Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

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


Petscan down?[edit]


I've been trawling through the Ohio Expedition to fill out outline articles, and noticed that the PetScan links no longer work, yielding a 502 Bad Gateway. However [[1]] petscan itself still appears to work. Am I doing it wrong?

Thank you for your time! Mbrickn (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me, so it doesn't seem to be down. When I do many searches after each other in Petscan, I may get that same 502 error. This was a fairly common problem until a few months ago (after 3-4 searches it almost certainly yielded the 502 Bad Gateway), nowadays I've rarely encountered the error. I resolve it by opening Petscan in a new tab or new window. ϒψιλον (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes something changed yesterday. The automatic execute does not appear to work any more. If you go to the end of the link and remove &doit=1 it will work. Have to press the Do it manually. If it does not fix soon I will change the syntax of the call to manual run. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help! That did the trick. Mbrickn (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see, the links from the table. Those don't work for me either, while Petscan still otherwise seems to be working normally. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes Fixed, at least for now. Seems to work fine when language is specified; I'm a little concerned this wasn't documented anywhere, but, what can you do? ARR8 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
{{RegionStats}}, {{RegionTasks}} and supporting {{catscancall}} have been updated. First to fix problem above, second to handle planned changes to listing visual editor output. This will affect region expedition pages and some search links on category pages. Checks look good but pay a little extra attention to the results and report and anomalies. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Any Seinfeld fans around?[edit]

If so, please help me expand the Seinfeld Tour outline article I created. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Seinfeld superfan here. I'll take a look at it over the next few days -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
After two and a half days of what might be best likened to Jack Kerouac typing the first draft of On the Road onto a 120-foot scroll of paper, I've got the article to within sight of Guide status. Anyone want to chip in with an "Understand" section and/or other background info? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower - Amazing work! I doubt that any Seinfeld tour locations website exists with such a comprehensive list (which I am sure would be even further expanded and improved as more people would find it). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons deletion notification bot enabled[edit]

Good news! The bot to notify us when files are tagged for deletion on Commons has been enabled. Here is its user page. For reference, the discussion that led to this is here, and the request I made on Meta is here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting the € sign after the amount[edit]

Who on earth introduced the barbarous custom unbeknownst to good citizens of Europe to write "€6" when nobody says "Euro six" but everybody says "Six Euro(s)"? Is this just laziness by our American and/or British friends who are used to having the currency sign where it does not belong or do any Euro-paying people actually do that? And how could that ever enter our Manual of Style? Or is it not in it at all and instead somebody chooses to enforce a policy we do not, in fact, have? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is, in fact, in the MOS. I was confused when I saw it, too. ARR8 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You do see both. commons:Category:Price tags in Germany, commons:Category:Price tags in Italy, and in many currencies how it is written is not always how it is spoken. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Try shopping online at an Irish supermarket sometime. You'll see they put the symbol before the number, as is the norm in English, no matter the currency. You'll also find that, e.g. the French Wikivoyage lists prices in pounds and U.S. dollars as e.g. 10 £ / 12,5 $ (yes, note the horrifyingly primitive use of a virgule instead of the proper decimal point. The horror!) It's a language thing, not a "barbarous custom", nor "laziness", and is an entirely proper part of our MOS.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
If that were so, it would have to be done with all currencies, but that is not - to my knowledge - currently the case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
True, that is indeed not the case with every currency denomination, but most articles using currency symbols ($, €, £, ₹, ¥) as opposed to letters or words do conform to this rule. And in the two other examples of partially English-speaking countries which use the euro, that's how they do it on the ground in English too: Cyprus, Malta.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And check almost any English-language newspaper, magazine or book. €100 is the standard format when writing in English, not 100 €. Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's probably intended to work the same way as the dollar symbol; for example, $100, with the $ symbol before the number. I don't see anything wrong with "€6", to use Hobbitschuster's example, and while it may not be technically correct, anyone reading the article will know what it means. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The idea that English is consistent cannot honestly be believed by anyone who has learned to spell it. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

$100 is just as illogical as €100, but at least the former is used by the majority of those who pay in USD. The same cannot be said for Euros. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

100€ doesn't look like English to me. There's some Logic to german Punctuation and Spellingconventions, but this is the english Wikivoyage. I vote for €100. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
English speakers are the people who put almost all adjectives before the nouns; have "they're", "their", and "there", all pronounced the same; have "hear" and "here", pronounced the same but different words; use "be", "being", "been", "is", "was", "were", "am", and "are", all of which function as the same word; use verbs ending in "s" some of the time and not ending in "s" other times (like "he speaks" but "I speak"); include letters with sounds that vary depending on each specific example (for example, "city" and "Canada", or words like "Celts" where the "C" is pronounced differently depending on the speaker); have almost no accent marks so you cannot know where to emphasize syllables; and on the list goes. We do a lot of things that don't seem logical, but they're what people are used to and what people expect, so we do them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And what about 17, you say seven-teen, not teen-seven (but the French do say dix-sept = ten-seven), but everybody knows what you mean. However from 21 the the numbers and the words are in the same sequence. --FredTC (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Unlike German: neunundneunzig = nine and ninety. Logically, they should reverse the nines when writing the figure, so it's done in the proper way of 99, instead of that barbarous nonsense of 99.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
At one time they actually used to do numbers in expanded form, but with scores of years. For example, 42 years would be "two score and four years" — think of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. In some ways, that made more sense, but then, why use scores of years instead of tens?
All of these things make it harder to learn the English language, and honestly, Hobbitschuster, I think you're just discovering the way the English language orders currency symbols and the associated values. It's just one example of where the English language doesn't work logically, but putting the currency symbol before the amount is still correct in the English language. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
On "four score and seven": I offer you by analogy "quatre-vingt sept". Or how about "quatre-vingt onze"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
"Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of Rye,
Four-and-twenty blackbirds baked in a pie,
When the pie was open, the birds began to sing!
Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?" --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And imagine how it would sound like this:
"Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of Rye,
Twenty-and-four blackbirds baked in a pie,
When the pie was open, the birds began to sing!
Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?" I think we might as well say that it's not wrong to do "$100" or the same with euros or any other currency symbol. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Parenthetical, but "twenty-and-four blackbirds baked in a pie" scans exactly the same as "four-and-twenty", etc. It sounds wrong only because we're used to the latter.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

-ing forms[edit]

I notice that - to the best of my knowledge - the Manual of Style nowhere prohibits the use of the -ing form, yet a certain editor who shall remain nameless regularly excises them in their "copy edits". Are they in the right, are they in the wrong or is it just a pet peeve either way with nobody having the right of it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

