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:

  • 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 want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Contents

Help needed: Fix many simple errors[edit]

Alex and me maintain this list of URL and email misspellings that you can easily fix.

It is updated automatically every 2 weeks, so bookmark it and come back whenever you have a minute to kill. Feedback welcome! (bug tracker, source code) Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Syced - had previously fixed lat and long issues in your list as well as a couple URL's and emails. Most issues you had listed with emails were multiple email addresses (am not sure what the procedure for handling multiple emails is - keep just 1?) -- anyhow your link above no longer is accessible -- Matroc (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
URL fixed, thanks! Currently about 30% of the email errors seem to be multiple addresses indeed. Better fix the other 70%, or concentrate on URLs and lattudes/longitudes :-) Thanks for your help always! Syced (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No article on Watching Cricket matches?[edit]

So ,where to start? 80.176.129.180 14:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at other articles about watching sport (a very odd expression for an American, where we watch sports and not "sport", but I digress, and we're talking about cricket here), and consider using similar sections with related content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I have thought about a cricket article many times. The problem is I want to make the article at usable status straight away instead of a skeleton or outline but I'm too lazy and/or busy to do that right now. Also I don't know if it's better to make a general cricket article or one based on location (Cricket in the UK, Australia, India, Caribbean, etc.) Another to thing to note is that there is more to sports tourism than watching the actual games. There are museums dedicated to the sport, residences of famous players and halls of fame. Gizza (roam) 11:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually put it on the requested article list a long time ago.... I would have started an article myself but I really don't know much about Cricket (apparently there is an official tea break and their idea of speeding up games is them taking one day instead of several... ) but imho the approach to make a general topic before making Cricket in x articles works better. Not least because you will have to explain the game to ignorant folk like me. What's a wicket? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hovercards[edit]

Is the beta feature Hovercards no longer available? -- Matroc (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is currently broken - see phab:T121777. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that information! - It is very useful -- Matroc (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that Hovercards is back - Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! - Matroc (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article count[edit]

At 12:33, December 17, 2015 there were 26,999 Wikivoyage articles.JarrahTree (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We may already be there. For some reason I cannot work out British Raj is not being counted. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Admins: 52
  • Users: 2049158
  • Active Users: 465
  • Pages: 126898
  • Articles: 27000 <---- Time to celebrate!
  • Files: 899
  • Edits: 2905186
  • Views: Not available as $wgDisableCounters is no longer available! - Matroc (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

There are lots of ways to get involved. But anyway, Happy Birthday in advance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for proposals is open![edit]

Dear users,
the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 is open! All the members of the Wikimedia projects, researchers and observers are invited to propose a critical issue to be included in the programme of the conference, which will be held in Italy, in Esino Lario, from June 21 to 28.
Through this call we only accept what we call critical issues, i.e. proposals aiming at presenting problems, possible solutions and critical analysis about Wikimedia projects and activities in 18 minutes. These proposals do not need to target newbies, and they can assume attendees to already have a background knowledge on a topic (community, tech, outreach, policies...).
To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. Deadline for submitting proposals is 7th January 2016 and the selection of these proposals will be through a blind peer-reviewed process. Looking forward to your proposals. --Yiyi (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --Yiyi (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Links from non-Wikimedia wikis[edit]

Now I know there is no official policy on this (and there shouldn't be), but we should be aware that there are wikis out there that are not in any way related to the Wikimedia Foundation. If and where authors on this here wiki are active on one or several of those projects, you might wish to check out:

  1. whether there are links to that other site
  2. whether a link to Wikivoyage would make sense (don't try to shoehorn something in where it shouldn't be)
  3. whether the community knows about Wikivoyage and whether a brief information on our existence would be of use.

I don't think this would do all that much to our SEO woes, but it might create a few pageviews or better yet give us new editors who already know (and like) wikis. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Any effort is worthwhile effort. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why I wanted to raise awareness of this. If any of you has a blog, this might of course also be an avenue worth exploring, but I don't want to prescribe or forbid any specific behavior... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The stalled effort on our coverage of Germany[edit]

I recall that there was an effort to get the coverage of Germany to a better level, particularly concerning the sub-regions of the Länder. However, that effort stalled sometime in the Northern Hemisphere summer, presumably due to many editors being on holidays. Now looking at bottom level regions of Germany like Unterfranken, I can't help but wonder: When is round two going to start? And what should we focus on? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree it is time to get back to this. I was a little shocked Aschaffenburg and Mespelbrunn did not have an entry so added the minimum. But as you say I have not yet finished documenting places I have visited since the summer around the world so taking some time getting back to Germany. Quite bad that there is no article for Schweinfurt and Miltenberg. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are some to does Germnay outline articles that are close to usable; needs eat; needs sleep --Traveler100 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Create some stats Wikivoyage:Germany Expedition. Note if the links to the status article list hangs, wait 10 minutes, sometimes the catscan server hangs. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi everyone,

The 2015 Community Wishlist Survey is over, and now the Community Tech team's work begins on the top 10 features and fixes.

In November and December 2015, we invited contributors from all Wikimedia projects to submit proposals for what they would like the Community Tech team to work on for the purpose of improving or producing curation and moderation tools for active contributors.

634 people participated in the survey, where they proposed, discussed and voted on 107 ideas. There was a two-week period in November to submit and endorse proposals, followed by two weeks of voting. The top 10 proposals with the most support votes now become the Community Tech team's backlog of projects to evaluate and address.

You can see the whole list with links to all the proposals and Phabricator tickets on this page: 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.

For everybody who proposed, endorsed, discussed, debated and voted in the survey, as well as everyone who said nice things to us recently: thank you very much for coming out and supporting live feature development. We're excited about the work ahead of us. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Images for Turku Medieval Market[edit]

I visited the Turku Medieval Market in June 2015 and took quite a few photographs there. They all depict reconstructions of medieval life in various forms. There's sword fighting, bands, crowds of men and women, sahti brewing, children in princess and knight costumes, and pillories. All of these are available at Commons, in the category "Turku Medieval Market". Should I add any of these to the article? And if so, which ones? JIP (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

JIP, I looked through your pictures. Looks like fun! My favourite one is Girls_in_stocks_at_Turku_Medieval_market_2015, but maybe it's a bit brutal, so what about Sword fight at Turku Medieval market 2015 or Medieval band at Turku Medieval market 2015? I like all of them better than the existing picture. Danapit (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I added the picture of a medieval band to the article. JIP (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisting a keyword[edit]

Hi, everyone. Please look at this edit. What did I do wrong? I tested adding that keyword, and it was not blocked by the spam filter. See this history for context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Per User talk:Wrh2#MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist the blacklist apparently now only works on URLs. If things get particularly problematic then an abuse filter could be set up, which should work on any text. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
That sucks. I'll bet this persistent edit warrior won't give up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
We can create an abuse filter for it. Is there anything more distinctive than 'bamboo bar' to look for? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, an abuse filter can do everything that the blacklist can (and more, actually: an abuse filter can even be set to autoblock users that trigger it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I don't think there's anything more distinctive than "Bamboo Bar' to look for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Page banner and TOC - again[edit]

The Table of Content still keeps appearing on random pages, I am even beginning to think it is happening when there is no edit of an article. I would hate to get rid of the drop down functionality we now have in the page banner but beginning to think it may be the price to pay to not have the TOC appearing in articles. Should be go back to the old method or someone have an idea how to fix the problem? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I was told that this problem is related to page cache. Cache has to be purged globally, on every page, after some changes in the software. I added a small patch to Common.js. It purges cache automatically when the page is loaded, and it seems to solve the problem efficiently. --Alexander (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw it once or twice yesterday, and I kind of wished I could turn it on all the time. I always have to stop and remember where the TOC is on Wikivoyage. Traveler, if you see it again, I'd be very interested in knowing which article is appeared on (and more specifically, whether that article had recently been edited with the visual editor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait, "It purges cache automatically when the page is loaded" -- does this mean we're bypassing the cache on every page? That's very bad. Powers (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... I imagine the Wikimedia techies will grumble but let it go because Wikivoyage is such a small piece of their traffic, but I'm pretty sure they're not amused by that patch :-) I've seen the issue a bunch of times too. Wouldn't it make sense to not patch it for now but keep track of where and when it happens, in order to find the exact issue? It's not such a huge issue that it needs an instant fix, does it? JuliasTravels (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have not seen any issues related to this patch. The only problem with "by-passing the cache" is that loading time increases, but it's not a problem at all.
If you want to track this bug, please go, but don't be surprised when you find out that the same page is fine for those users who have logged in, and makes a problem for those who are logged out. --Alexander (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
What the heck's the point of having a cache if we bypass it on every page load? This is a major change to the site architecture, implemented through a seemingly minor adjustment to the site Javascript. I strongly recommend we revert this change until such time as we can check with the developers for advice. Powers (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing to revert. No patch is used on English Wikivoyage at the moment. --Alexander (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Still a problem. Example Neunkirchen (Saarland), note date of edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Handling almost empty articles.[edit]

There has been a lot of discussion recently on how to handle articles that have little information in them. As an attempt to find a solution I have create a flowchart of processes. Would appreciate some comments and input at Template talk:Needsimprovement#Proposal. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Paper on Decline of WP; are there lessons for us?[edit]

How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline From the abstract: "recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause."

I wonder to what extent that applies here. Certainly we are not entirely innocent when it comes to biting the newbies. Recent discussions on deleting stubs are one example. Pashley (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that we are gentler than the English Wikipedia. There are some ways to encourage more people to click the edit button, which is a big step. Some other things that help are going easy on the undo button (can you keep any of those changes at all?) and personal welcoming messages to promising (non-spammy/non-vandal) registered editors – especially a welcome that says "If you post your questions HERE, then we'll answer them!"
If you wanted to try an experiment, then we could ask User:Jtmorgan and User:EpochFail for their suggestions on what might be most effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting that the discussions on deleting stubbs is an example of 'biting newbies' and thereby responsible to the sites decline is very disingenuous.
Generally speaking most editors on this site are accommodating to most contributions to articles. We do take hard lines in some areas, including touting and changing of regional structure without discussion. Yesterday I reverted quite a few edits on Asia and sub articles because it didn't match one anonymous editor's own view of the world.
Agree with WhatamIdoing in that we should use 'undo' with care, and if we do then explain why we undid as well as a message on the user page to say that we would like to work together. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not suggesting it is responsible for a decline; I'm not even certain there is a decline.
However, I do think we sometimes bite newbies. Look at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons, for example and consider how the new contributors who created Catarman and Danao City would feel about deletion. Both are significant towns, around 100,000, and one is a provincial capital.
We have also banned a number of users — Alice, Frank, Tony, ttcf, 118.whatever, ... — who sometimes made useful contributions. Granted, there were reasons, but it might be worth looking at whether we should be more flexible in such cases. Pashley (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A point of correction - Tony is not banned. He was blocked for 3 days. It's been his choice not to contribute since then. Nurg (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should be welcoming, helpful and kind to new users unless they're obvious spambots, vandals or incorrigible touter/edit warriors; however, if it's really essential to revisit the controversies that cost so much time, ill feeling and the departure or drastically reduced contributions by several extremely valuable editors, I will simply observe that some former editors, though helpful in a variety of ways, have made this site much more peaceful and pleasant through their absence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Ikan. Let's not rewrite history here. The accounts Pashley cites above collectively represent two individual editors whose contributions to the site were partially constructive and partially not. Holding off for as long as we did on banning their accounts caused us to lose three editors whose contributions were wholly constructive. If we had held off longer, it is likely that we would have lost even more editors. Best practice in terms of editor retention would have been to ban the problem accounts far sooner than we in fact did. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that my treatment of (some) newbies may have resulted in them leaving. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the key point to extract out of this is not to simply accept or reject a new edit. Except in obviously bad cases edits should be enhanced not deleted and accompanied by some personalized advice on the users page. Traffic is small enough on this site we are not in the same zone as Wikipedia.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that sounds like a constructive, simple, low-risk suggestion that anyone can do. Let's try it out. It can't hurt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikivoyage Wishlist[edit]

With 2016 already here in some parts of the world, it would be interesting to hear people's wishlists for Wikivoyage in the coming year, whether they're big items or merely a personal desire to improve a specific article. Here are a few of mine:

  • I'd like to see the number of contributors increase noticeably in 2016, which I think is the single biggest key to making this project a success. Efforts towards improving project visibility like Wikivoyage:Social media and Wikivoyage:Search Expedition/Missing links from Wikipedia, at making contributing easier through tools like Wikivoyage:Listing editor and dynamic maps, and more clarity about how to contribute (including the recent changes to Wikivoyage:Region article template and current discussions about rural destinations) are all moves in the right direction that hopefully will pay dividends in the coming year.
  • As a personal goal, I'd like to see the Wikivoyage Culver City article move to the first result on a search for "Culver City travel guide", and the Yosemite article in the first ten results for a similar search. I've been using these two articles as my benchmarks when trying to improve search engine ranking, and it would be gratifying to see their ranking continue to improve.
  • I'd like to see a big improvement to the region articles for California. Central Coast (California) has been a recent project and is much improved of late, but my home state still has lots of skeleton region articles and thus plenty room for improvement.

