Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
  • 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

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


Go next vs see[edit]

I'm still a newbie to this project but I'm keen to give back to it this year so am doing more editing and I'm thinking about ways we could improve the project technically (maybe as part of google summer of code). Disclaimer: I'm building an offline wikivoyage app for my next backpacking trip but more about that later.

One thing that is confusing me is I continually see things in the go next section that I don't feel belong there and are better suited in the see section. One great example is the York article. Castle Howard is a day trip not a destination in itself. As a long time paper guidebook user this distinctions is important to me. Go next sections are used to work out places to go and visit and stay, not simply go to see for a day. As a rule of thumb if a go next destination doesn't have a wikivoyage page I would not expect it to be here. What do others feel about this? Has this been discussed before? Is there some way we could give better guidelines to users when editing on what to put here? Jdlrobson (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[w:Castle_Howard] is 15 miles from York, but probably not a destination article in itself. Therefore probably best leave as a 'see' listing.
It isn't that unusual to create 'see' listings outside of the immediate destination if they do not constitute an article by themselves or belong to another destination. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, "go next" is a list of articles for adjacent or nearby destinations - most often the next town and next major city on each highway or rail line. Actual listings for attractions and activities belong in "see" and "do" respectively. Wikivoyage:What is an article? indicates a destination meets the "can you sleep there?" test, where to be a possible candidate as a usable destination (and not merely a listing) a place should have some way to get in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep. Merrickville is an easy day trip from Ottawa, but it gets an article as it has enough to stand alone. An individual castle? Probably not, it gets a listing.
The one possible exception to forcing listings into see/do/eat/drink/sleep would be a small city or town separated by miles of pasture land from one (or a handful) of tiny villages with a listing or two each. We list contiguous suburbs as part of the city. A group of rural villages? A rare few small-town destinations have the town itself with see/do/sleep... followed by "Nearby" (with the subsections being the names of individual villages, with a brief description and a listing or two in each) followed by "Go next" with the next destinations to actually have an article. For instance, Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby devotes a subsection to a lead-contaminated ghost town, Picher OK, that's not going to get its own article.
That's rare. In general, "go next" lists destinations with actual articles and roads to those destinations. K7L (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I made this edit based on the above. I've seen many other articles which have the same problem so please shout now if there's any issue with this edit :) Jdlrobson (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether something is a daytrip depends whether you are driving, going by bus, walking, etc. Also how much there is to do. For exmaple in the Rotterdam article, Amsterdam is in a daytrip list under the Go Next section. I think that most travellers would want to stay in Amsterdam, so it should be just a Go Next. Go Next destinations should not necessarily have their own article with sleep options. They could just be great destinations in an area that have its own article. For example in Izmir Selçuk is a Go Next that mention Ephesus. I think it might be better to just make Ephesus a Go Next even if you cannot sleep there Elgaard (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Good Commons pictures[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has a rather large list of Featured pictures. Someone might go through them looking at which ones might be used here. Also useful, but less work, would be to just patrol the Main Page with its Picture of the Day to see if those are useful.

I look occasionally but do not have either the time or the visual judgment to take on the whole task. Any volunteers? Is someone perhaps already doing this? Pashley (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Ikan is already updating articles with featured pictures, but more people assisting in that effort would obviously be welcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. There are also a lot of good Quality Images which aren't featured but are really useful for our purposes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Event template not liking paramaters[edit]

Before I get annoyed what's gone wrong ? Halloween#United_Kingdom

I tried adding 2 events, and they refuse to display the location data. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If the event location is a destination page it will display as a link (as long as it is not on that page). The Country does not display. Intention is once we have a good number of event templates across the site we can create an intelligent calendar of events with the data. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

mapframe and GPX traces[edit]

I notice a couple of issues with the maps on itineraries, like the Trans-Labrador Highway:

  • GPX traces aren't being displayed. This used to display a line tracing the path of a Bertha Benz Memorial Route, a Trans-Canada Highway/Yellowhead Highway and a few other itineraries.
  • If a static map exists, instead of displaying it as an alternate where dynamic map support isn't available (print? no JS? whatever?) both maps are always being displayed. Trans-Labrador Highway does this when it used to display the dynamic map as primary and hide the alternate (static) map.

Are these bugs? and are they documented anywhere? K7L (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I took up the GPX issue in Template_talk:Mapframe#optional_show_parameter two weeks ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this is being looked into - no permanent solution available yet; as far as I know, hopefully soon. -- Matroc (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Matroc, K7L, ϒpsilon, take a look at the proposed technology for centrally storing GeoJSON data and reusing it in multiple mapframe/maplinks. [1]. I think it should provide a much better alternative to the current GPX/KML storage. Let me know what you think. --Yurik (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If it makes it possible to add routes without having to understand extra coding (just as before), then I'm all for it. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ϒpsilon, could you walk me through the process please? What have you been doing before, and for what types of articles? --Yurik (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It will make it somewhat easier when it comes to making routes without having to type out all the coordinates. As far as geoshapes go, I would imagine the code to retrieve the GeoJSON information will be similar to what we would do now for geoshapes from OpenStreet... Just a minor question. Would we be able to change the fill color, opacity, stroke-color and stroke thickness, add a description etc... The example you displayed has many geoshapes. One might want to change the fill color of Harlem for example. The overall stroke thickness is a little bit thick. If not, would one then have to use the output as is. On one hand I still think some understanding of coding would be useful, but at a minimal level I hope. It is definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks! .. Matroc (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Matroc you can already change that using properties object on all features, e.g. "properties":{"fill":"#bd0000"}. See simplestyle at Kartographer help page. --Yurik (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yurik - Good! So pretty much the same type of action is going to occur as with mapshape and OpenStreet. Just wanted to make sure that one still could make minor changes. Having a centralized GPX/KML storage in commons for multiple wiki use is good idea! -- Matroc (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Adding_boundaries_and_tracks. First I go to [2], and click on the map where I want to have route points. When the route is done, I click save and I can download a textfile to my computer with the coordinates and "everything else". After this I create a template page named "Template:GPX/exact name of the article the route is for" (e.g. Template:GPX/Trans-Siberian Railway), copy paste the content of the text file I just downloaded and click save. That's pretty much it.
BTW, as you might know User:Mey2008 was responsible for the setup of the old dynamic map, so he can likely provide any technical details. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
And it would be fairly simple to convert that text to GeoJSON format for mapframes or maplinks as well. -- Matroc (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The question is how we going to store it. Storing DATA as not-easily-parsable wiki text is a really bad idea - there is no validation nor an easy way to use it from code (like mapframe). You have to build complex and error-prone lua scripts to parse that text, and constantly fix errors. Storing it as geojson removes all these problems, because the data is validated on save, and does not save until the errors are fixed. Plus there could be many easy to use additional ways to validate that data, and some options to convert it to KML/GPX/... formats if needed. Worst case - the data can be copy/pasted to a number of sites that will do it. --Yurik (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Philippines edits[edit]

Some relatively new users have been adding a lot of content to articles about places in the Philippines, and of course that's good. But there are problems with the format and sometimes content of these edits, and I would like you to all know that because my edits tend to get overwritten by them, I've pretty much given up patrolling these articles. The problems include:

(1) The use of bullets throughout the articles, including in the middle of a sentence in "Get in", when it wraps to the next line

(2) The use of lowercase letters at the beginnings of such bullets

(3) The listing of numerous supermarkets and other stores and such purely by name, with no or little other information

(4) A refusal to use the ₱ symbol for costs

(5) The arbitrary use of capital letters in the middles of sentences

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Irregular subheadings, too. See here and here for typical examples of some of the problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Another example. Did you know "Fan" and "Private" were proper nouns? On the other hand, "tv" is lowercase... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've been fixing some of those problems & have dropped some comments on user talk pages, apparently unheeded. Ikan & others have been too. This is getting downright tiresome, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Pashley (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Any well known ones to mention here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of them. All of them? I think the whatever their name fairies that were endorsed by Arthur Conan Doyle deserve mention... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Cottingley Faries, are infamous. I was however in terms of the article thinking more in terms of scams used to part the traveller from funds ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Way To Make Baicheng Better[edit]

I am from Baicheng. How can I make it better? What should I add? --Mzsamzsa (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! In answer to your questions: Please add any kind of information you think a visitor to your city would find interesting or useful. The thing that really sticks out to me is that most sections are completely empty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
With the existing listings links to their web pages, location coordiantes and street address as well as a little more description. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between 'See' and 'Do' on the wikivoyage page?[edit]

Actually, I don't know well about the difference between 'See' and 'Do'. sometimes there are some informations of parks or famous mountain on 'See' section. As well there are some information about ocean in 'Do' section. what is the exact difference? and if there are informations about the temple, whick section would be suitable? See or Do?--Jisoo-U (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about a temple that's an attraction as a sight to see, right? That would belong in "See". I know that which section has which listing isn't always consistent in practice, but there's a handy page that helps answer questions about what belongs in which section: Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jisoo-U. Look at Wikivoyage:Big city article template#See and the 'Do' section that follows it. 'See' is for attractions that don't move much, and there is a list of examples there. 'Do' is for activities and performances, rather than static attractions. Some of the things that go in 'Do' are a bit surprising. For example, movie theatres go in 'Do', because the actors are performing, even though the visitor just sits and watches. Check that page and the one that Ikan gave, and if you are still not sure, just put things where you think is best. Someone else might move it to another section, but at least you will have written the information, which is the most important thing. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I add the 'Mascot' and 'Commemorative Coin' of Pyeongchang 2018?[edit]