But I think although it may be "Sleeping car" it is not Sleeping train, it is Sleeper train. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no prohibition against gerunds, they are part of the English language. I replace them by an active verb where doing so makes the sentence livelier. Using active verbs instead of gerund phrases seems to be an easy win for improving Wikivoyage's writing. Of course, it doesn't work everywhere. See: I even used "improving" in the last sentence! Ground Zero (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think word policing has already gone too far on this site, including the systematic extirpation of "located", "situated" etc. (which are sometimes but not always extraneous), and we've become too reliant on WV:Words to avoid in our copyediting efforts, rather than the common-sense considerations of which words make a sentence flow better, to the point where I wonder if WTA isn't doing more harm than good and should be deleted outright. At any rate, I think we should focus less on that and more on adding content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
True. I think the same is the case with the euro symbol. It's too minor to really spend a lot of time worrying about.
If I see "located" in an article, I remove it, but otherwise I don't spend a lot of time on the word. I also feel that some of these frustrations (this one and the above) are just users trying to find negative things to say about each other, rather than serious issues that need to be corrected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] We might want to recommend what is guideline if not policy on sv-wp: do not change wording where there are different opinions, unless doing significant additions or copyediting to the article. Nobody owns an article, but many of us have preferences on how we write, and systematically attacking some words or figures of speech raises more irritation than it is worth. There are lots of articles in need of copyediting, and not choosing articles to edit based on whether they have some specific "easy win" the author may not agree on lessens friction (don't take me wrong, I myself generally appreciate others improving on my language). --LPfi (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I take a wholistic approach to copyediting: when I edit an article, I remove touting; I update where there is something obviously out of date; I do my best to correct time, date, phone number and currency formatting; I break up long, consulted sentences; I improve the syntax of sentences obviously written by people whose English is weak (it's clear when someone is thinking in a different language while writing in English); I fix capitalization, punctuation and formatting errors. Focusing on one element of my copyediting and suggesting that it is just a pet peeve or a personal preference is not fair comment. Ground Zero (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And using active verbs is not my idea. It comes from, amongst other sources, The Elements of Style, which is a widely used and respected source. In 2011, Time named it as one of the 100 best and most influential books written in English since 1923. As Wikipedia says
"William Strunk concentrated on specific questions of usage—and the cultivation of good writing—with the recommendation "Make every word tell"; hence the 17th principle of composition is the simple instruction: "Omit needless words." The book frames this within a triplet credited to an influential lecturer:
Omit needless words
Use active voice
Use parallel construction on concepts that are parallel"
These concepts are common to lots of other references on good writing. Its not just me. Ground Zero (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. I haven't been following your edits, nor this conflict more than what I have happened to come across. What you describe is more or less what I am trying to recommend, given you don't have a less than optimal way of finding articles to edit. The diffs I have seen pointed out are dominated by the possible pet peeves of the other user, but they may not be representative. And I am not going to tell native speakers what is or is not good writing. --LPfi (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
LPfi, from what I've seen of your edits, your English is excellent, as is that of other regular contributors for whom English is a second language. My comment about contributors whose English is weak is not about anyone in particular, but about articles I sometimes come across that have sentences that use English words with syntax from another language. I do not think that not being a native speaker should ever be used as a reason to exclude anyone from a discussion, or to dismiss their views. We should instead turn to outside references like Strunk to guide us on writing. Ground Zero (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Strunk was an American, so here is the perspective of the Englishman George Orwell, who is famous for, inter alia, his essay "Politics and the English Language". There he sets out six rules for writing clear and tight prose:
  1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Numbers 3 and 4 are germane here. I do not think that I have ever applied them in a way so as to run afoul of #6. There are, of course,lots of others who written about good writing, and there are those who disagree with Strunk and Orwell. I cite them because they are widely respected as authorities and to demonstrate that this is not a personal vendetta, or my personal style. This is about good writing, which is something we could use more of in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Ground Zero - I was not, nor do I think anyone else was, singling you out for your edits. I've seen several others doing the same thing, in many cases far less carefully than you. I think it's important to note, however, that Wikivoyage strives for a casual and informal tone. I'd say leave strict adherence to the advice of style experts like Strunk to sites where formality is de rigueur. (As for Orwell, "if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out" is pretty rich coming from the author who wrote about a horrible totalitarian dystopia where the official language was Newspeak.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Strunk and Orwell were writing about good writing, not about formal writing. Formal writing would use longer sentences, more complex sentence structure, more phrases like "it should be noted that". Formal writing is not vigorous or lively. And no-one is advocating "strict adherence" to anything. I am just defending myself from Hobbitschuster's attempt to personalize this by claiming that preferring the active voice is just a "pet peeve" of mine (above), or that cutting out needless words is a "personal little crusade". I am following the advice of widely respected authorities on good writing, and using my discretion on when to do so and when not to. Your dig at George Orwell does not make him any less of an authority on writing. Ground Zero (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I often edit for brevity, but only when I believe it makes the sentences in question more elegant or at least more readable. As for Strunk & White, their opinion has carried way too much weight - it's just an opinion, and some of their viewpoints were opinionated indeed. For example, the idea that you should favor commas before "which" but not use them before "that". Why? Because they said so. I don't agree. I spent a brief few months on alt.usage.english on USENET (remember USENET?). Too many of the users there were crazy, so I didn't stick around after a while, but a lot of really good points were made on how wrong Strunk & White were, if you considered their prescriptive advice against actual, often longstanding usage. That said, Andre, I think "located" and "situated" are in fact rarely necessary, though there's nothing at all horrible about them, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not against the tight style of writing, but may I say that the writing style that is currently on Wikivoyage seems good to me — it's good English that doesn't add too much information nor have short, choppy sentences. I know I've strayed from this sometimes, like when I partially rewrote the lede for the Atlanta article, but generally I think something between the Dickens style and the Orwell one is appropriate for what we're doing (topics and politics aside, of course). To brag a little on myself (although I'm not even sure if I wrote the lede), I think the lede of Monument Valley is a good example of the form of prose that is best on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think that the pursuit to remove all of the words on WTA has perhaps gone a bit too far. It's important to ask yourself whether removing the words or phrases will actually improve the legibility, flow and flair of the article. If someone is reading Wikivoyage for the first time and sees a "located" or another WTA word, is it going to negatively impact their opinion of Wikivoyage or make it harder for the reader to comprehend what the sentence says (at a conscious or subconscious level)? Many times the answer will be yes but at other times it will be no. Apart from the extreme marketing hyperbole, all of the words listed on WTA are suitable to be used on Wikivoyage in certain contexts, just as they are used in English writing elsewhere. Gizza (roam) 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps WTA should be changed from the "status" of "guideline" to the "status" of "essay". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we should do away with it entirely. We know touting when we see it; we know empty flowery marketing-speak when we see it; we know Captain Obvious when we see him; and we certainly know first-person pronouns when we see them. The article is completely superfluous. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, at Wikivoyage_talk:Words_to_avoid#Requests_for_removing_from_this_list I proposed to move a lot of the words from the list, but it was met with a lot of opposition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's easy to dump on Strunk, or on Orwell, but it's not just them. Here are some other guides on writing that recommend using active verbs: University of Iowa, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,,, English Grammar for Dummies, Rice University, Penn State,, Royal Roads University, Towson University. It's not just Strunk, Orwell and me. Ground Zero (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to read any sources on that. I used to be a writing tutor. Passive voice has its place, but active voice is and should be the default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think words to avoid is a useful compendium and useful to refer to in edit summaries or comments on user talk pages. So I oppose deleting it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
How about renaming it Wikivoyage:Words to watch? That would help signal that it isn't a list of prohibited words, but rather a list of words that are often unclear or otherwise should be used sparingly or with caution. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I notice Wikipedia uses a similar title: w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I support rethinking the approach to words to avoid. Word policing tactics that have evolved over the past couple of years risk driving away editors – I myself have curtailed my contributions here because of it. Yes, good clean writing should be encouraged, but IMO the current push for style over substance will never permit the site to grow to its full potential. Context matters. –StellarD (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Since most of us who edit with reference to WTA are already participating in this discussion, I'm not so sure the page needs to be changed. We just need to remember that these are words to avoid, not words that we must never, ever use in any circumstance. Perhaps we can all be a little less zealous / strict enforcing it, as we want to encourage new editors, rather than driving them away. On the other hand, we all need to be prepared to have our edits changed by others; if anyone here is unhappy about someone else rewriting their contributions within the agreed upon manual of style, they should reconsider whether a wiki is right for them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is, who decides when it's okay to use a certain instance of "located" and when it isn't? Should we perhaps not remove words like "located" at all? Or should we remove them based on circumstance? That's definitely the challenge here. What one person says is an appropriate use of the word (per WTA) may not be with someone else (also following WTA), and the result could be an edit war. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to change the title to "Words to watch", and I also think it's fine to remove words like "located/situated" that are simply not needed but don't do any harm to an article unless (like almost any other word) they're used over and over again. I sure hope never to see a "Located, located, located, located" edit summary again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Definitely agree that that kind of edit summary is more likely to turn newbies (and oldies) away than something worded more politely.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd agree to removing "located". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to re-name that page, then I recommend changing the title completely, perhaps to something like "Tips for better writing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

WTA is a guideline, which means contributors must use their discretion in applying it. Even our policies should be applied with discretion, because we are not making laws here. (Many laws even allow for some discretion to be exercised.) I certainly do not apply WTA in an absolutist manner. (Any suggestion that I do is simply wrong. My edits demonstrate that I do not remove every instance of "located" or "currently", just most of them.)

Our inability to have an absolute, inflexible law does not mean that we should abandon the principles of WV:tone, which include "Lively writing is welcome", "Be conversational and informal", and "Be concise". We need readers as much as we need contributors, and providing the information is an interesting and informal way just key to attracting and keeping readers, whom we hope will become contributors. That means there will be disagreements that should be resolved through talk pages instead through arbitrary wholesale reversions or edit wars. I am always willing to discuss and negotiate changes on talk pages, and other contributors should be prepared to do so as well in this collaborative project. Ground Zero (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Tips for better writing" is a good idea. Then, the "Words to avoid" section could be a "words to watch" section, and we could have other sections that suggest writing sentences only as long as is necessary to get your points across elegantly, thereby regarding sentences (like this one) that have multiple clauses with caution, etc. Recommendations to use active voice when passive voice isn't necessary could also be part of such an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to incorporating WTA into a "Tips" article, but I expect it will be a challenge to get agreement on the other parts of the article, given the resistance to standard references in the matter.
Let's remember that this discussion began with a question about whether the Manual of Style prohibits the use of the -ing form, and the implication that if a particular form of the verb isn't prohibited, then it shouldn't be changed. I have been told by other contributors that if a word isn't on WTA, it shouldn't be removed. I use the general guidance provided by WV:tone as the basis for my edits, rather than WTA, but it seems that some contributors either don't like WV:tone, or feel that it isn't specific enough to be useful in determining what edits are appropriate. Ground Zero (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
"Tips for better writing" sounds reasonable to me. We should remember WTA is by no means an absolute rule, and be careful not to sacrifice clear, lively writing in order to follow arbitrary rules like avoiding "located" or using the active voice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Although we should remember that using the active voice and not using needless words is how most standard guides on writing suggest you can make your writing livelier. No-one is suggesting making the WTA guideline an absolute enforceable policy. No-one is suggesting that, so I don't know why some are spending so much time arguing against it. We also should not require contributors to use only their left hands while editing. But no-one is suggesting that either. Ground Zero (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
To put it plainly, some people quite obviously feel that you, and possibly I, have been overzealous in making style edits.
As for "standard references": This is not Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to refer to any external style guide in order for Wikivoyage to have its own style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Same here. It's easy to go around and look for minor edits to make, but harder to really contribute. Our goal should be to bring down the number of outline articles, since they are currently over half of Wikivoyage's articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, by standard references, I mean what most of the rest of the world thinks about good writing. I'm sure that we don't think that the few dozen active editors here are going to come up with a better approach to good writing than the numerous style guides I've mentioned.
SelfieCity, I have so far raised all of the city and park-level outline articles in Canada's four western provinces to usable, and am on the verge of completing Ontario. See my user page. So I make "real contributions" in addition to improving the readability of the articles in line with WV:tone. There is so much crappy writing, bad formatting, incorrect punctuation, random capitalization and so on here, that copyediting is an important part of improving the quality and usability of Wikivoyage. There is nothing in our Manual of Style that says that the only thing that matters is hotel and restaurant listings, and the rest of the article can be shitty. We can and have to do better than that if we're going to be taken seriously by readers. Ground Zero (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope everyone realizes how much great work you've done. However, the choice isn't between no style edits and editing everything. When people push back, they don't say "This site should be full of shitty writing, grammar and spelling mistakes, etc." They say things like "Don't edit the life out of an article in order to streamline it as much as possible" or "leave a few 'locateds' alone and do something else". We shouldn't ignore them. Also, if you'd prefer to refer everyone to Strunk & White, don't expect them to thumb through the book. We already have Wikivoyage:Manual of style. Adding some more style information, based on experiences we've had here and without a lot of things Strunk & White deal with that are irrelevant here, might be useful. Or maybe not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that copyediting is important, and we have many articles that desperately need it, especially about destinations where English isn't the main language. I rarely find myself disagreeing with Ikan Kekek about style edits, and only occasionally with Ground Zero. But I do sometimes see edits (I can't remember from who – mostly other users, I think) that strike me as overly strict enforcement of WTA. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, I absolutely do leave some "locateds" in, and a lot more than I used to. I included the key points from Strunk and from Orwell above. I don't think we need more than the appropriate parts of those. Some of the push-back is coming from people who don't like having "their" articles edited. In the particular case of this discussion, Hobbitschuster is objecting to me making verbs active on the basis that -ing verbs are not prohibited by the Manual of Style. I don't think that his absolutist position, which ignores WV:tone, is something that we should try to accomodate. As I indicated in my first reply, I use gerunds sometimes, but I do change them to active verbs where it makes the writing liveler. I am always willing to discuss and compromise, but some editors are not interested in doing that. Ground Zero (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
City-busz and I have done quite a lot of work on the Hungary articles, and when I go through some old listings that were written before City busz or me edited on Wikivoyage, I can hardly understand them at all because they are poorly written. While writing is extremely important on the website, I'd agree that copyediting is important too. The key is to not get distracted from the central goal of the website, which is a travel guide, not articles that follow Strunk's guide to every letter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a good thing that no-one is advocating following Strunk to every letter then. Ground Zero (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Hi, I've been updating various listings at the Strood article however for Diggerland (Strood#Do) for the opening hours I've put it as "Varies (See"
My question is are links like this allowed ?,
It's remained at "Varies" for quite some time however I feel it would be more helpful in sending them to the external link so that way they can see as opposed to it just saying "Varies" and then they have to go hunting but I wasn't sure if this was technically allowed so thought I'd ask
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Also just to add the hours vary each month and it would take forever to include all dates manually hence why I feel sending to ext link would be better, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec) @Davey2010: Since no one else's replied, I'll give this a shot; just bear in mind I don't have a perfect understand of the rules, myself, yet. The change isn't ideal, because, in keeping with wv:external links, our pages should be as self-contained as possible. At the end of the day, though, wv:the traveler comes first, and if the only way to have that information there is to link to it, that's preferable to not having it at all, and seems to me that 'varies+link' serves the traveler better than just 'varies.'
One small note I'd add - reading the listing, it's not clear from context that the text is part of the hours field, so maybe I'd rephrase 'varies' to 'hours vary'. Otherwise, I think there's no problems. ARR8 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
No need to remove the question, even if you don't need the answer anymore. It may help someone else, and, besides, I was in the middle of replying. ARR8 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ARR8:, I tend to come here like 3 times a year so generally I have no knowledge at all with policies and whatnot so don't worry you're not the only one :),
That's something I've certainly picked up today is that the fields are all rather confusing - I personally feel the listings should include the titles too (ie "hours:", "address:") or something similiar as the text certainly can be confusing,
Ah good spot "hours vary" is certainly a lot better :),
Ah sorry I thought judging by the no replies I didn't think anyone really cared so was just going to leave the content as is but anyway many thanks for your reply as well as for changing the content :)
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 03:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing. Hope we see more of you around here; your contributions are certainly appreciated. Best, ARR8 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much and your contributions are greatly appreciated here too, Again many thanks for your help it's very much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 19:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I ran into a similar problem a while ago. The attraction had different business hours nearly every month of the year. I think I eventually summarized it as something like "Opens at 10AM, closing hours vary seasonally", but I never found a great way to handle it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Closed 15 Oct–20 Dec and 15 May–20 June; 7 Jan–5 Feb Tu–Sa 10–15; 21 Dec–6 Jan and 6 Feb–10 May M–F 10–17, Sa–Su,... and of course the opening dates vary according to school holidays, weekdays etc. so have to be updated every year. I suppose most visitors should check the website (if opening hours are easily found the main link suffices), but if they don't have Internet connection on the go, some rough opening hours are good to have in the listing, such as the "opens at 10 AM...". --LPfi (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
When things get super complicated like that, I usually fudge it with something like "See website for opening hours". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But if one can extract some regularities, such as shoulder seasons Tu–Sa 10–15, longer hours daily in season, closed off season except Christmas, that is helpful for those who cannot reach the web but have downloaded the guide. Of course, if there are similar venues around, not telling much about the one with odd hours is OK. --LPfi (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @AndreCarrotflower:, I like that! :), Just wondering tho would something like "See here for opening hours" be okay?, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe "Hours vary, but open mid-morning to early evening most days" would be more immediately informative than just "See here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
In the specific case of Diggerland, people are going to visit for several hours, not pop in for a few minutes in passing, so looking at the website for full details is ok, but it is also best to give an idea of when it is likely to be open: Open weekends Mar - Oct and daily during Jul, Aug and most school holidays 10AM - 5PM (4PM in winter). That saves traveller looking at the website if he is only going to be in town on a June Wednesday. AlasdairW (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage offline Android app updated[edit]

