Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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


Please help migrate related site links[edit]

The RelatedSites extension (which creates the links in the "Related sites" sidebar section) will be disabled sometime in the next few months. In most cases, this won't cause any problems since these links are now automatically created by the Wikibase client extension (under the "In other projects" sidebar section). For example, on the article Africa (permalink in case someone fixes it), the links under "Related sites" are repeated under "In other projects" and are exactly the same links. In some cases, however, these links differ. There can be many causes of this: one link is more up to date (e.g. reflecting a page move on Wikipedia); one link is wrong (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page instead of the exact topic); one link is more specific or general (e.g. linking to a city instead of a region); two Wikidata items need to be merged, etc. Please help to resolve these difference before the extension is disabled. Here are the pages that need to be fixed:

If the link in the "In other projects" section is the better link, simply remove the {{RelatedWikipedia}}, {{RelatedCommons}}, or {{RelatedCommonsCat}} template from the page. If the link in the "Related sites" section is the better link, please update the data in Wikidata to match it and then remove the template from the Wikivoyage page. If you have questions, please ping me or Traveler100. Thanks! Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are some special cases which I don't think Wikidata can handle. For example both Rail travel in Canada and Across Canada by train use {{RelatedWikipedia}} to link to w:Rail transport in Canada. I understand that the Wikidata page can only take one Wikivoyage link. I think that we should look at how to handle these (and the cases where the two links are different).
Maybe the related templates could become a text box in "Go next", like the WP template Wikivoyage that is used to link in the other direction. I would also like this to allow for multiple WP links (max 5?), but I am happy to back down on this if it is a step too far for some. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Was thinking along similar lines. In the sandbox of the related template there is a version that makes the Wikipedia a reference box if it is not the same as that on Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
{{RelatedWikipedia}} updated, will not display the Wikipedia link in the Related Sites section of the side bar if it is identical to the In other projects name. If the parameter rel=y is added the sidebar entry will be moved to an info box at the bottom of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
See tasks for May Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I processed 10 articles from the second category: Eight were redirects and thus redundant, while two were erroneous. This is a small sample but it seems to indicate that a mass removal might not be such a bad idea for this category. Cheers! Syced (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done all main-space articles have been fixed, still a few user pages and project pages using RelatedSites. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what we're doing, but let's keep doing it.[edit]

It's really astonishing that the edit-a-thon has been over for nearly two months yet our Alexa rank continues to improve. This is very different from what happened during the site launch in 2013, when the line on the graph shot up into the stratosphere briefly but came right back down afterward, without much if any lasting improvement. What do you all think might be behind that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably the 2013 spike came from Wikimedians, who might have been interested in WV primarily as a new sister, while those who now found WV might be more interested in the subject matter. A curious thing: the fraction coming via a search engine fell drastically that month (so they came via other links), but the rank persisted after that effect was gone. Is this due to some technicality at Alexa? Another thing that puzzles me is that we share audience with wikitravel (more so than with lonelyplanet, tripadvisor & co). Does that mean Wikitravel users actually are aware of us? --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am quite new here and I found Wikitravel before finding Wikivoyage. I actually found Wikivoyage after clicking on a Wikitravel editor's profile page and saw that they had said that they moved to Wikivoyage and I decided to check it out. I now prefer this over Wikitravel as it is obviously more kept up to date. However, I would say that most Wikitravel users are not aware of Wikivoyage because I had used (not edited until about two months ago) Wikitravel for probably two or three years with no knowledge of Wikivoyage. BrysonH44 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is brilliant news! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikitravel seems to have shifted to slower servers, as there is visible loading time for their images. I haven't seen that for years; at least not on a website which intends to be market leading. Their travellers' pub is mostly a charade between a few administrators, struggling not to mention the elephant in the room (Wikivoyage). /Yvwv (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
May is the critical month for us as Alexa uses a 90 day timeframe to measure the popularity of a website. We are still doing better than 2013 because 1) more editors have stayed on post edit-a-thon, 2) more original content was created, which is helps with the SEO and 3) the site itself is much more appealing with higher quality banners, adding a current events destination on the main page, adding dates to listings, removing poorly written and touty language and so on. Gizza (roam) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage's Alexa ranking is now in freefall. The second honeymoon is well and truly over. While the edit-a-thon was still very beneficial, we should think about ways to improve a similar event in the future so that more readers and editors stick around in the long run. Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the increase in views in the month of February were just people going to the edit-a-thon page (2.7 million of them) and not exploring Wikivoyage any further. The main page would be a better starting point for readers and potential editors in terms of exploring the site but as stated earlier, the mobile version for the main page is not well designed. Gizza (roam) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at #Mobile above if you want to see the main page for mobile re-designed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The good news is that some of that decline can be attributed to the seasonal nature of the way our page views fluctuate, and that the overall trend is still up. March 2018's page view numbers were at 2.7M readers vs. 2.6M in March 2017; April 2018's were at 2.5M vs. 2.2M for April 2017; May 2018's projected number of 1.9M views is similarly a solid improvement over 1.7M in May '17. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Despite the fall, things are actually looking quite good now with our Alexa rank. Since January 2018, the rank hasn't fallen as much as it went up and the Alexa trend is now returning to an upward direction now. Hopefully we can soon overtake Wikitravel's rank, which seems to have a steady downward trend. Selfie City (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How to find Wikidata or Wikipedia entries by their GPS position?[edit]

Specifically, can I open a map and zoom into a certain place and get all Wikidata/Wikipedia items displayed that have a proper GPS coordinate?

This would be very useful to identify WD and WP items and relate them to WV listings, because often the name search in WD shows too many item or it does not give any results because of language barriers.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For Wikipedia articles go to the Category of an area, if it does not have already add GeoGroupTemplate. See for example w:Category:Towns in Derbyshire. Do not know about Wikidata --Traveler100 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a map for Wikivoyage, I am sure I have seen one for Commons but cannot find one now. Would be useful to have one for Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For Wikipedia OpenSeaMap has on option under View. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For Wikidata try Wikidata Locations Tool and also Wikidata Map (I think the first is a lot better), both from wmflabs. There used to be a "nearby" option in the beta features on Wikipedia, but I can't find it in the preferences over there. AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Very helpful! Anyone know the difference between red and blue markers here: ? Ceever (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This shows articles around you: It could be coupled with a fake GPS app if you want to see a place which is not around you. Syced (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Top! Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Temporary permissions bump?[edit]


I was hoping to implement a few updates to the pagebanner template. Looks like the css files are (smartly) locked from editing. I was hoping to be granted access to (I think it's common.css and mobile.css?) for a week or so to: push the table of contents off the banner image, line up the text a little better, and swap the transparent square behind the page title for a drop shadow. I brought this idea up here awhile ago and it seemed to get a positive response. I'd commit the changes in 2-3 separate edits so they may be rolled back more easily. I'll comment again when I'm done and someone can bump my account back down. I also get it that this is a very important template, so if this request is a whole thing, no big deal. Thanks!

--ButteBag (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if the above question was gauche! Let's try it another way. If anyone has access to edit whichever css files affect the page banner, here are the updates to the code I'd like to make. Maybe you could make them instead? Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

#1: Move TOC off pagebanner image

   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-topbanner-toc {
       /* remove these two styles */
       /* position: absolute; */
       /* background: rgba(0,0,0,0.5) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; */
       /* add this one style */
       background-color: #171717;

#2: Replace transparent box behind TOC title text with a dropshadow

   .ext-wpb-pagebanner .wpb-topbanner .wpb-name {
       /* background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgba(0,0,0,0.3); */
       text-shadow: 0 0 15px black;

#3: text in TOC should align with text in disambig=yes in pagebanner template, printDistricts template (, and maybe others ?)

   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-banner-toc {
       /* padding: 0.2em 2em; */
       padding: 0.2em 1.25em;

#4: Dots in TOC shouldn't highlight onhover:

   /* remove this entire style
   .ext-wpb-pagebanner li.toclevel-1 > a:after {
       content: " ·";
       font-weight: bold;
       padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
   /* add these two new stlyes */
   .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:after {
       content: " ·";
       font-weight: bold;
       padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
   .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:last-child:after {
       content: none;
   /* finally, edit this one style */
   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-banner-toc a, .wpb-banner-toc a:visited, .wpb-banner-toc a:active {
       /* display: block; */

OK, I've got it sorted on my end. Did you know you can edit your own personal style settings? If someone is an admin and wants to update MediaWiki:Common.css, you can use the styles here: User:ButteBag/common.css. I clicked around to a bunch of different pages and it's looking like a nice improvement to my eyes. Very 70's Vignelli chic! Styles copied below if you want to try them out in your own personal style file. Thanks for looking! --ButteBag (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 /* Move TOC off pagebanner image */
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-topbanner-toc {
     position: relative;
     background: #171717;
 /* Replace transparent box behind TOC title text with a dropshadow */
 .ext-wpb-pagebanner .wpb-topbanner .wpb-name {
   background: none;
   text-shadow: 0 0 15px black;
 /* Text in TOC should align with other template text */
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-banner-toc {
     padding: 0.2em 1.25em;
 /* Dots in TOC shouldn't highlight onhover */
 .ext-wpb-pagebanner li.toclevel-1 > a:after {
   content: none;
 .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:after {
   content: " ·";
   font-weight: bold;
   padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
 .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:last-child:after {
   content: none;
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-banner-toc a, .wpb-banner-toc a:visited, .wpb-banner-toc a:active {
     display: inline;

Problem with listings editor?[edit]

Does anyone have an idea what went wrong in this edit? I used the listings editor to add some text to the "content" of the listing, but a lot of different parts were affected in the surrounding section that I didn't even touch. Please also look at the resulting page [1]. Xsobev (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the listings editor doesn't handle line breaks. Looks like in the edit you linked, there was an addition of two paragraph tags without their corresponding closing tags. I think I've had to add paragraphs to listings by hand before. Good luck! --ButteBag (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The listing editor was written to convert newlines to paragraph tags, but in your example the airport was an inline listing, so the listing content should not have contained newlines (and now shouldn't contain paragraph tags). For a non-inline listing, newlines must be converted to paragraph tags for the listing to render properly in the lists used on Wikivoyage - leaving a newline in the listing would close the list and cause the content to appear as paragraphs following the list. See the following example::
  • listing content with newlines

content following a newline more content following a newline

...versus the following, which replaces newlines with paragraph tags:
  • listing content with paragraph tags

    content following a newline

    more content following a newline

-- Ryan • (talk) • 02:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. So if a section is edited with "edit source", then a regular line break (by hitting enter) in the "content" field of the listings template will cause problems both with rendering and with the listings editor later on. Only that in the linked edit the rendering problems were not visible, because the listing was not part of an itemized list. So the only way to manually (with "edit source") add a correct line break in the "content" field of a listing template is to use "<p>" (or "<br>"?) instead. Is that correct? If using the listings editor and adding a regular line break (by hitting enter) in the "content" field, then the listings editor will automatically turn that into "<p>" when saving, and turn "<p>" into regular line breaks when showing the content. Is that also correct? So there seems to be a case, which isn't handled correctly: if the listings editor encounters regular line breaks that are already in the wiki source text. It should just convert them to "<p>" when saving, but somehow that doesn't happen.
I now also saw another use of the p-tag, which also seems to cause problems when using the listings editor: the first listing for Rome/Vatican#St._Peter's_Basilica. It replaces the "<p>", but not the (incorrect?) "</p>". Also the first "<p>" seems to cause two regular line breaks in the listings editor. Xsobev (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I tried to "fix" the line breaks in the airport listing in Edinburgh#Get in by replacing them with "<p>", but the preview shows the same display errors (all following line breaks in the section are screwed up) as they can be seen here. Xsobev (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


d:Q14773 lists the emergency phone number for Macau as 999. That looks reasonable, but the {{quickbar}} on my cow here is displaying this as +1-999, which is nonsense. Same issue with United Kingdom, Emergencies +1-999, 112. Huh? Canada looks correct with 911. The template is supposedly pulling this data from Wikidata, so what went wrong? K7L (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just corrected the phone number field on d:Q3086706, which was showing +1-999. Changing it to 999 does result in a format "potential issue" warning. This looks to have fixed it for Macau and United Kingdom. It looks like the problem was caused by a bot edit in February. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not a good sign when one asks a very expensive computer "What's the number for 999?" and the machine gets it wrong. K7L (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

U.S. National Park Pass for seniors 62+[edit]

Last August, the lifetime price was raised from $10 to $80 (an eight-fold increase!). Unfortunately, I can't find the template to edit the new amount. Also, a new annual pass for seniors is available (for those who can't afford the $80 or rarely visit).

The template has double brackets with the words "USA national park passes." [2] —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2018-05-08T19:26:57‎

Yes Done Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Map internationalization launched everywhere—and embedded maps now live on 276 Wikipedias[edit]

As of today, interactive (Kartographer) maps no longer display in the language of the territory mapped; instead, you’ll read them in the content language of the wiki where they appear—or in the language their authors specify (subject to availability of multilingual data). In addition, mapframe, the feature that automatically embeds dynamic maps right on a wiki page, is now live on most Wikipedias that lacked the feature. (Not included in the mapframe launch are nine Wikipedias that use the stricter version of Flagged Revisions).

If you you’re new to mapframe, this Kartographer help page shows how to get started putting dynamic maps on your pages.  If you’d like to read more about map internationalization: this Special Update explains the feature and its limitations; this post and this one describe the uses of the new parameter, lang=”xx”, which  lets you specify a map’s language. And here are some example maps, to illustrate the new capabilities.

These features could not have been created without the generous programming contributions and advice of map-loving volunteers, including Yurik, Framawiki, Naveenpf, TheDJ, Milu92, Atsirlin, Evad37, Pigsonthewing, Mike Peel, Eran Roz, Gareth and Abbe98. My apologies to anyone I’ve missed.

The Collaboration team's Map Improvements 2018 project wraps up at the end of June, so please give internationalized maps and mapframe a try soon and give us your feedback on the project talk page. We’re listening. —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 results[edit]

The results for Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 is ready. It took some time to compile and review, and I'm quite liberal with what's considered as an expanded article (something beyond adding a few short sentences or fixing typos). I have also included a few that began on January 31 since not everyone lives in UTC timezone.

One thing to note is that future edit-a-thon should consider using dashboard to make user-editing tracking easier and minimize the manual checking work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Shanghai districts again[edit]

Setting up districts for Shanghai is a difficult problem; we've had at least three structures so far & it is not clear we have it right yet. Both the talk page & its archive have long discussions. The latest round is at Talk:Shanghai#More_on_districts.

If you can contribute here, please do. Pashley (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Page loading performance study[edit]

The survey will look pretty close to this.

Hello, all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Technology department would like to run a (very) small survey about performance on a few wikis. You can read more about it at phab:T187299.

I think that it would be ideal for this wiki to participate because the English Wikivoyage gets more traffic than many Wikipedias, and it's desirable to look outside the Wikipedias.

This survey would likely start in about two weeks. It would show a box with one question on a very small percentage of page views. (The results will be subject to the privacy policy, of course.)

If you have concerns about this, then please contact me directly by pinging me or leaving a note on my user talk page. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata links to Wikivoyage redirect pages[edit]

Can anyone explain why the number of wikidata references to redirect pages on Wikivoyage is increasing so much? Increase of 70 in the last 11 days. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Two villages, wrong link[edit]

Hello. In Cyprus there are two villages with similar name. One is w:Platres and the other is w:Kato Platres.

Kato Platres (Kato means lower) previously was named as Tornarides but they change their name. Because of that, Platres was called from people as Pano Platres (Pano means upper). But their official name is Platres. This two villages are two separate community counclis. Are separate villages.

In en.wikivoyage article of Platres is said:

"Platres is a village in Limassol district. It is subdivided into Pano (upper) and Kato (Lower) Platres, which fuels healthy local rivalry (the Pano lot consider themselves superior) but for all intents and purposes its is the same village."

This is extremely wrong.

Moreover, the en.wikivoyage article of Platres is connected to wikidata page of Kato Platres [3].

My opinion is that the wikivoyage article must me an article for Platres (knowing as Pano Platres). And must be connected with the wikidata page of Platres.

Xaris333 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Wikivoyage can stay as an article about the two villages, maybe what is need on Wikipedia is move Platers to Pano Platres. Is already on the Wikidata links to fix list. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: As for the sentence about local rivalry; if you know this to be wrong then please correct it. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Traveler100 the article is saying that "Platres is a village in Limassol district. It is subdivided into Pano (upper) and Kato (Lower) Platres,". That is wrong. There are two villages. One with the name Platres [4] and one with the name Kato Platres [5]. And the article in wikivoyage has informations only about Platres, nothing about Kato Platres. Xaris333 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You probably know better then anyone the details so I suggest you make the edits. Is not clear to me if all the listings are in one village. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


While traveling, it's inevitable to be confronted with technical problems occasionally, particularly during longer trips. The growing popularity/spreading of fablabs, hackerspaces and makerspaces is of interest to the traveler, because they're the ideal places to patch up a ripped backpack, fix a broken headlight, charge up batteries, and so on. They're also ideal places to find a wired and wireless internet connection without being touted into purchasing food or drinks. Run and visited by locals, they're a de facto safe bet to seek for unbiased help if you run into trouble during travels.

Unfortunately, despite their importance/relevance, these places are currently often missing from Wikivoyage! In the rare instances they're mentioned, they're usually buried somewhere in the Cope section between hairdressers, veterinarians and endless lists of embassies... However, from a traveler's perspective, it's important to find a place where you can stich up a ripped backpack, particularly in more rural areas where alternatives are few and far between.

As such, it could be argued that such places are more important/relevant to mention than anything listed under the "Drink" section for example, since not all travelers are nightlife/party animals, but most will sooner or later be confronted with issues that could be resolved in a fablab or makerspace.

Which leads to the question: how can these be integrated into Wikivoyage? Do we need a new top level section, define a sub section to any of the existing sections, or redefine the scope of "Cope" (no pun intended)? Does it deserve its proper listing/marker color, or do we go with the generic green ones? What do other Wikivoyagers think? ArticCynda (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

In many cases I think that the alternative to going to a hacker space is to go to a shop - either to buy needle and thread, or to buy a replacement backpack. So following that logic they could go in "Buy". However if a traveller is more likely to go to such a hacker space as an alternative way of spending the afternoon, coming away with just a keyring to put in a drawer back home, then they belong in "Do". If you have a lot of experience of these places, then maybe you could start a travel topic on these facilities. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly the ambiguity I wanted to point out and fix: depending on one's interpretation it could go in nearly any section, and that's confusing for the traveler. Hence why a better solution is needed, in my opinion, than throwing it into "Buy" and/or "Do" and/or "Cope".ArticCynda (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think most such spaces would fit best under Do. Adding them is a good idea & they'd make a fine travel topic if someone wanted to do the work. They might also be mentioned at Digital nomad. Pashley (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda, are you suggesting putting it in the "Connect" section? That's the only other possibility I can think of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No because it's not in the scope of the Connect section -- which is should focus on internet and phone access. It doesn't seem to fit into any of the existing sections aside from a loose relation to "Cope", so it might be clearer to introduce a new top level section called "Fix" for something like that. ArticCynda (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There isn't such a thing as a "loose relation to Cope" as "Cope" is merely a catch-all section for items that don't fit anywhere else. In some truly remote places, we have been known to list which villages offer fuel or repairs - for instance, Labrador#Get around lists the fuel with the transportation. If something isn't transportation and doesn't fit in "Buy" with the shop listings, "Cope" is the fallback. K7L (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As a preliminary reaction, I would tend to agree with K7L and oppose a "Fix" section, which could easily get filled with car repair shops and who knows what else (home appliance or building repairs, anyone?), but I'd be willing to hear out an argument. Considering that repairs are sometimes needed while traveling but even more likely to be needed at home, why is a new first-order section needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
If the goal is to fix stuff, then ==Cope== is the right section. If the best thing to say about it is an internet connection, then ==Connect== makes sense (listing an internet+woodworking shop there makes just as much sense as listing internet+coffee shop there).
I'm not sure that I can agree with the overall premise, though. I kind of doubt that a typical business traveler (accounting for ~30% of US flights) would ever drop by a makerspace to stitch up a broken backpack, especially not when the nearest dry cleaner would likely stitch it up for you, and without requiring an annual membership fee. Also, makerspaces that are open to the general public (e.g., not inside a school) are tolerably rare in rural areas. I've got nothing against including them when they exist and offer something useful to a traveler, but it's more of an urban phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hackerspaces are going out of business and closing down after all the 3d printing hype. There is alway a wiki page listing all hackerspaces but it is very out of date.

Local guides[edit]

We normally don't list local guides (persons) or Wikivoyage:Tours unless they provide something that can't be done as easily independently (for instance, a "fishing charter" is a guide and a boat, while a Chornobyl tour crosses into an exclusion zone which isn't accessible outside the tour). What, then, do we do with Internet platforms like these: which are basically forums (fora?) to connect voyagers to local guides in individual cities? Do we list the sites in a travel topic, much like we'd list ride sharing sites or home stay networks in those respective articles? K7L (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

jcarousel implementation[edit]

Hi everyone! I am very new to mediawiki and web design in general, and I absolutely love the layout of the main page. I figured out how to do the banner, but I'm struggling with the carousel. Can anyone explain to me how I can create a carousel? I tried reading documentation and it didn't help. Thank you so much everyone! You guys are amazing! 21:33, 17 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Did you find and ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did! I'm not sure how to implement the two files though. Do I have to write something on MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css to enable the feature? 15:26, 18 May 2018‎ (UTC)

This site looks to be using mw:Extension:Gadgets to load the javascript? K7L (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Carousel implementation was moved from Mediawiki:Common.js and made a part of Extension:Gadgets around March 2015. I was told not to use it in article pages etc. Perhaps someone can clarify that assumption. -- Matroc (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know how to implement jCarousel with Extension:Gadgets?

I used carousel several years ago and it may already be enabled by default. I don't remember having to do anything to use it. Check your Preferences - Gadgets and see if its box is checked. I would try doing a simple carousel on your Talk page or Sandbox and see what happens. There are several samples to be found by Google searching; also, may find some samples on GitHub... I also remember seeing a tutorial somewhere too. Others may know much more than I about this subject. -- Matroc (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Never mind I figured it out!

Star attractions[edit]

Our friends from the Russian Wikivoyage project have star attractions I discovered a few minutes ago. This indicates must see attractions such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Colosseum in Rome, and is displayed as a star icon between the attraction's marker and its title/name. A few examples in the Russian Wikivoyage page on Moskow.

I personally find this a convenient sorting method because there currently is no hierarchy in "See" or "Do" attractions (note: according to Wikivoyage guidelines, these should be ordered alphabetically and not in order of perceived signficance). For travelers who have limited time to spend in a particular destination, it makes it easier to plan a day with most of the "highlights" of the destination rather than walking from fountain to park, and eventually leaving without seeing the city's gem that turned out to be at the bottom of the "See" listings.

Is there a reason the English Wikivoyage doesn't have this functionality? ArticCynda (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The "must see" attractions are often mentioned in the overview paragraphs of the See sections, for cities like Moscow already in the city article (while the listings are in the district articles). For minor places the star attractions are usually mentioned already in the lead section. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
In some cities like Siena, there's a longstanding consensus on what the main sights are. But try getting agreement on where a list of the main sights ends in New York, London or Rome. Sure, a few may be obvious, but when you go beyond that, you run into huge problems. I'd absolutely say the same is true of Paris. In Paris, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame and the Arc de Triomph are probably obvious, but after that, will you get agreement on the following? The Tuileries, Musee d'Orsay, Pont Neuf, Sacree Coeur (mostly for the view), Cluny, the Sorbonne, Les Invalides, Musee Guimet, the Musees Picasso and Rodin, Place Vendome, the Sainte-Chapelle...the list of possible main sights is quite long, and they will be rated differently by different people, depending on their interests and tastes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I follow your logic, but the people writing articles are already forming a consensus, for example by choosing which attractions to deliberately omit. And clearly the Russians can come to a consensus on the matter, so why can't/wouldn't we? ArticCynda (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Because we don't want to waste time debating it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
We could adapt the English Wikipedia's rule for disputed external links, which is basically that disputed links are immediately removed, until there's a consensus to restore them. In the case of the Parisian example, that would mean starring whatever "obvious" items people agree upon, and nothing else (until people agreed upon more). It doesn't require much time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, that seems a good idea to reach a consensus. Suggesting the following work flow:
  • a star can be added to any attraction
  • that star can be removed at any time, after which a discussion must be opened on the talk page
  • the star is only reinstated when a consensus is reached
@Ikan Kekek, is that a good compromise to your time waste concerns? ArticCynda (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea in the first place. It's a cinch for people to find "Top 10" lists for the world's most visited cities, but most of them are districted on en.voy, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's an odd point of view because I would think that marking star attractions is particularly useful to districted cities, which tend to lose a proper overview of where attractions/landmarks with the highest value to the average traveler are located. I'm not fundamentally opposed to making lists, I usually only have a day or two to spend in a city, so I always make lists of attractions/landmarks I really want to visit in a city, making optimal use of my time there. ArticCynda (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda, it would be less work if the discussion only has to be started if someone wants to restore the star. So I add the star (5 seconds), you remove it (5 seconds), and I decide you're right (or that I don't care enough to object to the removal), and we're done already.
If, on the other hand, I add a star, you remove it, and someone (maybe me, maybe someone else) wants to advocate for including the dispute star, then *that* person should start the discussion. That approach means that the burden on the person disagreeing with a star remains low, and we stay efficient when everyone agrees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input WhatamIdoing, it would indeed be more efficient but the problem with this approach is that it leads to jojo effects. For example, consider user A who adds a star to an attraction. User B doesn't agree and removes the star, but then doesn't open a discussion on the talk page. User C reviews the article a day later and also thinks that attraction deserves a star, but unaware of the previous star/destar cycle immediately adds a star again, because there is no evidence on the talk page of a star/destar cycle. By opening a debate the moment the star is removed, that problem is solved because user C can reasonably be expected to check the talk page before making such modifications. ArticCynda (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User C probably isn't going to check the talk page before plunging forward to add the star, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek's point about the debatability of what constitutes star attractions is well taken, but I'd go a little bit further with it and say that each individual reader is going to have their own personal list of star attractions, and none of those lists are invalid or "wrong". For instance, the question of what place a visitor to Manhattan would gravitate to before any other would depend entirely on their own personal interests. Nature lovers might head to Inwood Hill Park; aficionados of medieval art might make a beeline for the Cloisters; immigrant history buffs might head to the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side; those poor saps still unsophisticated enough to be unironically impressed by Disneyfied corporate-driven faux-placemaking would likely head to Times Square. Wikivoyage should be in the business of recognizing the individuality and diverse interests of its readership - and we largely already do that, by categorizing "See" sections by broad themes such as "Art", "Museums", "Parks", etc. - rather than trying to find the rough average among them. Especially if that means we end up funneling readers to the same handful of obvious cliché attractions that other guidebooks highlight. For a small fry like Wikivoyage to carve out a niche in a world of Lonely Planets and Frommer'ses means we have to offer something different than our competitors, not ape them. Plus, designating certain attractions as "stars" in an at least partially arbitrary way smacks of touting, anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
On the face of it, I agree with this. Some people visit New York to go to bars and nightclubs in Williamsburg, Bushwick and the Lower East Side, others go to all the art museums, others go to parks, others just like to walk around different neighborhoods. It's possible in individual entries to suggest that something is a highlight, and it's also possible to highlight some sights in the summary in the "See" sections of districted cities, but except where it's really obvious and uncontroversial what the main sights are (as in my example of Siena), I don't think we want to have a separate section expressly called "Main sights", let alone a particular arbitrary number of them. I mean, let's look at New York a little more. Is the Empire State Building a top-10 sight? It's certainly a major landmark, but the Chrysler Building and various other shorter skyscrapers are more beautiful, plus it won't be worth it to many people to pay a lot of money to go to the top of a skyscraper and probably see a hazy view. Just to take one example. I think it would be less controversial as a top-20 sight, but let's not spend time debating which sights in what order should be specially featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
These are strong arguments, AndreCarrotflower and Ikan Kekek, and convinced me that assigning stars to attractions wouldn't be as good of an idea as I originally thought it would be. It is indeed a better strategy to emphasize on value or importance in the description rather than assiging a binary score. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion may be closed! ArticCynda (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I am really late to this, but I have learned that if you want to highlight a particular listing, use a picture. Pictures make the listing so much more noticeable, just like a "starred" or "featured" mechanism would. And like Ikan mentioned, bubbling up truly amazing listings to the parent article (and bolding them) is also a great idea. This is a writing focused site, so almost every problem can be solved with better copy, and not always better technology. --ButteBag (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That last sentence is a beautiful summary, ButteBag, if previous comments wouldn't have convinced me already, then that would have done it! ArticCynda (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your help fixing an annoying dynamic maps bug on Hebvoy[edit]

As a result of having the new dynamic maps fully integrated at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, we now have various bugs that need to be fixed.