In Olympic page, it would be better to add some mascot or commemorative coin which represent this big event. It could be interesting for someone who has an interest to Pyeongchang2018 and has a hobby to collect memento. There are some introduction of these on Official Pyeongchang 2018's site. I want to know about other people's thought to this idea.--Oh Joonseok (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the image used complies with creative commons license. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to our Exemption Doctrine Policy, which allows "fair use" of otherwise free photos of some non-free artwork (and architecture). Such images cannot be uploaded to Commons, but have to be uploaded locally on Wikivoyage, unless the mascot or coin is free, which I doubt. --LPfi (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I copy the images from this to wikivoyage? --Oh Joonseok (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That page says "Copyright by The PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games" so I would assume not. Reading through their brand protection page seems to suggest even fair use is not allowed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair use should be allowed regardless of the copyright owner. The brand protection page seems to be about trademark rights, which are unrelated to copyright. Essentially the law and the linked page want to ensure a page of ours is not mistaken for an official Olympic Games page – and we should anyway not use the symbols in such a way.
However, WMF and our EDP (linked above) require that the photo itself be free, and any material on the official pages are unlikely to be (except possible historic images). Somebody has to take a good photo of the mascot, the coin or whatever symbol we want to use, and publish it under a free licence (and there should be a note about the underlying unfree work).
--LPfi (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
LPfi, thank you for your excellent explanation of our EDP. I was afraid I had written it so poorly no one else could understand it. =) Powers (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Make SEO edits a precondition for featuring[edit]

So I am currently editing Berlin a bit, always copying sections into copyscape to see how much they match a certain other page and then trying to edit accordingly (do look over my language and the general flow of the text and be as strict as you must when excising parts where I got carried away on a tangent) and I found there are some quite large matches, especially in sections like "get in" or "get around" and - most damning of all - the lede. Berlin is not currently scheduled for featuring and I have no intention of nominating it (though Berlin/South is currently rated guide and could in theory be nominated/featured), but this got me thinking; our featured articles are the most visible and high profile articles and featuring (or even a nomination) usually entails a lot of editing at any rate, so how about we try to better our search engine rating by deliberately editing featured articles or articles nominated for featuring with that in mind? In other words, should we ask for editors to do a bit of that before a feature goes live? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

While any divergence from WT content is of course a net gain for WV, this is the kind of thing that happens organically over time regardless of anything we editors may do intentionally to speed that process along. In my estimation, the primary impulse behind any edit to this site, or question an editor should ask himself before clicking the "Save changes" button, should always be "does this constitute an improvement in the content that we offer the reader?" If there's also an incidental SEO benefit to the edit, so much the better, but it strikes me that simply making lateral changes to the content of our articles for no reason other than SEO runs the risk of inadvertently degrading our content. It seems picayune, but word choice, clever turns of phrase, etc. do matter. To a certain degree, they're how we define ourselves relative to other travel guides. Given that SEO edits are merely a way to move us in a direction we're already moving anyway, it seems unnecessary to run that risk, and I'm especially wary of going so far as making them a precondition for featuring DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs (which are supposed to be open to all Guide or better articles, full stop). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you be the judge of my recent edits to Berlin. I do think that some of them improved the content of the article rather than just moving laterally. And furthermore we should take a serious look at section that were not changed at all in years, as they are both the most likely to give us SEO penalties and the most likely to contain outdated information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed We can at least make it a point to have several users pore over the page before featuring. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, I wasn't referring specifically to your edits to Berlin, and I take you at your word when you said they improve the content of the article. I think maybe you and I are talking about two different things here. When I hear about "SEO edits", what that implies to me is a simple, superficial change to the wording of an article such that it says the same thing as before but in different words, which fools search engines into regarding it as original content. If you're talking about adding information to an article that wasn't there before, or updating information that hasn't been edited in years, I'd regard that as an improvement to our content first and foremost, with any attendant SEO benefit secondary. And if you're saying that DotM candidates should be looked over to make sure that all information is up to date and nothing is left out, I'd agree with that too, but I would also say that's something that by and large we already do. Lastly, the mere fact that improvements to our content do necessarily also improve our SEO standing, and the fact that they happen all the time at WV, is precisely what makes me think it's maybe not utterly necessary to make the sort of "lateral SEO edits" I described at the beginning of this comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that certain sections - once they are written - do not "move" much in any direction, as evidenced by a cursory glance at the text on that other site and our site. For instance this is quite true for a lot of the "by bus" content in articles about Europe, despite the rather rapid development of this market in recent years (I have tried some stabs at it, but way too many articles still list companies that may or may not still exist) and if I take a look at an article, I tend to skip certain sections (e.g. everything "by car", because cars to me are boring and I just assume there is some street and you just follow the signs). Incidentally, when I then look at the comparison tool, those sections are not unlikely to be those most in need of work. Now I am sure we all have different sections we tend to skip - some of us may not skip anything ever - but using comparison tools could help us identify the areas where work is most needed and beneficial. Frankly, I seem mostly incapable of "lateral edits". When I try to reformulate a text, I usually do it from scratch or from only a list of talking points. But we are all different. And a particularly damning thing is if the lede of an article has not changed since the migration. Some ledes may be unimprovable and the best prose since I don't know when, but the vast majority of our ledes were written by someone who thought "well there needs to be a lede" and not much improved on since. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Those are points well worth pointing out and keeping in mind. I think, though, we should not talk about SEO in any guidelines or feature discussions: that could lead to sections being rewritten by people not too good in writing English, and as you and Andre say, the reason for changing the wording does not matter much for the SEO issue. Using the comparison tool to find possibly outdated or less developed section will help SEO and improve article quality without our saying anything about SEO. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The featured article should showcase the best Wikivoyage has to offer. As such, it should offer the voyager (a) original content which is (b) up to date. I recall the question of whether Internet access should be a featured travel topic (FTT) was raised; my reaction was that it's not ready to be a featured travel topic if it still contains a substantial amount of three-year-old information which was copy-pasted from some other website. If it's not worth the trouble to replace the outdated text with new and original content, it's not worth featuring. K7L (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand the requirement for original content. If some free content found elsewhere makes an article better in other aspects, what is the point of using less good or less complete text instead? In most cases, of course, text from elsewhere needs at least some rewriting to fit our style, but that is a separate consideration. And old content is not necessarily outdated, if it has been checked and updated where needed. I think we should not confuse quality issues with SEO and the wish to cut any connections to that other site. For SEO, I hope Google & co are smart enough for our work to show in search results without efforts on just changing content, which seems to be true. For the other site, a company abusing a community does not mean the community did not produce valuable content before the fork. I hope we could just leave that site to degenerate on its own and concentrate on making this site good. --LPfi (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Idea for an improvement: Show gpx tracks on the maps and be able to download them for usage in map application[edit]

Imagine we were able to show gpx tracks on the mapframe (e.g. a city walking tour, which covers the highlights of Istanbul). Then – with a click of a button, one could download exactly that gpx file to the phone and import it into OsmAnd,, … best with POI pictures and some text. I personally think, that would be a huge improvement for Wikivoyage! --Renek78 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This feature was once introduced to WV, but then reverted with some not very clear reasoning. Check out also the old discussion on this topic. And while this feature keeps being missing from WV, you can anyway download GPX using this external tool. --Kiaora (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Renek78, that feature has been implemented in it:voy as a pilot. You can see for example it:Nelle terre dei Gonzaga. From the GPX indicator icon you can download both the GPX track and all the listing present in the page (provided that they have the coordinates).
Kiaora, the revert has been done for technical reason. If this is the only problem, I can correctly activate it here as well. Let me know. PS The original purpose of the external tool that you have mentioned, is to extract POI from more than one article. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be extremely helpful to have this feature enabled. As it's very unlikely a lot of people know about this tool at all. And yeah, I've seen it's capable of combining POIs from several articles, quite handy. --Kiaora (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kiaora, I've just activate it the GPX indicator on all the articles that have been associated to a GPX itinerary like London/City of London. To activate it on every article that has a listing I need the support of an en:voy-admin to change MediaWiki files. I'll keep you posted. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kiaora, Renek78, now from all the articles is possible to download GPX file, with POIs and tracks information ready to be installed on external devices. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Andyrom75! That's already a big step in the right direction. But somehow I don't fully understand how to add a track to a Wikivoyage article. For example I wanted to upload a gpx file for the "Hike along the coastal path from Monaco to Carnoles". I would create the trace with a tool like GPSies, upload to this place and then somehow link the gpx in the article. But I already fail on the upload part. The wikihelp "Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps" wasn't really helpful. I guess I'm too new to all this...
Renek78, you need to save the mentioned GPX track in Template:GPX/Monaco. Once done, if the syntax do not contain mistakes, the track will be automatically added to the article. Unfortunately the maps used here in en:voy has a bug that do not show the tracks directly in the map. If you want to see it, you can try it first on it:voy where the tracks are visibile (when well written) because we still used the old maps that in general have less problems. Once satisfied with the track, you can copy it here too. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I am going to try it as soon as possible. Means, that my idea is already implemented - you are the man, Andyrom75! --Renek78 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Quick update: I have just created a track now on GPSies and uploaded it to the Monaco gpx template. If I now download the Monaco gpx file the track is included, but I am not able to see the track on the article map - neither on the English version nor on the Italian one with this "Mappa dinamica" element. So not sure now whether more cleaning of the gpx is needed or the mapframe feature just has to be updated.--Renek78(talk) 12:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Another update: The track can be seen when clicking on the button "Full Screen dynamic map". The next step would be to make the mapframe show gpx tracks and to be able to link the "do" map marker "Carnoles hike" with the gpx track. Then it's close to perfection. --Renek78 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks. --Kiaora (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Renek78, 2 notes.
  1. To see the GPX track in a language version, you must save the track in that specific language version. You have saved it only here in en:voy
  2. You can see the GPX track in the en:voy "big map", because that map is still linked to the old one that is currently in use in it:voy (not only as a "big map" but in every article). It's not a matter of template name. What changes is the content. See the different marker icons for example. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
GPX track shows on the geo map - Work is being done to show the GPX tracks on a mapframe - Though it is possible to do so in a temporary roundabout way - it would be better to wait for a final solution(s)... -- Matroc (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with users making the exact same edit here and on that other site?[edit]

