one here. I might could be convinced to support that too. The problem I see is that doing it that way would eliminate any incentive for ensuring that banners are written to the data items and would require more manual maintenance to keep up with banners added there by other language versions. Texugo (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata surely has patrollers, but I am not sure if checking if a banner file is exchanged is high on their priority list. I did this edit some days ago replacing an existing banner file by another one (the old one had wrong size) and nobody complained. I would be inclined to support the other option including the maintenance category. Users working on banner expedition could regularly check that one like they do with crop maintenance category. Danapit (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can get someone running a bot to periodically check Category:Banner missing from Wikidata and add the banners to WD to collaborate with other language versions, I would be OK with that solution.Texugo (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Destinations and user experience

For previous discussions on this subject, see Talk:Destinations.

(Just trying out the new tag) After Nick bumped the Destinations page, I thought it should get more eyes on it.

The idea is to add Destinations to the start of each breadcrumb trail: Destinations > Asia > China for example. If the breadcrumbs are too long, it could be possible to reduce their font size.

I'll go further with another suggestion - add the top level regions to the sidebar.

Travel destinations

• Africa
• Asia
• Europe
• North America
• Oceania
• South America
• Other destinations

And possibly add the article map to the end of that as well. I think the term Places rather than Destinations is better as well. Thoughts? -- torty3 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for raising this!

Those suggestions sound good - perhaps 'Places' could be another collapsible navbar category (above Get involved?) where we could keep those top level destinations?

I'd really like to be able to embed this map (or make all our destinations accessible from PoiMap) on that page, but at present the 'MapFrame' template and associated JavaScript don't support it. Do you think there's any way that we could make that work?

If anyone else has any ideas for the page, it would be great to hear them! --Nick ^talk 00:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. It's my opinion that the name should stay "Destinations", if only for the fact that we call locations destinations 99% of the time around this site (i.e. Other destinations). It would make sense to keep it unified, but I won't go crazy if it's called Places. I don't know how the open source maps work so I can't help you there. Nick1372 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There is further discussion at Talk:Destinations. Pashley (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been having a play with an idea for the new Earth page that you can see here. What do you think? The imagemap isn't quite finished yet, but it can be done very easily. --Nick ^talk 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather think we'd want to incorporate those ideas with embedding of the article map. I think it makes for much more interesting exploring than starting with one of our mediocre continent article does. Texugo (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Believe me - I've tried! The current mapframe doesn't permit it (although could be tweaked by someone knowledgeable) and the other (slight) issue is that it can take an age to load as a result of the number of articles. I'd also have liked to somehow embed Special:Nearby, but that doesn't seem to be possible either. --Nick ^talk 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I know. I've tried too. Do we have any feature requests going on this yet? Texugo (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Artmap can be embedded, but I'm a little reluctant to do so because of the time to load plus will need to mess around with screen width, and would prefer a direct link (ideally in the sidebar). Not sure about Nearby. -- torty3 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you tell us how it can be embedded, in case we want to play around with it? Texugo (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ShareMap - Wikimedia grant

Copied from Wikivoyage_talk:Community_portal#ShareMap_-_Wikimedia_grant --Nick ^talk 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WikiVoyagers ShareMap is a collaborative map creation tool. It is currently applying for Wikimedia grant to continue project development. One of ShareMap principles is preparing map authoring usable for WikiVoyage authors and readers (even if it is not very project in Wikimedia scale, we really believe in its success).

ShareMap already implemented some experimental features that is dedicated for WikiVoyage authors:

• Screen cast : Creating POI map for WikiVoyage with ShareMap

But there is still lot to do.

One of grant results will be creation free mobile off line map viewer application for maps created by Wikimedia community.

I will be very happy for endorsement, opinions or even criticism from all WikiVoyage community member on Wikimedia grant project.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/ShareMap#Part_3:_Community_Discussion

If you would like to learn more about ShareMap project please visit:

• ShareMap Twitter Channel
• ShareMap on Wikimedia Commons

--Jkan997 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem districts

Can anyone who knows about Jerusalem please comment at Talk:Jerusalem#Jerusalem Districts. Thanks -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow

Flow is a new discussion technology for Wikis, it might replace areas like this page. They are looking for volunteer wikiprojects. While we are not a wikiproject, should we ask to join as a prototype? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow looks pretty cool, and it'll be really helpful once it's deployed. I for one would be interested in this site joining as a protoype. Either way, it can't hurt to ask. Nick1372 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If we wanted to become a WikiProject, we could hijack w:WP:TRAVEL or one of its subprojects, they are as dead as dirt. K7L (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

1-hour IRC chat 2013-10-24 18:00 UTC until 19:00 UTC at #wikimedia-office I can't attend unfortunately, anyone willing to attend and propose ourselves as a Flow beta test? Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea en-WV becoming a Guinea pig for testing Flow, I would certainly support anything that can make discussions easier to follow, mainly changes in individual threads. I can't attend the chat though. --Danapit (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, one reason why I think the Traveller's Pub hasn't changed much is because central archives and auto-archiving doesn't really solve the clunky wiki discussion format in terms of multiple simultaneous threads, though I don't know if being the guinea pig is a good idea. Let the WikiProjects have the first round. -- torty3 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are the templates?

