Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


Missing "add listing" buttons[edit]

Las Vegas seems to be missing the "add listing" buttons that are present in most city articles. Does anyone know why? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Working for me now. But I have had problems a few times in last day or so trying to use the edit button on listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Look here. I had this problem before. In Las Vegas I changed the heading "Cities" into "Other cities", and the problem disappeared. --FredTC (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wonder if someone with enough coding knowledge would be able to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor.js so it works in a less hacky way (maybe by checking for Template:outlinecity, Template:usablecity, etc.) to avoid this kind of problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Has the "sleep test" outlived its usefulness?[edit]

In light of these two diffs, I'm starting to be of the opinion that the "can you sleep there" passage in wiaa does more harm than good. It's simply too ripe for misunderstanding: we've explained and explained and explained to people that it's not intended as a hard-and-fast rule that says a town without a hotel is automatically disqualified from having its own article, but rather as a general guideline to differentiate the types of places that get their own articles (i.e. cities and towns themselves, not individual attractions therein). But this continues (understandably given the fairly ambiguous wording of the policy) to fall on deaf ears no matter how often we repeat ourselves. So I think it's time to come up with a better metaphor with which to illustrate this concept. I'm going to ping Powers here because I know this has frustrated him too in the past. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree there are some cases where no sleep is not a reason to remove the article but the examples you give are not particularly good ones. On Hazettville maybe a little more information should have been moved to the region article but unless someone creates a more detailed list of stores and restaurants for the place then it is not worth having a separate article. On the Westmoreland article the timeline needs to be taken into account. At the time of the original merge there was no useful information in the article. That has now changed, so an article for here is now justified. If wording needs to be changed then it should be to do with the amount of information the article has not how much information it could have. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I really don't agree on merging everything just because there is not yet much information in an article for a town or city that actually has a fair number of sights, activities, hotels, restaurants, etc. However we define it, it has to take into account how much content an article reasonably could have as well as the amount of content it currently has. And I'm really not sure what metaphor or definition would really be clear enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"How much content an article currently has" is in fact a very poor indicator of whether it qualifies as an article per wiaa. There are cities of millions of people that have less well developed articles than the one for Childs, a small hamlet with a population of a few dozen that's a previous OtBP and current Starnom - that's just the nature of the beast here. And for newbie contributors who aren't intimately familiar with the workings of our site, filling in the empty sections of a skeleton article is a much more straightforward thing to figure out than how to de-merge an article that's been merged and redirected to some more geographically broad entity. The determination should be made entirely on the basis of how much content the article conceivably could have, if it were complete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
So it sounds like it might be a good idea to ask yourself a range of questions when considering if something counts as an article. "Can you sleep there?", yes, but also for the other 'main' sections; "Are there drinking establishments / restaurants?"; "What can you do?"; "What is there to see?"; or even more broadly "Can I imagine someone wanting to spend time there for any reason?"
Since having useful information under 'sleep' is a prerequisite for an article being 'usable', "Can you sleep there?" has never struck me as a bad guideline; the problem with the two diffs is with people applying the guideline too literally. Hence why asking a longer list of questions would guide people into sticking to the "spirit of the law, rather than the letter" and keep and develop articles for places that are obviously worthy of an article, even if there are no hotels. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be great to remove the sleep test, but I'm not sure how we are going to judge the amount of content an article could conceivably have. Conceivably a guide could be written about the tiniest hamlet with 2 houses, therefore the test will probably always be passed.
Could we perhaps require at least one substantial 'Do' or 'See' listing? (and not the Telstra style 'Church' and 'Town hall' listings) Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are problems with the sleep test, but I think we also have problems with (mostly unregistered) editors creating articles for every little place with little more that "Whoville is a town in Who County". These articles are frustrating as the links to them draw in readers who tuen learn nothing about Whoville. I suspect that most are created by editors who feel that they have contributed by creating articles, or who expect that other people will come along to fill out the articles. This is not a productive activity, and we must have a way of managing it.
Andrewssi2 may be on to an alternative test. Maybe something like "an article should be merged if it has fewer than three listings in the See, Do, Eat, Drink, and Sleep sections". This would avoid problems where a village ends up with an article because a business owners wants to let people know about his/her guesthouse or restaurant.
I understand AndreCarrotflower's objection to "How much content an article has" as an indicator of whether it qualifies as an article, and I'm trying to figure out how to balance that objection with the objection to contentless articles. While in principle empty sections of articles may attract useful edits, in practice we have lots of articles that just don't. Ground Zero (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] That might work as a general rule, but if a region is quite well covered or being worked on, having a few places mere skeletons as placeholders might be better than messing up the structure by having them merged into the region article or some (not so) nearby destination. --LPfi (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting doesn't delete the content. If you're working on an article and it's redirected, you can easily restore the content and expand the article by going into the history and editing the version before the redirect. Not really a problem. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A church or town hall could be a great sight, indeed, so I would strongly disagree with excluding them as a reason for an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A church or town hall could be a great sight, but not simply the word Church or Town Hall. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Under "Eat" we could put "restaurants", and under "Sleep" we could put "hotels" or "in a bed". Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If there are such eateries – but then say so: "Several eateries along the main street, probably none for gourmets" and "A few bed and breakfasts in the town. You could probably find a cottage to rent at the lake". Them not being proper listings is not a big problem as long as there are enough beds that you don't need to book. --LPfi (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody redirecting articles while I am working on them is frustrating, not a catastrophe, but merging the content requires some work and revering the merge is not always straight forward. Merging and redirecting, reverting, and again getting merged and redirected because of policy is a stupid way to collaborate. I'd very strongly advice not to merge if region or destination article has been worked on lately, and it thus seems likely the outline is going to be worked on in the foreseeable future. I'd also prefer keeping outlines without much content if the other destinations in the region have reasonable articles. One such outline is not that frustrating for a reader, it is trees consisting of mostly empty outlines that are the problem. --LPfi (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The merger proposal process gives time for someone to say, "hey, I'm working on this - it will get better", in which case regular contributors will back down. The only time I'd merge without proposing it first is when an article will never qualify (e.g. a single site), or when the article has been untouched for a long time (as you suggested). Ground Zero (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(reset) How about this one for a new test: "Articles are for destinations — not individual attractions or establishments. Anything you can fit into a listing should not get its own article".

Maybe it would be a good idea to allow listings not only in the lowest articles in the hierarchy, but also in the layer immediately above (lowest region article) for listings in small towns/middle of nowhere that do not have an article yet and might have so little to offer that they may not need an article at all. I've suggested it before but people didn't think it was a good idea. How would this sound: if the destination doesn't have a minimum of (say) three attractions and travel-relevant businesses combined it should not get its own article and listings should added to the region article instead. If needed — say a big theme park opens there with all sorts of amenities, we can later create an article for the destination and move the listings there. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Happy new year, BTW. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of some bottom-level regions (presumably rural) having listings for tiny towns and villages that will never have enough content to stand on their own. If the region article does grow to a substantial size, we can split it at a later time just like we districtify huge cities. Gizza (roam) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue of having listings on bottom-level regions was discussed at length a couple of years ago, without resolution or consensus. Might be worth re-examining. –StellarD (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link StellarD. In the case of the Option 2 examples in Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas, I would support creating new bottom-level article types called "island group" and "rural area". At the moment, we sometimes call these article cities (e.g. East Frisian Islands and Rural Montgomery County) while at other times regions (East Coast (Suriname) and Thousand Islands) which is inconsistent and confusing. It won't be appropriate in every situation as the wide range of examples in the discussion show but whenever it is suitable, I think calling them island group or rural area would make it clear that they are bottom level and can have listings. They will be the equivalent of districts for thinly populated spread out areas of the world. Gizza (roam) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been criticism from some (I can remember User:PsamatheM, but there have been others) that Wikivoyage is too city-oriented in its setup, and doesn't cover rural areas well enough, but what you propose could go towards relieving that. A mixture of city and rural entries is certainly what you'd expect in a Lonely Planet or Rough Guide book. I'm not saying we should ape them in every way, but they're successful for a reason. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some truth to the criticism that Wikivoyage is too city-oriented and doesn't cover rural areas well enough. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but maybe DaGizza's suggestion would help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of listings in non-bottom-level articles. However, what could make a lot of sense would be to have a region with two children: The city and the remainder of the region, or x-number of rural subregions. I don't agree with insisting that each article have at least 3 attractions. Childs has one listing for "See and Do", with 5 sublistings. And Chiusure has one "See" listing, but it's spectacular and the village couldn't really logically be listed in any other article because it's sufficiently remote to be its own destination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The existing policy has exceptions (that I think we should retain) that would cover Child's and Chiusure: "... when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered...." The list of examples also demonstrates an intent to allow articles in these two circumstances. Having separate articles for them would be easy to defend in a merger discussion on the basis of the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(reset indent) Re: Sleep TestI would agree that the "sleep test" could do more harm than good and could actually have negative consequences (e.g. somewhere that deserves a listing not getting one as it's merged into an already too long page for somewhere nearby that does happen to have a hotel. It all comes down to "judgement" (rather than a set rule) and different people will always make different judgements but the thing about borderline cases is that they are borderline so it's not such a big deal. Having "rules" and "policies" (even with "flexibility") can be counterproductive as there will always be some who regard it as their duty to enforce such rules on the basis that they are rules. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate level consistency so there needs to be something. The challenge is that different places around the world don't fit into set rigorous rules and policies - too much variability PsamatheM (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Listings at higher levels The difficulty is that different places around the world don't always fit into a single structural policy. Too much variability so I think it sensible to allow listings in non-bottom level articles. It all depends on the particular place, how it is geographically organised in relation to things of relevance/interest to a traveller. I'd be in favour of greater freedom with the author (who knows the area) being questioned but those questioning NOT using "our policy is ..." to push for "listings only in bottom level articles". Defer/accept to local knowledge with the qualification that some contributors might not be aware of the consistency considerations but prioritise usefulness to the traveller. There will always be conflicting pressures to provide clear, useful, accessible, etc. content and the force the world into a single structural policy is unlikely to meet any of those aims. Unsigned comment by User:PsamatheM

Thousand Islands is not a region article and has not been a region article since 2013. It is a vast bi-national rural area with a few villages (Marysville, Fineview, Stella - and including the latter is a stretch as it's on Lake Ontario), none of which have a thousand or more people. That said, I'd prefer that bottom-level destination articles be drawn in area so that one ends where the next begins, even if that means the 28' tall novelty architecture Big Apple (as the lone attraction in tiny Colborne, Cramhe Township, Ontario) is listed at Cobourg#Nearby -- which ends where Trenton (Ontario) begins. Yes, there are issues with certain things being taken too literally - like the section headers (is "Drink" nightlife, or is it somewhere to stick winery tours like Westmoreland (New Hampshire)#Drink?), the sleep test (do we assume that Cartwright (Labrador) is a city but stops being one the day the hotel burns to the ground?) and the concept of what constitutes "a city". In general, we size articles (and their geographic coverage area) so that the text is of reasonable length (as the print and mobile versions still matter) instead of following the official city limits. I'd prefer not to push listings into higher levels as that does encourage the condition where every hôtelier thinks that their tiny five-room motel absolutely belongs in United States of America#Sleep and it's just one more article which the voyager needs to print and carry-on as baggage. K7L (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is that our writership has historically skewed and still to an extent skews "First World" (in the actual 1950s definition, even: NATO and allies) and urban. Exhibit A: I am writing this in a train at more than 125 mph going from big city to at least moderately large city. It is thus only natural that we struggle somewhat with more rural areas and our setup is not the best for certain types of rural attractions. There have been several proposals to remedy this, all of them workable in principle, but none gaining all that much traction. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So maybe this was done to provoke the conversation (or just me) but this is a good western example: Randolph (New York). Town appears to have restaurants and a few shops but closest hotels are in Salamanca (New York) and Jamestown (New York). As it stands is just annoying click for readers to an empty page (yes I know it could be expanded but past cases have not). Andre I know you don't want to hear about this {from you) again, but you started the conversation again. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting allowing small motels in the United States article or any of that sorts, but explicitly listings in the layer immediately above. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that struck me as a particularly absurd use of the 'slippery slope' fallacy. Surely the proposal to allow listings in bottom-level regions (especially for rural areas, or those areas otherwise lacking a large amount of tourism infrastructure) is better than having hundreds of near-empty city articles whose only purpose is to act as a vessel for one or two listings or a solitary routebox that can't be placed anywhere else? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Traveler100, if you had bothered to click "edit" and get a look at the <!-- hidden notes to myself --> that I'd embedded in the Randolph article, or if you had checked the article's edit history and looked at the edit summary I left, you would have seen there was plenty of content that I intended to fill in later - yes, including one of your allegedly nonexistent hotels, plus a couple of campgrounds to boot. I just got done doing that, and I even got the article up to Usable status. So instead of running with your baseless assumption that there's nothing to do or see in this town that I just created an article for, and using it as a pretext to unearth this beef that you and I had years ago, I wish that you would have instead deferred to my local expertise (I had earlier added Randolph to Cattaraugus County#Cities precisely because it would make a worthwhile article) and proven record as a valuable contributor to this site, and maybe just given me some time to develop the article before jumping down my throat. Sorry that I didn't add the content all at once, but I do have a life outside this site, you know. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In the past few comments on this thread I'm seeing an excessive preoccupation with the reader experience, almost to the point of tunnel vision, and frankly I find that to be problematic. I think that at this stage of Wikivoyage's existence, the perspective of the editor, and in particular the newbie editor, is equally if not more important. Right now, the number one thing this site needs more of - even more than readers - is content. And the way to get more content is to make it as easy as possible for people to contribute. As I said above: for editors who are just starting to learn their way around the site, it's a lot easier to add listings or other material to a skeleton article than to de-merge an article that's been merged and redirected somewhere else. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the best way to ensure that no one ever adds information about a particular place is to redirect it to another article, which of course is a completely self-defeating thing to do if we want more content. And if readers are really all that annoyed when they come across a skeleton article (I have my doubts about that, but that's a whole other story), then let that serve as motivation for them to do something about it, and cross over from being a reader to being an editor, which we also need more of. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And finally, mark me down as being in full support of Ypsilon's proposed solution. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I also fully support Ypsilon's proposal. –StellarD (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Listings at region level for small settlements or attractions in rural locations sounds like a good solution. Also can add red-link to city list with text as alternative. Suggest have a review and additional input on Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas. Can this be moved on from a draft proposal? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a messy solution. I'd really rather have a separate city-level article for "Rural areas of [region name]" and put the listings there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So far, the main options seem to be:

  • Replace tiny-town articles with articles about larger semi-rural regions
    • If you want to write about something in tiny Mulberry, Kansas (population 520, and home to the state's smallest newspaper), then make an article on Area around Pittsburg, Kansas, and stick it in there.
  • Allow listings for tiny-town/rural areas in the next layer up.

I think that both of these could work. At the moment, in this example, people seem to be doing the second one.

