Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Pub)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the Pub

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
  • If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
  • If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment.
  • If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the Tourist Office.
  • If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Vandalism in progress.
  • If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
  • If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question
QA icon clr.svg

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.
Wikivoyage sysop.svg

Listing format[edit]

Working on Listing Editor v2.4 I've noticed that here in en:voy has been changed the listing format from the original format:

* {{see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=
etc...

into this format

* {{listing | type=see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=
etc...

Personally I've found a 2017 bug record on Wikivoyage:Listing editor#Bugs and feedback that maybe has originated this change, but that bug it's not anymore present. It can be tested on the first listing of Cleveland#By plane.

@Wrh2: highlighted me a Decembre 5th conversation in Wikivoyage talk:Listing editor#New changes between @ARR8: and @Mx. Granger: where they briefly discussed about it. ARR8, unfortunately miss from en:voy since 1 year ago, and since March 2020 from any wiki, so I don't know if he can provide further background information.

From my point of view the only benefit I see is to create potentially an endless series of listings without creating the relevant templates, because type is just a parameter, but since the set of listing is almost constant over the time, I think that this advantage do not compensate this more "verbose title".

Which is the preferred approach that the en:voy would like to follow?


Furthermore another note. I've noticed that the buttons on top of the standard editor pages (e.g. Italian traffic signs - icona museo.svg) generate the following listing code:

* {{listing | type=see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=
| address= | lat= | long= | directions=
| phone= | tollfree=
| hours= | price=
| wikipedia= | wikidata=
| lastedit=2020-07-29
| content=
}}

I strongly discourage to propose the "wikipedia" parameter because it expose the listing to have an inconsistent link to Wikipedia when the page is move without any redirect in Wikipedia itself. This information should be obtained transparently providing the "wikidata" parameter. That's the way the Listing Editor works during sync phase (i.e. deleting "wikipedia" and "image" information from the listing). Note that when also "wikidata" is present, a category can find and list these errors, but when is missing only a bot can find and list them.

Also in this case let me know which is the desired approach. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand your reason for excluding the Wikipedia and Image parameters from the generated template, but does that also result in the corresponding fields vanishing from the listing editor? It's not a huge thing, but it does require an extra step or two of edits if the Wikipedia article is incorrect or the image hosted on Wikidata is not suitable for Wikivoyage, or if there isn't an image hosted on Wikidata at all. There is also the occasion (not that often, but it happens) where there is no Wikidata item, but there is a Wikipedia article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, the modification of the template will not affect anything else so all the mechanism will remain unchanged. For example, any editor will be still free to add it manually overriding the value stored in Wikidata (although is possibile, generally is not a good approach, but in few cases it could make sense), and also listing editor will still have the wikipedia field that can be sync with Wikidata or manually customized.
Think about the image parameter; it's not currently present in the generated template but everything works.
Regarding the existence of a Wikipedia page without a Wikidata instance, well, this is an error that should be corrected creating a new Wikidata instance or connecting it to the right existing one. Take a look at this en:voy special page that tracks all the en:voy articles that have the same issue.
I hope it clarify your doubts. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thank you :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Since today is my last day in front of a laptop, I've applied the above two changes but in case the community would decide differently is enough to rollback the followings:
PS I should be still available for chat but not for programming. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What about markers including links to Wikipedia? Do you think we should keep the marker template as-is, or make the same change we made to the listing template? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it is not too uncommon that there is a Wikipedia article that touches the subject while the Wikidata item is more precise but lacks article in English. How should one handle that situation? --LPfi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)SelfieCity, as far as I recall, Template:marker has born this way. No "type" means generic listing, while when "type" is present, the nature of the listing is changed accordingly.
Without a "good idea" or a real need I would leave it as it is. Using the same template (e.g. {{marker|type=city| -> {{marker|city|) we would get a neglectable benefit, and changing template or (e.g. {{marker|type=city ->{{city) we would force editor to learn & use a new one.
Maybe (I repeat maybe), if it's easy to recognize if a toponym is a city (or village, town, metropolis, etc.) we could avoid to specify the type parameter at all, but this would require an analysis of Wikidata and to build an easy tool to put anyone in the condition to fix the hopefully few cases where this specification is missing, without relying only on Wikidata expert. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm speaking specifically of links to Wikidata, not how the template itself functions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
SelfieCity, sorry, my fault. Are you talking of showing the Wikipedia link when the Wikivoyage article is missing? In the affirmative case I think is a good and useful idea, because readers can find information within "Wiki-world" and editors can find a first source of information to develop a Wikivoyage article. Showing Wikipedia link, is only possible if it's present a Wikidata parameter, that for sure is an optional parameter.
LPfi, as anticipated, if you want to specify a different Wikipedia article you can anytime, nothing from this point of view has changed. Changing the preset template is just a "mental approach", that suggest to provide Wikidata instance instead of Wikipedia article. I don't if I've answered to your doubt. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
No, any explanation regarding this is helpful. If we're agreed that using WP links in markers is good, then that's all I'm really concerned about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. I suppose we think that those who are able to make a judgement call on using a WP article different from that of the WD item also know how to do it manually. I have no problem with that. --LPfi (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andyrom75: There seems to be a bug – see this edit, which I made with the listing editor and which changed Template:listing to the nonexistent Template:purple. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the listing|type format as it is easier to fit new types into this as needed and probably it is easier to maintain one template than several... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Granger, I've just got back from holiday. Please give me few more days to fix it. In these very first days I need to get back on track with my job :-P --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, no rush. Thanks for helping with this! —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Granger, I've just applied the patch. Once the previous cached script will be replaced by the new one (within few minutes I suppose) you can try to update a couple of listings (customized and standard). Please let me know if now everything works or not. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Andyrom75: I just tried [1] Looks like it still doesn't work, unfortunately. Should I wait longer and try again? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Granger, initially I've updated only the main Listing Editor, now I've aligned also the beta version. Could you confirm me that you are using the main one (see your preferences)? In few minutes also the beta one will behave in the same way, but the main one should already work. In any case, try again :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I was using the beta version. I've switched to the main one, and it seems to be working. Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Granger, good! In any case, now both main and beta versions are working. Feel free to test it. Thanks for your testing time :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Switchable static/dynamic map[edit]

Since there's a big dynamic-map-dislike club around here, going around deleting {{Mapframe}}|staticmap=... , I was thinking - would something like this User:Andree.sk/Multimap make the dynamic maps more acceptable? (obviously some better styling would be needed) -- andree.sk(talk) 07:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it! --Renek78 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you were working on this earlier, and I agree that it's a really good idea and could be incorporated into some articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Worth testing out on a few articles, perhaps. Powers (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how a dynamic map would ever be preferable to a static map in an article that's not a bottom-level destination, but so long as the article doesn't display both maps simultaneously, I won't stand in the way of this idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
While helping out with a Wikipedia template (Cyclone map) I monitored/followed some work you may also be interested in: Radio buttons for switching between historical maps and Wikipedia Request for comment: Mapframe maps in infoboxes. -- Matroc (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to have that feature, unless it has drawbacks such as bandwidth use. I often want information that is not available in the static map – and information not available in, or hard to discern from, the dynamic one. One tweak suggestion: try to get identical sizes; when switching back and forth to compare the maps, having to move the mouse hinders keeping focused on the spot being compared (and is also otherwise irritating). --LPfi (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good idea! One other slight improvement to change the "Switch map" text depending on which map is displayed; e.g the dynamic map is displayed, so it says "Switch to static map".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Do our readers actually know what static/dynamic map is? Perhaps something like schematic/detailed map could be better? -- andree.sk(talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It's misleading to suggest that one variety of map is inherently more or less detailed than the other. A static map can be as detailed or as simple as its maker chooses and so can a dynamic one. The fundamental difference between them from the reader's perspective is spelled out in the current terminology about as plainly as it can be - dynamic maps have a zoom feature when rendered on a browser while static ones don't - which is not to even mention the fact that the current terminology has been in use on this site for seven years and how immensely disruptive it would be to change it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It could be printable/zoomable or whatever - the question is if a newcomer sees "Switch to dynamic map", if it would make sense to him. I don't think we explicitly promote the term anywhere outside the pub... ? -- andree.sk(talk) 07:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a valid point. "Dynamic map" is certainly used widely in Wikivoyage space pages (e.g. Wikivoyage:Map), but it isn't as far as I know in use anywhere in article space. "Printable" and "zoomable" work as descriptive terms, rather than as name changes.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's just a question of the labeling for this new switchable map template, "static map" and "interactive map" would probably be clearer for most users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I like all of the suggested alternative terrms (printable, zoomable, interactive). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea! I modified your work to make the style better: User:City-busz/Multimap. Changes:
  • The map can be switched by the thumbnail caption text.
  • The text is changing between "switch to interactive map" and "switch to static map" as needed.
  • The map sizes are identical.--City-busz (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea andree and excellent fine tuning City-busz! I think the next step is to change Template:Regionlist to manage internally the div code and determine the right size for the interactive map. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Regionlist/Test. I'd like to fetch the height of the image but I don't know how to do it. Any idea? --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally I've done. Now is possible to add just "| regionInteractiveMap=map1" to the Regionlist template and inside the article the relevant "geoshapes". This would be helpful to all the editors that are used with the current syntax. What do you think? --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, User:City-busz and User:Andyrom75! I would say it's pretty good for the rollout - we can always improve on it later, if new "requirements" show up. I'd just consider splitting out the static/interactive switcher to a separate template, maybe we'll need it. And perhaps add a switch to prefer the dynamic map (though that might be too hard to implement without duplicating all the code)... In any case, great that it could be done without additional javascript! -- andree.sk(talk) 06:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work User:Andyrom75! Great to see that it works within the region template. One thing that I noticed is that this solution doesn't work with the mobile view, but I don't know why: https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Template:Regionlist/Test --City-busz (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
User:City-busz, it's a known issue that collapsable area doesn't work on mobile view. See phabricator:T111565. . --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ja.voy is approved[edit]