Where are the templates for "see", "do", "buy", etc.? Am I just missing them at the bottom or do I actually have to copy them from an article that already has them? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

They've been removed already and moved into the edit bar. --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Boost our readership by at least 400% in two months

or get rid of Frank for six!. How can we lose? --92.26.121.21 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing to expel Frank for 6 months, at this point. And speaking personally, I hope that there is never a cause for any more blocks of his account of any length. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Ikan Kekek, I would not wish to lose Frank for 6 months, however, I appreciate the confidence with which he has put forward his findings and proposals. If we do implement the suggested changes, we'll have to be very organised and diplomatic about it - these are large changes. Personally, I'm happy to see parentheses replaced by a comma and extended lead paragraphs can only be a good thing. I'm slightly concerned about (although not opposed to) a change of headings, if only because I think the ones we've got are very good and will take some time to better. If we want to do this quickly (and in a single swoop), that could be a sticking point, but let's see how we go. Are we going to go ahead with these proposals? Wikivoyage is feeling a little empty at the moment... --Nick ^talk 18:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing our "traditional" section headings are just one (integral and highly important) part of a 5-point plan to kill off our "inferior mirror of Wikitravel" status with Google. Within 4 months of adopting ALL of these linked changes it will be WT that is regarded as an "inferior mirror of us" and then we can change all our section headings back again (if that's the consensus) to ram home WT's inferior status. Job done! --W. Frank^email_talk 18:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion there if possible.Texugo (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Frank. Being "better", while it would be great, isn't really the goal. The goal is to differentiate ourselves from WT, at least as far as Google is concerned. The problem as I see it speaks to what Nick said. Even if they're not improvements, we obviously want any changes we make to section headings, etc. to be at least equally good as what we had before. And what synonyms are there for, say, "Eat", "See", or "Do" that get the point across as well? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Eat: Eating, Dining, Food; See: Sights, Look; Do: Activities, Doing. Are these equally good? Not sure. I think "Food" and "Eating" are as good as "Eat," but "Dining" has other connotations. I think "Sights" is as good as "See," but "Look is inferior. And I think "Activities" is as good as "Do," but "Doing" is a bit strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only a recent immigrant to the project but I like your verbs-as-section-titles format and wouldn't want to lose that. I can't think of many obvious alternatives but if you do change the standard sections, keeping to verbs would be nice. (eg. "Get in" could be "Enter", "Get around"->"Traverse" or even "Travel", "Buy"->"Shop", "Sleep"->"Stay" etc). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it work if we just changed some of the sections to present participles? e.g. 'Understand' -> 'About'; 'Get in' -> 'Getting in'; 'Get around' -> 'Getting around'; 'See' -> 'Sights'; 'Do' -> 'Activities' (or controversially, merge 'see' & 'do'?); 'Buy' -> 'Shopping'; 'Eat' -> 'Food'; 'Drink' -> 'Refreshment' (probably the weakest); 'Sleep' -> 'Staying' / 'Accommodatio0n'; 'Connect' and 'Go next' remain. --Nick ^talk 22:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of drowning people in suggestions, how about adding the Five W's (and one H) before the verb? Get in would be How to get in; Get around -> How to get around; Understand -> What to know; See -> What to see; Do -> What to do; Eat -> What to eat; Drink -> What to drink; Sleep -> Where to sleep; Buy -> Where to shop; and Stay safe -> How to stay safe. This could be a compromise for those who like the classic ones. Now that I'm actually writing these down, though, they seem long. Oh well, it can't hurt to suggest them… Nick1372 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're pretty clunky and not good. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Stylistically consistent, unambiguous and not worse than the current standard should be the minimum requirement. Better would be good, Worse would not. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried some new headings in our Wigan article; please feel free to comment or change them - we could use that page as a sort of test bed, without disrupting the ongoing Somerset, Tasmania experiment. --Nick ^talk 10:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

By all means discuss whether you think there are some improved names for section titles, but please don't confuse two entirely separate and distinct issues here.

I wish to increase our readership ten-fold in a few months. This will bring us new problems in the form of increased amounts of spam but it will also bring us new editors and patrollers.

The way to do this is to convince the ever-changing Google algorithms that we are not an inferior mirror site of Wikitravel (which currently beats us in Google's organic search results for most of our articles - the exception being my experimental Somerset, Tasmania article). We only need to do this once, then IB will pull the plug on Wikitravel since their advertising revenue will fall in step with their suddenly diminished readership.