The Android app has finally been updated:

Europe only:

As before, it does not require any Internet connection. Enjoy reading Wikivoyage even while kayaking across the Caribbeans! :-)

Syced (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent app. Going to try that out when I travel to Europe in February (again). This raises a question. Why aren't our country pages have the national flag of the country? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think they should? Anyway, the answer is that a decision was made that it's not important for readers to see a country's flag before they visit the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Where was the discussion about this decision? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: Any chance of an open-source version of the app? ARR8 (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It is open source :-) Syced (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: That's great to hear! Follow-up question: any chance of an F-Droid release for those of us without Google Play services? ARR8 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I opened a request: Syced (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ARR8 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] OhanaUnited, one discussion about flags was at Wikivoyage talk:Listings/Archive 2006–2013#Flags at the beginning of embassy/consulate listings and I remember a much more recent discussion about flag icons being used in prose sections about which countries' citizens were available for what kind of visa to countries x, y and z (that got some very negative response and was shelved). However, I think starting a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Country article template would be more relevant for you. So go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Syced: Having sideloaded the app and tried it, I found it very useful, and I'm glad all the content is there! I found a couple of bugs, though. It's possible you know about these, but: there is a large white space beneath every image; tapping on map markers throws an error; the wikipedia and wikidata icons for listings are displayed but have no link; and, after bookmarking enough pages, the app will no longer launch and requires a reset. I would also find it much easier to search for redirects to articles, if that is possible. I am running Android Pie. Please let me know if I can help troubleshoot in any way. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Thanks for using the app! Would you mind creating an issue for each of these problems at ? Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes Done, but I'm having some trouble reproducing the crash bug. I'll post it if I can. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems for tourists[edit]

To what extent & where should we add warning or info boxes about various sorts of hazard?

These are all currently dealt with using warning or info boxes on the relevant pages, & that seems mostly a good solution but I wonder what improvements might be possible. Certainly there are some difficulties.

These things change often so maintenance is a problem. We may not be up-to-date & I've deleted several thoroughly obsolete warnings.

When a high level article has a serious warning, what should be in lower-level articles under it? Their own warnings? Links to the high-level warning? Nothing, assuming readers will look at the higher-level article as well? In general, I prefer the second choice but might use either of the others in particular cases. Pashley (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a "lastedit=" field on {{warningbox}} which can be used to add warnings to a maintenance category after half a year, but nothing similar for {{cautionbox}}. That is odd as warnings are often de-escalated to cautions as a first step before they are removed (DEADLY HURRICANE INCOMING → community is rebuilding after destructive hurricane → never mind, we're back...).
Which article gets the warning depends on the nature of the threat. A national government doing something evil and malicious (such as separating families at the border) should merit an urgent warning at the country level; conversely a tropical storm or active volcano is usually local or regional (unless the entire country is Montserrat-sized and fits on a page or two).
Road construction usually only rates a cautionbox if a road or single-point-of-failure bridge is out (such as the rail line to Churchill, which should be back in service this month). Routine traffic jams don't get warning boxes. K7L (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

why won't the full Appalachian Trail route load up in the dynamic maps?[edit]

I tried to get it to show up on the Hebrew article about the Appalachian Trail, but unfortunately only segments of the trail are shown. Is there any way to get the full trail to show up ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I have found out what is happening. In OSM, the Appalachian Trail has a relation that is tied to Wikidata. Instead of all the data being in that one relation, it has member relations with the data for the trail's path for each state on the AT. Only the Tennessee member relation is linked to the Wikidata object, while the other states are not.
As for the other two blobs:
The one in PA is a small segment that was assigned the main AT as a parent relation instead of the AT (PA) relation, while the one at the NY-NJ border seems to have something to do with a small national park set up nearby.
It will take some time to show up on Wikivoyage, but I think I can fix these errors in OSM fairly easily (except for that weird park thing). MSG17 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Any Friends fans around?[edit]

If so, please help me expand the Friends Tour outline article I created. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:AndreCarrotflower - just curious... you got anything to add to this stub by any chance? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You're a madman. And kudos to the community for pulling together the last sitcom tour--it's pretty breathtaking. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
How are you sure this is the last? There are many other sitcoms that could be covered, if someone happens to know the locations where they were shot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: "Last" as in "most recent" not "final" or "ultimate". —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Dividing city articles lists by districts[edit]

Hello, just a small question. I am dividing Lists in this article workplace by districts. The districts do not constitute for an article on their own, but the area is large so this partition seems the most useful to me. Is the kind of partition acceptable? Heisy Bordel (talk, contributions) 14:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

TTY, TDD - w:Telecommunications device for the deaf[edit]

How common still is the use of these devices for contacting organizations? There are a good few references to a number to call with TTY or TDD in listings, but currently less than a hundred on Wikivoyage. Is this something we should encourage and if so should be have a listing field for this, in addition to phone and tollfree parameter? Seems to me more useful than fax. Or are these numbers now outdated and obsolete because of web pages, emails and SMS? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Netjeff has done some work on the related article at the English Wikipedia. I wonder if he could answer your question about how commonly used TTYs are these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Just wanted to ask is the disambiguation at Newington correct ?, I wasn't sure if the ALL of the entries needed to be there and I wasn't sure if those that are in curvy brackets were correct aswell, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone has made a list of all Newingtons without regard to whether they have or will have articles. The Ontario one is a village of 468 people, and the London one is a neighbourhood that is too small to have its open article. I've provided more useful redirects for those two. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Disambiguation pages do not need to list all places with the name in question. Usually just those that have an article are included. I think it is good also include places that should have articles, that are likely search terms or that can be confused with a place that has an article. I suppose you more or less copied the page of en-wp, where there are articles for the places.
For places that are likely search terms but do not warrant an article, the link should go to the article we do have, such as Newington (London) to London/Southwark and Lewisham [seems to have been a failed guess, see the above mentioned edit], if we need to list the place.
--LPfi (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I would say if the place could have an article, that is has place to stay and something to see or do, then make a red link. If just a small settlement that probably will never be an article then list without a page link but then mention with link the next closest article. This way someone looking by place name will at least know all the possible places. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
They do not need to know all the places; they are probably searching for a specific one. I think a very long list is not necessarily very useful, as it makes the more probable places hard to find. If few people will search for a place (a neighbourhood in Belfast?), most of them who do know where the place is (and can search for the nearby town or the region instead) and we have nothing to say about the place they were searching for, then I'd say having a relatively short list should be given more weight. --LPfi (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I did indeed copy all from EN (sorry about that), I did wonder if the majority shouldn've been deleted but then thought well they could be created at some point, Many thanks for everyones help and tips, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Change to {{quickbar}}[edit]

Hi all,

Just a heads-up that I've modified Module:Quickbar to add some functionality. You can now specify a different Wikidata item to import certain values from. This is now in use at Corsica, and documented at Template:Quickbar/doc.

I was asked to make this change at Wikidata because I was adding missing values to autonomous entities that were the same as the values for the parent country, to fill in missing quickbar info, and the community was concerned about such data going out of date. I don't want to automatically import parent info, as was suggested there, because of cases like the US Virgin Islands, which had left-hand traffic missing for a long time until I added it.

That's it. Please let me know if there are any problems with this new functionality. I'll probably be adding it to more pages soon.

Does anyone know what the appropriate procedure would be to also getting this change deployed to other language editions, or at least of letting them know about it? be, hi, ps, and zh also use this, according to Wikidata. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Traveler100: Is there a way we can modify the petscan queries at Category:Quickbar_with_missing_information to account for this? Otherwise, they won't be very useful. There's always the category solution, like last time, of course. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Uppsala star nomination[edit]

One of the best of the Wikivoyage articles is Uppsala. It's a star nomination with some support votes, but a couple more would be useful so we have a consensus strong enough to upgrade it. So if you haven't voted on it yet, just take a minute or two to give it your support if you think it's worthy of star status.

Thank you.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Do the mapmasks at the front page work fine for you on tablets and phones in Desktop View?[edit]

While I really like the fact that we have a world map on the front page in which we could click on any continent and we'll be forwarded to the releveant page, for some years now I have noticed that this feature doesn't seem to work correctly in many tablets and phones.

As the amount of Wikivoyage readers whom read the site from a mobile phone or tablets is probably getting (or going to get) much bigger than the amount of readers whom read the site from a desktop, this seems like a good time to look into addressing this concern, and hopefully finding a fix for the instances in which the mapmasks are useless.

To make matter worse, back when I made the Hebrew Wikivoyage front page (which is a tweaked version of the English Wikivoyage front page), I liked the mapmasks so much that I added another mapmask for regions in Israel and one for the most popular phrasebooks (with the little flags next to the links). I am afraid that most (if not all) the mobile/tablet users have not been able to click on any of those mapmask links.