In terms of the narrower question, maybe the "sleep test" could be usefully re-framed as a "36-hour test". The idea is that the test (usually) includes sleeping, but that the point is having a reason to be there beyond stopping off just long enough to sleep, on your way to your real destination. You could spend 36 hours in a large airport or any town with an amusement park, but you would probably not volunteer to spend 36 hours in Mulberry, even if it were possible to sleep there (which it's not, unless you have family and friends in town. The nearest lodging is a campground five miles north, and across the border). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - I think the "36-hour test" is definitely a nonstarter. Childs - which, again, is a previous OtBP and current Starnom - would handily fail it. As for your list of main options, you're missing one: the status quo of tolerating skeleton articles unless they can be conclusively demonstrated to fail wiaa, which is the one I endorse. (It's true that I voiced support for Ypsilon's proposal above, but I don't see that as necessarily mutually exclusive with the status quo. If a skeleton article could have three travel-related listings, it should be left alone even if it doesn't currently have them; if not, the article likely doesn't fulfill the requirements of even the current version of wiaa.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the notion of if a skeleton article could have three travel-related listings, it should be left alone. This will just lead to 100s if not 1000s of empty articles. Clicking through multiple links in a region to find little or no information is just frustrating. Listing all settlements in the world is a task for Wikivoyage not a travel site. If I am visiting an area I would prefer to just read through pages with at least 4 or 5 entries. Better to have an area article or list on the region page. Once there is enough information then create the article. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Andre, I think some people could spend a happy 36 hours in Childs: Start at 7:00 p.m. with dinner at Tillman's. Sleep at the Fair Haven Inn. Spend the day wandering around the museum complex. (The formal tour takes two hours, but that doesn't mean that someone couldn't spend longer there.) Pick up lunch from Crosby's. Eat dinner at Tillman's again. Sleep again. Leave at 7:00 a.m., 36 hours later.
Now, whether we should have an article about a "town" that is actually just a cluster of buildings around one intersection inside Gaines, rather than an article that covers all of Gaines, is an open question, but I don't think it would necessarily fail a 36-hour test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, can we all please stop looking at everything exclusively through the reader's eyes? Not to say that they're not important, but let's face it: at the present moment we don't have a very good product to offer the reader. So we need to focus on expanding and improving our content before we get into anything to do with attracting more readers. And that means we need to think about the editor experience more so than the reader experience.
Now I already brought up the point about how much easier it is for newbies to deal with skeleton articles than redirects, and the response has been crickets chirping. Let me rephrase what I said before, this time in terms of two hypothetical scenarios involving a newbie editor.
Newbie Editor X lives in Small Town Y. He hears about Wikivoyage and decides to see what improvements he might make to the article about his hometown. He types "Small Town Y" into the search box and presses Enter, and then up comes an empty skeleton article. Newbie Editor X knows about a few interesting things to see and do, restaurants, and hotels in his hometown, and it's easy enough to figure out how to add them to the article: just click "add listing" next to the section title. Within a few minutes, the article for Small Town Y has a few listings and is on its way to being Usable.
Newbie Editor X lives in Small Town Y. He hears about Wikivoyage and decides to see what improvements he might make to the article about his hometown. He types "Small Town Y" into the search box and presses Enter, but instead of Small Town Y's article, he somehow lands on the article about Larger Region Z. Now that's all fine and dandy, but there's nothing specifically about Small Town Y in the Larger Region Z article, and Newbie Editor X has a lot of things in mind that he'd like to tell people about. What he really wants to do - what he was trying to do all along - is to write an article that's only about Small Town Y. But how? Small Town Y is a redirect, of course, but Newbie Editor X doesn't know what that means. It's all Greek to him. He keeps typing "Small Town Y" into the search box over and over again, but somehow Larger Region Z keeps coming up. He eventually gets frustrated and leaves. The end.
Now do you understand why skeleton articles are important?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess the third hypothetical scenario would be Newbie finding that Small Town Y is a redlink (probably the most common situation for small towns outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Not that I support outright deletion of all skeletons, but from my experience of wikis most newbies will plunge forward and start the article from scratch. It will have the wrong formatting but that's fair enough since they're new. I wonder how many people were first drawn to Wikivoyage because of wanting to improve coverage of their hometown as opposed to their region (state/province/county) or nation, a destination where they don't live or a completely different article like a travel topic or phrasebook. Gizza (roam) 23:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"I wonder how many people were first drawn to Wikivoyage because of wanting to improve coverage of their hometown" - I would say it's greater than the number who stumble across Wikivoyage in the course of looking for information on a vacation they're planning. We don't have the brand name recognition or Google search rank of a Lonely Planet or a Frommer's. As for the option of deleting all skeletons, I think the disadvantage of that is clear: in virtually every instance, those who plunge forward and forge articles out of redlinks end up creating stubs, which then have to be manually retrofitted into Template:Smallcity skeleton. With preexisting skeleton articles, that step is eliminated. I think having a few "annoying" (and are they, really?) skeleton articles in the interim is more than a fair tradeoff. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that outlines serve this important role. My favorite example is Rock Hill, which I created as a fairly barebones outline, and a few months later it was expanded substantially by a new IP editor who went on to improve many other articles in the region.
I think the suggestion of a 36-hour test (or some other variant—maybe a 24-hour test or even a 12-hour test if need be) seems feasible and might do a better job than the sleep test of capturing what makes a place interesting or important enough to merit an article. The fact that Childs only dubiously meets it is perhaps a sign that Childs is only dubiously big enough for an article—the article seems fine, but it's plausible that it could be covered perfectly well in a "rural area" article or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, a piece of my response to Traveler100 that I forgot to add: "This will just lead to 100s if not 1000s of empty articles" implies that, in hundreds if not thousands of cases, people will go to the trouble of creating article skeletons for small towns and then not bother to add information. I think this is a stretch. (Yes, Traveler100, I know you took issue in the past with me creating skeleton articles for the sole purpose of adding them to routeboxes. In some ways, you were right that it was a stupid thing to do and that's why I stopped doing it. That doesn't mean I think skeleton articles, even the ones I created, shouldn't exist. And also, I created 10, maybe 20 skeletons, not hundreds.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Granger - I think Ypsilon's three-listing test is a better measure than any time-based threshold. By their very nature, some attractions simply require more time to take in than others, and I don't think that really correlates with their worthiness for travellers. In fact, speaking on behalf of countless people I spoke to in the course of my work in the hotel industry: those who don't have a high tolerance for tacky tourist schlock might very well find themselves bored at the end of 36 hours in Niagara Falls, and I certainly don't think there's an argument for that not passing wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that a place only merits an article if all travellers would want to spend 36 hours there—just that some travellers might plausibly want or need to spend 36 hours there. I've never been to Niagara Falls, but from what I've heard about it, I imagine it must meet that standard, or at the very least the weaker 12-hour standard I suggested! Certainly some attractions require more time than others, but if a town is so lacking in attractions that no visitor would want to spend more than a few hours there, how can there be enough to say to fill a whole article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the majority of towns that would fail one test would also fail the other. I'm not saying it would be impossible to find a time limit that's a rough approximation of the threshold between worthy and unworthy articles; I just happen to think that when it comes to edge cases, number of listings is a better metric. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess the most important thing to remember is that any rule we come up with is just a rule of thumb, and there will always be edge cases and oddball destinations where we have to use our best judgment and make exceptions as needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see a fair number of empty articles started by people who just seem to want other people to do the work. I think they make Wikivoyage look bad. I agree with Andre that Ypsilon's three-pronged test is a better way of managing this that a time-being rule that would be subjective. The existing exceptions should be maintained where a location has one or two really good and well-explained listings. Ground Zero (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts I have on this discussion:
  • I like the Can you sleep there? test as a good first question (not as an absolute rule), but I’m fine with a three-listing guideline that Ypsilon mentioned, or using it in combination with an hours test or other rules of thumb we agree on. When considering whether a small place should have its own article, be lumped in with another guide or form part of a “rural area”, I usually find a need to consider a number of factors beyond the sleep test before deciding how to proceed.
  • I agree with Andre that empty or nearly empty skeletons shouldn’t be deleted if they could meet the test for wiaa for all the reasons he listed.
  • I don’t really like listings in non-bottom level destinations but I think it’s OK as a measure of last resort when it's not clear how the listing should be handled (i.e., can't determine whether it should have its own article, be part of a rural area or included in a existing nearby guide). I find listings in region guides can overwhelm the See/Do/Sleep/etc sections and it gives me the impression the region is about the listings and not the important stuff in the cities that do have their own guides. I’ve also found it sometimes leads to listings creep where listings are taken from a bottom-level region and added to the next level up. It’s fixable but creates janitorial work to clean up. -Shaundd (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
finding a better way of encouraging new contributors is something we need to look at and I agree once a redirect is made it is not clear to a newbie how to create a city page. We need to think about a better way of doing this (maybe some sort of recreate button?). But there are already over 3000 city pages without listings, does this site benefit from more? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Moldavia could be an example to think about. For readers, I think the current format is good, given our actual coverage, but is it ideal for newbie editors, either locals or tourists from abroad? Those would probably have info on places just mentioned (most redlinks have been unlinked) and places not even mentioned. I think creating a skeleton region subdivision with redlinks or skeletons for all article-worthy places is the last thing to do here, while encouraging creating and linking new guides also for those smaller places could work. The problem then is reaching the 9-threshold with small destinations without having intermediate ones even mentioned. The small ones may be so spread out that subregions would not help very much, meaning real work for some experienced editor. --LPfi (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Another example. Eltville] - has information on POIs in other villages in the area, namely Erbach, Hattenheim, Kiedrich and Walluf. Now all of these do have more than 3 possible listings (hotels, campsites, places to buy wine, ruins, hikes, restaurants, ....). In an ideal world we should put the effort in to create each of these pages and expand to all attractions in each. However it could be some time before this happens, so if we split this currently useful usable page we end up with 5 poor outlines with one or two listings in each. Is it not better to add to this page until the content is enough to start splitting into individual settlements? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding newbie editors and listings in rural areas (including sleep) and tiny places not deserving of articles, I’d like to share my own experience. When I first began editing here, Southeast Arizona (an area which I know very well) was the barest of outlines, and inexplicably a bottom-level region of another region (which really should be fixed, when I get around to it). I did not know how to create articles, nor did I know how to deal with the random skeleton articles for places which in my opinion did not warrant them. So I simply began filling out the city and region articles, placing listings where I saw fit. Later as I learned about this site’s regional hierarchy, the assertion by some others that rural regions should be classified as ‘city articles’ simply confused me (and to me still makes no sense).
Now, after 4½ years of active editing, I’m still unsure of the best way to handle this region. Ikan Kekek’s proposal of having two parallel articles, one as a shell container for the cities, and another just for the rural listings, I cannot see working here. Perhaps to ease confusion I should add city marker listings to the dynamic map, so that both individual listings and population centers are shown on the same map. Some of the other rural regions highlighted in the discussion above are in more densely populated areas, so perhaps there IK's solution would work. I’m not sure this could be applied to every rural region across the globe, however, which is why I like Traveler100’s proposed amendment to the draft policy.
My point is that I think there should be maximum flexibility to accommodate any potential newbie who may happen along and want to edit a given region but finds the imposed region structure nonsensical and then doesn’t know what to do with it and gives up. –StellarD (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Bottom articles such as city articles should still be the primary place to put information and if a newbie (or whoever) wants to put some effort into a new article about a small town, then (in the most cases) I'd say go for it. Even if they do not write much, the article shouldn't be merged or deleted without looking up the place in WP, on a map or satellite picture. Does it look physically possible that the city meets a low threshhold of e.g. three travel-related POIs? Or are we talking about a hamlet of 8 homes and a convenience store that nobody will ever be able to write a serious travel article about?
Different destinations and POIs need different solutions. For instance POIs that aren't officially located in one city, but are in practice always accessed through it, it can be considered part of this city. "Lone places" in the middle of nowhere that cannot be easily tied to a certain city with an article are the ones I'd like to see in the region articles. If the aforementioned hamlet happens to have one (or two) attraction(s), the attraction(s) would also go in the region article.
Then there's IMO also another aspect of rural listings, that StellarD just brought up. If we have a regional article about Region X, and under it some cities plus just one "Rural X" article that would geographically cover so much of its parent article that we would in practice have two articles about exactly the same area; one with and one without listings. Wouldn't it look sort of silly? This is why I'd rather have such listings in the regional article, having them look like Suriname's regions. BTW I also remember discussions about the lack of content in regional articles so this would to a small extent address this problem as well.
On the other hand, if we get a ton of listings in a regional article (I imagine this will rarely happen), we can do what we always do with articles that have grown large — subdivide it into several rural articles and move the listings there. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I think will happen if we allow listings only for rural areas in region articles: (1) A lot of readers will think that's all there is in the region, not realizing that there are more listings in city articles. Yeah, even if we tell them so, some of them will miss the notice while skipping through the article. (2) We'll constantly have to police the article to remove listings for places in cities and towns that do have their own articles. (3) We'll have to explain why it's fair to exclude such listings, denying city listings equal billing in a regional article when they are very often more important attractions to someone visiting that region.
The problem with maximum flexibility for editors is that it also means maximum work for patrollers. We've previously taken steps to create bright lines, such as the policies excluding non-primary external links, inline links to Wikipedia and links to all garden-variety tour agencies. This would be going in the other direction. Try it if you like, but be prepared to deal with the issues I lay out, and probably other ones I didn't think of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your predictions, Ikan Kekek. The question we should ask ourselves is whether such extra work for patrollers is justifiable by the improvements moving listings up the hierarchy would bring. Possibly not, as any extra patrol work by experienced editors is less time that those editors could be getting on with creating content, rather than managing other people's work. So if there is a move / consensus against the status quo (we're not there yet), then the city article-style 'rural district' articles, on the same level as city articles may be preferable. Either that or (throwing yet another option into the ring), having 'city plus' articles for rural areas, whereby a city / town and its surrounding countryside and villages are included in one article; this is something we already do to an extent.
As a point of transparency, I am always going to be in favour of pooling our content into fewer and better articles where possible (more meat and less bone or fat), to create an overall more complete-looking guide. In opposition to the idea that skeleton articles encourage new editors, while I don't doubt that does happen at times, it is usually the case that articles created as outlines stay that way for years and years, because we don't have enough editors such that we can rely on every country / region / city in the world having someone who knows the place and who is passionate about writing a great up-to-date article. A travel guide that has far fewer stubs and outlines, and more guides and stars, will always attract more readers, and those readers will be more likely to become editors, because success breeds success. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikivoyage is littered with empty articles that diminish the traveller's experience here. Special:ShortPages is filled with pages that tell the reader little more than "A is a village in B". Take a look at the 500th shortest article, Gračanica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). It says: "Gračanica is in Northeastern Bosnia, located east of Doboj and west of Tuzla." The article has been sitting around for five years now waiting for useful information to be added. The 1000th shortest article, Waynesburg (Pennsylvania), says "Waynesburg is a borough in Pennsylvania." It has been waiting for seven years for anything substantive to be added, and hasn't even been touched for the last 4½ years. And it's not some remote village in India or Siberia, it's in the United States, 50 miles (80 km) south of Pittsburgh.

Not all of the articles in the bottom 1000 are that sparse, but there are hundreds. (Maybe 10-15% are regional articles that contain links to only a few articles, but are useful for navigation.

I don't buy the conjecture that we are going to get many editors who start by editing their home towns and then become faithful contributors. It happens, but I think that most people who edit regularly do so because they are travellers who enjoy reading and writing about travel. I support continuing to put the traveller first. Ground Zero (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Copying my comment from Talk:Chora (Greece)#Merger? that's also apropos here:
"I think one element that's been missing from the ongoing policy discussion at the pub is the fact that getting an article to a place where its existence can be justified actually requires very little time and effort. Estimating liberally, it took me about half an hour of work to elevate Randolph (New York) from non-existent to Usable, and that's a situation where I took special care to craft good prose and be as complete as possible. Even if you multiply that by four villages on Alonissos, you still have a very easy fix that, more importantly, adds content - and I don't think there's any better way to put the traveller first [cf. Ground Zero's remarks above] than by doing that. In my opinion, no one has any business adding a merge tag to an article without at least trying to find content to add first."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We have the benefit of hindsight here. We know that although these articles have been around for years (Chora (Greece) has been around for almost a decade with almost nothing of value for the reader), no-one has turned them into useful articles. I also have been turning stubs into useful articles (Laguna San Rafael National Park, Campobello Island and Lane Cove National Park recently), but clearly we do hot have editors to deal with the thousand (?) empty articles that make Wikivoyage look like one of those business listing sites that just gather basic info and ask people to write reviews. Of course it is dead easy for anyone who opposes a merger to spend a few minutes to add a few listings to an article to shut down the merger discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. 2 years ago I started adding Sleep and See listings to articles that did not have them. Have done a few hundred in the United Kingdom and Germany and a few other places too. As of today only 6526 city articles left to do. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The point that is being made is that we shouldn't be overeager to propose merging everything. If it's dead easy to add a few listings to an article, whoever would propose a non-obvious merger should do that instead of trying to crusade for a merger, not leave it up to others. The time it takes you to discuss a merger or even do one without seeking a consensus - which you shouldn't do unless it's really obvious (e.g., a district guide for an otherwise undistricted city) - could be spent adding content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiaa starts off by identifying two principles, one of which is "Articles should be relatively self-sufficient so that travellers can print them out, put them in their back pocket, and use them for travelling around." The "A is a town in B" articles violate this fundamental principle. The old approach of proposing and discussing mergers has ensured that Wikivoyage is littered with non-articles. I would be more comfortable with having fewer mergers if we could agree that the empty stub articles can be redirected without discussion. Then we could focus on improving articles like Chora. And, as I've noted, those opposed to mergers can easily end the discussions by making the articles worth keeping instead of arguing on talk pages. It works both ways. Ground Zero (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
So can you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think some of us in this discussion are holding this site to an impossible standard. On any wiki, even huge ones like en:wp with behemoth populations of active editors, the work will by nature never be done. There will always be stubs, outlines, or whatever the local term for incomplete articles may be - that's just the nature of the wiki beast.
And, burying the lede a little bit here: though many people in this conversation are talking about how "readers are put off by seeing empty articles", "it makes them doubt the quality of our content", etc., I have yet to see any non-anecdotal evidence of this. In fact, the available evidence suggests the opposite: readership is growing, slowly but steadily, and the gap in Alexa rankings between us and Wikitravel is closing rapidly. Specifically, I would have to ask if the average reader even notices the abundance of skeleton articles. I think we can assume a correlation between reader traffic on a given page and editor traffic, and many of these skeleton articles don't have so much as a "hey, where can I find actual information about this place" on their talk pages. Other than those of us who seek them out intentionally, who exactly is being bothered by these skeleton articles? The one person every six days, on average, who stumbles across an article like Chora (Greece)? (And how many of those are actually people looking for information as opposed to editors clicking around the site idly, people who typed an incorrect search term, etc.?)
Perhaps someday there'll be a concerted effort, on the part of more than one editor working alone, to address this issue - it might make for a good cotm. But even if not, I think that even if only a tiny minority of skeleton articles ever see a meaningful amount of content added to them, the benefit of that still outweighs the drawback of the rest remaining skeleton articles indefinitely, especially if no one ever notices them anyway.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. To make a different point, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a status quo bias on this site, so those crusading to merge loads of articles have the burden of explaining why in each case and gaining a consensus. "Those of you who object to the crusade can add listings, thereby proving a merge is unwarranted" is not Wikivoyage policy or practice. So since it takes time to discuss and do mergers, I would again suggest that the amount of time devoted to this should be taken into consideration when deciding whether a particular merge proposal is important enough to make. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't mind near empty articles if there was a better way to encourage readers to add more content. We do have the outline template at the bottom requesting the reader to plunge forward and help it grow but on empty articles with the skeleton headings, the reader may not see that template unless they scroll or slide down. On Wikipedia stubs, you would see a similar template after 2 or 3 lines so it much more prominent. But I agree that Wikivoyage is growing anyway and am not too fussed if we either take an inclusionist or mergist approach. Gizza (roam) 23:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Article status[edit]

I'd be happy for all the article statuses to be moved to the top of the article if that could help in any way. I'm not sure how much work that would take - if there's a consensus behind this, would it be a simple thing for a bot to be programmed to do? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting our business (article status) ahead of the information the reader is looking for. Ground Zero (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. I suppose most likely contributors know what a wiki is anyway, and there are enough meaningless sites asking for contributions that a mere notice does not help. And if the notices are important, we should figure out what pages to link to – I think they are very unhelpful as of now. Why do they not explain what is missing? (it took me ages to learn how to find the status descriptions, and often tried to get at them via those links: very frustrating).
The current links explain our geographical hierarchy, discuss the merits and dismerits of outlines, present the templates, tell where to stick available info (first somewhat useful link for the one wanting to improve the outline), tell you may edit, and then how editing works technically. Does any of those present the info a newbie with knowledge about the destination needs, in a way that maximizes probability of engagement?
-LPfi (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback on Wikivoyage articles[edit]

I solicited some feedback on tea. I'd like to see what 1.) others think of the feedback presented, 2.) my method of trying to solicit feedback, and 3.) if anyone has better suggestions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It is an interesting way to solicit feedback. Thanks for plunging forward. I noticed that pageviews for the article went up substantially for a few days. I wonder how this would compare to articles posted on the Main Page (as DotM, OtBP, FTT or Discover) and to articles shared on other social media like Facebook and Twitter. The choice of subreddit would also make a difference. The question would potentially be just as relevant in the /travel/ subreddit. Other WV articles could be discussed in a subreddit dedicated to that city, country or region.
In terms of the feedback, I tend to agree with what a lot of what "cha_waan" said although it has to be said that unlike Wikipedia which follows NPOV, we follow being "fair" which allows personal opinions and original research to be stated within the article. I definitely agree that saying "XYZ tea is very good" doesn't add much value. This is a problem on many WV articles actually. Sometimes it is hard to talk about the difference between restaurants and hotels. Many listings end up saying "This hotel is nice and reliable" which doesn't reveal much. Gizza (roam) 21:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I, too, agree with a lot of what cha_wan says, except that I don't know if this can be turned into a reference guide as such. I think that we couldn't possibly cover the topic of tea sufficiently for really sophisticated, wealthy connoisseurs and also that we need to keep a specific focus on travel and on what styles of tea are typical and available in different parts of the world. I think there are indeed areas where the general level of the tea is better than others, and I also think that there are particularly good teas that are widely available in certain places. I guess I can try to describe the taste of Cameron Highlands tea from Malaysia a little more by memory, but beyond saying that it has a well-balanced flavor with a pleasant degree of natural sweetness, I don't know what else I could say. Perhaps some of our Malaysian contributors like User:Chongkian might be able to help more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The information about where tea-growing originated is a somewhat hedged summary from w:Tea, which makes sense to do, since Wikipedia is our sister site. See w:Tea#Origin and history:
Tea plants are native to East Asia, and probably originated in the borderlands of north Burma and southwest China. Statistical cluster analysis, chromosome number, easy hybridization, and various types of intermediate hybrids and spontaneous polyploids indicate that likely a single place of origin exists for Camellia sinensis, an area including the northern part of Burma, and Yunnan and Sichuan provinces of China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Regarding the method, I think this is really interesting and worth trying more. I wrote some related notes at w:en:WP:Stackexchange and Reddit a while ago, but haven't had time/energy to move it beyond that. I was particularly thinking of bi-directional work, between both article-content, reference desks, and the external sites (i.e. we should avoid just trying to get them to help us; we should also consider the possibilities of perhaps steering forum-style questions from readers, to them - perhaps via talkpage templates, or via wikiproject external link sections, or similar). Kudos for trying new things. I wish I could help, but am already backlogged in work and volunteer tasks, so I'll just encourage you (anyone) to take my notes and run with them, if you're interested. Build the web! :-) Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quiddity: Thank you. We really need to have best practices recorded at outreach:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Google has started up a travel guide[edit]

When googling a geographical place, I've suddenly been seeing a box with "things to do in X" and "X travel guide". Click on it and you get to see things like this.