Once we have convinced Google's crawling spiders that we are a changed site we will no longer suffer the crushing duplicate penalties.

Then (within reason) this site can have all the SEO sapping section titles and banners it wants.

This sea change must be a shock and awe, once only occurrence - not a gradual change - for it to work. That is why it is a VERY BAD IDEA to have a series of ad hoc individual experiments now.

By all means discuss what section titles you want to have AFTER "A-Day + 2 months" (maybe you'll decide it's just better to go back to our traditional titles) but, the section titles for "A-Day" must not be synonyms of Wikitravel's existing titles! Remember that "A-Day" is for robot readers - not for human readers. "A-Day + 2 months" when the job is done we can go back to (pretty well) disregarding what the Google spiders read...

I'm going into hospital now so I won't be writing here for some while, so please forgive me that I won't be here to guide your efforts. I wish everyone all the best! --W. Frank^email_talk 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think some of us are getting ahead of ourselves with new section names and such when we haven't established which changes will do the trick, and several of us will be opposed to changing such things if not 100% established that it is what is needed. Again, I would really appreciate it if we would stop here and continue this conversation on Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition, where this topic is already split into various different threads. We really don't need yet another parallel discussion going on here in the pub when so much has been written about it already there. Texugo (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea to keep discussions in one place but please discuss this rationally rather than continue to try and sabotage my experimental article. It's clear that you are implacably opposed to my project to increase readership (why, I'm not even going to hazard a guess at) but surely there can be just ONE exception to the current implementation of the Google search result slaughtering banners in our thousands of articles? I know you hate seeing my empirical results prove what I'm preaching, but try and exercise some judgement and self control, please. --W. Frank^email_talk 12:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't simply revert your removal of the banner - I pointed you to the talk page where User:Torty3 explains how you are wrong about this. And I don't need you to tell me what my opinions are. I am not opposed to increasing readership, though I am opposed to your overly assertive and highly dismissive tactics in trying to force changes through, and I disagree that your results are empirical enough. Texugo (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As important as SEO efforts are, over a year has passed and I'm sure we can allow a few more weeks for some additional testing if that can get us to agree on a strategy. I understand that you're impatient, Frank, and this is our highest priority, but we're not in that much of a hurry. At the same time, I do believe we should allow Frank to have his own "experimental" article without interfering. Let's just agree on a few low-traffic test articles; there's no real harm in that, especially when compared to the gains we're trying to establish. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The test articles sound reasonable, but I'd be surprised if "changing everything at once" was hugely different than methodically updating one page at a time for SEO. The search engine is still just going to stumble across updates one article at a time as it isn't pulling the wikivoyage:database dump as one huge block. One option I'd like to see is to allow contributors to create "Whereverville/new" as a complete rewrite of an article on "Whereverville" that doesn't use any descriptive content from the old WT version. Any content added after the move to WV would be put into the new article with attribution, the old article would be discarded once the new one was at least to "usable" and the new page moved into its place. We don't have enough people to do this for every city, but having fresh content for a few of the most popular destinations would improve Wikivoyage. After all, a huge part of the reason why Evan and Maj decided a travel wiki was needed in 2003 is that it can be more current than a printed guide. Anything here that was recycled from WT is by definition anywhere from a year to a decade old, so much of it is stale. K7L (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Google pagerank, also see bugzilla:52688 and dependency bug (please, no "me too" comments over there). --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

individual listings in region pages?

Is there a template to tag region articles like Bohol which contain listings that should be moved to city/town pages? I'd removed a bit of obvious fluff "The resort (has) opened their doors to provide you with wonderful facilities and warm service. It is truly a venue you can enjoy with your family, friends, and even your colleagues...You can also find pleasure in their leisure facilities." and fixed incorrectly-formatted telephone numbers, but individual hotels are rarely notable at region level. K7L (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There is {{movetocity}}, which places the page in Category:Move listings to cities. Texugo (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Button to open POI in map+GPS app

Imagine you backpack around Bangladesh with only a smartphone and no Internet. You have an offline Wikivoyage (HTML files or OxygenGuide or Kiwix) and an offline maps+GPS app. It is already 5pm so you find a reasonable hotel in the Sleep section and want to walk to it, helped by GPS.

PROBLEM: Even though the listing includes GPS coordinates, it is very difficult to send these coordinates to any map app. The "easiest" is to edit the HTML, copy paste the latitude/longitude, and paste them into your map app after removing the template characters... very cumbersome.

IDEA: Our HTML should embed some kind of button to open the system's Map app. See how to do for Android and iOS. Any idea on how to integrate those, or any better solution, are very welcome!