Please help me check if the following mapmasks work correctly with your tablet/s and/or phone/s (and please indicate which type of browser/OS you used):

  • Test # 1 : check if the English Wikivoyage frontpage world map mapmask works correctly - Please do the following test to see if you get a similar result - load it on your phone and/or tablet (make sure you are on Desktop View... as the Mobile View shows a screen with almost no graphics) and try clicking on Germany to see if you are forwarded to the Europe article. I myself just checked this with a 2018 Ipad and although the mapmask works fine (clicking on continents actually sends you to the article that covers the continent you choose), only half of the world map is shown ... it is cut in the middle of Europe and you can't see Asia or Australia.
  • Test # 2 : check if the Hebrew Wikivoyage frontpage world map mapmask works correctly - Please do the following test to see if you get a similar result - load it on your phone and/or tablet (make sure you are on Desktop View) and try clicking on Africa to see if you are forwarded to the Africa article. I myself just checked this with a 2018 Ipad and although this time I can see the full map with all continents... clicking on Africa in both vertical and horizontal screen mode does nothing. In vertical mode though, if you click on the indian ocean the Africa article loads up.
  • Test # 3 : check if the Hebrew Wikivoyage frontpage phrasebook mapmask works correctly - Please do the following test to see if you get a similar result - load it on your phone and/or tablet (make sure you are on Desktop View) and try clicking on the little flag of greece to see if you are forwarded to the Greek phrasebook article. I myself just checked this with a 2018 Ipad and absolutly nothing happens when you click the greek flag in both vertical and horizontal screen mode. Also clicking on other areas all around didn't forward me to any other article.

Did you have the same problems with your phone and/or tablet? are these problems even fixable? Are all mobile+tablet users expected to use the no graphic interface while mapmask is reserved only for the desktop users? Is Wikivoyage loaded automatically in Mobile View for all phone and desktop users?

If many or most mobile users are using the desktop view version of the Hebrew Wikivoyage (is there any way to know this?).... I think that I might try redesigning the front page so that at least the links to the phrasebooks would work on phones/tablets in Desktop view.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the same problems and results on my phone with Android 9 with Firefox 64. I would say it's definitely a good idea to reimplement the phrasebook image in HTML, in any case. Doesn't seem like there's much of a reason to have it as an image, from what I can see. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing not many readers read our site using a mobile device on desktop view. Instead, I think we should improve the mobile version of our main page. The discussion on this seems to have stalled, unfortunately—if anyone has the technical knowledge to get the new design implemented, that would be wonderful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that the Hebrew Wikibooks mobile front page is a bit more complex with colorful graphics. Maybe we could use it as a basis for our new mobile front page? Any expert/s interested in helping with that ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation from Wiki Loves Love 2019[edit]

Please help translate to your language

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Love is an important subject for humanity and it is expressed in different cultures and regions in different ways across the world through different gestures, ceremonies, festivals and to document expression of this rich and beautiful emotion, we need your help so we can share and spread the depth of cultures that each region has, the best of how people of that region, celebrate love.

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an international photography competition of Wikimedia Commons with the subject love testimonials happening in the month of February.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects.

The theme of 2019 iteration is Celebrations, Festivals, Ceremonies and rituals of love.

Sign up your affiliate or individually at Participants page.

To know more about the contest, check out our Commons Page and FAQs

There are several prizes to grab. Hope to see you spreading love this February with Wiki Loves Love!

Kind regards,

Wiki Loves Love Team

Imagine... the sum of all love!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverting or saving old versions of articles on an Android[edit]

I don't see any way to do this, and that sucks. How is it done, and how should the programmers make it evident? We are going to have more and more cellphone users, and if we keep a 90s-style display and user interface for cellphones, they will leave quickly, in disgust. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed and used a rollback button on the recent change in Recent changes patrol, but I would have rather reverted with an edit summary, and most users don't have rollback buttons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you using the mobile web site, or does the Android app support Wikivoyage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I was using the mobile site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
w:en:User:FR30799386/undo might be a usable workaround. It seems to me that one of the dev teams was talking about this limitation recently, but I can't find any notes right now, and I don't remember which one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm unlikely to be motivated enough to add more software for this, as I usually edit on my laptop. But if that extension works, it should be added to standard Wiki code for everyone's convenience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Are travel topics about specific computer games in scope?[edit]

I know we have a wide scope when it comes to travel topics, but I'm not sure about the travel implications of specific games such as Minecraft tourism and Sid_Meier's_Civilization_tourism. There are some conferences held around these games, but shouldn't this be under Video_game_tourism (currently a redirect to Fiction tourism ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Are travel topics about specific computer games in scope?" - Yes, I think so, just like any other fiction tourism. However, I don't see the value or travel focus of the two new stubs you've linked.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
See Oregon Trail, which is as much about the 1980s-era educational computer game as about the actual real-life trail. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, a computer game can represent a valid fiction or non-fiction subject. Does that then lead to every subject becoming a valid travel topic, or does there have to be at least some travel related content involved? (The two linked articles currently lacking this). Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The creator of these articles has assured us he will be back to flesh out the articles in more depth. I have my doubts, but I think it would be good to allow a certain grace period before we delete the articles (which we should regard as pcv if they're not developed beyond what we have currently). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
What about this text from WV:What is (not) an article: "People, animals, objects, or non-travel-related concepts (though sometimes notable people can be the subject of itineraries or travel topics: e.g., On the trail of Marco Polo and Astrid Lindgren tourism)." Emphasis on non-travel-related concepts.
The other one is "Companies, even those holding a de facto monopoly or those owned by the state (hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, airlines, rail or bus operators, etc.)" Yeah, sure, Minecraft isn't a company technically, but you get what I mean; it operates like one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess the article is painting Minecraft as a community or minor cultural movement, which could be valid if they decided to complete. I'm fine to have a grace period, I just don't see the articles having value 'as-is'.
I also noticed we don't seem to have a travel topic dedicated to Computer games. Given there are significant tournaments and events held around the world, should we create one? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
In principle nothing against articles on specific computer games but skeptical about these edits as contributing also editing Rocky Top, created by LibMod and edited previously buy Telstra. Suggest giving it a few day to see if improves, if not delete. A general article Computer games may be a good idea though. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, I'm pretty relaxed about travel topics (I created Deserts — for example), but I don't think Computer games is at all within our scope. We have quite a few users who don't like any travel topics not directly related to travel, and I do not think they would support a travel topic of this nature. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It could be, I think, but it would have to be a good article, not something that smacks of page creation vandalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Basically yes, just like individual movies or tv series, if there are real world places to visit, individual computer games can very well be themes for travel topic articles. But the original author should not just create an article but take the responsibility to write a decent amount of content. Also a general computer games article can be warranted, provided that there exists enough places worth visiting for a decent sized article (and provided the person starting the article adds some of them). ϒψιλον (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article on w:Esports that seems to have good travel content. w:List_of_gaming_conventions could also be in scope. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Listings with Unicode characters[edit]

  • Edited pages with unicode characters in listings - anyone available to check further - Remaining articles are:
    • Khorramabad - 1 alt=‎‎دژ 2 شاپورخواست‎, 3 Shāpūr-Khwāst"‎
    • Latakia - 1 اللاذقية‎ 2 alt=أُوجَارِيت‎
    • Sarajevo - 1 (خانقاه‎‎, 2 (شاذروان‎‎
  • Notation above is general textual area where they are located. Probable issue is the keyboard being used. -- Thanks! Matroc (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Two of these edits are by me, what is the issue? I have copied the text from English Wikipedia. Is there formatting that is needed to be done? --Jonte-- (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Underground works...[edit]

This needs some listing entries from the North and other parts of the UK, given the entries so far are rather London-centric ? (with the exception of the Williamson tunnels which I pulled from Liverpool ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

BBC's list of 6 well-governed countries[edit]

This could be of interest for certain articles of wide geographic scope, including Retiring abroad and Working abroad, though of course some of these countries may be relatively difficult to retire to or get jobs in as a foreigner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that article gets everything right. For a start, no matter what political position you take in the U.S., you have to agree that it is overall a well-governed country. I'm a little surprised, also, that the United Kingdom isn't on that list considering it's a BBC article. Maybe because they do not think BREXIT is a good sign for the country. These kinds of articles are always quickly written, without seriously considering the success of the countries. I'm sure these countries are well-run, but so are many other countries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm absolutely floored by this reply. I think it's probably best for no-one to give a substantive reply to it. Let's nip any arguments in the bud. I posted this link purely because I thought that on a global travel guide, it would be interesting. Let's let Selfie have his own views and not reply to them with our own opinions or counterpoints, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, I'm surprised you took my comment so personally and I'm absolutely floored by your reply. I just have some criticisms of the article you linked to, I'm not personally criticizing or personally attacking you or the fact that you linked to it. If you seriously have this much of an issue with my opinions of the article in question, this really is your problem, not mine, and you really need to reconsider how you're taking my comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not see anything about taking it personally. Why would a country that is seldom in the top 6 of any related measures be in the BBC top 6 list? Usually being in the top 20 of many such measures is not enough. But this is not the place to discuss the governance of a country or how to collect top countries lists, as IK notes. --LPfi (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I believe that saying "I'm absolutely floored by this reply" is taking it personally. What else is it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A statement of shock, not taking it "personally". Do some more reading and reflection if you want to understand why a global news organization might not consider those two countries among the 6 best-ruled in the world; I certainly have no interest in having an argument with you about that, nor should anyone else. And note that the U.S. was specifically compared to Canada in the section on Canada. Did you actually read the article? If not, read it before drawing firm conclusions about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Back to Ikan's original point, it can surely be interesting. I hadn't actually considered Chile or Botswana potential retirement destinations before, but seems they are worth considering :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It is an interesting list. It appears to be based on a set of indexes listed in he first paragraph: [2], [3] and [4]. I think that it might be more useful to link to these indexes in articles. This would allow readers to consider whether the police or hospitals are likely to be as good in the country they are thinking of retiring to compared to where they are at the moment. I realise that this is duller than just saying "retire to Denmark", but I expect that most readers will already have a shortlist of retirement destination based on previous travels, climate etc. AlasdairW (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What I don't understand is, why can't travelers just write this information from personal experience? For example, if we have a contributor who has been to Denmark, they can write about how good the hospital services are there. I think that is what we should encourage, rather than external links. However, it may be okay to have those links temporarily until a traveler can write information based on experience. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Putting such links in articles would be an exception to this site's external links guidelines. Which articles would you like to put them into? Only Retiring abroad, or any others? We could probably discuss this at Talk:Retiring abroad if it's only relevant to that article. And the argument in favor of them is that they are an attempt at comparison based on more than someone's personal impression or limited personal experience. Note that hospital services in many countries vary widely based on how much money you can pay out of pocket and/or on which hospital you are taken to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Few travellers have experienced the health care in more than a couple, perhaps a dozen countries, and probably few situations where they were at the mercy of the institution. Having got the right treatment might have been sheer luck, and a positive experience might have depended on a few key persons. General well-governance is easier, as you get a feel for whether local people trust their institutions and how frustrated they are about the bureaucracy. Still, we cannot write anything like an objective top ten list. Linking is useful for getting the details, as there are many aspects and also methodological problems (which requires linking the study itself, or its sponsor if it is part of a series). --LPfi (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I guess that what means well-governed to some people might feel like a straightjacket to others. In well-governed countries it is often expected that subjects also perform accordingly, which could make it "boring" to some folks and "secure" to others. Just my 2 cents worth. Philaweb (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - January 2019[edit]