So Google now has a travel guide too. But there's more to that. When you go look for some destination that's not a worldwide travel destination, like Iisalmi, the description is from our sister project Wikipedia. We use the same license as Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. What if we could somehow get Google to use some of our content and refer to us in their travel guides? That level of publicity could propel us far above the other site in the Alexa ranking, couldn't it? --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would google do that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Why would Google do what? Have a travel guide or link to us? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm... because our text is often better suited for a travel guide (when it comes to tone and content) than text from Wikipedia, which they now are using? --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
However it would be more likely that a large advertising company would come to a commercial arrangement with the other site (where their ads could be hosted), unless our site was say 100x bigger. AlasdairW (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
They have already decided to use content from Wikipedia, which does not accept ads, so we should not count ourselves out, especially as the other site's content is getting staler and staler. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
And they don't need to come to any financial arrangement with Wikipedia (or indeed with us) to use our content. If they wanted to reuse Tripadvisor / Rough Guide / travelling millennial instagram flavour of the month content, they would. It's at least worth trying, but does anyone know how to? Google are notoriously difficult to contact. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Most people still don't know that we exist. If you ask the average traveller with internet access to name up to 10 travel websites they know, Wikivoyage is not going to be one of them, unfortunately. WT is slightly more well known but declining as already said above. Google started integrating Wikipedia information into its search when Wikipedia was already a household name. And it seems to have actually reduced the number of WP pageviews (I remember reading an analysis on WP) because many people just read the summary brought up on Google instead of clicking on the link. I believe the second biggest WMF wiki is Wiktionary, and using information from Wiktionary could be useful too when people search for dictionary definitions but that hasn't happened yet. I think this is a long way away for Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that the fall in WP pageviews is a sign of a benefit to Google. People are now more likely to start their enquiry on Google rather than going straight to WP. So Google gets more pageviews, and an increased chance of an advertising link being clicked. Most WP pages usefully introduce the topic in the first sentence or two, but many of out articles do not - how useful would getting the first 100-200 characters of one our articles be?
If we are going to approach Google, we need find a way to pitch it as an opportunity for them to make money, or solve a specific problem that they have. AlasdairW (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage should be doing what's best for Wikivoyage, not what's best for Google. If Wikipedia experienced a net loss in page views as a result, I would just as soon not approach Google about this (and pray that they don't start including our information of their own accord). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
At Wikimedia there probably is someone who knows how to contact large organizations.
Google has of course set up a travel guide because they think there's a market for one. Travelers, as opposed to someone who's googling e.g. a person or a flower species, usually want to read more than just a paragraph about the destination (and its cuisine etc.), and this is where we would come in. Sure, many of these people would probably still use Google for attractions, restaurants, hotels but they would at least get to hear about our site. As it has been pointed out, we are not the most famous travel site on the Internet (let alone as famous as Wikipedia) and therefore I don't think we have anything to lose.
That said, if there's a risk that all this will do more harm than good let's not proceed with this further. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of being pedantic or arguing past the point, we should do what is best for the traveler as he comes first. That is not always identical to what is best for Wikivoyage or the WMF or whatever. I've no doubt you agree but want it stated for due diligence. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Justin, if Google reuses our data and that benefits the traveler, then it is a good thing. Our ultimate goal is not to get many pageviews, it is to get quality information under the eyes of those who need it :-) Syced (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that we had much say in it anyway, but it appears we probably lost before the battle was even fought. I just did a search for a city (not even looking for travel info) (it was Inverness, if you're curious), and Google's results included a preview box linking to their travel guide, followed by another summary box with a link to the other site. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata links to sub-topics[edit]

So e.g. with Taj mahal, I did this hack where I temporarily made it an empty page (from redirect to Agra#Taj_Mahal)- then I could put a link to wikidata, and thus we probably get another SEO point (due to link from wikipedia page)... Without this hack, wikidata tries to use the redirect target instead and fails, because Agra is already used elsewhere. I did similar thing already once or twice, so perhaps it's good time to confirm that nobody minds too much. :) (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The way to create a link from a Wikipedia page to a listing is first to add the wikidata number to the listing on Wikivoyage then add the Wikivoyage template on the Wikipedia page with the name of the destination page. The link will automatically add a section tag to jump to the correct place in the article. See w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
On a related but different topic, does anyone know why some monuments or "Wonder of the World" type articles have redirects to their respective destinations, like Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty while others like Colosseum, Hagia Sophia, Terracotta Army and Christ the Redeemer don't? Some of them such as Angkor Wat, Pyramids of Giza and Machu Picchu are so big that they have their own articles which is fair enough and others like Alhambra are disambiguation pages. Gizza (roam) 21:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty, these were originally created as stub articles in 2007, and later turned into redirects. Terracotta Warriors is also a redirect, but was created as such. There are several "Christ the Redeemer" statues around the world (most in Brazil) so this would need to be a disambiguation page. AlasdairW (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for that. On the one hand, you don't want to go overboard but on the other there may be an SEO benefit in redirecting the redlinks above and a few others like Sydney Opera House and Leaning Tower of Pisa. Gizza (roam) 11:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No, we will just end up with thousands of these. There is nothing wrong with the current search which will list the pages those attractions are mentioned on. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It is still arbitrary as to why we have some of these but not others. Potala Palace, Palace of Versailles, Burj kalifa and Temple Mount are some more redirects that I found. Burj Khalifa isn't even spelt correctly, and the correct spelling doesn't redirect. If there is no consensus to have more of these, I don't believe we should have any at all. Gizza (roam) 20:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Do not think it is arbitrary. The ones that exist have been created with content then merged to where they should be. Either because who did it could not delete or a general preference by some to merge and redirect rather than copy and delete. Assuem so that history of edits are kept. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiaa says "If an attraction or an event is really famous, and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the appropriate destination article, and put the actual description of the attraction in the destination article. For example, Taj Mahal redirects to Agra and Burning Man redirects to Black Rock City." That seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point, and make sense. I think Sydney Opera House and Tower of Pisa should not need a redirect page :-). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mx. Granger, that seems to make the most sense although there still seem to be some exceptions. Palace of Versailles redirects to Versailles even though it should be obvious where it is. Terracotta Warriors was made as a redirect straight away. It wasn't an article of its own then merged. Gizza (roam) 21:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this is somewhat confusing :) w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings contains a sample with the template Wikivoyage template, but the w:Eiffel Tower article actually contains sisterlinks|d=Q243|voy=Paris/7th arrondissement|n=no|b=no|v=no|m=no|mw=no|species=no|q=no, because of ... So what gives, is Koavf just some bot? Also, I never before noticed the 'sister projects' box at the bottom (but maybe for google it probably doesn't matter) :-/ (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Sisterlinks template works the same. For Wikivoyage voy=Paris/7th arrondissement is the article name and it automatically adds the wikidata number to the link so that it jumps to the correct part of the page (Paris/7th_arrondissement#Q243). This was actually set up because Wikidata admins do not want links to redirects. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, User:Koavf, are you a bot? ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC), Pigsonthewing: query:{koavf=bot}?; return=false. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Shapes on maps etc.[edit]

  • Recently I have been working on a template and module that allows one to create a single mapframe or a single maplink that actually draws a shape such as a cirle, cog, cross, star, boxframe etc. of varying colors and sizes to be displayed on a map.- This builds Kartographer code and does not replace any of our existing excellent templates and intended only to add to working with maps. These shapes can be output as a polygon or line in GeoJSON. In addition, there is the capability to place a Maki icon (GeoJSON Point - pick your color and symbol) on a map using maplink. One can also create a maplink that does not appear on an article page and is hidden though its marker (Maki icon with image and description) will appear on map. One can create a mapshape from OSM using a wikidata id or bring in a page from Commons. This also uses the group and show parameters (Helps keep things together). See: User_talk:Matroc/Mapdraw2 if interested. -- Matroc (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Very interesting. I think one of the common use cases for this will be to overlay a map with lines (metro lines or key roads), and it will be best to do this via OpenStreetMap data directly rather than generating a custom file each time (as you did for Israel Highway 1). Could you put together an example where this is done? Ar2332 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't access OSM directly but rather through Wikidata using an id to find an entry. In the Wikidata entry the OpenStreetMap Relation identifier is used to access OSM. No Wikidata entry found by id or no OSM Relation identifier in the Wikidata entry then basically out of luck. (I doubt very seriously that one would find many metro lines or key roads available in Wikidata; even fewer with an OpenStreeMap Relation id). I did manage to find one instance (after searching wikidata)Trans-Siberian Railroad which is not really inadequate for the Trans-Siberian Railroad article in Wikivoyage. We had used at first GPX files and then the idea came about to create data files in Commons to produce GeoJSON needed and usable by many. (I think even this may now be under some contention?). In some cases, users have created the data needed and entered/coded them within a particular article page by hand. To check out streets and roads closer, there are external maps available that might assist as well. -- Matroc (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Metro lines might be doable. I checked OSM and it had the Wikidata IDs for Vancouver's three rapid transit lines. Using {{mapshape}} and type=geoline, I was able to add the two lines that pass through downtown Vancouver to the Vancouver/City Centre map. But yeah, it requires the OSM Relation identifier for the metro line (or highway) to have the corresponding Wikidata ID entered in OSM, so it may not work very often.
GeoJSON data files can be stored on Commons, but the source of the data needs to be in the public domain... which is hard as OSM data is licensed under the Open Database License and most countries (other than the United States) license their data under an Open Government License. -Shaundd (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) -- Thanks Shaundd - Matroc (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Works great! Most metro lines in the world do seem to have Wikidata IDs and OSM paths already, and the two can be linked where necessary.
Is there a way to change the color of the line? Stroke and fill attributes didn't seem to work... Ar2332 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would leave a note on the Talk page for Template:Mapshape and ask if parameter stroke' could be added. -- Matroc (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to remove all the RelatedSites links[edit]

Back in the WikiTravel days, we used an extension called RelatedSites to create interwiki links to Commons and Wikipedia in the sidebar. We now have these links created semi-automatically by Wikidata. See, for example, the sidebar at United States. It has a sidebar section called "In other projects" which links to the Commons category, the Wikipedia article and various other wikis. It then has a redundant "Related sites" section which again links to the Commons category and the Wikipedia article. The first section is created automatically via the Wikidata site links. The second section is created by links that are hard-coded into the WikiText of the Wikivoyage United States page. There is no reason for us to have both and the WMF would love to stop maintaining the RelatedSites extension and remove it. Before they can do that though, we need to remove all the hard-coded links, otherwise they will turn into regular red-links in the articles. Is anyone interested in creating a bot to do this? Are there any concerns with doing this? Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikidata links only work well when there is a 1:1 relationship between WV and WP articles - which is most but not all articles. For instance see Lynton and Lynmouth. I think that we first need to consider how handle links in these cases - maybe a text box in "Go next", which could allow more than one link in such cases. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea (and how most other projects handle such cases). Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to list pages using the relatedsites option like [[Wikipedia:United States of America]]? Any chance of generating a category when used so we can check against wikidata entries and Category:Articles without Wikipedia links (via Wikidata). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Right now, the only method is to search (example), but that probably isn't very useful for bots. I'll create a Phabricator task to add such pages to maintenance categories (which will require a bit of hackery since these are just links rather than templates). Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Useful search syntax, thanks. Thinking about this more I have another idea. We could replace the link entry in all articles with a template which has the same name reference to Wikipedia. The template however checks via Wikidata if the Other Project link is the same, if so does not create a related link, if not it creates the related sites link or an inline see also link. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In any case, I don't think we can completely eliminate the need to have extensions which the ability to place links into the sidebar. We used to have three different extensions placing different sidebar links, mw:extension:RelatedArticles, mw:extension:RelatedSites and mw:extension:Insider. The related articles extension was replaced with another extension (with, confusingly, the same name) which places the links at the bottom of the page. Wikidata is a partial replacement for RelatedSites, but only a partial replacement - as it only handles the case wher'e there's a 1:1 correspondence between Wikivoyage and another project. Insider (Wikivoyage:Docents) has no replacement. As such, the claims that WMF "won't have to maintain this anymore" are badly premature. If anything, I would've liked to see an extension created that replaces all three by allowing the tag to contain the more general "add sidebar link to section X with title Y and link target Z" instead of arbitrarily abandoning all page-specific sidebar links. K7L (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How common is it that Wikivoyage pages don't have correspondence on other projects? I imagine that would be rare. It's important to understand that there is a real cost to keeping the RelatedSites extension maintained. Even if no features are added and no bugs are fixed, the code still has to be kept up to date with newer versions of MediaWiki and PHP, sometimes requiring significant refactoring (for example, the recent shift to extension registration). Because the WMF is such a small organization, that means not having as much time and resources to work on other projects that will be of much more benefit to Wikivoyage, like maps. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As a first step how about using {{RelatedWikipedia}}. The [[Wikipedia:pagename]] could be replaced by {{RelatedWikipedia|pagename}} in all articles. This template is currently set to do the same thing, but also creates some administration categories we can use to check page links. It can then later be changed to use different method of showing the link and not duplicating the link if the same as the Other projects link in the sidebar. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a really nice idea! Should we do the same for Commons links? Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes can set that up too. Can run a bot to make the change but would like some input from other regular contributors before doing so. This will edit most articles on the site but initially will not change anything about how the page looks or works. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know what the #invoke:Wikidata syntax is to retrieve Commons link for a page? Sometimes it is under Other Sites commons, sometimes under P373 (Commons Category).--Traveler100 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Think will have different templates for referencing a Commons page and an Commons category. {{RelatedCommons}} and {{RelatedCommonsCat}}. have not work out the correct syntax yet to get commons page, but have written bot to make change if/when decide to go with this. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Commons category is almost (but not quite always) much better to link to than the Commons page, as it tends to be where all of the relevant photos are (or at least are linked from, in subcategories). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree but first step would not change what decision someone has made. It will however create categories so you can easily find and go through the articles referencing the Commons page rather than the category. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
OK worked out the code for Commons page from Wikidata. Templates and bot ready to go if other think we should change the syntax (but at this point no change to page or function). --Traveler100 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There are just under 7000 pages with a Dmoz link, should I get the bot to remove it from all articles?
Yes, please. I tried to save DMOZ but it's a dead issue. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree, there were some tentative efforts to save DMOZ, but I think it's best to remove those links now. Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First step - test sample[edit]

Updated the pages and categories in Category:North America. Please check, if no issues found will in later (say 12 hours) start the bot on the rest of the site.