There are obviously about a million other things that would improve the project in the coming year, but those are a few I'd like to see. What else would people like to see in 2016? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope to see a lot more improvement to our region guides. The recent changes to the region article template have given us much more flexibility in terms of how we approach those guides, which I think is just what we needed to encourage some creative and enthusiastic endeavors there. Here's hoping it pays off! PerryPlanet (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we should have a regions expedition or collaboration of the year or month. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Ryan: I just hope we may able to install the new proposed region list template that you created, this year. During 2015, my activity on Wikivoyage was too low so I hope I may able to give much more time to Wikivoyage this year so that ore Pakistani destinations could be brought up-to guide status. Anyways, happy new year to everyone from frozen Russian Far East. --Saqib (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you and all other Wikivoyagers! I didn't realize you were still in Russia. Greetings from brisk Oakland, California. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Well been here for more than two months but the thing is I'm still not tired of Far East. But anyway I may leave Russia within this month. --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like enough time to do even half the things I want to get done... never seems to happen though! Otherwise, continue cleaning up and rounding out coverage of British Columbia's regions and underlying destinations, and finally get around to the refresh of North Vancouver and Vancouver so they can hopefully get some first page love from Google. -Shaundd (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

AndreCarrrotflower's 2016 Wikivoyage wishlist:

Personal goals

  • Get better at keeping up-to-date on creating DotM banners. It's one of my favorite things that I do here at Wikivoyage, and I'm pretty good at it if I do say so myself, but so often it gets away from me and I find myself within a few days of not having a banner to slot into dotm#Next change for the next feature (i.e. right now).
  • A walking-tour itinerary article based around the Heritage Townscape Murals in Kenora, Ontario. I took this tour last July and have plenty of photographs with which to illustrate such an article. Ideally this would go up for FTT next summer, but given the volume of other work I have to do around here it might have to wait until 2017.
  • Add images to the listings in the Buffalo district articles. It's easy enough to do, all I have to do is get off my rear and get to it.
  • Quite simply, devote more time to Wikivoyage. My presence here, while still fairly consistent, has dropped off some since Buffalo's run as DotM. Obviously that was a major accomplishment of mine, and I knew I would need a breather after the culmination of all that work, but by the same token, come on, that was half a year ago already. I don't feel that my work here is anywhere near done.

Sitewide goals (major issues)

  • As Ryan said, growth in our community of regular editors.
  • A definitive resolution to, or at least accelerated progress in, our SEO issues. That is to say, continued improvement in our Google page rank, a continued increase in the percentage of visitors referred to us by Google searches, more instances of Wikivoyage articles ranked higher in Google searches than the analogous article on the other site, and fewer instances of searches for Wikivoyage articles auto-redirected by Google to the analogous article on the other site.

Sitewide goals (minor issues)

  • Banff is the second featured article in a row to go on the Main Page with fewer than four "support" votes. There's nothing officially enshrined in policy that requires four votes, but all the same, I'd like to see the community participate in DotM in ways that go beyond simply adding new nominees. We should take time to review and vote on nominated articles, and where areas are pointed out in which nominees could maybe use a bit of improvement, we should pitch in and help with the fixes. (I should say that Ypsilon has been very good about giving nominees that final spit-shine before they go up on the Main Page, but he shouldn't be expected to do all the work himself!)
  • Saving the most well-developed idea for last: we need to revamp our guidelines for the routebox navigation system. I've been doing a lot of work on those lately, and the more I do, the more I notice the deficiencies in our current policy. In many cases, the end result is a navigation system that is barely usable. I know this isn't really the right venue in which to go into this in such detail, and I plan on adapting this section of my post to a formal proposal that will be presented on an actual policy page, but for the record, my wish for routeboxes is that by the beginning of next year:
  • every destination referenced in a routebox is presented as a link to an active Wikivoyage article – no redlinks, no bare-text place names (except in cases where the terminus of a route is located in a destination that currently does not have a Wikivoyage article, in which case the destination should be rendered in bare text, as per current policy).
  • there are no routeboxes where "junctions with other highways" are placed where either major or minor (but especially major) destinations should be. In other words, there should always be two actual destination articles on each side of the template for any given route, one major and one minor; where junctions with other highways appear, they should be in addition to, not in place of, those two destination articles. In the current scenario, if you're following a particular route across a junction, you can't always know what the next actual city is that you'll come to, and the chain is broken. The ultimate goal should be for the chain never to be broken.
  • all routes are covered from beginning to end – that is to say, currently there are numerous cases where on City X's routebox it says the next destination along Route Y is City Z, but Route Y does not appear at all on City Z's routebox. Again, the chain should never be broken.
    • So does that mean it is fine to create new city article that have no information except a routebox at the bottom? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • there is across-the-board consistency among all routeboxes as to which cardinal direction appears on which side of the template (this is an especially common problem for north-south routes in destinations on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, where south often appears to the left; there are even some articles in which north-left and south-left routes appear on the same routebox).
  • we eliminate the "preference for routes most often used by travellers in a given area" cited in current policy. First off, this approach funnels our readers into uncreative, one-size-fits-all methods of travel (why shouldn't we provide information for those outside-the-box thinkers who want to drive across Central America or take a passenger train across the American West, for example?); secondly, the fact is that the vast majority of cities don't have so many routes going through them that we would need to pick and choose an Interstate highway over an Amtrak line, for example. In the case of major cities where that's not true, such as New York City and Chicago, it's easy to come up with creative ways of dealing with the issue.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Increase the number of contributors - yes, indeed, but that's not easy. Here are some thoughts:
  • Are we (existing editors) encouraging new editors to stay, or are we too impatient with their newbie ways, leading them to cease (note the previous thread)?
  • Could we attract back major contributors who ceased, now that the cause of their leaving has been dealt with? Eg, @Peterfitzgerald: and others?
  • Improving search engine rankings and other means of attracting new readers and editors is a slow, incremental process. It is good to find actions that may give an outsize return for the effort involved. I think the Search Expedition/Missing links from Wikipedia project may give an outsize return in increasing traffic, so I'm delighted that is happening. The most effective way to improve search engine rankings seems to be to rewrite articles in order to reduce content duplicated from WT, but this is a slow, time-consuming, article-by-article process. Are there actions that might give an outsize return in improving rankings? Well, things that apply across many articles may do this. And many of our Category:Article classification templates still duplicate a lot of wording from those on WT. How about a project to rewrite those templates to make them as different as practical from those on WT? It will have only a slight effect on the ranking for each article, but thousands of articles have the templates, so a "slight effect" will be multiplied by thousands. Across the whole of WV it may make a worthwhile difference. In any case, there are only a couple of dozen templates involved, so even a modest benefit could be an outsize return for finite effort. Nurg (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Some interesting ideas above - reinvigorating the collaboration of the month, inviting absent editors back, improving region guides, etc, etc would all be great to see - hopefully those interested will push those ideas forward in the coming months. I forgot to mention it in my earlier comments, but if people have ideas for things they'd like to see done with a bot, I'd also like to find more ways to automate some of the site's more trivial tasks in the coming year; I know others are proficient programmers, so perhaps an expedition or "bot suggestion" page might also be worth pursuing in 2016. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Along the lines of what is being suggested by Nurg. I'd like to see a shake up of our article structure again. This will help our rankings, and give our articles a bit more excitement. The See/Do delineation has never been clear. What about 'Events', 'Outdoors', 'Culture', 'Architecture', 'Free' Lets have some to choose from depending on the city. I can't wait to see the end of 'Drink' - originally intended to highlight the 'party scene' making no sense in countries where drinking isn't the party scene, and even less when populated by coffee shops. We can start slow, by just permitting a few more headings than what we do now.. --Inas (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your ideas are interesting, and we should discuss them more, but not all of them will be applicable to every place (though that's true with the current structure, too). What would you propose to substitute for "Drink", and why isn't that a good heading for pubs and coffee shops alike? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that's my point - that we can pick or choose from a wider selection of headings more applicable to each place. As far as 'Drink' goes, it was clearly intended for nightlife, bars & pubs etc. In places like Australia I think it's weird to put a coffee shops that generally open for breakfast and light lunch, in with nightlife, and put restaurants in Eat, it is all mixed up. Some other cities may make more sense where coffee isn't just a morning drink. And of course when you associate 'Drink' with nightlife, it implies alcohol. I don't want to go too far down the alternatives. There are obviously many, but it's a two step process to decide to change, and then what to change to. --Inas (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing you flesh out your ideas at greater length. Where do you suppose the best place would be for this discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a space to discuss "articles with issues"?[edit]

Sometimes an article has some problems, that are evident to the casual editor (who might have happened upon it following a link or just by hitting "random page"), but that don't have any obvious or immediate solution. Now at a wiki with a big userbase the solution is to simply post on the talk page and hope that others can chip in and some sort of consensus is reached. However, as I can say from personal experience, this does not always work - even at bigger wikis - but it certainly produces mixed results at WV. Now in some cases I have vfded articles whose problems seem(ed) so big as to force merging, redirecting or even outright deletion, but this obviously not what vfd is intended for (Though the question what vfd is for if no real places are ever to be deleted and only pages that can be deleted qua policy should be nominated seems valid to me). So here is my question - which quite likely is a bit silly - Could we install some place where articles with issues are discussed by those in the community who have experience with such cases? imho Request for comment does not serve this purpose either, as it is rarely updated let alone looked at. But I may of course be wrong and seeing a problem that actually doesn't exist. Anyway, a belated happy new year to y'all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Raise on the articles talk page then add a line to Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps just raise the issue with each article on the pub? If the volume increases too much for comfort then that would give impetus for creating a separate page for this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If the issue is that an editor familiar with a location wants to make a change, a talk page message and optionally a pointer to the discussion at WV:RFC is usually sufficient to solicit feedback, and if no one comments, plunge forward and make the change. However, I don't think it's necessary to point out flaws for areas that an editor has no proposal for addressing and expect that others will jump in to fix them - things improve gradually over time on a wiki, and pointing out a problem does not imply that someone else should have to solve it immediately. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Well (Unfortunately I can't remember a concrete example right now, but Buses has something similar on its talk page) sometimes I wrote something along the lines "Should we do a or b or something else?" though I admit that I have on occasion posted something like "Something should be done, but I don't know what"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There may very well be important sections that sound unreliable or confusing and might need quite quick attention, and the one that notices them may not have reliable information at hand. In such a case other editors' attention is needed, but yes, for now a note here on the pub may be the best solution. --LPfi (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lua Module help[edit]

Requesting assistance from someone who knows about Lua (#invoke) module language. Is it possible to scan the contents of articles for specific text strings (actually template) based on a list of articles in a category and its sub-categories? I would like to make these table numbers dynamic. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I have done some Extension and Lua (Module) programming with my own wikimedia sites and a few tests on wikivoyage, I don't think that it can be done; however, I would definitely put in a request at Wikpedia. I have had good luck there and you should most likely get some good advice and answers. Wikipedia User:Mr._Stradivarius has done a lot of work on Modules and I think he might be a great source. All the best! - Matroc (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Add Note - Traveler100 - You can scan the contents of an article for a text string, it could be expensive when dealing with multiple articles; especially, if they are large articles - just managed to do that recently as was I was testing to break up a page and produce a word list for that page and avoid using page transclusion. -- Matroc (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) -- In the pub - Traveler100 appears at last test I did 100 times and the phrase in the region article appears 4 times... - should be pretty close...
It would appear that traversing the contents of a category is not possible. Nevertheless thanks for your input. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from Wikipedia[edit]

In the Wikipedia Yonge Street article, there is the tag: {{wikivoyage|Toronto/Yonge Street|Yonge Street}}. The WikiVoyage article Toronto/Yonge Street contains #REDIRECT [[Toronto#Yonge Street]]. The WikiVoyage article Toronto contains the section heading ==Yonge Street==. When I click on the WikiVoyage icon in the Wikipedia article, I get directed to the top of the Toronto article but not to its Yonge Street section.

Could anyone offer a solution? As a last resort, I could delete the WikiVoyage icon from the Wikipedia article.

The reasons I am replacing the WikiVoyage article Toronto/Yonge Street by a redirect are here: Talk:Toronto/Yonge Street.

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed the same problem recently, and not just with Toronto - whenever I enter a term into the searchbox that includes a fragment identifier (#), or type a URL that includes one that's intended for a wikivoyage.org address, I'm directed to the top of the page and have to click Refresh to arrive at the appropriate section. It's probably a bug with the MediaWiki software. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I resolved the problem by replacing {{wikivoyage|Toronto/Yonge Street|Yonge Street}} by {{wikivoyage|Toronto#Yonge Street|Yonge Street}} in the Wikipedia article. Even within WikiVoyage the redirect works in some places but fails in others when using [[Toronto/Yonge Street|Yonge Street]]. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
TheTrolleyPole, what your web browser? This is a common problem in Safari. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
(Reply to WhatamIdoing): I get the problem in both IE and Chrome when I use Toronto/Yonge Street, and avoid the problem if I use Toronto#Yonge Street as a link. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Both seem to work in IE. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Chrome and Safari are both WebKit browsers, so they have some bugs in common. Assuming that this is one of those bugs, then the solution has to be supplied by fixing the web browser. In the meantime, Toronto#Yonge Street is the most we can do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DotM candidates that need your vote[edit]

A troubling trend that many of us have noted over at dotm is that the nominees seem to be getting progressively fewer votes and other feedback lately. Currently, of the 17 articles currently on the schedule, only four of them have four or more support votes, and the past two featured articles (Driving in New Zealand and Banff) had to be put on the Main Page despite the "pending stronger consensus" disclaimer still being in effect.

