Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Contents


Mobile mode[edit]

As mentioned above most web interaction is now by smart phone. To get more visitors to this site we need to get the mobile app more useful for users and easier to use. Do we have a forum page to discuss ideas and suggest improvement? If not how should this be structured? Would this be a Wikivoyage Expedition page? Sort of ideas I am thinking about see User:Traveler100/mobile, where should I copy/move this to? I have no idea how the mobile app is managed and who controls it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Wikivoyage app for android and where can I get it? I think it's OK if this is handled in an expedition page. --Zerabat (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@zerabat: There is this one and a European one from m:Wikimedia CH. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles without Wikidata page[edit]

The articles in this Category:Banner missing from Wikidata don't have a page in Wikidata. If anyone has time to fix it will be appreciated. --Kizar (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hola Kizar, nice to hear from you again! And thanks a lot for running your tool. My answer is late because I was travelling all around Spain :-) Would you mind running your tool again so that I can create the missing Wikidata items? Also, would you mind publishing the source code of your tool? That would allow Wikivoyage to survive even in case you disappear ;-) Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I did Syced. About the code, I don't have time now to clean up, but I will publish it soon. --Kizar (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) I processed one third already. Syced (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Kizar: 100% done :-) Syced (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

RelatedSites at Phabricator[edit]

phab:T128326 This issue needs some kind of closure at Phabricator. Unless I am mistaken, this community has had discussions on using RelatedSites a couple of times and has been in favor of it. If we have some kind of consensus here, that would probably resolve the ticket. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support to remove the extension since it is (mostly) duplicating what "Other sites" already does and is no longer supported. There have been a few discussions on this topic in the past, but the only one I found in a quick search was Wikivoyage talk:Related articles#Other projects. Removing the "related sites" extension would mean losing the ability to link to Dmoz in the left nav, something I'd be fine with, and relying on Wikidata for interwiki links, something that others have expressed concerns about. Wikivoyage could easily re-implement any lost functionality with an in-article template (something like Wikivoyage talk:External_links#Example "resources" template), thus allowing customization in the future that wouldn't depend on Mediawiki developers updating an extension. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Does anyone even use the DMOZ links? Powers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @LtPowers: For what it's worth, I have added some and I think they are useful for an all-purpose out-going link. We've discussed this a few times since WMF adoption and while no one seems very enthusiastic about DMOZ, the general consensus was to keep it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't use DMOZ for anything, and I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mentioning it or recommending it (i.e., for their own personal use, rather than to tell some perceived spammer on the English Wikipedia where to stick it). I don't think we'd lose much by removing DMOZ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal as a link to a commons: gallery page (as provided by Wikidata) is not the same thing as a link to a commons:category: (which we usually create using RelatedSites). Many (or most) topics which have a Commons category lack a mainspace topic gallery page. K7L (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The Commons category is also almost always more useful than the Commons guide, when there is one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure[edit]

AOL just announced that DMOZ is going offline in two weeks. The community will fork/mirror somewhere else but it's not clear when or where at the moment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this is today, these links have been hidden. Now the community should decide what to do with them. MaxSem (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Outdated East Africa regions map[edit]

Well and good that we now treat Somaliland as an independent country and the East African islands as a separate region. Can someone please update the East Africa regions map to reflect that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The main page problem in the wide screen(1080px)[edit]

Main page screenshot on 1920*1080px wide
Fix version screenshot on 1920*1080px wide

1920*1080 pixel about wide screen of main page problem, the content frame does not seem to be the same size as the image above, can improve the content frame with the same size?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yuriy kosygin: This edit will fix the main banner. Now it will display with a background color that is the same as the ocean spread across 100% of the screen to any size. I can't edit the DotM banner below it because I don't have permissions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Wow! That good idea! But I don't have permissions... --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I am not an admin, so I can edit one of those templates but not the other (nor can I edit the Main Page). Now why one is protected and the other isn't, I don't know... —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Mmm, I understand.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: has been the one who edited the main page the most in recent times, so he should be able to help once he reads this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about make the 5 blocks the same width and center them? Doing this will create two bands in the sides, but it will look better than the current Main page. --Zerabat (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf:, @AndreCarrotflower:, @Hobbitschuster: and @Zerabat: This is the Chinese version of the solution(Oops!! Chinese version code with the English version is different... I'm sorry!), we will take the lock size without changing the size of the wide screen. In this case, DotM banner does not need to change its size! see before and after.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I have modified the Template:mapbanner and Template:Bottomboxes Code,But... As the main page change middle (mapbanner, DotM banner and bottomboxes), maybe need admin help! Cause I don't have permissions.Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I'm a little confused: I thought that my edit fixed the problem but then you removed it... And yes, that central carousel needs to be fixed--it can be centered or stretched. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I'm sorry, I might think central carousel can not stretched the possibility...--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: You can put anything inside of <div span="width:100%" style="background-color:#XXXXXX;"></div> and then if the thing itself won't stretch, the box it is in will. Plus, if you center the element, you won't end up with whitespace. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently I see the map with a black background extended to the right edge of the screen, but the carousel is still at its old width and the blue box is now the same width as the carousel. This looks fairly bad. Did someone change something? Powers (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@LtPowers: Yuri set a max width. Not sure why--this is the opposite of his complaint. Now the map/searchbox at the top and all of the links at the bottom extend 100% (which is probably what we want...) and the carousel in the middle does not. Again, there are two solutions to this aesthetic problem. I'd be happy to help if you need it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do, if you have a solution. Powers (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Not sure how you'd like me to do it but there are two ways to fix it. I can't edit the Main Page myself, so how do you want me to give you the code to fix it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What options do you have in mind? I don't think stretching the carousel is a good idea given the set aspect ratio of the images. Powers (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Not sure how familiar you are with HTML but it's actually not too complicated and is basically what the other portions of the Main Page do: put the carousel in a <div> and center the contents. I agree that the carousel probably shouldn't be stretched itself because it will distort the images. Again, I can write up that code, if you think it would be helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with centering is that the other elements are left-aligned. I did try adding the div tag you quoted upthread but I couldn't get it to center; I may have the syntax wrong. Or maybe the custom classes used for the carousel are hardcoded to left-align. Powers (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @LtPowers: You could change <div class="jcarousel-wrapper"> to <div class="jcarousel-wrapper" style="width:100%; background-color:#0000FF;">. What do you think of that? It will put a box behind it that will bleed to the right and it has a kind of gradient between the dark blue of the map above and the light blue from the navigation box below. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm. That actually didn't work... I'll have to look at this more. But do you like the idea in principle? Otherwise, I will have to come up with something more creative. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, it sounds kind of weird but I'd have to see it. It seems to me the easiest solution is to keep all three boxes to the same width (whatever the carousel and map are). Powers (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Don't you agree that the hanging whitespace is a problem? For what it's worth, this is not an issue on any of our sister projects--they all expand to 100%. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I did this applying the solution from zhwikivoyage: wrap all the boxes inside a center-aligned div. (If the world map banner does not look good, don't care about it, it's just a CSS issue). Is this what you want to do, or you want to extend all the boxes (mapbanner, carousel banners, discover banner and sister projects) to fit the whole space?--Zerabat (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Koavf, I'm not following your question. What do you mean by "hanging whitespace"? I understand sister projects expand to 100%, but do other projects have images that take up the full width of the Main Page content? We do. And we can't expand the carousel to 100%, so we have to do something different. Anyway, the Main Page is currently back to a condition where the top and bottom boxes overhang the carousel. This isn't attractive. Powers (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: I can fix the middle section with the carousel. How would you like me to do this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You're the one who says you can fix it. So you tell me. I'm not aware of any options for making it expand to an arbitrary width. Powers (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: MediaWiki:Gadget-Carousel.css has the following line: max-width: 1125px; and if it's changed to max-width: 100%; or better yet, deleted entirely. It's hard for me to do much until then. I guess the problem that I'm trying to describe is that I don't have the userrights to modify these pages myself. The code is not terribly difficult--I know I can figure it out if I tinker with it. (See also Wikivoyage talk:Main Page design.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The max width is hardcoded because that's the size of the images we use in the carousel. If we allow it to expand, the right directional arrow ends up at the right margin, far away from the edge of the image. Powers (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: The <div> that the carousel is in can be expanded but the pictures themselves centered in the div. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Atlanta district reorganization[edit]

Please have a look at Talk:Atlanta; a proposal was made but never implemented. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So apparently nobody knows enough about the city to respond. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this an article?[edit]

Hello! I was starting to work on Boston/Outer Neighborhoods, and could only find one "Sleep" listing. It's a bad place in a bad area and I do not feel comfortable listing it or endorsing it in any way. That would leave us with 0 sleep listings and then it's potentially not an article. Can I get consensus to give me a "pass" on this one? There will be a decent amount of other things listed here to make it worthwhile (IMHO). Is there an agreed upon piece of text to use for an empty section? Like "No accommodations are available in Location, please see Main Article#sleep for advice on the best places to stay while in town." Or something like that? Thank you for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't say "there are no accommodations" if there are. I would list it and note your specific concerns with it, e.g., security, cleanliness, Mormons, rather than saying it is "bad". Ground Zero (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: "Mormons"?! —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
When we run into something like Nunatsiavut#Natuashish about all we can do is lay it on the line - yes it's a real place and yes there are serious problems. Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews does make a bit of an exception for venues which are prominently located, widely advertised or which the voyager is likely to find from other sources - and the one lone, dysfunctional hotel in some place which otherwise has nothing would usually qualify. K7L (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The so-called sleep test being taken too literally is a longstanding (though understandable) problem on this site. Asking the question "can you sleep there?" was never meant to imply that any place without a hotel doesn't deserve its own article - it was more meant to help people weed out the types of places that shouldn't get their own articles (e.g. city parks, bodies of water, tiny "dot on a map" hamlets with no attractions or services). If there's no recommendable hotel in Boston's outer neighborhoods, just say so and carry on with the article (but I would also agree with K7L that in a case like this one, we should feel freer than usual to list lower-quality hotels that we might otherwise prefer not to). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel like Andre is on the right track--in principle you couldn't sleep on a rock in the middle of the ocean (well, you could but if you're sort of person who does that, you're not reading a travel guide anyway). We avoid negative reviews but we also give information that is useful for someone's safety. If none of the lodging there is really safe or clean, then simply note that and implore travelers to sleep elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My ancestors might've been crazy enough to colonise a rock in the middle of the ocean. To each their own, I suppose.
Certainly, the "can you eat there" and "can you sleep there" questions have come up often before in a few tiny, out-of-the-way places. For instance, is Cartwright (Labrador) promotable to "usable" if there are few choices available locally after the Cartwright Hotel burned to the ground in 2013? Are any of these tiny Labrador outports promotable to "guide" if a guide article is expected to provide a few good choices and alternatives in each section – and there really is no menu of multiple options in the tiniest villages as they're lucky to have anything locally. For that matter, will the Moon ever progress beyond "outline" until all of the Apollo-era infrastructure is rebuilt or replaced?
There's a distinction between "poor coverage of a viable destination" and "reasonably complete coverage of a marginal destination" that gets lost somehow. We apply (nominally) the same 'what is an article' and 'article status' criteria in a big city as in a remote subsistence fishery outport.
Boston is a different animal, admittedly, from Labrador. If there's nothing in one spot, the next village is a few minutes away – instead of 200km on bad gravel roads with no services under sub-Arctic winter driving conditions. It's easy to say "there's nothing worthwhile in this area other than one bad hotel in a bad location, so try (some other district)". Try that in Nunatsiavut and it's some absurdly-long way away and there's no road. All we can do is lay off the "Achieving euphoria is easy in this virtual Xanadu..." hype and explain honestly and factually why a fun-filled trip to Natuashish might simply not work out as planned. K7L (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant like w:Rockall which can just be mentioned at Next-to-impossible_destinations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If there are a bunch of decent hotels and a few bad ones, there is no reason to include the bad ones. If there is only one hotel, we should include it, identify its issues, and let the reader decide for themselves. I've stayed in a lot of hotels I wouldn't recommend, but for one night at the right price in that location, it was okay for me. I don't think we should decide for the traveller who wants to stay in a particular location that they are wrong and have to go elsewhere. I considered staying a dive in London - a city with billions and billions of hotels - because what was important to me was staying close to a sick friend (fortunately, there's Airbnb). Give them the info, and let the reader decide for themselves. Ground Zero (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How much information do we include about that one hotel, if we're just going to indicate that it's bad and send the voyager to some other district? I've been inclined to leave one sentence (enough to explain that there is a hotel and identify the issues) but not a full listing of the style used for somewhere worth staying. K7L (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is my main question, and I appreciate that I am talking about the weather here and not the climate. Ground Zero makes a compelling argument, list everything and let the user decide. I don't want to do that in this case, however, because I don't want to list a place where (at least) two rapes were reported in 2013. I think the city shut the place down, but I can't confirm. In my opinion I would "serve the traveller" better by doing what K7L says: mentioning there are no listings, and letting them pick an option that appeals to them from airbnb, vrbo, homestay, homeaway, etc, etc, etc. --ButteBag (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Not being able to confirm that is open is another matter. That would be a reason not to list it. There are, unfortunately, rapes even in good hotels, and often more recently than three years ago. We should not be sending any one anywhere. We're not the reader's mom.
If the place were open, I would identify the address, phone, website, and in the content line, something like, "This is the only hotel in the district. Two rapes were reported here in 2013." A lot of cheap, and not so cheap, hotels around the world are used by prostitutes and their clients, and often the clients are not very nice people, so rapes are probably fairly common, even though they may not be reported. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We're not the reader's mum, but we are a travel guide. If something isn't worth visiting, we say so or we outright refuse to list it – much like there's no sense putting the traveller on the RMS Titanic if we know the mighty ocean liner is as doomed as doomed can be. K7L (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably not a great analogy: if we had known that we could have stopped it with a concisely-worded warning on our web page. ;-) Refusing to list the only hotel in town because we don't think it's good enough is playing mommy. I fully support not listing bad hotels where there are good ones available. We don't know the reader's circumstances and why they might stay in a hotel we say is a bad one, but we should not make that decision for them. As I've mentioned, I've stayed in a number of bad hotels for good reasons, location being one of them. One place, the only one I could afford that night, turned out to be a homeless shelter that had a "travellers' dorm". It was okay, for a night. As long as we report on the conditions factually, it provides useful information for the reader to make their own decision. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I tried several sources for finding a hotel in the area covered by the article, and came up with nothing, so I think the scary place is gone. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I totally feel you. It's a bit of a slippery slope once we start saying this place is "bad" but that place isn't. (but that place was legit bad!) It's hard to be impartial when you're trying to rep your set, you know? Thank you again User:Ground Zero for your thoughtful and reasoned arguments. I've added a sentence in the Sleep section now, could someone else have a look and adjust the article status accordingly? Thanks to everyone again for their help. --ButteBag (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks fine to me, but I'm an old-fashioned guy: I'd prefer it if you'd at least buy me a drink before you feel me. Just saying. Ground Zero (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this an article: Policy?[edit]