First interesting result is the categories are showing links that are either redirect pages or no longer existing categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A large number of articles with Wikipedia links different to Wikidata are due to the moving of Wikipedia pages so are pointing to redirects. I am trying to find a programmatic way of checking this but cannot get Module:Redirect to work across projects. See Template:RelatedWikipedia/sandbox. Anyone with an idea? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: That might be tricky to solve. Any idea how common that is? Would it be feasible to just put those cases into a special category for a human to review and make a decision? Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say about 25% of Wikipedia sidebar references do not match the Wikidata name. Of those most, maybe 90% but that is what is difficult to check, are just a different because of a move/redirect. The rest are reference to close but not exact articles on Wikipedia. I am splitting those that are difference to the wikidata name but differentiating within that group I have not found a way yet. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there are also some weird links like Special:Search/Alamosa, Colorado. I assume those should either be changed to a category or removed. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
First step done. Related sites controlled by templates. Now need to check and clean up the data and look at changing how handled and displayed. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove RelatedWikipedia[edit]

What is the purpose of {{RelatedWikipedia}}? We already have "In other projects" followed immediately by "Related sites". Just remove related sites entirely, since we are not linking DMOZ or Citizendium and Commons and Wikipedia are linked as other projects... What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The long term aim is to get rid of the Wikipedia link in articles. This template is the first step. There are a number of articles that do not have a direct equivalent WIkipedia page but have a [[Wikipedia:relatedpagename]] link to a similar and useful page. Simply removing the link from all articles would remove that information. Swapping the link to the template allows us first to see how many of these there are. Also with a very minor change to the template can automatically removed "Related sites" entries that are exactly the same as "In other sites" entries. The current running update chances nothing in the pages but set up a template that allows for quick changes. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a perfect thing for d: in the future. It's possible to have a property like "Wikivoyage fallback" and define where users should be pointed on en.wp in case there isn't a single one-to-one corresponding article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Next step[edit]

@Traveler100, Koavf, AlasdairW: Now we need to get the Wikivoyage community to empty out all of these maintenance categories by reviewing and syncing the Wikidata entries (before the RelatedSites extension is turned off):

Any idea how we can drum up volunteers to do that? Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, RelatedSites may be turned off fairly soon. If you want to comment on this, go to mw:Talk:Code stewardship reviews/Feedback solicitation/RelatedSites. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe at d:Wikidata:Project chat? I mean, I can help too. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Well we could reschedule Cotm activities. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Any idea how to pragmatically identify redirects on another project? --Traveler100 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
If the RelatedSites gets turned off before all the categories get cleaned up can easily change the template to show Wikipedia and Commons links in a box at the bottom of pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The wikitext editor needs to be altered, as at the moment it has Sidebar Templates: which give the two templates which we are no longer using. Either the new related templates should be substituted or these two should just be removed. Unfortunately I don't know anything about how this can be done.
I went ahead and removed the templates from the editor (after no one responded to my comments on the talk page). Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that we also need to get others involved in the discussion about what form the replacement links should take, then the related templates can be altered to achieve this. And thank you to Traveler100 for all the hard work on the new templates. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I changed your comment to have auto-updating numbers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Traveler100, Koavf, AlasdairW: Looks like no one is migrating the links. Any chance we could start a community drive to fix these? Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Kaldari: For what it's worth, I did take a look at a few of these awhile ago. What do you propose is the solution to (e.g.) Beech_Forests_of_Europe? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Koavf: For that one, I would just remove the RelatedWikipedia link (since it's pointing to an outdated redirect). Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The redirects, generally to the correct page, are a problem. There are a large number of them and I cannot see an automatic method of identifying, checking and/or correcting them. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Traveler100: My suggestion would be: If the page is in Category:Articles with Wikipedia links different to Wikidata and the RelatedWikipedia link points to a redirect, just remove the RelatedWikipedia link, under the assumption that the Wikidata link is more up to date. This might not be 100% accurate, but it will be right most of the time. Then we can manually fix the ones that are left. Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • But I cannot see a method in template or with AWB script to identify a redirect in a sister project link. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think you would have to write a proper bot for that (that used the MediaWiki API to check for redirects). Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So there are a number of pages with related Wikipedia links that are to article that are not direct equivalents but of interest. Please take a look at this as a method of handling it. Removed need for Related on sidebar and provides a method of marking checked articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What's up with the map that has been added to a bunch of articles[edit]

What's up with this map that has popped up in articles like rail travel in the US lately. It seems like a partial copy from Google Maps has a pretty low resolution and some weird artifacts. Should it be kept, improved or removed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The file seems to be a screenshot of this page, which is directly referenced in the item description. Copyright is most likely not an issue: WikiVoyage, Wikidata and Wikipedia are the referenced sources and the site itself seems to be a tool linking to Wikimedia data. I'd rather see the page itself linked to and the screenshot made into a proper map file if the author is okay with that. The author posted an announcement on their facebook page four hours ago for this project, and I therefore assume the uploader of the screenshot (User:Jkan997) is them.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks - Wauteurz - are right, the map is preview of the interactive map with content on CC licenses ( + OSM background). It has nothing to do with Google Maps. Regarding the look - I am open to suggestions what to change - the idea of the map is to give impression what use will able to find on interactive map. Nevertheless there are elements of the map that even without going to interactive map - Alaska Railways, some minor systems (ie. Metrolink in LA) and in case of longer relations it possible to read relation by color code from map (ie. California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset limited). If there is no better map I suggest this one to be left on the article.

--Jkan997 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The original map found under the link is useful. The screenshot less so, as it is too general for the shorter range systems and contains too many unexplained symbols (including no meaning for the colors being given) for an overview. Maybe the whole thing could be transformed into a WV style dynamic map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback Hobbitschuster, Wauteurz - from technical perspective it is not possible to include interactive map to article (too big dataset). Also right now map has train list, but it will also include features like filtering byt train type (sleeper, intercity, commuter, toursist). Generaly ShareMap Traveler site is intended to be what ShareMap is for wikipedia - geospatial enviroment. Maps contains a lot of Wikivoyage data and links user back to Wikivoyage so it can be treated as just different way of displaying Wikivoyage. I agree you that the map itself does not contains too much value without description. So I can suggest two solutions

Use direct interwiki link with thumbnail

Passenger trains in North America

PROS: user see what he will see after clicking

CONS: user can be little misleaded that he will redirected from WV site (however because this is inter wiki not external link this is permitted from Wiki rules perspective)

Use textual link

Interactive map of Trains in North America

PROS: small, non intrusive

CONS: Can be easily skipped and user will not see informations.

Use image with Interwiki link in description

Passenger trains in North America (interactive map)

PROS: user see what he will see after clicking

CONS: after clicking on image (not link) user will see the enlarged image that is not very useful.

Waiting for your comments. --Jkan997 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hobbit. As you might know, we have our own dynamic maps here on Wikivoyage, and I think that I speak on behalf of most of us when I say that it's better to work the information given into one of those maps and leave a link to the ShareMap in Rail travel in the United States. Placing a link to the ShareMap on every article in the US that has a rail connection is very much unnecessary. If you must link to it, give the articles of cities and towns along the lines a Routebox and link Rail travel in the United States from there. Information about the running stock and whatnot can be listed in there as well, as is the case in Rail travel in the Netherlands#Trains and rolling stock. The biggest stations can be listed as {{marker|type=go|}} to give the reader a sense of location. I think the best option is to simply link the ShareMap in Rail travel in the United States#Further reading.
Also, a small sidenote: redirecting from enWikivoyage or any WMF site for that matter to ShareMap as you describe in your first stated option is not an interwiki link. Interwiki links refer to links between WMF projects, so enWikivoyage to nlWikivoyage or enWikipedia to deWikiquote.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Wauteurz - for clarification ShareMap is interwiki (there are two types of inter wikis foundation and non foundation sites). There was long acceptance process to include it interwiki list. Regarding Netherland map - the thing that is missing on for me on NL map are lines, I know that they can added on dynamic maps - and this can work for smaller countries, but for US the shape will be too complex. Also I agree for you that including map in every city with rail station will not make sense--Jkan997 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
Alright, I am not saying that Rail travel in the Netherlands needs a likewise dynamic map. It might be a good addition, but it is by no means necessary. What I meant was:
I hope this clarifies.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes this clarifies a lot - thanks Wauteurz for your feedback --Jkan997 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:New Taiwan dollar[edit]

Hi there.

Can someone explain to me why we are using this template, which shows the converted dollar value in brackets? Why do we prefer USD over GBP or EUR? I reckon the English WV is actually used more by non-US people than US (this is just a matter of numbers not preference), and also it is the major source for British folks. This additional value is just taking up space, is even confusing, and pretending that USD has any additional relevance in this country, which it does not.

So, unless we are also including GPB and EUR, I would like to remove it. Any objections?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should create a new one based on format of others. See Template:Exchangerate/list. For example using {{ZAR|100}} will show R100 which gives currency rates on mouse over. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This was one of many currency-related templates created by a new user in violation of our policy on introducing new templates (and as I understand it, that user went on to try to unilaterally alter our template policy after being called out). They should be deleted en masse. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Andre. When I was updating exchange rates for our country, territory and dependency articles that include them, I found these special currency templates to be a pain to update. I would be happy to see them deleted.
The only ones that should be kept are those for currencies used in many countries (euro, US $, UK £, CFA franc, Eastern Caribbean $, Aus $ and NZ$). These templates (which I created with help from the much-missed Ryan) make it easier to update exchange rates and ensure that we use the same rates scriss articles. Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that the African Francs are tied to the Euro, is it possible to have them automatically update when the € updates? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Reverted those weird NTD template edits. Ceever (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If you need fr:Module:Prix/Data exists, updated by a bot everyday.--Adehertogh (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this possible?[edit]

Is there any easy way to generate a list of all the articles that have been defined as being located within a certain much larger area in the geography hierarchy? for example, a quick list of ALL articles about destinations in Southern Italy, or a quick list of ALL articles about destinations in the Bay Area, or maybe even a quick list of all articles in a very big country like Russia? Would I have to copy and past names from the categories in order to assemble such lists? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: Trying a category like Category:India would do. :)
-Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
But it Category:India doesn't actually contain India. :/ I've been reverted on this here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC) is what you're looking for. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Or with fields set so Southern Italy --Traveler100 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania 2018 call for submissions now open[edit]

On behalf of the program commmittee of Wikimania 2018 - Cape Town, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting proposals for workshops, discussions, presentations, or research posters to give during the conference. To read the full instructions visit the event wiki and click on the link provided there to make your proposal:

The deadline is 18 March. This is approximately 6 weeks away.
This year, the conference will have an explicit theme based in African philosophy:

Bridging knowledge gaps, the ubuntu way forward.

Read more about this theme, why it was chosen, and what it means for determining the conference program at the Wikimedia blog. Sincerely, Wittylama 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Haiti blurb[edit]

Please see here for the discussion. I think this deserves more eyeballs. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hobbitschuster (talk) for putting this over here. Yes, please more view points would be great. Specially from anyone that has been to Haiti in the past 3 years. Developing countries change quickly and it's not fair to have a label stick for life. This is not the mainstream media, we should be more in tune with what represents a travelers interest, not a political narrative. The very nature of a travel wiki is that unlike a guidebook from 2001 it can be updated ;) and updated again if the situations changes!
J-wonder (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This really should be moved to Talk:Haiti with the inbound link from Wikivoyage:Requests for comment instead of misusing one user's personal talk page for this sort of community discussion. K7L (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
certainly not Talk:Haiti as the blurb is to be found at Caribbean. I also don't understand how contacting a user who reverted a change via their talk page counts as "misusing" said talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, Talk:Caribbean is the appropriate venue and pointers to discussions go in Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. K7L (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
well regardless of where the discussion is had can anybody please address the issue. Not even User:Ibaman who made the initial revert has said why he thinks it justified. I don't think this is a good way to deal with a good faith newbie editing articles on an area where our coverage is lacking. And I can see the argument that Haiti's poverty might not be the most salient feature for a blurb. But apparently nobody wants to actually discuss this, instead we ate wasting time about which talk page this does or does not belong on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, when I reverted said edit, I wrote on the summary "rv per Be fair. Haiti is indeed very poor and still very much wrecked by the natural disasters. Whitewashing the situation is not fair." The usual news that come to me from Haiti are mostly about the UN peacekeeping force, that has a significant presence of Brazilian Army men. I have the opinion that, from the Wikivoyager's point of view, this is a fair viewing of the facts on the ground, and therefore justified, even if not wholly compliant to our WV:Avoid negative reviews and WV:Tone policies. And I must say I'm glad the community is concerned, and actively discussing the issue, with the sole intention of building the online travel guide of superior quality. Ibaman (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tocumen International Airport[edit]

This page for the main airport of Panama City was created as a stub recently. On the Talk Page an "otherstuffexists" argument is made via comparison to Gimhae International Airport, which indeed has similar numbers and is actually smaller than Jeju Airport for which no article exists. I think we should either make this airport into a proper article with template and whatnot or merge it back to Panama City. I have had one or two layovers at PTY, but that does not necessarily mean much... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's not going to be deleted I would be happy to take some degree of ownership over this. It's not just that "otherstuffexisits" it's also that the metric for saying we should only have "Huge" stuff on here is based on where the biggest populations exist in the world. This region is small population wise, so therefore the numbers should reflect that and they do. Airports are important, whether they are comfortable or not they are usually the first access point for a traveler.
The airport does qualify for "Article criteria"
J-wonder (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm really unconvinced Gimhae International Airport should have its own article. Sure, it's a useful article in some ways, but how is it a more important or complex airport than someplace like John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California? I'm satisfied that there is enough traffic at Tocumen to let the article develop, but in no way would I like to see articles for every medium-sized airport with uncomplicated transportation within and to and from the airport and few things to do while there. I think the article on Stansted is probably justified by the information about sleeping overnight there for early flights, since it's so far out of London, but while I'm OK with a degree of expansion of the number of airport articles, I think we should be cautious about going too far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes there is certainly a slippery slope involved. We redirected Hamburg Airport a few months or so ago due to it being too minor. The more airport articles we have, the likelier it becomes that we will one day have an airport article for an airport that is no longer served by any flights or where flights have vastly decreased. I also find it kind of bizarre that Gimhae has an article but Jeju does not... Maybe there is some logic to that, I don't know, I'm not a Korea expert... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this was discussed somewhere, but Jeju is an "end of the line" airport serving an extremely popular tourist destination just like is the case with McCarran International Airport. I.e. in practice nobody transfers there, but the airport is used for people going to and from the destination. Panama Tocumen on the other hand is to my understanding the most important transfer hub between Mexico and Sao Paulo.
When it comes to the number of airport articles, I think we're starting to have a little too many of them and should pull the emergency break and probably delete some of them. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Busan pretty "end of the line" as well? It has domestic flights to Seoul and Jeju, so it is unlikely to be part of a domestic connecting itinerary and it has few international flights and I wouldn't know of any not available via Seoul. Plus the airlines will inevitably lose the competition with KTX reducing flights to Seoul. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Busan is to some extent used for transit but it's not exactly a global hub. What do you say, Andrew? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the editor who created the article seems to not be active on WV any more :( Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Showcasing Pyeongchang Olympics article on the Main Page[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Main Page

April 1st[edit]

See Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#2018

A few proposals, and I'll consider stubbing 2, if I can.. However, I'll need some input from others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One idea is a developing stub at User:ShakespeareFan00/Nano-tourism , I'd need some ideas ( or sci-fi references to consider). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Discouraging New Wikivoyage Editors[edit]

Hi! Why is it necessary for the Wikivoyage community to be so discouraging to new members?

Today is only my second day as a participant in the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018, and less than 10 days as a Wikivoyage member, yet already two members have felt it necessary to run me to ground for adding a library to the cities I was editing. The document Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it clearly shows that libraries, colleges, universities, and schools are allowed, but apparently these members, with many edits under their belts, feel the need to point out that I am wrong to list them. Even more absurd is both of them felt the need to welcome me to the community, and then tell me I screwed up (when I actually hadn't).

Which leads me to wonder:

  • Why is every edit I make being put under such a large microscope?
  • Shouldn't the Wikivoyage community be actually welcoming to the new editors and edit-a-thon participants?
  • How is Wikivoyage going to retain these new editors when they are immediately pounced upon?
  • Did the editors (patrollers?) who apparently have nothing other to do than minutely inspect newbie edits really join Wikivoyage to do nothing other than play "gotcha"?
  • When was the last time these editors (patrollers?) actually created new content, created new articles on the site, and/or formally made improvements to articles?

I see the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 as a tremendous opportunity for the Wikivoyage community to expand the number of editors, but if this is the way that new community members are being treated, do you think that any of them will really stick around after earning their Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon barnstar? Will they even stick around to complete the challenge? Yes, the Wikivoyage policies need to be upheld, but these editors (patrollers?) definitely do not make being an editor here fun.

Please encourage and gracefully correct the many (hopefully) new editors who have shown up because of the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 challenge. Doing so will only create a better site in the long run.

Respectfully, Zcarstvnz (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked over your edit history, and regretfully I have to say that what you see as "members running you into the ground" could more reasonably be seen as nothing more malignant than experienced editors offering gentle guidance to a less experienced editor. Obviously we welcome contributions from newbies, otherwise we wouldn't be having an Edit-a-thon. But the other side of the coin is newbies need to be willing to respect that there's a certain way things are done around here, to understand that it's that way for a good reason, and to be counselled when they (understandably) make missteps that come from inexperience. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
While some of the traffic being brought in by the edit-a-thon is harmful or vandalism, I am seeing a w:WP:BITE or two being taken out of newbies: this for example. A link to WP is perfectly legit if it's made from a {{listing}} but, instead of turning the paragraph into a listing in this instance, an experienced editor has merely stripped out the inline WP links and treated everything the new user has contributed as wrong. I looked at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, the policy stick which was being wielded in that instance, and what I saw looked badly out of date - mw:extension:RelatedSites as the primary or only way to link to WP? Isn't that being deprecated? We do need to be a bit more cautious here, instead of endlessly insisting "but that's the way we've always done this". K7L (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's awkward for new editors and patrollers. I mean, I just looked at this edit to Australia, and I thought there were so many ways it could be improved. Its a bit encyclopedic, couple of typos, a bit technical for a traveller, and I think I could rewrite it better. But I left it. Maybe I'll go back another day. But it's hard to do. I'd be really interested in what Zcarstvnz thinks we could do to encourage editors like them to stay. Do we give an explanation? Do we leave well intentioned new edits alone for a week - there is plenty of stuff here to copyedit if we have the time? WDYT? --Inas (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
K7L, my bad, but I'm frankly unclear on where to put the Wikipedia tab into a listing. It would be a hell of a lot simpler if we had it automatically appear in every listing template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the edits that User:Zcarstvnz made to the Schaumburg article remain in the article. In any collaborative project, contributors have to accept that their work is going to be edited by others. Ikan and I both explained our edits on his/her talk page. We were trying to gracefully correct and encourage the new editor. I would welcome any suggestions on how to do that better next time. I have posted a follow-up message on the editors talk page. Anyone can check our contribution history to see what content we've added and what articles we've created. I keep a list of the latter on my user page. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In response to User:Inas, I think the best ways to begin to retain new editors are twofold: patience and encouragement.

Patience. If a newbie (including myself) is working on a page and a more experienced user comes along and starts changing things simultaneously, this is very frustrating. Before I am posting anything I am looking at other Wikivoyage pages, and there may be a gap of time between posts in the same edit session. Should well intentioned new edits be left alone for a week during the edit-a-thon? I imagine that's too long, but giving editors, especially new editors, the freedom to create new content during the edit-a-thon, even if it has incorrect elements (style, wording, format) without being reedited by a patroller for a couple of days would probably be appreciated. As long as they are not vandalizing or causing harm, couldn't the "perfect" page formatting wait a few days, and let the editor create in peace? The edit mentioned by User:K7L this is the perfect example. Fifteen minutes after making the edit in question, someone was there correcting something (that appears to have actually been okay). Isn't this an edit-a-thon and not a correct-a-thon? This morning I created too red links on purpose. I haven't had the time to go and create the necessary pages to support them, but I intend to do so in the next couple of days. Shouldn't there be some leeway to give the edit-a-thon members some extra time to work toward filling in the content like this, and not have someone immediately go and remove the red links?