The one bug that needs to be fixed the most happens When loading any article on Hebvoy that has a dynamic map - the interface always requests that the user would give permission to access an external source (this message keeps coming up on articles with dynamic maps unless the user clicks on "it's okay"). once the user click on "it's okay" the interface displays the map layer "articles nearby" automatically. (example - look for the dynamic map in this article)

how would I be able to fix this bug so that the dynamic maps wouldn't try to present the "articles nearby" automatically? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

CC from previous maps discussions: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Shaundd, Sumit.iitp, Syced, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2 -- ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that you call these 'articles nearby' from some template, but I can't say more without knowing which templates are used. This is a bit hard to figure out in Hebrew. --Alexander (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Managed to fix it by myself :) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Another technical question for the map experts[edit]

One of the main features that dissapeared when the new maps were integrated to the Hebrew Wikivoyage was the option to display specific map layers automaitcally when a certain artice loads - for example, for an article about a hiking trails I would usually display the Hiking layer and the Hill Shading layer. These layers do not load automatically anymore when they are defined to do so in the code (example - look for the dynamic map in this article).

Do you know by any chance if this could be fixed?

CC from previous maps discussions: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Shaundd, Sumit.iitp, Syced, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2 -- ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly this was an issue raised some time ago. I think that the parameter layer may have became defunct? As an aside, be aware that recent changes are happening and that the code for mapframe and maplink in Wikivoyage is slightly different from that to be found in Wikipedia. ie. group and show is not available and the box to select layers, groups etc. no longer exists and other quirks. The most recent update to the Kartographer extension in Wikivoyage dated May 7 of this year shows that sidebar.js was updated. Hopefully, any future changes to Wikipedia implementation will have no effect on our present capabilities. -- Matroc (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Matroc - Is there anyone I can ask for help with this? appearntly this feature has not been removed... it actually still works - one can select the Hiking layer or the Hill Shading layer from the side box after the map has loaded, but it simply does not load automatically anymore. Maybe they changed the code so that a different code needs to be entered to display it automatically? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The ability to select a layer using a parameter rather than a button was disabled here a while ago. This was to address privacy concerns as some of the layers used external sources. The button method still works. See Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Layers. Unfortunately there has been no interest in just enabling the options that are not privacy concerns, but disabling those (eg Mapnik) that use external servers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Create an actual Mars travel guide?[edit]

I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but since Mars has been reached by rovers and spacecraft like the moon, couldn't there be a more serious article about visiting the planet? The same is the case with some of the other planets in the solar system. Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, since it is already a possible travel destination. As for the Moon, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt since it might be possible in the foreseeable future & someone has taken the trouble to write it. Starting a Mars article would, I think, be seriously premature. Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence by someone writing about it was Israel and then he was no travel book writer. While I would like to see Mars travel in my lifetime, I fear we'll have to wait until it is actually a thing to write the guide to it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not fundamentally opposed against a travel article on Mars, but given the cost and preparation time required for such a journey, not many are ever going to make the trip. Shouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on the countless destinations that are actually credible travel destinations, but currently missing form WikiVoyage? Once planet Earth is completely covered, we can talk about other planets. ArticCynda (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We should probably have an article on the deep sea before Mars. The Mariana Trench will probably be open to the masses at an earlier point in time than the red planet. Gizza (roam) 03:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a Deep sea or Submarines article would be a great idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gizza @Granger You seem to be missing my previous point; what's the added value of creating new articles about places that are too impractical to visit? If you want to know how to reach the bottom of the Mariana Trench then read the Wikipedia articles on deep sea exploration, not Wikivoyage. ArticCynda (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not the Mariana Trench, but it is possible for tourists to go on submarine tours, which I think could make a good travel topic. I don't know how deep it's realistically possible for a tourist to go—that would be good information for the article to have. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of Richard Branson's Virgin Oceanic venture which unfortunately has been put on hold. But as Granger says, deep sea tourism has already started although tourists don't go as low as the bottom of the ocean yet. Gizza (roam) 05:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What about creating Underwater travel as a travel topic? Selfie City (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

An idea for April fool's 2019[edit]

I know this is discussing this way early, but I cannot see the harm in that given how we have in the past struggled to get something together in the last days of March... An idle thought I had yesterday was travel for space aliens or Guide for extraterrestrial visitors or some such. I think the possibilities are boundless and we could do a lot of tongue in cheek humor. And if it doesn't "work" we have eleven month to come up with something better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion might not be practical or even possible, but wouldn't it be funny if on April fool's day we put every article in the "star" category, no matter what condition the article was in, just for that day. I can imagine the confusion of many Wikivoyage users, in particular, who saw the "star" template on every single page they visited! Selfie City (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Elon Musk could be convinced to sponsor the creation of such content! Jokes aside though, I have my doubts about the coverage these April fool's articles get, since I wasn't aware of their existance until I stumbled on the category a few weeks ago by coincidence. So if, as you mentioned, it's a recurring struggle to get something together in the last days of March then perhaps the idea of running an April fool's joke itself should be reconsidered? Is it really worth spending the effort on it? ArticCynda (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I find that kind of pages as a waste of time for the project and something that might encourage the creation of junk or troll pages. Just saying. --Zerabat (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
After thinking this over a little, I'd have to agree with ArticCynda. Do we really need a April fool's joke every year? Or even at all? We're a travel guide, not a comedy show. Selfie City (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Indentation nitpicking[edit]

We fairly often have conversations that run off the right hand edge of my screen because there are too many layers of indentation. I think part of the problem is that people are indenting one more than the most recent comment when the rule should be one more than the comment you are replying to.

Not to pick on one user, since almost everyone seems to be doing this, but one clear example is at #Create_an_actual_Mars_travel_guide? above. It currently looks like this:


I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but ,,, Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, ... Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence ... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(end quote)

Since Andre's comment is a reply to the original post, not to my remark above it, I think it should have less indentation; then the replies to it would as well, so overall we would have:


I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but ,,, Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, ... Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence ... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(end quote)

In my view this both makes the conversation more readable & keeps the indentation levels down, so doing it this way is a no-brainer. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just being an old curmudgeon, wanting things to still be done the way I learned for Usenet comments back in the early 90s. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Indentation replies are an issue on every project ..... I agree it can be confusing at times but that's the way the MediaWiki software is ..... Not much anyone can do I'm afraid. –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the excessive indentation is an intentional thing, it just so happens that in a discussion one usually replies to the previous post, and so on. It is relatively rare to trace back to a previous post far back and reply to it, which is why the indentation is often fairly linear. Personally I don't think it's much of a problem since computer screens are fairly large these days (and the aspect ratios keep increasing, which is great for indentation!). ArticCynda (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We could solve the problem with indentation by switching to Flow (renamed Structured Discussions). I've been using it on for a while now (all new talk pages default to it, and all the major discussion pages there have been converted). It has advantages and disadvantages, but it does a reasonable job of resolving threading problems. (It also brings people back to the wikis using it, because every reply or new thread to a watched page appears in your Echo/Notifications, no matter what wiki you're on today.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
A notification for every reply? I use watchlists for that (and it works threadwise if people leave the section heading in the summary). Notifications of foreign wikis take non-trivial time to load, so I would certainly turn that off for any half-active project. I prefer checking watchlists regularly. One can check foreign notifications more seldom, but I think that requires having them turned on only on some seldom visited wiki (I have that configuration). I think the indentation issue is minor, not worth any radical solutions. --LPfi (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Template Template:Kilometer[edit]

Do we really want to show every km in miles (in brackets) as well? I find it a little overload of complexity. And if I am in a country that uses km, why also show miles? For that one country that is not able to stick to metric standards? Do you guys support this level of detail, or would you say away with this (template)? We had a similar template that was showing dollars in brackets for every currency and decided against it. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken there are actually 3 countries that haven't yet adopted modern measurement systems, but that aside: meters (and thus km) are the standard unit, and for the sake of simplicity, we should stick with it. That's what standards are for in the first place. Of course you can mention other distance units where they're relevant (for example, how the ancient Egyptians used unit XYZ to measure the base of pyramids) but only as exception and not as a rule. ArticCynda (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Putting the traveller first, I think it some cases it makes sense to serve UK and US readers by including the conversions. A lot of our readers in the English Wikivoyage come from those two countries. I don't include the conversion in every instance in an article, but in a few.
Currency conversion is another matter: exchange rates change, so we put prices (for the most part) in the local currency, and leave it to readers to learn the current exchange rate for their preferred currency. As far as I know, the mile:kilometre conversion doesn't vary over time. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Currency conversion is pretty pointless indeed since it's too volatile, so I agree with your point of view Ground Zero. Unless travelers are likely to be confronted with multiple currencies (for example in Croatia where kuna (kn) is official tender but euro is widely accepted in tourist areas), only stick with the local currency and leave it up to the traveler to quickly look up the exchange rate before they visit. ArticCynda (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The exchange rates in the template are kept reasonably up to date. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
On a related point, I'd say neither 'kilometre' nor 'kilometer' should ever be used; just avoid the dialect issue by using 'km' everywhere. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The {{km}} template was not created to show every km in miles in brackets as well; it is intended for showing both units when the author feels both values need to be shown. Also the $ currency conversion display (also not for every entry) as far as I know was not a consensus decision to not adopt, was a unilateral one.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The 'metre' was never a thing, the 'meter' is the only valid definition. Only use 'km' and there is no confusion anywhere. ArticCynda (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Eh? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
A "meter" is a measuring device, a "metre" is a unit of length. The only country which doesn't grasp this distinction may be safely ignored as they happen to be stubbornly opposing metrication every inch of the way. K7L (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's just introduce the metr and end this debate once and for all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You win! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

However, there is also this one lying around Template:convert, which does something similar. Shouldn't we really reduce complexity instead of inventing new template all the time? Ceever (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Typing {{km|20}} is simpler than {{convert|20|km|mi}}, less text and easier to remember, and the km template users convert to work. Is just easier to type and remember. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue with vandal[edit]

Ground Zero, User:MSG17, any other users on Wikivoyage: watch out, a really serious vandal is making several acts of vandalism on Wikivoyage, and I need help dealing with this guy. Selfie City (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He's blocked now. Thanks for the heads-up. Ground Zero (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the contributor. We now need to delete a page he created in the process: I've put it up on the VFD page. Selfie City (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the article. Now I'll ask for help in watching User: I don't like blocking IP addresses, so I blocked this vandal for 2 hours. On his talk page he promised to come back after 2 hours, so I extended the block to a day, but I'll be without Wifi for a couple of days, so I have to leave it to others to manage. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Also, a user (not an experienced one) recently created the page Vumanhtuan8493, which just has a URL (I don't know what it links to). It would be good if someone deletes the page. Selfie City (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Let there be light[edit]

What's up with this edit censoring the following text from electrical systems?:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.Genesis 1:3

Is there any prohibition on recognising that God creating heaven and earth out of chaos is engineering, making this the second-oldest profession? K7L (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is opposition from some atheists to "recognizing" that, as you say, and anyone taking the Biblical creation story literally and objecting to it on the basis that it is not scientific also might object. But I think that objectively, unless you're really offended by any reference to a deity, this would stand pretty low on a list of potentially offensive verses from a religion's sacred scriptures. I'm not sure it's important to include, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
is there a quote from the Bagvad Gita (or whatever it's spelled) on our nuclear travel article? Iirc we never got to a consensus whether or not to include a particular quote on the Jerusalem page... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
For Jerusalem, a quote would be tricky because the city is holy to 3 religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
True, but we'd be more likely to mention all three than to completely ignore the presence of religion in Jerusalem at all. K7L (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Well two of the three share a number of holy books and a different set of two of the three recognize a claimant for messiah who died in Jerusalem... By the way, does Jerusalem play a major role in any pre 1800 faiths besides Islam Judaism and Christianity? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
w:Mandaeism --Traveler100 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Restore the text. It is part of at least three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) & perhaps Baha'i as well. Even for atheists, it is a recognisable quote, part of the culture. Pashley (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It was I who added the quote, as well as other illustrative quotes from the Bible (eg Clothes) and quotes influenced by Christianity (eg Postwar United States). My intention has been that these quotes should be read as pieces of classical literature, presumably known by an English-speaking reader, regardless of faith. Illustrative quotes inspired by other religions would be just as welcome as the Biblical ones. I would prefer if User:Beland clarified their argument. /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think including quotes from the Bible, Quran, Vedas or whatever other holy books isn't a problem as long as it is treated as a piece of classical literature and not used to proselytise. In any case, it is a well known verse from the Bible, even among non-Christians, and it does add some colour to an otherwise dry article, so I don't see what the problem is with including it. The dog2 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, you listen here: 'e's not the Messiah, 'e's a very naughty boy! Now, go away!Brian's mum

--Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am against introducing quotes that can be understood as religious. If I am in the minority feel free to ignore me, though. Syced (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Where it's not specifically relevant, if it's offending anyone, we should probably remove the quotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yvwv: Well, I'm an atheist and I found the quote off-putting. Yes, Genesis is literature, but it is also used by lots of people to assert a false narrative that the universe was created by a sentient being, and also that being has lots of ideas about how you should live your life (which for me would have to include leaving the person I love). Using it here reinforces that idea, so as quotes go it seems like a divisive choice. There are other bits of fun color that could be added to the article; a picture might be nice. -- Beland (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Or how about a fun quote from Edison or Tesla, or some other real-life person? -- Beland (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Googling "quotes electricity" turns up several collections of quotes like Brainy Quote & Goodreads. On both those sites, the first quote is one I like, George Carlin's “Electricity is really just organized lightning.” Pashley (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If you know any good quotes from them, then by all means replace the Biblical quote. I have no issue with that. For the record, I was raised Buddhist (albeit not really practising these days), and I don't find quotes from non-Buddhist religious texts offensive as I consider them to just be pieces of classical literature (like how you would classify Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" or Dante's "Inferno"), but if other people do, then I have no issue replacing religious quotes with more secular ones. The dog2 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the Carlin quote; it's funny, short, and surprisingly accurate. -- Beland (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a nice quote too. If there are no objections, I don't mind switching the Biblical quote with the Carlin quote. The dog2 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't want the end result of this discussion to be removing "bits of fun color" that might irritate a small group of people. Should we include patently offensive things, such as quotations that demean people on racial, gender, or national grounds? No, never. Should we include things that someone people personally dislike, like quotations from the "wrong" religion or names selected by the "wrong" government? Yes, sometimes. Classical religious texts shouldn't be prohibited.
That said, in this particular instance, I personally like the Carlin quote better, even though a traveler who who is desperately searching for the light switch in an unfamiliar hotel room might well be wondering whether a divine miracle will be needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As Carlin would have said, it's also about the context. It's just not important to have a Biblical quote in an article about electrical systems, so if it bothers even one reader and another quote doesn't, super, and there's no good reason to marginalize atheist Wikivoyagers by characterizing them as a "small group of people" who are removing "local color". There is no local color in an article on a worldwide travel topic about technology. In the article on Christianity, it's completely appropriate to have a quote that summarizes the crux of the religion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That said, I disagree that we should never have bigoted quotes on WV, as I think there are times where such quotes will be appropriate. In this case, I agree that it's not important to have a Biblical quote, and the Carlin quote is nicer than the Biblical quote. But with regards to bigoted quotes, there are tourist attractions that are significant because of their important role in some genocide or other gross human rights violations. For instance, there are "slave castles" in West Africa where the Africans were rounded up to be shipped to the Americas to be sold, and there are also Nazi concentration camps in Europe that have become tourist attractions. And not to mention, in China, you can visit one of the old Japanese research institutes where the Japanese performed human vivisections on other Asians without anaesthetic. For articles about these, bigoted quotes from the leaders that initiated such atrocities could be appropriate. Not because we want to demean people or promote bigotry, but because we want to remind ourselves of the ugly side of human nature, and what it can lead to if we're not careful. The dog2 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with. It's all about the context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing mentioned that quotes that demean based on racial, gender or national grounds should never be allowed. That's what I disagree with because I think that we can use such quotes in an appropriate context, such as when its purpose is clearly to highlight the ugly side of human nature. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, yes, you and I agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine any Wikivoyage article being improved by the addition of pullquote that directly demeans any group of people. If you think otherwise, then I'd be willing to consider specific examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's very easy to imagine such topics, and The dog2 gave some possible examples. I can think of some others, such as a topic on the Crusades or the Inquisition. And would "Arbeit macht frei" be an inappropriate quote for Holocaust remembrance? I don't think so, because in its brutal, lying sarcasm, it encapsulates the entire vast evil of the Nazi regime and its industrial murder factories. Instead, though, a better choice was made to have that big lie be in the pagebanner, with a Biblical verse more relevant to memory and the living given for a pagequote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any examples of actual quotations, nor any examples of articles in which these quotations could be placed. Holocaust remembrance currently contains a perfectly reasonable sentence that says, "The extermination policy makes the notorious slogan Arbeit macht frei — "Work makes (you) free" which was displayed on many camp gates — bitterly ironic" but I can't really imagine us putting {{quote|Arbeit macht frei}} at the top of that ==section== (i.e., the thing we're actually talking about here). Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I could see mentioning the quote '"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin' in an article specifically about the gulags, the pogroms and the Holodomor... if the article explained the context behind these atrocities. Conversely, I wouldn't put that quote on a generic destination article about Russia as that would merely open a can of worms.
In any case, this isn't the sort of thing that the original user was on about - the edits I was questioning were systematically removing literary quotes like "let there be light" from electrical systems or Eve's fig leaf of modesty from clothing on little more basis than "I don't like the book of Genesis because it fails to recognise and validate my primary relationship". There are a few contexts, like Harriet Tubman being the "Moses of her people", where a reference to one of these texts is entirely appropriate.
At one point, the removals of quotes were citing this discussion as if it were policy - and I'd prefer not to have a policy banning use of literary quotes just because they came from one or another well-known religious text. That's a bit of a different animal from using the texts to proselytize or to damn followers of every other religion or non-religion to eternal torment and damnation. K7L (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see what you mean. I merely agreed to replacing the quote in the Electrical Systems article, but not any of the others quotes. As far as I know, we do not have a policy that banning quotes from religious texts, and I would vote against instituting such a policy. That being said, WV should absolutely not be used to proselytise.

But it's true that this has become a very touchy issue in the US, where unlike in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Europe, the Bible actually features very prominently in politics, and right-wing politicians often cite the Bible to justify their policy decisions (like trying to pass laws that mandate that Genesis be taught in biology class as an alternative to evolution). And given the current obsession with PC on the left, where people are constantly looking for new reasons to get offended (like when Chinese-Americans got offended by that white girl wearing a cheongsam to prom, even though Chinese people actually from China weren't even the slightest bit offended), you can see what a volatile mix this has become. The dog2 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Wikivoyage should have no prohibition on using quotes that come from sacred texts, but we should surely respect the sensitivities of any reader who speaks up about one, so I'm glad we did in this instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but for what it's worth I think this sets an unfortunate precedent. Common sense applies in obvious cases such as the aforementioned "arbeit macht frei", but I think it's not only perfectly acceptable but actually very important to evaluate whether or not a user's sensitivities are reasonable, and to feel free to revert their edits if warranted (which I think would absolutely be warranted in this case). At the end of the day, it's not our job to avoid hurting people's feelings; Wikipedia is not censored and neither should we be. AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I actually agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. I think we should revert all the edits except the one we agreed on here. If we allow an article to be edited just on the basis that some atheist got offended by a religious quote, a religious person can also claim offence because Karl Marx, who was an atheist, is quoted. The dog2 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
False analogy: the equivalent would be being offended by something proselyting atheism, not by an atheist. No one is saying that we should not use quotes by people who happen to be Christians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has a neutral-point-of-view policy; and asserting that one particular god created light, or indeed that that particular god exists, is not neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You're seriously overthinking this. Using "let there be light" in the context of an article that has nothing to do with religion is not an endorsement of the veracity of the Bible and/or Torah; it's simply a well-known quote that at least obliquely references electricity. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, page quotes are inessential, and certainly this one was. So if it offended someone, it should go. When it's more important or more obviously relevant, that'll be a different situation and call for a different action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In this particular case, I do think the new quote is better, and I'm not avocating reverting in this particular case. But do we really want to go about removing every Biblical quote from all pages other than the Judaism and Christianity articles just because some person got offended? And with regards to Karl Marx, his writings actually did preach atheism, and because of that, all communist countries are officially atheist. In fact, civil servants in China are still required by law to be atheist, and many communist countries did launch crackdowns against relgion. So a religious person could just as easily be offended because one of Karl Marx's writings is quoted. Do we really want to go that far not to offend? If the Biblical, Quranic or Vedic quote is being used to proselytise, that's a different thing and I absolutely oppose using WV to do that. But simply quoting one of those holy books does not mean we are endorsing that particular religion. I see them as just pieces of classical literature and nothing more. And if it adds colour to an otherwise dry article, I don't see why we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending everyone. These days almost anything can offend someone somewhere, so how far do we want to go with this? The dog2 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd keep it simple: If someone states that they are offended and the quote is not obviously topical or necessary, we can remove it. Not we must remove it, we can remove it (and in that kind of easy case, maybe we should remove it). No reason to be definitive about this stuff. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Will we cite old Charly M in communist travel? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We could. He arguably had very little to do with the totalitarian regimes that claimed to be following him, but that's another matter... Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Just as you could argue that Jesus himself had very little to do with the people who led the Crusades, the Inquisition, or even the hate crimes being committed against gays today using the Bible as justification. And likewise, you could argue that Muhammad had very little to do with modern-day ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
But back to my point, I agree that we can discuss the possibility of replacing quotes from holy books with more secular ones, but I don't think it is OK to let someone unilaterally remove the quotes from every single article that has them on the basis that quotes from the Bible/Quran/Vedas/Tanakh/whatever offends him/her. We need to discuss each of those cases separately and come to a consensus based on the merits of each case. What if a left-wing Japanese-American decides that (s)he is offended by the presence of the Purchasing a kimono article because it is "teaching people to commit cultural appropriation", and insists that we delete the article. Or what if some right-wing evangelical Christian from the Bible Belt decides that (s)he is offended by the mention in the Africa article that "Africa is the wellspring of the human race" as it contradicts the Biblical account in Genesis. After all, most evangelical Christians believe that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia and therefore, the wellspring of the human race would be Mesopotamia and not Africa. I know these are extreme examples, but do you see where I'm going with this? Yes, we can discuss each of those cases and try to come to a consensus to replace the quotes if better ones are found, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to unilaterally insist that we make changes to our articles merely on the basis of being offended. The dog2 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And just one more point here. Yes, you have the right to be offended. And yes, you have the right to bring it up on the talk page and tell us why you are offended, and we can try to accommodate you within reasonable limits (as we have done here). But ultimately, we work here by coming to a consensus, and being offended is no excuse to force edits that go against the consensus. The dog2 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree on procedure: A talk page discussion would have been most appropriate and we don't want to encourage the kinds of unilateral actions you describe. However, this was a new user acting IMO in good faith, and I don't think we should revert just to stand on a procedural principle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Just as you could argue that Jesus himself had very little to do with the people who led the Crusades, the Inquisition, or even the hate crimes being committed against gays today using the Bible as justification. And likewise, you could argue that Muhammad had very little to do with modern-day ISIS and Al-Qaeda." Yeah, I would argue these things, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not to argue a total side-point, but Muhammad personally led armies. Jesus did not. Similarly, Marx didn't do half of the things Lenin did but Lenin had to rule over a country that is difficult to rule; still I neither consider all blame for Stalin laid at Lenin's feet justified nor all of it unjustified. But to get from Marx to Stalin takes a leap about as big as to get from "love thy neighbor" to "Crusades against the wrong kind of Christian" Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm going to state both sides of the argument for this one. The reasons to have are that it's a quote that everyone knows and actually draws more attention than most quotes because it's unexpected. Also, if we took it out, we'd have to consider removing Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, and probably even Atheist quotes (Christians and Muslims wouldn't agree with those). However, the quote being discussed is at best a loose connection with electric systems. It's not that relevant and there are more related quotes that could go in its place.

If we reach consensus, I might state my opinion on this, but as it stands, I think I'd rather stay neutral. Selfie City (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity: I checked. As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any quotes from any Buddhist or Hindu works nor any quotes from books espousing atheism, and the only Islamic quotes are on pages about that religion. There is a Jewish quote on Holocaust remembrance which seems appropriate. There are Judeo-Christian quotes remaining on three pages unrelated to religion (Clothes, Sleep, and Fishing) which I find objectionable. If people are saying these quotes were chosen because of their beauty, those lopsided numbers do not seem like a fair representation of the world's cultural traditions. -- Beland (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who looking for things to be offended by will eventually find what they're searching for, no matter where they look. If you're really here to help write a travel guide, I wish you'd get to it, but I suspect you're not. In either case, please either find something more productive to do here or else some other forum to crusade against religion on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The lopsided numbers may reflect a bias in author base. I for one could not add quotes from that other religious (or atheist) literature as I do not know them well enough (to put it mildly). I suppose no one of those defending the Christian quotes would oppose a Buddhist one based on it being Buddhist. --LPfi (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Restaurants on Wikidata[edit]

Wikidata has 2500 famous restaurants.