Given the preceding discussion, should these policies be updated to deal with the case where a village's one hotel or lone restaurant shuts down or fails to meet minimum standards?

If we've listed all there is to list for a place (it's all here) but the "eat" section looks like "Bring what you need and leave no trace when you leave. Be bear aware; stored or cached foodstuffs may require bear-resistant containers." is this an article and is it promotable to usable or higher? This has come up before on Talk:Cartwright (Labrador) and again on Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Labrador as going off the beaten path often means limited or no options. "What is an article?" has also come up for ghost towns... where's the best place to eat in downtown Glenrio tonight if it doesn't have all the amenities of urban Val-Jalbert? Any conclusions from these discussions (or the one above) should be reflected in policy, or the same questions will continue to arise. K7L (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is worth discussing this. The 'sleep test' is a pretty imperfect tool and I'd like to see more direction around grouping a few smaller destinations into one useful article rather than feeling every hamlet/ghost town needs its own dedicated article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would second that. There are way too many almost-empty articles that survive simply because they have one or two sleep listings, or a single visitor attraction. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, policy needs updating here, but I'm not 100% sure how the best way to proceed would look. Maybe we need a standalone policy on WV:Wilderness Outposts or WV:Hamlets? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there but instead of "Can you sleep there?" the barometer could be:
  • Must have at least 10(or whatever number is good) listings combined in See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep.
  • Must have enough content to hold a travelers attention for more than 3 hours (or whatever number)
  • Must take a user at least 5 minutes to read the entire article (or article must be larger than 100kb, or whatever)
--ButteBag (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Wikis are built from small pieces. Just because we have few listings currently doesn't mean it's a permanent situation, nor does it mean the article is unworthy of its own travel guide. Childs is a guide article that was featured on the front page. Sometimes a rural-area region with listings and no subpages is appropriate, but certainly not all the time! Powers (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually Wikis grow organically, with the organization and potential merger of articles being flexible. That said it is unlikely we will ever agree on a quantifiable metric that can be used to determine the viability of an article.
One practical example is Jervis_Bay which contains a few small towns within one rural area. It is open for potential splitting in the future, but as it stands it is serving the traveller far better as one article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
As part of growing organically, there's nothing stopping these 'grouped articles' becoming 'ungrouped' (i.e. split back into city articles) over time, if and when the level of information is enough. Wiki or no, keeping hundreds of very sparse articles just in case someone decides to fill them up in a few years, makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional, and I would bet on them putting readers off. They also spoil the chances of any number of region articles ever being promoted to 'usable' status, despite many having enough content to do so on their own merits. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I agree that having hundreds of sparse articles makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional. Just look at Lynnfield and a hundred other pages in Massachusetts alone. I would also argue that "can you sleep there?" is a quantifiable metric. (If there is more than one sleep listing, than it is an article.) I also get that CYST is a rule of thumb and not meant to be taken literally, but it seems like a reasonable number of contributors are making this mistake? That's why I threw out a few suggestions as conversation starters. The question I have about the article Powers linked, Childs, is why isn't it a star? It seems to have a static map and all sections filled out, good images and prose. Nothing seems to be missing. Could it ever be a star? Incidentally, Childs seems to conform to 2 of the 3 criteria I listed, and is very close on the other one. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes,CYST is quantifiable, but often unenforceable because frankly others object to the potential deletion.
And yes, merged articles can absolutely be split again in future if a contributor with serious content wants to give it a go. The traveler is best served by one good article with good content rather than a skeleton article that is easy to create but expecting someone else to do the hard work is not useful at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A group of outer Boston suburbs is one thing — these likely could be grouped or combined as they're fairly close together — but a truly isolated outport like Cartwright is a very different animal. There's nowhere to merge this. We only have eight pages covering all of Labrador, an almost province-sized geographic area, because there's very little out there except sub-Arctic wilderness. A policy that a guide-level article should be "offering alternatives for where to stay and eat" is viable for a big city, but a Cartwright-sized w:Newfoundland outport might never meet those criteria. It's a tiny place, there really aren't "alternatives" locally for much of anything and the next village might be 200km away.
Likewise, the Glenrio Historic District is (a) on a state line and (b) nowhere near much of anything, which makes it difficult to merge into another article. It's not merely a Tucumcari suburb if half of it is in Texas.
Whatever policy we apply needs to handle both large cities and tiny, isolated coastal subsistence fishery villages... unless and until they get to the point of not being worth visiting (or listing) at all. CYST and the "usable city" criteria assume every village with something worth seeing or doing also has a restaurant and a hotel; "guide" assumes multiple viable options. I don't agree with creating empty {{subst:smallcity}} skeletons for points which could be included in an adjacent destination, but at some point we've listed everything there is to list in some of these outports and the result still looks sparse. K7L (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see a compelling need here to monkey around with a status quo that, in my view, works perfectly well. The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. Why proscribe any of those approaches? And, as for the empty skeleton articles that this conversation is really about, I don't understand why people are afraid to take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy already allows us to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. You don't even have to put them through the vfd rigmarole (in fact, please don't vfd them; you'll only get told for the 5,000th time that real places don't get deleted) - policy states that discussions about redirecting are to be conducted on the talk page of the article itself, but clearly in the case of an empty skeleton that no one has looked at in years that's just a formality, and it's doubtful anyone would object to a user skipping that step. (And I don't buy K7L's above argument that "sometimes there's nothing to redirect to", as with Cartwright (Labrador) - in fact, one need look no further than our coverage of Labrador to find a bounty of creative examples of how to deal with geographically isolated communities that are too small to sustain their own article, such as Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson#Nearby). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. There's no need to make policy more strict or limiting. The flexibility has always helped us. It's true that deleting is usually not an acceptable solution for skeletons, but creating combined articles or redirecting where that makes sense is, in my experience, typically uncontroversial. While this strategy should obviously not be used for larger destinations which simply haven't evolved into a proper article yet, there's wide support to group rural destinations together. The only issue I would like to raise is that when redirecting, we should probably try to include some kind of mention of the redirected destination in the target article, to avoid confusion. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that deleting should be an option if there is truly nothing to list. Toronto (Prince Edward Island) redirects to Cavendish and Rustico Harbour why exactly? That destination article doesn't mention "Toronto PEI" because there's nothing in Toronto PEI - it's a random, empty speck on a map that never should have been created. I recall an incident with one user, a "page creation vandal", adding a long list of various pointless specks-on-a-map in Maine which had one bar, no hotel, less than 1000 population; those were deleted, as were some fictional points.
That said, CYST taken to the extreme could create an outcome like Cartwright NL initially being listed because we need it as a jumping-off point to get to isolated points like Mealy Mountains National Park or Eagle River which have no road. There's little here - a village of about 1000 people - but there's nowhere to merge this as the next town down the actual road is 200km away. The Cartwright Hotel burns down? Well, that invalidates the entire destination. It's not a city any more so it gets redirected to some point that's actually further afield than dumping New York, New York into Philadelphia#Nearby. Frank Sinatra did say NY, NY was "the city that never sleeps" (presumably causing it to fail CYST, even though Glenn Miller did provide a telephone number for a hotel) but at some point this is a stretch. Grouping the six Nunatsiavut villages made sense as they are part of the same native first nation and joined to each other by a coastal ferry. If grouping Cartwright (Labrador) to Port Hope Simpson#Nearby makes no sense geographically (short of creating a bottom-level "large rural area" for the entire east coast of Labrador below Nunatsiavut) then we don't do it... even if that means grasping at straws like "tent camping" in chilly Labrador. I doubt we'll ever have a "guide"-level article for Cartwright. There's too little here. We list what we can and move on. It's "usable" but even that is tenuous. One business closure could knock Cartwright back to "outline" at any time.
The Boston suburbs are obviously an entirely different environment. We have some flexibility to group and bundle them, much like city districts, into articles of manageable size. Does CYST require we draw those lines carefully so that each of the districts lands on at least one decent hotel? We sometimes run into districts like Manhattan/Central Park where there is plenty to see or do, a wide assortment of vendors and food, but nowhere (lawfully) to sleep. I suppose we need a bit of wiggle room, as one size does not fit all. K7L (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion! For me the explicitness really helps, and I've compiled a list of what I learned from these comments. Maybe someone with more experience than me can edit some of the relevant policy pages, (assuming these are even accurate at all) I do not dare.
  • A valid (and high quality) article may have no Sleep listings. (examples? Boston/Outer Neighborhoods?)
  • Conversely, a location with only one or two places to sleep isn't necessarily an article. See Rowley, or Boxford (Massachusetts).
  • The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. -- Andre
  • Some places, like Glenrio, will remain at "outline" status for years, possibly forever. In other words, articles may be created that even when completely filled out, can never achieve star status. This is desirable and good.
  • Although you will see hundreds of them, we don't actually like having so many bare bones skeleton articles on Wikivoyage.
  • If you found a skeleton article you know something about, please take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy allows you to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. -- Andre
  • Check out Labrador and its sub-pages like Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson for good examples of how to group content in rural areas. Another good example is Jervis Bay.
  • The traveler is best served by one good article with good content. -- Andrewssi2
Hope I made things better, and not worse, thank you!--ButteBag (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad things are more clear for you now, ButteBag, but I'm not sure which policy page you think should be changed or updated based on this list of established practices and personal statements you made. To change policy, you obviously need a consensus, not just someone's comment, although in this particular case it doesn't seem all that relevant as most things are already covered by policy and status quo as it is. @K7L, while it is policy to not delete real places in principle, I think we all agree there is always some wiggle room for specific cases. TTCF always gives us room to make exceptions. Since those instances are rare, I do think it's perfectly acceptable to require a quick consensus, though. Trying to catch these individual cases in quantifiable policy is almost impossible and hardly worth it. In the case of page creation vandalism, deletions should be uncontroversial - regardless of any usual policies or practices. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! Although I don't agree with all the bullet points I listed above, I guess my goal was to make the status quo of current policy more explicit. The current set of policies evolved over years (I'm guessing), and when a new contributor arrives they are consumed all at once. Since these rules are more "Bazaar" than "Cathedral", you'll occasionally notice a few edge cases that aren't covered perfectly. I guess I was thinking the bullet points above (if reworked by someone with greater domain experience) could be useful as a "tips for n00bs" guide, or the like. I think I've done a not-that-great job of communicating my ideas, so thank you for bearing with me while I learn. --ButteBag (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Going back to K7L's remarks earlier, one change to this area of policy that I would certainly get behind would be to clarify that if we have an article for a small community where there simply aren't any hotels in town to put in "Sleep" (or restaurants/grocery stores for "Eat", bars for "Drink", etc.), but we have already agreed the article merits existence per wiaa, then the article should not be forever stuck at Outline or Usable status so long as it otherwise fulfills the requirements for promotion. I've cited Childs before as the classic example of this; let's look at it again. Wikivoyage:City guide status says all bottom-level destinations at Guide level must "ha[ve] different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking" (emphasis in original). Someone reading policy in an overly strict way would take issue with Tillman's Historic Village Inn being double-listed in both "Eat" and "Drink", and would further hold that double-listing in the same sections a gas station that sells beer and has an attached sandwich counter is an exceedingly weak "different choice", and would likely conclude that Childs should be demoted to Usable. However, we also have Wikivoyage:Guide articles which says "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here", which is clearly accurate in describing Childs. The fact that we hold the latter specification to supersede the former is evident in the fact that not only is Childs' Guide status designation uncontroversial, but we even saw fit to feature it on the Main Page as OtBP a few years back. Similarly, K7L describes Cartwright (Labrador)'s Usable status as "tenuous" because "one business closure could knock [it] back... at any time", but I feel that it handily falls into the same category as Childs. If there's nothing to list, there's nothing to list, and saying so and moving on does just as much by way of providing accurate information to the traveller as any listings would. IMO there's no point in penalizing an article for that reason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Most logical, Captain. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the guidelines for article status assume that there exist a variety of options in a destination. If all of the available options are there, then there's nothing more to add and no reason to demote or resist promotion on that basis.
Re: ButteBag's summary, I don't understand the animus against outline articles. Do we want to appear complete, or do we want to appear as if there are opportunities for the public to contribute? Powers (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with User:LtPowers, there is nothing wrong with outlines, they're great and invite participation. What I was trying (poorly) to express, is that in my mind, the most beautiful version of WV is one that covers every corner of the globe, without overlapping, and every article is a star. Working backwards from that vision, I thought something like "if it can't be a star, it can't be an article". Then I saw a bunch of regions that (IMHO) could never be star, and got a little frustrated with that. I looked around for policies, or how-to guides, or something. Like a yearly "state of the voyage" address or something, and didn't notice any. (I'm sure something exists, I just didn't see it.) Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd think we would hold a place back from star status if, while it's a real place and you can sleep there, it isn't worth visiting. A "star", much like a featured "destination of the month", is supposed to represent our best work. Expecting every article to be a star is a bit like insisting "...and all of the children are above-average". It just doesn't work that way. If Fort MacKay is an environmental nightmare with little to see or do other than prospect for black gold, so be it. We cover what's there (one local annual festival, a doughnut shop and a few oil sands camps) but it would be lucky to progress beyond "usable". There'd be no reason to nominate it for destination of the month, even if we managed to cover it comprehensively in the future. K7L (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this context and example! This is extremely helpful! I was assuming articles captured places that someone would want to visit for some reason. And maybe in a hundred years it would eventually have enough content to become a star. The way that I was seeing it, if we know Fort MacKay is functionally complete, and stalls at outline, it might not be considered an article and should eventually be merged into a sub-section of Fort_McMurray somehow. Then eventually Fort McMurray would be complete and perfect and could be starred, and so on. I think I'm pretty alone in this line of thinking, but it might be helpful to include your comment above on the Wikivoyage:Star_articles page or somewhere, for the errant few who see it my way. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I could not disagree more with this idea. Star status is a recognition of high-quality writing, no more and no less, irrespective of how "worthwhile" (by whose judgment?) a destination may be. Same deal with DotM - if a place is not a massive tourist mecca, it'd probably be better off as OtBP, but you can't just disallow it from being featured if it fits all the other criteria. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Andre. Powers (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The test for destination-style articles[edit]