Guide articles should preferably including a map with point-of-interest markers. Currently there are 285 guide status cities having See listings with no coordinates, and 68 guide status districts having See listings with no coordinates. Please help with this month's cotm to improve the quality and usefulness of this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good collaboration; however, the catscan does not take into account that sometimes we don't want coordinates for a listing. Often there are multiple listings for rooms of the same building, or parts of different buildings on the same site. These show up on the catscan as having listings without coordinates, but actually there is nothing wrong with them. Not a major issue, just something to remember while adding coordinates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why there is the possibility in a listing to enter "NA" (not applicable) in the lat and long parameters to stop generating a false check. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's useful to know, thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"D&D Cosplay" ?[edit]

Bringing something from a talk page here for a wider set of opinions


Cosplay and LARP are different things? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are different.
LARP is Live Action Role Playing, a bit like other roleplaying games like D&D except that you actually act out what your characters do.
Cosplay involves dressing up as characters, often fictional heroes like Gandalf or Wonder Woman. Pashley (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But both could be covered by a single article, at least to begin with, as there is certainly a lot of overlap, not least among amateurs. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently LARP is grouped with historical re-enactment, and that article is an outline at best :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Planning for huge airport articles[edit]

As I understand it, if there are 100 flights every day at an airport, it can have its own article. So, why doesn't Salt Lake City's airport have an article? According to the article for Salt Lake City, there are more than 120 flights a day at the airport (for one airline, imagine what the total number must be). If it wasn't already clear, I propose we create an article for the airport at Salt Lake, but I would probably need help from others. I'm not sure about SJC, but I expect it's pretty high, as it seems from the wikipedia article.

Over the years, I would think the number of airport with at least 100 flights a day has increased dramatically, and this may not show in our Wikivoyage articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not about number of flight but about what there is to say about the airport. If the airport is a major hub with many services catering for passenger such as restaurants, shops, entertainment and hotels then it can have its own article. However even in those cases you should start by expanding the information about the airport on the city page. When the amount of information start to dominate and get out of hand there, then move to its own article. Do not create an article that is almost empty just because it could or should deserve its own article. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's what I mean about needing help. I fear that, by myself, the articles will not have the information I think they should have. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Traveler100 is right: you're putting the cart before the horse. When there is enough info on an airport in a city article to warrant splitting it out, then create an airport article. Don't create an airport article just because it could qualify. I'm not discouraging you from creating new content, I'm just saying that Salt Lake City and San Jose airports don't need their own articles yet. As for me, I'd rather spend time creating content for and cleaning up destination articles, than creating new airport articles, but you're free to work on whatever you want to work on. Ground Zero (talk)
Ditto from me as well.
I was going to ask where "100 flights per day" came from, but then I found it on What is an article. In any case, that's a poor metric. 100 flights per day is a very small number. Just picking an arbitrary example, Indianapolis's airport sees more than 300 commercial flights per day, but it's certainly not significant or complex enough to merit its own article.
WV:Airport Expedition has another set of criteria, and taken in conjunction I would hope that the underlying intention is clear: it's not about the number of flights or the physical size or any such measurable numbers, it's about how "difficult" is the airport for travellers. Airports by design tend to be laid out similarly and are usually easy to navigate. If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. The airports we create articles for are the exceptions: they're so huge that their layouts require explanation rather than letting travellers just read the signs, and/or they're places where travellers are likely to spend a few hours or more and will want to know which of the hundreds of restaurants are good or where they can sleep.
Having done some editing on it recently, I would actually say that Orlando International Airport is an example of an airport that maybe doesn't need to be an article. It's not a hub, the layout looks fairly simple, and there's a paltry selection of restaurants, almost all of which are chains, and few that are good enough to recommend. The most useful information there is ground transportation, but that could be folded back into the city article if necessary.
So don't go crazy creating new airport articles just yet. Try working on one of the outline-status articles first like Miami International Airport or Newark Liberty International Airport. Having worked on a couple myself, it's hard to research anything inside an airport, and even harder to come up with good recommendations for Buy/Eat/Drink. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I would think that text about "100 flights" is from 2004, when perhaps that was a lot. Perhaps that text in WV:What is an article? should be changed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
100 flights is a simple objective minimum (defined in 2013). In some cases finding the number of flights means counting them on a list of departures, and I don't fancy counting 250 or 500 on a list when discussing an article. I think that it is useful to have articles for international transit airports, and I am not sure what limit would start to limit these (which includes isolated islands where all flights are international). AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, but still, I think WV:What is an article should be changed at least a little in some way to reflect that the number of flights is not considered a standard for what is a large airport and what is not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

London Stansted is a good example of earlier arguments. It's well over the 100 flights threshold, it's not particularly huge, but it merits detail that would unbalance a simple "get in" listing. Although it's badged "London" it's some way out, forming a little township in its own right. (The residents of historic Stansted are understandably peeved at this.) There are various little quirks and crafty wrinkles that the traveller might appreciate knowing. By contrast London Luton is almost as busy but is sufficiently described under "Luton". Grahamsands (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Another good example is Mactan-Cebu International Airport which is currently a redirect to a section of a city article. There's a fair bit of text in the city article, but I (who wrote much of that text) do not think it needs its own article yet mainly because there's not a lot to say.
It might need an article soon; they've just opened a new terminal and are adding a second runway. w:Mactan–Cebu International Airport says over 10 million passengers and over 86,000 flights (237/day on average) in 2017. My guess is it a good example of a borderline case; once someone adds text about the new terminal it might be worth moving it out. Pashley (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree about Mactan-Cebu International Airport. A lot of the length in that description comes from a laundry list of all the airlines and destinations, which I feel is something that does not belong in WV most of the time (not for a large hub airport like this). It's fine in WP where such encyclopedic knowledge is appropriate, and where there are more editors to keep such lists up to date. In WV, such a list is of minimal use to travelers. For offline reading, I can't imagine what use such information would be. Online, they can easily find the same information elsewhere if they need it, and many times they'll probably discover it themselves while searching for airfares. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I was of the opinion there was a soft floor of roughly 20 million pax/p.a. or a damn good reason otherways... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Correcting "Banner to WD" Errors[edit]

What is the official way to clear up the "Banner to WD" errors?

I've been playing around with cleaning up the Maintenance Category of "Banner to WD" errors which currently has 612 pages that need fixes. Some of the errors are being caused by there being two Wikidata entries that are substantially the same. For instance White Sulphur Springs has at least two entries for a city in West Virginia. I added the banner to both, but the city still shows up on the error list. Out of 40 test fixes so far, only 14 have taken, so I'm guessing that there is another component that needs to be fixed besides the Wikidata entry.

If you would like to look at another example, try Waukegan. There's only one city with this name, I've added the banner and a reference in Wikidata, but Waukegan still persists on the error list. Any suggestions as to what else needs to be looked at to correct these errors would be appreciated. Zcarstvnz (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the Waukegan page, with the "show hidden categories" preference set (in the preferences appearance tab), it is not showing the "Banner missing from Wikidata" category, although it still appears on the category list. It may be worth waiting a few hours for the list to refresh. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you edit a Wikidata entry it will not update the category on Wikivoyage until you re-save the article on Wikivoyage (go to edit and press Publish, do not need to make a change). Otherwise you have to wait until the server does a re-sync of categories which could be soon after or a few days later.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Re-saving the article as you suggested worked. Thanks Traveler100 for your suggestion!
Follow Up. In addition to adding the banner on Wikidata and then re-saving the page on Wikivoyage, there is one more item that may need to be added on Wikidata: the Wikivoyage link must be added as shown in the photo below (in this case the entry for the city of Waukegan).
Wikidata Waukegan link.jpg
Below all of the Wikidata Statements and Identifiers is a list of links to Wikipedia and other sister sites. If the Wikivoyage statement is blank the Wikivoyage page is not removed from the "Banner to WD" error page. The combination of the page banner and link is the complete Wikidata entry.Most of the remaining "Banner to WD" errors are pages that have not been created in Wikidata which I am in the process of creating.
There are a couple of sandbox pages in the "Banner to WD" list, and a few other entries that are likely not going to be able to be removed. I hope this explanation helps to better document the process of fixing these entries. Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia sidebar[edit]

I noticed that several articles on Wikipedia have a sidebar where the Wikivoyage link has a star next to it (In other projects section). When I hover the mouse to the star, it either says "recommended article" or "good article". I worked on the Brownsville Wikivoyage article, getting it to "guide" status. Would it qualify to have a star designated in its section? The Lincoln, Nebraska Wikipedia page has a "good article" star on its sidebar though it had a "usable" status on their Wikivoyage page. De88 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly, I think the article for Lincoln (Nebraska) is quite good, but there is only one listing in "sleep", which puts it close to outline status. Probably, the star should be removed — Wikipedia has a good article for the place, so there is little need to direct travelers elsewhere for information, in that case. I'd remove the star but keep the link to the WV article for Lincoln. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Would the Brownsville, Texas article be eligible for this though? The Amarillo, Texas page also has a star on their sidebar; theirs say "recommended article", however. Their Wikivoyage page has "usable" status. De88 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia and Wikivoyage ratings are not related. Wikivoyage:Star articles has information about how to identify a star-worthy article here at Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I think De88 is talking about the little star icon that shows up next to the Wikivoyage link in the sidebar to the left on some Wikipedia articles. This icon is managed via Wikidata. You can add it for Brownsville by going to wikidata:Q51693, scrolling to the Wikivoyage section, clicking "edit", and then clicking on the badge icon that appears next to the link to the English Wikivoyage article. (If that wasn't clear, please let me know and I can explain in more detail.) I think we should get someone to run a bot to do this for all guide-status articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. You explained the solution well. I just fixed it. I agree though. A bot should be run for these things. Actually, scratch that. It won't let me add a badge. De88 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It ideally shouldn't let people add arbitrary stars, and if it did, then I'm sure that a bot would simply revert it later. Those stars are meant to indicate the special status of those pages. The idea is that if one of the lists pages is particularly good quality, people might want to know that, so they could decide to visit it. Every Featured Article at any Wikipedia has a gold star showing next to their link (as seen on other the other Wikipedias and non-Wikipedia sites). Example: Albuquerque is a star article here, and the sidebar at w:en:Albuquerque, New Mexico shows a gold star for Wikivoyage. The English Wikipedia article is not as well developed, and it has no star in our sidebar. Bristol is guide status, so the English Wikipedia shows a silver star for us, and w:en:Bristol is a Featured Article at the English Wikipedia, so we show a gold star for the link to their article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Horse Racing...[edit]

I found this list on Wikipedia, w:List_of_British_racecourses#Current_racecourses.