Encouragement. I have no idea how many editors or new editors are participating in the edit-a-thom, but I imagine someone or a group of administrators are tracking this statistic. Have these editors and new editors been welcomed to the edit-a-thon? Have they been thanked for completing their first 4000 byte update to the site, or at some other interval? I am not talking about the standard Wikivoyage welcome, but an actual message from someone that they might be able to go to for assistance, as opposed to an anonymous account (like this one). A mentor is probably too strong of a word, but just knowing that someone can help is encouraging in itself. But part of encouragement is also having revisions and edits made by other members actually be correct. The adding of schools and libraries that I was told was incorrect is one example. If the patrollers revoke a change, but they are consistently incorrectly revoking, this is actually discouraging. Shouldn't the patrollers be experts at what is allowed to avoid frustrating the community and especially those who have joined the site specifically because of the edit-a-thon?

I hope this is helpful, and is obviously just my perspective from having been here less than two weeks. Respectively, Zcarstvnz (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Zcarstvnz. Thanks for your contributions, for joining us, and for coming to talk to the rest of us about your experience. I hope that you decide that you like us and will stay. We're small enough that we don't have people who just patrol other contributors' work: everyone's a content contributor, and some of us do other things, too.
I think some of this is easy: edit conflicts are painful and cause lost work, and it's a good idea to avoid them whenever possible. (For folks watching edits, some research suggests that a 30-minute gap since the last saved edit is usually the minimum safe distance.)
Some of this is also complicated. For example, you've given the example of adding a listing for a library above. On the good (great!) side, you added information about free internet access at the library; on the irrelevant side, you added information about interlibrary loans, which (a) basically every public library in America offers but which (b) is strictly unavailable to travelers to Schaumburg. Some of it's also not clear: can non-residents realistically use those children's DVDs? I've lived in places where travelers were able to check books out of the public library, and in places where they're not, as well as in places where DVD players were available on site and places where they weren't. So looking at this from the POV of an actual traveler, I'd personally include the library, remove the interlibrary loans, and try to clarify the media-viewing situation (and maybe make sure, if you haven't already, that the library's internet access doesn't require logging in with your library card number). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
My message to you was (a) not just the standard Wikivoyage welcome, but also contained specific remarks from me; (b) you don't need to know my personal name to be able to communicate with me, so I don't understand your point about "anonymous accounts" at all. My record is all there in my edit history. I don't reject criticism, but I kind of feel like you are asking for something close to perfection from longtimers. We remember consensuses that were unfortunately not sufficiently documented, and in my case, I remembered an existing policy on Wikipedia links but I'm insufficiently familiar with a newer policy on where Wikipedia links can be installed optionally in a listing template. These are problems, but it's not like either you or we have been operating in bad faith. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Two ideas come to mind to address problems raised in this discussion:

  1. create a standard banner that editors could put on an article to let other editors know that an article is a work-in-progress that would disappear after 24 hours, and
  2. including the Wikipedia link line automatically on See and Do listings to make is easier to add those links.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea behind the banner, but unfortunately I think that it may be of limited value. For me edit conflicts are most likely to happen as a result of following a change that appears on my watchlist. In that case, I tend to view the differences, and the banner is not displayed when viewing differences.
The Wikipedia link line whould be added to the standard See and Do listings - it is already displayed if the listing editor is used, so this inconsistency should be fixed. (WP links can be added to other listings but this is uncommon, and adding it as standard in Eat etc would encourage the addition of WP articles about chains, not individual venues.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I would make it standard for all forms of listings. It could be blank whenever there is no Wikipedia equivalent, just like the much-misused "alt" tab. Often enough, it will be useful for "go" listings of train stations, airports and the like, even superhighways, and for unique hotels, restaurants and bars. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I can see the value for "Go" listings, but Eat, Drink and Sleep listings would so rarely have a Wikipedia entry, that I think it would be more confusing for editors who think that they should try to find a WP article. I have also concluded aftet poking around that I lack the programming skills to make this happen. Ground Zero (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have mentioned before, but worth restating. A number of regulars have worked hard to create and keep quality articles, it is very tempting to fix an edit as soon as you see it. What I try and do (but sometime fail on my own self control) is wait a while before correcting a new edit I feel could be improved. What I have in my browser is a bookmark folder call "Wikivoyage - articles to revisit". With a new entry I will bookmark it and place it here. Then at a later date revisit the page and clean out the bookmark folder. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to leave the diff open in a tab, and get back to it later. (Main advantage: it doesn't require a separate workflow; whenever I see the tab later, it's likely time to make the edit. Main disadvantage: I do this for a lot of things (things I want to read, things I want to edit, things I need to remember...), so I have about 100 tabs open right now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, based on this discussion, I've made changes to the Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors article. That's not policy, of course, but it gives us all something to consider. --Inas (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to expand "Read"[edit]

Currently in the "Read" subsection of "Understand", we list books that inspire or give the traveller insight into their destination. In this day and age, I believe we should go beyond and allow the listing of travel documentaries. Travel literature is more than the written word these days. Personally when I think about the books that have inspired me to travel, I can think of a few but I reflect on the documentaries that have made want to wander like a nomad I can think of many more. I am sure I am not the only one! I propose expanding "Read" to "Read and watch" in the appropriate circumstances. Like "Read", "Watch" will be an optional section and will only be added when it is useful and beneficial to the traveller. I imagine most article's won't have it but some will. What does everyone think? Gizza (roam) 02:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially since a documentary can really pack thousands of words into a few moving images. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd support this, providing that we maintain a prohibition on promotional or online travel guide video links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Expand away - I see no issue with putting links one or two in depth explorations of culture, society or geography. But no links to video travel guides on youtube. --Inas (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes links should be prohibited. Gizza (roam) 07:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that "film suggestions" was already in Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it and I've added documentaries too. Films were meant to be placed in a "Film" subsection of "Understand" but I plunged forward and changed that to "Watch" too so it can be broadened to other visual material like documentaries and possibly TV shows, and also to make the heading a verb instead of a noun, which aligns it with other Wikivoyage headings. If anybody disagrees, please discuss it here. Thanks Gizza (roam) 23:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Add a "default address info" field to listings[edit]

So we have for whichever reason agreed not to list most postcodes and the city or district something is in in the "address" field of listings. I don't want to re-discuss this shaky agreement, but am instead proposing the following, given that having this default address info is a good thing for certain machine reading applications or for inputting the information into certain programs...

Anyway, my proposal is as follows: Have a field named "default address" or "postcode/town" or something of the sorts, which does not show up on the page unless a registered user explicitly opts in. That way those who complain about "clutter" with "useless" and "redundant" info won't have the problem but we enhance machine readability and those who wish to have this information can opt in. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In theory, I am supportive, but have no idea how / whether this could be implemented in practice. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed that postcodes should be included whenever they were useful (e.g., it identifies a small area, or it helps you find the "10 High Street" that you want, and not the wrong but nearby "10 High Street"). Is this question about when they're not really useful (e.g., everything in the town/on the page is in the same postcode)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose so. It is for the case when the postcode is not useful for human readers (otherwise it should be shown) but necessary for finding the address by pasting it into some app, which does not otherwise know the context. --LPfi (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we're talking about making it useful for external apps and other websites. The human eye doesn't need to see the postcode 75001 in every listing in the 1st Arrondissement, but computers often do in order to make sense of the information. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus to use postcodes wherever they are not identical for all listings in the article does indeed exist, it is not yet borne out by what some copy-editors do.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Does that consensus exist? It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. San Rafael and Chapel Hill each have more than one postal code, but I don't see what use those postal codes would be to travellers unless they're trying to send something in the mail. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The use of postal codes differs around the world. In Australia putting the postcode isn't actually ever useful unless your sending a letter. Bu in the United Kingdom, the postcode is more important than the name or the street address. It's the default to navigate somewhere these days. And every place is different. --Inas (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Some addresses exist more than once in a city and can only be distinguished by postal code. Search for "Goethestraße Berlin" for just one example. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on how we should format addresses in Germany. I'm just saying that I don't think we should have a global policy of including postal codes in listings for all cities that cover more than one postal code. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If we develop such a policy, every single address in New York City will need to include a zip code. But I want to know more about what is actually being proposed here. Is it that postal codes would be included in every address but by default invisible, with a toggle switch clearly shown that enables readers to see them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You should keep Wikidata in mind: in WD address (P969) means street + ZIP code + town. I think there is no simple way to extract ZIP code and town to make them invisible. --RolandUnger (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A lot of us really don't know much about Wikidata, myself included. But I'm not sure I understand why the number in a Wikidata address is of any significance to whether we can see addresses in Wikivoyage listings. Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If we export or import addresses via Wikidata (and I think this has been proposed, perhaps even implemented in some language versions), then what the Wikidata "property" includes, and its format, are important. If address, zip and town were different properties, it would be easy to get them one by one and show the ones we want. It seems we have to show all three if we import the address from Wikidata, unless we want to do parsing, which probably is too complicated for the general case. --LPfi (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The property P969 was proposed by the English Wikivoyage community and contains: “full street address that the subject is located at. Include building number through to post code.” To learn about Wikidata entries look to some examples: Q42016015, Q2981, Q9188. I think the proposal of P969 was done because there is only a single address parameter in the listing template. Separate items like street names are only possible if there are [Wikipedia] articles about the street of interest. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

New public transport map features[edit]

I plunged forward and added Template:rint and Template:Mapshapes, mainly for usage with dynamic maps.

The former is a copy from wikipedia - if there's no objections, I'd setup a bot to keep this in sync (perhaps the articles could be made read-only for normal users?). So far I only imported a few subtemplates for central europe (so e.g. Berlin and Vienna use it). The only issue is that the template generates links to subway articles, which is probably not too useful for WV. Perhaps there's some way to fix this via some nifty template hack? Also, wikipedia recommends to not use the icons in-line with text - but I think in a travel guide it's quite useful to have it this way. Right?

The Mapshapes stuff seems to work OK too, it's used in Prague, Vienna, Berlin and Naples currently. I tried London too, but not sure yet how complete the map is. E.g. Munich is not prepared at all, currently. Making this work means interlinking wikidata and OSM stuff, then putting the Mapshapes thing into the article... But that's still much easier than trying to create the vector lines manually.

If there are any questions... (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the links to subway articles are bad per se but it might be annoying if one "accidentally" clicks them, especially on mobile. Most of our articles basically just state that a subway exists but give little background on history or architecture. The main exception I know of is Berlin where I inserted a bit because the effects of partition in particular are just so endlessly fascinating. However it barely scratches the surface and any discussion of the Berlin U-Bahn that doesn't mention Grenander cannot be considered complete. Thing is: I know next to nothing about Hamburg U-Bahn and the history of Nuremberg U-Bahn is not particularly interesting or long. Maybe we could go into a bit more depth for NYC subway or the tube? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I love the mapshapes feature. I've in the past added metro systems to dynamic maps by creating the lines manually and saving them to wikicommons (for instance Singapore/Riverside), but that is a lot of work. One feature which would be nice to have, would be showing stations and station names, nevertheless I think this is a great feature as it is. One question I have is: how do I see whether the coordinates for the lines are linked to the wikidata element? And if it isn't, is there a way to add them ourselves? Drat70 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The stations are a bit nontrivial - I didn't see them mentioned in the wikidata articles I saw so far. So you'd have to do it from scratch. Implementing this into the Mapshapes module wouldn't be too big problem, I think.
The OSM-wikidata linking is a detective work, actually :) Here's the steps I did for the few cities I did so far:
  • Find the wikidata entry for the metro. Quickest way seems to be - google "$city metro wiki" to find the wikipedia article, then click "Wikidata item" on the wikipedia page. Sometimes also direct search on works :)
  • Check that the wikidata entry has "has parts" statements, listing all the lines. If not, you'll have to find the lines (usually the wikipedia article has them listed/linked as articles, so you can find wikidata IDs from wikipedia again) and add them to the parent wikidata.
  • Finally, the wikidata entries for the individual lines have to refer to OSM data and vice versa, this is described in Template:Mapshape, and additionally it should contain either "sRGB color hex triplet", or at least "color" statement. If there's no OSM link, you need to go to openstreetmap and try to find whether at least the relations are mapped (I'd say all metro lines will be). Usually the OSM relation ID was missing in the wikidata article (most OSM relations had wikidata tag already, on the other hand), so you need to find the metro lines in OSM first. Usually it's enough to find one line in OSM and then click to parent relations. Most of the cities had a "super relation" referencing all the metro lines...
If there's some real interest, I could put some guide to the template, maybe even with some pictures. On the other hand, it'd be probably good to know some basic OSM/wikidata-fu to understand the above (and not break too much stuff in the process :) ). However, I have a plan to make a bot to do this automagically in case at least one direction of links (OSM->wikidata or wikidata->OSM) exists. :) (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been waiting and hoping for something like this to appear for a while, so thank you! The maps you've made so far look really cool. My only concern is that the lines are a bit thick, especially when the map is zoomed out. The London map is complete as far as the Underground goes, though would benefit from also showing Overground and DLR as well, and possibly trams in South London.

It doesn't matter what kind of transport it is, so of course even Tramlinks could be added (you'd have to fill stuff into [1], the referenced 'has part' sub-articles; e.g. here's tramlink 4 - OSM relation 7560907 (no links between OSM and wikidata :( ). But as you pointed out, in some zooms the maps could get too cluttered, so perhaps this could use some usability improvements later - esp. if Roland manages to bring in some cool features from de: later, the dynamic maps could really become very interesting. But hey - it's a first step...

Depending on how easy the instructions are to follow for a novice, I might be interested in making my own metro maps for other cities. Overall, this is an exciting new feature, and something which I hope will be rolled out across a good number of articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's actually relatively simple, but you have to have OSM account to make changes there, obviously.. :) I'll try to put together some step-by-step tomorrow... (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we make the links point elsewhere? I just found that when one clicks on the B or C in Prague it prompts one to create an article of "Line C of Prague Metro" or some such on Wikivoyage where it is out of scope. Can we just have those point to Wikipedia instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done - at least we won't get unwanted articles until we sort it out... (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we might at some point think about stuff like Tramways in cities without metros but one step at a time. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nuremberg U-Bahn[edit]

So I tried with this edit to add the U-Bahn lines to Nuremberg. Unfortunately to no avail. Is there a problem with the wikidata object or did I do something wrong? I would like to know and would appreciate help. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: The problem for as far as I can tell is with the Wikidata object. It needs to have a OSM relation ID, which the Nuremberg U-Bahn, which you linked, does not have. I lack the knowledge to tell you exactly how to add one step by step, but it's roughly described above. I'm guessing the step-by-step guide Andree mentioned above might help a lot once it's done :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are no dedicated Wikipedia articles for the individual lines of Nuremberg U-Bahn. Don't ask me why. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You can always go ahead and make them yourself. I assume separate objects do not need to exist unless you want the difference in colours between lines (for the record, a wikidata object does not have to be linked to a Wikipedia article, but vice versa gets created for every Wikipedia article). I had a brief swing at creating an own line for a Dutch railway line from the OSM data yesterday night around this time, but I swiftly after gave up because of how much work was ahead of me (lines are broken up into many pieces and I'd have to stitch them together first). I say we first let these templates be implemented where possible, and then add them to articles which do not have the necessary OSM-Wikidata links in place. Not in the first place because the documentation at that point might have improved to where anyone can add lines.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about which line are you talking about, but in OSM, the structure usually is that there are multiple ways - grouped together into relations (mainly because a single way (or other node) may be part of multiple routes, for example). At least for the major lines, there usually is a relation already created by the OSM editors... (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to but I have no idea where to even start. For reasons passing understanding however there are Wikipedia articles about literally every single U-Bahn stop in Nuremberg so maybe something could be made from that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I checked Nuremberg. About 1/2 of the parts is actually already in place - wikidata entries exist for the lines, and the OSM relations for them exist as well. But the links are all over the place, so it would be a good example of how to do it. So... I'll take this and put tutorial how it was converted into actual mapshapes, into the Mapshapes documentation. Today-ish :) (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. As a quick follow up: the U-Bahn is verbrochen being expanded with the latest new station coming online in May 2017 (Nordwestring along U3) and a new station under construction for opening in 2019 (Großreuth along U3). How would such an update be dealt with if and when needed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Tutorial added[edit]

See Template:Mapshapes. Try to fix/finish Nuremberg, let me know what's missing (or fix it directly :) ). I'd say the tutorial is already a bit too long, so perhaps let's not extend it too much - one has to understand what he's doing, so that we don't make too much mess in wikidata/OSM :) (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly it should show up on the map in a few days? Because it does not currently show up in the map of Nuremberg. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have left it undone for you to try to do it... I can do it, though, if you'd rather start that way :) As I wrote previously, I'd like to handle this via some automated bot (at least creating the wikidata structures for all metro transport systems, and perhaps filling in OSM references into wikidata if the OSM counterpart is already done), so I don't want to do it manually now - I'll need some playground in a few days :) (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I tried playing around with Wikidata for the Nuremberg Metro. Please tell me what is still missing for the lines to show up. If all is there and we just have to wait, that's cool, too. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The wikidata stuff looks okay, you can now even see at the bottom of the map that the wikidata entries for the lines were added. But OSM wasn't updated to point to the right wikidata (they all still point to Q697512). Maybe it will work nevertheless - we can wait a few days and see... Otherwise we'll have to fix OSM too. (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea how one fixes that in Wikidata. And given that German WP has no articles on the individual lines, could you please make those three edits accordingly? I just tried and failed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually you did the right thing with OSM changeset 56585993! You can already see the line in the Nuremberg article even :) I can fix U1/U2 if you don't do it, later today... (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────please do. I don't know how and why it worked there and I might not have to time to do it today... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So I think the Wikidata stuff has been done now... And the OSM stuff too. When will U1 and U2 show up in the map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say later today or tomorrow... (U1 already shows up) (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add (only) U1 to Fürth because U1 is the only one that serves the city but I could not get it to show up without U2 and U3 also showing up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Such filtering function wasn't supported - it is now ;-) (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Light rail and Stadtbahn systems[edit]