Wikivoyage:What is an article?#The test for destination-style articles currently says:

The most common and quickest assessment of whether a place merits an article is Can You Sleep There? That is, are there any types of accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, etc. If a place, such as a national park, has no facilities, but has rules for pitching a tent in the wilderness, that can work too. On the other hand, while there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, you can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; such parks and museums should thus be listed as attractions within an article about the city.
Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc. If you know there really is no place to find food, nothing to do, and nothing to see at a location, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy.

That seems a bit harsh; one blank section and the destination is penalised, no hotel or camp ground and the destination fails "what is an article?"

If that wasn't the intention, would this wording be more appropriate:

The most common, quickest assessment of whether a place merits an article is "Can You Sleep There"? Is there accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, or even a place to pitch a tent in the wilderness of a national park? Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, so the types of places that merit their own articles provide "attractions or activities" (to see or do) alongside basic travel "infrastructure" (some way to get in, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep).
While there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, one can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; these attractions and activities should merely be individual listings within a larger article about the city. Some types of places typically won't have enough content to fill our standard article sections: these include small city parks, bodies of open water and tiny "dot on a map" hamlets with no attractions or services.
Asking "can you sleep there?" is a guideline. It doesn't infer every community without a hotel will inevitably be relegated to permanent "outline" status or will never deserve an article. Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination. Where no lodging in one district is safe or clean (or there's nothing at all), simply note this and move on.

Comments? K7L (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I do particularly like "Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination." Hopefully everyone else can get behind this wording as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The new third paragraph is good (though "infer" should be "imply"). But the changes to the other two paragraphs are not good. The new second paragraph starts by explaining the other side of the Can You Sleep There? test that was introduced in the first paragraph, then continues on to address an unrelated topic: places that do meet the test but still might not be suitable for articles. Powers (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize, but now that similar changes have been made, I think it's even worse than the text proposed above. Perhaps we should have hashed it out a bit before plunging forward on changing a policy page? Powers (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, here's the piñata if you'd like to take a whack at this. I've reverted for now. What wording did you have in mind? I presume we want Manhattan/Central Park (lots to see and do, nowhere to sleep) and Cartwright (Labrador) (with its one barely-there six room motel) as valid but a destination in which most of the sections have no suitable venues worth listing is not a valid article?
I'm a bit uncomfortable about this bit: "Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc". Last I checked, some of these sections were optional for a usable article - if there's no "drink" listing that isn't already part of a restaurant or hotel, so be it. Otherwise, WIAA is actually more restrictive in its requirements than {{usablecity}}. K7L (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The most common and quickest assessment of whether a "type of place" merits an article is "Can You Sleep There?" That is, is there any type of accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, etc. If a place, such as a national park, has no facilities, but has rules for pitching a tent in the wilderness, that can work too. On the other hand, while there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, you can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; such parks and museums should thus be listed as attractions within an article about the city.
Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections. If there really is no place to find food, nothing to do, and nothing to see at a location, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy.
Nonetheless, Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination.
Asking "can you sleep there?" is a guideline. A particular division of territory into pages of reasonable size might make sense for the destination, but leave one article without a hotel. That's fine. Where no lodging in one district is safe or clean, simply note this and move on.
Comments? K7L (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I would join the second and third paragraphs together, and make sure the word "guideline" in the final paragraph is italicized. Other than those minor copyedits, it looks fine to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I also wouldn't mind if the sentence "It doesn't infer every community without a hotel will inevitably be relegated to permanent "outline" status or will never deserve an article," was re-added. —The preceding comment was added by LtPowers (talkcontribs)
On second thought? Maybe the introductory "can you sleep there?" blurb in WIAA should remain short and sweet. Article status is an unrelated question to "Wikivoyage:What is an article?" and the various 'exceptions' already in that page. Other project pages discuss whether a city or district is "usable" or "guide". K7L (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's leave well enough alone instead of trashing the wording we've so painstakingly hashed out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Aggregators[edit]

I have been mulling an idea for some time. It's clear why we don't list aggregators on our sites (by the way, how many g does that word have?), but there are instances where they do provide service to the voyager, for instance I won't look for my flight to Managua primarily using the websites of Delta or American Airlines but using an aggregator (or several) and then comparing the result with the price quote the airline itself gives me.

Now here's my idea; should we have one travel topic that deals with aggregators and lists as many as may be practical while also emphatically stressing that they should not be listed elsewhere? Or is this a bad idea bringing us down a dangerous slippery slope? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, providing that the links are annotated and compared for quality, user-friendliness and value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to start the article only after some more people have voiced there opinion, for one because I don't know all that many hotel agregators and would like some help on that, furthermore because I am still unsure of the correct number of gs and finally because I think this is something of a departure from policy in a sense and as such should count with more than the approval of two editors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain me with detail what the 'aggregators' are? --Zerabat (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Basically, websites that allow you to search a certain service from more than one source/company. So for example kayak for flights, trivago for hotels and so on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this idea, but we should tread lightly. If the article ends up as a long list of aggregator listings with very little in the way of prose to tie the listings together, I think that would be unfortunate. Better that this article should focus mainly on aggregators as a concept, the advantages and disadvantages of using them (and there are disadvantages; speaking as someone who worked in hotels for a long time, it's pretty much a universal practice to treat guests who booked with Expedia/Priceline/Orbitz/etc. as basically second-class citizens), how to compare prices, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I created something in userspace feel free to contribute or suggest a different direction or what not. Also, I think the spelling is wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Should {{eatpricerange}} and {{sleeppricerange}} be merged?[edit]

These two templates are basically the same in code except by a minor and default text, which is replaced when is used parameter {{{4}}}. Should these templates be merged into {{Pricerange}}? The difference in default text can be solved by adding an additional parameter. --Zerabat (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You could merge the code but leave the templates as wrappers. Otherwise it requires changing every single use of the templates and that's not worth the trouble. Powers (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

April 1?[edit]

A discussion appears to be open at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#Getting my April 2017 topic suggestions in early... K7L (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with copy editing and copying/moving (some) listings to city articles[edit]

So User:Benreis has translated a travel topic on Breweries in Franconia - a very worthwhile topic imho and certainly one of the main tourist draws of the region besides delightful old architecture and charming cities and towns.

At any rate, the prose would have to be looked at by someone who's not a German native speaker to fix particularly awkward wordings and some listings would certainly have to be moved or rather copied to corresponding city articles where they already exist.

I will not issue a recommendation either way as to what to do with the redlinks, I will only point out that many of them indeed represent pretty tiny villages. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What struck me was that it would be nice to have some information about how to get from one town to the next, even though it isn't an itinerary article. I also didn't like the left-justified images, just due to the habits and customs of this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I took a stab at a get in and a get around section, but I think some of the background information in other parts of the article should be moved to the understand section and each place should have at least a few words about how to get there (e.g. take the road XYZ from ABC). I think given the topic it would also help to know a rough ballpark figure about public transit (i.e. S-Bahn y/n and rough bus frequencies). @Benreis: what other words would you think should be explained in the "Talk" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Lonely Planet style "itineraries"[edit]

So this edit introduced an "itineraries" section that does not look like those are "supposed to look" per policy, but it got me thinking - Lonely Planet guidebooks usually have a list of "itineraries" on their first pages that gives suggestions for routes to take if you have x,y or z amount of time and want to focus on A,B,C type of attractions / cities while focusing on geographical area 1,2,3 or the whole country. We have an equivalent of the "highlights" sections at the beginning of LP guidebooks with our nine top listed cities and the way "see" and "do" are supposed to look in country/region/huge city articles. Is this a stupid idea or a good way to provide a significant portion of our readers exactly what they're looking for (judging by the type of questions we get in the Tourist Office at least)? Or are we ill-equipped to provide something like that because we lack the ability to make subjective judgment "stick" the way a guidebook with a fixed number of writers and a boss/editorial board who can issue Roma locuta causa finita type statements (which we can't, never will and should never even attempt). Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It could be done, but they do seem awfully subjective. Powers (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
These things could be chosen by consensus of participants on destination article talk pages where they might be controversial. Siena is one case in which the main sights are really obvious and unlikely to be very controversial, so I simply plunged forward and organized Siena#See in a user-friendly way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

List formatting[edit]

In response to Hobbitschuster's suggestion above, I started copyediting Breweries in Franconia. Every list item was separated by a blank line, which produces a bad HTML and therefore a horrible experience for people using screen reading software (which typically reads not just the "* Content of the listing here" that most of us see, but also a statement such as "List of one item" before it, and "End of list" after it. So w:en:LISTGAPs are bad; we should avoid them.