Maybe we should have some guideline for dealing with edits like this. If you look it up on that other website (I was somewhat suspicious due to the amount of redlinks), you see immediately that a user under the same name did the exact same edits over there. Now I have posted a thread on the talk page of the British Virgin Islands article, but this is likely to be a recurring issue and I would like some guideline as to how to deal with it in general. If I understand our current (lack of) policy correctly, we do not prohibit it as there are no things in CC by SA that prohibit it, but we discourage it due to SEO concerns and encourage the authors to instead focus their edits here, correct? Maybe we should write an essay or something to point users to to maybe convince them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should do anything, other than be glad we have a new contributor, welcome him and fix the wikilinks you mentioned on the talk page. Acer (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my earlier comments, this is one case in which I think "lateral SEO edits" may be desirable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Well it is quite possible that a significant number of the editors to whom this applies are unaware of our history and even some of those who have a passing knowledge of it might not know about the whole SEO thing. Maybe we should have/create something more in depth to link to rather than Wikivoyage and Wikitravel as nowadays the "editor active here and on that other site" is the commonest cause for us to talk about them in the first place and the cases of "someone asks us about that other place of their own volition" have greatly decreased. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We could make a customized welcome template for people coming over from WT with a link to the history. I just don't think we should require any specific behavior from them, such as not making duplicate edits in both sites (since I think being able to do that is an incentive to start editing here. If they have to rewrite they might balk at the extra work and just stay there instead). Acer (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We've had a significant number of negative experiences on this site in the past with editors who were active on both sites stirring up trouble here, so I hope my reaction to this issue is not colored by that. I think it's fine to drop such users a friendly talk page message explaining why we frown on duplicate content from WT, but I don't think we should hesitate to edit the WV text accordingly, and I don't think we should show a whole lot of tolerance towards repeat offenders. Frankly, I'd love for policy to be changed to explicitly prohibit duplicate WT/WV content (except insofar as there remains some pre-fork material on our site), but given the amount of mountain-moving that's necessary to gain consensus on policy changes here, I think that may be a bit too much to hope for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that while it is seemingly logical that the same text on both sites will penalize our SEO rankings, there is no concrete evidence to suggest this actually happens. It probably does, but no way to know for sure. Additionally, I assume (not knowing for sure) that a high proportion of text on WV is still the same as WT, and therefore a few paragraphs of similar content, although possibly unhelpful, is not likely to do much harm by itself.
Also should we get new contributors to 'buy in' to our historical dislike of WT? It probably isn't a good first impression.
I would go with the principle that 'anyone can edit', and if someone does add similar content then other contributors can enhance by adapting i so that it becomes sufficiently different. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to hijack this thread, but regarding the statement that "there is no concrete evidence" that duplicate content affects search engine rankings, that is not true. Duplicate content issues are a well-known challenge in search engine optimization and indisputably affect how a site is ranked - there are reams of articles describing the issue online, and they explain why it may cause a site to be filtered out of search results or rank lower. For just one example, see this page from Google, which explicitly states that Google excludes results when content is too similar to another result. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the last paragraph of Andrewssi2's comment, that's precisely what I suggested doing in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ryan , I was saying that duplication probably does cause a SEO issue, but it is not possible to determine the impact of one new article of duplicated content except to say that reading Google's guidance it would likely lower our ranking score. I'm thinking how this might be explained to a new contributor. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

SEO again[edit]

Outreach Has anyone tried directly contacting search engines? I have done so with DuckDuckGo and unless I am just remembering myself as a free culture hero, I think they actually changed their results to favor Wikivoyage. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Many have thought about it, but no-one knows how to go about it in a way that might be effective, given that the webmasters of nearly every website in the world want to do the same. Here's a thought: Let's draft and polish an open letter to search engine companies describing why WV's situation is different from nearly all other websites, due to the fork etc, etc. Then, as well as having it on the site, we could try to identify a key person in search engine companies, reformat the letter for print, and post it off to them. Nurg (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I doubt an open letter would have any effect on SEO rankings. It might create some media or blogosphere talk if we are lucky, but that's about it. Google's algorithms mostly do what they do "automatically" with little input from management. And if anything google would actually have a (minor) incentive for us to go down in flames, as they cannot sell us any ads. In other words: Why would they even want to help us? The poor kindness of their hards just cannot be assumed. Free content advocates are of course another thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Does Google show bias in order to give a higher ranking to sites with ads on them? I didn't think that was the case. Also many search terms in Google actually show the Wikipedia article as the first result. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying they have an agenda against us (and they are unlikely to have one), but there is no reason they would bend over backwards to accommodate us. What potential gain could it bring them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately their goal is to get the most relevant search results to their users. It is likely that they are fully indifferent to us (and to WT), and will just give us higher rankings the more relevant we become. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A million edits[edit]


From November 2012 to May 2016, we've racked up a million edits. Not bad at all. :) K7L (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Is that accurate? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Maintenance panel % to be fixed[edit]

Hard to believe that a percentage can be higher than 100% :-) (see standard template column) --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have been trying to track these rough pages down. Found a few pages with double ispartof and status templates and a few with manually added category statements, but it is not easy to find them all. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't analyzed the formulas, but maybe the solution could be on defining more suitable categories, maybe all the ones involved in one single formula created by a single template. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links to printable PDF maps[edit]

I would like to add links to printable maps I created on Inkatlas (example), but it seems like this is against the current External Links policy. I think a free, detailed, up to date printable atlas is something that's very useful to travellers. There is no way to include this external content in Wikivoyage itself. Are such links, in fact, against the policy? If so, can an exception/change be made? Full disclosure: is a project I'm working on in my spare time. Kontextify (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We have the ability to include a map directly on a Wikivoyage destination page; our dynamic maps are based on OpenStreetMap with markers added to indicate the Wikivoyage article's POI's. K7L (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a really nice tool! But the maps aren't particularly oriented to travel; we try to make our guides as self-contained as possible, with maps printed right in-line as part of the articles. And our maps have markers showing points of interest, and are customized to be useful to travelers. It might be worth adding Inkatlas to our list of related projects, though. Powers (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about the related project page! I do appreciate the static and interactive maps already embedded in articles, but I find they're often too small or not detailed enough to replace a proper map of a place (or not printable at all). Would it not be useful to link to such a map in addition to having the embedded ones that show POI's? FYI: Inkatlas uses OpenStreetMap data as well. Additionally, public domain terrain data is used for "outdoor" maps, useful for hiking and other activities. I was thinking of including these in articles about national parks, for example. Kontextify (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT travel#Is this really a Guide article? -and- FTT for May/June 2017?[edit]

Fellow Wikivoyagers: please share your opinions on the issue raised here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Profile of Roland Unger (German WV)[edit]

For your interest. Profile of Roland Unger (German WV) on Wikimedia blog. Nurg (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Consumerist Tourists vs Vagabonds[edit]

Why is wikivoyage so pro-consumerism? I feel like almost all of the articles are dominated by where to spend money (where to shop, where to buy a beer, where to pay for a bed (only $15/night! /s), where to pay for camping).

Long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods. But where is the information for these vagabonds? Is wikivoyage's articles specifically opposed to supplying information to us long-term travelers/vagabonds?

When I was en-route to Vancouver, I learned from a fellow traveler that the local police permitted setting up a tent on public property. I spent a lot of time researching this to confirm that the BC Supreme Court permitted setting up erecting a structure for shelter overnight. Once I was sure it was legal (and I did it for about a month), I added a section about camping in Stanley Park to the Vancouver article. I included a link showing the legality, but it was removed. The next edit, the rest of my addition was removed.

I'm relatively new (as a contributor) here, so I'm not going to undo the removal. Instead, I'm here in the pub, trying to learn the intention of this wiki. Is Wikivoyage intentionally providing information geared toward yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home? Or are we a wiki for serious, long-term travelers/vagabonds? Do we deamonize such behaviour as busking? spanging? dumpstering? train hopping? stealth camping? Where is this line drawn?

If wikivoyage is intentionally opposed to vagabonds, can you please point me to a wiki that is not?