Ein Gedi is due to go up as Off the Beaten Path in only five days. It has three support votes already, so it only needs one more. Antigua Guatemala, Hilo, and Armenian phrasebook are also due to be featured before the end of next month but need more votes. So please, anyone who has a bit of time to spare, it would be excellent if you reviewed those articles (or any others that are currently scheduled) and left your thoughts over at dotm - either a support vote, or specific remarks on what improvements you think the article needs before it goes on the Main Page.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it would be good to have some more eyes looking on the featured articles (I mentioned it here in the pub already in September). Out of I think 20 or so Wikivoyagers who contribute at least once weekly, it's mostly only me, Andre and Ikan who've been reviewing and fixing articles (except for a couple of cases when one person has worked very hard on one article and then nominated it).
One does not have to be an expert on the place or the topic to be able to comment on it or to even fix some problems, heck, out of the 18 articles now in the schedule I've only been to Stockholm and I know how to use money. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to see a nice uptick in feedback for some of our DotM candidates. Let's build on this momentum, because there are a lot more nominees that have yet to clear the four-vote hurdle. I'd like to call attention specifically to Hilo, which will be on the Main Page in a little over a month and only needs one more Support vote to earn our community's unqualified endorsement. Ypsilon, Ikan Kekek and myself have all weighed in with our support; who'll be the next? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Magna[edit]

There is no Magna, Utah when i searched for it. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is covered on Wikipedia at w:Magna, Utah, but not here yet. Do you want to write an article on it? Pashley (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you but no I will work on other travel guides. thank you. --2604:6000:9EC3:7A00:C105:F81E:67F9:E782 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops i was logged out. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't in fact cover every place there is, and judging by the WP article, I am wondering (mostly because of ignorance) what there is in that place of relevance to a traveler Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
WagonsofTruth, this is a Wiki. That means that content here is contributed solely by volunteer editors. Therefore, complaining that an article doesn't exist and then refusing to start it doesn't make sense. If you don't like there being no coverage of Magna on this site, create the coverage. Otherwise, no use in complaining, really.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Before encouraging this particular user to create new articles for very tiny places, based on the user's editing history here and elsewhere it would be valuable for the user to review the pcv thread. If that thread isn't applicable, by all means go ahead and develop a new article for this town, but otherwise it would be better not to encourage this user to create new articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually came back here to thank WagonsofTruth for his/her edits to other articles. However, if Magna needs coverage, it doesn't have to be in a dedicated article but could be in the article for the nearest town. Nevertheless, it wouldn't hurt for it to be a search term. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The regional breakdown of Germany below the "Bundesland" level[edit]

So I know this is a difficult issue, but it seems that we will have to deal with this for some time. There is some sort of agreement (happened prior to my arriving at WV, so I can't say how we got there) of dividing Germany into its 16 Bundesländer. However, there are some regions, both extra-hierarchical and not, that are in some ways problematic. If we look at this formulation that I changed, I guess you can see where the problem lies. While some Bundesländer are at least in the most part recognizable regions, other regions go across state lines or don't really have clear boundaries. And I don't think it makes sense to subdivide a region into a region which is on the other hand the child region (at least in terms of its name) of some other region like a mountain range. Unless of course there are clearly evident reasons to do so. And than there is the issue that we have tried to resolve earlier but got stuck with that many of those regions contain very little in the way of actual information. Either they have places in them that redlink, or they link to outline articles, which - of course - condemns them to outline status themselves and hence their parent regions to no better than usable. But that is a whole other can of worms. And than there are Rhine and Danube (currently vfd'ed) that run through the whole shebang. I don't think we should duplicate or triplicate content, but on yet another hand no matter how we slice and dice it some distinguishable regions that are known to locals and travelers alike will still not fit our regional hierarchy. And in that case extra hierarchical regions are of course fine. But they have problems that have been discussed elsewhere. I know asking for Germany to get to star - status is a lot to ask, but I would have to think long and hard how that is even possible as things now stand. Because for that, all Bundesländer would have to be at guide status, as would have to be all 9 cities and other destinations linked from the main Germany page. But of course for the cities to be at guide level, all the districts of them would have to be at usable, which means there would have to be an automatic destarnom for Germany if we change the district layout of Cologne creating but a single outline district. And to get the Bundesländer to guide we would of course either find consensus on not subdividing them or get all their subdivisions to usable, which of course means we have to figure this out. And that's not even getting to our problems with the coverage of rural areas. I know this is more questions than answers, but given that Germany currently has guide status, the only practical goals of the Germany expedition with regards to things happening to the Germany page can be a starnom or a DotM nomination. And for that there is neither a path I can see nor an established precedent in the sense of what a country needs to have to get there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the main goal is to get a country to Star level, particularly by the method of deleting unfinished articles and red links to valid locations until there are only guides. There is a lot to be done in Germany (and other countries) as the bottom level. Getting cities from outline to usable and then bottom level regions to usable. This can be done, I have done it with a number of regions but it is work. There will always imperfect structure but I do not think that is a major hindrance to this site. The only way to get 100% clear structure is to use administrative boundaries which I do not think helps the traveler, as although this may be clear at state level it is not at county level. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
So, what do you want to do: improve the content, or fulfill some formal criteria, put the star on the article, and bestow someone with another medal?
I read articles about Germany quite often, and I know that they can be anything between very useful and essentially useless, even if marked as usable (example here). There is obviously a lot of room for improvement, and why would not the German expedition just work on that?
More generally, it is a basic and unsolvable problem of how detailed a travel guide should be. Describing Germany in every small detail is a life-long task, and from this perspective the country article will never reach the star level (and it should not). On the other hand, you can consider that small details about Germany are not needed in the English travel guide. There is a large but limited number of destinations that international tourists will visit, and whenever they plan on going to the infamous region of Vogtland, they are likely good enough in German in order to read the German guidebook. In my opinion, the sub-regions are not needed for every Bundesland. For example, Saxony could happily live without them if about 12-15 key destinations are chosen, and others are just listed somewhere (thus, Saxon Switzerland should be one bottom-level article because no foreign traveler will spend more than a day there). It's kind of against the existing policy and against the regional hierarchy built in the past, but, if you want to make articles about Germany as useful as possible, you should probably proceed with this strategy in mind: select a limited number of key destinations within each Bundesland, bring them to the guide status, and write good articles about individual Bundeslaender that first-time visitors will be able to use. Ignore sub-regions and less important destinations, because few people will read them anyway. I don't know whether it can be a star in the end, but at least it will be a very useful thing for non-German-speaking travelers. Viel Spaß! --Alexander (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Some good points made by Alexander. I have started a list of key destinations in Germany than deserve attention. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure how to interpret what User:Atsirlin and User:Traveler100 are saying. If I read them correctly, Traveler100 thinks that not even the currently redlinking things should be removed and if anything more not less regional subdivision is required. Atsirlin on the other hand appears to advocate a consolidation and a focus on bigger cities and a consolidation of rural areas such as Saxon Switzerland (which is in fact visited several days in a row by some mountain climbers, though some of them are based in Dresden and make day.trips instead) into city or park articles. In the case of Saxon Switzerland a park article actually makes a tremendous amount of sense because it is as a matter of fact a national park and boofen (Saxon dialect for sleeping in the nature of the national park) indeed has a long tradition and is still practiced by climbers, so the Can you sleep there test is clearly fulfilled. It may of course be possible that I misrepresented what either of you are saying, but if even a part of this disagreement does in fact exist, I think we have to talk about this. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You have not got the point, I think. Less sub-regions is better, so they should not have been created in the first place. But now they have been created, and you can't remove them. They can be reviewed, though, and a few of them can be transformed into bottom-level articles like Saxon Switzerland. On the other hand, the whole regional subdivision of Saxony must stay because we have far more than 9 city articles, and there is neither policy nor common sense to combine Colditz and Grimma within one article, even if both cities are absolutely irrelevant to any English-speaking traveler coming to Saxony.
My suggestion is to forget about these subregions for the time being. They can stay and they should not bother anyone as long as there is good coverage of the most important destinations within each Bundesland. Again, take Saxony. It lists 8 cities, but it lacks Freiberg that does not even have its own article, despite the gorgeous mineralogical museum and the pretty old town, the only real Old Town in the whole Saxony, I think. Isn't it clear now how to improve the coverage of Saxony? Elaborate on the 8 existing articles for the most important cities (Bautzen, Görlitz, and Plauen are rather undeveloped even if called "usable"), write the Freiberg article, provide more details for the article on Saxony itself. For example, it mentions local wine produced near Dresden, but the Dresden article lacks further information about the wine. In the end you should have guide-quality articles on the main destinations where people are going to travel. The rest is unimportant. --Alexander (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Link articles with Wikidata[edit]

Most articles in this Category:Banner missing from Wikidata are not linked properly with Wikidata. Could someone do it? I can't import those banners into Wikidata until this get fixed. See more => [1] Thanks. --Kizar (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

New-ish proposal - routes[edit]

So always apprehensive about proposing something new on the site and got a little worried when I discovered that it was tried before and failed. But nevertheless I think it is worth proposing again as things have changed in the last 8 years, particularly in the area of mobile web browsing usage.

For those not in a relax and open frame of mind STOP reading now and come back later. :-)

Now your mind is open, please read Wikivoyage:Routes Expedition/reboot and provide constructive criticism on its talk page and additions/corrections to the expedition page. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've started discussion of the proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Routes Expedition/reboot. Please give your input there after you look at User:Traveler100's proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Lima[edit]

We have a new contributor who is unhappy with the existing districts of Lima and wants to completely reorganize them.

It is fine to achieve consensus and then change districts, however this contributor rejects the consensus approach. The attitude has been "I live here, you are wrong, use my districts".

Given all the recent discussions of 'Biting Newbies' I have been making all attempts to reach out to the contributor and even make my own proposal that draws from Wikipedia regions and existing well defined articles for Lima.

I'm now concerned that I am making no progress whatsoever with explaining collaboration to this contributor which may result in:

  • We rejects all of their changes, resulting in an angry contributor who could otherwise have provided valuable input to Lima
  • We allow them to make whatever changes they like, thereby throwing out well establish previous consensus for the city, deleting good existing articles for specific districts and with a district naming that seems wrong.

Neither is a desirable outcome. Can I ask for help from anyone to help work this one out at Talk:Lima? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sub section link[edit]

I know I can link to a section of an article from another article, for example Long Island#Get in, but how can I link to a subsection? How can I link to the "By train" sub-section of the "Get around" section of a page. Long Island#By train will not work as this will jump to the same named sub section of "Get in".--Traveler100 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Traveler100: This is a serious problem with Wikivoyage/Wikitravel and how the guidelines at these two sites conflict with MediaWiki software. Another option is to link to Foo#bar_2 to link to the second instance of a certain header or to make a phantom anchor with a template. Both of those options are a little cumbersome and can change at a moment's notice as other users edit. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As Koavf notes, Long Island#By train 2 will work. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Great thanks. Was not aware of the adding a number functions. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Eastern and Western Canada separated by bridge split[edit]

I think this story may be relevant to several articles, including Trans-Canada Highway, so I'm posting a link here. All appropriate articles should contain a cautionbox about this incident. It is of course possible to get from Eastern to Western Canada by road, by for the time being, it's necessary to go through the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox warning would be a good idea. That is one hell of a diversion! --Traveler100 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
By way of more accurate information for the warningbox: it looks like a single lane of the bridge has been reopened, but they're still expecting delays and of course the situation could change at any time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait, am I getting this right, at one point the only link between Eastern and Western Canada is a single bridge and that bridge is currently (partially) out of order? Isn't that country like huge? Or would the detour through Canada just be so long as to be not feasible due to said hugeness? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Huge but very sparsely populated, especially away from the coasts and the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. I crossed that bridge this past July on my trip to Winnipeg, and there's literally nothing but wilderness north of the US border at that longitude. That being the case, even if there's not enough of a population in the region itself to support an extensive road network, the Trans-Canada Highway is still an important thoroughfare for cross-country truck traffic at least, so I expect that repairs will come speedily. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
According to the CBC (and some local sites), traffic has been partially restored on the bridge. I've updated the caution boxes that were set up on Trans-Canada Highway and Nipigon. -Shaundd (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That quick repair work by workers in frigid conditions is very good news. Thank you for keeping abreast of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a page on the most common copy editing mistakes?[edit]

I just spent several minutes editing Shanghai/French Concession to eliminate capitalization of mere directions (e.g. "walk West [sic]"). That's one really common mistake: Mere directions do not get capitalized unless they're part of proper names (e.g., West Lake, West Palm Beach, West Broadway). Another extremely common error on this site is to avoid hyphenating hyphenated adjectives, such as "[a] 19th-century [thing]", and capitalizing "Century" in that phrase is also extremely common and incorrect. I also often find the common names of plants and animals capitalized in park articles (e.g., Lions, Tigers, Bears [oh my! hahaha, if you've seen Wizard of Oz, you get the reference]), and those, of course, aren't proper names either. One more error which sometimes straddles the line between a mistake and an attempt at touting is to capitalize "Hotel", "Motel", "Resort", etc., when not given as part of a name. Finally, it's also extremely common to see words like "park", "university", "beach", and so on with initial caps when not being given as part of a name. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's correct in any dialect.

Is this the kind of thing that should be placed in Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors (incidentally, when did "copy editor" become a single word?)? It would be really nice for it to have wider publicity, which I hope this thread helps with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How about just linking to w:Wikipedia:Basic copyediting? Or is that page not travel-specific enough? Powers (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
But surely DA BEARS are still capitalized, aren't they? ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no harm whatsoever in linking that Wikipedia page, but I do think it's not sufficiently focused on the types of errors most often seen on this travel guide. And yes, "Da Bears" are capitalized. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia guideline is linked, it should be made clear it is not a guideline of ours. The advice is often very detailed, and sometimes goes against our practices (it seems most of this guide was applicable, but not all of it). --LPfi (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So should we abridge it to fit our "culture" better? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Abridgement wouldn't be sufficient: The specific things I mention above, and perhaps others (any editing errors other patrollers have been seeing repeatedly), should be added, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Armenian (Eastern) phrasebook vs. Armenian phrasebook[edit]

For those who don't know, there's a debate happening at Talk:Armenian phrasebook about whether to change the name of the article by removing the (Eastern) disambiguator. Currently the opinions are unanimously in favor of shortening the article's name (while still retaining the explanation of the difference between the two dialects in the article text), but by the same token we only have three participants in that discussion and I'd be uncomfortable making such a change without a stronger consensus. If anyone has strong feelings about this issue one way or the other, please make your voice heard at that discussion. Otherwise, I envision acting on the decision as it stands within a few days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Touting Costa Rica[edit]

Hi. A newly registered user thankfully informed us of an apparent touting going on in our articles on Costa Rica. If you have a free minute or two, try and find those and either detout or remove them. Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How to not bite a newbie[edit]

Hi.