This problem also seems to be fairly common here, and it's pretty tedious/carpal-tunnel-problems-inducing to clean them up manually. One of my friends at enwiki has a bot that could fix this for us. I'm willing to ask him to do this here, if you all would like to have this work all done at once. The main downside is that, with the proportion of articles that have this problem, the bot will flood your watchlist for a day, if you have your watchlist settings to show bot edits. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the blank lines were a problem. I'd say sure, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the bot produces cleanup work to do by hand afterwards, sure go for it. It might even bring some edits to long forgotten articles, who knows? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The code for this is very conservative. I think we can confidently expect zero pages requiring cleanup as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Telstra vandalism?[edit]

Frequently, new users make edits which get flagged as "potential Telstra vandalism", and usually reverted. These edits are usually not typical to wiki vandalism (profanity, repeated phrases, major deletions, etc); instead they are slightly off-topic, tautological, and/or superfluous. Who makes these edits, and why? /Yvwv (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, see this. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Food vs cuisine[edit]

Most of our articles about national or regional cuisines use the word "cuisine" in their title like Japanese cuisine and French cuisine but some use the word "food" like Mexican food. Firstly, should we be consistent and adopt one word and if so, which word should we use?

From the small amount of research I did, my gut feel is to use the "food". I used WordTracker to look at four search terms and their usage globally in the last month across all major search engines.

Search term Volume IAAT Comp KEI
Food 140227 422349 46.06 64.29
Cuisine 36122 101932 33.83 64.55
Chinese Food 4466 499 10.66 76.83
Chinese cuisine 762 764 11.69 68.71

Volume is the number of times this phrased was searched exactly. IAAT is the count of webpages on which the search term appears. Comp is how much competition there is for the keyword (how many websites are trying to get a slice of the SEO pie) and KEI is Key Effectiveness Index, a combination of how popular a word is and the level of competition (more popular increase the number while more competition reduces it). Essentially we should using words that are high KEI.

In this case, there are many people typing Chinese food in Google but there aren't as many websites using that phrase compared to Chinese cuisine. I think this is people usually type common easy words, not technical terms. Wikipedia uses cuisine which makes sense because encyclopedias use formal words but we should have the traveller in mind.

Also I was looking at the site rankings of some of our competitors like Lonely Planet, DK Eyewitness Travel, Rough Guides with Alexa and similar sites, and I noticed that Rough Guides gets a significant percentage of their traffic from the phrase "Vietnamese food". I suspected that not many people would write cuisine. Gizza (roam) 09:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I think I actually use these words to mean different things. Chinese and Mexican "food" are what you (don't) get in major Western countries (i.e., the stuff described in Mexican food#International versions, and Chinese and Mexican "cuisine" are what you get when you're in China and Mexico, respectively. I wonder if anyone else uses these phrases the same way that I do.
Also, I wonder whether you'd get the same results if you compare "French food" vs "French cuisine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I would settle for food. It is shorter, more straightforward, and better understood by learners of English (with the exception of French). /Yvwv (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure those articles were attempted with the same intention or outset. And I agree that XYZ "food" and XYZ "cuisine" are not necessarily always the same thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I would definitely not draw that distinction. If I get Chinese/Mexican food that just means that I got an individual dish or meal. But Chinese/Mexican cuisine is the tradition of food from those places. Contextually "x food can also mean the latter. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why, but to me "food" conjures an image of something basic and gourmand (like "fast food") and cuisine something more pretentious and elaborate (like « haute cuisine »)? K7L (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Because of the inherent 'prestige' of the French word 'cuisine', versus the English words 'cooking' or 'food'. I don't think there's a difference, except the perceptions people have of the food from certain countries, hence Japanese and French "cuisine", but Mexican "food". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate there is some desire to tighten things up around here (see the epic struggle around airline redirects) but seriously how is this going to improve the WV travel guide? I'm going to mark myself down as doubtful that changing some words will impact our SEO in any significant way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
American food could be McDonald's. American cuisine is either good home cooking or the stuff you get at good diners, barbecues, "new American" or "classic American" restaurants, etc. I would suggest using "cuisine" exclusively, except for articles about fast food and "casual dining" chain restaurants. "French food" sounds very lowest-common-denominator. "French cuisine" sounds excellent. Let's go for excellence, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
All but one of those articles has "cuisine" in the title. Some talk a great deal about cuisine in the body of the article. For those that are about cuisine, why not keep that in the title and make a redirect from the term containing "food". Then they will be found by either search term. In fact, the Mexican food article refers to "cuisine" more than "food", so if consistency was desired, that would be the article title to change. Nurg (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I second everything you say 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think as wikivoyage we should on occasion embrace our inner frenchiness, even though or maybe because of the times we live in are ones where "coastal elites" are openly mocked. In a bit more seriousness though, Mexican food (which I originally intended as a counterpart to fast food in North America when the latter was still called that, should probably be moved to Mexican cuisine Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Belgrade Stari Grad - what to do?[edit]

This is to draw attention to Belgrade Stari Grad which should either be moved to Belgrade/Old Town or Belgrade/Stari Grad per our conventions on district articles or merged back into the main Belgrade article. I don't care which solution is taken, but the status quo is not an option. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be to follow local use (and Wikipedia), and move to Belgrade/Stari Grad. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
May also want to think about Lazarevac. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Definitely. I would support a merger to Belgrade. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hell damn fart[edit]

Hello! Can you say "shitshow"? Not sure if you can "work blue" here. Pretty sure this is the first swear I wrote in a guide, so figured I'd check with you fine people. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see any direct prohibition against this in Wikivoyage:Tone or Wikivoyage:Words_to_avoid. Maybe another policy? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Invite your mother to become a contributing member of Wikivoyage, and then she can rap your knuckles, and we get another contributor. Ground Zero (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Tone says "Be conversational and informal" but not "all-out slang informality". I think vulgar language is too informal. Also, is that a regionalism - I'm not sure what it means. Also in that edit, what does "the shockingly amazing location" mean? Is that an in joke perhaps? Is it a restaurant in an electricity substation or something? There should be an indication of what is shockingly amazing about it. Nurg (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nurg on this. While I personally take no offence from a word like "shitshow", I do think words that might be considered vulgar slang are to be avoided. Wikivoyage needs to be a good source for all travellers, my grandma included ;-) It's not a matter of words to avoid so much, but rather of common sense. It's not hard to find another word and in all honesty, I don't think too much slang makes for pleasant travel writing anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll rephrase. Swears are a cop out half the time anyway. I'd consider at least a mention of this in a policy page somewhere. User:Ground Zero ha, that was my first thought as well! User:Nurg thank you so much for the feedback! I agree with your comments and am very excited to get writing feedback like this. Feels like I just learned something. Thanks again everyone! --ButteBag (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That's cool, ButteBag. My own writing skills have improved a lot through editing wikis. Nurg (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
So what happens when someone gives a real place a name like Sheshatshit (Labrador)? Or Dildo? Or Fucking? K7L (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That's the problem of whoever lives there, not travel guides, lol! --ButteBag (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted listings on Wikidata[edit]

Some of our listing were recently deleted from Wikidata and our current featured article got broken listings. I dropped a message on Wikidata, but I assume more discussion will be needed to save our listings on Wikidata and keep them alive over there. -- DerFussi 07:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That is concerning. Although we can technically look at related WD changes in 'Recent Changes', in practice it is very hard to spot if someone wants to change a WV relevant item over there. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
So is there anyway to see from the wikidata page if a wikidata reference is used within a listing? I suspect not. On English Wikivoyage if the wikidata parameter has an entry we create an anchor on that page that has the QID number, can be used for hyperlinking between article on the site and between Wikipedia and WIkivoyage, but you cannot use this on Wikidata entries and not sure you would want that effort. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems, it can be checked ([1])... Fortunately the items are restored meanwhile. We use WD extensively. The mentioned article Nanxun fetches all data directly from Wikidata. Even the hotel's phone numbers comes from Wikidata. You can not find all the information in the article itself. I want to get in touch with the developers to get some tools that help to see article related changes on Wikidata. -- DerFussi 21:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is the policy on car rental listings?[edit]

Re: User talk:180.253.220.86, I recall an agreement that when there are numerous car rental agencies operating somewhere, none are listed. However, there sure isn't an obvious place to find the statement. I didn't find it using keyword searching of WV:Listings or WV:Avoid long lists. So where is the policy, and shouldn't we put it somewhere where it's easy to remember and link to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember this discussion at Talk:Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, it`s mentioned in Wikivoyage:External_links that we don`t link to an car rentals if there`s more than 10 in a city. It also says we typically don`t provide details of national rental chains in local guides. JakeOregon (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. But I wonder whether it's worth mentioning in WV:Listings, as well, since car rental agencies are not necessarily just links but can be listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes; WV:XL isn't where I'd think to look for it. Powers (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

George Bush Intercontinental Airport - to merge or not to merge?[edit]

I am fairly dispassionate about the subject, but apparently this was created some time ago as the barest of stubs and has not been edited much since. We should either expand this as best we can or merge it to Houston - what do you think would be the wisest course of action? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to get rid of it, but I'm probably biased, because it's on my short list of airports to avoid. I wish its architects a trip from the Skyway train across their artistically narrow walkways with the low, transparent glass rails to the elevator while they have a bad case of vertigo.
What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
w:George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport states that this is the 10th busiest airport in North America by passenger numbers, so I would veer to 'keep'. Also frankly if it is such a bad airport as WhatamIdoing suggests, then surely it needs an article to help travelers deal with it? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly on the lists I recently analyzed for what it's worth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, keep it if someone is willing to expand it. If no one is, then merge it because it has no useful information, and is just going to annoy people who click through to it. There is better information on the airport in the Houston article. Ground Zero (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how important this is, but IAH has dropped precipitously in rank (on the mentioned list) since about 2007. Make of that what you want. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe the traffic and connection metrics for airport articles are just minimum standards; if the information for the airport fits sufficiently in the city article, that's where it should be. Powers (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, an elderly friend of mine seems to be "dealing with" that airport by not visiting his great-grandchildren. It's hard to work around the physical plant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there no Amtrak service to Houston? I thought Phoenix was the biggest American city without intercity rail. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to file this under the "big country problem" (we're talking about a distance that is significantly longer than going from the northernmost point of Denmark to the southernmost point in Italy, even though it's only halfway across the continent) or the "bad support for rail" problem (slow trains, poor connections, high prices, etc.). Whatever the source of the problem, he'd spend about three days in transit each direction, have to change buses and trains three or four times each direction, and it would cost at least three times as much as flying (as he would need a bed for sleeping). I would recommend that his young and mobile relatives to visit him instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to identify "dead email addresses" other than by hand?[edit]

I am asking because we have a way to detect dead weblinks with reasonable accuracy but even those email addresses where an automatic "could not deliver message" reply comes cannot be weeded out. Or am I mistaken? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good news: there are data cleansing companies that will accept a list of email addresses and return you the updated or inactive state of each address. Bad news is that the service costs a significant amount of $$$. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Mh. That's bad. What we could do, however is put a reminder behind the email address of a listing when the website is dead. Sometimes the website is info@exact-same-website.com when the listing is www.exact-same-website.com; now it's pretty likely that the new email won't be the same when the new website is www.totally-different-address.org and usually the website will contain the email address somewhere (though our editors would of course have to look) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that in our budget listings, email addresses tend to be 'throw away' hotmail accounts and such. Perhaps we could address 'budget', 'mid range' and 'high end' in different ways? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I follow. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Different categories of accomodation will have different types of email patterns. i.e. budget = hotmail.com, yahoo.com etc, mid/high range will have hilidayinn.com, westin.com etc. Therefore applying rules to higher quality accomodation may be easier than budget. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It would need to be a moderately complex bit of software. Suppose the address is someone@example.com.
First test is DNS lookups to validate the stuff to the right of the @ sign. Check whether example.com exists; also look for MX (Mail eXchange) DNS records pointing to other servers that accept mail for example.com & check whether they exist. If you find one or more servers, check if port 25 (SMTP mail) is open.
Looking to the left of the @, some addresses may need to be truncated. It is legal to use an address like someone+wikivoyage@; this should be delivered to someone@ though not all mail servers get this right. This can be useful to sort mail or to tell where a spammer got your address. We just need to check someone@ in such cases.
Assuming you get that far, check if the server will accept mail for someone@. Pashley (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Technically that would work in theory, although I suspect that probing all the servers referred to in our listings would look like suspicious activity and get blocked, possibly providing many false negative results. Not my expert area so I might be wrong.... Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
So in short: bad idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, put it this way, the idea definitely has merit, but even our URL checker has a good deal of false negative results. Maybe it is worthing going up to the WikiMedia group to ask if there are any experts? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The DNS lookups are not suspicious or very likely to be blocked.
Probing port 25 to see if there is a mail server running certainly is; spammers might do that. Also, a fairly common way to break into a system is to do that probe, which tells you which server software is running & which version, look the software up on vulnerability list sites, and exploit any hole you find. Pashley (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By the way, there is interest over on de-WV to have the URL checker there as well. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Checking whether mail servers are running would be suspicious indeed, but connecting to a server to deliver e-mail is not, even if the session is aborted. So if done in low enough intensity, probes should not be problematic. I do not know how many listings we have and what realistic thresholds for servers to react could be (a few hits a day on a server responsible for multiple domains is hardly a problem, while a thousand could certainly be). This cannot be done from home accounts, where the smtp port is often blocked, and one should be careful also with things like greylisting (where the server pretends having temporary problems when connected to from an unknown host; spammers seldom bother to try again but we should).
What about real test e-mail messages with valid sender and reply-to fields, telling about the business being listed here, that we are verifying the address, that they need to do nothing, but are welcome to check info too? Would a listed business be upset about getting such email?
--LPfi (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we could just send a one time 'Hello from Wikivoyage' message to every listing, informing them that their establishment is listed on Wikivoyage and inviting them to check it out. At the same time any bouncebacks from those emails could be registered and those establishments in the Wikivoyage article updated by a <Dead Email> note.
That said the effort required to set this up is not insignificant, but ultimately probably worthwhile. We might even get some decent new contributors out of it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A few decent contributors perhaps, but surely a huge amount of touts too ;-) If we ever consider actively emailing companies, we should be ready to deal with lots of business representatives who were never aware of WV and will then suddenly start "improving" their listings. Checking the emailadresses when the weblinks are dead is a good idea straight away (you have to check the company page anyway). I must admit I didn't, in most cases when I replaced dead links. I wonder how big this problem is. Considering the large amount for dead weblinks, I'm guessing not very small. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How many e-mail addresses are we talking about? And are there other methods of verifying them, e.g., first checking to see whether the e-mail address is still published on their website?