—The preceding comment was added by Fedcba098 (talkcontribs)

I think vagabonding might make for a valid travel topic, but frankly any claims that "long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods", or that "yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home" are somehow not "serious", are ridiculous on their face, so much so that I have to somewhat doubt the seriousness of this question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That all being said, I don't support the reversion of the OP's edit. If that information is relevant to travellers (even a certain subset thereof) and accurate (on the Talk page he provided a link to the BC Supreme Court ruling confirming his claim), then I don't see any argument against including the information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of what you mention may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. Hence as per our WV:illegal activities policy we do not give advice on how to best break the law, even if some might consider the laws stupid or unjust. That said, we do have an article on the right to access and there should be an article on hitchhiking. If not, plunge forward. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the specific edit he made focused on a single jurisdiction Vancouver where what he mentioned is indeed legal - in fact, his edit consisted of saying precisely that camping in tents on public land is something that the law allows. I think the edit should stand. Zooming out a bit, where other destinations are concerned I think we should handle this on a case by case basis. Where such things are legal, this is information we should include; where it's not, we should stay silent (beyond perhaps mentioning that it is illegal). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast responses! To clarify, it's legal not only in Vancouver, but in all of BC. As AndreCarrotflower recommended, I did some plunging into the Budget travel. It appears that supplying information geared towards budget/free travelers/vagabonds *is* part of the mission of wikivoyage, so long as it does not violate the law. I think this information is dwarfed by the consumerist nature of the articles, so I will continue to add useful information for fellow vagabonds to the Budget sections of cities as I go along. Looks like the opinion so far is that I should revert my post; I'll do that (thanks for the input!). Also, there's a section of "Sleep" section in Budget travel that links to a sleep rough, which is roughly equivalent to "camping for free." I did a lot of legal camping in parks in the NorthEast US while bikepacking, and it seems that I should compile these places (as well as Vancouver) in both the Sleep sections of the relevant cities/states/regions and fill-out this empty travel topic. -Fedcba098
@Fedcba098: Info on squatting, hitching, etc. is extremely valuable, especially if it keeps someone safe. I can't recommend this enough. I agree with our policy on not recommending illegal activity as such but precisely because some of this is a grey area or something that changes by jurisdiction, having accurate info is vital. For instance, hitching is federal illegal in the States but legal in Indiana, so we can (should!) advise travellers on how/where to hitch in my home state but also caution them against it on federal highways. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a "federal highway" in the US? I know it exists in México, but w:AASHTO is a group of state government officials, with no federal voting presence. K7L (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@K7L: Roads in the United States Numbered Highways are administered by the federal Department of Transportation, even though maintenance is the responsibility of individual states (there are even "interstate highways" in Hawai'i!) —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There absolutely is such a thing as a Federal highway in the U.S., and Federal routes are distinct from Interstates. The Federal system predates the Interstate system. Route 66 was a Federal highway. On the Eastern Seaboard, we have Federal Route 1, which goes from Key West, Florida all the way up to Maine. Federal routes are at least fairly often multiple lanes (such as 2 each way), but only intermittently limited access, and they typically go through the centers of numerous towns. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, here. I have not seen any legal opinion or source other than the odd post in a travel forum that says it is legal to camp overnight in parks and public places across BC (including the link provided by User:Fedcba098, which was to a newspaper article and not the Supreme Court decision). This situation is far more nuanced than is being discussed. Here are some relevant links:
First of all, neither of those Court cases made it legal to erect a shelter overnight across BC. The decisions only struck down the by-laws in the respective municipalities (Victoria and Abbotsford). As far as I know, the by-laws in other communities are still valid until they are successfully challenged in Court.
Secondly, both Court cases were argued on the basis that the by-laws infringed on the rights of homeless people under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In handing down the decisions, the judges explicitly made reference to rights of the homeless under the Charter and stated the by-laws are invalid to the extent they prohibit homeless people from sleeping in a city park overnight. It seems questionable to me that a traveller vagabonding is a homeless person of the city. It also seems questionable whether an out of country visitor can rely on the same provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were used in these Court cases.
Thirdly, the City of Vancouver’s by-laws prohibit people from camping overnight in parks and public spaces unless they get prior permission. I’m not aware of any Court case that has ruled Vancouver’s by-law is invalid. If it is, I’m happy to retreat from my position if you can provide proof.
Collectively, these Court decisions seem to have stopped by-law officers from enforcing the no camping by-laws in most circumstances. However, this is not the same thing as saying “It is legal to camp overnight on public property in Vancouver” (or anywhere in BC). The situation seems to be similar to smoking weed in BC: many people say it’s legal because enforcement turns a blind eye to it, but the rule is still there. I think a more accurate statement would be “Travellers pitching tents in city parks is not permitted according to Vancouver laws. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have made this a legal grey area so by-law officers generally won’t disturb you unless you are being disruptive or don’t take your tent down in the morning.
My other concern with the original and reinstated comments is the tone, particularly relating to safety. I just don’t think it provides enough context to enable an audience as wide as ours to make an informed decision on whether or not this is something they want to do. Doing a quick Google search on Stanley Park, comments ranged from “Don’t walk in Stanley Park at night” to “Best to avoid the wooded areas” to “Stay close to English Bay or Third Beach” to “It’s fine to walk in Stanley Park at night”. I think a more a balanced statement would be along the lines of “If you decide to camp in a park, stay safe. Travellers find Stanley Park to be a beautiful spot, but be aware there are no facilities and some people may not feel safe, particularly in wooded or secluded areas.
To me, this isn’t about vagabonding vs consumerism. This issue isn’t black and white and it is contentious in some areas (Victoria more than Vancouver), so I'd prefer not to list it. However, if we do think it's worthwhile, I think the words we use need to be carefully chosen to accurately portray the legal situation and the fact that it’s not the same as going to your local KOA. -Shaundd (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There are some things here that are definitely not oriented to tourists, though I'm not certain many of them would fit your definition of "vagabond". See for example Digital nomad, Hitchhiking, Teaching English, Volunteer, & Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

San Juan (Puerto Rico)[edit]

So I stumbled upon the article on San Juan (Puerto Rico) and it seems clear to me that this article needs work. A city of roughly 300 000 it has been "districtified", but there is no district map and half the "districts" are just redlinks. And this is just where problems begin. A debate on this was raised on the talk page about a year ago - but - as so often happens - went nowhere. What should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone familiar with Ohio?[edit]

A similar thing to the thread right above. Ohio is probably the record holder for number of nearly-empty subarticles in the form of counties. In Talk:Ohio#Counties_-_still_a_good_idea.3F a new division of the state was thought out and at least partially agreed upon a year and a half ago but that was pretty much it. Someone (or preferably more than one :)) here who's familiar with that part of the US and would like to continue the merging project? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Have been working in other areas of Wikivoyage but can get back to this topic if people are fine with the proposed restructure. I am familiar with the towns along the I75 but have no personal experience of other areas of the state. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ryan and LtPowers who participated in the earlier discussion. Andre and Justin also hail from nearby. Anyone else? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ypsilon: Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I'm too ignorant of Ohio to help. I haven't spent much time there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No problems. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have created some new sub-regions but not yet started expanding them. Have also added merge tags to county pages so people can see and comment on changes. Also started Wikivoyage:Ohio Expedition, which does show the number of regions is excessive for the number of city articles in the state. Hopefully provide place to discuss issues on individual articles as well a showing the to-do list. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ypsi - about the most I can say is that individual counties definitely aren't the way to go. But I'm not familiar enough with Ohio to be any more specific than that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm monitoring the discussion on Talk:Ohio but I don't have any further input beyond what I've already contributed there. Powers (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Even if people are not familiar with the area it would be good to get some assistance moving listing currently at county level down into the relevant city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it took more work that I first thought but I think things are better with less regions. Could do with some tidying up of the sub-region still. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested change to DotM[edit]