DEBATE: What do you think? Should we implement this now? Only for mobile? How? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd think that we do not explicitly control how wiki code is converted into HTML in apps like OxygenGuide or WikiSherpa. The app does that. We only control what happens if the user is actually viewing Wikivoyage. A third-party app running from WV:database dumps is going to take the raw listing fields ("lat=", "long=", "wikipedia=" if used) and handle them its own way (WikiSherpa integrates WV, WP and a map IIRC). Let it do so and concentrate just on what happens to a wikivoyager using HTML here. K7L (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with K7L. There is nothing stopping an app consuming Wikivoyage HTML content in the manner you describe in order to achieve this functionality. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I just came back from travelling WITH an Internet connection, and realized that Wikivoyage's embedded map is not enough. Travellers reading wikivoyage.org online will want to open the map in their favorite GPS/directions app. So I think we should have a small "Open with Geo app" button next to each POI. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If it was easy to implement with a standardised link format like maps:// or geo:// similar to the recent tel:// links that were added, then easy decision. But there are differing systems which would require user agent testing, and then choose one of Windows/Apple/Android/Blackberry. Apps should handle their own formatting and functions. One possibility is leaving the geohack link in, though that will probably take three clicks, one to geohack, one to linked Google/Bing map and one to Google/Apple map app. -- torty3 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

w:Geo URI looks to be a standard, but the great thing about standards is that there so many from which to choose. Here, geo: and tel: mean nothing on the desktop if I have no app installed for either, but some mobile devices might do something sensible with them? K7L (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a standard but not the global standard. Seems like geo:// works for Android, while Apple has another standard, and I haven't checked for Windows and BB. -- torty3 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Quitting due to good newly authored content constantly being removed

In case there's any sane people left here, feel free to browse my history here and on WT (same username). I've had a gutful of this frankly rude and non-constructive content removal and quit. Perhaps you might consider reigning in this activity before it loses you more motivated contributors. See you all later and best of luck with the project. Pratyeka (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Happy trails! And to anyone who's really interested in this, please feel free to look at Pratyeka's talk page and draw your own conclusions as you wish. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I look at it as a sort of rite of passage. Like it's not a real wiki until you have to contend with things like petty tyrants and edit warriors and personal agenda-pushers. Welcome to the big time, Wikivoyage. :-) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I believe in Wikipedia and Wikivoyage is that sites like these represent something akin to the Medieval method of collective authorship, complete with marginalia (the Talk pages), but no longer restricted to a small number of professional scribes and clerical university students, but open to anyone with web access. Anyone who has too big an ego to want to work collectively can't do well here, no matter how good a writer they are. That's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. It's a big worldwide web out there, and everyone who wants to can express themselves somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see you go and I know you're big enough morally to avoid painting yourself into a corner if you do ever want to change your mind. Yes, it is very tough when sparkling prose and professional pictures imparting wisdom to the traveller are messed about by people not keeping our primary policy right to the forefront of their mind: the Travellers' viewpoint should always comes first in any dispute! and being positively unfriendly (I would except Ikan Kekek from that because I do know that - when he's not having a bad day - he can be very helpful). I know you had some happy Burmese days and I hope you continue to have happy Thai days! -- Alice^✉ 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pratyeka! Just looking at the small edit war that shows last in your contribution history, I have to agree that these historical images would be a bit too much on an already image-heavy page. How about taking a break to focus on something less controversial, for instance creating banners for Indonesian towns? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do concern that the content added by some users is more 'general trivia' than 'travel guide content', and historical images should really go to the relevant Wikipedia article instead. I wonder if the scope of WV isn't clear and defined enough? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A look at this user's talk page plainly shows that the issue here is not how clearly defined our scope is, and that attempting to calmly reason with the user as Nicolas1981 seems to be doing is unlikely to do any good. The plain fact of the matter is that collaborating on a wiki is not for everyone, and this user's temperament is obviously not compatible with such an endeavor. The user has behaved provocatively and with a complete lack of civility (going so far as to call one of our long-standing admins an "asshole" [12]), showed a blatant disrespect and disregard for our policy (shrugging off objections to his/her use of first-person pronouns in Dordrecht by saying that he/she is "not really interested in policy" [13]), and angrily defied repeated attempts by other users to counsel him/her and guide him/her toward being a productive member of our community.