I kind of like LPfi's 'advertisement' model, but it would probably need to be done v-e-r-y slowly. (I might specifically ask them to add something about a different business in the area, e.g., ask the hotels to add or update a listing for a sight-seeing opportunity that they often recommend to guests, and ask the local restaurants to recommend a hotel.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Touts can be reverted if need be, I think our WV:welcome business owners was written in a spirit that is easily lost after the fifty millionth tout (especially if their English is not as good as they think it is), but the spirit is still worthwhile and valid: People who work in tourism know a lot of sites and stuff and it would be great to use their expertise and better coverage will bring more guests, so it ends up being a win win in the best case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with WV:welcome, business owners and WV:welcome, tourism professionals is that many folks who come here just to add their one business or one town aren't going to make the effort to adapt their content to fit our WV:Manual of style. They're not wiki-aware, they don't know how things work here and they really don't want to dedicate a whole lot of time to figuring this whole thing out. They might even be surprised that one can edit Wikivoyage, so they just dump the same blurb that they've been sending everyone else "Anyville's delicious and mouthwatering restaurants, sparkling beaches, beautiful sunsets and well-appointed, luxurious inns are fun for the whole family, ideal for business and leisure travellers and great for getaways..." and walk away. Wrong WV:Tone, long on promotion, short on actual info, incurs a yuge SEO penalty as duplicate content and might not even comply with our free licence. Ugh. Unfortunately, that is the tone they need everywhere else they're submitting advertisements, it's just not what we need here.
That's not to say that they couldn't contribute usefully to Wikivoyage, were they to take the time to figure how this darned thing works. I just don't see why they'd want to spend the time to do things our way if they're here just to dump a brief, one-time update to one article without becoming part of the community or devoting effort to understanding Wikivoyage or adapting content to Wikivoyage tone and format. We're just one of a million other sites out there. K7L (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
True, but is there anything we could do to make them more inclined to stick around? After all, some tourism businesses have social media presences that aren't just "we're the luvvy duvvy bestest place for getaways" Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the usual efforts to welcome and collaborate with people, I wonder if the content of an e-mail message could encourage the 'right' kind of contributor? "We don't want puffy advertisements. Instead, help us say something funny or add a listing for a quirky local place." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm, that might work. Another issue entirely is whether the person who reads the mail will be able to speak enough English to grasp the content of the mail and/or collaborate. Not all of our language versions necessarily have an article for the city in which their listing is located... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

TWD, NTD, NT$ or $[edit]

In one article, Taiwan the notation of the Taiwan currency is TWD is given in the Quickbar and 6 other places. NTD is used 6 times. NT$ is used 22 times. Just $ is used 24 times. Should this be standardized to one notation only, or is the present situation no problem? --FredTC (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WV:$ says "Prices should be generally listed with the currency notation that travellers will encounter when they arrive at the destination in question. Travellers should be able to assume that symbols used for multiple currencies (like $ or £ or ¥) apply to the local currency." So we should use "$", or "NT$" if clarification is needed. There would be no reason to use TWD or NTD. Ground Zero (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is The bare peso symbol really the locally common way of designating it? If yes, that should be used (unless there is need to avoid ambiguity) if not, whatever is locally prevalent should be used. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been to Taiwan yet, but Wikipedi says: "The currency code is TWD, and its common abbreviation is NT$." Taiwan Tourism Bureau uses NT$. So does the China Post newspaper from Taipei. Ground Zero (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
c:Category:Price tags in Taiwan shows both "NT$" and "$" alone. Powers (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Broken breadcrumbs for Driving travel topics[edit]

So after some recent edits, there now appears the "broken breadcrumb" symbol at the bottom of e.g. Driving in Germany or Driving in Iceland. How do we fix this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As you have now created the category it should fix itself over time. To quicken it up, press edit on an article and save without doing any changes. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I did as you said for Driving in Iceland but it did not fix the problem. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Discover template[edit]

Is it just me, or is the Discover template not showing at all (see the main page)?  Seagull123  Φ  19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have the same problem; beneath "Discover" there is just an empty field. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
{{discover}} contains entries by date. The last one currently in the template is 02-28, so the template needs to be re-loaded with new Wikivoyage:Discover entries from the nomination page. Until this is done, the voyager is missing out on Apple Valley and its magnificent architecture as the well has run dry. K7L (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you do the honors? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What do ze Germans eat?[edit]

Now I have just had a look at WV:Germany Expedition. First of all the list was a bit outdated and second of all, there are apparently 119 city articles without an "eat" listing, 117 of which have content in sleep, see and do. Now there are about a hundred jokes about German cuisine that could be made now, but the point is that there are two or three simple ways to fix this. Look at this list, click on the article and its eat section, which will be empty or at least not contain a correctly formatted listing. Next you see whether the de-WV version has an eat listing and click the link, or you click the link to the municipality and/or tourism association which should have a list of restaurants. Once you are on the website of a restaurant, you can mine their data and put it into a listing field. In all but the most stubborn cases, this is a few minute's work and it makes the articles much more workable and dare I say usable. I admit more than a hundred articles are a tall order for a single person, but the more users that help in this task, the better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with a change to Istanbul's map[edit]

As User:Ibaman pointed out some time ago, the secondary airport of Istanbul on the Asian side is not displayed on the static city map (and there is no dynamic map). I think this should be remedied, but I don't know who'd be the map-drawing expert to do that. So this is me calling for map drawing experts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:LtPowers? User:Saqib? Those are two great mapmakers I thought of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless of course there is any reason not to make this change, but I couldn't think of any unless the airport would be outside the scope of the current map. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Added. On my first visit to Istanbul few years ago, I by mistake came to wrong airport and missed my flight so it is for sure due to highlight that this city got two airports . --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Having a central page where pointers to merger discussions can be put or merger discussions can be had[edit]

So merger discussions are a rather frustrating experience on this wiki. Usually the merge template sits on a page for weeks or even months without much input. Votes for Deletion has much more participation, but the consensus seems to be that vfd is not for discussing mergers (even though there are preciously few articles for which vfd is even the right page - many pages are either candidates for speedy deletion or for mergers). So what should be done about this? My proposal is to have one page similar to vfd where proposed mergers have to be put and people can argue there whether the mergers makes sense or not. What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support unreservedly. Sometimes you never know you want something until someone else mentions it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Mild Support. I'll agree that merge discussions on individual articles has low visibility, although I'm not keen to set up more bureaucracy. Would like some alternative suggestions how this can be achieved. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Why?. There is a list here, text should be in the template and further discussion on the talk page. Also for countries with active Expeditions have an additional central point to highlight. Why do we need more? --Traveler100 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Clearly nobody uses those. I think it would be better not to have the merge discussion at individual talk pages but rather at something like WV:Merger discussions that would work similar to vfd. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It should not be about another talk shop page but about doing. --Traveler100 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying. Imagine all vfd discussions were held at the talk pages of the article nominated for deletion. This I think is an absurd thing for a wiki of this size. What I propose is in essence to have the same collection page for merge discussions as we have for deletion discussions and for discussion to take place there exclusively, which reduces the need for pointers and reminders. Of course the actual discussion process will be slightly different as we have no policy not to redirect real places and so on, but I hope you get what I am aiming towards. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think more attention will be paid to merge/redirect discussions if they're held at a dedicated page? I'm unconvinced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Because people can watchlist that page, while they probably do not have the random to-be-merged articles on their watchlist. The cure is for everybody to watchlist Category:Articles to be merged – that works nowadays. Also, if that does not work, why not just go ahead and merge, if nobody interested in the involved articles (and therefore noticing the merge suggestion) cares enough to voice an opinion. --LPfi (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) the event that caused me to raise this issue is that Soazza was merged not following established protocol, likely out of frustration how that usually goes and then unmerged by another user who thinks it should not have been merged. I think vfd for all its faults works better than having deletion discussions on individual talk pages or the pub. Why not do the exact same thing for merger discussions? Maybe we can introduce it with a trial period and if after x amount of time we decide it didn't work we can go back to the old way or try an entirely different approach... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what? I want to be able to have these conversations in both places at the same time. I want it on a central page and on the article's talk page, and without any participation-preventing complications like transcluding subpages. This kind of multi-location discussion was planned years ago for mw:Flow (along with features such as being able to watch one discussion but not the rest of a page), but it hasn't been implemented anywhere. It would be ideal for something like VFD.
As an aside, the more I use Flow at mediawiki.org, the more I like it. (Just don't tell the devs that, because I have a long list of demands friendly requests for improvements, like "remind me of this discussion next week, especially if nobody's commented since then".) If you haven't seen it before, then you can try it out at mw:Flow/Sandbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Support - I reverted the merger of Soazza, partly because I was irritated that it was done with no discussion just a few hours after I had done several edits and added a banner photo. So I would emphasise the importance of providing the opportunity for such discussions. Mergers should only be done without discussion if there have been no edits in the last year (ignoring technical edits by regular contributors, but taking particular note of content additions by occasional editors or IPs). We don't want to frustrate the occasional editor that drops by once a month. I think that the article talk page should be used for the discussion, but a central index page would be useful. This could just have a link to the article, the country and the date. A central discussion page might be off-putting to occasional contributors. It is important to provide the opportunity for discussion, even if most times there are no takers - this can be taken as approval after a few weeks. I do like the sound of Flow, but it is probably not today's solution. AlasdairW (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Technical question Is it possible to have some script that has a discussion transcluded to another page? What I mean by that is having the discussion displayed both on the talk page and on (tentative name) WV:Votes for Merger and users able to contribute to both. That way many of the potential downsides (that I frankly don't see, but whatever) of having the discussion only at one central page would disappear. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We already have Requests for comment. Should we simply use that page to advise everyone about merge/redirect discussions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I myself hardly ever read requests for comment and I fear the same is true for many users here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me for putting it this way, but: So what? If you knew merge/redirect discussions were pointed to there, you'd look at it, and if you think no-one would, then your proposed new page won't be followed, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at requests for comment - apparently there is one request from way back in 2015 still up there. And I still don't get why we should handle merge discussions and deletion discussions so fundamentally differently. Imho we could also have articles nominated for redirecting on vfd, because "deletion" is a valid outcome in only a fraction of the articles we have as is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the point is that merge/redirect discussions should be on the talk page of the relevant article. Anywhere else, they would be pointers to that page. And I still doubt your point about Requests for comment is valid, unless there's some psychological reason people dislike the phrase "Requests for comment". But as I see it, either people will pay attention to pointers or they won't, regardless of what you call the pointer page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
As others have noted, "merge" is often the outcome of a VfD discussion. Since the VfD page is not overly burdened, how about combining the two sets of discussions into a "Votes for deletion or merger" page? Or, if that is a problem, and I don't know why it should be, then at least allow pointers to merge discussions on the VfD page. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
So how would you handle something like Paradise (Michigan) and Whitefish Bay where there was some disagreement as to which direction the merger should go? Paradise is a tiny speck-on-a-map village which had just one {{listing}} for some venue which is now closed. As a destination, it was useful primarily as a target for jokes about the distance from Paradise (Michigan) to Hell (Michigan). Whitefish Bay was created as a large, sparse rural area - there's a lighthouse and museum on Whitefish Point with some tie to the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking but little else. IIRC, someone tagged {{merge}} onto Whitefish Bay because they didn't like bodies of water, then someone else tagged {{merge}} to go the other way (merging Paradise village into the larger rural area as there's nothing there). I look at the history of both pages and see little or no actual discussion taking place - just randomly merge this somewhere on the assumption the next editor could undo the mess? K7L (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
One important thing to remember is that mergers do not necessarily require a discussion. For pages where others have invested time, especially recently (like AlasdairW's example) it is common sense and proper courtesy to discuss on the talk page first. In most cases, such talk pages are also on those editors' watchlists. For underdeveloped, more straightforward cases I don't see why we would let go of the "plunge forward" principle by introducing a new VfD-like discussion page, with accompanying policies and waiting times. That seems like bureaucracy - which is the last thing we need. If we think more pointers are needed, we could simply start by using the requests for comments page more extensively for that purpose. If there is more "traffic" on that page, I imagine people with an interest who haven't done so yet can simply put that page on their watchlist. I don't see why we need a new page because "some" people hardly read requests for comments. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, on your technical question: You can do that, sort of, by creating a separate page. You can see how it works (or doesn't) on a page such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henrietta_Lacks#GA_Review That's only transcluded onto the one talk page, but it could theoretically be transcluded to a nearly infinite number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who did the merger in Soazza and I wanted to give my inputs on the whole topic. I have done a couple of merges in the past year or so, as I was trying to clean up regions and articles in Switzerland. There is quiet a few small destinations with articles which have not been edited in sometimes 10 years and with very little content and not fulfilling the criteria to merit an article on their own. I found that, as mentioned above, most of the times calls for input on talk pages have no to little effect, which is a bit frustrating, especially when it comes to more complex merges such as reorganisations of regions etc. (For instance here: Talk:Surselva#Should_we_simplify_the_region_hierarchy or Talk:Graubünden). As pointed out above by others, I'm not sure whether creating a new page to centralise these discussions will help, as this just adds another page people might not notice. What would help in my opinion is clearer guidelines on when it's okay to merge without having to wait for inputs and what an adequate period of time would be to wait for inputs after starting a discussion on the talk page. For instance, I do agree that for Soazza I should have started a discussion, as there were recent edits, but I don't think an article that hasn't had any substantial content added since 2007 needs much discussion (such as Talk:Finhaut). Wikivoyage:How_to_merge_two_pages is rather vague on this. Drat70 (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There is the general problem that some "specks on the map" are clearly candidates for merging, but the person who sees that is not necessarily willing or able to do the legwork of finding out what a good reorganization of the hamlets in the area would look like. In general geotagged listings would help a bunch, because when you look at the map of Soazza, you can see that those listings cover a linear area. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In some cases, the {{geo}} tag on individual articles is enough to flag that two very tiny places are adjacent, for instance Blumenort and Steinbach, Manitoba. Unfortunately, the 'nearby destinations' layer on the dynamic map doesn't indicate whether the actual articles are outline or even rubbish - only that two point to almost the same geographic area. K7L (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The question of how long is reasonable to leave a merger discussion open is a good one. I just came across Sevagram, which I have proposed to merge. There has been little activity on the article, and its creator has not been seen for two years. I have posted on RfC, and plan to complete the merger in one week unless there are objections. I think that is a reasonable time, as we do want to keep things moving here. Is one week too short? Ground Zero (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Planning your flight budded to Aircraft seating, Flight baggage and Flight and health[edit]