I know that and how we can integrate subways into the dynamic maps now but what about tramway, light rail or Stadtbahn systems? The latter is underground in the city center but runs like a tramway outside of town. Cologne, Frankfurt, Bielefeld would be examples. Trams can also be of transportation interest; of Germany's four subway cities three (Nuremberg, Berlin, Munich) actually have a tram. However they are often seen as "lesser" so there might be a need for a distinction in the map how would that be done? And then there is the issue of maps getting too busy what with w:Trams in Melbourne or w:Trams in Berlin. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We should draw a line somewhere... Showing the whole transport network is already possible if you click the fullscreen button on the map, and then "Traffic line network". But for me personally, when I travel in the big cities, I just want to see the easy ways of transports between sights, unless it's unavoidable to use buses or such (even then I'd probably go by foot if it's ~ <1 km (0.62 mi)). So I'd say we should only provide the most important lines + textual description in directions, if some sights are too far away. E.g. in Berlin, I added the ring rail in addition to u-bahn, since it's very handy to use even for a traveler....
If there's no metro, for sure the common means of transport in the city could be displayed, instead. Anything that has wikidata structure like metro systems (the has-parts thing and OSM links) can be displayed using the Mapshapes template... Otherwise you can use Mapshape template to show just some particular lines manually. (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to put trams on the map for cities in the UK, U.S. and France where the networks are a lot smaller than those you find in Germany, Switzerland, and ex-Eastern bloc countries. For instance the largest tram network in Britain (Manchester's Metrolink) is equivalent to a medium-sized metro system. Even for Greater Paris, it would be useful to put in the tramways, as they tend to serve the suburbs where the Metro fears to tread. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
w:Trams in Dresden are one of Germany's longest systems and still a manageable 12 lines (1 to 4 and 6 to 13 don't ask me why there is no 5) on a length comparable to some metro systems. And arguably they do a better job of serving public transportation needs than the 8 lines of Nuremberg U-Bahn and tram (U1 to U3 Tram 4 through 8) which habe a much shorter overall network. And again the line blurs considerably for cities with w:Stadtbahn or "pre-metro" systems. And then there are S-Bahns in general... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Display stations?[edit], nice development. Have you thought of displaying stations as well? I guess it should not be too difficult if they are listed within the 'has parts' property of the metro line. --Alexander (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything is possible :) However the few metro maps I "prepared" didn't contain the stations listed in a simple list. It certainly could be digged out from wikidata in many cases... But in the end I'm not sure that having all stations on the map would help that much (esp. with the current listing|type=go approach, it'd get cluttered fast). If we could improve the interactive-ness (e.g. that metro stations would only become visible, including stop names, when mouse pointer is nearby the metro line), maybe it'd make sense. But AFAIK the map wikipedia is currently defunct, so we have to work with what we have :( I guess in the following weeks this will be the most we can get out of it... (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think they could get their own markers and styling, one of the icons here with pale gray color will be distinguishable from type=go. I would at least give it a try. It is perhaps less relevant for overall city maps, like in Prague, but will be very useful for districts, where only a few metro stations are located. --Alexander (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. It is possible to place markers with a maki icon on a map (with other colors besides gray) and not clutter up an article page with listings etc. - I tested creating train stations in the Netherlands out of curiosity on my Sandbox2 page. -- I reached a limit of 350+ or so markers on a map before process dies with a GeoJSON error. (note: Train stations were not found in a Wikidata list)
    Actually, the German colleges also have something like this already. We will likely see some discussion regarding getting that stuff to (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Also testing the idea of navigating a list on Wikidata - be aware that while a short list will work fairly well. The longer list might run into 2 possible errors: NOT ENOUGH MEMORY and Time allocated for scripts has expired. If I remember correctly one was caused amount of processing being done by the module (or my funky coding) and the other by the imposed processing time limit (about 10 secs). Also, Wikidata entries from what I have seen do not have lists for everything.
    It's a good question what Wikidata servers can tolerate. I expect doing some brutal queries over 500 items will be frowned upon :) The memory limits of WV is then another thing... (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Fear not - other issues may rise as well. -- Matroc (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stations are/should be part of the underlying geodata and show up with a small train like icon on maps. In the interest of not cluttering maps, I think let's not include them for the time being. Stations also move more and faster than lines do, so this adds another layer of headache. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tram and metro lines are part of the underlying geodata too. --Alexander (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No I mean there is already the icon in the "blank" map before we add in listings, mapshapes, anything. If we add in the mapshape for the line people can search for the icon and know where what is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and metro lines are in the blank map too. If they are highlighted, why not highlight the stations as well? Taking the Prague example, the blank map shows hundreds of these train icons, basically all metro stations and all tram stops. It's quite a mess, so distinguishing metro stations could be useful. --Alexander (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not a mess. Many of our maps are too busy as is especially when zoomed fully out. The train icons become visible when zoomed in enough the lines are good for overview. I also don't yet fully see why S-Bahn lines are mostly not mentioned but U-Bahn are. Also what about Frankfurt or Cologne? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Potsdam tramway[edit]

I think Potsdam is a good test case of whether introducing a tramway into the map makes sense. It is a city of some size, but its Tramway system is not exactly extremely complicated. However, I don't think the requisite Wikidata and OSM stuff exists... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely doable, but there aren't even the wikidata article for the individual lines yet, so there's some work ahead to be done... However, the OSM data look ok (except for the obviously missing wikidata tags). Welp, it will take a while to extend all major cities with this feature :) (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Single color subways[edit]

So I just added the Wikidata ID to a mapshapes template (btw why are the two templates named so dizzyingly similar?) in Brussels and Hamburg and while what I assume to be metro lines show up, alright, they are all black, hence no individual lines can be discerned. Now while w:Transport in Brussels is its own can of worms with regards to the (lack of) distinction between tram, pre-metro and metro, Hamburg at least had the (stupid, but I digress) decision taken to whittle it down to U-Bahn and nothing else. Still, it'd be nice to have line colors. But I gather for that there'd have to be the respective Wikidata entries with colors and whatnot, right? Maybe include that problem ("all lines are black") in the tutorial and say how to fix it. Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the wikidata are just missing the colors, it's already in the tutorial. You can usually find those easily in the related wikipedia articles, and just enter them into wikidata. More interestingly it works even though the OSM references are missing :-/ PS: the name was invented because mapshapes just create bunch of mapshape "objects"... :) (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Berlin/South - proposal to go ahead[edit]

So I have some time ago proposed to subdivide the gargantuan (at the very least by area) district article that is Berlin/South. I created by mostly copy-paste in my user space three sub-articles that I think make sense geographically and from their density of attractions. They have some room for improvement still, but I would not be too concerned if they went live today with minor changes. Those are User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Treptow-Köpenick, User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Central-South (the name may be changed later if it is too generic) and User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Steglitz-Zehlendorf. I think we can quite easily expand some things that are currently dealt with in one or two words by making them listings and so on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no-one has anything to say, you might as well go ahead and move them to mainspace, and while you're at it upgrade the article status from outline. They are all high usables and with the addition of a few more sleep listings in each can easily be classed as guides. Nice work ;) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it was User:Xsobev who had the strongest doubts when I proposed the subdivision. I'd like to hear their input. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no familiarity with Berlin, but the proposed district articles look fine to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
They're certainly filled out with adequate content. Now you've done all the work and they're looking good, I'd be very surprised if anybody objected to their move to main space. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for not getting back to you earlier. There have been a lot of improvements in the past in Berlin/South and I no longer have any objections to the proposed subdivisions. The new district pages look great. Thanks everyone who contributed to this and I'm glad that this "sub-districtification" worked out so well.
A completely separate concern is the visual clutter created by using the listings template in the "Get in" sections (a separate issue raised in the pub earlier), which has already been addressed by this edit by User:Mx. Granger. Xsobev (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the articles from userspace top main space. Some issues and necessary fixes remain Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Country specific readership[edit]

For Wikivoyage now available.[2]

Also Alexa says there has been a significant increase in readership in the last few weeks[3]

Best Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The increase in the last few weeks is presumably due to the links from other Wikimedia projects for the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018. So we can expect it to drop off somewhat after February, but hopefully some of the new readers and editors will keep coming back. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Alexa's ranking is based on a 90-day cycle so it will probably drop off in May this year. Is it possible to see pageviews by country for previous months? Gizza (roam) 23:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Not seeing the ability to look at other months for the breakdown by country.
This graph shows the big jump in readership.[4]
A more than doubling. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If you don't see the big jump, then click over to "3-Month" view below the graph. Some views stop at the end of last calendar year. The biggest increase was in people on the mobile site (who tend not to be editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James, WhatamIdoing, DaGizza, Atsirlin: How would people feel about running a very low level awareness campaign to follow up, running at like 5%. Just pointing to the Wikivoyage main pages? To keep up a little momentum from it in terms of traffic to wikivoyage. I've long been a fan of low level campaigns since they could have huge impact with much less disruption compared with a massive campaign. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Seddon (WMF), that's a great idea! However, we probably need to change the banner, because edit-a-thon can't run forever. Regarding the link, I would prefer to point to a dedicated landing page, which is adapted to newcomers. The main page is just the main page. It says "OK, now you are at Wikivoyage" without explaining what it is and how to contribute. --Alexander (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Alexander and think it is a good idea. The best general landing page on English Wikivoyage would probably be Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians or Wikivoyage:Welcome, newcomers. I don't know if the other languages have equivalent pages. It would be good to bring more languages in the awareness campaign too. I remember a Dutch-speaking editor finding out about the edit-a-thon too late. Gizza (roam) 22:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think your idea is a fine one, but we'd need to decide whether the goal was readers or editors. If we're interested in "page views", then it might be worth running it only for logged-out users, maybe even only on mobile (and sending people to the main page is probably fine). If we're interested in "edits", then we could significantly reduce the potential for spam by only displaying it to logged-in editors on desktop only (and people should be sent to an onboarding page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it sounds like a good idea too, and I think it's probably better to restrict it to logged-in editors for the reasons you describe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point @WhatamIdoing:. Edits are more important than views, especially since productive edits will improve SEO and bring views in the long term anyway. Focusing on logged-in editors is a good way to go. Gizza (roam) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, DaGizza: - my proposal is to help bring awareness for readership to expose the projects to new readers. A separate campaign would then run alongside on Wikivoyage itself to encourage individuals to become editors. The two should occur in parallel. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Seddon_(WMF): that sounds like a great proposal. Continuing the momentum created by the edit-a-thon is crucial. We could make the main page the landing page for the readers, which explains what Wikivoyage is and showcases our featured content. Gizza (roam) 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@DaGizza: - Timing wise do you think the community would be up for trialing something in the next couple of months? Seddon (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For sure. And thanks for proposing this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
...but if the main page is the landing page, then maybe it shouldn't be displayed to folks on mobile, since there are problems/limitations reported with that page. Seddon, could we maybe get three campaigns, so that mobile and desktop can go to different pages? (Or maybe delay the reader-focused on until the mobile site's page has been improved?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing template with Wikipedia link but no Wikidata link[edit]

A few hours ago, I created Category:Listing with Wikipedia link but not Wikidata link. It now has over 1,600 entries - some with multiple matches on a page. The simple fix is like this edit. There is a 1:1 relationship between the Wikipedia article already liked (this does not apply to links to article sub-sections), and the equivalent Wikidata item. Does anyone have a bot that could apply that fix to all suitable pages in the category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I was about to make one :) Wikivoyage:Script_nominations.... (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

URL to diff[edit]

Please could someone import w:Template:URL to diff (or d:Template:URL to diff)? The template takes a diff URL as a parameter, and makes a nicely formatted wikilink for the diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually you can just extract the diff= parameter from the url and use [[Special:Diff/123456|label]]. The template is probably useful for url:s with diff=next (I usually go to the page history if needed to get the diff nr), and diffs over several revisions (is there a shortcut wikilink for those?). --LPfi (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The point of the template is to do the clerical work for the user; and to save people from having to remember what needs doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The English Wikivoyage is generally an anti-template wiki. Especially if it doesn't need to be done very often and it can be done any other way, then most people don't really want to have a template for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It would help if there was a plain English explanation of what this does with some examples, and a clear explanation of why we need this. AlasdairW (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Either of the two links I gave above, especially the former, will give you that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The template is always substituted. No one has to use the template, but it provides a great convenience for those who do choose to use it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This template appears to produce input for Template:Diff, which is used in 6 places on this site (as opposed to 17k on WP, and 1k on commons). So I am still lost as to why we need this. How often do people need to create links to "diffs"; that is, links to pages that show the differences between two versions of a wiki page? AlasdairW (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I just did, in the section immediately above this one. I was hampered by the absence of the 'URL To Diff' template, which I am used to using on several sister projects. Hence this request. Plenty of other editors have cited diffs on this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but why is this template easier / better than just copying the URL into a simple external link (like this)? The template looks more complicated to use to be honest; what advantages would it bring? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your method has two deficiencies. 1) It leaves the link looking like an external link, when it is not; and 2) it leaves more code in the source view, cluttering up the editig window for colleagues who wish to reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'm not so sure those are really disadvantages per se, but I can see your line of thinking. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I must say I second the sentiment to not create templates unless their immediate usefulness can be shown and un this particular case I remain skeptical Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we never have such links in article space. It would be very handy in edit summaries, where space is limited, but templates do not work there. On talk pages it might come handy for some, but I think some clutter because of explicit URLs is no real problem (you do not edit other people's comments anyway), and neither is it a problem that they looks like external links – or like raw URLs, which they are. --LPfi (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

signature times not always working[edit]

I am seeing some signed entries with times incorrect, although stating in UTC are showing local time of person writing. Get odd looking talk pages with replies to entries at earlier times. Anyone know how to check this? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Organising topics of a region[edit]

Hi all, I'm somewhat new here and need some help. Southern Namibia has three National parks which cover about half of its area, and almost all of its tourist destinations.

  1. What do I do with campsites or one-house hamlets on the road from one location to another, where you can sleep and eat but nothing else will realistically ever be added: Own page, or add to the region, or add to one or more national parks?
  2. What do I do with locations that are very close to towns but technically belong to a National Park (e.g. Kolmanskop close to Lüderitz, but is part of the Sperrgebiet, one of the three National Parks and still without an own page)?
  3. Fish River Canyon Park has been incorporated into Ai-Ais Richtersveld Transfrontier Park some years back. Do I merge the two, or should I leave them as-is?

And a technical question: Many destinations in Namibia are managed by Namibia Wildlife Resorts, a state-owned enterprise. Their pricing is the same, or at least very similar, throughout. Is there a possibility to tag it as 'belongs to NWR' and update prices somewhere in a template instead of in the dozens of places they manage?

Thanks in advance, Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, more than a day without answer... I interpret that as 'Go ahead the way you please.' --Pgallert (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Pgallert. Sorry you've had to wait a bit, but please appreciate that waiting one day for an answer is not very long on Wikivoyage, especially on topics about lesser-known places. We're nowhere near the size of Wikipedia in terms of editorship. I'll try to answer as best I can in line with my understanding of policy, but bear in mind I know nothing at all about Namibia.
  1. Add it as a sleep listing to the bottom-level region they fit best in, or if they're in a national park, to that park's article. We shouldn't have destination articles with no other content than a solitary sleep listing.
  2. If Kolmanskop has enough potential see / do / eat and sleep listings to form its own article, then go ahead and create a dedicated city article. Or, if you decide it would fit better into a Sperrgebiet park article, do that instead. See WV:What is an article? to help you with this and the previous answer.
  3. Since the Fish River Canyon Park article has a lot more content than the Transfrontier park article, and it is just in one country, my gut says that it would be better as its own article. But you should mention in the 'Understand' section that it is part of the larger park.
Does all this make sense? Please let me know if not.
As for your technical question, I am not aware of a template like that, but agree that it might be a useful one to create. What do any other Wikivoyagers think of this idea? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Hamlets with only one sight, restaurant or similar is a problem we discuss every now and then, and I think you should do whatever makes sense. Adding them to the region works in some cases but is not ideal. Adding them to the park works if they are visited just by park visitors. I think the former solution is good in that they are easily found there by whoever comes up with a better solution. I'd avoid having them in several places, as whoever updates them at one place doesn't necessarily do it at the other. Instead mention them in and link the page from the other articles.
  2. The formal divisions are used here only when they make sense or nobody has found any better idea. It seems (reading Lüderitz) that Kolmanskop is best described as part of Lüderitz, unless somebody writes a proper article about it (no need to separate it as outline). Being in the park it should probably be mentioned in the park article when that gets written, but unless it fits with the theme of the park (or is commonly visited by park visitors) the details could stay in the city article.
  3. For the Fish river, I think the important thing is whether they are regarded as one destination (or should be, for other than administrative reasons). Regardless, we should not put too much time in keeping in sync with administrative changes; as ThunderingTyphoons writes, the state of the articles suggests status quo is better than an uneven merge.
The template seems tempting (technically it would be easy to write and use), but on Wikivoyage we have tried to minimize use of templates, to make the wikicode as easy as possible to understand and edit. Perhaps the best solution would be to write an (outline or otherwise) article about Namibian wildlife resorts (or Namibian national parks or whatever makes sense), include information on the service and prices of NWR there and link it where relevant.
--LPfi (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi ThunderingTyphoons! and LPfi, and thanks for the feedback. I'm still trying to understand the way things work here. I want to make available the things we learned on our last few tours, particularly as Namibia is not well covered currently and I'm a resident. I'll take a few Wikipedians down to Cape Town in winter for the Wikimania and then I'll surely learn more.
What puzzles me for now is the organisation of articles here, coming from en.wp. A tourist coming to Namibia would organise their tour according to topic, not region: Wildlife, or colonial artefacts, geological highlights, or an ethnologic tour. I started Off-roading in Namibia, certainly one of the reasons to visit the country, but I am not sure if I have done the right thing, considering that the only other comparable article is about California. Such topics would be pursued according to the visitors' means, as fly-in safaris or hunting tours, well over 1,000 US$ a day, down to backpacking and hitchhiking. Nobody would set a theme "Central Namibia" and visit posh lodges as well as youth hostels, as the pages are currently organised.
Back to the concrete example, people come to see the Fish River Canyon. That's the attraction. The canyon happens to be in the Ai-Ais Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, that's why one has to pay an entrance fee. It also happens to be in Southern Namibia. I don't want to duplicate entries, but some reasonable accommodation would be inside the National Park, and some would not. Some would be very close to the canyon, some other just comfortably on the way. Should I list them all at the attraction, or sort them where they geographically belong? --Pgallert (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
We do it this way because people going to a city will use (more or less the same restaurants, cafés, nightclubs and hotels regardless of why the person is there. Especially big cities will draw people with very different interests and there is very much overlap of interest regardless of how you try to divide the audience.
For the countryside the situation is sometimes different, as you describe. You won't be in a wilderness reserve by chance. We handle this by having a geographic hierarchy on one hand and the topic hierarchy on the other (the off-roading article is perfectly fine, it is just that few others have happened to write similar ones). A person who comes to see the Fish River Canyon will still fly in via Windhoek and possibly use restaurants and hotels there before continuing their voyage. And if I ever travel there I hope I will be able also to see wildlife, understand the colonial history and get on the ethnologic tour. An article on how to best experience the wildlife would be very welcome, but if I decide to visit a park in Central Namibia I still need to know how to get around and where I can get lodging. I'd gladly use hostels and hike part of the trip, but I could go to a posh lodge if needed, or if that experience feels right. Unless we describe the options in the geographic hierarchy article we would need a thousand of different topical articles to cover all possible combinations (or a dozen, of which I'd read all – still easier to find an individual lodging by location than by standard).
Where a national park is close to cities, or minor settlements worth visiting for other reasons, one often have to choose where to describe a lodging quite arbitrary. In these cases one can mention the options in the park article ("those coming from X might want to stay the night in Y-town, there are a few hotels and also the Z hostel, which specially caters to visitors to the park"), while still putting the listings themselves in the city article. And you could describe a few towns and villages in the park article, if they are visited mainly because of the park.
--LPfi (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ten thousand thundering typhoons![edit]

I've just made my 10,000th edit on Wikivoyage. Yay! On the downside, the edit in question was undoing vandalism to my own userpage. Bloody typical...