Check the map (press "▷") and make sure the restaurants in your pet areas exist and are linked to Wikidata... if they are worth being on Wikivoyage, obviously :-)

This is a first step towards maybe sharing attributes like coordinates/website/phone/email between various languages of Wikivoyage. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

About one and a half year ago we started to add hotels to Wikidata (restaurants are similar) like the Steigenberger Hotel El Tahrir Cairo. It is very important to use this data immediately by adding a Commons link or to use it in a listing template to prevent deletion. Transferring data to Wikidata can be very helpful for our smaller communities. But we must not do all by ourselves. Many landmark hotels and restaurants are already available but with missing data like phone numbers (for instance Mena House). --RolandUnger (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I of course appreciate the effort, but still - too bad those data aren't synced with the OSM data. Like in the example, the OSM building doesn't even have name/type=hotel, not to mention wikidata reference. But I can always hope that once, some hero will come and somehow (re)unite both databases (and I'll get the wikidata into my mobile phone/navigation/whatever). :-) (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Filipino phrasebook[edit]

Request for someone who know the subject to sort out Wikipedia and other language links for this article. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Another draft opened:-[edit]

Nominally toy museums, but some overlap with Models and minatures.

User:ShakespeareFan00/Toys, Games and other amusements

Intended focus was musuems that featured games (but not sports as such) as well.. Anyone able to draft this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume that this is about toy museums, rather than an answer to "How to I entertain my 5 year old on the 10 hour journey?". I wonder if it could also include other childhood museums, like school museums. It may be worth thinking of a new title. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If it includes games, then the game of Go needs links to at least the Sensei's Library Go wiki, quite likely w:Go (game), and probably places where WV mentions the game such as Kunming#Buy, Mount_Wuyi#Buy and Fuzhou#Do. Probably other games such as chess & backgammon need similar treatment. Pashley (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed about toy museums mostly, but I didn't want to limit it by age as such. AlisdairW, if you want to suggest a different title feel free. Isn't your second topic mention covered by Travelleing with children? Pashly, Yes, plunge forward, Go and chess should certainly be added, although I am wondering if Chess/GO etc aren't 'games' that could have their own articles..
Oh and an aside... Where to stick what the UK calls 'crazy golf', i.e novelty minature golf courses with unusual obstacles , (are these what the US calls "Pitch and Putt"?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thari confusion[edit]

Would welcome a second opinion on the confusion with Thari and w:Tharri. Started discussion at Talk:Thari (disambiguation). --Traveler100 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Recommended ages as a field for See and Do listings[edit]

I've added some listings around south-east Wisconsin and realized that some venues are suitable for families with children and some are more suitable for older kids or adults. I think there be value in adding an age range/recommended ages field to see and do listings.

Examples: a playspace built specifically for kids under 6, an escape room which explicitly calls out that they don't recommend kids under 13 attempt it, a museum with interactive features designed for ages 6 to 12, an art museum that isn't designed with children in mind (doesn't forbid them, just doesn't have things specifically tailored towards children/is geared more towards adults), a museum that showcases torture methods/devices or sex toys throughout history.

Unless the venue specifically calls an age range out, I understand the age range would be subjective to the editors opinion however I think there is already precedence for this because eat and drink price ranges already are subjective. Obviously parents know their kid best and can decide whether a venue is appropriate. You could call out these things in the description, but having a dedicated/default field in the listing template might encourage editors to consider what ages the venue is tailored toward. I think this would help the traveler make a decision about frequenting a venue. I have no idea how to add fields to listings or how large an undertaking this change would be. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just put it in "content". I don't want a field, because it will be inapplicable in many cases. And no need to specify exact ages; it's enough to say "Younger children may be bored" or "Some content, such as x and y, may be inappropriate for children". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek, the description of the attraction will usually already give clues about the suitability for specific ages. Having specific fields for this is unnecessary, because the same could be said about access/suitability for wheelchairs, visitors with heart conditions or pacemakers, pregnant women, and so on. The resulting wild growth of rarely used fields would be confusing. ArticCynda (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I added age information just the other day. It's a factory tour (awesome, if you're into that kind of thing) that prohibits anyone under the age of 13. I think that putting it into the main description was adequate. I've similarly noted that a few restaurants are notoriously (and intentionally, as a marketing strategy) unfriendly to children. Child-oriented attractions should also get notes about which ages are most appropriate (e.g., "Toddlers usually congregate in the sandbox, but older kids will be excited by the 12-meter-high playground structure").
IMO the main reason to put such information in a separate field would be making it machine-readable. If someone wants to be able to systematically extract all listings that might be appropriate for <age>, then we'd need a separate field. I don't think that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's improve the articles, not argue over minor issues[edit]

I've gotten out of the discussion about the Esperanto phrasebook because it's gone so far. In my opinion, Esperanto should have been deleted, but it's gotten pointless to discuss the phrasebook because the discussion has lasted for almost a month now and nothing's been done. All that's happened is that Wikivoyagers have been distracted from actually contributing to articles and have instead just debated endlessly over things that don't matter very much. I don't really mind if we keep or delete the phrasebook now, the argument's gone on so long. I think it should just end. Somehow.

The recent, almost infinite discussion about Genesis 1:3 beats them all. I have my own opinion about this, but I'm not going to share it because it'll just make the debate go on even longer and create more arguments. Once again, it's not important whether the Genesis quote is there or not - definitely not important enough to spend, according to, more than 3000 words and almost 20,000 characters arguing over it. Can't we just move on to things that need to be done, like contributing to articles, voting on DotMs, and so on? Wikivoyage's editing group is too small to just argue over minor issues. And if you want to get into discussion about Bible verses, first think of "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3) Selfie City (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that these discussions have resulted in less time or effectiveness in editing articles? Respectfully, I think that the biggest waste of time is to argue people are wasting time discussing things, when they're actually related to policy (I would make an exception for some of the debates at Talk:United States of America)... Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that time spent on pointless discussions can't be spent more usefully on improving or copy editing articles, @ Ikan Kekek. Don't understand me wrong, I do see the value of Talk page discussions or the Travellers' pub, but it's not efficient to spend thousands of words discussing each little detail since there is a nearly infinite number of such discussion material on Wikivoyage! Talk:United States of America seems a good example, the majority of the issues there are so insignificant that they fall under Wikivoyage:Plunge_forward and should be edited straight away without discussion at all. ArticCynda (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My take on discussions there is different, but I won't bore you with it. My feeling is that this thread should be at the vfd discussion about the Esperanto phrasebook, not here, where guess what? We're wasting time discussing it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I much rather have people air out their grievances and have discussions than it being kept bottled in until someone snaps (or leaves). Of course the discussions on minutiae on the USA article have at times gotten out of hand, but that's just the US for ya. What I am amazed at is that this here site has during my tenure never once had a Middle East meltdown. Knock on wood. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First, I don't think we're talking about people's grievances, exactly. The Genesis 1:3 debate began as an issue of what Wikivoyage wouldn't allow up, I think. Then it became a debate over whether we could include Biblical quotes and whether or not it would offend anyone. As it turned out, more than 3000 words were spent arguing over 11 words of text. What if everyone contributed 3000 words to articles? Now, that would actually improve the website.

Also, the amount of discussion I have started here already shows where the contributions are going. The belief that we should just increase the number of Wikivoyagers before contributing articles has dominated Wikivoyage for a few years now, and all that's happened is that people have argued more and more about policies, phrasebooks, quotes, etc., and done less and less contributing to real articles. Let me tell you all something: it doesn't really matter whether there's a quote at the top of the Electrical systems travel topic page or not. Quotes don't do any harm, but they're not really useful either. What is useful is writing another "star" article (which we haven't done in ages) or even just writing articles up to usable and guide status. Try exploring the Wikivoyage site. How many outline articles can you find? Plenty. The travelers' pub seems far from empty, though. Selfie City (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

While it may be true that quotes are inessential, it is also true that they help to provide an otherwise dry article with just a bit more colour. After all, one of WV's policies is to encourage lively writing, and having a humorous but relevant quote helps us attain that. It's just unfortunate that things have become so politically charged these days that seemingly anything can potentially offend someone. The dog2 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, I like to think in terms of every argument we have now serves to prevent an argument (or multiple arguments) in the future. Clear policies and precedents make it easier to get along here, and it's through discussions like the ones for the Esperanto phrasebook and the Genesis quote, as tedious as they may seem in the moment, that we attain that clarity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I rather agree with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
But if we only didn't need to have the debates in the first place... Selfie City (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between long-winded discussions that create or change policy (which can be applied to many articles) and those that change a few words in an article. The latter definitely seems like a waste of time. Gizza (roam) 23:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the quote from Genesis in Electrical systems, we had (have?) the opportunity to take one user's concerns about the implications of affirming the removal of the quote (as opposed to reverting it) and use it to establish a precedent in a broader sense of how much consideration we want to give to an oversensitive editor who is offended by something innocuous. I think a lot of people in the discussion missed that point. The precedent that discussion sets can either make it easier or more difficult to argue against edits made by future oversensitive editors who may be unduly offended by something more important to the content of an article than an easily replaceable throwaway quote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't agree that we can have different standards for more important content? I would strongly assert that we can and should. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For important discussions, if they really are important, there's a reason for discussion. However, the Esperanto phrasebook is on the border-line of that "important", and the debate over the Genesis 1:3 quote is definitely not within the "important" category. If we were discussing removing every single ideological/religious/belief system quote, that would be different. But the debate over Genesis 1:3 hasn't reached that stage yet. I simply think there are more important issues on Wikivoyage than either Esperanto or whether or not we have a quote on a particular page. Selfie City (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Arguing at length that we should spend less time arguing about unimportant issues is really a waste of time, but arguing about the limits of policy and of this travel guide is not a waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, my hope was that this would stop people from arguing, but it's actually done just the opposite. Selfie City (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but I think you'll find that trying to direct others' work in a voluntary project doesn't ever work. People argue about things that they think are important. If I see a big argument over something I don't think is important, I find it best just to move along and go back to creating new content or improving existing content. Occasionally I'll try to mediate, but if the argument has gone on too long, I probably can't really help. This is the nature of collaborative projects. Ground Zero (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason why this became a policy discussion is because the user who proposed the change to the Electrical systems article went on to change the Biblical quote in the Clothes article, and cited in his comments that it was agreed upon here. The fact is, an agreement was only reached for the first change. The second change wasn't even discussed, and the user did mention in one of his comments that he's offended by having a Biblical quote in a secular article because he is an atheist. I personally think the Biblical quote that was replaced is nicer than the one currently on the page (and I am not a Christian), and I really don't think it should have been changed just like that on the basis of him being offended. I'm actually tempted to revert that particular edit, but I haven't because I am waiting to see if we can get any sort of consensus on this. We most certainly need to establish proper policy guidelines for this so we can avoid the need to have such debates in the future. I know this is a small issue and not important for that particular article, but as far as policy goes, how far do we want to go to accommodate everyone's different sensitivities? If the article was written in a bigoted way, that's another thing, but if we decide that offending someone is the benchmark for requiring changes to be made to an article, some nationalist can easily insist that we don't write anything negative about his/her country because he/she is offended by that. And no, this is not far-fetched; I have actually run into such issues with Korean nationalists on Wikipedia, because they felt offended by the notion that Korean culture was influenced by Chinese culture. Do we really want to go that far? The dog2 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I was (grudgingly) willing to entertain the idea that something about the "let there be light" quote might have stuck in the user's craw, and that if we indulged him on that one individual edit he would move on to other activities. A second edit on the same basis of oversensitivity or phony outrage represents a pattern that needs to be nipped in the bud. I reverted the second edit on that basis and am tempted to go back to Electrical systems and revert that one too. This is precisely, precisely, what I was talking about in terms of setting the wrong precedent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just said my piece there. In no way would I countenance replacing that beautiful, directly relevant Biblical passage with his suggested prosaic quote. This is no more a place for an atheistic crusade against all Biblical language than it is for a crusade by any religion against coverage of other religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We don't need to change everything that someone somewhere feels offended by. You, me, anyone could feel offended by anything, which leads to political correctness justified censorship, and needlessly long debates. If people feel offended by biblical quotes then it's up to them to lighten up a bit, rather than forcing the entire travel guide to be changed to make it comply to their narrow view of the world. And preferences aside, it's a fact that mythology and superstition have had a tremendous influence on every culture, and meeting other cultures is one of the most important reasons we travel, isn't it? So whoever feels offended by a few phrases from mythological literature, should probably not travel at all, since they are likely to be offended by many of the See attractions of almost any destination: religious architecture, art in museums, or even street names! Hence, why would a travel guide need to be changed and endlessly debated about by people who are too immature to travel in the first place? ArticCynda (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was willing to humor him in one article, but no more. If he's triggered by all Biblical references, there's a hell of a lot of other literature he can never read, which is probably too bad but not my business. However, he has no right to censor this site to his individual preferences. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That was precisely what I was getting at. I was reluctant to explicitly say this because I didn't want to open a can of worms given the current political climate, but my view is that if all it takes for a quote to offend you is the fact that it comes from a particular holy book, you're being oversensitive and need to learn to chill. The world does not revolve around any single person, and neither should WV. I'm glad that we were able to let commonsense prevail here and set the right precedent. The dog2 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There are as many different political climates as there are countries on the planet, so we can't reasonably make Wikivoyage cope with any particular political/religious/social belief out there. Political correctness is hopefully just another phase/trend that will pass again, just like countless others have before it, and countless others will in the future. If we keep adapting our content to whatever phase/trend is 'in' then we never get forward, which was exactly Selfie Citys concern. ArticCynda (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Andre, please don't revert the change at Electrical systems. I think that the new quotation is more relevant. Also, thank you for changing Clothing. I agree with you that the older quotation is better (more relevant) than the new substitute. It seems to me that a traveler is more likely to encounter the "nothing to wear" problem than the situation in which he's wearing a sweater because his mother is cold. If someone finds a specifically travel-related quotation, then that might be even better, but when the choice is between these two, I prefer the older one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The continued tunnel vision on the Clothing/Electrical systems issue is dismaying to say the least. The argument ceased long ago to be about which quote is better, if indeed it ever was. This is about how much we're willing to cater to the censorious crusades of users who are easily triggered and/or given to feigning outrage in order to burnish their own "progressive" bona fides. Let's look at this in the long term. I think that if this discussion is used as precedent in a future discussion, it's far more likely to be employed for or against the idea of catering to oversensitive users than for any other purpose, and I think the importance of not censoring Wikivoyage far supersedes that of having the best incidental quotes in our articles. In other words, our Electrical systems article will not be substantially worse off in the long run if we have "Let there be light" as the quote rather than the Carlin one, but Wikivoyage as a whole will be substantially worse off in the long run if we allow a culture to develop where editors have to walk on eggshells to avoid inadvertently hurting the feelings of every imaginable class of perpetually offended user. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Given this controversy, I was wondering if we should perhaps add "Avoiding every possible offence" or something similar to our list of non-goals. Of course, we will not write our articles in an intentionally offensive and bigoted way, but with that being said, we also need to be reasonable and we can't cater to the whims of anyone who decides to be oversensitive over innocuous content, or is just trying to come up with new reasons to get offended. I think having this explicitly stated will make it easier for us to deal with similar issues in the future. The dog2 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, articles should not be written to intentionally offend or insult groups or ideas, but banning everything that could potentially be offensive is also ridiculous. Write articles in a way that most readers would enjoy. The few that still feel offended are free to make a fork of Wikivoyage and start their own Travel Guide for Oversensitive IndividualsTM . ArticCynda (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Travel Brochures[edit]

How do I make a Travel Brochure in multilanguage

The good news is that all text in any language version of WV is under a Creative Commons license that allows re-use, provided you comply with the license terms; the most important are giving attribution to the source & licensing your work the same way. See Wikivoyage:Copyleft for details. Photos & maps from WM Commons are also under open licenses, but you have to check each one since details may vary. Open Streetmap also has an open license, but I have no idea of details.
As for what tools to use to create a brochure, how to format one in an appealing way & so on, those questions are outside the scope of a travel guide. It is possible some people here will have suggestions, but I haven't a clue. Pashley (talk)

Dive sites, why not hiking, cycling routes?[edit]

I don't want this to be another long debate, although this could potentially be a more important issue than the Genesis 1:3 quote or keeping/deleting the Esperanto phrasebook: I do not know how dive sites got to be on Wikivoyage. They're not quite like anything else on Wikivoyage. However, I've been thinking recently about why Wikivoyage hasn't reached the heights of Wikipedia. There are several notable reasons.

  1. First, Wikivoyage and Wikitravel have for several years now been operating like competitors, and Wikitravel has managed to steal a lot of potential Wikivoyage readers and users. Having both of these competing, along with Tripadvisor and other travel guides, have stopped Wikivoyage from becoming the world's main travel guide in the same way that Wikipedia has become the world's main encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do about this issue.
  2. Second, we lack content in many articles. Although major city articles are mostly well-developed and have been a Wikivoyage success, there are probably thousands of Wikivoyage destinations that are outlines - still. It would take a lot more Wikivoyage editors and years of work to change this, so dealing with this issue isn't very practical at the moment (unless we stopped debating, which is obviously not going to stop in real life - just check out #Let's improve the articles, not argue over minor issues to see why).
  3. Third, practically every article on Wikivoyage has an article on the bigger site, Wikipedia, with the same name. Pretty much ever Wikivoyage destination is also a Wikipedia article. So why would people come here when there's a much more well-known site that covers just as much and more (think Wikipedia's biographies and other articles). However, we could deal with the issues of the second point: create some more specific destination articles so we could go more in-depth about travel than Wikipedia does. For example, create hiking trail guides that have a similar page layout to diving sites. The same could be done with cycling routes. I know most of these article possibilities don't pass the sleep test, but dive sites don't either - people don't sleep underwater while scuba diving. This one could be expanded and really improve the usefulness of Wikivoyage.

Finally, I'd like to say that if most people don't agree about this, I'm not going to continually debate it because improving articles should the priority. However, if we added these types of travel guides, it would give us more opportunity to expand articles and make Wikivoyage just as good as Wikipedia. Selfie City (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. They would be Itinerary articles. I believe we do already have some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just want to clarify first, though, that I'm here referring to (for example), a three-mile trail in a park; I'm not referring to the Appalachian Trail. What I'm more talking about is perhaps a guide to a three- or four-mile trail, with some pictures of the trail and a description of where it goes, or something like that. Selfie City (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think in some cases that can make sense. Land Art Trail on Mt. Učka is one example of an itinerary article about a shorter hike. Sometimes a simple route can be incorporated into another article instead, as in Florianopolis#Do. Another possibility is writing a travel topic article with information about multiple hikes in a particular area, like Hiking around Ljubljana. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd say more on hiking or cycle routes is a fine idea & anyone so inclined should go ahead & write about them.
Some existing itineraries like Karakoram Highway say something about cycling that could be much expanded. Pashley (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
We have a principle established in Wikivoyage:What is an article? that could be extended:
"Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are... so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article. A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered."
I think that a hiking or cycling route for which we have more than 3-4 paragraphs in an article could be broken out into its own article. What we want to avoid is a bunch of articles that have no more content than "The Waterfront Route is a 3-mile-long cycling route in Springfield." Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we could perhaps have an article about Rail Trails, where abandoned railway lines are converted for pedestrian or cycling use. When I lived in Australia, there was a nice one that ran through Clare Valley, and there is also the Coast to Vines Rail Trail. I've never completed them, but if anyone here is a cycling enthusiast and has done so, please plunge forward. The dog2 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
We do have Hiking and Cycling articles but yes we could have many more. A good example of a short distance one is Ad's Path. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
In reference to the first point made, it is not that WT steals readers or contributors from WV, it is that Google treats WV as a fork of WT and whenever there is identical or similar content between the sites, we are the ones that get punished, always. From personal experience, any WV article which is 90% or more identical with the WT equivalent cannot be found on Google at all. And there are still many articles (I suspect thousands) which have not had a non-minor, non-bot edit in over 5 years. These articles are virtually ghosts on the internet and can only be seen by a link or search within Wikivoyage (or a sister wiki). And articles with an overlap of less than 90% but still quite high will at best appear on the 3rd or 4th page of search results. This severely hampers organic growth. And it's worse for some countries than others. Gizza (roam) 07:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I have cycled on some rail trails. They're great. None of the ones I cycled on are probably long enough to merit their own article, but rail trails certainly can be covered in itinerary articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
One example cycle path that could be expanded is Little Miami Bike Trail. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of out walking itineraries are multiple day tracks like Milford Track, but there are some shorter ones, for example:

In the past there has been some negative comments on itineraries being "too personal", which did result in a number of itineraries being deleted. I think that we could clarify what are "personal" itineraries - whilst it is obvious that "stopped here to visit granny" is personal, it is not clear that one selection of a set of paths in the woods is. AlasdairW (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For point 3 in the original post, of course WP is better known than WV. We should be taking advantage of that as much as possible by ensuring that there are plenty of WP->WV links. Pashley (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:Links from Wikipedia --Traveler100 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone. I've just done a couple articles in the Tri-Valley area with hiking routes in mind: Hiking in the East Bay and the Ohlone Trail itinerary. I'm also just about to work on a shorter hiking itinerary. This is an area I know well, but I can't do these types of itineraries for every hike in the world. It would be great if others could work on hiking itineraries for areas they know, so we can really expand our Wikivoyage hiking itineraries. Selfie City (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Wikidata Expedition[edit]

After last months CotM clean up, I have updated this expedition page. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Joined the expedition, thanks for the contributions! ArticCynda (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Marker/Listing templates with wikidata support[edit]

Guys, I'd like to replace the current {{Marker}} with {{Marker/sandbox}}, and {{listing}} with {{listing/sandbox2}}. Basically it should work 1:1, except that marker now accepts wikidata IDs. Thanks to that, missing title/url/lat/long/image are automagically fetched from the wikidata entry. This is also a step to allow nice (and simply implemented by a bot) region maps/lists. If you guys could test it (like this) on a few pages - check that all works (at least as good) as previously, that'd be great. I'll do a few more tests within the following days too, of course. (PS: @RolandUnger: will probably introduce a less 'hacky' version of this sometime, but I was waiting for it for 1/2 year already, so I decided to implement it for the time being... :-) ). (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Introducing Toolhub[edit]

What does your participation on the Wikimedia projects look like? Do you edit articles? Upload files? Patrol vandalism? Translate articles? Translate interface messages? Do you organize people, online or offline? Do you train new editors, or new trainers? Do you write code?

There are many different ways to contribute to Wikimedia – more than you would expect just from reading Wikipedia articles. Over the past several years, volunteers have developed technical tools that help Wikimedians improve content, patrol vandalism, and perform many other tasks. They make it possible to do what the wiki software alone cannot accomplish. Without these tools, many of our projects would slow down to a crawl.

I am very happy to announce a new project called Toolhub which seeks to create a searchable index of these tools in all languages. We are building this tool catalog based on what our communities need. If you would like to help, please take a look at m:Toolhub and review the question at the top of the page. You can also leave feedback in any language on the talkpage. You can also email me private feedback. Harej (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Usable/guide status?[edit]

I'm often not sure if articles are at usable status or guide status, and what the requirements are for a guide article. I'll use an example, and I'd like to know whether it's a guide or not: Marshall (North Carolina). I put it at guide status but I am not totally sure if it's really a guide or not. How many listings do you need for a guide article? I think this could be made much clearer so we nominate the right articles for DotMs and OtBPs. Selfie City (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is already described here (or more generally here). I'd say making it about the number of listings wouldn't be a good idea... (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The standards of guide status don't seem as high as I thought. It sounds like you need multiple Sleep listings, multiple Eat and Drink, multiple See and Do, multiple ways of getting in and around, some one-liners in Go Next, an Understand section of reasonable length and if applicable, all of the city's districts are at least usable. I think many usable cities should have their status upgraded, just as many outlines should really be usable. Gizza (roam) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The technical level of guide is low. The Marshall article ticks all the boxes as far as listing entries are concerned but personally I would expect to see more description prose at the start of each section and in the content of the listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I know there is a basic description of what a guide article is, but the current description of each article status is not very useful because it doesn't say enough. I think we need a very solid standard guide article level (perhaps using an article like Marshall as an example) so we can promote a lot of destinations to the levels they need to be at. Also, I want to thank you for the second link you gave me - that is a help, but we still need a longer description of guide and usable article status. Selfie City (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been a lot of good work done on Marshall, but I think that there is still plenty of room for improvement. The Get in section is very basic - By car says nothing about parking, By train only says there is no station, not where the nearest one is, and there is no info on other public transport, apart from a mention of buses in by car "U.S. Bus Route 70", but where does this bus go from. Are any of the see listings open to see inside? AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this, how to get in is a pretty essential part of every article. It's useful to mention the railway station isn't serviced anymore (avoids people from waiting at the platforms indefinitely), but surely the locals can also today still get in and out! So list the bus line(s) going passing through the town, mark the most important bus stops with a marker on the map, explain where to get tickets and how much they would cost from the nearest adjacent destinations, and so on. Definitely leave by car, but without mentioning where a car can be rented to reach it, it's not very useful. ArticCynda (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the article is not currently at guide standard, because there are not "are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in", as required by Wikivoyage:City guide status. The only way of getting in given is by car. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I have put the article back to usable, as there is still only one way to get in which is described. AlasdairW (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

For your interest, there is a discussion about an aspect of this underway already. Should all / most / some POIs in an article have geocoordinates in order for that article to qualify for guide status? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is the main new feature of OsmAnd 3[edit]

OsmAnd is a popular offline GPS maps app for Android. Version 3.0 has just been released, and guess what's the biggest new feature? Wikivoyage! Half of the changelog is about Wikivoyage (in the app the feature is called "Travel" though lol):

I have not tested it yet (busy at the moment) but it sounds promising. I wonder whether it reuses data from my pet project or not. Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is amazing and great work! I only know about one other option - kiwix (mediawiki offline browser). But the GPS stuff is broken there for a year+ now, and there's no way(?) to show the maps of the listings. This all seems to work nicely in OsmAnd... Now if only they improved the map rendering engine to be less sluggish :-) (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is very interesting. Great to have an app promoting Wikivoyage. Quite a bit of downloading to do, particularly if you travel a lot. Not sure how much sim card this could take up but has the advantage of working in those locations where there is no cell signal. The standard map has a good deal of detailed information, at least in the areas I briefly tested. As far as I can work out the Wikivoyage POIs only appear on the map once you view an article, or is there another method? The key advantage, which our own in article map on mobile phone does not do (and thus a reason why we will never be a popular site), it show your current location so you can see what POIs are nearby.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC), Their rendering engine improved a lot since one of their latest releases! Give it a try, if you haven't yet. I was positively surprised. It is the only app I ever bought, by the way. --Renek78 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I'm following the updates (when I use GPS)... But compare it e.g. to, if you want to know how state-of-art rendering should work :-) Granted, they don't render to such details, nor do they allow styling etc. So I use for car stuff mostly, and osmand for walking... (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting approach to integrating OSM and WikiVoyage, if only OsmAnd wouldn't have severely restrictive download policy of seven-ish datasets, I'd use it more... ArticCynda (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
On that matter a little help:
  1. If you use one of the two "multi-user" storage places under "Setting" in OsmAnd, you can reset the app's data (under Settings (Android) >> Apps) without deleting the maps, and you will get another 7 maps.
  2. Maps can be simply shared with other people if you know where to find them. (Android/obb/ or Android/data/ or Android/data/net.osmand)
  3. There is a free full version of OsmAnd in f-Droid available. Get f-Droid and you problems are gone.
  4. If you have iOS, you decided to be on the commercial side of life, so spend some god-dam money on the App. ;-)
Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, only listings with a Wikidata attribute are used. That's another argument for linking to Wikidata :-) Also, you have to enable the layer in "Configure map > POI Overlay > Tourism" Syced (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Virtual reality travel into space[edit]

Courtesy of NASA, the future of affordable space tourism is here. (Sorry I have been AWOL lately, I'll be back soon. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

Help needed in getting a page moved back to right place,[edit]

User:Government,_politics_and_opposition and the relevant talk page should be in my userspace, but I botched the move back.