The Planning your flight article has been very long, and too elaborate on narrow sub-topics. I have moved the sections about aircraft seating, flight baggage and flight and health to new articles. These sections in Planning your flight have been cut down to the essentials, and other material has been added. Is something missing? Should anything go? /Yvwv (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Proposal: Require coordinates in addition to contact details for listings to consider promotion to "usable"[edit]

The current criteria for usable status demand at least one listing each with contact details in "eat" and "sleep" as the sine qua non for usable status. I think coordinates are almost as important as some form of contact details and they are quite easy to "mine" when there is a street address. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this already required for the higher ratings? If not, then we should start there... WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it should not need coordinates for usable. If you have a street address and a phone number you can use those, as everybody did before there were satellite navigators in mobile phones. Thus the article is very much usable with them only. --LPfi (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the days before satellite navigation, basically every guidebook came with printed maps for the major cities showing all attractions. Getting the coordinates is not rocket science if you have a street address already. And having coordinates and the listing showing up on a map enables everyone to see the lay of the land at a glance. Which is also very helpful in district or merger discussions Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you add coordinates to all the listings in the 500 or so Guide and Star articles first then come back and discuss this further. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's so easy, then can we have a bot do it? Seriously: when I've done it, it's been a pretty mechanical process. Even a semi-automated script would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The bot would need a data source. Would OpenStreetMap's "Nominatim" be suitable?

That said, the closest thing which currently exists to a requirement for co-ordinates in articles is the ill-defined requirement that Wikivoyage:Star articles have "a map". Back in the old, dark WT days a map invariably meant a static map due to technical limitations - so it's not clear whether a dynamic map (which implicitly needs the co-ordinates) fills the bill for a star. Certainly, if a star needs a map and a map needs co-ordinates, then indirectly it creates a requirement for the data. By contrast, Wikivoyage:Guide articles "aren't necessarily perfect... just very close. For example, a city guide might not have a map, some of the listings might not exactly match our manual of style."

I'm all for setting the bar for "guide" relatively high. A guide, while not perfect, is good enough for nomination to be featured. I'd like to think that means something more than just a long list of multiple restaurants and hotels. For instance, I'd like to propose making "Understand" a required section for guide or star articles.

By contrast, we set the "usable" bar low for a bottom-level destination, Some way in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep with contact info. (Countries and regions are another matter, as articles below them in the hierarchy can readily hold them back.) Requiring co-ordinates would be basically equivalent to requiring a dynamic map, as the co-ordinates are all the data we need to generate that map. K7L (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So you propose to make the climb from usable to guide even steeper? I agree that as long as a significant portion of those active on DotM and OtbP nominations insist that every guide can be featured, guide criteria have to be tighter, but an article being guide has not kept us from voting "not yet" on featuring. Anyway, maybe it is time to look at the status ratings with fresh eyes altogether, including re-raising the question of an additional category between usable and guide. And as for the proposal to geotag all listings in our guides and stars; that's not as easy to do as doing that for one listing each in eat and sleep for usable articles... Guide and star have dozens of listings at the very least. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's harder to fix coordinates for any given guide than for any given usable article, but we have 10 times as many usable city articles. Also, just the fact that it would be easier doesn't make it more logical. As long as we don't require coordinates for listings in general, we would end up requiring them for the first 2 listings, to make an article usable, but then all the other listings that would be added later would not require them. That seems pointless. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is easy in some cases to add co-ordinates to a listing, but not in others. In many parts of the world we have good maps here, and major museums and hotels may be shown on the map, usually on the Mapnik layer. Other attractions can often be found from other online maps. But I have found that in some countries the map support is much poorer. I do think that a guide article should have a number of listings with lat/longs, unless it has a good static map. It is also something I look for in articles being featured on the main page. But I think that it is totally unreasonable to expect them on usable articles. I expect that adding lat/longs is a difficult thing for some new users to do. (In the UK I would never quote a lat/long to somebody wanting directions - I would give the postcode.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The real-world use of co-ordinates seems to be tied fairly closely to mapmaking or satellite navigation. I can't imagine directing the system to put a local hotel's POI marker at "13601" on the map as that's simply too vague. The idea is to uniquely identify a specific building (or a city park), not an entire postcode - which might be a whole village in some countries. K7L (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
In the UK postcodes typically are for about 10 buildings. So if I was meeting a friend in a cafe, I might give the postcode when phoning to arrange. If I was driving I would type the postcode into my GPS. For a rural location, I might give an OS grid reference. Lat/longs would be my third choice, and then I would use degrees, minutes and seconds not the decimal format we use here. My point was that new editors may be unfamiliar with lat/longs, not that we should use something else. In the US the 9 digit zip+4 code may give enough resolution, but doesn't seem to be widely used. AlasdairW (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
OS grid might be a wee bit country-specific? Postcodes internationally are hit and miss; they're typically one side of one Canadian city block, but elsewhere one postcode could well be one entire village. We would hold an article back from 'star' status for want of a locator map, we wouldn't hold a page back for want of a postcode as the idea is for the voyager to visit these places, not send postal mail. K7L (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I have not been clear. I think that a new editor should be able to create a usable article, without spending much time figuring out things specific to WV. If the last time that the editor used lat/longs was in a school geography class, then they are going to be a barrier. In the same way we should not insist on banner photos for usable articles. If people think that we are making too big a step from "usable" to "guide", then it would be better to introduce an intermediate "good usable" or "nearly guide" standard. AlasdairW (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have rarely seen drive-by editors or absolute newbies create new articles from scratch. Yes, getting coordinates is something that can seem difficult at first (I basically had to teach it myself for those places not having a WP article), but that means we should have a page that explains it in more detail and it doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider it in our standards. Furthermore a more experienced user can probably get the geo coordinates of a listing if a street address is mentioned (except for some countries where street addresses are imprecise). Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of how useful coordinates are in general, and how hard it is to add them, it just makes no sense to have requirements for usable articles that we don't even have for guides. In the case of coordinates specifically it would also not be in line with what a usable article is in the first place. An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources. For most articles, this means they could probably get to the destination, eat, and sleep with just this information. It would probably enable them to find at least the most prominent attraction there. For that standard, coordinates are simply not a requirement. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Require a static or dynamic map to consider promotion to "guide" or "star"[edit]

The current Wikivoyage:City guide status criteria were written in the dark WT days before destination articles had (lat, long) co-ordinates in listings or any dynamic map capability. There is currently no requirement at all that a guide article have a map or co-ordinates, although lack of a map will hold an article back from 'star' status.

The definition of a star city or district is currently:

Has a tourist-style map, in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source, showing how to get around the destination, with major attractions, restaurants, etc. that match the listings in the guide. Layout and listing formats either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule. Any district articles are at least "guide" status. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. At least one good-quality photo accompanies the article; preferably 2-3 showing famous or important attractions.

The bit about "modifiable vector source" is specific to Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps. At the moment, static maps do still make sense for upper-level region articles, but do we want this inherent bias toward static maps in bottom-level destination articles?

I'm tempted to propose the following two changes: 1) State that the use of maps or co-ordinates is "encouraged" in guide articles 2) Accept either a static or dynamic map for star, removing the implementation-specific bit about a "Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source"

This is specific to bottom-level articles. We're not quite at the point where a dynamic map makes sense for a country or upper-level region. K7L (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the static map bias is outdated, but IIRC this was a longstanding issue with a significant minority or even majority unwilling to change the requirement for static maps for star articles. But I haven't gotten into the why and ins and outs, so I may be wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the advantages of custom, drawn maps have been well discussed over the years. An article that lacks a map with carefully placed labels is simply unusable in printed form and therefore can never be considered exemplary of our best work. Powers (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am of the same opinion. I feel that dynamic maps are not yet at a level where I would call them usable even in digital format. I feel that that one of the major downsides is that they don't show transport lines (especially train lines and station) clearly. Drat70 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if this is Wikivoyage:City guide status, the underlying list of POI's is itself rather dynamic - as they're individual local businesses which come and go at an alarming rate. Which ones would you put on your static map? Everything that's on the dynamic map, or just a few "star attractions" (so Paris is the Louvre and the Tour Eiffel, but doesn't get map markers for every bistro). The static maps make sense for regions, but are not easy to keep updated for cities and districts. K7L (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see that dynamic maps are the way to go in the future, they are definitely much easier to maintain and also more versatile. All I'm saying is that at the current state a static map with some outdated markers or markers missing is still way more useful on the road as compared to the dynamic maps which are sometimes hard to read (IMO especially hard to differentiate train lines etc) and noisy. I feel that the way to go here is to find a way to improve the dynamic map, so that it can indeed replace the static one, maybe by creating an appropriate rendering layer. I think that a map is a very central element to any travel guide and I don't think articles with a suboptimal map should be upgraded to star articles. Just as an illustration, I went to Seoul last year and even though I had mobile data, every time I wanted to take the subway, I had to refer to a paper map or google maps, because it's just impossible to see where the stations are and to which lines they belong on the current dynamic map. (Also see this recent discussion on this here: Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Maps_and_Stars. Drat70 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Require an 'Understand' section to consider promotion to "guide" or "star"[edit]

The current requirement in Wikivoyage:City guide status for "guide" status is:

Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking (if applicable) and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status. There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions.