Sad to say, it's often better that people like this leave our community, rather than encouraging them to stay and, in all likelihood, continue to antagonize other editors and cause trouble in general. If it were up to me alone, this user would have been blocked a long, long time ago. It's not our job at Wikivoyage to be bleeding hearts. We give problem editors a certain number of chances to get with the program - and in this case, if anything, we gave this user too many chances - and if that doesn't work, they're out the door. It's not worth the effort; we have bigger fish to fry here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though this user is an admin on the English Wikipedia, they have been involved in some recent controversial actions over there: [14]. As I've said in my essay w:User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!, adminship over there certainly should not grant immunity to blocks/bans here if the community feels they are necessary. --Rschen7754 06:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As a sidebar, one thing I'd like to know is how a user who has expressed such a vehement antipathy to the very concept of "policy" ended up an admin on en.wp. What do admins do other than policy-related stuff? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In the early 2000s, it was very easy to become an admin there. --Rschen7754 07:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Must-read. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Saqib. Very topical! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this user, but was surprised to find, after a single interaction with this user in which I explained what I was doing and why, that I was named, twice even, as the reason for their leaving. The way they were putting the article together was very unlike the way we build articles, but they seemed unwilling to take the policies and practices behind that into consideration. Texugo (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

meta:Don't be a dick is a pretty good guide for dealing with these sorts of situations, both for the person accused of being problematic, and for ensuring that the accusers themselves aren't being "dickish". While the title makes it tough to cite without further inflaming passions (as the essay notes, telling someone "don't be a dick" is a dick move), I suspect that we will at some point need to draft some sort of civility guideline, and that essay might be a good basis for such a policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

*Cough* - I wrote this for a previous issue, but perhaps a sort of crossover between this rather tame effort and meta:Don't be a dick might work? --Nick ^talk 21:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the content of Wikivoyage is fun , although you are right to say it is pretty tame. I think meta:Don't be a dick would actually get everyone's attention and actually be a position that we could (intentional dicks aside) agree on. We should always however strive to remember why we are doing this, which is because it is fun. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone likes Nicholasjf21's "fun" essay, so if we need a civility policy, it should probably be called something like Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun. LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with this. And if we could incorporate certain elements of the essay Saqib linked to, that'd be awesome too, just because that page was so relevant to what we've been dealing with lately. Something along the lines of "If you keep getting into arguments and threatening to leave, then you're clearly not having fun and you're making things miserable for everyone else. In which case, just leave." But stated more eloquently than that, obviously. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

POI editor: Wikipedia page?

How about adding a link to Wikipedia for POIs that have a Wikipedia article? That would allow readers to get in-depth information for a museum, monument, park, waterfall, or any famous place. The French Wikivoyage actually has that. Wikipedia articles could then be used to populate the mini-picture of each POI in the dynamic POI map. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a French wikivoyage link that would illustrate this? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I must have dreamt, I can't find anymore... it was probably not the French one, actually. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic. But discussion of this has been previously carried out at Wikivoyage talk:Sister project links, and should continue there. It's a rather turbulent discussion, so it would need some new insight for any productive work. -- torty3 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, please read all the various previous discussions on this at Wikivoyage talk:Sister project links, Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia, and Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Listings tags and links to Wikipedia. After reading all those very divided and deadlocked discussions, if you don't have some absolutely novel, revolutionary proposal that will address all the issues raised, you might not want to open that can of worms again. It hasn't been long since the last such discussion finally died down. Texugo (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd think the term "can of worms" is a bit harsh. It's just en: that's deadlocked on this, as far as I know, as on some of the others (like fr:) the links weren't debated on any huge scale and the sky hasn't fallen. Ultimately, we do need to attract new en.WP authors to write here or the project (much like the deadlocked {{listing}} debate) will stagnate. K7L (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that we've already been over and over the same arguments quite thoroughly three times in recent months, so if no innovative perspective is brought to the table to address the concerns which have led to the deadlock, it will be a waste of time to drag it all out again and rehash the same stuff. Texugo (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the intention isn't to stifle discussion or shuffle it somewhere else. The open-door policy (never closing discussions) is good, but sometimes it will probably be better to let the idea rest and then reassess community support after a set amount of time. Although closing discussions would have prevented fiascoes like the spelling issue. Reading back on it, I think Ryan's comments about Wikivoyage:Consensus are extra relevant now. Maybe a debate style of statement and rebuttal is needed or better summaries, rather than the wall of text discussion in which good points are lost. And if en.WP authors are not contributing just because they cannot add Wikipedia links here, I think that's too bad. -- torty3 (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage POI database for OsmAnd?

The open source Android map+GPS app OsmAnd allows users to add custom POI databases.

It would be great to have a Wikivoyage POI layer. If the whole world is too heavy, we could split in different countries or regions.

Anyone interested? By the way, this database could also be a first step before Wikidata-based interwiki POI collaboration. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it, but I believe it is task #1 for the whole project. Offline usage of Wikivoyage is... well, underdeveloped. And OsmAnd is a great tool that gets more and more users, so the export of our POIs to OsmAnd maps will be not only handy for the existing Wikivoyage users, but also a great promotion of Wikivoyage among all people who use OsmAnd. --Alexander (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I just implemented a basic Wikivoyage→OsmAnd transformer. Open source, improvements welcome on Github. Here is a test output, containing all POIs of Rattanakosin, try it with OsmAnd! No metadata yet, everything is a restaurant ;-) Anyone motivated for taking this script to the next level? (command-line OsmAndMapCreator, automatic generation from the Wikivoyage dump, regional packs) Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

An idea on how to get more visitors/contributors

Here is an idea on how to get more visitors/contributors.