Some user (apparently a newbie) has just created Matangi Private Island Resort, which IIRC is not one of the things we usually have articles on. What should we do to avoid biting them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Welcome them on their talk page, point out our policies and ask if they would consider an alternative compliant approach.
That said I'm not completely sure if a private island meets What is an article criteria or not. It is a valid travel destination, albeit one that is effectively a standalone business occupying the whole island itself. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Like Andrewssi2 said, welcome them. Another possibility is to leave a note on the guide's talk page, reference and explain the guideline in question, and ask if the author thinks it will meet the guideline. Don't rush to put merge tags (or vfd, unless it's obvious vandalism) on the page, especially if the author is still working on it. Don't treat it like it's a big deal.
At the risk of looking like the old guy at the pub telling stories from a youth long past, one of my first edits was to create a new page with not a whole lot of info and somewhere in the text was "typically a day trip from Vancouver". One of the site's co-founders picked up on it and left a simple note on the Talk page querying if the place had accommodation and whether it should just be a listing in Vancouver. I was on vacation at the time and didn't respond for a couple of weeks. I saw the note when I got back and realized I needed to add more info so I did. And that was it. The fact that no one made a fuss about it helped considerably in giving me confidence to continue editing.
My point of this is relax, provide some helpful pointers and see where it goes. It's not a big deal in this case (or most) if the article hangs around for a week or two. -Shaundd (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure that there is a policy against articles about islands which are monopolies. (Islands which are private and visitors are not allowed is a different matter.) For example we have Lady Elliot Island which is being considered for dotm and Holy Island (Arran). These may not be quite as private, but they both have only one operator of eat or sleep. AlasdairW (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Holy Island (Arran) may only have one operator of eat/sleep, but (AFAIK) it is perfectly accessible to the casual visitor with no obligation to use the facilities offered. This island is more tricky because it seems that the island IS the business and vice-versa. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think regardless of the details of this particular case, it might be good to have a policy page on this issue. Maybe Wikivoyage:Private Resorts or Wikivoyage:Private Islands or something of the sort? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need a whole policy page on it, clarification in Wikivoyage:What is an article? is probably sufficient. If we decide Matagi Island shouldn't have its own article, it would be good to point out how it's different than Holy Island (Arran) and Sveti Stefan. -Shaundd (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest removing the merge tags (and did on the article's talk page). Sveti Stefan can not be visited by non-guests, but it's beautiful to look at and certainly deserves its own article. So far as I've seen, the article has not had a touty tone, so I think we should give the article-starter plenty of latitude to fill out the article before making a decision on whether to merge it or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Our policy against articles on individual businesses does not obligate us to ignore real places that are privately owned. That's why we have Disneyland, after all. Powers (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) I do think nonetheless that we should clarify our policy on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements in wording? Powers (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a way to distinguish Matagi Island from Sveti Stefan that would suggest keeping Sveti Stefan and deleting Matagi Island. On the contrary, Matagi Island actually has things to see/do which is a lot more important than a list of hotels which is what Sveti Stefan is, so it would have a stronger case. I'd just leave it be and hope the user adds to other Fiji articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that the policy has evolved into something quite complex, I think it would be good to have it spelled out on its own page, just like we do for our policy on bodies of water Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage turns 3 on January 15[edit]

Wikivoyage launched as a Wikimedia project on January 15, 2013. Anyone have suggestions for marking the third anniversary? I've got a Facebook post queued, and if anyone has contacts at other Wikimedia projects it might be nice to get a bit of additional promotion around this date. In addition, in the #2016 Wikivoyage Wishlist thread above someone suggested reaching out to inactive users - this might be a good time to do so, if anyone wants to craft a message that could be sent. Anything else? -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sad, Wikipedia received all the attention today, in the form of news coverage. But anyways, Happy Birthday Wikivoyage! --Saqib (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has earned the attention :) I didn't realize the two dates overlapped - it's a bit like having your birthday on Christmas day - but still nice to take a minute and think back on how things have improved here over the past three years. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I do hope there'll be bigger celebrations for our fifth birthday ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
We must not wait for two years. Wikivoyage entered the world on December 10, 2006. We will celebrate this anniversary on December 10, 2016, surely in Berlin -- as we did it five years ago. At that time nobody thought about becoming a Wikimedia sister. Maybe we can use this event for a better promotion. I already contacted WikimediaDE, WikimediaAT and WikimediaCH in December to plan additional campaigns. If anybody has some proposals I can contact them in this regard.
As I learned at the 2015 WikiDACH bar camp in Schwerin a lot of Wikipedians do not know anything about Wikivoyage. If Wikipedia authors and readers would be familiar with it our SEO problem would be really reduced. I proposed therefore to organize a lecture session with journey accounts at the next WikiCon conference in Germany. In spring I will organize with the Egyptian Wikimedians a lecture and a workshop in Cairo to engage them helping with the start of the Arabic Wikivoyage which is now in the incubator. --RolandUnger (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear your plans Roland Unger. Anybody thought of giving a talk or presentation on Wikivoyage during Wikimania 2016? --Saqib (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wikivoyage on Twitter[edit]

Looking at the Wikivoyage Twitter account, it seems that there have been no tweets (not including retweets) since 29 August 2015 (almost five months ago) with the last retweet being on 8 October 2015. The WV:Social media page says that User:Saqib, User:Nicholasjf21 and User:JamesA are the users running the account, and reading Wikivoyage talk:Social media/Twitter I realise that they are busy and can't always do it. But I'm just wondering whether there's anyway of getting the account more active, because I would think that Twitter would be a great way of making Wikivoyage more well know. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be great to start tweeting our DOTM, as well as a mechanism to tweet articles that has been significantly updated. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2, Saqib, Nicholasjf21, JamesA: Is there any further information about the Twitter account? I seriously think that the account could be a great way of getting Wikivoyage out there.  Seagull123  Φ  22:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have access to the account, but check out Wikivoyage:Social_media/Twitter --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Seagull123: I have been making regular tweets last year but I'm sorry now I don't have really interest in Twitter. So yes you're most welcome to use it but I'm afraid I cannot get you log-in details. I suggest you to to contact User:Nicholasjf21. --Saqib (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest putting a strategy together first. To build up a good presence on Twitter you obviously have to keep up a regular tweets and respond to referrals, otherwise you will lose momentum.
We actually do have a good supply of guide articles ready to deploy, and we should be responding (tastefully) to events in the news, for example today we could highlight Myanmar as the new pro-democracy parliament sits today. Iowa for the presidential candidate debates, Melbourne for the Australian Tennis Open. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I do have access to the account and could give an administrator or a user approved by the community access to the account. Unfortunately, I'm pretty stretched for time these days so can only contribute to the wiki intermittently and have no time for our Twitter. Ping me again if it's decided to give the login details to someone :) James Atalk 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(undent) I understand that you're all busy, so I understand why there haven't been many tweets (although the account does look pretty good). So maybe we could find someone who has enough time to do regular tweets and responses who could help with the Twitter account. Do we know anyone on WV who could do this?  Seagull123  Φ  16:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor features: Search/replace, etc.[edit]

When I use the classic (non-visual) editor in Wikipedia, my screen shows a lot of features, including fields for searching and replacing, which I don't see in the Wikivoyage editor. In both WP and WV, I have checked the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable wizards for links, formatting, tables, citations, and the search and replace function" boxes in Preferences|Edit, but that seems to have no effect on whether I see Search/Replace fields in my editor window (in WP or WV). How can I get Search/Replace in the Wikivoyage editor? Peter Chastain (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

VFD[edit]

I think Ambrose may be eligible for VFD as it has a population of only 23, but thought I would post this here first to see if this means it qualifies. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 09:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a red link. Was the article already deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The population is generally not the deciding factor. If there is something to come for and somewhere to stay, be it a spot where you can put your tent, then it might qualify for an article (but unless there is something more, it should mostly be handled in the article of a nearby bigger settlement). A real town usually have some sights and service, but it is because of them, not because of the population, the town should get its article. --LPfi (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Though imho, high population makes a compelling case of there being a "travel market" for that place. Wolfsburg for instance may be bland as hell and lack any type of discernible history not tied to cars, but the mere fact of its size (just a tad over 120 000 people) makes for people visiting it. And of course if you do care for cars, there are sights in this place - almost all of them of course related to cars. If you on the other hand have a place like Pottenstein of scarcely 5000 people (less if you don't count the various hamlets that were annexed to it) you cannot just "assume" it to be a travel destination on account of its size. It does have things that make people go there (caves, a whatever this is called in English, a swimming pool drawing people from the region and nature), but its mere size would not give you an indication of that. Having grown up in a place of scarcely 5000 people, I can tell you that the vast majority of them do not merit an article in WV. Most of them are not even worth a throwaway line like "in the vicinity the places A B C and D mostly serve as bedroom communities nobody who does not live there cares about". But above a certain "critical size" (the exact number of which is of course debatable) a place becomes worthy of mention in travel coverage (especially if aimed at business as well as leisure travel) just on account of the number of people (and businesses and businesses catering to businesses and costumers and...) there are. No matter how bland or unappealing it may be. And just to dispel any rumors, yes I have been to Wolfsburg and I did quite enjoy my time there, though I would still advise anybody who does not care for cars and has no ties to the region to rather go to Braunschweig or Hannover or even Quedlinburg and make the one non-car thing in Wolfsburg (the phaeno) an - admittedly very rewarding - day trip. And of course to come back to the main issue, even a ghost town with no population, including ones that are next to impossible destinations may be worthy of coverage, but the case can logically not be made on account of their size or number of inhabitants. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Policy has always been don't delete real places & I think that is a good policy, one we should definitely retain. Taking your example, Pottenstein does not seem to rate an article, but having a redirect is better than not. A German might look for the caves, an American for the place granddad immigrated from, ...
For related discussion, see Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy#Completely_empty_skeletons. Pashley (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost, but not quite that simple. The don't delete real places was intended as a way to circumvent VfD by redirecting instead of deleting, but there are at least two exceptions:
  1. The deletion of page creation vandalism, usually a long string of population-1 specks on a map that could never meet Wikivoyage:What is an article? and are improbable as travel destinations because there's simply nothing there.
  2. The deletion of basically-empty skeleton articles imported from some other wiki, where keeping the skeletons would require keeping attribution to a rival, external project. (This inherently would only arise once on any given page, presumably without prejudice to creation of real articles for these destinations in future.) K7L (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Map coordinates in China[edit]

Hi all, I am pretty new to Wikivoyage and am working on the article Jiaxing, in China. I have been taking coordinates for attractions from Google Maps and adding them, but when I turn on the map in the article, all of the markers are off by a bit - not enough to take them off the map of the city, but enough to, for example, put something that should be in the middle of the city in a lake instead. This may have something to do with the GPS/satellite distortion that China has in place, so that what Google Maps thinks are the coordinates for an attraction are not what OpenStreetMap thinks are the coordinates for the same location. I can't easily find the coordinates for the attractions according to OpenStreetMap, because most of the attractions do not seem to be on there. Is this a known issue? Is there an easy way to find coordinates that will display correctly on the map in the article? --PalaceGuard008 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting pickle I've never thought of or encountered before. In general, it does seem that any Google Maps coordinates for China are wrong or at least of a GCJ-02 system different from standard WGS-84. Some links for reference: [2] [3]. Google Maps coordinates are usually not encouraged in the first place due to some copyright issues, while OpenStreetMap is usually generated by local users so they tend to be true to form. OSM may be ignoring China's rules about satellite imagery too, so it's all a toss up. I'm afraid I don't really have advice for this situation, other than personally checking coordinates with a phone/GPS while on the ground. -- torty3 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You could possibly switch on the satellite layer for Google Maps to at least tell when the markers are off, though again we're stumbling on legality here. I'm even wondering about whether OSM surveying would be permitted in China. -- torty3 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If you can locate the place on OpenStreetMap, e.g. it is on the NE corner of two streets you recognise, just put your mouse cursor there & right click. That gives you co-ords you can copy into the article.
OSM map can usually be accessed via an icon at top right of article. If that is not there, first add co-ords for the town (which can usually be copied from WP) in a geo tag & save; that should make a map appear. Pashley (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses torty3 and Pashley. By the sounds of it there isn't really a work-around, I'll have to physically try to find it on the OSM map (I think the main difficulty comes form the way it represents canals - there are lots of them in that area but they are all represented as simple blue lines in the OSM map, so difficult to use them to reference location.) --PalaceGuard008 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Just out of interest, what possible copyright issues could there be from using GPS coordinates from Google Maps? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
None that I'm aware of. Coordinates are facts, and you can't copyright facts -- only their presentation. Powers (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The Open Street Maps FAQ raises some issues with getting data from Google Maps, and I believe our current guidance about not relying on Google Maps as a source for GPS coordinates was written to facilitate contributions to and from Open Street Maps (note: I didn't write that guidance some I'm not 100% positive of the reasoning behind it). -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The FAQ for OpenStreetMap does give reasons, but are any of those reasons applicable to Wikivoyage? Unless I am missing something, we are not actually uploading anything to OpenStreetMap at all, just creating a layer on top with our listings? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe Paper Towns? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this has always been the case with China and Google Maps, for as long as I remember using Google Maps (close to a decade now). China seems to be the only country for which such offsets are observed; this is particularly visible when you look at a pair of border cities (e.g. Heihe/Blagoveshchensk, Khorgos, or towns on China/Vietnam border). The satellite view is perfectly continuous, while the map view has a dicountinuity: sometimes you see a border river disappear, sometimes some blank space inserted between the two countries. For this reason, I feel that the objects' coordinates obtainable with the GM satellite views are correct, while those obtained with the map view are off. So, for example, if you want to enter the coordinates of a train station, I don't use the coordinates for the map label "Some station", but switch to the sat view and locate the station on the sat image. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I prefer GM for most coordinate searching, although I rarely use the satellite view. I mostly use OSM for China map coordinates for reasons stated by everyone above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[edit]

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Lat/Long template?[edit]

Is there template for creating a clickable location symbol? I would like something like the lat/long attributes of the listing template, but for open text, to use when I am mentioning several items that don't each need their own listing (e.g., "Walking around the campus, be sure to see the ___ <lat/long>, the ___ <lat/long>, and...") and for important bus routes ("Line 29 runs from ___ <lat/long> to ___ <lat/long>"). Peter Chastain (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What would be the resulting action of the click? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There is Template:Marker which may be close to what you are looking for. For an example see Glasgow#By_train where the two stations appear with numbered red markers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I need. Thanks! Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Revoking the confirmed status of users who consistently make bad edits?[edit]

I asked a question on Wikivoyage_talk:Autoconfirmed_users about revoking the confirmed status of users who have been editing for more than 4 days, but are consistently making incorrect and poor edits. I'm not sure about the technical feasibility, process or potential drawbacks for doing this. Can anyone comment? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not possible (from a technical perspective). You can change the settings (e.g., six days and 20 edits) or you could perhaps use PendingChanges to do something like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing . I notice the Abuse Filter can automatically revoke an auto-confirmed status, although I really don't want to use the Abuse Filter for this kind of user management. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Status rating / maintenance tag for the level of prose in our articles[edit]

So I have been thinking and I got an idea for how to deal with the quality of the prose of (some of) our articles. First of, I would limit this to only usable and above, because outline articles should have so little written in them that it does not matter what style the prose is in anyways...