Due to complete incompetence it's now all over the place. Can someone PLEASE put it at (and the relevant talk page at) User: ShakespeareFan00/Government,_politics_and_opposition or delete it entirely? ( and in the process clear up the complete mess of redirects that got created during a series of botched move attempt. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

is now User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition --Traveler100 (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes and the talk page needs relocating as well. User:User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition, to it's correct location at User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition. :( Apologies.. In any event this article needs a re think as it's too widely scoped and thus incoherently broad. Someone else should decide on ONE scoped focus to follow and split the article if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And another unintentional botched move results because I'm incompetent... There's no comma at the end of the name (Sigh)... I wonder if there is a way to prevent such issues in the future, by sanity checking moves ike this automatically.

In short the article should be at User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition and the talk page at User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition. Okay folks how long a block do you want to apply against me for my incompetence? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By the power vested in me as a member of this community, I hereby sentence thee to hard labor, namely improving any single article of your choice, in whatever manner suits you best, to the extent that you feel like. After that, you will be forgiven and your record will be expunged.
More seriously, it'd be possible to set up an edit filter that would warn you if you're moving a page from or to userspace, or moving a page to userspace that isn't your own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Embassies and consulates - collapsed list[edit]

Although I see the reason for listing all diplomatic missions I do find them annoying taking up so much of the page. One of those topics you are not at all interested in, until you really need it. Proposing to collapse the list, here is an example on London article. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I like the collapsing function. Great idea. Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, for long embassy lists like this it's a clear improvement in the online version. My only concern is the print/offline version—when I used the "Download as PDF" link from the London article, the list stayed collapsed, so none of the embassies show up in the PDF. Is there a way to make it so that the table is collapsed by default for online viewers but is expanded when you use the PDF feature? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent idea. This is probably applicable to some other sections, too. I could see using it in some long articles like United States of America. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is already being done for the national capital cities, Sarajevo is a fine example with map markers, telephone, fax, email etc. ArticCynda (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed content has some accessibility issues. I think it's better to avoid it, in general. If it's not important enough to display, maybe we could consider putting it in a sub-page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
What are the accessibility issues? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It being left out from PDF:s mentioned above is one. Uncollapsing it may may be difficult in some situations, and it may confuse the web browser (internal links can lead astray, as the correct position is often computed before collapsing). The foremost problem I have experienced is the temptation to include too much content as it is not cluttering the view for most editors. It is still downloaded no matter how bad and expensive your connection is, and without javascript all of it is shown. --LPfi (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
These are valid issues that need to be addressed. It seems to me that making a sub page with only embassies and consulates for each national capital city is a bit overkill, though. Would it be possible to modify the PDF renderer to make it expand collapsed sections first before rendering them? ArticCynda (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Why would it be overkill? Making a separate page is easy. And, of course, you would not need that for capital cities with only a handful of them (our article on Mbabane of Swaziland lists two). Non-capitals with loads of consulates could use the same solution. But then we have the issue about people overlooking printing/downloading those separate pages. Modifying the PDF renderer should be easy, but that depends on how it is coded (if we are lucky we just need to mark the sections for printing), and does not address the other issues. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Overkill was probably not the correct word, I'm rather skeptical about how such a separate page can be cleanly linked/integrated into the main national capital page. But if a good solution for that can be found, I'll definitely reconsider my objection against sub pages as a solution to the problem. ArticCynda (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


A quick question.

Why is there not a Draft namespace on English Wikivoyage? Two items are currently in my User space, for the lack of a better location. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it has not been introduced. I think en-wp is in a minority having it. On sv-wp it has been discussed, but we have concluded pages in a draft namespace would mostly be forgotten. In mainspace they get attention and have some chances to develop. If they are not mature enough for mainspace (after some quick fixes, usually done by patrollers), they are probably not mature enough to be worked on by the general community. Unless the original author (and those who join developing in userspace) can get the article past that threshold, it is better they stay as that user's private bad conscience. --LPfi (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Enwiki is definitely a minority, and the wiki-researchers (including some of the people who helped create the draftspace originally) are concerned about it. It's basically the place new articles go to die. If you want a growing community and growing content, you should not introduce draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what LPfi and WhatamIdoing said (and I agree with what they said), one of the main reasons it was introduced on en-wp doesn't apply to us. It was a place where experienced editors look at newbies writing new articles can be monitored more easily. We don't get many of those in the first place. Experienced users can just use user subpages if they want to start an article that isn't finished from their perspective. Gizza (roam) 07:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been on en.wp for a couple of years, but recall that it differs from other projects by refusing to let unregistered users create articles directly in mainspace. Instead, they have this broken articles for creation wikiproject where new articles proposed by unregistered users languish for weeks at a time before an "experienced" editor reviews the texts to reject many or most of them. WP:AFC therefore ends up paralleling WP:NPP, the new pages patrol for newly-created articles by logged-in users. The wording of the templates encourage rejected authors to keep revising and resubmitting articles, which is generally a waste of time as most are merely rejected again on some arbitrary basis. There is an attitude on en.wp that "another AFC special" (an article which made it through the articles for creation tarpit and actually made it to mainspace) is still a bigger target to be nominated for deletion (AfD) because it was written by a newbie and many new users are prone to submit poorly-sourced or self-promotional topics as articles. So yes, it's where new articles go to die. K7L (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Enwiki is even more restrictive, as of a few months ago. Now, to create an article in the mainspace, your account has to be at least four days old, and you must have made at least ten edits to any page (even whitespace changes count). So now there are many paid spammers that make ten trivial edits before dumping their spam straight into the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It is also easy to tell about a page in userspace and invite others to fix issues you need help with. I think such an announcement (probably in the pub, then moved to a dedicated page listing such pages needing work) gives most of the advantages of a draft space over userspace drafts without introducing any significant problems. --LPfi (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Would a category for Draft articles be accpetable then? (we already have cateories for outline articles..) etc..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A category sounds like a good idea to me. It would help interested editors find userspace drafts to help work on. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
So a decision on a name then? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Articles needing improvement or Category:Stub articles these being set by {{Needsimprovement}} or {{stub}}. Or plain old {{outlinecity}} etc. Do not see a need for another? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, there are already sufficient categories/indicators for the draft status, the argument to create a new category seems rather weak to me. ArticCynda (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, a mainspace article in need of repair is not the same animal as a userspace draft which isn't finished yet. Each category should have one purpose and only one purpose, anything else makes the category structure much less usable and less useful. Different purpose? Different category. K7L (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - Any chance of copyediting {{Userdraft}} ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why is a category needed? Just create the draft in your userspace and let people know you invite them to read and edit by posting s notice in the pub. It's not like we have 20 zillion of these. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Content from the pub (Should get swept) from time to time. The category idea is to keep track of them, but I'll consider the categories noted previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Using the general stub and outline categories would interfere with using those categories for maintenance. Needsimprovement is probably fine, unless it gets crowded, at which point it could be split up. --LPfi (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Updated the relevant template, and this disscussion could be swept to it's talk page. In the meantime feel free to mark your Userspace Drafts with

{{Userdraft}}. Please let me know if the wording on that template could be improved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps <includeonly>Category:Article drafts in userspace</includeonly> should have their own category instead of misusing an existing articles in need of improvement category? K7L (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cape Consolidation?[edit]

Comments welcome!

--ButteBag (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a stub on Musicals[edit]

I thought it was something of an omission that we cover classical music in Europe and literary travel but not this art form. Feel free to expand the topic as you wish. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Not something found by a direct search on that term..

Plenty in the UK (and ruins), and probably Western European, probably any topic would want to pick the top 20 or so key examples.

However, where else has castle-like fortifcations? China and Japan certainly, and I've seen photos on Wikimedia Commons that are of so termed 'hill-forts' in the Indian sub-continent.

Worth an attempted draft, or wait until someone else writes something? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been on my to do list for some time. As you say UK and Germany has a lot of potential as well as some of the eastern European countries. Mid-east has some interesting castle but many are too dangerous to visit at the moment with Syria being off limits. The other question would be, do you also include fortifications or is that another article? Forts would take you out of medieval times and into many more countries. Also a challenge are fortified homes, what in Germany would be a Schloss (some are like medieval castles other more like manor houses or stately homes or château). --Traveler100 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And you have the one in Bavaria(?) that was not really a military fortification, but looks awesome on postcards :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Well that is just a slightly older one than the one in Euro Disney. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There are also walled or formerly walled cities like Palmanova or Shanghai/Old City. Nanjing had the world's longest city wall & parts of it still stand. Also other fortified dwellings like Hakka Tulou, & likely various related things I don't know about. Pashley (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not every castle is a fortification. Some are grand old hotels, some are merely dwelling houses for the overprivileged wealthy. Conversely, not every fortress is a castle. K7L (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Traditionally, a castle is supposed to be a fortified dwelling that is meant to provide defence for the lord living inside. So Schloss Neuschwanstein is often called Neuschwanstein Castle in English, but is not really a castle as it has no functional battlements or other fortifications; it's simply a palace built to resemble a castle. On the other hand, China's Forbidden City and South Korea's Gyeongbokgung and Changdeokgung were built with fortifications that gave soldiers an advantage when they were defending the emperor/king, so you could argue that those could count as castles. The dog2 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Without getting into too much debate here, just wanted to make the point that an article on "Medieval Castles" would be a very good idea. And then other article for "Fortifications" and another for "Noble Residences". --Traveler100 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the chateaux in France would also classify as castles. Many are private property and inhabited, but quite a few are open to the public and worth a visit. ArticCynda (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
A side comment I'd prefer the topic Grand and Great houses over Noble residences.
For various reasons I'd count Tower Houses as Castles of a sort, but not necessarily later Chateux.. You have edge cases like Bodiam in Sussex ( althought it has much of the architectural design of a true castle, they are mostly for show if I am reading the Wikipedia article.)
"Grand and Great houses", I find that a good term. Have been searching for some generic term for chateux, stately home, manor house, Schloß, Resedenz, palace. That would work. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That title works for me. Alternatively, it can just be called "Palaces", since "Schloß" and "château" are just the German and French words for "palace" respectively. As for castles, I know that it common usage these days, we no longer stick to that strict definition, which is why we have the Sleeping Beauty Castle in Disneyland, but traditionally, a castle had to be fortified. If the creation of the "Medieval castles" articles goes ahead, I think we can mention both the traditional definition, and how it's applied much more loosely these days. It's true that not all fortresses are castles, but traditionally, all castles had to be fortresses. The dog2 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK lets get started on Castles, Fortifications and Grand and Great houses. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Side note, besides proper names and those who reject even the most uncontroversial aspects of the 1998 spelling reform nobody spells it "Schloß" any more. And that says somebody who once lived in a street with the idiosyncratic spelling. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

& Multiple Travel topic articles per country could be looked at... see: Forts and Palaces of India as an example. Use template related on that particular country's article page ... Depending upon size one could end up creating a rather large index which I have been told is not really acceptable, thus smaller groupings might be necessary. If need be, multiple travel topic pages can be combined together through the use of transclusion. ie. Castles, Fortifications and Grand and Great Houses of Scandinavia could be combined from those topic pages for Denmark, Sweden etc.
  • Separate section headings for Medieval, Renaissance, World War I, World War II etc. could also be used to identify entities and again transcluded to separate travel topic pages. In the examples above the approach would be to create source pages that provide information for multiple pages as well.
  • Whether or not Wikidata could be used through some jquery is also something that could be examined.
  • Many ears ago I used templates containing hidden keywords to provide extra searching capabilities but that was using a different search engine in Mediawiki.
Just a thought! Matroc (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

World Cup 2018[edit]

As we get closer to the tournament, it is likely that the World Cup page, Russia, the 11 host cities, and the 13 districts articles for Moscow and Saint Petersburg will all see increases in traffic. To anyone interested, there are 26 articles altogether that we should improve and tidy up as World Cup fever takes over much of the globe.

On the bright side, every one of these articles has a custom banner though many of them have empty sections and/or dead links that we ought to update. Gizza (roam) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it's a seriously overhyped event, unworthy of all the attention it's receiving. Feel free to make improvements and edits, but I don't think a World Cup Expedition is justified for this. ArticCynda (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not every person is interested in the event but that's the case with everything in life. I suggested this because whenever destinations are in the news and spotlight, for good or bad, they tend to get more views and quite often people reading Wikivoyage for the first time. It's the case with other sporting events, music festivals, natural disasters, terror attacks, or anything else. If there are new readers of these articles, we have an opportunity to leave a good impression and make them long-term users of Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 11:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the World Cup will come and go in a few short weeks, so any event-specific pages will be dead stock. But if we take it as a prompt to update existing relevant WV pages, this has lasting value and may attract new readers and contributors. The fans have long ago sorted out getting there and accommodation, it’s a visa requirement. They don’t need tips about the football, they have their own better sources. They may appreciate non-commercial advice on getting around, eating & drinking, and see & do.

Time is short as the event kicks off on 14 June. I suggest the priority for EN-WV will be those cities where group-stage matches are being played by English-speaking nations. So, Australia play in Kazan, Samara and Sochi, while England play in Volgograd, Nizhny Novgorod and Kaliningrad. Just six to go at, let’s take one apiece.

As proposer, bags-I Kazan, since I’ve been there in the last 12 months, and I’ve started overhauling that page. (Inflated prices are a difficulty, these will need revisiting after the event.) Any takers for the other five? Grahamsands (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Further to that, all games in Kazan are now complete. I've therefore reduced all mentions of the World Cup there to historical, and the stadium is simply the home of the city football team in "Do". There's more to do on that page, but it relates to the city not the event. Do we have any feedback on relevant usage of WV around the World Cup, eg on host city pages compared to other Russian cities?

I was surprised on starting editing to find no mention of the stadium, though it's a big affair completed in 2013. This would be a credibility problem for any soccer fan that chanced upon the page. And if he read on, about Kazan Kremlin, he'd shriek with derision as the one thing he already knew was that the Kremlin is in Moscow. It would be good, before autumn, to check that all the major European stadiums have been included: who plays there in what league, brief facts and figures, where it is and how to get there. By and by I'll start on the Russian stadiums, input on others appreciated. Grahamsands (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, game over. All mentions on Russia & city pages should now be just historical. For all the cities in Russia with big football clubs I've added a one-liner: what they're called, where they play, how to get there. (This was all to hand on WP.) The other point of lasting interest was the "supporters visa" temporarily available. Actually this was just the best known of the "special events" visa system, with dozens upcoming listed on the Embassy website, so I've tweaked Russia:Get In. Other work still to do: Volgograd & Rostov are little better than stubs, and a bit more to do for Kazan. And try to find some enthusiasm for Go next: Qatar. Grahamsands (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

So glad the madness is finally over, not a day too early! ArticCynda (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Subject area topics...[edit]

Currently we have travel topics, itenaries and destinations... A few of the ideas I've suggested or started tend to be interest area articles, like Botnaical Tourism, Aviation history, Castles (thanks for starting it BTW), and so on that don't necessarily sit clearly on the boundary between destinations and travel topics, (or don't fit into the destination structure like British Coast.)

So do we need a category for 'thematic interest' articles?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The examples you give sound like perfect Travel Topics, not sure why another classification is needed. In fact I would like to propose scrapping Itineraries and just make all travel topics but index by region as well as topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
These are all well and good, and I am always happy to see more content being created, but I'll point out that as a travel guide we still have so very many destination articles that lack content. People looking for ways to contribute might consider helping us fill out or update or clean up our destination articles. Ground Zero (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


I've signed myself up for WT, made a useful contribution, and asked WT on their Travellers' pub the following:

I know and understand why Wikitravellers are not allowed to use the name of a competing travel guide on this website. However, the fork that happened more than five years ago is no longer an issue, so could it possible to allow users to use the name of that travel guide on user pages? For example, I'd like to say that I'm mainly a contributor to Wiki---age but am now signed up on Wikitravel as well. Any thoughts from Internet Brands? Just asking, I don't mind if you don't want to change that word ban. SelfieCity (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Chances are, they're remove the info and perhaps ban me from that site, but I'm just interested to see what happens. After several years Internet Brands might have recovered from their hostilities toward us. But after looking at the history of the travellers' pub and seeing all the discussions they removed, I don't feel like the result will be good. Also, I would like to say that the WT website works pretty well now compared to how it used to be (I know this by looking through their travellers' pub archives). Selfie City (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What will happen is they will ban you, then threaten you and possibly the WMF with legal action. It happened to me, and I never even visited WT. Three months on, and I'm still waiting for them to prove their claims that the person who vandalised their site is both me and a troublesome user both of our sites used to have called W.Frank. I'm also waiting for WT to fulfil their promise to get me banned from editing here using the Foundation's own lawyers. Honestly, Selfie City, you're wasting your time. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That's crazy! You've got me worried now. I'm glad I've been pretty careful about my identity on WV and WT. Selfie City (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, in that situation, I think someone pretended to be you and one of the Internet Brands staff assumed that you were messing up the WT website. Still, I'll be careful. Selfie City (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
So far, so good. Nothing's happened. If nothing happens and they keep the ban, I don't really mind because I don't plan to be a regular editor on the WT website. Selfie City (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
WT still exists? Good heavens. Why? Ground Zero (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. They still do DotMs, OtBPs, and so on, although they don't use the DotM system anymore but instead just do it on the travellers' pub. And the website works pretty well now; they don't seem to have many problems with vandalism (except for the alleged ThunderingTyphoons! vandalism) and the website is pretty fast, perhaps even faster than Wikivoyage. Selfie City (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
They also seem to have very little actual activity going on. Their pub is a quiet, empty place. There are relatively few edits to articles. I don't mean to gloat. I wasn't here when the split happened, so I have no grudge to bear, but it does make me wonder what motivates people to continue contributing there. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, I would think a lot of the people on WT don't know about WV because WT doesn't allow mentions of Wikivoyage on its website. And I think WT's owners, Internet Brands, haven't been as bad as some Wikivoyagers make out. They have kept the Wikitravel website going and the WT website in itself now functions quite well. Just because they showed ads with pictures of people eating spiders doesn't mean it was their fault. And they have reason not to like us - we've taken away a lot of their business. Selfie City (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a hornet’s nest that really needs to not be poked by anyone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. Maybe one of the other editors who were around when this whole thing was going down could back me up with links to the appropriate talk page discussions or whatnot, but the long and short of it is 1) our argument with Internet Brands went far beyond placing advertising on the site and, more importantly, 2) the legal arguments that underpinned Internet Brands’ subsequent lawsuit against the WMF, and two of our editors individually, included wide-ranging allegations of defamation that, while they were eventually thrown out of court, were still litigation and as such expensive, time-consuming, and stressful. We were advised at that time to avoid broaching the subject of our breakup from Wikitravel whenever possible, and with the exception of Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel which was very carefully worded to avoid inspiring further litigation, we have continued to operate under the model of the less said about it the better. In fact, I’ve probably said too much myself in this comment. And aside from legal concerns, I hope that given the toll the whole thing took on the two editors who were personally sued, you can understand why statements like the one directly above this one might be perceived as insulting. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
A search for "Internet Brands sues Wikivoyage" turns up plenty of info like this:
No need to comment, the thing speaks for itself. K7L (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm one of the old time editors who started off before WV was created. I must say that we have actually grown more productive since the WT days. One of the things that caused me to move over here was that I found it much more difficult to get a consensus from the old site, even when it was an edit that seemed like commonsense to me. Take the "Talk" section of the Switzerland article. Look at what you have on WT, and it's way too long-winded, such that unless you are a professional linguist, your will likely get bogged down in all that information that you'll miss the important points. What you see there is more or less what you had here before I trimmed it down to the much more manageable amount of text that we have over here while still retaining the important points for travellers (and of course, it's been further improved by other editors since I did the trimming down). When I did the same thing on WT, I just got reverted with the comment that "that's just your own very personal opinion" when I mentioned in my edit summary that it was too long-winded. And nobody entertained me on the talk page when I tried to get a consensus. So in short, while perhaps more could be done to improve our exposure, I think we are in general doing a good job here, and I'd say in terms of quality of content, we are actually better than WT for the most part. The dog2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE, verify the GPS coordinates when copying Wikidata information![edit]

Dear all, please, I beg you to really put some additional effort into verifying (OpenStreetMap, Google Maps) that the GPS information copied from Wikidata is correct.

I see many listings being updated with the Wikidata code and consequently the GPS information being copied into Wikivoyage. E.g.

However, the GPS information on Wikidata, IMHO, is far from correct and of rather low quality. I actually trust Wikivoyage more to have more accurate GPS information. The problem is not using Wikidata, which in the future might correct the false GPS information. The sad thing is that we are deleting high quality information from Wikivoyage this way, instead of spreading it.

Therefore, in case you find the Wikidata GPS information to be incorrect, please head over to the relevant item and correct the GPS coordinates on Wikidata using "English Wikivoyage" as a reference.

Please, help to keep up the good data quality on Wikivoyage.

Many thanks, Ceever (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is unfortunate that the listing editor only gives the option of updating all the fields using the Wikidata values, not just the empty ones. With large venues Wikivoyage may deliberately have different co-ordinates from Wikipedia - We may want to show where the entrance or ticket office is, and WP may want to show somewhere in the centre of the site. AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AlasdairW. Is it possible to change the listing editor so that the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" button will only update empty fields? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Btw, the marker/listing templates now do exactly this (automagically adds location/images from wikidata, if specified; doesn't override)... If we added also wikipedia/url autofetching, the 'update from wikidata' button would become obsolete. (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC), would it be technologically feasible to have a single click update button for Wikidata? I've made it a habit to fill in the Wikidata field of any attraction I add or edit, and noticed a lot of Wikidata records indeed have inaccurate coordinate information. I believe it wouldn't be a bad idea if the data flow could be bidirectional. ArticCynda (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess anything is possible in the end, but I'm not sure wikidatians would like WV "autooverriding" their database. Who's to say WV coords are better than the ones imported from WP? I guess if we don't like the WD coords and they are somewhat correct (aka - are better the coords of center of the building, or of its entrance?), we should simply override in WV. Otherwise I'm sure WP:WV edit wars will ensue :) If the WD coords are completely off, like in this case, we should fix WD - it would also help fellows from DE/FR/... WV branches. (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-overriding updates would be a good place to start.
In the fairly rare case of desired differences (e.g., venue center vs entrance), I think that Wikidata can support multiple values, with qualifiers and rankings to identify why there are more than one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An extreme example is w:Caledonian Canal which runs for 60 miles from Fort Augustus to the outskirts of Fort William, and has listings in both, with the lat/longs being good locations to see the canal if you are in that town. The WD lat/long is 5 miles from Fort August. (The Fort William listing could be changed to be specific to a set of locks there.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't surprise me at all. When Wikidata was introduced it was noted that this type of thing could happen very easilty because of multiple input sources and appears to prove Wikidata to be a tiny bit less reliable than one would have hoped. Double checking would be a good practise to follow. -- Matroc (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
And it gives credence to my earlier warning to be wary of too much integration with, and ceding too much control over our content to, an unrelated WMF project that doesn't necessarily share (or even have much familiarity with) our goals. I recently had to remove several Wikidata values from the Buffalo article because it made no sense to associate a specific set of geo coordinates to (in two cases) a local restaurant chain with multiple locations and (in the remaining case) an annual event whose venue changes every year. Until these issues get ironed out, I propose a moratorium on any further addition of Wikidata values to local listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think stopping adding is a little rash, but checking before changing and after adding I totally agree with. Even better fix the wikidata, which I have done a number of times. Particularly when totally wrong. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 Ceever (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Доверяй, но проверяй --Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as advocating a moratorium on adding Wikidata links, but would rather propose we make an effort to correct Wikidata in the process where necessary. That way, both WMF projects enjoy the benefits. ArticCynda (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I can tell you people one thing; the coordinates given for Wildwood State Park in Wading River, New York are way off the coast of Long Island Sound(,-72.8107658/41,-72.8/@40.9672569,-72.9050227,11250m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2?hl=en ), instead of the correct location, which should show up on that google map. ----DanTD (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Takes only a few seconds to correct, so I did! ArticCynda (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
One caveat to this: I've noticed that Google Maps gives me the GPS coordinates of the centre of the map instead of the GPS coordinates of the pointer that I searched for. I've had to move the location slightly off the map and then search for it in order to get even semi-reliable numbers that way. --Robkelk (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More intuitive direct links aka functional buttons (for articles)[edit]

I have been noticing that the PDF functionality, the printing view, and the WP, WC, and WD links are in a quite unfortunate location and do not really get the attention needed or are overseen by the user, even though very relevant. Also, they kind of fall together with links relevant for editors, what makes them more advanced and hard to find.

Would we maybe be interested moving them to a more visible location where they can be of real use for the user? See my proposal: (upper right corner)

What do you think? Of course the design is worth improvement. Here I am just asking for a general opinion on the relocation and a more effective place for the general user.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Although a neat looking proposal, I have my doubts about the usefulness of such a redesign because I wonder how often the Print to PDF function is actually used nowadays. As for WC, WP and WD, I'd rather see all relevant information to the traveler integrated into WV articles rather than linking to them. Boldly said, if there is a need to link to WP, then the WV article is incomplete. But that's just my opinion, of course. ArticCynda (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the links are important. Doubling the information of Wikipedia would be an enormous project for very little gain, and there is no reason for us to have a dozen images for every church at the destination. There is another reason we should not add the proposed buttons: the current placement is the same as on Wikipedia, which is well-known by lots of people. Moving them away would make these people not find them, while having them in two locations might get people click on both. Web pages with lots of links, some of which lead to the same information, is very frustrating when you are looking for something that is not easily find (and possibly missing – it is important to be able to conclude that). --LPfi (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is to change how {{ambox}} templates are displayed. I posted a list of templates using the {{ambox}} base at mw:Topic:Ughilsroamjr53ld; mostly, it's {{translate}} and {{style}}. They're currently not displayed on Mobile Web, and they might be afterwards. I don't think this project will have a significant effect here. I think it's designed for the big Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I am having issues creating pages on mobIle, the usual "create page" option isn't available from the search bar and linking to a non-existent page doesn't give the potion either. I can't even post a new topic in the pub. Please forgive me if this is a PEBKAC error, I've been traveling a year without a phone and have been editing in Internet cafes. - unsigned comment by User:
I don't know how to solve that problem, but I created Jyrgalan so that you can work on that article in the meantime. Thank you for your updates to Karakol. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

European copyright law changes[edit]

At least to me, both the organisation whose site this on (EFF) and the writer (Cory Doctorow) are highly credible.