Carrying on from this conversation at Wikitravel (external link removed), would it be wise to have multiple destinations per month? That is, one in the Northern and one in the Southern Hemispheres, since their climates will be opposite? Or simply have a more frequent rotation (maybe fortnightly)? Having just 12 places in the world every year seems like too few to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, we don't link to WT on this site.
Secondly, we actually feature 24 places in the world every year, plus 12 travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, airports, etc.
Thirdly, the answer to your question would be a firm "no". It's a tall enough order already filling all the slots with three features that change monthly.
If WT - a site whose content has already been degraded by spam, touting, and other such problems that they don't have the manpower to bring under control - has seen fit to further debase the standards of what they allow on their Main Page by forcing themselves to make space for more feature articles, that's their problem. It's certainly not something we should ape here. It would be completely and totally counterproductive especially given that we're trying to play up the superiority of our content and the differences between us and them.
Frankly, the fact that you're even suggesting we do this raises red flags for me.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Well, that was rude. Wikitravel is not suggesting on having two DotMs. You are mistaken. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, this suggestion does not fly. Pashley (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll defer to the opinions on DOTM issues to those who are more involved with that feature (sounds like the preference is to maintain the status quo), but given the fact that any mention of WT raises people's ire, I'd ask everyone to please be extra-careful to keep comments civil, and to ensure that you are assuming good faith. In addition, unlike at WT, I'm not aware that we have any policy against linking to them, although it's something Wikivoyage would prefer to discourage as much as possible for various reasons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I know of no such policy. I also think that Justin has earned a presumption of good faith. Suggesting that perhaps WT might have a good idea about something is no red flag to me, though I fully agree that in this case, our way is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I just find it amazing that someone who's a fairly active contributor to our site could be so heedless of our checkered history with WT, ignorant of the SEO problems we've been having vis-à-vis the old site (especially since Justin admits to occasionally adding duplicate content to both sites), and forgetful of the pattern of behavior we've often seen with several other users who contributed to both sites. It may not be bad faith and it may not be against policy in a strict sense, but the suggestion does demonstrate an astonishing tone-deafness (in addition to being a bad idea to begin with). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We need to differentiate ourselves from the old site, not imitate them. However the suggestion above that featured articles ought to be rewritten first for SEO purposes is I think just a horrifying lot of extra work and little bang for the buck. If something needs to be done vis-à-vis SEO and our featured articles right now, we could rename "Destination of the Month" for instance "Recommended Destination Article" and "Off the Beaten Path" for instance "Less Visited Destinations" (or something else).
Also, it would be great if more people would help out with fixing issues in articles rather than just pointing them out, let alone inventing new requirements. It's already — or should I say, in the last half year it has become — hard finding articles satisfying everyone. Just my 2 cents. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well right now Feature discussions don't involve the participation of all that many editors (I am only half active there myself) and increasing the number of slots would certainly not decrease this problem. I also do not consider SEO edits - or rather, edits that keep SEO in mind - a waste of time or little bang for the buck. My anecdotal evidence may not count for much, but surprisingly little effort has sometimes cause articles to rise a lot in the duckduckgo rankings (which I think are independent of who is doing the searching, but I may be wrong in that). There is a general tendency - at the very least on this wiki, maybe on all wikis - not to remove old text in most reversions, so that oftentimes our text is longer than the one on that other site and contains more accurate information, but there is still a huge duplicate penalty because so much old text just sits there unchanged. Having a look at Copyscape has often helped me identify outdated information, or stuff that is contradicted in other parts of the article. Often the previous wordings were clunky and unwieldy but had just stayed due to inertia. Copyscape has also often alerted me to parts of the article I normally do not focus on. If we want to polish our feature nominations prior to featuring them, looking which content has not been looked at and/or changed in years is not wasted time imho. And it does have SEO benefits. Also, but this does not seem to be a major problem, if you dislike my SEO edits, tell me and please don't just reinstate what was there before but try and come up with something else. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course there's nothing bad with updating the articles, and I would be surprised to learn that anyone would have reverted your or other people's edits of such kind. Nevertheless, I don't think we have the manpower for systematic SEO edits of all articles that are about to go up on the Main Page. While they might help the site as a whole (regardless if they are done on a specific article that soon is featured or not), adding this as an extra requirement for nominated articles is certainly not going to make it easier for people who are actively working to prevent there from being months without articles like myself. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have the editor power to increase the number of DOTMs in the foreseeable future. This will be a good discussion to have once the community grows. Gizza (roam) 08:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Maps broken when there are no listings with coordinates[edit]

@RolandUnger, Yurik, Andyrom75: Recently I've noticed that maps render as an empty frame on articles where there are no listings with lat/long coordinates - see for example Marshfield (Massachusetts). I'm using Chrome 53.0.2785.143 on Windows 7, and the error in the Javascript console does not seem particularly informative: "Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token u in JSON at position 0". I've disabled all code in User:Wrh2/common.js and still see the problem, so I don't think it's due to any customizations, but it would be helpful if someone else could check the Marshfield article and indicate whether the map renders for them or not. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We have seen this problem too (in Russian Wikivoyage). I think it is browser-independent, or at least appears in both Chrome and Firefox. --Alexander (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
In it:voy we do not use the new map because of the limitation on the number of POI showable in one map (on top on others bugs), so I haven't experienced before this issue. By the way, I confirm you that I cannot see that map in my browsers. I haven't tried with iPad, but I think that the problem will occur there as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This behavior is due to a bug in the Kartographer extension. All the marker data are stored after code parsing in the document head in the wgKartographerLiveData variable. If there are no marker data senseless data were stored which are no valid JSON code. That's why you get the "Unexpected token" error message. To solve this problem I opened a phabricator task and attributed it to Yurik and JGirault. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, we had no deployments last week, but were very actively working on the code and fixed a number of data bugs. I tried to replicate phab:T148971 on this page at beta cluster and it seems to be working, so I suspect we have already fixed it, and it should be deployed to all Wikivoyage servers on Wednesday. Beta cluster always contains the latest version of the code, making it a good place to experiment. --Yurik (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yurik: Thanks for the update - maps are rendering now on pages without POIs, so it looks like your fix resolved the issue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Issue with group names appears to be fixed as well -- Matroc (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
A few days ago I completely rewrote {{Mapframe}}. --RolandUnger (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Maps are now shown but the JavaScript bug is still existent. Therefore Track T148971 is not yet closed. --RolandUnger (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Corsican regions[edit]

Apparently the topic of merging Corsica's regions into the main article was raised as early as 2014 with no conclusive result. If nobody objects, can I merge them in one week's time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How about tomorrow? I wouldn't wait more than about 24 hours. I can't see a good reason not to merge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
So I got no objections, I think I will just go ahead right now. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

LP's "best destinations"[edit]

I read Lonely Planet gives Canada, Colombia and Finland as best destinations 2017. Would it be good to check our coverage, and try to update and improve the most important articles in these countries? --LPfi (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@LPfi: Agreed. If we have some reason to think that travellers will be more likely to look at these places, then we should prioritize those articles (just like we do when a major event like the Olympics comes to town). —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking for your advice on software development[edit]

Hello, all. I wonder if a few of you would please review something one of my teammates has been working on? Keegan's been leading the development of a mw:Technical Collaboration Guideline.

The Technical Collaboration Guideline (TCG) is a set of best-practice recommendations related to planning and communicating product and project information, with the goal that content contributors and software developers (both volunteers and WMF staff) will work together better during the product development and deployment cycle. The TCG is intended to be flexible, since every project is unique and also since plans and products change during development.

I thought that with your recent experience with the map project, that you all might have the most helpful feedback on how things could/should work. Please share your thoughts at mw:Talk:Technical Collaboration Guideline. The TCG and the previous conversations about it are written in English, but comments from all languages are welcome.

Keegan promises me that all feedback will be read and taken into consideration when editing the next draft of this advice, even if he doesn't personally reply to every single comment. Please keep in mind that the TCG is intended to be lightweight advice, rather than completely comprehensive. (Or: This is being written by Keegan, the soul of brevity, rather than by me.  ;-) Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Facebook links[edit]

I am asking primarily because of this edit, but I myself have in the past also added Facebook links when nothing else was at hand.

Is it okay to link to the FB page of something in lieu of a website if there just is no official website? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when a place doesn't have a regular website, it's okay to user their FB page or whatever they use as an alternative. Our external links policy actually makes that specific exception too. Under "what not to link to" you'll find: Blogs, forums and social networking sites (Facebook, etc), with the exception of when a business has no other official web presence. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Seconding Julia's comment. Many small businesses only have a fb page. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Good to know. Good to know that the exception is spelled out in policy as well. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for a bot[edit]

Now I have come across the spelling "Strasse" or "strasse" a lot in articles about Germany. This is not and has never been the correct spelling in either Germany or Austria (I am ignorant as to Namibia, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg or the German speaking part of Belgium). However, Switzerland has gotten rid of the "ß" some time ago. Would it be possible to write a bot that replaces every instance of "strasse" or "Strasse" with "straße" or "Straße" in all articles on Germany and Austria and all destinations contained therein but leave the idiosyncratic Swiss spellings in place? Or would that be too difficult to implement? I would be willing to look after the bot, but doing it by hand is a daunting task. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought the double 's' was an accepted typographical substitute for eszet all over the Germanophone world. Powers (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You can spell it like that - if no other way to write it is available but that's clearly not the case here. We have all those letters, so why not use them? And Switzerland has in fact eliminated "ß" some time in the 1930s (I think, but don't quote me on the date). At any rate, if you open the Neue Zürcher Zeitung vs. the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the lack of "ß" in the former will be the most notable spelling difference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
For people with no familiarity with German, the ß is confusing and the 'ss' is much easier to understand. As Powers mentions, the eszet perfectly acceptable in those 3 German speaking countries. I would urge not inserting the ß in Austran and German articles for this reason. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No, Hobbitschuster is correct. Given that this is the English Wikivoyage, the only time that words in other languages should appear in our articles is in street addresses, subway or bus stations, in the "alt=" argument of listings where we provide the official local-language name of the attraction, and in a few other cases where knowledge of a local-language term is essential. In all those cases, it's necessary to reflect the spelling that visitors will see on signs, maps, menus, etc., which in Germany and Austria includes ß. Far from avoiding confusion, substituting the eszet with the double S will only create confusion for those unfamiliar with German. See Wikivoyage:Foreign words for further details. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I strongly agree with AndreCarrotflower. The Eszet should be used in articles for countries where it is used in names, and not in articles about Switzerland, where it is no longer used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever we decide on, I'd like it to be consistent. And for me consistency with the way it is written locally would be the most logical way to go. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The Ezset is used on all official road signs, so from that point of view I would change my opinion above. I just get the impression that Germans as a whole are not particularly attached to ß Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to give some input on this concerning the case of Liechtenstein. I believe Liechtenstein does not use the eszett (see here for instance). Drat70 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Linking to listings from Wikipedia[edit]