Any volunteers to start adding a listing for the courses in relevant articles, as well possibly writing a summary as an overview?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Peaky76 might be interested in starting a page on visiting racecourses here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
However, what would go on the list and what wouldn't? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That was why I was sugessting the courses go in the Destinations articles.. The major courses in the uk would be Aintree, Ascot and Epsom I think. Not sure if the UK has any museums that go into the history of Equestrianism in the UK in any depth. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Airports and Link Infoboxes[edit]

I don't know where else to put this, but I think that the images that show up when you hold over the link to some cities should be photos of the city, rather than (one of) the airport(s) that service the city (for example, if you hold over the Ohrid link). I don't know if the airports are the images for the links for a reason or not, but as a traveler, I prefer seeing an image of the city I am researching, rather than of the airport I am flying into. Also, sometimes the airport's photo doesn't even exist on the city page. If this is irrelevant, just ignore it. I can understand the airports being the photos since they might be the first part of the city a traveler goes to, but if they are just there for no other reason I think it'd be better to put city photos in their place. Donaudamphschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I usually work with the preference disabled so had not noticed this. Would have also though it would be the first image on the page but it appears to be the image in the first listing on the page, which will often be the airport or the rail station in the Get in section. Agree not the best choice. Would be better to pick, first image or pagebanner or the image given in Wikidata for the article. Not sure what is controlling this, anyone know?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently selection is more to do with a size ranking of images on the page. See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice, but cannot say I fully understand it. info of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Flooding risk..[edit]

Prompted by the addition of a section in York , are there other places that have a higher risk?

I was going to consider asking for a rename of Flash floods to Floods to cover the more general traveller risks in more depth ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case of York, there's not much to say beyond a couple of paragraphs without losing focus on summarising the ways to 'stay safe'. I would have thought the same to be true of other places which regularly flood, so it might be an idea to group what general information there is into a single article, which can be fleshed out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why I was considering asking for an article rename of Flash floods ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it wouldn't be flash floods in York. Those (aka "pluvial" floods) are a risk in steep narrow valleys, eg the central Pennines, where a downpour on the moors above turns into a raging torrent of cocoa within the hour. York is on a meander plain where it's slow-responder (aka "fluvial") flooding: a whole 50-mile stretch of Pennine rainfall has nowhere else to drain, and 24-48 hours later the city wharves are inundated. Continue downstream to East Yorks and the risk is "alluvial", ie when storms driving a sea-surge upriver coincide with high tide, and the levees are overtopped. Grahamsands (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This source names "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; San Diego, California; Clearlake, California; San Jose, California; Madera, California; Riverside-San Bernardino, California, Bakersfield, California; Houston, Texas, Santa Cruz, California; and Huntsville, Alabama" as being the 10 US cities at highest risk of some natural disaster, but the type varies. Oklahoma City is probably a tornado risk, and the seven California cities are probably earthquake risks. The page has an interactive map that lets you see risks for US counties, and you can filter it to only certain types of risks. That can be interesting both for what's there (half of Alaska is high risk for floods?) and what's not (Tulsa, Oklahoma is naturally prone to flooding, but has world-class flood control measures, and the resulting risk in that area is only moderate). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Recommended Android app[edit]

I tried searching is there some recommended Android app using

So far I found but I am wondering is there some sensible alternative, preferably one that is open source with basic documentation allowing to contribute to it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: See above. I had the same concern; that app is open source. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Page preview pop-ups[edit]

We've had this discussion several months ago, but as per this discussion, I am making an attempt at reviving this discussion. This time, though, I have done some more research into the symptoms:

Firstly, to recap, currently the page previews on Wikivoyage have the issue of wanting to fetch preview images from listings (with or without Wikidata IDs linked) rather than the article itself, which is far from ideal, as evidenced by some of these articles:

  • Washington D.C. - unrecognisable and non-representative landmark,
  • Amsterdam/Zuidoost - picture of historical event (Bijlmerramp). The sight of a cargo plane bored into a apartment building is far from appealing to anyone, let alone representative of the district,
  • Haarlem and Alkmaar - pictures of the train station, which are unrepresentative of the destination,
  • Hilversum - picture of Hilversum Airport, which isn't useful for many travellers, since it is a training ground and private airfield.
You barely have to try to run into bad images, is the point. Browse for a bit and you'll find them easily.

Secondly, how do these images make it into the preview? Well, Page Previews, which creates these previews, isn't at fault, it is PageImages instead. It's scoring for images is favoured towards Listings and Markers, especially those with an image that can be fetched from Wikidata IDs linked within said listing. The images added in the source code itself, the ones the reader always gets to see, and which are picked to be representative, are somewhere way down the scoring list. The only images with worse scoring seem to be pagebanners, which are blacklisted all-together. I can't exactly point at a certain part of the extension and say that it is at fault, since my ability to read the code is lacking, so perhaps someone else may be able to point that out.

Third, what can be done about this? The easy option is of course disabling Page Previews, but I'm out-ruling that as an option because all in all, it's not a bad feature, it's just badly optimised for usage here. Also out-ruled is manually going around articles to make sure they display useful images, for the simple reason that we editors have many better things to do. Much more plausible by my judgement would be either only fetching images from the lead section (described here) or reaching out to the developers of PageImages to explore the possibilities of optimising the extension for usage here. I've also explored the possibility of adding an empty {{marker}} in the lead section of articles to bump its priority, but that went without success. Making a template of sorts to force a certain image therefore isn't a very plausible approach.