Heads up that voy:ja: is being ported from incubator:. See T260320. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you mean ようこそ (or いらっしゃいませ or いらっしゃい—I don't know Japanese). —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I know konnichi-wa/konban-wa, but I don't know how to read or write Japanese. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
wikt:en:ようこそ, wikt:en:いらっしゃいませ, wikt:en:いらっしゃい. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Definitely ようこそ (yōkoso). The others are mainly for greeting someone at a store. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool! This makes me happy. I'm curious, I know there was a Japanese WT, but when WV forked we didn't bring it over. (I guess it was a per-language vote whether to fork to WV or not?) Why the change now? Is the new JP WV also a fork of WT, or based on a translation of EN WV, or a brand new site with no pages being built from scratch? --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ja.voy is now live[edit]

It's being ported over. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That's great, but shouldn't it be on the landing page at wikivoyage.org? Powers (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It's on landing page now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ambox/doc[edit]

On Template:Ambox/doc#Usage_Instructions: the first example has nothing to do with the so-called "The code above should return:" (which is actually {{Ambox| type = notice| text = Hello world!}}). Prahlad balaji (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How to get correct coordinate location?[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to correctly place the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Uruk in the Mesopotamian Valley of southern Iraq, but it keeps wanting to put the pin exactly where the pin for another site (the Sumerian city of Ur) is located. Uruk is east of As Samawah, and Ur is southwest of Nasilyah, a distance of like 85 km away. I used the correct Wikidata identifier for Uruk and even modified the coordinates a little to make it precise, but it still places the pin on Ur. If you do a search for them on Google maps, you'll see what I mean. Could someone please tell me how to fix this or fix it for me? I am not sure what to do. Much obliged. Lazarus1255 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

At Wikivoyage the traveller comes first, not whatever purpose is served by listings being integrated with Wikidata. The traveller obviously needs points of interest to be placed accurately on a map, and if you have to remove the Wikidata identifier to accomplish that, so be it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. You had the same lat+long hardcoded in the marker template (probably copy+pasted?)... -- andree.sk(talk) 06:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this, @Andree.sk. From the edit summary, it sounds like Wikidata was the solution, not the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yup... :) -- andree.sk(talk) 05:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thanks guys, I appreciate it, and I'll try to learn from that. Grateful for all the help.Lazarus1255 (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know about Korean baduk?[edit]

Our article on the game of Go, called baduk in Korean, is getting fairly good, but the links it gives in the Destinations & Buy sections are all to Chinese or Japanese locations. It ought to have some for Korea since the game is popular there & some of the world's top players are Korean.

I do not know enough to add those. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder whether someone from the Korean Wikipedia, such as User:밝은소년, might be able to help with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Should the user be pinged over there? Depending on user settings pings may or may not work across projects. –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

National taxi services[edit]

User:Vkem has been adding taxi listings, which I in some cases have found redundant.

In Finland most taxi businesses are small, and until recent years you either called them directly or, in cities, through a common call centre. Now most of the call centres have expanded operations, competing with those in other cities. Many now cover much of the country (including the countryside), but any one taxi car usually has an agreement with just one of them (or none), which means local market shares matter. Most of the call centre businesses now use smart phone apps and web forms in addition to the (premium fee) call centre.

The question then is, should the national call centre businesses (and their apps) be mentioned in all articles about destinations where they claim coverage, in region articles or only in the country article? What about rural areas with few taxis, should the apps be listed although taxis commonly are called directly (we might not have the numbers, but any local bar or lodging would have them)?

(I would also like to have more of a discussion in By taxi, on how the apps compare to other ways of finding a taxi, and any quirks and pitfalls to keep in mind when choosing whether to use them.)

There are now discussions started at

I suggest we keep the discussion here, until it is down to national details.

LPfi (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Vkem made a point about recommended the apps: "I think they would give additional advantage for Wikivoyage users compared to having only phone call numbers of local taxi companies, regarding that many Wikivoyage users do not have English as their first language, and may have trouble pronouncing local language street addresses". –LPfi (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is my longer explanation why I think that national taxi services info would be a good thing. At least in Finland, national companies have in practice usually a good coverage of the regions they claim to have coverage and I think that mentioning them in those specific regions that they serve is useful. But when it comes to having a coverage in whole province, I understand that mentioning them in all municipalities of that province may not be necessary. I suggest that there would be a link to taxi section of province in the municipality and town pages, to help people find the provincial operator of taxi. Regarding the national taxi operator issue, I think that a discussion what we should do with them would be good. Pros of national operators are that they often have handy smartphone apps helping to order them, being easier than calling the number of small local taxi company, phone calls may be difficult if English is not a native language and addresses are in local language. It would be in interests of local taxi companies to give them preference, but I think we should think practically and keep the interest of travellers first, and not prioritize small local taxi companies if large companies have better ordering process and equal level of service. The apps made to be similar than Uber make the taxi order process clear and give right away the price information of the trip. So I think that the national operators are useful to be mentioned if they have some specific cities they claim to serve and there is no reason to doubt that they would not work in practice. If necessary, I can do test searchs to proof the actual working of the national taxi service apps. I see little harm mentioning the national taxi services, especially if no information about local services is available at all in city or town page, I did not understand what harm would be done if they are mentioned to give additional possibility. National taxi operator info has been largely lacking in Nordic countries Wikivoyage pages. Also I would point that now when taxi fares are unregulated, taking taxi outside of app may cause unpleasant surprises regarding taxi prices, as far as I know we do not have yet fare cap to limit the fares to reasonable levels and it is a thing why knowing the fixed price right away when ordering the taxi through the app is good I think. --Vkem (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I have made test searchs using Menevä app and 02 Taksi app and rural service is acceptable in most cases, they probably use local taxi companies when they seem to have short order times even in small municipality centers. For example in Huittinen, tested it yesterday and it gave arrival times 5 minutes in town center, 20 minutes in village, the service offered was regional operator Taksi Länsi-Suomi. If you like, you can try 02 Taksi app and Menevä app to do some tests how fast the taxi should arrive and see if the service is goof enough for Wikivoyage users. For Sweden similar services are TaxiKurir app (claims to cover also Norway and Denmark) and SverigeTaxi app. --Vkem (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I have two main concerns:
  1. Having information in many articles means it has to be maintained in many articles, meaning severe workload (if not done by bot) and risk of obsolete information remaining.
  2. Listing the national operators but not local businesses in an article gives the impression these are the ones to use. Editors and readers will make less effort to find the local ones. Of course, the local businesses can in many cases be used through national operators, but if only a minority of local businesses can be reached that way, it might have been better to let the traveller ask locally instead.
(There is also the issue of furthering centralisation, but I suppose ttcf overrides that concern.)
My view is that the national operators (call centres) primarily should be described in the country article, alongside the info on how the taxi business in general works in the country. If only some of the national operators are usable in a region, there could be some discussion, but (depending on whether the operators' coverage correlates with region borders) also this could be on the country level ("X operates mainly in the capital region and in some big cities elsewhere (A, B, C, D)", "Y originates in the surroundings of C and is the dominating operator there, with some presence in the E and F regions", "Z strives to cover all the country, but often has only a few cars in each town, except B, where Z dominates").
If the national operators have good websites (eh, usable), the travellers themselves can check details on local level, without us having the burden to keep the information updated. Some are mostly in Finnish, so a few lines on how to find the relevant info may be needed – still easier to maintain.
I think info should be included on local level only when information is stable or the local taxis for the place are hard to find otherwise, or there are other significant quirks; old local firms in rural areas tend to be reliable (unless the legal reforms changes the playground), as the market is stable and drivers have chosen their profession.
On the language issue: should we advice travellers to offer specifying addresses by SMS if there seems to be a risk of misunderstanding in a voice call to a specific business/driver? These tend to be normal GSM numbers (in contrast to the call centre ones).
LPfi (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
How different is this from a national chain store? Do the national call centers feel more like McDonald's (in which case, we'd exclude them from almost all articles and add only local taxis) or more like a public inter-city bus service (in which case, we'd include them and their competitors)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: For Finland (I don't know the other countries well): The independents are usually drivers from the old tradition, i.e. as mainstream as those you get through the call centres (novelty taxis are a different matter). I'd say public bus-service is the relevant comparison – but regional bus service. Yes, you can often use an intercity coach for regional transport, but if you rely on those, much of the region is unreachable. If you list just the intercity coaches in Get around, readers may believe these are the only options. In the countryside I suppose a significant part of the local taxi businesses (all of them at some destinations) count on being reached by phone and prefer avoiding the non-trivial expenses (thousands of euros) of making an agreement with a national operator. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mapshape issues[edit]