My idea is to either a) rate the prose from "needs work" to "acceptable" and then "extraordinary" along some criteria to be hashed out later and either put this under the status rating or in the appropriate section (some huge articles may have generally good prose but need work in a certain section)

b)Put maintenance tags on pages that don't meet a certain minimum in terms of grammar consistency, sounding like actual English and (is this a word?) idiomaticness

c)Put pages in a "hidden category" when their English language quality is an issue

d) some combination of all of them.

What do you think? Personally I sometimes have the problem of coming across an article and either being unable to decipher what was meant myself, or being unable to come up with a really good wording (and as somebody once said "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug") or you know, I myself was the culprit of bad English... One of the most egregious offenses on my part is probably writing sentences that never stop, as Germans - especially those who had Latin in school - are sadly fond of doing, as evidenced by this very sentence, which should really have stopped ages ago, even though another subordinate clause might be added still. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Wikivoyage:Prose_Improvement_Expedition ? The goal seems similar... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, was PIE supposed to be ongoing, or was it a one-time push? Hobbitschuster, I like maintenance tags. I would not hide tagged articles; poorly written guides are better than nothing. Tagged pages should be put into a "pages that need copyediting" category, so that WikiGnomes can find them easily. I don't know how I feel about putting big "This page needs work" Wikipedia-style banners at the top of articles. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I was unaware of the existence of the expedition. And @User:Peter Chastain, you may have misunderstood me, I was not arguing for hiding the articles, I was arguing for (maybe) hiding the maintenance tag, as - as you say - a big red banner saying "this page needs work" might not be ideal for our purposes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
As you have just shown, that the expedition will become inactive, unless it is constantly advertised. I like your maintenance-tag idea better. We should not have a big banner, but a very small message ("This article needs copyediting; help out!") might be helpful—or just annoy travelers who only wanted a guide. Do we need to warn them or apologize for bad prose? If not, the message should, at the very least, be omitted from mobile version. Peter Chastain (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be omitted from the app, and most likely also from mobile... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of visible tags, Wikipedia-style: There's no good evidence that those tags actually attract new contributors. Consequently, I favor adding "invisible" tags with a hidden category (or putting tags on the talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata & GLAM 'down under'[edit]

In February, I'm undertaking a three-week tour of Australia, giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikimedia's GLAM collaborations. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in Australia to come along. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What is GLAM? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably the GLAM-Wiki initiative. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, Andy is coming to Australia. I dont know how many wikivoyage editors identify as being Australian based, but judging by the standards of most australian voyage articles, I suspect we have very few current active editors. Andy is obviously enthusiastic about his travelling here, and is clearly canvassing any Australian editors who might be able to attend his various talks, with any interest in the various Open-source projects he is interested in.
I dont know if we specifically know how many wikivoyage editors there are in Australias larger cities, but Andy will be in some of the cities in his tour. The hope from such a post as this, would be you never know unless you post...
For those who live mainly in the world of voyage, and dont wander into the sister projects much, the GLAM or Galleries Libraries Art galleries and Museums project for the larger wikimedia movement, is where such institutions collaborate with wikimedia organisations to improve and add materials to commons, and the various wikipedia projects. They do this by having wikipedians-in-residence, and also whole range of specific projects to increase collarborations and raise awarenes of the wikimedia projects.

A good overview of GLAM material is at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Case_studies - to give an idea...

The linkages between wikidata and wikivoyage would be something well worth looking at to see at what stage things are at. I edit in both, but havent seen much that suggests that there specific tie ins yet. If someone wants to enlighten us... JarrahTree (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript. User:Andrewssi2 Andrews has noticed a posting on wp en regarding my capacity to be involved in GLAM issues here in Australia [4] (which I have removed), and made a correlation with Andy's activities. Please note that GLAM is a label, and under no circumstances does it mean that an individual involved in GLAM in the UK would necessarily be involved with or even be aware of some GLAM activities in Australia. I removed the item, in order to make a more comprehensive explanation of the issues. Andrewssi2 was agrieved of that, I apologise. However I caution ascribing people with connections with things that are posted on one wiki, as being necessarily connected with something else, without checking first. JarrahTree (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I now have confirmation that I'll also be visiting Jakarta, Indonesia, after Australia, in late February, for the same reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zika virus[edit]

US gov't (CDC) now has a warning for 22 countries. [5] In particular, pregnant women should avoid these because Zika can damage unborn children.

Search here shows several mentions of Zika, but nowhere near 22 countries & no warning boxes. What do we need to add? Pashley (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I know we should be providing accurate travel advise, but isn't this subject rather complex to do on a 'per country' basis? Perhaps a general travel topic on traveling whilst pregnant? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider some link on the country pages to a single article. Although I knew about of this problem in South America I was not aware it was in the other regions; suspect other readers would also have similar limited knowledge on the subject. I do not think we should go too deep into the subject but maybe a link to an official informative site. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I've heard recent reporting (actually, today was the first time I've heard about this) that this virus is a huge public health crisis in Brazil. I think warningboxes in articles for countries affected by this illness, warning pregnant women to avoid unnecessary travel there, are very much appropriate. I excerpt the following from a Reuters news article:
"Following a warning by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week that pregnant women should not travel to 14 countries and territories in the Caribbean and Latin America where the virus has spread, Brazil's health ministry said pregnant women should seek medical advice before visiting."
"Municipal authorities in São Paulo, the country's biggest city, said they had distributed faster testing materials to help public hospitals identify patients infected with dengue, another mosquito-borne virus whose outbreaks have worsened in recent years."
"[...A]uthorities across Brazil are reminding visitors to take precautions, such as using insect repellent and long sleeves to avoid mosquito bites."
"Brazil's health ministry in November confirmed the Zika virus was linked to a fetal deformation known as microcephaly, in which infants are born with smaller-than-usual brains."
"Since October, at least 3,500 suspected cases of microcephaly have been reported by the health ministry, over 30 times more than had been reported each year since 2010.[...]"
We had big warningboxes for the ebola epidemic in West Africa. This is not quite as severe as that, to be sure, but it seems damned serious. Thanks for bringing this up, guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be possible to make a template to handle these situations. My idea is to create a (normally blank) template and add it to each country. Then, if something comes up, you turn it on to display "This text" only in specified (inside the template) articles. If there's no health warning for that country, then it would be blank. This would permit central control, which might be worth the trouble of figuring out how to set it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is possible, see {{Globalwarning}}. Add to top of pages to make it active. As test I have added to Brazil and USA. Before we make this totally active, would like some feedback. We call add to all pages (or just country pages) but I would suggest making the template editable by admins only with requests made for changes on its talk page or on Traveler's pub. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
When blank the template adds extra whitespace to the articles in which it is placed. That needs to be rectified before it is used. Powers (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I added a warning box in Tips for women travellers. I think we need more & a template seems a fine idea. Pashley (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That red box should probably be in Tips for women travellers#Pregnancy (oops!) instead of at the top of the page. It's not every woman that's at risk; it's more specifically mums whose new babies are being born with small heads. The warning should identify which countries/regions are affected; it currently does not. The article on infectious diseases sorely needs some information, but currently has nothing useful on Zika beyond than a one-line mention that it can be transmitted by mosquito. K7L (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
André, perhaps we may need a plan B for our featured articles schedule for the case that the Zika epidemic gets so serious in Nicaragua and/or Colombia that we wouldn't want to recommend people to visit these countries right now. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
ϒpsilon - According to the map Pashley linked to, there have been neither any confirmed cases of Zika virus nor even positive serosurvey results in Nicaragua. If we're considering Nicaragua as iffy, that means we're questioning not only countries that are highlighted in solid purple (confirmed cases) or cross-hatched purple (positive serosurvey results) but also countries neighboring those. That's pretty much all of the Tropics. And that would also mean we'd not only have to take Mount Rinjani, Swakopmund, and Antigua Guatemala out of contention, but through some unlikely leap of logic, somehow replace them with destinations outside the Tropics that are still appropriate in terms of Time to feature. At that point, practical considerations come into play: are we really going to make it effectively impossible to run DotM or OtBP over the next few months because of something that's a concern to only a narrow subset of travellers (pregnant women)? I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of the epidemic, only to say that at some point it's fine to not mollycoddle travellers and to expect that they will take at least a basic level of personal responsibility for their own health and safety. Putting a warningbox on articles in areas affected by the virus is fine. If travellers choose to ignore the warnings, that's on them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to hear what you think. Also, to my understanding, the explosion of the number of cases in the area between Central America and Brazil over the last couple of weeks is what the World Health Organization and others are worried about (especially if the trend continues), not the fact that the disease exists in Asia and Africa. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The WHO also believes the virus will spread to every country in the Americas other than Canada, if I understood the reporting correctly. My feeling is, if some place that we're considering featuring suddenly becomes plagued, we can make a switch, but I don't know how important it is to make contingency plans now for the possibility of something happening in a few months. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I just saw a news report saying four cases reported in Canada so far. The one they were discussing was a Quebec woman recently returned from a Caribbean holiday & now recovered; I don't know about the others. Pashley (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
By "spreading", they mean actually being transmitted in an area by mosquitoes. Of course, if you travel to somewhere where the disease is, you can incubate it and get sick after you fly home, but that doesn't mean you can transmit it to anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I have created a page Zika virus, but it could use improvement. Also more links; so far it is only linked from Infectious diseases and Tips for women travellers. Pashley (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Currently it isn't clear whether the Zanzibar article focuses on the main island in the Zanzibar archipelago, or on the entire archipelago (75 islands)[edit]

I'm currently working on the expansion of the parallel article on the Hebrew Wikivoyage because I noticed this is a main tourist destination for Israelis these days.

While working on translating content to Hebvoy I noticed that the Engvoy Zanzibar article has a main problem - it is currently unclear if the creator of the article intended it to focus on the entire Zanzibar archipelago (which consists of 75 islands) or only on the main island of the archipelago.

On the one hand, the intro clearly states "....Zanzibar is semi-autonomous archipelago off the coast of....", but on the other hand, the map shown in the article is only of the main island of the archipelago, but on the other hand the Wikipedia link in the sidebar sends the readers to a Wikipedia article about the entire Zanzibar archipelago, but on the other hand the majority of the content is only about stuff in the main island AND we have a separate article about the second biggest island in the archipelago, AND in our main Tanzania regions map only the main island in the Zanzibar archipelago is marked as "Zanzibar".

So what do you think this article should be about - only on the main island, or on the entire archipelago? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like our Zanzibar article only covers the main island. The lede of the article mentions (and links to) Pemba Island as another part of the archipelago, but for purposes of the breadcrumb hierarchy Pemba is covered in an entirely different region of Tanzania, namely Pembwe and the Southeast. I think some copyedits ought to be made to the Zanzibar article to clarify this point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The article does indeed currently seem to be mostly about the main island of the Zanzibar archipelago, nevertheless, it seems to me that when tourists talk about "Zanzibar" they mostly refer to the entire entire archipelago (for example, see the "Zanzibar" article in Wikipedia), and therefore I currently tend to prefer that we'll fix this article so that it would be about the entire Zanzibar archipelago (by merging the content of the article Pemba Island into this article + fixing the rest of the issues I mentioned above). What do you guys think of that option ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems sensible to me for there to be some kind of article about the whole archipelago, in view of its historical importance and separate identity before the merger with Tanganyika to form Tanzania. Whether it makes more sense to breadcrumb Pemba and an article concentrating on Zanzibar Island to an island about the whole archipelago or have an archipelago article as an extra-region, though, I really don't know off the top of my head. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article linked suggests that when people refer to "Zanzibar", they're usually talking about just Unguja (the main island). That was my thought as well, before clicking the link. How many of the islands are able to be visited by tourists or likely to be visited by tourists? Making it a region wouldn't make much sense if only two of the islands have things to do/see and attract tourists. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused page on meta[edit]

FYI, if no answer or request for further info in a few days, will ask a meta admin to delete

There is a wikivoyage related page on meta, that probably needs deleting -

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikivoyage/List_of_Wikivoyagers_by_destination

It has been pending as unwanted for a few years now. This is as much a FYI, as requesting comment.