Very quickly, I just want to thank everyone who makes Wikivoyage an awesome place to be. I certainly wouldn't have got even to my 1000th edit if it weren't for the wonderful community of talented, kind and good-humoured editors we have here. Thanks everyone, u iz da best! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good job, Frank! 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:90 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations. I agree with you that the community here is what makes Wikivoyage an awesome place to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, and here's to the next 10,000! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from my part, too! Very glad to have you aboard! Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, congrats TT! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It's unanymous. Mega cheers! Ibaman (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Congrats! Here is how to reach 15000 in a few months: :-) Syced (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Rejiggering the district boundary of Berlin/North[edit]

So we have recently successfully split up the gargantuan district that was Berlin/South into three constituent parts. However, Berlin/North still isn't 100% satisfactory. I just plunged forward and moved the Ortsteile of Wedding and Gesundbrunnen to Berlin/East Central where imho they fit better (please adjust the main Berlin district map accordingly). Now the question has arisen of whether the Bezirk Pankow sans Prenzlauer Berg (which is treated under East Central) should be moved to Berlin/East. There wouldn't be all that many listings moved and the resulting districts would be more coherent with the former inner-Berlin boundary separating them. The new district could then perhaps be renamed Berlin/Spandau and Reinickendorf. Reinickendorf and Spandau are rather similar to each other which would be another bonus. Hopefully the new districts would also be easier to fill with listings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did the deed. And while I was at it I also changed the colors on the district map. I would like some feedback including from people who do not know Berlin on whether what I did seems in the best interest of travelers. Just for the record, the boundaries between Berlin/East and Berlin/Spandau and Reinickendorf now coincide with the former inner-Berlin border. The only places where our current districts after the splitup of South and the rejiggering of North do not coincide with the former inner-Berlin border are those where the Berlin city government in 2001 merged across the former border when they redrew their twenty-something districts into 12 - Berlin/Mitte and Berlin/East Central (where Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is a "merger district"). That needn't prove anything, but I think it is a good indication... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Article status to hover-over-information-box[edit]

When I hover my cursor over a link to an article I get a small information box with its lede and size etc. Is it possible to ad the article's article status and crumbs to this box? That would make it much easier to, for example, see which districts of a huge city are outlines, or to update lists like this one. Best, MartinJacobson (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. Having that info at the very bottom of the page doesn't make for speedy checking. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(off topic) The boxes in question[edit]

I used to have the same boxes, but I haven't seen one in months. Anyone know how to get them back? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Try going to Preferences>Gadgets and check if "Navigation popups" is activated! MartinJacobson (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's done the trick! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


On mobile I sometimes get a (seemingly wikidata based) automatic preview which tells me really "useful" stuff like that a place is a "human settlement" (as opposed to ocelot colonies?) and often present a random seeming picture, which may or may not be the first picture in the article. Can we instead show something more useful on mobile? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I'm using User:Yair rand's script (see the last few lines at m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js) to make the Wikidata descriptions and aliases visible on desktop, and I like it. If you see something vague, like "human settlement", then you can click through and change it. The descriptions are in the first box on the page – click the little "edit" button on the right-hand corner.
Note the simple Wikidata rules:
  • The main point is disambiguation/getting to the right page, so descriptions should be similar to a dab page when that's relevant (e.g., "city in Yorkshire, England" for one of the Yorks, and "city in Pennsylvania, United States" for another York).
  • Do not add anything controversial to descriptions, so you can't describe the Senkaku Islands as belonging to either Japan or China (instead, declare that they're "islands in the East China Sea", or "islands in East Asia", since everyone can agree to that).
  • And finally, they need to be short. Anything past about six words/~30 characters will be invisible to some users. Omit "the" and "a" from the beginning, and think hard about how little information you really need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This basically confirms what some of us have suspected for some time; that Wikidata and the majority of its users are artificial intelligence engaged in the building of massive data stores on everything in the human world, so that they may overthrow and subjugate it all the more easily. All human settlements must be logged and geolocated. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
To paraphrase Kent Brockman, I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Wikimedia personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground data caves. Ground Zero (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Map markers disappear after a short time with mapframe in MS IE[edit]

I noticed that the map markers disappear from the mapframe window after a short time, when using MS IE (version 11.0.51). No problems in Chrome and Firefox. --FredTC (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There are still people who use Internet Explorer? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Now the problem has disappeared. There is a recent change in the way the contents of the mapframe window are shown. It now goes in two phases, where for some time in IE the second phase made the markers disappear. So the change was introduced without proper testing with all browsers. --FredTC (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Eateries in Gurgaon[edit]

I have been trying to tidy up the Eat section of Gurgaon. While I have cleaned up places which closed down a while ago, I currently see a lot of listings that are not really great anymore. The times have passed them over and they don't represent good food in Gurgaon. Since this is strictly a subjective matter, I'm not sure how to proceed. I fear following these recommendations would lead to a sub-par experience. Rbtravel (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rbtravel:, if you have the first-hand knowledge, I believe you should plunge forward and remove the eateries that are no longer up to standard. However, rather than removing them outright, it is best replace them with better places to eat otherwise the section will become empty. Gizza (roam) 04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd add: The goal isn't only "the best food", because that might lead to the section including only fine dining. But "my favorite of this type", next to "my favorite of that type", is certainly something I like to include. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will keep both these suggestions in mind before I start editing. My concern arose from the eateries which have either gone downhill from their original standards or now reside in slightly shadier parts of town than the average traveler would like to visit. Rbtravel (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
One word of caution: Our guides aren't only for the average traveller. There are many intrepid travellers who are willing to go to bad neighborhoods for great food, as long as they're not going to get killed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Over enthusiastic admin?[edit]

How would other handle User:Yogada? Would a speed delete request and block of account be the correct response to a userpage entry? Or am I missing something? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a spambot, and the account is apparently already globally locked despite having just one single edit. --ϒpsilon (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Traveler100, I think it's embarrassing — if not to you, to the site — to have your tendentious statement about an "over-enthusiastic admin" at User talk:Yogada. I'd suggest you delete it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
So a touting entry to a users own page, and their first edit, is a reason for a global block? Some advice and maybe a warning on what is acceptable yes, but a global block? Why treat this harsher than the Parkland article entry? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Meta is privy to information we aren't. In general, global blocks don't happen unless there's a damn good reason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I asked, the reason was that it was from India so probably was intentional spam (would loose my job for a comment like that). Which I agree it probably is, just personally think, first time should be warning, second or third offence should be block. Particularity as this was on users own page not in an article. Just concerned things do not get to policed and discourage contributors. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No. Don't change my words. I said "Brand new user posting a link to external website for their first contribution means it is highly likely that they are spam." 1, "I do believe that user’s sole intention is “to spam on Wikimedia wikis”(Global locks), so I don’t feel comfortable unlocking it. You can request unlock from other uninvolved steward at Steward requests/Global." 2. Anyone can verify this at meta:User talk:-revi#voy:User:Yogada. Where does it say it is related to India? Artix Kreiger is NOT me. For the record, I am not an administrator on English Wikivoyage. Thanks. — Revi 05:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing we can do about it locally at this point, but for what it's worth, the thread on Meta has moved me firmly into the position that a global lock was unnecessarily overzealous in this case. Yes, this was most likely a spammer, but how likely was it to be a serial, crosswiki spammer? As long as the problem is contained within one wiki community, then let it be handled locally within that community, I say. No need to use a sledgehammer for what can be done with a flyswatter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I ultimately agree with you. I was too hasty to object to Traveler100's reaction in this case. However, I do think it was pretty clearly a spam account, although we should have been able to handle it ourselves by blocking or warning the user and giving them a chance to appeal on their talk page if they weren't a bot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibility of a bot to do the following?[edit]

Now we recently introduced a nifty feature (not yet available for all cities) that gives us stuff like Berlin U55.svg this or U 3 this. However, it is a pain in the lower backside to manually replace all the mentions of "take line U2 to station xyz" or "served by line abc". Can we have a bot to do at least some of that replacing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Now this would be helpful. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
One annoyance I have noticed on desktop, is that the {{rint}} templates we're talking about seem to interfere with the listing editor somehow; when a listing has a rint template, you can't seem to enter the listing editor by clicking the 'edit' button. Is there something that could be done about this? In general, I think a move towards using more pictorial symbols would be a good thing (perhaps something to revisit later?), but if we could get these rint symbols off the ground in a way that doesn't reduce our current functionality, that would be a great start. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!:I don't think that that's a problem to do with RINT, but instead with Template:Marker and Template:Listing. The first is used for listings places in sentences, while the latter is for lists. I've added RINT to Vlaardingen, Hoek van Holland and Maassluis as well as several other articles. All of them still have the "Updated: Mar 2018 | edit" at the end aside from the markers, which are the only types of listings that use RINT. Template:Marker is simply made to fit in a sentence and only list relevant info and not have a tail with the last update or an edit button in there. Its context needs to read like a proper sentence, whereas Template:Listing is made to be in a formatted list, where it is alright to have that tail at the end. If this isn't the case, then could you show some examples? Neither RINT nor Station should include anything that messes up listings. Wauteurz (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
So are you saying that RINT isn't supposed to work in full listings? If so, that's disappointing, as it is naturally suited to the directions field where there's public transport information. As for examples, just try to click on any of the listings with a RINT template on London/Bloomsbury. The 'edit' and 'last updated' are displayed, but clicking on 'edit' doesn't open up the listing editor. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think I've found the problem. By removing the {{station}} template, it is now possible to open the listing editor. Now, I wonder if it's the station template that is at fault, or whether it was the template within a template within a template that the system doesn't like. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
RINT is supposed to work in both Listings and Markers, as is Station. I was under the naive assumption that you were expecting Marker listings to have an edit link, which they do not. I did however try to tell you that RINT and Station both should not be the problem as neither of them should contain anything that conflicts with Marker and/or Listing. I've done some tests on Listing in combination with RINT, Station and all related things I could think of and the results are... inconclusive:
  • Listings with Template:Station did not open in the editor.
  • Listings with part of or the entirety of Template:Station's source code worked.
  • Listings with templates as part of or as the entirety of their titles or directions worked.
  • Listings with HTML elements used in Template:Station worked.
I'm starting to think that the problem is in Template:Listing or worse, in Kartographer (Or my tests are just crap). I have no knowledge about Kartographer, so I'm affraid my helpfulness ends here.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I had the same problem, IMO it's caused by using a template within template (rint within station) - putting just station or rint into the listing doesn't cause a problem. Maybe something that is already fixed in de version of listing editor, so I'd wait for User:RolandUnger also here :) (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
That was my take on it. To be honest, I don't see any need to use the station template. It doesn't seem to do anything except highlight the name of the station in quite an ugly box, and you can use the rint template without it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
We can always discuss Station. Working on a travel guide, it's always nice to have some readers, and a bit of visual appeal can't do much harm. I for one would be in favour of changing the looks of the template.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The motivation behind station was basically what exactly this topic is about :) If we do the formatting manually, there's no way to easily change the style globally later (e.g. to something else than the ugly gray box :) ). Everyone will decide by their own whether to put metro line symbols before or after the name, or whether to use some box around the station name. The only problem is the impossibility to use listing editor... Perhaps we could improve rint to allow station name and multiple icons (thus replace station+rint with this more featurefull thing). (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: As a little heads-up: I'd refrain from automating this for at least a week or two. I'm currently working on a stand-alone version of RINT (one that does not require us to copy tens of templates from enWP by using Commons and Template:Routebox entry where possible), which might mess up some things if the existing RINT template is already well integrated. I'm putting as much of my available free time into developing and finalising that version as possible, just to have it ready ASAP.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay no problem. And thanks for investing so much of your time. As a sidenote, does the template work with screen readers for blind people? I don't know how to check that, but it would be sad if we put in arbitrary barriers for the visually impaired where there's no need. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I have screen-reading software. From the very limited trials I just performed with this comment in mind, the London Underground coloured roundels are ignored (no text to read), and when I mouse over them it gives the name of the linked Wikipedia article, with the unfortunate inclusion of the "W:", e.g. "Doubleyou. Piccadilly line", or "Doubleyou. Northern line (London Underground)." The German ones you've used on this thread give mixed results. U3 it reads fine as part of the sentence, but it ignores U55 when reading. When I mouse over the U55 symbol, it says "Berlin U55 SVG", and when I mouse over U3, nothing happens. So unfortunately it looks like such templates may cause issues with screen readers. Something to bear in mind. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd say a bot could be possible, but it would likely leave half of articles unconverted - so it would look bad... Perhaps some make-use-of-rint-a-thon (where editors would sweep after a bot does most of the initial work) could be done, though.... (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
As I already noted elsewhere the Listing editor cannot handle nested templates as is was done with the combination of {{station}} and {{rint}}. This problem cannot be solved (quickly) because there is nobody who can do it. I think {{station}} should not be used. Both templates should not be used in the name parameter of the {{marker}} template, too. That's why it makes no sense to start a bot for replacement. Instead of that you should rethink the usage of both templates. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Roland that we should rethink. Even if {{station}} weren't ugly, I wouldn't see the point of it. Why highlight the station name over any other element of the listing? If rint is used, then the symbols should attract the eyes' attention by themselves. Now if the template had any sort of useful function, I might view it differently, but since it doesn't, it's just adding clutter, creating extra work, and messing up our listings editor. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
For now, I'll probably try to find some way to use {{station}} together with new {{rint}}, probably with Wauteurz - since right now only us two are doing something regarding this topic :) After it's fixed, the listing editor should work again, and we can talk about how to style the stuff. My main goal is - if we are going to use {{rint}} along station names, it should be definitely visible on the dynamic maps. I wouldn't have invented {{station}} if it weren't for e.g. this, in the end... As I wrote above, without something like {{station}}, I'm sure well eventually see a mess like this:
  • The main bus station for international buses in Prague is 1 BCFlorenc, located east of the city centre. Other, less frequently used bus stations are at ADejvická, BČerný most...
  • 2 Stadtmitte Berlin U2.svg. Stadtmitte (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Stadtmitte (Q660066) on Wikidata / 3 Französische Straße Berlin U6.svg. Französische Straße (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Französische Straße (Q571479) on Wikidata — For Gendarmenmarkt and Friedrichstraße.
  • 4 Berlin U1.svgBerlin U2.svgBerlin U3.svgWittenbergplatz. Wittenbergplatz (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Wittenbergplatz (Q692727) on Wikidata
  • The stations of biggest interests are 5 Tierpark Berlin U5.svg and 6 S-Bahn station Lichtenberg Berlin S5.svgBerlin S7.svgBerlin S75.svgBerlin U5.svg. You can also use the long distance/regional trains, but departures are less frequent than for the S-Bahn. Berlin S75.svg also goes to Hohenschönhausen.
  • The main entry point for Kreuzberg 61 is 7 Mehringdamm (Berlin U6.svgBerlin U7.svg).
  • 1 Catedral de la Almudena (Opera Madrid-MetroLinea2.svgMadrid-MetroLinea5.svgMadrid-MetroRamal.svg). Daily 09:00-20:30. This massive cathedral faces the Palacio Real. Finished near the end of 20th century in the Neo-Gothic style, it is where the Princes of Asturias Felipe and Letizia were married in 2004. Especially noteworthy are the 5,000-pipe organ, a large painted 15th-century Gothic altarpiece, and the empty 12th-century coffin of Madrid's patron saint, Isidro. €1 (requested donation). Almudena Cathedral on Wikipedia Almudena Cathedral (Q849711) on Wikidata
Compare with (unified style):
  • The main bus station for international buses in Prague is 8 Florenc BC, located east of the city centre. Other, less frequently used bus stations are at Dejvická A, Černý most B...
  • 9 Stadtmitte Berlin U2.svg Stadtmitte (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Stadtmitte (Q660066) on Wikidata / 10 Französische Straße Berlin U6.svg Französische Straße (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Französische Straße (Q571479) on Wikidata — For Gendarmenmarkt and Friedrichstraße.
  • 11 Wittenbergplatz Berlin U1.svgBerlin U2.svgBerlin U3.svg. Wittenbergplatz (Berlin U-Bahn) on Wikipedia Wittenbergplatz (Q692727) on Wikidata
  • The stations of biggest interests are 12 Tierpark Berlin U5.svg and 13 S-Bahn station Lichtenberg Berlin S5.svgBerlin S7.svgBerlin S75.svgBerlin U5.svg. You can also use the long distance/regional trains, but departures are less frequent than for the S-Bahn. Berlin S75.svg also goes to Hohenschönhausen.
  • The main entry point for Kreuzberg 61 is 14 Mehringdamm Berlin U6.svgBerlin U7.svg.
  • 2 Catedral de la Almudena (Opera Madrid-MetroLinea2.svgMadrid-MetroLinea5.svgMadrid-MetroRamal.svg). Daily 09:00-20:30. This massive cathedral faces the Palacio Real. Finished near the end of 20th century in the Neo-Gothic style, it is where the Princes of Asturias Felipe and Letizia were married in 2004. Especially noteworthy are the 5,000-pipe organ, a large painted 15th-century Gothic altarpiece, and the empty 12th-century coffin of Madrid's patron saint, Isidro. €1 (requested donation). Almudena Cathedral on Wikipedia Almudena Cathedral (Q849711) on Wikidata (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The advantages of {{station}} compared with just using {{marker}} in combination with rint are not obvious at all. Please would one of you ( or Wauteurz) explain why using the station template is better. Remember the preference of Wikivoyage to eschew templates for the sake of having templates.
Otherwise, the combination of marker / listing numbers and metro line symbols next to each other is undoubtedly confusing. There should definitely always be some text between them, so that a marker number isn't mistaken for a metro line and vice versa. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
In short, Station would be used to unify the way in which RINT is used. Andree told me that Station is very much still in development, and that they are working on a way to integrate RINT into Station without having to call two templates (i.e. merge the templates). In development, I am only working on making RINT a standalone template instead of having to depend on Wikipedia's version of the template (which will most likely include changes to Template:Routebox entry in the long run). Andree is in general responsible for all other aspects.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, I see. If the merger goes well, that would be an improvement. Your work also sounds promising, so thanks both for your efforts :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries! I'm hoping to have documentation done on the new RINT by Sunday. I'll post here in the Pub asking for feedback then, after which I'll decide whether I'll compact the source text, add funtions to RbE or expand coverage, so stay tuned! You can follow development here if you're wanting to read up a bit.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm sorry not to have taken part in this thread. What I understand from User:RolandUnger (and Roland, please correct me if I haven't understood well - this is not my area of expertise) is that all Wikivoyage listing templates other than {{listing}} are going to be unsupported very soon, mainly because he is the one guy maintaining the template, is of course a volunteer like all the rest of us, and one template takes up a lot of his time by itself but he has no time to maintain others. We at en.voy will then have to decide whether to (a) follow the lead of de.voy and deprecate other listing templates or (b) risk having increasingly messed-up, unsupported templates. Roland, did I describe the situation correctly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Briefly, it is correct that we support only one template at the German edition because we have more than 400 types which are necessary to transfer data to Wikidata in future—types like go, see, do are useless for this aim. But normally I do not change anything at other branches without the decision of the community that means there is no change soon. If I have some time I will explain in detail what we have done and what we will do in future to give the base of a discussion on other wikis: to use the state as is or to change over to our solution. Unfortunately, markers and listings are more complex than it is imagined by most of our authors: so the listing template consists of about 15 modules [including skype linking] and supports now 48 parameters including facebook and Other tools are depending on this implementation, for instance, the poi-to-gpx tool. That's why we will never accept that the name parameter in marker/listing templates will contain other information than a name. So it is impossible to extract a name from other information by these tools and by bots.
In prior to this we will make some improvements on the German wiki to the listing template (support of Latin and non-Latin addresses got from Wikidata), (hopefully) adding mobile support to the listing editor, and collecting ideas for further development. If a decision is made to use the tools we will prepare all necessities like bot runs (replacing template names, removing unsupported parameters like wikipedia, etc.)—I think we will get support from Wikipedians for bot run. As you stated we haven't the manpower to support different versions on all branches. At the process of a possible implementation we will add and test also right-to-left support for instance for the Hebrew branch. I think it will a take a year. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in! In the end, either we solve this somehow or we'll lose the (IMO) nice feature... I (think I) understand your point, though I'd say (for non-richtext-compatible-outputs) dropping e.g. everything from name since first html/markup would be easily done. What about having e.g. parameter "name-extra", or "name-icons" (only used if "rendering" into rich text)? It will probably take a few weeks/months until we switch to {{de:Listing}}, but I'd say by that time, converting some 50-100 articles from {{station}} to any form of {{listing}} should be a minute bot-job... Just tell if you think there's no way, so that we don't waste time adding this stuff into further articles... (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
There are some comments above noting that this template breaks the listing editor - what is actually breaking is that the listing editor has a bug where it cannot currently handle the "}}}}" syntax of double-nested templates. As a workaround, change "}}}}" to "}} }}" (note the space) - for example {{template1|{{template2}}}} to {{template1|{{template2}} }} and the listing editor should work again. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the suggestion! I applied the workaround where I broke it previously... (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"And much more"[edit]