Why is the Staten Island Railway line not showing on the Staten Island article? Also, why are the boundaries for Aceh, North Sumatra, and Jakarta/South not showing? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You can show the boundaries by implementing mapshapes with the correct Wikidata-ID. I did it for Aceh. Feel free to implement it for the other ones as well.--Renek78 (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Staten Island Railway wasn't showing because it's not the correct type. {{mapshapes}} only draws Wikidata items that are parent items, meaning they have a P527/"has part" or P2670/"has parts of the class" property. For individual railway/subway lines, it's necessary to use {{mapshape}} and manually specify some parameters indicating how to draw the shapes. I fixed this for Staten Island. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Aceh one still does not show, the map is only greyed out without the shape. The OpenStreetMap relation for Aceh already includes the Wikidata ID, I don't know what's wrong. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That's odd, the one for Aceh seems to work on my computer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking for feedback from someone with a casual interest in, but not an advanced-level familiarity with, architecture[edit]

Due to the need to check through all the articles for COVID-related business closures, it's now very unlikely that the Buffalo district reorganization will be complete in the next few months as I'd originally hoped. So, in place of running one of the new district articles as a summer 2021 OtBP as I'd also hoped, I've been working feverishly on the Modern architecture in Buffalo and vicinity itinerary in my userspace, with a view to a FTT feature (and ahead of a visit from an out-of-town friend this week, an architecture buff with a taste for things Midcentury, with whom I plan to do a dry run of the tour).

My question is this. In writing the article, I tried to make it accessible to the layperson yet (within reason) also to get into the nitty-gritty of architectural theory in a way that would resonate with those with more advanced knowledge. So I'm wondering if there's anyone here who's not knowledgeable about architecture in a more-than-casual way who could read through what I've written and let me know if I've struck the right balance or if it all flies over your head. (Keep in mind also that a lot of what's not explained in the itinerary itself will be explained in the "Understand" section, which I've already sketched out in outline form so you'll have an idea of which blanks will be filled in). Additionally, if it is too advanced for the layperson, is that really a problem per se or are we free to assume that anyone who'd click through to read an article on Modernist architecture would most likely be armed with some degree of advance knowledge on the subject?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
As it is a long article, I have only given it a quick read. Understand needs to be fleshed out. A brief paragraph on Buffalo's development over this period would give some context - how much did the city expand over these years? The substyles of Modernism should be explained - I had never heard of Googie, but this appears to be a style unique to the US.
Generally the individual building descriptions were pitched about right, although some could be trimmed - descriptions of the buildings that used to occupy the site are of little interest to visitors. If there is anything in particular to look at on a building, this should be pointed out (this may not be so relevant for modernist rather than ornate buildings).
As an itinerary there is still some work required. A dynamic map and geo should be added. An introduction should say how long the sections of the route are. It might be better as two separate articles - a downtown walking tour and a suburban driving tour; not everybody will want to do both and some may want to do the driving section first (due to weather or car availability). Some buildings appear likely to be open to visitors: the Metro Rail Station and the Recreation Center; is it worth going inside? AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on September 1st[edit]

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the "big" switches, not the three-minute ones to swap out some hardware. If memory serves, their speed record in the past was 22 minutes without being able to save an edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What kind of article?[edit]

See Talk:Diamond Triangle (Odisha). I'm thinking perhaps a WV:Park article template with some modifications might work best, but I don't know. Would it work as a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like it may be a "rural area" article or a "park" article. I note that the attractions listed don't seem to be covered in any other article, which suggests that this should be a bottom-level destination article (a city, park, or rural area). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I forgot about rural areas. Yeah, that could be a good option. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

New editing tools for generating article content[edit]

I've created two new editing tools to help make it easier to generate new listings and "Go next" content for articles. I'd be grateful for feedback to determine if they are useful to others and worth spending further time developing.

  • Nearby Attractions - This tool will generate Wikivoyage listings for a destination by fetching Wikipedia articles for places located within a specified radius of the destination and auto-generating Wikivoyage listings from those articles. The resulting listings can then be reviewed, edited, and copied to Wikivoyage. While not all Wikipedia articles merit a listing, I've found it to be a good way to quickly generate a list of candidate listings since Wikipedia has articles on museums, famous landmarks, and other places that should be included in Wikivoyage but are often missing.
  • Nearby Destinations - This tool will take as input a destination name (using the Wikivoyage article name) and then return all nearby Wikivoyage articles formatted as a {{mapgroup}} that can be included in the "Go next" section of an article. See Culver City#Go next for an example. Currently most Wikivoyage articles lack useful information about neighboring destinations, so this tool attempts to make it easier to provide that information.

For both of these tools manual review and editing is still required. In most cases the auto-generated listing description from Wikipedia needs to be updated to make it more relevant for travelers, to avoid SEO issues due to the same content being used by both sites, and to remove invalid markup. For both tools, editorial judgment is required when determining which of the results generated by the tools are appropriate for inclusion in Wikivoyage.