If someone want to comment, great, go ahead. JarrahTree (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Wikivoyage.2FList_of_Wikivoyagers_by_destination JarrahTree (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Avoid bare redlinks (particularly in "go next")[edit]

So I think by now my dislike for redlinks, particularly those for small places or needless subdivisions of already small regions is well known. But I think there is one case where we cann all agree as to their harm or at least zero benefit to the traveler. That is if "go next" is just filled with a bunch of redlinks and not one word about them. If we (as the page WV) advise someone to go to a place that we don't yet cover, we should at the very least provide a few words about it. So I would prefer

  • Heidenau - a place in the vicinity that mostly serves as a bedroom community and a commuter town

over

In a "go next" section. Because quite frankly if there are just redlinks with the names of the place what else but leave our pages should a reader be doing? After all, it redlinks because we don't cover it. And the only place where something could be said about it says nothing but the fact that the place exists. In my opinion something like this is not only bad because it makes our guides "look bad" (something that is all too often dismissed as "not a reason" to change certain things), but it is also bad because it serves no conceivable purpose until and unless someone creates said articles.... Which would be a lot easier if there was already something said on them. And last but not least, some of them should simply be dealt with by saying a line or two about them and not linking them, because they just don't deserve their own article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And this one particular Heidenau (if you mean the suburb of Dresden) should not be a red link because it simply does not deserve an article. At least, not an article written in English.
In fact, many places that currently have their own article can be and should be described in a few sentences as relatively unremarkable neighborhoods of a more important tourist destination. --Alexander (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That was indeed the Heidenau I had in mind. And I fully agree with you on the "does not deserve an article" front... This is especially prevalent on articles covering German language places, most likely because de-WV does similar things... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
For a particular example of many of those tendencies (redlinks without any explanation, subdividing already small regions, listing a bunch of very small places) see Allgäu, which definitely needs work put into it, though I don't know how and what exactly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It is also typical for other countries. For example, in Estonia each neighborhood of the Lahemaa National Park has got its own article, although all these neighborhoods are nothing but tiny villages. --Alexander (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't know about this. Though it is not mentioned anywhere in the article... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate question[edit]

I recently added the nightclub Tulisuudelma to "Drink/Nightclubs" and the event Winter Carnival to "Do" in the article Vantaa and Northern Helsinki. I added the exact same coordinates to both, as the event actually happens in the nightclub, but the nightclub hosts other events too, and also functions as a general drinking and partying establishment. As a result, the map shows the orange "+" sign no matter how much I zoom in. How should this be handled? JIP (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you click the "+", it should split into two numbers of the proper color, corresponding to your two listings. This is the same phenomenon that I discussed in Template talk:Marker#Feature request: reusable markers, though my proposed solution for the Marker template would probably not be applicable to Listings. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a common problem for locations that span multiple categories (eat/drink/do etc). You can try and get two sets of coordinates at the extreme sides of the location in question and see if that looks better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the listing in Do says "at the nightclub Tulisuudelma (see section Nightclubs below)", I would probably just delete the co-ords from the listing in Do. Nurg (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I find the solutions suggested by Andrewssi2 and Nurg a bit... well, they are workarounds. If you assume Wikivoyagers who pose questions in the Pub are probably more advanced than the average casual user, and you consider that, within less than a week, at least two of us (JIP and I) have been baffled by the "+", it would be nice to fix this problem. Instead of "+", I would like to see a composite symbol with all of the numbers. That would, of course, require a change to the WMF Labs mapping program. A more local solution could be for our Listing and Marker templates to create that composite symbol, but that would be problematic, because the merging of points that are not quite in the same location should go away at higher zoom levels. Peter Chastain (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, see nothing wrong with the "+", as long as it keeps grouping coordinates that are actually different, but differ too little for the current zoom level to be able to differentiate between them. But if the coordinates are exactly equal, the final (closest) zoom level should show them as different. But as User:Nurg said, the listing already says "at the nightclub Tulisuudelma (see section Nightclubs below)", so I guess I'll go and delete the coordinates. This raises an additional question: I added coordinates to Helsinki for the Helsinki Samba Carnaval and the Helsinki Pride parade. Parades move. They don't keep the exact same coordinates the whole time. I resorted to adding coordinates to the most central place to view them at. Is this OK, or should I delete the coordinates? But if I do, the articles won't show where in the city they are held, only tell that they are held pretty close to the centre. JIP (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This years April 1st article.[edit]

Early suggestion I know. but wanted time to do the research if needed.

Last year Wikivoyage managed to write an excellent article on time-travel, with a good mixture of fictional and genuine historical elements.

There was a suggestion at the end of the article (Go next) about parallel universes, so...

For April 1st 2016, why not think big, really big? As in in the whole Interdimensional Multiverse?

Some of the existing time-travel article could be re-used, but an article on Interdimensional travel would also allow for future spoof articles on practically any fantastical or futristic universe you can think of ;)

Depending on you definition of interdimensional you could link to some genuine articles on places like Taured, Shangri-La Undone etc ;)


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So tempting to say "Next year Wikivoyage managed to write an excellent article on time travel, with a good mixture of fictional and genuine historical elements." :) K7L (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia. Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Wikipedia's evil twin. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Heaven or Valhalla. We already have the other place.
Space as a real destination is constrained to the bounds of existing manned exploration (so ends at the Moon); there have been various proposals over the years for more ambitious space travel topics as April 1 pieces, such as Star Wars planets or the "astronomers detect system of five stars, some random tout immediately builds a five star hotel..." shtick. Mars has been done.
Various locations from works of fiction have also been proposed over the years. Tatooine for Off the Beaten Path anyone? K7L (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The list of last year's nominees that didn't make the cut can be found at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#Nominees 2. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl 50[edit]

Super Bowl 50 (SB50), scheduled to be played in Santa Clara on Sunday, February 7, 2016, will have an impact on visitors to the South Bay February 1–8:

  • Airplane tickets are probably sold-out or expensive.
  • Lodging is hard to find. A crummy motel, a few blocks from my house, is charging $795/night for the weekend. People with spare rooms are reportedly renting them for a couple hundred dollars per night.
  • Traffic will be heavy on freeways and expressways near Levi's Stadium.
  • It might be difficult to get restaurant reservations, particularly in nearby normally quiet places like Alviso.
  • Public-transit agencies are organizing service to the game. (I think you have to buy a special higher-priced ticket in advance.)
  • Events have been organized throughout the Bay Area. (Actually, some of those look like regular annual events whose organizers are taking advantage of SB50.)
  • Boosters as far south as Gilroy and Watsonville are on the web, suggesting fun ways you can spend 50 hours, and of course more than that many dollars, in their town.

What should we do about this? I would suggest:

  • Design a banner/box, to be placed at the top of destination articles.
  • Perhaps write a travel-topic article about enjoying or coping with the events.
  • Add SB50 information to the Bay Area public transit article.

I probably won't have time to do much with the first two bullets, but since I am actively editing the transit article, I can add something there, if nobody else gets to it first. Peter Chastain (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do mention (a bit of) it on the American Football page... Though I like the idea of (maybe in the future) putting a specific alert on the destination pages of where it is held... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I was sort of thinking of the people who might not be fully aware of the event, or who might need to be in the South Bay despite it. About half an hour ago, the KQED-FM traffic reporter mentioned "city Super Bowl closures" (in San Francisco): yes, we are late on this, but I hope someone steps forward to add alerts this year, rather than waiting for SB51. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I was implying let's not be so late about it for SB LI (for some reason it won't be 51, Olbermann had a bit to say about this...), I was not saying we are necessarily late for SB 50... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There will also be intensive surveillance throughout the region. It would be hard to think of a more American or better publicized target for a terrorist attack than the Super Bowl, and a whole slew of government agencies are taking steps. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Working with Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums[edit]

I've started Wikivoyage:GLAM as a place to record and discuss Wikivoyage's collaboration with GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums). Please help to develop it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit in my name?[edit]

Is there anyway an edit could be done that states is by me but I did not do? this edit I did not make. Have not been on this page for some time. Only other explication I can think of is accidentally pressing rollback from the Recent changes or Watchlist page which I may have had open at that time. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The automatic edit summary matches that from the [rollback] button, which is a single click if you're logged in as an admin and therefore possible to hit by mistake. The "undo" provided to all users is a bit harder to hit by mistake as it brings up the old revision and waits for the user to click "save". K7L (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Definitely did not do an undo, as you say too many actions required. Probably hit rollback by mistake. Guess I need to be more careful when I have multiple windows open and trying to do too many things at once. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done that before myself. It's especially easy to do on a mobile phone. It would be nice if the MediaWiki software didn't make it easier to rollback than to undo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Rollback as one click is useful but I always use it on a history difference page where you can see what will happen, not sure it should be in the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be great to turn off Admin functionality when just doing standard editing, and turn it back on when you are cleaning up vandalism/other cleaning up. I don't edit in mobile mode in part because of these kinds of issues. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If it was easier to 'undo' than rollback, then rollback would serve no purpose. Powers (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template insertion icons on edit page[edit]

On the edit screen, above the edit window, there are some icons for inserting See/Do/Buy/etc. templates. Over on pt:, those icons have become corrupted for some reason, so I need to look at it and see what's going on, but although I was involved in setting all this up, I don't remember what Mediawiki page has the code for this stuff. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Texugo (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Best guess I'm taking a look but I have to walk out the door ASAP: it seems like there are thumbnails but the images are much larger. They should probably be rescaled in SVG. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It was (or so I thought) using the exact same code as here on en:, so I'm not sure what the problem is, but... Where is this code located again? Texugo (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Texugo, apply on pt:MediaWiki:Common.js the patch I've applied on it:MediaWiki:Gadget-PulsantiBase.js. PS png icons are compatible also on old browser, while svg don't. --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's a similar patch to what User:Andyrom75 did that I applied to MediaWiki:Common.js a while back: Special:Diff/2905020/2922144. I'm not sure of the source of the issue, but I also switched from SVG to PNG for the listing buttons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarence[edit]

I created a disambig page for this name and changed the name of the undisambiguated Clarence article to Clarence (New York), because there is now the merest beginning of a Clarence (Louisiana) article. I think I may have made a mistake, and what's more, there are umpteen thousand links that would have to be changed. Sorry, everyone, I'm tired and can't deal with this right now, but maybe, instead of changing all the links, we should revert the article about the presumably much larger suburban town in New York to an undisambiguated name and just add a link to "Other uses" at the top of that guide, then revert the few link edits I made. I'm asking some of you to pick up the slack for me on this, please. Thanks in advance.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ikan, Wikipedia gives the 2010 population of Clarence, NY as ~30K, which is less than the probably better known City of Clarence, in Tasmania. Clarence, NSW could conceivably also become a Wikivoyage destination, being a terminus of the touristy Lithgow Zig Zag rail line. So, yes, I think disambiguating was appropriate. By my count (not including user or talk pages) Clarence has about 24 incoming links, not insurmountable. I don't have time to do this right now but can perhaps tackle it tomorrow, if nobody else gets to it first. Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. We'll take care of the links one by one, then. I wish there were a bot that could be set to change all links of a type at once... Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Ontario used to have two quite small towns called Clarence and Clarence Creek, now I think both merged into w:Clarence-Rockland. Pashley (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Broken pages (Table of contents and Edit links)[edit]

Hi all - I noticed that the display of some pages is broken - for example this one: Yell. The table of contents is not shown in the banner, but at the beginning of the page (as it used to be before the banners were introduced). Furthermore, the "edit" links next to each section are displayed without square brackets, nor space after the section title & they do not work, when clicking on them. If I make an edit to such a "broken" page (via the page edit link), the problems disappear. (I didn't edit the Yell page, so that you can see the problem). Could someone please have a look at that? Thanks. 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The table of contents problem has been here for a couple of months already, I remember it being discussed somewhere but apparently nobody has been able to fix it yet. The bloated Edit links in the Yell article is something new. Not sure who knows how to fix these things, maybe Ryan or Torty3? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
To fix an individual article with the TOC problem, you must purge its cache: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Yell&action=purge
If you see a lot of articles with that problem, the recent workaround has been to make a null edit to Template:Pagebanner. I suspect purging the cache for the template would work too, but I'm not certain.
-- Powers (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
-- Maybe could consider something like this on main article pages - create from a template or module : Circle-redo.svg -- have used this type of thing before on other personal sites -- Matroc (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC) -- (think I also did a new tab that just did that function about 12+ years ago) - just a thought... caio
The in-article TOC is discussed in the #Page banner and TOC - again above, with a link to the current phabricator ticket. As LtPowers suggests, the current workaround to that bug is to make a minor edit to Template:Pagebanner which will force all pages with banners to refresh their cache (it takes up to a few hours, be patient). I'm not seeing any problem with edit links in the Yell article, so please provide more information - browser, operating system, whether it occurs on other articles, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your feedback. The problem with the edit links can no longer be seen in the Yell article, since edits were made in the meantime. I'll let you know if I encounter another article with the same problem. 13:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Temporary information[edit]

Not being a frequent participant here, I'd appreciate input on this edit. Right now, the main dual-carriageway/divided highway through Bloomington (Indiana), connecting it to the larger city of Indianapolis, is being converted into an interstate highway, and the construction process has changed travel times from one hour to two for this trip. I know that it's good to include reminders about ongoing potential hiccups in travel, but what about temporary stuff? Obviously construction will be finished before too long; they're just upgrading the existing highway now, and it took them only a couple of years to build an entirely new interstate a little farther south. It's not like this information will be good to keep, but it's definitely useful at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is your call. I think it is fine to include since a potential traveler would want to know if there are any potential issues and be able to research them outside of this site. I would recommend including the anticipated completion date. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I threw it in because it's a major local issue (friends in the area, where I used to live, have mentioned it as a big deal), and I figured I'd definitely want to know if I went back for a visit. I've added a bit about the projected completion, so thanks for that reminder. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These types of informational warnings are common for issues that will affect travelers over a long period (like your highway construction example), but usually discouraged for short duration issues ("downtown roads will be busy this weekend due to a college football game"). As Andrewssi2 notes, please include an anticipated completion date so the information can be removed when it becomes outdated. See Big Sur#Get in for an example of how such a warning was implemented elsewhere. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ditto on the thanks. They've been working on this project for several years, and (especially in Bloomington) it's been highly contentious, so while I'm no longer in the area, it should be easy to find information about its completion. w:en:Interstate 69 in Indiana has been updated a good deal, so we should be able to update this page even without leaving the WMF servers. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't put a notice for a college football game, but a big enough short-term event with a huge influx of tourists, astronomical hotel prices, etc., such as Super Bowl or CES deserves highly visible notice, IMO. See Template index#Large events for one format. For longer-term road construction, what you did was perfect. The tricky part is remembering to remove it. As a partial solution, I try to insert a very visible comment, to grab the attention of someone viewing the edit window, e.g.:
<!-- ==================== Editor: Please remove after 1 January 2017 ======================= -->
<!-- ================= (end of material to be removed after 1 Jan 2017) ==================== -->
It would be nice if we had some more formal tickler mechanism. Peter Chastain (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI&I (i.e. For Your Information and Inspiration ;-P) take a look to it:Template:Da aggiornare. That's how we manage temporary information. Furthermore with the help of dedicated categories, we are able to monitor and updated them when needed. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You can add "impressed" to that list. The three "update" categories seem easy to monitor. I am somewhat sensitive to the cost (to novice editors) of adding article-related templates, especially when wikitext is allowed as a template parameter. Given the way the visual editor handles nested template calls, I would not wish to be a newby visual-editing the text in {{Da aggiornare|anno=2016|mese=09|{{Infobox|styles=margin-left: 15%;clear:left;float: center;|<center>Giubileo Straordinario|Inizia il giorno...}}}} (at the beginning of it:Roma#Eventi e feste), for example. But if the usage were limited to comments regarding what needs to be updated, I would consider the template worthwhile. Peter Chastain (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
How about embedding the {{event}} template in the message box, you then have a date check category with having to create a new template. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned {{event}} and the date check category, since I am enough of a newby not to have been aware of those. That template is good for things that need to be formatted like a listing, but I think that something that doesn't generate text would be more generally applicable. Peter Chastain (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
On sv-wp there is w:sv:template:Bäst före ("best before"), which is invisible until the date given in the template (as YYYYMMDD, treated as a number) has passed. It also adds the page to a maintenance category by month. --LPfi (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Pyongan not appearing in hierarchy[edit]

I just noticed that Pyongan province is not appearing under the North Korea hierarchy.