There's currently no requirement for an "Understand" section (just "at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located)" to reach outline status). An article which is a fine yellow-page directory listing of many restaurants, hotels and tourist traps is a "guide" or maybe even a "star", even if it says nothing to educate the voyager about why historically, geographically or culturally this place is different enough from a thousand others to be worth a visit?

The bar for "usable" cities and districts is deliberately low, but I propose a "guide" should have an 'Understand' section with at least a paragraph to explain what makes this destination unique. K7L (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree, a workable "understand" section should certainly be a requirement for an article to be promoted to guide. Especially when a significant minority holds the view that all guide articles by virtue of being guide articles can be featured. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree; some locations simply don't have enough information to require a separate Understand section. A section containing only a single paragraph is too short; that single paragraph should just be moved to the lede. Powers (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If a place has nothing that could be put into its understand section, why have an article on it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say "nothing"; I was talking about a single paragraph of information as K7L had suggested. Some destinations are fairly mundane but have notable attractions; there may be no reason to expand the description of the place beyond what would fit in a long lede. Powers (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
But why would we put in the lede what could be put in the understand section? Besides, even if there is just a single attraction making the town worthwhile, the understand section could elaborate a bit on how that attraction came to be in such a godforsaken place and so on and so forth. Personally "understand" sections are easy to write if I know the place from first hand observation... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede is usually fairly short, "Apple Valley (Minnesota) is an outer suburb in the south end of Minnesota's Twin Cities." The bit about it being named for Apple Valley (California) and still being semi-rural when the 485-acre zoo was built in 1978" fits best as a paragraph in "Understand". For that matter, one could write an article for a ghost town and "Understand" would explain the history and why the town died. A place can be tiny and still have something notable historically or geographically to merit a paragraph, for instance every one of our destination articles in Labrador has this. Some speck on the Atlantic coast with one hotel (if it hasn't burned down) and fewer than a thousand people? Surely, it has a history - why on earth was a settlement established here? Subsistence fishery? Trading post? Seaport to reach some even more remote point? And then there's the geography. I can't imagine ever having a 'guide' article to Blumenort, for instance, without mentioning that speck on a map's place in Manitoba's Mennonite community. Then again, it'd be a stretch to ever have a 'guide' article to Blumenort as there's not much there - one restaurant, no hotel, an airsoft (paintball) field.
If something's so trivial that there's truly nothing to "understand" about it, is it an article? Is it usable? Is it even worth visiting? We might end up "understanding" that Relais-Gabriel is a tiny outfitter's camp which is only worth a mention as the last food, fuel or lodging on the road to Fermont. So be it. The voyager needs to know. K7L (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it that important whether the info is in a lede section or a dedicated "Understand" section, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
imho the lede should be short(er) and crisp(er) whereas "understand" is where we go more in depth. Ideally understand should always be longer than the lede. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. But there may be some places perfectly worth visiting that don't require more than a very short introduction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The current requirement is just "at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located)" for outline status. That bar is set no higher for "guide" or "star" articles. "X is in Y". OK. That's nice, but it should take a bit more for a guide to explain why a place is "perfectly worth visiting". Most of these places already have WP articles with a lot more background than "X is in Y". We don't need the whole thing, but a brief summary of the geography and history might be useful. K7L (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Some examples of current ledes for tiny places that are improvable and how you'd improve and enlarge them would be helpful, since you're quite familiar with outports and even taught me that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone made a climate data proposal[edit]

It might get overlooked by many, so this is me adding a pointer. Please discuss on the associated talk page, not here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, the same user made an identical proposal on Wikitravel. To the extent that we adopt it, we will of course want some unique content/formatting for SEO purposes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, we'll see what the corporate overlords over at that site do with it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Better using Wikidata in the future[edit]

I think there are quite some things we might want to use Wikidata for. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about how wikidata works, but here are three ideas that pop to my head.

  1. Currency conversions - up to date exchange rates for currencies; if there is a reason why wikidata can't/doesn't store them we will have to continue doing this locally and manually
  2. Climate data - I think there is no reason for our climate data not to be synchronized with what WP and WD know.
  3. Visa policy - articles like this one are much more detailed and up to date than our country get in sections - the basic information they contain is visa y/n and sometimes visa under a,b or c conditions and can be displayed as a fairly readable map - having this in one place (and I think that's what WD is for) enables us to benefit from more up to date lists instead of the probably outdated handwritten lists from 2012.

What do you think? Are there other things we could and should ask the people at Wikidata to integrate and implement so we can use them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Filling in infoboxes. For what it's worth, I posted to the Project Chat about currency conversion but it went nowhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favour. I haven't been here long enough to know why we don't do this already. Ground Zero (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: The bottlenecks are mostly time and expertise. And to some extent, creativity. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
As well as whether the information to be mined from WD is accurate, complete, up-to-date and properly linked which unfortunately it is not in all cases from my observations. -- Matroc (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If you'd like to know more about Wikidata (with practical examples), then Asaf's recorded workshop is a good place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

I have a technical question about the Hebrew Wikivoyage version of the Template:See template... (the question is technical so you don't need to know Hebrew to help with this one). I would like to change the way this template displays a certain element ... the external URL link which is supplied with that template... so that the external link would be displayed under a Blue globe icon.svg globe icon, instead of how it is currently displayed as a link from the main name of the attraction (the same way this is implemented with all the listings templates of the French Wikivoyage). Do you by any chance know which template/code I need to edit in order to make such a change? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The globe icon is part of the {{listing}} template and existed briefly here before being discarded. The link style (and colour) is most likely in Mediawiki:Common.css (although there's also a skin-specific Mediawiki:Vector.css). Mediawiki: namespace pages are protected so that only admins may edit. K7L (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
K7L, I went over the 2 pages + 1 template you mentioned above at the French Wikivoyage - Modèle:Voir+Mediawiki:Common.css+Mediawiki:Vector.css - but I still couldn't find any trace of "Blue_globe_icon.svg". Where in their code did they add it? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The {{see}} (voir) template is merely a wrapper around {{listing}}. I'd try fr:modèle:listing or its history. K7L (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
K7L, thanks for the tip. template:listing was indeed the template which needed to be fixed. works well now. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Browse to a specific destination" map broken?[edit]

The map in the "Browse to a specific destination" section at the bottom of Destinations does not show any markers. Dynamic maps in individual articles work though. I use Firefox 52.0 on Ubuntu. Is it a known bug, or just me? Syced (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually click on Explore Nearby Destinations Symbol to get markers and then zoom in. -- Matroc (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Destinations has "mapframe|25|6|zoom=1|layer=D|width=600|align=center". I think that a change a few months ago resulted in the layer parameter being ignored in mapframe. This also impacts some itineraries where the Hiking layer had been selected to show the route. It may have been done to ensure that articles always used the Wikimedia layer as the default base map. AlasdairW (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
As it doesn't look like anybody is fixing mapframe for this, I have added some instructions to Destinations. AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button; I think it's about the importance of previewing.) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Do you remember last April, when nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers? The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd.  The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File Upload Spam[edit]

Some of you might have noticed that someone has been uploading stuff here in recent times. Is there a way to combat this? I think the easiest way would be to limit uploading files to autoconfirmed users. Or are there reasons against this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to set up an Abuse Filter preventing the upload of certain types of files (.ogg, .webm, etc.)? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
That'd be another option. There is, after all, no legitimate place for some file formats here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We should disable uploads entirely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
No can do. Some images must be uploaded locally because they would be deleted at Commons for reasons of lack of freedom of panorama but are considered important enough to be one element in an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Besides blocking the accounts indefinitely (I saw a few that weren't blocked), I would report to stewards at m:SRCU, asking for a CheckUser and a global block of the IP addresses. It is also possible to limit uploading to autoconfirmed, if you get consensus and then ask for it on Phabricator. --Rschen7754 06:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
A consensus to limit local uploads to autoconfirmed users shouldn't be problematic. We only allow them for a very limited number or cases, of which new users are not aware anyway. We don't see valid use cases by newbies at all, just the spam. Such a limitation would solve the whole spam problem for now. I'm all for it. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe that this would require a config change; if you want to do that, then I can figure out who to ask.
What are the autoconfirmed limits here? I believe that the default is 4 days and 0 edits, but a few of the wikis are set to zero-zero (which would make requiring autoconfirmed status pointless). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd also support limiting local uploads to autoconfirmed users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There is also the status that shows up with the red exclamation point (or lack thereof) which I think has to be explicitly granted. What about limiting to that one? I think it is called autopatrolled, but don't quote me on it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should limit editing restrictions more than needed. Limiting local uploads to autoconfirmed is the standard, also on Wikipedia, and it's usually enough to keep spambots out. In fact, I was under the impression that this already was the threshold here - that's also what it says on Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed_users. It seems to be just an oversight that it wasn't put into effect. So how do we get that changed? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
m:Requesting wiki configuration changes has the directions. It's pretty straightforward. The first step is getting evidence of agreement among regular contributors to have a particular setting. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd support limiting local uploads to autoconfirmed users. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Peetsuh![edit]

Taking a cue from WV:Requested Articles, I created Pizza in the United States and Canada as a bare outline. Pizza friends of all states, unite! ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

DMOZ[edit]

The RelatedSites extension is being removed in no small part due to DMOZ being closed today. That community is discussing how to continue the project with mirrors and forks springing up now but none of them are really ready to deploy nor are any of them as active as DMOZ was. We will probably need to delete Category:Articles without DMOZ links (via Wikidata). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need DMOZ or anything like it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: There was discussion here a couple of years ago about it (initiated by me) with a weak resolve to keep it. Evidently, it's more popular on de.voy. I can pull up the Phabricator tickets if you really want but it's basically a done deal now. The Related Sites will just be Commons and Wikipedia which are sisters sites anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
So will there be any replacement now or at any foreseeable point in the future? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: http://dmoztools.net/ is a static mirror, https://freemoz.org/ is a dynamic fork, and there are community discussions at a few message boards (Curlie.org, Curlz, and Resource-Zone if you want to follow up with them). I've basically told the community that I can ask WMF wikis to use the dmoztools mirror for a brief period until a dynamic fork is really going. But yes, DMOZ editors have every intention on having something going ASAP. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the wikidata dmoz function from the pagebanner template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rabbit tourism?[edit]

Some people travel thousands of kilometers to go the the rabbit island Ōkunoshima, I also see another island in Cambodia, a Rabbit Village in Latvia and a rabbit beach in Sicily. Japan also has numerous rabbit cafés. Would a Rabbit tourism be on topic, and acceptable with enough substance? The nearest travel topic I could find is Birdwatching. Not sure whether the Eat section should list restaurants specializing in rabbit dishes. Cheers! Syced (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Travel topics can be whatever (legally) floats your boat. That said I'm not sure Rabbit aficionados (who visit Rabbit cafes) and Rabbit diners (who enjoy munching on rabbit) have that much common ground. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage PPT Slide presantation[edit]

Hello , I want to give presentation on Wikivoyage, is there any PPT Slide or presentation available, if so than please share the link thanks -- Suyash.dwivedi (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a presentation given in 2013 at Wikimania Hong Kong , unfortunately I can't seem to find a link to either presentation or video . Maybe someone else knows? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Found it! Both slides and video here. Is there anything more recent anyone? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"recommend listing" function[edit]

Would you think it a good idea to give signed in users (we might want to request autoconfirmed or something, but that's details) the ability to "recommend" any given listing and that to then show up (with some hover-over or whatnot) when people read the article? Of course sad recommendation can always be withdrawn by the initial recommender and we might also wish to timestamp it.

What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This is similar to a suggestion made in February that went nowhere. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Is there a way to demarcate "special" listings?. Ground Zero (talk)
It's not. I know of this discussion, but we would not do an "editorial" thing á la "Wikivoyage thinks this is the best pizza place in New York" but rather a "Wikivoyage User A, B and C think this is a pretty decent place to go". I think that makes a world of difference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that what Tripadvisor is for? I can't help thinking an article could get jumbled with recommendations pretty fast. Also, the very fact that we list places is itself a recommendation, since we don't list every single possible listing in a given location, and the 'avoid negative listings' guideline pretty much precludes us from listing something we wouldn't personally recommend. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Why would we want our readers to any other site? And why would something like "3 recommendations" behind the "last edited" clutter up the site? You can then make the three clickable where it says which users and when... Or something. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


My two cents: at the Hebrew Wikivoyage we have discussed the issues related to letting anyone include random listings to the Wikivoyage articles quite a lot, and we have tried to find an ideal solution to overcome the inherent flaws. The main problem as we see it, is that any collection of listings might eventually be flawed and it is hard to determine if it is, unless one unaffiliated person we trust actually goes to all places and rates them all (what I hope is indeed what happens in the case of Lonely Planet recommendations). The worst case scenario with this flaw could even be that some businesses which give really bad services and charge too much would add listings of their "tourist traps" to our articles, presenting themselves in a positive light, for the purpose of increasing profits (and in the example given above, the tourist trap business owner could for example try to get in our favor so that he/she would be considered the Wikivoyage "local ambassador" of his/her region, in order for him/her to make sure his/her business remains the one that seems like the ideal choice to the Wikivoyage readers).