Bug reports and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. The tools work for me, but I've only tested using the Chrome browser. Also, I couldn't immediately find an appropriate article in the Wikivoyage namespace to mention these tools in, so are there suggestions of where to list editing tools like these, as well as other tools like WV:AWB, or if not, would there be any objection to adding a new page like "Wikivoyage:Editing tools"? -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a great way to find listings though as you say it needs to be edited heavily. Also many of the listings captured by the tool are not see. I used it on a article where it found a stadium (do) and airport (get in). Presumably it would capture shopping malls which would be buy and all other kinds of non-see listings. The maximum radius for the "Go next" tool may need to be increased. 20 km (12 mi) doesn't seem to be enough for rural or sparsely populated areas. It hasn't returned anything on a few articles I tried. Thank you for plunging forward and making these tools. They have lots of potential. Gizza (roam) 05:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad to know that at least one other person thinks it has potential. The maximum radius values are unfortunately limitations of the underlying Mediawiki APIs that the tool uses, so rural areas will be challenging - I'll see if there are ways to work around that. I've also been debating ways to change the generated listing types for results so that a park or stadium can be changed to a "do" listing, but didn't want to pursue that before first soliciting feedback; I'll add it to my TODO list. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
These are useful tools. I used Nearby Attractions to add a couple of listings to Coll. It would be good if it added the lat/long to the listing in addition to the Wikidata field - this is useful for the full page map. Of course, Wikipedia has loads of articles of no interest to us - I tried for Helensburgh and one suggestion was a football club disbanded in 1924 and another was a railway station that closed in 1964. The tool copies some templates which don't work here.
Nearby Destinations is also useful - I have used it to expand Go Next in Helensburgh. In this case i am tempted to remove some of the destinations, which although geographically nearby, are a long distance by road due the the river estuary - 10 miles for birds can be 100 miles for drivers. For editors (not readers), I would be interested in a tool that did something similar showing nearby WV articles in other languages. AlasdairW (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Nearby Attractions uses WP article names for the search, and so isn't great for looking for attractions in huge cities - I couldn't search for a district. The maximum results is far too small - for somewhere like Edinburgh it needs to be 5000, as there are 148 articles in w:Category:Category A listed buildings in Edinburgh alone. AlasdairW (talk)
Thank you for the feedback, I'll try to get the lat/long included and also increase the maximum number of results within the next few days. Regarding the issue with districts, instead of using a Wikipedia article for the target lat/long I should be able to switch to using the Wikivoyage article, which would then allow you to search using Wikivoyage district articles; I'll post an update when that change is made.
As to templates in the resulting code, it may be tricky to try to strip that out - if I just remove it then useful information will go missing in cases where the original content was something like XYZ park is a {{convert|100|acre}} park in...; my inclination would be to leave it as-is and rely on editors to update the text before copying to Wikivoyage, but other suggestions would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────These are fascinating tools! They should be used with care, because many articles for defunct businesses, buildings and stations come up, for example, in a search for Wikipedia articles related to w:East Village, Manhattan. You also get many false positives in Nearby Destinations searches for big cities. This one is for New York City: Manhattan/SoHo Manhattan/TriBeCa Manhattan/Chinatown Manhattan/Lower East Side Manhattan/Financial District Manhattan/Greenwich Village Manhattan/East Village Manhattan/Gramercy Flatiron Manhattan/Chelsea Brooklyn/Downtown Manhattan/Midtown East Hoboken Manhattan/Theater District Brooklyn/Gowanus and Red Hook Brooklyn/Williamsburg

As you can see, all but Hoboken are neighborhoods of New York. One useful tool might be to start the Nearby Destinations x-number of km outside the city (maybe at least 5, in this instance) and be able to extend them to any desired extent (such as 100 km, maybe more), or to somehow enable the elimination of articles about district articles from a search of destinations close to the parent city article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: The "nearby attractions" tool has been updated to use the Wikivoyage article to look up the target coordinates, so it should work better now for finding listings within a Wikivoyage district. The maximum number of results is a limitation of the Mediawiki API, so that's not something I'm able to easily increase, although if the API is updated I'll update the tool as well. The other suggestions that people have made are all much appreciated and currently on my TODO list. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Wrh2: Thanks. It is useful to be able to use Wikivoyage names, particularly for districts and articles where we use different syntax in disambiguation. It is a pity that the API has such a low limit. I found that I got 49 listings with a radius of 0.7km in Glasgow, Edinburgh/Old Town, Edinburgh/New Town and Washington, D.C./National Mall. Trying rural destinations was much better, and in several I got less than 49 within 10km. A possible work-around would be to allow an offset in the lat/longs, to make 1 or 2km "jumps" around a city centre, but I realise this is extra work that might not be used by many editors.
To follow up on an earlier point, I was not expecting the tool to automatically strip out templates which don't work, but the instructions could point out that most templates will need to be removed. Thanks for creating useful tools. AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the {{mapgroup}} effect, didn't know that template existed before. I thought that the consensus on en-wv is to not have map markers for Go next items, and some of my edits were already reverted based on that argument. However, the {{mapgroup}} template does generate map markers, so doesn't that conflict with the consensus/policy? 87.74.196.200 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wrh2: Perhaps it might be useful to exclude any Wikipedia articles in categories within the w:Category:Former entities hierarchy. I don't know how practical that is with the API, though. Powers (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Policy change at Wikitravel, tangentially related here[edit]

This is a bit of a tertiary concern but just a heads-up that I am no longer an admin on the English Wikitravel because I have an active account here. I only mention it because I was the only person who had advanced user access levels there and sometimes users would request things like deletions or exports or somesuch. This doesn't affect our day-to-day but I figured it's worth giving notice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in inferring from the title of this section that Wikitravel now has a formal policy against their sysops also being sysops here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: "At this time, only Wikitravel members without active Wikivoyage accounts are permitted as administrators." I'm not and have never been an admin here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Tangentially why are some users still active there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Their server gets slower and slower. As a competitor, they are no longer a concern. /Yvwv (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Some of our users? ttcf: everyone should have good information, so I've mostly ensured that when restaurants close in Indianapolis, I delete them from Wikitravel and I have also deleted several hundred spam pages. As for why non-Wikivoyage users edit there, it's just first in search results or has some mild name recognition (neither of these sites is particularly well known). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It's worth adding that earlier this month the vindictive tyrant of Wikitravel changed into meaningless names Ryan's, Ikan's, Andre's, and a few other accounts of people whom he believes were the driving force behind the migration (I am proud to be on the list). I am still wondering whether it is merely a revenge, silly and desperate, or a part of some deliberate action. --Alexander (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A clumsy attempt to flush you down the memory hole.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I that legal. I wonder, if WMF would decide I am persona non grata, could they delete my user page and attribute my edits to a random user name? I thought the BY in the licence required fair attribution, and attributing a random string doesn't seem very fair. –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The -BY clause says that you must give "appropriate credit" including the "name of the creator". Since persons identified themselves as [x] and not [y], I think you could actually have an argument. Small potatoes, of course, but still. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I've threatened legal action for less. Powers (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Changing usernames of "deplorables" is beyond petty, and definitely wouldn't hold up as proper attribution. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever our grumblings about WMF we sometimes have (such as their decision to rename the whole shebang against overwhelming community consensus) they are far less malicious and bothersome than IB... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Links to general[edit]

I noticed Peterfitzgerald left a link at the other site to /general/User:Peterfitzgerald. Should we make those links work? –LPfi (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but what is the link you just made...? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Probably a link to Wikivoyage before the transfer to WMF. Seems we did not take care of that type of URLs. Should it go to Meta? But creating user pages for others could be controversial. –LPfi (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I just checked & I'm no longer an admin there. Pashley (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

30,000 articles[edit]