I tried using the same tag as other provinces, i.e. {{IsPartOf|North Korea}} but it isn't working and I can't work out why. Can someone take a look? Thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just discovered the banner being set to an invalid image causes this. Sorry, all good now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions needed[edit]

Where can I stick a sight in a nearby city? I'm referring to Bithoor. This place has its own article on w:Bithoor. Policy here states: "if the nearby destination has a page, link to it in the Go next section of the City or Region page" - which disallows red links or so I guess. --Gobbler (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really disallow red links, but if you think Bithoor merits a WV article, you could start one. How far is Bithoor from Kanpur? Sometimes, we create "Nearby" subsections of "See", but it's also fine to put it in "Go next", with a brief description of how to get there and what to see and do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The text in wycsi aside, "Go next" should be reserved for links to other articles, not listings. Powers (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we disagree. I agree that "Go next" is no place for templated listings. The question here is whether you can put a red link there with a very brief explanation of the same type you'd give for a blue link that goes to another article. I think that's OK. What's your alternative? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, redlinks are okay. I misunderstood. Powers (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for comments. I'm also actually wondering if it's OK to add Excursions subsections in any page. I have noticed a "See Section Break" in more than one page. You may want have a look there: Chakarata|, Kamchatka and Gwalior. --Gobbler (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here I am at odds yet again... I see nothing terrible about using marker templates in the Go next section - with go as type and coordinates... This will put a special icon (suitcase?) on the map and I generally would like to know where some of these "Go next" locations are on the map before I start going through the various articles they may refer to if any... most simply use a wiki listing with or without links - followed by em-dash and some text -- the same effect can be accomplished by using the marker template followed by em-dash and text. Matroc (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you 100 percent --Gobbler (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

adding an image for a listing[edit]

I click on "add listing" for a place or restaurant or whatever and a box , "edit existing business" with a bunch of fields to fill in shows up:
Name Type
Alt Email
Website Latitude
etc.

If I want to add an image that will show up when I click on icon on map, I have to type

|Image:filename.jpg

in the "content" box after a description of the place, and it sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't. Sometimes it works for me and not for others so they revert the edit.

If it does work, then a field in the "edit existing business" box called "Image" shows up.

Why is this so complicated? Why can't the field "Image" just be there from the start, and work every time? I've been editing wikipedia and uploading images to commons for 6 years. I'm not some useless newbie. Please fix the #### software. Roseohioresident (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware that we had enabled pictures for listings... For several reasons (offline usability being one of them) there is such a thing as too many pictures here on WV. As to the technical details... I don't know. The problem does sound bizarre and is surely not what was intended... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem of "too many images" doesn't really apply, because the image only shows up if you click on the icon on the map. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Go to Magnolia_(Ohio) and click on one of the restaurants to bring up the map, then click on one of the icons on the map and you will see how the feature is supposed to work. It works for restaurant #1, but not #2 on the map, but the coding is identical as far as I can tell. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That's strange. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed the listing template syntax in the Magnolia (Ohio) article, and the images now appear on the map as expected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems "image" is case sensitive, (who knew?), still seems way too complicated Roseohioresident (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Populating the "image" param for listings for new images via the listing editor isn't supported because the ability to add listing images was added after the listing editor was created, and no one ever asked for the feature to be added. If you can add a note to WV:Listing editor#Bugs and feedback then I'll try to get something in place when I have time to work on the listing editor again. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That's just weird, because the field shows up in the listing editor box, after the above procedure works for the first time. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The editor doesn't display fields that aren't in common usage by default, unless they have a value, so fields like "fax" and "image" are only displayed if there is a value. The reasoning is that there was concern about the box being too large, particularly for small screens. It shouldn't be hard to add something like "show additional fields" or something like that so that those fields can be added when desired, but still hidden in the default view. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"The editor doesn't display fields that aren't in common usage by default", is kind of a self-fulfilling. If you have to add parameters manually, stumble on the syntax somewhere, (where?), and get it correct, those won't be common usage. It seems we live in a visual age. Pictures and thousands of words and so on. If this site wants to be relevant, it has to be easier to use and visual. I think adding images for a place that pop up on a map should be default. I hope this paragraph does not sound harsh, it is meant to be constructive.Roseohioresident (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You might want to suggest new default fields at Wikivoyage talk:Listings, so that there's a better record of the discussions. Actually, this discussion might well be swept there, eventually. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue is with the listing editor, not the listing template. A request for an update was already made at WV:Listing editor#Bugs and feedback. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Sound like a good idea. More fundamentally, I think the maps feature could be a lot more like google maps. There, you click on the icon of a place, (which has a name and not just a number), and it brings up an infobox about the place, including editable information, add a review, a picture (street view or other), and an "add an image" button. All on a 2 by 3 inch screen of a $40 android phone. Two thoughts: 1) listing the name of a place on a map instead of a number seems straight forward. Something about "pointers", if i correctly remember programming. 2) A link-back to the listing editor, or to the listing, for a place icon would be a straight forward way to add a lot of utility to the map. Roseohioresident (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is excellent feedback, though I fear it's actually considerably more complicated than it sounds. =) Powers (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, all the information is already there. To generate the map each colored circle with a number inside already has these parameters associated with it:
{{city name}}, {{listing name}}, {{type}}, {{latitude}}, {{longitude}} and {{image}}.
When you click on the number, a little thumbnail with photo and listing name comes up. I haven't looked at the source code, (I wouldn't know where to look for it), but it seems it would have a snippet of code something like:

[[image:{{image}}|thumb|50px|{{listing name}}]]

to have it link back to the listing would involve this code:

[[image:{{image}}|thumb|50px|[[{{city name}}#{{type}}|{{listing name}}]]]]

The appearance would be the same, but if you click on the listing name, it sends you back to the section of the article that has the listing for that place. For big places that have lots of listings for each type, there must be a way to point to the actual listing. Of course, I could be all wrong. Roseohioresident (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The link-back would probably not be a huge problem, as you note. I was more concerned with adding icon labels to the dynamic maps. The code currently accounts for POIs that are very close together by combining them into a '+' icon. With labels we'd have to create some sort of collision detection code to avoid overlapping text... and even then we'd have to decide how to handle potentially overlapping text. Google Maps handles it by simply omitting some of the icon labels; I don't think that's a practical or acceptable route for us. Powers (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
On one day's reflection, icon labels on the map are not a big deal, since when you place the cursor over the number, the listing name shows up, and when you click on the label, the above actions occur. I concur it is not worth the programming hassle, or loss of functionality.
Getting back to the heading for this section, I think whatever changes to Template:Listing or the listing editor to make the parameter (image=) a default field are crucial. If I click on an icon on a map, and no photo appears, I feel something between pity and anger for the developers.
On a related note why does the documentation, (and the source code), for Template:Listing and it's offspring Template:Eat not even mention the parameter |image= ? I thought I understood how Templates work. I am really stumped how I managed to add that parameter manually. More weirdness. Roseohioresident (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
My guess is that "image=" is a recent addition (last year or two) and so rarely used around here that no one's bothered putting much effort into documenting it. Often, we're glad just to have a {{mapframe}} and a {{pagebanner}} at all on many destinations. K7L (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I believe it was discussed in Oct of 2014 to add the image parameter to the listing editor... Template Marker is only template that mentions that image is optional though it works in other templates and does not seem to be mentioned... When I add images to various listings, I edit listings by editing the entire section rather than try to use the listing editor individually to do so and have added hundreds to various India associated articles... The image parameter came into being sometime after the listing editor was up and running... Matroc (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This conversation seems to meander a little, so, in that vein, most photos on commons seem to have geo-coordinates associated with them. If a photo were linked to image=, could not the latitude and longitude be extracted from the Metadata of a photo, and entered in the lat= and long= parameters if they are blank? Kills two birds with one stone, and removes a lot of the grunt work of creating a listing. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of those metadata coordinates represent the location of the camera, not the photograph's subject. Powers (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicaragua Expedition[edit]

So it seems for the first time since I have been a regular editor on Wikivoyage there are actually editors with more or less steady contributions who are currently or have been to Nicaragua besides my humble self. Unfortunately, much of Nicaragua is still inadequately covered and online research is hard as many hotels and restaurants (almost all except backpacker hostels and the most expensive price category) don't have websites and if they do they are often sorely lacking, especially in the English department. However, the prose of our existing articles as well as several other aspects can do with a polishing. Our first milestone - a featured Nicaragua article will come live soon and I hope we will be able to get to a point where Nicaragua can be promoted to "guide" status and no major destinations redlink or are bare outlines. User:Justvagabonding and User:Vmenkov, you seem to have first hand knowledge of many places in Nicaragua, what do you say? Also help from an English native speaker with the tone style and prose would be much appreciated as I know my sentences can get long and confusing at times... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Myself, I am a bit surprised how few active editor Wikivoyage seems to have. On Wikpedia, whichever article you edit, you soon will encounter someone else who works on it, and usually it's different people working on different articles. On Wikivoyage, whatever part of the world I am editing an article on, it seems that I will see either User:Hobbitschuster or User:Ikan_Kekek contributing; sometimes I have the feeling that the two of you are are nearly the only people running this site :-) (I know that in reality there are a lot more contributors, but I guess they are working on articles about places on which I know nothing.) Talking about Nicaragua, I've been to a few places there, and am trying to improve a few articles with some useful tidbits of information, but I don't claim any kind of wide-reaching knowledge on the country to contribute in a major way. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I just do a lot of recent changes patrols and copy editing. I have never been further south than Miami in the Americas, though I've visited somewhat extensively in tropical and equatorial countries of Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think most contributors have their specialized geographic areas of the world, which frequently overlap. Latin America and Africa seem to get the least attention, which is something that should change. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Judging from the (lack of ) activity on my watch list during the Super Bowl (by the way, what a game) our writer base does seem to skew towards those that are either asleep or in front of some screen during this game. As for the Latin American issue... I fear a lot of it has to do with the current state of es-WV which is really not that good considering the amount of Spanish speakers in the world. We do sometimes translate (part of) articles from other language versions, but unfortunately es-WV is rarely a good place to go for source material. I don't know why that is, but there should be an effort to change this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for getting to this a little late. I think you are right User:Hobbitschuster, we don't have enough contributors to make a full expedition. I am pleased to contribute as much as I can, however at this stage I have only been to a couple of places in Nicaragua and it doesn't seem like many other WV's have either. I will be back in Nica soon however (currently in Costa buying a moto) so when im back I will be sure to keep updating. --Justvagabonding (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation samples[edit]

I was just looking at the Dutch phrasebook and realised that some of the pronunciation explanations are quite confusing. Some phonemes simply don't exist in English. Perfect pronunciation is not a goal of a phrasebook, but it's hard to explain a sound even by approximation, if it doesn't exist in English. Commons has a wide range or pronunciation files. Using them seems just as straightforward for the traveller as giving a somewhat similar explanation in English, and much more accurate. Do we have any policy on using them? If using them is okay, what's the best way to do it? I tried one in Dutch_phrasebook#Pronunciation but because we don't have the template here, it sits on the next line instead of on the same one.. Any thoughts?