Will this affect us & if so, how? Is it something we need to worry about or can that be left to WMF? Pashley (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pashley, I think it's more of an issue for Wikipedia than us, although it could still be a problem: basically, it'll create more problems with external links. Selfie City (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The other problem is false positives of copyvio detection. Every now and then the wording you use would be blocked. I think how to handle this technically can largely be left to WMF (checking how the solutions work for us), but politically, I urge every EU citizen to try to do something to stop it. --LPfi (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also prevent reuse and redistribution of our content (which is permitted and encouraged under copyleft), or worse potentially have our own content flagged as infringing the copyright of a mirror? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of setting up such copyrighted material databases and checking all uploaded content against it, I propose to simply move all the WMF servers to Switzerland. It may be a bit more work, and incur a higher cost intitially, but it's a better long term solution to the problem. ArticCynda (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't help. The proposed legislation does not affect USA directly, but it probably affects Switzerland (I do not know the details of the agreements between it and EU). Moving servers has been proposed many times, but every jurisdiction has its own problems. Reusing WV content would not be directly affected, as it is licensed as required, but would be affected by copyfraud and other false positives. The reverse problem could probably be solved by whitelisting existing content (including history not reverted as copyvio). --LPfi (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Switzerland doesn't follow EU copyright law (see Copyright law of Switzerland) since it's not part of the EU. Switzerland is also de facto immune to mass surveillance (unlike EU or USA) so I think it's a superior location for the WMF servers than the current situation. ArticCynda (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any mention in the linked article that Switzerland does not implement the EU copyright directive, or is not mandated to implement the possible changes. Switzerland is not part of EU, but it has a relation to EU resembling that of Norway & co (which belong to EEA). Is copyright exempted from the areas of coordination? --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
May I suggest the topic about whether the WMF can move servers is best handled elsewhere (i.e. somewhere on Meta)? There is nothing we on Wikivoyage can do about which country our servers are hosted in, but we can try to establish what exactly the effects of the new law will be on our work and discuss how we're going to respond. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Update: As I understand it (from chatter at some of the other wikis), the vote didn't pass, which means that the legislation will be properly debated in the usual parliamentary style, and the real vote will take place later in the year. Also, I'm hearing that some parts of this proposed law are desirable changes (e.g., clarifications to the existing copyright laws). It's just Articles 11 and 13 that seem to have people upset. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Image filters[edit]

Began with the discussion "Theocracies and monarchies"

Yes, Granger, and both can go. By the way, what about the UK National Parks list? I started on the pictures of scenic areas, and while on Wikimedia Commons accidentally ran into an inappropriate image, which is why I suddenly stopped contributing to the images on the list. Does Commons have any sort of filter for users or anything? Or is there any other way of searching independent files? The worst area for this seems to be Commons categories, so the best thing I've thought of so far is just avoiding the Commons categories. Selfie City (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hazard of working on these projects, and especially of looking for images on Commons. There's no built-in filter on Commons as far as I know, but the information at w:Help:Options to hide an image may be able to help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but unfortunately the filter didn't work on Wikivoyage, and I assume it wouldn't work on Commons. But you gave me an idea: I could go to the Wikipedia page for each place, for example, Ben Nevis, and get the image(s) from there. And on Wikipedia, I wouldn't immediately see the image because I've installed the filter that helps block them; then I can go to edit history and make sure no suspicious users have been making edits for getting the image. Thanks for giving me an idea and helping me with this. Selfie City (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, this is about Commons, right? You could broach the subject of a filter at the Village Pump on Commons. But the problem, as you may know, is that scripts on Commons are poorly maintained, with several functions (e.g., Valued Image sets) abandoned as a result. I think it would be uncommon to see anything obscene in the galleries for the categories for destinations, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, you're describing pretty much exactly what happened. Selfie City (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's uncommon, though. Now, if only the searches for Featured Picture, Quality Image and Valued Image ever worked anymore....But really, these are things to discuss on Commons, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Well, I think I've got more of a solution now. Thanks for your help. Selfie City (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you should not start a discussion on Commons without checking the previous ones. A majority on Commons was very decidedly against the proposed filters, and this is a can of worms. There is no way to make the filters work in a reliably enough way for Commons: too easy to get false positives, no way to classify images sensibly. On the other hand, I have been working quite much on Commons and have yet to have an obscene image pop up on me, so really, you did have bad luck. --LPfi (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Filters rarely (if ever) work properly, and its the first step towards censorship. So I don't see any advantages of implementing filters. What exactly is the problem, anyway? ArticCynda (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that they generally fall into a few categories:
  • People see stuff that they don't want to see (e.g., an image that reminds you of a traumatic experience).
  • People see stuff that others don't want them to (e.g., an image that can get you in trouble with your school/employer/internet cafe).
  • People see stuff that is surprising/inappropriate to the context (e.g., looking for a photo of a vegetable and being shown pornography instead).
Contributors generally agree that out-of-place results are "our problem", and that those should be fixed, regardless of whether the image is frequently considered offensive or frequently considered innocuous. That is, if you're looking for a photo of a vegetable, then you shouldn't see pornography, but you also shouldn't see sunsets or kittens or rainbows. Some contributors don't want to be associated with addressing the other two problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
These are valid concerns, but implementing filters will probably do more harm than good I think. For instance, following your example, consider a scenario in which your best friend died in your arms after getting hit by a bus in Prague. This is without a doubt a traumatic experience that benefits from such a filter, but where would you draw the line? Remove all content related to bus transport in Prague, buses in general, remove all references to Prague, or even remove anything related to Czech Republic? This would depend on the circumstances and personal preferences of each individual, and both are very hard to implement in rule sets for filters. But even if it worked, how would you prevent the filter from censoring the Berlin article because it mentions that Flixbus operates daily bus lines between Berlin and Prague? I'm not a software engineer, but it appears to me that such issues would be technologically immensively complex due to the nearly infinite variety of possible traumas, combinations of traumas, and so on. ArticCynda (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you have mentioned this sort of highly personal, unpredictable case. I believe that the basic argument that perfection is impossible has been popular among contributors who didn't want to do something that might be helpful in the vast majority of cases (e.g., the porn collection that features a long-time Wikimedian, which almost no readers want to be surprised by, and which I'd bet that even fewer long-time editors want to see at all, ever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is an example you suggested in your previous post — traumatic experience. Isn't a trauma by definition a highly personal, unpredicatable case?
As for the porn issue, it's 2018 now, not 1918 anymore. It's time to stop being offended by nudity and sex. ArticCynda (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Some traumatic experiences aren't that personal (e.g., images depicting rape, for the millions of rape victims in the world; images of the Twin Towers collapsing, for New Yorkers of a certain generation). And the point isn't "stop being offended"; it's that most people want to find certain kinds of images (most commonly: sexual, religious, violent, disgusting) when they're looking for them, but not to get surprised by those images when they're not looking for them. Even the most enthusiastic consumers of porn and sex-positive imagery don't always want those images to turn up when they're engaged in unrelated tasks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
No one is disputing the things you mentioned are traumatic to specific groups of people, the problem is rather that it would be very difficult — if not impossible — to design image filters that block images a certain individual could experience as traumatic due to the very long list of potentially traumatic things in the world. So based on which criteria would you configure filters? In your Twin Tower example, you could argue that such images should/could be blocked for New York IP addresses, but what about New Yorkers living abroad? And what about New Yorkers living around ground zero who choose to face their history instead of censoring it away? Personally I'm not upset by Twin Tower images at all so I wouldn't want them to be censored, so where would you draw the line for a Twin Tower image filter? The same question/issue arises for every other situation, it's an endless debate. ArticCynda (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The most popular approach was to have a filtering system available (which we don't now), and then let people manually opt-in if (and only if) they individually choose to do so. The only thing that would matter is what the individual chose, so questions of geolocation, etc., are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
So based on which rule(s) would such filter(s) operate? How would it/they identify inappropriate images for certain users then? That is the most important issue, and still has not been answered. ArticCynda (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think Wikivoyage is the right place for this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. This is a Commons issue. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
And it was discussed at length at Commons. I think there are few points that were not considered carefully, with solutions proposed and found troublesome. Read enough of those threads to find your solutions to the problems and the criticism of those solution. --LPfi (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way to automatically make a list of parts of pages' content?[edit]

I was hoping to be able to put together a quick page in my sandbox showing when each of the Warning Boxes on the wiki was last updated (so I could update the stale boxes - I found one yesterday that hadn't been touched in over five years, so this is something worth doing).

If we had the Dynamic Page List 3 extension, I could write the code in two minutes - search for pages in Category:Has warning box, and display the page title and the contents of the "lastedit" field in the page's warningbox template. Alas, it appears we don't have DPL3 installed.

Do we have some other way to do this, or should I ask for DPL3 to be installed here? If the latter, how would I go about making the request? --Robkelk (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is we make the template a little smarter. Create a category for all warning boxed with no lastedit date. Create a category for warning boxes were lastedit date is more than, say, 6 months ago. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea to me. It would certainly be good to have some way of tracking articles with old warning boxes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Added Category:Has warning box with no date to {{Warningbox}}. The check on date longer as 6 month, working on it.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Now have Category:Has warning box with out of date warning which checks if older than 6 months. Also added to no date category if the date format of last edit is incorrect. Adds some light grey text to page after the warningbox, may want to consider the text or remove it. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! IMO the new light grey text isn't necessary—I think displaying the date is enough for giving readers a sense of whether the information is up-to-date or not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
OK will remove the text. Should a lastedit value of permanent be allows for warning that are always valid? For example Mont Saint-Michel#Get in would be taken out of the no date category. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Everest Base Camp Trek is another article where that would be appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's still worthwhile reviewing those warningboxes. For example, the warningbox in Mont Saint-Michel#Get in mentions a causeway that the main text says has been demolished. --Robkelk (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Aside topic on Mont Saint-Miche, I was there last year. The causeway is now a low bridge which is always open, but a warning about crossing of the sand is still relevant. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are permanent, like Mecca. K7L (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless of course they change the policy vis-a-vis non-Muslims... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, and thanks for the help. --Robkelk (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through Category:Has warning box with no date, and three-quarters of those boxes now have dates. In a few cases, they're even dates within the last six months. Category:Has warning box with out of date warning is now much more accurate. Alas, I probably won't have time to do anything more with these for at least a month. --Robkelk (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Polar Maps[edit]

As we here use w:Mercator Projection, polar regions are comparatively extremely distorted, which makes region articles like Antarctic Islands unwieldy. Is there some crutch to fix that with dynamic maps or do we have to draw static maps to avoid the issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster, the best way to solve this is to increase the width of the map and decreasing the height of it. Check out the map on Antarctic Islands now, and you can see that it's much better than it used to be. Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's conceivable that one may want to centre a map of Antartica on the South Pole. Only way to do that is change the projection, so in this case a static map would be entirely justified. K7L (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't we just do a map thingy that automatically distorts other regions and keeps the poles undistorted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not really. People have tried for hundreds of years to create a map projection that kept all the parts equal, and the only one that has truly worked is the globe, and that's 3D and for obvious reasons wouldn't fit on a webpage. Selfie City (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the current map in Antarctic Islands is pretty dreadful—as Hobbitschuster says, it's extremely distorted. I think a map using a different projection, centered on the South Pole, would be better, which probably means a static map (like the one used in Antarctica). The Islands of the Arctic Ocean map has the same problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the problem with that static map for Antarctica is that I need a mapmaker to change the coloring. Still, if you think you can improve Antarctic Islands, go ahead; I think for an OpenStreetMap there's nothing better that can be done. Selfie City (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know all maps distort. Which is why I say that we should use a map for the Poles that distorts the polar region the least. Such a map would obviously horribly distort the tropical region and the opposite polar region, but that doesn't matter for a polar map. Sorry for being a bit unclear earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were unclear, I'm just having a trouble envisioning that kind of map; I think static maps are a better choice, particularly for West Antarctica and East Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There are projections that work well for the polar region, just look in any atlas (OK, those are static). The question is whether our mechanisms for creating maps can use those projections. Is the Mercator Projection hard-coded? I suppose for polar regions you have to use truly polar coordinates, while it is easier to pretend the coordinates are Cartesian when you have a Mercator projection. Which, depending on implementation, means a dynamic map suiting the polar regions needs a lot of new code. You can still pretend you are using Cartesian coordinates, but instead of just changing offset and scale you have to transform the coordinates with trigonometrical expressions. --LPfi (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we use a transversal mercator projection with a strip around the pole in the center? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
De-facto online standard nowadays is the mercator projection - the tile server (used by Extension:Kartographer) 99% only renders those tiles, and the relatead scripts probably expect that as well. I'm no wikimedia guru nor spokesman, but I have a feeling that chances of spinning up non-mercator map service are practically zero. I suggest to just use Antarctica.svg or whatever... (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How can one add colored metro lines using Wikidata to dynamic maps?[edit]

I have seen this done in various articles like this one. The wiki code only the wikidata entry Q190271 with no info about color.... and therefore, when I copy it to the Hebrew Wikivoyage it comes out as only black. How would I go about copying the colored metro lines to the dynamic maps on Hebvoy? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: Generally speaking, you add one wikidata entry using {{Mapshapes}}. The item consists of several lines that are linked under P527 (has part). All of these individual lines link to an OSM Relation ID (P402) and optionally an sRGB color hex triplet (P465). The latter of these defines the colour in which this one line is displayed, and is most likely what you'll need to fill out to get this to work. If you have, then consider waiting a few days. The synchronisation sometimes takes a while and I do not know of a way to force it to sync.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a note (well, my observation...) - only the OSM-wikidata sync takes a few days. And actually, it seems the OSM->WD link is what's needed (so, the OSM relations need to be edited to contain the WD reference), WD->OSM not really. The changes in wikidata are basically immediate, you just need to force "re-rendering" of the WV page. Or wait... (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I added the metro mapshape to this article. It should show up in color in a few days? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This looks to me like some bug in the Kartographer or one of your other templates, as it is glitching quite a bit when moving the map around. The module:mapshapes there seems to work ok (I tried via the module debugger manually), it grabs the color from WD - but the template:mapshape doesn't show it. I tried to add there, and it just used the gray color for some reason (whereas here on EN WV, it shows in red, as expected). (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Your Template:Mapshape/Inner was out of date, so I resynced it... Now the colors show up correctly ;-) (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Just wanted to suggest considering implementing something we are implementing these days at the Hebrew Wikivoyage - there are currently over 200 mapmasks at hebvoy and they are all going to be moved from the main space to "map:" (מפה:) space. We decided this is necessary because they take up a lot of space and make it harder to spot articles that don't have a lot of text yet. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the sleep test really apply to remote destinations?[edit]

This discussion has been evolving in Talk:Antarctica. Of course, Antarctica is a remote destination, and has many bases that should or should not be articles, but my main intent here is point out that, around the world there are extremely remote destinations where the whole point of visiting them is survival — how to get food, where to sleep, etc. Most people don't go on these types of vacations, but I'm sure there are some people that do.

For an example, let's take a fairly well–supported OtBP nomination, Guadalupe Island. There are no hotels on this island, almost definitely, and none are listed under the article's sleep section. The article instead suggests alternatives; it says that "you will have to rely on getting a room from one of the residents" and "[a]nother option would be to camp on the island". Should Guadalupe Island be turned into a redirect just because there are no obvious sleep options? A more than 23,000-byte guide article gone to waste?

The same is probably also true with a lot of the Arctic. A lot of these places don't strictly follow the wiaa guidelines, but they need to be included so Wikivoyage doesn't have "gaps" geographically, if you want to call them that. The point is this: some travelers/tourists will enjoy the act of getting to the destination, finding a way to sleep there, and finding a way to get back. Since the traveler comes first, we should serve those tourists too. Therefore, I think the sleep test should perhaps be reconsidered when it comes to certain places, like research stations in Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The key point not to forget is this is a travel site, not a geography site. Notability is an argument for a Wikipedia page. Maybe best though to keep this discussion in one place at Talk:Antarctica#Articles for individual bases--Traveler100 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the discussion on whether to have articles for individual bases is separate for how to reinterpret or maybe change the sleep test for remote places in general. I have also heard people define the sleep test as "you can't sleep in a museum" and hence not the question of whether there are hotels and so on relevant but the question whether one can pitch a tent there or the likes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about tent-pitching rules in Antarctica, though. I wish I knew. Aha — the answer. Selfie City (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In future, though, I somewhat agree with Traveler100 — Antarctica talk ought to stay on Talk:Antarctica. However, if this is being covered as a wider issue including round-the-world destinations, it does belong here. Selfie City (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I have understood that if you can pitch your tent there (possibly after getting a permit), and visitors do, then the destination passes the sleep test. No problem with that. On the other hand, you do not get an article on every block with a hotel, neither on every wood where you could pitch your tent. In remote areas, where hospitality or your tent are the main options, the split into separate articles simply has to be decided on other factors. --LPfi (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If we have articles on scientific stations then there are other places that could have an article and contain more content; what about the accommodation and shops in Ramstein airbase or the restaurants and coffee shops in GM's Detroit facility or the accommodation and work options at High Desert State Prison Nevada. All more lightly to be visited by readers. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe very few individual bases have enough to offer visitors to merit a whole article for itself. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Right, ϒpsilon. For example, summer-only bases wouldn't be included, and only the largest bases could do with such an article. I think Port Lockroy, McMurdo, Villa Las Estrellas, Esperanza Base, and a few other bases in Antarctica deserve articles. Normally Artigas would be a no, but WP has a lot of very useful information about getting to the place and what's there (although it's not well-sourced). I don't think Vostok, though, would make it. Selfie City (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Spanish WP was extraordinarily helpful when it came to Villa las Estrellas and Esperanza Base Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania: Cape Town[edit]

This year's Wikimania starts in less than four weeks, in Cape Town. It would be good if we could brush up our article on that city, and related pages, before then. Who are the local editors?

And who is going to Wikimania? Are ether any Wikivoyage sessions or meetups? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We have Wikimania 2018 Cape Town Guidebook, although I think that needs some work. AlasdairW (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That mostly seems to be a copy of the page I linked to. Either way, we need some local knowledge! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic map for tracks works perfectly with Firefox but you can't zoom in/out in Chrome browsers[edit]

Example for such a map

Does anyone know how to fix this? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

At the German Wikivoyage we observed a behavior that maps are not dynamic in Chrome and Opera browsers. So for instance, controls are missing and the map is "frozen". I added the task T197655 on Phabricator. Unfortunately there were no actions until today. I assume it is a resource-loader problem. If I am true then we will not find a simple fix. The maps are finished by a JavaScript adding markers, controls and so on "on complete load" (on ready). These scripts are in need of some parameters like the map server url which are delivered by a resource-loader script which is done too late. That's why we found a runtime error which gave us a hint what happens. The problem with JavaScript is the parallel operation of several scripts to save time. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh ok. That makes sense. I am completley new to adding tracks to dynamic maps. Is there any other way maybe to generate a track on the dynamic maps which does work in Chrome? I noticed the track in this dynamic map works in both Firefox and Chrome (but I am not sure where it was definied in the wikicode). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There are three ways to add tracks to maps. Firstly note the track into the article itself as a <maplink> tag as it was done for the Trans-Siberian Railway (at the end of the article). The syntax is GeoJSON. Secondly, you can store it at Wikimedia Commons or on OpenStreetMap. The first case is that way which most probably produces a track in Chrome. The other ways are more elegantly and can be used also for other projects. The problem is that a runtime error occurred earlier could stop drawing the tracks. But I hope that the programmers at the Wikimedia Foundation will find a solution to overcome the failures in Chrome. --RolandUnger (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I've had issues with dynamic maps before and this problem might be only when certain computers use Chrome browser or it's an on/off problem. Nevertheless, I just tried the example and it worked. Selfie City (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And I'm using Chrome. Sometimes, you have to click on the map first to get the zoom in/out to work, otherwise the computer thinks you're just scrolling down the page. Selfie City (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible design below pagebanners[edit]

I was playing around with possible page designs when I created my sandbox and the main idea behind it is the design of the introduction, with the "Read more" linking to the first section of the article. I'm also using different banner dimensions, just as an idea, but of course the standard is 7:1.

What do you think of the introductory text design? Do you think it would make sense to implement the introductory design onto certain types of articles? Selfie City (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see much value in having a link to take the reader to the next section. I could see a little value, in having a link back to understand from a much later section (e.g. drink "As explained in Understand, all the pubs here were closed in 2017."). I am also totally against changing the banner dimensions, given how much work has been done creating 7:1 banners. AlasdairW (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The banner aspect ratio isn't technically changed but rather cropped, if I see it right. Regardless, this layout doesn't have any added value over the existing one in my opinion, so I wouldn't change it. ArticCynda (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Event[edit]

The formatting produced by Template:Event has a problem—the date is right next to the location, without a space or punctuation in between. See Oost Gelre#See, for example, where the first listing currently says "12–15 July 2018Lichtenvoorde". I think it should say "12–15 July 2018, Lichtenvoorde" instead. Can this be fixed? —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

added space --Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but unfortunately there's still a problem. The space still shows up even when there's no location listed. So, for instance, the third listing in Oost Gelre#See currently says "26th March 2016 .", with a space before the period. I think some kind of code is needed to add a comma and space only when there's a location listed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
try again. Amazing how spaces can take more time that more complicated topics :-) . --Traveler100 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure if Event templates have opportunity for coordinates — do they? I think the lack of coordinates and the listing issue mentioned above were the reason I used the "Do" template instead of Event for Jazz#Jazz festivals. Selfie City (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
it is basically an extension of the listing template so has all the same parameters. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maybe, but if you go to Classical music, and you try editing one of the templates in edit mode, you'll see that the latitude/longitude parameters don't show up. Selfie City (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That just means that nobody ever typed the blank template parameters into that page. It doesn't mean that they won't work. Just type the code in yourself, if you want to add them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay, thanks. Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Even when correct coordinates are assigned, a map marker doesn't show up for events on the dynamic map. Is that a bug or an intentional feature? ArticCynda (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Footnote style links[edit]

Is there any way of seeking out external links like this [6], in order to replace them with WV-style frontlinks like this? Typing "[1]" into the searchbar is no help, as it churns out every page that uses the number 1. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you put http:// into the searchbar, you'll get loads of pages with external links, but you'll have to go through these to find out which are WV-style and which aren't. Selfie City (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
having issues getting regular expressions to totally work in the search and the forward slash is a challenge. Something along these lines insource:/[^\]]\][^\]]/ in the search field. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Traveler100, I don't understand. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Try putting insource:/\[1\]/ into the search box. This gave 49 hits, some of which look like "false positives", but most of these are odd use of brackets that could usefully be changed. AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
If you put insource:/\[http:/ into search you get results for start of links. The code above will find the end of link. Theoretically the code \[http:(\S*?)] will find in raw article anything starting with [http: and ending in ] and with non-space characters in-between. However cannot get it to work in the search although it does work in other software. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you know how to use AutoWikiBrowser? With (\S*?) \[http:(\S*?)] as find and [http:$2 $1] as replace. It will move the word before a link without text inside the link brackets. Although would take a little more work to catch all the exception such as quotes and multiple words. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Traveler100, I asked the search engineers why this wasn't working. Their answer is that the search software (lucene) doesn't support named character classes like \S. If I'm translating correctly, \S would only match non-space characters. This might not work on something like a space after the URL. Given that they're engineers and quick to provide solutions :) here are a few that might work. insource:/\[http:[^\]]+]/ or insource:/\[https?:[^\]]+]/ (to include https). Hope that helps. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
almost but still not quite. It is the cases where no space is inside the link brackets we are trying to find, those with space and extra text we want to filter out of the results. Still the examples may help find a solution. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you want this: insource:/\[https?:[^ ]+\]/ (direct link). That's caret(^) space( ) tab( ) between the brackets. You probably don't need the tab, but it does work instead of a space when defining an external link. So, that matches a literal open bracket + "http" + optional "s" + a colon + one or more characters that are not space or tab + a literal close bracket. I think that's what you want. TJones (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
that's it. thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your helpful answers! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And to limit to a region try this. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for figuring this out. As the number of articles using the footnote style of external links instead of frontlinks is quite high (in the thousands), perhaps it should become a maintenance category and potential COTM in the future? Gizza (roam) 05:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The find on map of article Listing can not use[edit]

The find on map of article Listing can not use, when I input coordinate to listing, and try click in find on map, but the Wikivoyage-GeoMap can not find!(Example)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

One possible reason is the listing has an error. Most common one is using uppercase and not lowercase. For example change {{See for {{see. Although listing looks OK on page it will not work correctly in maps.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Also did not improve! Is it Wikivoyage-GeoMap damage?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok now I see the problem. On the article page clicking on the map top right shows the location. On the article page clicking on a listing number shows the location on a map. But editing a listing with the listing editor and pressing find on map in the editor does not work. I am not very familiar with the tool, maybe someone else can look at it. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the maintainers. @Atsirlin: looks to be active around here... :-) (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have no idea how it worked before and thus can't really help here. --Alexander (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the page= of URL have problem (No add page is normal display, but add page can not display)!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is an issue with the Wikimedia Maps service I'm happy to help file a task. Unfortunately I can't discern if that's the case at the moment. Zhuyifei1999, as a maintainer of the tool, do you have a moment to help look into this? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I see Blocked loading mixed active content “” in the console. The tool on toolforge does nothing other than periodically updating its code from Wikivoyage e.V., so unfortunately I don't know how the map work exactly either, and why it has to load resources from OSM. @Mey2008: Could you look into this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Maps presentation[edit]

The monthly metrics presentation is going on right now: The first presentation (after some quick notes) is about the map internationalization project. This is the result of six months of dev work that basically happened because the Wikivoyage core community banded together to make it #1 for the m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pennine wildfires?[edit]

Should there be a cautionbox on a relevant article? Some media coverage has suggested their may be a risk of them given the somewhat warm summer the UK is having? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've used warningboxes occasionally if a major wildfire was actually burning (for instance, Fort McMurray when the town was evacuated, or on the Oregon Trail - a featured travel topic at a time when the south shore of the Columbia River was ablaze) but a mere "risk of them" is less serious and could be mentioned in the body text without any bright yellow boxes. K7L (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.. As you may be aware from media coverage the UK is having an unusually warm summer, and there has already been a wildfire at Saddleworth Moor nr Manchester. I would hope the generic advice on wildfires is Captain obvious to most Wikivoyagers though ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bielefeld Stadtbahn[edit]

After we're all done with the "Bielefeld, I thought that was a hoax" jokes, can somebody please have a look at the article and tell me why the Stadtbahn doesn't show up? Thanks! Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question, but the answer is quite simple actually: the person who gave the article its name didn't include the word "Stadtbahn" in the name. You may want to consider moving the page, but I think you should get consensus first; the name you are proposing is longer than the original, so people may see that as a reason not to change it. Selfie City (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
What? I am not entirely sure you understand my question. My question is, why the map despite the mapshape being there doesn't show a line for the Stadtbahn like the Berlin map shows the Berlin U-Bahn. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were referring to the title of the article. Selfie City (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not find a match with OSM data -- Matroc (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
How would we fix that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You might as well look for the Narnia "L" train...ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Anybody? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Only thing off the top of my head is to draw the lines by getting the needed coordinates (GPS) then add them manually in mapframe using several LineString types. I am not sure if you can request it be done in OSM so that one could use wikidata and OSM? -- Matroc (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
de-WP has a list of stations with coordinates. If that helps... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The OSM data seem to exist, but there are no links to wikidata... Also Q574488 doesn't have any lines listed as 'has part'. Fixing this is definitely much easier than hand-redraw all the lines? (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to expand the list. As for trams we've got: Tram 1, Tram 2, Tram 3, Tram 4, Tram 10, Tram 12, Tram 13 and Tram 18. These will all need individual Wikidata entries, which then get included in Q574488 as a 'Part of'. The OSM relation will also need a link to every associated entry for the lines on Wikidata.
Also, as a sidenote, I assume the process of linking lines using {{Mapshapes}} isn't documented (yet). Would it be worthwhile to do so, possibly at the Dynamic maps Expedition?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
There is, check the documentation of {{mapshapes}} and {{mapshape}} :-) (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
That is most likely the way to go! Unfortunately not in my baliwick to muck with either -- Matroc (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If I read WP right there are only four lines as such (the single digit lines) with the double digit lines being special event service or booster service or some such. Similar to how the Nuremberg metro used to have "U21" and "U11" for a while which were just shortened runs of U1 and U2 Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What apps do you recommend using to load our GPX files?[edit]

So far I've only tried the app GPX Viewer (for android) and I wasn't impressed -

  • it shows all the POIs in one color (while on the mapframe window at our site the POIs have different colors for each category).
  • It doesn't show the city/region boundries which are shown on our articles using the template template:mapshape
  • It doesn't show metro lines or other route lines which are shown on our articles using the template template:mapshapes

Am I missing something? do you actually prefer using the maps in our articles over GPX files when you are on the go? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

CC the main two users whom have worked on the template Template:GPX indicator so far: Andyrom75, WOSlinker, RolandUnger
ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Usually, Gpx files do not contain colors but only waypoint and track positions. A waypoint can contain a description and a comment.
To store more information Gpx extensions are needed. At Wikivoyage/de we additionally use the Garmin extension to store phone numbers etc. Apps like Locus and Openandromaps use additional extensions.
Waypoints and tracks are obtained from the article itself. Boundaries and other geographic objects are not part of the articles and must be obtained from the Foundation's map servers and converted from GeoJSON to Gpx.
If I have some time, I will extend our Gpx tools in future, but it is a huge task because I have to become acquainted with Gpx. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
RolandUnger, thank you for the answer. From your answer I understand that our readers would most likely get most benefit from using the mapframe maps in our articles instead of the GPX files if they need to use either of them on-the-go (unless they just want to put a bunch of POIs in the old Garmin GPS. By the way, which GPX app do you recommend using ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Osmand+ seems to work pretty well in terms of displaying POIs exported from an article, it even uses thesame colors as wikivoyage. I've been using it for years for offline navigation and I'm pretty happy with it. It costs a few bucks in the play store but the full version is also available for free from fdroid. --El Grafo (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not able to recommend an app. The main problem is that many apps behave in a different manner and use a set of undocumented gpx features which makes it difficult to implement. If we use undocumented tags or tags without schemas then some apps will not import these Gpx files because they cannot perform a tag pass validation.
mapframe and gpx are completely different tools which cannot be easily compared. Mapframe can be used only online with a reduced set of maps. Gpx is an exchange format bringing the data to different (offline) map viewers. Gpx contains also additional information like elevations, phone numbers and others. The can calculate moving times and landscape profiles which are of interest to hikers and bikers. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RolandUnger (or anyone whom knows), is there any official instructions on the English Wikivoyage on how to use GPX files? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


It looks like at least one established, experienced editor has been creating entire "Understand" sections for articles by copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia for each destination. These were created in good faith, but I nonetheless have a few reservations.