The English Wikivoyage has reached 30,000 articles after Lazarus1255 created the South African town of Klerksdorp. This is the first major round number milestone since the fork in late 2012. We have come a long way since then. More importantly, the level of content and quality of each article on average has risen considerably over this period. There is a lower percentage of outlines than ever before and the benchmarks set to become a usable, guide or star have increased since the early days. However, there is much more to do. There are significant holes in our guide, especially for countries or regions where there are no active editors. And one of the biggest challenges we will be facing is making sure the guide is up to date as the number of articles increases and our editing pool may not keep up with this increase. Thank you to everyone who made this achievement possible, continue to improve Wikivoyage and further the goal of making it the best source of travel knowledge in the world. Gizza (roam) 02:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This brings up a real editing limitation of this project versus the other sisters: it's very hard for someone to be constructive in a meaningful way without having first-hand knowledge. Yes, obviously, I can fix some spelling errors or take the initiative to figure out when a certain restaurant opens and closes but to provide the real content of the travel guide, I have to have actually gone there or live there and that's going to severely restrict what I can add to this project versus (e.g.) Wikiquote or Wikibooks, where I have some competence or interest in some topic that's germane. I'm not sure what the solution is here other than just convincing a lot of persons to edit and thereby making all bugs shallow with enough eyes but it's very hard to scale this project due to the fact that every very dedicated editors are only going to have so much they can add. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that whenever the pandemic is over and it's safe to travel, there will be a lot of pent-up demand, and that will probably lead to a larger number of excellent edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
There is actually a lot that editors can contribute from their sofas. Especially for outline articles, content can be adapted from Wikipedia articles for Understand sections, and often for See and Do listings. Hotels and restaurants can be found using travel book or review sites. This content is not as good as first-hand knowledge, but it is better than having mostly empty articles. A new reader who is thinking about a trip to a place and finds an outline article will likely just move on and not come back to Wikivoyage. If they find enough content to get them started in planning, they are more likely to add to the article later.
I use building Wikivoyage articles as part of my travel planning: before I go, I do research and add that to the corresponding articles. The only problem now is when I will be able to go those places. Ground Zero (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but you know what I mean. Anyone can look at OpenStreetMap and figure out "Use I-70 to get into Podunk, Oklahoma" but anyone can also just use a map app on a smartphone to do that, too. The real substance of the guide is providing recommendations on where to go, what to see, and how to do things once you are in a location, not tables that give climate extremes. The idea that someone can really provide the meaningful information on an entry without having first-hand knowledge is dodgy at best. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really, it depends how much research you're willing to do. Do you really think I've visited every listing on the York page? Not even close. Admittedly, I have first-hand knowledge of the city, a lot of the attractions, and a few of the restaurants, but for the rest I've read numerous primary sources and online reviews, spent ages poring over maps and checking out other travel guides, and even contacted owners in some cases to verify details. Overall, I've spent much longer reading and writing about York than I ever spent visiting it.
I'm not saying someone who has never been a particular place could singlehandedly write a useful travel guide to that place, because they probably couldn't, just that it's surprising how much you can contribute by online research alone. And what Ground Zero was saying about someone's online research providing a springboard for someone else with first-hand knowledge to contribute to an article rings true.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as writing a capsule summary of the history of a place, I cannot write that based on first-hand experience (I'm not Betty White). I'm better off taking the Wikipedia history and summarizing it, taking out excessive or encyclopedic details. Frankly, it's going to be better than a lot of guidebooks where writers don't do their research and end up writing absolute tosh. I agree that copying climatological data from Wikipedia or another source is pointless, so I don't do it, but often Wikipedia does have an overview of the climate that is useful, or can be made appropriate for a travel guide. I wrote the Wine Regions of Ontario using various sources. I have visited only one of the wineries, but I have drunk enough Ontario wine to be able to adapt information from other sources in a useful way. (I did not edit while drinking, just to be clear.) I think that it is a useful starting point from someone planning to such a tour. And ThunderingTyphoons!' work on York is exceptional. Wikivoyage guides will be made made better with more first-hand accounts, but if we don't have enough of a base to start from, we will never attract enough readers and contributors to make that happen. Ground Zero (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that a network effect is necessary for this to be a truly useful resource. It's hard to see how that can happen. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that to write a great article, you would need some sort of personal touch. But writing a good article can still be achieved from online research. Wikipedia is dry but the official tourism website, travel forums, blogs, vlogs on YouTube and friends are all useful sources of information. Even better if you have relied on a blog or friend's advice when travelling to another city. If they were reliable for places I've been to, I'll trust them more for places I haven't been. Gathering information from many sources and putting it together is still very beneficial for the reader because they don't have to peruse through the internet for hours themselves. Gizza (roam) 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking for myself, take a look on the history of the Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Roman Empire and Aviation history to name just a few articles. I WISH I had "first-hand knowledge" about all the places mentioned (ROFL). To me, contributing to these is, at the same time, deep study of English language, factual research, wishful travel planning, a hobby and a meditation. I'm very happy and proud with this milestone we have achieved. Let's party and rejoice. Wikivoyage is the best. Ibaman (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Koavf, do you honestly think the writers who work for Lonely Planet, Fodor's, Frommer's, etc. all have intimate firsthand knowledge of the destinations they cover? I'm a frequent reader of traditional dead-tree travel guides and the Lonely Planet website - sizing up the competition, you might call it - and every time I do, I become more and more confident in the quality of the material we put out. Diligent online research conducted by a writer who's passionate about travel beats in-person research conducted by a burned-out hack who's just trying to make deadline every single time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Obviously not but they are also professionals who have a budget and (usually) actually travel there. Sure, I can write something about Brazil and I can fix up things, add photos, etc. but do I really have anything useful to add? If so, it would only be because of second- or third-hand knowledge which is fine as far as it goes but is definitely not as good as actual, first-hand experience. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I think building or building up articles for places you haven't been can be useful to attract people who have been there or are planning to go there, both of which could become editors. Some people are inspired by a complete lack of information, but I think most editors start out editing an existing article, either adding new content/details or changing descriptions that are inaccurate or bothersome to them in some way. If you have little/no confidence in yourself or your sources then definitely don't edit, but a lot of places have enough information out there about them that an editor without knowledge can at least give a short (if dull) description that someone who has been there may see and improve. I think if you do a significant amount of editing and haven't been there, it's a good thing to mention if it's nominated for featuring, though. I did that with Dakar when it was nominated, because I noticed at that time the "See" section was almost entirely my writing but I'd never been there. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This is why we should to run more edit-a-thons, like the one in 2018, to improve our coverage. If we look at the 2018's report, we can see that there is a wide number of countries covered, including many "off the beaten paths" cities and countries articles that were created or expanded through the edit-a-thon initiative. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I completely agree. There were many articles that were improved during the edit-a-thon that hadn't been edited in a substantial way by our core group of editors here. We should do another one. Gizza (roam) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@DaGizza: With everybody stuck at home, we can use this upcoming drive as an opportunity to reminisce our previous travels. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How you find out what other people have done[edit]

Hello, all,

I'm looking at phab:T261023 about how people "patrol" other people's contributions. I know that some of you spend a lot of time doing this, but my own experience here doesn't go past checking a short section in RecentChanges or my watchlist. I'd like your perspectives to be represented in this project.

Feel free to join the Phab task (the etiquette there is that anyone can post "information", but "discussion" should usually happen elsewhere) or to ping User:Keegan_(WMF) to any discussion on wiki (or I'll pass it along to him later). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the ToolHub being referred to in that topic? Powers (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
LtPowers, I'm pretty certain that it's m:Toolhub, which is the mw:Wikimedia Cloud Services team's effort to make a list of all the tools. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 box[edit]

This comment at Template talk:Cautionbox made me wonder if it would be useful to have a designated COVID-19 template. That would help us keep track of which articles have COVID-19 information and keep the information up to date, for as long as that continues to be necessary. I've created Template:COVID-19 box, and I've added it to the Uruguay article as an example. What does everyone think? Is it worth using this instead of the various cautionbox templates about COVID-19? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, because sooner or later they won't be needed any longer, or at least will need to be updated. A separate type of warning box will make it easier to see in which articles COVID warnings are.
As an example why this is useful; a few weeks ago I ran into a warningbox where an Italian city was sealed off "since early March" (restrictions were lifted around May in Italy). Looking at the user contributions I found ten more such boxes in Italian cities which I deleted . Ypsilon (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A few days ago I updated EU (or Schengen?), also lastedit=March. So not just small cities. I think Switzerland and Italy also were similar. –LPfi (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Adding the covid-boxes we get all noticed. But I think a maintenance category for boxes with lastedit more than three months ago is needed. –LPfi (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Assuming I wrote the template correctly, it should automatically put the articles in a maintenance category when the lastedit date is more than three months ago. I'll test that in a moment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It works: I edited Canada to use the template, and it was automatically categorized in Category:Has COVID-19 box with out of date warning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeing support and no objections, I'll go ahead and start implementing this template in more articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Ground Zero (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. Anyone who's interested, please help update the articles in Category:Has COVID-19 box with no date and Category:Has COVID-19 box with out of date warning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Already?! That was fast! --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the conversation[edit]

Work-me is not involved in this. Volunteer-me took a look at it. It's short, and I think it's worth at least a glance. I think it could be fairly summarized as "things that are already encouraged here will be encouraged everywhere (respecting other contributors and working together), and things that are discouraged here will be discouraged everywhere (abusing people and vandalizing pages)". There are no specified enforcement mechanisms. I don't see anything in that proposal that would require any changes for this community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Western food in Asia[edit]