We have had a similar discussion at talk:German phrasebook which unfortunately did not result in much getting done. A similar thing happened at talk:Spanish phrasebook a while later. I still like the idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Policy is not to use audio files until we can gain a consensus to use them, and then presumably to set some sort of standards. I suggest that a first step would be to gain approval for an experiment on a single phrasebook. Powers (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit of a tangent, but I think that the "experiment on a single page" idea is not so good. Sometimes an idea works brilliantly on one (cherry-picked) page, but its faults become apparent when you expand it to others. I think that five or ten should be considered a minimum size for a useful experiment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We're talking about an exceptionally large task, here, and one for which no single person is likely to be able to contribute to more than one phrasebook. What is the value in granting license for you to add audio to multiple phrasebooks when, by necessity, you would have to pick one to start with anyway? Powers (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that adding dozens of pre-existing audio files (many of these phrases already exist for common languages) to a page is truly an "exceptionally large" task, and even a subset might be enough to show the idea, but I'm speaking of the general case. Testing any idea on one page out of the current 27,180 articles doesn't show you whether the idea works in general; it really only tells you whether your current implementation works on the one selected page. This is valuable (for example, if it doesn't work well on any one page, then by definition it will not work well on all of them), but it is seriously insufficient (for example, that might be the only page in the entire project that your idea really works well on).
Also, it might be useful to test different approaches to the same general idea, which probably requires using multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not kill the main idea and discussion by focusing on theoretical problems in the testing phase :) I understand the concerns but I don't think this has ever been a problem in practice. A single test article seems quite fine as a starting point since our phrasebooks are all very similar and we'll first need to test some basics anyway. We can go from there, if it turns out to be insufficient. Reading the discussion on the German phrasebook talkpage, there seems to be plenty of support for an experiment, so let's just get started and discuss concrete issues as we encounter them. Let's talk about the visualisation first. Then we can set up an example. I know of these options so far:
  • 1 : eins (Lautsprecherbild ighnss
  • 2 : zwei
The first one takes you to a different page, which seems less ideal when using the the phrasebook. The second one is much bigger though, and I'm not sure how to get it on the same line. Any other ideas? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer the smaller symbol as immediately clickable, i.e. producing the sound without taking the user to a different page first. How do we implement this on mobile though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

JuliasTravels's first example is problematic, because there are two clickable links. I would prefer:
  • eins [aɪ̯ns] 🔊
where I have used the Unicode speaker symbol, instead of our image. But that's still problematic, as Hobbitschuster has pointed out, so I might prefer:
  • eins [aɪ̯ns]
if only we had some way to make the image display on the same line as the preceding text. Providing both IPA pronunciation and an audio link is much better than trying to re-invent pronunciation representation schemes, as we have so ignominiously done at, e.g., Spanish phrasebook. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The {{audio-pron}} template, at Wiktionary, puts the image inline, as seen here. The image is still a bit larger than I would prefer, but if we adapted the template for use here, we could change that. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
IPA and audio recordings are the only unambiguous general ways to represent speech in another language; we should provide both wherever they are useful. If possible, the audio link should go directly to sound, not to another web page.
In some cases, I think including Spanish, the written form of a language may also be unambiguous once a few rules are learned. For those (or at least the ones in a latin alphabet), we can minimize the use of both IPA and audio, rely more on the written form. This does imply that phrasebooks for such languages should cover the necessary rules.
In general, attempts to represent foreign sounds with English-based examples are doomed from the start. One problem is that some sounds (the round front vowels in French, the velar consonants in German, Persian, ...) are almost impossible to represent that way. Another is that different English speakers pronounce various things quite differently. In general, I'd say the sooner we can get rid of all such attempts, the better.
Would an expedition to fix these problems be worthwhile? It looks like a big enough task to justify such an effort. Pashley (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
First: I'd rather the audio samples be in the article, not external links that require migrating away from the page. Secondly, on an expedition: Yes, this would be worth the effort, but only if the work won't go to waste because of opposition to this kind of change. Allowing audio samples is a policy change. So I think we should make sure that people who have previously objected won't stand in the way before taking on this project. If we know they would not support this no matter what, that would be unfortunate but also a time-saver for editors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well iirc there was some opposition towards replacing the current system with IPA and there might be people who argue against adding too many different types of pronunciation aid. That said I think we should proceed. Probably specifically asking those who expressed concern to eliminate any misunderstandings and avoid mistakes is a good way forward. If we cannot gain consensus that would indeed be unfortunate, but if we know that beforehand, we can spare us a lot of effort and frustration. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ikan; audio samples should be in the article. Clicking on one should give a sound but have no visible effect except perhaps a change of icon colour.
Problems with IPA are that many people do not know it and some computer systems may lack the fonts to display it correctly. Despite those, WP and more-or-less all dictionaries use it. I'd say we should too; it is the only way to display pronunciation on the screen or page that works for any language. Pashley (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia and dictionaries have different goals than our phrasebooks do. We're not trying to document accurate pronunciations; we're trying to provide a quick way for an English speaker to say a line and have it more-or-less understood. Powers (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Phrasebooks would probably be a better place for development of this proposal. Powers (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
We can decamp there, but would you please indicate whether you would be against any use of audio samples for phrasebooks? It would appear that quite a number of us believe those are the best ways to help English speakers say something in a way that could be understood, and much clearer, especially for certain languages, than attempts at pseudo-pronunciations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Train/ Bus travel[edit]

Looking to book train/bus travel from Uniontown, PA from Poughkeepsie, NY. Not finding connections. Can You Help?

You'd probably be better off posting your question in the Tourist Office. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia alcohol-poisoning incident[edit]

Someone has kindly put a caution about methyl alcohol poisoning in the Yogyakarta#Drink. I was skeptical but did a quick search and found "At Least 26 Killed In Indonesia after Drinking Homemade Alcohol". Note that this news item differs from what the edit says, in that the use of industrial or methyl alcohol is not mentioned, and in the number of deaths. Indonesia#Alcohol has a brief and inconspicuous mention of the dangers of bootleg licquor. Should we turn that into a more obvious warning box? Is there anywhere else where this should be mentioned? Peter Chastain (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't bootleg liqor an issue in all countries, especially where there are high taxes and/or religious prohibitions? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about other countries, some of which have total prohibition. In most parts of Indonesia, alcohol is permitted, but highly taxed, and poisoning has happened before in Yogyakarta. From w:Alcohol in Indonesia#Illegal alcohol: "These illicitly produced liquor which are traditionally home-made, are considered illegal in Indonesian law, due to high incident of deadly alcohol poisoning. The lapen liquor from Yogyakarta for example, is made from industrial alcohol of 85% mixed with water with 1:4 or 5 alcohol to water ratio; then mixed with fruit essence as flavouring agent. In February 2010, 16 people died and 5 lapen sellers were arrested in Yogyakarta, due to alcohol poisoning and illicit alcohol production crime." The numbers dead in this incident (26? 40?) make this sound like a big story. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Check out w:Moonshine_by_country to discover that this issue is not restricted to Indonesia. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we doing a bad job with regards to users who come over from other projects?[edit]

Hi. Maybe in part to the isolation in which en-WV seems to have lived for some time, there seems to be some sort of difference in culture both to other language versions of WV (insofar as they have enough users to have a culture) and WP. (I don't know enough about other Wikimedia projects). It appears that from time to time we get a user whose primary activity is either on some other language WV or WP. And if I am not mistaken we do not necessarily retain a very high percentage of them. Some even seem to have left in a rather "You know why I'm leaving" way. And I fear I may have been to blame for some of those cases. Do you see this as well? Or am I imagining things that don't exist? And if those things do exist (and I am quite certain there will always be differences between WP and WV by the pure nature of the projects), what can we do to make the experience more pleasurable to all involved and retain more quality contributors from other projects? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of our contributors came over from Wikipedia initially. It's natural, though, that some people would find one project or the other more to their liking. Haven't you ever tried out, say, Wikinews or Wikibooks and found that you preferred contributing to a different project? Powers (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the discussion at #Paper_on_Decline_of_WP.3B_are_there_lessons_for_us.3F may be relevant. Pashley (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Make Dewa Sanzan a Travel Topic[edit]

I don't know where to discuss this. Maybe the talk page or maybe nobody would care if I just made a unilateral decision, but I think the Dewa Sanzan article should be a Travel Topic rather than a "city" that can give information to pilgrims wanting to visit the three temples as a serious endeavor while Tsuruoka (as well as Shonai) where the temples are located would just list them as regular listings. Anyone have a problem with this? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article says that it's common for visitors to see all three mountains, so turning it into an itinerary or travel topic sounds logical. BTW, as of now the article is categorized as a park, not a city. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: adding prominent slang and swear words to the Arabic phrasebook and to all the other phrasebooks[edit]

Most travelers whom get to experience a new culture, usually also are exposed to the various commonly used slang words, as well as, in many cases common swear words (which one better be aware of for the instances in which one is offended by the locals).

For this reason, at the Hebrew Wikivoyage we started adding a prominent slang and swear words section at the bottom of each phrasebook.

For example, the following phrasebook currently appears at the Arabic phrasebook of the Hebrew Wikivoyage (I translated the Hebrew parts to English):

Prominent Arabic slang and swear words[edit]

While the slang words and the offensive swear words in the following list are quite common in the discourse of the Arabic-speaking youth, it is important to emphasize that many of these words are generally considered offensive, especially among Arabic-speaking adults. While you may want to refrain from using the offensive words in this list, you might want to be aware of them during your trip as in some instances, that information might help you know when locals are trying to insult you.

English Arabic English transliteration
Dick  ? Zib / Zibi
Stupid  ? Mahabul / Ahabal
Stupid  ? Dba
Stupid  ? Hmar
Donkey, stupid  ? Jachsh
Disgusting  ? Eichs, Jora
Old person  ? Hatiar
I know nothing about it / I do not know أَنَا عَارِف Ana Aref?
Bummer  ? Ba'asa
For real  ? Ashkara
Beware!  ? Dir Balak!
You dog  ? Ya Kalb
Bitch, whore شرموطة Sharmouta
Bitch, whore شرموطة Kachba
Your mother's vagina شرموطة Kos Emek
Uncivilized person شرموطة Ars
Motherfucker يا ابن الشرموطة Ya Ibn el Sharmouta
Kiss my ass الحس طيزي Tel-has Tee-ze
I hope your house would be destroyed  ? Yakhrab Baytak
Oh my god!  ? Yaa Raabi! / Ya Alla!
Godforsaken place  ? Tizinabi
Very good, excellent  ? Sababa
Congratulations, well done  ? Sahtein

Would you support adding these types of sections to the English Wikivoyage as well? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, no. I don't think it's a great idea at all. It's of course possible that people encounter these words, but that's true for hundreds of other common words and expressions too. I've travelled quite a bit in Arabic speaking countries and I know quite a bit of Arabic too (including some of these words). I don't have the impression that people use them a lot towards tourists; I don't think they ever did so to address me. It seems absolute overkill to include such an extensive list of bad language. It would give a completely wrong impression of the language and attitude people are likely to encounter when visiting the Arabic speaking countries, imho. By the way, the translation of "I don't know" is missing لا. It now means "I know" instead of "I don't know". JuliasTravels (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand. In my opinion though, at the very least we should consider having a section for only the most commonly used prominent slang words that are relevant to tourists.
By the way, the "I don't know" sentence, is actually said like that and pronounced like a question - "Ana Aref?", and sometimes people say that with their shoulders up, to indicate one really know nothing about the question one is asked (it is somewhat similar to saying "do you really mistake me for an expert on that subject?". ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think trying to document the full range of slang can easily become a fool's errand. I know nothing of Arabic except for the fact that "yalla" has entered German slang among certain groups, but judging from the languages I do know, slang is in too fast a Flux and too different regionally for us to even attempt it. The word tuani(s) that is rather common in Nicaragua for instance is unlikely to be understood by a Mexican. Most school books on the learning of languages do not provide "bad words" yet by some miraculous intellectual osmosis even the laziest students can list George Carlin's "dirty words" after hardly half a year of learning English. We might wish to point out common pitfalls (like "coger" which means "take" in Spain and something else entirely in other places) but we should not strive to become urban dictionary of a hundred and fifty languages. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Are these words really uniform in pronunciation, meaning and usage throughout the Arabic speaking world? My very limited knowledge on the subject makes me believe probably not.
On the other hand, if a word is very common to hear then probably worth listing --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I am not sure even then. If local people are addressing you, as a foreigner relying on a phrasebook, they are hardly using slang if they want you to understand. And if they are trying to offend you without your noticing, you probably notice the situation in other ways – or remain ignorant of it even knowing a few of the words that could be used. Drawing conclusions from what you think are offending words, in a language you at most know the basics of, can quickly get worse than just being ignorant about the awkward situation. Some of the words (or words pronounced similarly enough) might well be used in a totally neutral manner. --LPfi (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and no, these slang expressions are not universal. Sometimes is the operative word when it comes to Ana Aref :) It's a specific use of a very common sentence, and not even all that popular in most Arabic speaking countries, to my knowledge. In a particular context with particular body language, words can assume different of even opposite meanings. That kind of language (use) never belongs in a phrase book though, because it doesn't work when tourists use it without the correct context and it can cause a lot of confusing. Ana aref is simply "I know". When you shrug and grin and use it in a suitable (slang) conversation, then yes, it may be used to mean "I don't have a clue". If someone is giving you directions to the station in an area you don't know, and he asks if you know where the mosque is (to tell you how to walk from there), answering with ana aref would be a particularly bad idea. If you're a tourist and you know only a few sentences of Arabic, any Arab will understand "ana aref" as "I know". Another problem with slang in Arabic is that it differs greatly from country to country. Half of these words may be popular in, say, Palestine, but might not be popular at all in Syria or Egypt. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I oppose this idea in the most emphatic terms possible. First off, swear words have differing levels of vulgarity between different cultures - take the word "cunt" for example, which is considered extremely vulgar in North American English, somewhat less so in UK English, and whose French equivalent (con) is barely considered profane at all; whereas "mother insults" are pretty mild, schoolyard-level taunts in the Anglosphere yet are among the worst things you could say to someone from Latin America or Mediterranean Europe. Our phrasebooks are intended for travellers, not students of language, so including swear words in them without a pretty in-depth level of cultural context that Wikivoyage is not designed to provide could lead to some pretty nasty unintended consequences. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, one of out goals at Wikivoyage is (or should be) to foster a sense of goodwill among travellers and those who come into contact with them, and I think it impugns that goal pretty gravely to teach our readers terms of abuse that might be used against their hosts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed: outside the scope of Wikivoyage. Swearing is a fine art, fraught with danger, and Wiktionary is a good starting point but only that. A WV phrasebook cannot begin to do it justice. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this is a bad idea. The way I see it, the phrasebooks should present words and expressions that are among the most necessary and useful. In the Malay phrasebook, I've included a lot of words for foods that are not part of the basic template, because makan (eating) is so important to Malaysians and food is so delicious there. So it's not that every phrasebook should have only a minimal amount of content, but I really don't see why it's important to teach beginners in a language how to curse like a sailor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it best to leave them out of the phrasebooks as they can be found elsewhere should one want to attain them. Of course it is not uncommon to encounter swearing during one's travels but as mentioned above, they can be found elsewhere. One often learns those words and phrases early when discovering languages; however, WV is not the place to do so IMHO. -- Ikan did you mean curse like a "matroc"? -- Matroc (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean "sailor" in some language? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You all convinced me that is not a good idea here on Engvoy, or elsewhere on Wikivoyage (eg, the Hebrew Wikivoyage). I will be removing those sections from the Hebvoy phrasebooks. Thanks for everyone's feedback. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)