The only solution we have found so far is that each article with listings would also have little Thumbs Up icons in it, and each one of those icons would appear in the top TripAdvisor listing of each category (sleep, eat, drink, etc) so that at the very least our readers would be able to immediately identify which listing in each category is the top recommended one by a wide group of people/opinions (would adding indicators that shows only what the the top listings on TripAdvisor are be allowed in regards to copyrights?). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Although in principle I like the idea, in fact I use it on Trip Advisor and Google Maps, I do not think there is the volume of traffic on this site for it to work correctly. Better to concentrate first on improving the mobile user input to get contributions up. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think if we always assume there to be few contributors, we might just create a self-fulfilling prophecy on that one... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That worries me, too. Some sort of very simple contribution system could be a way to get someone started. "Thumbs up" or "I've been there!" might be viable options.
ויקיג'אנקי, I'd worry about one person rating everything. The restaurant closest to me at the moment is a great place if you like beef or pork, but AFAICT its four-page menu contains exactly one vegetarian entree and one fish entree. Sincere, unbiased people on different diets would probably come to very different conclusions about whether to rate that restaurant favorably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, it seems you misunderstood me... my main point was that just like you, I too think that we can't eventually determine quality based on one person's preference (although, in the case of professional widely publicized travel book guides I really hope that they base their recommendation on the opinion/s of their employees actually going to all those businesses) AND therefore, in my opinion, the only option that seems to makes sense for Wikivoyage is to at the very least include "Thumbs Up" icons next to the top sleep/eat/etc locations according to a reliable external source that takes into account the opinions of many people. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A local page for this at Wikivoyage:Wikimedia Strategy 2017 has been created, if you'd prefer to participate here instead of on Metawiki. Looking forward to your input! :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year[edit]

The annual Commons Picture of the Year competition has started, and I think that it may be good to see if there are any pictures there that could be put in the articles here, they are all high quality pictures.  Seagull123  Φ  16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory and unhelpful policies regarding airport articles and their status ratings[edit]

So I have a hunch this issue has been brought up before - potentially by me, maybe by others - but airport status rankings currently place a lot of emphasis on eat and sleep listings. As the requirements for an airport to be ranked usable show: "Has at least a Ground transportation section and one Eat and Sleep listing each with contact information. There is at least a basic list of terminals and some airline information." The requirements to be ranked "guide" meanwhile say the following: "Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on flights, airlines and terminals. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. There will be multiple ways to get in, some suggestions for moving out, and information on getting around." Now as per the letter of policy LAX would have to be reassessed as "outline" because it currently says ""he stretch of West Century Boulevard leading into the airport from I-405 is lined with hotels. Additionally, you can find many airport hotels south of the airport in El Segundo or east of I-405 in Inglewood." in the sleep section and there is not a listing to be found. Similar things apply for other airports.

However, we have an established consensus (don't ask me where) to only list hotels physically attached to the airport in order to discourage location touting. This however, will in some cases mean that there is no hotel that can legally be listed, which would raise both "can you sleep there" questions (though I have never heard of airports throwing out people with a ticket sleeping there) and condemn the airport article to perpetual outline status.

But that's not all. As can be seen, there also need to be eat listings. Now I understand that in the era of surcharges on everything many a hungry traveler will pass through airports hungry and they might be enticed to use a layover for some fine or not so fine dining. However as per WV:Boring, we have a policy not to list Fast Food places that are figuratively a tenth of a dollar for twelve pieces. So what now to do about an airport that only has chain restaurants of the Dull and Boring categories? Should they be listed - even several of them - in contravention for our policy on boring places just to have grounds for promotion to guide and thus eligibility to be FTT? (btw of the six guide airport articles, three have already been featured, one is currently nominated and of the other two one is in England and one in the US which might raise geographic issues down the line)

Now I can only speak for myself, but I would not consider the availability of hotels or the exact names and locations of the generic fast food franchises my primary concerns when reading up about an airport. Yet our status criteria make that the most important yardstick. Should that be changed, if so, how? Keep in mind that travel topics have criteria different from those for destination style articles and airports are arguably somewhere in the middle between those two. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody have any opinion on this? @Traveler100: any opinion? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Airport places to eat tend all to be chains. If you are lucky then it will be a local chain of 10 restaurants. The quickest way of telling the reader that the only place to eat in zone X is a run-of-the-mill burger chain is to just give its name. "It's often useful to briefly mention what major popular chains are in the area, and to note where they are, but avoid spending too much time on them" comes from WV:Boring. The only airports I can think of that have good independent cafes are the tiny ones with 3 flights per day that we won't have articles on.
I think that we should be a bit more flexible on sleep, and include any hotels that are within 2km of the airport (i.e. a reasonable walk) even if they are not on the airport campus. Sleep could also include suggestions of the best places to sleep rough - "There are comfortable full length benches without arms by gate 50". AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that policy as written and the helpful tool now displayed at the Airport Expedition suggest we should have eat listings. I tend to agree on your point regarding sleep (and look at Frankfurt airport for one approach to this) but see the potential of this being abused by location touters or leading to needless discussions, especially if an airport is close to communities that predate it or have other functions besides serving the airport. I'm not an expert on all the things New York (that would be, I guess User:Ikan Kekek) but my understanding is that JFK airport is - at one side at least - rather close to a NYC neighborhood of the name of Jamaica, which has a lot of hotels which may or may not have anything to do with the airport. Which of those should be listed if we loosen the "physically attached to the airport" requirements? Furthermore, I do not think an airport article that has ten listings each in eat and sleep but a badly formatted and outdated list of flights is better than one where sleep consist of "there are no hotels at the airports but places X, Y and Z have plenty of hotels so see those articles" and eat says "If boring chain food is what you crave, the world is your oyster at this airport with establishments of Burger Kong, Slurm and Soylent Green at your disposal." as long as the other sections contain information and it enables me to not get lost at the airport. Or am I seeing this wrong? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AlasdairW, I think that's taking WV:Boring a bit out of context. We avoid detailing chain restaurants when there are other options, but in an airport there might not be. (I wonder if that's even the case, particularly in the large airports that most of our airport articles are about, but certainly most of the restaurants are still chains, so I'll stop nit-picking.) Airports are also places people go because they have to, not because the airport itself is the destination. And airport restaurants, even if they are chains, may need a bit more explanation than normal; the whole world knows McDonald's, but even people from just the other side of the country may not know Chick-fil-A or In-N-Out Burger. That by itself seems like enough reason to list a chain restaurant: it may be a good opportunity to eat someplace new to you. Airport restaurants can also be very hit-or-miss, so some reviews about which restaurants are consistently (or inconsistently) fast or slow, good or bad, etc., would be useful. (I'd prefer a guidebook that did list McDonald's in order to tell me "it's the only restaurant that isn't overpriced" or "horrendous wait times" or "open later than the other restaurants" or "it's the only restaurant in this terminal, we just saved you the trouble of looking".)
I agree with AlasdairW about Sleep. Giving details about sleeping inside the airport is definitely very useful advice (see http://www.sleepinginairports.net/). And yes, including nearby hotels makes a lot of sense; I never liked that we excluded them, because that rule just doesn't make sense at some airports. However, every city and airport is different, so while we might offer a guideline (e.g. "a reasonable walk"), each airport/city should have its own definition of what constitutes a "nearby" hotel. At LAX you can walk from the airport right onto an urban street, but at ATL I'm not even sure if there's any legal way to walk to the airport, however there are free shuttles to dozens of nearby hotels. To Hobbitschuster's point, in some cities it probably does make sense to link to the adjacent districts for hotel listings, but I don't think that works in every case. Some airports are so isolated that there isn't a nearby district to point to. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In the case of JFK, there's absolutely no reason to list any hotel in Jamaica. Instead, readers should be suggested to look at Queens/Jamaica if they're not staying at a hotel in the airport (I forget whether there is one) and place a huge premium on being as close as possible to the airport. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I still have mixed feelings about airport articles. But I'm thinking about this discussion today from the POV of an inexperienced traveler (e.g., a university student taking his first solo flight), and here's what I think that kind of traveler would like:
  • Some information about how this airport functions. What do you need to do first? Are security lines long or confusing? Will you have to trek from one end to the other? Are there stores or services that are only available if you leave the secured areas? Is the signage worse than usual? How many flights of stairs are between your gate and the airplane, and will you get rained on in between the four (permanent) flights down to the tarmac and the one (portable) flight up the side of the airplane? What's the likelihood of weather-related delays, and why exactly did anyone think it was a good idea to build an airport this big in a place that gets this much snow?
  • Some information about sleep. This doesn't necessarily mean "listings". It could be "There's a hotel here, but you could also check our article on the Boondocks neighborhood for a hotel with a shuttle" and "If you need a nap, then your best bet is the benches in Gate 22".
  • Some information about food. Again, this doesn't necessarily need to be listings. "There's lots of chain restaurants if you're hungry; expect it to cost 25% more than usual. The lines can be long and slow, especially if you want a pizza, so if you're in a hurry, skip that and grab some fruit and yogurt from one of the kiosks. The price for bottled water is the same at all of the stores."
  • Some information about how to cope. Basic things, like where to go for lost or damaged luggage, missed connections, or other things. Bonus points for identifying wheelchair-accessible toilets (if they're not everywhere), rooms for nursing mothers, play areas for children, or other special features.
  • Some information about how to arrive and depart. This could mean suggesting an easily identified place to get dropped off or picked up, hours and prices for the city bus service, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent points, and many of these are useful for experienced travelers who don't know a particular airport well, too. I guess this thread will eventually be moved to Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, where it will serve as a good reference for people who are starting or editing airport articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Small Towns & Boring Places[edit]

(New member) but I was wondering about small towns & villages and boring places (like a supermarket). Looked at from a e.g. backpackers they would be dull and useless entries. But looked at from e.g. somebody on a (bi)cycle or walking tour and they are just what you need; does that village have any bars for lunch (and where) or when I arrive at a town, is there a supermarket I can quickly stock-up at. An e.g. bicycle tourist or walker at the end of a long day does not want to be hunting round a town for a supermarket.

Not suggesting the destination pages should become a listing of shops, bars, etc., but maybe at least a couple of convenient bars and a significant supermarket - which ones not important, just one (or maybe one each side of a larger town) and knowing where it is can be a massive help.

I've added a coupe of places that I thought would be useful but probably meet the "boring places" definition's I've read but would be useful to some types of traveller. So am I interpreting the guidelines correctly as most destinations (I've seen) are major cities or tourism centres and there are other types of traveller? Or do the guidelines include for they e.g. significant supermarket, bars, etc. (not as a listings site but for somebody that wants anywhere without hunting around). —The preceding comment was added by PsamatheM (talkcontribs)

On the face of it, it sounds like you are doing exactly the right thing. In a small town, where the supermarket is and what products they carry can be important; in a big city, there are likely to be dozens of supermarkets and convenience stores, so it's unnecessary to list them. (Also, please sign your posts on talk pages - type 4 tildes [~] in a row at the end of each post.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, PsamatheM! We're glad to have you. I really appreciate you updating those listings.
I like the idea of a supermarket (or similar place). IMO the best choice would be either a convenient store (e.g., near a bike trail or just off the highway) or something characteristic of the area (e.g., a locally owned grocery store or an open-air market).
I could also see some value in a brief mention of such places as part of another listing:
  • Local Restaurant, 100 Main Street, +1 555 555-1234. Open for breakfast and lunch. Be sure to ask for the cinnamon bread at breakfast. There's a laundromat next door, and you can leave your clothes in the washing machine while you eat.
  • Farmer's Market, corner of Main and Maple Streets. Open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings. Bakery, drug store, and bank with 24-hour ATM access across the street.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

National Geographic[edit]

Free Website for Printing Detailed Topographical Maps, for the US only. We almost certainly cannot use their material here for copyright reasons, but it seems like a resource we should link to. Pashley (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)