Hi everyone, I have started a new draft article in my userspace called Western food in Asia. After all, there are some interesting local variations on Western food that developed in Asia that you wouldn't find in the West, and this is analogous to how Asian food was changed and adapted to Western palates when it was brought to the West. I will progressively add more stuff to the draft article, but in the meantime, please feel free to add stuff to it. I believe ChubbyWimbus knows quite a fair bit about Japanese-style yōshoku, while 廣九直通車, Kdm852 and OhanaUnited would probably have some stuff to contribute about Hong Kong-style "soy sauce Western" food. And I wonder if Ikan Kekek will have anything to add about Malaysian Western food. The dog2 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I enjoyed some in K.L., but that was back in the 70s. My trip back to Malaysia in 2003 was too brief for me to want to eat any Western food there. I do know, though, from talking to others including my brother who tried it, that the food in Malaysian locations of McDonald's and KFC is much spicier and better than in the U.S. I'm sure that's equally true of Singapore and I think that merits a mention in this kind of article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The dog2, I think this is an excellent article and I'll be watching closely to see its development. One bit of feedback. The item listed in the Hong Kong section as "Black cow/Snow White (黑牛/白雪公主)" is far from unknown in the West, or at least in North America: here they're called "ice cream floats". (While the traditional recipe calls specifically for root beer and vanilla ice cream, they're commonly available in pretty much any palatable flavor combination of carbonated soda and ice cream.) If there's anything unique about the Asian version by comparison with the Western one, it should probably be spelled out specifically in the listing; if not, it should probably be omitted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Right, sorry I forgot about ice cream floats. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks good enough for mainspace: Western food in Asia. /Yvwv (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll move it to mainspace if there is no objection in the next 24 hours. The dog2 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace. A big thank you to all who helped with this. The dog2 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Less than two weeks since the Dog announced it & it is now in mainspace and has had contributions from quite a few people. It is rated Usable & I think getting close to Guide. Good work everyone! Pashley (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

There were some edits recently that I think should have been caught by filter 37. Could some admins who understand the syntax take a look? –LPfi (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Destinations works again[edit]

I've read this discussion between Hobbitschuster and AlasdairW and I've reactivated the "Destinations" article.

Most likely the articles shown not inlcude the new ones because I need to schedule and test a script server side that periodically will refresh the articles list. For it:voy I've been forced to rewrite the script from scratch because it didn't work anymore. If en:voy community is interested I can try to do the same (I'm confident that it will be quicker this time).

Technically speaking, I'm not familiar with Kartographer extension, hence I've restore the "old way" to show a map through Template:Mapframe2 (Killarnee I've override this template you created but never used). For the privacy topic discussed above, I can state that is not anymore an issue, since all the scripts used in the old maps have migrated years ago from an external server into a WMF server. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Andyrom75, thanks. It looks good, I have removed the work around instructions added in 2017. AlasdairW (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

News coverage of Wikivoyage[edit]

Stuff published an article the other day on "NZ tourism's Wikipedia problem". In it, there's this paraphrased quote about us from the New Zealand Wikipedian at Large: "Dickison said Wikipedia could not be used as a marketing tool for businesses, but tourism operators could use online travel guidebook Wikivoyage and image library Wikimedia Commons for free, saving them thousands on their own website that would not have the same reach." Thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

well, for the record, I can testify there has been a steady flow of editing on NZ destination pages for some days, maybe weeks; Greymouth is the prime example. As of today I had to block an insistent anonymous IP number trying to link its own Facebook page and live stream about Ceduna, but this is South Australia. We've been copyediting normally so far, AFAIK. If the tourist operators comply with policy, and refrain of aggressive touting, they are welcome, as always. Ibaman (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph is correct. We're ready and waiting to work with any NZ residents, businesses and tourism professionals who care to contribute; the same goes for any nationality. As long as they respect the wiki and its policies, the mutual benefits are there for the taking.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
True, we do have an entire page called WV:Welcome, business owners that encourages them to contribute. But I don't see how a business listing themselves on WV is going to "save them thousands on their own website that would not have the same reach". WV is not a web hosting service or an exhaustive directory. Listings here are a summary, not a complete substitute for information from the business in question. (Can you imagine us listing a restaurant's entire menu for them?) Listings are also not exhaustive, and editors are free to prune a listing if it's inferior to others (e.g. bad reviews) or if there are simply too many, which would leave that business back where they started with no web presence. And of course there are some types of businesses we outright do not list.
(As it happens, the situation on WV for New Zealand maybe isn't as dire as on WP. Fox Glacier, for example, is 3 times as long as w:Fox Glacier.)
I think directing people at WV is great, but directing businesses here is, at best, not ideal. The biggest problem, really, is that almost no business is interested in contributing anything to WV other than listing themselves. Even the most well-meaning business contributors have been of no use in discussing regions, writing "Understand" and "Get in/around" sections, etc. They come here to add one specific listing to no more than a couple of pages, and if we're lucky make some other minor improvements. I'm not saying we should shoo them away, but I don't think targeting ourselves towards businesses will substantially improve our coverage of any destination. --Bigpeteb (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Other than Greymouth, are there any other pages that received a "boost" in NZ editing? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
They could of course add valuable information to Understand and See: Instead of saying their hotel is "a stone's through from the beautiful ..." they could write that the place is known for that beautiful whatever, and describe why you'd like to see it. There's the same problem on Wikipedia, they seem not to understand (and especially not care about) what we are interested in and how to get the mutual benefit of cooperation. It's like marketers were a special breed with no sense for communications and cooperation (which I have also noted as consumer: when I am interested in one of their products they try to tout about everything else instead of providing any of the information I need on that item). –LPfi (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that businesses just want to add their business as a listing (in multiple articles if possible) and then leave, often with touty language. But tourism agencies would want to promote the destination as a whole and we could benefit from collaborating with them. Many editors already focus on their hometown or country and never venture beyond their geographical bubble. Even if their scope is niche, tourism agencies can fit in if they cooperate with us and respect the rules, especially WV:Be fair which will mean that their destination isn't glowingly praised all the time. Gizza (roam) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wish that businesses with existing listings would check out those listings (e.g., once a year) and remove or correct errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

LintErrors[edit]

Any Wikivoyage adminstrators care to review some edits I made recently, to correct LintErrors on Wikivoyage?

I'd rather not proceed, unless I had clear permission that the sorts of edits made recently were helpful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Just my personal opinion, but I'm all for fixing the issues. I have done plenty of this on the Wikipedia site. I think though that it's best to avoid the user pages and the "Obsolete HTML tags" lint error (unless it's on an article or template). -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
(This is about Special:LintErrors, in case anyone isn't sure what they're talking about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Well here on Wikivoyage, most of the 'content' pages are done. What's left is all the talk pages.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits have a massive impact on tourism[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/18/wikipedia-edits-have-massive-impact-on-tourism-say-economistsJustin (koavf)TCM 05:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I emailed one of the authors suggesting they also consider WV. Pashley (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fascists hemming and hawing[edit]

Have a look at Talk:Portland (Oregon) and Talk:Spain. After the disaster surrounding Brussels/Molenbeek and surroundings where we had to ban a user over overt fascist views someone seems to be intent on us not calling a spade a spade when it comes to fascism and on us censoring our coverage on history and current events. Be on the lookout and don't fall into their traps. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikivoyage's Pagebanner be like Wikitavel?[edit]