An idea to increase the links from Wikipedia to this site. Take a look at Wikipedia:Eiffel tower#External links. Proposal is to add to the Wikivoyage listing template that if a wikidata code entry exists it creates an html anchor. Can then add link template on the Wikipedia page (should be possible to create one that needs no manual parameter input). --Traveler100 (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I implemented something like this: Special:Diff/3076972. See Turda#Q18547952. -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@T.seppelt: Great, thanks. I have created Wikipedia:Template:Wikivoyage-listing; just need to add the Wikivoyage page name to the template to get the info box with link to the listing. For example {{Wikivoyage-listing|Paris/7th arrondissement}} on the Wikipedia Eiffel Tower page will create box with link directly to the See listing on the Wikivoyage page. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Great. Probably one could run a bot on enwiki to replace the old template with yours when the respective article is mentioned in a Wikivoyage article. -- T.seppelt (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
w:Eiffel Tower (as an example) uses w:Template:sisterlinks, so the new w:Template:Wikivoyage-listing might look out of place. Is there any way to modify Template:Sisterlinks to link to the listing anchor in certain cases? Powers (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It did not use sister links when I wrote this entry earlier in the day. Being counteracted by another user. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have requested an update to the sister links page (do not have admin there). In mean time see example at w:Tower of London#External links (as long as not counteracted there too). --Traveler100 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why did you create a new one instead of adding this functionality to w:en:Template:Wikivoyage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was easier to type a different name for listings rather than articles that add some type of parameter option to the original template. But thinking about it more, could always generate the wikidata page code, if it is to article rather than a listing in an article the anchor tag will not exist in the page so will default to top of the page. Guess could merge them.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sister links For what it's worth, I combine sister link templates into the one w:en:Template:Sisterlinks on en.wp. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What was the value of switching it during this conversation? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Traveler100: I just happened to notice it. I don't want to edit your comments but if you want, you can just refer others to the permanent link: (koavf)TCM 17:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Now w:Template:sisterlinks works with listings. Also so does w:en:Template:Wikivoyage and w:en:Template:Wikivoyage-inline, however w:Template:Wikivoyage-listing works with less parameter inputs. Basically on the Wikipedia side you just need to enter the Wikivoyage page name. If on the the Wikivoyage page the listing of the Wikipeida page has an entry for the Wikidata parameter the link will jump directly to that part of the page, otherwise the top of the page will be displayed. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia remapping[edit]

Hi guys. For whatever reason, Slovakia was mapped using the obsolete political (and too generic) division. I am on the crusade of redoing this in the following days, and I could use someone experienced to create wikivoyage-style maps. For now, I'll just adjust wikipedia svg's (political region and tourist region maps of Slovakia) - maybe that will be best start. Volunteers please head to talk:Slovakia, thanks! :-) (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC) It looks like you've been here a couple of weeks--we're happy to have you. Have you looked at Wikivoyage:Mapmaking Expedition? You may have some luck posting there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Buffalo#Buffalo Districts Revisited[edit]

I'm sounding out opinions on a proposal to revamp Buffalo's districtification scheme. Please read and share your thoughts at the talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-admins can delete pages?[edit]

Am I hallucinating or did I just see a non-admin deleting some articles??? doesn't even seem to be autopatrolled (which I think a user with a few weeks of good edits should be). --ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A non-admin can delete a page during a page move, if the target is a redirect without history that points to the page being moved. Example: move page "A" to "B", then "A" becomes a redirect. A non-admin can then move "B" back to "A", which deletes the (redirect) "A" in the process. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Map circles, boxes and triangles etc.[edit]

  • I have written some Lua Module functions to draw circles, ellipses, boxes, triangles, stars, arrowhead style pointers, pentagons and hexagons to produce a maplink (mapframe may in the future) with all the necessary coordinates for display in a mapframe as well as the option to create a centered marker for these shapes. The most difficult (as I know nothing about trigonomety) was to draw fairly accurate circles (by fairly accurate I am within 40 meters) and account for Mercator distortions (isotropy) at higher and lower latitudes. The circle function may be added later to Module:Map as I already discussed the circle function with Yurik... or perhaps in a separate Module after further testing.
  • In the meantime; I have created Module:Mapdraw for anyone to try it out should they wish to... Matroc (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You can see examples HERE. Have a great day! -- Matroc (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Matroc, this looks potentially useful for a large number of projects. Have you shared this with any other wikis? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Massachusetts Reorg?[edit]

Hello! I am a masochist and I'm trying to update the Massachusetts pages. If you have the time, please spend a minute clicking around how the Massachusetts hierarchy is presented now. There are a lot of "lost" and "empty" pages. I'm hoping to leverage work done by previous Wikivoyagers in a more cohesive way. But maybe I am barking up the wrong tree entirely? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea is great, but I fear I won't be able to be of much assistance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
yes there are a good number of almost empty articles, frustration for a reader clicking around. Having just done a similar task for Ohio I would suggest first merging cities that do not have any sleep or see entries with nearby towns. Once this is done, what regions make sense should be clearer. To help identify merge-able articles use the bottom row of the second table at Wikivoyage:Massachusetts Expedition (just created this). Need to then check if there are hotels in these towns/villages (google map, tripadviser, etc.), if not check nearby destinations using the map (icon top left) for combination candidates. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


Used on user contributions page. vvv's yaec is no longer there due to discontinuation of the old Toolserver and the tool doesn't seem to be on Tool Labs either. ----Arseny1992 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The broken link has been removed, thank you: Special:Diff/2503673/3083052. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mapframe acting up[edit]

Nine-County Region from some reason, the map has a large grey X across it. Can someone explain why or fix it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an x but there is a mapmask template in the article that is shading the area around what I believe is the Nine-County Region. How accurate that is, I do not know. In the layers dropdown, uncheck the Group:mask and it will disappear. -- Matroc (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
From here, it looks to be shaded in some incorrect manner to put 1-Anderson, 11-Cumberland, 13-Greenfield, 18-Greenwood outside an almost-discontiguous shaded area and the others all inside. It's almost as if the points to draw the boundary are being drawn out of sequence? K7L (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. The data in the mapmask will need to be corrected or replotted. I will leave a note in the Talk page. -- Matroc (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the software is transposing some of the co-ordinates, it starts fine with

{{mapmask |39.342,-86.629 |39.470,-86.631 |39.470,-86.685 |39.525,-86.685 |39.550,-86.651 |39.600,-86.654 |39.629,-86.640 |39.630,-86.685 |39.864,-86.685 |39.864,-86.693 |40.178,-86.695 |40.181,-86.243 |40.216,-86.243 |40.221,-85.861 |40.379,-85.861 |40.379,-85.578


"mask":[{"type":"Feature","geometry":{"coordinates":[[[36000,-180],[36000,180],[-36000,180],[-36000,-180],[36000,-180]], [[-86.629,39.342], [-86.631,39.47], [-86.685,39.47], [-86.685,39.525], [-86.651,39.55], [-86.654,39.6], [-86.64,39.629], [-86.685,39.63], [-86.685,39.864], [-86.693,39.864], [-86.695,40.178], [-86.243,40.181], [-86.243,40.216], [-85.861,40.221], [-85.861,40.379], [-85.578,40.379],

but then the last six co-ordinates end up out of sequence, so:

|39.874,-85.575 |39.874,-85.596 |39.786,-85.596 |39.786,-85.633 |39.351,-85.630 |39.340,-86.381}}


[-86.381,39.34], [-85.63,39.351], [-85.575,39.874], [-85.596,39.874], [-85.596,39.786], [-85.633,39.786]]],

Drawn with the last six points out-of-sequence, the outline looks just plain wrong. I'm comparing the template args in the article wiki code to whatever HTML is visible on <ctrl-U> (show page source) in the web browser. Something's happening between the co-ords being fed to the template and the out-of-sequence mess being delivered to the browser, not sure what as I'm not familiar with the code. K7L (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - template needed to have a closing position which is the same as the first set of coordinates given in this case. -- Mapmask is creating a polygon using the new Kartographer extension probably to create a maplink... Since I have played around with mapframe and maplink and polygons I figured it out... -- Matroc (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pages with broken maps[edit]

I'm noticing that pages which were perfectly valid with the old map and which have not been edited after the transition (such as Trans-Canada Highway) are appearing on Category:Pages with broken maps with <mapframe>: Attribute "align" has an invalid value.