Hi, everyone. I deleted or edited out a lot of instances of "and much more" at the ends of lists, but it's quite a common cliche/promotional phrase, so I could really use some help if anyone would like to take up where I left off. Of course we have to be careful when using search results for "and much more" because it can be part of meaningful phrases like "and much more interesting" or "and much more expensive", but as a phrase at the end of a list, it's gotta go. And once we banish it, continued vigilance will be needed to revert or edit out new instances of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. There are variations of this like "and so much more", "and much, much more" and other similar touty phrases that we need to delete too. Gizza (roam) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. The end of this task is in sight, but this is still a big job. Anyone who would like to help would be doing a good service and saving me from feeling impelled to do the rest of this by myself. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Just "and+much+much+more"&title=Special:Search 16 left for "and much, much more". I got most of them but need to get offline for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect pages on Wikipedia to Wikivoyage[edit]

Came across the article w:Ice hockey in North America which is in w:Category:Redirects to Wikivoyage. Not sure what to make of this. What do people think, good or bad idea? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea if done judiciously. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please test pings in edit summary[edit]

1. Read this:

"You can notify users in edit summaries. They will get a ping just as if they had been mentioned on a wiki page. phab:T32750"-- meta:Tech/News/2018/10

2. Sign up at using a different user name and password (not the one you use here). You may create multiple accounts if you like, just put a note on their user pages.

3. Edit a page and put a username link in edit summary. Confirm that you are receiving the notification correctly.

4. Test at different pages and in different ways.

5. Report bugs to Phabricator.

6. Share this comment with other people on other wikis, in different languages.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RINT, Routeboxes and more[edit]

I was hoping to be able to report on the progress by Sunday, but the sooner, the better:

As many of you most likely will know, I have been improving {{Rail-interchange}} (or RINT for short) and {{Routebox entry}} over the past few days to make these local templates, rather than being dependent on Wikipedia's RINT template, having to import many small templates in the process. Thus far, I've achieved the following:

  • I have created User:Wauteurz/RINT, which is a local version of {{Rail-interchange}}, which mostly uses {{Routebox entry}} to produce a result like so:  U4 .
  • I've adapted {{Routebox entry}} to accept more customisation. Right now, the additions are limited to roundovers, with the option to add no, somewhat or fully rounded corners. Examples:  L4   SPR   7bis .
  • I've written documentation, along with all symbols used for European networks for as far as these were present in the original RINT template link. Please note that round-overs may not have been added everywhere, and that some cities may not be complete yet. Colours or images may also be off or not working, as the template is very much still in development.

The following additions and/or changes are planned:

  • Andree has shown interest in merging {{station}} and {{rint}}, but cannot do so so long as this possible replacement for RINT is still in the works.
  • More options are planned for Routebox entry, most notably the option to output diamond shapes (Used on the New York Subway among others).
  • A full coverage of the new RINT for all of Asia, Africa (currently lacking from RINT), Oceania and North and South America.
  • Conditional markup for RINT, as currently exists for Germany: {{User:Wauteurz/RINT|de|s|[№]}} with any number for [№] gives  S41 ,  S56 ,  S357  or many others.
  • Optional: Compatibility between {{Routebox}} and {{Routebox entry}} leaves a lot to be desired. This can be changed to where Routebox entries (which will also be made via RINT) can be used in {{Routebox}}.

The goal of these changes is to give Wikivoyage a universal look to lines, rather than using thousands of PNG and SVG files from Commons rendered at different widths from 11 to 60px. I'd like you to answer the following questions:

  1. Are you in favor of replacing {{rint}} as it stands currently?
  2. If so, are you interested in replacing it with User:Wauteurz/RINT? (It will of course be renamed to "rint" once it is at a point where it can be replaced).
  3. Are you interested in more options to {{Routebox entry}}, and if so, what options would you like to see? I cannot guarantee that they can be achieved, but I can try.
  4. While I'm already at it, is there anything you would want RINT to do or support that it currently doesn't?

I'll continue working on the template for a while, as I would be very much in favor of using it for RINT (and not only because I have invested half of my week into the template). Anything in the template is subject to change if there is a desire for it. I'll be awaiting your answers and will be able to answer any of your questions or explain anything that may not be clear. Thank you in advance.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that people have opinions on the matter. I'd like some confirmation before I plunge forward and replace templates. Speaking of: User:Wauteurz/RINT/box (the improved {{Routebox entry}} has had its functionalities expanded with customisation of border colours, rounded edges and mouse-over texts/tooltips. This is everything that I wanted to add to it. Since it is a non-destructive change, I'll plunge forward and update Routebox entry sometime soon unless anyone that wouldn't agree steps forward in the upcoming week. Furthermore, Andree has managed to make {{station}} call RINT without having to enter two templates (which can in circumstances break listings). We're rapidly approaching the goal and I for one would like to hear from the rest of Wikivoyage, so please, let your voice be heard!
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Played with RINT and having fun with it... The images appear for the most part to link to a Wikipedia article - if not in Wikipedia they will link to Create a Wikivoyage page. (looks ok now) - thought I would mention that. Instead of linking to Wikipedia for U-Bahn (Berlin) I created maplinks instead or no link if OSM data not available (the listing or marker icons still go to their specific locations on a map). I didn't try mapshapes but managed to create the U-Bohn routes on a test map. Others such as S-Bohn etc. did not appear to have any OSM linkage (I may be incorrect on that note). Also, if Wikidata etc. were in sync, would it have been possible to use the image field found there instead. (probably not since not all are in wikidata or have some other image present). Other concern would be the size of the template and whether or not it may need to interact (using a case or switch statement) with another set of templates. (also just wondering if it can be done with a module and tables or not?) Anyhow; looks nice and hope users will find it useful. Best wishes! -- Matroc (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention - S-Bahn station Lichtenberg example - when one clicks on the Go icon - a map pops up - click on that icon on the map - the title box with image of station - the title S-Bahn station Lichtenberg followed by images for S5, S7, S75 and U5 bleeds over the edge of the box -- Matroc (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lifehacker: Wikivoyage Is the Travel Guide to Everywhere[edit] (koavf)TCM 18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the comments, some are only now jumping from the sinking ship of that other site to our site. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to find the lifehacker article mentioned above yesterday while reading Jalopnik, an automobile blog. Their link was posted on 13 March 2018 at 10:39. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

second opinion request on block or not[edit]

Should we block this user or not? User talk: could be working for Hyatt or could just be a traveller that uses this brand of hotel (I know I often enter the chains I use on pages). Has in the past added other hotel chains. Just the text is often a little touty or copy of website. Either way considering forcing the issue of them creating a user account declaring if any business interest or not. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)

This user was already warned, so if they have touted again in any way, they should have been blocked for 24 hours. Continually warning with no block isn't going to produce any good results, especially in cases in which the user in question has never replied to any message to their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick note about a new maps project[edit]

Over the next four months, the WMF Collaboration team will be making improvements to the mapping program Kartographer and related functions. The team’s engagement with maps was prompted in part by the overwhelming support the maps community gave the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal "Kartographer Improvements". The project, which we’re calling Map Improvements 2018, is focused mainly on making mapping software easier to maintain and, of course, on the main "wishes" in the Wishlist proposal. Please visit the project page on to learn more and share your ideas or questions. JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey all. Our main page for mobile sucks.[5] Not sure what we can do about that?

Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing that might be helpful is a feature called TemplateStyles. It's something the Readers Infrastructure team is working on at the foundation. It allows templates to have custom CSS styles without having to place them in MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that non-admins can update the CSS for templates used on the Main Page (and anywhere else) that can use more CSS rules and be responsive to any device - like mobile).
We have some help documentation if folks are interested in learning more. We have deployed to a few wikis and are looking for more communities to adopt and advocate. I'd be happy to help put English Wikivoyage on the list if there is community consensus (and folks interested in helping to implement). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Surpassing WT as of Feb 2018[edit]

Per similarweb WV received 7.63M visits (2.55 pages each)[6]

While WT received 5.91 M visits (1.66 pages each)[7]

Congrats... Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This will probably be one of the last things we hear of The Other Site. The wreck is sinking, and they had it coming to them. See also Wikivoyage and Wikitravel for a comparison of Alexa rankings. /Yvwv (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that Internet Brands has come out with a net win of their attempt to shut down the fork or all discussion of it... Let's see when they pull the plug. At some point in time the servers will become more expensive than the advertising revenue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that 2.8M views went to the edit-a-thon page alone. Looking at the Alexa and similarweb analyses, even though we are making progress and they are declining, they still have a much stronger SEO and social media presence than us. Gizza (roam) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Name of Packed food article?[edit]

The article which describes food to bring for outdoor expeditions beyond a casual picnic is named packed food. Would camping food, outdoor food or some other name be better? Give your opinion on Talk:Packed food. /Yvwv (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Proliferation of airport articles[edit]

In those last few months or so, quite a few new airport articles have been created, some of them with significant empty sections. Now that may just be something that can easily be filled in or those airport articles should never have been created in the first place. What should we do about those existing articles and might it be wise to have a moratorium on the creation of new ones? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... TBH I think the number of airport articles has gotten out of hand. I'm afraid we'll need to delete some airport articles, perhaps even half of them.
When the airport expedition was started some people were concerned that we'd end up with a ton of half-empty articles of airport that really do not need to be described in detail, and while the number of airport articles was fairly stable until last summer or so, if the current trend goes on we'll at some point add up with articles like in the German version. de:Flughafen Heringsdorf, anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think in general, we're starting to go overboard. Airport articles are supposed to be reserved for the world's most complicated and busiest airports, where travellers are likely to spend a significant amount of time. Some of the recent additions to the list don't qualify by that criterion.
I would be reluctant to push for the deletion of articles, but would appreciate if users would work on existing airport articles (especially the newer ones) rather than creating new ones. Not to point fingers, but User:MSG17, you have created many of the new pages, but haven't done much to develop each one before moving on. Would you mind improving the dozen or so you've already created before you consider making any more? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Not deletion: Merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I will start a thread at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition to propose the merging/redirecting of specific articles and link it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I can assure you, you are not "pointing fingers". It is true that I have created a lot of new articles, often with nearly half the sections having no or one-line content. While I could add some personal research with planned travels in the summer, you are right that I should turn my focus on looking at adding research of my own to the articles, especially since that is planned, not absolute.
I will back up all the airport articles that I have created somewhere for any future use, and then focus on pruning them - deletion might be possible. I did overestimate the "bar" for airports, and should probably focus more on the busiest airports list from Hobbitschuster (talk) (and even then - some of those may not have enough notability or content for an article) than going off of what I considered "enough international connections" or "too much content on the main page".
Apologies for the inconvenience. MSG17 (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There are quite few fairly significant airports that are currently only redirects, eg. Mactan-Cebu International Airport or Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport, & that seems fine to me. I think the main rule is the same as for deciding if a suburb gets its own article, separate from the city: only if there is already enough text to be unwieldy if kept in the main article. Pashley (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
New thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
MSG17, there's no reason to apologize. The content is useful; the only question is where it's best placed. Some airports can be covered very effectively in the "Get in/By plane" section of the article for the city most served by the airport, while others are humongous, complex, not straightforward to get to and/or full of amenities worth listing, such that an article about them would become way too long to fit well in the article for that city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this completely. Never apologise for adding useful content to Wikivoyage. Speaking of which, I regret that I'm a lot less active at the moment. Life getting in the way. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the district layout of San Diego[edit]

I have proposed here to eliminate the current discontinuity in the district layout of San Diego either by making San Ysidro a city article independent of San Diego or by making two city articles districts of San Diego. I don't know what the administrative borders in the area are, but we have ample precedent to ignore them when they don't serve the traveler Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Though Wikivoyage policy allows for a great deal of leeway in this regard, I have always been of the opinion that we should follow administrative boundaries unless there's a pretty compelling argument to the contrary. I think treating San Ysidro as an independent city is preferable to expanding the scope of San Diego's districts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Markers to listings[edit]

Although I totally supported adding Wikipedia links to See, Do listings, not sure I like the look of adding Wikipedia and Wikidata link icons to city region lists. See Baden-Württemberg for example. But before I start undoing all the work done by another user, would like to hear others opinions.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reluctance, though not just for aesthetic reasons. Why would we want to funnel readers away to WP at such an early stage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, both for aesthetic reasons and because I don't see why users need links to the Wikipedia and Wikidata pages for a city right next to the link to the Wikivoyage page (basically what ThunderingTyphoons! said). I've been changing "listing" templates to "marker" templates when I see them in city lists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the other side - for having the links, definitely at least to wikidata. We can do it either via listings, or by moving wikidata into markers. The latter is what's done in de:Vorlage:Marker (it seems) - and thus what likely will be done also here, eventually...
  • In any case, having the wikidata references has number of benefits - if nothing else, easily accessible URL/picture and also lat/long data. For sure the processing would be simpler for bots. E.g. in case we decide to have some nice overview maps in the future (like "biggest cities in the Alps"), having the wikidata IDs in place would help grouping acc. to regions etc. In short - all the wikidata links help automated processing.
  • As for the wikipedia links - it probably is a good idea at least for the articles we don't have yet? Like here it'd help, IMO.
  • I'm actually half-way of having User:AndreeBot ready to convert the current outline region articles into having at least listings out of the cities (and probably also 'other destinations', if it's easy to do). Markers are possible too, in the end. But using listings sounds more logical. Also, should we change our minds, converting to listings to markers is easier than the other way around... (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the functionality perspective yet but in terms of aesthetics, I think it's looks uglier in the City section compared to See and Do because the WP and WD links are at the start of the listing instead of at the end. Also the city descriptions are usually one-liners so the WP and WD logos stand out more compared to a listing with say, 3 lines of content. Gizza (roam) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that we don't need a WP link for cities at least with a blue link. The whole point of see listings being linked to WP is because we don't have an article for sights themselves here. We don't have articles on museums so we link to WP if someone wants to read about the museum in detail. That's not the case with cities. And I don't think Wikipedia should get a preference when other WMF wikis have content about that city. Looking at the sidebar of Los Angeles for example, there is a Wikimedia Commons page, Wikinews page, WP page and Wikiquote page. A traveller reading the California guide and seeing Los Angleles in the list may want to see a gallery of images showing the city instead of encyclopedic information (making Commons if anything a more suitable link) or they may want to read current news or quotes about the city. Also I wonder if there's a way to add the Wikidata link but make it not show up in the article (so we can obtain lat/long information from it but the reader can't see it on the region page unless they click on the city link and then see it in the sidebar of the city article). Gizza (roam) 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)