Can Wikivoyage's Pagebanner be like Wikitavel?(Click to image link) So we don’t have always to page up to Pagebanner...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "so we don't have always to page up to Pagebanner" is supposed to mean, but for various reasons (copyright being a major one) it would behoove us not to imitate Wikitravel too closely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I understand; on Wikitravel the table of contents is, like here, part of the banner. But when you scroll down their articles the TOC locks to the top of the screen and follows when you scroll up and down the article and so it's always within reach no matter where you are in the article. I'd say it could be a useful feature, but not a must-have. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Definitely useful, but I'm not sure that it's a good idea to copy them too closely. If we can find a way to do it that doesn't look too similar, that might be worth exploring. If not, no big deal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Based on the convenience of the reader, the more the content of the article, the more convenient the user need whant find the desired content. I think this function is very important, but I don't think it is a plagiarism method, in fact, other websites have the same function. --✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You "don't think it is a plagiarism method", but then again you're not a lawyer. Elements of website design can be copywritten, and given some of the recent actions they've taken against Wikitravel/Wikivoyage dual editors, it certainly doesn't seem like Internet Brands would hesitate to pursue litigation against us if they thought they had a case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Mmm... It seems that another alternative (as like the sidebar of the mobile version) can be adopted so that it will not be similar to Wikitravel, just an idea.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If there's a legal concern we should ask the WMF legal team rather than speculating. I don't think any of us are intellectual property lawyers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This is indeed common, but I cannot remember having seen any such sticky content on any WMF site. It might be for good reason. I have seen many sites where the sticky elements rob me of much of my screen real estate. And at least on desktop, it is not difficult nor time consuming to push [home] (or [ctrl]-[home]) to get up to the TOC and the top margin elements (or the top left margin ones). –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Granger, if none of us are intellectual property lawyers and none of us is qualified to do more than speculate, then the proper option to choose is the most cautious one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
‘‘Scroll to top’’(or Back to top) button? This can simply solve the existing problems of Wikivoyage. Can we try to do this?—✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 22:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I know many web pages have them, but so do most keyboards. I don't understand the need. Is it about people not knowing their keyboard and web browser – the latter belief reason for a lot of hacks, such as having to choose font size through cookies instead of by browser preferences. On mobile devices such keys may be absent or hard to activate, but I'd suppose the browser developers would have come to think about the need and a way to handle it. –LPfi (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Tyrol is a mess[edit]

The article lists over 30 "cities" its subdivision is entirely unclear and the discussion on the talk page as to a subdivision went nowhere... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't find anybody disagreeing with the valley approach. If they are many, the districts (or groups of districts) could be used as an intermediate level, as suggested. The IP user says the districts are useless, but if valleys are not split by district borders I see no severe problem with them. Whether they are needed or not, I don't know.
Is the problem that we had a now permabanned user active with articles in that region? Some of the user's articles were deleted as the user had added biased or false information elsewhere and we thought his work couldn't be trusted?
LPfi (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cities vs. towns[edit]

In a recent edit, User:TagaSanPedroAko changed a heading in the Mindoro article from "Cities" to "Cities and towns". My first reaction was to want to revert, thinking along the lines "No, that heading is a site-wide standard & you cannot change it."

But is it the right standard? In Mindoro, Calapan is officially a city & has pop. around 150,000, but I think everything else would be better described as towns. Should the heading just be "Towns"? Should that be our site-wide standard? Or perhaps, since some articles currently list even villages as "Cities", should we make the heading "Settlements"? Pashley (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think these kinds of headings can be changed as appropriate. However, we don't want to get into the business of defining the difference between cities, towns, villages, hamlets and what have you, site-wide, because then we'd run into the problem of very small cities and very large villages. In quite a few places, "village" and "hamlet" are merely administrative categories. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The use of 'Cities', 'Towns', 'Villages' etc varies quite widely on Wikivoyage. Certainly in articles about the British Isles, where the difference between these types of settlement is set out in law and instinctively obvious to most people, you'll rarely find a cities list just called 'Cities'. As long as this local discrepancy is allowed, I don't see the problem with every built-up area article having the default name 'city'. I would find 'settlements' inadequate, as to me that brings to mind a small village and is also reminiscent of Wikidata's ridiculous 'human settlement' description tag.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with renaming the "Cities" header in region pages if the local geography permits. For the region article in question (Mindoro), I'm fine if that can be changed to "Towns", if we can safely ignore the fact Calapan is a city only in administrative terms (though it's somewhat borderline, at least for a local like me).
Whether to call a small city a city or a town or a large town a town or a city is also an issue affecting some Philippines city or town articles (such as Los Baños (Laguna) — administratively municipality or town, but a city for its population and its moniker). We also have many Philippine region or province pages that have no places described as city, but the header is not changed to reflect the geography (so are city/towns in those list without a one-liner that can aid in the appropriate section name). --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Region article template#Cities already covers this scenario and explicitly notes that using a different header is fine where it makes sense:
Lastly, if calling the settlements in this region "cities" is a real stretch – say, for remote or rural areas with only towns and/or villages – it's OK to rename this section 'Towns' or 'Villages' or 'Settlements' or whatever. But if there are lots of different kinds and sizes of settlements, just leave it as "Cities".
-- Ryan • (talk) • 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

New opening hours properties on Wikidata[edit]

There are two new properties on Wikidata that might be useful for Wikivoyagers, too: opening time (P8626) and closing time (P8627). These properties can centralize and allow for adding references to opening hours information across Wikivoyage language editions. It also exposes the data to a large userbase of Wikidatans, who can help keep the information up-to-date. NMaia (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @NMaia: Thank you for letting us know about this news; hopefully the new feature can be mutually beneficial.
There is a point of consideration which you and your fellow Wikidatans may not be aware of: on Wikivoyage, we have standardised formats for opening hours, including specific abbreviations for days of the week and month, and we use day ranges rather than daily opening hours (e.g. "M-F 9AM-5PM, Sa Su 10AM-6PM", not "Mon 9AM-5PM, Tue 9AM-5PM, Wed 9AM-5PM,..."). We also use a mixture of 24-hour and 12-hour clocks, depending on the most prevalent system in the geographical location concerned. For example, listings in the USA use the 12-hour clock, while listings in France use the 24-hour clock. Full details of the policy can be found at WV:TDF.
Will you be able to ensure that this policy is adhered to? Regardless of the format Wikidatans will use to input the data, we will need the hours to display on Wikivoyage in the required format, and as stated already this varies across our articles.
I think it's a good thing to collaborate across projects, but in this case there has to be regulatory alignment of some description in order for this to work. There may be appetite in the Wikivoyage community to update our TDF policy, or maybe Wikidata will adopt our policy, or perhaps there is some sort of software to convert WD inputs into the required WV format. But however it's done, there needs to be interwiki standardisation.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is possible for code to give the relevant outputs based on machine readable data on WD. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've been told it can be done, particularly with Lua modules. NMaia (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Even if it weren't, it's not terribly important. We can import the data into the listing template, and manually correct the format. I've tried importing some Wikidata records to pre-populate the listing, and it can be a significant time- (and hassle-) saver.
I don't think that Wikidata should ever be held responsible for following our formatting style. Besides, what if a different community had a different style? We should feel free to use the information, and to share information with them, but turn it into something that works for us here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I doubt it is worth the trouble. WV formats are not sacred. This might be a good time to improve them. Pashley (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The format of the property seems to be quite flexible, as shown by examples at Wikidata:Property proposal/opening hours, but there might be important special cases where the Wikidata format is more convoluted than the Wikivoyage one. In any case, we need code to get the info we want and format it in some way. Perhaps the result of a well written database query is suitable for us, but I'd try to write that query/code first and look at how more complicated entries get to look like before we deem a Luo module is unnecessary. –LPfi (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Nobody said they were sacred, I even said that we might be willing to change them. But this will need to happen across the whole site as a new standard, not be done piecemeal so that we have a bunch of different formats in use.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
We kind of already do have a bunch of different formats in use. There's 12 vs 24 hour, and sometimes Saturday is "Sa" and sometimes "Sat". That's four "legal" formats right there. Then there are the complicated situations. I once gave up on reporting the closing hours for one attraction because the hours varied significantly not just by the day of the week, but also by the month. Their website dedicated a whole page to their opening hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not true. "Sa" should never be "Sat"; when you see that, please correct it.
We have two standardised systems in use here, for the 24-hour clock and the 12-hour clock, though these are really just variations of the same system: aside from the times, everything else is the same. The more complicated situations I grant you, but these are a tiny minority.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage talk:Time and date formats#Expanded short names for days of the week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(response to WAID?, 15:44) If I have to correct all the formatting by hand as soon as imported, why would I bother doing that rather than looking up the hours myself online? The idea is to share data seamlessly across the wikis, and presumably Wikidata would also benefit by importing opening hours from Wikivoyage. If we both use the same system(s), this is made easier for everyone involved.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Because formatting content is faster that looking up content plus formatting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks NMaia for making this happen! It would be great if the listing editor could be updated to do the matching like it does for other Wikidata fields (it will be a bit more complex, so maybe just the simple cases?) Syced (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
NMaia, if I want to specify "Mon 12:00-14:00 and 19:00-21:00" I suppose that I have to add two different values (one for 12:00-14:00 and one for 19:00-21:00), correct? Or there's a possibility to add both time range under the same value (i.e. Monday)?
Regarding the timing won't be better to strictly store the time as HH:MM (24h)? This will make it easier to elaborate the output according to any specific need. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
In the proposal, I originally intended to keep them under the same statement, like you mentioned, but someone asked me to change it, so I did. Either way, I think it won't cause many problems for Wikivoyage. NMaia (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
NMaia, it's not a problem but I think it's more complicated to manage the stored information. Having 7 values for the 7 days, each one of them having their own time range I think it would be easier, because that's how generally we show such kind of data.
What about time syntax? --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Map of campsites doesn't work, is rawhtml permitted?[edit]