• Start with a list of our ten most visited articles. Let's say they are "City 1", "City 2" and "City 3" etc.
• We can then assume they are also amongst the most common searches for travel guides on google. So "City 1 travel guide" is probably one of the most popular searches on google, much more common then "Any_other_city travel guide".
• We should now make sure these ten articles makes it to the top in a google search. If "City 1 travel guide" has wikivoyage as the top result, that will make a greater impact on the number of visitors than if we are the top result for "City 374 travel guide".
• Then we also make sure these ten articles are of the best quality possible, make them star articles. This means most of the new visitors will find wikivoyage a useful travel guide and recommend us to others. Link to wikivoyage in blogs, forums etc.
• I am sure this will make a difference. We will get more visitors and more contributors, and hopefully it will make a snowball effect.

Traveler 712 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For one related list, see Wikivoyage:World_cities/Large. For discussion of search issues, see Wikivoyage:Search_Expedition and the talk page for that article.

Currently the title text is "City1 - Travel guides at Wikivoyage". Would it make any difference to change it to "City1 travel guide ..."? How should we handle phrasebooks, itineraries and travel topics if we make that change? Pashley (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the competition for the top-searched destinations is fierce - there are thousands and thousands articles, guides, webpages et al. about Paris or New York. Our forte seems to be that we also do cover Menzies, Hilversum and thousands of other less popular destinations, some of them really well. Some day Wikivoyage will be the default search result for all travel-related searched, much as Wikipedia is for almost everything, but until then what can win us viewership and recognition is catering to travellers who really can't find much info elsewhere - and their searches will probably also be ones we have much less competition for, plus it will be easier to be formally (i.e. via an actual hyperlink) referred to by other sites, blogs et alia. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends where in New York... filling some gaping holes in places like Oswego, Ogdensburg and Massena may get us traffic with less competition than if we were vying for the top spot in search results for New York City - which many sites already cover well. K7L (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are people interested in working on top search cities like Paris, New York, Tokyo (which really could use it!), etc. then by all means plunge forward! To me, it's more difficult to start with pages that are already good. For example, Chicago was a star long ago, so it would take a lot of thought to change the guide enough to make it show up on top of searches. On the other hand, cities that are a mess and have a lot of room for improvement, like Tokyo, Sao Paulo, etc. and pages that have little or no content would be much easier and probably more fruitful to focus on. Anywhere in Africa would give us a strong and quick boost I imagine, as well, since our coverage continent-wide is rather weak. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there's a list of most visited articles here –sumone10154^(talk) 03:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Looks like our top five cities are London, Paris, L.A., Singapore, and ... Sedona?! LtPowers (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that statistics page stopped being updated in April. Texugo (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What is more relevant is our atrocious search engine rankings.

If you go to https://startpage.com
(which features results from Google, but anonymised so that the results are not skewed by personalisation, browsing history, geographical location, etc)
and key in a typical search term for any of these "top destinations" (such as "guide london" or "guide paris" or "guide L.A." or "guide singapore" or "guide sedona"),
in every case you will find our "parent" site Wikitravel listed above us.
In most cases we do not even appear on the first page of results!

Why oh why are none of the movers and shakers interested in adopting the action plan proposed here?

Is it because, in a very few weeks, they would then have to cope with a flood of spambots or is it because some name-callers would then have to eat humble pie? Surely this scandal is going to cause some waves with the WMF if their investment remains so obstinately obscure? --118.93.47.31 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing prose to bulleted listings

Are edits like this considered appropriate style currently? I may be a little behind in my understanding. But I don't think it's a good idea to be converting perfectly serviceable prose into an awkwardly formatted listing (look at the "directions" field) just to be able to say we have coordinates. LtPowers (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The good part of the change is that it creates a map coordinate. Is it easy to create that without using a listing template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I still believe we need an alternate, simpler template for inserting only a POI coordinate in prose passages. Texugo (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be very good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be indeed very useful. --Danapit (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought Template: Poi already did that? Guess I am missing something? - Matroc (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I have overlooked that one. Template:Poi is marked as experimental though, so not sure if it is ready to be used widely. I see you can select the POI number manually. Maybe it is a silly question, but doesn't it collide with the automatic numbering using listings? --Danapit (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Poi is not compatible with automatic numbering. We can make a new template: {{Marker | type=(see/do/...) | name=(only for map marker) | lat= | long= | image= }}. But User:Torty3 would implement the automatic numbering if possible (@Torty3: listing|marker ?). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if people want it enough. I was thinking about inline listings, but did decide that was too complicated in the end and forgot about it amongst the wiki drama and my list of squishy bugs to squish and features to make. -- torty3 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

District Template and Section Question

Does the structure of this article does conform to Sections and Template guidelines; Specifically the See subsections:

• Landmarks
• Museums
• Churches and cathedrals
• Institutions of learning
• Monuments

If it does, I'll use it for some other district articles.