What I'm looking for here is a consensus on what images are desirable: Only those defined and visible in the article? Those of listings as well, and if so, which types of listings? Et cetera. After that we can discuss our actions. Do we change the way PageImages works here by changing its settings, or do we ask for changes to its code and inner workings, or do we simply disable the extension here? All in all, a discussion on this topic is much needed. I'll be here to answer any questions you may have to the best of my abilities. Thank you in advance.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not pick up the first image listed at the articles Wikidata? Either change the PageImages code or I was also thinking of placing a small collapsed icon of {{Wikidata Infobox}} at the top of pages. Maybe that would force a better image. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If I was selecting the image manually, the first place I would look is the image which was cropped to create the banner image. My second choice would be the banner image, or possibly the left half or third of the banner image if a taller image was wanted. A well chosen banner image reflects the character of the destination. It is also an image that the reader will see then they go to the article page, and so can be useful if the reader is unsure if they have already looked at that page. Banner images are all at least 1800 pixels wide and so we can be sure that they have enough resolution, and with few exceptions are of good enough quality. After that I would prefer using an image that is in the article, ideally avoiding those in Get in and Get around, which includes maps and photos of airports. I would avoid using images which are not displayed in the article. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Wauteurz for taking the time to do some research and write all this out for us. To answer the questions you posed in the final paragraph, for my part, I think only images with are visible in the article should be used, for the reason that at least then an image a Wikivoyager has chosen will show up on the preview, rather than being something which almost seems randomly generated. I also think we should "ask for changes to its code and inner workings"; disabling what ought to be a useful extension should be a last resort if the developers of PageImages can't or won't help us.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: That would be an option, yes, but I didn't find anything that suggested that PageImages supports that as-is. I figured it'd be easier to work with what we have, and if none of the options we have available out of the box suffice, we can reach out to PageImage's developers. I have no prior experience with extensions, so I don't know if every project would be able to change the entire extension to fit its needs. If anyone wants to inform me on that, then that would be much appreciated.
Fetching the article's associated Wikidata ID's image may just work in theory, since the images for cities and towns on Wikidata are generally fetched from Wikipedia, which will have a decent image most of the time. The question then is if the infobox gets picked up by PageImage. The easiest way to find out if the result for the previews is as desired, would be to put the template in a handful of articles that have 'bad' preview images and see if anything changes. You've got my support to give it a shot.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Reusing the banner images won't be a great solution. Since the banners have a 7:1 ratio, and cropping that to 4:3 or whatever the preview uses would break off a lot of the banner. Besides, some banners are oriented to the left, the right or centre of the image. We'd have to manually set the center of the banner (which is a feature, albeit a little used feature of the pagebanner) for every one of the ~15.800 custom banners. Using the banner's source material would be my preferred way of action in that scenario. Nonetheless, it might also be possible to make the preview shorter in height and force it to use the 7:1 pagebanner. I am hesitant to say that maps are a good alternative. Look at the Achterhoek, for example. It has no listings, no images in the lead section and thus defaults to the region map, which doesn't look appealing. Maps don't show much aside from some infrastructure and cities and towns. As for airports, they don't do the article justice if you'd ask me. Taking Amsterdam for example, you're seeing Schiphol in the preview, instead of the UNESCO-listed canals and city centre, which would be a lot better to show.
I fully agree that we should use images that editors on Wikivoyage have added, preferably images that can be seen when the reader reads the article (so excluding the hidden images in the listings and mapframes). I think that is something we can all agree on.
Just to put it to words, my preference goes to in-line images (thumbnails) in the first place, followed by editor-defined or editor-redacted images in listings (so ones where the image parameter is filled in), followed by banner source material, followed by no preview image at all. The easiest way to achieve something like this is to adapt the scoring system of PageImages to retract 100% of the score for listing images and images or maps in {{regionlist}} and similar templates (to be clear, I don't know whether it is possible or not for individual projects to change said scoring system), or to set $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true, meaning that only thumbnails in the lead section get used (which I know for a fact is possible for one of our administrators to change).
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't completely clear. I would like to use images displayed in the article, except those in Get in and Get around. That would usually exclude images of airports and stations which appear in Get in, and exclude maps which are usually in Get around. That would mean using images in See or Do if there aren't any in Understand. I am thinking of city articles here, and some other sections may need to be excluded for other articles. AlasdairW (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. I think the image should be visible in the article, not to cause confusion. If the pagebanner source image could be fetched it would probably be a good choice in most cases, but that would probably involve some coding and perhaps a link as a pagebanner template parameter. Without such an explicit reference there could be some weird results (the cropped-away parts can be anything). Ideally you would be able to specify the preview image manually. Using the first image (usually in Understand) should be straight-forward, but I haven't read the code. Avoiding some sections would require some parsing, which probably hasn't been coded. --LPfi (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think, generally, as LPfi says, we should go with the first image of the article, which should be fairly easy to code. So I'd support a change, if possible (which it seems is possible).
P.S. Sorry for changing my signature again. I am finding the olive color overwhelming, so I have changed it back to blue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: You were clear on that, I just read over it. The problem with taking images from See, Do and other paragraphs like it is that listings linked to Wikidata don't always have useful imagery linked in Wikidata. The previous discussion even came to be because of such a listing.
@LPfi, SelfieCity: Understand doesn't always have images, and neither does the lead section before it. Where such a method of fetching the images would fix Sierra Nevada, it wouldn't improve Lake Tahoe since the latter has no images in these sections. Yet I support this method more than anything because we can, with relative ease, get a bot (or perhaps a petscan) to find articles without images in the lead or Understand, and organise a CotM (or a goal for 2019 if there are loads upon loads of such articles) to get images into these sections.
If we are able to configure the scoring system of PageImages, then perhaps it may be worthwhile to blacklist images used in {{listing}}, {{marker}}, {{regionlist}} and the like, and instead score images based on their order in the article, with, if possible, bonuses for images that were previously featured on Commons or ones with quality tags. Looking at some examples, I came to the conclusion that perhaps we should just blacklist all templates if possible, since getting the checkmark in nominated articles for FTT, DotM or OtBP to 'represent' articles is far from desirable. Anywho, this scoring method would ideally score the images in Rail travel in the Netherlands by their appearance in the article, and thus fetch the picture of Amsterdam Centraal, which would have a bonus for being a Quality Image according to Commons. Perhaps a template for modifying the score to allow editors to have more control over what images appear may be useful, but let's not think that far ahead just yet.
If I am not mistaken, then I am seeing an overall tendency to want images from the lead section and/or Understand. This, as I said previously, should be configurable for our admins and/or bureaucrats by setting the parameter $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. I'm holding out on starting a vote for this since there are plenty of more options, and I'd like to hear some more Wikivoyagers leave their ten cents on the matter, so that we can eventually vote on a set of several methods. At that point, it may also be worthwhile to get some people from MediaWiki responsible for the PageImages extension in here to guide us towards a good choice.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree about your thoughts on a possible COTM, etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If we go the route of adding image to the Understand section, or before the Get in section if does not exist, I am not sure how we can easy track the progress of such a project. On initial look I cannot see a way of restricting an advanced Search or a Petscan to a section of an article. Any one any ideas or tips? I could see a possibility of running a bot over pages and tagging them but then there is no guarantee of being removed. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Neither am I, really. As I mentioned in my reply to your question below, the API Sandbox may be a method of finding that out, but that would mean that a bot would be needed to find and tag these pages rather than a PetScan. Only once a page has been tagged with a template (let's say {{NoImageInLead}} for further reference) is when we can find those articles more easily using a PetScan. I don't think we could do the same process without involvement of a bot.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Question - Does the size of the image displayed on the page (not its actual size) make a difference to the ranking? It would be possible to place a small image at the very top of the page (not easily seen) with an extension to the {{geo}} tag that is already in all articles. This would then be the first image in the article and could be by default the wikidata standard image or you could add an image file name to the geo template to define another one. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not understanding the PageImages calculation. For example the first image in the article Ohrid is same actual size as the one in the airport listing but is still not the selected preview image. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: In short, yes, the size of images matters. I never fully understood how the scoring works myself, but from what I gathered, I have a decent idea of the scoring system, albeit that I don't know what numbers the scoring applies:
  • Anything smaller than 119px or whatever is defined in $wgPageImagesScores['width'] is highly favoured against and anything inside of a <gallery smaller than 100px is ignored. Since we don't use galleries, small images on Wikivoyage (say, for example one 50px wide) will still get considered.
  • 400-600 pixels is the width the template searches, with a preference towards the lower bound - In other words, 400px is ideal, anything up to 50% wider is still acceptable. I am not sure how a 400×600px thumbnail of a 4.000×6.000px image gets favoured in this, but I think the thumbnail is fetched from the article as is, meaning that the thumbnail gets fetched, not the original much larger image.
  • The first four images in an article get considered, unless that number is changed with $wgPageImagesScores['position']. I suspect that in one way or another, be it the rendering order of articles, map-frames or listings, the images in listings, which are causing the most issue on Wikivoyage, get seen as having a higher position because of being rendered first. This would explain why Ohrid has its preview image, but I am only speculating here. I couldn't say that this is why with any certainty.
  • Lastly, the ratio of the image is considered. Anything wider than 2:1, such as our page banners, gets automatically discarded or highly favoured against. I am not sure if this also goes for portrait images which are, say, 1.500×500px, since documentation doesn't explicitly say so, but let's assume that they are. In that case, anything wider than 2:1 or taller than 1:2 is ignored. Again, this ratio (0.5 by default) can be customised with $wgPageImagesScores['ratio']. This would not mean that anything wider, like a pagebanner, would get preference, but merely adjusts the bounds of what gets considered.
I did my best to make the given explanation on PageImages' documentation page more readable, but in case that didn't work, the original documentation can be found here. I am not sure if adding an image in {{geo}} would help, since I don't know what templates are and are not blacklisted. You could always give it a shot. It may not, since {{geo}} is one of the last templates in the code, and only visually the first template for a reader. Machines may read it differently because of how the article gets rendered. The only way to find out is to try, I'd say. Perhaps anyone with more experience with Wikimedia API can give it a shot, but it seems that we can work out what images get considered by using the API Sandbox. If anyone is willing and able to give that a shot, then have a look at PageImages#API and see if such requests can be done for articles on Wikivoyage.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: Thanks those comments helped me work out what is happening here. As you say listings are parsed first, but only listing with coordinates and obviously and image. So first 4 listings with coordinates and image parameters are candidates. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are right that geo template will not work, even adding a listing in the template that shows at the top is still regarded as the last image of the listings. So only way I can see to control this without change of wikimedia code is to have a listing with a coordinate at the top of every page, say showing town centre position. Not sure if that would be wanted. I think we need to ask the developer of the image ranker code to ignore listing images.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Precisely. If there are less than 4 listings with coordinates and images, the next candidates are the images in the article, more or less as they appear. Templates such as {{featurenomination}} seem to be either very negatively scored or to be blacklisted/ignored all-together. I haven't ever found that a featured article displayed the check mark in its preview. On the other hand, does it need to be blacklisted at all? The feature nominees have plenty of imagery to outrank that little check mark. I know that isn't very relevant, but I felt like I needed to rectify what I said before about that being a possibility.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
T213652 request to change ranking to put visible images before listing images. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-Phabricator update[edit]

Here's an update from the Phabricator ticket: A method of letting contributors manually set the previewed image is already being worked on. As per Jdlrobson's reply on Phabricator, I am led to assume that the idea as we had in mind (being able to blacklist templates) is not feasible. Feasible alternative solutions for now are as follows:

  1. Set the aforementioned parameter $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true, meaning that all images for the previews will get fetched from the lead section and only the lead section. Many articles have images, but not within the lead section, which would require a bot and a possible Collaboration of the Month to optimise. We would then manually work off the lists provided by a bot and add images where needed or set the same bot up to move the first image in the article to the lead section.
  2. Switch around listings to have preferable imagery get fetched. We know that the images get fetched by their appearance in listings. Listing #1 will always be chosen over listing #3 if both have images. If listing #3 has a better image than #1, then we can switch these two around to get the desired effect. The main downside is that is will be a much more intensive process than the option above. Where I can see option 1 get resolved with a CotM, this one will probably need a Collaboration of the Year.
  3. Do nothing. A solution that's good for us is already in the works. I haven't found an ETA for it though. The obvious downside is that we'll have to deal with the current situation for what can be anything varying from weeks to years.

It may be best to let things over on Phabricator unfold for a bit, after which we can seek some consensus on what we will do to resolve the issue as it stands now. Feel free to discuss the options above or suggest any new ones, or chime into the discussion on Phabricator as well.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wauteurz has done a great job of explaining how this works. When I proposed enabling the page previews feature, I did flag that we'd need to rethink out descriptions and images to support it, but I figured that was good for the project and a problem with editing we could solve.
I'd strongly advise, not setting $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. This leads to I'd guess at least 70% of articles without an image. This negatively impacts page previews, mobile web search as well as external clients. We also have data somewhere that suggests that we get more interactions when images are presented alongside the link. I'd argue this is much worse than the status quo.
The algorithm that chooses an image is also very dumb. phab:T91683 has been proposed as a long term solution for dealing with these situations and is simply lacking some impetus to fix this which would help every wiki, but in the mean time, the best possible thing to do IMO is to make sure the first image in the article represents the article and is a suitable page image! This seems useful for page preview users and users entering an article for information! For instance, it's bizarre that Siem Reap contains no image of Angkor Wat, its most iconic sight, other than in the page banner. From my POV overloading the banners is problematic - it provides no caption for mobile users (you cannot hover over banners on mobile!) and will not render on clients who are not banner aware. Could we not setup a Page image expedition? I feel that would be lots of fun.
Frustratingly, in cases like Washington,_D.C. this seems to be the case - a picture of Abe Lincoln seems pretty iconic and relevant, but for some reason that's not being chosen as the page image. I'd love to tinker with that some more, to see why that's the case. That seems like a bug to me. Hopefully that would eradicate some of the bad page images we're seeing.
Jdlrobson (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jdlrobson: I'm well-aware that I am not the only one with an opinion here, but $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly seems the best option to me. I am, however, very much in favour of an imagery expedition or Collaboration of the Month(/Season?) as I said before. A goal for such an expedition would be to get an image in every lead section, after which, we would ideally have a large majority of articles with images in their lead sections. Only once that has been achieved would I be in favour of changing $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. I haven't been clear that that's the order I had in mind, I'll admit. Since phab:T91683 has already taken a few years and none of the goals have been ticked off, I would be more than content with achieving this goal by the end of the year or sometime in 2020.
I can report that the image for Washington, D.C. originates from the first listing in the article with coordinates: The Afghan embassy. It's not like the image gets fetched from a seemingly random place. Like you said, the algorithm isn't smart. I've already speculated before that listings get prioritized because they or the mapframe get loaded before the page content. I can't confirm any of this, but it may be worth looking into. On the same note, if the algorithm is that dumb, then why not rewrite it to differentiate images that are in plain sight (thumbnails, etc.) from the 'invisible' images (listings, etc.)? I may be massively oversimplifying the whole ordeal, but forgive me for I lack the technical knowledge. The coding and technological insight I learnt in school has long faded on me.
Anywho, I'm all for an image expedition, but I'd like to hear the insights of others as well.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that any solution which requires editing every page or manually setting preview images is problematic. While we could do this for our most popular articles, the vast majority of our pages are lean on text as-is, and many lack a custom pagebanner, let alone an image to put in the lead. Even if we do find an image, it will in many cases then dominate the article.
Would it be possible, as a fourth solution, to adjust the weights on the image scores to strongly favor Wikidata images? This, I think, is the best solution: most of our articles would immediately have a photo, which someone felt represented the destination, as the preview image, and the ones with less-than-stellar Wikidata images would be easy to change, and doing so would benefit other projects. Plus, destinations without an image in Wikidata but with a banner could have the banner source image added to Wikidata, and destinations without an image or banner will still have other kinds of images to fall back on.
If this isn't possible, seems that would be a much simpler change for the Phabricator guys to make. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Suggest more people subscribe to the two issues logged at Phabricator, cannot see why this cannot technically be possible, probably just not regarded as too important and there are lost of other issues to solve. Alternatively I think it would be possible to add a marker at the start of every city page pointing to the wikidata image (see below). But adding a location icon at the start of articles is going to need a discussion and some consensus as I see plus and minus points with it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of any solution that involves mass edits to every page. This sort of thing should be done transparently. If we want it working now, then we do have to do something kludgy like that, but I'd rather the devs fix the underlying issue before we start changing the way all our pages look.
I do appreciate that you've found the least obtrusive way to do it, though. However, I think having an edit button right after the destination name might confuse new editors, who might click that instead of the page edit button. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ARR8: I am not suggesting that every one of our 28,887 articles gets manually edited. Wikidata has images available for most of these articles and not using those through the means of a bot would be a wasted opportunity. This will, however, still require some manual input as well, and a collaboration or expedition will help bring some structure to this. Like you said yourself, Wikidata has less desirable images too, and hopefully we can fix those along the way. Not every article has imagery in the preview right now either, if anything, that number would increase some. None of us have exact numbers on this, but it may be worthwhile to look into this, as the change in article previews with images in said preview might be a notable factor in choosing the eventual method. All in all, integration with Wikidata is something I recall as being wished for in previous years, hence the linking of listings to Wikidata. This might just be an opportunity to chase that wish and put it into further practise. I, for one, am not at all opposed to setting banner source images to be Wikidata's images for said ID, let alone using images in Wikidata IDs linked to our articles.
We all prefer for PageImages to just be working as it should be, but I don't expect it to be working as desired, allowing editors the control they are promised with T91683 to be done any time soon. This March, that task will have been up for 4 years, and I'm not sure it will be done by the end of this year. Another option would be T95026, which aims to allow PageImages to fetch images directly from the Wikidata ID linked to the article that's being previewed. Since Jdlrobson is involved in both these projects, perhaps they can tell us how process is coming along on those two projects.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Would not need any manual editing, can add a template into the pagebanner template to extract wikidata and create a listing top right corner of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