The issue was raised with Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail but it affects a larger number of articles. I'm not sure how many, short of going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikipedia and checking every destination's lede and "Understand" against the "History" or other sections of the original Wikipedia article. The creative communism free licence doesn't prohibit this (as attribution has been provided) but these do incur a SEO penalty. I'd raised the issue, only to be told "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it."

I disagree with this stance because:

  1. We need to have original content. If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted an encyclopedia, they already have one... Wikipedia. We add no value by merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here.
  2. Dumping verbatim copy-paste text to muliple articles and telling others to "tweak it" is merely making more work for subsequent editors.
  3. There's no easy way, short of manually going through the user's entire contribution history and a list of every page with the {{wikipedia}} tag, to determine which articles contain text which the user has summarised and posted in their own words (good) and which articles contain copy-pasted encyclopaedia text (which is bad, due to the SEO penalty and due to the perception that we have nothing original to offer editors or voyagers).

Admittedly, our existing guidelines on WV:SEO, WV:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, WV:Cooperating with Wikipedia discourage copypasta from other CC-BY-SA sources but (if the attribution complies with the licence) don't expressly prohibit it. I'm thinking that we should adopt a more restrictive stance; specifically, entire paragraphs of verbatim text from other free sources should be treated as a {{style}} problem which needs to be flagged and repaired, much like touting, fluff or listings which lack a {{listing}} template or a description of the venue being listed. Currently we have no easy means to track copy-paste edits and no way to discourage their proliferation.

As much as I don't like an article lacking an "Understand" section (as we're an educational resource, not merely a yellow-page directory listing of every greasy spoon and cockroach motel) we are looking for original content and any mass, w:User:Rambot-style spree is doing more harm than good. K7L (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should write a good free travel guide. If we find good text that suites our guide and can be used legally I see no problem in using it. Original content is better, but summaries or extracts from Wikipedia articles, with the information useful in our context, are much better than nothing and often better than what could easily be written as original text. Unless the Wikipedia article is a short stub, which equally well can be read here, there is still much more to read on Wikipedia, and unless our article is started with just the Understand, there is much other content here. SEO concerns should not stop us from writing what we think is best for our readers. Crippling our guides for SEO reasons is hardly the way to go. Then of course, as you say, Wikipedia information should in most cases be rewritten for our purpose, but for different reasons. --LPfi (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
WV aims to be the best and most complete travel guide, such that travelers would not need or want any other existing travel guide. As such, endless lists of mere attraction names are undesirable because they don't tell the traveler what there is to see, nor why they would want to see it. Instead, each attraction should have a few lines explaining what's special about it (i.e. what makes it worthwhile to see/do) and for many See items that inevitably includes a short history of the place — without their history mentioned, travelers would still need to consult another travel guide to get the full picture. For attractions that have a Wikipedia page, do link to them (using the wikipedia field of the listing template), but only summarize what's relevant to the traveler. For example, it is probably relevant to mention the architect of a building and its architectural style, but usually irrelevant to mention when its last renovation took place or when it was classified as a protected monument, although Wikipedia will mention all that info. Thus, limit WV articles to the scope that most travelers will find interesting, which is typically a few sentences. Those who want more in-depth information can follow the link to Wikipedia. For reference, a good example is the current Sarajevo article. ArticCynda (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is me to whom User:K7L is referring. I welcome the discussion, and will of course respect the views of the community.

I have been undertaking a solo expedition to upgrade city and park articles from "outline" to "usable". I have completed 184 articles so far. This means that a reader clicking on any of our city/park articles for western Canada, the Greater Toronto Area and the Niagara Peninsula will get useful information instead of a stub. I have done this by adapting history from Wikipedia articles, and more importantly, by adding get in/get around info, and a number of listings at least of some of the see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep sections, depending on what is available for that community. In most cases, the WP history for a town is too long or includes details that are not appropriate for a high-level travel article history, so I cut it down, and improve the wording. (Sometime I copyedit the WP text before moving it over by to WV.)

Here are the four articles that I have upgraded recently from outline to usable in this way, and the corresponding Wikipedia articles: Petawawa, W:Petawawa, Hawkesbury, W:Hawkesbury, Ontario, Wilno, W:Wilno, Ontario, Renfrew, W:Renfrew, Ontario. You can also check my work by picking a random small town in Western Canada -- I've contributed to most of them in this way.

What I don't welcome, however, is the continued misrepresentation and denigration of my work as "copypasta", "copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia", "merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here", "Dumping verbatim copy-paste text".

I explained in the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail that "If you compare the new article to the WP article, you will see that I have adapted it to make it more suitable for a travel guide, and useful for travellers." When User: ChubbyWimbus (and not K7L) falsely described my contributions there as copypasta/e a second time, I responded to him/her, "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it. Your choice." No-one complaining in this VfD has done anything to improve the article. It seems that they would rather have no article at all than a work-in-progress.

Yes, I'm a little cranky about this. I've been doing a lot of work to build this into a useful travel guide, and I am seeing my work denigrated by a few editors repeating the false narrative that I am just copying and pasting. Don't take my word for it - compare the articles I've linked above to see whether you think they "add no value" for travellers.

Commenting on this discussion without looking at any of the articles is not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked at two of these articles and it appears from the attribution that the stuff copied from WP is around 20%. Although this is not ideal, I don't see this as a problem. I realise that there are SEO penalties in doing this, but I think that it is much more important that readers are satisfied when they do come here. I don't think that 20% in common is going to irritate somebody who reads our article a few minutes after reading the WP one (including those that follow the link between articles in either direction). Both articles will have later edits and will diverge over time. AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did not "misrepresent" or "denigrate" anyone's work. My second comment was "I'd say do whatever needs to be done to remove the WT attribution and tweak whatever text was copy-pasted and then keep it". I used the word "whatever" which doesn't mean it was all copy-pasted. The concern was brought up about copy-pasted content, so I suggested giving that content (whatever it may be) a tweak and keeping it. It wasn't my accusation that anything was copy-pasted. I only responded. Also, I voted "keep" so if you're worried about "misrepresentation", you could refrain from saying I'd "rather have no article at all". I have no issue with summarizing. I looked at a couple of the articles you cited and those seemed fine. I don't know the extent of what you've edited or if there are other articles that are more concerning. I'll trust that there aren't unless someone brings some up. Copy-paste has been an issue brought up before, so it's not about you personally. I've never seen any value in copy-pasting when summarizing is easy and in complete alignment with our goals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
ChubbyWimbus, because your comments were in a VfD discussion about an article that I had created, I assumed that your comments were about my work. Thank you for the clarification. And yes, you voted "keep", so it was incorrect for me to suggest that you would rather have no article. I apologize. Ground Zero (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Aside from K7L, I'm not seeing concern about adapting text from Wikipedia where appropriate in order to build our articles in conjunction with adding practical information from other sources. I had stopped contributing in that way pending the outcome of this discussion, but since the discussion has fizzled out, I'll resume expanding articles to usable status. Ground Zero (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you go this route, could you please check whether the geographic coverage area of the article to which you're pasting text matches that of the original Wikipedia page? Often our geographic boundaries are different, and this is by design. Wikipedia tends to align strictly to the official municipal boundaries, while we tend to allow one bottom-level destination to continue across suburbs or even a collection of small rural villages so that a bottom-level article's coverage ends where the next destination begins. This gives articles of reasonable size to be printed and carried for travel. K7L (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It will be interesting to check the SEO results of these articles, say 3-4 months down the track. Hopefully the new original listings and content added outweigh the copied text in Understand. When I have used Wikipedia as a source of information, I paraphrased every sentence and made the wording more informal, lighter and travel-friendly (and interspersing it with personal knowledge and information from other travel sources). While the content is original, it has the drawback of being much slower than adding many sentences verbatim but excluding some of the irrelevant ones from Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 04:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
DaGizza: as you note, there is definitely a trade-off between building the travel guide, and maximizing SEO, and each editor will make his or her own decisions about which to prioritize. For my part, I will edit Wikipedia text to make it more concise, to improve the writing style, and to focus on what I think would be of most interest to travellers in the interest of putting the traveller first. I'm not going to edit for the sake of appeasing someone like K7L whose criticism of other editors is unconstructive. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
SEO is only part of the issue. Our success in attracting editors depends on being able to encourage editors from other projects, including Wikipedia, to edit here. We have a better chance of convincing them to stay if we're creating original content instead of merely mirroring some other random wiki. K7L (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For the last effing time, the content I am adding is not "merely mirroring some other random wiki". I have had with your insults. I raised the issue of your attack on my contributions and tone on your talk page to encourage you not to drive away editors, and you didn't have the courtesy to respond, as you didn't have the courtesy to respond to my reply to your attack above. You are probably the last person qualified to advise on how to attract and keep editors. I am focussed on building the travel guide, and ask you to stop trying to bring other editors down. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Wikivoyage:Rail expedition is on track - Make Railroads Great Again![edit]

Friends of the railroad, Romans, countrymen -

I hereby inform ye that the Wikivoyage:Rail expedition has been launched. This is - as far as I am informed - without further delay, immediate. If you wish to join me, please do. And we can also discuss the direction which to take. Make railroads great again! Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Which use of "dinner" is preferred in articles?

  • don't use it at all: breakfast, lunch, and supper (the least confusing option, in my opinion)
  • use it in place of "supper", as in the UK: breakfast, lunch, and dinner
  • use it in place of "lunch", as in the US: breakfast, dinner, and supper

--Robkelk (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry? No one in the U.S. calls lunch "dinner", and "supper" is a somewhat archaic regional synonym for the evening meal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
So, not lunch, then. --Robkelk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"Dinner" in the US is theoretically the main/largest meal of the day, which, assuming that you were on a farm and that you were living before World War I, was the middle of the day. The largest meal is now generally the evening meal, except for holidays (dinner on Thanksgiving Day might start as early as noon) and on Sundays for those (mostly elderly people) who want a fancy meal after church services are over, so a dinner invitation from anyone under the age of 75 is understood to be in the evening unless otherwise specified.
"Supper" is theoretically smaller than dinner (i.e., your last list is technically correct, but not a pattern Americans use much any longer), with possibly the most delightful version being breakfast in bed at 8:00 a.m., dinner at 1:00 p.m., afternoon tea at 4:00 p.m., the opera at 8:00 p.m., and supper at 11:00 p.m. (This schedule assumes that you don't have reservations at the Grand Tier Restaurant at the Met, and thus won't be eating your main course before the curtain rises and your dessert during intermission.)
As to how they are used: "dinner" and "supper" are generally considered synonyms. "Dinner" feels fancier, and it is the term that most upscale restaurants seem to prefer. "Supper" is unambiguous about the time of day. If you're writing paragraphs, then occasionally substituting the phrase evening meal would bypass the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe supper and dinner are used interchangeably depending on the region in the US. Perhaps it's my region, but when I was growing up dinner had fancier connotations and was eaten later in the evening (6-8pm) compared to a supper (5-6 pm). Today I rarely hear or use supper. I also don't notice the usage of either relating to the time one eats beyond it being eaten after 5pm. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
British & Irish usage has evolved in a similar way. Scottish hospitable greeting: "Eh, but ye'll have had your tea??" Grahamsands (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
In Singapore, we say "breakfast", "lunch" and "dinner", while "supper" refers to a very late night meal that is eaten after dinner (~9pm or later), and is often not eaten at all. And at least in the parts of Australia and the U.S. that I have lived in, it's also "breakfast", "lunch" and "dinner". But that said, when read Enid Blyton books as a kid, they used "breakfast", "dinner" and "supper", and Enid Blyton was most certainly a British author, so I'm not sure if that usage is a British regionalism, or is it standard British English? The dog2 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Having "dinner" refer to the largest meal of the day is too confusing since for nutritional/health reasons, breakfast should be the largest meal of the day! Just use "dinner" for the evening meal, that will be understood by most people. ArticCynda (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(indent) "Dinner" to me is the third meal of the day regardless of how much or little you eat. The way I tend to hear "supper" used in the US is strictly for use when dinner is prepared at home. I've never heard of anyone "going out for supper". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not forget second breakfast and afternoon tea!--Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
...and brunch. K7L (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
And elevenses!
Artic, I believe that having the main meal in the middle of the day was established for the convenience of the cook, in centuries when under-nutrition was the main food-related health concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems reasonable yes, I can imagine it wasn't very pleasant to prepare a main meal under candle light in winter when days are short, so convenience for the cook probably played a role there. ArticCynda (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


I have seen "kms" quite a bit in some articles. Now I know this is short hand for kilometers or kilometres, but to a scientifically inclined person it might come off as some nonsensical unit of distance times time (whatever the use of such might be). I think we should stick with formal plural of "km" which is - to my knowledge at least - "km". Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Measurements#Length says: "Never use an "s" after a unit abbreviation to make it plural." Ground Zero (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This should be obvious to anyone who finished primary school, though. The unit km s does not make any sense, but perhaps they might have meant km s-1 when referring to speed?
Wikivoyage editors who are too young to have learned this in school can remember it like this: units follow the same rule as Pokémon, i.e. the plural of Pikachu is Pikachu and not Pikachus. ArticCynda (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Or it could also be km s-2 when referring to acceleration. But back to the main point, yes, we never add "s" to the end of a unit abbreviation for plurals. It's always "km" regardless of whether it's singular or plural. By the way, the correct scientific abbreviation for hour is "h" and not "hr". That is something that also seems to be inconsistent between our articles. The dog2 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Measurements#Duration says to use "hr". Should a travel guide use "correct scientific abbreviation", or an abbreviation that avoids ambiguity for travellers? In French-speaking areas, 9h30 means 9:30AM, so using "h" could cause confusion. Do you mean 9½ hours, or 9:30AM? Ground Zero (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
First of all, this is English Wikipedia, so I guess we can presume that any French or French-Canadian traveller reading this already knows English conventions. An you never write it as just 9h30. It's always 9h 30min, and in English the meaning of that is unambiguous (at least in Singapore, Australia and the U.S., though I'm not sure about Canada). But regardless, I don't really care what abbreviation WV decides to use as long as it's unambiguous and consistent. The dog2 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't around when "hr" was chosen, but I see so many different time formats, including foreign ones. I agree that it is best to avoid ambiguity. Ground Zero (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, using "ms" to mean "metres" cannot stand, as "ms" is the standard scientific abbreviation for "millisecond" (1/1000 seconds). That is something that can cause confusion if we are not consistent. The dog2 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
We know from experience that we absolutely cannot "presume that any French or French-Canadian traveller reading this already knows English conventions" - editors from such areas constantly use the French time-telling format. If you mean that they'd understand the Anglo-American formats if they read them, then sure, but that doesn't mean they will use them when editing this site. As for "kms", the place on this site where I see that abbreviation (or "Kms" or "KMs" or "KMS") most often is in articles about India, so that abbreviation may be standard or at least the de facto default there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Bot running to fix. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
What is left is best done manually. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The traveler comes first of course, so in their best interest WV should use the notation that is common/accepted in a geographic region, even if that means not using standard units. We're already doing this for regions that have yet to adopt the metric system, expressing values in their local units (like feet/miles/inches etc. instead of cm/m/km). But I find it hard to believe that "KMS" would be a common abbreviation for kilometre in India, perhaps someone with knowledge on the Indian situation can comment on that? ArticCynda (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As far as I know, the scientific abbreviations are standard everywhere, at least as far as scientific work is concerned. The dog2 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what I also assumed, but then the question remains where all those non-standard abbreviations keep coming from? Traveler100's bot found and corrected tons of them. These don't seem like random occurrences. ArticCynda (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It is just coming from countries that have a large English population where people have a good awareness of the s for plural but not necessarily with technical/scientific background or knowledge of French influenced languages. Bound to see it more in India and Australia than in UK or Canada, and US articles tend to be in miles. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Changing "15 minutes maximum" (as estimated time to visit an attraction) from "15 mins max" to "15 min max" looks odd, as min/max could be minimum/maximum. K7L (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Do not think the bot could have done that change? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Or leave min away all together and use ' as symbol? For example visit time: 15' max. ArticCynda (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The ' symbol is unfortunately not as well-known as the min abbreviation. In fact, I've only used it for angles, but never for time. And moreover, in the U.S. and the U.K., ' is also a shorthand notation for a foot (unit of length), so I'm concerned that it could be confusing. The dog2 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"Minutes" is not a long or technical word. 7 letters and 2 syllables. It could just be written in full to avoid ambiguity. Gizza (roam) 10:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata lat/longs[edit]

We now have an ability to get lat/longs from Wikidata. Adding a WD value to a marker or listing results in a marker appearing in a mapframe in the article. However the marker does not appear if a full page map is displayed using the map icon at the top of the article. For an example see Kapiti Coast. If the WD value is added to a listing, the listing editor can then be used to add the lat/long easily by clicking on the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" link, but this is not available with markers. It looks like it is better fill in lat/long values in addition to adding the WD value. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would advise to import the lat/longs manually, or at least double check them after importing. For the second item in the list, for example, the marker for Paekakariki is actually placed in the ocean if you zoom in on the map (which I personally find undesirable). ArticCynda (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Coordinates from Wikidata should not be displayed automatically like this, at least not for all POIs. I thought we already discussed this at Template talk:Marker. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The "Appalachian Trail" marker in Mid-Atlantic is an example of why this shouldn't be done automatically. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You can override those cross-continental trails coords to make them fit, or fix wikidata/override for the likes of Paekakariki .-) The lat/long are not copied from WD (by the bot), so it's easy to see where the marker coords may be off... (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see any way to remove coordinates from listings that shouldn't have them at all, short of removing the Wikidata parameter. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to document it - there's the "NA" value that can be passed to lat/long to do exactly this. (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, seems you are right - also the german WV seems to have the same issue, so it must be some fundamental problem w/ {{PoiMap2}}... :-( (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate maps[edit] and their bot have been adding dynamic maps to a large number of country and region articles. When the article doesn't already have a map, I think this is generally a good thing. But in many cases it results in the article having two maps showing basically the same information (see Green Spain and Great Plains for two examples). To me this seems like unnecessary clutter. What do other editors think? Is it desirable to have two maps in these articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should pick one or the other. Having two maps is redundant. The dog2 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Granger and The dog2. I've been reverting the bot edits for articles that already have up-to-date static maps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree Dynamic and static maps just serve two different purposes. The dynamic maps do not look as good in print, which is important. Obviously, if we're going to have one or the other, have dynamic but virtually any guide is long enough to accommodate both. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I recall this issue has arisen before at Talk:Adirondacks#Maps. I believe the resolution was to link to the dynamic map with {{PoiMap2detail}} and display the static map inline? K7L (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: What's the benefit of adding a dynamic map to a region article when it already has an up-to-date static map? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Scrolling/panning/zooming. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The dynamic maps can be zoomed to get additional info (like roads, gas stations or hotels). Thanks to the wikidata, some 60-80% of the city listings show image on clicking (which is good for me, if I want to decide where to go in that region, without reading all the NN city articles). The wmflabs maps don't seem to work so nicely... Unfortunately the inline dynamic maps can't be currently shown offline - which is where the static one comes handy. In the end, I thought that's the whole point of {{mapframe}} param staticmap... So I'd much rather have both maps - as it was said above, there's enough space and the maps serve different purposes. (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Another related topic - the maps and wikidata show that many articles refer to cities in wrong regions, or even countries (Minas in Cuba) :) Or duplicate region usage, or incomplete region coverage Latin America.... (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes as an aside this is an issue that was brought up earlier concerning and verifying coordinates. Wikidata has 2 entries for Minas (same title) -- probably should be Minas (Uruguay) and Minas (Cuba) - have to do some scrunge work to get the correct ID and coordinates. -- Matroc (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Static maps are being defended with the argument that dynamic maps don't print well on paper, but do we have actual statistics on how many users still print articles and/or maps? Dynamic maps are so much more convenient: they are zoomable, they show thumbnail pictures with POIs to make them easier to find, and clicking on a listing marker shows its location on the map straight away. They also update automatically when listings are added or their order modified, whereas static maps require a lot of manual labor.
Static maps seem a relic from the time when we didn't have dynamic map functionality embedded yet. However, I do want to emphasize that the one condition for switching to dynamic maps completely should be that they also work perfectly in offline mode, so that articles with dynamic maps can be saved as HTML files and consulted on a laptop/tablet/smartphone in areas where there is no interent access. ArticCynda (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"the one condition for switching to dynamic maps completely should be that they also work perfectly in offline mode". I don't think this will happen at all due to the nature of dynamic maps as an online beast... Sort of like having an html file with a link to the home page of 'The Statue of Liberty' and being offline trying to connect and view it. -- Matroc (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (indent) The regional dynamic maps are eye-sores. They're so blobby and unattractive; Look at Chugoku. The static map is way better looking. I think for countries and regions, the static maps are far superior. These articles aren't meant for you to zoom into a city; you're supposed to click the city for that. People should use the dynamic maps on the city articles to zoom in/out. It's much more useful there. If there are reasons to use the regional article for zooming, the coloring makes it really difficult to read. The dynamic maps are definitely more user-friendly (as they don't require any knowledge or skill to add/update), but the static maps are so much more professional-looking and welcoming in the regional format. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Chugoku map is a bit ugly. Appears that water area has been included in OSM. Does need more work. I remember a similar issue with Monaco that reaches out into the Med... -- Matroc (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pages which may be printed and carried for travel are among the stated goals of the project. The dynamic maps still have a long way to improve before they can replace static maps for upper level regions. The code needs to change to label cities with city names instead of numbers, to turn off extraneous details from the base map (so that we're not showing both our markers and OSM's points of interest) and to properly label the various shaded regions. We still have no way to change the icons based on POI type and the numbering won't go past 99. They also need to work properly in hard copy, as well as in the various e-book formats (.epub, .mobi, .pdf) and third-party apps. We're not there yet and, if WMF has disbanded the maps team which had been working on fixing mw:Extension:Kartographer, this won't change in the foreseeable future. Dynamic maps are good for handling things that change often (such as individual city-level POI's) but perform poorly for anything more than a bottom-level region. K7L (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The kicker is that even if all the issues with dynamic maps were magically fixed tomorrow, those that depict countries and regions will still, by definition, never be more than equally as good as static ones. The advantage of dynamic maps are that they are far easier to edit than static ones, which makes them preferable in bottom-level destinations because they cover things that are transient - i.e. businesses which open and close on a constant basis - and thus need to be updated frequently. By contrast, how often do national borders change? The names of cities? The trajectories of roads or railways? The location of mountains or other geological features? Not never, but infrequently enough that our few static mapmakers have never had trouble keeping up with the workload, and indeed our site still has many static country and region maps that have never been edited since being uploaded and yet are still perfectly up to date. There is no information on dynamic country or region maps that static maps don’t have, and there is no functionality relevant to country or region articles that dynamic maps have and static ones don’t. I think having a bot make these unnecessary edits that basically do nothing more than clutter up pages with extraneous visual cruft while providing no real gain to the reader was an ill-conceived idea, and these edits all need to be undone. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you on that one, AndreCarrotflower. Could we agree to have static maps for articles that do not include volatile POIs like museums, restaurants, or hotels? Following that logic, can we agree to remove the static map requirement for upgrade to Star nominations? ArticCynda (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with that suggestion. I think we should use static maps for anything above the city level, as well as at the city level for cities that have been district articles. Country level maps should most certainly be static because administrative divisions of a country generally don't change very often, the exception of course being very small countries like the Vatican City, where the entire country is basically the size of a city neighbourhood elsewhere. The dog2 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Dynamic maps for country and region articles are better than no maps at all. What I object to on such articles are dynamic maps replacing, or existing side-by-side with, static maps. Regarding attaining Star status, I have long said that the static-map requirement should be eliminated across the board, for both country/region articles and bottom-level destinations alike, but I see that as a separate issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that dynamic maps are not desirable for countries and regions with good static maps. They're harder to read and ugly, and unfortunately the bot is not very good at deciding where to place them in articles. The proposal to remove the static map requirement for star status should be discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Star articles. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A picture is worth a thousand words. You can write a walls of text (like I did below), but trip planners will show you a page of pictures and you know what to do- without spending half a day reading through.
  • You can't interact with the static maps. Also, there are ~3500 region articles, are there static maps for at least 10% of them? And then, these are mostly only the country-level + bigger region maps (like states in USA, or counties of Italy). Often I have found maps like in Adirondacks - which use the same color hue for all regions, so it's really unpleasant to use. Even more than the above mentioned Chugoku (which could be probably polished a bit, but I don't have the energy/time to do it for all 3500 articles, obviously ;-) ). There are consistency issues with the static maps designs, let's not go there now...
  • (IMO) most/all region articles should function as a kind of 'preview' of the region. Is that agreed? It should summarize the most interesting POIs there - esp. cities/see/do (though currently, only cities and national parks are usually included). We don't have any 'ratings' nor a way to show e.g. 'region heatmap' of the places with most listings. This is no match for tripadvisor or even I started adding the dynamic maps to add something useful on top of what WT already has. Otherwise, what's the point of coming here - if you say that the base regions are +/- the same? ;-) Adding the dynamic maps into most of the regions will help the visitor, esp. if we slowly modify them to look like e.g. Prague, Paris or Central Slovakia. You can click the POIs and get a feeling if there's something around for you... OTOH, check Viti_Levu or Zambales. What good is this for? How is this better than just googling "CityXYZ travel guide" (and thus 99% not ever getting to WV)?
Neither Viti_Levu nor Zambales have a dynamic map. I would imagine if a dynamic map was added and coordinates for the cities and other destinations (POIs) were added it might improve somewhat. -- Matroc (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with the city static-vs-dynamic map talk. Check Paris - the static map is OK, probably ok-ish for orientation, but you will have no idea where to go. Once you check the map with "See" POIs - voila, you will likely spend most of the time in the 1st arr. Without the top-level markers/hints, you can go have fun and spend 1/2 day figuring out where is what. I'd rather just use TripAdvisor. The same with reverted Bay Area.
  • Obviously, this is manual work for many years. But if we don't use the dynamic maps, WF won't have a reason to allocate resources to improve the maps etc. Chicken-egg problem, I guess? ;) We have to work with what we have, hope for the best in the future (many things to be fixed though, like User:K7L said), IMO... I won't run the bot on the second 1/2 of the regions until this is resolved - but for the love of God, don't go on a revert rampage, just for the sake of "good old ways" or whatever :-/ The bot is not perfect, it's meant to do the repetitive work. Obviously, it cannot fix random issues. (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone wrote, "[dynamic maps] that depict countries and regions will still, by definition, never be more than equally as good as static ones". I disagree with that claim. Shall we maybe compare definitions?
My current definition of a good region map is one that lets me determine whether a city or (US) county is present in a given region. So here's a hand-crafted region map: File:Iowa regions map.png. Please let me know if you can figure out which of Iowa's 99 counties are in which of these eight regions. I have looked for a list and been unable to find one. Do the Amana Colonies fall into the green bit or the orange bit? The top-rated college is in Grinnell; which region is that? Pella is an important tourist destination, especially for people with Dutch connections. Where's that on this map? Does it help if I tell you that it's south of Marshalltown, right where the line divides between the purple and light-green regions? The Grotto of the Redemption attracts Catholic pilgrims to a tiny town. Maquoketa Caves is somewhere in Iowa. The Field of Dreams is in Dyersville, population 4,000. Can you figure out which region any of those attractions are in, with this region map?
I could go on, but I think you get my point: this is a perfectly good region map, and it is still wildly deficient – wildly deficient by design – if you are trying to figure out which region contains the attraction that you want to visit. All else being equal, a dynamic map that shows you the regions (which Iowa doesn't have) and then lets you zoom in to verify that the thing you want is in the orange bit instead of the green bit is preferable to a static map that leaves you guessing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to know which Iowa region the Amana Colonies fall into, simply go to the Amana Colonies article and the breadcrumb tree directly above the pagebanner will tell you. That's a far simpler solution than zooming in on Iowa's dynamic map and clicking and dragging around until you find the needle in the haystack. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Which works if your destination is a city that we have an article about and you know about the breadcrumb trail. That method works poorly if you're looking for Dyersville, even if you have a general idea of where the famous baseball diamond is located. That example is not hypothetical: figuring out where to put some of the Iowa attractions has taken me far longer than it should have, simply because there was no way to figure out what locations were included in each region of that static map. Field of Dreams, BTW, has been added to two of the region articles, so presumably I'm not the only person who has trouble figuring out where it belongs. I personally believe that it's three miles east of the region border, but how could anyone find out for certain? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Summarizing the discussion so far, in an attempt to integrate everyone's thoughts:

  1. Dynamic maps are the preferred map type for city/district level articles: ability to update automatically when listings change; they allow interaction (zooming, show POI images, switching on/off map layers etc.); better maintenance overview for us. (from, ArticCynda)
  2. Dynamic maps should be improved on the software side to improve offline viewing and rendering in prints. (from Justin, ArticCynda,, K7L)
  3. Static maps are generally preferred for country/region articles with little or no dynamic content. (from ChubbyWimbus, AndreCarrotflower, The dog2, ThunderingTyphoons!)
  4. Any map is better than having no map at all. (from Granger, AndreCarrotflower, ArticCynda)
  5. Articles should only have one map type (a static is preferred at country/region level, and a dynamic one at city/district level). (from Granger, The dog2, AndreCarrotflower)

From which a few follow-up questions arise:

  • Do we need better tools to speed up the creation of static maps or modify their template to make them more attractive?
  • What do we do with city/district articles that already have a crude static map (keep as legacy, or remove in favor of a dynamic one)?
  • How do we coordinate/implement/push technical improvements to dynamic maps?

Most of us agree that the implementation of neither the static nor the dynamic maps is perfect, and both require technical improvements, but IMHO that shouldn't prevent us from reaching a compromise on in which direction we want the WV map system to evolve. Waiting for technical improvements that may or may not be implemented some time in the distant future de facto stalls WV into a state of inconsistency, which I dislike. ArticCynda (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

All the numbered points of ArticCynda's excellent summary seem to logically cohere, and I think they are all reasonable and desirable.
One thing I would add that's not quite right with one of Cynda's questions is this: even if there is no dynamic mapframe included in the article, clicking on the POI number opens a map showing the clicked POI and those of the surroundings.
As an answer to one of the other questions, my opinion is that a crude static map on a city article would be best replaced by a dynamic map. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that clicking on markers opens up a map even if there is no map frame on the page, thanks for pointing that out ThunderingTyphoons!! I've removed that question from the summary accordingly. ArticCynda (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you cannot change the background layer for those maps, it seems... :-( (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that one map is always the best answer. California has a static map in the main place, followed by a dynamic map under ==Cities==, and, at least for larger articles, I think that might be a valuable combination (easy way to see the overall picture, followed by an easy way to find where that particular listing is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If California's static map doesn't include everything listed in the "Cities" and "Other destinations" section, that's a reason to update the static map (which, again is a need that comes up infrequently enough that we've never had a problem keeping on top of it), not a reason to clutter up the screen with two maps that are mostly redundant to each other. We have a policy of minimal use of images, and I think a reasonable reading of that policy would hold maps to be equivalent to images for such purposes - if anything, it requires more bandwidth, and is more of an impediment to those on slow-speed connections, to display a dynamic map than a static image thumbnail. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Map#Should I replace a dynamic map with a static map? does permit both a static and dynamic map "Consider creating a static map which complements the dynamic map, for instance showing the main central sights and is placed below the dynamic map." I think that in the case of regions, a good comprimise would be to choose only one map to be large and make the other a small thumbnail. There are many regions where the static maps have not been updated to show every village that now has an article, but the static map still gives a clear overview of most places in the region. My preferred approach for bottom level regions would be to use a mapmask to show the region borders and then use the destinations layer to automatically show everywhere that has an article, but unfortunately the layer parameter is disabled in mapframe. This would mean that cities would always show on the map even if they were only created last month and haven't been added to the article yet (destinations take a few days to appear after adding geo to the article). AlasdairW (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Except in the case of second-from-the-bottom-level destinations, static region maps should not show literally "every village that now has an article". They should show subregions, if applicable, and the 7±2 destinations listed in "Cities" and "Other destinations". I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to be convinced that it's ever appropriate or consistent with our policy on minimal use of images for an article to have both a static and a dynamic map. If Wikivoyage:Map says differently, then that page needs to be brought into line with the rest of our policy and with the consensus that's quickly emerging out of this discussion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
"consensus that's quickly emerging" - where do you see it? :) Anywho, just to prove the point - I randomly checked static maps of Italy, Spain, Russia (UK looks ok, TBF), arguably quite high-ranking countries. Go check how many of the markers are actually in the static map, and if some of those maps were updated in the past 5 years. The point is - there are very few editors who even semi-regularly update those. If you want to do it, by all means let's just have static maps. Otherwise, the static maps are really only good for general overview and for print, but using them for any real decision making (as was shown above by WhatamIdoing) or for navigation through our site is mostly self-torture. (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Central Slovakia is an interesting case study. Both the dynamic and static maps do some things better than the other. The dynamic map gives you quick snapshot of where the interesting things are (generally the northern part of Central Slovakia has more points of interest than the southern part). You can zoom in and out to get a deeper sense of distance and direction. You can click on the number and see an image relating to that destination (a kind of cool preview). The dynamic also provides a marginally better indicator of the topography of the region. On the other hand, the static map colour-codes the subregions. The names on the map for the cities and regions can be written flexibly, like Horehronie on an angle, to fit within the map which means that from a far zoom, there are many more words and descriptions on the map about Central Slovakia's geography, even including the names of the rivers and bordering countries. And the font is much more beautiful. The best map would combine all of these features into one. Both maps are about equal in terms of the road networks shown. Gizza (roam) 09:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, adding those colorcoded regions (for dynamicmap) in this particular page is probably a question of ~5 minutes... I just didn't find the time to do it yet :) (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder how you do that in 5 minutes. My approach was to open this map to get the names of the districts and enter them in Wikidata to get their respective ID. Takes forever and is quite cumbersome. Do you have an easier way of doing this?--Renek78 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I generally lookup the admin units
Banská Bystrica Region: Q183640 (388270) lat: 48.729722 long: 19.149167 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Bratislava Region: Q183498 (none) lat: 48.143889 long: 17.109722 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Košice Region: Q186295 (none) lat: 48.716111 long: 21.863056 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Nitra Region: Q184548 (none) lat: 48.306944 long: 18.086389 - wv: Slovakia---wv: Nitra (region)
Prešov Region: Q189001 (none) lat: 49.001667 long: 21.239444 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Trenčín Region: Q183139 (388267) lat: 49.222778 long: 18.739444 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Trnava Region: Q181342 (none) lat: 48.377500 long: 17.588333 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
Žilina Region: Q184228 (none) lat: 49.222778 long: 18.739444 - wv: Slovakia---wv: ----
then each region ie. Zilina to get more info...
Bytča District: Q668333 (none) lat: 49.223056 long: 18.558611 - wv: -------wv: ----
Dolný Kubín District: Q665066 (none) lat: 49.208889 long: 19.295278 - wv: -------wv: ----
Kysucké Nové Mesto District: Q762646 (none) lat: 49.301944 long: 18.786667 - wv: -------wv: ----
Liptovský Mikuláš District: Q545302 (none) lat: 49.080556 long: 19.622222 - wv: -------wv: ----
Martin District: Q756665 (none) lat: 49.062778 long: 18.921944 - wv: -------wv: ----
Námestovo District: Q388888 (none) lat: 49.406389 long: 19.483889 - wv: -------wv: ----
Ružomberok District: Q655156 (none) lat: 49.081667 long: 19.304444 - wv: -------wv: ----
Turčianske Teplice District: Q548293 (none) lat: 48.863600 long: 18.863300 - wv: -------wv: ----
Tvrdošín District: Q756899 (none) lat: 49.333611 long: 19.555000 - wv: -------wv: ----
Čadca District: Q836173 (none) lat: 49.438056 long: 18.789722 - wv: -------wv: ----
Žilina District: Q836201 (none) lat: 49.220833 long: 18.740556 - wv: -------wv: ----
You can also retrieve a Wikidata ID of any wv article directly by name if it exists in wv. ie. The Wikidata ID for Central Slovakia is: Q1541057 (wikibase command?) (One could I imagine use an api or query etc.) -- Matroc (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Renek78, yep, that's basically it... Last time I tried to prepare this in OSM, most of the regions matched 1:1 with groups of current regions (but it doesn't work, because the relations would have to contain the boundary ways... {{mapshape}} cannot work with these super-relations, which just group other relations like Liptov above). Anywya, AFAIR mostly the western-south regions were crossing middle of current regions. Maybe 5 minutes is too little, but definitely 10-20x less than it would take me to prepare the static map :) (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to know how to draw up static maps so easily. I've never made a static map, and like many other Wikivoyagers, I'm interested in learning the fastest way to do it. The documentation page is quite confusing, in that matter. ArticCynda (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This discussion was taken off the shelf again, dusted off and revisited. I thought the question was about duplicate maps until I started to read further. Yes there are problems but not necessarily with dynamic maps but as a result of underlying issues with Wikidata, OSM etc. Cherry picking one or two articles with a dynamic map is not in my opinion indicative or truly representative for every article. The question I would ask myself would be "Can I fix it? How? and Where can I get help to do so?". -- Matroc (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yup, I think a week later we moved nowhere... So unless there's a big opposition, I'll just finish the last 1/3-1/2 of the pages to make it all uniform - and we can discuss in the meantime, if there's something more to be said. OK? (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    Support :-) (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose We have a status quo bias on this site, and a clear majority who are against having duplicate maps in articles (myself, Granger, The dog2, ArticCynda, ChubbyWimbus, and ThunderingTyphoons vs. only you, Justin, and WhatamIdoing in favor; other editors have commented in various ways but have not taken a clear stand one way or the other). No, a majority is not a consensus, but in a case where said majority is in favor of a preexisting status quo, that's a pretty clear indication that you need to hold your horses. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I am also in favour of dynamic maps when they are useful, and see no problem with having both static and dynamic maps in the same article providing that each must serve a useful purpose to the traveller. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Peter, we're talking about dynamic and static maps that each contain the same information, and specifically about region maps with little or no dynamic content (i.e. national borders, geographic features, and other things that never or rarely change as opposed to "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep" listings that are prone to go out of business, and new ones to open). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If this is your only issue, I'll skip pages with static maps. I'm looking forward to you updating them, making them clickable etc.! .-) (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Andre, I haven't seen an example of a page yet that has "dynamic and static maps that each contain the same information". Green Spain has similar information, but the list of cities on the two maps don't match. In Great Plains, the dynamic map has almost twice as many points marked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Funny, Green Spain also shows the issue I mentioned above - Santa Lucía is categorized in the wrong region... anyway, time to shine for the local static-mappers :-P *drops mic* (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Marker Santa Lucia moved to Central Spain (Region) - a clerical error yes, easily fixed YES! -- Matroc (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The differences that strike me are things like the static map has Lugo, but not Muros, whereas the dynamic has Muros but not Lugo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Lugo marker added - edit to remove - see below -- Matroc (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Cities and Other Destinations are limited by convention to 9 important entries each (avoiding the dreaded long lists) - thus you will only see a limited number of markers on a dynamic region map... You want to see more cities etc. - use zoom to see labels on dynamic map which are not found on a static map... In addition, there is also a way to add more markers without them appearing in these lists on the article page. So for the most part, dynamic maps and static maps in Regions are not identical... Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Rather than making snarky comments, the thing to do if you want to build consensus behind the idea of duplicate maps is to argue your case in a way that addresses the specific objections of those who are against the idea. I have yet to be swayed by any of the arguments subsequent to when I came out against the idea; maybe you'll have better luck with some of the other folks I pinged in my comment above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I would opt for dynamic, static or both - depending upon their usefulness in Region articles. As far as individual articles with See, Drink, Do etc. I think dynamic maps are better suited. On the other hand, some articles make much more sense if they use both to provide specific information that is not supplied by any single map. (ie. certain topic sytle articles etc.) -- Matroc (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I see this discussion has spilled over to a user talk page at User_talk:AndreCarrotflower#Why?. Perhaps that discussion should move here to keep this easier to follow? K7L (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the policy that we should only have one map per page needs revisiting and become a little bit more flexible. Sure, when there is significant overlap they become redundant to each other but when the dynamic and static maps show two very different perspectives of the destination then the traveller will benefit from having both of them there. Gizza (roam) 01:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree there should be flexibility—on a case-by-case basis, there may be articles where it's worth having both types of maps. My feeling is that that isn't the case in, for instance, Green Spain or East China, though I recognize there are good arguments on both sides. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a list of two/triple-map regions, if someone wants to do cleanup or whatever (I'd say about 1/2 was added by me, before this discussion started)... (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

AndreeBot blocked[edit]

One of the admins feels like I need a lesson, or (s)he fears that I suddenly go on WV destruction rampage (4500 contribs, 1.5 years of following rules and waiting for discussion outcomes ain't enough?; also I don't hide my identity around here, so I'd publicly shame myself that way?!), or changed their mind on whether the stuff done is right. Don't know which option is worse.

Either the changes I'm doing are wanted (I assume they were), or I should stop immediately and the bots work of the past 2 weeks should be reverted - I can accept both. But 2 weeks ban changes nothing (afterwards I'd just continue what I started accepting the above discussion outcome, like I always did). Please sign here whether I should continue or not:

  • Support Support or Oppose Oppose

If the outcome is "yes", I request the responsible admin to remove the ban until the end of this week. Otherwise he can pick the bot source code and finish, because I shure as hell won't ever again. Peace out! (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this whole situation between you two has escalated far beyond what the situation actually warrants and both have attacked the other personally which I think does not make this easier. I think there should be some sort of mediation, but I am certainly not the person to mediate, given my own hot-headedness and whatnot. Would either of you be willing to propose somebody whom you both trust? I think we should really find some sort of amicable resolution and not do a whole "the community must chose sides on this" thing.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be brief about this because I have a 4AM shift at work tomorrow and need to get to sleep. Yes, I blocked AndreeBot, and the proceedings here on the pub as well as on my talk page provide an acceptable rationale as to why. To recap: a user questioned the desirability of having a bot insert dynamic maps into articles that already had static ones, and as the discussion progressed, a clear majority of participants were of the opinion that articles other than bottom-level destinations should have one or the other type of map, preferably a static one, but not both. After the discussion began to wind down, proposed to continue with the edits because "a week later we moved nowhere", whereupon I reminded him/her that, in fact, most people who commented were against the idea. Evidently s/he ignored my admonition and restarted the bot anyway; I caught and reverted one of the edits leading to the above-linked exchange on my talk page wherein indicated an intention to continue running the bot ("What do I care, I'll just leave the bot finish") despite my having reminded him/her yet again of our policies on consensus and status quo bias. At that point, I was contemplating nominating for a user block, which IMO would have been justified given the circumstances, but I decided instead to take a less confrontational route and block only the bot. Please see Wikivoyage:Script policy which indicates that "[bots] should be in accordance with our policies and guidelines" and those that don't "comply to these requirements will be blocked from reading or editing Wikivoyage pages – even if they're not doing any actual harm", so mine was the requisite course of action per policy.
Furthermore, I reject the idea that mediation is necessary or that I ever attacked personally. As self-serving as it may sound, I feel that to suggest that we are somehow equally in the wrong is a false equivalency. My original intention, before the situation escalated, was to let the discussion on the pub play itself out and see if a consensus in favor of duplicate maps might develop after all. In fact, I explicitly indicated a willingness to do exactly that, despite the fact that I personally would have preferred the opposite conclusion. However, faced with a user who clearly had no intention of waiting for such a consensus to coalesce or addressing the concerns of opponents of his/her proposal before forging ahead in defiance of policy, who had acted in a reckless and provocative manner and who made a clear threat to continue such actions, I feel that I did what needed to be done in accordance with the consensus-based way this website is governed. In point of fact, I think the way I went about it - blocking the bot rather than proposing a user ban for him/herself; ignoring sarcastic remarks and attempts at provocation and keeping my comments focused on the substance of the issue - showed a commendable level of coolheadedness and restraint.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
For the 3rd time. I accepted the current decision and made the bot not add dynamic maps where static already exist. I added one map manually because there it seemed appropriate. (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the last couple dozen edits that the bot made, and I found that it was a very enlightening exercise. Most of the edits inserted a dynamic map into articles that did not have any kind of map. A couple of them inserted a dynamic map into an article, such as Northeast High Country and Northeast Ohio, that contained a static map that didn't name any cities. In a few cases, the bot added the marker template but no map to, e.g., Northeast New Mexico, Northeast (Brazil), and North West England (all of which already had static maps that name cities).
I have so far found only one case, Northeast Missouri, in which the bot inserted a dynamic map into an article that already contained a static map that actually named any cities. This last item is presumably an unwanted edit, and may simply have been a case of overlooking the recent addition of the map to the otherwise nearly empty article. All of the others seem to be basically in compliance with the discussion above: Everyone supports having a map, and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that, by "a map", we mean not just any old map, but specifically a map that shows where at least a couple of the main ==Cities== (or other key attractions) for that location are.
For me, then, the question largely becomes whether an 'error rate' in the 3% range is an acceptable 'cost' for getting maps and markers added to a lot of articles that have either no maps at all or that have very limited maps (e.g., showing the location of the region but not the location of anything inside the region). Personally, I'm willing to tolerate a ~3% error rate. Anyone who thinks that those occasional duplicates make the article worse can revert those ~3% of edits, or perhaps preferably remove the mapframe template while leaving the marker templates in place. The bot made 190 edits before being blocked today, so presumably there are something on the order of 10 such cases in the list. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable level of things to process by hand. I might even go see if I can find a few to do myself in a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The base problem is that the pages use almost 'human language', with many exceptions. Static maps can be added by File/Image tags, they can have name 'southwest nowhere map.png", some 'Ohio counties.png'... It's hard to cover all cases, and so I apparently missed a few (though I tried to be 'generous' and avoid most), so I'd just add more exceptions. Thanks for the review in any case! (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what "For the 3rd time" is all about (Plug: previous 2 times: "If this is your only issue, I'll skip pages with static maps."; "I'll just leave the bot finish (only non-AndreCarrotflower-iritating changes (tm))" (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)); this is the first I'm hearing of the bot being reconfigured to avoid duplicate maps. In any case, that's irrelevant to the edit to Niagara Frontier that I reverted. The consensus is "no duplicate maps anywhere", not "duplicate maps only where it seems appropriate" or "duplicate maps where the static map is out of date and there are no regions drawn".
I also frankly am very frustrated that none of the people I pinged above who came out early against duplicate maps have returned to give their two cents on the latest developments on this front. Well and good not to want to sound like a broken record if one's opinion hasn't changed from the outset, but we have an administrator whose use of the sysop tools is being called into question, and I feel that there's a silent majority here whose perspective on the situation is not being heard.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not going to say too much, because I don't want to find myself caught in the middle of a debate where one block has already occurred. I'll make clear that I don't strongly agree with either side, and I don't think the bot is actually causing any harm. I don't think there has ever been consensus for either side. I think there are two options; either we

  • Let the bot continue to operate, and not worry too much about duplicate maps, or we
  • Put an indefinite ban on the bot, not ban unless he/she causes significant problems, and we all hopefully continue to use the website peacefully.

I don't think it matters greatly which option we choose. That's just my opinion, I'm of course not the final judge of this. Selfie City (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity - According to our policy on status quo bias, if a discussion about a change to policy doesn’t end in consensus, the previous status quo (in this case, one map per article) remains in effect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with User:AndreCarrotflower's claim that "the previous status quo (in this case, one map per article) remains in effect" as there is no existing policy precluding two or more different maps on a page. We sometimes do need different maps to convey different information (for instance, the multiple links to individual regional maps on the 8,050 km (5,000 mi) Trans-Canada Highway). Conversely, I would suggest that Adirondacks (the first article on your list) be reverted at once as you've replaced a carefully hashed-out compromise (which included a static map inline and a link to a dynamic map, see Talk:Adirondacks#Maps) with a link to a dynamic map, followed by that same map inline, followed by a static map... all of which convey very similar information.
While a robot script might be able to detect that there are two maps on the page, it isn't going to be able to detect whether the maps overlap in content - or by how much. That makes this a task more suited for human intervention than for automation. K7L (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
K7L - yes, but let's distinguish between "duplicate maps" and "multiple maps" (and mea culpa for the clumsy wording of what you quoted from me). There are several valid reasons why an article might have multiple maps. For instance, Underground Railroad is an itinerary article with six different dynamic maps covering various portions of the route plus a seventh one covering the whole route. As another example, Calgary has a dynamic map showing POIs, a static map showing neighborhoods, and another static map showing the light rail system. Those are both fine. The issue here is multiple maps per article showing the same information (and I don't buy that swapping one city out for another on an otherwise identical region map qualifies as "different information"). There may be no written policy against it, but the "one map per information set per article" principle was universal and regarded as common sense on our site before this spate of map duplication began. This all is aside from the fact that the articles targeted by the bot are exclusively region articles, whose maps don't (or shouldn't, according to policy) contain much if any dynamic content. The mere fact that we can now create dynamic region maps with the mapshape feature does not mean dynamic region maps are inherently superior to static ones; in point of fact, for the time being they're inherently inferior to static ones due to the limitations of our current dynamic map technology. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences are available[edit]

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Pro tip: go to Special:GlobalPreferences and tick the box for your favorite language. Then, whenever you visit another Wikivoyage or Wikipedia, the software buttons will all be labeled in your favorite language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Telstra user, change of attitude[edit]

I would like to suggest that going forward we handle the Telstra user differently. For one thing he has got better with contributions. Many of the new articles actually have reasonable listings and the minor edits are generally positive ones. Yes it is slightly annoying that these are done under different user ids, sometimes running at 4 or 5 new users a day, but this is not vandalism. Should we be more considerate to people with intellectual impairments? At the moment people are reverting about half of his edits, even good ones, often just reverting back to another entry made under a different user account of the same person. Suggest we just treat like any other contributor and correct edits only when needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not wholly unsympathetic to this idea, but would like to point out that this user has consistently showed no regard for the fundamental principles of a wiki, namely co-operation, collaboration and communication. That he or she is intellectually impaired is pure supposition and I don't think we should assume things like that. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if it will be the majority view here but I would like to judge the edit based on the edit itself rather than the user. If some of the edits help Wikivoyage move one step closer to becoming a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable worldwide travel guide then I don't see the harm in keeping those edits and reverting the junk. When the Telstra user makes a good contribution on an article I watch and it is reverted, I add the listing again but copyedit it or add further details so it's not exactly the same. Gizza (roam) 09:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Should we be blocking a user account and then complaining that he keeps creating new ones? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: can we look at an alternative approach? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
There are other issues besides the quality of the edits. For instance, sockpuppeteering, which is part of the Telstra user's M.O., is only allowed on Wikivoyage in a narrow range of circumstances (within which his/her edits don't fall). If we were to begin allowing the Telstra user to edit as normal, would we be able to trust him/her to stick with one account rather than hopping between different ones? Can we even be sure that s/he understands our policy on sockpuppets, or any of our other policies? That's information that can only be obtained through communicating with the user, which s/he stubbornly refuses to do despite numerous entreaties. I think the fact that the Telstra user's edits are improving in quality is promising, but further progress towards rehabilitating the user would hinge on him/her establishing a willingness to communicate with us and doing so consistently, and that's something on which there has been little if any improvement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Although I usually take a more gentle approach toward vandals than other admins do, in the naive hope that some good can come of doing so, in the case of the Telstra vandal, s/he really creates so much work for other editors that I am not inclined to be forgiving until s/he takes a big step toward engaging with us. If s/he were to do that, then I would say that it would be worth working with him/her given the recent improvements in contributions. But without that show of good faith on the vandal's part, I think we should continue to take a hard line for the sake of not taking up others' time cleaning up after him/her. Ground Zero (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say, consider whether the value added is worth the extra work. If not, block for a short period. Repeat as necessary. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

I looked at this yesterday. The current situation is that the community elects whomever it wants as admins, and the admins all get the block button, the delete button, the edit-Javascript button, etc. In the future, the community will still elect whomever it wants to do these things, but the edit-Javascript button will be assigned separately from the block, delete, etc. buttons. From the POV of the bureaucrats, you'll tick two boxes instead of one if you want someone to have all of the former rights.
A sensible approach (and one that many non-technical admins at other wikis seem to be hoping to take advantage of) is to assign the screw-up-sitewide-Javascript button only to the people that we want to have it, rather than everyone. There's no rule against all the admins at a wiki having it (or against non-admins having it, for that matter, if you find someone who will do technical work but doesn't want to be bothered with requests to block vandals or delete pages), but it makes more sense to only assign it where it will be useful.
On a practical level, we should probably make a list of the current admins (all of whom currently have this ability) who want to continue working in this area, so that the bureaucrats can add them as soon as the software is in place (end of this month?). For the future, maybe we should add a few lines at Wikivoyage:Administrators to describe this; we can probably take text from m:Technical administrators. I don't think we need to create a complicated process for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
As an admin on this project, I have never yet had the need to edit sitewide javascript, and don't have the skills to do anything useful with it anyway, so not having the button would make no difference to me. As is the case on most WMF projects, we elect our admins by consensus, and give the bit to those we trust. So far it has worked pretty well. Anyone we trust to be an admin, we trust to edit the js if they find it necessary. I suggest that anyone who is an admin on Wikivoyage and actually wants the bit can be given it. Presumably this will be logged for all to see in the usual way. Conversely, if anyone wants the js bit, without the mop and bucket, they could apply in the same way as for admin. I don't see any advantage in separating the process. Just my opinion. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
For me this would be great! I'm not active enough to be a "real" admin (and I don't think I should be), but I do have a high degree of proficiency with html/css/js. I'd love to be able to fix some issues I've noticed on the homepage, as well as improving its mobile experience. --ButteBag (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with WikiVoyage questions for a Wikimania interview[edit]

Hi - I'm being interviewed about WikiVoyage by a media company for publicity around Wikimania. Unfortunately I have a very superficial knowledge of things, so perhaps others here may want to jump in with some suggested responses/comments

  • Is it mostly travellers or locals updating the information on WikiVoyage articles?
    • The closest I can find is the About page but it's not specific - has any research been done?
  • Do you think locals should be the dominant voice on their own locations, and why should they be more involved in the editing process?
  • What are some of the biggest gaps in information on WikiVoyage?
  • How does WikiVoyage encourage contributions, and why should they care about what people say about their homes?
  • Wikimania is about building global bridges through information sharing – how can WikiVoyage contribute to this endeavor?
  • Which sessions at WikiMania should travel enthusiasts focus on to attend?
  • What tips do you have for those who want to get into the Wiki-editing game?