This is a bug. The alignment for the Trans-Canada Highway map needs to be "centre" because it's a purely east-west itinerary with a correspondingly wide (but not very high) map. Two lanes tall, 8050km wide. K7L (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I already made a note in the Mapframe Template Talk page about it! -- appears that align=none is causing an error in the mapframe output - Hopefully it should be fixed - I did not want to change the 23 articles to align=center to correct the issue. I think it would be better to fix the underlying code than to use bandages here and there. -- Matroc (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I did some quick checking and believe align=none is not valid in <mapframe> (Kartographer Extension allows left, right and center), whereas the Template:Mapframe did allow it. A possible code change could be done to fix them or if need be I will go and change those in the list! -- Waiting to hear... -- Matroc (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
none as a value for align in the Mapframe Template is no longer. (left, right and center are allowed). Pages have been fixed by Roland. -- Matroc (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we change the Pyeongchang page in Wikivoyage:Article status to Usable status ?[edit]

I think the Pyeongchang page is much better than previous one. And can we change the Article status now, Outline status to Usable status? (Added by JongHoon Park, 06:41, 7 November 2016)

The article looks to have all the required sections so I have changed it to Usable. I did notice that there are many phone numbers missing a country code. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot I will try to fix phone numbers with country code.--JongHoon Park (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How to remove a redirect?[edit]

I'd like to clean up Valencia (region), which is a bit of a mess. Currently Castellón (province) and Valencia (province) both redirect to Costa del Azahar, but this is incorrect as Costa del Azahar should be a bottom-level of Castellón (province) only (and not of Valencia (province)). Alicante (province) currently redirects to Costa Blanca; this is also incorrect as the Costa Blanca should be a bottom-level region of Alicante (province). I can't figure out how to remove the redirects, and would appreciate any suggestions. –StellarD (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

After you get redirected, right up the top of the page above the banner and breadcrumbs you'll see: "(Redirected from ...)". If you click on the the link, it'll take you to the original redirect page which you can edit to remove the redirect :) James Atalk 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamburg airport renamed to honor Helmut Schmidt[edit]

I was just watching the news and one of the few non-hairpiece related news was the fact that Hamburg's airport has now officially been renamed to honor the late Helmut Schmidt (SPD, chancellor 1974-1982). We may or may not want to update the articles that mention it accordingly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, but let's wait until the airport has updated the name on their website. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Update of Wikivoyage for Android[edit]

Hi all,

does anybody know, how to get the latest Wikivoyage files into the Android app? Current files are from August 2016. Similar situation on the Kiwix website.

Thanks René --Renek78 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Renek78: The only way to see the most up-to-date versions is live via the Web. Offline editions are based on data dumps from which are run intermittently. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The app is updated every 6 months. This is a trade-off between being up-to-date and not bothering users too much (the APK and its extension are really huge, compared to other apps). Syced (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Password reset[edit]

I apologise that this message is in English. ⧼Centralnotice-shared-help-translate⧽

We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.

Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.

In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.

Select strong passwords – eight or more characters long, and containing letters, numbers, and punctuation. Joe Sutherland (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the above section (Password reset)[edit]

Please accept my apologies - that first line should read "Help with translations!". Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates ?[edit]

Can anyone tell me how I can find GPS coordinates (latitude, longitude)? RomanichthysValsanicola 18:52, 14 November 2016 (EET)

There are many online maps from which you can get coordinates by (right?) clicking (possibly after some setting change). I think Google maps and Open Street Map (OSM) are the most commonly used, but for specific regions other maps can be better. Also many paper maps have coordinates close enough to WGS84 (which is what GPS uses). And you could have a GPS with you while visiting and note the coordinates. If you click on the map icon at the top right corner on (nearly) any of our articles you should get an OSM based map for the place in question. Drag and zoom as necessary, right click on the point you want the coordinates for. --LPfi (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If you click on the coordinates in the top right corner of many articles on Wikipedia, you get to the GeoHack page for the place, with an assortment of online maps that may be usable for the location. --LPfi (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably recommend Open Street Maps over Google. Since our maps are use OSM the coordinates are going to be consistent. (Google Maps is sometimes different, for example with Chinese locations). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use OSM, but on this site how can I find the coordinates for a location? RomanichthysValsanicola 17:21, 16 November 2016 (EET)

@Romanichthys Valsanicola: URIs at OSM are in the form of "" or somesuch and those numbers at the end are your geo coordinates. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of 'Epicenter'[edit]

I was asked in a revert why 'epicenter' was wrong. The dictionary definition of epicenter is literally "the point on the earth's surface vertically above the focus of an earthquake" or sometimes "the central point of something, typically a difficult or unpleasant situation".

A quick search of Wikivoyage suggests that many people are using the word 'epicenter' as an attempt to make a more interesting word than 'center'.

Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but I believe that our prose style should only use the correct definitions. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am certainly one of those who used it that way. I may or may not have read it in other travel literature. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
We seek to promote a lively tone in our writing. Sometimes that means speaking in metaphors. The fact that this particular metaphor is a popularly used one only serves to bolster the argument in its favor. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I can't accept "epicenter" for "center". That's not a metaphor to me. It's an error, and a lack of clarity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Ikan, this is the diff to which Andrewssi2 was referring. Consider also wikt:epicentre, which allows for a definition of "the focal point of any activity, especially if dangerous or destructive." To describe Percé as "the bustling tourist epicenter of the Gaspé Peninsula" doesn't seem too far off from that. No, there's nothing "dangerous or destructive" (or "difficult or unpleasant", in the Merriam-Webster definition) about tourism, but both of those sources allow a bit of leeway for the term to be used in a positive light as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I was seeing it in Europe, where Barcelona was described, until I edited it, as the "epicenter of Catalonia" and Amsterdam was described as the "epicentre of social liberal attitudes". I substituted "capital of Catalonia" and "epitome of social liberal attitudes", which I think works in context ("canals, Rembrandt, hashish and red lanterns, the epitome of social liberal attitudes"), but it could be tweaked further. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the incorrect usage of "epicenter" is comparable to the incorrect use of "penultimate" to mean "ultimate". People feel like adding any old prefix to something merely strengthens the meaning of the stem, which is usually false. I would be careful about using the word for other than its technical meaning, lest we cheapen and blur the fundamental meaning and power of this word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So if I look at some examples:
* Example 1 : Gould " Gould is best known as the epicenter for moose watching in the state " - not good use, either literal or metaphorical
* Example 2 : Beichuan " Beichuan was located very close to the epicenter of the Sichuan Earthquake on May 12, 2008 " - appropriate literal use
* Example 3 : Los Angeles/South Central " infamous for gang violence and for being the epicenter of major race riots in the 1960s and 1990s " - appropriate metaphorical use
Would you agree that we can change the word 'epicenter' for cases such as example 1? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's more art than science, but yes, I'd agree that Example 1 would be better served by some other word. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate that we do allow artistic license. I was just concerned that the term was being employed habitually rather than sparingly and appropriately. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I concur that metaphorical use should be limited to events or occurrences with impacts of similar metaphorical magnitudes as earthquakes. Powers (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm emphatically with Andrew & Ikan here; use of 'epicenter' where 'center' would do is an error. It is a rather common error, but still wrong. I'd correct/revert Andre's use of it in the Gaspe article without hesitation.
In the technical use, effects spread out from the epicenter. I think legitimate metaphorical use requires that something similar be going on. For example, describing Haight-Ashbury as the epicenter of the 60s hippie movement would be fine. Pashley (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This is verging on language policing based on arbitrary personal preference. Copious evidence has been provided that metaphorical use of "epicenter" in this sense is correct, and that should IMO be the end of the conversation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I'm not sure if the use of epicentre as the "place that has the highest level of an activity" is perhaps fairly recent (and perhaps therefore still seems incorrect to some), but it is surely accepted and described by major dictionaries (Cambridge, Merriam, Oxford) and in practice (NY Times, Observer, Washington Post) now. I too would suggest restraint in changing this word unless really necessary. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd expect "epicentre" to be not merely a "place that has the highest level of an activity" but a single point from which that radiates outward (much as seismic activity radiates outward from a single subterranean point). K7L (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I didn't just come up with that definition, it's the one that Cambridge dictionary gives. That's pretty much the point: personal expectations or connotations should not define whether we allow a word to be used or not. Judging from publications in which the word is used, plenty of others don't share that particular expectation. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
How about this, then: If there's a word or phrase that more clearly or effectively expresses something, that's all the justification anyone needs for changing to that word or expression, isn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we should all strive to avoid cliché. And using the word epicenter in this manner can become quite stale quite quickly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Just so you all know, this is the logical endpoint of the road we're starting down. I can say with certainty that I will not take kindly to my writing being held hostage to other editors' random personal pet peeves, especially when the dictionary is on my side, and a look at the user talk page relevant to the above link shows that I'm not alone. We certainly don't need that kind of polarization at Wikivoyage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(indent reset) I think we should all try to not make this a life or death issue. It is not. And it is not even on the first page of the list of things we can improve upon. If someone wants to weed out bad style and misuses of the English language, they can be my guest, but there are much lower hanging fruits than just a few words that may have changed meaning in the last few decades. There is questionable English in articles like Jinotega; things as high profile as the blurb on the top of Europe have not been edited since the migration. In that regard, yes, epicenter has arguably been overused and misused, and I will hopefully be able to adjust my style, but it is by far not the biggest marine vertebrate harkening for our pan. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. I haven't had any plans to page through every use of "epicentre/-ter" on this site. I did start with "notorious" and "notoriety" the other night, though, and found loads of uses (really, way too many to deal with) which really just meant "famous". I'll always look for a better expression whenever I encounter a page on which I think there is one, but of course people are always free to revert me with an explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought this was adequately concluded some time back. I believed it satisfactory for all concerned that it would be OK to fix the term when it is used in a rather silly way (i.e. " Gould is best known as the epicenter for moose watching in the state " ), so not sure why this discussion is being labored further. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm certainly prepared to accept that reasonable conclusion. The all-or-nothing talk that immediately followed is what troubled me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Event Templates[edit]