One solution I see today[edit]

Maybe this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut but here is a solution Washington, D.C./sandbox. And would not take a year to edit page, probably could be done with a bot edit. Comments? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not saying we should do this but basically the only visible change would be a coordinate number (with location of city centre) at the start of city articles, e.g. Ohrid/sandbox. is this an acceptable change to get a better preview image? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to do this. The number is only a little confusing at the beginning of the article, but it's quite confusing when it displays on the dynamic map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Can move the number to top right hand corner (see Washington, D.C./sandbox) and remove the need to edit pages (update to pagebanner), but cannot get it off the map. (note current pagebanner sandbox is fix image and coords but could change to be wikidata values of page) --Traveler100 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of this. On the one hand, it does fix the preview image, but on the other hand it does also add 1 to each and every preview blurb, which my by judgement is not a worth-while trade-off. What I would be more in favour of is this idea, but with a mapshape instead of a map marker. No template currently exists to do that trick though, and I am not sure if that can be done either. This would then not display the listing number (1) in the preview, but instead just the blurb with its mark-up -no labels, no links- just plain text as it should be. This template can then get an image and wikidata link assigned. Neither of which would show on the map.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
the number can be removed from the preview by attaching the class noexcerpt! See MW:Extension:Popups#FAQ
2607:FB90:9D55:EEEC:AD28:E0EF:5ED3:DBD0 02:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, that is a possibility indeed. Still, though, if we use noexcerpt, we will have to make a separate instance of the {{listing}} template. At that point, it is more worthwhile to look into creating a template as I described above, which adds a mapframe around the governing body rather than a marker on the map which adds no information whatsoever.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

New language on walking tours - please participate[edit]

We reconsidered walking tour listings, and the result so far is to open the floodgates for all walking tours. I've proposed new language, and I'd like more participation in the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Discussion/vote on new language? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


I created this a while ago, but I really can't do all the work on my own, and I haven't done any in quite a while. I have laid out basics for formatting or whatever, and I wonder if there is some space it could be moved to where work can be done on it and, perhaps, it could be used as a way to navigate to country articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Requesting a second opinion, preferably someone with knowledge of South Korea. I added coordinates to the mountains listed at the top of the See section of Daejeon. They are however a good distance away, I suspect I got them wrong. Are they the correct locations or just similar named other locations? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I rolled my own edits back. Here is what I had guessed as the locations. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bullet list - Accessibility fix[edit]

There was a question a few weeks ago about leaving blank lines or not between listings (not sure where it has been archived now). As pointed out at the time having a blank line basically creates separate bullet listings which can be an issue with some screen reading software for sight impaired readers, as well as being mess HTML for search engine bots. As an information to all, I will be running a bot over pages to fix this. I will start slowly and check a number of them but eventually will let it run by itself over all articles. Please check out a few edits marked Listings Accessibility, it should be a simple safe edit but there is always the change an odd syntax format turns up I have not thought of. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this; it's long overdue. One thing I'd suggest - I recall someone saying that the listing template close tags (}}) on their own line also break up the list. Could the bot remove the newline before those? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Would like conformation of that before making the extra edit. Slight more difficult an edit to do safely in batch, though not much, but would be just about every page on the site as this is what the listing editor creates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tested it and it doesn't seem to make a difference. So, nevermind for now. Maybe it only happens under some circumstances. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I said in some discussion that the "}}" on its own line separates the listings visibly enough for the edit mode, so that removing the blank line is no problem. Perhaps it was this comment ARR8 (mis)remembered. So it should indeed be kept. --LPfi (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The listings templates automatically put }} on a separate line, so I always assumed that to be the preferred format. If it's not, the templates should be changed. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This is good to do for the most part; however, it is their software and not ours that is the problem and should be brought to their attention if possible. Just a note that remembering when different browsers interpreted code and sites had to accommodate for their difference created problems in the past (less likely I think today). I am just concerned about going down any future rabbit holes. In this case it is ok to do -- Matroc (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Who is "they", in your claim that "it is their software...that is the problem"? (It can't be the people who expect websites to follow HTML standards, such as the makers of screen reader software.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It was mentioned above that it could be screen reading software - I have no argument with removing extra blank lines at all period. (There must be no blank lines between list items. Blank lines terminate a list, splitting it into two separate lists_wikimedia). With ordered lists this is definitely proven; unordered lists on the other hand shouldn't be affected as much as each listing would then become a separate list wouldn't it? I did not find anything about lists and blank lines in in the past though I am not so inclined to use them. As for HTML interpretation even an ul with multiple li with separating lines appear to render correctly and two such lists would join with if only one blank line existed between them. I am not arguing with removing a blank line and probably should be our style or standard if it will resolve the issue at hand. Mediawiki does its interpretation and already removes them. Interesting thought, I wonder if it isn't following HTML standards? -- Best wishes and have a Great day! -- Matroc (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the MediaWiki software (our software) substitutes the blank line in a wikitext unordered list with "</ul><ul>" in the HTML it outputs. We cannot blame a voice HTML reader to read two consecutive lists as two separate lists. The visual difference is small with most browsers (a little more vertical space?), as there usually are other visual clues when the lists are meant to be separate, but those other clues may be lost when reading aloud. There is really no point in telling how the lists are visually separated when you have your own means of telling by your voice they are separate. --LPfi (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you LPfi and WhatamIdoing for explanation(s) and clarification. After looking at some source code and page source(s) it now makes better sense to me. Again, thank you -- Matroc (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
For those interested (which may be only me ;-), whether and how much vertical space you see between two adjacent links depends upon local formatting (e.g., what we put in MediaWiki:Common.css). After years of fixing this mistake, I can see the very small difference, but I suspect that most people don't notice it.
ARR8, after you finish here, I wonder whether you could do this at the other language editions of Wikivoyage? It would ideally happen everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ping User:Traveler100, whom I assume you meant. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The bot has run through all destination pages on English Wikivoyage. There were about 10 pages it could not edit, some issue with large in-page mapmasks, but strangely not all with mapmasks. But it appears to just hang, not make any edits. One edit blanked a page but I think that must have been a network or server error not to do with the bot code. I guess I could do it on other language pages. Do you think the existing user pages of Traveler100bot on these sites which just links to the English page be enough? With the exception of German I cannot write any native language information stating what is happening. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you have a list of those 10 pages, I can edit by hand if desired. -- Matroc (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A new history article[edit]

Here. Should it eventually see mainspace? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps under Travel topics-Cultural attractions-Historical travel-Military tourism as there are main articles under Military tourism. It seems to be the right place for such an article on the Spanish Civil War -- Matroc (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have started another history article in main space: Prussia (which had been proposed by another user some time ago). I am not completely happy with the "Understand" section which I perceive as too lengthy and too detailed, but I have inhibitions to cut it down. All I have written seems somewhat interesting to me. Perhaps someone with more distance finds it easier to identify digressions and side issues that are not necessary for an introduction to Prussia from a traveller's point of view. I would certainly not resist to some sensible cuts. --RJFF (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter beta feature[edit]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Can the destination map of a Wikivoyage increase the functionality of the person's location?[edit]

Wikivoyage are about to become a travel guide for any traveler, and I think the destination map needs to add a person's location (like a Google Map) to help travelers find the places they want to visit.

Once have this feature, it will be more convenient for travelers!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree is needed. Please add your support at Phabricator tickets: T208713, see meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Maps/Maps should have option to show users current location. At T208713 subscribe and ask for priority to be moved from low. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This is very import about Wikivoyage.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dangers of carrying pirated goods?[edit]

Stories are told about travellers who get in trouble with police or customs officers for carrying pirated goods (handbags, watches, sunglasses etc) with fake designer labels; the goods can be confiscated and the owner might be prosecuted. Is this a real danger, or are the stories exaggerated? Is advice on pirated goods relevant for shopping or other articles? /Yvwv (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have heard of people having pirated goods confiscated by customs. I think that prosecution is only likely if you are carrying large quantities of goods - enough to sell, more than just gifts for a couple of friends. This is already mentioned in Shopping#Restrictions - "Copyright or trademark law may also be an issue; dirt cheap copies of various items with high-end brand names are readily available in various places, but they may be confiscated at the border..." AlasdairW (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There is also discussion at China#Brand-name_goods.
As an aside, I detest the use of the term "pirated" here. Copyright or trademark infringers are not at all the same as people with boats and weapons. Pashley (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that piracy has been romanticized to hell and back and hardly anybody thinks of Somalia or the Malacca Strait when they hear of "pirate".... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Piedra Blanca[edit]

Location from the geo coordinates of this article are wrong. From description appears to be near San Luis de Pambil. Can anyone find information about the location and the lodge mentioned? As there are many other places with this name that are larger [5] thinking of making disambiguous. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is at lat=-1.2895 long=-79.2256. However I think that will only find a small cabin there - see [6], [7] and [8]. As there is so little there, I would suggest merging with San Luis de Pambil, which already has a one line listing for the lodge, but the link is now to a web-squatter. AlasdairW (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to put something....[edit]

In trying to find a museum that dealt with horse racing I came across this museum connected with Horses and Equestrianism more generally..

The Museum Of The Horse at The Newcastle Arms, Tuxford

Naturally it should go in the appropriate destination article, but is there a travel topic where it would also fit? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Horse riding, if it is good enough to warrant a significant detour. --LPfi (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Due to the efforts of another contributor, another question arose which was to do with when listing racecourses, how to link the fixture/meetings list. Would it be reasonable to link this in what would otherwise be the hours field (I wanted a wider consensus on this)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)