I just made this change: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A4rn%C3%B6sand&oldid=4068115 I have modeled and photoed some campsites I know of in the municipality and would like to share them on Wikivoyage on an interactive map based on a search query from WD. How is the best way to go about presenting this on Wikivoyage?--So9q (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Please make a listing for each one of the campsites, that's the Wikivoyage way. Ibaman (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I found out that listing are automatically added to article maps with color coded numbers. Very nice solution to a complex problem. :)--So9q (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Listings generator from WD queries[edit]

I read and understand the structure now, LGTM. Is there a WD->WV listings exporter/generator? There are a LOT of campsites in just Sweden, it is not feasible to type in all this manually IMO.--So9q (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC) I found out that the listings editor is okay for entering a new campsite, but as these do not have wikipedia entries, the editor complains about the name not being filled in which is a bug IMO. Reported here.--So9q (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there again. There's been a lot of talk about WD - WV integration tools lately, as a matter of fact. I lack the code skills to be of much help here; @Wrh2: and @AlasdairW:, would you please give a hand? Ibaman (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
When I have used the listings editor to get data on a new listing from WD, I type (or copy & paste) the venue name and enter the WD value before trying to Sync. I mainly use the WD sync to get the lat/long and WP article details, with it sometimes giving URL too. However I am usually only adding a few listings, so I am not sure how I can help here. For a campsite listing it is useful to add some information that may not be in WD, like price, number of pitches and facilities. AlasdairW (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the data about pitches and facilities (excluding the price) should be in WD. Anyway the campsites I would like to add are the ones found with this search query from WD.--So9q (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I whipped together the quick python script below that converts from this query to Wikivoyage listings. The result can be seen on Härnösand:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# License: GPLv3
# Author: So9q

import csv
from datetime import datetime

# Example output
# * {{sleep
# | name=Lomtjärnberget
# | lat=62.588214 | long=17.851131
# | wikidata=Q96578823
# | lastedit=2020-09-23
# }}

with open('campsites.csv') as csv_file:
    csv_reader = csv.reader(csv_file, delimiter=',')
    line_count = 0
    for row in csv_reader:
        if line_count == 0:
            print(f'Column names are {", ".join(row)}')
            line_count += 1
        else:
            print("* {{sleep")
            print(f"| name={row[1]}")
            print(f"| lat={row[3]} | lon={row[4]}")
            print(f"| wikidata={row[0].replace('http://www.wikidata.org/entity/','')}")
            print(f"| lastedit={datetime.now().strftime('%Y-%m-%d')}")
            print("}}")
            line_count += 1
    print(f'Processed {line_count} lines.')

Nice. One thing I wonder. In Härnösand most of these "campsites" are lean-to shelters, and at least a few had an image suggesting the terrain was not suitable for pitching a tent. I suppose most readers would expect a campsite to be something else. Is there some way to tell the lean-tos apart from regular campsites (so that a note on what they are can be added)? –LPfi (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point! Yes and no. I created these two items (see section subclass) to model it, but it really depends on how big a tent you want to put up and how you define "suitable". I think its better to provide lots of photos from different angles and of the surroundings, for the user to make up his own mind. Do you have a suggestion for how to model it in an unsubjective way?--So9q (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think these listings need a few words of subjective description. If it is fair a subjective description is welcome here. A "campsite" could be a site with spaces for caravans and campervans and an onsite bar, or just an area of grass. So "bare ground for pitching a tent and open cooking shelter, no electricity or mains water" might describe some of what is in the photos. The listings also need some details of how to reserve (website, phone number etc), or say if you just turn up. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Russian Wiki-Conference 2020[edit]

Wikikonf-logo-bn.svg

Dear coleagues! I'm happy to announce you russian Wikimedia conference that will take part in Saint Petersburg at September, 26-27. This time like previous years we'll hold not only in-person meeting — video translation will also be available and @Frhdkazan: (Farhad Fatkullin) will provide simultaneous interpretation through Zoom call. Conference will start at 7:00 UTC, translation hopefully will start around 8:00 UTC.

I announce this is not only because you can be interested in Russian Wikimedia activities, but also because I will make presentation of North-West Russia Wiki-Historians User Group and announce a cross-Wikivoyage marathon about regions of our UG activity. Exact time of my presentation will be provided later. Красный (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

New feature: Watchlist Expiry[edit]

Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team will be releasing a new feature, which is called Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch a page for a temporary period of time. This feature was developed in response to the #7 request from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. To find out when the feature will be enabled on your wiki, you can check out the release schedule on Meta-wiki. To test out the feature before deployment, you can visit Mediawiki.org or testwiki. Once the feature is enabled on your wiki, we invite you to share your feedback on the project talk page. For more information, you can refer to the documentation page. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's neat! --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed. –LPfi (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing WD items on Gävle article[edit]

Hi, the Gävle article has a lot of listings but not a single one points to WD. Would it be acceptable to copy this data (lat, lon, name, website) to WD via a script? WDYT?--So9q (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not, as long as the guys at WD won't frown upon it... -- andree.sk(talk) 07:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The museums are probably all in scope for Wikidata, while restaurants and cafés usually are not, if I've understood this right. The scope is however still in change, becoming more broad. –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

I blocked 62.60.63.20 for calling reverts vandalism. In itself it could have been seen as a finger slip, but I believe the IP was evading a block. Do with this what you might. –LPfi (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good call. Looks like block evasion to me. Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, @LPfi: @ThunderingTyphoons!: I am part of the Wikimedia Database team. Recently there was a (quite rare) data issue, that may have led to a blockage not being applied correctly in the range you mention here. You may have seen some instability on recentchanges on certain wikis a few hours ago, it was related to this. I would like to talk to you (please message me in private if discussing user blocks is a sensitive issue), as I need to make sure the data regarding blocks is consistent with what you need to be applied throughout all databases. If public on wiki discussion or private messaging is inadequate can also pm on IRC (Freenode) as jynus in the following hours. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): I have no problem with talking on-wiki. There was a lag with recent changes at the same time as I imposed a longer block on the IP in question.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
So the issue is that 2 blocks were setup, but 1 is currently active in a subset of database servers (the old one in some and the new one in others). This needs to be corrected ASAP. With your permission, I would delete from the database the previous block, and leave the last one. I think this would end up in a consistent state and desired state by you (ip blocked). Please do not do any manual operation on the ip until that is done. Do you think that is an ok procedure for me to do to get the databases in a consistent state? Thank you for your work protecting the wikis! We never edit the database manually, except in this exceptional situations (data corruption) and with the project admins ok.--JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: The lag happened because this inconsistency (not your fault!) caused replication to break temporarily between dbs. I am now trying to get us to a health state so this cannot happen ever again. However, only one "block" can be active per address (so one will have to go away). JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In other words, the blocking actions will be kept on the logs of the user, but only the last one will be active. The previous one will be deleted. Ip will continue to be blocked. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): No problem. This is not a user that will make massive changes if unblocked. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will apply the server fix and report here. Again, the user will still be blocked with the last block applied, as the older one didn't apply fully to all dbs. I wanted to warn you because you will see the older block "disappearing" magically with my server powers. Thanks for your understanding. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The database consistency issue has been solved. Final state: Logs are kept, but only the block of 62.60.63.2 made by @ThunderingTyphoons!: at 2020-09-25 11:39:33 is active. You can now, if desired, edit/delete/modify the block if needed, as dbs are in a consistent state. Don't be afraid of blocking/editing, this was a one time thing, and you didn't break anything (it was the database's inconsistent state's fault). No other data or blocks should be affected by this issue. Thanks to everyone that helped here. If you want to know more about this issue, there is a ticket open at Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T263842 Cheers! --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)