Also, why does the TOC not appear in this article?
--TheMightyHercules (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess sections are OK if the destination really has many things to see. TOC is visible as a single line within the banner at the top. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sections are definitely OK when there's a lot to see. How many and which ones you want depends on the kind of sights there are in the district. Check out some of our star district articles, like San_Francisco/Chinatown-North_Beach#See, Paris/1st_arrondissement#See or Chicago/Bronzeville#See. I actually think institutions of learning should only be listed under see when their buildings have architectural or other "passive attraction" value. Otherwise, they should probably go in a separate "Learn" section after "Do". JuliasTravels (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a tiny sidenote, I believe that "learn" fits more in the city-level articles than district-level ones. People generally choose to settle in a city for a longer time to learn, not in a particular district, as oftentimes travelling from one district of a city to another for instruction is not impossible. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't generally list things that require one to "settle" to do. Most Learn listings should be for things like a one-day cooking class or a week-long language course. No reason those should be featured on the main city page. Texugo (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, for now those sections are filled with advice on long-term learning, universities and such, so I thought this is how they are meant to be used. The short-term learning options would be much more limited in choice, I presume, and I do not believe this is tied to a particular location within a city - you usually need to commit a few hours in a row, if not a full day, or a few hours over consecutive days or weeks to learn anything. This means that this advice should not be grouped with tourist attractions, which generally work around the principle of "while you're there, why don't you also see this/do this/eat there". Participating in a learning experience requires a different level of planning and it in turn would rarely be tied to a particular district one would discover, but rather a city one plans to spend a longer time in. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That is no stronger an argument for putting them on the main article than it would be for putting hotels there. Things are featured/summarized on the main page because of their importance to the overall experience of the city, not because of the overall city experience's importance to them individually. Texugo (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Going back a little bit, I don't completely agree with what Texugo said upthread. While travellers might not have much need to know how to enroll in long-term classes in a city they're visiting for only a brief period, I find that providing brief bits of general information about area colleges and universities is a good way to give readers a better idea of the overall identity or "feel" of a city. This is especially true, I think, for district articles of Huge Cities—even more so when the district in question contains a large university that's a major component of its distinct identity, e.g. Buffalo/Elmwood Village. This information probably should not be in the form of listings, however. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not so much giving a personal opinion as a reflection of the traditional advice on the subject. While I agree with you that in some cases, a brief mention of local universities might have cultural relevance, I think those are the exceptions to the general rule - describing the community colleges of the typical small-to-medium size town is largely irrelevant and unneeded. In any case, they should not be See listings unless there is something actually worthwhile to see on campus, and should not be Learn listings unless they actually do offer something short-term that is available and might be interesting for a traveller. A brief prose description in the Understand section (or, more likely, a mention in relation to college nightlife areas) is fine, if it is truly relevant to the identity of the city. Random info about Cumbersome County Community College or Bumpkin River Technical School should be broadly discouraged. Texugo (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Texugo. Unfortunately, we've let articles go (and even feature/star them) with excessive information in their Learn sections, which causes the error to proliferate. We should probably be making that a point of emphasis in nomination discussions going forward. LtPowers (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we don't put it in the "Learn" section, I maintain that this information can and should be included somewhere. Again, it may not serve the traveller to know how to enroll in semester-long university classes in a city s/he won't be located in for nearly that long, but it certainly does serve the traveller to better acquaint him/herself with the identity of the place s/he chose to visit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andre's point, and I'd also say that in the case of college towns like Clinton (New York), it would be ridiculous not to give a link to the local college's website, because even if the college had no architectural significance and didn't host cultural events that might interest people not studying or employed by the college, it's pretty much the only game in town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[indent reset] I agree with most of what's been said above. I firmly believe the info on the town's character as an university town should go into "understand" rather than a separate section, plus a mention of a "seeable" / "visitable" establishment of an educational institution should go into either "see" or "do", depending on the character of the institution.
I find it an unusual case when there is anything to "learn" that is not simply a "do" and merits a separate section, and I would still maintain most of it will be better dealth with on the city level of larger cities, much as it will be better to list embassies, hospitals or airports on the city level than confine them to district and deprive the city level of that information. Which does not mean that individual district articles should not contain mentions of such in their "understand" or "orientation" sections if the placement of the city-unique services/institutions within those districts affects their characters or orientation within them. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In really huge cities, I think that while examples of institutions of learning are worth briefly mentioning, actual entries for them normally belong in district articles. For example, there are a lot of concerts and lectures at the New School University, and those should be listed with a link to the New School's Events Calendar in the Manhattan/West Village article (I'm not sure if they are), not the Manhattan article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This look an awful lot like a "Do" to me. We don't have separate category for "Sports", so why would we need a separate category for "doing" things in educational institutions. Those are all "do". If there is a lot of things to "do" in a districts, we're doing pretty well with third-level headings. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right. I guess the only issue I have is whether it's worth whatever extra work it would make to eliminate all the "Learn" subtitles and move most of the entries to "Do," plus some to "See." Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's just refrain from putting any more "Learn" sections to newly-created and expanded articles, and we can deal with the extant one as we go, on a case-by-case basis. There's a lot of cleanup to do and quite a few of us are actually doing this as we speak, as long as we agree to do this that way (and not add to the problem by creating new "Learn" sections) it will be dealt with in due course. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but there may be some article templates showing an optional "Learn" subtitle that would need to be deleted if there is a consensus behind that. Also, Where you can stick it may need to be checked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am very happy to stop using 'Learn' sections. I find that people often want to list universities which isn't actually relevant traveler information. (Unless the university is worth visiting, such as Heidelberg, but then it should be listed under 'see') I think specific courses (cooking, language learning etc) are still good things to have however. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the purpose of the Learn section is often misunderstood not only as a place to list universities, colleges and even public schools, but also as a section to list random trivia the reader might want to know or even resources for "learning more" about the destination. Not quite sure how I feel about all the work it would take to deprecate it though. Texugo (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even where a course of study is a few weeks (like Chicoutimi-Jonquière, the Collège du Jonquière is well-known to Ottawa swivel servants for a three-week intensive French as a second language programme with no students from the local area) the brief mention of the school in "understand" with the rest of the industrial history of the town (pulp/paper, aluminium) is enough. A "learn" section would add little.