Template:Event Are these cool to use by now? They make sense to me, and I'd like to use them, but the talk page and "Add New Listing" modal window make them feel experimental still. If I could click "add listing" and choose "Event" from the "Type" dropdown it would feel (to me) like these templates are first class citizens. The "Add New Listing" modal is different for "sleep" than other listings, so I imagine this change is possible. I could type everything in by hand, but I don't want to, and am extra unmotivated by thinking this template might be deleted in the future. --ButteBag (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, how often should an "event" occur before it becomes a "do"? I would guess annually is an "event" and daily is a "do", but where should we draw the line? Weekly? Bi-weekly? --ButteBag (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that the event template isn't really a "first class citizen" yet. It's used in a fairly large number of articles, but it has some rough edges - events that repeat more than once a year, for example, are not well supported, and there has been no push yet to try and convert existing event listings to use the event template. Also, as you've noted, listing editor support for the event template will be limited (at best) if it works at all. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so still experimental, that's fine. The more I think about it, I really hope wikivoyagers come to consensus on this sooner rather than later. I feel like with shifting demographics "the kids today" are more interested in "experience based travel", whatever that means. Events could be a great way to capitalize on our "long tail" of local knowledge and really offer value commercial guidebooks can't. Anyway, if we could figure out a way to resolve some of the grey areas in Events, they could be come a powerful asset. Thank you for the response! --ButteBag (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
My sense of things with the event template is that it's close to where it needs to be, but someone knowledgeable has to take ownership of it and commit to working out the remaining kinks. I've been the main point of contact for listing editor updates, so at some point I can add listing editor support for event templates, but before that happens I'd like to see the implementation cleaned up to handle more use cases, (ideally) to simplify the inputs, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it still needs a little more tweaking to handle all the edge cases. I posted a crazy idea. Thank you for the feedback! --ButteBag (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So possibly weekly, monthly options. What other rough edges need smoothing? Suggest adding requests for improvement at Template talk:Event. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ben Tre[edit]

Should the overwriting of the original article here with the contents from Wikitravel be cleaned up or simple undone? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Um, how do I put this diplomatically? It will likely need to be undone because of (a) the licence requirements for attribution and (b) this is getting us penalised for duplicate content by search engines. That said, new and original contributions would be welcome. K7L (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@K7L: There are already a few posts on User_talk:Reinowis. We'll see if he responds. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Western Java: to Star status or DotM?[edit]

On Monday I asked this same question on the specific article talk page, but to get more responses, the same question here. I have worked a lot on the Western Java article and all its sub-articles, and I have upgraded the article status to Guide. All sections of the main article have elaborated text. The subarticles are almost all at least Usable, and include 6 subregions (3 Guide, 3 Usable), 47 cities (1 Guide, 41 Usable, 5 Outline), 5 districts (1 Guide, 4 Usable), 5 parks (3 Usable, 2 Outline) and 1 airport (Usable), and 1 related itinerary (Usable). Within Western Java there are no longer any red links. Apart from the main article of Western Java, the Guide status articles are Greater Jakarta, Banten, Parahyangan, Central Jakarta, and Puncak.
I would like input on what should be done to make this article ready to be nominated as a Star article, and/or to nominate it as destination of the month. I am looking forward to comments and suggestions! --ErwinFCG (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Great work, ErwinFCG. Nothing keeps you from nominating the article for DotM; any guide level article is eligible for the front page, and you'll get pointers for improvements during that nomination process. Star status is more demanding, especially for region articles like this one. To start, all listed subregions, cities and other destinations should be guide status. While there's always some room for exceptions, the majority of the listed subarticles for Western Java seem to be usable. A great achievement, but perhaps just a bit early for a star nomination. You're free to try, though. I'll have a more thorough look later, but to keep things organized, we should keep concrete suggestions for improvements on the article talk page, so I'll do that there. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

fi.voy has been approved[edit]

See incubator:Wy/fi There is a ticket to track its progress at phabricator:T18976. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It's great to see the community grow. While I somewhat doubt that there are many people who speak Finnish but no English, I do hope that this wiki will be able to attract a thriving userbase and create great content. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is growing. Statistics tells us that only 6 language versions have more than one very active editor (and "very active" is mere 100 edits per month), so the other 10 languages hardly develop, while some of them are not even curated. Of all Wikivoyages created after the migration, only Chinese one was really successful. That's something to think about when a new language version is established (and even more so for languages like Finnish that have plenty of content at WT). --Alexander (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid Alexander is right, on the other hand we might well get over handful of contributors from the Finnish WP.
At the old site, the Finnish version started off pretty well sometime in 2007 or 2008 and I think there were almost ten fairly active users at one point. However, the number of contributors slowly started dropping and I was one of the last ones who left (in 2011 or so). Today I think there are just sporadic anonymous edits and people from IB dropping in every now and then. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Live Just in case anyone wants to take a peek: voy:fi:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem to be a Wikivoyage project. All interwiki's point to Wikipedia...?! --Alexander (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Added it to the list of languages on the Main Page. The issue with interwikis must be fixed ASAP, though. --Alexander (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


Unsure about this edit, rolling Americans in Cuba back to the version of 12:12, 18 October 2016‎. The situation regarding Cuba is not static and we're certainly not where we were in October due to a number of subsequent events: the first American Airlines flight from Miami to Havana in 50 years flew yesterday, Castro is dead, the outcome of the 2016 US election stands to undo much of the change made under Obama. It's an unfortunate quirk of the US electoral system that Florida (and maybe Ohio) can basically dictate the outcome of an entire presidential election; that does allow a small Cuba-expatriate group based primarily in Miami to dictate US foreign policy with bizarre results. K7L (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No one has any idea what Trump is actually going to do, and that might even include Trump himself--he certainly doesn't give any details as to what he means by "a better deal". He could be serious, or it could just be another one of his boisterous campaign promises that means nothing once you scratch beneath the surface. At this stage, it's all speculation, which seems like a poor addition to our travel pages. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore (and I know this is the most technical of quibbles) Trump has not yet been elected. The American people have chosen electors, yes, but those electors have not yet met to certify that the person who won less votes will indeed become President. It is entirely possible (albeit a remote possibility) that the electors in their infinite wisdom decide to scatter their votes or otherwise make use of their rights under the constitution to determine the President. Furthermore there are recounts/audits ongoing, but those are unlikely to change the composition of the electoral college. At any rate, noting that changes are likely is a prudent course of actions, but as of yet we will not know what those changes may be. Obama might even hand over Guantanamo to Cuba as a lame duck gesture to create a problem for his successor. Such acts out of spite have happened, most notoriously during the excruciatingly long November-March transition from Buchanan to Lincoln, when secession already ran rampant but Buchanan did nothing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
WV is a travel guide, not a rolling commentary on the political situation in any country. Events such as the US election and Brexit (as examples) will have longer term travel impacts, but it doesn't serve the traveller for us to try and predict them. Plenty of other places on the Internet for that! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
True, but people who come to e.g. articles about Americans in Cuba or the United Kingdom and who (mis)heard something on (fake) news might be curious, so we should at least acknowledge that news mean things are in flux if it is so. We similarly describe(d) the turbulent early years of German long distance buses pretty much as they happened and still note that nothing is set in stone there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The box already specifies that the situation can change unpredictably. It should also mention that commercial flights are now scheduled between the U.S. and Havana. Powers (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point? The situation will change... the only question is how severely. To completely ignore the not-so-minor detail that Obama will no longer be in office on Jan 20, 2017 is a huge omission if he alone has been driving the effort to restore diplomatic ties to Cuba. K7L (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It pays to mention that the incoming US President may change things, but let's keep in mind that Raul Castro is no spring chicken, either, and also that he could always offer Trump some profitable investments... Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Help test offline Wikipedia[edit]

Hello! The Reading team at the Foundation is looking to support readers who want to take articles offline to read and share later on their phones - a use case we learned about from deep research earlier this year. We’ve built a few prototypes and are looking for people who would be interested in testing them. If you’d like to learn more and give us feedback, check out the page on Meta! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wishlist voting time[edit]

Hi everyone,

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team created a wishlist process, where the Wikimedia community would decide what they would work on during the year. This has also been the focus on hackathons and work by other developers. You can check the progress with the wishes from last year at m:2015 Community Wishist Survey/Results.

Voting started this week for this year's proposals at the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. The "proposal" phase finished about 10 days ago. Voting will close on 12 December 2016. Smaller and non-English-speaking projects tend to be under-represented in this, so the team has set aside some time specifically for smaller projects like this one. Please consider voting and encouraging other people from smaller projects to do the same. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a huge list of items, so it might be useful if anyone who finds something applicable to Wikivoyage could call it out. I went through the Wikidata items, and Ability to edit Wikidata from WP and other projects is one that would be of huge benefit to Wikivoyage since it would allow easier sharing of data between projects via Wikidata. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Relevant items Include support for KML on c:. Take a look over at m:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I noted the suggestion for support for KML as well - might be an idea to have a KML to GeoJSON conversion process as part of it. There are many proposals and I hope others take a look-see. Some proposals, I don't feel are really pertinent for Wikivoyage -- Matroc (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This one? m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Multimedia#Support KML files for geodata Everything is split into sub-pages by topic, so it might be helpful to add links, like Ryan did. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)