Greenman (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On the last question: My favorite suggestion to potential contributors is to start with their hometown (or a place they know equally well). Think about when you have visitors, and what you recommend to them. Then look at the ==Do==, ==Eat==, ==Sleep==, and similar listings (the bulleted lists) and see whether your best recommendations are present. Most existing listings can be updated (or removed) by clicking a light-gray "edit" button at the end of the individual listing. New ones can be added by clicking the [add listing] button at the top of the relevant section. Then you just fill in the boxes.
As for what to write about a listing, it's really useful to say something objective about a place, even if it's very brief. "Amazing place" isn't really helpful, but "good for small children" or "luxury clothing" or "vegetarian food" are all helpful descriptions. For example, the article about Cape Town is really well developed, but when I look at Cape Town#Shopping malls, it doesn't tell me anything about most of the shopping malls. How would I decide which one to visit?
Also, just removing places that have closed, correcting addresses for businesses that have moved, and providing other very simple changes is hugely helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
As for gaps, I think our editors largely skew urban, well educated (of the users I can think of who say so in their user page, none has never been to college), polyglot (just look at the Babel Boxes) and - but that shouldn't be surprising, given humanity does the same - Northern Hemisphere. Naturally we have something of a gap when it comes to rural destinations, types of travel less likely to be engaged in by the less educated (using the term in its strictest "high school/college/how much college" sense) and to a large extent the "global south". We also have deficits for places which - at least until recently - haven't been online as much, especially when it comes to geo coordinates. A very low threshold activity that doesn't require any coding knowledge or anything is to simply add a listing that you see missing. There's a great hotel in Ouagadougou that we don't talk about? Great! Just click "add listing" in the sleep section of that article and the rest should be intuitive. I personally prefer articles about which we have "first hand knowledge" I do not see any difference whether that knowledge comes from a (former) resident or a visitor, but I have in the past expressed the view to feature such articles preferably, a view not shared by all on this site, I might add. Apart from the pitfalls of some editors to think this is "basically Wikpedia" (it is in some ways, but we have different WV:Goals and non-Goals), I think the biggest "problem" with moderately well meaning editors is - unsurprisingly overly flowery and gushing language as described in WV:Don't tout. While those are usually drive-by editors who only wish to add their own business (or worse yet, tear down the businesses of others), sometimes an enthusiastic traveler (or somebody who makes a scary good imitation of one) is wrongfully accused of promoting a business which may or may not in the past have led to editors being lost, but I don't see an easy way out of this. Another issue in my opinion is cross-language cooperation. es-WV does not have a large enough community to cooperate with, sadly and de-WV does some things notably differently which makes it hard sometimes to do a straight translation of articles from one to the other. However, at least in the case of de-WV I see some leveling of the difference. Feel free to ask other questions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
[ec] @Greenman:, It is a lot like Wikipedia, in that everone edits what they want to. I write about Cape Town recreational dive sites and scuba diving in general, as that is what I am interested in. I will also edit any other article where I see something that I can improve, including about dive sites in other places I have been, and even where I haven't been, where I can improve something. The difference is that on Wikivoyage we write from personal experience, and on Wikipedia we don't (or should not). If you need to cite a reference, it probably doesn't belong on Wikitravel. The information we provide here is our best effort at being helpful to fellow travellers to places we visit, and to visitors to the places we live. Both are equally relevant, and each has a slightly different perpective which can enrich the value of Wikivoyage as a travel guide. If you want the encyclopaedic facts, get them from Wikipedia. If you want to know where to eat good food at a good price, or what to do on a rainy day, that is what you should expect to find in Wikivoyage. Like Wikipedia, reliability of the information is variable, and sometimes it gets out of date. When that happens, we hope you, and any other reader, will fix it. Like Wikipedia, we have our spammers, trying to sell hotel space, taxis and guided tours etc, and like Wikipedia, we try to keep what is useful and delete the touting. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not have a problem with people updating their own business information as long as they stick to useful facts. It is to the travellers advantage to know the correct prices, business hours, phone numbers, addresses, websites etc for our listings. We expect people to write the sort of things they would like to know about a place, on the assumption that other travellers are likely to find the same information useful. In principle it is a travel guide written by travellers who have been there, done that, and got the T-shirt. Often this is literally true. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Another difference: On Wikivoyage we have fairly strictly and consistently formatted articles, and a relatively narrow scope, as this makes it a lot easier to know what information to include, and just as important, what to leave out. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific answers:

  • "Is it mostly travellers or locals updating the information on WikiVoyage articles?"
    I have no idea • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The closest I can find is the About page but it's not specific - has any research been done?"
    I have no idea • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Do you think locals should be the dominant voice on their own locations, and why should they be more involved in the editing process?
    No. Travellers will usually have a better idea of what is useful to other travellers. It is a travel guide. Locals may have more detailed local knowledge, but not necessarily any clue of what is useful to a traveller. On the other hand, a traveller may be able to provide good local information about their home turf.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "What are some of the biggest gaps in information on WikiVoyage?"
    I am a specialist in dive guides. Coverage is poor almost everywhere other than Cape Town, which is orders of magnitude better than elsewhere. Not much I can do about it.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "How does WikiVoyage encourage contributions, and why should they care about what people say about their homes?"
    I dont understand this question.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Wikimania is about building global bridges through information sharing – how can WikiVoyage contribute to this endeavor?
    Wikivoyage helps people who physically go to places (including Wikimanias). Once there, some may provide similar type of information in return, or write about the place on Wikipedia, or upload photos to Commons. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Which sessions at WikiMania should travel enthusiasts focus on to attend?"
    I have no idea, the Wikimania program pretty much ignores the existance of projects other than Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

What would be nice would be for some of the people who attend Wikimania each year to edit Wikivoyage for the host city and surrounds based on their experiences (maybe they already do this), and for Wikivoyagers to present a display at Wikimania, featuring the host city and surrounds. It is a bit late to do anything about this second idea for this Wikimania - I just thought of it now - but maybe next time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "What are some of the biggest gaps in information on WikiVoyage?"
  • If you look at Destinations and follow the instructions above the map at the bottom of the page you can see Wikivoyage's coverage plotted on a map. The coverage for Europe, North America, Oceania and India is much better than for much of Africa or the Russian Far East. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if a map of native English speaker's vacation destinations had similar peaks and holes. AlasdairW (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
When I recorded the number of articles every country has a little over a year ago, I found that about a third of all of our destination articles are in the US. China is quite weakly covered, considering its area, population and economic size. Nigeria is quite weak even compared to other African countries despite having a British colonial past (Mozambique is poorer on average with a much smaller population and area but has twice as many articles although it does have more beautiful coastline). Excluding island nations, the country with the most number of articles per capita would probably be Estonia or Norway.
Something else to note. More than half of our star articles (equivalent to Featured Articles in Wikipedia) are destinations in the US. So destinations from every other country in the world and travel topics (non-destination articles) together comprise less than half of our best work. As you can see, we have a lot of work to do. :) Gizza (roam) 06:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your answers, I have responded to the journalist. Greenman (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(when) will we be able to read that interview? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What questions concerning the strategy process do you have?[edit]


I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.

I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!

If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!

Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

bdi template[edit]

I'm seeing this template proliferate in edits such as this one. Has anyone approved this template for Wikivoyage? If so, why, and don't we want to maintain Wikivoyage listing templates instead of allowing this irregular structure? Is there a way to disable the bdi template on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit is worrying. These are listings being moved from one article to another but loosing their listing template. Suspect being copied and passed a different way and getting these html tags. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What on earth is that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a HTML element to help write pages with languages were the text is written in a different direction, i.e. right to left. I think it is being added automatically by someone copying from the display "read" page on an article into the edit input of another. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A quick chat with Mr Google suggests that these have been copied without attribution from another website. The next admin passing by should probably treat it as a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The presence of the word "edit" but without edit function at the end of the entries supports this interpretation. It is quite likely that they have been copid from a free licenced site, as the original was editable, but there is no apparent attribution, so they do look like copyright violations. Are they all from the same editor? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary on the example indicates that it was a badly done copy paste from within Wikivoyage (specified "move from main Kathmandu article"), so probably a good faith effort to improve the wiki by a person who does not know how to copy content correctly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked, The listings have been copied and pasted from the main Kathmandu article, and then deleted from it, so it looks like this is a good faith districtification attempt gone wrong, The edit summaries are descriptive. The edits are tagged for Visual Editor, so maybe it is a problem with Visual Editor not handling the listings correctly. @WhatamIdoing: this is yout turf, I don't use VE at all. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Working as designed. If you copy formatted (HTML) text from a website, then you get formatted text. If you want the wikitext, you have to open the page in an editor (the visual editor or any wikitext editor) before you copy it. (The most common failure is someone copying a paragraph that contains ref tags, and ending up with a link to the source page's ref section, labeled [12] (or whatever number that ref was on the source page), instead of copying the contents of the ref. Fortunately, we won't see much of that here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So just a well meaning IP editor not knowing the proper way to do it. No harm intended, not much done. Just some new distractors (the <bdi> tags) and a slight mess to clean up? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Since someone has investigated and determined that there is a free license for the content, then, yes, it looks that way to me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help improving/expanding three filming locations articles which might help get many more people to hear about Wikivoyage[edit]

In order to significantly increase the readership of Wikivoyage I decided to shift my focus to develop a couple of prominent articles the would focus on the filming locations of some of the biggest and most profitable film series of all time.

So far I have created the following three outline articles:

Is anyone interested in helping me expand and improve these articles? I am hoping we'll be able to get them in decent shape collaborativly so that the many fans whom would find out about these articles (after we'll add links at Wikipedia) won't be disapointed, and would rather decide to spread the word about Wikivoyage.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I was curious as to whether the current Fiction tourism articles are big drawcards and bring in readers. All of them bar literary travel were created post-fork and therefore won't be crushed by the SEO hammer like many of our older pages. The results are mixed [7] Some of the current articles and short in length and in substances and don't fare so well. Others were longer but still don't get many views (like Lord of the Rings). Game of Thrones is most popular which makes sense. Currency is one of the biggest factors that influences pageviews. If it is in the cinemas, people will want to read about travelling to those film locations. Also, the two comic book franchises (DC and Marvel) are constantly churning out new movies. The Avengers and Justice League could be good additions to the current list. Gizza (roam) 06:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd expect that category would miss a few relevant articles as it's searching for travel topics and some of the content (such as Radiator Springs) is itinerary. K7L (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point. All the more reason for itineraries to be breadcrumbed and categorised. Gizza (roam) 04:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Side question from me on film (or celebrity) mentions in destinations. I recently updated Glenfinnan, where the railway viaduct has been used in many films, most recently by Harry Potter. I found myself kicking against the whole HP marketing onslaught and restricted it to a single mention. Would this have any effect on page views? I do think it helped readability. Grahamsands (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I decided to create the following two filming locations articles which would probably gather most interest. Please help me expand/improve them.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to listings[edit]

Recently I saw a link to an article listing. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore. I personally think, that this is a very useful feature and thus would like to know how to do that. Example: Link to Sugar Loaf Mountain: does not work. Any idea how to do that correctly. Thanks. --Renek78 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You can use the wikidata ID, so Rio de Janeiro/Zona (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a nice solution. What about if there is no Wikidata ID? --Renek78 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like that even simpler Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul#Sugar_Loaf_Mountain works (I think the latter comes from the marker name) :-) (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Renek78: if there is no Wikidata item associated with the attraction yet, then please create the Wikidata item and add it to the attraction. If the attraction is important enough to link to, it is definitely important enough to have a Wikidata record. ArticCynda (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly that is what I saw in the other article! Thank you very much! Need to write this down somewhere. But to create Wikidata items is the best solution for sure!--Renek78 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way: To me this type of linking should be used to link top sights from the main article to the district article. For example the Eiffel tower as a top sight is mentioned in the main Paris article under See. From there a link to the appropriate district listing should be placed, e.g. Paris/7th_arrondissement#Q243 (or Paris/7th_arrondissement#La_Tour_Eiffel as the worse alternative). What do others think?--Renek78 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

One more comment: All additional information, e.g. phone number, website, opening hours, etc. should only be stated in the district listing. On the main page (of Paris, for example) only a one-sentencer with the link may be sufficient. This would be a clean distinction between the (superficial) overview and (detailed) district article listing in my opinion.--Renek78 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I very much agree with that point of view. Ideally, the See and Do sections of city articles should be written in a summarizing style with a length no more than a standard A4 page. Their goal is to give an overview of what there is to see or do in the city, and make extensive use of links to the respective district articles to point readers to the right sub articles. Wikidata items are the perfect identifiers since they're static and also easily resolvable for other sites linking to Wikivoyage (in a similar fashion as DOIs). ArticCynda (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. This is very useful, I wish I had known about it before. In the past I have always linked to the section containing in the listing. Selfie City (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, I think so, too. It is nowhere documented either. At least I couldn't find any information.--Renek78 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I originally set this up so that links could be made from pages on Wikipedia about attractions could be created to listings. That is documented at Wikivoyage:Links from Wikipedia#Links to listings and w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings, but have since used it to link between Wikivoyage article, like at Scotland#Castles. But good point needs to be documented somewhere else too. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to improve in this explanation. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Just now I have set up the See listings of Paris in the way as described above. Furthermore I added a comment in the source code to explain, which information should be added to this section. Do you guys see room for improvement or could this be the way to go for all huge city/country articles in the future?--Renek78 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the word "Ghetto" to WV:Words to avoid (with a few certain caveats, which should be obvious)[edit]

So after we've had a certain brouhaha at Talk:Brussels because someone who shall remain nameless considered it a good idea to call a district "Ghetto" (yes, really!), I think that we should make policy abundantly clear where I thought it didn't have a need to be. Let us please add "Ghetto" to the list of WV:Words to avoid with the caveat that its proper use in historical contexts, particularly Shoah remembrance and the history of Jews, particularly in Europe is of course encouraged where that term is the one that was in use historically. Is there anybody still of the opinion that we do the voyager or anybody else for that matter a service by randomly calling certain parts of certain towns "Ghetto" just because someone read somewhere once that "evul peepull" live there (which, to me, is antithetical to what travel should be about, but I digress)? If that be so, may they speak up now or hold their peace forever. I for one am frankly a bit shocked that we have to clarify this at all, but maybe not all here are English native speakers and maybe to some, the word isn't offensive? I don't know... At any rate, that's the proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Having read all of and taken part in a bit of the Brussels discussion, I strongly support this proposal. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What about this passage from Buffalo/West Side?
"Less hip locals will try to dissuade you from crossing west of Richmond Avenue. It's 'dangerous', they'll tell you. A 'ghetto'. And while it's true that the West Side has had a rough go of it over the past half-century and it's still a ways from exorcising its demons when it comes to crime, poverty and other social ills, this is probably the neighborhood that best embodies Buffalo's phoenixlike rise from the ashes."
This is a case where the word is used judiciously to address and then dispel local prejudices about certain places. I agree with the spirit of this proposal but I would hope that whatever the new policy ends up being would allow for usages like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If the word "ghetto" is used in quotes like it is in AndreCarrotflower's comment, that is different because the travel guide is just quoting others. It's when the travel guide labels, to the tourist, the place as a ghetto that it becomes an issue. Selfie City (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I second the sentiment of AndreCarrotflower and hope that we can either arrive at a wording that makes it sufficiently clear that such use is allowed or that we are all mature enough to understand the difference between such use and the one that started the whole discussion... That said, saying "the neighborhood has a bad reputation" may in some cases achieve a similar thing, but then we can justifiedly argue the old Mark Twain adage about the difference between almost the right word and the right word. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with a policy placing a blanket ban on the word "ghetto". Some uses, such as "student ghetto" to refer to a university off-campus housing district controlled by mostly absentee landlords, are valid and inoffensive. They don't live there, their tenants leave after a few years whether the housing is any good or not, so what's the incentive to maintain anything well? There's also the voyager-comes-first principal where, if a district has an unusually-high crime rate or poses other specific and identifiable hazards, we say so. The people living in the district with the highest crime rate in the city won't like us for that (and may even start editing the pages themselves to whitewash the situation) but the traveller's safety takes priority over local promotion or pride. K7L (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Saying an area has a high crime rate is not the same as calling it a ghetto. Frankfurt has insanely high white collar crime and offenses related to border violations, drug trafficking and so on. Which part of it is the "ghetto"? And just the same we should not go around calling places "shithole countries" even if they do present certain, shall we say, challenges, to the visitor... Calling a spade a spade doesn't mean insulting for the sole purpose of insulting Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely support a policy against labelling places as "ghettos", "shitholes" and similar such insults. It's just an application of the WV:Be fair rule. There's a difference being frank to the traveller and describing the negative or dangerous aspects of a destination and just insulting for the sake of insulting as Hobbitschuster said. There is also a difference between the way the word ghetto was used in the Buffalo example or the way K7L uses it and the way it was used in Brussels. Using these labels isn't even all that useful for the traveller. Does the place have a high crime rate, no electricty, no water, high drug usage, beggars, water but not clean water, not actually that poor but has rundown, dirty housing that makes it look like a slum on the outside? Not every third-world shitholes faces the same issues. Gizza (roam) 01:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
But then there's the flipside; we wouldn't label something a "glorious workers' paradise" if the appropriate term is "tyrannical dictatorship", much like we don't claim a hostile invasion of a weaker country by a stronger one to be "restoring democracy" if it's being done solely to install an oppressive puppet régime the invading country can more easily control. A description filled with euphemism violates Wikivoyage:Be fair just as surely as just insulting for the sake of insulting does. K7L (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is necessary. Searching for the word, it has only 100 appearances sitewide and about 3/4 of the mention of "ghetto" are already Jewish and Holocaust-related sites. Other mentions seem pretty apt as descriptors of places that have been known as "ghettos" in their respective cities/countries, typically also in a historical (but not Jewish) context, with a few in China and the US among other places. There also seems to be a few bars/drinks with "ghetto" in the name. A couple "backpacker ghetto" mentions as well, that I find interesting as descriptors, as well as lively writing. I don't see the term being thrown around liberally at all or being used to intentionally make places appear like something they aren't ("insulting just to be insulting"). Many of the non-Jewish ghettos are describe as historical ghettos that actually sort of add to the intrigue of the location. It's also not being used as an adjective which is when the term often sounds most offensive. "Ghetto" is like "slum" (I would not say it is akin to "shithole", which is profane and more judgmental than descriptive) in that it is a negative descriptor, so there is always potential to offend, but avoiding "negative" words doesn't change the situation or conditions on the ground and often "ghetto" can sum up a place much more succinctly and even less offensively than trying to describe all of the elements that make it a "ghetto" without using the term; if the place is a "ghetto", alternative descriptions are not going to make it sound better without lying. It seems unnecessary to ban the use of a word we are using correctly due to a single dispute. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I just read the discussion at Talk:Brussels. I could agree that the word "ghetto" shouldn't be used in a European context except when describing a place to which Jews were restricted. However, in the U.S., the word has a different meaning - a neighborhood into which black people were de jure and/or de facto segregated and/or redlined (effectively forced to live by real estate agents), generally a place of widespread poverty, poor living conditions and neglect by local and higher levels of government. It is probably not necessary to use the word in the American context, but I would have to judge this on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Brandenburg mapshape[edit]

For some weird reason, the Brandenburg mapshape pretends that Berlin is part of that state. This is of course not the case. How do we fix that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not have a mapshape at all, just include a map with no parts highlighted. Selfie City (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: Is this the look that you wanted? You can always add multiple Geomasks (light) and Geoshapes (dark) to the dynamic maps should the available shapes differ from the desired result. I'd assume that {{Mapshape}} would go into more detail about this.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet another proposal to tinker with Berlin districts. Please opine even if you do not know Berlin[edit]

So having a look at Berlin/East Central which I changed a bit b "giving" it Wedding and Gesundbrunnen (i.e. the pre 2001 Bezirk of Wedding), do you agree that it looks quite a bit "donuty" and that the map is a bit too "busy"? Those are the criteria I want you to apply when answering the question: Should this district be split into Berlin/Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg and Berlin/Wedding and Prenzlauer Berg? If you know Berlin, you can also based on other criteria, but I think my argument can be supported or opposed based on the map alone. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map being "busy", but I'm firmly of the opinion that it's far more important for districts to make sense from a traveller's perspective (in a case like this one of a district comprising multiple adjacent neighborhoods, that said neighborhoods be related or similar to each other in some way that's interesting to a traveller or relevant to the reasons one would visit Berlin in the first place) than for a district to have a particular shape when viewed on a map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. I agree with Hobbitschuster that I don't like the way it looks on the map, but at the same time I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I think that if there's another good way to do these districts that makes sense to the traveller, then go ahead, but otherwise let's leave it as it is. Which is more important: too many listings on a map or a traveller getting lost in the middle of a big city? Selfie City (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg are obviously a coherent whole. They may have been on seperate sides of the wall before 1990 and they may only be physically linked by the Oberbaumbrücke, but they share gentrification, leftist-green politics and the Gründerzeit buildings. Whether "Prenzlberg" and Wedding have much in common in 2018 I don't quite know. Note that Wedding/Gesundbrunnen were moved to East Central in a prior district reshuffle more or less on my unilateral decision (not that there was anybody saying "no" at the time, just not much input either way). Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As for "busy map", it's a map with (especially in the Southern part) too much going on in it. You don't really get a good overview, because there are just so many listings and you have to zoom in quite a bit to even see a lot of the things... I fear this is also one of the downsides of adding metro lines; maps getting busier... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You could try changing the size, zoom, and shape of the map. Selfie City (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That won't work, and part of the issue is the near donut shape of the district, which forces us to include lots of stuff on the map that isn't part of the district at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would make a lot more sense for Prenzlauer Berg to become its own district. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
And what then about Wedding and Gesundbrunnen? Make them part of Prenzlberg? Or deal with them as part of another district? Its own district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know practically nothing about Berlin — I'm sure there are some Wikivoyagers who know the city well. Selfie City (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

For this busy map - (1) reduce the stroke-width of rail lines (type=geoline) from 5 to 3 or set the stroke-width to 3 (This would help a little as size 5 is a bit much.) -- (2) Use of multiple mapframes using group and show parameters - which may not be acceptable in this instance -- (3) add option or a wrapper to change the point (marker-size) to small for the unique pages such as this might help as well. -- (4) I don't think that breaking up East Central Berlin further would be the way to go either. -- Just a few thoughts. -- Matroc (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Where would something like this be listed?[edit]

In which article would I find this attraction and ways of getting there? And perhaps more importantly, how should the interwiki link from WP to WV look like for this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is far from any nearby town, I'd say it should be its own park article. There is an RV Park set up near the crater [8]. Gizza (roam) 03:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That depends on its complexity; if it had its own picnic areas, campgrounds, hotels, and a city-size list of things to see and do, maybe it would merit an article - but it looks like it does not. Meteor (Arizona) as a geographic place is too small to merit its own article if there only ever will be one or two listings. I'd therefore be inclined to create a Winslow (Arizona)#Nearby section in the closest town for which we have a page, then under == Nearby == create a subsection === Meteor === with the {{see}} listing for the lone attraction in tiny Meteor, Arizona.
* {{see | name=Meteor Crater | wikipedia= | wikidata=Q431381 | content=...whatever...}}
==Go next==
...list the next place with an article...
and the link target would be voy:Winslow (Arizona)#Q431381. K7L (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It is only a 30 minute drive from Winslow (Arizona) (close for that type of area) and is currently and correctly in the See section of the article. As for link from Wikipedia, just added. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Put the data in the Winslow article if there's not enough for an independent article. I do not think you need the Nearby heading, just a linkable ==Meteor Crater=== header, a redirect to that section at Meteor Crater (Arizona) & perhaps links at Astronomy or elsewhere. Links should go to the redirect so that if we eventually create a full article they will not need to change. Pashley (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)