Yes, a school could legitimately end up dominating an article if a huge university is in an otherwise small town. An article on "State College PA" would be incomplete without turning Paterno's statue 180 degrees "so that he can look away and turn a blind eye to the Sandusky affair" if that school and team are the town's most notable landmarks. Nonetheless, info like "Normal IL was named for a 'normal school' or state teacher's college" belongs in "Understand" and the campus itself (if architecturally notable or home to museums or concert halls) likely is "See" (with any specific activities there "Do"). We don't need "Learn" as another section as the school is described as seen by travellers, not temporary four-year resident students. K7L (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not only universities though. One question is whether we want to stick an open university lecture series, a cooking school, a wine and cheese pairing class, a local crafts workshop, and 5 Spanish conversation schools together in a single subsection of Do. Texugo (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there isn't much practical distinction between 'learn' and 'do'. I'm thinking 'Learn' should become deprecated in that it remains valid for existing articles and for new articles where there exist a lot of learning opportunities (as in your list). However it should not actually be required for new articles, or for old articles that people wish to refresh without it. Would such an approach be too vague for WV? Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, if the article template is to be changed in such a manner, I would really rather not just do it halfway. And actually, I think the Do section is already often overburdened with subsections (Parks, Theater, Music, Sports, Festivals, Events, Beaches, Hiking trails, organized tours, boating excursions, train rides, etc., etc.). I think taking a course in something is a different enough type of activity that we can leave it alone. Just because it is technically doing something doesn't mean it has to go in Do. After all, drinking, clubbing, doing laundry, and using the internet are also "activities" but we don't need to put everything in Do. Texugo (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops...

The pagebanner for Syracuse (New York) defaults to the image for the city of the same name in Sicily. How does one go about changing that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added the Italian banner to the wrong wikidata item. Now that I removed it, it has no default. Texugo (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That banner was added because it's on fr:Syracuse, which was incorrectly associated with the English and Dutch articles on the New York city, presumably even before the interwiki links were migrated to Wikidata. The correct solution is to move the banner image definition, and the French Wikivoyage link, to the correct Wikidata item. (As it turns out, that banner is already on the Syracuse, Sicily Wikidata item, but keep it mind for future reference. And the French article link still needed to be moved, which I've done.) LtPowers (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Click on a POI to open in your favorite Android navigation/GPS app

OxygenGuide (offline version of Wikivoyage, usable on smartphones) now embeds coordinates: Click on the "(map)" symbol of a POI, and your favorite navigation app (such as OsmAnd) will guide you to that point!

If users like it and a solution is found for iOS, it might make sense to implement the same feature on the live Wikivoyage?

Coordinates are getting more useful everyday! If you have 10 minutes, pick a random article and fill all latitudes/longitudes :-)

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Exciting stuff! Can it really be "27000 destinations, only 86 Megabytes" !?? --118.93.47.31 09:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is to update every listing, could some of this be done by a 'bot? K7L (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)